Kalamazoo shootings

[Gamedog]

My point is that if you're not using your gun for hunting, you can't own one at all

limitations on knives is a joke, the U.K. Is a joke

Edited February 24, 2016 by Gamedog

[KyryK]

Just now, Gamedog said:

My point is that if you're not using your gun for hunting, you can't own one at all

limitations on knives is a joke, the U.K. Is a joke

I'm curious, what is actually wrong with banning guns outside of hunting and sport shooting?

[Gamedog]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

...target shooting isn't hunting. 

Does he do any hunting? I wasn't aware "I want s gun for hobby shooting" was a thing in the UK to get your license

or is "hobby shooting" limited to the countryside where they have farms?

2 minutes ago, KyryK said:

I'm curious, what is actually wrong with banning guns outside of hunting and sport shooting?

People deserve to defend themselves against criminals who will illegally obtain guns to kill you

Edited February 24, 2016 by Gamedog

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

It's more like a grocery store for slightly posh people, but yes it has (free) coffee. 

 

Obviously knives aren't banned. Guns aren't banned either; my neighbour owns a shotgun. 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/21280-u-k-criminalizes-knife-possession-result-knife-violence-increases

Knives are banned. 

Your neighbour will have it confiscated the second the police find out about it. 

51 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

What's he use it for?

i heard you need ID to buy kitchen knives lol

 

Totally true. 

The UK is retarded. 

7 minutes ago, KyryK said:

I'm curious, what is actually wrong with banning guns outside of hunting and sport shooting?

Self defence is a basic human right. 

[#00Buck]

Just now, Saxon said:

What a believable source. 

I own knives. Everybody I know owns knives. Knives are not banned; what would we chop our fucking food with? ._.

The police are allowed to arrest someone if they have are walking around in public with a machete or wielding a knife...but that's the same everywhere? 

Also my neighbour's shotgun is licensed. 

Your guys views about England are based on some kind of politically charged myth you've been fed, clearly. 

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

Ok try the UK government website. They are banned by your retard nanny state.

Sure his gun is licensed... Have you ever seen this license? Does it even exist?

You neighbour is obviously a child hating murderer who laughs with glee when children die in school shootings.

He should turn in his gun. Such an evil person. 

[LazerMaster5]

I am all for responsible adults being allowed to bear arms, as it is in the second Amendment. That being said, regulations on what firearms can be sold and to whom might be nice. 

[#00Buck]

Just now, Saxon said:

Carrying a knife in public 'without good reason' if the blade is fixed and over 3 inches. 

You can carry a knife which is longer or fixed if you have a 'good reason', such as using it at work or taking it to be sold. 

This is not a knife-ban, however much you want it to be. 

Here's the gun licence law https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479794/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_Nov_2015_v16.pdf

 

That is a knife ban. 

It is totally dumb. 

It mean nobody is allowed to carry a knife unless they have some kind of knifing job? 

What kind of bullshit is that. 

The UK is a trash pile. People who live in the USA should be happy that they won't be arrested for having a pocket knife. 

Also I didn't ask for the law on gun licenses. 

I asked for your neighbours actual license! 

Prove he has one. 

[willow]

2 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Also I didn't ask for the law on gun licenses. 

But you do keep insisting that guns are banned in the UK so....

[AlexInsane]

On 2/23/2016 at 8:08 AM, #00Buck said:

No it isn't. Eliminate the crazy person and the problem is gone. 

If you eliminate guns and you keep the crazy people they still have knives, chainsaws, axes, gasoline, cars, rocks, sticks etc. 

The UK banned guns. Now they have banned knives. Then they will keep banning things until they finally realize that crazy people can use their fists and feet. 

Then they will ban walking and typing. 

Maybe one day they'll finally get around to banning crazy people and lock them all up, like they need to be. 

They're just taking the long route to do it. 

[KyryK]

16 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

People deserve to defend themselves against criminals who will illegally obtain guns to kill you

If someone wants to kill you and gets the drop on you, especially with a gun, you will be killed. Carrying one wouldn't change that. If someone pulls out a gun and tries to rob you, reaching for a gun instead of your wallet will get you killed. Why would a "criminal" just want to kill you for no reason anyway?

11 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Self defence is a basic human right. 

You have fists don't you? I can't see why the average person on the street would need a gun to defend themselves. It's just for peace of mind against ridiculous imagined scenarios.  And wouldn't a tazer be an acceptable alternative if you were simply too afraid to walk down the street without some form of protection?

[#00Buck]

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

It's not a knife ban because I can own knives. I can always carry pocket or swiss army knives.

The reasons to carry knives are numerous, and only certain knives would ever get you into trouble [they have to be a certain length and have a fixed blade].

 

Pocket knives are not illegal because their blades are not fixed. It's like you're deliberately half-reading my comments. 

Obviously I don't have my neighbour's license, or his pass port or wallet or whatever other ridiculous things of his you'd imagine I would have lying around. O_o

Yeah and notice how "self defence" is not listed as a "good reason" to have a knife.

The the UK you are supposed to let a rapist rape you and murder you because self defence is wrong. 

2 minutes ago, KyryK said:

If someone wants to kill you and gets the drop on you, especially with a gun, you will be killed. Carrying one wouldn't change that. If someone pulls out a gun and tries to rob you, reaching for a gun instead of your wallet will get you killed. Why would a "criminal" just want to kill you for no reason anyway?

You have fists don't you? I can't see why the average person on the street would need a gun to defend themselves. It's just for peace of mind against ridiculous imagined scenarios.  And wouldn't a tazer be an acceptable alternative if you were simply too afraid to walk down the street without some form of protection?

Young people, old people who are feeble, the handicapped, people in wheelchairs, females who are small in size, or anyone who would be generally outnumbered or overpowered by a group of thugs or gang members.

Rape, robbery, and murder are not ridiculous imagined scenarios. They happen every day. The UK is in the top 3 for violent crime in all of europe. 

You are ignoring reality and if you ever become a victim of crime you will have earned it though karma for having such dumb views on self defence. 

[AlexInsane]

2 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Yeah and notice how "self defence" is not listed as a "good reason" to have a knife.

The the UK you are supposed to let a rapist rape you and murder you because self defence is wrong. 

Yeah, you're definitely a New American reader.

To any Brits reading this, I sincerely apologize for this mong thinking he knows what he's talking about. Just give him a pat on the head and move along. 

[#00Buck]

7 minutes ago, willow said:

But you do keep insisting that guns are banned in the UK so....

They are. 

Let's see what happens when that guy walks down the main street with his shotgun out. 

Instant jail. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, KyryK said:

If someone wants to kill you and gets the drop on you, especially with a gun, you will be killed. Carrying one wouldn't change that. If someone pulls out a gun and tries to rob you, reaching for a gun instead of your wallet will get you killed. Why would a "criminal" just want to kill you for no reason anyway?

You have fists don't you? I can't see why the average person on the street would need a gun to defend themselves. It's just for peace of mind against ridiculous imagined scenarios.  And wouldn't a tazer be an acceptable alternative if you were simply too afraid to walk down the street without some form of protection?

Hi! I've avoided this topic, but the "imagined scenario" happens all the time. In America, so many people have access to guns that anyone can have one at any time- especially folks who shouldn't. America will never be in a place to ban guns since there's no registry for all the bad guys with guns . 

From personal experience, a gun saved my and mothers life when I was very young. We were walking home when a mugger brandished a knife at us. From what my mom told me, after she have him her purse he instructed her to begin to strip. A guy had come up behind him and held his gun to his head. Mugger ran off. Mom got her purse back and no harm came to us. All because a guy who happened to have a gun was passing by. 

In America, it's a reality that taking guns away from citizens would put the good citizens in grave danger. And they're for the tiny, tiny chance it'll happen to you. I definitely feel that laws should def be stricter to getting them plus a waiting period AND  a psych evaluation AND a course sort of like a driver's Ed course (but with guns) before you can have it registered to your name. But yeah, wanted to add that guns save lives as well as take them. It's the person and not the gun. 

[#00Buck]

 

Just now, Lemon said:

Hi! I've avoided this topic, but the "imagined scenario" happens all the time. In America, so many people have access to guns that anyone can have one at any time- especially folks who shouldn't. America will never be in a place to ban guns since there's no registry for all the bad guys with guns . 

From personal experience, a gun saved my and mothers life when I was very young. We were walking home when a mugger brandished a knife at us. From what my mom told me, after she have him her purse he instructed her to begin to strip. A guy had come up behind him and held his gun to his head. Mugger ran off. Mom got her purse back and no harm came to us. All because a guy who happened to have a gun was passing by. 

In America, it's a reality that taking guns away from citizens would put the good citizens in grave danger. And they're for the tiny, tiny chance it'll happen to you. I definitely feel that laws should def be stricter to getting them plus a waiting period AND  a psych evaluation AND a course sort of like a driver's Ed course (but with guns) before you can have it registered to your name. But yeah, wanted to add that guns save lives as well as take them. It's the person and not the gun. 

Common sense prevails.

Thank you. 

[KyryK]

18 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Young people, old people who are feeble, the handicapped, people in wheelchairs, females who are small in size, or anyone who would be generally outnumbered or overpowered by a group of thugs or gang members.

Rape, robbery, and murder are not ridiculous imagined scenarios. They happen every day. The UK is in the top 3 for violent crime in all of europe. 

You are ignoring reality and if you ever become a victim of crime you will have earned it though karma for having such dumb views on self defence. 

 

9 minutes ago, Lemon said:

Hi! I've avoided this topic, but the "imagined scenario" happens all the time. In America, so many people have access to guns that anyone can have one at any time- especially folks who shouldn't. America will never be in a place to ban guns since there's no registry for all the bad guys with guns . 

From personal experience, a gun saved my and mothers life when I was very young. We were walking home when a mugger brandished a knife at us. From what my mom told me, after she have him her purse he instructed her to begin to strip. A guy had come up behind him and held his gun to his head. Mugger ran off. Mom got her purse back and no harm came to us. All because a guy who happened to have a gun was passing by. 

In America, it's a reality that taking guns away from citizens would put the good citizens in grave danger. And they're for the tiny, tiny chance it'll happen to you. I definitely feel that laws should def be stricter to getting them plus a waiting period AND  a psych evaluation AND a course sort of like a driver's Ed course (but with guns) before you can have it registered to your name. But yeah, wanted to add that guns save lives as well as take them. It's the person and not the gun. 

Fair enough, not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

[#00Buck]

2 minutes ago, KyryK said:

 

Fair enough, not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

Cheers! It takes character to do that. You're alright. 

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Are you going to admit you were wrong about your claims, or do you lack character? 

Lemon tied the whole thing up with a neat little bow I don't want to ruin that. 

All guns are banned in the UK with a very minor exception for a handful of guns. 

Knives are also banned in the UK with a few narrow exceptions and exceptional circumstances.

So I was about 98% correct. But yes if you want to split hairs it is technically possible to have a knife or some kind of weak sauce gun. 

Use of either for self defence is banned. 

[#00Buck]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Both of those claims are wrong. ._. 

You were essentially 0% correct. You're right that you can't carry a gun for 'self defense'... unless you're in Northern Ireland, where that's entirely legal. 

You know nothing about the UK, essentially. 

Nope. As about 98% - 99% of the available guns in the world are banned in the UK I was about 99% right. 

There's a tiny sliver that are not banned but have terrible restriction on them. 

So you get 1% of an acknowledgement on that.

Which will be removed when the government takes the last 1% of you freedom away. 

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Or maybe you're just incapable of admitting you were wrong?

It's seriously frustrating when foreigners base their political views on what they imagine other countries are like, and it becomes starkly apparent that they would actually be more accurate if they thought we all lived in the Sherwood, cowering under the fist of the sheriff of Nottingham. 

I admitted I was 1% wrong. 

I'm just like your UK government. 

I will only give you the crumbs that you begged for and there's nothing you can do about it. 

[FenrirDarkWolf]

So yeah

Guns and shit

[#00Buck]

38 minutes ago, FenrirDarkWolf said:

So yeah

Guns and shit

Word homie. 

[Rassah]

14 hours ago, KyryK said:

Ok, please humour me. What drastic totalitarian ideas do you see realistically sweeping America? Why wouldn't drone strikes be enough to deal with any organized gathering of resistance members? Why would the army support the suppression of it's own people? Why would some dude with a revolver make a trained soldier think twice about engaging him? Why would the government want to take down it's own people and how would a small subset of elites ever be able to subjugate the vast majority of the population?

OK, I'll humor you. The policies of spying in everyone, their activities, their finances, their online activities, their phones. Making Americans fear more and more immigrants, terrorists, the 1%, the left, the right. Using that fear as excuse for spying on everyone, passing ever more strict laws, and militarizing the police to enforce those laws.

Because simply blowing up your own people who are simply protesting doesn't look very good to the public. Getting heavily armed troops involved to come in and disperse them, then having, quote-unquote, one of the protesters shoot at the police and the police open fire on the violent protesters (who are probably tax dodging millionaire terrorists) looks much better, and is much easier to pull off if those protesters are actually unarmed.

Because the army is a bunch of brainwashed idiots who use the excuse of "I defended your freedom of expression!!!" as a reason to threaten people who freely express themselves by stepping on flags or badmouth America. There's a reason they're called "jarheads." And because they know who signs their paychecks. At least that's my guess. You'll have to ask all the armies around the world why they suppressed their own people (there are too many examples to count).

Because bullets hurt, even if they come out of a revolver. Because a soldier needs a completely different level of risk assessment when dealing with someone who may or may not be armed, vs someone who is armed. Look at the treatment of armed vs unarmed protesters by police.

Because subjugated people are easier to steal from. Look at every example of historic and modern despots. How much did Putin steal from the government (Russian people) so far? 11 billion? Have you seen the house of the Ukrainian president who was deposed? Are you seeing the salaries that bankers and other businesses friendly to politicians are making? As for how they would subjugate, there are plenty of ways. People can be stupid in large numbers. How did USSR and Nazi Germany subjugate its people? Or Iran and Venezuela subjugating its? Find a scapegoat, make promises about fixing problems, promise to give out favors and free stuff, and people will gladly subjugate themselves while attacking naysayers for you.

Source: centuries of history

Edited February 25, 2016 by Rassah

[KyryK]

9 hours ago, Rassah said:

OK, I'll humor you. The policies of spying in everyone, their activities, their finances, their online activities, their phones. Making Americans fear more and more immigrants, terrorists, the 1%, the left, the right. Using that fear as excuse for spying on everyone, passing ever more strict laws, and militarizing the police to enforce those laws.

Because simply blowing up your own people who are simply protesting doesn't look very good to the public. Getting heavily armed troops involved to come in and disperse them, then having, quote-unquote, one of the protesters shoot at the police and the police open fire on the violent protesters (who are probably tax dodging millionaire terrorists) looks much better, and is much easier to pull off if those protesters are actually unarmed.

Because the army is a bunch of brainwashed idiots who use the excuse of "I defended your freedom of expression!!!" as a reason to threaten people who freely express themselves by stepping on flags or badmouth America. There's a reason they're called "jarheads." And because they know who signs their paychecks. At least that's my guess. You'll have to ask all the armies around the world why they suppressed their own people (there are too many examples to count).

Because bullets hurt, even if they come out of a revolver. Because a soldier needs a completely different level of risk assessment when dealing with someone who may or may not be armed, vs someone who is armed. Look at the treatment of armed vs unarmed protesters by police.

Because subjugated people are easier to steal from. Look at every example of historic and modern despots. How much did Putin steal from the government (Russian people) so far? 11 billion? Have you seen the house of the Ukrainian president who was deposed? Are you seeing the salaries that bankers and other businesses friendly to politicians are making? As for how they would subjugate, there are plenty of ways. People can be stupid in large numbers. How did USSR and Nazi Germany subjugate its people? Or Iran and Venezuela subjugating its? Find a scapegoat, make promises about fixing problems, promise to give out favors and free stuff, and people will gladly subjugate themselves while attacking naysayers for you.

Source: centuries of history

For the spying and especially militarized police, fair enough. Paranoia =/= Totalitarianism though. Aaaaalso...

First you were talking about the public having guns to defend themselves against the government now you're talking about unarmed people protesting. Ignoring the fact that having an armed populous would add credibility to such a claim by the police and that the truth about what happened would be all over social media sites within minutes. How would every presumably anti government protester being armed and shooting back do anything besides adding a few police officers to the list of casualties? If it's small scale they'd just be arrested/killed soon afterwards anyway. If you're using firearms to defend yourself from a totalitarian government you wouldn't be protesting, you'd be trying to overthrow them. If you did that on any scale that might achieve something you'd be starting a civil war, anyone part of that would be defined as an enemy combatant and they would send drones (and tanks, and jets, and...) in to deal with you. You're assesment of the US armed forces is a little insulting, you're assuming none of them would have free will/morals or disobey orders/desert in that situation. As for greed being a reason to subjugate the population, how exactly would it give those that already have all the money and power even more? America's already the richest country on the planet and if it got to the point i've described you can guarantee international sanctions if not direct military intervention from western Europe if America tried to take away the liberty of it's people in such an obvious manner, the economic repercussions of which would be obvious. As for using scapegoats to consolidate an authoritarian state, that only works with minorities. Mexicans, Muslims, maybe black people and gays. How would othering and demonization occour between large swathes of Americans? Even then you'd have a large amount of Americans in the in group so it goes back to the civil war scenario. Perhaps i should have led with this question, what exactly would this subjugation be? How would the people end up oppressed in such a manner that taking up arms against the government would be the solution?

[Terminal7]

I've heard talk about knives,  yes? 

You're allowed to carry a knife no longer than 4 inches(no gravity knives) in New York without the intent of crime. 

You can also wear body armor in public as long as it's civilian-legal and you have a license for it. 

[Rassah]

@KyryK Government paranoia = totalitarianism though. When government gets paranoid and starts spying on everyone, that means it now considers us the threat, as opposed to being our servants

Having an armed populace means it would be harder for the armed police to even begin doing that. If they have to shoot someone anyway, it's easier if they don't shoot back. Remember how the Oregon protests went? Politeness everywhere.

All overthrow attempts begin with protests. Seriously, I suggest watching Winter on Fire. That happened just recently.

I'm sure some of the US military would protest. They'll probably be pushed out. Those that remain will be convinced they're doing the right thing. How many troops are overseas killing civilians, thinking they're protecting our freedoms, or just following orders trying to survive and not think about it?

As for greed, again, ask those at the top of every dictatorship. Why are the millionaires in Russia interested in becoming billionaires? I don't know. Maybe they're interested in power. Maybe for power's own sake.

I don't think Europe would sanction US. I think it would lead the way, as it is doing now in restrictions of people's freedoms.

As for minorities, the minorities attacked in USSR and Venezuela were the rich. Kinda sounds familiar...

As for what the subjugation be? USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, even Greece

[Crazy Lee]

18 hours ago, Rassah said:

Find a scapegoat, make promises about fixing problems, promise to give out favors and free stuff, and people will gladly subjugate themselves while attacking naysayers for you.

Wow. You just described Trump's campaign in a fucking nutshell. But it's pretty much true... a dictator comes to power by blaming something/someone, promising to fix things. And don't mind these soldiers taking away your rights, because they're there to protect you.

I don't know how many people realize that Trump's basically promising his supporters that he, as the government, will fix everything for people. When he's president, he (the government) will fix the immigrants taking jobs by building a wall. He (as the government) will fix jobs going overseas by tarriffing chinese goods. Ect. Elect me and I (the government) will fix everything.

Oh, and I will say this discussion is getting a bit off the rails though.

[Toboe]

20 hours ago, Rassah said:

OK, I'll humor you. The policies of spying in everyone, their activities, their finances, their online activities, their phones. Making Americans fear more and more immigrants, terrorists, the 1%, the left, the right. Using that fear as excuse for spying on everyone, passing ever more strict laws, and militarizing the police to enforce those laws.

 

How does the presence of arms hinder the securitarian drift? (term from:

https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7423-one_year_of_securitarian_drift_in_france

)

20 hours ago, Rassah said:

violent protesters (who are probably tax dodging millionaire terrorists)

Violent millionaire? Dude, check your narratives.  Unemployed entitled welfare-scroungers that should be working rather than breaking the things of/paid by good working citizens.

20 hours ago, Rassah said:

Because simply blowing up your own people who are simply protesting doesn't look very good to the public. Getting heavily armed troops involved to come in and disperse them, then having, quote-unquote, one of the protesters shoot at the police and the police open fire on the violent protesters (who are probably tax dodging millionaire terrorists) looks much better, and is much easier to pull off if those protesters are actually unarmed.

Because bullets hurt, even if they come out of a revolver. Because a soldier needs a completely different level of risk assessment when dealing with someone who may or may not be armed, vs someone who is armed. Look at the treatment of armed vs unarmed protesters by police.

Actually wouldn't a strong disparity in arms be much better than completely unarmed? 

I doubt that completly unarmed makes for better violent protester images than lightly armed. (Wait, maybe if they get Molotov-coctails to make up for the lacking guns? The resulting fire might make for good pictures) If a few cannonfodder don't make it... Does the totalitarian gov really mind?

20 hours ago, Rassah said:

People can be stupid in large numbers

 

20 hours ago, Rassah said:

Find a scapegoat, make promises about fixing problems, promise to give out favors and free stuff, and people will gladly subjugate themselves while attacking naysayers for you.

+Give them something to make them feel safe, like they aren't subjugated...

 

11 hours ago, KyryK said:

America's already the richest country on the planet and if it got to the point i've described you can guarantee international sanctions if not direct military intervention from western Europe if America tried to take away the liberty of it's people in such an obvious manner, the economic repercussions of which would be obvious.

Are you sure that Europe going against the US is so obvious?

[Rassah]

4 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

Wow. You just described Trump's campaign in a fucking nutshell. 

Trump's and Bernie's. What really bugs me about Bernie is he keeps attacking some evil groups that are exploiting us, without ever actually naming names. Like, "Bankers should be jailed!" Okay, which bankers?

But yeah, Trump is the worst. Bunch of Libertarian writers keep comparing his rise to other fascists like Mussolini or Hitler.

1 hour ago, Toboe said:

How does the presence of arms hinder the securitarian drift? 

Unfortunately I don't know. It might not. The population may be convinced to give up more and more of their guns for that precise reason even.

1 hour ago, Toboe said:

Violent millionaire? Dude, check your narratives.  

Yeah, violent millionaires. All you have to do is redefine words. There are already people claiming that property is violence, not paying a living wage is violence, being forced to work for food and shelter is wage slavery and violence. Venezuela is claiming their food shortages are due to greedy food producers hoarding food for profit, causing starvation and violence. In USSR the bourgeoisie, who are basically anyone with a business, money, or higher education, were violent oppressors of the proletariat.

It's a pretty old and well established narrative.

 

[Toboe]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Yeah, violent millionaires. All you have to do is redefine words. There are already people claiming that property is violence, not paying a living wage is violence, being forced to work for food and shelter is wage slavery and violence. Venezuela is claiming their food shortages are due to greedy food producers hoarding food for profit, causing starvation and violence. In USSR the bourgeoisie, who are basically anyone with a business, money, or higher education, were violent oppressors of the proletariat.

It's a pretty old and well established narrative.

 

It's old, but not always the one used.

[#00Buck]

Ugh. Rassah text walls.

Abandon thread. 

[Machine]

We should try banning people.

People should be outlawed.

[#00Buck]

5 hours ago, Machine said:

We should try banning people.

People should be outlawed.

Let's start with you. 

[Machine]

2 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Let's start with you. 

Getting banned is a just a modern version of exile.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Machine

[Crazy Lee]

13 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Ugh. Rassah text walls.

Abandon thread. 

That seems to be every time he posts in a thread.

There was also another mass shooting last night, in Kansas. Guy got pissed at his ex putting a restraining order on him, and he lost it and started shooting random people.

In this case he had his guns illegally. Probably wouldn't hurt at least to get illegal guns off the streets.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Crazy Lee

[FenrirDarkWolf]

Yay America.

Such progress

[Toboe]

5 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

In this case he had his guns illegally. Probably wouldn't hurt at least to get illegal guns off the streets.
 

Would be great, but good luck trying.

[WileyWarWeasel]

If we gave people auto cannons they could defend themselves against people with guns. Then we could give people tanks to defend themselves against people with auto cannons, then give helicopter gunships to others and so on...

BAE Systems was the savior of humanity after all!

[KyryK]

On 25/02/2016 at 11:08 PM, Rassah said:

@KyryK Government paranoia = totalitarianism though. When government gets paranoid and starts spying on everyone, that means it now considers us the threat, as opposed to being our servants

Having an armed populace means it would be harder for the armed police to even begin doing that. If they have to shoot someone anyway, it's easier if they don't shoot back. Remember how the Oregon protests went? Politeness everywhere.

All overthrow attempts begin with protests. Seriously, I suggest watching Winter on Fire. That happened just recently.

I'm sure some of the US military would protest. They'll probably be pushed out. Those that remain will be convinced they're doing the right thing. How many troops are overseas killing civilians, thinking they're protecting our freedoms, or just following orders trying to survive and not think about it?

As for greed, again, ask those at the top of every dictatorship. Why are the millionaires in Russia interested in becoming billionaires? I don't know. Maybe they're interested in power. Maybe for power's own sake.

I don't think Europe would sanction US. I think it would lead the way, as it is doing now in restrictions of people's freedoms.

As for minorities, the minorities attacked in USSR and Venezuela were the rich. Kinda sounds familiar...

As for what the subjugation be? USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, even Greece

 

On 26/02/2016 at 3:36 AM, Toboe said:

Are you sure that Europe going against the US is so obvious?

While I could spend the time countering some of these points and debating hypotheticals I really, really don't want to waste my time doing so. Sorry if that sounds like a cop out but I really have better things to do than explain why this particular fantasy should have no bearing on a discussion about mass shootings, even though it speaks somewhat for the culture that allows them, to ultimately no avail. When I get my computer back I will look up Winter on Fire however, seems like it could be interesting/insightful.

Edited March 1, 2016 by KyryK

[Terminal7]

On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 5:55 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

If we gave people auto cannons they could defend themselves against people with guns. Then we could give people tanks to defend themselves against people with auto cannons, then give helicopter gunships to others and so on...

BAE Systems was the savior of humanity after all!

Then... Purge.

[#00Buck]

37 minutes ago, Terminal7 said:

Then... Purge.

Yes.

I look forward to The Purge! 

[Rassah]

On 2/26/2016 at 8:53 AM, #00Buck said:

Ugh. Rassah text walls.

Abandon thread. 

Hey, at least I tried to keep it short that time.

On 2/27/2016 at 10:33 PM, Crazy Lee said:

Probably wouldn't hurt at least to get illegal guns off the streets.

3D printed guns are a thing now. Might as well finally stop wasting money on trying to prevent illegal guns, and focus that money on trying to prevent the shootings.

On 2/27/2016 at 5:55 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

If we gave people auto cannons they could defend themselves against people with guns. Then we could give people tanks to defend themselves against people with auto cannons

Depends on the auto cannons. If they're only auto enough to defend against things that shoot at you, instead of starting the shooting, that may be OK. Even if someone uses his cannons to start shooting, there would be way more auto cannons in defense mode around to stop that fast.

Seriously, thought, I'm waiting for armed personal drones to start following people around.

 

[WileyWarWeasel]

18 hours ago, Terminal7 said:

Then... Purge.

Exterminatus?

4 hours ago, Rassah said:

3D printed guns are a thing now. Might as well finally stop wasting money on trying to prevent illegal guns, and focus that money on trying to prevent the shootings.

I partly agree with you there, in that weaponry should be regulated to some extent to encourage responsible use of firearms among those who got the guns legally if nothing else.

Changing the pervading gun culture should indeed be a much higher priority to prevent shootings in the first place, however the existing gun lobby/arms industry/"cowboy" culture will be very difficult to change.

4 hours ago, Rassah said:

Depends on the auto cannons. If they're only auto enough to defend against things that shoot at you, instead of starting the shooting, that may be OK. Even if someone uses his cannons to start shooting, there would be way more auto cannons in defense mode around to stop that fast.

Seriously, thought, I'm waiting for armed personal drones to start following people around.

By auto cannons I meant weapons firing small cannon-sized rounds (typically 20mm and larger) with a high rate of fire.

In some third-world countries richer people have armed guards following them around, somewhat like an armed personal drone. Why you're looking forward to such a state of affairs in your developed country is beyond me.

[Toboe]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

This thread was doomed from the start. 

Polarized political issues...

[Rassah]

14 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Changing the pervading gun culture should indeed be a much higher priority to prevent shootings in the first place, however the existing gun lobby/arms industry/"cowboy" culture will be very difficult to change.

I still don't think the gun culture is the problem. People have lots of deadly items around the house they don't kill with, and for pretty much all my gun friends, their guns are just fun things to use on a shooting range. Change the violence culture. Maybe starting from a young age, where for some reason we find it acceptable to beat up kids who grow up thinking it's acceptable to beat up others...

14 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

In some third-world countries richer people have armed guards following them around, somewhat like an armed personal drone. Why you're looking forward to such a state of affairs in your developed country is beyond me.

Well, because it won't be for just "richer people," and because right now, if you are being robbed or held up at gun point, you should probably call for a pizza delivery, so that you and your attacker can have something to munch and pass time with while waiting for cops (private sector cares, so gets stuff to you fast, public doesn't, so doesn't). And that's if you're lucky enough to be in an area where cops would even bother. If everyone has a drone following them, even if just armed with a camera, people around you would be way more polite, and issues would be settled way quicker and easier.

[WileyWarWeasel]

9 hours ago, Rassah said:

I still don't think the gun culture is the problem. People have lots of deadly items around the house they don't kill with, and for pretty much all my gun friends, their guns are just fun things to use on a shooting range. Change the violence culture. Maybe starting from a young age, where for some reason we find it acceptable to beat up kids who grow up thinking it's acceptable to beat up others...

Well, because it won't be for just "richer people," and because right now, if you are being robbed or held up at gun point, you should probably call for a pizza delivery, so that you and your attacker can have something to munch and pass time with while waiting for cops (private sector cares, so gets stuff to you fast, public doesn't, so doesn't). And that's if you're lucky enough to be in an area where cops would even bother. If everyone has a drone following them, even if just armed with a camera, people around you would be way more polite, and issues would be settled way quicker and easier.

Okay, if we're discussing semantics then yes it's more accurate to say we should change the whole violence culture (and instant gratification culture among other things).

Public police differ among regions and countries, the crappy police near you may be different to police in a different area or country.

As for cameras, there's plenty of surveillance in developed countries and Google Glasses let Google and their "partners" see what you see for only a small fee!

[Rassah]

There's a difference between surveillance culture where the surveillance is done by government agencies, where no one knows how deep they get into your private life, and they keep the surveillance for who knows how long and for who knows for what reason...

...and surveillance done by private individuals just to protect their own butts against criminals and fraudsters.

 

Maybe the reason people are uneasy about surveillance culture is because they worry about the powers that be misusing their power.

[WileyWarWeasel]

21 hours ago, Rassah said:

There's a difference between surveillance culture where the surveillance is done by government agencies, where no one knows how deep they get into your private life, and they keep the surveillance for who knows how long and for who knows for what reason...

...and surveillance done by private individuals just to protect their own butts against criminals and fraudsters.

 

Maybe the reason people are uneasy about surveillance culture is because they worry about the powers that be misusing their power.

I'm sure that Google, Facebook, etc are using their surveillance powers for good ^^

[Crazy Lee]

22 hours ago, Rassah said:

...and surveillance done by private individuals just to protect their own butts against criminals and fraudsters.

Yes, because companies only do surveillance for security reasons, and not because they're trying to find out every little detail about you in the name of big data to use it to sell things to you, or sell your data to third parties.

[Rassah]

12 hours ago, Saxon said:

Nobody could possibly use this for stalking, could they? 

In that case let's ban cell phone cameras and internet too...

All tech has good and bad uses, and we don't want to ban the good just because we're afraid of the bad.

12 hours ago, Saxon said:

A bunch of armed drones being flown about by private individuals is a really shitty idea. Why not just give everyone their own emergency hand grenade?

Harder to use, much more destructive, lots of collateral damage. Armed drones would be more precise, and don't even have to fire lethal ammo to be a deterrent. But how is that idea different from suggesting that people should have police protection or private security? If someone talks about armed body guards, do you think that's as bad of an idea as giving everyone a grenade? Or do you not simply because armed bodyguards are a thing, and it's just the new technology that scares you?

9 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

I'm sure that Google, Facebook, etc are using their surveillance powers for good ^^

They're not, but are you? So you even have your own surveillance power? Or do you think that it should only remain with Google, Facebook, and police?

8 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

Yes, because companies ...

Seriously, how do you guys read "private individuals" and interpret that as "companies?" Are you guys so brainwashed by society that you believe you are not an individual, but some part of a social collective, like Borg or something, and when you hear "private" you immediately think evil individualists and corporations? This is mind boggling!