I'm not talking broader scope. I discuss politics all the time. On facebook and in person. I'm talking literal TFW rules. I like this site and don't want to get banned.

Actually, sounds like you disagree with me. You are obviously a victim of the propaganda. The way propaganda works is that the mainstream politics and media push the propaganda, not the fringe "crazy" media. The mainstream tells you they are crazy as part of the propaganda.

Guns are not the problem, evil hearts of men are. People have been killing long before there were guns. In fact, I'd say the middle ages had more violence and mass killings than we do today. When was the last time you saw an army of people ride into a town on horses and kill everyone in it with swords? Or declared people witches and burned them at the stake? Guns exist, people own them to protect themselves, and these things don't happen anymore. The killing is on much smaller scales because people are more able to protect themselves. It isn't as hard to learn to use a gun as it is a sword, so the weak that are normally exploited are able to defend themselves.

Let's say you have no gun, but I do. A burglar/rapist is more likely to choose your house over mine if he knows that. If he doesn't and just picks one randomly, my family is more likely to be safe than yours. What made the difference is me owning a gun. I was safer than you in this scenario. So much for saying more guns don't equal more safety...

So the question becomes, why would the people with power ( pulling the strings from behind the politicians ) want to disarm people? That's the one I don't think we can discuss because we would have to discuss politics.

If you want to continue this in more detail, let's take it to PMs. I'm not risking an infraction by continuing this in this thread.

 

I agree with these posts. ^^^ It's nice to see that some people can think for themselves.

 

I would but I already have plans to move to Aviano, Italy.

 

When you condemn an entire side of an argument as being simply a result of propaganda, you have out of hand denied the possibility for civil discourse.

You think it's not mainstream that guns are good? That the mainstream media solely represents one side of this discussion and thus is the only one responsible for propaganda? That's absurd. This is a divisive issue,well represented on both sides in both fringe and mainstream media and culture.

Guns are not the reason that the Mongolians don't ride in an slaughter a village. Guns aren't the reason that coastal towns in civilized nations don't have pirates a'plundering and guns aren't the reason witches aren't being burnt at the stake. Many of these things have happened since the invention of the firearm. Your argument is once again predicated upon the logical fallacy of ad hoc ego Propter hoc.

And you are right, it isn't as hard to use a gun as it is a sword, an argument I can easily twist back around to say that there are many senseless deaths, and in fact, suicides as well, simply because a gun is easier to wield than a sword. The average person (and as a result, average criminal, because Lets concede that when it comes to criminals, we are in general not dealing with well trained or intelligent humans) can do far more damage with a rifle than they could with a sword.

Your example of the burglar is technically a legitimate one, but it is A) an argument based purely on fear and B) a straw man argument when it comes to the prevalence of gun related violence. Many of the other well developed and industrialized nations on this planet haves similar rates of burglary to the USA. They have similar crime rates. However those countries with stricter gun laws or bans do not have the astronomically high rate of death and violence related to guns than we do.

I know that the argument goes "if we banned guns, only the criminals would have them!"

This is based on the concept of a black market emerging as a result of a gun ban. I will concede there will always be black markets for illegal things. What I can also guarantee you however is that if such a case were to come about, simple economics dictates that the price of guns on that black market would soar out of fucking control. Petty criminals such as your burglar scenario would be priced out of the market. It would cost him more to get a gun than he could hope to get from breaking into my home and finding what few hundred dollars and a TV he assumes he will find.

A police force, a strong community that looks out for each other and the interconnectivity and speed of response the telephone and Internet age have offered us are far more a cause of a lack of the kindsof crimes committed during the Middle Ages than the propensity for this country towards guns are.

If denying an entire side to rational thought by labeling it as a result of media propaganda (something that can only be the result of an imbedded paranoia of the government disarming its people so as to impose a dictatorial state and possible genocide against its citizens) makes you sleep more soundly, I won't begrudge you that train of thought. It's not without its foundations in some history,however warped a reading of that history requires it to be. I will admit to soe of the logic behind the strictly fear based notion that less guns in the hands of civilians directly and only means more guns in the hands of criminals and a sort of potential tyranny imposed upon communities. However I will not concede that such notions arise from the sole arbiters of logic and truth. I will not allow, because it is narrow minded and absurd, that a nation founded upon the belief that we as a people should be free and that peace among men is worth striving for, shall predicate its national discourse upon fear of the lowest common demoninator of filth and vermin among our species. That is a method of thought that may be able to maintain a status quo, and our status quo is that hundreds of thousands of people needlessly die in this country from gun violence that don't die in other developed countries, but it will never lead to the betterment of us as individuals or as a nation. And I will always hope that we as a people can come together with the common goal of life being better, of less people living in fear.

You may think that your gun is the reason that you need not live in fear. I believe that your owning a gun is a direct result of living in fear.

 

So yours is the only opinion one thinking for himself can arrive at? That is the heart of bigotry.

 

One more thing. There is a belief at the heart of your argument that gun ownership serves as a deterrent to the committing of crimes. A small dose of reflexive logic must tell us that behind that notion is a belief that fear makes us better people. That the would be criminal is not going to commit a crime because he is afraid of the potential consequence of death. I find this to be categorically untrue. If such were the case, gangs would be less inclined to kill eachother. They KNOW the other person had a gun, but they go in with guns a blazing despite it.
Again this all comes back to fear. I do not believe, as you clearly do, that fear is what deters otherwise good ppl from evil acts. No, I firmly believe that fear is what drives otherwise good ppl to do evil things.

 

See, I think that's a significant disconnect between the two sides of the debate. You think I have a gun because I was in fear for my life and/or safety. I have a gun for essentially the same reason I have subwoofers in the trunk of my car, or Transformers on my shelves - because I have an interest in them and I wanted it!

But, with that said - of course, I also bought the gun with the intent of personal protection. But not because I fear for my life.

Hahaha! C'mon, man. Stop it. I think you're putting words in my mouth juuuuust a little bit.

And you hinting that I am a bigot is exactly what some people do these days when others don't agree with their opinion - they throw out words like racist/sexist/bigot to blackball the other guy.


Aaaaand....that's it for me. I'm not a big "debate about it" guy (especially here on TFW). I have my opinion, and I understand and respect yours. I'm not all rabid about it like some others.

 

Thanks guys, you two have made this thread quite entertaining.

 

Oh, I know many ppl have guns just because they like them. In fact I think a lot of ppl who spout off about their liberties and rich to protect themselves don't acknowledge the extent to which they own a gun purely for the enjoyment of it.

And sure, guns are cool and guns are fun to shoot, but when is the last time someone committed murder with a transformer or a subwoofer?

Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your post. Lol, we are accusing eachother of the same thing, or rather, you are accusing of me of my accusation against you to be doing what I accused you of... Or something like that.

You are entitled to your opinion. Infact I've conceded to seeing where your logic arises from, but you were quoting someone who said my opinion was the mere result of propaganda and furthering that by congratulating him for being able to think for himself. The conclusion I drew from that is those with a differing opinion are t thinking for themselves and that's where we broach the topic of bigoted thought for me. The idea that those with a different opinion are sheep, that someone couldn't logically on their own as a free thinking person arrive at the opinion that counters yours.

I don't think you are a bigot for disagreeing with me. I thin you're a bigot if you out of hand discount my opinion because you think it's just the result of brain washing.

But agai , apologies if I read into something you didn't intend to say. If so, consider it collateral damage to the discussion with the other guy. But can you blame me for mixing you two up? You're both galvatrons!

 

Agreed. I think that's a good point.

LOL, I guess you got me there. But, you don't realize how friggin' heavy my speaker box is. I could definitely f**k someone up with it!

Hahaha, that's funny because I almost edited my last post to say roughly the same thing!

Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that. That's what I get for making a one-line post.

I'll admit that I'm always wary about the media's intentions, and worry that too many people's opinions are (from my view) blindly formed by what the news tells them. So when I see that others are thinking like me - I like it! 

Hey, it's all good, Surly. I like it that we can go back-and-forth without being dicks or acting high-and-mighty in our opinions . (I hope I don't come off as a dick or high-and-mighty in my posts.... )

Regarding the similar usernames....it's strange that my and IG's names and opinions are apparently so alike!

 

Yep.

*tries to refrain from making a political post*

 

Awesome, I hope you'll enjoy your time there.

 

That is for when I graduate from high school and get a good job. I should live in Italia with no issues given my dual-citizenship there.

 

God, America, man the fuck up. Shit's getting old with all these overreactions.

 

Fair enough.

 

How so? Calling a spade a spade does not change the ability to play cards. Propaganda is when those in power keep repeating information that is not consistent with facts or statistics in order to try to influence mainstream thinking towards that goal. That is what's happening with the gun issue.

You have confused mainstream america and mainstream media. They are not one in the same. Mainstream media consists of 5 out of 6 major news networks and the majority of the most popular papers. Can you find me one major new outlet besides Fox news that isn't villainising the guns and calling for gun control? To claim it's evenly divided is what's absurd. While it's true that mainstream America sees guns as good, the mainstream media is trying to change that view by repeatedly calling guns evil. It's starting to work.

The gun industry really took off after America was founded. They were around before, but not nearly as common. Everybody didn't have one. The villagers raided by Mongolians didn't have them. It was the saturation of person gun ownership that slowed and eventually stopped these things. When they would raid, they would be shot, so there were less of them to raid, or they finally gave up because of getting tired of getting shot at.

If a person wants to kill themselves, there are other ways to do it besides a gun so suicide isn't a good example. People slit wrists, hang themselves, take lots of pills, or even fall upon their sword. My point about guns being "easy" was in reference to the fight. With a sword, it's not who swings first. Its' about the skill with the weapon. You can dodge and deflect their blows. You can't do that with a gun. So the one that shoots first wins. That makes it easier for the would be victim to survive. With swords, I'd have to out sword fight the intruder. With a gun, I just gotta shoot first. Like I said, it's fact that back in the days of swords as the main weapon, raids and sword fights happened more often than gun shoot outs now. ( in areas with the most lax gun control laws )

Actually, in America, only 30% of home invasions happen while someone is home. In Europe, it's 50%. The lack of means to defend are surely a factor that can not be ignored. Again, the argument you present does not line up with the facts or statistics. Also, when comparing statistics of America to other nations, you have to consider some facts. In America, the cities and states with the strictest gun laws have the highest violence. The most lax areas have the least. The high rate areas cause the overall average for the country to be higher. It's that overall average people use to compare to other nations. Try comparing states like Texas to other countries and see how much LOWER they are. If all of America were consistent with the laws and crime rates, you could make the comparison. You have to look at the demographics within the country to really see if guns in private ownership affect the crime rate.

Yet, criminals easily afford drugs and other illegal stuff provided by the black market. Oh, that's right. They buy them with the money they get from stealing money and TVs from houses. Oh, those pesky facts again. With the amount of guns already out there, there's plenty of supply the black market can "hide" during confiscation to meet the demand that would come later.

Yeah, the police arrived in time to save all those kids in that school didn't they? Just like they did at the movie theater... Of course, this whole argument makes no sense considering these are very recent inventions. There was no internet or phone in the 1890's. In fact, I don't think gun violence has dropped a bit since the invention of those things. I'd like to see some statistics on that. Nevertheless, my argument was the drop in these kinds of things since guns came into being.

This is a lot of text to type out based on an assumption. It has nothing to do with fear. I'm not constantly scared someone's going to try to kill me. I don't fear dying in a car crash, but I still wear my seatbelt. It's called being realistic to the possibility. You are right that our nation was founded on the idea of peace and striving for it, but keep in mind they wrote in the 2nd amendment as part of that. They are realists. You say we shouldn't let the lowest common denominator influence our actions. I say we have to be realistic and acknowledge that lowest common denominator and be ready to defend ourselves. Plus, I like my guns. They are fun to shoot, as someone else already pointed out. Fear has nothing to do with it. It's called accepting reality and preparing for it. What you propose is naivety. Make ourselves helpless believing that everyone else will as well.

 

That is a really good article. He's the most qualified to speak on the issue, and he uses facts to support his statements. If only more people would actually read this with the humility to accept they may have been wrong.

 

Wow, December has really taken a toll lately...