Board 8 > What the US needs to ban guns

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean I get that you think you are somehow 'pwning' me or something, or maybe you think you're somehow baiting me into responding angrily but really neither of those is going on here. I just have so little respect for your ability to engage in any intellectual subject matter that I decided quite a while ago never to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond to you on a serious topic. it's really not any more complicated than that. I'm not stunned into silence by your amazing argumentative abilities. you didn't "shut me up" by """proving""" I was wrong. you're just an insufferable prat who I have zero respect for and so I know better than to waste my time responding to you in a real debate.
---

(for the record those above statements apply only to Lasa. with regards to foolmo I'm simply not interested in arguing about disarming the entire military, police, and civilian population of the US because it's realistically not going to happen and therefore not interesting to me)
---

MariaTaylor posted...

I mean I get that you think you are somehow 'pwning' me or something, or maybe you think you're somehow baiting me into responding angrily but really neither of those is going on here.

i'm not thinking or doing either of those things but ok.

I just have so little respect for your ability to engage in any intellectual subject matter that I decided quite a while ago never to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond to you on a serious topic.

didn't you respond to me on a serious topic earlier in this very topic?
---

I never said I have perfect self control!
---

MariaTaylor posted...

I'm not that interested in arguing with you

I know, which is why I'm partly blaming you for the topic dying despite there definitely being more arguments to be had
---

Llarian posted...

Am I the only one who finds this wording funny?

It's kinda funny cuz I essentially repeated the same thing 3 times in different ways to make my point clear.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

I never said I have perfect self control!

fine, i'll concede that i was wrong about you quitting the argument with me because you had no counterarguments to provide anymore.

it's just kinda weird, though - for a few posts you argued with me normally and then all of a sudden you came to a "wait a minute this lasa dude is an insufferable asshole what the hell am i doing" realization, threw a bunch of insults at me and quit the argument? i would never act that way towards someone i myself take 0% seriously (like, say, lamejokealt).
---

foolm0r0n posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

I'm not that interested in arguing with you

I know, which is why I'm partly blaming you for the topic dying despite there definitely being more arguments to be had

if you want a brief argument here's the tl;dr version

we know that if you ban access to firearms in one place, that they can simply come in from other nearby areas. even many liberals concede on this point. it's the entire crux of their argument for how the gun violence statistics in chicago can be so high despite having strict gun control.

considering we now live in a very global environment where borders are starting to matter less and less, I really don't think the idea of disarming an entire nation is really a good idea. people could simply bring in guns illegally from mexico or other places. all it would do is leave our police woefully underequipped to deal with such a scenario. the military would need to process and re-equip all of their arms if needed to engage in a conflict instead of having a stockpile ready. and, fundamentally, I simply don't agree that the people should have their guns taken away to begin with. so the idea of engaging in such an elaborate plan just to make it acceptable to take away civilian guns doesn't appeal to me from the ground up.
---

the even shorter version is that I fundamentally disagree with any scenario where people (edit: LAW ABIDING CITIZENS) are being forcefully disarmed, and I really doubt this is a plan that every single member of the police, military, and US population would agree to go along with
---

So obviously the "perfect" scenario of 100% disarmament is totally impossible, but the core value of my rules for disarmament is that you can go halfway, or even just 10%, and it still upholds the rights of the individual. It's tricking anti-gun people into caring about freedom. The people will always have more or equal firepower than the cops.

Basically, it's not a problem that individuals will always have guns while the government will not - it's a crucial feature.

So then the argument is whether cops need guns to deal with illegal guns coming across the border... this was the initial argument I had with Tera about the necessity of the UK's special gun police force. I don't think the police really need equal firepower to deal with criminals, because they have so many other legal enforcement tactics and organizational abilities that they can use. Non-lethal arms and lethal non-arms are valid, and all their operations can be entirely open to the public and have access to massive public support (money, confidants, collaborators, etc) which criminals do not have.

The goal here is to turn the police into a de-escalation force instead of the massive escalating force they are now. The only way to do that is if their firepower is LESS than the people and the criminals.

Sure, it's difficult for disarmed police to deal with a fully loaded assassin shooting at a crowd of 10000 people, but apparently it's equally difficult for police with machine guns and tanks and drones to deal with that. It's more about the everyday situations, where 1 gun is pulled, and then 2, 3, 10 more guns are pulled. That's where all the gun deaths come from, and what this solves.

MariaTaylor posted...

the military would need to process and re-equip all of their arms if needed to engage in a conflict instead of having a stockpile ready

The military can have their stockpile and have everything ready to go, that's fine. They just won't have their PEOPLE ready to go and will have to call in the reserves with an actual declaration. That's how most (peaceful) countries handle their military I think.
---

considering we now live in a very global environment where borders are starting to matter less and less, I really don't think the idea of disarming an entire nation is really a good idea. people could simply bring in guns illegally from mexico or other places.

Mexico has really strict gun laws and is a far more dangerous place.

(because they just buy their guns from the CIA)
---

Mexico does have the finest American guns for sale
---

foolm0r0n posted...

So obviously the "perfect" scenario of 100% disarmament is totally impossible, but the core value of my rules for disarmament is that you can go halfway, or even just 10%, and it still upholds the rights of the individual. It's tricking anti-gun people into caring about freedom. The people will always have more or equal firepower than the cops.

Basically, it's not a problem that individuals will always have guns while the government will not - it's a crucial feature.

So then the argument is whether cops need guns to deal with illegal guns coming across the border... this was the initial argument I had with Tera about the necessity of the UK's special gun police force. I don't think the police really need equal firepower to deal with criminals, because they have so many other legal enforcement tactics and organizational abilities that they can use. Non-lethal arms and lethal non-arms are valid, and all their operations can be entirely open to the public and have access to massive public support (money, confidants, collaborators, etc) which criminals do not have.

The goal here is to turn the police into a de-escalation force instead of the massive escalating force they are now. The only way to do that is if their firepower is LESS than the people and the criminals.

Sure, it's difficult for disarmed police to deal with a fully loaded assassin shooting at a crowd of 10000 people, but apparently it's equally difficult for police with machine guns and tanks and drones to deal with that. It's more about the everyday situations, where 1 gun is pulled, and then 2, 3, 10 more guns are pulled. That's where all the gun deaths come from, and what this solves.

MariaTaylor posted...

the military would need to process and re-equip all of their arms if needed to engage in a conflict instead of having a stockpile ready

The military can have their stockpile and have everything ready to go, that's fine. They just won't have their PEOPLE ready to go and will have to call in the reserves with an actual declaration. That's how most (peaceful) countries handle their military I think.

All of this sounds like it should be the goal yeah.

Fewer deadly weapons available means fewer dead people and I am all for that.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Mexico has really strict gun laws and is a far more dangerous place.

I'm not singling out Mexico specifically (see: "and other places"), just noting that the guns could easily come into the US from other places even in such a scenario.
---