New Gun Regulations In The US Would Be Really, Really Stupid

[Foxaèr]

I'm all for gun confiscation, just saying.

Us too!


Signed

Adolph
Joseph
and Fidel

Trust me, I'm worse than all of them.

[Rev. Rye]

I'm all for gun confiscation, just saying.

Us too!


Signed

Adolph
Joseph
and Fidel

You know what, I'm not particularly familiar with Stalin or Casto's stances on gun laws; however, I am kind of a beast in the history of the Third Reich, and I just discovered a YouTube channel with a particular focus on the history of the era, and, by an extraordinary coincidence, it just happens that one of his most popular videos is on Guns in the Third Reich and he explains it far better than I could. And it turns out that the whole "Hitler took away peoples' guns because there was a very real chance that the people would rise up and kill/overthrow him if they had guns" narrative is full of holes.





That said, it looks like the narrative sort of matches Stalin's case, but, maybe gun control is far less reliable a bellwether of tyranny than being ruled by a repressive military dictatorship.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Us too!


Signed

Adolph
Joseph
and Fidel

Trust me, I'm worse than all of them.  

There is clearly a reasonable middle ground between gun confiscation and free and unrestricted access to firearms.  Trouble is, not enough people on both sides want to be reasonable.

Boru

[Foxaèr]

Trust me, I'm worse than all of them.  

There is clearly a reasonable middle ground between gun confiscation and free and unrestricted access to firearms.  Trouble is, not enough people on both sides want to be reasonable.

Boru

It's not from a lack of trying. Rather, those on the left who are best known for being most reasonable logically lose their shit when the ignorant right just keeps being unreasonable. After a while, it's clear the problem isn't a product of both sides disagreeing but rather one side unable to see how dumb they are. Since conceding to ignorance for the sake of maturity is not the answer, both sides will always be at an impasse.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"My toys vs. dead kids? Not even an issue."

[onlinebiker]

https://www.cdc.gov/safechild/child_injury_data.html

CDCs list of causes of childhood 
accidental death.

Gunshot doesn't even make the list.

So why all the attention?


Emotional pandering is so much more effective with a boogeyman attatched.

After all - even though drowning far outnumbers gunshots - it' s hard to keep a straight face and blather on about how moral it is to confinscate lakes and other bodies of water.....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Dissing dead kids. Got it.

[Homeless Nutter]

No, nobody lives "forever".

Nit picking there son.

No doubt. Therefore - feel free to ignore as many of my actual points, as is necessary for you to feel like you gave a coherent and thought-out response.

---

And what about her kid, the one who's going to have to live with having killed his sister? Why is the kid getting a worse "punishment", than the mother - since he's going to have to live with this (as well as - most likely - resulting disorders, like PTSD and impaired hearing) arguably longer? Unless - of course - he blows his brains out at some point, because of psychological complications stemming from this childhood trauma.

I'm not saying the mother has to go to prison for the rest of her life, but how come her guilt is enough of a punishment? What if a parent through negligence allows his/her child to fatally overdose on prescription pills, or something - would living with that also be enough?

---

Show me a case where the parents of a kid OD' D or drank poison and died - went to jail. Never seen one of those.

Well, if you haven't seen it - it surely doesn't happen. That's not what I asked, though, is it? Do you believe, that people guilty of child endangerment, whose child dies as a result are not, or should not be punished, in any way?

---

So, if she's mentally ill - she should be locked up for this, but if she's not - it's "cool"? Sounds logical...

Wait... What? She's supposed to be deprived of the right to protect her home and her remaining children from all the dangers supposedly awaiting unarmed Americans, like burglars, rapists, drug cartels, governments, and - I don't know - bears? Surely, you'd be leaving that family for dead...

---

Rights can be taken away by a court of law as punishment - even your right to suck air.

My right to suck air? No, mate - I live in a civilized country.
What punishment are you talking about, anyway? I thought you said "living forever" after having caused the death of your kid was supposed to be "punishment" enough. So if - say - a child of a diabetic dies due to accidental insulin overdose - the negligent parent gets their insulin taken away and therefore dies?
And what about the right of the child of the - now defenseless - mother. When your country - as punishment - takes away your right to suck air, do your kids automatically suffer the same fate? I mean - it wouldn't surprise me, coming from the country that gave us eugenics...

---

What "deterrent to others" - and generally gun control - is supposed to accomplish is to change the perception of gun ownership, from being a cool, fun, everyday thing that every f*ckwit is born entitled to - to  a huge responsibility and a privilege. Americans treat guns like toys - that's the root of the problem.

---

You don' t understand the difference between rights and priviledge. You fail High School Civics class.

Well, at least I can spell "privilege"...

But sure - can I, please, be lectured about that by someone, who I doubt even attended high school, and who lives in a country, where practically unrestricted possession of lethal weaponry is a "right", but healthcare is a "privilege"?...

---

Sure - the gun deaths aren't going to cause US population to significantly decrease. They're statistically not very significant. But a generation after generation of kids growing up bombarded with the news about kids getting murdered in schools and such - that's bound to have psychological implications on a national (perhaps global) scale. Because children don't understand statistics. From what I remember - growing up is stressful enough, even without the possibility of being brutally killed by another child. And then dumb old f*cks are shocked, that "kids these days" prefer to stay in their bedrooms on their phones...

Wait a few more years. Another generation of young people paranoid about gun-death just might tip the scale in favor of gun control measures - possibly much more drastic, than what could be done now, if gun owners weren't acting like a bunch of stubborn morons, who love their weapons more than their children.

---

Yeah, kids might believe the bullshit the likes of the Brady Bunch Campaign spew.

Hell - some of them believe the Pope.

There' s always gullible ones.

Yeah, that's nice, but I fail to see how this addresses my points, or presents any solutions. FYI - most people - including all kids - are gullible, especially in USA, with its laughable education system. Those kids will grow up and they will be deciding on laws soon enough - many of them already are, which is - I suppose - why people like you are getting a bit nervous and touchy about their "rights". But even if they don't pry the penis extension from your arthritic hands - US future, where most young people are afraid to leave the house, seems positively utopic.

But hey - maybe you can just agree to censor the media, so that they can't report on the gun violence, thus "solving" the problem? Because dumb c*nts will always give up the right to free speech, before they give up the "right" to violence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

https://www.cdc.gov/safechild/child_injury_data.html

CDCs list of causes of childhood 
accidental death.

Gunshot doesn't even make the list.

So why all the attention?


Emotional pandering is so much more effective with a boogeyman attatched.

After all - even though drowning far outnumbers gunshots - it' s hard to keep a straight face and blather on about how moral it is to confinscate lakes and other bodies of water.....

That report is 11 years old.  Here's some more recent information:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/health/ch...index.html

Death by gunshot was the second-highest cause of death in the United States in 2016 among children and adolescents ages 1 to 19, according to a study released Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

More than 12,000 deaths, or 60%,were from injury-related causes. Motor vehicle injuries led the list at 4,074, but firearms injuries were close behind at 3,143 deaths, or 15% of the total deaths among children.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

https://www.cdc.gov/safechild/child_injury_data.html

CDCs list of causes of childhood 
accidental death.

Gunshot doesn't even make the list.

So why all the attention?


Emotional pandering is so much more effective with a boogeyman attatched.

After all - even though drowning far outnumbers gunshots - it' s hard to keep a straight face and blather on about how moral it is to confinscate lakes and other bodies of water.....

That report is 11 years old.  Here's some more recent information:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/health/ch...index.html

Death by gunshot was the second-highest cause of death in the United States in 2016 among children and adolescents ages 1 to 19, according to a study released Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

More than 12,000 deaths, or 60%,were from injury-related causes. Motor vehicle injuries led the list at 4,074, but firearms injuries were close behind at 3,143 deaths, or 15% of the total deaths among children.

Boru

Your study shows one year.

CDC study - 6 years.

Which is usually more accurate? A larger or smaller study group?