What have we learnt?

[Strange]

No I am not. You are cherry picking my argument and avoiding all of the key points. How do you answer the 3d printer problem and future lethal weapons that people will be able to make in their home?

 

I didn't realise that was a "key point". It seemed rather silly.

 

It is no different from any other illegal source of banned weapons. You can make a deadly knife in your own home from raw materials. That doesn't mean there is no point trying to control their use.

 

Restricting guns in a country that doesn't have guns is simple, restricting guns in a country that manufactures and sells more of them than anyone everyone else in the world combined is MUCH less simple.

Also saying other countries can successfully ban guns (pre 3d printing advent) does not say anything about the US. We could not tell China they are allowed to sell bamboo but not have it. IT COMES FROM THERE. It's not a logical statement. You'd have to say america needs to stop manufacturing guns. Which will literally not happen.

 

I can't see why. Many other countries have very large weapons industries (rightly or wrongly) but don't allow their citizens to own those weapons. You seem to be stuck in a "but that's the way it is" mindset.

 

So to reiterate my real point. "As shocking and terrifying as it is to everybody we have to learn to......Trust *gasp!* humanity and each other. You simply will not be able to stop people from having lethal concealable weapons going forward. Making a society of people responsible and capable of impulse control is the only solution for everybody woldwide."

 

It is not clear why you think this argument only applies to guns.

[TheGeckomancer]

So you literally skipped over the mountain of evidence I presented to point at the weakest spots in my arguments again. Answer the god damn question. What does banning guns do if I can go home and print a drone with an ar15 attached?

 

I am going to be honest with you. I find this really upsetting. You are arguing rationally on any other topic but this one in the forums that I see. Please address my whole arguments above instead of the parts you feel are easiest to attack. If you can't do that please excuse yourself from the conversation.

Edited November 28, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Strange]

So you literally skipped over the mountain of evidence I presented to point at the weakest spots in my arguments again.

 

Er, obviously. (I haven't seen mountains of evidence. If you are referring to the videos you posted after the post I replied to then all I can say is: I don't watch yootoob videos. They are not evidence for anything other than (occasionally) creativity and (usually) the mind-numbing stupidity of the human race.)

 

 

Answer the god damn question. What does banning guns do if I can go home and print a drone with an ar15 attached?

 

Sorry, I thought that was your weakest argument. How is it different from any other source of illegal weapons? You don't give up trying to control something just because it has got more difficult.

 

People can (and do) manufacture illegal drugs at home. By your argument, therefore we shouldn't try and legislate drug use.

 

People can and do commit child abuse at home. Therefore there is no point having laws against it.

 

Really?

[TheGeckomancer]

And I have lost all respect for the rationality you have shown in other arguments. Until you take the time to do research and give an educated response like I did there is no point in continuing this. The only point I will add, and I am actually denigrating myself by doing so because your arguments do not deserve a response is. Why would people even bother to buy guns if they can produce them at home cheaper? You can ban guns if you want but in under a decade no one will be buying them anyway.

Edited November 28, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Gilga-flesh]

Sorry it's not your fault, I make edits for a while after I say something, refining my idea on the go. I know that's not the best method but I get impatient to post a response.

 

 

What isn't my fault? What are you talking about.

 

Anyway, most devices aren't as easily hacked as a game console. Safety depends on the investment and effort put into it. That's why we can have machines filled with cash on every streetcorner without every Joe Sixpack emptying them with some trick they saw on youtube. Oh I'm sure a few got hacked, but a few incidents hardly matters. It's about reduction of abuse not elimination. Besides we can always just TRUST people not to hack riiiiiight..?

My bank once gave away free debitcard chargers that you could connect through the phoneline and use to charge your card. Nobody ever hacked them. Most people couldn't hack their own PC. They would get confused even if you gave them a step-by-step manual, that's why ICT helpdesks exist. So no I don't see the problem. Security measures have a high degree of access restriction and perfection is never required for policy to be useful.

 

 

 

In response to the idea of having scanners everywhere. They have already 3d printed single shot plastic guns, no metal parts. Yes they kind of suck, but this is early early prototyping.

 

You are talking about metal detectors? Those are not the type of scanners I'm talking about. Metal or plastic doesn't matter for advanced scanners like terahertz scanners. They see through cloth and recognize weapons with algorithms.

 

 

 

Am I insane or did you not have a comment in there about how we needed the tsa to protect us from terrorists because peace and love won't work? Maybe you took it out? I don't know. I am going to leave this up here because either way the argument applies. Banning guns here and now in the US is the illusion of safety because you won't get rid of them, and you won't stop people from printing them.

 

I'm afraid you are insane. I never mentioned anything about the tsa

 

 

 

Is my point made yet?

 

Banning weapons will do NOTHING to the availability or lethality of weapons, which WILL CONTINUE TO RISE. This is not something laws will stop. We need a change in mind set. Period.

 

I got what your point is when this conversation started. I just do not agree with it.

 

The increased potential for individuals to manufacture objects with potential risk does not, will not and has never ever been a reason not to regulate said objects in any sense whatsoever. We do not sell cyanide in shops, we do not sell cocaine in shops, we do not sell the bubonic plague in shops. We SHOULDN'T sell guns in shops.

 

Why do you think it is forbidden to produce most drugs? I mean people can make them in their own lab right? Well most people can't. And most that can don't want to when it is illegal. That leaves a very small group of people who will now at least be punishable when caught in the act. Compare that to your alternative reality were literally *every possible weapon that could theoretically be produced at home* should be thrown in the open market cause "let's just trust each other". Why would people even WANT GUNS IF THEY TRUSTED EACH OTHER?

 

That humanity needs a change of mentality to survive the future, yeah obviously. Like 5 minutes after they left the primordial swamp would have been ideal. Meanwhile survival of individuals would be greatly helped by RESTRICTING access to murder tools as much as possible. Again: as much as possible. Perfection is not required not is it expected by anyone.

 

 

Sorry it's not your fault, I make edits for a while after I say something, refining my idea on the go. I know that's not the best method but I get impatient to post a response.

 

The problem is not the difficulty to break the security that prevents you from using a 3d printer that way. Once ANYONE does it EVERYONE DOES IT that's the way it works. Everybody individually who modded their PS2 did not figure it out themselves, 1 guy did it and everyone copied. That's all it takes is one person, and there WILL be one person the first day of release, every time, guaranteed, this is part of the hacker community.

 

In response to the idea of having scanners everywhere. They have already 3d printed single shot plastic guns, no metal parts. Yes they kind of suck, but this is early early prototyping.

 

In response to the air plane security comment please check this out. A series called Adam Ruins.

not only is it worthless, it's damaging because it provides the illusion of safety where it isn't.

 

Am I insane or did you not have a comment in there about how we needed the tsa to protect us from terrorists because peace and love won't work? Maybe you took it out? I don't know. I am going to leave this up here because either way the argument applies. Banning guns here and now in the US is the illusion of safety because you won't get rid of them, and you won't stop people from printing them.

 

Additionally, 3d printers don't have real limits on what they can make. Blocking the ability to make guns (which is basically impossible for the points I laid out earlier, if you knew programming and I am not being insulting you would know you cant specify variables as broad as I defined without making the device unuseable) it would not prevent the 3d printer from making any newer deadlier, more sophisticated more concealable weapon. Which again is the real concern because guns overall are not that dangerous. You as an individual can't kill more than a couple dozen people before being stopped. Not saying thats a good thing but it is nothing compared to ANY improvised explosive, or the weapons capabilities of 3d printers in the next 5 years.

 

Or crap, I could go buy a drone at radio shack and put a bomb on it.... Which is another thing I will not actually have to go to the store and buy, if I want to be a domestic terrorist I don't even have to get up. I can print up the drone and bomb, control it remotely and go take out a school all in a recliner and bunny slippers. You are missing the point of my argument, individual METHODS are irrelevant, if someone wants to cause harm they will. We have to mitigate the desire to cause harm as a society. No other solution works.

 

3d printed drone, video is over a year old.

 

 

3d printed metal gun, video is 2 years old

 

 

Wow didn't know this one, 3d printed plastic gun that can actually handle firing a whole clip

 

 

Drone firing a gun

 

 

Civilian Video of Drone wielding automatic weapon with equipped self destruct payload this last one may be fake but it's certainly not unfeasible

 

 

 

 

Is my point made yet?

 

Banning weapons will do NOTHING to the availability or lethality of weapons, which WILL CONTINUE TO RISE. This is not something laws will stop. We need a change in mind set. Period.

 

Which is why in one of my very first posts about this topic I said that guns are not even a symptom of the disease.

[TheGeckomancer]

ALL of those substances you listed, are exotic and difficult to get a hold of, except metal to make guns.

 

And my point is, trending says humans have the power to do what they want. Regardless of laws. It's like humanity is growing up as a species. We can either take proper steps to ensure a mature humanity that can responsibly handle powerful weapons, or we ignore the fact that humans have violence issues and that society is not dealing with that and keep trying to "keep a lid on it" as it were.

 

Again I ask, guns have been more common in the unites states than cars for over 100 years, either mass shootings were simply something we didn't care about or they weren't happening. Whats changed and why? And why are we trying to deal with an outlet for violence instead of the unhappiness causing it?

 

And no. Survival of the species is NOT positively impacted by removing guns. It's lessened. Guns are not a species threatening weapon. Something down the line may be. If we do not allow darwinian processes to remove people with bad impulse control from society we will be in a MUCH worse situation in a decade or 2 from now. Like I said, the most you can kill with a gun is a couple dozen people before being stopped, definitely bad, but nowhere near species threatening.

Edited December 1, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Gilga-flesh]

Bombs, poisons and drugs can be made out of over-the-counter ingredients.. but not by most people. Which is why regulating and/or outlawing bombs, poisons and drugs makes more sense than selling hand grenades in vending machines cause "let's just trust people".

 

And no. I never said humanity is going to go extinct due to guns... I said humanity needed to change it's mentality in order to survive future developments. That's pretty much what you have been saying, I rather thought that would be the one thing we'd agree on.

 

OK this conversation is clearly not going anywhere. I'm glad that policy makers have, and will have, my point of view rather than yours and leave it at that.

[TheGeckomancer]

I do not understand what your argument is anymore. You agree with me but dont? And policy makers do not agree with you. They have their own agendas for restricting weapons that have nothing to do with public safety.I don't care about guns one way or another but it's obvious the American population is unhappy and the us government would rather "control" the population than deal with the problems that are causing this. They just feed you a line about safety and you decide another right is worth losing.

 

You addressed NONE of my points. Not the lethality of newly developed weapons, the ease of making guns, none of it.

 

Benjamin Franklin.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

 

And I agree with that statement with every fiber of my being. Especially the DESERVE part. Like I said, guns have been more common in the US than cars for over a hundred years. When did we become such a spineless shit of a nation.

 

One very basic fact of life. No one at all is looking out for or cares about your well being. If anyone is doing ANYTHING that you think benefits you, it's for their own agenda. Altruism doesn't exist. You should really look and people's motivations for agreeing with you before deciding to jump into bed with anyone that you think is pushing your agenda.

 

If some gun nut hopped on here and started piggybacking off of my arguments but adding little seeds of insanity along the way I would make it very clear I do NOT agree with them, even if out viewpoints coincide in the end.

 

One final thing to be clear about gilga, you and strange arguing the way you have is not doing your cause any justice. You are proving my point that this is a topic people refuse to act rationally about. ACCEPT THE FACT THAT LIFE IS A GAMBLE AND YOU CAN DIE AT ANY MOMENT. When you do, people having guns stops mattering entirely. Oh and I don't live in a nice urban white community I live in Las Vegas, and have my whole life, and have had guns fired at me as a child by wanna be gangsters. I have been exposed to more gun violence than you ever will. I am telling you guns do not matter.

 

Maybe I am not getting something. I am going to sum up the argument both you and Strange are making, when factoring in my points. "I understand that banning guns will do nothing to reduce the availability, or lethality of guns. I also know that this is an illusion, damaging to society and myself. But in spite of this we have to take actions that cause a lot of harm to no benefit." This is literally what you guys are saying when I read your writing.

Edited December 5, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Ten oz]

@ Geckomaner, I have reviewed your posts and see your repeated complaints that your arguments are not being addressed; perhaps you should state them is a less rhetorical way. The majority of your posts read as affirmations and not as explanations or challanges to specific ideas. When not being understood it is best to rephrase rather than attack.

 

From what I have read you seem to be making two main points: first is that a gun ban won't stop people from getting guns and secondly that humans are the cause of human behavior so we should focus on people not guns.

 

Your first argument is a strawman argument. No law achieves zero of anything. The reduction of a thing is the most which can be achieved. They elimination of a thing in terms of society and legal constructs is not attainable. So you are 100% right when you say people can build their own guns or purchase them illegally. However you are ignoring how that change in cost and convience would impact the gun market. Mass production drives the price of a product down. Hand made is more expensive than cookie cutter assembly line built. Black market commodities are more expensive than Black Friday sales. So banning weapons will drive the price of those weapons up do to the basic rules of supply and demand. The more expensive any product becomes the fewer number of people there are who have access to that product. So while it is logical to argue that people could build guns and find other ways to get them it is always logical to point out that few people actually would which would result in an overall reduction. It is also important to understand that if a ban were in place and people purchased those banned items on a black market they would be breaking the law. Having a ban/law in place would provide the ATF, FBI, and local law enforcement agencies with an investigative tool. It is easier to investigate black market distribution than it is to speculate whom amongst the millions of legal (no grounds to investigate) assault weapon owners may fly off the handle next.

 

Your second point about society and culture broadly; I personally am a big believer in self fullfilling prophecies. People who love fast cars eventually find a reason to drive fast. We can blame video games, types of music, violence in movies, and etc but at the end of the day culturally many in this country have a gun fetish. De-glamorizing guns themselves will have a bigger overall impact than going after niche advocations in media. Long as guns are broadly viewed in a positive light media will have a profit motive to sell guns in games, movies, and music. So while you argument has it merrits it basically just works to shuffle the order of focus. You are arguing to fix everything else first.

[TheGeckomancer]

@ Geckomaner, I have reviewed your posts and see your repeated complaints that your arguments are not being addressed; perhaps you should state them is a less rhetorical way. The majority of your posts read as affirmations and not as explanations or challanges to specific ideas. When not being understood it is best to rephrase rather than attack.

 

From what I have read you seem to be making two main points: first is that a gun ban won't stop people from getting guns and secondly that humans are the cause of human behavior so we should focus on people not guns.

 

Your first argument is a strawman argument. No law achieves zero of anything. The reduction of a thing is the most which can be achieved. They elimination of a thing in terms of society and legal constructs is not attainable. So you are 100% right when you say people can build their own guns or purchase them illegally. However you are ignoring how that change in cost and convience would impact the gun market. Mass production drives the price of a product down. Hand made is more expensive than cookie cutter assembly line built. Black market commodities are more expensive than Black Friday sales. So banning weapons will drive the price of those weapons up do to the basic rules of supply and demand. The more expensive any product becomes the fewer number of people there are who have access to that product. So while it is logical to argue that people could build guns and find other ways to get them it is always logical to point out that few people actually would which would result in an overall reduction. It is also important to understand that if a ban were in place and people purchased those banned items on a black market they would be breaking the law. Having a ban/law in place would provide the ATF, FBI, and local law enforcement agencies with an investigative tool. It is easier to investigate black market distribution than it is to speculate whom amongst the millions of legal (no grounds to investigate) assault weapon owners may fly off the handle next.

 

Your second point about society and culture broadly; I personally am a big believer in self fullfilling prophecies. People who love fast cars eventually find a reason to drive fast. We can blame video games, types of music, violence in movies, and etc but at the end of the day culturally many in this country have a gun fetish. De-glamorizing guns themselves will have a bigger overall impact than going after niche advocations in media. Long as guns are broadly viewed in a positive light media will have a profit motive to sell guns in games, movies, and music. So while you argument has it merrits it basically just works to shuffle the order of focus. You are arguing to fix everything else first.

 

First. You guys keep assuming you will "reduce guns" you won't even reduce them. And how exactly are you going to track a gun with no purchase history, and no traceable signature rifling? First of all. You are delusional if you think anyone is giving up their gun just because someone says so. I imagine texas legit trying to secede over that or declaring war.

 

Few things. First of all. 3d printed guns are already cheaper and just as good as store bought guns. Why would that trend reverse? It doesn't matter if guns are banned or not. As 3d printers get better why would this suddenly become more expensive or difficult?

 

And actually. I don't care about guns. My argument this whole time has been guns are not that dangerous. You can only kill a couple dozen people. My concern is the future of technology. I can MAKE my own gun at home in a few hours and go kill people. What about the next "version" of the gun? The next more concealable more lethal weapon? Banning may or may not work, depending on how exotic the materials are to make it. But I am terrified at the idea of people having the next weapon after guns, without any of the humanization required for us to possess it. And I forgot who said it, but someone made the argument something like, we live in the now or something. Short sighted policy and social decisions are directly responsible for the massive degradation america has experience, is more reactive short sighted policy the answer?

 

Guns have been more common than cars in the US for over 100 years. Only recently have mass shootings been a problem. Why is banning guns even something people are talking about instead of whats going on in our society that's making people lash out at society? The more I listen to counter arguments the more I am hearing "it's easier to ban guns" no one is saying it but no one is addressing the question. The easy way out is the bad one.

 

BTW. I do not own a gun. If they are banned I WILL HAVE ONE. Because I don't trust the government with weapons and not myself. I am more responsible, and capable than our government or military. I don't kill 10 civilians while trying to get 1 terrorist with drone attacks. This is another upsetting thing. Unless we disband our military and eliminate weapons at every aspect of society I am not okay with this. It just allows much easier military occupation and control of americans. I am not paranoid, not saying that is the definite path of society, but only an idiot doesn't realize it is a potential path we are at right now. Allowing a weapons ban is a BIG step towards a military state. And I would like someone to answer me WHY they should have them and not me when I know I am more responsible, and less likely to kill innocents? Basically, until Americans have control of their government taking away guns just takes away our only backup means of ever getting it back. Or. A much better way of saying this, the most sociopathic, disgusting members of our society have access to the most weapons and even discretion on the usage of military personnel as it is. Do you want to make the discrepancy worse (not that it banning guns will actually get rid of any of them but if it did)?

 

And how do you guys even propose to make this ban happen. You going to go search every home in the united states?

 

I would be all for much much much more stringent gun registration laws. Maybe even GPS and identifying chips in them. I am for every possible precaution to make people safer (not that safety should EVER be our first concern as a society, there are more important ideals), as long as they are legitimate precautions that make people safer and don't set us up for long term failure. Like I said, if people have impulse control issues now with guns, which are not only not the most lethal weapon you can have right now but also a dumb one. Again. I just need a mounted camera, a bomb, and a drone. I can kill more people faster than you can with your gun with no witnesses. We need a better society, with more empathy, that cares for the mentally ill, and reaches out to those who feel isolated. That's what we have to have. People are becoming empowered by technology to inflict harm. The reality is those that feel they are being persecuted or isolated from society don't have to take it anymore. So either society catches up to that reality, or things get a lot uglier.

Edited December 11, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Ten oz]

First. You guys keep assuming you will "reduce guns" you won't even reduce them. And how exactly are you going to track a gun with no purchase history, and no traceable signature rifling? First of all. You are delusional if you think anyone is giving up their gun just because someone says so. I imagine texas legit trying to secede over that or declaring war.

 

Few things. First of all. 3d printed guns are already cheaper and just as good as store bought guns. Why would that trend reverse? It doesn't matter if guns are banned or not. As 3d printers get better why would this suddenly become more expensive or difficult?

 

And actually. I don't care about guns. My argument this whole time has been guns are not that dangerous. You can only kill a couple dozen people. My concern is the future of technology. I can MAKE my own gun at home in a few hours and go kill people. What about the next "version" of the gun? The next more concealable more lethal weapon? Banning may or may not work, depending on how exotic the materials are to make it. But I am terrified at the idea of people having the next weapon after guns, without any of the humanization required for us to possess it.

No place in my post did I mention a gun confiscation or a gun ban.

 

Just because something can be produced via technology does not mean everyone will have the equipment or ability to produce it. Pipe bombs are easily produced yet when people become fed up with their classmates, co-workers, political rivals, or themselves they go the easy route and just use a guns. They do not assemble a pipe bombs. The easier and more convenient something is to do the more it is done. You are also ignoring the investigatitive tools policies provide law enforcement. ZERO percent of people who legally purchase assualt weapons are prosecuted for it. ZERO, because you can't prosecute people for doing what is legal. So even if only a small percentage of individuals selling printed assualt weapons were prosecuted that would still be significantly more than ZERO. Illegal products distribution can be investigated, track, and distrupted. People breaking the law caught and charge. The trend in mass shootings and gun crimes broadly is that the guns used were initially purchased legally. Not printed or illegally imported from Russia.

 

 

And I forgot who said it, but someone made the argument something like, we live in the now or something. Short sighted policy and social decisions are directly responsible for the massive degradation america has experience, is more reactive short sighted policy the answer?

You have been asking posters to address your arguments. I am trying to do that so I would appreciate the same. What some other poster, you can remember who, posted is irelivent. I am not the surrogate for all the other posters you have grievances with.

 

 

Guns have been more common than cars in the US for over 100 years. Only recently have mass shootings been a problem. Why is banning guns even something people are talking about instead of whats going on in our society that's making people lash out at society? The more I listen to counter arguments the more I am hearing "it's easier to ban guns" no one is saying it but no one is addressing the question. The easy way out is the bad one.

There is nothing new about a gun debate. It has been raging since the founding of this country. Your plea toward recency is a shallow one. In the 1800's throughout the country various towns practiced restrictions on firearms in city limits. Supreme Court challanges go back to the 1800's as well with cases like United States vs Cruikshank and Presser vs Illinois. An argument of why now why today only seeks to distract from legitimate discussion. A problem can be fixed at anytime.

 

As for society, what would you like to see done? No one is arguing that guns should be banned but everything else in society should be ignored. The argument here isn't that we must address one or the other but both is impossible.

 

 

BTW. I do not own a gun. If they are banned I WILL HAVE ONE. Because I don't trust the government with weapons and not myself. I am more responsible, and capable than our government or military. I don't kill 10 civilians while trying to get 1 terrorist with drone attacks. This is another upsetting thing. Unless we disband our military and eliminate weapons at every aspect of society I am not okay with this. It just allows much easier military occupation and control of americans. I am not paranoid, not saying that is the definite path of society, but only an idiot doesn't realize it is a potential path we are at right now. Allowing a weapons ban is a BIG step towards a military state.

Again, I never mentioned a ban or confiscation.

Is your local community armed? Do you have a local Police Department, County Sheriff's office, State Police, State National Guard, and etc? In addition to your heavily armed local community you see a meaningful difference between personal ownership of AR-15's vs Sig Sauer p226's with regards to combating the Armed Forces of the United States? Or are you arguing beyond States Rights; that all gov't including your local gov't is a potential occupier?

 

 

 

And I would like someone to answer me WHY they should have them and not me when I know I am more responsible, and less likely to kill innocents?

Shall we give you grenade launchers and Nuclear weapons as well? What is the absolute limit or armament that you know you are responsible to have?

The reason WHY you don't get to have the power and authority of the Gov't is because while you may know that you are responsible the rest of us don't. We live in a country where we collectively get to decide who to give authority to. If we collectively decide our town's mayor is undeserving we can strip them of their authority by electing someone else. If you know for a fact that you are so capable than perhaps you should do the hardwork of running for elected office. That is how it works.

 

 

 

Basically, until Americans have control of their government taking away guns just takes away our only backup means of ever getting it back. Or. A much better way of saying this, the most sociopathic, disgusting members of our society have access to the most weapons and even discretion on the usage of military personnel as it is. Do you want to make the discrepancy worse (not that it banning guns will actually get rid of any of them but if it did)?

Citizens of the United States do not have control of their Gov't? We don't elect our Police Chiefs, Mayors, Govenors, Congressmen, Senators, Presdient, and etc, etc, etc? Please explain who it is that has control over our Gov't exactly if it isn't the voting population.

 

 

And how do you guys even propose to make this ban happen. You going to go search every home in the united states?

What ban have I advocated? The Goal of any law in reduction. Rape is illegal yet millions are still raped every year shall we do away with our laws against rape because they are not 100% successful?

 

 

I would be all for much much much more stringent gun registration laws. Maybe even GPS and identifying chips in them. I am for every possible precaution to make people safer (not that safety should EVER be our first concern as a society, there are more important ideals), as long as they are legitimate precautions that make people safer and don't set us up for long term failure. Like I said, if people have impulse control issues now with guns, which are not only not the most lethal weapon you can have right now but also a dumb one. Again. I just need a mounted camera, a bomb, and a drone. I can kill more people faster than you can with your gun with no witnesses. We need a better society, with more empathy, that cares for the mentally ill, and reaches out to those who feel isolated. That's what we have to have. People are becoming empowered by technology to inflict harm. The reality is those that feel they are being persecuted or isolated from society don't have to take it anymore. So either society catches up to that reality, or things get a lot uglier.

 

Things get a lot uglier? Uglier than segregation, uglier than the Trail of Tears, uglier than Mexican repateration, uglier than Slavery, uglier than give Natives diseased blankets, and etc, etc, etc? I am proud of where the United States is today. I rather be here today than in any other previous era. Society is far from perfect and we have many challanges but I reject the picture doom and gloom and to hell in a hand basket you are painting.

[TheGeckomancer]

No place in my post did I mention a gun confiscation or a gun ban.

 

Just because something can be produced via technology does not mean everyone will have the equipment or ability to produce it. Pipe bombs are easily produced yet when people become fed up with their classmates, co-workers, political rivals, or themselves they go the easy route and just use a guns. They do not assemble a pipe bombs. The easier and more convenient something is to do the more it is done. You are also ignoring the investigatitive tools policies provide law enforcement. ZERO percent of people who legally purchase assualt weapons are prosecuted for it. ZERO, because you can't prosecute people for doing what is legal. So even if only a small percentage of individuals selling printed assualt weapons were prosecuted that would still be significantly more than ZERO. Illegal products distribution can be investigated, track, and distrupted. People breaking the law caught and charge. The trend in mass shootings and gun crimes broadly is that the guns used were initially purchased legally. Not printed or illegally imported from Russia.

 

 

You have been asking posters to address your arguments. I am trying to do that so I would appreciate the same. What some other poster, you can remember who, posted is irelivent. I am not the surrogate for all the other posters you have grievances with.

 

 

There is nothing new about a gun debate. It has been raging since the founding of this country. Your plea toward recency is a shallow one. In the 1800's throughout the country various towns practiced restrictions on firearms in city limits. Supreme Court challanges go back to the 1800's as well with cases like United States vs Cruikshank and Presser vs Illinois. An argument of why now why today only seeks to distract from legitimate discussion. A problem can be fixed at anytime.

 

As for society, what would you like to see done? No one is arguing that guns should be banned but everything else in society should be ignored. The argument here isn't that we must address one or the other but both is impossible.

 

Again, I never mentioned a ban or confiscation.

Is your local community armed? Do you have a local Police Department, County Sheriff's office, State Police, State National Guard, and etc? In addition to your heavily armed local community you see a meaningful difference between personal ownership of AR-15's vs Sig Sauer p226's with regards to combating the Armed Forces of the United States? Or are you arguing beyond States Rights; that all gov't including your local gov't is a potential occupier?

 

 

Shall we give you grenade launchers and Nuclear weapons as well? What is the absolute limit or armament that you know you are responsible to have?

The reason WHY you don't get to have the power and authority of the Gov't is because while you may know that you are responsible the rest of us don't. We live in a country where we collectively get to decide who to give authority to. If we collectively decide our town's mayor is undeserving we can strip them of their authority by electing someone else. If you know for a fact that you are so capable than perhaps you should do the hardwork of running for elected office. That is how it works.

 

 

Citizens of the United States do not have control of their Gov't? We don't elect our Police Chiefs, Mayors, Govenors, Congressmen, Senators, Presdient, and etc, etc, etc? Please explain who it is that has control over our Gov't exactly if it isn't the voting population.

 

What ban have I advocated? The Goal of any law in reduction. Rape is illegal yet millions are still raped every year shall we do away with our laws against rape because they are not 100% successful?

 

Things get a lot uglier? Uglier than segregation, uglier than the Trail of Tears, uglier than Mexican repateration, uglier than Slavery, uglier than give Natives diseased blankets, and etc, etc, etc? I am proud of where the United States is today. I rather be here today than in any other previous era. Society is far from perfect and we have many challanges but I reject the picture doom and gloom and to hell in a hand basket you are painting.

 

 

Thats only the outcome I am painting for a society that keeps trying to cover up it's deep issues. And we DO NOT control our government. Politicians are put in power by politicians and corporate owners. This is a different discussion but the political system is so corrupt it's basically irredeemable, I just don't support an armed revolution at this time, it hasn't crossed the no return point yet. Go learn about gerrymandering, you don't get a say in who is elected. You get to pretend you have a say. And the elected officials usually don't even have a say in policy, their owners tell them what to do. We are an elitist extreme aristocracy. We have lords and owners, we just don't use those words.

 

Also, you never made clear your stance on what should be done with guns. Others in this topic have been arguing for bans. If you have a different stance it's better to state it than let me assume.

Edited December 11, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Ten oz]

 

 

Thats only the outcome I am painting for a society that keeps trying to cover up it's deep issues. And we DO NOT control our government. Politicians are put in power by politicians and corporate owners. This is a different discussion but the political system is so corrupt it's basically irredeemable, I just don't support an armed revolution at this time, it hasn't crossed the no return point yet. Go learn about gerrymandering, you don't get a say in who is elected. You get to pretend you have a say. And the elected officials usually don't even have a say in policy, their owners tell them what to do. We are an elitist extreme aristocracy.

You complain in post after post that your points were not being addressed so I go line by line providing you counter arguements and this is your response? It appears that you are not interested in a honest discussion.

[TheGeckomancer]

This is the only forum I hang out on. I do not know how to multi quote. I just woke up and I was leaving for work. I apologize for not giving a more thorough response. If you want to tell me how to quote in parts, cause I can't get multiquote to work properly I would LOVE that. I would feel less nebulous and able to more easily address individual points.