Support NeoGAF

[PBY]

Guys, he's not deranged, let's give him some hand grenades, they're fun to throw!

Besides, HE grenades aren't more dangerous than a regular pistol, you can't kill people more dead than dead.

How 'bout a grenade launcher?

'Murica.

That's my issue. If you own a gun - you clearly don't give a FUCK about the societal implications you contribute to when you add weapons to the pool.

Its like people think that their "fun" is sacrosanct, fuck the human consequences.

And I think thats incredibly shitty and selfish - you're "fun" is outweighed by the costs of gun ownership.

 

[nynt9]

That's my issue. If you own a gun - you clearly don't give a FUCK about the societal implications you contribute to when you add weapons to the pool.

Its like people think that their "fun" is sacrosanct, fuck the human consequences.

And I think thats incredibly shitty and selfish - you're "fun" is outweighed by the costs of gun ownership.

I mean, it kinda reminds me of the republican ideology from that "don't bash republicans" thread - "I don't care about minority rights/income inequality/access to healthcare as much as I care about (provably ineffective) republican economic policies so I don't care, I'll vote republican"

People can't even have an honest conversation about the possibility that banning guns might be good. They just revert to straw man arguments, absurd analogies and "yeah but I like guns"

 

[Straight Edge]

Apparently the shooter worked for my company...

 

[Piggus]

You haven't shown much concern in most threads that I've seen. What I have seen is a person who appears to give next to zero fucks about human deaths. You also forcefully defend the idea that it is a right, to the point where trumps most if not all concerns over real world problems. In that sense, you really do seem like a slave owner who hides behind the constitution to defend a terrible idea.



The problem is, you've done almost none of the sort. It's post after post of deflection tactics, all in the aftermath of a mass shooting threads to defend guns. At the very least, and that's assuming you're even trying, you're incredible confused about what you think you're trying to do and what you're actually doing.

Whereas the only thing you do is come into these threads, look for any post by me regardless of what it is, and say, "Piggus does this every time!" while offering no real solution of your own. Just because I'm not throwing my guns in a lake doesn't mean I don't care about human life.

Just because I don't agree with you about this issue doesn't mean I don't care about the victims. If I didn't care I wouldn't even go into these threads or try to offer solutions that I think are balanced and possible.

And I'm sorry if you think that gun ownership isn't a right in this country, but that's factually incorrect whether you like it or not.

Guys, he's not deranged, let's give him some hand grenades, they're fun to throw!

Besides, HE grenades aren't more dangerous than a regular pistol, you can't kill people more dead than dead.

How 'bout a grenade launcher?

'Murica.

Or you could just learn why stuff like grenades and grenade launchers are banned and why assault rifles aren't. Educating yourself about an issue. What a concept!

 

[DivineRage002]

Or you could just learn why stuff like grenades and grenade launchers are banned and why assault rifles aren't. Educating yourself about an issue. What a concept!

Because they're dangerous? Oh wait.

Because accidents happen? Oh wait.

Because people died? Oh wait.

Because they don't actually serve a purpose? Oh wait.

Please enlighten us.

 

[Mr Git]

What's really depressing is that when I see one of these threads I never know if it's a new one or an old one.

 

[nynt9]

Whereas the only thing you do is come into these threads, look for any post by me regardless of what it is, and say, "Piggus does this every time!" while offering no real solution of your own. Just because I'm not throwing my guns in a lake doesn't mean I don't care about human life.

Just because I don't agree with you about this issue doesn't mean I don't care about the victims. If I didn't care I wouldn't even go into these threads or try to offer solutions that I think are balanced and possible.

And I'm sorry if you think that gun ownership isn't a right in this country, but that's factually incorrect whether you like it or not.



Or you could just learn why stuff like grenades and grenade launchers are banned and why assault rifles aren't. Educating yourself about an issue. What a concept!

Ok what's your solution then? You haven't provided a solution either.


As for your bit about gun ownership as a right, gun ownership was a right in Australia too, but they did a pretty good job of realizing their mistake and regained their sanity and took care of guns and it just worked.

 

[PBY]

Whereas the only thing you do is come into these threads, look for any post by me regardless of what it is, and say, "Piggus does this every time!" while offering no real solution of your own. Just because I'm not throwing my guns in a lake doesn't mean I don't care about human life.

Just because I don't agree with you about this issue doesn't mean I don't care about the victims. If I didn't care I wouldn't even go into these threads or try to offer solutions that I think are balanced and possible.

And I'm sorry if you think that gun ownership isn't a right in this country, but that's factually incorrect whether you like it or not.



Or you could just learn why stuff like grenades and grenade launchers are banned and why assault rifles aren't. Educating yourself about an issue. What a concept!

What gun owners - like yourself - fundamentally don't understand is this: there doesn't have to be "two sides" to some issues, including this one. This could be a case where gun owners are just wrong - their is no justification for ownership that outweighs the net harms of guns.

How do you justify ownership? What is the net societal good that comes from gun ownership?

 

[HyperionX]

Whereas the only thing you do is come into these threads, look for any post by me regardless of what it is, and say, "Piggus does this every time!" while offering no real solution of your own. Just because I'm not throwing my guns in a lake doesn't mean I don't care about human life.

Just because I don't agree with you about this issue doesn't mean I don't care about the victims. If I didn't care I wouldn't even go into these threads or try to offer solutions that I think are balanced and possible.

And I'm sorry if you think that gun ownership isn't a right in this country, but that's factually incorrect whether you like it or not.

The problem is that you do this in every mass shooting thread. You're no different than someone who shows up in every police shooting thread and shouts All Lives Matter and get into arguments with everyone. It's pretty obvious actions speak louder than words at some point.

 

[PandaShake]

I got an amber alert over the weekend. I know there are police texts you can opt in to, but there needs to be a mandatory alert for possible shots fired in areas too. That could have saved those poor women.

 

[Messofanego]

How do you justify ownership? What is the net societal good that comes from gun ownership?

Tough question. Now I wonder what owners will come up with?

 

[Piggus]

Ok what's your solution then? You haven't provided a solution either.


As for your bit about gun ownership as a right, gun ownership was a right in Australia too, but they did a pretty good job of realizing their mistake and regained their sanity and took care of guns and it just worked.

I'm not going to repeat what I've outlined loads of times in other threads.

Also, we don't live in Australia. We live in the US where by law it's a right TODAY, not in the past. So I'm not sure why you're arguing against a fact.

What gun owners - like yourself - fundamentally don't understand is this: there doesn't have to be "two sides" to some issues, including this one. This could be a case where gun owners are just wrong - their is no justification for ownership that outweighs the net harms of guns.

How do you justify ownership? What is the net societal good that comes from gun ownership?

Well, there is two sides whether you like it or not. This "I'm right and you're wrong" and refusing to even listen to other opinions doesn't help your case. How do I justify ownership? By not being an irresponsible idiot and treating guns as the inherently dangerous devices that they are, just like anything else that's dangerous. But I'm not going to throw them away just because a tiny minority of idiots uses them to harm others, especially when I feel there are alternative solutions, which I have detailed many times in other threads.

The problem is that you do this in every mass shooting thread. You're no different than someone who shows up in every police shooting thread and shouts All Lives Matter and get into arguments with everyone. It's pretty obvious actions speak louder than words at some point.

Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean I'm any worse than the "ban all guns!" people who always start the debate in the first place. The thing that makes Gaf great is we have such a diverse group of people and opinions. You're never going to further your cause if all you attempt to do is silence other opinions instead of hearing what they have to say.

The debate in here wasn't started by me, it was started by people getting outraged about something that they don't know anything about. How many people come into these threads, see a picture of an AR-15, and are then shocked that people are apparently allowed to buy full-auto machine guns? Someone then corrects them, and here we are. The cycle of nothing getting done and lots of back and forth bullshit continues.

 

[PBY]

Well, there is two sides whether you like it or not. This "I'm right and you're wrong" and refusing to even listen to other opinions doesn't help your case. How do I justify ownership? By not being an irresponsible idiot and treating guns as the inherently dangerous devices that they are, just like anything else that's dangerous. But I'm not going to throw them away just because a tiny minority of idiots uses them to harm others, especially when I feel there are alternative solutions, which I have detailed many times in other threads.


Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean I'm any worse than the "ban all guns!" people who always start the debate in the first place. The thing that makes Gaf great is we have such a diverse group of people and opinions. You're never going to further your cause if all you attempt to do is silence other opinions instead of hearing what they have to say.

You are worse than the ban all guns people. What societal negative are they advocating? What is wrong with that position?

Also, there's no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'. How many of those "idiots" that you very conveniently handwaved away thought they were responsible owners, or acquired their weapons through a responsible gun owner?

There's simply no good reason to own a gun, and you're argument boils down to "I want one" - CONSIDERABLY shittier than the "ban all guns" crowd that actually wants society to change for the best. You contribute to these tragedies, whether you like to admit or not - the other side wants to end this.

 

[nynt9]

I'm not going to repeat what I've outlined loads of times in other threads.

Also, we don't live in Australia. We live in the US where by law it's a right TODAY, not in the past. So I'm not sure why you're arguing against a fact.




Well, there is two sides whether you like it or not. This "I'm right and you're wrong" and refusing to even listen to other opinions doesn't help your case. How do I justify ownership? By not being an irresponsible idiot and treating guns as the inherently dangerous devices that they are, just like anything else that's dangerous. But I'm not going to throw them away just because a tiny minority of idiots uses them to harm others, especially when I feel there are alternative solutions, which I have detailed many times in other threads.



Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean I'm any worse than the "ban all guns!" people who always start the debate in the first place. The thing that makes Gaf great is we have such a diverse group of people and opinions. You're never going to further your cause if all you attempt to do is silence other opinions instead of hearing what they have to say.

The debate in here wasn't started by me, it was started by people getting outraged about something that they don't know anything about. How many people come into these threads, see a picture of an AR-15, and are then shocked that people are apparently allowed to buy full-auto machine guns? Someone then corrects them, and here we are. The cycle of nothing getting done and lots of back and forth bullshit continues.

Yes, it was the law in Australia until the day it wasn't. Same as it will inevitably be the day the USA gets its head out of its own and NRA's ass.

You haven't provided or even linked to an older post stating your solution, yet you dismiss other people for not providing a solution.

You have been called out asking the net societal gain of having guns, yet you have nothing.

You claim people are trying to silence opposing opinions, yet you are not presenting one that is more nuanced than "I like guns" and are refusing to elaborate further in any way.

You are criticizing a "cycle of getting nothing done and arguing back and forth" yet you are the one not saying anything, advocating for no change, and are just deflecting arguments and sending them back with non-arguments and repeating yourself.

You are arguing in bad faith.

 

[Piggus]

You are worse than the ban all guns people. What societal negative are they advocating? What is wrong with that position?

Also, there's no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'. How many of those "idiots" that you very conveniently handwaved away thought they were responsible owners, or acquired their weapons through a responsible gun owner?

There's simply no good reason to own a gun, and you're argument boils down to "I want one" - CONSIDERABLY shittier than the "ban all guns" crowd that actually wants society to change for the best. You contribute to these tragedies, whether you like to admit or not - the other side wants to end this.

Regardless of how shitty you think my reasoning or opinion is, it's you who will always be frustrated with this issue, not me. None of what you want to happen is ever going to happen in your lifetime. Sorry to disappoint you, but a country that does not appreciate large scale government intervention is not going to strip legally owned property from half its population. Your attempts at guilt-tripping me into thinking I'm somehow responsible is like telling someone who drinks alcohol that they're partly responsible for all the alcohol related deaths that occur each year. It's pathetic.

Yes, it was the law in Australia until the day it wasn't. Same as it will inevitably be the day the USA gets its head out of its own and NRA's ass.

You haven't provided or even linked to an older post stating your solution, yet you dismiss other people for not providing a solution.

You have been called out asking the net societal gain of having guns, yet you have nothing.

You claim people are trying to silence opposing opinions, yet you are not presenting one that is more nuanced than "I like guns" and are refusing to elaborate further in any way.

You are arguing in bad faith.

You might want to actually look at some polls if you think the NRA is the only thing stopping the government from banning guns entirely.

 

[HyperionX]

Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean I'm any worse than the "ban all guns!" people who always start the debate in the first place. The thing that makes Gaf great is we have such a diverse group of people and opinions. You're never going to further your cause if all you attempt to do is silence other opinions instead of hearing what they have to say.

There isn't, actually. We've banned all the gamergaters, and before then most of the racists. Various pro-gun people more extreme than you have also been banned. There's very little tolerance for shitposting in neogaf.

And ban all guns people are not the problem here. It's what various countries have done already to solve the problem. It's every way a legitimate position.

 

[PBY]

Regardless of how shitty you think my reasoning or opinion is, it's you who will always be frustrated with this issue, not me. None of what you want to happen is ever going to happen in your lifetime. Sorry to disappoint you, but a country that does not appreciate large scale government intervention is not going to strip legally owned property from half its population. Your attempts at guilt-tripping me into thinking I'm somehow responsible is like telling someone who drinks alcohol that they're partly responsible for all the alcohol related deaths that occur each year. It's pathetic.

Its super frustrating because we COULD do something about it, but so many people think the way you do that it becomes impossible. I don't want to strip guns away, just a forward-looking ban.

I'm not guilt-tripping you - I'm just asking you to look inward and realize the cost of your dumb hobby. Your responses to everything by saying "I'm doing what I want though" isn't a counterargument, its defiance in the face of daily massacre, thus my frustration. You still haven't explained why you want or need a gun, only that you CAN and WILL own one.

Like - at some point don't you realize that the status quo isn't working? Aren't you tired of coming into these threads and spitting the same arguments that aren't based in fact?

 

[nynt9]

You might want to actually look at some polls if you think the NRA is the only thing stopping the government from banning guns entirely.

That's all you get from that? ok, clearly you are not interested in a conversation other than you saying the same thing over and over until you get tired or people start ignoring you

 

[Piggus]

There isn't, actually. We've banned all the gamergaters, and before then most of the racists. Various pro-gun people more extreme than you have also been banned. There's very little tolerance for shitposting in neogaf.

And ban all guns people are not the problem here. It's what various countries have done already to solve the problem. It's every way a legitimate position.

You just accused me of deflecting the conversation away from the victims and yet you think people shouting something that will never happen is acceptable? These people don't even mention the families. They get their gun opinion in and then they get out. The only reason you think that's okay is because you agree with that opinion.

That's all you get from that? ok, clearly you are not interested in a conversation other than you saying the same thing over and over until you get tired or people start ignoring you

How many times have we had this conversation? What does it ever accomplish? Nothing. If you want to see my opinions you can look at my older posts. This an issue where nobody's opinion ever changes. I came in here to defend against some misinformation so that some people would be better informed. That's it.

 

[PBY]

You just accused me of deflecting the conversation away from the victims and yet you think people shouting something that will never happen is acceptable? These people don't even mention the families. They get their gun opinion in and then they get out. The only reason you think that's okay is because you agree with that opinion.

Well, lets take a step back. They are offering a solution, whether you like it or not. Their solution is based in fact AND is tested in other countries as a proven solution. You say that we can't enact it as if there is some logistical impossibility - THE REASON WE CANT ENACT IT IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

That aside - its not an opinion in the way "yo, Star Wars is dope" is an opinion. There isn't a rational opposing force in this argument. The only counterargument is a selfish "I want guns" argument and thats that for 99% of the populace, and you've done nothing to change that in this thread.

Apologies if that's harsh, but I'm so tired of these threads, and its baffling that we aren't racing as a nation to take action.

 

[Piggus]

Well, lets take a step back. They are offering a solution, whether you like it or not. Their solution is based in fact AND is tested in other countries as a proven solution. You say that we can't enact it as if there is some logistical impossibility - THE REASON WE CANT ENACT IT IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

That aside - its not an opinion in the way "yo, Star Wars is dope" is an opinion. There isn't a rational opposing force in this argument. The only counterargument is a selfish "I want guns" argument and thats that for 99% of the populace, and you've done nothing to change that in this thread.

Apologies if that's harsh, but I'm so tired of these threads, and its baffling that we aren't racing as a nation to take action.

The fact that it's baffling to you only shows how little you know about this history and culture of this country. If you don't like that the country as a whole values gun ownership over the risk it brings, then there are plenty of other places for you to go.

 

[Messofanego]

How do I justify ownership? By not being an irresponsible idiot and treating guns as the inherently dangerous devices that they are, just like anything else that's dangerous. But I'm not going to throw them away just because a tiny minority of idiots uses them to harm others, especially when I feel there are alternative solutions, which I have detailed many times in other threads.

Answer the question, dude, you're not a politician who has to dodge it. What's the net societal gain in owning guns? It's definitely not home defense as stats prove more accidents and deaths occur with guns than without.

 

[nynt9]

The fact that it's baffling to you only shows how little you know about this history and culture of this country. If you don't like that the country as a whole values gun ownership over the risk it brings, then there are plenty of other places for you to go.

holy shit

"get outta my country" combined with "me owning guns is worth all these deaths"

I just can't

 

[Piggus]

Answer the question, dude, you're not a politician who has to dodge it. What's the net societal gain in owning guns? It's definitely not home defense as stats prove more accidents and deaths occur with guns than without.

What exactly do you want? A number? Lives saved vs lives lost? Like most dangerous hobbies, there is no "net societal gain" for gun ownership in the same way there's no net societal gain from owning a swimming pool at home.

holy shit

"get outta my country" combined with "me owning guns is worth all these deaths"

I just can't

The majority of the country shares my views, so not sure what's so shocking to you.

 

[PBY]

What exactly do you want? A number? Lives saved vs lives lost? Like most dangerous hobbies, there is no "net societal gain" for gun ownership in the same way there's no net societal gain from owning a swimming pool at home.

Except - swimming pools have a utility that can be beneficial, health, etc. and more importantly, their created purpose isn't destruction. Even more importantly - you aren't going to accidentally harm my family with your swimming pool, nor will your swimming pool accidentally fall into the wrong hands that can do harm with it.

Guns aren't just another "dangerous hobby".

 

[DivineRage002]

What exactly do you want? A number? Lives saved vs lives lost? Like most dangerous hobbies, there is no "net societal gain" for gun ownership in the same way there's no net societal gain from owning a swimming pool at home.



The majority of the country shares my views, so not sure what's so shocking to you.

If swimming pools had the only purpose of drowning people, I would gladly ban them. Fortunately, this is not the point of a swimming pool.

 

[appaws]

There isn't, actually. We've banned all the gamergaters, and before then most of the racists. Various pro-gun people more extreme than you have also been banned. There's very little tolerance for shitposting in neogaf.

And ban all guns people are not the problem here. It's what various countries have done already to solve the problem. It's every way a legitimate position.

Yes, we need to hurry up and ban all the pro-gun people on GAF so that you and PBY can make sure that all discussion stays within the proper channels.

Answer the question, dude, you're not a politician who has to dodge it. What's the net societal gain in owning guns? It's definitely not home defense as stats prove more accidents and deaths occur with guns than without.

Civilian ownership of weapons is a check on government. I know you guys won't like that argument since GAF OT is generally a statist forum, but that is the reason for our God-given right, recognized but not given by the Constitution, and that will never change without a really terrible and bloody war.

 

[neurosyphilis]

That's my issue. If you own a gun - you clearly don't give a FUCK about the societal implications you contribute to when you add weapons to the pool.

Its like people think that their "fun" is sacrosanct, fuck the human consequences.

And I think thats incredibly shitty and selfish - you're "fun" is outweighed by the costs of gun ownership.

Edit- This post came off incredibly rude and wrong. I apologize, to anyone I offended.

 

[PBY]

I'm not going out there and committing crimes. My guns are clean, and always will be, unless I have to defend myself in a home invasion or some scenario like that. What is up with people on here thinking every gun owner is evil ? I would never harm anyone. I'm a 19 year old college student who is really shy, and normally keep to myself unless spoken to. Guns are just what interest me right now. I don't really have any friends, so I need things to keep my occupied and that just so happens to be firearms, gaming, and dirt biking. Everyone has interests. Just because you own or enjoy guns doesn't make you some bad guy, like a lot of people on here insinuates.

I hear you - but you can't use the bolded to justify a practice that leads to us having threads like this every week.

Every single gun owner thinks they aren't the problem, but all it takes is the .01% to be wrong. And they have been repeatedly, leading to tragedies like this.

Also that gun is making your home more dangerous, are you that paranoid that you need a lethal weapon in your home? Get a bat or a taser or an alarm or literally anything else.

edit: just saw your edit. Fucking sickening, you can't seriously come out and be rah rah guns guy after threads like this. Gross.

 

[DivineRage002]

I'm not going out there and committing crimes. My guns are clean, and always will be, unless I have to defend myself in a home invasion or some scenario like that. What is up with people on here thinking every gun owner is evil ? I would never harm anyone. I'm a 19 year old college student who is really shy, and normally keep to myself unless spoken to. Guns are just what interest me right now. I don't really have any friends, so I need things to keep my occupied and that just so happens to be firearms, gaming, and dirt biking. Everyone has interests. Just because you own or enjoy guns doesn't make you some bad guy, like a lot of people on here insinuates. Guns are a right in this country. And always will be. If you don't like that well get over it, because it ain't changing. I don't know who you people are to say what people can't have. I'm also getting a new rifle for Christmas too, can't wait for that. The gun industry is thriving more than ever.

Sorry but this post is absolutely terrifying.

 

[PBY]

Sorry but this post is absolutely terrifying.

Yeah, I can't believe were at a place as a society where guns are an "interest" lumped together with videogames and dirt biking.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I'm glad I live in a country where bored, socially awkward teenagers with no friends don't have access to guns personally.

 

[HyperionX]

Yes, we need to hurry up and ban all the pro-gun people on GAF so that you and PBY can make sure that all discussion stays within the proper channels.

Guys like you are not arguing over the merits of a specific gun control law, but rather dismissing all gun control law, in mass shooting threads, with an incredible dismissing opinion to people who were literally killed. That's a world of difference than saying we're simply wanting pro-gun positions to be argued somewhere else.

Civilian ownership of weapons is a check on government. I know you guys won't like that argument since GAF OT is generally a statist forum, but that is the reason for our God-given right, recognized but not given by the Constitution, and that will never change without a really terrible and bloody war.

By that argument, black youths should start ganging together and start murdering uniform police officers in large numbers. That's literally what you're arguing when you say "check" on government.

 

[neurosyphilis]

The way I said that came off badly. And I sincerely apologize for that. I don't want to offend anyone or make them scared. Sorry. It's just were I'm from, guns are a cultural down here. I guess that's just the way the Southeastern US is. A lot of us are raised around guns at a young age and taught how to responsibly handle them and right from wrong. I came off incredibly rude with my last post.

 

[zoukka]

What exactly do you want? A number? Lives saved vs lives lost? Like most dangerous hobbies, there is no "net societal gain" for gun ownership in the same way there's no net societal gain from owning a swimming pool at home.

But there is a net people getting murdered loss.

 

[Neo Saf]

Answer the question, dude, you're not a politician who has to dodge it. What's the net societal gain in owning guns? It's definitely not home defense as stats prove more accidents and deaths occur with guns than without.

You know though, the major study that is cited to support this had very spurious methodology. I haven't seen this point brought up in any of the recent gun threads, but I feel like this takes a leg out from under the anti-gun contingent.

As far as what benefit gun ownership brings... I don't understand why self defense is considered a complete non-starter. I mean, not everyone is in a position where they have the mobility or means to change their living situation, not everyone can count on the people around you to advocate for your safety, not everyone can count on the police to step in and provide corrective rehabilitation after you've been attacked. Simply put, if you are in a situation like this cohabitating or neighboring somebody dangerous and violent, there is nothing you can do to protect yourself except to let it be known you are armed and unafraid to use it.

And it's not just being beaten or killed people have to worry about. If you have a history of mental illness, all anybody in your life has to do is dial the magistrate and you are locked in a mental institution for possibly months to years, with possible forced semi-confinement in a group home setting continuing after. False imprisonment bordering on soft torture, with a host of dangerous scenarios. Frankly speaking, if I did not have a gun, this would have been my fate if I wasn't beaten or killed in the middle of a beating. Who are you, or anybody, to sacrifice my safety and freedom?

Asking how many savage beatings are equal to one gun massacre victim highlights the uncomfortable and absurd nature of thie kind of utilitarian calculus, but nonetheless the logic holds. I feel - and I am willing to be change my mind if better evidence presented itself - that guns prevent far, far more suffering than they cause. I know nobody likes a car analogy, but there was a good one a few threads back about speed limits. If we instituted a nationwide speed limit of 30 mph, it would save many lives and crippling injuries. However, nobody seriously argues we do this. But aren't they saying, then, that these human lives are outweighed by the convenience and economic impact of 60 mph highways? Obviously this is a very messy and indirect analogy, but it drives at the same point. It is shitty and the worst thing for people to be gunned down randomly. It is even worse for a magnitude more to suffer and break because they had no means to defend themself, when all other options proved fruitless.

Now, obviously 90% of people making pro-gun arguments are idiots making facile arguments. But in my experience, this is true for just about every topic people argue about. I don't want to spin this out too meta, but I feel like if I took a preponderence of poor argumentation as a sign a certain viewpoint was flawed, why... I don't know that I could believe in anything. But I feel what I'm posting here is pretty solid, at least as an icebreaker introduction to the discussion. Or at the very least, it's novel to what I've seen posted in these threads before. I hope we can have a fruitful discussion, and who knows? Maybe you'll change my mind.

EDIT: Oh, I guess I should clarify I am, indeed, pro gun-control in the sense of reasonable measures. And also gun hobbyism is really strange and a terrible, terrible reason to support gun ownership.

 

[boiled goose]

She will be limited by Congress. Congress drafts the laws. Obama would have done something if he could, but there are limits to the Executive Branch powers.

Congress didn't do jt because of nra.

People want to work towards fixing this problem. 90 percent of americans want background checks.

Need to get money out of politics first.

 

[appaws]

Guys like you are not arguing over the merits of a specific gun control law, but rather dismissing all gun control law, in mass shooting threads, with an incredible dismissing opinion to people who were literally killed. That's a world of difference than saying we're simply wanting pro-gun positions to be argued somewhere else.



By that argument, black youths should start ganging together and start murdering uniform police officers in large numbers. That's literally what you're arguing when you say "check" on government.

No. I did not make this a thread about governmental policy about guns. If it was a thread only lamenting the tragic deaths of people, I would not come in and start discussing policy. People in favor of taking away rights were the ones to start talking about policy. The idea that because a thread was originally about a shooting means that only anti-gun opinions should be posted is absurd.

I think it is of crucial importance that black people and all people of color should be armed. In a nation, and world, that have always given them such a raw deal, that serves as a check against their oppression.

 

[PBY]

You know though, the major study that is cited to support this had very spurious methodology. I haven't seen this point brought up in any of the recent gun threads, but I feel like this takes a leg out from under the anti-gun contingent.

As far as what benefit gun ownership brings... I don't understand why self defense is considered a complete non-starter. I mean, not everyone is in a position where they have the mobility or means to change their living situation, not everyone can count on the people around you to advocate for your safety, not everyone can count on the police to step in and provide corrective rehabilitation after you've been attacked. Simply put, if you are in a situation like this cohabitating or neighboring somebody dangerous and violent, there is nothing you can do to protect yourself except to let it be known you are armed and unafraid to use it.

And it's not just being beaten or killed people have to worry about. If you have a history of mental illness, all anybody in your life has to do is dial the magistrate and you are locked in a mental institution for possibly months to years, with possible forced semi-confinement in a group home setting continuing after. False imprisonment bordering on soft torture, with a host of dangerous scenarios. Frankly speaking, if I did not have a gun, this would have been my fate if I wasn't beaten or killed in the middle of a beating. Who are you, or anybody, to sacrifice my safety and freedom?

Asking how many savage beatings are equal to one gun massacre victim highlights the uncomfortable and absurd nature of thie kind of utilitarian calculus, but nonetheless the logic holds. I feel - and I am willing to be change my mind if better evidence presented itself - that guns prevent far, far more suffering than they cause. I know nobody likes a car analogy, but there was a good one a few threads back about speed limits. If we instituted a nationwide speed limit of 30 mph, it would save many lives and crippling injuries. However, nobody seriously argues we do this. But aren't they saying, then, that these human lives are outweighed by the convenience and economic impact of 60 mph highways? Obviously this is a very messy and indirect analogy, but it drives at the same point. It is shitty and the worst thing for people to be gunned down randomly. It is even worse for a magnitude more to suffer and break because they had no means to defend themself, when all other options proved fruitless.

Now, obviously 90% of people making pro-gun arguments are idiots making facile arguments. But in my experience, this is true for just about every topic people argue about. I don't want to spin this out too meta, but I feel like if I took a preponderence of poor argumentation as a sign a certain viewpoint was flawed, why... I don't know that I could believe in anything. But I feel what I'm posting here is pretty solid, at least as an icebreaker introduction to the discussion. Or at the very least, it's novel to what I've seen posted in these threads before. I hope we can have a fruitful discussion, and who knows? Maybe you'll change my mind.

EDIT: Oh, I guess I should clarify I am, indeed, pro gun-control in the sense of reasonable measures. And also gun hobbyism is really strange and a terrible, terrible reason to support gun ownership.

Good luck with the bolded.

 

[Neo Saf]

Hmm, I'm kind of put out by such a pithy reply, PBY. Did you perhaps skim over the opening paragraph where I reject the famous Kellerman study on grounds of flawed methodology? I have been following these threads for a while and I can't recall seeing other studies discussed much, just people taking Kellerman as incontrovertible evidence. Of course, part of the problem is that in the aftermath of the Kellerman study its flaws were politicized and seized upon to ban all CDC research into the issue... but if you have other studies I may have missed in the hundreds of pages over the past few months, please bring them to my attention. I would love it if gun ownership actually did turn out to be paradoxically more dangerous than not, that would mean a clear and unobjectionable solution to the tragic daily murders, a situation where I might be able to step back and willingly sacrifice my safety and freedom should I be found as a statistical abberation. But I don't think I am, and Kellerman does not convince me.

 

[kame-sennin]

Who cares?

The person who asked the question, presumably. It's really annoying that this keeps happening in this thread.

 

[nynt9]

Yes, we need to hurry up and ban all the pro-gun people on GAF so that you and PBY can make sure that all discussion stays within the proper channels.



Civilian ownership of weapons is a check on government. I know you guys won't like that argument since GAF OT is generally a statist forum, but that is the reason for our God-given right, recognized but not given by the Constitution, and that will never change without a really terrible and bloody war.

I really can't believe people say the "keep the government in check" thing with a straight face in 2015. Are people aware of the military means of the US government? Also, as some other person posted, keeping the government in check would be black people all getting armed and shooting police officers to keep their racism and murder in check. Yet I'm sure people who use that argument wouldn't be happy with that.

As for the "god-given right recognized by the constitution", I won't even touch that with a ten foot pole.

 

[HyperionX]

No. I did not make this a thread about governmental policy about guns. If it was a thread only lamenting the tragic deaths of people, I would not come in and start discussing policy. People in favor of taking away rights were the ones to start talking about policy. The idea that because a thread was originally about a shooting means that only anti-gun opinions should be posted is absurd.

We talk about policy because it's the only thing that can stop it. We cannot simply come here and repeatedly lament the tragedy and discuss among ourselves that there's nothing to be done. There's an onion article that points out this particular behavior quite well already.

I think it is of crucial importance that black people and all people of color should be armed. In a nation, and world, that have always given them such a raw deal, that serves as a check against their oppression.

You're dodging the question. How many police officers can black youth murder on a regular basis in order to fulfill your "check on government"? That's pretty much what you're implying.

 

[HyperionX]

Hmm, I'm kind of put out by such a pithy reply, PBY. Did you perhaps skim over the opening paragraph where I reject the famous Kellerman study on grounds of flawed methodology? I have been following these threads for a while and I can't recall seeing other studies discussed much, just people taking Kellerman as incontrovertible evidence. Of course, part of the problem is that in the aftermath of the Kellerman study its flaws were politicized and seized upon to ban all CDC research into the issue... but if you have other studies I may have missed in the hundreds of pages over the past few months, please bring them to my attention. I would love it if gun ownership actually did turn out to be paradoxically more dangerous than not, that would mean a clear and unobjectionable solution to the tragic daily murders, a situation where I might be able to step back and willingly sacrifice my safety and freedom should I be found as a statistical abberation. But I don't think I am, and Kellerman does not convince me.

There's more than one study that indicates a relationship between owning a gun and an increase in personal harm: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

 

[appaws]

We talk about policy because it's the only thing that can stop it. We cannot simply come here and repeatedly lament the tragedy and discuss among ourselves that there's nothing to be done. There's an onion article that points out this particular behavior quite well already.



You're dodging the question. How many police officers can black youth murder on a regular basis in order to fulfill your "check on government"? That's pretty much what you're implying.

Fine. So if we are going to talk about policy then we can have different points of view about policy.

As for the moral judgment as to when oppression has reached the level that armed revolt is necessary and morally justified, I am sure philosophers have discussed that. I would assume that decision must be made by the oppressed as to when it is time to fight. I don't presume to tell black people or anyone else when that point is.

 

[Ric Flair]

This wouldn't have happened if they gave everyone AK-47s to walk around with in public.

 

[Neo Saf]

Eh, nah dude. Using force as a "check on the government" doesn't mean rising up whenever there's a problem. Again, uncomfortable and absurd for me to say that situation isn't "bad enough" to warrant black people rising up tomorrow, because it is a very dire situation. I'm not even particularly invested in arguing guns as a "check on government". But I do think you're mischaracterizing the argument.

And of course the US military could win any straight shootout with its populace. But obviously there are cases where the US has not beaten an inferior armed enemy - insurgencies in the middle east, of course, but also the Cliven Bundy standoff. Afraid of another fiasco like WACO or Ruby Ridge, the government relented. Say what you will about the situation, but how was that not citizens with guns checking the government? It definitely works.

 

[PBY]

Fine. So if we are going to talk about policy then we can have different points of view about policy.

As for the moral judgment as to when oppression has reached the level that armed revolt is necessary and morally justified, I am sure philosophers have discussed that. I would assume that decision must be made by the oppressed as to when it is time to fight. I don't presume to tell black people or anyone else when that point is.

I don't care what you presume - what is fact and not fantasy is that civilians with guns aren't going to match the US military.

 

[kame-sennin]

What gun owners - like yourself - fundamentally don't understand is this: there doesn't have to be "two sides" to some issues, including this one. This could be a case where gun owners are just wrong - their is no justification for ownership that outweighs the net harms of guns.

How do you justify ownership? What is the net societal good that comes from gun ownership?

I'm an advocate of really strict gun control, but I also advocate that black people, and all people of color, own a firearm (preferably a long gun) and are proficient with its use. There has been, and continues to be, a scourge of racial violence perpetrated by whites against blacks. From the massacre in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1927 to the bombing of black churches in the 60's to the execution of black church goers this year.

This nation was built on racist violence, and it has become a part of this country's soul. Whenever black Americans are known to be disarmed, the result has been catastrophic. On the contrary, armed blacks have led to a reduction in overall violence. The Deacons for Defense and Justice deterred white mobs and police attacks at protests by providing an armed presence - and they didn't fire a shot. The Black Panthers armed patrols also led to a change in police policy a municipalities hiring more black officers.

White citizens have the privilege in believing the police will protect them from violent attack. People of color do not have that privilege. In this country, and all over the world, unarmed minority groups expose themselves to great danger - sometimes even genocide.

The types of tragedies discussed in the OP horrify me. I would very much enjoy living in a world without guns. And I understand that we will never live in that world without mass disarmament. But it would be the height of inhumanity to ask the most vulnerable populations to disarm first.

 

[appaws]

I don't care what you presume - what is fact and not fantasy is that civilians with guns aren't going to match the US military.

See the post above from Neo saf.

Nobody is saying anything about "matching" the U.S. military. I am only talking about the people having the ability to resist and extract a cost. The people in the Warsaw ghetto could not hope to "match" the Germans....but I daresay there are not many of us who would question the moral justification for their resistance.