Not really Stagediving, the continuation.

Synthic · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:05 pm

Doldol wrote:

Synthic wrote:

1. You say that police need to better protect citizens. What would a police officer use to protect me? A gun.

2. You completely ignored my question. How would the government revoke rights to all private gun ownership? That would obviously involve guns being confiscated. Please explain to me how you disarm >100 million Americans of ~320 million guns without complete civil war.

3. You seem to believe that the amount of guns owned by the public positively correlate with crime. However:

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of ... -and-2013/

Other statistics on why mass shootings are not "common, everyday things" as many Europeans like to believe for some reason:

70% of mass murders are committed in private homes, while 13% are committed in gun-free zones (e.g. schools) with no conceal carry allowed. Merely 17% were done in public places where concealed carry is allowed. Keep in mind the definition of "mass murder" is one or more person killing "several" people, its so vague.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... ree-zones/

There have been 156 mass shootings, 1187 people killed or injured, 25% of those fatalities were children. So were looking at a small fraction of fatalities due to guns happening in schools. School shootings are being blown way out of proportion.
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/m ... -analysis/

1. Yes, police need guns, good guns, includes fully automatic assault rifles for specific units.

2. I didn't ignore it (see the steps I laid out). You need to ease and convince people into handing over their guns, that starts with killing the NRA + gun culture. You need to look at all the options Syntic, you're limiting yourself to the only solution being the government barging into people's home and demanding their guns, there are many other, better ways, like what I illustrated.

3. You're being disingenuous or ill-informed. Crime obv doesn't relate to gun ownership, gun related crime does however, I linked a nice article + chart somewhere else recently, look through my prev posts, if you can't find it I'll link it again.

One school shooting is frankly one too many, since societally children, esp. in supposedly protective places like schools are held is extremely high regard.

1. So you want guns only in the hands of a police officer?

Home invasion scenario 1: Someone breaks into my house with a gun. I have to hide in my closet calling the police. Average response time for a police officer in a city is ~5-10 minutes, in a rural area, respond time can take up to 25 minutes. Police do not arrive on time with their gun. I am dead.

Home invasion scenario 2: I shoot the invader with my gun.

2. How exactly are you planning on "easing and convincing people into handing over their guns?" You haven't offered any good reasons for me turning in all of my guns.

3. You call me ill-informed, yet you apparently didn't even read the first study I linked.

You say "Crime obv doesn't relate to gun ownership, gun related crime does however," meanwhile:

Spoiler: Show

Uchies · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:06 pm

Doldol wrote:

you've posted the most or close to it and managed to contribute nothing of value.

That's because it's the internet and I realize that nobody cares about my/your opinion.

You won't find anyone on here "changing their mind".

Doldol · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:34 pm

Synthic wrote:

1. So you want guns only in the hands of a police officer?

Home invasion scenario 1: Someone breaks into my house with a gun. I have to hide in my closet calling the police. Average response time for a police officer in a city is ~5-10 minutes, in a rural area, respond time can take up to 25 minutes. Police do not arrive on time with their gun. I am dead.

Home invasion scenario 2: I shoot the invader with my gun.

2. How exactly are you planning on "easing and convincing people into handing over their guns?" You haven't offered any good reasons for me turning in all of my guns.

3. You call me ill-informed, yet you apparently didn't even read the first study I linked.

You say "Crime obv doesn't relate to gun ownership, gun related crime does however," meanwhile:

Spoiler: Show

1. https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence- ... death-risk

2. A lot of countries have done this successfully, I'm not going to think out a workable action plan, it's unreasonable to expect me to, it can obviously be done however. If the NRA can encourage gun ownership surely another entity can discourage it?

3. Figures in spoiler are misleading: of course gun homicide rate goes down, it has been going down in every civilized country, look at the correlation between the US and other Western countries's (where gun laws are much stricter) decrease in gun violence. The US lags behind. Also read the chart I linked in prev post and tell me how you can justify your views around it.

Synthic · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:40 pm

Doldol wrote:

Synthic wrote:

1. So you want guns only in the hands of a police officer?

Home invasion scenario 1: Someone breaks into my house with a gun. I have to hide in my closet calling the police. Average response time for a police officer in a city is ~5-10 minutes, in a rural area, respond time can take up to 25 minutes. Police do not arrive on time with their gun. I am dead.

Home invasion scenario 2: I shoot the invader with my gun.

2. How exactly are you planning on "easing and convincing people into handing over their guns?" You haven't offered any good reasons for me turning in all of my guns.

3. You call me ill-informed, yet you apparently didn't even read the first study I linked.

You say "Crime obv doesn't relate to gun ownership, gun related crime does however," meanwhile:

Spoiler: Show

1. https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence- ... death-risk

2. A lot of countries have done this successfully, I'm not going to think out a workable action plan, it's unreasonable to expect me to, it can obviously be done however. If the NRA can encourage gun ownership surely another entity can discourage it?

3. Figures in spoiler are misleading: of course gun homicide rate goes down, it has been going down in every civilized country, look at the correlation between the US and other Western countries's (where gun laws are much stricter) decrease in gun violence. The US lags behind. Also read the chart I linked and tell me how you can justify your views around it.

1. "You shouldn't have a gun because you might use it incorrectly!" ...

2. You keep telling me how guns should be taken away, yet you refuse to give me an plan of action or even any reasons to turn my guns in the begin with. How would you discourage someone from owning a gun? By telling them they can make mistakes with it? You can make mistakes with your car too.

3. Figures are not misleading at all I don't know how you came to that conclusion. It's a very simple premise, as private gun ownership increases, violent crime with guns decreases. What is misleading there?

Doldol · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:42 pm

Synthic wrote:

Doldol wrote:

Synthic wrote:

1. So you want guns only in the hands of a police officer?

Home invasion scenario 1: Someone breaks into my house with a gun. I have to hide in my closet calling the police. Average response time for a police officer in a city is ~5-10 minutes, in a rural area, respond time can take up to 25 minutes. Police do not arrive on time with their gun. I am dead.

Home invasion scenario 2: I shoot the invader with my gun.

2. How exactly are you planning on "easing and convincing people into handing over their guns?" You haven't offered any good reasons for me turning in all of my guns.

3. You call me ill-informed, yet you apparently didn't even read the first study I linked.

You say "Crime obv doesn't relate to gun ownership, gun related crime does however," meanwhile:

Spoiler: Show

1. https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence- ... death-risk

2. A lot of countries have done this successfully, I'm not going to think out a workable action plan, it's unreasonable to expect me to, it can obviously be done however. If the NRA can encourage gun ownership surely another entity can discourage it?

3. Figures in spoiler are misleading: of course gun homicide rate goes down, it has been going down in every civilized country, look at the correlation between the US and other Western countries's (where gun laws are much stricter) decrease in gun violence. The US lags behind. Also read the chart I linked and tell me how you can justify your views around it.

1. "You shouldn't have a gun because you might use it incorrectly!" ...

2. You keep telling me how guns should be taken away, yet you refuse to give me an plan of action or even any reasons to turn my guns in the begin with. How would you discourage someone from owning a gun? By telling them they can make mistakes with it? You can make mistakes with your car too.

3. Figures are not misleading at all I don't know how you came to that conclusion. It's a very simple premise, as private gun ownership increases, violent crime with guns decreases. What is misleading there?

So this is where you actually run out of arguments. You're essentially asking me to repeat what I just said and making blanket statements. Can you actually prove what I said wrong instead of asking me to repeat my point. As I have.

koolaid · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:46 pm

The main issue is that if you get rid of the 2nd amendment, the power no longer lies with the people, it lies with the government no matter what system you have in place. The United States is the only country that is ran that way while PROTECTING the right of the people to hold that power. We hold that power by our right to vote in the system established, and enforce it by the 2nd amendment.

This is all aside from self defense, hunting, and sport. Those are auxiliary benefits exercised, but are not the purpose of the right to bear arms.

Synthic · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:47 pm

Doldol wrote:

Synthic wrote:

Doldol wrote:

Synthic wrote:

1. So you want guns only in the hands of a police officer?

Home invasion scenario 1: Someone breaks into my house with a gun. I have to hide in my closet calling the police. Average response time for a police officer in a city is ~5-10 minutes, in a rural area, respond time can take up to 25 minutes. Police do not arrive on time with their gun. I am dead.

Home invasion scenario 2: I shoot the invader with my gun.

2. How exactly are you planning on "easing and convincing people into handing over their guns?" You haven't offered any good reasons for me turning in all of my guns.

3. You call me ill-informed, yet you apparently didn't even read the first study I linked.

You say "Crime obv doesn't relate to gun ownership, gun related crime does however," meanwhile:

Spoiler: Show

1. https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence- ... death-risk

2. A lot of countries have done this successfully, I'm not going to think out a workable action plan, it's unreasonable to expect me to, it can obviously be done however. If the NRA can encourage gun ownership surely another entity can discourage it?

3. Figures in spoiler are misleading: of course gun homicide rate goes down, it has been going down in every civilized country, look at the correlation between the US and other Western countries's (where gun laws are much stricter) decrease in gun violence. The US lags behind. Also read the chart I linked and tell me how you can justify your views around it.

1. "You shouldn't have a gun because you might use it incorrectly!" ...

2. You keep telling me how guns should be taken away, yet you refuse to give me an plan of action or even any reasons to turn my guns in the begin with. How would you discourage someone from owning a gun? By telling them they can make mistakes with it? You can make mistakes with your car too.

3. Figures are not misleading at all I don't know how you came to that conclusion. It's a very simple premise, as private gun ownership increases, violent crime with guns decreases. What is misleading there?

So this is where you actually run out of arguments. You're essentially asking me to repeat what I just said and making blanket statements. Can you actually prove what I said wrong instead of asking me to repeat my point. As I have.

I haven't run out of arguments trust me, you aren't making any good ones. You're main premise if that guns should be taken away, and to do this the public will need to be convinced of it. You have not given me any reasons to give up my guns, and are not giving me any reasons to convince me to give them up. Your counter to my police officer argument was that "you can make a mistake therefore you should trust a cop more," which is an awful argument and if you can't see why then I can't explain it any further.

Give me a clear set of reasons why I should give up my guns to the government.

koolaid wrote:

The main issue is that if you get rid of the 2nd amendment, the power no longer lies with the people, it lies with the government no matter what system you have in place. The United States is the only country that is ran that way while PROTECTING the right of the people to hold that power. We hold that power by our right to vote in the system established, and enforce it by the 2nd amendment.

This is all aside from self defense, hunting, and sport. Those are auxiliary benefits exercised, but are not the purpose of the right to bear arms.

And here we see the true purpose of the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with sport, hobby, or hunting. The entire purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the citizen's rights from the government. This is irrefutable.

Kharn · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:58 pm

Doldol wrote:

Uchies wrote:

Doldol wrote:

Neezon never claimed that the US was the direct cause of Terrorism in Europe,

Quote:

terrorism issues in Europe were largely instigated by the US

Can you please kindly exit this topic, because I'm at this point sure you are actually only able to circlejerk and/or bandwagon and that you are incapable of logical discussion or forming your own opinion and arguing it.

Uchies > [door]

[/door] > Uchies

Go play with your guns or something.

Kharn wrote:

Arrogant and lazy, I'm an american who knows is wrong but am to patriotic to not want to give up my guns and to let my country give up world-policing, in-fact I'm doing you all a favor by letting MY country defend IT'S foreign interest! You should basically thank me and raise the 'murican flag, boi! I'm proud, proud I say my country prioritises it's military over simply unimportant things such as health care and education. Cuz who needs that, I have ma gunz n ma freedom, that's all anyone ever wants and needs!

-insert patriotic quote of the day-

Enough, you are the one actually derailing and fucking trolling at this point. We BOTH agreed that we were joking in the original thread which CAUSED this thread to be needed, but at this point you aren't liking that someone else is agreeing with me, as you are here doing the same with Neezon, and are trying to shut uchies up, and using quite rude and baiting responses to do so. If you can't handle that American's in this community aren't happy with what neezon or what you've said then you should stop posting since YOU created this thread and stated you loved debate, I'm going to allow others to post but:

Since you seem to have a particle infatuation with the 2nd Amendment I'll allow for that to be debated as well, and since your entire role in this thread was related to a simple "Joke" which prompted a bigger response and then promptly defended Neezon's argument I'll allow for other's to join in and say what they want to counter either:

Neezon wrote:

Terrorism in Europe is not caused by Europeans, it is actually largely due to America.

Or

America's 2nd Amendment, as it is also involved in the orignal thread.

BUT....

ANYONE can post a reply in this thread as long as you are:

Not using harsh language or outright crude remarks. i.e. "KYS!" "YOU ARE GAY" "BITCH!"

I will allow for those to use words such as "Lazy" "Arrogant" as long as it has been used against you. Fair trade. Meaning if someone edit's a quote of your own words then you are therefore allowed the same right.

The Staff+ will follow these rules as well, and in places where a response is in question, it will be evaluated by Staff+ outside of thread in Private messages. If a post is in question then simplly Lock it and copy+paste the response into a Staff+ PM and delete the original post's text until it can be evaluated, do NOT delete the POST, but leave a brief "This message is being discussed and will be updated shortly" in it's place until a decision is agred upon.

Doldol · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:04 pm

Just nevermind, I ask that everyone re-read the topic. I hope you'll learn something from it. That is all I can say. You're right if no one can follow along than this is no place to discuss serious things.

Neezon · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:05 pm

Honestly, can we just have a real simple discussion (although I get subjects like terrorism can be touchy), without letting them turn this toxic and confrontational? As I stated originally, I never tried to offend anyone, I tried to stay polite, and simply said I didn't find further value in the discussion. Yet people still feel this ridicolous need to have "the last word" in the discussion. I don't get it how adults can become such children just because of a discussion wherein they disagree with someone on an online forum intended primarily for gaming. Truly, anyone that posted this toxic shit should take a legit look at themselves and reconsider what it means to be a mature adult.

It's reasonable if you disagree with me, it's reasonable if you don't respect me for not wanting to spend time further providing citations, and it's also reasonable if you thought I was being arrogant. But come on guys, grow up a little please.

And I can take criticsm no worries, you're not inherently wrong about me being lazy and arrogant, so I can take someone saying that :)

Once again, thank you for your time. But please cut the shit.

Register

Login

Not really Stagediving, the continuation.

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Who is online