Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Um...thanks?
I'm fairly sure there are people who don't believe that things like that need to be regulated, but I don't believe that alone qualifies them as insane.
Not only that, it passed almost unanimously.
Maybe I should qualify it as "Nobody with a sizeable amount of sense is going to say they're anti-[regulation of bad thing] or pro-[bad thing]."
By pro regulation I mean I'm pretty happy with how the UK regulates them, so basically heavy regulation and no pistols (apart from starting pistols.)
Edit:
I put pro regulation as anti gun doesn't sound as good a term.
Okay, fair enough. I do support regulation, just not a huge amount of it. And I've known too many crazy rednecks using the label "pro-gun" to use it myself.
Pro Gun sounds like a terrible film, or some kind of viagra knockoff.
Whilst I'm relatively happy with the UK gun laws I wouldn't cry if they made it even harder to own a rifle/shotgun as the only real uses for them are for hunting, and I'm not much of a supporter of that either.
(It also helps that guns are pretty much a non issue here.)
Not sure if serious but if yes, I want to see some statistical evidence on that
edit: ^ Hunting, shooting vermin and clay pigeon shooting, and tbh, I would be annoyed if they made guns harder to own.
I got a little bit to say as a swordbro and weaponsdude.
For me, the issue of gun ownership is a tough one. Take this statement:
- If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
This is pretty much 100% true. There's no faulting that logic. On the other hand, weapons are psychologically encouraging. Their designation as a dedicated weapon can cause people to want to use them. I'll tell you right now that a shovel can kill in a single stroke; a shard of glass can become an improvised knife, a toaster can become a bloody flail if you like. But how often are people killed with shovels, shards of glass or toaster flails except when those items are convenient to use at the time? Weapons only exist to kill, or, at their most merciful, injure.
It's for this reason that I'm generally against gun ownership. But the Second Amendment was powerful. It showed that the ruling body of the early USA trusted its population to fight back if they felt their rights and lives were being infringed upon. That's a policy almost entirely unique in history. I would like to believe that your average person could be trusted with a gun, and perhaps they could. For all the awful potentials of deadly weapons, they are not inherently evil objects. A human being has to actively decide to kill another, and therefore I believe the bulk of the responsibility lies in human hands.
All the same, though, guns kill swiftly and easily. It doesn't take long to be able to shoot reasonably well, and then a gun owner has power over life and death at the end of their barrel. At first, I thought swords were "morally stronger" in this respect, because they required a more committed input of time and effort to be able to wield effectively, but then I ended up at another conundrum.
Why should those with obscure training hold power? In Australia, as a sword owner, I'm in a minority of civilians that have access to a military weapon, even if it's outdated. That gives me the same power a gun owner does in the US context. Not many Australians have equipment that could allow them to fight a swordsman, and fewer have the knowledge or skills to make that equipment worthwhile. In my own context, I've unwittingly become of the same general "class" as US gun owners.
And it certainly suits me just fine that guns are banned here. Without guns, the sword is dominant in the case of a serious violent conflict.
So I guess I'm in a bit of a pickle here. I feel as though being anti-gun is somewhat self-interested. All the same, I don't like the idea of civilians owning weapons that make killing so easy for so little effort and input. And throughout all this, I'd like to maintain the moral upper hand and justify my right to own a sword. I'm not sure if all of these aspects can be reconciled.
Anyway, that's just my perspective. I care about the gun issue a lot, but I'm undecided on which "side" I want to take.
Sarcasm.
Yeah I'm still not fussed about the things guns are used for, hunting as i've said should be stopped, vermin depends on if there are other humane methods, and clay pigeon shooting *shrug* a useless bourgeoisie sport
Shooting is probably the best overall option imo
This isn't necessarily the case. 60 million gun owners hurt absolutely nobody yesterday, etc. IMO, the notion that the mere presence of guns is somehow psychologically damaging is considerably more harmful.
I don't think it's a complete absolute, but for some people it's absolutely true.
I don't see the point in outlawing guns. Alcohol was outlawed. Guess what happened: people found a way to get alcohol.
I want more gun control, but banning them outright is illogical. Americans like guns.
^^ And I'd consider that risk to pale in comparison to "disarm your populace and irreversibly consolidate power".
And you know, given that America is in very recent days looking at peaceful protests being forcibly shut down, motherfucking flying drones that can tear gas us with complete impunity, and corporate privatization of everything that is armed paying off everyone who can make the laws, this isn't exactly an unreasonable fear.
>I don't see the point in outlawing guns. Alcohol was outlawed. Guess what happened: people found a way to get alcohol.
By that logic selling organs should be legal since there's a black market for it.
I'm definitely against the banning of alcohol, but drugs are killing tools are not the same thing.
It saddens me that you can say this and not be lying or even distorting the truth much.
By that logic selling organs should be legal since there's a black market for it.
In an ideal world, we would be able to ban guns because people don't need them, but it's simply too impractical to try to enact laws to ban all guns, the same kind of impracticality as banning protests.
Gun laws need to be tightened, but not to the point we ban guns.
Discourage, don't outlaw, or something.
^ Pretty much. Much tighter gun regulation, increase the specifications for owning a gun, something like that.
To be honest, I can't get some of the reasoning here. Police drones and militarization of the police is bad (which it is), but gun ownership should be banned (it shouldn't)? How would we keep any semblance of order in larger cities?
^^^^Wha... did you actually think I was supporting making selling organs legal? My point was 'people are going to do it even if it's illegal' is stupid logic.
^^^And what exactly do you need a gun for?
Everything that you hope you'll never need it for.
Well, hopefully by not relying on random citizens to stop corporations exploiting the fuck out of everything.
holy shit guys
the US is turning into a comic book
^^I think I'll take my chances that the zombie apocalypse doesn't happen, unless you have actual examples and not platitudes.
^See my earlier statement about becoming a cyberpunk dystopia.
"Everything that you hope you'll never need it for."
That.
Most people don't actually ever use their guns. It's more for the idea of security it adds. The idea that if the police don't show up in time, you have added protection. Especially in large cities, where if you live in more slummy areas, it's pretty much an unwritten rule that you need a gun.
>anarchic ideals
There are in fact things to use a gun on that don't involve zombies.
An armed burglar comes to mind. And as my hometown has been having a rash of drug problems lately, I can't even say that's something as faraway as I used to.
Ignoring that the vast majority of burglars will come when you're not home because they want to steal and not confront, why is mace or a tazer or a baseball bat not just as useful (and less likely to have you hurt yourself)
I'm not sure I support banning all guns but 'we need them for self-defense' is stupid since there are non-lethal, less complex, and less dengerous to yourself methods.
"and less likely to have you hurt yourself"
How is "point and shoot" more likely to have me hurt myself than missing with a single-shot taser and then being defenseless, firing pepper spray in an enclosed room, or closing range with an improvised weapon?
Like, don't get me wrong, I'd be inclined to go for my metal T-square in the absence of a gun for lack of anything better, but still.