Well, we've seen countries where it's not allowed but people manage to get them anyway, or countries where it's allowed and there's always someone crazy that gets to use them for massacres. It doesn't work either way.
--- SO I'LL GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT
(What I need is never what I want)
I used to be but that's just unlikely and impractical.
I'd rather just have stricter regulations, training, and mental health checks. You should be sound in mind and fully understanding of what a gun can do and how to use it before you can have a license to own one.
Japan is supposedly really strict with their regulations and processes to get a license and their gun related deaths are marginally lower than the US despite not being that much smaller than us.
Mass shooting no but there's probably gun trafficking which could cause more damage in the long run. Depending on the conditions of the country,you just gotta pick your poison.
--- SO I'LL GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT
(What I need is never what I want)
for all the people saying people will still find ways to kill each other; sure
but tell 'it won't do anything' to a country that banned guns in '96 and hasn't had a single mass shooting since
Which country?
To be completely honest, I feel like that's more of a matter of culture than anything else. Not trying to generalize or stereotype, but we Americans are far more prone to violence between each other than citizens of most other developed nations, and that's a matter of the ethos of being a typical American citizen. The only way that problem will ever be solved is gradual, conscious effort to change the future, which means letting the older generations die off and raising and educating the newer generations to be better.
Once we've changed as a society, then maybe we can entertain the idea of banning them. Until then, I'm going to defend myself.
Edited 1 time - Last edited at 22:18:47 06/03/2016 by Metallo
If anyone wants to know why Americans are more violent to each other than other developed countries, just visit one of our public schools. Kids are completely **** to eachother and its a wonder we don't all grow up to be homicidal.
---
Just ate a time muffin and now I'm traveling through the time vortex.
regulation is the key, we may of banned guns in our country (kangarooland) but america is way more gun-centric and a black market would absolutely thrive considering it has two big directly bordering countries unlike us
also teenagers just go through an edgy **** the rules phase, it happens everywhere
If anyone wants to know why Americans are more violent to each other than other developed countries, just visit one of our public schools. Kids are completely **** to eachother and its a wonder we don't all grow up to be homicidal.
Doesn't help that kids are so desensitized these days. They joke about the most awful **** and don't give a flying **** about anyone or anything except how many followers they have on Twitter and Instagram.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only sane one in my generation.
If anyone wants to know why Americans are more violent to each other than other developed countries, just visit one of our public schools. Kids are completely **** to eachother and its a wonder we don't all grow up to be homicidal.
Doesn't help that kids are so desensitized these days. They joke about the most awful **** and don't give a flying **** about anyone or anything except how many followers they have on Twitter and Instagram.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only sane one in my generation.
Also they love Blood and Gore. And Pop. Kids these days are just.... stupid.
But for edgy kids it does need to be gory and violent to be entertainment. When you grow up getting told it's for grown ups and such the cool thing to look for, more dependable people do everything they can to assert themselves as grown up by doing "grown up" things - swearing, watching violent everything, dark and gritty concepts on media (if no characters die horribly it's for babies). Pretty much what defines edgy nowadays, even if after that time you learn none of it matters and you can play Kirby for all you care, you're still at a more 'mature' age, allowed to drink and drive and go anywhere you want, and paying taxes eventually.
'Course, some people never grow up for real, or try to putting others down for finding out early. God forbid I told people I played pokémon on high school, despite all the **** I went through to find an identity because of bullying I sure must be less adult than the dumb teen that's obsessed with GTA.
--- SO I'LL GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT
(What I need is never what I want)
Edited 2 times - Last edited at 18:13:09 07/03/2016 by Bifrost
Doesn't help that kids are so desensitized these days. They joke about the most awful **** and don't give a flying **** about anyone or anything except how many followers they have on Twitter and Instagram.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only sane one in my generation.
Also they love Blood and Gore. And Pop. Kids these days are just.... stupid.
Pop music isn't too bad, but a lot of it sounds too generic for my liking these days.
Blood and gore = worthwhile, quality entertainment in their eyes, sadly. ****, I said I liked Sly Cooper and the response was "you only play stupid games? So you don't like Call of Duty?" It's like they think that entertainment needs brutal violence to be good.
But the parents just allow them, rewarding that kind of stupid behavior, even more because then the kid can brag to their friends.
I never understood why parents got those sorts of games for their kids. I get that they want them to be happy and whatever, but don't they pay attention to the age ratings? Do they even see what their kids would do in games like GTA? I've just never understood it.
Most of the parents that brought their kids to see the new Deadpool movie complained that the movie wasn't appropriate for their kids to see even though it was rated R.
I never understood why parents got those sorts of games for their kids. I get that they want them to be happy and whatever, but don't they pay attention to the age ratings? Do they even see what their kids would do in games like GTA? I've just never understood it.
Most of the parents that brought their kids to see the new Deadpool movie complained that the movie wasn't appropriate for their kids to see even though it was rated R.
It has nothing to do with "kids these days" or anything like that, it's our culture as a whole. This isn't a new issue by any means, but like a few other people have said we will always find ways to be violent. Also, does anyone really believe that these criminals who are creating problems with guns would suddenly stop being criminals and not find illegal ways to get guns? "Oh well, gee guys. Guns are illegal now so we should probably stop using them to murder people".
But regardless of any of that, my main issue with "banning" things is that it's too much power for the government to have. So many of our problems would vanish if we legalized more things instead of banning them. Prostitution, drugs, and the like. It's the argument of Freedom vs. Safety, would you rather be more free or more safe? Because you can't have both in their entirety.
To be completely honest, I feel like that's more of a matter of culture than anything else. Not trying to generalize or stereotype, but we Americans are far more prone to violence between each other than citizens of most other developed nations, and that's a matter of the ethos of being a typical American citizen.
I've seen a pretty great discussion about why this is the case, but I want to add that perhaps a big reason why Americans in particular could be desensitized to violence, why guns are such a prevalent thing in our media, and why we're so protective of them is because from the very start of our nation we were instilled with the idea that we had the right to have guns.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms; an amendment initially made because the nation didn't yet have an established military (much less what we have now) and citizens needed to be able to defend themselves from leftover opposing soldiers and the wandering hostile native. Part of the problem (and a big part if you ask me) is that as an American you are raised with the idea that it is your right (a God-given right in some circles) to own a gun and be able to defend yourself in case of anything. From the start guns were a huge part of our culture and I feel like that's partly to do with how guns were a part of our laws.
Our guaranteed right to bear arms allowed guns to be a near common household item and standard way to defend yourself. That common practice and also that they were for adults to use to defend meant children would see owning a gun as meaning you're grown up (or back in the day, more specifically, becoming a man). Guns also became a cool thing and once again a default way to fight or raise the stakes in things like movies. It's all instilled in the culture and I wonder if maybe things would be different if the Second Amendment never existed to begin with.
But regardless of any of that, my main issue with "banning" things is that it's too much power for the government to have. So many of our problems would vanish if we legalized more things instead of banning them. Prostitution, drugs, and the like. It's the argument of Freedom vs. Safety, would you rather be more free or more safe? Because you can't have both in their entirety.
Thing is the further restricting of guns will help keep them away from people who aren't mentally sound or well trained in how to use them. Deregulating and further legalizing guns and allowing just about anyone to get their hands on them is a very dangerous idea and further throw the problem into whack. Yeah people can defend themselves sure but someone with an anger problem or a mental disorder (or just having a really bad day) can also grab that gun and do something that none of us really want.
And the black market does exist yes but giving everyone else a gun without proper training and mental health checks won't necessarily fix the problem. Remember that a lot of the mass shootings we often hear about on the news are not being committed by people with an existing criminal background; they're often committed by people nobody knew beforehand who had a mental illness or one day just went off the deep end.
For the reecord I'm not arguing for a total ban on guns. At this point I imagine we'd just get a result similar to Prohibition in the 20s. But further restriction is absolutely something I stand for.
I agree with you on legalizing prostitution and weed.
@Cav
I believe there should be regulations guns, yes. I like our current stance on felons owning guns as well.
I just don't believe a ban on guns completely is smart, or warranted.
A complete ban on guns is just impractical. On paper the idea sounds nice and I was behind it back in the day but Prohibition shows that it'll just give more power to gangs and mafias, as people will do what they can to get it.
We're just too used to guns in our collective minds and I'm not really sure how we can go about reversing it.
While I certainly don't think violent video games are helping, I also don't think they're a big part of the problem.
They really don't. While exposure to violent video games (the same goes for movies and other media) can influence aggressive and violent acts, it doesn't cause it nor does it play that big of a role. There's too many other factors to consider.
---
Twinkies and 2hus
Edited 1 time - Last edited at 23:21:51 07/03/2016 by Iceclaw
@CAV I disagree with you there because America is by no means the only country to have weapons integrated with legal culture. In pre-medieval times, the earliest days of England, France, and most of Western Europe, men not only had the legal right to own and maintain swords, spears, and armor, they were actually legally required to do so; a big step further than the Second Amendment simply giving us the right to bear arms. Yet their societies are far less violent than ours. I honestly believe it's mind over matter.
I don't want them banned outright. But assault weapon bans and stringent mental health and background checks? Absolutely.
It's disgusting that this country is overall more willing to go to bat to give Constitutional rights to fetuses than protect its citizens from each other. Seriously, let's put the terrorists aside here. Americans are far better at killing average citizens than terrorists have been in the last two decades.
Of course, once Drumpf gets elected, I will be looking to get a permit and go through gun safety training because I firmly believe I'll need one.
---
Congrats! You wasted five seconds reading this.
@CAV I disagree with you there because America is by no means the only country to have weapons integrated with legal culture. In pre-medieval times, the earliest days of England, France, and most of Western Europe, men not only had the legal right to own and maintain swords, spears, and armor, they were actually legally required to do so; a big step further than the Second Amendment simply giving us the right to bear arms. Yet their societies are far less violent than ours. I honestly believe it's mind over matter.
Swords, spears and armor are not guns. Even if the right to do so was still there in Western Europe those weapons aren't really effective at mass murder like a gun can be.
Not to mention you say yourself that it was pre-medieval times, as in about a millennium ago. Compare that to Americans who were given this right and stressed the importance of it throughout the nation's much shorter history (less than 250 years).
Edited 1 time - Last edited at 00:27:10 08/03/2016 by CAV
I don't think banning then outright is going to help, and i do think people should own guns if they want to. However I think there needs to be stricter control on them because of the fact that people who own them and have caused shooting tragedies all had mental or health problems.
While I certainly don't think violent video games are helping, I also don't think they're a big part of the problem.
They really don't. While exposure to violent video games (the same goes for movies and other media) can influence aggressive and violent acts, it doesn't cause it nor does it play that big of a role. There's too many other factors to consider.
It really ticks me off that so many outlets always try to put just about every form of media as reasons for violence, not just video games. People always wonder why violence happens and it's because most of the time people are blaming everything but the actual problem, regardless if entertainment influenced or not(because rarely, if ever, is it a direct problem).
Damn HIR you seem absolutely certain that Drumpf is getting elected and the end times are near.
I'm absolutely certain because A) He's getting the Republican nomination because those wealthy suits are too chicken he'll run as a 3rd party, potentially handing the Democrats a win or tearing their party down, and B) When (not if) Bernie doesn't get the nomination, an overwhelmingly large number of the "youth vote" that Obama received will not bother voting or vote Drumpf to spite Clinton. And then once he's elected, you've given a man child final authority over a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the solar system.
There is no scenario where Drumpf doesn't get elected unless he dies or is severely incapacitated. I'm just waiting for everyone else to move to the 5th stage in Kubler-Ross's grief model like I have. The GOP and Fox News are stuck in the 2nd stage (anger), the rest of the world is in the 3rd stage (bargaining), and the New York Times is still in the 1st stage (denial). <.<
---
Congrats! You wasted five seconds reading this.
I'm pretty sure if it does fall to Clinton/Drumpf, while a lot of the youth vote will just not bother and claim apathy, many of us (including myself) will likely vote Clinton simply because it's better than the alternative and then pray that she actually follows her word for once.
This "better them than the opponent" idea is a part of the problem of our voting system.
People talk about how unbelievable it is that Americans are voting for Trump, but do they realise how few states have even held primaries already? Yet most candidates have already dropped out or are losing financial support (not Trump, of course, since he provides his own financial support). Not to mention the fact that primaries are so inaccessible (only held one day of the week, when most people are at work) that only a small fraction of people actually vote in them.
The primaries system is absolute crap. And by the time of the general election we're forced to choose between two people the ****ed up primaries already chose for us.
---
Just ate a time muffin and now I'm traveling through the time vortex.
Damn HIR you seem absolutely certain that Drumpf is getting elected and the end times are near.
I'm absolutely certain because A) He's getting the Republican nomination because those wealthy suits are too chicken he'll run as a 3rd party, potentially handing the Democrats a win or tearing their party down, and B ) When (not if) Bernie doesn't get the nomination, an overwhelmingly large number of the "youth vote" that Obama received will not bother voting or vote Drumpf to spite Clinton. And then once he's elected, you've given a man child final authority over a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the solar system.
There is no scenario where Drumpf doesn't get elected unless he dies or is severely incapacitated. I'm just waiting for everyone else to move to the 5th stage in Kubler-Ross's grief model like I have. The GOP and Fox News are stuck in the 2nd stage (anger), the rest of the world is in the 3rd stage (bargaining), and the New York Times is still in the 1st stage (denial). <.<
Having read your other posts, you seem very certain that Trump will start bombing people if he gets elected. Why is that?
Damn HIR you seem absolutely certain that Drumpf is getting elected and the end times are near.
I'm absolutely certain because A) He's getting the Republican nomination because those wealthy suits are too chicken he'll run as a 3rd party, potentially handing the Democrats a win or tearing their party down, and B ) When (not if) Bernie doesn't get the nomination, an overwhelmingly large number of the "youth vote" that Obama received will not bother voting or vote Drumpf to spite Clinton. And then once he's elected, you've given a man child final authority over a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the solar system.
There is no scenario where Drumpf doesn't get elected unless he dies or is severely incapacitated. I'm just waiting for everyone else to move to the 5th stage in Kubler-Ross's grief model like I have. The GOP and Fox News are stuck in the 2nd stage (anger), the rest of the world is in the 3rd stage (bargaining), and the New York Times is still in the 1st stage (denial). <.<
Having read your other posts, you seem very certain that Trump will start bombing people if he gets elected. Why is that?
I'm not HIR but I think the idea involves how Trump is very insistent on "cutting the heads off of ISIS" meaning he will take a very direct approach that is likely explosive as well. Add onto this that the guy has a clear attitude problem and chances are in international relations he will either gain the admiration of some nations for his charisma or make very powerful enemies due to his brash attitude that, to what we've seen so far, isn't how a president should be acting.
Also in one interview he claimed to believe that the best way to deal with terrorists is to target their families. While he could be saying these things just to get attention and votes from people who think he "tells it like it is", I also wouldn't put it past him to truly believe this.
And while Congress may block many of his ideas, he certainly is going to try and get them through and as it currently stands Congress is Republican controlled both in the House and the Senate.
I'm not HIR but I think the idea involves how Trump is very insistent on "cutting the heads off of ISIS" meaning he will take a very direct approach that is likely explosive as well. Add onto this that the guy has a clear attitude problem and chances are in international relations he will either gain the admiration of some nations for his charisma or make very powerful enemies due to his brash attitude that, to what we've seen so far, isn't how a president should be acting.
Also in one interview he claimed to believe that the best way to deal with terrorists is to target their families. While he could be saying these things just to get attention and votes from people who think he "tells it like it is", I also wouldn't put it past him to truly believe this.
And while Congress may block many of his ideas, he certainly is going to try and get them through and as it currently stands Congress is Republican controlled both in the House and the Senate.
But isn't that more or less what's happening at the present moment?
I just don't think that he would have that big an impact if he was elected. People who hate him tend to overstate how terribly horrible he would be as a president in all aspects, and those who love him tend to overstate what an absolutely awesome president he would be in all aspects.
It doesn't take a genius to see that he is neither some lunatic, nor a mastermind of politics. I ge the feeling he's just voicing extreme opinions to gain media coverage, and to advertise himself to the so-called "silent majority".
I'm absolutely certain because A) He's getting the Republican nomination because those wealthy suits are too chicken he'll run as a 3rd party, potentially handing the Democrats a win or tearing their party down, and B ) When (not if) Bernie doesn't get the nomination, an overwhelmingly large number of the "youth vote" that Obama received will not bother voting or vote Drumpf to spite Clinton. And then once he's elected, you've given a man child final authority over a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the solar system.
There is no scenario where Drumpf doesn't get elected unless he dies or is severely incapacitated. I'm just waiting for everyone else to move to the 5th stage in Kubler-Ross's grief model like I have. The GOP and Fox News are stuck in the 2nd stage (anger), the rest of the world is in the 3rd stage (bargaining), and the New York Times is still in the 1st stage (denial). <.<
Having read your other posts, you seem very certain that Trump will start bombing people if he gets elected. Why is that?
I'm not HIR but I think the idea involves how Trump is very insistent on "cutting the heads off of ISIS" meaning he will take a very direct approach that is likely explosive as well. Add onto this that the guy has a clear attitude problem and chances are in international relations he will either gain the admiration of some nations for his charisma or make very powerful enemies due to his brash attitude that, to what we've seen so far, isn't how a president should be acting.
Also in one interview he claimed to believe that the best way to deal with terrorists is to target their families. While he could be saying these things just to get attention and votes from people who think he "tells it like it is", I also wouldn't put it past him to truly believe this.
And while Congress may block many of his ideas, he certainly is going to try and get them through and as it currently stands Congress is Republican controlled both in the House and the Senate.
Targeting their families is actually a war crime, actually, as said here.
I'm not HIR but I think the idea involves how Drumpf is very insistent on "cutting the heads off of ISIS" meaning he will take a very direct approach that is likely explosive as well. Add onto this that the guy has a clear attitude problem and chances are in international relations he will either gain the admiration of some nations for his charisma or make very powerful enemies due to his brash attitude that, to what we've seen so far, isn't how a president should be acting.
Also in one interview he claimed to believe that the best way to deal with terrorists is to target their families. While he could be saying these things just to get attention and votes from people who think he "tells it like it is", I also wouldn't put it past him to truly believe this.
And while Congress may block many of his ideas, he certainly is going to try and get them through and as it currently stands Congress is Republican controlled both in the House and the Senate.
But isn't that more or less what's happening at the present moment?
I just don't think that he would have that big an impact if he was elected. People who hate him tend to overstate how terribly horrible he would be as a president in all aspects, and those who love him tend to overstate what an absolutely awesome president he would be in all aspects.
It doesn't take a genius to see that he is neither some lunatic, nor a mastermind of politics. I ge the feeling he's just voicing extreme opinions to gain media coverage, and to advertise himself to the so-called "silent majority".
Policy wise I'm not saying much may happen. Although he would have access to executive orders and, in theory, with a Supreme Court that leans conservative if Congress chose not to cooperate with him he could very well use executive orders to do as he pleases and it would be up to the Court to strike him down.
But outside of this, his election will essentially make it okay to publicly act homophobic/xenophobic/racist/whatever and make violent threats (which really aren't protected under the First Amendment, it's the "shouting fire in a crowded movie theater" argument). One could even choose to extrapolate this to flat out discriminatory behavior. And any American who chooses to act this way can argue that, "Our highest elected official openly behaves this way without any punishment, so it should be okay for me to do." Or maybe, "If President Trump can talk **** about Chancellor Merkel because she's a woman, I should be able to say that stuff about my terrible female boss."
And as someone A) with physical and mental disabilities, and B) of Jewish faith, seeing that type of behavior get a Presidential seal of approval is extraordinarily worrying. Generally speaking our Constitution is supposed to protect us from things like this.
And when it comes to nuclear weapons, sometimes just the threat of them is enough to send everyone into a tizzy. Just look back at the Cold War era if you don't believe me. And what does Drumpf love to do? Threaten. He threatens litigation more often than Obama awkwardly pauses in the middle of a sentence. So maybe he wouldn't fire them, but I could totally expect him to threaten their use just to show everyone he's a winner and not a coward.
Besides, it's not like things are better on the other side. Some of my friends who are diehard Bernie supporters are starting to sound dangerously like communists with all their talk of "a grand political revolution" and "taking power for the people."
If you want to brand me a paranoid conspiracy nut, go ahead. But I'm thoroughly convinced of what the outcome will be until I'm proven right or wrong on Election Day. <.<;
---
Congrats! You wasted five seconds reading this.
Policy wise I'm not saying much may happen. Although he would have access to executive orders and, in theory, with a Supreme Court that leans conservative if Congress chose not to cooperate with him he could very well use executive orders to do as he pleases and it would be up to the Court to strike him down.
But outside of this, his election will essentially make it okay to publicly act homophobic/xenophobic/racist/whatever and make violent threats (which really aren't protected under the First Amendment, it's the "shouting fire in a crowded movie theater" argument). One could even choose to extrapolate this to flat out discriminatory behavior. And any American who chooses to act this way can argue that, "Our highest elected official openly behaves this way without any punishment, so it should be okay for me to do." Or maybe, "If President Trump can talk **** about Chancellor Merkel because she's a woman, I should be able to say that stuff about my terrible female boss."
And as someone A) with physical and mental disabilities, and B ) of Jewish faith, seeing that type of behavior get a Presidential seal of approval is extraordinarily worrying. Generally speaking our Constitution is supposed to protect us from things like this.
And when it comes to nuclear weapons, sometimes just the threat of them is enough to send everyone into a tizzy. Just look back at the Cold War era if you don't believe me. And what does Drumpf love to do? Threaten. He threatens litigation more often than Obama awkwardly pauses in the middle of a sentence. So maybe he wouldn't fire them, but I could totally expect him to threaten their use just to show everyone he's a winner and not a coward.
Besides, it's not like things are better on the other side. Some of my friends who are diehard Bernie supporters are starting to sound dangerously like communists with all their talk of "a grand political revolution" and "taking power for the people."
If you want to brand me a paranoid conspiracy nut, go ahead. But I'm thoroughly convinced of what the outcome will be until I'm proven right or wrong on Election Day. <.<;
No, I don't think that you're a nutter, and you do have a point. On a certain level people would likely see it as a step towards those kind of values, which would be very undesirable. Though the other end of the spectrum of political opinions isn't that much better either.
I'm no expert, but I personally attribute a lot of his bravado to all the "hype" surrounding his campaign. In the present moment it's a public race, and he acts accordingly. If he was actually elected (which I doubt) I can only see him slowing down.
As for threats of nuclear attacks, that seems pretty extreme. I don't think he would do that for reasons of his own, and if the US did reach a point at which something like that was a necessary response to something happening around the world, he wouldn't jump the gun just to seem like a tough guy.
Gems: 6419
Gems: 11079
Gems: 6430
Gems: 2265
Gems: 1784
Gems: 5331
Gems: 5913
![[User Posted Image]](https://i.imgur.com/P6vxjwp.png)
Gems: 3901
Gems: 12928
Gems: 1603
Gems: 10734
Gems: 9034
Gems: 7812
![[User Posted Image]](http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/1454690/james-bond-gun-barrel-o.gif)
![[User Posted Image]](http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view8/20131205/4914706/james-bond-gun-barrel-sequence-o.gif)
![[User Posted Image]](http://penndogg.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/casino-royale-gunbarrel.gif)
Gems: 9573
Gems: 4987
Gems: 3993
darkspyro
net