Oh, you're very welcome. Merry Christmas. Enjoy your new sig. I'm sure it will make many take what I say completely out of context and shit.

Edit: Yeah, I guess it is pretty funny. I don't mind people having a little laugh at my expense. I don't care how stupid people think I am.

There's no taking "American isn't a nationality" out of context to the point where that statement isn't downright retarded and hilarious. Only a fuckwit would then attempt to justify those words in his defence.

It's not that Americans "need to be different from Eurpose because we're America." It's all about the traditions of a country founded on rebellion against authority, a constitution which says that Government doesn't give individuals rights, their very being does, and that Americans grew up in a totally different culture and set of beliefs that the rest of the world. As a nation, we are a culture which has, for 250 years espoused ideas which are different than the rest of the world at large and our politics, our laws and our philosophical beliefs on authority and governance are a far cry different from other countries.

Individuals always bring up specific areas where other countries do "better" than we do, but when I look at it, we are still the most powerful country in the world with the largest economy and strongest military that everyone looks at for support.

You just wrote the words, "American isn't a nationality". Are you retarded too?


(Sorry, I had to.)

We've gladly handed over online privacy to the NSA so they can monitor and collect whatever data and as much of it they need on average citizens. We've let the government self-appoint authority to detain said average citizens indefinitely without charge or a right to a fair trial if they're considered "enemy combatants" under the guise of security. We've allowed said government to assassinate citizens arbitrarily deemed "terrorists" under the false pretense of safety. However, we'll cling to our assault weapons which, although extravagantly potent, would give any one of us a snowball's chance in hell defending ourselves against the behemoth that is the military/industrial complex fed with advanced weaponry, technology, superior trained personnel, and dollars over the course of decades in the event that someday it might overtake us through tyrannical force and establish a police sta...

...oh shit.

I think even five rounds are more than enough. One or two quick warning shots will terrorize anyone who's not deaf and send them sprinting the fuck away, and you can still kill 3 people.

Response to Veracs' post in FFA:

This really doesn't warrant this much discussion if we're arguing these particular issues (since you can't persuade me to think like you, or vice versa, obviously), but I'll address your points and try to clarify mine somewhat. What I intended was a discussion of philosophy and values, not practice, but I suppose my posts should've been more thoughtful and elaborate to make that distinction.

Killing another person in self-defence should certainly be acceptable. I've never argued that the property owner shouln't be allowed to attempt to stop someone from breaking into their home, or to wound or even kill him if other lives are in immediate danger. What I'm arguing against is being allowed to blow someone's brains off the second they start picking your front door's lock, essentially. Being against the right of self-defence would be quite unreasonable, no? However, assuming that anyone breaking into a house would have the intent to kill everyone inside would be somewhat unreasonable too, don't you think? If that's the usual way of things, I think that speaks volumes of how damaged your society is. The more so you have to fear, of course, if the burglar must be afraid of being passed right hand judgment according to the whim of the property owner.

For even having such laws, I suppose the world you live in is quite the opposite from mine, so much of this boils down to cultural differences. The idea of being allowed to kill anyone breaking into your house appears equally laughable (and, I insist, motivated by something besides reason) as to you perhaps the sentiment that being allowed to pass right hand judgment to such a degree is unnecessary and savage. I don't really have enough interest in the subject to produce any statistics to compare how necessary this practice is in whatever parts of your country as such; I'm arguing that considerable reforms in law enforcement, social security and firearm availability are called for if murderers breaking into houses are that great of an issue. You're the first to even try a logical approach to justifying this, but even your attitude shows not even the tiniest bit of consideration towards alternative methods to solving the issue, leading me to the conclusion that this is more the traditional way of dealing with attacks directed towards a man's property, and the right to defend it is, in a way, sacred. Well, perhaps you're arguing a somewhat different point than TheOldOne, in which case, you've kind of taken my words out of context (which would explain your immense strawman offensive).

The error margin is obvious and not admitting that is blindness to truth. Even the form of death penalty practiced by your very justice system is error-prone; even if considerable investigation was conducted, the possibilities of misusing this right, even for framing murders, are endless. I can see a possible sidetrack where this might go from here, though probably not from you, so I'll address it quickly; a couple of years before you joined, we had nice long discussions with Mors_Gloria about these things. If the system is corrupt, the people are also likely corrupt, and giving the power straight to citizens' hands is not a way to rectify that issue.

Don't be so vitriolic. If you address minor, off-hand comment of mine with such hate , you're not actually doing well defending your own point. Concentrate on what's essential to the subject, and base your reasoning more on logic than "your point is idiotic", unless your aim is to end the discussion off the bat. I have little interest in arguing with rude, screaming people. The issue with your points is that you're ignoring every possible midway solution and picturing me as a commie out of a cold war propaganda poster. I've been raised to respect a human life more than mere material value, even if the life in question belongs to a criminal. When even a fraction of people living criminal lives can be rehabilitated, and when you can't accurately assess the intentions of a trespasser, killing them immediately is unthinkable. Especially in a country like yours where particularly many people become criminals (compared to other countries of similar standards of living, relatively similar genetic background and culture etc.), I don't think you can legimately claim that every single one of them is an incorrigible scum and a likely child murderer.

You doubted that this way of dealing with the scenario of breaking into a house would have relevance outside this particular instance of robbery, or did I misunderstand? That would only be so if a house was perceived to have some kind of a sacredness to it that wasn't inherently related to the damage possibly caused to humans in that instance of crime. In other words, of course there is relevance. It's completely comparable to being mugged (and, in that situation, being allowed to shoot the mugger in the face for fear that he kills you and rapes your family). It's a form of justice that can't be extrapolated outside a particular instance limited to certain surroundings, which speaks volumes of its usability.

Tldr version: societal reforms are called for when right hand justice is needed.

So yeah, Fox News are not even trying to hide their stupidity anymore. For those who can't really read the smaller text, they're calling Westboro a "left wing cult" and the bikers "conservatives".

"Democrat Fred Phelps". Wonderful. And, of course, fair and balanced.

That I didn't notice at first. That just pushes the insanity over the edge.

Until I see a source page, I'm convinced that's not really what ran. That's just... too much, no way.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/25 ... s-liberal/

This is where I found the image on.

http://nation.foxnews.com/connecticut-e ... ist-church

The article itself.

Fox Nation and a lot of local affiliates aren't centrally controlled like the national Fox News you see on TV. You get a lot more wonk stuff like that.

The thing about Phelps being a Democrat is in fact true. However, his political party doesn't really matter though in the grand scheme of what he stands for and what he promotes through Westboro. The only reason they mentioned it in the article is to somehow try and equate what he does with Democrats. I'm not a huge fan of the Democrats myself, but it's still completely out of this reality for anyone to think they mentioned that detail for any reason other than that.

Just going to throw this in here:

http://news.yahoo.com/german-police-use ... 55175.html

and see what happens.

It's such a mixed bag. There are patriots, jingos, gun enthusiasts, seasonal hunters, gangs, muggers, and skeet shooting.

It's a dysfunctional society. But I think that gun violence would dissipate on its own if this were a secular, non-racist country with responsible oversight and banking policies . I'd definitely say that stress is as much a propellant for this violent culture as rhetorical obsessions. Feedback loops of anxiety, self-loathing, aggression, and antisocial individualism are some others.

Do you think the Catholic Church is pushing an ideological agenda when they oppose gay adoption, as opposed to rational social policy? Yes, you do. Because the weight of the data suggest, and has suggested for several years now, that there are nearly zero negative effects on childhood development from being raised by gay parents. No higher rates of emotional trauma, no higher rates of poor self-esteem, no higher school drop-out rates. They are no more likely to engage in risky behavior or make poor decisions, no more likely to misuse or abuse drugs, and no more likely to commit crime. There are, however, higher rates for all of the above in children who are raised by single parents, or children who are shuffled around multiple adoption agencies. Therefore, the only reasons to oppose gay adoption at this point in time are ideological ones: gays are evil, gays are against God's will, homosexuality is immoral, blah blah blah.


I am applying the same standard to the gun control debate. Because the weight of the data suggest that guns are used disproportionally more for self-defense than for crime. And unlike gay adoption, which had nothing approaching data-driven consensus until the last three years, there has been widespread agreement amongst criminologists on this particular aspect of gun control for about fifteen years. The numbers of defensive use vary, but there are very few criminologists who disagree with the statement "guns are used more for self-defense than violent crime" anymore. So no, actually, it isn't a loaded term. I would assume that the heads of the various advocacy groups, lobbying groups, and think tanks who support more gun control have studied guns for a while. Their grassroots supporters, maybe not so much, but the people who run them, yes. If the studies hadn't come out until last year, and the consensus was brand-new, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and imagine they are not up to date. But nearly 20 years after the first studies of this kind showed the consensus now agreed upon? About a decade since that consensus began to emerge and show up in standard textbooks?

It's just easier to believe that they are lying. And on an anecdotal note, when I have had multiple gun control advocates (people who organize petitions for the Brady campaign or similar organizations, not just casual supporters) tell me right to my face "no, I don't care if over a million more people a year will get robbed/raped/assaulted/killed because of my position," it's not a very hard leap to make.


Speaking of loaded terms....




Vigilantism implies going out and looking for trouble to stop. Most defensive guns uses involve home break-ins. So no, it is not about vigilantism, it is about self-defense.




This is simply not accurate. For one thing, the 4,100 figure comes not from Kleck, but rather from a Justice Department study during the Clinton years. Their conclusion was that 1.5 million was the likely lower-end number of defensive gun uses. The findings of Kleck and Gary Gertz actually had a figure of around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year. It was an award-winning, nationally acclaimed study within their field with one of the most statistically rigorous methodologies ever done on violent crime, including what was at the time possibly the largest sample size ever conducted. The care they took with the methods was one of the primary reasons it was so acclaimed even by scientists who politically hated the conclusion.

The Kleck-Gertz study's initial findings were replicated by a separate group of researchers within five years of their study (I can't think of the exact year), almost to the letter. The Justice Department's study came out around 2000. There have been well over a dozen studies which, even when using different methodologies, have all essentially told the same story: guns are used more for self defense than for offense. The primary variation in numbers comes from differing definitions of self-defense, not problems with the studies.




Well, as I already mentioned, the studies indicated guns are rarely fired in defense; most involve pulling a gun and pointing it at the attacker, after which the attacker runs away. That being said, you won't get any disagreement from me that this is a rather crazy country to live in. I only brought up the topic of self defense because if you assume the data are correct---and as I indicated above, this has been replicated over a dozen times, it isn't a single outlier study---than you have to assume that any successful attempt at disarming the population would have the immediate tangible effect of increasing the number of robbery/rape/assault/murder victims by an enormous amount. Would it be exactly 1.5 million? No; people would fight back with whatever they have if they are so inclined, and the ones leftover who don't resist would be a victim. But since most defensive gun uses don't involve a single shot being fired, the reality is that disarming the public would almost certainly increase the number of wounded or dead crime victims. Replace, say, 800k "shootings" that don't have any bullets fired with 800k incidents of fist fights, knife fights, baseball bat fights; and you are going to have a lot more bloodshed.

And I'm being very generous in assuming that a successful attempt to legally disarm the public would also disarm the criminal population.




If I had my way with gun laws, full-auto and burstfire weapons (actual military weapons) would be totally banned; magazines would be limited to ten rounds; there would be mandatory safety programs for firearm ownership; concealed-carry or open-carry programs would have a national standard; and we would cease with the idea of letting the states have their own rules here (they could run their own safety programs, but that's it). Would this considerably reduce gun crime? I doubt it, but it would at least cut at the margins. And then, after giving gun control advocates the "reasonable" gun laws they want, maybe we could start dealing with the things that actually do cause gun crime. Mental illness left untreated, the war on drugs, policies that perpetuate poverty, and whatnot.

Yep. Gun control advocates are the force blocking things from being worked on. Can't hold it in, can you?

You bring up something I never quite understood. I don't understand why the constitution should be hold sacred, something which can't be changed and always be respected when passing down laws. The constitution is more than 200 years old, can't it be... outdated? I mean, things were pretty damn different back then, and the constitution was build around the situation of the time, which is not the same situation as of now. Some articles of the constitution directly alludes to things which don't even exist anymore like militias. The constitution is something that should serve the citizens, not be an obstacle. It was not written by god or some kind of supreme being, it was just written by a bunch of man of the time, nothing more. Why it shouldn't be rewritten to adapt to the times is beyond me. Sure tradition is important, but it depends which tradition.


I think it's a kind of data that doesn't speak all that much. There's more variables to it than this statement makes it believe. There's side effects to widespread gun owning, that's for sure. But that doesn't mean that people are more safe owning guns or that there is less gun-related crimes than a country without widespread gun ownership.

Also, it's a myth that owning a gun makes you that much safer. Often with stress, people don't act as they should. And just the fact of owning a gun makes you dangerous in a way. Criminals are much less eager to shoot someone who is defenseless than someone who is armed. Particularly if the defended guy could be trigger happy or act in an unexpected manner. Not everyone is a trained soldier or policemen.

And also, you have to see what used for self-defense really includes. Do these people all got safe from their attack? And by defense, how was the person attacked? Is it a ''I got threatened with a gun and defended myself with a gun'' and in that case the guy threatening with a gun doesn't get included in the violent crime stats?

I don't necessarily believe (and never claimed) that owning a gun in and of itself is going to make you safer. Particularly now, where safety courses are not necessarily mandatory. I'm simply pointing out that widespread gun ownership has societal benefits within the US, which is the country we're talking about.

And that I don't think there's anything conclusive about the info we have in regards to the societal benefits guns would bring.

Perhaps this response and this particular post should be a new thread since we are diverging on something totally unrelated to this thread in particular.

A lot of people see it that way but I'd like to point out a couple of things. First, The constitution CAN be changed and HAS been changed before such as adding amendments.

The constitution is the vessel by which our government policies are measured by and created and the context surrounding that vessel, the mantle on which it has been placed if you will, is just as relevant as the contents themselves. The US government was founded on principals that the real people in power are not the government, but the citizens, that the government has no authority over the individual other than to protect the individual and the rights that we are granted by our existence and our efforts.

"Why it shouldn't be rewritten to adapt to the times is beyond me." - The US Constitution is far removed from the moment which is was created, it was inspired by individuals which though held in high regard by America founders, where held in discontent by those outside the colonies. For example Thomas Paine was loathed by the British for his assault on the Monarchy and defense of the Colonies right to independence. He was supported by the French only due to the perceived hatred of him by the British and even when he was chosen to be a part of their political conventions, he was ineffective at those conferences due to dismissal of his positions by the majority revolutionaries which he approached with hesitation.

The founders and authors of the constitution created a document which founded the US government on principals which are relevant to this day. Applying those principals to our modern era would solve many issues.

As one of the 'wondering European neighbours' who can't fathom the love of guns/the reverence towards guns as a constitutional right and a 'defense' against the government should it turn to tyranny, I still can't see how the 'militia'-part of the 2nd Amendment (or the reading thereoff) is relevant today?

If it is because people read the amendment in a very concrete way - I need my gun to protect myself against the government if they should attack me - it doesn't make sense, as have been discussed in depth earlier in this thread - your shotgun or AR-15 is nothing against the biggest a professional military force in the world.

If people read the amendment in a more abstract way - that it is about the principles of personal freedom; the government shouldn't decide whether I should own a gun or not, that's my own choice to make - why not look at some European countries (for example) with very low gun violence? Here in Denmark we have the 'right' (though not constitutional, just through normal laws) to own a hunting rifle for example, but with proper training, registration etc. So the principle personal freedom to own a gun is here, but you literally can't get anything other than hunting rifles and sports pistols, and it's quite expensive and hard because of the various rules and laws.

I am genuinely interested here and not only trying to say 'Our way is better, you should do like we do' (though I do that too of course). I guess I am asking the same thing as Evil_Johnny_666: Why not change the parts of the constitution that doens't make sense - and I really can't see how the 2nd Amendment is worth anything now?

As far as I can remember, it reads that the right to bear arms applies to the standing militia which, should it be called upon, would be under the direct authority of the United States military. The tyranny part doesn't seem to relate to the 2nd Amendment, so far as I can see. If people are scared of tyranny, they're using the 2nd Amendment as an excuse to have a gun, not because the amendment is there to provide for the contingency of tyranny, since the militia becomes an extension of the tyrannical government's military.

It kinda amuses me that the 2nd Amendment says "well regulated" yet gun freaks go apeshit whenever you even think about regulating firearms. They also don't seem to understand that gun control does not mean "Obama kicks down the door and takes away your guns".

To be honest, I thought for a long time that "a well-regulated militia" could very well mean things like the National Guard. I guess I was wrong.

Technically, the Constitution isn't "law" itself, but is rather the framework within which law is applied. Gun rights advocates sometimes take any gun laws of any kind as being in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment on the grounds that any new law would be in direct conflict with existing law, and therefore illegal by definition. Which is of course not true.

The 2nd Amendment says A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The "well regulated" bit pretty clearly refers to a militia, not gun laws, so there goes that argument. In 2008, the Supreme Court decided, among other things, that the whole first part of the amendment refers to a reason for keeping and bearing arms, but not an exclusive reason. So really, there goes the whole militia argument in its entirety.

Really, the whole thing comes down to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You can have them, and you can wear them, but it's not unlimited. In the same Supreme Court decision, the justices specifically noted that it doesn't mean you can carry any weapon of any type anywhere, and use it in any way you wish. Limits on where you can carry a weapon, and how, are perfectly constitutional. As are restrictions against use.

So to keep safe in the US you need to buy a gun, but according to your earlier logic now that guns are so prevalent within US homes, it's much safer than 20-30 years ago. So more guns equal more safety. Sounds like a great a smoke and mirror campaign for the gun companies.

BTW I want to see some statistics where the US is now safer than 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I don't believe that for a second.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Page 17 says that the idea that we were safer 20 years ago from gun violence is mostly bullshit. For example, gun homicides from an unknown offender have gone up over 20% from 1980 to 2008, while homicides with other weapons have correspondingly gone down about the same percentage.

please do keep in mind that the largest and most advanced military coalition in human history was basically stymied for a decade by a small group using high school level chemistry and the afghani equivalent to radio shack.

Please do keep in mind that those Afghans are way more into martyrdom than your average American and had total support from the population and were perfectly cool with a 100 to 1 kill ratio. Guerrilla war is all sociology and the American populace doesn't have what it takes to win that kind of war like the Afghans do.

on their terrain, woefully under prepared for the immensity of their faith based attack strategies and guerrilla tactics. It's nowhere near accurate to compare the Taliban to a dude sitting in his house with a shotgun.

Oh! Well, John had a much less condescending answer and beat me to it!

Puh-lease, on both counts. 1. If the government wanted your gun, the government would take your gun. There's nothing you can do about it. The reason you have one is because the government doesn't want it. Stop being paranoid. 2. Even the most well equipped army in the world won't catch terrorists if their leaders won't tell them to look for terrorists, but instead borrows entire carrier fleets for ridiculous Mission Accomplished stunts, and send most of the forces to an entirely different country to depose a dictator you put there in the first place.

Good point. It ties in with the point made in the article I linked a while earlier. The powers that be are not concerned about the population having guns so long as the prevailing culture keeps people atomized and impotent. Far from being concerned, many powerful lobbying groups are supporting gun ownership precisely because it alleviates peoples' feelings of powerlessness while encouraging them to look on their fellows with paranoia and hostility and disdain solidarity and organization.

And yeah, the Pashtun are an amazing people. They just do not give a fuck. If it weren't for the Islam thing they'd be the most metal race of people in the world.

agreed with bold.

as of 2010, 39% and 50% of legal US residents have at least one gun (that's about 122-157 million individuals). lets just say 99% are complacent. i know for a fact that at least 1 out of 100 gun owners would take up arms against a out of control government. thats more than 1 million individuals and lets also assume they only own 1 firearm.

the taliban number as many as 35,000.

I know for a fact that this completely imaginary statistic I pulled straight out of my ass is true, and that people who own two guns are just as effective as two people with one gun each.

Simply brilliant. 10/10

the powers that be dont want to speak of the elephant in the room that is the true core of this debate - pharmaceuticals and mental health.

spoken like a true uninformed individual with zero experience with gun ownership.

simply ignorant.

Stats or GTFO, Diablo3inPain.