Guns

[Blood Eagle]

Pretty sure that's taylor swift. Didn't realize she was left handed. Swift should be fine with the revolver (should be wearing "eyes and ears" of course), but whoever that is (I'm sure I should know who that is. She looks kinda like Paula Abdul) with the 9mm? is about to get some hot metal down her shirt.

Taylor Swift and Shania Twain recreating Thelma & Louise.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Pretty sure that's taylor swift. Didn't realize she was left handed. Swift should be fine with the revolver (should be wearing "eyes and ears" of course), but whoever that is (I'm sure I should know who that is. She looks kinda like Paula Abdul) with the 9mm? is about to get some hot metal down her shirt.

Note how she manages to keep the gun pointed down and away the entire time.

That's Shania Twain and she's already so hot that she wouldn't feel that casing at all

 

[LeMansAid]

A lot of gun talk lately following the most recent shootings. Having lived most of my life without needing to really consider guns at all, here's what I'm currently left with......

At best, I'm completely uninterested in guns. At worst, I actively dislike them. Thing is, I refuse to be a knowingly inconsistent person, and being consistent often means uncomfortable realities. I'd rather guns didn't exist - but they do, and people want to own them for various reasons. If I was to support the attempt at their forced non-existence, to be consistent I would also have to leave myself open to the forced non-existence of anything and everything that I have or want. A very uncomfortable reality. Conversely, if I support my own right to own things that by default do not harm others, for consistency I need to support the right of others to own guns. Given my at best/worst attitude, it's also an uncomfortable reality - but the reality I choose to endorse.

Who among those that oppose gun rights is willing to submit themselves to the full ramifications of the other choice?

 

[Joey D]

The thing is, legal gun owners rarely cause any issue. It's the ones who illegally own guns that are a massive problem.

 

[photonrider]

……XsnipX….

Who among those that oppose gun rights is willing to submit themselves to the full ramifications of the other choice?

The 80,000 'Americans' that fled back to King George during the War for Independence.
The rest stayed back to found a new country of the people, for the people, by the people.

 

[UKMikey]

Who among those that oppose gun rights is willing to submit themselves to the full ramifications of the other choice?

That sounds like a pretty extreme interpretation to me. It doesn't seem to me that the people who oppose gun rights aren't doing so because other people want them. Instead it looks to me like they're doing so because they believe those rights harm other people. To draw a truer equivalence you'd have to ask them to give up something they need or want that other people perceive to be doing harm.

The 80,000 'Americans' that fled back to King George during the War for Independence.
The rest stayed back to found a new country of the people, for the people, by the people.

C'mon, you can't blame the anti-gun movement solely on the Brits. Unless you're saying that anti-gun advocates are all immigrants then there are plenty of descendants of the founding fathers' generation still over there that still want to take away your god-given right to shoot things.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The 80,000 'Americans' that fled back to King George during the War for Independence.

Well, they were British and left British soil for Britain, so they just went home. It's likely that many of those came back to fight or to consolidate business interests - the war was underway in Europe too after all.

 

[LeMansAid]

That sounds like a pretty extreme interpretation to me. It doesn't seem to me that the people who oppose gun rights aren't doing so because other people want them. Instead it looks to me like they're doing so because they believe those rights harm other people. To draw a truer equivalence you'd have to ask them to give up something they need or want that other people perceive to be doing harm.

Video games, heavy metal music, rap music, cars, "blasphemous" stuff, knives, swords.......

Whatever, it doesn't matter anyway. What matters is that if a person chooses a subjective approach, they leave themselves open to subjectivity. No side gets an easy ride in being consistent. One side is left open to "car control", or "video game control" - the other side (that oppose gun control) have to accept things that they may not want to - like drugs, violent and pornographic entertainment, etc, etc.

 

[UKMikey]

Video games, heavy metal music, rap music, cars, "blasphemous" stuff, knives, swords.......

Whatever, it doesn't matter anyway. What matters is that if a person chooses a subjective approach, they leave themselves open to subjectivity. No side gets an easy ride in being consistent. One side is left open to "car control", or "video game control" - the other side (that oppose gun control) have to accept things that they may not want to - like drugs, violent and pornographic entertainment, etc, etc.

I'm not sure whether it's completely arbitrary to the point of "jelly babies are bad" or whether some kind of consensus has to kick in as to what people think causes harm to others. If so perhaps abortion may be a better example of something harmful that anti gun advocates are willing to accept en masse for a "greater good".

 

[photonrider]

….XsnipX…..

C'mon, you can't blame the anti-gun movement solely on the Brits. Unless you're saying that anti-gun advocates are all immigrants then there are plenty of descendants of the founding fathers' generation still over there that still want to take away your god-given right to shoot things.

Strawmen.

Well, they were British and left British soil for Britain, so they just went home.

Hence the quotes around the word Americans.

'Home', eh?

_____________________

Reread my post, keeping the Bill of Rights in mind.
Inform Kim's people, if you could.

 

[UKMikey]

Strawmen

How exactly? Please explain further because I don't understand where King George and the British come into a gun debate which is at least partially conducted in the United States between US citizens. It sounds a lot to me like a "love it or leave it" solution when I'm pretty sure this isn't a practical solution for those people affected by guns who share a different viewpoint.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm not sure whether it's completely arbitrary to the point of "jelly babies are bad" or whether some kind of consensus has to kick in as to what people think causes harm to others.

"blasphemous" stuff

I suppose you'll just keep your mouth shut when it comes to some country that has a population that generally thinks that having alcohol is blasphemous, and therefore harmful? And if that belief turns up as a majority in your back yard?

Consensus is just mass subjectivity, and should not inform rights.

 

[UKMikey]

I suppose you'll just keep your mouth shut when it comes to some country that has a population that generally thinks that having alcohol is blasphemous, and therefore harmful? And if that belief turns up as a majority in your back yard?

Consensus is just mass subjectivity, and should not inform rights.

I don't know how you got that from my post. It sounds a lot like a "sky is falling" prediction about Muslims. Sharia Law is coming for you, kind of thing. I'm just trying to draw a distinction between

the forced non-existence of anything and everything that I have or want. A very uncomfortable reality.

... and actual reality as experienced in my backyard, and nowhere have I professed to have drawn any conclusions as you seem to be doing on my behalf. Calm down.

 

[stonesfan129]

The system we currently have in the US works as long as the NICS system is kept up to date and the laws surrounding background checks are actually enforced. The difference between the US and the UK/Europe/Australia or anywhere else with regards to gun laws - the law says we can have them here. It is written into the founding documents of our country. Self preservation was seen as an inalienable right of a human being and the founders made a way to protect it through the law. When 2/3 of states vote to change that, then it will be a different story. Until then, we can sit here and talk about why somebody needs this or that, but nothing is going to change until the law changes. Just the way it is.

 

[Shaun]

the law says we can have them here.

So just like Australia then. 👍

 

[LeMansAid]

Calm down.

Really? I'm being completely pragmatic and unemotional about a particular phenomenon that I'd prefer didn't exist, but understand the implications of endorsing attempts at it's forced non-existence. You're way off.

Muslims

I'm wanting to stay on topic - your topic of consensus. That you chose to wilfully distract from that perhaps speaks volumes about your argument's validity.

I'm sure that you can see that there would be something that you own or want to own that mass sections of a population would oppose due to harm supposedly stemming from it's existence. I'm running with your means of judgement here. Are you willing to submit yourself to a society that determines what you can and can't own, based on what the majority deem harmful? I don't think that consensus is at all a valid decider, but there are serious issues to be faced even within that limiting boundary.

My overriding point is that people should pick a side and stick with it, right to it's logical ends. Subjectivity begets subjectivity, objectivity should beget objectivity. People often fail to account for the reality of the former, and fail to live up to the concept of the latter.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm wanting to stay on topic - your topic of consensus. That you chose to wilfully distract from that perhaps speaks volumes about your argument's validity.

I'm not sure who else would believe that alcohol is harmful and suddenly "turn up in my backyard". What you describe as a wilful distraction is just me trying to parse what seemed like a non sequitur post and what I saw as an attempt to ascribe a political viewpoint to me based on my earlier questions. If you see my argument as invalid, that's okay but please don't try to put words in my mouth. That's just plain rude.

All I wanted was for you to clarify some aspects of your position which I didn't understand, which you've done. I'm not arguing with anyone. Saying "I'm not sure whether it's one thing or the other" is different to saying "one thing is wrong and the other is right" which is the way you seem to be interpreting my posts, when they're simply a request for clarification. You may see anti-guns activists as hypocrites; I'm just trying to work out what justification they may have for such an "inconsistency" in their thinking.

 

[mcpon14]

As for civilians carrying guns in society, I think that guns should be cheap but bullets should be super expensive, lol. Except for hunting. Because of hunting, there would be major problems with policing that policy, I know, lol. But I think that there should be fees waived for bullets in certain circumstances such as if you use it to kill a mass shooter, other criminals, etc.

 

[Danoff]

As for civilians carrying guns in society, I think that guns should be cheap but bullets should be super expensive, lol. Except for hunting. Because of hunting, there would be major problems with policing that policy, I know, lol. But I think that there should be fees waived for bullets in certain circumstances such as if you use it to kill a mass shooter, other criminals, etc.

Spoken like someone who has no idea how easy it is to make and re-make bullets.

 

[mcpon14]

Spoken like someone who has no idea how easy it is to make and re-make bullets.

Darn it. That was my best idea that others haven't mentioned yet, lol.

 

[UKMikey]

Darn it. That was my best idea that others haven't mentioned yet, lol.

I think Chris Rock was there before you. I don't think he was serious though.

 

[GOPhater]

I support strict control of firearms although I am glad I live in a country where I'm allowed to own a firearm. I think every sane, law abiding citizen with no history of violence ought to be able to legally own a gun. I have no need for an armory of guns and ammo like some though. Instead, I own a Baretta M9 and a box of hydra-shock ammo, which stays in my house just in case things go bump in the night...

 

[mcpon14]

I think people should carry guns just so these potential mass murderers will be discouraged to shoot up a place, lol.

 

[twitcher]

I came across this article a couple weeks back. At the very least, it's an interesting perspective I hadn't considered

If you're willing to ask people to give up their right to own firearms, are you also willing to ask people to give up their right (privilage?) to drive?

https://medium.com/@jrhildebrand66/...tly-about-the-gun-control-debate-a67505c94ea6

 

[Michael88]

As for civilians carrying guns in society, I think that guns should be cheap but bullets should be super expensive, lol. Except for hunting. Because of hunting, there would be major problems with policing that policy, I know, lol. But I think that there should be fees waived for bullets in certain circumstances such as if you use it to kill a mass shooter, other criminals, etc.

I'm a civilian and target shooting is one of my biggest hobbies. If ammunition was super expensive I'd hardly be able to continue my hobby. Only the rich upper class and those that do not care about laws could afford to do it. Why would you want that? What have I done? I pay my taxes, I am a law abiding citizen, I do not deserve to be punished for the crimes of a dozen crazies.
And more importantly, what have the fortunate and the criminals done for you that you do not punish them? Since I have not access to a boatload of money my only two options is either ditching a hobby for no reason, or become a criminal.

And if you go down that road, put extreme taxes on sports cars, because many deaths are caused by people speeding with powerful cars (many more than with guns), so only the rich and criminals have access to those dangerous objects.

 

[KungFury]

Minorities protecting themselves, gotta love it.

One girl says,

"I was so traumatized by guns by my 30s that it took three very patient queer gun instructors in a private living room to coach me through my first firearms training," says Scout Tran-Caffee, a non-binary trans woman and multidisciplinary artist from Northern California.

Whatever it takes babe, whatever it takes.

Another says,

Gun owners shouldn't just default to the white guy who lives in Wisconsin or whatever," she says. "That's not the only person who should own guns. For disadvantaged and marginalized people, it equalizes force.

Could not agree more.

And

When I teach a defense class, the point of the class is to kill someone," Harris says. "If you're a trans woman, the person you're killing is likely to be someone society values more than you.

Yes.

Now we are getting somewhere, in the U.S. where guns will always be here in large numbers, the importance of people like this standing up for themselves is imperative to preserving our freedoms. I'd rather see one of these girls openly carrying than a police officer in a heated situation.

 

[PeterJB]

I wouldn't exactly say it's a good thing when groups of people who have been socialised and indoctrinated to hate straight and white people and that violence is needed, not dialogue to fight "the patriarchy" and "whiteness" have started arming themselves.

 

[LeMansAid]

I wouldn't exactly say it's a good thing when groups of people who have been socialised and indoctrinated to hate straight and white people and that violence is needed, not dialogue to fight "the patriarchy" and "whiteness" have started arming themselves.

Can you quote me something from the article that amounts to describing a hate of white and straight people? Can you quote me something from the article that amounts to describing a need to fight with violence the patriarchy and whiteness?

I see a desire for the ability to use self-defence tools, and a choice being made on exactly how to realise that desire. I see that they're saying not that a Wisconsin whitey is a bad choice, but simply that it's not the only choice. I see it that you're perhaps trying to combat political correctness with political correctness.

 

[PeterJB]

I'm all for people defending themselves, and as far as I know there aren't any laws preventing "minorities" from buying guns, however with the militant Marxist garbage coming out of these communities on college campuses, don't be surprised if they start using them for the wrong reasons.

 

[Danoff]

@KungFury

I generally like the sentiment of your post. But, you quoted this bit from the article:

Gun owners shouldn't just default to the white guy who lives in Wisconsin or whatever," she says. "That's not the only person who should own guns. For disadvantaged and marginalized people, it equalizes force.

Equalizes force against? The people causing the "disadvantage" and "marginalization"? Because that looks an awful lot like "shoot whoever you blame for your status in society". The implicit assumption here is that people who are "disadvantaged" or "marginalized" have had force used against them for this to occur. That's not necessarily true. And buying guns doesn't help equalize social advantages and marginalization.

It equalizes force for everyone... against actual force.