Post: #151

(12-21-2014 08:12 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 07:25 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 07:17 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 07:06 PM)weambulance Wrote:  I can kill in a mind boggling variety of ways. I'm a nice, moral guy so that's not a problem. Why, I haven't murdered anybody all year! But if someone with my knowledge and skill wanted to go on a killing spree, lacking a gun wouldn't stop him. And that's my point.

Who has gone on a baseball-bat killing spree recently? A knifing rampage? Show me the bodies.

Guns allow any coward to kill someone. I venture that a good amount of the idiots who shoot someone would never have the guts to get in a person's face and try to knife them.

You're just putting your head in the sand if you think guns don't make killing people easier. It's a tool, yes. So is a flamethrower, people shouldn't be allowed to have those.

"Oh what, so now law-abiding americans can't flamethrow for fun on the weekends?"

If your grandmother was stomped by a bunch of gang members for her jewelry because...

-she was caught alone
-they had guns anyway
-she was physically unable to combat the threat
-she was outnumbered by law breakers intent on harming her
-no one was there to witness her attackers
-if present, no witness was willing to testify on her behalf

...you'd probably start to see the benefit of gun ownership.

You think your grandma with a gun vs. a bunch of gang members with guns would turn out any way but your grandma dead?

In that scenario, she at least has a chance to fight back a against physically superior attacker.

If you had it your way, you would be victimized yourself by the end of the week by the unlawful.

"Let's get rid of guns to stop violence"
equal to
"Teach rapists not to rape!"

Post: #152

(12-21-2014 06:54 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I would focus on restricting the gun industry as a whole.

Let's piss off as many Republicans as possible. New Gun Tax!

I would be ok with this as long as you accept that your 1st amendment right is regulated in the very same way. I.E. before you are allowed to speak, write or communicate outside of your home you must have your finger prints taken, a back ground check done, you must pay a fee for that to be done. Then you must attend a class on safe 1st amendment handling before you are allowed to speak out in any form. You will only be allowed 100 spoken or written words a month. Also, if the local sheriff does not feel you are responsible he can suspend your right to exercise your 1st amendment right outside the home. If for any reason you need to see a psychologist your 1st amendment right will be suspended indefinitely. And do not forget, some states only allow you to say 50 words outside the home so be careful when crossing state borders.

Post: #153

(12-21-2014 08:30 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  In that scenario, she at least has a chance to fight back a against physically superior attacker.

If you had it your way, you would be victimized yourself by the end of the week by the unlawful.

"Let's get rid of guns to stop violence"
equal to
"Teach rapists not to rape!"

Your grandma pulling a gun on a large group of gang members means your grandma is getting killed. What kind of a world do you live in?

I don't know where you're getting this shit. I do not own a gun and have never owned a gun. I see crazy people a lot in NY, and I would prefer that they not have guns.

Obviously some do, I would prefer that less did. Think through what you're saying man.

Post: #154

Firearms and ammunition are already taxed, for general information. The federal excise tax is something like 10-11% of the sale price.

Post: #155

(12-21-2014 08:34 PM)Ironsun Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 06:54 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I would focus on restricting the gun industry as a whole.

Let's piss off as many Republicans as possible. New Gun Tax!

I would be ok with this as long as you accept that your 1st amendment right is regulated in the very same way. I.E. before you are allowed to speak, write or communicate outside of your home you must have your finger prints taken, a back ground check done, you must pay a fee for that to be done. Then you must attend a class on safe 1st amendment handling before you are allowed to speak out in any form. You will only be allowed 100 spoken or written words a month. Also, if the local sheriff does not feel you are responsible he can suspend your right to exercise your 1st amendment right outside the home. If for any reason you need to see a psychologist your 1st amendment right will be suspended indefinitely. And do not forget, some states only allow you to say 50 words outside the home so be careful when crossing state borders.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Post: #156

(12-21-2014 08:37 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Firearms and ammunition are already taxed, for general information. The federal excise tax is something like 10-11% of the sale price.

Yeah, I would try to make it more akin to cigarettes, where the taxes are basically designed just to raise the price so that it dissuades people from buying them. Cigs in NYC are $15 a pack and people still buy them, but a lot less people smoke now than before. Something like that with guns would be great, just jack up the price 5 times or so.

Post: #157

(12-21-2014 08:38 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  "But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Please point out the reference to gods or neighbors in the following passage:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Post: #158

...Which would fuck over just law abiding citizens and letting criminals do their thing unimpeded. And again, what about the 310+ million guns already here? You going to try taxing people on things they already own? That's unconstitutional and immoral.

You're ignoring basic economics. You seem to think the government can control markets with taxes and laws. In reality, what you're suggesting would lead to an enormous black market trade in firearms and ammunition.

Post: #159

(12-21-2014 08:46 PM)weambulance Wrote:  You're ignoring basic economics. You seem to think the government can control markets with taxes and laws. In reality, what you're suggesting would lead to an enormous black market trade in firearms and ammunition.

Basic economics: Tax something if you want less of it.

There already is a huge supply of guns, yes. I am thinking forward. Since there are already 300 million guns out there in this country, I don't think we need many more going forward.

Controlling the growth of the problem is a step in the right direction.

Post: #160

(12-21-2014 08:46 PM)Ironsun Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 08:38 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  "But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Please point out the reference to gods or neighbors in the following passage:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

What are you on about?

The reason I used that quote was because you suggested limiting free speech in a way similar to how guns are limited.

Speech does not kill people. There is more reason to limit guns because people kill each other with them. My speech, or yours, does no one harm.

Post: #161

(12-21-2014 08:49 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 08:46 PM)weambulance Wrote:  You're ignoring basic economics. You seem to think the government can control markets with taxes and laws. In reality, what you're suggesting would lead to an enormous black market trade in firearms and ammunition.

Basic economics: Tax something if you want less of it.

There already is a huge supply of guns, yes. I am thinking forward. Since there are already 300 million guns out there in this country, I don't think we need many more going forward.

Controlling the growth of the problem is a step in the right direction.

LOL! Yeah, that's working out so well for the war on drugs.

Not taxation obviously, but outlawing drugs hasn't done shit.

Post: #162

In most self defense situations, the petty mugger won't be armed if they're preying on the elderly, so grandma makes out well in most of these situations. It's the same way that handguns deter rape in dark, secluded areas.
Yea, a gun may not guarantee her livelihood against other armed attackers, but it undoubtedly increases her survival odds. Even armed attackers are deterred by facing armed opposition. Plenty of study to back that up.

What do you suggest in place of projectile weapons as the great, legal equalizer for the meek versus stronger assaulters?
Guns are force multipliers on the side of lone, law-abiding citizens to use against unarmed and illegally armed attackers. Nothing comes logically or statistically close to comparison.

Gun ownership safety is directly correlated to census. There are far more sane people in the country than insane. More sane people being armed than insane or deviant is healthy for social order.


You've taken this thread of topic for two pages to turn it into a gun control debate. Make a coherent statement to be debated about why you hold your position and leave it at that or leave it alone. This isn't a gun control debate for you to opine by appeal to emotion and vagueness. Your points have been repeatedly refuted so far.

Post: #163

Gun Ownership leads to Gun Deaths:
http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-re...homicides/

That is why guns should be, by whatever means necessary, made unavailable generally.

People will not be made into angels by a lack of having guns, but people will be less able to live out their awful instincts so easily.

Post: #164

(12-21-2014 08:51 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 08:49 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 08:46 PM)weambulance Wrote:  You're ignoring basic economics. You seem to think the government can control markets with taxes and laws. In reality, what you're suggesting would lead to an enormous black market trade in firearms and ammunition.

Basic economics: Tax something if you want less of it.

There already is a huge supply of guns, yes. I am thinking forward. Since there are already 300 million guns out there in this country, I don't think we need many more going forward.

Controlling the growth of the problem is a step in the right direction.

LOL! Yeah, that's working out so well for the war on drugs.

Not taxation obviously, but outlawing drugs hasn't done shit.

Uh huh, so you aren't responding to the taxation thing at all.

Compare it to cigarettes. Taxation leads to less use of cigarettes. What a surprise.

Post: #165

(12-21-2014 08:39 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 08:37 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Firearms and ammunition are already taxed, for general information. The federal excise tax is something like 10-11% of the sale price.

Yeah, I would try to make it more akin to cigarettes, where the taxes are basically designed just to raise the price so that it dissuades people from buying them. Cigs in NYC are $15 a pack and people still buy them, but a lot less people smoke now than before. Something like that with guns would be great, just jack up the price 5 times or so.

Or some overweight slob has a heart attack and dies while breaking this tax law by selling that same product illegally outside of a store. This in turn causes a national outcry of pointing the finger in several directions including racism, police brutality, a police state, overzealous lawmaking...which sparked of this very debate

and you suggest even more laws to fix the problem

Post: #166

(12-21-2014 08:58 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  That is why guns should be, by whatever means necessary, made unavailable generally.

People will not be made into angels by a lack of having guns, but people will be less able to live out their awful instincts so easily.

Post: #167

(12-21-2014 08:59 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 08:51 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 08:49 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 08:46 PM)weambulance Wrote:  You're ignoring basic economics. You seem to think the government can control markets with taxes and laws. In reality, what you're suggesting would lead to an enormous black market trade in firearms and ammunition.

Basic economics: Tax something if you want less of it.

There already is a huge supply of guns, yes. I am thinking forward. Since there are already 300 million guns out there in this country, I don't think we need many more going forward.

Controlling the growth of the problem is a step in the right direction.

LOL! Yeah, that's working out so well for the war on drugs.

Not taxation obviously, but outlawing drugs hasn't done shit.

Uh huh, so you aren't responding to the taxation thing at all.

Compare it to cigarettes. Taxation leads to less use of cigarettes. What a surprise.

You are saying that the legal use of an item is directly related to criminal use. If you want law abiding citizens to have fewer guns, sure, tax them. Plenty of people can still afford guns, however, and criminals will acquire them the same illegal way they always have--theft, black market, etc--which means taxation will have minimal effect on criminal gun use.

Here's the thing I can see you are ignoring, or maybe just can't understand: criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. So all your talk of taxation and making new guns illegal means nothing to that element of society.

It's already illegal to commit murder. People do it anyway. So your answer is "more laws!"? Come on.

If you want to disarm ordinary citizens just say so. Stop pretending it's about crime, because none of your suggestions would do anything but fuck over law abiding people.

Post: #168

So rabidly liberal micromanagement of the common citizens life results in:

• racism causes the perpetuation of racism via dependent lower classes and victim mentality
• scorched earth law"fixes" cause the police and gun violence that they complain about at square one
  

If you told me years ago as a 21 year old that I would share some of the same political views that are recognized as the same as those of conservatives in the US, I would have laughed.

Post: #169

Guess we should have made it illegal to kill people...that would have prevented these two police officers from dying.

Post: #170

So someone takes their bullshit to heart and kills some cops and their solution is to restrict guns from civilian hands while the cops remain armed to the teeth.

Fuck off.

Post: #171

Most true street criminals can get them, but the typical random crowd shooter is usually a borderline-to-complete social retard and doesn't have the know-how or ability to navigate the black market and get them illegally.

Elliott Rodger, James Holmes, and Cho Seung-Hui all purchased them legally. Anyone can lie on a questionnaire, and it's safe to say a lot of these redneck pawn shop owners probably don't care.

Now, here is the main thing and why those in favor Wild West style gun laws need not to worry. The NRA is too powerful, and guns are woven into the American fabric like a houndstooth pattern on a Jcrew vest. The anti-gun lobby may have a lot of funding, but very little actual power.

Anyone can turn themselves into a one-man militia in the US if they try hard enough.

Post: #172

(12-21-2014 09:25 PM)la_mode Wrote:  Anyone can turn themselves into a one-man militia in the US if they try hard enough.

America. Fuck yeah!

Post: #173

(12-21-2014 09:25 PM)la_mode Wrote:  Most true street criminals can get them, but the typical random crowd shooter is usually a borderline-to-complete social retard and doesn't have the know-how or ability to navigate the black market and get them illegally.

Elliott Rodger, James Holmes, and Cho Seung-Hui all purchased them legally. Anyone can lie on a questionnaire, and it's safe to say a lot of these redneck pawn shop owners probably don't care.

Ignoring your slur against gun shop owners and your other rhetoric, you're once again focusing on the wrong thing. Someone who is bugfuck crazy who wants to kill a bunch of people can do it just as easily by waiting until there's a lot of pedestrian traffic and playing GTA: Real Life on the sidewalks with their pickup truck. The skill level required to run over a bunch of innocent pedestrians is much, much lower than that required to shoot a bunch of people, especially with a handgun.

Post: #174

(12-21-2014 09:07 PM)Ironsun Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 08:58 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  That is why guns should be, by whatever means necessary, made unavailable generally.

People will not be made into angels by a lack of having guns, but people will be less able to live out their awful instincts so easily.

Post: #175

Quote:Basic economics: Tax something if you want less of it.

Ever heard of unintended consequences and second/third/fourth etc-order effects?

(12-21-2014 09:42 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 09:25 PM)la_mode Wrote:  Most true street criminals can get them, but the typical random crowd shooter is usually a borderline-to-complete social retard and doesn't have the know-how or ability to navigate the black market and get them illegally.

Elliott Rodger, James Holmes, and Cho Seung-Hui all purchased them legally. Anyone can lie on a questionnaire, and it's safe to say a lot of these redneck pawn shop owners probably don't care.

Ignoring your slur against gun shop owners and your other rhetoric, you're once again focusing on the wrong thing. Someone who is bugfuck crazy who wants to kill a bunch of people can do it just as easily by waiting until there's a lot of pedestrian traffic and playing GTA: Real Life on the sidewalks with their pickup truck. The skill level required to run over a bunch of innocent pedestrians is much, much lower than that required to shoot a bunch of people, especially with a handgun.

Not to mention that the Anarchist's Cookbook is still easily obtainable.