Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1337338340342343694

Comments

  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 957
    edited August 2019
    An homicide is a homicide, doesn't matter if was made with an knife, fire, poison, an vehicle, an legal firearm, an illegal firearm, an bow, an crossbow, electricity, an axe, etc. Why focus so much on gun homicide?

    Because guns are an exceptionally easy way to kill people.

    I know it's semi-historical fiction, but the Lord of War is pretty quotable about this. The whole damn movie.

    Knives require being in melee range with every single person you intend to stab or slice, except for throwing knives/hatchets/axes.

    Fire requires a lot of planning and generally poor infrastructure or opportunity.

    You didn't mention bombings, which, if I was a terrorist, would be my preferred way of killing lots of people. Again, takes a lot of planning, knowledge, and equipment.

    Poison. Good luck.

    Vehicle. Unfortunately becoming more visibly a method to kill people.

    Bow. Hahahaha. Requires weeks or months of practice. A GOOD archer can get off about 12 arrows per minute.

    Crossbow. Same. Except rate of fire even slower.

    Electricity. Come on.

    Gee, why didn't you mention martial arts while you were at it?

    Guns? Require minutes of training in use, hours of practice, and can fire at LEAST 20 rounds per minute.
    smeagolheartThacoBellAmmar
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 957
    On another subject, I just found out, from reading Wikipedia because of a video on Youtube I watched because of a page on TVTropes, that Israel and Egypt have been blockading the Gaza Stip for 12 years, since Hamas came to power.
  • dunbardunbar Member Posts: 1,603
    edited August 2019
    Edit: Ignore. I can't make sense of the 'Quote' function.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    edited August 2019
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Do you wanna know why Brazil has an draconian gun control law?

    Started with the 1932 revolution, an Dictator(Vargas) who got into the power via a coup started to violate the constitution and centralize the power into the state, the richest state who received a lot of Italian immigrants(São Paulo) started to protest, protest and protest and he send the army to kill the protesters. it generated an movement MMDC in memories of the students killed by the dictator.


    It sparked an civil war, São Paulo against the rest of the country; 40k soldiers vs 100k, an fraction of armed vehicles imported or homemade vs professional vehicles and São Paulo almost wins, if Vargas din't had managed to capture the port... ( here is more details > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalist_Revolution )

    What was the first thing that Vargas did after the revolution? restricted cartridges, importation of firearms, how many ammo you can buy and other things. Was not to protect the population, was to protect the tyrannical state from the population. The R105 was created exactly like the NFA on US was created to protect the government... And in 90s, institutions receiving donations from meta capitalists pushed the gun control further. And the result? The murder rate is skyrocketing... Now, there are politicians who are in favor of making owning an illegal 9mm an more serious crime than permanently blinding an man. That is how insane gun controls goes. Each day, more draconian.

    And the Rebels managed to have even an "air force" Curtiss A-3 Falcon
    800px-Curtiss_A-3_Falcon_%2816139598912%29.jpg

    Even woman fought against the dictator

    Maria_Sguass%C3%A1bia_as_a_soldier.jpg
    source of images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalist_Revolution

    An improvised armored vehicle

    Armored_tractor_FS-6_during_the_Constitutionalist_revolution_of_1932.jpg

    It doesn't seem like your armed citizens are fighting the government though. It seems like they're killing each other.

    That is the result of gun control. Only criminals and the government has guns and guess what. My city was much more peaceful while was under the control of certain "families"...
    Quickblade wrote: »
    An homicide is a homicide, doesn't matter if was made with an knife, fire, poison, an vehicle, an legal firearm, an illegal firearm, an bow, an crossbow, electricity, an axe, etc. Why focus so much on gun homicide?

    Because guns are an exceptionally easy way to kill people.

    I know it's semi-historical fiction, but the Lord of War is pretty quotable about this(...)

    Wrong, There are mainly three types of homicides.
    • Unintentional homicide (traffic accidents mostly)
    • Passionate homicide
    • Planned homicide

    No way that gun control can affect unintentional homicide. Mainly because traffic accidents are far more common than gun accidents.
    Passionate homicide, only changes one weapon for another. For eg, if she can't get an gun, she can switch to backstabbing for eg or poison.
    And the criminal homicide. Criminals will not be prevented from owning any type of firearms that they wanna by any law. Bombs are considered destructive devices since 1934 and it never prevented any terrorist from owning then.
    Grond0 wrote: »
    An homicide is a homicide, doesn't matter if was made with an knife, fire, poison, an vehicle, an legal firearm, an illegal firearm, an bow, an crossbow, electricity, an axe, etc. Why focus so much on gun homicide?

    I'd like to reduce all homicides, but reducing those carried out by guns is far more realistic than reducing the relatively small numbers that use any other specific method. I don't think US society as a whole is a lot more violent than the UK, but the total rate of homicide is much higher. I think the main reason for that is that around 70% of homicides in the US are gun homicides. If you reduced that below 10% (like in the UK) the overall rate of US homicides would fall considerably.

    Except that everyone here is talking about """"assault rifles"""" despite rifles being used in an tinny fraction of homicides
    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

    Rifles got used on 374 homicides in 2016, while UNARMED homicides on 656 homicides.

    Politicians who wanna gun control wanna more rifle control than pistol control despite pistol being used in much more crimes by a reason. Is about power, not about safety. Makes more sense to ban people from owning hands than from banning rifles using solo the FBI statistics and if gun control can prevent any homicide(can't), makes much more sense to restrict short firearms(not in favor).

    And the criminality on UK is skyrocketing and the "knife control" only made it worse > https://freedomoutpost.com/uk-disarmed-citizens-murders-now-skyrocketing-police-fail-protect-defenseless-populace/
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    Grond0 wrote: »
    I'd like to reduce all homicides, but reducing those carried out by guns is far more realistic than reducing the relatively small numbers that use any other specific method. I don't think US society as a whole is a lot more violent than the UK, but the total rate of homicide is much higher. I think the main reason for that is that around 70% of homicides in the US are gun homicides. If you reduced that below 10% (like in the UK) the overall rate of US homicides would fall considerably.

    Except that everyone here is talking about """"assault rifles"""" despite rifles being used in an tinny fraction of homicides.

    And the criminality on UK is skyrocketing and the "knife control" only made it worse > https://freedomoutpost.com/uk-disarmed-citizens-murders-now-skyrocketing-police-fail-protect-defenseless-populace/

    I agree much of the recent conversation has been about banning assault rifles as that's an easy way to reduce terror attacks without any significant impact on the current understanding of 2nd amendment rights. You posted several times about wider homicide statistics though, including specifically asking me why I'd given gun homicide figures rather than overall ones - my post was a direct response to that one of yours. Personally I think more gun control would be a good thing, but I don't think that's realistic in the US at the moment and efforts should be concentrated on achievable goals that are supported by most people (like banning assault rifles, more systematic background checks and mandatory training).

    I agree there was an increase in violent incidents in the UK in 2018. The article you posted though is not much help in understanding that and considering what action to take. Total homicides in the year to December 2018 in England & Wales were 732, up from 690 in 2017 and 696 in 2016. I'm not sure that really counts as "skyrocketing" and the article's argument that the restriction on handguns introduced in 1996 was responsible for the increase in homicides in 2018 is unconvincing to say the least. I think a more likely factor behind the rise in homicides (and similar rises in other violent crimes) is the policy of austerity that's been applied over a number of years - resulting in both increased motivation for criminal behavior by some citizens and substantial reductions in police numbers.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    edited August 2019
    Grond0 wrote: »
    Grond0 wrote: »
    I'd like to reduce all homicides, but reducing those carried out by guns is far more realistic than reducing the relatively small numbers that use any other specific method. I don't think US society as a whole is a lot more violent than the UK, but the total rate of homicide is much higher. I think the main reason for that is that around 70% of homicides in the US are gun homicides. If you reduced that below 10% (like in the UK) the overall rate of US homicides would fall considerably.

    Except that everyone here is talking about """"assault rifles"""" despite rifles being used in an tinny fraction of homicides.

    And the criminality on UK is skyrocketing and the "knife control" only made it worse > https://freedomoutpost.com/uk-disarmed-citizens-murders-now-skyrocketing-police-fail-protect-defenseless-populace/

    I agree much of the recent conversation has been about banning assault rifles

    I know that only gun homicide matters for you, so why concentrate on rifles who are used so barely on crimes that even "personal weapons"(punches/kickes) kills more on US? Using the logic "only firearms homicides matters and gun control can reduce then despite all evidences" makes much more sense to control pistols than anything else.

    And again, the definition of assault rifle

    "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

    An semi auto AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Is an sporting rifle. Call an semi auto AR-15 an assault rilfe is like call an pistol with extended magazine an submachine gun... Makes no sense.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I fail to see a truly meaningful distinction between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon for the purposes of a mass shooting. The only advantages of a fully automatic weapon are that it enables suppressing fire (irrelevant outside of military contexts) and can slightly compensate for lousy marksmanship (making things easier for an unskilled mass murderer). Even a semi-automatic weapon is fully capable of gunning down scores of people in a crowded area in seconds with no opportunity for an untrained population to defend itself before the police arrive.
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    I know that only gun homicide matters for you, so why concentrate on rifles who are used so barely on crimes that even "personal weapons"(punches/kickes) kills more on US? Using the logic "only firearms homicides matters and gun control can reduce then despite all evidences" makes much more sense to control pistols than anything else.

    See my previous post. Unless there's something new to discuss, I won't respond further on this topic for the time being.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    edited August 2019
    semiticgod wrote: »
    I fail to see a truly meaningful distinction between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon for the purposes of a mass shooting. The only advantages of a fully automatic weapon are that it enables suppressing fire (irrelevant outside of military contexts) and can slightly compensate for lousy marksmanship (making things easier for an unskilled mass murderer). Even a semi-automatic weapon is fully capable of gunning down scores of people in a crowded area in seconds with no opportunity for an untrained population to defend itself before the police arrive.

    Instead of enforce the same law to the southernmost part of Florida to the extreme North of Alaska, why not let the "location" decides who owns and who can't own an gun?

    I mean, imagine an Las Vegas Casino. If i was an Casino owner, i will not wanna armed costumers by obvious reasons, but i would if the state allow, pick an Veteran, give an AR-500, an SCAR-H, an "magazine" with API rounds(the case that an criminal is heavily armored) and hollow point bullets(evade collateral damage if he is not) and let my private security do the security of the Casino, with cameras, metal detectors and armed security, is possible to commit an massacre or steal the money? Sure, is easy? No. Gun control would make more expensive to invest into security

    Anyway, rifles(""assault"" included) represents an tiny percentage of gun homicides and an submachine gun is IMO better than an AR-15 to commit an massacre. Much easier to conceal and you will not shot into civilians with ar500 body armor...
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    Bombs are considered destructive devices since 1934 and it never prevented any terrorist from owning then.

    Never? I just don't understand believing something like this. Much less thinking it's an effective argument. The idea that there'd be just as many bomb attacks in a country where possessing a bomb was legal.... how can anyone sincerely believe that?
    ThacoBellsmeagolheart
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,295
    @SorcererV1ct0r

    I was temped to go through your three kinds of gun homicides and explain in some detail how they would be reduced by gun control, but I did some of that before and it does not seem to work.

    So I will keep this brief. Put potential homicides in four categories:
    • Considered, but not attempted (i.e. typical aborted crime of passion)
    • Attempted, but stopped in the preparation phase
    • Attempted, but stopped/failed during the actual attempt
    • Attempted and succeeded

    And then think about how gun control can affect where a potential homicide ends up in those categories.
    ThacoBell
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    edited August 2019
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Bombs are considered destructive devices since 1934 and it never prevented any terrorist from owning then.

    Never? I just don't understand believing something like this. Much less thinking it's an effective argument. The idea that there'd be just as many bomb attacks in a country where possessing a bomb was legal.... how can anyone sincerely believe that?

    There are a lot of Molotovs being trowed in many gun restricted countries and even on US, an molotov is considered an destructive device. The NFA din't prevented an single case of molotov being used on violent protests. In fact, there are more protests with the use of incendiary devices AFTER they become prohibited than before.
    Ammar wrote: »
    I was temped to go through your three kinds of gun homicides and explain in some detail how they would be reduced by gun control, but I did some of that before and it does not seem to work.

    So I will keep this brief. Put potential homicides in four categories:
    • Considered, but not attempted (i.e. typical aborted crime of passion)
    • Attempted, but stopped in the preparation phase
    • Attempted, but stopped/failed during the actual attempt
    • Attempted and succeeded

    And then think about how gun control can affect where a potential homicide ends up in those categories.

    Lets suppose that the government is a all powerful deity capable of preventing everyone from owning an type of object and make everyone who wanna kill with this object incapable of obtaining illegally the object or substituting for another object. Lets ignore the reality that the government can't prevent prisoners from killing themselves and each other inside prisons. Ignore everything and assume that the government have the power to revoke the gravity via legislation for the sake of argument.

    Makes much more sense for the "deity" who is the government to restrict blunt weapons than rifles according to the FBI table that i have posted. That is my main point that i don't see anyone addressing.

    This is not strawman, the unique way for any type of an gun law to work is if is enforced by an deity.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Trump and conservatives cried so hard they got a movie cancelled.

    Universal canceled The Hunt a film in which "liberal elites" kidnap and kill "deplorables," following a series of mass shootings across the U.S.

    The day before the cancellation, President Donald Trump tweeted about the film, accusing “Liberal Hollywood” of spreading racism, anger and hatred.

    “The movie coming out is made in order to inflame and cause chaos,” he wrote, without explicitly naming “The Hunt.” “They create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and they are very bad for our Country!”

    What first amendment? Why's he throwing around racist labels for no reason, the very thing he accuses the left of doing? Does he really think the 1st amendment only means freedom to spread conservative conspiracies and hate speech?

    Trump’s remarks came on the heels of heavy coverage of the movie by Fox Business Network and Fox News, which Trump watches on a regular basis.

    What's funny is this movie would have portrayed MAGA guys as the heroes being oppressed by the 'deep state' 'liberal elites'. But conservative tears and snowflakes got the movie cancelled.

    It's just as well.
    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Trump and conservatives cried so hard they got a movie cancelled.

    Universal canceled The Hunt a film in which "liberal elites" kidnap and kill "deplorables," following a series of mass shootings across the U.S.

    The day before the cancellation, President Donald Trump tweeted about the film, accusing “Liberal Hollywood” of spreading racism, anger and hatred.

    “The movie coming out is made in order to inflame and cause chaos,” he wrote, without explicitly naming “The Hunt.” “They create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and they are very bad for our Country!”

    What first amendment? Why's he throwing around racist labels for no reason, the very thing he accuses the left of doing? Does he really think the 1st amendment only means freedom to spread conservative conspiracies and hate speech?

    Trump’s remarks came on the heels of heavy coverage of the movie by Fox Business Network and Fox News, which Trump watches on a regular basis.

    What's funny is this movie would have portrayed MAGA guys as the heroes being oppressed by the 'deep state' 'liberal elites'. But conservative tears and snowflakes got the movie cancelled.

    It's just as well.

    I literally felt the same way. I doubt any of the people on the right complaining about this movie even bothered to look at the plot synopsis. It sounded like Red Dawn except instead of Cubans, they'd be battling rich leftist elites (presumably with bowie knives and sharp sticks a'la Rambo).
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2019
    I believe it was the brainchild of the same guy behind The Purge movies, and I'm unsure if the one you are describing can even be seen as a slight variation on that formula.

    The last movie I remember this happening to for political reasons was during the Bush-era, "The Assassination of a President", an alternate history in which Bush is assassinated, a Muslim man is railroaded for the act, and years later evidence clearly points to a random factory worker who had just lost his job. I actually think I still have this on DVD in my closet. The only striking thing about it is how mundane it was. Regardless, these cultural grievances are all the GOP has left. Their policies are non-existent or bankrupt. Trump's entire appeal has nothing to do with economics whatsoever, it's all one long variation on things like flag-burning and prayer in schools.
    ThacoBell
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,768
    edited August 2019
    Trump and conservatives cried so hard they got a movie cancelled.

    Universal canceled The Hunt a film in which "liberal elites" kidnap and kill "deplorables," following a series of mass shootings across the U.S.

    The day before the cancellation, President Donald Trump tweeted about the film, accusing “Liberal Hollywood” of spreading racism, anger and hatred.

    “The movie coming out is made in order to inflame and cause chaos,” he wrote, without explicitly naming “The Hunt.” “They create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and they are very bad for our Country!”

    What first amendment? Why's he throwing around racist labels for no reason, the very thing he accuses the left of doing? Does he really think the 1st amendment only means freedom to spread conservative conspiracies and hate speech?

    Trump’s remarks came on the heels of heavy coverage of the movie by Fox Business Network and Fox News, which Trump watches on a regular basis.

    What's funny is this movie would have portrayed MAGA guys as the heroes being oppressed by the 'deep state' 'liberal elites'. But conservative tears and snowflakes got the movie cancelled.

    It's just as well.

    That struck me as weird when I first heard about it. I've actually seen the trope of "liberal elites hunting regular Joes" in right-wing science fiction. I guess it's one of those things where one part of the propaganda machine doesn't know what the other is doing.

    In A Desert Called Peace by Tom Kratman, the one doing the hunting is literally Kofi Annan's great-great-grandson.
    semiticgoddesssmeagolheart
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2019
    BillyYank wrote: »
    Trump and conservatives cried so hard they got a movie cancelled.

    Universal canceled The Hunt a film in which "liberal elites" kidnap and kill "deplorables," following a series of mass shootings across the U.S.

    The day before the cancellation, President Donald Trump tweeted about the film, accusing “Liberal Hollywood” of spreading racism, anger and hatred.

    “The movie coming out is made in order to inflame and cause chaos,” he wrote, without explicitly naming “The Hunt.” “They create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and they are very bad for our Country!”

    What first amendment? Why's he throwing around racist labels for no reason, the very thing he accuses the left of doing? Does he really think the 1st amendment only means freedom to spread conservative conspiracies and hate speech?

    Trump’s remarks came on the heels of heavy coverage of the movie by Fox Business Network and Fox News, which Trump watches on a regular basis.

    What's funny is this movie would have portrayed MAGA guys as the heroes being oppressed by the 'deep state' 'liberal elites'. But conservative tears and snowflakes got the movie cancelled.

    It's just as well.

    That struck me as weird when I first heard about it. I've actually seen the trope of "liberal elites hunting regular Joes" in right-wing science fiction. I guess it's one of those things where one part of the propaganda machine doesn't know what the other is doing.

    In A Desert Called Peace by Tom Kratman, the one doing the hunting is literally Kofi Annan's great-great-grandson.

    It doesn't need to make sense. Nothing in right-wing media is designed to do anything but create a Pavlovian response, the same way I as a Vikings fan feel when I hear the name "Aaron Rogers", except in this case it actually matters to the national discourse.
    ThacoBell
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    Eric Pantaleo, the NYPD officer accused of choking Eric Garner back in 2014, has been fired and he will not be receiving any pension he might have earned.

    Tlaib was on camera crying today because Israel would not let her enter the country to push an anti-Israel message. I don't feel sorry for you, Rashida--Israel gave you a humanitarian pass which would allow you to visit your grandmother but disallow you from engaging in political activity and you decided that pushing your BDS agenda was more important than your grandmother. It would definitely be a shame if her grandmother's health failed, at which point Rashida will have to live with the fact that she threw a hissy-fit and decided that politics was more important than family.
    BillyYankBalrog99
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108
    I know that only gun homicide matters for you, so why concentrate on rifles who are used so barely on crimes that even "personal weapons"(punches/kickes) kills more on US? Using the logic "only firearms homicides matters and gun control can reduce then despite all evidences" makes much more sense to control pistols than anything else.

    Whataboutery and bad faith arguments are a waste of everyone's time, dude.

    ThacoBellsmeagolheartDinoDindunbar
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Eric Pantaleo, the NYPD officer accused of choking Eric Garner back in 2014, has been fired and he will not be receiving any pension he might have earned.

    Tlaib was on camera crying today because Israel would not let her enter the country to push an anti-Israel message. I don't feel sorry for you, Rashida--Israel gave you a humanitarian pass which would allow you to visit your grandmother but disallow you from engaging in political activity and you decided that pushing your BDS agenda was more important than your grandmother. It would definitely be a shame if her grandmother's health failed, at which point Rashida will have to live with the fact that she threw a hissy-fit and decided that politics was more important than family.

    Tlaib's grandmother, Muftiyah Tlaib, sees it differently than you.

    Tlaib's grandmother, who lives under Israeli occupation in the West Bank, said she is proud of her granddaughter for acting on principle in an interview with the Washington Post on Thursday.

    "Who wouldn't be proud of a granddaughter like that?" said Muftiyah Tlaib. "I love her and am so proud of her."

    Asked about Trump's attacks on her granddaughter, Tlaib's grandmother said, "I don't know him. I don't care."
    BelleSorciereBallpointMan
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 957
    edited August 2019
    Nevermind, I should have tried a Google rather than a urbandictionary search.
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108
    Rashida Tlaib was banned from political activity in Israel which would have been in opposition to Israel as an apartheid state. Opposing apartheid is a good thing to do. Way better than, say killing a Palestinian child on a beach with a rocket.

    Also, a sitting president instructing an allied state to bar entry to US representatives and getting that outcome is actually very bad.
    ThacoBell
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    edited August 2019
    Since there are a lot of last week tonight here, what do you think about this video


    I don't understand those who say that US is a racist country, no, i an not saying that racism doesn't exist but for eg, how many night clubs prohibit the entrance of people based on skin color on US? I visited Argentina and saw a lot of night clubs with "racial profiling" an relative close friend who lives in Russia said that is extremelly common for night clubs to not allow middle eastern looking people to enter.

    And why when we talk on racism, we only think on white VS black. Not on mestizo against black like happens between Haitians and neighbors countries or even Asian against Asians like for eg Japaneses against Chineses or Chineses against Japaneses?
    I know that only gun homicide matters for you, so why concentrate on rifles who are used so barely on crimes that even "personal weapons"(punches/kickes) kills more on US? Using the logic "only firearms homicides matters and gun control can reduce then despite all evidences" makes much more sense to control pistols than anything else.

    Whataboutery and bad faith arguments are a waste of everyone's time, dude.

    IS not i who is saying that personal(punches/kicks) weapons kills more than rifle(but less than handguns), is the FBI. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

    So, if you support an rifle ban, you should support an law forcing everyone to become weaker in order to reduce homicides with personal weapon. This is not Whataboutery, is a logic conclusion of your own argument.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    So, if you support an rifle ban, you should support an law forcing everyone to become weaker in order to reduce homicides with personal weapon. This is not Whataboutery, is a logic conclusion of your own argument.

    When multiple people are saying you are arguing in bad faith, maybe pause, and consider if they're right?

    This is an incredibly bad faith argument, along with your bomb argument from above. This would be impossible to legislate. Banning certain kinds of weapons is very do-able, as a number of other wealthy countries have demonstrated.

    Try and stick with real-world, realistic examples. Otherwise you are just flooding this thread with nonsense arguments.
    ThacoBellBelleSorciere
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    DinoDin wrote: »
    So, if you support an rifle ban, you should support an law forcing everyone to become weaker in order to reduce homicides with personal weapon. This is not Whataboutery, is a logic conclusion of your own argument.

    When multiple people are saying you are arguing in bad faith, maybe pause, and consider if they're right?

    This is an incredibly bad faith argument, along with your bomb argument from above. This would be impossible to legislate. Banning certain kinds of weapons is very do-able, as a number of other wealthy countries have demonstrated.

    Try and stick with real-world, realistic examples. Otherwise you are just flooding this thread with nonsense arguments.

    And the idea that someone who is planning to commit mass murder will stop by anti gun legislation despite it never stopped anyone in any country is a realistic idea???
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited August 2019
    And the idea that someone who is planning to commit mass murder will stop by anti gun legislation despite it never stopped anyone in any country is a realistic idea???

    Well if your conclusion is wrong then you will come up with the wrong answer. How many countries have mass murder by guns all the time? Gun legislation has stopped mass murder is every other country. Let's try it because doing nothing is not working.


    This is a real screenshot from Fox News Propaganda lol:
    It checks all the boxes:
    -ridiculous and absurd
    -a strawman of democrats
    -lies
    GdA9YCgQ0etFVItJO7v97Nz5DPShmMJkNSADJVHgfqI.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=0c2d6f4bdc202e3a5b37b059f91266a8622088a6
    ThacoBell
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    edited August 2019
    And the idea that someone who is planning to commit mass murder will stop by anti gun legislation despite it never stopped anyone in any country is a realistic idea???

    Well if your conclusion is wrong then you will come up with the wrong answer. How many countries have mass murder by guns all the time? Gun legislation has stopped mass murder is every other country. Let's try it because doing nothing is not working.

    List of terror attacks on Europe, Switzerland, one of the most armed countries had ZERO terrorist attacks.

    ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.images.express.co.uk%2Fimg%2Fdynamic%2F1%2F590x%2Fsecondary%2Fmap-600795.jpg&f=1

    And on Czech Republic despite the Eurocrats trying to make guns harder to obtain, is each day more armed, and yes, the idea of putting the southern part of Sicily to the northern part of Sweden into the same law is awful.

    Guns_in_czech_rep.png

    UK and France have draconian gun laws an it din't prevent then from being one of the most terror impacted countries.

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited August 2019
    Bait and switch and more bad faith arguments. We were talking gun massacres in relationship to gun laws and you put up a unrelated terrorist chart.
    ThacoBellBallpointManDinoDin
Sign In or Register to comment.