Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

I think the Columbine shooting is also an important point to bring up when we're talking about school shootings and mass murder. From what I understand in the documentaries that I have watched about Columbine, it seems to me that the guns were for the satisfaction of killing people, but they made bombs intending to blow up the entire school. So in effect the guns were for gratification, what was really going to cause the mass casualties were bombs.

 

This is more than likely true. The official police report says there was enough explosive power to totally destroy the cafeteria where hundreds of students were eating. It just didn't detonate.

 

Their original plan was to detonate that bomb and shoot survivors as they fled the school. I believe a page from Eric Harris' journal or online blog confirmed that.

Edited by Sarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more than likely true. The official police report says there was enough explosive power to totally destroy the cafeteria where hundreds of students were eating. It just didn't detonate.

Their original plan was to detonate that bomb and shoot survivors as they fled the school. I believe a page from Eric Harris' journal or online blog confirmed that.

I am by no means saying we shouldn't even bother addressing the gun problem, but I guess the question is would that become the alternative? If it is did we really solve anything? I mean, it seems like people are going to try to kill people one way or the other, we really have no idea how it's going to pan out. I mean that's not to say we shouldn't try something like I said, I just wouldn't hold my breath for a dramatic reduction in it.

 

I really don't think banning guns, or even assault rifles would work. At least not in this country, I know it's a popular argument that other countries do and so we can too. That really isn't the case though, we can ban whaling and almost eliminated completely, but Japan can't seem to do the same thing. Why? Because it's a part of their culture comment has been as long as they've been a nation, and probably will continue to be. That is how the United States has with guns, we're not getting rid of them, we're not Banning them, and in all likelihood we're probably not going to ban assault rifles. It just won't happen in my opinion. It is too ingrained in our culture, it is a part of Who We Are. For Better or Worse, I think we're stuck with them, and obviously I don't mind that, but a lot of people who were to ban this or band that, I think they're going to be disappointed if they think that's going to be a realistic outcome.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also knives are just as deadly in closed quarters as guns. A lot of countries with strict gun control have problems with massive knife attacks.

 

In some ways, as an overall weapon a knife is just as terrible as a gun. You don't have to reload a knife, a knife doesn't jam, and it is very difficult even for a person with training, let alone the average person, to disarm a knife-wielding attacker.

 

I want to see the government do its job and implement some common sense safety laws. I just don't know if they will work to the exact extent that people are hoping. I'd love to be wrong about that.

Edited by Sarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start by saying this. As a society we have put a fucking space craft on Mars and it's sent back data, pictures, video. I'm not buying that ending poverty would be harder than that.

 

I would start by ending hunger. It's been estimated that it would cost 30 billion dollars to end WORLD hunger. The US spent 61 billion EXTRA on the military with the last budget.

 

 

 

I would invest money into rebuilding and modernizing US infrastructure and in doing so at the same time try to do as much as possible to ensure the US using as much green energy as possible. If you put money into researching. Millions of people would get jobs and receive training for skills.

 

I would also make the internet a free and public utility and try to make sure as much of the country as possible had access to the best and fastest internet. It could make for an incredible advantage over other countries.

 

I would crack the skulls of pharma. Lots of people prepose the government buying patents, I'd be cool with that because then developing new drugs would still be lucrative.

 

I would make health care a human right by law and go with a single payer system.

 

I would stop building jails and start building schools.

 

I would stop writing blank checks to universities for college. If you want federal money for your school you to be held accountable for the allocation of that money. The price of education is outrageous.

 

I would make education and skills training free. Maybe in order to keep people from just trying to go to school forever to avoid work you make them have a job for 10 year before they can go back or they can choose to work and continue school.

 

Make every business of a certain size have to either have a union or be a collective. Small business could be exempt

 

Increase capital gains tax. Tax income after a billion dollars 66% or some shit.

 

End the wars, cut the military budget. Focus on actually defending our country.

 

Get people out of jail for nonviolent crimes. End the war on drugs

 

Legalize regulate and tax some drugs(decriminalize all), legalize, tax and regulate gambling and prostitution

 

Enforce anti-Trust laws. Smash Walmart and Amazon and Comcast etc into a thousand prices.

 

Crack down on predatory lending and tax and heavily regulate speculation.

 

Oh and I would also put a heavy estate tax into place because in reality it doesn't even effect most people.

 

There are tons of ways to eliminate poverty and hunger. Maybe not overnight but it's very much attainable in my eyes

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think extensive background checks are our best option--2 week waiting period, but no more than that. I don't think banning anything will cause anything but constant uproar until it's rescinded.

 

The only worry I have about a waiting period is the inefficiency of our government, especially when it comes to bureaucracy . Pretty soon the wait would be several months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's also not forget that 3/5 of all gun deaths in this country are suicide.

 

Our citizens are in pain and suffering. Gotta get to the root of the gun violence to make a noticeable difference, in my opinion.

Suicide rates are lower in countries with stricter gun control. Turns out suicide is often a rash decision and not having a super easy way to kill yourself in your house gives you more time to change your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suicide rates are lower in countries with stricter gun control. Turns out suicide is often a rash decision and not having a super easy way to kill yourself in your house gives you more time to change your mind.

This would require a ban of common firearms. People aren't blowing their heads off with automatic weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suicide rates are lower in countries with stricter gun control. Turns out suicide is often a rash decision and not having a super easy way to kill yourself in your house gives you more time to change your mind.

 

Higher than some, lower than some.. did you research this? The US is ranked 48th in suicide. Not great by any stretch, but there are countries on both sides of the "gun control" issue both higher and lower than the US.

 

I don't see a strong correlation, but obviously I am not going to say it has zero impact.

 

Countries with stricter gun laws just find their citizens killing themselves by other means. Pesticides and swords in Asia, hanging in Europe...

 

Suicide isn't a gun issue, which is why it's kind of odd how so many people include suicide deaths into the gun violence numbers to try and artificially bolster their argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I had what... 7-8 paragraphs in this post.. ONE of which was using that link / source and consisted of ONE of the multiple points I made? And you decided to refute that one and that one only?

 

What do people call that.. cherry picking?

 

Not really a good argument, but you do you. lol

 

I addressed your entire argument actually, so no cherry picking here.

 

Suicide rates in the US are lower in counties with stricter gun control, although in the world at large there does not seem to be a correlation. Japan has one of the highest rates in the world, but has strict gun control laws. Japan could be argued to be an outlier, given that their culture glorified suicide for so long- still does in some ways- but France has higher than the US as well, and they too have strict gun control laws.

 

Murders in those countries are well below the US, gun control definitely affects that. Suicide rates, I don't think there's a connection there.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would require a ban of common firearms. People aren't blowing their heads off with automatic weapons.

 

 

 

Higher than some, lower than some.. did you research this? The US is ranked 48th in suicide. Not great by any stretch, but there are countries on both sides of the "gun control" issue both higher and lower than the US.

 

I don't see a strong correlation, but obviously I am not going to say it has zero impact.

 

Countries with stricter gun laws just find their citizens killing themselves by other means. Pesticides and swords in Asia, hanging in Europe...

 

Suicide isn't a gun issue, which is why it's kind of odd how so many people include suicide deaths into the gun violence numbers to try and artificially bolster their argument.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/12/gun_ownership_causes_higher_suicide_rates_study_shows.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blots what do you want to come to pass as far as gun control is concerned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's also not forget that 3/5 of all gun deaths in this country are suicide.

 

Our citizens are in pain and suffering. Gotta get to the root of the gun violence to make a noticeable difference, in my opinion.

 

There are other ways that legal gun ownership contributes to the problem. Namely, the legal purchase of a firearm and then the illegal resale of said firearm. 60% of guns recovered in Chicago came from a state that is not Illinois, and many of those that came from IL came from outside of city limits. 21% of guns used in Chicago come from Indiana alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blots what do you want to come to pass as far as gun control is concerned?

No guns unless you have a damn good reason for it. And no "I need to protect my family if a burgler comes" isn't one. Stories like that are massive outliers. The "good guy with a gun" is a myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No guns unless you have a damn good reason for it. And no "I need to protect my family if a burgler comes" isn't one. Stories like that are massive outliers. The "good guy with a gun" is a myth.

Lulz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No guns unless you have a damn good reason for it. And no "I need to protect my family if a burgler comes" isn't one. Stories like that are massive outliers. The "good guy with a gun" is a myth.

How is protecting your family with a gun, not a good reason? I'm not going to argue that those don't make up the majority of gun deaths in this country, but to say people shouldn't have the right to protect their home and property seems a bit crazy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is protecting your family with a gun, not a good reason? I'm not going to argue that those don't make up the majority of gun deaths in this country, but to say people shouldn't have the right to protect their home and property seems a bit crazy to me.

Your kid is far more likely to die from a bullet fired out of your gun than you are to save his life using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well not him because he's a Marine but how many people who own a pistol for self defense know how to use it or wouldn't make a mistake in that kind of pressure situation. It's a valid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes him even though he's a marine. It comes down to the fact that stopping a criminal with your personal gun is incredibly rare. It's why it's always a major story when that does happen, whereas "guy is murdered with gun from his own house" isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes him even though he's a marine. It comes down to the fact that stopping a criminal with your personal gun is incredibly rare. It's why it's always a major story when that does happen, whereas "guy is murdered with gun from his own house" isn't.

I will preface this with the fact that I'm a law-abiding citizen, nobody really would have any reason to deprive me of Rights. That is not to make a second amendment argument, but you offer this.

 

I'm pretty good in a fight with one guy, even two I can usually hold my own, that being said if three or four people decide they're going to rob my house and they'll do anything to do it, why should I be denied a gun? odds are with four of them they could overpower me fairly handily, and then it is up to their human decency to decide what to do with my wife and children. This is neglecting the fact that they may even have guns, I know people don't like hearing it but if people are going to rob me, something tells me that putting stock in the law isn't their strong suit.

 

This may not be the majority of cases, however in some instances it can absolutely mean the difference between life and death. And not just of me, I really have no fear of dying, but the thought of my wife and children being killed as an absolutely gut-wrenching thought. If there's any way I can prevent it, I think I should be allowed just so long as I'm not a felon, have mental health issues, or a track record of violence along the lines of domestic violence, or anything of that sort.

 

 

And gentlemen, I was an Army Ranger, far better than a Marine. Only joking, we'll sort of. I was in fact a Ranger, not a Marine.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is protecting your family with a gun, not a good reason? I'm not going to argue that those don't make up the majority of gun deaths in this country, but to say people shouldn't have the right to protect their home and property seems a bit crazy to me.

Thats the problem with Blots entire idealogue regarding guns its all super subjective. Say we go to an oppressive Orwellian state like he wants... Who gets to define a good reason to own a gun?

Edited by DalaiLama4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will preface this with the fact that I'm a law-abiding citizen, nobody really would have any reason to deprive me of Rights. That is not to make a second amendment argument, but you offer this.

 

I'm pretty good in a fight with one guy, even two I can usually hold my own, that being said if three or four people decide they're going to rob my house and they'll do anything to do it, why should I be denied a gun? odds are with four of them they could overpower me fairly handily, and then it is up to their human decency to decide what to do with my wife and children. This is neglecting the fact that they may even have guns, I know people don't like hearing it but if people are going to rob me, something tells me that putting stock in the law isn't their strong suit.

 

This may not be the majority of cases, however in some instances it can absolutely mean the difference between life and death. And not just of me, I really have no fear of dying, but the thought of my wife and children being killed as an absolutely gut-wrenching thought. If there's any way I can prevent it, I think I should be allowed just so long as I'm not a felon, have mental health issues, or a track record of violence along the lines of domestic violence, or anything of that sort.

 

 

And gentlemen, I was an Army Ranger, far better than a Marine. Only joking, we'll sort of. I was in fact a Ranger, not a Marine.

And your kid is more likely to take your gun and shoot himself in the head than you are to save him from 3 attackers.

 

Thats the problem with Blots entire idealogue regarding guns its all super subjective. Say we go to an oppressive Orwellian state like he wants... Who gets to define a good reason to own a gun?

You have to use it to shoot republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your kid is more likely to take your gun and shoot himself in the head than you are to save him from 3 attackers.

 

You have to use it to shoot republicans.

No, he isn't. The only way he can get any of my guns, is if he cuts off my index finger. I have biometric trigger locks on every single gun that I own, and that's after he would have to get a plasma torch to cut open my safe.

 

To answer the question that hasn't been asked, no. They are never left unsecured, there are never around him, and the only time he ever gets to shoot his rifle, I am directly next to him. the likelihood of him getting one of my weapons and shooting himself in the head, is nowhere near as good as the odds of three people trying to rob me.

 

if you're an idiot with your guns, then yes you should probably worry about your children. If you're not, then you should have nothing to worry about.

 

and let's say you are right and I was a careless gun owner why would it not be my choice to own a gun knowing the risks? I have done nothing to anybody, I don't have a violent background that would suggest that I would be violent against my fellow man unprovoked. Even if I were an idiot who didn't take obsessive measures to ensure that no one other than myself can handle my weapons, I should not be able to take the risk of protecting my child from himself, verses defending my property in my family? that seems kind of extreme that the government would get to make that kind of choice on my behalf.

 

and I don't know if you're doing it intentionally, but you're still glossing over the question that I asked. Let's say I somehow managed to keep my entire family safe from stupidity, by keeping my guns managed as a responsible gun owners should. Why should I not have the right to defend them, even if the chances are remote, why should I be prevented from having that opportunity?

 

also I don't know where you got your statistics, but I believe they are incorrect. I would like to look at them if you have them. The ones that I have read say there are over 3. 7 million burglaries each year, over 1 million of those someone from the home is present, and of those over 265, 000 become victims of violent crime. On the other hand, only 265 people were shot by kids in the home last year, and 41 of them we're children that resulted in a fatality. It seems as though my odds are much better getting robbed and becoming a victim of violent crime during the process of a burglary than my son shooting himself with one of my weapons.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No guns unless you have a damn good reason for it. And no "I need to protect my family if a burgler comes" isn't one. Stories like that are massive outliers. The "good guy with a gun" is a myth.

:rofl:

 

In the very unlikely scenario that someone breaks into your house, by law you must be completely helpless!

Edited by BwareDWare94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he isn't. The only way he can get any of my guns, is if he cuts off my index finger. I have biometric trigger locks on every single gun that I own, and that's after he would have to get a plasma torch to cut open my safe.

 

To answer the question that hasn't been asked, no. They are never left unsecured, there are never around him, and the only time he ever gets to shoot his rifle, I am directly next to him. the likelihood of him getting one of my weapons and shooting himself in the head, is nowhere near as good as the odds of three people trying to rob me.

 

if you're an idiot with your guns, then yes you should probably worry about your children. If you're not, then you should have nothing to worry about.

 

and let's say you are right and I was a careless gun owner why would it not be my choice to own a gun knowing the risks? I have done nothing to anybody, I don't have a violent background that would suggest that I would be violent against my fellow man unprovoked. Even if I were an idiot who didn't take obsessive measures to ensure that no one other than myself can handle my weapons, I should not be able to take the risk of protecting my child from himself, verses defending my property in my family? that seems kind of extreme that the government would get to make that kind of choice on my behalf.

 

and I don't know if you're doing it intentionally, but you're still glossing over the question that I asked. Let's say I somehow managed to keep my entire family safe from stupidity, by keeping my guns managed as a responsible gun owners should. Why should I not have the right to defend them, even if the chances are remote, why should I be prevented from having that opportunity?

 

also I don't know where you got your statistics, but I believe they are incorrect. I would like to look at them if you have them. The ones that I have read say there are over 3. 7 million burglaries each year, over 1 million of those someone from the home is present, and of those over 265, 000 become victims of violent crime. On the other hand, only 265 people were shot by kids in the home last year, and 41 of them we're children that resulted in a fatality. It seems as though my odds are much better getting robbed and becoming a victim of violent crime during the process of a burglary than my son shooting himself with one of my weapons.

So you have all these locks around your gun but you're gonna be able to grab it quickly enough when someone has broken in to save everyone? Not to mention, I googled those biometric locks and they look like they all have keys that can override them without the fingerprint.

 

And it's not just kids killing themselves or adults with guns. Adults use their guns to kill people too (duh). And yeah you probably aren't going to, but that's what you'd say about everyone until they do it. I understand that there are some generally "good" gun owners. I just know the benefits to society from most people relinquishing their guns would drastically outweigh the additional dangers your family would face, since they're actually incredibly minor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you have all these locks around your gun but you're gonna be able to grab it quickly enough when someone has broken in to save everyone? Not to mention, I googled those biometric locks and they look like they all have keys that can override them without the fingerprint.

And it's not just kids killing themselves or adults with guns. Adults use their guns to kill people too (duh). And yeah you probably aren't going to, but that's what you'd say about everyone until they do it. I understand that there are some generally "good" gun owners. I just know the benefits to society from most people relinquishing their guns would drastically outweigh the additional dangers your family would face, since they're actually incredibly minor.

You're correct about the keys however my biometric locked keys, are in a biometric safe that has no key. The only way to open that without my finger is to send it back to the manufacturer.

 

second I think you kind of blow the gun thing at a proportion. I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, all I'm really saying is that only 3% of all violent crime in this country are committed by people who legally purchased guns. So me if you ban guns, most people that have them now he legally, we'll probably still have them. Will you will be doing is taking guns out of the hands responsible gun owners, the latest statistics show that two and a half million crimes are prevented with a gun, often times without even having shoot it. So mean to say that guns really have no place is kind of crazy to me. Considering I'm five times more likely to be killed with a knife, I think I will take my chances with guns to protect my family and I when need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×