Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[Ors Might]

Tbh, I’m not sure if disarming the mentally ill would do much good. Isn’t it like an extreme minority of them that are actually dangerous?

Extreme minority, yeah, and it would increase stereotyping, leading to non-compliance and decreased diagnosis rates. Pretty damn useless, but still more useful than disarming the general populace.

Arguably just as harmful towards the populations they’d affect, though. Not something I’d budge on, not without due process being involved.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Extreme minority, yeah, and it would increase stereotyping, leading to non-compliance and decreased diagnosis rates. Pretty damn useless, but still more useful than disarming the general populace.

Arguably just as harmful towards the populations they’d affect, though. Not something I’d budge on, not without due process being involved.

Tbh I’m more in favor of expanding measures that are already in place, like the psychiatric restraining order equivalent that should have been invoked on the shooter at Parkland. If that hadn’t fallen through the cracks, it would have been immensely harder for him to have purchased a weapon, and the odds are that tragedy might not have occurred.

[Ors Might]

Arguably just as harmful towards the populations they’d affect, though. Not something I’d budge on, not without due process being involved.

Tbh I’m more in favor of expanding measures that are already in place, like the psychiatric restraining order equivalent that should have been invoked on the shooter at Parkland. If that hadn’t fallen through the cracks, it would have been immensely harder for him to have purchased a weapon, and the odds are that tragedy might not have occurred.

Depending on the criteria used, that could be acceptable.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Tbh I’m more in favor of expanding measures that are already in place, like the psychiatric restraining order equivalent that should have been invoked on the shooter at Parkland. If that hadn’t fallen through the cracks, it would have been immensely harder for him to have purchased a weapon, and the odds are that tragedy might not have occurred.

Depending on the criteria used, that could be acceptable.

Yeah, of course you have to be reasonable about these things- like I’m all for stripping people on the DNF list of the potential to harm others. The trouble is how people end up on that list. Arbitrarily or administratively restricting the rights of residents or citizens of the United States should always be handled very carefully, and with great suspicion.

[Wysten]

Of course. Few would want to end up on the wrong side of the law, especially if they value their career. Those who refuse may vote with their feet to Zimbabwe, or wherever!

Human rights are of more value than my career.

And I'd rather vote from a rooftop and keep my own country decent.

Rooftop Koreans OP plz nerf.

[Tobleste]

I think the belief that gun ownership prevents dictatorships is entirely limited to American conservatives. Looking at the rates of gun ownership by country (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimat ... by_country), it doesn't exactly look like a ranking of countries by how democratic they are.

Anyway the whole argument is theoretical. Because America's founding fathers couldn't predict the future, an outdated amendment will prevent any serious gun control which will enrage democrats and state's rights will let blue states pass some small measures that outrage republicans. Mass shootings will continue. There'll be another Las Vegas, another Stoneman Douglas, another Virginia tech, another Orlando, another Columbine and another Sandy Hook. Suicide by guns will continue. Democrats will get angry and try to prevent it and republicans will get angry and try to stop them and the status quo will drag on.

The gun control debate is already over (https://mobile.twitter.com/dpjhodges/st ... 96?lang=en).

Dear God, it's the musket argument.
AGAIN

Out of my entire post, you only see a point about muskets that wasn't even there? This is why many people aren't bothering to engage with gun control opponents anymore: it's preaching to a wall.

[Frostnia]

Depending on the criteria used, that could be acceptable.

Yeah, of course you have to be reasonable about these things- like I’m all for stripping people on the DNF list of the potential to harm others. The trouble is how people end up on that list. Arbitrarily or administratively restricting the rights of residents or citizens of the United States should always be handled very carefully, and with great suspicion.

Wouldn't it be easier to strip assault weapons away in the first place?

[Sovaal]

Dear God, it's the musket argument.
AGAIN

Out of my entire post, you only see a point about muskets that wasn't even there? This is why many people aren't bothering to engage with gun control opponents anymore: it's preaching to a wall.

If you haven’t looked at the last few pages I suggest you do; antis aren’t always paragons of reasonable discussion either.

[Wysten]

Yeah, of course you have to be reasonable about these things- like I’m all for stripping people on the DNF list of the potential to harm others. The trouble is how people end up on that list. Arbitrarily or administratively restricting the rights of residents or citizens of the United States should always be handled very carefully, and with great suspicion.

Wouldn't it be easier to strip assault weapons away in the first place?

Assault weapons are not a thing.

[Sovaal]

Yeah, of course you have to be reasonable about these things- like I’m all for stripping people on the DNF list of the potential to harm others. The trouble is how people end up on that list. Arbitrarily or administratively restricting the rights of residents or citizens of the United States should always be handled very carefully, and with great suspicion.

Wouldn't it be easier to strip assault weapons away in the first place?

>assault weapon

Define assault weapon.

[Reikin]

People in St. Louis are mad a lot?

Seems like all Yanks are mad a lot compared to the rest of the civilised world....

Oh we are,

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/m ... 20041.html

[Infinite Coscotlan]

Wouldn't it be easier to strip assault weapons away in the first place?

Assault weapons are not a thing.

Any weapon you can assault with are to be limited to the police and the military. Man is a panicky animal, and cannot handle easily utilised ranged capabilities responsibly.

[Kramanica]

Assault weapons are not a thing.

Any weapon you can assault with are to be limited to the police and the military. Man is a panicky animal, and cannot handle easily utilised ranged capabilities responsibly.

So if I assault someone with a bat should it only be limited to the police and military?

[Sovaal]

Assault weapons are not a thing.

Any weapon you can assault with are to be limited to the police and the military. Man is a panicky animal, and cannot handle easily utilised ranged capabilities responsibly.

>any weapon you can assault with

So literally anything that can be used as a weapon? Fukin’ Genieous!/s

[Infinite Coscotlan]

Any weapon you can assault with are to be limited to the police and the military. Man is a panicky animal, and cannot handle easily utilised ranged capabilities responsibly.

>any weapon you can assault with

So literally anything that can be used as a weapon? Fukin’ Genieous!/s

>bat is wepon

"Ranged capabilities."

[Reikin]

Assault weapons are not a thing.

Any weapon you can assault with are to be limited to the police and the military. Man is a panicky animal, and cannot handle easily utilised ranged capabilities responsibly.

What the liberals define as an "assault weapon" isnt one at all, is what he is prob trying to say. Take the AR-15, Armalite Rifle 15, a hunting rifle that could do no more damage than any other, higher caliber rifle. The only reason they call it an assault weapon is because they think AR stands for assault rifle, oh and its big black and scary.

[Greater Gilead]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

You say that now, but how about when you’re fed to the lions?
That’s the thing about the authoritarians, they never seem to imagine themselves as the ones being fucked over.

Well, I recognize that. My nation, which does fit my personal beliefs, fucks over EVERYONE (some literally), even the rulers. I know that I would end up on the bottom in a real Gilead, but I still want it.

[Kramanica]

>any weapon you can assault with

So literally anything that can be used as a weapon? Fukin’ Genieous!/s

>bat is wepon

"Ranged capabilities."

Any weapon you can assault with

Your exact words.

[Tobleste]

Out of my entire post, you only see a point about muskets that wasn't even there? This is why many people aren't bothering to engage with gun control opponents anymore: it's preaching to a wall.

If you haven’t looked at the last few pages I suggest you do; antis aren’t always paragons of reasonable discussion either.

I agree with you there. As always, both sides have idiots. I just think that opponents of gun control seem to have a lower ceiling so to speak. I've seen intelligent arguments in favour of gun control and in favour of right wing ideas like cutting corporate taxes. I've yet to see any gun advocate make sense or convince anyone outside of their bubble. Fortunately that means mass shootings are mostly confined to America and haven't spread but unfortunately that bubble is large enough that America is stuck where it is.

[Sovaal]

>any weapon you can assault with

So literally anything that can be used as a weapon? Fukin’ Genieous!/s

>bat is wepon

"Ranged capabilities."

If used as a club yes. And by their nature all weapons can be used in an assault. Hell, things that aren’t made to be weapons can be used in an assault.

Get better definitions fam.

[Spirit of Hope]

Assault weapons are not a thing.

Any weapon you can assault with are to be limited to the police and the military. Man is a panicky animal, and cannot handle easily utilised ranged capabilities responsibly.

So basically all sports equipment, survival gear and kitchen utensils should only be in the hands of the police and military. Sounds ridiculous. Man can easily be trusted with "ranged capabilities," those who can't be trusted tend to single themselves out.

[Reikin]

>any weapon you can assault with

So literally anything that can be used as a weapon? Fukin’ Genieous!/s

>bat is wepon

"Ranged capabilities."

throw the fkn bat

[Kramanica]

>bat is wepon

"Ranged capabilities."

throw the fkn bat

Redact that bat!

[Sovaal]

You say that now, but how about when you’re fed to the lions?
That’s the thing about the authoritarians, they never seem to imagine themselves as the ones being fucked over.

Well, I recognize that. My nation, which does fit my personal beliefs, fucks over EVERYONE (some literally), even the rulers. I know that I would end up on the bottom in a real Gilead, but I still want it.

K. I guess I can sorta respect that. Still something I would fight tooth and nail to prevent.

[Reikin]

throw the fkn bat

Redact that bat!

*BREAKING NEWS: BAT NOW CONSIDERED ASSAULT WEAPON SYSTEM BABY KILLER!*