SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[Telconi]

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.

Said nobody here.

[Galloism]

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.

I mean yeah, we don't ration internet access based on how worthy we think people are to speak, and speech is a much more dangerous right than arms.

Hell, even the NYT opinions section says so.

[Tombradyonia]

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And if technology has advanced, why should the laws regulating arms be kept outdated and primitive?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

Some on the right don't want any regulation at all. Even if the Second Amendment clearly states "well regulated". I suppose they'd be fine with suitcase nukes?

[Gormwood]

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

I mean yeah, we don't ration internet access based on how worthy we think people are to speak, and speech is a much more dangerous right than arms.

Yet we act like China when it comes to people and websites associated with say, al'Qaeda and ISIS.

Hell, even the NYT opinions section says so.

The NYT has left and right-wing opinion writers so not really a gotcha source like you assumed.

[Ors Might]

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

Some on the right don't want any regulation at all. Even if the Second Amendment clearly states "well regulated". I suppose they'd be fine with suitcase nukes?

Strictly speaking, “well regulated” doesn’t require that we ban certain types of guns or prevent civilians from owning weapons that the military has access to. Liberals tend to forget the “shall not be infringed” part.

[Kowani]

Maybe if guns increased effectiveness of self-defense.

But you don’t.


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

You're distinctly bad at nihilism.

You misunderstanding nihilism is your fault.

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

Yes...but not compared to other things. “In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.”
Note that it doesn’t say anything about those who did nothing.

Maybe if guns increased effectiveness of self-defense.

But you don’t.


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?

“SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.”
So, yes. And this is backed up by multiple other studies, but I’m not linkspamming.

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.

Maybe if guns actually worked to protect people from them, you’d have an argument.

[Ors Might]

I mean yeah, we don't ration internet access based on how worthy we think people are to speak, and speech is a much more dangerous right than arms.

Yet we act like China when it comes to people and websites associated with say, al'Qaeda and ISIS.

Hell, even the NYT opinions section says so.

The NYT has left and right-wing opinion writers so not really a gotcha source like you assumed.

Terrorism is quite different than citizens owning semiautomatics, Gauth.

[Gormwood]

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 think he's abandoned ship. ran out of arguments.

Self defense doesn't require having to reduce the other guy to chunks unless a real life zombie epidemic has broken out.

[Galloism]

I mean yeah, we don't ration internet access based on how worthy we think people are to speak, and speech is a much more dangerous right than arms.

Yet we act like China when it comes to people and websites associated with say, al'Qaeda and ISIS.

We do take exhorting people to commit specific violent acts differently, but then again, we did the same back to the founding of the republic, so that's not really a new thing.

Hell, even the NYT opinions section says so.

The NYT has left and right-wing opinion writers so not really a gotcha source like you assumed.

It's not really a "gotcha" thing at all. It's a strong comparison point and why rights should transcend time and technology.

It's just that free speech is more dangerous than the right to be arms, by a wide margin in fact, and yet we never talk about just banning certain people from speaking - even people in prison for rallying people to and committing terrorism.

Why is that?

[Ors Might]

You're distinctly bad at nihilism.

You misunderstanding nihilism is your fault.

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

Yes...but not compared to other things. “In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.”
Note that it doesn’t say anything about those who did nothing.

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?

“SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.”
So, yes. And this is backed up by multiple other studies, but I’m not linkspamming.

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.

Maybe if guns actually worked to protect people from them, you’d have an argument.

I much prefer injury over being fucking lynched. What, do you think I’d be just fine if all I had were my bare hands? What are your stats on that reducing my odds of injury?

[Ors Might]

i think he's abandoned ship. ran out of arguments.

Self defense doesn't require having to reduce the other guy to chunks unless a real life zombie epidemic has broken out.

I don’t know if you’re aware but most guns don’t do that.

[Gormwood]

Yet we act like China when it comes to people and websites associated with say, al'Qaeda and ISIS.

We do take exhorting people to commit specific violent acts differently, but then again, we did the same back to the founding of the republic, so that's not really a new thing.

The NYT has left and right-wing opinion writers so not really a gotcha source like you assumed.

It's not really a "gotcha" thing at all. It's a strong comparison point and why rights should transcend time and technology.

It's just that free speech is more dangerous than the right to be arms, by a wide margin in fact, and yet we never talk about just banning certain people from speaking - even people in prison for rallying people to and committing terrorism.

Why is that?

So how often are people killed literally with just spoken words? So far magic has not proven to be real.

[Telconi]

You're distinctly bad at nihilism.

You misunderstanding nihilism is your fault.

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

Yes...but not compared to other things. “In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.”
Note that it doesn’t say anything about those who did nothing.

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?

“SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.”
So, yes. And this is backed up by multiple other studies, but I’m not linkspamming.

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.

Maybe if guns actually worked to protect people from them, you’d have an argument.

What do guns do then? If they're worthless as a force multiplier, then why do they exist? Why do cops carry one or more? Why do states spend gorillion of dollars outfitting an army with them? And importantly, why ban them, if they're not effective weapons?

[Gormwood]

Self defense doesn't require having to reduce the other guy to chunks unless a real life zombie epidemic has broken out.

do you think people own fucking gatling guns?

You think the people bitching about regulations wouldn't want to own miniguns if they could legally buy them.

[Ors Might]

We do take exhorting people to commit specific violent acts differently, but then again, we did the same back to the founding of the republic, so that's not really a new thing.


It's not really a "gotcha" thing at all. It's a strong comparison point and why rights should transcend time and technology.

It's just that free speech is more dangerous than the right to be arms, by a wide margin in fact, and yet we never talk about just banning certain people from speaking - even people in prison for rallying people to and committing terrorism.

Why is that?

So how often are people killed literally with just spoken words? So far magic has not proven to be real.

I see stochastic terrorism doesn’t exist all of a sudden. Glad to see you’re on the side of free speech now.

[Ors Might]

do you think people own fucking gatling guns?

You think the people bitching about regulations wouldn't want to own miniguns if they could legally buy them.

Nah. While they should be legal, they’re probably ammo guzzlers. I’m on a budget man.

[Gormwood]

Self defense doesn't require having to reduce the other guy to chunks unless a real life zombie epidemic has broken out.

I don’t know if you’re aware but most guns don’t do that.

Aren't gun advocates always demanding the right to be able to get guns that can?

[Telconi]

You're distinctly bad at nihilism.

You misunderstanding nihilism is your fault.

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

Yes...but not compared to other things. “In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.”
Note that it doesn’t say anything about those who did nothing.

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?

“SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.”
So, yes. And this is backed up by multiple other studies, but I’m not linkspamming.

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.

Maybe if guns actually worked to protect people from them, you’d have an argument.

Also...

the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

The valuation of life and preservation thereof directly contradicts the belief that it's meaningless.

[Ors Might]

I don’t know if you’re aware but most guns don’t do that.

Aren't gun advocates always demanding the right to be able to get guns that can?

What guns do you think can turn someone into paste? I’m curious as to what you’re referring to.

Besides, the recoil on that thing would probably fuck up my entire body.

[Gormwood]

So how often are people killed literally with just spoken words? So far magic has not proven to be real.

I see stochastic terrorism doesn’t exist all of a sudden. Glad to see you’re on the side of free speech now.

Stochastic terrorism requires someone to act out on them. They're not Harry Potter spells that can drop people dead. Way to be disingenuous.

[Telconi]

I see stochastic terrorism doesn’t exist all of a sudden. Glad to see you’re on the side of free speech now.

Stochastic terrorism requires someone to act out on them. They're not Harry Potter spells that can drop people dead. Way to be disingenuous.

So do guns. Unless you think my simple posession of a firearm manages to Avada Kedavra poor Lily Potter for accross the globe.

[Gormwood]

Aren't gun advocates always demanding the right to be able to get guns that can?

What guns do you think can turn someone into paste? I’m curious as to what you’re referring to.

Besides, the recoil on that thing would probably fuck up my entire body.

Technology isn't slowing down. Eventually energy or magnetic weapons with insignificant recoils will come out and shit will escalate even more if regulations remain stagnant.

[Gormwood]

Stochastic terrorism requires someone to act out on them. They're not Harry Potter spells that can drop people dead. Way to be disingenuous.

So do guns. Unless you think my simple posession of a firearm manages to Avada Kedavra poor Lily Potter for accross the globe.

How many schools had people getting killed because someone walked in one day yelling "Avada Kedavra" at everyone they saw?

[Telconi]

What guns do you think can turn someone into paste? I’m curious as to what you’re referring to.

Besides, the recoil on that thing would probably fuck up my entire body.

Technology isn't slowing down. Eventually energy or magnetic weapons with insignificant recoils will come out and shit will escalate even more if regulations remain stagnant.

>Escalate even more.

You do realize that a person's likelihood of getting murdered has decreased significantly over the course of human history right?

[Ors Might]

I see stochastic terrorism doesn’t exist all of a sudden. Glad to see you’re on the side of free speech now.

Stochastic terrorism requires someone to act out on them. They're not Harry Potter spells that can drop people dead. Way to be disingenuous.

And guns don’t kill people unless you shoot them at people.

What guns do you think can turn someone into paste? I’m curious as to what you’re referring to.

Besides, the recoil on that thing would probably fuck up my entire body.

Technology isn't slowing down. Eventually energy or magnetic weapons with insignificant recoils will come out and shit will escalate even more if regulations remain stagnant.

..Really? Your argument is “Star Wars will be real soon!”?