Jim Jefferies wins the gun control debate.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Maybe all those retards who have been stocking up on guns and ammo waiting for the man should all just wage an all out war on the Government? I mean if they think a revolution is coming why wait? Might as well, they got health care now.

[Len Cnut]

America's view on guns is perverse and idiotic. The rest of the world knows it and the stats prove it. But it's in America's constitutaion so...... YEEHAW MOTHERFUCKERS!!! BANG BANG! SHOOT'EM UP!!!!

Did you ever consider a career in the foreign office? With a reasonable non-patronising approach like this you'd be a hit at conferences, I can see your sensitive caring approach swaying American opinion in no time

You are ridiculous. This is a debate that's been going on for forever and it's a stupid conversation because the evidence is there for all to see that what I said is true. It's beyond the point of being sensitive and caring. Ameicans who cling to this stupid ideology that more guns is better aren't worth the sensitve caring approach anymore. Their attitude towards guns is perverse and idiotic and that's the truth. I'll say it again. The world knows it, the stats prove it and yet the Americans argue it. You can only be sensitive and caring for so long until you say fuck it. I'm not tryingt o sway anyone's opinions because honestly you can't fix stupid.

As i was saying, I'd considering suing the charm school

[bran]

Maybe all those retards who have been stocking up on guns and ammo waiting for the man should all just wage an all out war on the Government? I mean if they think a revolution is coming why wait? Might as well, they got health care now.

they have been watching red dawn, they are ready.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Maybe all those retards who have been stocking up on guns and ammo waiting for the man should all just wage an all out war on the Government? I mean if they think a revolution is coming why wait? Might as well, they got health care now.

they have been watching red dawn, they are ready.

Yeah, because that is a realistic film.

[bran]

Maybe all those retards who have been stocking up on guns and ammo waiting for the man should all just wage an all out war on the Government? I mean if they think a revolution is coming why wait? Might as well, they got health care now.

they have been watching red dawn, they are ready.

Yeah, because that is a realistic film.

to them it is its their bible, well their bible anyway

Edited July 24, 2015 by bran

[sweetness]

Wait, all we need to do to end gun violence in the US is make them illegal? Whoa. WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?

[bran]

people are fucking nuts.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/25/oklahoma-police-search-social-media-to-find-motive-behind-5-deadly-stabbings/

[AxlisOld]

Welp, time to ban knives.

[SoulMonster]

It's a cost-benefit situation. Banning knives, and supposing that it would eventually substantially remove knives form society, would undeniably reduce the number of knife-related deaths. That's the benefit. The cost of banning a common utility tool like the knife, on the other hand, is probably too high for this to ever be feasible (who'd cut my steak!?). The same goes for cars. As for guns (excepting hunting weapons), the benefit would be substantial and the cost limited. The same goes for flame throwers.

[Georgy Zhukov]

In b4 "ban spoons for making people fat"

[bran]

It's a cost-benefit situation. Banning knives, and supposing that it would eventually substantially remove knives form society, would undeniably reduce the number of knife-related deaths. That's the benefit. The cost of banning a common utility tool like the knife, on the other hand, is probably too high for this to ever be feasible (who'd cut my steak!?). The same goes for cars. As for guns (excepting hunting weapons), the benefit would be substantial and the cost limited. The same goes for flame throwers.

most states already have bans on certain knives or at least ban them to a certain length. my post of this case wasnt really about knives and knives killing people its more to the point of how sick in the head some individuals are in this country(and other places.) to me something more needs to be done with the mental health problems in this country. also as for guns one thing i would like to see is the loophole for the sales at gun shows and pawn shops or private sales that require 0 background checks. to me if you buy a gun it doesnt matter if its new or used you should have a background check.

[SoulMonster]

I'll use Georgy's facetious comment to segue into a cost-benefit analogy:

Trans-fat is now being prohibited in foods in the US. The reason is that it is unhealthy. I suspect those people here who are against the "authorities" and "big government" interfering with citizens will now protest against this intrusion on their "freedom" and this danger to their "liberty". Trans-fat isn't equally unhealthy to everyone (it is unhealthy to everyone, but genetic makeup and life style determines excatly how unhealthy it is to you), so in other words I suppose the fat afficenados among us will complian about how unfair this is, "Why can't we enjoy our trans-fat just just because Big Joe down the block can't metabolise it!? This is unfair!". And yeah, it is unfair. But most societies cater to those who can't cope with something, not those who can. And this goes for being trusted to being safe with guns, being trusted to secure your kids in a car, or being able to eat trans-fat without dying from cardiovascular diseases. It all comes down to cost-benefit analyses. Will we be better off without guns and trans-fat and secure children?

[SoulMonster]

It's a cost-benefit situation. Banning knives, and supposing that it would eventually substantially remove knives form society, would undeniably reduce the number of knife-related deaths. That's the benefit. The cost of banning a common utility tool like the knife, on the other hand, is probably too high for this to ever be feasible (who'd cut my steak!?). The same goes for cars. As for guns (excepting hunting weapons), the benefit would be substantial and the cost limited. The same goes for flame throwers.

most states already have bans on certain knives or at least ban them to a certain length. my post of this case wasnt really about knives and knives killing people its more to the point of how sick in the head some individuals are in this country(and other places.) to me something more needs to be done with the mental health problems in this country. also as for guns one thing i would like to see is the loophole for the sales at gun shows and pawn shops or private sales that require 0 background checks. to me if you buy a gun it doesnt matter if its new or used you should have a background check.

I agre completely. More should definitely be spent on mental health. It's like the taboo of various mental illnesses spread into the process of prioritizing our health care, leading to severe under-funding.

But I don't think we are anywhere near being able to eradicate mental illnesses. It will take generations before we are not only able to treat them, but also remove the causes of various mental diseases. We can't wait for that.

In addition, a large part of gun violence isn't caused by people afflicted by mental illnesses. They result from gang disputes, crime, etc.

As for background checks. It is mind-boggling that this isn't done everywhere. But even with vigorous background checks guns would still find their ways into the hands of the insane and the criminal. USA is permeated with weapons, and they have a strong gun culture. Weapons are being handed down, stolen and borrowed, from people with background check to people who shouldn't have them. The only way to fix this is overall reduce the number of weapons. Which is going to be hard, because in addition to a nation of guns, the States has a strong culture of fear which is being cultivated by a sensationalist media.

So although we can put in measures that would reduce the amount of gun violence, like proper background checks, more attention to the mentally ill, remove social injustice, fight gangs, etc. these measures will only be partly successful for many generations to come. Society can't wait for that. The solution, in my opinion, is to make many guns illegal (anything that isn't primarily made for hunting, basically only making some shotguns, some semi-automatic rifles, and a few others legal), restrict the number of legal guns that are sold (hunting permit, or similar, to own guns, and only a few guns per person), strict background checks, make amnesty for handing in illegal guns, and so on. And this is in complete precedence with various other instruments of killing that is already prohibited, in addition to be inline with what soeciety does to other things understood to be unhealthy (like certain food additives (like trans-fat), poisons, drugs, etc). The huge resistance to what should be a rather trivial decision (make guns hader to obtain), comes from the fact that people are so hung up with the Constitution and the aforementioned gun culture. American culture has been linked with guns, they are interconnected, and people protest because removing the guns would change that country into something else - and people will always resist change.

Edited July 26, 2015 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

It is obvious that they need some sort of federal licensing system.

[magisme]

So many assumptions. So little understanding.

[SoulMonster]

So many assumptions. So little understanding.

What are you talking about?

[classicrawker]

In b4 "ban spoons for making people fat"

Nah, NYC already tried by banning the big Gulp. Don't think it had much impact.

It's a cost-benefit situation. Banning knives, and supposing that it would eventually substantially remove knives form society, would undeniably reduce the number of knife-related deaths. That's the benefit. The cost of banning a common utility tool like the knife, on the other hand, is probably too high for this to ever be feasible (who'd cut my steak!?). The same goes for cars. As for guns (excepting hunting weapons), the benefit would be substantial and the cost limited. The same goes for flame throwers.

most states already have bans on certain knives or at least ban them to a certain length. my post of this case wasnt really about knives and knives killing people its more to the point of how sick in the head some individuals are in this country(and other places.) to me something more needs to be done with the mental health problems in this country. also as for guns one thing i would like to see is the loophole for the sales at gun shows and pawn shops or private sales that require 0 background checks. to me if you buy a gun it doesnt matter if its new or used you should have a background check.

I agre completely. More should definitely be spent on mental health. It's like the taboo of various mental illnesses spread into the process of prioritizing our health care, leading to severe under-funding.

But I don't think we are anywhere near being able to eradicate mental illnesses. It will take generations before we are not only able to treat them, but also remove the causes of various mental diseases. We can't wait for that.

In addition, a large part of gun violence isn't caused by people afflicted by mental illnesses. They result from gang disputes, crime, etc.

As for background checks. It is mind-boggling that this isn't done everywhere. But even with vigorous background checks guns would still find their ways into the hands of the insane and the criminal. USA is permeated with weapons, and they have a strong gun culture. Weapons are being handed down, stolen and borrowed, from people with background check to people who shouldn't have them. The only way to fix this is overall reduce the number of weapons. Which is going to be hard, because in addition to a nation of guns, the States has a strong culture of fear which is being cultivated by a sensationalist media.

So although we can put in measures that would reduce the amount of gun violence, like proper background checks, more attention to the mentally ill, remove social injustice, fight gangs, etc. these measures will only be partly successful for many generations to come. Society can't wait for that. The solution, in my opinion, is to make many guns illegal (anything that isn't primarily made for hunting, basically only making some shotguns, some semi-automatic rifles, and a few others legal), restrict the number of legal guns that are sold (hunting permit, or similar, to own guns, and only a few guns per person), strict background checks, make amnesty for handing in illegal guns, and so on. And this is in complete precedence with various other instruments of killing that is already prohibited, in addition to be inline with what soeciety does to other things understood to be unhealthy (like certain food additives (like trans-fat), poisons, drugs, etc). The huge resistance to what should be a rather trivial decision (make guns hader to obtain), comes from the fact that people are so hung up with the Constitution and the aforementioned gun culture. American culture has been linked with guns, they are interconnected, and people protest because removing the guns would change that country into something else - and people will always resist change.

Or the government could just dose the water supply with Valium?

And before you get all worked up I am for gun control.

Edited July 26, 2015 by classicrawker

[bran]

another sick case, reads like something out of a saw movie or something

http://news.yahoo.com/police-probe-decapitation-arizona-woman-her-dogs-155953392.html

[Georgy Zhukov]

another sick case, reads like something out of a saw movie or something

http://news.yahoo.com/police-probe-decapitation-arizona-woman-her-dogs-155953392.html

One thing I have learned about moving to the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Never watch the evening news.

[bran]

another sick case, reads like something out of a saw movie or something

http://news.yahoo.com/police-probe-decapitation-arizona-woman-her-dogs-155953392.html

One thing I have learned about moving to the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Never watch the evening news.

is it that bad?

[Georgy Zhukov]

It is depressing.

The couple supposedly get at a mental health facility. Feel bad for the dogs.

[Georgy Zhukov]

If people consider Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey romantic, than a man dismembering his wife then cutting off his arm and gouging out his right eye should be considered romantic too.

[AxlisOld]

I'll use Georgy's facetious comment to segue into a cost-benefit analogy:

Trans-fat is now being prohibited in foods in the US. The reason is that it is unhealthy. I suspect those people here who are against the "authorities" and "big government" interfering with citizens will now protest against this intrusion on their "freedom" and this danger to their "liberty". Trans-fat isn't equally unhealthy to everyone (it is unhealthy to everyone, but genetic makeup and life style determines excatly how unhealthy it is to you), so in other words I suppose the fat afficenados among us will complian about how unfair this is, "Why can't we enjoy our trans-fat just just because Big Joe down the block can't metabolise it!? This is unfair!". And yeah, it is unfair. But most societies cater to those who can't cope with something, not those who can. And this goes for being trusted to being safe with guns, being trusted to secure your kids in a car, or being able to eat trans-fat without dying from cardiovascular diseases. It all comes down to cost-benefit analyses. Will we be better off without guns and trans-fat and secure children?

Trans fat shouldn't be illegal, the government has no business telling us what we are or aren't allowed to eat. Shitty parents cause childhood obesity, not food. Shitty people cause gun violence, not guns.

[classicrawker]

I'll use Georgy's facetious comment to segue into a cost-benefit analogy:

Trans-fat is now being prohibited in foods in the US. The reason is that it is unhealthy. I suspect those people here who are against the "authorities" and "big government" interfering with citizens will now protest against this intrusion on their "freedom" and this danger to their "liberty". Trans-fat isn't equally unhealthy to everyone (it is unhealthy to everyone, but genetic makeup and life style determines excatly how unhealthy it is to you), so in other words I suppose the fat afficenados among us will complian about how unfair this is, "Why can't we enjoy our trans-fat just just because Big Joe down the block can't metabolise it!? This is unfair!". And yeah, it is unfair. But most societies cater to those who can't cope with something, not those who can. And this goes for being trusted to being safe with guns, being trusted to secure your kids in a car, or being able to eat trans-fat without dying from cardiovascular diseases. It all comes down to cost-benefit analyses. Will we be better off without guns and trans-fat and secure children?

Trans fat shouldn't be illegal, the government has no business telling us what we are or aren't allowed to eat. Shitty parents cause childhood obesity, not food. Shitty people cause gun violence, not guns.

I agree but I do believe that the food manufacturers must label what is in their products. It is ridiculous that they don't have to tell us if the products contain GMO's.

[AxlisOld]

Sure, label it. I don't want aspartame in my body, if something contains it (listed clearly on the ingredients) I don't drink it. Simple. But don'tmmake aspartame illegal, some people choose to consume it.

I don't think GMO should necessarily be a bad thing though. Hey you know that place in the world where they had no food? Well we fucked with wheat and corn a little bit, it isn't as nutritious, but now those people aren't dead from starvation because corn and wheat can grow there.