Concerning America's mass shootings epidemic

[Cinth]

I agree, you can't compare the two.  I'm sorry if something I said offended you (I take issue with some things the German government has done in the wake of WWII, not her peoples.).  If not for your cultural heritage, I wouldn't have had this place to go to, Helen, GA.  It's a small town built like a Bavarian alpine town.  They even have an Oktoberfest.  It's always one of my favorite places to go, year round (I'd like to see the real deal someday).

These posts were more or less what I was responding to.  It's pure drivel form one person.  I hope this adds a bit more context to what I was saying.

Ah, even when I write in English it seems to come over as Angry German. I was not offended in any way, so don't worry about it!

I didn't take it as angry   I just wanted to be clear that it wasn't intentional.

Also, Oktoberfest. Oh god. Overpriced beer, air that's 50% smoke and one part sublimated vomit, bad music and a crowd so large you can't reach the toilet without soiling yourself. I'd wager the knockoffs are more tolerably fun than the real deal, to be honest
(I won't be going near the damn thing, even though I'm glad we have that tradition).

I don't care about Oktoberfest.  I want to go visit some of those small Bavarian villages.

I take issue with some things the German government has done in the wake of WWII

Not to go off topic, but what exactly are you referring to?

I'd rather not. 

[Wingflier]

It's interesting that you're creating a whole list of reasons why we should not give plebeians nuclear weapons, yet on Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism, that's exactly what would happen.

When the government becomes disbanded, all the nuclear stockpiles are up for grabs to whoever can get their hands on them. In other words, the most powerful and destructive weapons in the world in the hands of people that I wouldn't even trust with a plunger. Nevermind the complete lack of training and qualifications formerly mandated by the federal government and military structure that these people will have.

The United States alone has over 5,000 nuclear warheads distributed among dozens of different silos around the U.S. Let's put those in the "hands of the people" and just see what happens. I'm quite certain that it won't be self-defense. This is just one of countless reasons I can't take Libertarianism seriously.

It seems you've been exposed to a species of Libertarian thought that's frankly retarded. Besides, Anarcho-Capitalism? Yes of course anything thus named is nonsense, and so is disbanding the government overnight and leaving everything including nuclear subs and silos up for grabs. I really hope you aren't trying to set that kind of dumbest-case idiocy up as a strawman here.

Interesting, and who, may I ask, is going to be responsible for dismantling an entire country's worth of nuclear arms and nuclear submarines? Would the entity responsible for dismantling all these nuclear weapons not be a form of governing body in itself? A governing body with control over 5,000 nuclear weapons, do you really believe it would just use that power to dismantle them and then give society to "the people"? This is starting to sound a lot like Communism now.

I'm not building a straw-man, this philosophy is just prema facie absurd.

By the way, Anarcho-Capitalism is an extremely common form of Libertarianism, probably the most common modern form that people subscribe to.

[Shrugging Khan]

Interesting, and who, may I ask, is going to be responsible for dismantling an entire country's worth of nuclear arms and nuclear submarines? Would the entity responsible for dismantling all these nuclear weapons not be a form of governing body in itself? A governing body with control over 5,000 nuclear weapons, do you really believe it would just use that power to dismantle them and then give society to "the people"? This is starting to sound a lot like Communism now.

I'm not building a straw-man, this philosophy is just prema facie absurd.

By the way, Anarcho-Capitalism is an extremely common form of Libertarianism, probably the most common modern form that people subscribe to.

Well either it's shaping up to be a straw man or you're arguing with a subset of Libertarians who aren't even represented in this thread.

I don't care about Oktoberfest.  I want to go visit some of those small Bavarian villages.

That, on the other hand, I can recommend. Well, I can't speak for Bavaria directly, but the little countryside villages are one of the most beautiful type of things in this country

I'd rather not. 

Shame!

[Cinth]

I don't care about Oktoberfest.  I want to go visit some of those small Bavarian villages.

That, on the other hand, I can recommend. Well, I can't speak for Bavaria directly, but the little countryside villages are one of the most beautiful type of things in this country

Helen is situated in the Appalachians and is very beautiful in the spring and fall (when the tree leaves start turning colors).  It also has a river running right through it.  It's a wonderfully relaxing place to go during its off seasons.

I'd rather not. 

Shame!

Be nice   Sometimes one's personal views aren't meant for public consumption (be it one way or another).  It's a discussion that has no meaning here.

[Misery]

Text.

Misery, where in God's name do you live?

Living in the countryside, almost all people I know are polite, reliable and reasonably intelligent (and those who lack in one category usually make up for it in the others). This excludes teenagers and a certain type of underclass, and the latter exists almost exclusively in urban areas.

I have trouble imagining the hellhole you're forced to live in, and how it made you so jaded.

Illinois.  Not near Chicago (which is a hellhole) thankfully.  But yeah, middle of bloody nowhere (most of the state counts as this; go south of Chicago at all, or to the west, and it's all grass and farms, all the way past that, with forests randomly dotted around).  But polite and intelligent people?  No.  Alot of unpleasant and or loony ones (and a bizarrely inordinate number of the sorts that try to intimidate and get their way through trying to appear physically imposing; talk about tedious to deal with...), really... anyone that's worked anywhere around here could definitely tell ya that.  We also dont have freaking BOOKSTORES here, while I'm complaining.  There just arent any, unless you count a rather crappy Walmart to be a bookstore (no, seriously, that's the source of books; I"d have to drive quite a long distance to go to a real one... I tend to just reread ones that I already have over and over again).  Sure are alot of places that sell alcohol though (which doesnt help with the local drivers).

Really though, you dont have to live in some horrible backwater place, or in an absolute hellhole of a city, to be in an area that for whatever reason has alot of jerks in it.  Some places are just like that.  I dont know why THIS area tends to be so damn unfriendly.  Just is.   Now, if I want a place that's a bit more friendly, I can go to house #2, which is on a lake in Wisconsin.  That's a better type of "middle of nowhere".  Same amount of "not a damn thing" around, but way less jerks.  This is likely because it's not Illinois (in case you cant tell, I really hate Illinois).  Other difference is that the ratio of grass VS trees is reversed there.  Aint much to do up there, but I guess that's the same here.  Can go fishing up there, I guess. 

The general intelligence level is about the same though.  They're just not asshats as often in Wisconsin.  Or at least, not that specific area.

And you've likely never had to worry about where your next meal comes form.  Go down to the local market and get some "fresh" meats.

Ick, no.   I eat fish every now and then, but that's about it.  Not because of vegetarianism or some idea like that, I just think most meat smells like distillled awfulness, and tastes worse.    But fish on the other hand...   My own exact living situation has nothing to do with this though.  I"m not talking about "myself + guns".  I'm talking about "general populace + guns"

It's one thing though, to own a hunting rifle specifically to, in fact, hunt when you need food (though, as I understand it, it's usually done as sport, not out of true need).   That's not the issue though.  The issue is random idiots arming themselves when they A: dont genuinely need it for that purpose (since the things have no other purpose), and B: are dumber than stumps, and C: again, are untrained.   Normal guns... as in, ones that arent hunting rifles... do not qualify as "tools".  They just dont have a use.  And that's by far the majority of guns out there.  And most areas arent hyper-dangerous wilderness with a high number of bears per square foot.  The point being:  Most people dont genuinely NEED guns.  They just buy them ANYWAY.  Often, when they're exactly the sorts that shouldnt be allowed within 2000 feet of one.  And it's that last bit that's my entire point.

Incidentally though we do have quite a few hunters around here, come to think about it.  Cant imagine why though, but in this place it probably is for sport, come to think of it.

That's not a gun issue, it's a societal one.  It's no different than getting drunk and getting into a 3000 lb guided weapon (btw it's illegal to drive drunk, yet it still happens).  Everyone seems fine with trying to put a bandaid on a symptom and totally forget about root causes.

That.... doesnt break down my point.  You need to get people to take responsibility FIRST, and THEN you can give them their stupid weapons.  But right now?  That responsibility isnt there.  Giving them guns is, currently, a fantastically terrible idea.  No matter how you spin it or how you apply any logic to it, giving guns to the irresponsible is a really bad move.  And that's the whole problem.

I dont care too much about someone having a damn gun.  I care about an IDIOT having a damn gun, or someone that buys it for bravado; and most people hit these categories.  Particularly in high-population areas (AKA, places most likely to have lots of guns). 


There was something else to say but I'm about out of time for right now, and there's annoying driving to be done; at least this debate is something to DO though.  Bloody boring day otherwise, ugh.

[Cinth]

  My own exact living situation has nothing to do with this though.

  Fair enough, though it still applies to the general public.  Most people "hunt" at the grocery store.

That.... doesnt break down my point.  You need to get people to take responsibility FIRST, and THEN you can give them their stupid weapons.  But right now?  That responsibility isnt there.  Giving them guns is, currently, a fantastically terrible idea.  No matter how you spin it or how you apply any logic to it, giving guns to the irresponsible is a really bad move.  And that's the whole problem.

I dont care too much about someone having a damn gun.  I care about an IDIOT having a damn gun, or someone that buys it for bravado; and most people hit these categories.  Particularly in high-population areas (AKA, places most likely to have lots of guns). 

I was generally saying it isn't relevant.  If it wasn't guns, it would be something else.  You can't rid the world of deadly weapons since everything in the world can be used as a deadly weapon.  People did well killing with blades, bows and bludgeons long before there were guns.


The thing is, the government and various other state organizations are doing a damn good job at making sure you don't have to take responsibility.  Look at how parenting has changed in the last 30 years or so.  It's become a bloody mess.  It's damn near impossible to discipline unruly children without having child services down your throat.  Let's not even get started with frivolous lawsuits (that started when that lady spilled hot coffee on herself in a McDonald's drive thru, that case should have been thrown out at the very start).


The other general issue is who gets to decide who the idiots are.  Politicians? Oh hell no.  Psychologists?  They already like slapping people with labels.  I don't even have my therapists agreeing on what I have or do not have.  How are they even reliable in this regard?  You and I?  Very subjective selection criteria and no one ends up getting approved.  Don't think the nation would approve of that

Even then, the system only works so long as the participants actually use it.  There are always ways of circumventing the law.  So in the end you still have people shooting other people.

[Mánagarmr]

Me I'm just an elitist asshole (no really, it's in my psychological evaluation. Hyper intelligent (146 IQ) and having trouble understanding that people can be less intelligent and therefore serious issues with understanding human behavior). So from my point of view most of the world really IS dumb. But even as such I still see humanity overall as a freaking stupid and self destructive species. There are smart individuals but people as a group are dumb, panicky and antagonistic animals.

And the point I wanted to make with that is that I don't trust people with guns. They want self defense? Gives them something non lethal such as OC or tazers. Much less likely to accidentally murder the fire man who is coming to help you.

[Misery]

  My own exact living situation has nothing to do with this though.

  Fair enough, though it still applies to the general public.  Most people "hunt" at the grocery store.

That.... doesnt break down my point.  You need to get people to take responsibility FIRST, and THEN you can give them their stupid weapons.  But right now?  That responsibility isnt there.  Giving them guns is, currently, a fantastically terrible idea.  No matter how you spin it or how you apply any logic to it, giving guns to the irresponsible is a really bad move.  And that's the whole problem.

I dont care too much about someone having a damn gun.  I care about an IDIOT having a damn gun, or someone that buys it for bravado; and most people hit these categories.  Particularly in high-population areas (AKA, places most likely to have lots of guns). 

I was generally saying it isn't relevant.  If it wasn't guns, it would be something else.  You can't rid the world of deadly weapons since everything in the world can be used as a deadly weapon.  People did well killing with blades, bows and bludgeons long before there were guns.


The thing is, the government and various other state organizations are doing a damn good job at making sure you don't have to take responsibility.  Look at how parenting has changed in the last 30 years or so.  It's become a bloody mess.  It's damn near impossible to discipline unruly children without having child services down your throat.  Let's not even get started with frivolous lawsuits (that started when that lady spilled hot coffee on herself in a McDonald's drive thru, that case should have been thrown out at the very start).


The other general issue is who gets to decide who the idiots are.  Politicians? Oh hell no.  Psychologists?  They already like slapping people with labels.  I don't even have my therapists agreeing on what I have or do not have.  How are they even reliable in this regard?  You and I?  Very subjective selection criteria and no one ends up getting approved.  Don't think the nation would approve of that

Even then, the system only works so long as the participants actually use it.  There are always ways of circumventing the law.  So in the end you still have people shooting other people.

That's still missing the point.

You dont have as many people shooting other people, if there's less guns to shoot them WITH.  That's not just basic logic, that's simplistic logic.  And it's literally the entire point.  Harder access to guns = less of the damn things out there = people that'd use them for violence having a much harder time getting them.  It also = complete idiots having a harder time getting them.

One way or another, my belief remains that while the guns arent the CORE of the problem... they're a layer that should not exist (and again, useless things anyway) whatsoever until the core (irresponsible morons) is dealt with.  I mean, how things are now, you may as well be giving chainsaws to abnormally stupid toddlers.   And yes, I know it's hard to get a consensus on who is/isnt an idiot... but hard or not, somebody bloody better well start doing it.  Or the violence and school shootings?  Just gonna keep going, till someone makes some changes. 

It's the same as not letting a total drunk drive a car.  You dont let someone like that be in control of such a dangerous vehicle... why in the numerous hells would you allow someone that doesnt *really* know how to handle it, to be in control of a dangerous WEAPON?  That's just as bloody stupid.

One way or another, most people just cant be trusted with the things.  They cant be trusted to fire or store them safely, or keep them from their kids, or keep them from getting stolen, and they sure as bloody hell cant be trusted with them in a dangerous situation.  And the other one... they cant be trusted to not just take the damn things and go bonkers either.  THAT one seems to get proven every other day or so.  It's pathetic, really...

And yet again I'll reference the bit about proper training.  That's the OTHER thing nobody has.  You wanna handle something that dangerous... you get some damn training.  REAL, full training.  THAT is thing #1 that they should be checking for, but they dont.  Which is... so illogical that I think it actually hits a point of anti-logic.

Even if it wasnt guns and was something else, too.... at least that something else might be less "possible to use to kill everyone in the room from a distance".  People being armed with knives all the time would still be bad.... but you cant keep firing a knife from a distance, at the very least (yes, you can throw it.  once....).  Would still be dangerous, but much easier to STOP than some wacko with a gun.

Me I'm just an elitist asshole (no really, it's in my psychological evaluation. Hyper intelligent (146 IQ) and having trouble understanding that people can be less intelligent and therefore serious issues with understanding human behavior). So from my point of view most of the world really IS dumb. But even as such I still see humanity overall as a freaking stupid and self destructive species. There are smart individuals but people as a group are dumb, panicky and antagonistic animals.

And the point I wanted to make with that is that I don't trust people with guns. They want self defense? Gives them something non lethal such as OC or tazers. Much less likely to accidentally murder the fire man who is coming to help you.

EXACTLY.  I'll be honest and admit that I have the exact same issues, and that leads to the same result:  I just cant understand those that lack intelligence.  I watch so many people do so many dumb things, and it just.... uuuuugh.  Does not compute, not one bit.  There's just too much stupid in the world.  WAY too much.  And it's just so easy to notice.  And "dumb/panicky/antagonistic" really does describe people as a whole better than my descriptions, really.  It's one of the biggest reasons why I'm so anti-social IRL, because I just cant deal with that.  It's bad enough to watch derp happen from a distance.  I cant deal with it up close.  It just angers me too much.  So I keep to myself.

And when it comes to guns specifically, I wouldnt trust basically ANYONE with a gun, really.  If it's someone in law enforcement or military, maybe.  They, at least, are subjected to proper, full training and instruction.  But *anyone* else?  Without exception.... no.  Not a chance.  Not even a close family member.  Frankly, if someone in the immediate family tried to get one, I'd find and simply destroy the thing.  Fortunately for me nobody in the family would do that.  The only exception is my aunt & uncle, but as they're both in the FBI and well-trained, that's rather to be expected.

[Cyborg]

I was generally saying it isn't relevant.  If it wasn't guns, it would be something else.  You can't rid the world of deadly weapons since everything in the world can be used as a deadly weapon.  People did well killing with blades, bows and bludgeons long before there were guns.

The Colorado theater killings happened as a result of automatic weapons and would not have happened with blades. It's hard to have a conversation with folks that have little to no grasp of what they're talking about.

God damn it....  I was going to withdraw from this discussion, and now I'm writing essays.  Either way, I don't hold anything against anyone here other than Cyborg whom needs to apologize for insulting an entire region of peoples, of which I am a part of (and am proud of my heritage).

I want to hear about what "region of people"'s heritage you are proud of. What exactly should I be apologizing for?

I am reading the most small minded arguments here. Laws are useless and only limit law-abiding people, and guns are no worse than handheld blades? Really?  And we can't look at statistics or academic arguments because why? Why is someone's personal, questionable thought process worth more than measured facts and statistics? People that ridicule intellectual thought, objective evidence, and primary sources … that's why making progress is so hard. We have to drag these people along moaning and whining into the modern world. I think conservativism has such trouble because culturally they can't reconcile their small worldview with reality. Culturally, they are rejected, and still litigating ideas from hundreds of years ago. We see it on the topic with guns, climate change (another Republican failure), gay rights, etc.

And some of it just seems spiteful. I firmly believe there is a whole segment of people that are pro-gun lunacy just because they think it bothers "liberals." They just want to antagonize, even on such a serious issue. The gun lobby stokes these feelings of hatred against the modern world, of hatred against intellectualism and science. They make a lot of money doing it. People are dying out there in completely preventable scenarios. There's no reason why we should protect the mentally ill's gun rights. The thing is, these intellectual lightweights aren't sticking it to liberals, they're hurting everyone who dies in these senseless attacks.

Finally, being anti-politics is a fashion statement but ill advised. Unfortunately, there is a large group of people out there that are really stupid. They have dangerous ideas, and they easily whip up the small minded to turn out in droves to vote for them. For some reason, people are more motivated by hate, and it brings out the vote. To protect your country, your democracy, and the people you care about, you have to make good choices, and you have to participate in politics. Government is a living thing that's made up of the people that participate. That's why I do it, even if the politicians are disappointing sometimes. Donald Trump's band of idiots are going to vote, surely you can also.

[Misery]

Finally, being anti-politics is a fashion statement but ill advised. Unfortunately, there is a large group of people out there that are really stupid. They have dangerous ideas, and they easily whip up the small minded to turn out in droves to vote for them. For some reason, people are more motivated by hate, and it brings out the vote. To protect your country, your democracy, and the people you care about, you have to make good choices, and you have to participate in politics. Government is a living thing that's made up of the people that participate. That's why I do it, even if the politicians are disappointing sometimes. Donald Trump's band of idiots are going to vote, surely you can also.

It's not a "fashion statement" (I'm not even entirely sure what that means).  Some of us... such as myself... just genuinely either dont like it, or dont care; both in my case.  All I ever see with politics is a bunch of people ARGUING, but not anyone actually getting anything DONE.  They talk, they argue... they dont accomplish anything. 

My parents get overmuch into political crap, and I eventually (okay, very quickly) tired of all of it.  It's just... so damn dumb.  I'll vote only if pestered by one of them enough, usually for whatever damn candidate they are for, because it'll keep them quiet.  Quieter, anyway.  And I know squat about the choices anyway.  Dont care.  It's just going to end in more damn politicians causing more damn arguements and trouble, same as before, same as it ever will be.  New elected officials, same derp.

So for the most part... screw it.  I just dont bother with any of it.  Absolute disinterest.

Something like the GUN issue though, isnt politics to me, it's just an issue of actual violence.  Otherwise, frankly, I wouldnt notice.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

  My own exact living situation has nothing to do with this though.

  Fair enough, though it still applies to the general public.  Most people "hunt" at the grocery store.

That.... doesnt break down my point.  You need to get people to take responsibility FIRST, and THEN you can give them their stupid weapons.  But right now?  That responsibility isnt there.  Giving them guns is, currently, a fantastically terrible idea.  No matter how you spin it or how you apply any logic to it, giving guns to the irresponsible is a really bad move.  And that's the whole problem.

I dont care too much about someone having a damn gun.  I care about an IDIOT having a damn gun, or someone that buys it for bravado; and most people hit these categories.  Particularly in high-population areas (AKA, places most likely to have lots of guns). 

I was generally saying it isn't relevant.  If it wasn't guns, it would be something else.  You can't rid the world of deadly weapons since everything in the world can be used as a deadly weapon.  People did well killing with blades, bows and bludgeons long before there were guns.


The thing is, the government and various other state organizations are doing a damn good job at making sure you don't have to take responsibility.  Look at how parenting has changed in the last 30 years or so.  It's become a bloody mess.  It's damn near impossible to discipline unruly children without having child services down your throat.  Let's not even get started with frivolous lawsuits (that started when that lady spilled hot coffee on herself in a McDonald's drive thru, that case should have been thrown out at the very start).


The other general issue is who gets to decide who the idiots are.  Politicians? Oh hell no.  Psychologists?  They already like slapping people with labels.  I don't even have my therapists agreeing on what I have or do not have.  How are they even reliable in this regard?  You and I?  Very subjective selection criteria and no one ends up getting approved.  Don't think the nation would approve of that

Even then, the system only works so long as the participants actually use it.  There are always ways of circumventing the law.  So in the end you still have people shooting other people.

I'm going to address one issue out of this: the Lady who sued McDonald's over this suffered 3rd degree burns from the coffee. She had to have skin grafts after that. That suit wasn't frivolous. McDonald's facked up. Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants WARNING: disgusting imagery.

[Cinth]

That's still missing the point.

You dont have as many people shooting other people, if there's less guns to shoot them WITH.  That's not just basic logic, that's simplistic logic.  And it's literally the entire point.  Harder access to guns = less of the damn things out there = people that'd use them for violence having a much harder time getting them.  It also = complete idiots having a harder time getting them.

One way or another, my belief remains that while the guns arent the CORE of the problem... they're a layer that should not exist (and again, useless things anyway) whatsoever until the core (irresponsible morons) is dealt with.  I mean, how things are now, you may as well be giving chainsaws to abnormally stupid toddlers.   And yes, I know it's hard to get a consensus on who is/isnt an idiot... but hard or not, somebody bloody better well start doing it.  Or the violence and school shootings?  Just gonna keep going, till someone makes some changes. 

It's the same as not letting a total drunk drive a car.  You dont let someone like that be in control of such a dangerous vehicle... why in the numerous hells would you allow someone that doesnt *really* know how to handle it, to be in control of a dangerous WEAPON?  That's just as bloody stupid.

One way or another, most people just cant be trusted with the things.  They cant be trusted to fire or store them safely, or keep them from their kids, or keep them from getting stolen, and they sure as bloody hell cant be trusted with them in a dangerous situation.  And the other one... they cant be trusted to not just take the damn things and go bonkers either.  THAT one seems to get proven every other day or so.  It's pathetic, really...

And yet again I'll reference the bit about proper training.  That's the OTHER thing nobody has.  You wanna handle something that dangerous... you get some damn training.  REAL, full training.  THAT is thing #1 that they should be checking for, but they dont.  Which is... so illogical that I think it actually hits a point of anti-logic.

Even if it wasnt guns and was something else, too.... at least that something else might be less "possible to use to kill everyone in the room from a distance".  People being armed with knives all the time would still be bad.... but you cant keep firing a knife from a distance, at the very least (yes, you can throw it.  once....).  Would still be dangerous, but much easier to STOP than some wacko with a gun.

We don't disagree about it in general, we just disagree about methodologies in working on fixing the problem.

I was generally saying it isn't relevant.  If it wasn't guns, it would be something else.  You can't rid the world of deadly weapons since everything in the world can be used as a deadly weapon.  People did well killing with blades, bows and bludgeons long before there were guns.

The Colorado theater killings happened as a result of automatic weapons and would not have happened with blades. It's hard to have a conversation with folks that have little to no grasp of what they're talking about.

Incidents like these would have happened with or without automatic weapons.  The VT shooting was committed with a pair of semi-auto pistols.  San Bernardino - semi-autos.  Umpqua Community College - pistols.  Charleston - pistol. Columbine - semi autos, shotguns
, and explosives.  D.C shootings - Shotgun and a pistol taken from a slain security guard.  Sandy Hook - semi auto.


Then again, it doesn't take a gun to kill a bunch of people.  Lander, Wyoming:  An idiot used his SUV as a weapon, ramming a minivan @ nearly 100 mph Killing 4 in the van and the driver of the SUV.  Boston Marathon bombing killed 3.  Reno, Nevada:  Dipshit sets fire to a mattress and kills 12, injures 30 (said dipshit had already been involved in killing another person and served 17yrs).  San Francisco, CA:  Bihn killed 5 with a freaking hammer.  Beason, Il: 5 killed with a tire iron.  Illinois again: Nicholas Sheley kills 8 with a hammer.  South Bend, Indiana: Sharp & Reeder killed 4 homeless people (beaten to death).

I think I made my point?  Take guns away and they will find something else to use. 

God damn it....  I was going to withdraw from this discussion, and now I'm writing essays.  Either way, I don't hold anything against anyone here other than Cyborg whom needs to apologize for insulting an entire region of peoples, of which I am a part of (and am proud of my heritage).

I want to hear about what "region of people"'s heritage you are proud of. What exactly should I be apologizing for?
[/quote] I guess your memory is just that short.

I am reading the most small minded arguments here.

Are you trying to insult me some more?

Laws are useless and only limit law-abiding people, and guns are no worse than handheld blades? Really? 

Twist the words of someone else.  Or maybe apply some critical thinking.
What happens when you make guns hard to acquire: www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

Also, I can think of at least 5 different bombs I could make in my kitchen and bathroom right now that would be far more deadly in the right circumstances.  Chemical weapons are down right scary.

And we can't look at statistics or academic arguments because why? Why is someone's personal, questionable thought process worth more than measured facts and statistics? People that ridicule intellectual thought, objective evidence, and primary sources …

And each of these agencies that produce "numbers" don't have their own agendas?  Most of these statistical analyses are very subjective in nature.  Lies and damned lies and all that.

I want someone's unabridged opinion (because in the end, nothing here will change the world).  I don't want to hear what some numbers told you.  Think about it for yourself and speak how you feel.  Misery has been the best example of this in our discussion.  He says what he thinks.  I respect that.

Finally, being anti-politics is a fashion statement but ill advised. Unfortunately, there is a large group of people out there that are really stupid. They have dangerous ideas, and they easily whip up the small minded to turn out in droves to vote for them. For some reason, people are more motivated by hate, and it brings out the vote. To protect your country, your democracy, and the people you care about, you have to make good choices, and you have to participate in politics. Government is a living thing that's made up of the people that participate. That's why I do it, even if the politicians are disappointing sometimes. Donald Trump's band of idiots are going to vote, surely you can also.

It has never been a "fashion statement" for me.  I refuse to support anyone whom I can't get behind and there has yet to be a politician that fits that bill.  I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.  They are all wolves in sheep's clothes.

I'm going to address one issue out of this: the Lady who sued McDonald's over this suffered 3rd degree burns from the coffee. She had to have skin grafts after that. That suit wasn't frivolous. McDonald's facked up. Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants WARNING: disgusting imagery.

You buy a hot beverage from a place and then get surprised when, you guessed it, it's hot.  Also, she spilled it on herself (accident or no) and knew it was hot.  Give her a Darwin award or whatever.  It shouldn't have been in court.

[Misery]

It has never been a "fashion statement" for me.  I refuse to support anyone whom I can't get behind and there has yet to be a politician that fits that bill.  I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.  They are all wolves in sheep's clothes.

Yet sadly everyone tends to think it's oh so important to pick the "right" one.  Ugh.

I tell ya one thing, I'll be glad when all this election crap is over with.  So tired of hearing about politics in general on every damn news site or whatever.

[Cinth]

It has never been a "fashion statement" for me.  I refuse to support anyone whom I can't get behind and there has yet to be a politician that fits that bill.  I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.  They are all wolves in sheep's clothes.

Yet sadly everyone tends to think it's oh so important to pick the "right" one.  Ugh.

I tell ya one thing, I'll be glad when all this election crap is over with.  So tired of hearing about politics in general on every damn news site or whatever.

Agreed.  It's always a headache.

[Shrugging Khan]

Politics

I find it pretty hard to get into politics because there just isn't any existing platform for my priorities, and I don't have the time and resources to make one of my own. I'm not going to say it's impossible to achieve something useful through official channels and the existing democratic processes, but it's so difficult and so geared towards nothing but the lowest common denominators that I can't really justify wasting my life on it with minimal chances of success (and most of the country against me).

Obviously career politicians are scum, though. Corrupt, self-serving scum who would just as soon turn the entire population into biofuel as do something useful for them.

This discussion in general

Both Misery and Managarmr described their position as based on elitism and statistics, with Misery supplying further details as to how that came about. Cinth and I are both taking the, flippantly speaking,  "Muh freedums, muh principuls" route. Cyborg sees it mostly as a matter of party politics.

I'd say we're doing fairly good right now. Pages of this stuff, and practically no insults of any sort.