So then my point still stands, you are willing to sacrifice your fellow citizens lives to ensure you can continue having your collection of guns for your hobby.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
President Barack Obama preparing to issue Executive Order on gun control
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
So then my point still stands, you are willing to sacrifice your fellow citizens lives to ensure you can continue having your collection of guns for your hobby.
Posts like this kill me. Such vitriol towards a person who has done nothing terrible, but is crucified for owing a firearm.
DrGonzo615
Banned
Pretty much in the same boat. There is no room for compromise anymore when the fringe elements control the debate.
Either you think that everyone in America is entitled to an RPG without a background check or guns are Satan incarnate. Its all fucking white noise at this point and thats why there is no movement on the issue.
EDIT: What the fuck is with all these name calling shitposts?
RustyNails
Member
Are you trying to post a ridiculous facebook garbage chainmail forwarded to you by your grandma on neogaf?
I'm hoping it's a long troll.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Owning a firearm is terrible in itself. You're endangering yourself and others at no benefit.
Either you accept that, or you disagree with reality.
If every potential gun owner were required to go through and pass secret service training/background checks prior to being allowed to own their gun, Obama and I would be quite happy.
I take it you're all for this as well?
Silver Arrows
Banned
Exactly my opinion as well.
I kno rite, other opinions! 😂😂😂
Building an AR isn't made up of very many parts and it's all pretty standardized, but the pieces are tiny/easy to lose and kinda frustrating if you haven't done it before. So if you DIY in general isn't your thing then it's best to spend a little more for pre-built.
Really sad that I can't tell if you're joking or not.
To be clear - people are agitated on this issue, sure. My question was a purely hypothetical, and my reaction was his response to my hypothetical.
That said, I don't think that's a controversial stance. For any hobby, if that hobby had hard data indicating that if you simply gave it up you would save lives, and you refused- that's kind of shitty no?
I raised the question to sort of frame the gun issue by the outer limits where people could see eye to eye. I just assumed incorrectly for some that hobbyism was that point; always assumed that self-defense really was the core of gun-owners' arguments, as that ties into basic human needs for self-defense, and rightfully or irrationally, fear - a basic human emotion.
Well it is controversial. I mean, I'm sure the government monitoring inside our homes would save lives too. I'm sure outlawing vehicles, fastfood, drinking, and a lot of other hobbies would save lives.
I think this country would be better off without guns. It's not happening. All you are doing is throwing insults at people without accomplishing anything. You want to accomplish something in this thread, discuss compromise.
directly insulting people isn't allowed. (as i've found out firsthand, lmao. shoutouts to the mods.)
Yeah, I find it pretty annoying too. For some reason I can't quite remember exactly the situation it reminds me of, but it reminds of shit kids used to do in elementary school.
I am pretty anti-gun don't really give a shit about whether or not it's anyone's hobby, but I know that letting myself get worked up and shouting into the void/GAF isn't a good solution for me either.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
But again, those posters aren't going to be the ones to go out and murder people with those guns. Do you shit on people that buy swords and shit at the Renaissance Festival because those tools were historically used for wholesale slaughter? They like them, it's their hobby, and I can guarantee you that the statistical likelihood of the guns you've seen posted here on the forum today being involved in a homicide are similar to those of you winning the lottery.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Coffee Dog
Banned
Having "opinions" over blatant fact. 😂😂
SmarmySmurf
Banned
Or you could reread his stated priorities in life which demonstrate my opinion of him perfectly. He has done something terrible. He admits he would not give up his guns even if it factually made everyone safer. That is the definition of a scumbag, ripped directly from Webster's.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
I'm not sure where the ambiguity is coming from so I'll state it without equivocation:
Yes, I believe that lives lost due to recreational activity are not a reasonable justification for banning a recreational activity. That sentiment includes but is not limited to firearm ownership, motorcycle riding, bungee jumping, parachuting, SCUBA diving, mountain climbing, and any of the other activities that make for a varied and interesting existence.
If you want the utopian future you're advocating for, go rent a copy of Demolition Man.
TheLaughingStock
Member
When did he decide that?
yanipheonu
Member
I'm predicting yet another parading around of the 2nd ammendment, followed by talking about things that would encroach on the 1st ammendment.
Because Republicans never claimed to not be hypocrites I guess.
Because Republicans never claimed to not be hypocrites I guess.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Oxford is a better dictionary.
Vehicles serve a purpose beyond hobbyism.
Fast food isn't the same - let me know when I can walk into a room and kill 10 people with a burger. There is no outward assumption of risk, its all personal assumption of risk there.
As for government surveillance, the countervailing point against that is real, ethical questions about privacy and profiling. It isn't hobbyism.
That's why I framed my example as pure hobbyism.
Coffee Dog
Banned
What else are the guns going to be involved in? Fuckin arson?
They are meant for homicide. Unless you just love endangering yourself and the people around you so you can have something you'll never use, or whatever roundabout logic is required.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
Ooh wee. Looks like Republicans have a monopoly on hypocrisy. More fresh takes at 10.
All of those activities involve a personal assumption of risk, except for gun ownership.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
some opinions dont deserve a platform or to be listened to.
Literally the same thing could be said about just anything. Cars, a two-ton weapon that endangers everyone around you as well as yourself. Alcohol, motorcycles, tobacco, etc...
And before you say something, guns do have benefits. CA isn't the epicenter of America.
Isn't this a flawed premise? I mean if it's only "hobbyists" turning in the guns and not criminals, then the gun violence is still going to be there. And who is going to reimburse me? Plus, the second amendment grants me the right to have a gun anyway, so I'm going to have to go with a no on this one.
Okay then.
To be fair, the former presidents act was changed to limit secret service protection to 10 years for presidents after 1997, and then in 2012 it was changed back to be protection for life.
I guess it's just hard to really grasp and answer your hypothetical question in this case; I mean yeah, at face value refusing to give up a hobby in exchange for human lifes is really shitty. But there are way too many factors including political ideals here which affect your answer.
I'd say it's much better to avoid this type of extreme argument since they don't seem advance the discussion.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
? You didn't even address my point. I've stated multiple times in this thread that guns are instruments built for killing. What I said is that the guns that GAFfers are posting here have a statistically irrelevant chance of being used to commit homicide. Because those guns are for hunting or the gun range.
TrumanShow.gif
Gun violence will always be here. But if you took away all of hobbyists guns, theoretically gun homicides and violence would drop. My hypothetical just made that "theoretically" a fact.
And maybe I was too harsh, but I don't think that's controversial based on the hypothetical.
Coffee Dog
Banned
"Guns don't kill people"
"But then only criminals will have guns"
As long as we pretend that this is a conversation, we will face the same ignorance, and the same dumb arguments.
That applies to the extremes of both sides. It's funny how the that apparently doesn't exist or isn't relevant is the side that always gets its way. It would benefit you to at least acknowledge those arguments even if you don't agree with them. Otherwise they'll just keep getting what they want.
Maybe not. What I was trying to get at was the outer bounds of where gun owners accept that 'hey, maybe this isn't worth it'. I truly feel like once we hit on that point, we all can agree/ move on.
Well most of the country disagrees. That is part of the problem. The gun situation is what it is, not listening or talking because in your opinion the platform is not worth being listened to, will accomplish nothing.
Note though that it works both ways. Republicans in particular don't want to listen to any kind of restrictions on guns at all. They prove that time and time again in congress.
I don't have a horse in this race , but this is a poor argument :
A motorcycle driver that drives recklessly through traffic and ignores all the rules to showoff his "toy" can cause grievous harm or death to other people on the road .
A gun owner who ignores all safety rules and is recklessly waving his gun around in people's directions to show off his" toy" can cause grievous harm or death to other people .
In both cases the guy operating either one of them is at fault .
i am pretty confident that Neither a gun or a motorcycle will kill me by me just standing next to it .
DrGonzo615
Banned
Coffee Dog
Banned
It really doesn't, lol.
Please explain?
FunkyPajamas
Member
This page:
"You're a piece of shit! And you're a piece of shit! You're all pieces of shit!"
Come on guys. The subject is thorny enough as it is without some of you having to resort to this type of insults.
I think change has to start somewhere, and if a large portion of the country is against a gun ban then just go step by step and you'll eventually reach a better place.
"You're a piece of shit! And you're a piece of shit! You're all pieces of shit!"
Come on guys. The subject is thorny enough as it is without some of you having to resort to this type of insults.
Not that I agree with him, but I think the usual response is that a total ban is not realistic and would only hurt the chances for a middle-of-the-road, more sensible approach to gun laws.
I think change has to start somewhere, and if a large portion of the country is against a gun ban then just go step by step and you'll eventually reach a better place.
Only one side has been preventing any legislation because it involves an industry against anything that will impact profit, and indeed benefits from each mass-shooting and any talk of gun-control.
The other side getting increasingly frustrated when it's an issue involving trying to prevent unnecessary loss of life is understandable. And it will only increase with each and every tragedy.
Leading back to the subject of this thread and a President having to force through what should be basic common-sense measures.
Claiming both sides are the reason for no movement is naive at best, and plain disingenuous at worst.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Canadian friends go out hunting every month with hunting rifles and revolvers. Can you explain how such a violentless country can has the guns?
You do know other countries don't ban guns right? You need a liscense to operate them, sure, but they aren't illegal in all cases.
And I'm definitely arguing for stricter gun control. Way stricter in the US.
That's not actually true when you do the math. At 10k homicides per year, and assuming the average gun lasts 30 years, that's about 1/1000 of all guns will be used in a homicide. That goes up to something like 1/300 for all gun deaths, and more like 1/50-1/100 for any type of gun crimes.
So basically, if you seen a lot of guns in your life, you've probably see a homicide or suicide weapon, and almost certainly saw one that will eventually be used in crime.
Maybe. But I really do think that based on that hypothetical, that response is supremely shitty and callous. And I don't think that its controversial to think that a person is a piece of shit for putting hobbyism in front of saving lives.
Coffee Dog
Banned
"Most of the country" think we need to remove all Muslims. There's no need to reason with people who are inherently unreasonable.
But the question wasn't banning guns, it was banning guns solely for the purpose of hobbying. Bungee jumping, parachuting, scuba diving and mountain climbing are activities that do not inherently endanger other peoples lives by default. Guns and ease of access to guns have been proven to do just that.
Motorcycle riding is a function of transportation. A necessary function of human life. Ideally we would try and eliminate accidents altogether which we are doing with automation but recreational motorcycle riding is not in and of itself a hobby that is reliant upon a device thats primary purpose is to kill or injure. It is something that sets your attempt at comparison apart.
Furthermore this is a question about a persons individual ethics. If someone could prove to you that if you gave up the guns you own for hobbyist purposes that it would definitively save other peoples lives, you are saying no to that. You are saying that you value your hobby above the lives that could be proven to you to be lost because of your decision.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
A gun that only harms guns is going to make somebody millions. Get on it NASA.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
My original post was about PB or whatever his name is quoting two GAFfers who posted pics of their guns. My claim was that these two guns in the thread have a statistically irrelevant chance of being used in a homicide. I'm not sure why that's a controversial statement. I never said that if you Google "gun" that none of them will have been involved in crimes.
- Status