SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[Telconi]

Yes, you hate liberty. We know.

But rights serve a functional purpose - because living without them it unbearable torture, and worse than the consequences of having them.

Which is why the unlimited right to bear arms is so widespread among the world, and so highly demanded by everyone. Wait.

As for consequences…what consequences are there from a disarmed populace?

I don't believe anyone here has argued for the unlimited right to bear arms.

The populace is disarmed.

[Galloism]

Yes, you hate liberty. We know.

But rights serve a functional purpose - because living without them it unbearable torture, and worse than the consequences of having them.

Which is why the unlimited right to bear arms is so widespread among the world, and so highly demanded by everyone. Wait.

As for consequences…what consequences are there from a disarmed populace?

Fear for the elderly, disabled, minorities more likely to be victims of crime, and those too small to defend themselves from the average person without it.

Gun bans are basically social discrimination against the vulnerable popularized.

[Kowani]

Gallo. Read the sig.

I don't think the point is to argue that you don't believe your beliefs. But rather that such beliefs are bad and ought to be disregarded.

And why are they bad?

Which is why the unlimited right to bear arms is so widespread among the world, and so highly demanded by everyone. Wait.

As for consequences…what consequences are there from a disarmed populace?

I don't believe anyone here has argued for the unlimited right to bear arms.

Perhaps. Yet the right to bear arms is still the only right of America that is in the minority-which makes Gallo’s point about existence without it being torture kind of bullshit.

The populace is disarmed.

That’s a benefit.

[Telconi]

I don't think the point is to argue that you don't believe your beliefs. But rather that such beliefs are bad and ought to be disregarded.

And why are they bad?

I don't believe anyone here has argued for the unlimited right to bear arms.

Perhaps. Yet the right to bear arms is still the only right of America that is in the minority-which makes Gallo’s point about existence without it being torture kind of bullshit.

The populace is disarmed.

That’s a benefit.

Why is it a benefit?

[Gormwood]

If there had existed an easily manufactured sword or melee weapon that could effortlessly slaughter crowds like a Japanese animation back then there most likely would have been restrictions imposed on who could carry weapons.

I mean, they already did kind of - it just took a few weapons working in concert.

Namely, a lance and/or sword, and an armored horse could kill many by running them down.

Granted, ours are better, such comes with progress - but our speech is better too because of the internet, our assembly better because of the ability to organize via phone apps, our religion better because we can do virtualized services and phone tie ins for the disabled, etc.

Lot easier to dodge a charging horse than a spray of bullets. A spear formation doesn't stop bullets either.

And if technology has advanced, why should the laws regulating arms be kept outdated and primitive?

[Kowani]

Which is why the unlimited right to bear arms is so widespread among the world, and so highly demanded by everyone. Wait.

As for consequences…what consequences are there from a disarmed populace?

Fear for the elderly, disabled, minorities more likely to be victims of crime, and those too small to defend themselves from the average person without it.

Except, as the study I posted on this very page noted, a gun doesn’t actually increase your ability to protect yourself.

Gun bans are basically social discrimination against the vulnerable popularized.

If they’re vulnerable, they’ll be vulnerable with or without guns.

[Telconi]

I mean, they already did kind of - it just took a few weapons working in concert.

Namely, a lance and/or sword, and an armored horse could kill many by running them down.

Granted, ours are better, such comes with progress - but our speech is better too because of the internet, our assembly better because of the ability to organize via phone apps, our religion better because we can do virtualized services and phone tie ins for the disabled, etc.

Lot easier to dodge a charging horse than a spray of bullets. A spear formation doesn't stop bullets either.

And if technology has advanced, why should the laws regulating arms be kept outdated and primitive?

TIL NICS dates from the migration period.

[Gormwood]

Lot easier to dodge a charging horse than a spray of bullets. A spear formation doesn't stop bullets either.

And if technology has advanced, why should the laws regulating arms be kept outdated and primitive?

TIL NICS dates from the migration period.

So do gun rights apparently.

[Telconi]

Fear for the elderly, disabled, minorities more likely to be victims of crime, and those too small to defend themselves from the average person without it.

Except, as the study I posted on this very page noted, a gun doesn’t actually increase your ability to protect yourself.

Gun bans are basically social discrimination against the vulnerable popularized.

If they’re vulnerable, they’ll be vulnerable with or without guns.

One of the specific conclusions was that defensive gun use resulted in a significantly reduced incident of property loss. So yes, actually, it does.

[Telconi]

TIL NICS dates from the migration period.

So do gun rights apparently.

That's right.

[Kowani]

And why are they bad?


Perhaps. Yet the right to bear arms is still the only right of America that is in the minority-which makes Gallo’s point about existence without it being torture kind of bullshit.

That’s a benefit.

Why is it a benefit?

Less crime, effectiveness of violence drops, social tensions become less deadly…

[Telconi]

Why is it a benefit?

Less crime, effectiveness of violence drops, social tensions become less deadly…

Why are these benefits?

[Kowani]

Less crime, effectiveness of violence drops, social tensions become less deadly…

Why are these benefits?

Increased quality of life.

[Telconi]

Why are these benefits?

Increased quality of life.

How?

[Ors Might]

Do you guys consider the right to self-defense to be a human right? Or are you one of those that believe the muggerd and home invaders of the world deserve a fair shot, pun intended?

I mean, I don’t consider it a right.

Mind you, I’ve yet to see evidence that access to guns saves lives either (And don’t pull out that bs “study” of 2 million Defensive Gun Usages. It’s embarrassingly bad.)

Well yeah but I wouldn’t ask you if you considered self-defense a right. I’m guessing you’d consider letting people be legally allowed to protect themselves from assault to be a good thing though.

I mean, I like my odds of survival against a gang of homophobes better when I have a way of actually surviving against them.

[Telconi]

I mean, I don’t consider it a right.

Mind you, I’ve yet to see evidence that access to guns saves lives either (And don’t pull out that bs “study” of 2 million Defensive Gun Usages. It’s embarrassingly bad.)

Well yeah but I wouldn’t ask you if you considered self-defense a right. I’m guessing you’d consider letting people be legally allowed to protect themselves from assault to be a good thing though.

I mean, I like my odds of survival against a gang of homophobes better when I have a way of actually surviving against them.

But a gun doesn't help. Your capacity to commit violent acts is only amplified by a gun if your violence is heinous and malicious.

Guns are magically enchanted weapons of evil, they only do damage against good aligned targets.

[Gormwood]

Less crime, effectiveness of violence drops, social tensions become less deadly…

Why are these benefits?

Wanting more crime and social tension to rationalize guns. Very NRA of you.

[Kowani]

I mean, I don’t consider it a right.

Mind you, I’ve yet to see evidence that access to guns saves lives either (And don’t pull out that bs “study” of 2 million Defensive Gun Usages. It’s embarrassingly bad.)

Well yeah but I wouldn’t ask you if you considered self-defense a right. I’m guessing you’d consider letting people be legally allowed to protect themselves from assault to be a good thing though.

Maybe if guns increased effectiveness of self-defense.

I mean, I like my odds of survival against a gang of homophobes better when I have a way of actually surviving against them.

But you don’t.

Increased quality of life.

How?

Not dying, having your stuff stolen, or (in certain areas) having to live in fear of being shot.

[Galloism]

I mean, they already did kind of - it just took a few weapons working in concert.

Namely, a lance and/or sword, and an armored horse could kill many by running them down.

Granted, ours are better, such comes with progress - but our speech is better too because of the internet, our assembly better because of the ability to organize via phone apps, our religion better because we can do virtualized services and phone tie ins for the disabled, etc.

Lot easier to dodge a charging horse than a spray of bullets. A spear formation doesn't stop bullets either.

And if technology has advanced, why should the laws regulating arms be kept outdated and primitive?

They shouldn't. Manufacturing quality controls should definitely reflect modern realities.

[Telconi]

Why are these benefits?

Wanting more crime and social tension to rationalize guns. Very NRA of you.

Got anything true to post? Or are you down to just straw these days?

[Telconi]

Well yeah but I wouldn’t ask you if you considered self-defense a right. I’m guessing you’d consider letting people be legally allowed to protect themselves from assault to be a good thing though.

Maybe if guns increased effectiveness of self-defense.

I mean, I like my odds of survival against a gang of homophobes better when I have a way of actually surviving against them.

But you don’t.

How?

Not dying, having your stuff stolen, or (in certain areas) having to live in fear of being shot.

You're distinctly bad at nihilism.

Also of note, your own study specifically states that gun use makes someone less likely to get their shit stolen.

[Galloism]

Fear for the elderly, disabled, minorities more likely to be victims of crime, and those too small to defend themselves from the average person without it.

Except, as the study I posted on this very page noted, a gun doesn’t actually increase your ability to protect yourself.

Gun bans are basically social discrimination against the vulnerable popularized.

If they’re vulnerable, they’ll be vulnerable with or without guns.

They're more vulnerable without them.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/79-year-woman ... d=61190928

Would you prefer she didn't have a gun?

[Ors Might]

Well yeah but I wouldn’t ask you if you considered self-defense a right. I’m guessing you’d consider letting people be legally allowed to protect themselves from assault to be a good thing though.

Maybe if guns increased effectiveness of self-defense.

I mean, I like my odds of survival against a gang of homophobes better when I have a way of actually surviving against them.

But you don’t.

How?

Not dying, having your stuff stolen, or (in certain areas) having to live in fear of being shot.

I’m not seeing anything that contradicts the fact that guns are very useful for situations involving multiple hostiles. Or are guns just ineffective weapons all around now?

[Crockerland]

The populace is disarmed.

That’s a benefit.

If you take the side of rapists, home invaders, thugs, terrorists and homophobes over their victims, I guess I could see how you might think putting everyone at their mercy is a positive thing.

[Gormwood]

Lot easier to dodge a charging horse than a spray of bullets. A spear formation doesn't stop bullets either.

And if technology has advanced, why should the laws regulating arms be kept outdated and primitive?

They shouldn't. Manufacturing quality controls should definitely reflect modern realities.

That's adorable. Good one. But somehow semiautomatics still have to be treated like muzzle loaders with regards to who can get them.