Gun Control

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@deepdown said:

@nick_hero22 said:

@deepdown said:

@nick_hero22 said:

@minigunman123 said:

Evidence to support this?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/12/can_armed_citizens_stop_mass_shootings_examples_of_armed_interventions.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/17/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTx4G7PSOg

http://www.legallyarmed.com/resources/policearticle.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2972741/posts

http://plbirnamwood.blogspot.com/2013/01/mass-shooting-averted-and-related.html

Is this enough evidence?

This is not telling the whole picture.

It does not break down the use of guns.

Does it include shootings by police?

Suicides are not taken into consideration.

Are any of the gun deaths the death of criminals in the act of hurting someone? To put that on the same moral plain as an accidental shooting is bordering on criminal (morality wise) in my mind.

In some respects breaking down by state is not enough. With most states having a large diversity of rural and urban populations and some cities having further restrictions than the state overall it really needs to be broken down more to see where the actual problem areas are. I can guarantee that Chicago is much more violent than the rest of Illinois, and NYC versus NYS.

Yes, there can be more firearm education. Put rifle teams back into schools as a school sport. Improve our public education system through competition. Allow parents to decide where their children go to school.

What I am saying is that banning or controlling a tool that is used in statistically rare cases does next to nothing to solve the problem. The biggest problems are social issues: family break down, economic, and education. All these take time to fix. Allowing people the ability and tools to defend themselves is logical.

Why are people so unwilling to discuss gun violence in context of violent crime? I suppose because they believe it more moral to allow other violent crime to rise dramatically if guns are taken away.

@isaac_clarke said:

@deepdown said:

They come in from other states, where they are purchased (maybe legally or illegally), then they break the law (criminals do not care about the law), by bringing them into New York, where they again, use them illegally. Most criminals use cheap, small, handguns that are easily concealed. Contrary to what is flowing in the media now, so far undefined, "assault weapons", are used extremely rarely in crime. Tell me how banning them will drastically save lives.

Music to my ears; that's exactly right - they are coming out of state. The efforts of any singular state are undermined by the fact the nation doesn't play by the same set of rules and that allows states with far more lenient gun legislation, say Texas, to provide the weapons to shoot at New York's finest. Same for the drug cartels in Mexico that get to enjoy the lenient gun legislation in said states to buy a lot of guns to kill people in Mexico.

You're putting words in my mouth when you say "drastically" save lives. I think it is fairly obvious that banning weapons that serve no other purpose than to killing multiple people with ease would only serve to lower the loss of life. Can't hurt to take off assault rifles from drug cartel's options at least.

Also, contrary to popular portrayal in the media, gun enthusiasts are not fearful, paranoid fringes of society. Even most of the outspoken ones are not as the media usually portrays them. People who take the time and effort to legally carry concealed are some of the most honest responsible members of society. They carry because they know evil exists in the world, and people who want to hurt others are real, not comic book villains. They carry because they know they are not adequately prepared to fight in hand to hand combat with an attacker.

I'm well aware the media as the awful habit of putting on the more insane voices in the crowd a platform to speak nationally. But at least I can sleep soundly they are prepared to gun down evil wherever it lurks. Perhaps it is that young lad walking home from the store?"

Honestly your post is mostly fluff after this point.

The AR-15 is 50 year old technology. It could be purchased for 200 dollars in the 1960's. Where was all the assault weapon violence committed then? Society has changed. The problem will not be solved with capacity limits, registries, bans, etc. Society changed when the welfare state increased in size. It affects poor areas worse than others. If your logic is correct there should be more gun crime in areas with looser restrictions, and less in stricter areas. Even accounting for the transporting of guns from one area to another. If your logic is correct I should be able to confront an armed attacker without a gun and survive.

You mean more than 30,000,000 guns ago? Society has certainly changed, thank god for modern medicine saving more than half the people shot annually. My "logic" allows people to dodge bullets? (assuming the armed attacker can aim the gun with any precision and doesn't decide to melee me with it)

I would state that you have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you have no education, training, or experience in the security/law enforcement world. You have no expertise in armed confrontation beyond what you learn from Hollywood and comic books. You have no answer to protect the innocent victims of crime. Your solution would be to call 911 after the fact and let the police take reports.

Say it loud and say it proud as I always say. More fluff.

You issac_clarke have constantly refused to define "assault weapon". You have no replies to more than a few points I have made. You are unwilling to objectively look at the facts. You only consider "gun violence" while ignoring the much higher violent crime rates in the UK in comparison to the US and since gun bans there. I would state that you hate the weaker members of society by refusing to allow for them to protect themselves. A woman raped should just grin and bear it. A child should just accept his own murder. Yes, roughly 30,000 gun deaths occur in the US yearly. Break the number down. About 1,100 are accidental, between 9,000 and 11,000 are suicides. Suicides can be ignored from a statistical standpoint and all but a few find another way to kill themselves. What you have no answer for is that since the end of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004 violent crime as well as gun related crime has dropped significantly. Some areas have seen a 54% drop. You have no reply as to the difference in gun violence and violent crime rates between strict areas, and not so strict areas. You are unwilling to discuss these because you are not mentally equipped to do so. It is remarkably similar to the way I see you showing up to a gun fight, unarmed.

"Anything that can spray bullets into multiple people with ease and serves no purpose outside killing a lot of people. We're talking about gun control, not crime rates in the UK or rape, feel free to make an appropriate thread to tell everyone how guns will stop rape or any victimization for that matter in any society.

I'm glad you broke the numbers down though, out of those 70,000+ thousand getting shot a year, the 30,000 that die yearly in the United States are for multiple reasons; from accidental to suicide - in particular as of late after gunning down a school filled with kids or their family. Cherry picking aren't we now? When in doubt, add more fluff."

I am willing to have a honest non political discussion concerning what should be done. I have stated several times here a multi-prong approach to address the root causes. You have no reply. You are more interested in hurling accusations about sore election losers. I will state it now, I do not like what Barrack Obama has done as president. I do not like his economic, healthcare, foreign, or domestic policies. You can accuse me of racism for policy disagreements, but that is pure ignorance, and deflection from the topic on your part. I do not like the way he handled the attack on our embassy in Libya. I do not like the manner in which the healthcare bill was passed. I do not like the way he treats our strongest allies. I do not like the way he treats police officers. But those are other issues that are not part of the discussion at hand.

"I question your motives. It could be the ridiculous argument of how gun ownership stops victimization or the default avatar (weapon of choice for trolling) or the massive amount of fluff in your post that serves no real purpose outside being fluff. But yes I'm certainly interesting in calling MKF30 out for going thread to thread to complain about Romney losing by bashing the 65 million Americans who voted for him."

Most of the guns provided to the Mexican drug cartel came from Fast and the Furious and other programs by the US Government. Are there straw purchases going on? Yes. Here is a clue, they are already illegal. They do not account for the sheer number of actual assault weapons in Mexico. The US Government has been sending real military weapons to the Mexican military and police forces for many years. These organizations are so heavily infiltrated by the cartels that we might as well send them the weapons directly.

You question how gun ownership stops victimization.

http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html

http://www.bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm

http://westnet.com/~levins/guncontrol5.html

And for more recent accounts.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

http://www.officer.com/news/10846005/calif-resident-kills-intruder-during-home-invasion

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57562397-504083/georgia-mother-hides-children-shoots-intruder-5-times-during-home-invasion-police-say/

As far as AR 15's go. They are not military weapons. They (by definition) are not capable of select fire or automatic fire. By definition they are also not assault weapons. Assault weapons must be capable of select or automatic fire. AR 15' are not. They are no more powerful or deadly than hunting rifles. In fact the .223 or 5.56 round (the most popular caliber) is considered to be an intermediate range caliber. A hunting rifle in the .30 caliber (.308, 30-06, etc) range has significantly more range and power. What makes the AR so attractive to people is the modularity, and low recoil. The low recoil is very popular among female and smaller shooters. It also used to be fairly inexpensive to shoot.

I am not advocating that everyone should be armed anymore than I advocate everyone needs to go to college. Carrying concealed is a big responsibility that only an individual can make for themselves. Having that option for concealed carry or to keep a gun in the home, is in my belief morally right. Even if it is what the media refer to as an "assault weapon".

Society has changed, and not for the better in many respects. Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause.

To talk about gun violence separate from overall violent crime is missing out on half the story. It all needs to be discussed. The fact is that when guns are banned or severely limited from honest private ownership, overall violent crime skyrockets. The UK can be seen as an example. Chicago can be seen as an example. To postulate that banning "assault rifles" will make things safer is wrong. Having gun free zones does not stop gun violence. It only assures the offenders of having an easy target.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/14/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-control/1770345/

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/brown/080800.htm

http://www.cabinet.com/cabinet/cabineteditorials/990571-308/most-multiple-victim-shootings-occur-in-gun-free-zones.html

http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2012/12/lawmakers-question-gun-free-zones-in-wake-of-massacre/

Am I advocating turning schools into the often mention armed camps or concentration camps that is mentioned by the media? No. Just allow parents who already are lawfully allowed to CCW carry in schools when picking up or dropping off their children, or having other legitimate purpose on school . Allow trained teachers, janitors, principals to carry concealed. Make them meet a qualification standard. Install passive security measures as well. Security glass, reinforced doors, central alarms and procedures, and access control. But, for heaven's sake, do not do this through a national central plan. All that will do is create another inefficient bureaucracy that determines it needs more money, while solving nothing. Allow individual districts to determine their own methods, and policies according to their own needs.

I am not cherry picking data when breaking down statistics. Not doing so shows an unwillingness to understand the whole picture. Suicides can be statistically discounted as all but a few find another way. If we consider the whole number 30,000, it does not tell us the majority is criminal on criminal, or how many were killed in the defense of life. Yes, it is possible to kill to preserve life. It is even legal. To treat the last to as morally equivalent is in error. It is not cherry picking to acknowledge that areas with stricter gun control laws have an overall higher crime rate. Honest people have been disarmed.

As far as my using avatar, I have no desire at the moment to change it. Avatars are not important.

Tell me how banning the AR-15 will take assault weapons from drug cartels. AR-15 do not fit the internationally accepted definition of assault weapons.

Fully automatic weapons have been banned for many years. As a result large numbers are not for sale in gun shops. Also as a result they are very expensive and take literally months to get the proper background checks to purchase.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/ryan-mauro/where-drug-cartels-really-get-their-arms/

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/30/u-s-admits-that-mexican-cartels-get-military-weaponry-from-central-america/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/

While some do come from the US, the vast majority do not.

Whoa! This is by FAR the most rational, well thought out, best cited, thing I've read on this subject on this thread (I have to admit I've only skimmed and only thoroughly read this last page). The proponents of NEITHER side are doing that good a job of making their case (even from the side I tend to agree with)...generally spouting buzz words, platitudes, and either A. Citing the founding fathers (with IS important btw folks) sometimes out of context B. Actually referring to the Founding Fathers as...get this...irellevant centuries old dead white men. Just damn.

I also notice that none of the people that he's responded to in this post have attempted to assail his logic, proof, or ideas. There are things I MIGHT have added but he beat me almost completely to the punch. Good freaking job here deepdown.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7
deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7

909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The biggest problem for Americans, as a whole, is admitting they have a problem with guns.

Blame is always placed somewhere else and ultimately if something gets done to deter gun violence it's always completely inadequate... because the bad people are still easily going to be armed.

America has a problem with people not guns. Never in the history of The US has there not been an abundance of firearms but this trend in gun violence is relatively new. Guns aren't the real issue.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@outside_85 said:

The biggest problem for Americans, as a whole, is admitting they have a problem with guns.

Blame is always placed somewhere else and ultimately if something gets done to deter gun violence it's always completely inadequate... because the bad people are still easily going to be armed.

America has a problem with people not guns. Never in the history of The US has there not been an abundance of firearms but this trend in gun violence is relatively new. Guns aren't the real issue.

See, blame it on something else rather than the real problem. You can't compare guns of yesterday to those from before and still say that its the same.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b728068f211c
deactivated-5b728068f211c

7068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Well, there was a shooting at YT Headquarters, and apparently the suspect was a youtuber named "Nasim Aghdam"

Avatar image for luellas
Luellas

1416

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Gun laws should definitely be stricter

Avatar image for deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7
deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7

909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@ughwhateverfine said:
@outside_85 said:

The biggest problem for Americans, as a whole, is admitting they have a problem with guns.

Blame is always placed somewhere else and ultimately if something gets done to deter gun violence it's always completely inadequate... because the bad people are still easily going to be armed.

America has a problem with people not guns. Never in the history of The US has there not been an abundance of firearms but this trend in gun violence is relatively new. Guns aren't the real issue.

See, blame it on something else rather than the real problem. You can't compare guns of yesterday to those from before and still say that its the same.

Part of the real problem is people are too focused on "The How" rather than "The Why".

Freaking out about gun control isn't addressing the real issues & will only serve to disarm honest law abiding citizens.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@outside_85 said:
@ughwhateverfine said:
@outside_85 said:

The biggest problem for Americans, as a whole, is admitting they have a problem with guns.

Blame is always placed somewhere else and ultimately if something gets done to deter gun violence it's always completely inadequate... because the bad people are still easily going to be armed.

America has a problem with people not guns. Never in the history of The US has there not been an abundance of firearms but this trend in gun violence is relatively new. Guns aren't the real issue.

See, blame it on something else rather than the real problem. You can't compare guns of yesterday to those from before and still say that its the same.

Part of the real problem is people are too focused on "The How" rather than "The Why".

Freaking out about gun control isn't addressing the real issues & will only serve to disarm honest law abiding citizens.

How the dam broke? and Why the dam broke? are questions you can save till after you prevent the dam from breaking in the first place. Take the weapons out of the hands of whackos first and then you are already better equipped to help the guy and find out why he wanted to do it.

If you are an honest law abiding citizen who obeys the law, you shouldn't have much of a problem handing over firearms that were made illegal. Also, this isn't a freakout, it's simply an observation that the excessive amount of guns in America coupled with the lack of restrictions on them ofc means guns will be used a lot more during criminal activities, since it's so easy to get one and now it's so easy to use one. If we had been back in 1850 it would have been a different story.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#258  Edited By Thekillerklok
@outside_85 said:
@ughwhateverfine said:
@outside_85 said:

The biggest problem for Americans, as a whole, is admitting they have a problem with guns.

Blame is always placed somewhere else and ultimately if something gets done to deter gun violence it's always completely inadequate... because the bad people are still easily going to be armed.

America has a problem with people not guns. Never in the history of The US has there not been an abundance of firearms but this trend in gun violence is relatively new. Guns aren't the real issue.

See, blame it on something else rather than the real problem. You can't compare guns of yesterday to those from before and still say that its the same.

Funny thing... a gun existed during the times of the revolutionary war that could shoot 20 rounds.

or the Giridoni air rifle that that could fire 30 rounds...

Loading Video...

also privately owned frigates where a thing.

No Caption Provided

The whole arguement that the forefathers could only conceive of single shot muskets when they wrote the second ammendment is really weak, when they placed orders/used repeating rifles. and navel frigates where fair game.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7
deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7

909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@outside_85: I just feel that stricter gun regulations would be pointless. If someone is that determined to kill a bunch of people they wouldn't need a gun to do it. It's just as easy to make an IED as it is to get a gun if not easier.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@outside_85: I just feel that stricter gun regulations would be pointless. If someone is that determined to kill a bunch of people they wouldn't need a gun to do it. It's just as easy to make an IED as it is to get a gun if not easier.

Don't forget a vehicle... such as a car, after someone goes and runs 30 people over in a car are you going to ban those to?

Maybe only let people drive one of those tiny french cars... because anything larger is dangerous.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7
deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7

909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@ughwhateverfine said:

@outside_85: I just feel that stricter gun regulations would be pointless. If someone is that determined to kill a bunch of people they wouldn't need a gun to do it. It's just as easy to make an IED as it is to get a gun if not easier.

Don't forget a vehicle... such as a car, after someone goes and runs 30 people over in a car are you going to ban those to?

Maybe only let people drive one of those tiny french cars... because anything larger is dangerous.

No Caption Provided

LOL! You make a good point there. Cars should be banned.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@thekillerklok: So your argument relies on:

  1. The Belton Flintlock, a weapon that can best be described as experimental, since it was seemingly never built and only evidence of it's existence is the correspondence between the inventor and Congress. On top of that the inventor himself said it had a range of 25 to 30 yards... which isn't exactly great for a rifle.
  2. The Puckle Gun, a tri-pod mounted weapon you had to turn a crank on to fire and whom the Brits amusingly enough made a version of that could fire square bullets at Muslims... which couldn't hit the broad side of a barn as a result.
  3. The Girardoni Air Rifle, a gun using compressed air to fire, meaning you had to carry around an air tank to make it shoot 30 times before you had to get a new and likely spend several minutes changing them or have a horse drawn cart following you around. Plus you had to stick the gun in the air every time you had fired a round.
  4. And I guess the Pepper Box Revolver, which fires around 4 shots before you have to reload the thing.

The Founding Fathers certainly had a lot of cause for concern regarding repeating firearms getting off the ground when they wrote the 2nd...

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thekillerklok: So your argument relies on:

  1. The Belton Flintlock, a weapon that can best be described as experimental, since it was seemingly never built and only evidence of it's existence is the correspondence between the inventor and Congress. On top of that the inventor himself said it had a range of 25 to 30 yards... which isn't exactly great for a rifle.
  2. The Puckle Gun, a tri-pod mounted weapon you had to turn a crank on to fire and whom the Brits amusingly enough made a version of that could fire square bullets at Muslims... which couldn't hit the broad side of a barn as a result.
  3. The Girardoni Air Rifle, a gun using compressed air to fire, meaning you had to carry around an air tank to make it shoot 30 times before you had to get a new and likely spend several minutes changing them or have a horse drawn cart following you around. Plus you had to stick the gun in the air every time you had fired a round.
  4. And I guess the Pepper Box Revolver, which fires around 4 shots before you have to reload the thing.

The Founding Fathers certainly had a lot of cause for concern regarding repeating firearms getting off the ground when they wrote the 2nd...

But you see how the argument that the forefathers couldn't have predicted Multi-round weapons more destructive then the musket when writing the second is slightly flawed...

also navel frigate.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@ughwhateverfine said:

@outside_85: I just feel that stricter gun regulations would be pointless. If someone is that determined to kill a bunch of people they wouldn't need a gun to do it. It's just as easy to make an IED as it is to get a gun if not easier.

Don't forget a vehicle... such as a car, after someone goes and runs 30 people over in a car are you going to ban those to?

Maybe only let people drive one of those tiny french cars... because anything larger is dangerous.

No Caption Provided

Thats actually German, the company is owned by Mecedes :)
Regardless, cars have a different function, guns only have one. You can make all the claims you like that they work as deterrents, that they keep you safe, but in order to really do that they have go back to their main purpose: being fired while pointing at something with a pulse.

And yes, determined people, with lots of planning can ofc do evil with guns even if you banned the lot. Thats not the point though, because a lot of these mass shootings that happen in America seem to be 'spur of the moment' decisions on the part of the perpetrator, no need for any real planning, they just go into a shop, by and gun and then wander off with their deathwish to the target area.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@outside_85: Have you ever hunted for your food? by any chance?

and how is going to a shop to buy a gun that already has a wait period any harder then getting in car and driving to crowed area?

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

But you see how the argument that the forefathers couldn't have predicted Multi-round weapons more destructive then the musket when writing the second is slightly flawed...

also navel frigate.

Which it isn't when none of the weapons that they could have known about actually work the way they do today, since they were either too big, too low on power, or required a huge amount of fiddling about before they could shoot again. Today you can pop off 30 shots within a second or three, reload in 5 seconds and fire another 30 shots.

I fail to see what a ship has to do with this? Do you think ship mounted weaponry makes it any different than the Puckle Gun? Thats kinda like saying you will hold up a store using a canon?

@outside_85: Have you ever hunted for your food? by any chance?

and how is going to a shop to buy a gun that already has a wait period any harder then getting in car and driving to crowed area?

No I live in a civilized part of the world so there are supermarkets. And bear in mind I don't think hunting is an excuse to own anything more than a normal hunting rifle, you are supposed to hit and kill the animal with one shot, not a shower of bullets.

Well, for one, the instances we are discussing are mass shootings, the people to commit them usually have ties to the place they shoot up and probably someone specific they want to hit along the way. 9/10 times these places are indoors, and while I know America have a reputation for flimsy houses made of plywood, places like schools are usually made of concrete and you need at tank to get in. And as for banning cars and trucks... again, that would say that these things you can live without. So would you like to be able to go to work? Would you like to have your garbage taken away? Would you like to have goods delivered to the shops? Or will you be a sport and deliver it all by hand?

Avatar image for deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7
deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7

909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0


@thekillerklok said:

@outside_85: Have you ever hunted for your food? by any chance?

and how is going to a shop to buy a gun that already has a wait period any harder then getting in car and driving to crowed area?

No I live in a civilized part of the world so there are supermarkets. And bear in mind I don't think hunting is an excuse to own anything more than a normal hunting rifle, you are supposed to hit and kill the animal with one shot, not a shower of bullets.

LOL! Well that comes off as a bit condescending. So people who hunt out of necessity are uncivilized?

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thekillerklok said:

But you see how the argument that the forefathers couldn't have predicted Multi-round weapons more destructive then the musket when writing the second is slightly flawed...

also navel frigate.

Which it isn't when none of the weapons that they could have known about actually work the way they do today, since they were either too big, too low on power, or required a huge amount of fiddling about before they could shoot again. Today you can pop off 30 shots within a second or three, reload in 5 seconds and fire another 30 shots.

I fail to see what a ship has to do with this? Do you think ship mounted weaponry makes it any different than the Puckle Gun? Thats kinda like saying you will hold up a store using a canon?

@thekillerklok said:

@outside_85: Have you ever hunted for your food? by any chance?

and how is going to a shop to buy a gun that already has a wait period any harder then getting in car and driving to crowed area?

No I live in a civilized part of the world so there are supermarkets. And bear in mind I don't think hunting is an excuse to own anything more than a normal hunting rifle, you are supposed to hit and kill the animal with one shot, not a shower of bullets.

Well, for one, the instances we are discussing are mass shootings, the people to commit them usually have ties to the place they shoot up and probably someone specific they want to hit along the way. 9/10 times these places are indoors, and while I know America have a reputation for flimsy houses made of plywood, places like schools are usually made of concrete and you need at tank to get in. And as for banning cars and trucks... again, that would say that these things you can live without. So would you like to be able to go to work? Would you like to have your garbage taken away? Would you like to have goods delivered to the shops? Or will you be a sport and deliver it all by hand?

No I live in a civilized part of the world so there are supermarkets. And bear in mind I don't think hunting is an excuse to own anything more than a normal hunting rifle, you are supposed to hit and kill the animal with one shot, not a shower of bullets.

If only every shot was that clean... Oh sorry mister deer I missed your heart by an inch and now and going to have to reload me musket before I can put you out of your misery...

But don't worry I can't hear noises you might make because I have to wear "Hearing protection" because someone watched a hollywood movie and decided that silencers on muskets are just scary mass murdering machines.

And there are people in this country who live in poor hellholes that actually hunt game to feed their family's. It may not have anything to do with your "civilized life" but who cares about your judgements.

Which it isn't when none of the weapons that they could have known about actually work the way they do today, since they were either too big, too low on power, or required a huge amount of fiddling about before they could shoot again. Today you can pop off 30 shots within a second or three, reload in 5 seconds and fire another 30 shots.

I fail to see what a ship has to do with this? Do you think ship mounted weaponry makes it any different than the Puckle Gun? Thats kinda like saying you will hold up a store using a canon?

Why would anyone use a ship to hold up a store? instead of another ship?

and a navel frigate is one hell of a piece to be included in that whole right to bear arms thing...

where there not examples of those things with 40+ cannons... I mean you would need some hired help but jeez is that scarier then someone owning an AR -15

And as for banning cars and trucks... again, that would say that these things you can live without. So would you like to be able to go to work? Would you like to have your garbage taken away? Would you like to have goods delivered to the shops? Or will you be a sport and deliver it all by hand?

/Whoosh

that was kind of my point...

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

LOL! Well that comes off as a bit condescending. So people who hunt out of necessity are uncivilized?

I would ask who in the western world needs to hunt for food? And I would follow it up with asking if this is a need or a personal choice not to just get in your car and head into town? I mean, if you have running water and can get gas for your stove, why can't you also get food?

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

LOL! Well that comes off as a bit condescending. So people who hunt out of necessity are uncivilized?

I would ask who in the western world needs to hunt for food? And I would follow it up with asking if this is a need or a personal choice not to just get in your car and head into town? I mean, if you have running water and can get gas for your stove, why can't you also get food?

you get your water from a well...

and you burn wood...

Avatar image for deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7
deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7

909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

LOL! Well that comes off as a bit condescending. So people who hunt out of necessity are uncivilized?

I would ask who in the western world needs to hunt for food? And I would follow it up with asking if this is a need or a personal choice not to just get in your car and head into town? I mean, if you have running water and can get gas for your stove, why can't you also get food?

Me. I don't drive & I live on a very rural Indian reservation. If I don't hunt, fish, forage & grow my own crops I don't eat.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1


If only every shot was that clean... Oh sorry mister deer I missed your heart by an inch and now and going to have to reload me musket before I can put you out of your misery...

But don't worry I can't hear noises you might make because I have to wear "Hearing protection" because someone watched a hollywood movie and decided that silencers on muskets are just scary mass murdering machines.

And there are people in this country who live in poor hellholes that actually hunt game to feed their family's. It may not have anything to do with your "civilized life" but who cares about your judgements.

Why would anyone use a ship to hold up a store? instead of another ship?

and a navel frigate is one hell of a piece to be included in that whole right to bear arms thing...

where there not examples of those things with 40+ cannons... I mean you would need some hired help but jeez is that scarier then someone owning an AR -15

/Whoosh

that was kind of my point...

I am getting the impression you cant be a very good hunter if you are running around the woods with a musket, for starters... plus if you hit it and it fell over, you could just walk over and use a knife.

No one is actually forcing you to wear hearing protections, but if you end up not being able to hear very well, people will call you a tosser and you can't hear it. :) Also, seriously, you are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on hunting equipment, wander around the forest in hopes something shows up, shoot it, skin it, chop it up and then cook it, and you are going to complain about being mildly inconvenienced by a set of hearing protectors.

People in developed countries have the option to move you know? You don't have to live like it's a 3rd world nation or you are Bear Grylls.

And what does piracy have to do with this?

Note... there are only frigates on the water, so the naval part is kinda redundant, not to mention that back then pirates and privateers were still a major threat to the US coast line, so a private vessle would ofc need guns to defend itself.

Also it was harmless once you moved a few hundred feet in land.

And as I've said a few times now, your point doesn't work because cars are not built with the intention of killing people, guns however are.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@outside_85 said:

LOL! Well that comes off as a bit condescending. So people who hunt out of necessity are uncivilized?

I would ask who in the western world needs to hunt for food? And I would follow it up with asking if this is a need or a personal choice not to just get in your car and head into town? I mean, if you have running water and can get gas for your stove, why can't you also get food?

Me. I don't drive & I live on a very rural Indian reservation. If I don't hunt, fish, forage & grow my own crops I don't eat.

You are arguing with me on the internet... I very much doubt you need to do any of those things.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7
deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7

909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@ughwhateverfine said:
@outside_85 said:

LOL! Well that comes off as a bit condescending. So people who hunt out of necessity are uncivilized?

I would ask who in the western world needs to hunt for food? And I would follow it up with asking if this is a need or a personal choice not to just get in your car and head into town? I mean, if you have running water and can get gas for your stove, why can't you also get food?

Me. I don't drive & I live on a very rural Indian reservation. If I don't hunt, fish, forage & grow my own crops I don't eat.

You are arguing with me on the internet... I very much doubt you need to do any of those things.

I guess I don't need to but I like living like Bear Grylls. I could do the whole 9:00 to 5:00 thing but it would make me miserable & again I don't drive so the commute would be a bitch.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#275  Edited By Thekillerklok

@outside_85 said:
@thekillerklok said:

If only every shot was that clean... Oh sorry mister deer I missed your heart by an inch and now and going to have to reload me musket before I can put you out of your misery...

But don't worry I can't hear noises you might make because I have to wear "Hearing protection" because someone watched a hollywood movie and decided that silencers on muskets are just scary mass murdering machines.

And there are people in this country who live in poor hellholes that actually hunt game to feed their family's. It may not have anything to do with your "civilized life" but who cares about your judgements.

Why would anyone use a ship to hold up a store? instead of another ship?

and a navel frigate is one hell of a piece to be included in that whole right to bear arms thing...

where there not examples of those things with 40+ cannons... I mean you would need some hired help but jeez is that scarier then someone owning an AR -15

/Whoosh

that was kind of my point...

I am getting the impression you cant be a very good hunter if you are running around the woods with a musket, for starters... plus if you hit it and it fell over, you could just walk over and use a knife.

No one is actually forcing you to wear hearing protections, but if you end up not being able to hear very well, people will call you a tosser and you can't hear it. :) Also, seriously, you are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on hunting equipment, wander around the forest in hopes something shows up, shoot it, skin it, chop it up and then cook it, and you are going to complain about being mildly inconvenienced by a set of hearing protectors.

People in developed countries have the option to move you know? You don't have to live like it's a 3rd world nation or you are Bear Grylls.

And what does piracy have to do with this?

Note... there are only frigates on the water, so the naval part is kinda redundant, not to mention that back then pirates and privateers were still a major threat to the US coast line, so a private vessle would ofc need guns to defend itself.

Also it was harmless once you moved a few hundred feet in land.

And as I've said a few times now, your point doesn't work because cars are not built with the intention of killing people, guns however are.

I am getting the impression you cant be a very good hunter if you are running around the woods with a musket, for starters... plus if you hit it and it fell over, you could just walk over and use a knife.

says the same person defending the argument that anything other then a musket wasn't intended to be included in the 2nd amendment a couple of posts back...

also I was joking about this video I posted a while back... where someone is arguing that muskets should be banned, because silencers are scary.

Loading Video...

See if you don't get a clean shot... more often then not the deer doesn't just lay there... it moves frantically thrashing about.

It's easy to hit one when you have surprise on your side... but spooked?

I mean I would rather not wait for the thing to succumb to it's wounds before putting it out of it's misery because that's just awful. but maybe that's just me.

and getting close to an injured animal is frankly a bad idea...

but I guess you have the idealistic expectation that you should never miss that first shot aye?

And what does piracy have to do with this?

huh? navel frigates where an arm that a private citizen could own... you know like a musket...

Note... there are only frigates on the water, so the naval part is kinda redundant, not to mention that back then pirates and privateers were still a major threat to the US coast line, so a private vessle would ofc need guns to defend itself.

/woosh

And as I've said a few times now, your point doesn't work because cars are not built with the intention of killing people, guns however are.

I would argue the intent behind most gun makers is profit.

it's a tool, something you can use to hunt with.

Not everyone with a gun has a hardon for killing humans, in fact given the number of people that own guns and the actual amount of gun violence... I would suspect that the opposite is true.

and my entire point was how easy it is to kill lots of people with a car, and how silly it would be to start banning them.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@outside_85 said:
@ughwhateverfine said:
@outside_85 said:

LOL! Well that comes off as a bit condescending. So people who hunt out of necessity are uncivilized?

I would ask who in the western world needs to hunt for food? And I would follow it up with asking if this is a need or a personal choice not to just get in your car and head into town? I mean, if you have running water and can get gas for your stove, why can't you also get food?

Me. I don't drive & I live on a very rural Indian reservation. If I don't hunt, fish, forage & grow my own crops I don't eat.

You are arguing with me on the internet... I very much doubt you need to do any of those things.

I guess I don't need to but I like living like Bear Grylls. I could do the whole 9:00 to 5:00 thing but it would make me miserable & again I don't drive so the commute would be a bitch.

Which to me sounds more like you made a choice at some point to live inconveniently for one reason or another. More power to you for living like that, but for the sake of this argument, I wouldn't call what you are doing a need.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7
deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7

909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Which to me sounds more like you made a choice at some point to live inconveniently for one reason or another. More power to you for living like that, but for the sake of this argument, I wouldn't call what you are doing a need.

Inconveniently? We have a difference of opinion on that one. From my point of view it's quite the opposite.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

Inconveniently? We have a difference of opinion on that one. From my point of view it's quite the opposite.

Well of course. But lets be blunt, you live like you do because it's a choice... it's not like you were banished to the wilds by the nearest village :)


says the same person defending the argument that anything other then a musket wasn't intended to be included in the 2nd amendment a couple of posts back...

Mind you, I never said anything about regular hunting rifles, like a Remington 700... I hear that's quite popular and quite adequate for hunting. What I am against is the notion that 'hunting' is a reason to have something like an AR-15.

also I was joking about this video I posted a while back... where someone is arguing that muskets should be banned, because silencers are scary.

Eww... scummy Carson. Anyways I imagine the reason silencers haven't been allowed (I dont know if they still aren't?) is because of the fear of someone getting sniper happy somewhere.

See if you don't get a clean shot... more often then not the deer doesn't just lay there... it moves frantically thrashing about.

I know, thats why your shot has to be spot on... hence why it's a good idea to take your time with the shot possibly have a scope too.

It's easy to hit one when you have surprise on your side... but spooked?

Which to the best of my knowledge is the only time you really should be taking the shot. And if it runs, that is the point where you should just go 'nuts' and let it run.

I mean I would rather not wait for the thing to succumb to it's wounds before putting it out of it's misery because that's just awful. but maybe that's just me.

You could just hit it properly instead :)

and getting close to an injured animal is frankly a bad idea...

True, another reason to just do it right in the first place.

but I guess you have the idealistic expectation that you should never miss that first shot aye?

I don't know about you, but hunters around here are actually encouraged to do it this way.

huh? navel frigates where an arm that a private citizen could own... you know like a musket...

Could own, or must own? I ask because the ancient Greek navy was also technically made up of privately owned or sponsored vessels, which rich people had to do by law. Not to mention trading or merchant vessels were also most often owned by singular individuals... like the ones that brought Columbus to America.

/woosh

Are there many pirates near where you live?

And as I've said a few times now, your point doesn't work because cars are not built with the intention of killing people, guns however are.

I would argue the intent behind most gun makers is profit.

Gun makers, yes, not the guns themselves.

it's a tool, something you can use to hunt with.

Most guns are rubbish for hunting. Pistols for instance, they are crap because they often don't have the punch or range. Anything with rapid fire is also useless because you can take one aimed shot that might hit, and fire three more that hit nothing at all.

Not everyone with a gun has a hardon for killing humans, in fact given the number of people that own guns and the actual amount of gun violence... I would suspect that the opposite is true.

No but thats what most guns tend to be designed to do. Again, thats what pistols are designed to do, thats what machineguns and assault rifles are designed to do.

and my entire point was how easy it is to kill lots of people with a car, and how silly it would be to start banning them.

And again. Cars and trucks are made with a different function in mind and they can be 'perverted' into a killing machine. Guns are only designed to kill things, and if you pervert them you'd make them less harmful... when you use them as a hammer or as table legs.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7
deactivated-5b0a7ade504a7

909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@ughwhateverfine said:

Inconveniently? We have a difference of opinion on that one. From my point of view it's quite the opposite.

Well of course. But lets be blunt, you live like you do because it's a choice... it's not like you were banished to the wilds by the nearest village :)

It's not like this anymore but prior to the 80's it would've been illegal for me to leave the reservation without purchasing a day pass from the state. If this was the 70's I wouldn't have a choice.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@outside_85 said:
@ughwhateverfine said:

Inconveniently? We have a difference of opinion on that one. From my point of view it's quite the opposite.

Well of course. But lets be blunt, you live like you do because it's a choice... it's not like you were banished to the wilds by the nearest village :)

It's not like this anymore but prior to the 80's it would've been illegal for me to leave the reservation without purchasing a day pass from the state. If this was the 70's I wouldn't have a choice.

But that was then, this is now.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@ughwhateverfine said:

Inconveniently? We have a difference of opinion on that one. From my point of view it's quite the opposite.

Well of course. But lets be blunt, you live like you do because it's a choice... it's not like you were banished to the wilds by the nearest village :)

@thekillerklok said:

says the same person defending the argument that anything other then a musket wasn't intended to be included in the 2nd amendment a couple of posts back...

Mind you, I never said anything about regular hunting rifles, like a Remington 700... I hear that's quite popular and quite adequate for hunting. What I am against is the notion that 'hunting' is a reason to have something like an AR-15.

also I was joking about this video I posted a while back... where someone is arguing that muskets should be banned, because silencers are scary.

Eww... scummy Carson. Anyways I imagine the reason silencers haven't been allowed (I dont know if they still aren't?) is because of the fear of someone getting sniper happy somewhere. just less scary looking.

before anyone makes any assumptions about my politcal leanings this is what the internet rates my leanings as.See if you don't get a clean shot... more often then not the deer doesn't just lay there... it moves frantically thrashing about.

I know, thats why your shot has to be spot on... hence why it's a good idea to take your time with the shot possibly have a scope too.

It's easy to hit one when you have surprise on your side... but spooked?

Which to the best of my knowledge is the only time you really should be taking the shot. And if it runs, that is the point where you should just go 'nuts' and let it run.

I mean I would rather not wait for the thing to succumb to it's wounds before putting it out of it's misery because that's just awful. but maybe that's just me.

You could just hit it properly instead :)

and getting close to an injured animal is frankly a bad idea...

True, another reason to just do it right in the first place.

but I guess you have the idealistic expectation that you should never miss that first shot aye?

I don't know about you, but hunters around here are actually encouraged to do it this way.

huh? navel frigates where an arm that a private citizen could own... you know like a musket...

Could own, or must own? I ask because the ancient Greek navy was also technically made up of privately owned or sponsored vessels, which rich people had to do by law. Not to mention trading or merchant vessels were also most often owned by singular individuals... like the ones that brought Columbus to America.

/woosh

Are there many pirates near where you live?

And as I've said a few times now, your point doesn't work because cars are not built with the intention of killing people, guns however are.

I would argue the intent behind most gun makers is profit.

Gun makers, yes, not the guns themselves.

it's a tool, something you can use to hunt with.

Most guns are rubbish for hunting. Pistols for instance, they are crap because they often don't have the punch or range. Anything with rapid fire is also useless because you can take one aimed shot that might hit, and fire three more that hit nothing at all.

Not everyone with a gun has a hardon for killing humans, in fact given the number of people that own guns and the actual amount of gun violence... I would suspect that the opposite is true.

No but thats what most guns tend to be designed to do. Again, thats what pistols are designed to do, thats what machineguns and assault rifles are designed to do.

and my entire point was how easy it is to kill lots of people with a car, and how silly it would be to start banning them.

And again. Cars and trucks are made with a different function in mind and they can be 'perverted' into a killing machine. Guns are only designed to kill things, and if you pervert them you'd make them less harmful... when you use them as a hammer or as table legs.

Mind you, I never said anything about regular hunting rifles, like a Remington 700... I hear that's quite popular and quite adequate for hunting. What I am against is the notion that 'hunting' is a reason to have something like an AR-15.

I googled a list of the most popular rifles for hunting.

Google sensei listed a ruger which is effectively an ar-15 minus the bells and whistles.

No Caption Provided

And I have already stated my reasons why I view semi auto as useful feature while hunting. (I don't care much for full auto anything, and I also believe in having a highish trigger pull weight.

and to be frank... bears are scary, I would rather not shoot at one but if in the theoretical where I couldn't nope my way out of that situation I would like something more pungent then a bolt action please and thank you.

Eww... scummy Carson. Anyways I imagine the reason silencers haven't been allowed (I dont know if they still aren't?) is because of the fear of someone getting sniper happy somewhere. just less scary looking.

Well the politician that appears is trying to ban all muzzle loaders or muskets because they are not considered rifles and hence there is no regulations on putting a silencer on them....is trying to appear

as for you fear of sniping.... muzzle loaders are freaking loud even with a silencer, and even those tactical looking ones are unrifled (Hence why it's not considered a rifle) and have just the worst accuracy at range, and the refire rate of well a musket.

if I was given the chance to pick the weapon the next mass shooter was going to use, and I wasn't allowed to list off a toy, I would pick that stupid musket. I would sooner use one of those bulletproof shields and a spear for home defense.a

The only weapon that I really don't want to see a silencer on are modern air rifles... most actual firearms even with silencers are still freaking loud. 120 decibels was on the 9 mm in that mythbuster vid if memory recalls. an ar-15 has 132 decibels.

Noise Source

Decibel Level

Decibel Effect

Jet take-off (at 25 meters)
Recommended product:Outdoor Noise Barriers

150

Eardrum rupture

Aircraft carrier deck

140

Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft (130 dB).

130

Thunderclap, chain saw. Oxygen torch (121 dB).

120

Painful. 32 times as loud as 70 dB.

Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter. Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB). Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music (108 - 114 dB).

110

Average human pain threshold. 16 times as loud as 70 dB.

http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm

Loading Video...
I took a quiz online to show my politcal leanings. just to clear up any assumptions people may have.
I took a quiz online to show my politcal leanings. just to clear up any assumptions people may have.

I know, thats why your shot has to be spot on... hence why it's a good idea to take your time with the shot possibly have a scope too.

I'll be frank here, I am referring to a deer running away about after you have put a sizable hole in it... and being able to insure that you can hit the thing again and actually put it down. I completely agree with trying to kill on the first shot, but experience tells me that doesn't happen 100% of the time, and I don't want to see prolonged suffering where it runs a bit then slowly bleeds out.

You could just hit it properly instead :)

The best laid plans of mice and men.

True, another reason to just do it right in the first place.

...

I don't know about you, but hunters around here are actually encouraged to do it this way.

and do you expect a hundred percent success rate with anything involving a human?

Could own, or must own? I ask because the ancient Greek navy was also technically made up of privately owned or sponsored vessels, which rich people had to do by law. Not to mention trading or merchant vessels were also most often owned by singular individuals... like the ones that brought Columbus to America.

/woosh

Are there many pirates near where you live?

I think you completely missed my point somewhere... When Did my point ever point out the practicality of owning a navel frigate? the founding fathers believed that a navel frigate was a perfectly acceptable thing for an average citizen to own, and we are talking a ship made for war, not just an armed ship.

Which is ridiculous. (See It ties into the whole point people like to make about the 2nd amendment wasn't written with the intention of people owning anything more powerful then a musket..)

Most guns are rubbish for hunting. Pistols for instance, they are crap because they often don't have the punch or range. Anything with rapid fire is also useless because you can take one aimed shot that might hit, and fire three more that hit nothing at all.

I kind of have been talking hunting here, self defense is a whole can of warms I am trying not to open. I'll let someone else wade into that unwinnable hellhole of a debate.

it totally does, butwhile concealed carry doesn't rustle my jimmies, I don't actually care much for pistols. And I don't carry a pistol everywhere.

pistols are pretty crap for those stated reasons. There are pistols with punch, you don't want to actually fire the damn things.

No but thats what most guns tend to be designed to do. Again, thats what pistols are designed to do, thats what machineguns and assault rifles are designed to do.

does suppression fire= killing? I mean they totally kill, but I feel like suppression fire seems like a more accurate answer.

The problem I have here... The ruger hunting rifle... and the glitzed up tacticool version... what the heck is the difference? where is that line?

A hunting rifle can be designed and intended to... well hunt, and be identical in operation to your semi auto assualt rifles, Anything full auto is already banned.

And I would really consider a military rifle as something you can cycle from full auto to burst fire or single shot.

Fun fact automatic recievers can casually be 3d printed, oh joy.

And again. Cars and trucks are made with a different function in mind and they can be 'perverted' into a killing machine. Guns are only designed to kill things, and if you pervert them you'd make them less harmful... when you use them as a hammer or as table legs.

but when guns are banned, and people start using IED's or running people over with cars... what changes?

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#282  Edited By Thekillerklok

It won't let me edit my previous post because comicvine is having issues today.

this is just a semi auto with a bump stock but it still proves a scary point. good luck with your ban.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Loading Video...

lolwut... was/is this a thing? really?

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#284  Edited By Thekillerklok

Do I really have to put a warning here?

Loading Video...
Loading Video...
Avatar image for deactivated-5b17f1b84ea5f
deactivated-5b17f1b84ea5f

1752

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

No Caption Provided

this picture sums it all up really.

Avatar image for giliad_
GIliad_

6866

Forum Posts

3257

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Just get shut of them already u f***ing nutters

Avatar image for wut
Wut

8062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No.

@thekillerklok: Hey, a fellow libertarian. My brother! [Although, I'm on the right side, not the left, but details!]

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#288  Edited By Thekillerklok

@wut: I am if you look far enough up the chain we are surely related somewhere.

And I really don't fit nicely into the camp of either political side. a couple examples of random beliefs of mine.

I tend to believe that markets need some oversight, Wild west generally creates bubbles in the market that always pop... which is a net bad.

also When I become God Empire anyone who does something like buying out a life saving medicine and raises the price by a factor is going to simply be executed.

I also tend to think that medical insurance is basically a shakedown and will be removed like a tumor.

instead of mass producing military equipment to reach a very necessary goal of keeping the very skilled and workforce employees I would rather just pay them and stop wasting money on tanks people don't need.

I am also an atheist and I am not afraid of science or education ruining children or something, but I also oppose letting muslims use there religious laws in countries that already have their own set rules and laws.

I think a two party cancer fosters an us vs them mentality that is cancerous to the U.S. people waving flags behind causes they are to stupid or lazy to understand is less useful to a democratic society then people focusing on what they specifically believe based off of their own experience.

I would outlaw bills that sneak through legislation, And my punishment would involve a 3 strikes your out system.

oh and don't worry I will keep statues of myself to a minimum... height.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

Well if we have to go into meme wars:

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for wut
Wut

8062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thekillerklok: That is where that leftism in you comes out.

I tend to believe that markets need some oversight, Wild west generally creates bubbles in the market that always pop... which is a net bad.

Limited oversight. Very limited. Mostly to stop monopolies and ensure the law is kept, imo. The government is a blundering moron most of the time and when they have handled things themselves... well, it doesn't come out well [Just check out what happened with telecommunications when they had control over it vs when they privatized it. That isn't a unique event either].

also When I become God Empire anyone who does something like buying out a life saving medicine and raises the price by a factor is going to simply be executed.

Privatizing it and allowing widespread access to numerous producers would help lower the price and increase quality compared to only allowing a few produces and highly regulating it [which is what is done right now].

I also tend to think that medical insurance is basically a shakedown and will be removed like a tumor.

Isn't all insurance? You are paying for 'What If' after all, and some of it is outright mandatory, like car insurance.

instead of mass producing military equipment to reach a very necessary goal of keeping the very skilled and workforce employees I would rather just pay them and stop wasting money on tanks people don't need.

You always need tanks. Someday, you will have tanks that can drive your other tanks.

Eh, paying people for doing nothing is... rather.. dumb. Inspires more people to do nothing as, if they have everything they need, they aren't going to be motivated to go out and do something.

As you aren't really wasting money, resources, maybe, but money? Not really. You are paying them to create something, they in turn, use that money to buy goods and stimulate the economy, and those surplus tanks can then be sold to other nations for profit which is.. what is done now. [As creating domestic vehicles that are equal to Western equivalents is something that will take many countries, nowadays, decades to replicate and the cost of building facilities to do that is going to be more expensive then just importing hence why it is so widely done].

I am also an atheist and I am not afraid of science or education ruining children or something, but I also oppose letting muslims use there religious laws in countries that already have their own set rules and laws.

Like what laws, exactly?

I am not religious, pro or con, nor can I say I ever cared about God or No God [if it helps you to believe Yay or Nay, more power to you] but food for thought:

Loading Video...

I think a two party cancer fosters an us vs them mentality that is cancerous to the U.S. people waving flags behind causes they are to stupid or lazy to understand is less useful to a democratic society then people focusing on what they specifically believe based off of their own experience.

I don't think so. Sure, us vs them happens, but that is ignorance of the individual, and not a flaw in the system [Hell, people think Fascism is the alt-right for god's sake despite the alt-right being closer to anarchy while Fascism is about a strong central state that everyone is subject to which is closer to left].

Having different view points, beliefs, desires and goals is fundamental as discussion, real discussion, propagates ideas while blindly following a single large party is crazy and just ask for the system to become less about democracy and more an institution where the party picks whom they want and that is it, no debates, no choice, just what the party wants and your influence on politics, as a citizen, is now even more diluted then it already was. [Unless you meant the removal of parties, themselves, so each person runs by themselves which... isn't.. really.. possible, like minded individuals will always gather to try and get their beliefs passed on].

I would outlaw bills that sneak through legislation, And my punishment would involve a 3 strikes your out system.

Eh, I think that is more an issue with bills being gutted and then completed changed with the same name that is the issue. Also, if you really want to make an impact, impart a two term limit on Senators.

But I can see why you are left. Too much big gov for my taste.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@wut:

You always need tanks. Someday, you will have tanks that can drive your other tanks.

Eh, paying people for doing nothing is... rather.. dumb. Inspires more people to do nothing as, if they have everything they need, they aren't going to be motivated to go out and do something.

As you aren't really wasting money, resources, maybe, but money? Not really. You are paying them to create something, they in turn, use that money to buy goods and stimulate the economy, and those surplus tanks can then be sold to other nations for profit which is.. what is done now. [As creating domestic vehicles that are equal to Western equivalents is something that will take many countries, nowadays, decades to replicate and the cost of building facilities to do that is going to be more expensive then just importing hence why it is so widely done].

I was mainly referring to paying those super specialized workers in the field a yearly salary that you can not lose benched only when you can't find a use for them . For people who are more disposable I would have some bad news....

You know I really want to bring that whole 600 billion military number down a smidge, (I had to stop myself from going on a very long ramble about china, a trade war, and over saturation of a particular tanky market.)

Limited oversight. Very limited. Mostly to stop monopolies and ensure the law is kept, imo. The government is a blundering moron most of the time and when they have handled things themselves... well, it doesn't come out well [Just check out what happened with telecommunications when they had control over it vs when they privatized it. That isn't a unique event either].

While I am more free market leaning then ironfist, I would argue that allocating more resources to the departments so that they can actually police the obvious violations of laws we have in place is a good step. Imagine an FTC that isn't useless...

Privatizing it and allowing widespread access to numerous producers would help lower the price and increase quality compared to only allowing a few produces and highly regulating it [which is what is done right now].

I would place upper limits, I have faith that someone will show up to make profit even If I limit the markup to x10 base cost.

x100 or x1000 base cost on life saving medicines is just extortion.

Isn't all insurance? You are paying for 'What If' after all, and some of it is outright mandatory, like car insurance.

You know originally I thought I placed a link there that elaborated on my point a bit better, it's back to the whole extreme markup of base cost thing, You want to charge someone 10 times base cost? be my guest... but a markup of 100x base cost? or 250X base cost on medical supplies... I say nope.

It's all about leaving just enough wiggleroom for someone to make a tidy profit. If there is profit to be made they will come...

And manditory insurance is like paying protection money. Not a bandaid I feel bad about pulling off.

Like what laws, exactly?

I am not religious, pro or con, nor can I say I ever cared about God or No God [if it helps you to believe Yay or Nay, more power to you] but food for thought:

I was referring to schooling curriculum's in public schools... particularly the whole evolution thing... I don't really see the need to have schools be required to show the religious side. because I don't care for having anything religious in a school at all. (just a micro example of why I don't really mesh in with republicans.)

and I view the argument in that video as complete garbage, for people who fail to conceptualize just how big of a place the universe is.... and even then... some overarching cosmic creator is a very different concept then the gods of mans making.

and I could go on a very long diatribe about basing an argument off of current cosmic models and that's shite because they are constantly changing.

I don't think so. Sure, us vs them happens, but that is ignorance of the individual, and not a flaw in the system [Hell, people think Fascism is the alt-right for god's sake despite the alt-right being closer to anarchy while Fascism is about a strong central state that everyone is subject to which is closer to left].

Having different view points, beliefs, desires and goals is fundamental as discussion, real discussion, propagates ideas while blindly following a single large party is crazy and just ask for the system to become less about democracy and more an institution where the party picks whom they want and that is it, no debates, no choice, just what the party wants and your influence on politics, as a citizen, is now even more diluted then it already was. [Unless you meant the removal of parties, themselves, so each person runs by themselves which... isn't.. really.. possible, like minded individuals will always gather to try and get their beliefs passed on].

imagine a change in the way votes are tallied, let's say 8 names appear on a ballet all from different parties, I would give people the option to vote 8 for the person they like best and write in a 7 for the person they like 2nd best and 6 for the person they like third best ect.

Throw more parties/candidates in the mix and stir that pot.

Of course as god empire I will be the one true ultimate leader... while I would mostly leave lawmaking to democratically elected officials, and I do nothing more or less then make the occasional example out of random corrupt officials. can you kill all corruption? I doubt it. but I am willing to bet my methods would leave a sizable dent in just how brazen it is.

Avatar image for wut
Wut

8062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#292  Edited By Wut

@thekillerklok:

I was mainly referring to paying those super specialized workers in the field a yearly salary that you can not lose benched only when you can't find a use for them . For people who are more disposable I would have some bad news....

You know I really want to bring that whole 600 billion military number down a smidge, (I had to stop myself from going on a very long ramble about china, a trade war, and over saturation of a particular tanky market.)

Why? Why bench them at all? Doesn't make sense. If you want to allocate budget to infrastructure or something, more power to you, but paying someone to do nothing is more of a waste then paying them to do something bad. As at least something is being done at all. If you don't want 'more tanks' then dedicate them to upgrading existing models, which is the current US plan, or work on the next generation of tank, or, hell, move them to designing other military vehicles instead of just benching them, and paying them, on the bench which is rather insane.

While I am more free market leaning then ironfist, I would argue that allocating more resources to the departments so that they can actually police the obvious violations of laws we have in place is a good step. Imagine an FTC that isn't useless...

FTC is as corrupt as it is useless. IRS could also use a lot of help.

I would place upper limits, I have faith that someone will show up to make profit even If I limit the markup to x10 base cost.

x100 or x1000 base cost on life saving medicines is just extortion.

By spreading out the medicines, machinery and other medical service necessitates to multiple company producers, the prices will naturally fall without you having to do anything. That is just how competition and the world works, more options out there means they do what they can to make their option more appealing either by increasing quality to make the price worth it or by lowering price to make people more willing to buy theirs.

The current issue with it is the small amount of producers, high regulation and stupid system that is currently in place.

You know originally I thought I placed a link there that elaborated on my point a bit better, it's back to the whole extreme markup of base cost thing, You want to charge someone 10 times base cost? be my guest... but a markup of 100x base cost? or 250X base cost on medical supplies... I say nope.

It's all about leaving just enough wiggleroom for someone to make a tidy profit. If there is profit to be made they will come...

And manditory insurance is like paying protection money. Not a bandaid I feel bad about pulling of

I'm with you on this one, only because I don't like being forced to do anything.

I was referring to schooling curriculum's in public schools... particularly the whole evolution thing... I don't really see the need to have schools be required to show the religious side. because I don't care for having anything religious in a school at all. (just a micro example of why I don't really mesh in with republicans.)

Eh, I never understood why people are so dead set on believing science and religion are mutually exclusive. Religion should be taught, but it should be the historical significance and impact of religion on cultures in history classes. Private Schools, of course, can teach whatever they want because that is their prerogative, but public schools should remain neutral on religion.

and I view the argument in that video as complete garbage, for people who fail to conceptualize just how big of a place the universe is.... and even then... some overarching cosmic creator is a very different concept then the gods of mans making.

and I could go on a very long diatribe about basing an argument off of current cosmic models and that's shite because they are constantly changing.

... You realize saying, 'Well, I don't believe that because we are still learning!' is a very childish stance to take? Of course we are always learning new things, but we make judgement based on what we currently know and leave room for things we may learn in the future. Stomping the ground and shaking your head because you don't like what it says isn't a good policy to live by. The point of the video was not to say Catholicism, Muslim, etc were correct, just that there being some 'creator' or 'creators' is not as unlikely as people believe and the notion that Science and Religion are mutually exclusive isn't always necessarily the case. It was meant to make you consider that for a bit, just ponder on the possibilities, not go, 'Well, I don't like it because meh'.

This is why I am in the middle, I don't care for or against the notion of God. If God [Whatever form or version, if any] turns out to be real, 'Oh, no shit?' God turns out to not be real, 'Oh, no shit?', but its interesting to think about, for and against, and I am not going to utterly refuse the other just because I don't like the possibility.

imagine a change in the way votes are tallied, let's say 8 names appear on a ballet all from different parties, I would give people the option to vote 8 for the person they like best and write in a 7 for the person they like 2nd best and 6 for the person they like third best ect.

Throwing more names on the ballot is nice and all, although people can write it but then that again comes down to the laziness and ignorance of the individual, but being able to write your preferences for each is just... dumb.

How many points is number 2 worth? .75 of a vote?

3 is worth .6 a vote?

That is a rather silly and extremely convoluted way of doing it. Vote for the one you want and don't clog up the system.

Throw more parties/candidates in the mix and stir that pot.

There are more parties and candidates then just the two. People just are too lazy to vote for them as that would require them to think about it more. Putting more names on it is fine, but the other 'picking your second, third, fourth, etc' favorites is just convoluted.

Of course as god empire I will be the one true ultimate leader... while I would mostly leave lawmaking to democratically elected officials, and I do nothing more or less then make the occasional example out of random corrupt officials. can you kill all corruption? I doubt it. but I am willing to bet my methods would leave a sizable dent in just how brazen it is.

How are you libertarian!? Lol

Avatar image for removekebab
removekebab

3794

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes goyim, strip yourselves of your rights for us.

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Let's lay this about a bit on a few points.

There are plenty of people today (who almost certainly don't have internet) who either HAVE to hunt to put meat on the table, OR hunt because on deer will give them meat for a month that would be much more expensive for them to buy. That's not a life they CHOSE, that's the economic situation they find themselves in. They can't afford to move even if they wanted to, they're not "uncivilized" they're some of the best people you could ever meet. Give you the clothes off your back kind of people. I grew up with them though i was lucky enough to have enough money to get food from the super market. Judge them however you wish, it just makes you an elitist asshole.

Most people in that situation use more powerful rifles than an AR-15 but that doesn't make an AR-15 not a decent hunting rifle. I don't hunt but I've seen them used quite effectively. I HAVE used an M4 (the shorter version of the M16) which is he military version of the AR-15...and no, regardless of what anyone says or what you hear from celebrities, commercials, or articles they are NOT the same weapon, they just look VERY similar but their functionality is quite different.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment isn't just about hunting. It's about citizens being able to defend themselves and their property and to contribute to a well organized militia. (btw, what do you think the National Guard is?) So the organized militia part has fallen by the way side but not the self protection part.

It's ALSO to defend against the oppression of a tyrannical government that is no longer serving the interests of the people and is overstepping its bounds and going against the bounds of the Constitution. You know, defending against tyranny and overstepping the powers of government kind of like they had just done against England?

Also, while those earlier not great prototypes of repeating weapons didn't work so well, the Founding Fathers were well aware of them and as time has proven, they were not idiots. They could CERTAINLY see the writing on the wall that weapon, political, social and scientific advancements were going to happen, in fact Jefferson pretty much said so, not in as many words, but he knew future generations were going to grow and expand beyond the existing document and change thing, however the Constitution is framed so that the changes are done within the system.

I'm not against sensible gun control legislation like banning bump stocks and trigger cranks and I'm DEFINITELY in favor of beefing up and getting all the agencies involved communicating effectively to make back ground checks more secure and reliable.

Here is exactly what would happen though, even if the government (actually the government getting this bad isn't that likely, but they've done some hinky stuff, New Orleans after Katrina comes to mind) never gives people a reason to resist it. Take the weapons from law abiding citizens. Who's left with the guns? Criminals and cops. Even if people trusted the police (faith in police officers is at an almost all time low btw) the police can't be there to guard you 24/7 and criminals ARE around 24/7. NOW people have no way to defend themselves...what are they supposed to use? Harsh language?

One last thing that I think is ironic and funny. People don't trust Trump (which is more than understandable) and they think he's trying to consolidate all the power of the government for himself...yet people want his administration to confiscate all the guns so that only his government (and the criminals) have all the guns. I just think this is hilarious.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#295  Edited By Thekillerklok

@wut

Why? Why bench them at all? Doesn't make sense. If you want to allocate budget to infrastructure or something, more power to you, but paying someone to do nothing is more of a waste then paying them to do something bad. As at least something is being done at all. If you don't want 'more tanks' then dedicate them to upgrading existing models, which is the current US plan, or work on the next generation of tank, or, hell, move them to designing other military vehicles instead of just benching them, and paying them, on the bench which is rather insane.

well your answer and mine are actually nearly identical... I left out some information in my premise because I was/am lazy.

pay someone a yearly salary and use them however you can, have an exclusive contract so they are not lost though.

There are a couple who would occasionally end up on the bench, but Instead of having them work on stuff the military doesn't want or need... why can't I have mister specialized tank wielder go work on infrastructure for a while? he would be overpayed sure... but...

FTC is as corrupt as it is useless. IRS could also use a lot of help.

and being horrifically understaffed and underfunded can't be helping...

By spreading out the medicines, machinery and other medical service necessitates to multiple company producers, the prices will naturally fall without you having to do anything. That is just how competition and the world works, more options out there means they do what they can to make their option more appealing either by increasing quality to make the price worth it or by lowering price to make people more willing to buy theirs.

The current issue with it is the small amount of producers, high regulation and stupid system that is currently in place.

I was referring to cases where the copyright/patent is held by one party, but yes the china approach to "What is copyright can I eat it?" would work well...

Eh, I never understood why people are so dead set on believing science and religion are mutually exclusive. Religion should be taught, but it should be the historical significance and impact of religion on cultures in history classes. Private Schools, of course, can teach whatever they want because that is their prerogative, but public schools should remain neutral on religion.

If you want a religion studies class from a historical perspective be my guest, it doesn't belong in a biology classroom.

... You realize saying, 'Well, I don't believe that because we are still learning!' is a very childish stance to take? Of course we are always learning new things, but we make judgement based on what we currently know and leave room for things we may learn in the future. Stomping the ground and shaking your head because you don't like what it says isn't a good policy to live by. The point of the video was not to say Catholicism, Muslim, etc were correct, just that there being some 'creator' or 'creators' is not as unlikely as people believe and the notion that Science and Religion are mutually exclusive isn't always necessarily the case. It was meant to make you consider that for a bit, just ponder on the possibilities, not go, 'Well, I don't like it because meh'.

This is why I am in the middle, I don't care for or against the notion of God. If God [Whatever form or version, if any] turns out to be real, 'Oh, no shit?' God turns out to not be real, 'Oh, no shit?', but its interesting to think about, for and against, and I am not going to utterly refuse the other just because I don't like the possibility.

and I am an Agnostic Atheist, and so are you apparently.

I don't know therefore god is a bad argument. I think the better argument is "I don't know therefore I don't know."

While I don't hate that channel there biases are pretty apparent. And I don't have enough sanity or time in my day for weakly threaded together religious arguments.

because I have heard the god of the gaps argument, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over an over again.

Throwing more names on the ballot is nice and all, although people can write it but then that again comes down to the laziness and ignorance of the individual, but being able to write your preferences for each is just... dumb.

How many points is number 2 worth? .75 of a vote?

3 is worth .6 a vote?

That is a rather silly and extremely convoluted way of doing it. Vote for the one you want and don't clog up the system.

Watch this video...

How are you libertarian!? Lol

Don't worry it's only those who hold a public office that I will hold to a higher standard.

And I won't kill anyone just send them do a "reeducation center" varying amounts of time based off of a first offense, second offense, and grievous offense, system.

The flaw in this system would be trying to find an heir to the mantle of god empire... but we can cross that hurdle a generation at a time

Avatar image for wut
Wut

8062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thekillerklok:

well your answer and mine are actually nearly identical... I left out some information in my premise because I was/am lazy.

pay someone a yearly salary and use them however you can, have an exclusive contract so they are not lost though.

There are a couple who would occasionally end up on the bench, but Instead of having them work on stuff the military doesn't want or need... why can't I have mister specialized tank wielder go work on infrastructure for a while? he would be overpayed sure... but...

Lol I did say making them do infrastructure is fine, but just making them do nothing is insane. Although if you want to cut military spending while still paying them the same for lesser work is... XD Admirable.

and being horrifically understaffed and underfunded can't be helping...

Its a mess.

I was referring to cases where the copyright/patent is held by one party, but yes the china approach to "What is copyright can I eat it?" would work well...

Yes.. and spreading that property to other companies allowing a larger production base lowers it... Which.. is what I said should be done. You don't need to keep an eye on them very closely, more, let more people in on the goods.

If you want a religion studies class from a historical perspective be my guest, it doesn't belong in a biology classroom.

That is what I said. Not studying religion from a historical perspective is not doing your job in history. Science should be kept neutral.

and I am an Agnostic Atheist, and so are you apparently.

I don't know therefore god is a bad argument. I think the better argument is "I don't know therefore I don't know."

But that isn't what you are doing. You are, 'Well, we don't know 100% either way, so I refuse to even consider either possibility'. One is not the other.

While I don't hate that channel there biases are pretty apparent. And I don't have enough sanity or time in my day for weakly threaded together religious arguments.

Absolutely, but I also view very left minded channels as well. I take a balanced diet. Good points come from both sides... sometimes.

because I have heard the god of the gaps argument, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over an over again.

Doesn't make it invalid.

Don't worry it's only those who hold a public office that I will hold to a higher standard.

And I won't kill anyone just send them do a "reeducation center" varying amounts of time based off of a first offense, second offense, and grievous offense, system.

The flaw in this system would be trying to find an heir to the mantle of god empire... but we can cross that hurdle a generation at a time

How are you libertarian?!

That video, literally, does not address how bloated the voting would become. In fact, he dishonestly simplified it to avoid how bloated it would be.

Avatar image for bio_guyver
Bio Guyver

7165

Forum Posts

48

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#297  Edited By Bio Guyver

@heroup2112:

Similar thoughts. I actually had a discussion about gun control with an Australian passenger(I'm a coach driver) and he just could not understand why the 2nd amendment was placed in the first place.

"Americans love their guns."

I don't even own one, nor am I interested in owning one—at this time. The "gun control" issue definitely falls in that gray area. It's not black and white, like some would like to believe.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#298  Edited By Thekillerklok

@thekillerklok:

well your answer and mine are actually nearly identical... I left out some information in my premise because I was/am lazy.

pay someone a yearly salary and use them however you can, have an exclusive contract so they are not lost though.

There are a couple who would occasionally end up on the bench, but Instead of having them work on stuff the military doesn't want or need... why can't I have mister specialized tank wielder go work on infrastructure for a while? he would be overpayed sure... but...

Lol I did say making them do infrastructure is fine, but just making them do nothing is insane. Although if you want to cut military spending while still paying them the same for lesser work is... XD Admirable.

and being horrifically understaffed and underfunded can't be helping...

Its a mess.

I was referring to cases where the copyright/patent is held by one party, but yes the china approach to "What is copyright can I eat it?" would work well...

Yes.. and spreading that property to other companies allowing a larger production base lowers it... Which.. is what I said should be done. You don't need to keep an eye on them very closely, more, let more people in on the goods.

If you want a religion studies class from a historical perspective be my guest, it doesn't belong in a biology classroom.

That is what I said. Not studying religion from a historical perspective is not doing your job in history. Science should be kept neutral.

and I am an Agnostic Atheist, and so are you apparently.

I don't know therefore god is a bad argument. I think the better argument is "I don't know therefore I don't know."

But that isn't what you are doing. You are, 'Well, we don't know 100% either way, so I refuse to even consider either possibility'. One is not the other.

While I don't hate that channel there biases are pretty apparent. And I don't have enough sanity or time in my day for weakly threaded together religious arguments.

Absolutely, but I also view very left minded channels as well. I take a balanced diet. Good points come from both sides... sometimes.

because I have heard the god of the gaps argument, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over an over again.

Doesn't make it invalid.

Don't worry it's only those who hold a public office that I will hold to a higher standard.

And I won't kill anyone just send them do a "reeducation center" varying amounts of time based off of a first offense, second offense, and grievous offense, system.

The flaw in this system would be trying to find an heir to the mantle of god empire... but we can cross that hurdle a generation at a time

How are you libertarian?!

That video, literally, does not address how bloated the voting would become. In fact, he dishonestly simplified it to avoid how bloated it would be.

Lol I did say making them do infrastructure is fine, but just making them do nothing is insane. Although if you want to cut military spending while still paying them the same for lesser work is... XD Admirable.

Sane, insane... what ever costs less money lol. I am not aiming for an ideal only something more reasonable.

Its a mess.

yep...

Yes.. and spreading that property to other companies allowing a larger production base lowers it... Which.. is what I said should be done. You don't need to keep an eye on them very closely, more, let more people in on the goods.

I can't completely hate on this, not perfectly practical, you have to take into account the amount of money that is spent on researching drugs... and how taking their patent away form them and spreading it around may harm future innovation.

But that isn't what you are doing. You are, 'Well, we don't know 100% either way, so I refuse to even consider either possibility'. One is not the other.

Well to be fair to me I vaguely remember coming across that specific argument before, and I'm pretty sure I remember it being bunk.

Notice how your video was created 2015...

well this is from 2016...

https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/odds-were-only-technologically-advanced-species-universe-are-extremely-low-180958975/

that pendulum on the whole drake equation has swung back and forth to many times now...

But that isn't what you are doing. You are, 'Well, we don't know 100% either way, so I refuse to even consider either possibility'. One is not the other.

I've spent a couple years of my life debating religion now I no longer care to... I am bored with the topic, brain blanks out and asks for new engaging stimuli.

If the argument isn't new to me... I say nope.

Absolutely, but I also view very left minded channels as well. I take a balanced diet. Good points come from both sides... sometimes.

yep get your news and arguments from different sources... and remember to think critically. all good practices.

Doesn't make it invalid.

But the god of gaps argument is very old... and the gap god could be hiding in keeps shrinking...

Agnostic Athiest = Could there be a god? maybe. Have I seen evidence of one? nein.

Arguing "Well there could be a god because gaps." is pointless... because if you want to change atheist to theist I require evidence.

How are you libertarian?!

That video, literally, does not address how bloated the voting would become. In fact, he dishonestly simplified it to avoid how bloated it would be.

I am hoping for blockchain to simplify the process. A reliable technoligy that would be extremely difficult to hack, and good old paper records of each vote that could be used to verify the integrity.

Avatar image for wut
Wut

8062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#299  Edited By Wut

@thekillerklok:

Well to be fair to me I vaguely remember coming across that specific argument before, and I'm pretty sure I remember it being bunk.

Notice how your video was created 2015...

well this is from 2016...

https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/odds-were-only-technologically-advanced-species-universe-are-extremely-low-180958975/

that pendulum on the whole drake equation has swung back and forth to many times now...

That one isn't contradictory. They altered the equation to discuss any that have ever existed, rather then what they currently look at which is the odds that one exist at the same time as ours and so grounds for communication.

From the article:

Instead of estimating how many civilizations are out there to communicate with today, they estimate how many civilizations have been out there since the beginning of the Universe.

gotta make sure you read those before posting them mate.

EDIT: Going to extrapolate this further to avoid confusion:

You need to read it as those guys seemed to be more out for attention then anything else. A core element in their search was assuming 1 out of 5 stars have an earth like planet. This is false:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/20/we-are-not-alone-nasa-telescope-finds-10-earth-like-planets

200,000 sample stars looked and of those 200,000, they found 219 candidates and of those candidates only 10 were of the right size and temperature to be looked at. So, you are looking more at 1 in 20,000 just to check off two basic foundations of life [size and temperature]. They called it 'pessimistic' but their guesses are very optimistic.

Now, it is constantly growing, that article was done just last year, but this is fine tuning argument, not gap argument, btw.

I've spent a couple years of my life debating religion now I no longer care to... I am bored with the topic, brain blanks out and asks for new engaging stimuli.

If the argument isn't new to me... I say nope.

So have I, doesn't stop me from thinking on it. You can say 'Done this, not interested in debating,' which is fine, but dismissing it out of hand clearly takes a stand.

yep get your news and arguments from different sources... and remember to think critically. all good practices.

Of course. Take a stand on your beliefs, but always be willing to listen to others. Can't learn otherwise.

But the god of gaps argument is very old... and the gap god could be hiding in keeps shrinking...

Agnostic Athiest = Could there be a god? maybe. Have I seen evidence of one? nein.

Arguing "Well there could be a god because gaps." is pointless... because if you want to change atheist to theist I require evidence.

The argument for fine tuning is just as strong as ever.

I am hoping for blockchain to simplify the process. A reliable technoligy that would be extremely difficult to hack, and good old paper records of each vote that could be used to verify the integrity.

Lol magical blockchain.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@wut

From the article:

Instead of estimating how many civilizations are out there to communicate with today, they estimate how many civilizations have been out there since the beginning of the Universe.

gotta make sure you read those before posting them mate.

Hey I... glanced over it.

How does taking into account time hurt my argument in any way?

Taking into account the shear amount of time this ol sandbox that is the universe has had to run seems to hurt the debate that there must have been a creator for life to pop up doesn't it? doing anything otherwise seems to be rigging the argument a bit.

Lol magical blockchain.

In theory what would make that viable is it's harder to hack a decentralized database... and you would keep detailed logs stored right on the chain.

The goal is to try to make it really difficult to tamper with results without having an trail.

like I said... I am hopeful.