Chicago. That's what happens. You have a high supply and demand limited by bureaucracy and law... Chicago, Detroit, New York City. You end up with mega-cities choked with crime and predators manhandling a public that cannot be properly governed or policed, nor are allowed to defend themselves.

An armed society is a polite society.

oh hi, you are the guy that was pro-slut shaming!

This had been, for the most part, an on topic thread. if you have some issue with me, please feel free to have an open discussion in a thread you make. please don't derail this one. thanks!

And if you seriously wanted to talk to sasuke, why didn't you reply to one of his posts? obviously you are trying to troll me and it isn't going to work.

Edit: i honestly had completely forgotten about you, but I must have said something that struck a cord. hahaha and i totally remember what i said.

My suspicion about your character was right. You LOVE insulting people and acting like a forum bully.

Whenever someone makes a smart point that goes against your illogical beliefs, you try to bully them into silence like a liberal feminist would.

No reasonable father in this world would want his daughter to be a college or high-school slut. Maybe you are/were a slut and so get angry at slut shaming. Most people are pro slut shaming as most people are reasonable.

Regardless, I will not give you the satisfaction of entertaining your stupid posts or read your reply and leave it at that.

this is the last time I will address you concerning this in this thread. If you have issue with me, please feel free to open a thread and we can have a discussion. otherwise, please refrain from derailing this thread with issues you have with me.

edit: and I don't need to insult you, you hung yourself with what you just posted. LOL

Insults? I did 2, you are gonna back off from that when I made my argument as well and you didn't sdo anything to say agtainst it but still projected your already formed judgement of this matter, disregarding what I said?

And the slut walk is a shallow (and akmost unknowable) thing to talk about in some societies, and someone already rebutted it's appearences (without providing any information on the place it isn't present...because it is THAT shallow)

Providing the link of an ocurrence can connect into this being a movement? I am sorry but you need more than just two links to PROVE a massive amount of people exist that do this.
(for the sake of our healthy cinicism, which I just wrote wrong)

Human nature IS vicious, I guess because everyone has a costumber of after doing everything to survive, they will do everything to keep their comodities, just be thankful it isn't as bad as century ago, now that would be SHIT HOLE to live in.

Good points, graciously put.

What you replied to me directly. Of course the point of gun control is not to reduce crime, despite that being a good intention of many. It's also not to reduce mortality... The purpose of gun control is to ensure a near monopoly on the use of violence and possibly preempt needing the consent of governed minorities.

And also:

Do you have evidence that availability of guns causes suicide rather than contributing to their success? The overall suicide ratios for Germany and US were hardly different...
You're totally right mass murders cause emotional and often illogical reactions. Compare total driving deaths, suicide deaths or swimming deaths...

You dismiss the anti-totalitarian rationale of a armed populace very quick and based on some almost strawman where a man with a rifle can save us from a high tech tyrant using drones... this is a common argument but it ignores that armed populace is part of a whole where freedom of speech and association are also included. Hence methods to organize are assumed. It's also assumed part of the armed forces would be on the populace's side.

Whatever, it's a counterfactual for the most part so it's not easy to argue anyway. But consider how different the 20th century might have been if 32% of German or Russian households were armed around the 1930s...

By that (bumper sticker) logic, societies like the US would be the most polite folks in the world while societies like the Japanese would be the epitome of rudeness. Dude, you're ranting.

How much traveling in small town America have you done? Everyone out where I live carries a gun rack and a smile. Going into the city that's loaded with guns AND laws against guns? Pissed off commuters and gangbangers a'plenty. I just go by what I see. Gun laws don't work. If they did, there wouldn't be either guns nor gun crimes. Society doesn't have machinery problems... it has operator problems.

It was a cat call more than anything, nothing to be mean about there, if you are gonna back out it's your call and you need more than just 2 links to prove such a thing isn't a coincidence but FACTUAL, so while you disregard my argument while I don't do that to yours and actually argued not against but tried to Correct the "facts" you are proposing I am typing this to the actual response above:

More projection?

Uh, it's not gun control that promotes a monopoly of the state on the use of violence, it's the law that does that. Umm, I'm pretty sure most countries don't enact gun control laws because they're afraid that part of the populance will stage an armed rebellion, but simply because they believe guns have a tendency to escalate situations. They don't "cause" suicide, but they raise the risk of going through with it. Many suicide attempts are one-time events and people without direct access to a gun have to jump through hoops that give them time for other people to take notice or have a "what the hell am I doing"-moment themselves. Other popular methods like sleeping pills have a much higher failure rate too and many people who go through a failed suicide attempt end up having a moment of clarity afterwards and seek help. So do guns actually cause suicide? No. But if someone falls on hard times and they start playing with the thought, direct access to a gun is the biggest liability he or she could have. I never said mass murders cause illogical reactions. It's perfectly logical to want to make sure that what happened to one's loved ones won't happen to someone else's. As a rule, if there's unrest in a country and the army sides with the populance over the government, the government is overthrown. (hence the reason so many heads of state in certain parts of the world are military leaders) If the army sides with the government, tough luck for the people. This rule applies whether the populance is armed or not. A well-informed public, the existence of safeguards within the democratic system and the lack of systemic corruption in the army and police force are vastly superior protective measures than private gun ownership. I kind of wonder if it'd really have been different. Private gun ownership is quite high in countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Those countries are hardly the epitome of democracy. The phenomenon you describe has nothing to do with gun laws and everything to do with social cohesion. Small towns in the US tend to have a very homogenous population, hence the more relaxed atmosphere. Large cities are large patchworks of all sorts of different ethnic, cultural and social groups, which creates a more distant and occasionally tense environment. I'm pretty sure that if one of those small towns you speak of were suddenly faced with a group of people of a different ethnic/cultural group moving there (preferably black or muslim) and adopting the same habit of openly carrying firearms around, there wouldn't be much smiling going on anymore. In fact, the "outsiders" packing heat wouldn't be experienced as folks merely making use of their constitutional rights, but folks preparing to take over.

Considering the fact that the US got safer even as private gun sales legally rose and considering the shit other countries (the so called "civilized" ones according to gun control advocates) have gone through like the Charlie Hebdo incident in France or the Islamist attack at that Australian cafe, I am against most forms of gun control laws and support a natural right to own, carry, and use weapons like semi-auto rifles and handguns for defensive purposes.

While people claim that "guns don't get used in defense that often," truth be told is that they only refer to cases in which shots are fired as oppose to cases in which criminals retreat or surrender at the sight of a firearm. These cases happen more often in the US than statistics report. Also, people claim that "most gun incidents happen in the home" while forgetting that the term "gun incident" includes cases of successful defense since there was an incident (criminal trying to rob, rape, or murder) and there was a gun involved regardless of context. Same goes for the term "gun crime" or "gun homicide."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/
http://m.onlineathens.com/local-news/2013-01-24/armed-wheelchair-bound-homeowner-thwarts-burglary-west-athens#showLinkhttp://m.wap.onlineathens.com/local-news/2013-01-24/armed-wheelchair-bound-homeowner-thwarts-burglary-west-athens?fmt=www
http://www.wistv.com/story/15140008/female-motel-clerk-kills-robber
http://county10.com/2014/09/23/grizzly-shot-killed-along-east-fork-act-self-defense-gf-reported-tuesday/

By the way, if it was up to gun control advocates, that female motel clerk would have been raped at knifepoint, that wheelchair-bound homeowner would have been expected to run away or fight that burglar hand-to-hand even though he was unable to use his legs, and late summer 2012, a stabbing spree in Utah was brought to an end when a private citizen pulled out a gun and forced the aggressor to surrender without a shot being fired. If it was up to Obama, that customer would have had to call the cops and wait for them to show up after the aggressor stabbed and slashed more people. Gun control advocates and animal rights zealots would have both loved for that traveler to have been ripped apart and eaten by that bear of course.

Also, I have yet to see a single gun control advocate talk about how the Obama administration gave guns and ammo to Mexican drug cartels and blamed it on US gun stores as part of a false flag operation. I mention this because it shows what these gun control advocates really believe. They want to disarm the commoners and let the elites have all the guns and ammo they want along with all the special security teams to defend them and their families while everyone else has to depend on a police state even though the average response time of a cop in the US is over 20 minutes long and the US Supreme Court has ruled that cops have no obligation to actually help you but to simply enforce laws and regulations.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html

Regarding your further dismissal of the anti-totalitarian rationale for armed populations I won't add anything. No point I think, we can agree to disagree. You do make some points I want to quickly shoot back on :)


For one gun control is part of said law... not sure what that distinction was supposed to highlight...

As for suicide, stepping in front of a train or jumping from a high enough spot are also quite popular and equally effective... and at least as easy as using a gun. There's nothing inherently about weapons that is uniquely enabling of suicides.

Finally on mass murders. The illogical part is to focus on preemption of such unusual events, horrific as they are, over prevention of mundane and much more important sources of death. Such improper quantification of risk indicates the emotional angle is causing irrational evaluations. Terrorists attacks also tend to cause similar overreactions, in fact mass murders and terrorist attacks have a lot in common, regardless of method employed.

Yeah, thank goodness people walking into a building and shooting everybody in sight never happens in the US. I always roll my eyes a bit when folks come up with the "criminal breaking into a home to rob, rape and murder"-stuff. The scenario, and the scenario of the brave home owner fending off groups of thieving murderrapists with his trusty sidearm is just so delightfully hollywood. What I meant to highlight was the fact that citizens generally don't engage in violence in everyday life is not whether the other person might or might not be armed, but simply because most people don't think it's worth breaking the law for. And yet people are far more likely to have second thoughts while standing next to that railroad track waiting for the train to arrive or staring down at the floor 10 stories below. Perhaps it's the fact that guns allow one to commit suicide in the safe privacy of one's own home that other similarly "quick" methods lack. Most likely because of the nature of such events. People worry about mundane sources of death, such as car accidents or dying from cancer, but those kinds of things leave several circumstances to the person himself. The risk of dying in a car crash can be limited by wearing a seat belt and driving carefully. The risk of contracting and dying from cancer can be reduced by living healthily, no smoking like a chimney or drinking like a sponge, and if visiting a doctor early upon encountering strange pain or lumps, so treatment at the hospital can raise the possibility of survival. In addition, we can encourage these habits in friends and family to decrease their chances of dying prematurely from such causes too. Through these small actions, people maintain the feeling of remaining in control of their life. A sudden mass shooting, on the other hand, terrifies people because the people who die did so because they were in the wrong place when a random person's wiring got loose. It goes without saying that the idea of anyone in your vicinity being able to suddenly pop a fuse and start blasting people left and right is more terrifying than the idea of a traffic accident since we feel we have more control over the latter.

Any sane person on this planet supports gun control. I don't think any sane person would want anyone to be able to go to their local Wal-Mart and purchase an M1-Abrams tank, or a 50 caliber machine gun, or a thermonuclear weapon, or biological or chemical weapons. So unless you actually believe that would be okay, then most people actually support gun control.
There is no debate on having a line. The debate is merely where to draw the line.