-->
@badger
Swiss are not mowing kids down like the grown men are on the streets of Chicago. America has bigger problems.
Question for gun control supporters. pro 2nd amendment people can BTFO
Posts
Total:
80
-->
@Greyparrot
Swiss guns per capita is less than a quarter of American guns per capita. American guns is 1.2 per person.
It really is a wonder that a nation of people ready to shoot each other are shooting each other.
Your science is bad. Guns are your problem. It's obvious.
It's the prisoner's dilemma.
-->
@badger
It's the prisoner's dilemma.
You keep saying this, but most people cooperate for the long term. Outside of your thought bubble, rats don't live long outside of prison.
Only a person that believes all humans are fated to be evil believes in this. We are herd animals at the core. Cooperation is in our blood.
The reason why we don't rat on each other is because we don't want to pay the consequences for doing that 8 years down the road.
But in places like Chicago where grown men are mowing children down with guns and there ARE no consequences, that is where the game ends.
In liberal suburbia where neglectful single parent homes spawn psychotic children void of all purpose in life, that is also where the game ends.
That game is America's problem, not guns. Guns are just the infection that comes after the self inflicted societal wounds.
The reason why we don't rat on each other is because we don't want to pay the consequences for doing that 8 years down the road.
That's an interesting article, but if it's kill or be killed consequences down the road don't matter.
Only a person that believes all humans are fated to be evil believes in this. We are herd animals at the core. Cooperation is in our blood.
Your whole shtick is America first.
-->
@badger
but if it's kill or be killed consequences down the road don't matter.
Even enemies in WW1 cooperated with informal cease fire agreements against the orders of their superiors in the trenches. That's literally cooperation in a kill or be killed environment.
-->
@badger
Your whole shtick is America first.
Family first, neighbors first, town first, its just layers of the herd.
-->
@Greyparrot
Even enemies in WW1 cooperated with informal cease fire agreements against the orders of their superiors in the trenches. That's literally cooperation in a kill or be killed environment.
No it isn't. That's an environment where you're likely to die no matter what. It's cooperate or die.
America's gun situation is an example of prisoner's dilemma. Defection is the optimal survival strategy for the individual.
And that breeds sociopathy.
Game theory is matter of factly the science of why you lot are blowing each other away. Guns are your problem.
-->
@badger
It really isn't.
Most of the adults blowing children away with guns in Chicago have no reason to stop. In other countries, there are consequences for acting out a prisoner's dilemma.
GP, if you can't see it, you can't see it. But it is.
It's a very obvious prisoner's dilemma.
-->
@badger
It's a very obvious prisoner's dilemma.
Deg eat dog only works in a world with no consequences. Such as Chicago.
-->
@badger
Most gun rights advocates are not capable of having a reasonable conversation on this topic. They actually think that gun violence in cities is somehow a good point against gun control generally which is so silly. But to be fair the arguments I see from both sides of this issue are usually pretty bad. Lots of statistical fallacies.
I understand the point you're making about the correlation between number of guns and number of gun related deaths. However one person can own 600 guns and never shoot another person (in fact that's usually the case), which is one reason why the number of firearms Americans own isn't a great point for gun grabbers.
I think there should be reasonable barriers in place to buy almost whatever guns you want. There's nothing (realistic) we can do about all the guns already in circulation at this point. There are some things Congress can do to deter gun crime going forward. The 2nd amendment should be revisited. If not they can consider repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which protects gun manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. That's actually a pretty libertarian position considering (1) it doesn't involve government stopping you from buying guns and (2) virtually every other business is open to that kind of tort litigation.
These days families are suing TikTok because their kids participated in some dumb ass challenge that's being circulated on the platform. Imagine being able to sue a social media site for their alleged role in your kid's self-inflicted death, but not being able to sue a gun dealer that sold guns to someone with a bunch of red flags, even nicknamed School Shooter that shot up your kid's school shortly thereafter? I mean I love my guns, especially the fun ones I have to keep out of state at my in-laws house, but it doesn't really make sense to have higher standards for every industry other than the one that literally deals in manufacturing deadly products that are designed to kill.
I still think it'll be another decade at least before we have significant gun reform in the U.S. Five more school shootings should do it.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
My intuition is that a lot of real life gun control advocates would still advocate for more gun control even knowing what we know above about the other island. If number of guns are not to blame,.
So essentially, you created an imaginary scenario where the guns couldn’t be the cause of gun violence and are asking gun control advocates whether they’d still support gun control.
I’m really not sure what the point of this exercise is. The fact is that gun statistics are not worth a whole lot because society it turns out is a massively complex thing, so there is almost no such thing as an apples to apples comparison. This is why nearly every gun debate devolves into a your statistics vs my statistics battle, and anyone who decides to engage in this seriously will likely spend hours digging up reasons to reject the other’s statistics while upholding theirs and in the end, no one budges on their position. I think this is because almost no one actually bases their position on the statistics. It’s all about how we see guns and its relationship to society. That’s what determines which set of statistics we will accept.
For me it normally comes down to one very simple idea: more guns = more gun violence. I don’t know how anyone can attempt to refute that with a straight face.
Yet when you really break down gun advocates arguments to their core, they’re essentially arguing that more guns = less gun violence. That’s patently absurd.
So-called gun control is a farce. Such controls ONLY affect the LAW ABIDING and NOT the criminal.
The government powers that be are either impotent or just plain out refusing to enforce already established law regarding gun violations.
24 days later
But I think what you're getting at is the imposition of specific gun controls, and I'm unclear what those are. Could you clarify what you would view as gun control in this hypothetical scenario that would stray outside of what you think is reasonable?
I guess Ii didn't word the hypothetical well. My question is more broad and I didn't want to get nailed to specifics because it is in essence a philosophical question.
The question is more about whether solutions should ignore all but root cause analysis, particularly when it involves trading a bit of freedom from safety.
-->
@zedvictor4
All that this goes to prove, is that if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths.The question is, how many gun deaths per annum are you prepared to tolerate.
Personally quite a bit. A lot of conservatives deny they trade off between life and liberty, I don't pretend to do so, nor do I believe in balance. I believe freedom would be the preferred route, even if it meant the immediate elimination of the human race.
-->
@Danielle
we should allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers to the same extent that every other manufacturer (except vaccines) can be sued for product liability.
Agreed
-->
@badger
It baffles me someone could even write that tbh. Do you not think the presence of guns makes it more likely cops will shoot whatever black kid upon arriving at the scene? But I suppose that's hood culture or something, not guns
A lot of these hood guns are from legal purchases or were legal purchases, but some are zip guns (home made), and a good amount for whatever reason are counterfeit guns from South America, the counterfeit ones are on the west coast mostly though.
So I wonder if gun laws would even reduce this. I also wonder why white people should be punished if the majority of gun violence is in black communities.
You raise a good point about guns though. In a society with so many guns, obviously the police will have to have a more itchy trigger finger because the first person to draw a gun in a gun fight normally wins the fight. We also see shootings occur because of the fact police have guns on them, meaning if they are in a fist fight with a suspect and about to lose the fight, they are almost required to shoot the suspect because of the opportunity to disarm the cop if he is unconscious.
For whatever reason. I do see a lot of ghetto people in videos do things like in the dark reach for their phone and aim it a cop so it appears to be a gun. In England this probably won't get you shot, but in America it means you will definitely be shot.
Some of these people that do that are doing suicide by cop sure, but I think the majority are just trying to win the ghetto lottery.
That's the funny thing about these BLM protests. None talk about gun control, when changing the gun culture in America is really the only way to reduce police shootings of unarmed blacks
-->
@Double_R
For me it normally comes down to one very simple idea: more guns = more gun violence. I don’t know how anyone can attempt to refute that with a straight face.
Obviously without guns you can't have gun violence. I am asking about whether the focus should be on what causes somebody to want to shoot another person to start with.
My theory is that conservatives would be more concerned about the root cause of the thing and trying to fix that, where as liberals would just be more inclined to attempt to solve the problem in the most straight forward ways first.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You raise a good point about guns though. In a society with so many guns, obviously the police will have to have a more itchy trigger finger because the first person to draw a gun in a gun fight normally wins the fight.
It's not just cops. Same idea works for gang shootings. Any grievance will end in a shooting because guns allow absolutely no middle ground.
-->
@badger
Well, America is in a catch 22 because the kind of authoritarian tyranny required to repossess millions of guns can't happen (outside of a civil war) while so many people are armed to the teeth.
-->
@badger
It's not just cops. Same idea works for gang shootings. Any grievance will end in a shooting because guns allow absolutely no middle ground
Too many certainly do. I don't think even most gang disputes end in gun violence though.
-->
@Greyparrot
There was a documentary after that hurricane in New Orleans that showed the national guard doing gun confiscations. The documentary has been criticized because people claim it was more rare than projected and mostly done by recruits who were stupid and like 18 years old
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I was in New Orleans while the Nat Guard was there driving in the dark in their humvees. Long ago.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Obviously without guns you can't have gun violence. I am asking about whether the focus should be on what causes somebody to want to shoot another person to start with.
Both should be addressed, but someone wanting to shoot someone else is irrelevant if they don't have the means.
And let's not forget that many people who get shot were not the intended target. People love to pretend if we take away the guns then they'll just use other means to commit murder. I've never heard of an innocent bystander getting accidentally stabbed.
It reminds me of a concept in physics called potential energy. Think of a bowling ball on the ground. The potential energy is basically non existent. Raise that bowling ball to your waste, the energy is now enough to break a bone or two. The same concept can be thought of here. Put ten people in a room with no guns. The effort necessary to kill someone is very high. Now arm just one of them. Suddenly killing someone is easy to the point where it could even happen by accident.
The presence of guns makes everyone within proximity of them less safe. That's not debatable. What's debatable are our rights. I'll never understand the idea that I should have the right to increase my own protection by reducing the safety of everyone else around me.