Post: #101

(05-15-2014 01:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:42 AM)soup Wrote:  Samseau the is back.

Some things might actually be more complicated than your brain wants them to be.

It's sad because you don't even realize your own programming.

What's my "programming"?

Post: #102

I wonder what soup thinks about this....

Quote:[i]Joshua Krause

It’s incredible what human beings will put up with before asserting themselves. The vast majority of people on this planet live in conditions far below what we have attained in the West. In part, it’s a testament to the human spirit that we are capable of enduring scarce food, contaminated water, and rampant disease throughout much of the world. What happens though, when your standard of living is being actively destroyed by other humans who are nothing more than vile thugs? What is the breaking point for the average person?

Around this time last year, residents of the Mexican state of Michoacan stood up for their rights and livelihoods, against the corruption of their government, and the extortion of the Knights Templar drug cartel. After arming themselves with whatever weapons they could find, including hunting rifles and slingshots, the untrained citizens banded together into small militias and started arresting or killing anyone associated with the gang. So far they have successfully driven out the cartel from their homes, something the government had long failed to do. So what were the conditions that drove these people to finally stand up for themselves? According to the Washington Post article linked above:
“The area’s lime growers, for example, were taxed by metrics that included acreage, limes harvested and crates packed. The meager wages of the lime pickers were also taxed, along with the bus fares that they paid to get to the groves. Gang members taxed sacks of corn and the tortillas made from them. A man installing a floor in his house soon had a gang member at his door, demanding a fee. A man who ran a restaurant said the cartel began taking a cut of the coins in his jukebox.”

The final straw for one of the founding leaders of the movement, Doctor Jose Morales, was particularly harrowing:
“They kidnapped my sisters. They tried to kill my wife and my children. And when they started going into the schools and taking the baby girls, 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds, that was my breaking point.”
Since then, these grassroots militias have successfully taken back their communities, and are now well organized and well armed with weapons confiscated from the cartels. The government, likely embarrassed by the bold success of the movement, has decided to demobilize the militias by demanding they register their weapons, and join a new rural police force.

While some folks have gone along with the registration and joined the newly sanctioned force, many members of the movement have refused to comply. They fear, as many Americans do, that registration will lead to confiscation. If they lose their weapons, the cartels will likely return with a vengeance against the unarmed populace. The movement has now rifted between those siding with Doctor Mireles, who wants this armed and decentralized movement to spread across Mexico, and those joining the government’s token police force. Time will tell how all of this will pan out, but it’s a pretty fantastic start for a country with some of the strictest gun laws in the Western hemisphere.

Here we have ordinary people, publicly brandishing weapons that could easily earn them a lengthy prison sentence. By banding together and refusing to comply, the government’s only recourse to avoid embarrassment was to put them on the payroll and beg them to go quietly. I can’t help but notice a correlation with the Cliven Bundy situation on our side of the border. It turns out that when small groups of people arm themselves together, and take a purely self-defensive stance against the government, the authorities are helpless and dumbfounded. They don’t know how to approach the situation without making themselves look like desperate tyrants. The best they can do is retreat from these courageous people or hire them.

What a delightful and precarious situation for the gun grabbers. They thought they could separate us from our natural right to defend ourselves. But when the defenseless reach their breaking point, they can take back their rights against any odds. These people have stood their ground against their incompetent government, and the brutality of the drug cartels. So far they’ve won. Lets hope it continues to play out this way for years to come.[/i]

Post: #103

We don't live in a war zone like Mexico.

Post: #104

Sigh...

Post: #105

(05-15-2014 09:54 AM)soup Wrote:  Has anyone here ever killed someone with a gun?

Okay, I'll bite. Yes, I've killed with a gun, and more than once.

What about it?

Post: #106

Details?

Post: #107

I'm an infantry combat veteran. I was in Iraq at the height of the surge and saw quite a lot of action. Those are all the details I'm willing to give here.

Post: #108

Do you think everybody and their mother should be packing?

Post: #109

Noir Wrote:Do you think everybody and there mother should be packing?

Mother there?

Where?

Post: #110

Start packing an English book.

Post: #111

Typo: their

Post: #112

People have rights that are valid until they show they can not be trusted by our society to retain those rights, by committing (in this case) violent crimes for which they are convicted and sentenced by a court of law. However, someone who can not be trusted to own or carry a firearm should also not be allowed out of prison. If we as a society are willing to let criminals participate in our society after their sentence is up, they should be allowed full participation. If a criminal wants a gun he will get it anyway, regardless of the law, which is the very first point I made in this thread.

You are misrepresenting the position pro gun people take. You're saying that what we want is for everyone to be given a gun, that everyone should be carrying weapons around. Nope. The position of pretty much every pro gun person I've ever talked to is the responsibility of firearms ownership and carry rests with the individual. Perhaps you don't realize it, but carrying a gun every day is a pain in the ass. People who want to be armed have to lay out the cash for training, a decent gun and holster, ammunition, etc which isn't chump change. It requires an altered lifestyle and dedication to carry every day. The people who choose to arm themselves are generally a cut above your average bear.

You keep going on about the dangers to society and how people shouldn't be trusted in general. So, let me ask you this: do you advocate the banning of all mind altering substances, including alcohol? Do you think that most people should be forced to use public transportation because they can't be trusted to own and operate vehicles?

Did you know that nearly three times as many people die in motor vehicle accidents as are murdered or accidentally killed with firearms each year? So surely, you are supportive of drastically restricting motor vehicle privileges? And how much influence do you suppose alcohol has on the rates of motor vehicle deaths and firearms murders/accidental deaths?

I could go on, and on, and on, but the fact is I don't care about changing your mind. I know that's not possible through an internet forum. The only reason I respond to people like you, who hide behind ideology in the face of the facts (which is a funny position to take on a red pill forum), is so others who are more open minded might read my words and think about them.

My belief, and it has been born out time and time again, is that people who are anti-gun are not truly concerned with safety in our society. They don't actually believe that murders will increase if the unwashed masses have more freedom to buy and carry firearms, or if they do, they don't care. Nope, it's about control. A society that is armed is very difficult to control, and that makes the anti-gun people very nervous. That's why someone's position on gun control is such an effective litmus test.

Post: #113

Post: #114

"People have rights that are valid until they show they can not be trusted by our society to retain those rights, by committing (in this case) violent crimes for which they are convicted and sentenced by a court of law. However, someone who can not be trusted to own or carry a firearm should also not be allowed out of prison. If we as a society are willing to let criminals participate in our society after their sentence is up, they should be allowed full participation. If a criminal wants a gun he will get it anyway, regardless of the law, which is the very first point I made in this thread."


There are people who shouldn't have firearms that shouldn't be in prison.


"You are misrepresenting the position pro gun people take. You're saying that what we want is for everyone to be given a gun, that everyone should be carrying weapons around. Nope. The position of pretty much every pro gun person I've ever talked to is the responsibility of firearms ownership and carry rests with the individual. Perhaps you don't realize it, but carrying a gun every day is a pain in the ass. People who want to be armed have to lay out the cash for training, a decent gun and holster, ammunition, etc which isn't chump change. It requires an altered lifestyle and dedication to carry every day. The people who choose to arm themselves are generally a cut above your average bear."


Why do they feel the need to carry a weapon with them everyday? People in the suburbs need to carry firearms when they go to get groceries? What kind of insecurity is that? Giving everyone access to firearms is tempting fate. Maybe there needs to be stricter regulations on who qualifies.


"You keep going on about the dangers to society and how people shouldn't be trusted in general. So, let me ask you this: do you advocate the banning of all mind altering substances, including alcohol? Do you think that most people should be forced to use public transportation because they can't be trusted to own and operate vehicles?

Did you know that nearly three times as many people die in motor vehicle accidents as are murdered or accidentally killed with firearms each year? So surely, you are supportive of drastically restricting motor vehicle privileges? And how much influence do you suppose alcohol has on the rates of motor vehicle deaths and firearms murders/accidental deaths?"


I think that there are actually too many car related deaths and that too many people are allowed to responsibilities in our society that they are not ready or capable of fulfilling. Think about all the idiots who are having kids and raising them in the worst ways.

"I could go on, and on, and on, but the fact is I don't care about changing your mind. I know that's not possible through an internet forum. The only reason I respond to people like you, who hide behind ideology in the face of the facts (which is a funny position to take on a red pill forum), is so others who are more open minded might read my words and think about them."


You are wrong. I've had my mind changed from reading stuff online. Also, what facts?


"My belief, and it has been born out time and time again, is that people who are anti-gun are not truly concerned with safety in our society. They don't actually believe that murders will increase if the unwashed masses have more freedom to buy and carry firearms, or if they do, they don't care. Nope, it's about control. A society that is armed is very difficult to control, and that makes the anti-gun people very nervous. That's why someone's position on gun control is such an effective litmus test."

Nah. I just don't want every retard and his sister to be able to have easy access to killing machines.

Post: #115

So who decides who shouldn't have guns, but shouldn't be in prison? You? Thank you for proving my point regarding control. You feel people have too much freedom, that they can't be trusted. You have an elitist attitude, by which you believe the unwashed masses are fools who can't handle responsibility.

I, on the other hand, believe most of our problems in society stem from the eternal infantilization of young people and the lack of personal responsibility in general. When people can blame any and everyone else for their mistakes and problems, they have no incentive to change and better themselves. By giving people excuses and offering scapegoats all we are doing is subsidizing their shitty behavior, which guarantees more shitty behavior. That sounds oddly familiar to certain aspects of game that we discuss here, hmm...

What facts? Again, I will refer you to my first post in this thread. You claim that there will be disastrous effects if we, as a society, allow free gun ownership and carry. Yet where such permissive environments exist, there has been no blood in the streets, no shootouts over the last box of Pampers. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Arizona has constitutional carry, which is to say no permit is required to carry a pistol concealed. New York has extremely restrictive handgun laws, with a permit (that takes 6 months to a year to get) required to purchase a handgun and it is very difficult to get a permit that actually allows you to carry a gun. It's a very safe bet that there are many, many more legal guns carried on the streets of Phoenix, AZ than in Rochester, NY. Phoenix had a murder rate of 8.3 per 100,000 people in 2012, vs Rochester's 17.0 per 100,000. Phoenix's overall weighted violent crime rate of 414.8 per 100,000 contrasted with Rochester's 546.1 per 100,000. I did not cherry pick this data, I just picked the city I grew up in (Rochester) and a big city in a state I knew had lax gun laws. Given your hypothesis that more guns = more violence, please explain this phenomenon.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Pho...izona.html
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Roc...-York.html

If you cared to educate yourself on the matter, you could do a study of violent crime rates vs permissive firearms laws in all major cities in the US. I'm not going to do your homework for you, but I have this sneaky feeling you'd see a strong negative correlation between permissive gun laws and violent crime.

Anyway, once again I'm weary of arguing with people who have differing first principles. See ya in another thread.

Post: #116

"So who decides who shouldn't have guns, but shouldn't be in prison? You? Thank you for proving my point regarding control. You feel people have too much freedom, that they can't be trusted. You have an elitist attitude, by which you believe the unwashed masses are fools who can't handle responsibility."

The majority of men in our country are saps that don't even need guns. The other side is mostly women. Then there are the criminals.. Still not sure why you think it should be easy for everyone to have a gun?

"I, on the other hand, believe most of our problems in society stem from the eternal infantilization of young people and the lack of personal responsibility in general. When people can blame any and everyone else for their mistakes and problems, they have no incentive to change and better themselves. By giving people excuses and offering scapegoats all we are doing is subsidizing their shitty behavior, which guarantees more shitty behavior. That sounds oddly familiar to certain aspects of game that we discuss here, hmm..."

I agree that responsibility starts with the individual, buy individualism in the US is one of the most over-hyped load of BS that gets pedaled to sell people shit. Most people here are essentially lemmings that all follow each other. Your wish that everyone is going to fall into place as people of quality based on easy access to weapons is a pipe dream.


"What facts? Again, I will refer you to my first post in this thread. You claim that there will be disastrous effects if we, as a society, allow free gun ownership and carry. Yet where such permissive environments exist, there has been no blood in the streets, no shootouts over the last box of Pampers. Quite the contrary, in fact.


Arizona has constitutional carry, which is to say no permit is required to carry a pistol concealed. New York has extremely restrictive handgun laws, with a permit (that takes 6 months to a year to get) required to purchase a handgun and it is very difficult to get a permit that actually allows you to carry a gun. It's a very safe bet that there are many, many more legal guns carried on the streets of Phoenix, AZ than in Rochester, NY. Phoenix had a murder rate of 8.3 per 100,000 people in 2012, vs Rochester's 17.0 per 100,000. Phoenix's overall weighted violent crime rate of 414.8 per 100,000 contrasted with Rochester's 546.1 per 100,000. I did not cherry pick this data, I just picked the city I grew up in (Rochester) and a big city in a state I knew had lax gun laws. Given your hypothesis that more guns = more violence, please explain this phenomenon."


Good. I'm glad there are restrictions on owning a gun in NYC. Again, why do people buying pampers in middle America need to have a gun holstered at their side while doing it?