Seeing how it's a hot topic nowadays I figure it's a good idea to start up a thread here about whether to keep or ban guns.
Personally I think guns are a necessary evil, as there needs to be a method to effectively resist the potential overreach of the government.
Ditto on the government thing.
In the United States at least, banning any specific type of gun or guns in general is unrealistic.
Nothing can completely stop people from buying guns, and if someone wants to kill someone, they won't stop to worry about going to prison for illegal gun possession.
I understand many supporters of gun-control were raised in a different environment with a different attitude toward guns. To them, guns are for associated with gangs and other criminal activity, but there are many others for whom guns are a positive thing associated with protection and recreation.
For gun control to "completely" stop people from buying guns seems to be an extremely unrealistic expectation. We don't give up on an action because it's going to have perfect results and completely eliminate the problem.
Exactly. That's why we should bring back the Prohibition.
That's not how arguments work, bud. You might as well have responded with "And that's why we should ban ceramic coffee mugs", because that makes about as much sense as your conclusion.
You say that we should ban guns even though it’s not fully enforceable. If that’s the case, then it should be perfectly legitimate to bring back Prohibition as well despite widespread circumventing.
And again, that makes as much sense as saying "Let's ban ceramic mugs". Both would be hard to enforce and wouldn't remove all the things they're trying to remove, just like what I said about gun control. You haven't actually put forward a reason to ban alcohol, so your points fairly useless.
Sure. Alcohol kills far more people each year than guns.
OK, I'd argue that banning alcohol leads to a rise in crime due to alcohol being an addictive substance that people have to have, and doesn't actually decrease that.
Ok, I’d argue confiscating guns leads to a rise in crime due to the people rising up and overthrowing the government.
OK, what evidence do you have for that? To counter, I'll point to all the countries where guns are banned or there's harsh gun control where that didn't lead to rebellion: Australia, Britain, Ireland, Japan, Germany, France... you know what, fuck it, that'll do.
3 months late, I know, but I completely agree with you. It's actually taught in America that the Prohibition has a direct-link to the beginning establishment of early organized crime.
Crime- or at least civil discourse- WOULD increase though at the response of banning guns in America because of the 2nd Amendment.
That's... not what I said. I said crime wouldn't increase, since it didn't increase for all the countries I mentioned.
I didn't reply to address what you were saying at the start, I was stating my own point.
Then I specifically mentioned America, and why it would be different from the countries you mentioned.
Well you said you agreed with me, so... yeah. Nevermind, a misunderstanding, I guess.
But no, you talked about Prohibition, which was about guns, not alcohol. Prohibition doesn't work because alcohol's an addictive substance. There was prohibition in Australia, for instance, and that had the same results as in America. Unless you meant because of the second amendment, which doesn't really make sense, as we can change amendments. We got rid of the 18th Amendment, we can get rid of the 2nd.
Yeah, I should've specified what I agree with, that's my bad: I agree with you on your point that banning guns is a completely unrealistic and impossible action.
My mentioning of the Prohibition despite the difference in the reasoning of use between guns and alcohol, was to try to draw what I believe is the end-result of the banning of guns in America. You've mentioned how different countries have banned guns and it led to a decrease in crime (I think, correct me if I'm wrong I skim read-), but Americans already get up in arms socially about anything related to guns enough as it is- which is why I mentioned the 2nd Amendment.
Americans are convinced it is integral to their freedoms. What I really wanted to say was that organized crime in the prohibition may be compared to an organized and rebellious militia in the event that a total gun ban occured, but that may not be the best connection because as you've said the motivation is different behind guns and alcohol.
My point is that it is not difficult to illegally obtain guns.
There are certain drugs that are entirely illegal. People still use them.
Other drugs are legal in some cases but not in others. The people who get them with a prescription sell them to those that cannot. Why would guns would be different?
The Bill of Rights does not tell us what rights we are given by the federal government. It tells us what rights may never be taken away.
Others have pointed out that decreased gun homicides does not equal decreased total homicide. I would like to add that the countries often brought up in gun-control discussions are in a very different geographical situation than the United States.
The U.S. is not an island nation and has thousands of miles of undersecured border.
That is scary. I have heard of families near the border getting killed by the cartels. I wish there was a way to save them.
That is a profound statement about the bill of rights. Yes, we were supposed to have way more rights than what was listed. I believe they had good reasons to single out those rights to make sure they were never taken away. Even written down they are never safe from being lost.
Yeah, but one of the essential reasons it's not difficult to illegally obtain guns is because illegal markets have an easy access through getting guns legally. If I can buy a bunch of weapons legally and then sell them illegally for a huge profit, that's something that's going to have. The fact that people sell prescription drugs seems to be proving my point, as that's what happens when guns are easily accessed. Those who can buy the guns do, and sell them to those who can't.
No, that's just not what the Bill of Rights is. It in no way tells you rights that can never be taken away. It just tells you Constitutional rights that definitely can be changed. The founding fathers were very clear that the entire constitution was a living document that should change with the times, and the fact is, the meaning behind "a right to bear arms" is so insanely different from where it was, because we've went from a musket to a machine gun, that it is most definitely time we change the second amendment.
OK, that's wrong. Looking at Australia for example, murder rates as a whole decreased with gun control, not just gun homicides. Decreasing gun crime does tend to decrease total homicide, because if you make it harder to do something, that's done less. That's fairly simple logic. Crimes of passion drop, planned killings drop with the decreased likelihood of success, and overall murder drops.
In regards to the U.S. not being an island nation, I'm not sure how that's particularly relevant. The two nations on either side of it, Canada and Mexico, have fairly restrictive gun laws, and more often then not, America's the actual source of the guns that are smuggled in either way, so gun control would actually further benefit both of those countries in addition to America.
That's not an argument, that's just noises.
People who have never tried to buy a gun (legally), usually don’t know how hard it is to get one. I suspect that the cartel’s could probably smuggle guns illegally into the U.S. without too much trouble though, since the Obama administration gave them a bunch of guns [why?!?] as part of some weird plan to bring down the cartels. I think we should make it less difficult for good, responsible people to get guns and make it more difficult for bad guys.
The Constitution can be amended; human rights, especially the bill of rights, were supposed to never be taken away. The government was supposed to be granted only a few powers, a “necessary evil.” The states and the individual were supposed to have the rest. The founders actually had a good idea of what guns would be like in the future, and they allowed guns that are not allowed today. https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-most-advanced-arms-available-in-1791-the-year-that-the-Second-Amendment-was-passed
Gun control was actually created to suppress people. When you take away the right of a person to defend themself you are denying them a human right and making them less free. https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html Slave owners did not want the slaves to have these rights.
The statistics I saw showed an increase in violent crime in correlation with gun banning. Which makes sense if you think about it, because the criminals will know the law-abiding citizens have turned in their guns, and they will no longer be afraid to attack people or do other bad stuff.
The cartel already had a bunch of guns even before they were given more, they kill people all the time and it is rarely mentioned in the news. Another thing that is rarely (if ever) mentioned in the major news networks is the ton of people saved by guns all the time. http://mobile.wnd.com/2005/09/32103/
Actually, looking into it, you can just go to a gun show, buy a gun, and walk away with it, it seems. Not that hard, really.
Alright, fuck it, what evidence do you have that the Obama administration gave guns to the cartel? I can't tell whether you're just blatantly wrong, or have fucked up and corrupted some fact, but show some evidence.
No, human rights can be taken away. That's why they're not in some special bracket impervious to amending, and why the constitution specifically had amending in this area. All rights are restricted, including the first amendment, which is why defamation laws exist. Or, for instance, why you can't buy an RPG.
So, looking at the list, none of them are in any way close to modern weaponry. Modern weaponry is more accurate, easy to reload and far better than the guns of several centuries ago. It's obvious that there are supposed to be limits here, unless you think RPG's or Davy Crockett's should be sold.
No, gun control was created as a restriction for the betterment of society. Like requiring a driver's license to drive, not letting people torture animals for their own amusement, not letting people have nuclear weapons or not letting people do heroin. All of these are restrictions of freedoms, but I would hope you don't consider them evil because of them. "Free" is not "Good".
In regards to that terrible site, A. that site is a heavily biased one that's literally selling gun shit, B. Even if something has racist roots, that doesn't mean it's bad, and C. Gun control today isn't aimed at taking guns from minorities and leaving them with white people. Slaves weren't allowed to buy guns, because they were slaves. Not because of gun control.
Oh, the statistics. In regards to the Wintery Knight post, that's dealt with in the research into Victoria and Australia that shows that Australia would've had more homicides and crime if they hadn't made their anti-gun laws. Looking at the Gun Facts one, disregarding the ones, they're liars. Let's discuss that. Going from the bottom to top, the bottom one is a myth, but still results in "hundreds" of guns being smuggled into Mexico because of America. There's another myth about Mexico, with the truth still being pretty bad, and a third. Then, there's the myth that America has the most firearm deaths of a list of 25. That's not a myth, the site is lying, as they admit. They call it a myth, before admitting it's not a myth, but instead, suicide's a big part of that. So they were lying when they said it's a myth. Good to know I can discredit the source. Let's look at some other lies on the page. "Myth: Japan has strict gun control and a less violent society": that's not a myth, that's a fact. The page tries to explain the two as being unrelated, but it admits that both are true, so the page is lying again. Oh, and the final statistics. There opening is a lie, the gun ban in Victoria dropped the murder rate a great deal after.
Individual scenarios mean nothing if the statistics go against it. There's cases of burglars getting pedophiles arrested, that doesn't make burglary good, does it?
I have heard that you have to get a license and background check to get a gun.
I didn’t realize there were still a lot of people who didn’t know about the giving guns to the cartels. This was way worse than the watergate scandal, in my opinion, because innocent people died. https://nypost.com/2013/12/01/book-excerpt-how-america-gave-guns-to-mexican-drug-cartels/
Human rights are very important, you would not want people to be enslaved, which is what happens when you take away their freedom. Not infringing on other people’s rights is important, which is why a small government is a necessary evil. (I would argue that the federal government is actually bigger than it needs to be.)
The founders saw the development of very modern guns for their time. I don’t see why you would think that the founders would think there would never be any new advances in guns and what not.
Unless you think enslaving people is for the betterment of society, then no, gun control was not created for the betterment of society. Obviously, we don’t want crazy people doing evil stuff so that is what the small government is for.
I would say stuff from evil origins is most likely bad. Though I wouldn’t use that alone to condemn something. The whole history of gun control is bad. And if we can’t learn from history we are bound to make the same mistakes again. [By the way, they didn’t want freed slaves to have guns either, not just those who were still slaves.]
I don’t get what you are saying about the statistics. For example, I know exactly what they meant when they said the myth about Japan. They mean Japan does not have a less violent society because of gun control. Though, now that I think about it they should have made that clearer.
You don't need a license in most states, and you don't have to do a background check if you go to a gun show. Perhaps before having a position on a topic, you should try to understand said topic.
Alright, as presumed, they didn't give guns to the cartels. It was actually still a pretty horrifying situation, though, and an interesting one.
We deprive people of rights all the time. I'm not allowed the right to torture my dog to death, or to defame someone, or to sell heroin. We determine what human rights are good and what we take away for the betterment of society. Unless you think I should be afforded the previous three rights, which would be an interesting way to go. As well as this, the government has a role in ensuring positive rights, like the right to an education.
Sure, the founders knew guns would advance. But the founders also said that the constitution should be constantly revised and amended, because as times changes, the document should be changed. We've invented launchers that can fire nuclear warheads, and we don't allow people to buy those from shops, right?
Gun control isn't enslavement. Forcing someone to work against their will is enslavement. Gun control is not that, it's restricting access to weapons, putting it simply.
Things being from evil origins don't make things bad. That's not how things work. NASCAR's not evil because illegal smuggling is, Fanta's not evil because Nazi's are, things aren't bad because they have evil origins.
No, that's not what they say. They say "MYTH: Japan has strict gun control and a less violent society". That's not a myth, though. That's objectively true. Japan does have a less violent society, and it does have strict gun control. Saying that that's a myth is a lie, and a deceitful one at that. They may have meant something different, and maybe they meant "MYTH: Japan has has a less violent society BECAUSE of their strict gun control", but either they're purposefully trying to deceive and thus can't be trusted, or they're idiots who don't understand how words work and thus can't be trusted.
I am starting to think Steve24833 doesn’t actually read anything I post, just glances at it probably. And keeps repeating the same thing. I was actually reading what posts I answered. There are too many gaps in Steve’s logic: I don’t think I can be much help to this person.
I think it is ironic that Steve will complain about a minor gaffe in how something is written, when he/she actually has more gaffes in their posts here than I do. There is also such irony hidden in the first paragraph: “...before having a position on a topic, you should try try to understand said topic.”
I don’t want to be rude to anyone, but if I come across rude I apologize. I take so long to reply I lose sleep when I do. I will try to come back later to answer more posts.
Yeah, you don't understand the topic. You didn't know you don't have to have a background check to get a gun. That's a gap in your knowledge, and shows a lack of understanding.
If you think I've had any gaps of knowledge or logic, please explain and I'll try correct them or explain why they're not.
I know, I'm generalizing for the sake of hyperbole.
Banning guns would just bloody stupid, think about it, how do these people normally gets guns, either there mother or father has the guns or they get it from the black market. It’s pretty easy now to just buy a gun from the black market or even the dark web.
Keeping guns would decrease the casualties since instead of everyone getting shot the shit out of, the teachers can fight back with their own weapons. You may say the teachers might start killing or that they might be bad, or you need to do is background checks and even if their clear and their still gonna shoot, that’s why you have other teachers with guns. Because the majority of people in the education system are okay enough not to shoot kids.
Not to mention the Second amendment, which I copied right from Wikipedia.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.
If you removed guns the morale for just the whole of America’s would be low, and were not even talking about veterans and army personnel’s thoughts on this, most of the military disagree since a lot of them have formed somewhat of a bond with their weapons, and having a angry army isn’t exactly gonna make a lot of loyalists, in fact, they might even revolt.
... if you banned the guns, the parents wouldn't be able to buy them for the kids to be able to steal. Plus, people wouldn't be able to buy them legally and then sell them to the black market, supplying the market with what it needs to arm criminals. In regards to the second amendment, that's not really any more of an argument than the 18th amendment, which is gone now. The Constitution was meant to be changed as time goes on.
Pretty much everywhere that conceal carry laws have been implemented, crime rates have decreased substantially. Areas with more legal gun owners = less crime.
Mizal makes a good point - guns are not the root of the problem. Mental health is a big issue.
If all guns simply disappeared tomorrow, the amount of crossbow and bow related killings would skyrocket. Ban those and knife related killings go through the roof. Remove all knives and baseball bat related violence soars.
Guns are just tools.
Those are good points.
I have actually heard that are more deaths from car accidents (or not accidents) than guns. Using a car is a great responsibility, just as owning guns. It seems there are more responsible gun owners than vehicle drivers.
Would banning alcohol again make us safer? :)
That's actually not true. In states where conceal carry laws have been put into place, violent crime actually ended up an estimated 13%-15% higher.
Fact: In "Right-to-carry" states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower.
The variance between crime in states isn't what we're calculating here. We're calculating how right to carry laws impact crime, and the fact is, as the study I posted shows, it causes a rise in crime.
I think if we could get bad guys to believe anyone could have a conceal and carry permit even more lives would be safer. Let bad guys worry. :)
Again, that's just factually wrong. Statistics show that doesn't work.
You should be careful about trusting statistics from cnn or other major news networks. They have been know to fudge data just to support their agenda.
If you think about it, who would hurt the most, even if you could remove all guns (which is fantasy, it can never happen, there would just be moonshine gun factories like there was for alcohol). Who would hurt? The people who use them to feed their families, the people who live in the poorest and most dangerous areas, disabled people and people small of stature or strength, these people would all be discriminated against. The rich people might be able to survive because they could get bodyguards, maybe a few physically strong people as well. But, what is going to happen to all these vulnerable people when the wolves realize they are no longer protected? Like what mizal said, guns are an equalizer.
I think it is terrible when they paint a huge target on a bunch of innocents by declaring an area a gun-free zone. Why, even if it is true, would you want to announce something like that, it is like saying “I never lock my doors at night” or something. A crazy person could be listening. These crazies, regardless of what weapon they use, always pick targets they think are easy.
Not CNN or any major news network, but the National Bureau of Economic research: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510 . So no, I'm fairly confident with this one.
In regards to who removing all guns would hurt the most, I guess it'd be criminals and murderers. The difference between guns and alcohol is that alcohol is addictive, so there's not going to be big moonshine gun factories happening, just like there isn't in the UK or Ireland or Australia. Just like in those countries, people who are physically weaker or disabled aren't getting constantly bullied or attacked, because this is a society, not just a bizarre fantasy land where police or societal norms don't exist. It's like you don't understand there are countries where there aren't guns that aren't just muscular guys declaring themselves God-Emperor.
In regards to hunting, people can still hunt in Britain, Ireland and Australia. You can get licenses for this kind of shit. In regard to the poorest of the poor who are only barely feeding their family through what they can hunt, I'd argue that's not a good situation and we need to deal with that regardless of whether we keep guns.
In regards to gun-free zones, I don't think they make a lot of sense when you're declaring an area a gun-free zone as part of a greater area with guns and no barriers to just enter the gun-free zone with a gun. That wouldn't work. But that's not what I'm arguing for, in any way.
I’m not confident with that though, I don’t trust the google search engine. I looked in duck duck go and saw this: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/
and this: https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
and this: https://winteryknight.com/2017/10/06/did-australias-ban-on-guns-lower-violent-crime-rates-and-lower-suicide-rates-2/
Also, people in Australia have been warning us not to ban guns like they did. Banning guns protects bad people.
Drugs and alcohol are far more dangerous than guns, and crazy people are often under the influence of these when they commit crimes. (Regardless if their weapon be knife, gun, bus, bare hands, bomb, car or other.)
Wouldn’t you rather ban the cause of the problem, rather than all weapons? Eventually, after we lose so much freedom, it will be argued that speech is a weapon as well, and certain speech will be banned. Then we will be Canada. Canada does not have freedom of speech.
What? What do you mean you don't trust Google search enginge? Google search engine finds things, it's not the source. The source is the National Bureau of Economic Research. The first, second and third site you use don't disagree with the statistic I had. It's like me saying "Look at this, this research group said most dogs are black" and you replied with "Actually, these other groups said cats are usually orange". You haven't disagreed with what I said.
Sure, some Australians have said that. Some Australians have also warned Americans not to trust NASA because the world is flat. However, the majority of Australians support gun control.
Well, I don't think alcohol's a big factor in most violent crime. Drugs certainly is, but pretty much all of them are banned. One of the biggest causes of crime is social inequality and mental helath problems, which would involve a far more socialist government to deal with, which you know, I'd say we should also do. However, even for America, the gun crisis is a lot easier to solve than the intricies of the human brain or the failing of capitalism, although I'm more than willing for a multi-pronged approach to this.
Banning guns doesn't lead to banning free speech. Look at Australia, the UK, Ireland, France... fuck it, look at most countries with gun control.
OK, maybe you've just been trolling me this one. Canadian Constitution specifically protects "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication". So yeah, Canada does have free speech.
I suppose they would not list all the deaths from driving under the influence as violent crime, but that doesn’t change the fact that more people die from these deaths than from gunshot wounds.
Socialism is actually a dangerous philosophy, for it is from socialism that we get fascism and communism, which have created the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century. I know socialism sounds like a great idea, in practice however, all it does is concentrate power in a small area. And when those of this small group mess up it affects a lot of people. I think we have too much socialism in America already. The road to a really bad place is paved with good intentions.
About the causes of crime, I think mental health and that other stuff are factors like you said, but I also think broken families is a major factor: http://marripedia.org/effects_of_family_structure_on_crime
Canada doesn’t really have free speech, neither does England and probably some of the others you mentioned. It might not be as bad as Germany or Sweden (it is a crime to insult someone in Sweden), but it gets closer every day. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/08/27/canadian-hate-speech-proposal-threatens-free-speech/
That's... not true. In 2015, 10,625 people died from alcohol-impaired accidents. https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
This, opposed to 13,286 people being murdered with guns, including accidents. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
?We also get fascism, communism and every corrupt government, illegitimate imprisonment, execution of innocents or both world wars from the process of statism. That doesn't make statism wrong now, does it? Unless you're an anarchist, in which case that's a fascinating way for this to go.
Broken families also tends to in a lot of cases revolve back to crime, which is tied to poverty. Back to socialism for the answer, I guess.
Canada or England don't have absolute free speech, but neither does America. In America, I can be punished by the government for defamation. It's also not a crime to insult someone in Sweden.
Edit: Oh yeah, nearly forgot, that statistic on gun deaths doesn't include suicides, if you were planning to go with that route.
Gun control pretty effectively works. We've seen it work across the board in countries with more restrictive gun zones. The best gun nuts can come up with is "Chicago has restrictive gun laws!", which is fairly ridiculous, given that you can just drive out of state and buy guns, before driving back in. You can beat around the bush and whine about terrorists in Paris or exceptions to the overall rule, but restrictive gun control does make things better as the statistics show. Look at Australia, look at almost entirely gun free countries like Ireland, and you'll see results.
The argument that "If you ban guns, criminals won't care" if one I often hear, but pretty absurd. I mean, one, a good deal of gun violence are acts of passion, or mental cases getting their hands on guns. Two, if you make it harder for criminals to get the guns and enforce taking illegal guns off the street, that number will objectively fall. Really, this argument tends to be fueled by rhetoric rather than any actual facts.
The final argument I've heard is that an armed populace is a deterrent to invaders, and a deterrent to over-reach of the government. The first one, in regard to first world countries, is pretty laughable. We're in a nuclear age with insane military capabilities, not a cheesy Anti-Commie propaganda film. The second one is a more interesting thing to dissect, but it seems to put everything down to a "Government" vs "The People" kind of thing, which isn't the case. Ultimately, the government is made up of people. Cases of totalitarianism isn't just "Government" taking power, but usually one "Ideology" taking over. THAT is the major fear that would lead to totalitarianism, and in a democratic system with checks and balances, that's preventable more than fear of the populace uprising.
Giving citizens guns for that reason simply isn't the best solution to government oppression. I mean, look at how the countries with the highest rates of gun ownership measure up on the Human Freedom Index. America at the top is highest enough, but than it drops to 55th, and plunges to 156th. Armed rebellion isn't the way you defend your freedoms, because that just leads to anarchy and violence, and then factional warfare as you country goes to shit. The way you defend your freedoms is through having a robust government system that doesn't allow for a monopolization of political power.
This is a serious subject, and you all make compelling arguments. And yes, I believe if more good people had guns (or at least bad guys believed they did) there would be less crime overall. Bad guys tend to be more cowardly, and attack what they think are easy targets. I believe more lives would have been saved in Nazi Germany if all the good guys had not had their guns taken away.
Also, it would be worrisome if freedoms, especially from the bill of rights, could easily be taken from the people. So, I would defend the second amendment just as strongly as I would the first. For how easily you could lose one will be how easily you will lose the other.
Someone Somewhat Agrees With My Views!
Amendments are changes to the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution were very adamant that these rights could change over time, and being able to change it is what's so essential to the whole system we have in place. Otherwise, it's pretty much the tyranny of a bunch of long dead founders. We've already entirely negated amendments before, it's a process that doesn't lead to societal breakdown or the mass-scale losing of rights.
I think the Nazi’s would not have been able to kill so many people if the people had been well armed.
Unfortunately, it is only good people who obey laws and turn in guns when the law requires it. Bad people already don’t obey laws.
Not everyone disobeying the law is bad.
Its not against the law in some places to marry children, and let’s say the child runs away or doesn’t want to. Because a child isn’t gonna like anything that comes with it. In some places of those places it’s against the law to resist.
So are those children bad just because they don’t obey the law, are the families bad for not wanting to give up there child?
Replace children or families with gun or gun owner and you get your self how people are feeling right now in America.
Perhaps I should have phrased that better. There are plenty of good people who disobey evil laws, like our ancestors who smuggled slaves out of slave states. I meant that the only people who are going to give up their guns because the law says so are not going to be the ones who wish harm on others. Although, if the people in Germany had disobeyed the gun laws there probably would not have been the mass killing of innocents there.
Makes a bit more sense
That's... that's not much better than the previous point. Immoral people also follow the law. Sure, some criminals won't, but restricting their ability to buy the gun means they won't be able to get guns as easily, so you reduce the amount of guns they have ,while normally law enforcement continues to take guns off the streets.
I'm not really one for arguing about politics here, but I will point out a few things that most people...
*cough* Steve *cough*
...overlook. This being that the point of gun control is to stop people from killing each other. It isn't to stop gun violence, or if it is, then people need to get their priorities straight. I argue that gun control has had little to no effect on homicide rates.
Now before you lot start shouting at me about Australia being a huge success, let me just go ahead and stop you there. Australia's gun control laws DID lower the death count by guns. It DID NOT, however, lower homicide rates making it effectively useless. I repeat, the theory behind gun control is that restricting guns will cause people to be killed less, (to lower homicide rates) yet I do not believe I've seen a single case where this has occurred.
The UK is the same. Heck, the homicide rates even increased after each gun control law was established there. Maybe I haven't looked into all of the possible countries where gun control laws were established, and, if so, I invite you to show me the evidence of homicide rates going down when gun control laws are implemented
Put simply, why do people think gun control laws will stop the death tolls from rising? Especially when there is no evidence it will lower homicide rates.
I'll have a busy weekend, so chances are I won't be able to reply to any attempted rebuttals, but knock yourselves out anyway.
Wait are you against gun banning or are you with it?
After what you have pointed out, I can see that it would be incredibly dangerous to ban guns (even if it were possible to completely get rid of guns, which I know it is not possible). And not just places like the radical socialist Germany that Hitler came from. For it must be emboldening bad guys when they know the good guys can’t defend themselves.
I know guns save more lives than is reported in the news. Also, people who are not physically strong are less likely to be preyed upon if the bad guy has to worry they might have a gun.
Cool, a name drop. Let's do it.
In regards to Australia, I think there's clear evidence that if gun control hadn't been introduced, the murder rates would've been higher. We can see this through a look at Australia as a whole, and also a look at the state of Victoria. Victoria introduced much stricter gun laws around eight years before Australia went full blown into it's gun control thing. Looking at the evidence of ALL homicides, not just gun crime, Victoria was far lower than Australia as a whole because of this, but when Australia followed, the variance between the two was reduced greatly. Looking at this, it's quite clear that Australia's gun laws did help with the homicide rate.
Here's a graph. The blue line in Australia, the Green line is the state of Victoria: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-357f26fd47f3515c0a488782539b512c
In the UK, as I said earlier, you have to take the full story into account, and that paints a picture very different to this. Looking at how successful the gun buy back was in the UK, it just wasn't. The proper enforcement wasn't put into place, and thus the actions didn't do anything to combat the homicides. However, in the early 00's, when actual sweeps for guns did go into place, we saw this change. As well as this, there was actually a change in the system that records murders, which were placed at a higher rate, as we can see through this graph. Both these show that the initial image is quite misleading, and hints in the opposite direction: https://www.ons.gov.uk/resource?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/2015-10-15/5738d660.png
Gun control really is a tough subject. With the deaths of so many innocent people, with their lives cut short by the firing of a gun so easily bought from others, illegally, or still even purchased legally, it’s quite hard to see that fine line that lies between murder and revenge, in some of these cases. I do agree that mental illness is a contributing factor to some of the younger shooters who felt cast aside and bullied. Perhaps if they were reached out to by others, maybe none of this would have happened.
But that poses the question of where they get the guns they received. If guns can kill an innocent person with just the flick of the finger, why have them? Self-defense gives a good argument. However, if gun control would be tightened—not the banning or outlawing of guns, just stricter—it would be more difficult to sell guns without certain requirements.
This is just my opinion.
Are you telling me that you would be able to shoot that bugger from a reasonable range? That's some fine accuracy! Look at how thin and think about how snakes usually slink and slither around, and tell me that Mizal isn't our resident gunslinger.
Ah, someone trying to discredit Mizal's gun prowess?
Yeah, you're probably correct. I imagined it would be much more difficult.
5'2", that's hella short lmao :) xD
Yeah, looking at her elf avatar for nearly four years has embedded the idea that Mizal is a tall, fair-skinned woman in my mind. I am pleasantly surprised.
Oh, what I'd give to kill a large animal like that and eat it.
Mass shootings aren't a good way to get attention, they happen way to often. Like, I don't even bother looking up pictures of the people or motives anymore.
If I was going for pure attention, I'd just need to kidnap even just a single baby, and torture the ever-loving shit out of it in a really visually disgusting way. Also, eat a bit of it, because the West has a huge fascination with cannibalism. And fuck it, maybe toss a bit of Satanism in there to get all sides of the fence talking about me.
The US suicide rate is higher, with 12.6 per 100,000. Ireland's at 11 per 100,000, so I'm not sure what you mean my "high".
I don't think there are that many people who support the right to kill yourself, are there? I mean, unless I'm mistaken I thought I was fairly alone in that belief.
It's the same here, I think, most likely group to kill themselves are middle-aged or older men. http://www.thejournal.ie/suicide-statistics-hse-3617330-Sep2017/
Looking at the suicide statistics for 2014, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia, Belgium, Croatia, Poland, Austria, Finland, Czech Republic, France, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany and Sweden all had higher suicide rates. Ireland, at 11 per 100,000, was on par with the EU average. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20170517-1.
For teenager and children, we're not the highest. We're fourth highest, which could be where you're confusing your facts. https://www.unicef.ie/2017/06/19/irelands-teen-suicide-rate-4th-highest-euoecd-unicef-report-card/
That's a crock of shit. The study I quoted wasn't just showing that "When conceal carry laws happen, crime rates also happened". The study was based on finding out the results of conceal carry laws. In the summary's fucking opening line, the study says that a previous study had concluded that conceal carry states had increases in crimes but no causal link could be established, and that's what the entire point of this study was trying to deal with.
It didn't mean when that conceal carry permits go up, either. It was about conceal carry LAWS going into effect, not PERMITS being got. Perhaps actually look at the study before dismissing my argument as purposeful ignorance. The study's finding are about cause, not correlation, given the 2005 report had correlation dealt with, and this was entirely an examination of whether conceal carry was the cause, which it sure as shit seems to have been.
Well no, everything you mentioned in your post isn't correct, obviously. For instance, the study was, again, about conceal carry laws, not permits. Which to fucking start, shows that you didn't even bother to look at it before you dismissed it, so I might have to say you don't know shit about what you're talking about, and it seems you're the one who has decided to be purposefully ignorant in ignoring basic facts.
Also worth noting that Steve's "proof positive" is only a working paper from the NBER. This means that it is not subject to peer review and is also "open to discussion and bias" and not "definitive statement of facts" (according to the NBER themselves).
Interesting as well that the two main authors and researchers both graduated from a left leaning university - but I'm sure that didn't color their opinions at all.
All papers are open to discuss and can be biased, and no study can ever possibly hope to be absolutely definitive. It hasn't been peer reviewed yet, sure, and that's a serious flaw, but it doesn't discredit the study in anyway, only shows its not complete yet.
In regard to the authors and researching graduating from a left leaning university, the vast majority of universities in the US lean left, so that's hardly something. Fuck it, the same is true for most scientists, and you don't even know whether the authors and researchers are left wing.
Unless, of course, you'd like to discount the entire field of science and learning, because of that, which at this point seems like a way you might go.
In what possible way is it still correct? The article is about conceal carry laws. You thought it was about permits, either because you read it and were too stupid to read or notice the difference, which seems unlikely, or you didn't read it before dismissing something. Ignoring the fact that you were blatantly wrong about the very premise of the whole thing is a fairly pathetic way to go about this.
You're refusing to admit you were wrong and down right ignoring that fact, even spitefully pointing out you were correct and saying "everything" you mentioned in your post was true. It was not only a lie, but a lie you've doubled down on and refuse to admit. This not only shows that you decided the article was bullshit without reading it, but also that you're willing to lie and ignore your own wrongs for the sake of your argument.
A very relevant point indeed, I think.
And once again, there's a clear refusal to admit you were wrong, even though you objectively are. I guess you can play the spiteful game, it's an old classic, but a bit boring and I'd have thought beneath you, if I'm being honest. I think it's clear that lying, dismissing evidence without looking at it and refusing to admit when you're wrong are are pretty good indicators you have no leg to stand on, and are pretty much exactly the ignorant, brain-dead retard arguing for a point in spite of actual proof that you lambasted in your original post.
In regards to whose arguing, we are. I don't think it's we are. You gave reasons it's flawed, I gave reasons it isn't, you did again. That's what arguing is. One would think definitions of pretty commonly used words wouldn't need to be brought in, but since you seem delightfully petty today, it seems I might have to.
I am sorry Steve, but this sounds an awful lot like you are projecting yourself onto others. What BerkaZerka posted is completely accurate and easy to verify if you have internet access.
I tried to help you because you occasionally had a reasonable argument, and I thought you were open to reason. I am sorry I failed, perhaps when you are older and wiser you will see the light.
No, I'm not. If I was projecting myself, I'd probably call my opponents self-obsessed narcissists or something. In regards to this, BZ was being a retard, as you've been. The study's about gun control laws, he thought it was about permits, showing he didn't read the article. I'm pretty open to reason, it just so happens that there wasn't any here from the anti-gun control side, and the best I got were idiots failing to understand the law, people unwilling to even look at the other side's evidence, and... no, that was it.
I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of this clause and find this contract to be unfair. This clause, given it's weight, was not brought to my attention in a reasonable manner and thus I'll pay it no attention. I say that this is simply fallacious arguing by popularity, and we don't decide facts by popularity, and you're a backwoods hick who hides his ignorance behind a facade of bullshit when you're as low as the rest of the scum.
Well I gave Steve an ample amount of time to reply, and it looks like I didn't do it in vain. He has replied, yet somehow managed to not state a valid argument, or really any argument in defense of Berka's claims. Thus, by order of “Section - Thirteen Eleven: Varia Encompassing Inaccuracies Stipulates Adjudication By Unaffiliated Trust To Hear Expressed Arbitration Dispute," and my right as a summonee, I hereby select @BerkaZerka as the clear victor in this bout.
I've called into question the section itself as unreasonable and thus holding no weight.
The thing with you and Steve's whole peer reviewed article debate, is that being peer reviewed doesn't do shit for credibility. A lot of peer reviewed articles published in a journal have misleading information, or skewered statistics to fight the dimensions of their study. There's a lot of tricks from fucking with the numbers, to showing comparative data at different scales, to straight up flipping a graph but making it look the right way.
So even in articles that have gone through a committee could be full of shit, while ones that haven't could be honest and factual. It's just a shitty fact of facts and life. Motherfuckers lie to get their grants and study money.
OK... but the article wasn't peer reviewed. That was actually a slight against it, admittedly, but you've somehow made it look like something that doesn't matter. But your newest point seems to be "Don't listen to science or statistics or research! It's all a crock of shit!" So not your best moment.
Nah, I'm not saying don't listen to science or statistics. What I'm trying to say is to make sure you look out for any signs of dishonesty in articles. Also a good idea to cross reference.
And in some cases, non-peer reviewed articles are more truthful than peer reviewed articles. Because doing research is expensive, and sometimes people want to make themselves seem right the first time, especially if they have biases to a certain outcome. So what this means is that if they couldn't get more grant money or don't want to admit they were wrong or don't want, or can't do another trial, some might just skew the data. Big issue in psychology right now (my field of study).
Meanwhile, yes there are truthful peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed articles, but there are also dishonest of each as well.
So as stated above, cross references, fact checking, finding duplicate studies all can help determine the legitimacy of articles of each type.
Again, I'm not sure what the point you're going for is here, unless this was just a random "Double check sources!" PSA, given the example BZ was whining about wasn't peer-reviewed. It's like if someone brings up the shitty tap water in a country, and you start talking about how fluoride doesn't make water better, even though the thing they were talking about in the first place ddoesn't have that.
Essentially, the point was to inform BZ that just because something isn't peer reviewed doesn't mean it is not a valid source. While also pointing out that each type of article can be valid or invalid, depending on how whether or not they got their info accurately and honestly. Which lead to my "double check sources" psa.
@SpartacustheGreat,bro, its a sin to be defenseless. I believe that banning guns isn't gonna do jack shit. First, because assholes who'll buy them illegally will have a ball with all the defenseless motherfuckers they come across. Second, it's not the weapons themselves but the intent behind them. In countries where they ban guns, knife and blunt force violence rapidly increases. Or they continue to buy them illegally.
I believe there are at least two God given rights in life, the right to freedom, and the right to defend your life and those of your families. Read some stories, like the one about the pregnant single mom who, when a couple motherfuckers broke into her house, she blew them away. Saving her and her kids lives.
I read this article about an ex-gun owner, who gave all his weapons to the police because "he didn't need a gun to feel like a man." Which, its not about feeling like man, it's defending yourself and your family. Any ways this cuck went on to talk about how he bought a wooden fucking stick to fight burglars and killers off with, if you ask me it sounds like he is the one trying to be too macho. If he thinks he is any match for a couple goons with guns....we both know how that'll go.
If you ban assault rifles, people will just use the next best thing. We just need better punishments for the criminal mother fuckers who think it's fun to rob and kill people.
And yes, also they're good for deterring government atrocities.
Look at Russia and Germany in the nineteen forties, disarmed their citizens, and millions of people got slaughtered because they couldn't do shit against their government. The way America is going, maybe not ten years from now, maybe one hundred years. But if we remove guns from all law abiding citizens, someone, whether left or right winged, or something else. They're gonna get the power and means to round up their opponents and fucking slaughter them. Just look at history whenever the people are disarmed.
Essentially a long winded agreement to the statement.
Ooh, God's being brought into it. I wonder which one. I don't think you're Muslim, there's not a lot of Jews and Christians are definitely supposed to be anti-violence, so that leaves a fun little question.
Anyhow, there's no facts behind your points. We've seen that the first paragraph's just untrue, the second and third paragraph seems to be you thinking that stories beat facts for reason, even though that's how nothing works. The fourth is pretty objectively wrong, harsher punishments don't seem to have much effect on deterring or dealing with crime.
Your argument against assault rifles seems a bizarre one. People losing something bad and having to move onto something less bad is usually considered a good thing. Would you consider the same logic for RPG's? Davy Crockett's? What's your opinion on keeping those banned?
In regards to dealing with government, it's a foolish approach. We don't keep a democratic government in check at gunpoint, we keep it in check through checks and balances, through voting, through the separation of powers. We can see this happen in countries with gun control, it's complicated but far from impossible. Personally, I'd rather live in a country where power comes from ideas and the people rather then power and guns.
I think the point about government is legitimate though. Sometimes the only way to achieve democracy and political rights is through force of arms by citizens. In (south) Korea we had a series of dictators who repressed freedom of speech and had numerous human rights violations until it came to a boiling point and people started arming themselves to overthrow the government. Unfortunately this failed but I think there could have been a bigger impact if the citizens had been armed.
Achieving? Armed uprising is a manner of overthrowing an oppressive government sure. Maintaining? Not at all. Obviously, the idea is that once you have a government, the goal should be maintaining it, not preparing for it to fail in such a manner that would erode your ability to actually maintain it. The critical flaw in what occurred was that the dictatorship was allowed to rise up in the first place.
Edit: If I could expand on this, looking into the Korean situation, it seems clear to me that violent reform didn't even work. The overthrowing of Syngman Rhee seems to be what led to the instable government that led to the May 16 Coup, which is what led to the dictatorship that was being rebelled against in your example.
How are citizens supposed to achieve success in that sort of uprising if they don't have access to guns?
The dictatorship originated before the Korean War, when America occupied the southern half of the peninsula. Syngman Rhee was just as bad, if not worse than the other dictatorships. At the very least the other dictators oversaw economic rise and overall improvement of the country, Rhee did none of those things. He had 100,000-200,000 suspected leftists killed, blatantly arrested opposition politicians, and was generally pretty shit.
Well I don't think HOW they achieve success really matters in regards to the point I'm making. My point is, once a democratic government is established, it should be protected through checks and balances, voting and separation of power, not through the threat of violence. My ideas only come into place on achieving the democratic government and in preventing its fall to corruption, not at all in achieving it in the first place. The argument that you posed was that guns would help prevent the corruption of governments, which I think clearly isn't the right way to deal with it. In regards to getting rid of a pre-existing government, that's an entirely different beast, but given no one seems here seems to live in a dictatorship, it's hardly relevant.
Although, in regard to overthrowing corrupt governments, political reform IS a possibility, though I can't say I've looked into how effective violent versus peaceful methods are. Examples like the Velvet Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution) are good examples of how it can be done, if you're interested.
Yeah, looking into him he wasn't a great leader, but it's showing that violent uprisings, even if successful, don't mean you've escaped the problem, as often, it just leads to power being taken by a different group.
Edit: Sorry, I know editing is painful, but I'm learning on the fly here, but if I'm not mistaken, South Korea seemed to have also been an example where non-violent protest, not violent protest which we saw failed, was what led to Korea becoming an actual democracy.
And? He lost the election, and chancellor was a fairly weak position in the Weimar Republic. What's your point? That countries can be democratic without having the right checks and balances to allow people like Hitler take over? Yeah, that's right. Article 48 of the Weimar constitution was a fucking joke, and it should have never been written.
Countries can transform into dictatorships for other reasons. Foreign powers installing puppet governments, for instance. However, you gave me an example, I explained how it was a shitty one. If you have an article in your constitution that allows for the suspension of basic rights and the basic installment of a dictatorship in response to emergency, that's a terrible idea and a clear lack of checks and balances. It's hardly a hard concept to understand, but given you study law, it's especially unimpressive that you haven't got that.
Not really one for argument, I see. You gave an example, I dealt with it. You took that to mean "Oh, so ALL dictatorships are because of checks and balances!" I explained that wasn't the case and that it was specifically a failing of the Weimar's laws that gave incredible power to the president, and you took that to "Oh, so ALL martial law is evil!" Stop shitting yourself and strawmanning everything I say.
I'll ask you simply. Do you believe Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution was a good thing, or should it have had more checks and balances to prevent the takeover of a dictatorship? If it's the former, well you'd be pretty silly, given we saw it led to a dictatorship. If it's the latter, I don't know what you're arguing for, exactly.
That's not actually a rebuttal of anything I said, or an answer to the simple question. It's a "No I'm not, you are!", one of the weakest come backs in existence, followed by... I'm not sure. A Tim Burton reference? Unless I'm missing something, you've compared me to Jack Skellington because... he's the king of something? And you think I'm the king of strawman? I'm either missing something, or that was a terrible and bizarre reference. Anyhow, run along, if you have nothing to contribute intellectually, I have other things to do than trade insults for now. Catch me when I'm a bit more bored and we'll give it a whirl.
Dodges the subject? I asked a question about the Weimar Republic, Bucky decided to eliminate all argument whatsoever by making a Tim Burton reference and that's it, for some reason. Like the last time we debated, where he whined and blocked me. So far, I think it's him that has a pretty good rep for dismissing arguments and ignoring shit.
On my hands and knees praying to the holy deities for you to seek sunlight and have sex, lad.
Cool, solid argument. You've made your case.
Thara, this poor man reveres the godless void. Your whispers are better off cast into that place.
That does seem very Steve-esque.
Yeah I that's true. The problem for me is that this kind of thing happened while my dad was still in college- that's pretty recent if you think about it, and it's still responsible for a lot of the political divisions in Korea.
I can't really speak as to the success of violent vs.peaceful methods, all I know is that some have worked one way or the other. I read about the Velvet Revolution in AP Euro though.
Yeah it was ultimately non-violent protest that led to reform but I can't stomach the idea of innocent civilians being shot and beaten without a chance to even fight back.
Very recent, sure. If I'm being honest, I had no idea at all of this stuff about South Korean history. My history classes ended when the war there did. While the idea of unarmed civilians being taken advantage of is a clearly a painful one, I don't think it justifies a lack of gun control as a response. It's an understandable response, of course, like wanting inhumane punishments for bad criminals or wanting to stop Neo-Nazis from spewing hateful rhetoric, but ultimately like both of those examples I think it's the wrong way to go.
Hang on, where are you from?
That's the main reason we have guns, to maintain a well regulated militia.
And, no we won't win with that attitude!
Also, I don't believe we could really overthrow the American government, but if they try any unwarranted violations we can give them something to think about.
I wasn't arguing against assault rifles, I was arguing for keeping them. I'm pro second amendment my man. And yes, I will concede that checks and balances is better for keeping government in check, but guns are a last resort for tyranny, and first resort for self and home defense.
And I was raised Baptist, which I believe is a form of Catholicism, and despite the whole "these types of people are supposed to be anti-violence". When it's for the right reasons I believe some violence is necessary. Turning the other cheek is only for situations when you'd be helpless any way. But with a nice rifle by your side, someone should think twice before hitting the first cheek.
Sorry, slip of the tongue. I meant arguing against assault rifle bans. Why, for instance, shouldn't someone be allowed have an RPG?
Um... no, that's not what turn the other cheek was about. It was about not responding to injury with revenge, but being non-violence. Turn the other cheek means "Don't resist evil people". With a rifle by your side, if someone hits your cheek, you should still, as a Christian, turn the other cheek, not open fire. The entire turn the other cheek thing is about pacifism. Anyhow, Baptists aren't Catholics, in case you were wondering. Maybe look into your own religion.
I haven't been to a baptist church in years lol, and everything I looked up about it seemed to point to being catholic. I'll take your word for it though.
And what I was saying about the turn the other cheek thing, is that, rather than turning the other cheek and being passive. I would like to respond to injuries and threats with equal or greater force, such as the case of fending off a home invasion. Hopefully that clarifies. And maybe I'm not the best Christian for that but, once again, God given right to self defense.
OK, that's not right. That's objectively the opposite of what Jesus told you to do. God himself told you that self-defense was bad and you shouldn't do it, so no, it's not a God given right. He specifically told you, don't do that.
Do you know how many times the Israelites had to fight to defend themselves, or when half of Moses followers tried to overthrow him? God opened up the earth and it ate up the dissenters.
Sure, maybe the bible says not to fight back, but there are plenty of times in the bible where it's alright. God gave us hands to fight with for a reason.
That's when the LORD made the earth open up and swallow Dathan, Abiram, and Korah. At the same time, fire destroyed 250 men as a warning to the other Israelites.
The Israelites? Constantly. They lived under an eye for an eye, in which case, get revenge and fuck up your enemies. Jesus specifically said that rule didn't stand though, and that you should no longer follow it.
Sure, it's what Jesus said. But while it can help in cases where pointless pride and ego can make a situation worse (like Mizal said). No one should have to stand by and be made a bitch. How valuable is your life if you don't have the right to defend it? It means nothing. Anyone can take it from you, and I firmly believe that in cases of self defense, an eye for an eye matters.
That's what you think, sure. But that's not what Jesus said. You can disagree with what Jesus said, I certainly do, I'm just saying that your beliefs on self-defense go against Jesus' teachings, and that makes you a poor enough Christian. Given I don't believe any of it, that's not a bad thing, just a point I was trying to show.
I understand that it's not what Jesus says, and as much as I love my religion. I just can't concede with being helpless. It's never worked out for anybody. And also, no offense taken.
OK, well if you're not going to reconsider the self-defense thing, maybe reconsider the whole religion thing, and find one that suits your beliefs better, to avoid hypocrisy. I mean, it can't meant that much to you, given you didn't know whether you were Catholic or not.
Besides, Luke 22:36
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[a]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
I honestly believe that the bible suggests you should consider the situation, and use tact when using self defense. Sometimes it's stupid, sometimes it's necessary. Jesus himself told his followers to by some swords, which in some instances is useful, and in other situations it's necessary to turn the other cheek. See? I follow my religion and the second amendment!
Huh, I guess you're kind of screwed if you do, screwed if you don't on this one, given that the Sermon of the mouth definitely doesn't say assess the situation, but instead quite clearly, don't retaliate. This doesn't exactly help your situation, given you're against at least one of the things Jesus said, but then again all Christians would have to be, so whatever. Fair point, I don't think I'd ever actually scene that passage.
Also there's a passage where Jesus explicitly tells his disciples to kill his enemies.
Aw, and I just found out how Christian theologians explain away the former thing quite impressively, with the swords not meant to be used, but to fulfill a prophecy, which is why right after saying they needed two swords, when Paul tried to use them, he said "Don't".
Give me a moment to look into it, I guess.
You're taking that out of context. He was telling a parable to his disciples, basically saying if you don't use your talents and resources well, they will be revoked, and you'll be as good as dead.
Yeah I was wrong, I only saw a portion of the quote and assumed Jesus said it.
Hang on, that's not true. Jesus didn't say that. I mean, he did, but it wasn't Jesus saying it, he was telling a parable, and someone in the parable said it. The full thing goes:
“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”-said by Jesus
Whoops you're right. I guess that's what I get for not looking up the entire quote.
No. I stay up late always, and I'm actually watching a new TV show I'm binging. Anyhow, this is, at the very, very least, about as productive as playing video games or something, and I think it's more beneficial, as it helps me improve my arguing skills and general knowledge of the world and improves my own beliefs. But anyway, no, I don't think doing something you enjoy is regretful because I could've done other things.
I mean, a direct quote from that sermon is "Do not resist the one who is evil." It's not only saying don't respond to a slap, but it's saying offer them the chance to slap you again. Jesus didn't say, "Run away" or "Don't strike back", he pretty clearly said allow them to make your a doormat.
Jesus also whipped Jewish moneylenders he found in his temple, so a bit of a contradiction there.
"Do as I say, not as I do", I suppose.
I'm pretty sure someone slapping you in the face is still an insult in Western society.
Give me a Deagle and I'll sort it out!
In a hole full of homework and Reddit.
14-year-old by now.
I know it's placing a lot of faith in people especially on here, but I'm hoping you lot are just arguing with Steve for amusement purposes and not actually doing it on any meaningful level, let alone actually trying to change his mind. Since I would think by now most of you know that's a futile endeavor.
Actually what would have been a lot more interesting is if Steve had taken the stance of being anti-gun control and seen his arguments for that instead, like when he was defending Nazis, pedophiles and fucking dogs. (And probably some other topics he didn't necessarily agree with, but defended anyway)
Oh, that would have been fascinating, yeah.