Ideas to STOP gun violence...

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by K12gamer, Feb 23, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. K12gamer

    K12gamer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    87
    1) Better Parenting
    If you have a depressed, suicidal,son at home who likes killing animals...
    maybe you shouldn't have guns around the house.

    2) Stop taking Young Boys hunting
    I know a parent who's 7 year old son didn't even know the Alphabet...yet he'd take
    his son hunting to kill defenseless animals. (Isn't that how serial killers get started???)
    What kind of moral standard will these kids have as they grow older?

    3) Lack of Father figure (or lack of strong Father figure)
    Seems like a lot of the teen-aged mass shooters were being raised by women...
    Not strong women...but weak women (or weak fathers) who didn't seem like they could
    do anything about their sons behavior once their sons became teen-agers.
    Note: Not sure how parental weakness can be fixed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
    TunnelRhino likes this.
  2. Kobold

    Kobold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Posts:
    172
    ...we will never be able to stop this...

    How many times have I heard people getting angry expressing thoughts of killing others because they get turned into psychos by:
    1) Screaming children that destroy the backyard or scratch your car , and you have invested money and time into keeping these things nice. And when telling the parents to make them stop they will end up calling the police or encourage their kids to go on.
    2) Drunk kids at night 2am blasting your neighbourhood with loud gangster-music and doing street-racings. ...and you can not do anything about it as they will fight you for getting upset.
    3) ...or simple bullying

    ...the police and government doesn't prevent people from getting under each others skins (calling 911 is only for when it is too late) ... so naturally people will snap at some point because they can no longer take the terror in their life and have no other choice to make things stop than to go out on a killing-spree.

    as long as we create our own psycho-killers, they will not go away

    edit: and the media celebrating gangster violence isn't making things any better either
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  3. K12gamer

    K12gamer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    87
    (Kobold)...We have to try and stop it...because like a cancer it seems to be getting worse.
    Doesn't seem like school shootings occur in all countries Example: China, Russia, Korea, England (unless they're suppressing their news)

    I don't think arming teachers should be the 1st step...

    How about:
    1) Raising the legal purchasing age to 21

    2) Not selling guns to people with mental problems (suffering from depression, anger management problems)

    3) Massive fines for parents if kids under 19 commit crimes with guns.
    The Columbine shooters parents should have had to pay for all the funerals and doctors bills for the injured.
     
  4. Kobold

    Kobold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Posts:
    172
    ...touching base on your point "3)" ... I oppose this one... and this is judged by my own behaviour back when I was youngster.
    ...we were evil.. the outriders from hell... world's most terrific liars... while our parents thought:
    "Aaawww such lovely kids... always smiling and never lie to us."
    but... holy cow!

    There is only so much a parent can do.
     
  5. Ghost in the IDE

    Ghost in the IDE Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2018
    Posts:
    576
    1) stop selling guns to everyday civilians.


    Since the 'Port Arthur massacre 28 April 1996 (35 killed)', gun laws were tightened in a huge way in Australia and aside from that we have never had 'the right to bear arms'.

    Since then, there has never been a mass shooting.

    An average day in the U.S. would qualify as a mass shooting over here.

    The only reason you guys need guns over there is to protect yourself from the other people who have guns. Seems a bit 'chicken and the egg' to me. :confused:


    "But but but, we need our guns", I hear you cry.

    Why is the U.S. the only western country that has any form of regular gun violence?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
    matharoo, Ampersand, Smarty and 2 others like this.
  6. Nocturne

    Nocturne Friendly Tyrant Forum Staff Admin

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Posts:
    6,212
    Umm... why do Americans insist on ignoring the elephant in the room and try to look for excuses in other places???? BAN THE USE OF GUNS except under very strict and properly controlled conditions. The statistics DON'T LIE. Guns are the major problem here....

    [​IMG]
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ns-killed-school-children-dunblane-here-s-how

    [​IMG]
    http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

    And yes, better parenting would help, but really the US culture seems so broken at this point that it's unlikely that it would help much. I mean, it's a culture of selfishness and narcissism which puts the individual above the common good (just look at their president!!!!), and has some pretty wrong/weird/hypocritical opinions about things. So unless a massive change sweeps through the culture, I fear that even banning guns wouldn't help too much and that people would simply find other ways to inflict pain and suffering on innocents for their own gain or selfish points of view.

    PS: And your comment about "weak women"... seriously? I'm pretty sure most gun deaths (and crime in general) are perpetrated by men too weak to control themselves and not use a gun. I'll also remind you that if such "weak women" exist, then they will exist in all cultures and countries, yet mass shootings and gun crime in general, are a uniquely American problem. Being brought up by a "weak women" (should such a thing actually exist) is no excuse for shooting 20 innocent kids dead.

    PPS: Also, the thing about hunting and creating serial killers... seriously? Please do not link mental illness with gun crimes and don't link hunting with gun crimes either. Humankind has been hunting since the dawn of time, and I'm pretty sure my ancestors took their kids along to help out, but I don't think any of those kids turned into assassins that slaughter their tribe because of it. Maybe look elsewhere for some ideas...
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  7. Cloaked Games

    Cloaked Games Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Posts:
    756
    The change is coming Nocturne. Trust me, my friend. At the moment, I feel about as patriotic about America as you do, and I live here. There's a movement of people here who are as disturbed about this as you are. I hope in the next 30 years we can change the international perception of America, just give us some time. Or maybe we're all doomed. Maybe I should just move to a civilized country.

    In response to the original question, I agree with Nocturne. We need actual gun control. Blaming it on mentally ill people is an excuse, they aren't more likely to commit acts of violence than anybody else. While psychopaths probably are, the term "mentally ill" applies to a much, much larger range of people, most of whom are not a concern (though they perhaps need more help, unrelated to this issue). Even more extensive background checks don't really help, because we can't prevent people from getting guns who have "violent tendencies" if they don't actually have a criminal record. Not to mention people using other people's guns.

    I'm just tired of guns. I don't want to see them in this country any-more, outside of the hands of the police forces and the military who are actually trained and vetted to protect us.

    On terms of other Western countries, why can't we have proper socialized healthcare too? (Please don't respond to that, I'm just throwing it in there). Honestly, if this country doesn't turn around, I'm afraid we'll loose our first world status pretty soon.
     
    Smarty and Nocturne like this.
  8. Ghost in the IDE

    Ghost in the IDE Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2018
    Posts:
    576
    @Nocturne - Notice the date I posted? Corresponds exactly with your post. ;)

    The second amendment was written in the Wild West days, things have changed a little since then. Gun ownership is the problem.

    Saw a video just yesterday where a 13 year old went into various shops to buy things like lotto tickets, alcohol, & cigarettes (to prove a point). Each time he was told he was too young. He then walked in to a gun shop and asked for a rifle, which he bought perfectly legally.

    Too young to have the huge responsibility of a lotto ticket, but a rifle? No worries :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2018
    sylvain_l and Nocturne like this.
  9. RichHopelessComposer

    RichHopelessComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,301
    A few other people said it, but: ban guns. ****ing duh.
     
    Smarty, Nocturne and Ghost in the IDE like this.
  10. AnonyMouse

    AnonyMouse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2016
    Posts:
    106
    It may look like that but depends on where are you when you start looking. Sure if civilians have no way to buy licensed firearms mass shooting will stop. But do you thing that is the solution to the violence? Because there are other ways like for example few men coming into your house and throwing out your woman or/and children through the window. Or private guards blocking your car on the street because they didnt like something and then beating to death someone with his family into their car to death. Or villages here where in tens of miles is only 1 police officer without fuel who is scared for his life because no one will protect him and the mafia, and criminals walking around, doing what their want, going into houses and taking what they need, raping 80 years women, then beating them to death for 5 euro, plundering everyone. Add to this wild dogs in big numbers, crazy idiots with knifes/cars, hunting rifles, drunken drivers. This is not in the center of the media.
    Because the idea is different and it is to stop people having the right to defend themselves. What happened in France is a proof of that. In Norway too. Criminal acts everywhere usually were against non-armed and helpless people, usually did by numerous armed men which if captured will receive few years and then again. Other people dont care much for that, they dont ask how to stop that, but are repeating how to stop gun violence (what about kitchen knife violence or axes?, raping, beat to death?) and that is because all medias are private companies and they are working for those who want the full control. That means legal and illegal. And none of them want to meet a man with arm who have the right to protect himself.
    And if you pay more attention such laws are in countries with imperial past afraid from something else also, and "people's republics". If you just look in the past all free people everywhere had the right to carry and use weapons. Now in most countries it is forbidden. Why? People are worse than these in the past?
    In the city where I live a lot of people were killed by dogs or wounded. But that is not a problem. If you try to protect yourself that is a problem! Because you cant. Neither you can defend your home. If one enters your home and start raping your woman and stubbing your children and you hit him and break his nose you will go to the prison (and he will receive another pre-cause until the next time because he is is useful to someone). You can not defend yourself. Also you can not have a gun and if you have you dont have the right to use it. That is in the power of the great people with guns, guards, expensive cars who dont want to share their power with the slaves.
    Let me remind the story of 4 criminals terrorizing whole town and once they tried to kill a motorcyclist but for their bad luck he was ex-legionnaire and another criminal with gun and shot their leader. The court was about to send him to the prison - self defence? No, not allowed. Never. But the peoples rised and the court canceled the idea... Recently one of the criminals gave an interview: "There is no justice in our country!". I am sure all 3 members who survived are against guns. I can bet my pension on that.
    And if you are living in a calm region and you never met a violence you can believe what medias want you to believe. Nothing can disturb that. But what is funny is that even people who are suffering by everyday violence believe in that - that removing legal guns will stop criminals from using illegals guns(and weapons). Until they will have to walk into dark street and will try to take some weapon or tool but after that it is the old good song.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
    Bearman_18 likes this.
  11. RichHopelessComposer

    RichHopelessComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,301
    Yes
    Where the **** do you live where women are constantly raped while their kids are getting stabbed because their husbands are in prison for punching the child killer wife raper that murder raped his last family? :'D
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  12. Nocturne

    Nocturne Friendly Tyrant Forum Staff Admin

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Posts:
    6,212
    Have you actually looked anywhere else in the world? Statistically, the crime rate in the US is pretty much the same as any other developed country... BUT the number of deaths from firearms is MASSIVE and you are far more likely to DIE from a violent crime than anywhere else in the developed world.

    Conclusion, you aren't removing guns to prevent crime, you are removing guns to prevent DEATH.

    [​IMG]

    No other developed country has the same number of gun related deaths as the US, yet you all go ahead and make excuses and false inequalities with things that has have nothing to do with the actual problem at hand. Nobody is talking about reducing crime. It's about reducing DEATH FROM GUNS (and not just in crimes, since the vast majority of gun deaths in the US are suicide related, but that's another sad story for another day methinks).

    I find it so hard to believe that any right-minded logical individual can't see the simple correlation here! MORE GUNS = MORE DEATHS FROM GUNS.

    For goodness sake, it's not rocket science...


    PS: I haven't quoted anything else from your post as it's pretty much irrelevant and based on speculation which in turn is based on the US culture of fear. So, pointless to argue...
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  13. AnonyMouse

    AnonyMouse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2016
    Posts:
    106
    Basically it is the same, no matter where. The principle is the same. When the violence is presented, removing guns will not remove violence. Yes, maybe it will reduce gun deaths. As I know in Czech Republic gun laws are giving more freedom.
    Less deaths from guns doesn't mean less deaths caused by criminals. The difference is that with firearm a man can defeat attackers - armed with guns or not. When you remove firearms, you are removing guns from people who want them for defense. Criminals may use hand to hand fight, or knives, cold weapons. What are your chances?
    OR with other words do you prefer death by knife or a agricultural tools - that is better?
    What that graphic means? Comparing USA and Malta in absolute number of killed by guns is not right.
    Yet another comparison: death caused by violence (not only firearms) in democratic countries and in communists countries? USA vs China? Big countries vs small countries? America vs Europe?
    Killed by criminals in Mexico and Colombia vs killed in USA?
    Recently a director of an institute was encountered hanged. And it is pretty sure for everybody who did that and why. And they have AK also, and like to demonstrate that. What makes it different? If you dont have a gun and can not shot your teacher - good. You can beat him to death. Having weapons prevents that - but if USA remove all weapons (legal only for sure) after decades the rate of deaths caused by violence will be much higher. But gun accidents and gun murders will be less. I can tell you that for sure because our country is the opposite of USA and I was born in the epoch of the socialism, can compare. The level of aggression in our country is extremely high, but shootings are not so many. Which doesn't mean less damage. And the act of aggression is 99% towards usual people who can not defend themselves. Nobody is aggressive against one kind of people, who are trained, armed, untouchable, grouped.
    And if you look at USA mass killing it is the same. Even that Bravik or what it is, he doesnt attack muslim terrorist in his country, neither some muslim embassy but defenseless people. Nobody is attacking police stations, military bases, gunshops, guns related groups, guarded persons - people who also gave guns and can response to the fire! It is so obvious.
    Recently a criminal - who was set free about 15 years ago and then they tried to find him, killed a family with firearm, many people, they tried to lock the doors, to hide, but he just shot them. And the gun was illegal.
    My cousin was kidnapped few times very close to the place where we lived and saved by stranger, it is a very dangerous neighborhood, she was attacked many times, survived . Now she is living on a rent in different place and giving her flat for a rent... If you was on her place what would you think? I am sure if she can carry and use a gun she would. That could save her. But you are not in her boots. That makes the difference.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  14. andev

    andev Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2017
    Posts:
    444
    Obviously, but that's like saying there are more car crashes in the US than in south Africa so we should ban cars because MORE CARS = MORE DEATHS FROM CARS.

    Banning something does not stop it. See the war on drugs.

    Also:
    IMG_0219.JPG
    EDIT: I'll just say that by gun control, I don't mean background checks and licensing, I mean making it nearly impossible for people to obtain guns / banning them outright. I'd reply but this is getting too intense.

    The reason that we want to stop people from having guns is to stop people from committing crimes with them... Right? But if someone is willing to commit a crime with a gun, it's also safe to assume they're willing to obtain a gun illegally to commit said crime? So making it illegal to own a gun isn't going to stop them because it's also illegal to shoot people but it still happens?

    No, serial killers are almost always psychopaths which is a personality disorder which you have from birth. And if they have a lust or reason to kill, I don't think banning guns is going to stop them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2018
    MissingNo. and zendraw like this.
  15. Roa

    Roa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    532
    I have to say, as a gun owner and carrier, it probably is time to start looking into the issue of guns themselves, mostly because society just can't seem to control itself anymore regardless of things like parenting and social acceptability. We are overran with emotional delinquency and irresponsibility. We simply don't live in a society that is rational enough to be trusted with things anymore.

    50 years ago, you could have shooting clubs at high schools without incident.

    Now we get bomb and shooting threats just because someone didn't study for a test, people calling in swat teams to hurt and intimidate others because they don't like their steam or lost a game, suicide cults that are almost meme tier that people still participate in. Guns are just one of the many vessels this modern culture attitude projects itself with, but its one that's easier to account for. The abuses of the age are everywhere. Guns never changed, people did, and they have become cancer, with easy glorification ensured by the media for shooting some place up, and being so quick to drop empathy for others if they feel even remotely ****ed over, like getting rejected or losing a job, or simply being so drenched in delusion, you can't stand not everyone thinks like you. We just have to move with the times of our cancerous culture now.

    ...I'll just keep my gun though... cause I'm a responsible adult...

    @Nocturne That article is **** btw. It isn't toxic masculinity, its toxic attitudes towards masculinity. It's emasculation. It's the rising social pressures on males with no relief and constantly being told they are to blame for everything, constantly being told to expect less, constantly told to change and be part of classicist original sin, or that they are bad for simply exhibiting natural male traits. The dishonest in the article is insane. Especially **** like the depression, where women are 70% more likely to be depressed is BS. Women are more inclined to say they are depressed at earlier stages of stress than men,(assuming most men are even going to be honest about their depression where women almost gush it) just as they are more inclined to say they feel pain earlier than men when applying the same factor of pain to them. Men on average live much more strenuous lives keeping up in society outside spikes in single motherhood. I mean, you can chalk this up to "toxic masculinity macho attitude", but the reality is, men are told to shut up and are devalued for expressing concerns and mocked when they actually want to talk about their problems, and are then told by others what their problems really are by other people like cancerous feminist who have a hate boner for them, so much so that they dont even want men to enjoy seeing a women as attractive. its not a mental illness, but it IS a mental health problem, the stress, the rising and crippling depression, the failed outlook for males; its a problem, just not one people care to address.
    Also like how they only mention physical abuse where males were higher, even though women are more emotionally abusive in a relationship and are more abusive to children overall. Most CPS take aways are from females. What ever helps them sleep at night though.

    But yeah, lets start with removing guns from all the low income areas first and doubling our spending on law enforcement agents. Then see how it progresses. The areas most common for drive bys, armed robberies, and aggravated assault. Start with the gangs, the number one cause of death by guns outside suicides.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
    andev and BiTrunade like this.
  16. Niels

    Niels Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    760
    I know it's a very sensitive subject for US citizens, but everytime there is a tragic gun related incident and someone says "if only there was someone with a gun to stop the shooter..." the whole world /facepalms.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
    MissingNo., Nocturne, Smarty and 3 others like this.
  17. MishMash

    MishMash Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    366
    Looking at it from an outside perspective, i've never understood the obsession with the 2nd amendment. The world is in a different place than it was 200 years ago, therefore I think the idea of regular civilians defending their own freedom from tyrannical governments is just ludicrous (Especially given that the US military is so strong anyway). I do understand why they cannot just outright ban guns, there are far too many in circulation at this point and therefore people will always claim that they need weapons to be able to defend against others.

    I feel the solution lies in just common sense. People claim that guns are a "right", however I would say that the exact wording of the 2nd amendment does not specify what type of gun. Therefore, in the same way that you can't just ride down the street in a tank, or just pop down to your local gun shop and purchase a nuclear bomb, there can be reasonable restrictions on the type of weapons. More guns is not the solution, arming teachers is not the solution. A few really simple rules and legislation's could drastically improve the situation:

    1) Certified gun ownership licenses. Or an incremental system where purchase of progressively higher tier weaponry requires a higher license and/or provable weapon responsibility and experience. You need a license to drive a car, it therefore makes sense that you should need a license to buy a modern gun. (This license could simply be a requirement for a certificate to show that you attended a short gun safety course)

    2) Increased background checks, including background checks and profiling of people who have purchased guns in the past 5 years (this would also go a long way to identify potential assailants).

    3) More restrictions on where guns can be taken. I'd be interested to see statistics on how many crimes are actually prevented by citizens carrying guns, i'd guess not as many as most gun owners claim.

    4) Increased cost/tax on weapons/ammo type. Cheaper non-lethal ammo. This shouldn't really be an issue as I imagine most gun owners shouldn't feel the need to use their guns 90% of the time, unless its in the case of an emergency.

    My thinking is that none of the above points should have an impact on responsible gun users. As a responsible user will happily take one of these courses or acquire the correct licensing. There is no reason why safe gun users should have an objection to that.


    This video sums it up for me, I genuinly think that is a perfectly reasonable and realistic solution. I know the problem won't go away entirely, but even cutting the death rate by 10-20% is huge. Yet for some reason, so many American's seem to disagree.. I really don't understand why background checks cause so many problems, what do you all have to hide?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  18. Nocturne

    Nocturne Friendly Tyrant Forum Staff Admin

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Posts:
    6,212
    Well, they are? I mean, we do live in a world where most of the political power is in men's hands despite women making up slightly more than half of the population (and the US ranks pretty poorly in the statistics). ;)

    And I do.

    Sounds like the definition of toxic masculinity to me.

    Lol! Feminism, especially in the US, isn't prevalent enough to cause a culture wide problem like you outline above. Toxic masculinity is. ;)

    Anyway, we are discussing guns and while I think toxic masculinity and living in a patriarchy are part of the problem, they are not the only reason this problem exists, since there are many other countries with that kind of attitude culturally and socially yet they don't go around killing each other with guns...
     
  19. RichHopelessComposer

    RichHopelessComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,301
    Uh...yes? Because this is exactly what the phrase "toxic masculinity" refers to? Would you call that "healthy masculinity?" :p

    Edit: Ah, Nocturne already covered this, lol.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  20. Nocturne

    Nocturne Friendly Tyrant Forum Staff Admin

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Posts:
    6,212
    Hmmm... strawman time! If guns had the same requirements as cars then I think you'd find the problems were a lot less (se no4 here, but all of them are equally valid). Also, cars generally cost a few thousand dollars, while you can get a handgun for peanuts. You also can't walk into a school with a car in your pocket.

    Oh, yeah, lets equate a set of laws and attitudes based on far right racist thinking as a good argument. Hmm... funny that the proponents of more guns are also the ones that propose harder drug sentences too... Hmmmm... I'd also say that the "war on drugs" has been a failure given the massive opioid epidemic that is decimating the white working-class in the US right now. Surprise, surprise, the pharmacy lobby groups don't want to do anything about that, just like the gun lobby groups don't want to do anything about gun deaths. Wonder why not?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/19/big-pharma-money-lobbying-us-opioid-crisis
    http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-nra-politicians-20180215-story.html

    Oh, and "banning something does not stop it" is a complete fallacy as demonstrated by my very first post in this topic. Here's another one, in case you had any doubt... ;)

    No. It's to stop people dying from guns. Crimes will be committed regardless, but the casualties and likelihood of dying from them are much, much less when guns aren't involved. This is called "common sense".

    Umm, no it won't. If someone REALLY wants a gun they'll get it. But funnily enough in countries like the UK or Australia or Japan, where guns aren't readily available, you don't see most criminals running around with AK47s... wonder why that is? I mean, if your argument were true, all these countries with strict gun laws should be overridden with criminals toting weapons. Yet that is not the case... Again, I mentioned this earlier: statistically the US doesn't have a much higher crime rate than any other country of comparable status, but it DOES have a much higher rate of death from guns.
     
  21. Ghost in the IDE

    Ghost in the IDE Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2018
    Posts:
    576
    I think you'll find it does in the real world ;)

    With recent events in the US, do you think he would have taken out as many people with a pillow? Or even a knife? He'd be one fit dude if he can chase down that many people who are running to avoid him.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    Look at who has the highest murder rate per capita?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  22. Cloaked Games

    Cloaked Games Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Posts:
    756
    Erm, more to the point, wasn't this a discussion about stopping gun violence, with specific consideration to school shootings (and other mass shootings)? Maybe criminals will kill exactly the same number of people without guns, but no matter how psychopathic a child is, they can't kill 17 people with a knife before someone hits them on the back of the head with a dictionary. This isn't about reducing crime rates, this is about reducing the amount of people affected when someone goes to a public place specifically to kill. What else can do that much damage that quickly, with that range? Maybe a bomb? But bombs are already super regulated, we don't really have a problem with school bombings. (Yes, they happen, but check the lists, there's like, 100x as many shootings). What, is a school shooter going to use a bow and arrow?
     
  23. RichHopelessComposer

    RichHopelessComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,301
    BOMB ARROWS, ZELDA STYLE.
    We're obviously safer with the assault rifles!
     
    RujiK, Nocturne and Cloaked Games like this.
  24. Smarty

    Smarty Member GMC Elder

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    53
    What I find particularly sickening about the whole debate is that the opponents of gun control, meaning the NRA and every politician bought by NRA sponsoring, and various outlets of right-wing and far right-wing media, have responded by attacking outspoken victims of the Florida shooting and politicizing the whole thing. Look, it's all a ploy of the liberal lefties, they say. They're pushing their agenda by writing the words these kids should say! And they're kids, why should we responsible gun-toting adults listen to them! What do they know?

    Right, as if these these students can't form their own strong opinions about being shot to death.

    To answer the OP, one solution to the problem is fairly straightforward: the NRA must be completely, utterly destroyed. It's a terrorist-like organization pushing to weaponize the entire country against all better judgement. I can hear them from here, laughing with glee about the president's suggestion to bring even more guns into the classroom. They clearly have your politicians pocketed and they aim to maintain their irresponsible position for as long as they can, at the cost of any lives, old and young.

    So down with them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2018
  25. K12gamer

    K12gamer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    87
    Two radical ideas I have:

    1) Since 99.999% of mass shootings are done by men...only allow women to own guns.
    [​IMG]

    2) The guns sold to civilians should only hold one round (like the old pistols).
    [​IMG]
     
  26. Cloaked Games

    Cloaked Games Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Posts:
    756
    1) Ha ha. Maybe a little sexist though, even if it works, don't think it could be an actual policy.

    2) Not bad. We can all be pirates.
     
    RichHopelessComposer likes this.
  27. RujiK

    RujiK Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    139
    Put MAGNETS on the ceiling of all schools.

    Guns will be useless since all bullets will get stuck to the ceiling. EZ.
     
  28. Ampersand

    Ampersand Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2017
    Posts:
    216
    We need to be doing whatever Argentina is doing. They be out there mad chillin', I had no idea.
     
    Nocturne likes this.
  29. Guest User

    Guest User Guest

    i know ya'll are joking but just like no would-be school killer spends years learning martial arts and other crazy **** so they CAN take down 17 people--the Dictionary Avenger included--with a knife or their bare hands, the bow simply takes too long to master.
    and ain't nobody got time for that.

    you'll probably see crossbows and pellet/BB guns before we get "Angry Bomb Arrow Kid" or the "Insane 360 NoScope Longbow Killer" jsyk.
    doesn't really affect your argument or w/e tho i believe, neither are particularly suited to killing large quantities of people in a short amount of time. well, by our current standards at least.
     
  30. Roa

    Roa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    532
    @Niels
    It's ok. I feel that way about most of UK, Germany and Australia.


    @MishMash
    It's not so much a right to a gun, but a right to your safety. No government has the right to tell you that you can't defend yourself, and it just so happens that a fire arm is the easiest, safest, most versatile way to do that. It's an incredible equalizer. Find a better solution that gives people the same peace of mind and you can get rid of guns.

    Point 1: 100% agree

    Point 2: What background checks are going to be made that arnt already made? lol. People keep suggesting this, but there isn't really much more checking that can be done. I know its an easy answer to parrot, but most people don't understand that its easy to get rejected. Any medication, medical history, criminal history, residence, tax and citizenship. Red flags for investigation already profiled for you. They can view police reports for simple things like fights with your neighbors or getting a traffic ticket, they have everything to make an opinion from an actual person, not a computer doing reviews. That doesn't even include the fact that all gun shops can deny for any reason themselves. Simply asking the wrong questions, being too eager, being too nervous, buying too much can get you barred in entire chains of distributors. You get a full medical and criminal check direct from the FBI. What else should there be? You want to hold people's ability to buy them for 30 days to snoop through all their social media? That's about all there is left to do. I don't know what people want when they say this

    Point 3: No, maybe on what types of guns can be taken places, like not bringing a rifle to a school or movie theater, but I should be allowed to keep a conceal carry hand gun anywhere I want. Anything that is very obviously suited for personal protection and not for show.

    Point 4: Less lethal ammo is kinda silly given the point is to stop a threat without retaliation. You can already shoot someone with a .308 or 9mm 6-10 times and not kill them already. infact, you have above 50% chance of surviving 3 rounds to the abdominal area from 9mm. Throw in the fact that most gun discharges are 5-10 feet apart from the target and you realize they are not nearly as lethal as people think. This is why cops will only ever carry .40 or higher. Also, on a general scale, the less lethal a round is, the more risk of misfire it has. You fire a .40 or a hollow point down range, its going to enter/hit the target and stop. If you fire low grain ball ammo, it can burn too slow and veer off target, fail to penetrate the target(pretty much hitting any bone at the wrong angle) and that ****er could go bouncing off course into a target you didn't intend. This is why people joke about .22l and .308 being defense weapons, they are tiny and slow burning rounds that like to bounce.

    I find the idea of requiring tiers pretty agreeable though.

    @Nocturne
    lol, so what? I didn't know women had to not be a minority in everything for there to not be a problem. Nothing stops women from being there except their own disinterest or terrible polices no one asked for. Women actively vote these people in to represent them. You don't need to have the same genitals as someone to represent their interest. That's kinda sexist. Imagine is court lawyers worked that way....
    Sorry to hear that. I will have to respectfully disagree. Another topic for another time I guess.

    @RichHopelessComposer
    And women are the main perpetrators of it...

    @Cloaked Games
    Bombs, Uhauls on a bridge, machetes if you live in china. Good luck stopping one of those guys when they can lob of your arm in a single swing. Also, has a lower survival rate than guns.

    Did that happen? I aint seen it.

    Wow, probably one of the most outlandish and egregious claims I've heard in my entire time on the GMC. Seriously.

    The NRA has very little money in relative with other lobbyist bodies, they are always going to support someone just as any lobbyist is because someone out there best represents their values, like literally anyone else in a political system, company, party platform, think tank, or individual voter. They haven't pushed weaponizing anyone anymore than we already have, but simply encourage the freedom of conceal carry. They want to extend the rights of law abiding gun owners to actually make sense, and not be dictated by the emotional gut jerk re-actions of neo-liberals who want absolutes and wide sweeping policies in effect on gun owners without even knowing what laws are already in effect or who it effects. The only people who have made any decent strides to simplifying guns laws and increasing awareness of the dangers while still respecting lawful gun carry is the NRA.

    Cleaning up residual laws, like abolishing laws for certain grips on hand guns making them illegal
    allowing people to not be fined or fired for simply having a gun in their car in the parking lot of a company that doesn't allow carry
    the idea that gun's should be federal and not-state so people don't have to worry about laws of every little corner of our country possibly being violated one line to the other
    Refusing to accept Obama's plan of not banning everyone who ever earned disability from owning a gun, because simply being disabled doesn't mean you are mentally unfit to have one. Thats a case by case basis scenario.
    Refusing to allow people to ban hollow points, the safest and most predictable, controllable round to fire.
    Refusing to limit rifle capacity when there are already hundreds of thousands of guns out there, and tens of thousands of users that would be in violation of law, even self defense hand guns, simply because liberals think reloading actually grants a window of opportunity or something.(flights of fantasy)
    Refusing to ban any long barrel gun with a polymer look simply for the hysteria that it must be automatic assault AR15, vs looking at the effective firepower and practical use of said weapon. I prefer someone who can't tell the difference between a shotgun, hunting carbine, and a fully militarized marksman rifle to not make decisions and laws for said items, especially because they cosmetically look similar.
    Funds background checks and profiling organizations, actively works with law enforcement to get guns out of criminal hands, and gives free gun awareness safety and training with updates to the always changing laws so people stay safe.

    I don't agree with everything they do, but ****ing hell. Terrorist?? If all these things are wrong, I don't want to be right.

    This reminds me of a VICE video where some shill spent an entire week with the NRA and guns shops, actually enjoyed it, firing and learning about the weapons, found out a bunch of laws and systems they put in place he didn't know where there, all friendly reasonable people, all had answers before he even asked them that he found agreeable destroying all his per-conceived notions, and in the end still fell back to his hysterical drivel about how everyone is gun crazy lunatics waiting to snap.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2018
  31. RichHopelessComposer

    RichHopelessComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,301
    No, not really. Women aren't going to beat you up or say **** like "stop being a little faggot" at you for crying or whatever. Guys aren't afraid of expressing themselves when they're young because of girls.

    Some girls might prefer "macho" guys, but they're not the ones crushing boys into little sociopaths when they're young. That's usually their male peers and family.
     
    Niels likes this.
  32. Roa

    Roa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    532
    lmao, Wow, such a generalization. Maybe in reality show from the 50s. I have never heard a guy tell another to stop crying. Sounds like a stereotype.

    It's common to see men hitting women in relationships, but women tend to be more aggressive with each other on a general basis. Exchanging insults and blows is par for the course. You act like women aren't capable of violent tendencies or being abusive or something? Women, especially younger, are pretty ****ing awful to each other.

    I work around a bunch of teen girls. All of them do this ****,(and I'm not overreaching when I say ALL, I quite literally mean all of them) even startling some of the girls well into their 30s and 40s, and I have to hear about it almost bi-daily. Who is a slut for sleeping with who, who is going to/has beat another's ass at school, who is too ugly for their BF. How they are too ugly for a BF if they are single for more than a month. Who got "used" because a guy who rode in their car once didn't stick his dick in them. How all guys are assholes every time one of them keeps trying to re-match with the same guy who clearly isn't compatible with them. Who isn't going to talk to who for the next week because someone said they had herpes. And its mostly from girls that aren't even the subject matter. It literally never ****ing stops. I can't even get a performance review from my boss before she has brought up issues with literally everyone that isn't me first about what I'm supposedly doing wrong.
    Also, what is it called when women beat on each other all the time and constancy gossip and degrade each other for looks? (toxic femininity? ;) )

    Ever hear the term sewing circle?

    Guys are less fueled by drama and most are frankly annoyed by it, and that's usually brought on by continued misplaced emotions. Girls love that ****, hence why gossip and exaggerated displays of emotion are popular with them, that's also why they are so aggressive with each other.



    No, they just don't date you cause it would be dating down.
    I hope you know the biggest turn off for girls is a lack of confidence. Overly emotional and high maintenance guys simply don't get picked unless its by females that have also, already fallen out of their expectations for a partner. High maintenance people are less attractive in general to everyone really, but its especially true with males.

    Also, I find this whole topic ironic given it was the abuse of an adult female counselor and teacher in elementary that made me afraid to ever express myself.
    • Teacher would literally say I was "stupid to ask/too stupid to be asking questions" in the middle of class and "dirty" so I wasn't allowed to grab treats like the rest of the kids. Held me inside from recess and told me I would never have friends because all the time I would spend in there, struggling with my work because I was always so stressed to focus. Doesn't even include the problems I had on the playground, like people taking my toys and throwing them on the roof, people getting my only friends to run from me, and pushing me out of the kickball and line, just genuinely being spineless.
    • FYI, she had 3-4 kids per semester complain about her for years until 5 years later, she was fired and banned from the school board.
    • A Therapist who told me all my depression and problems was simply because I didn't take enough meds and didn't listen to my parents, despite my parents literally making my life hell, hording cats(part of the reason my teacher called me filthy) and never allowing anyone in or for me to go off with friends. (Zoloft By the way, the medication I was taking way pulled from shelf because it got kids to kill themselves because it was made for adults. Dont even think they make it anymore)
    • I literally jumped schools and eventually had to transfer to a private school to even survive at that point given how ****ed up I was after years of this and how little to none social skills I had, and then one more awful female came into my life.
    • Somehow stumbled into high school and 2 girls would always hang out with each other. The one tried to hook me up with the other, the new girl, and all those years of emotion just kinda tanked out. All they did was egg me on when all I wanted to do was sit in the corner alone and read my books, and once I bit, I couldn't stop. First crush. She then rejects me cause she was never serious in the first place and I didn't know what was going on because my emotional state was already bottom the barrel, and I didn't take that very well, being the first person I ever opened up to. She was also extremely ****ed up, like making a list of people she would dance with at the up coming formal, putting my name on the list just to announce how she crossed me out in front of the class, she started telling all my friends I did **** to her, trying to separate besty of 6 years, probably the only other person who got more **** than me, hanging out within my small social circles where she would openly interact with them and not me, she would yell at me in class and hallways when I asked my friends for advice cause I was "talking ****". She literally scanned my Facebook with her mother looking for **** to use against me, reported dozens of things to get my page taken down, literally **** like music videos and pictures of art I made, getting entire classes of people mad at me for things that had nothing to do with her, threatening to beat me up, setting up jumps for me. I got invited to a church youth group where I later found she was a serious wedge there too withe everyone already. When ever she was at a gathering of our friends, she would do **** like bring guys over to me just to make out right in front of me knowing it would bother me. Just all around awful human being. Even after I tried to separate myself from her, she was hell bent on being in all social circles I was. This type of **** went on for a year. Then her parents wanted to sue me for harassment based solely on her testimony, it got so ****ing bad, the school board itself took notice and showed up. I finally explained everything to an adult, teachers got involved, school board got involved, and all of the sudden all her support was gone and she was talking about how she is going to a different school. Funny thing is, it ended up being her current boyfriend, her previous X, her brother, brother's good friend that all gave me support when I was basically emotionally traumatized.
    Both girls apologized years later as adults, but that didn't mean ****. The damage was long done.

    So yeah, my entire life has been ruined due to abusive females, dictating my life and telling me what to feel and what to expect. A teacher, my mother, a counselor and a high-school **** who's ego was too inflated for a small scene school she shouldn't have been at in the first place. Not only am I living proof females can do this ****, do do this **** regularly, and are arguably the sheers that cut the cloth of the male attitude, but they actively victimize guys who are weak or don't display masculine traits. They engineered my entire social and emotional state as a child, and they did so to hurt me just for the sake of.

    So much for toxic masculinity.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2018
  33. Nocturne

    Nocturne Friendly Tyrant Forum Staff Admin

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Posts:
    6,212
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-already-attacking-florida-teens-speaking-out
    https://www.salon.com/2018/02/20/pr...survivors-of-florida-school-shooting_partner/
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ting-for-gun-control-are-not-students-at-all/
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article201177359.html
    etc... etc... etc...

    Also, I'm not going to respond to any of your other comments, as this is obviously something very personal to you based on your experiences, of which I have no right to argue. All I will say is that you should try not to let your subjective experiences get in the way of objective reason... and I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences. Nobody deserves to be made to feel worthless by anybody ever.
     
  34. Ghost in the IDE

    Ghost in the IDE Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2018
    Posts:
    576
    I'm not aware of any government that says you can't defend yourself.

    Safest? Really? :confused: If you pull a gun on someone at close range (let's face it, you aren't going to 'defend' yourself from 100 yards - that's called murder) and you miss, there is a good chance of having your own gun be the tool of your own death.

    I know of many ways to defend myself and the use of weapons isn't one of them. Then again, no one is going to pull a gun on me either. Know why that is? ;)
     
    RichHopelessComposer likes this.
  35. Smarty

    Smarty Member GMC Elder

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    53
    I read up. In 2013 NRA had a total of $350 million revenue. Most of that kind of money is spent on their usual business of training people how to use weapons and organizing events, some of that goes into advertising campaigns to promote gun use (or directly either for or against political parties or its members) and then some straight into the pockets of selected politicians, for whom even the small fry is a considerable amount of money to feed the campaign box.

    I hardly think I've heard any politician good at "best representing their values" over the past few days, rather stumbling over excuses on why they accept NRA money. But come on, let's not be naive. Lobbyist donations are entirely what they mean - take a little, give a little. Let's not pretend the NRA's money cannot exert influence.

    We've seen what laws are in effect, and those laws spray rounds and rounds of bullets at kids on school campuses. Everyone can conclude that those laws suck.

    Yes, they simplified a lot of things. For gun lovers. And we really don't need this gun loving organization to tell us that guns can freaking kill.

    You got to be kidding me. You really can't see that just about anything on that list favors gun owners only?

    Are you sure this is the first time you hear someone saying this?

    http://www.newsweek.com/michael-moore-charges-nra-terrorist-organization-817852
    https://www.theroot.com/the-nra-is-a-terrorist-organization-1823042189
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...-domestic-terrorist-organization-patriot-act/
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/17/the-week-in-patriarchy-florida-school-shooting-nra
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...l-the-nra-what-it-is-a-terrorist-organization
    https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/declare-the-nra-a-terrorist
     
  36. RichHopelessComposer

    RichHopelessComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,301
    Sorry, I had to laugh a little. You lmao'd at my perceptions based on my anecdotal experiences, and said they sounded like stereotypes/fiction from the 50s.
    And then you went on to give me your anecdotal life story in the form of some kind of hellish Dickenson novel, where every woman you've ever met in your entire life has been some kind of evil harpy out to break you down enough to get you to jump off a bridge or something. You also gave me like five paragraphs of super general, super opinionated, completely non-sourced "guys do this because of this, girls do this because of this" ranting, hahah. You must see the irony there, right?

    To be clear, I'm not laughing at your life experiences or doubting you, because god damn that sucks and isn't fair at all. Sorry to hear that, dude. Everybody has different experiences, though, and women apparently treating you like absolute **** your whole life doesn't mean they're evil to everybody, or that they cause all the world's problems. Maybe you just lived in a town with really ****ty women or something. I dunno. Here are my anecdotal experiences:

    Women and men have both been pretty cool to me my entire life. No real complaints about either group as a whole!

    That said, in highschool, I heard of:
    +A kid who got beat up in the locker room after hockey practice, thrown into a urinal, and pissed on by the group. Whoa, sociopaths! And dudes! This happened because the kid was "a b*tch," apparently. Guess he wasn't man enough to be on the hockey team!

    +A kid who got thrown into a trashcan and rolled down the hallway. He was just kind of ugly, or something. Also, small and weedy looking.

    +Dudes just getting picked on constantly by other dudes. Tripping them in class and crap, talking behind their backs, etc. Just the usual low-key harassment. Always of quiet, wimpy looking guys.

    It's funny, though. Whenever the quiet guys spoke up and gave **** back, the louder "cool" guys would laugh it off, and they'd back off the kids. "Manning up" got them instant respect and approval. This is the toxic masculinity I'm talking about. You can't be a quiet/sensitive/whatever guy without people ****ting all over you, apparently. Men (at least young, stupid men) only respect strength. Young stupid men only respect strength because our entire society says "real men are tough, loud, and take what they want. Real men are assholes."

    I dunno. I don't think most men worry about getting by girls for not being "tough" while growing up. Guys hang out mostly with other guys. I think young men growing up are afraid of being ostracized and bullied by other men more than they are of being bullied by women.

    Now, I'm not saying that women can't be evil, too. I'm sure there are as many ****ty women out there as there are men. The term "toxic masculinity" exists not because women are better than men (they're not, lol), but because this ****ty macho "don't take any **** from anybody, never admit you're wrong, always take what you want, never talk about your feelings, always be angry and hungry for more" attitude is CELEBRATED in men, where it ISN'T celebrated in women. An angry piece of **** dude is a "badass," while the equal female is a "b*tch." A guy who sleeps around and cheats on his girl on the side is "the man" while the equal female is "a piece of **** slut," etc etc.

    The term "toxic masculinity" exists to separate it from "healthy masculinity." That's all. We don't need the term for women, because we already call women pieces of **** when they're being pieces of ****. :p
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2018
    Nocturne likes this.
  37. zendraw

    zendraw Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,307
    what happened when drugs were banned in the us during some ww? the mafia was created. maybe thye have learned from theyr mistakes and deliver what people need, and as it seems in crazy america people have a need to kill and abuse eachother. banning guns in a calm and civilised country will work, banning them in a country like amerika will only make people go underground. its basic human nature, not rocket science.
    anyway i kinda doubt america will ever not be violent, us in particular. it was founded on violence and unless some 'spiritual transcendance' or voodoo magic happens things wont get better.
     
    FROGANUS likes this.
  38. RichHopelessComposer

    RichHopelessComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,301
    Then you assume anyone who has a gun has bad plans for it, and lock them up for ten years. "Making it illegal won't stop people from doing it" isn't an argument. You may as well say "we shouldn't have any laws at all." It just doesn't make any sense.
    Also, people get addicted to drugs. A lot of drug addicts will do nearly anything to get their next fix. These are different cases. Nobody is physically addicted to guns. People just love to yell "mah rights! Second amendment! SECOND AMENDMENT!!!", like they don't know what the word amendment means. Like an appeal to tradition is a logical argument. Like everyone having guns is better than nobody having guns.

    There's no arguing with these people, but throwing them in jail for a decade for refusing to give up their surrogate penises would probably get a lot of them to begrudgingly give up their assault rifles and find a better hobby.
    Or, if all of the hot air they blow when you suggest something like banning guns is true, they'll all form a CITIZEN'S MILITIA, and bravely stand up to the evil government army. And then bravely get massacred.

    Either way, we wouldn't have people walking around with guns anymore, hahah. X'D
     
    Smarty likes this.
  39. zendraw

    zendraw Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,307
    what are u even talking about? obviosly people who are troubled and have bad intentions (no theyr not born bad, no1 is, stop evading responsability) and have the courage and oppurtunity, will most likely do these bad things, killing, being violent and so on. bad intentions dont just spawn from thin air... every1 is so scientific when the problem doesnt consearn him but when the problem shows that every1 has a responsability, suddenly every1 is relligios and, oh god make them so. theyr dna is such, blah blah.
     
  40. RichHopelessComposer

    RichHopelessComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,301
    @blacklemon:
    X'D
     
  41. Roa

    Roa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    532
    @Nocturne
    Ehh, I can't put it out there and then expect no one to comment. That wouldn't be fair. I don't gain some immunity just because its personal. I put it out there to share.
    I don't think there is anything remotely objective about toxic masculinity though.

    @Ghost in the IDE
    UK doesn't even allow you to have butter knifes in an you lunch box or pepper spray on females. Try again.


    Yes, they're pretty easy to control, a child can do it.

    *sigh*
    People with gun safety training don't fire at distances or directions they can't control. Most people that fire in self defense are in their own home or place of work where they are keen on situational awareness. But yeah, that's right, if you hit someone who isn't an immediate threat regardless of what you are aiming at, that's murder buddy. Thats why people dont allow that to happen in the first place. Thanks for the insight.

    That's good for you, your stature, and what ever martial training you have. Not everyone has that ability. Don't deny other people an option to protect themselves just because you personally dont need it. Also, Idk what umbrella you live under. But guns or no guns, violent crime and intrusion happen all the time all around the world. Idk why you think you can't become a victim simply cause a place doesn't have guns.

    @Smarty
    http://www.guns.com/2017/05/05/nra-revenue-expenses-in-2016/ break down of spending, shown with pride.
    Also, whats wrong with promoting lawful gun use in a world where people try to smear gun carriers at every turn?

    OH, so now its the laws and law abiders, is it? Could make them suck less if people spend less time and money trying to deflect rampant bills trying to get everyone to stop using guns vs building laws that actually make sense in a current state of affairs.

    THATS GOOD! Making the laws simpler makes it easier to stomp out grey areas and have less problems. How can you be against that? And hey, Im not the one who is pretending these guys have a blood lust or something...

    well. I mean..... yeah??

    I do see that, and that's a good thing. The NRA is the defensive platform from the over reaching arms or people with zero insight and fully driven on emotion, where its all or nothing. The laws being defended are well defined and fit common sense, are based in actual information collected and acted upon by people who get paid to do this stuff. You are admitting you don't really care about the reasoning, laws or procedures, and you won't even acknowledged it can be more than black and white. The fact that you don't want laws to protect people, you don't want people to protect themselves with guns and you don't care how you get there regardless of what ramifications and factors it entials, the feeling of an end goal is all that matters. You literally just want things done your way and no other way could possibly be better.

    You're just as bad as any climate denier at that point.

    The laws are advocated to defend gun owners because the laws being pushed on them are aggressively anti-law abiding gun owners, usually with very little, if anything to back it up other than "someone died here today, lets get mad again and not actually have to think about it"

    I mean, most people arnt so blinded by their emotions to get this deep into the barrel. That's why you are linking radical opinion writers on bias left sites and petitions that couldn't even get number a city block worth of signatures, failing with already low expectations. It's clearly not a very popular, well thought out, or largely backed idea...
    It's not even fair to call it a minority opinion because that would imply it has some basis of being effective or represented. Its one that basically doesn't exists outside self-reassuring social circle.


    You know... how we define radical...

    Someone saying something is a terrorist group because they don't like it and then blogging about it, doesn't make it true lol. Amazing how when people actually go out in uniform with a political idea, anarcho signs, burn cars, beat people, loot buildings, and uterally disrupt entire cities, that's just advocacy and free speech. NOT ALL black bloc! NOT ALL antifa! But an organization of dumpy old people that hold conventions and hand out pamphlets, that simply dares to challenge and wants to discusses laws about how they are allowed to protect themselves in their work and home. Literally Hitler guys!
    That petition did about 50 times better and was ignored, even despite making it to the white house even when they were forced to review it.

    Thats because its a perception on presumption. You listed things that happened to no person in-particular as examples. That's specifically why I told my story, a concrete real world example of the shoe on the other foot. Not just some "John doe somewhere must have experienced this at some point" like It's sitcom material.

    I've been told to write my life as a novel many times lmao. I have a lot of tragedies and hardships, don't really notice until I'm way past that point lol. I don't b*tch about it though. Live one day at a time and you can get through anything.

    Not every women. Just ones that namely had a profound impact on me, mostly while I was vulnerable and in development, and kinda set a stage for my behavior.

    Not super general or opinionated. I gave you a life testimonial to counter the claim that men are inherently more intolerable than women, and I told you what I deal with on a daily basis working around a bunch of high school girls and all the things they say and do, how they behave around each other.

    The only thing that was generalized was the idea that females are more gravitated towards drama, especially younger (which is.. duh), and find ill confidence to be the biggest turn off for a women, (and as a result, men are encouraged to deal with their issues silently if they want to hold a certain image for partners). And that's not really generalized. That's pretty well known common information, so well known, that I shouldn't even have to source it. You could just ask any female or google it if you somehow don't know that. I'm not telling you George Washington had wood teeth, I'm telling you the sky is blue.

    Can A-FIRM on that last note, but I know not everyone is ****ty, this is exactly why I don't believe toxic masculinity explicitly exist in a world where there are good and evil people. You can't just source it to the natural state of masculinity being toxic as to why people are ****ty. People are ****ty because some people just choose to be ****ty.


    So you think this happened because they were men, and because you think they think he was a b*tch? What did he do to be called a b*tch? You're just adding your own narrative to the whole. You heard from... you added to... you don't actually seem to know though.


    This is a problem with being male how?


    Yeah, its because they are easy targets. Not because they are men. You think that's exclusive to males?
    It's got nothing to do with masculinity, and everything to do with ego. You are literally talking broad scraping jock/nerd stories while pretending prep/home girls don't happen. Being a dick to people outside your social norms, especially to people that related better to other social circles. Hence why we can even call this "jock/nerd" problems.

    ... you dont think..?

    Also, thats because you're ignoring the actual problem by pretending it's masculinity itself vs. Most guys that lack confidence don't have the social understanding of why females pass on them, a lot dont care. A lot of guys who are in that position have been emasculated. The ones who do are the "friend zone"ers, guys who have needs, but pushed out of those social circles and expectations to reach them.
    Let me tell you, I've never been as intimidated of my friends and peers because of a swinging dick between their legs, even when I was bullied and even got in fist fights. What is intimidating is how your social rep looks to potential female partners and the mass rejection that comes with it if you don't fit in the right social circles.
    Stop speaking for what you think other guys think, and tell me what you think and what you experience about yourself.


    What guy hasn't been called a piece of ****? Only women get degraded eh?

    Ok, but this is where I start to massively take a problem with this. We have established women and men are ****ty, and each push specific social pressures on their same-sex and opposite sex peers. Why is it then that we are only interested in looking at and talking about "toxic masculinity" ? Presumably the male on male relation aspect, and even worse, attributing male on male as default negative? Why is it the only attitude change in mainstream media? Why is it used to politically weaponize topics about male expression and isolated them from conversation(man splaning?)? I mean, we just in this thread had people blame males for all war and stripping women from power they never positioned for. We literally have people out there banning words with man in it as offensive, censoring men's rights activist telling them they are hate groups, trying to shut down workshops for men to express themselves. Having men kept out of schools on affirmative action, not allowing them to earn a wage or go into a field they like because heaven forbid females don't represent 50/50 of the attendees, and handing CEO positions to females who didn't earn them for tax breaks on businesses, having them run into the ground because diversity is more important than integrity and ability. **** shows like saying cuckold(not being able to stand up to the most important people in your life) is something that should be encouraged, or not being as emotionally driven as females makes their expression of emotions wrong. Just general disregard for meritocracy where merit of males grants them a leap over women in something.

    People don't actually care about toxic people, so much as they just don't want men to be men, because they hate the entire image of them and think tearing men down is just as good as building females up, all placed on the misconception that females somehow have it worse to begin with. They do that by simply defining an emasculated man, and acting like its more of a problem than any other social boundary. The world is ever hostile towards men and demands and takes more and more from them while telling them to shut up and **** off, that someone else knows best for them.


    No one talks about "healthy masculinity" and what it means. Why? Because that would imply there is a positive image they actually want to work towards. They don't talk about women's social health with this default state of negativity either. Why? Cause its not about changing or building up men. It's about tearing them down. It's about emasculating and socially displacing them.


    Lets not beat around the bush. Isolating and proclaiming toxic masculinity exist and impressing it on impressionable boys is child abuse.
    Teaching your male child his natural wants and means of expression is toxic, That's just as much as the social manipulation from females that flung abuse against me.
    Boys are suicidal/homicidal at rates higher than ever, because people are ever more hostile and making it impossible for them to have accepted social bounds or fill a role in life, and its definitely not by coincidence that people keep wanting to re-define masculinity to push them into social penalty just for being alive.

    I wish the regressive-left would stop pretending they actually give a **** about them in social change, when all social change has done is risen this number dramatically. One could even argue the rapid demand for social changes and penalties from the regressive-left are the reason so many suicides and shootings happen now. Guns didn't magically become more accessible or anything, and the devaluing and displacement of men is measurable. But why blame toxic attitudes towards people vs inanimate objects that have been around all this time without nearly the same consequences. They dont have the social safety nets, voices, figures to emulate, or places to just be male as they did before. They can't even go into an isolated world of competitive gaming without females trying to enforce some meta environment over them, and simply refusing to with hold control "is sexist and harassment." "Gamers are dead and dont deserve audaince, gamers are sexist, 50% of gamers are female even though we are comparing facebook games and flappy birds to COD players, so female perspective should infiltrate all gaming." Can't join a male dominated space where they are largely forced to recede and get away from the world, without trying to control it and impose politics on them.


    What we should be doing is building boys up, and giving them resources to understand themselves and learn to communicate in ways that don't separate them from social norms that wont be changing any time soon. (Thats a hate crime though, after all, we know women are the only ones with problems that need focused on.)
    Things like character, handwork, discipline, proper father figures. Telling boys its ok to feel something is not the same as encouraging them to feel something, or telling them they express things wrong because they are just too par for the course against you're radical shift in social norms. Not complaining about how you think they express themselves or how you want to pretend their nature is in particularly more offensive than that of a females.


    I found all this astounding, talking about "Our precious children, ban guns now!" in the same breath as "we need to doctor young males away from what comes natural because it gives them advantages in certain ways and boys are just toxic by birth alone, and **** what they want or what image or problems peers or females have of them afterwards Their conscious and development and social interaction that they carry the rest of their life should be defined by my politics vs adjusting my politics to best nurture a positive male attitude."
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2018
  42. Ghost in the IDE

    Ghost in the IDE Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2018
    Posts:
    576
    @Roa - weapons are for chumps.

    The forum here is a wide demographic of people. How about a show of hands for people who have had to blow someone away or stab someone with a butter knife?
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2018
  43. Smarty

    Smarty Member GMC Elder

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    53
    Replying is becoming quote hell here.

    So generous of them. Except that they're a non-profit, tax-exempt organization and that they are required by law to make their tax form public, which includes such breakdowns of revenues and spending.

    What's wrong with banning military guns in a world where blood is smeared against school walls?

    Such as?

    The very list of their accomplishments you gave us shows the NRA is only interested in protecting its members and their arsenal. None of that benefits public safety in any significant way.

    We've been over this and it is becoming a mantra. The laws clearly don't work to protect the public. This is being proven on an almost daily basis in your country. But the one solution you have not tried has a successful track record just about everywhere else in the world. And the NRA stands directly opposed, and works against, any meaningful change. Instead, more and bigger guns, and less restrictions. This has been going on for decades without resolve, might as well try out something you haven't. Maybe we'll quit rolling our eyes at your nation.

    Says the person who apparently sees gun ownership as the only viable solution for personal safety.

    Non sequitur.

    My links were to point out that I'm not the only one calling it a terrorist organization, not to provide evidence for gun control support, but like you said, you're not paying attention.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2018
    Nocturne likes this.
  44. Kobold

    Kobold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Posts:
    172
    ...edit: I get too carried away on political stuff. I need to let this pass by, lol.

    as you were folks...

    (previously: I admitted to be a chump and pointed out what I think we did wrong... sort of irrelevant)
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2018
  45. Gamebot

    Gamebot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2016
    Posts:
    148
    The constitutional law states: "Right to bare arms" It doesn't say which type. Why don't we just go Nerf or something similar. A gun is a gun...And yes I'm being serious. Sure you could still poke eye out. Worth it? Maybe taxes will be lower cause we will have more people working, or not, as most are sitting on their ascots.

    I would say squirt guns but that could be dangerous as who knows what that liquid is inside. Battery acid anyone?
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2018
  46. Ghost in the IDE

    Ghost in the IDE Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2018
    Posts:
    576
    @Kobold - didn't mean to offend. I just can't imagine someone in a developed country feeling like they need to be armed. Seems like such a foreign concept to me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2018
    Nocturne likes this.
  47. Nocturne

    Nocturne Friendly Tyrant Forum Staff Admin

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Posts:
    6,212
    So, just to focus in a bit, let's look at two comparative cultures, The US and the UK. Both are culturally very similar, have very similar population demographics and are more or less equivalent in quality of life and societal structure. However one massive difference between the two is that guns are illegal in the UK and not illegal in the US. So, let's look at the figures....

    Let's look at deaths from gun-related crime:


    Hmmm... In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 53 times fewer than in the US per capita (and on a side note, did you know that the police in the UK fired their guns 7 times only in 2015? In one incident in the US more than 137 bullets were fired!)

    Okay, what about non-crime related deaths? The most common of all is obviously suicide, so let's take a look at those figures:


    Funny that in the UK there are far fewer. Nothing to do with the easy accessibility to guns of course...

    Given these FACTS that are unambiguous and well documented, I find it absolutely impossible to comprehend how anyone can defend owning and promoting the ownership of guns of any kind. And this isn't just the UK, btw... compare the US to almost any developed nation where there is strict gun control and the figures are pretty much the same. More firearms do not keep people safe, in fact the opposite happens, hard numbers show.

    NOTE! We are NOT talking about crime rates here! In general the US crime rate has fallen year after year (much like most of the europe too) and is pretty much on a par with equivalent countries (see the Per Capita tab here). So more guns does not equal more crime, nor does less guns equal less crime. All it means is that there are less DEATHS and less LIKELIHOOD OF DYING by a gun. Banning guns would halve the homicide and suicide rate in a single stroke and I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would not want that.
     
  48. Ghost in the IDE

    Ghost in the IDE Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2018
    Posts:
    576
  49. RichHopelessComposer

    RichHopelessComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,301
    @Nocturne: Do you think it's fair to blame the US' higher suicide rates on guns, though? I mean...people in the US live in the US. Doesn't Occam's Razor apply here? :'D

    Kidding, kidding. Kind of...
     
    Nocturne likes this.
  50. RollyBug

    RollyBug Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    Posts:
    38
    I had a discussion with my mother the other day about gun control, myself being for it and her against it as she is far-right. We're American. Her argument throughout was: "It is a human right to be able to bear arms and protect yourself against people who want to hurt you." So I say to her, "That's kind of stretching what a human right is." The United Nations tries to uphold human rights by protecting against slavery, giving fair trials, granting a safe work environment and so on (un.org). It's not a human right to be able to brandish yourself with more effective weapons. She mentions how you and your kitchen knife are no match for a robber and his gun. In a gun-free America it would be extremely difficult for a robber, who I presume to be in poverty, to be able to get such a device. In this America there would be a thriving black market for guns and the prices would be, I imagine, too high for someone down on his luck and driven to theft. This is ignoring what Nocturne has said countless times already, that the discussion shouldn't be as much about gun-related crime as it is death. Personally I think that the image of protecting yourself from that pistol-wielding robber is something anti-gun control advocates cling to outside of reality. And as much as I bring up the facts on gun-related crime and death rates in countries that are strict on gun control or abstract ideas like what rights we have or should not have, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. She's extremely stubborn.

    Supporting correlation between income inequality and homicide: luskin.ucla.edu/connection-poverty-inequality-firearm-violence/
     
    FROGANUS and Nocturne like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice