Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920
Results 381 to 399 of 399
  1. #381
    See you in the desert... Makenzye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1970
    Posts
    20,248
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They are not criminals. They just have to accomondate to a new set of ruling. And if they cant its their own fault.

    - - - Updated - - -



    My friend lately I only see you talking about me but rarely with me
    I think I've been doing that more and more around the forum. Just sort of posting about things and not conversing like I used to.

    Now that you've pointed it out though? I can't say I like that.

  2. #382
    Spud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    i know, but why is no one acknowledging the fact it's supremely easier than you think to purchase a very legal SR and convert it into an illegal AR?

    It was confirmed the las vegas shooter legally attained all of his guns. Had stricter gun laws been in place, they're be more people alive today.

    The whole incident added fuel to this gun debate btw too
    Because most people do not go that far. That guy was a maniac and there is nothing people can do about it. Just look at 9/11... It sucks to say this but shit happens.

  3. #383
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I am not "breaking conditions".

    I established a baseline, like I said numerous times now already.

    The baseline of 0 gun = 0 gun deaths.

    And from that baseline I move forward step by step to find the appropriate level of gun distribution and gun ownership and under what criterias they were appropriate.

    The baseline is necessary since in such a controversial topic such as gun law there is no rational debate possible if not at least the initial premise both sides agree on.
    Right, but once you introduce guns in any form into this society with no guns, you increase the risk of crime via gun not linearly, but exponentially. As soon as you give them to law enforcement the thought experiment essentially collapses as there is no way to manage how gun crime would be impacted (because it becomes an exponential equation). I get the point you're making. You take us to zero, and then slowly build up the level of guns in society until we reach an ideal point where gun crime is low but the feasibility of such a society is not as detatched as your initial baseline is. What I'm saying is you can't incrementally build up like this as, again, once guns are introduced in any form you lose the ability to compute how rabid or not gun crime would be. Do you see what I'm getting at here?

  4. #384
    Say my name Ultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    84,441
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Because you explicitly mentioned it.
    Ah. Well, I said that because I was presuming what your proposals were from our previous discussions, you didn't say what regulations would be put in place but it would be something along the lines of banning certain weapon types.

    I didn't mean "come up with some purely hypothetical scenario to try and disprove my point"

  5. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Right, but once you introduce guns in any form into this society with no guns, you increase the risk of crime via gun not linearly, but exponentially. As soon as you give them to law enforcement the thought experiment essentially collapses as there is no way to manage how gun crime would be impacted (because it becomes an exponential equation). I get the point you're making. You take us to zero, and then slowly build up the level of guns in society until we reach an ideal point where gun crime is low but the feasibility of such a society is not as detatched as your initial baseline is. What I'm saying is you can't incrementally build up like this as, again, once guns are introduced in any form you lose the ability to compute how rabid or not gun crime would be. Do you see what I'm getting at here?
    The number of guns getting added in circulation is one thing, albeit it is not the most important thing.

    Building upon the fact that law enforcement would get access to guns the next step would be to judge their

    a) training
    b) responsibility
    c) state of mind / health

    It can not be denied that a police officer is trained to handle his gun and constantly has to update his training

    It can also not be denied that a police officer is required by law to handle his gun responsible (locking it away etc.)

    It can also not be denied that to become a police officer and to stay one there are several medical and psychological checks in place to confirm that both a) and b) are still valid points and can be confirmed for that particular officer.

    -

    While gun related crimes from this point onward can not be completely ruled out, simply due to them being in circulation, the likelihood of it happening can be judged as rather small to abysmal small (e.g. i dont know about many cases from stolen police guns being used for crime)

    -

    So in a country like the USA, with 120.000 full fledged officers and about 1 million officers if we account everyone with a badge we would now look at 1 million guns in professional, trained, responsible and healthy hands.

    Do you agree on this and should we move forward a step?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ah. Well, I said that because I was presuming what your proposals were from our previous discussions, you didn't say what regulations would be put in place but it would be something along the lines of banning certain weapon types.

    I didn't mean "come up with some purely hypothetical scenario to try and disprove my point"
    Like I said, the scenario is baseline due to it being easy to agree upon. We build slowly from that point. I am doing something like this with Ratchet right now, just hop in.

  6. #386
    Lemme switch to my laptop, typing on phone is a pain

  7. #387
    Say my name Ultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    84,441
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Like I said, the scenario is baseline due to it being easy to agree upon. We build slowly from that point. I am doing something like this with Ratchet right now, just hop in.
    No! My concern is reality. If all you're going to do is fantasize and making proposals that rely on assumptions without evidence it's just a waste of time.

    You're utterly unconcerned with implementation or factors that complicate your point. You can't just handwaive "Let's confiscate the weapons of every citizen" as some afterthought, that would be a massive undertaking and a complete shitstorm.

    What you're doing is like saying "Guys, I know how we can solve the Global Warming crisis. Okay? First, stop using coal. Nuke all the countries that continue to do so"

  8. #388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No! My concern is reality. If all you're going to do is fantasize and making proposals that rely on assumptions without evidence it's just a waste of time.

    You're utterly unconcerned with implementation or factors that complicate your point. You can't just handwaive "Let's confiscate the weapons of every citizen" as some afterthought, that would be a massive undertaking and a complete shitstorm.

    What you're doing is like saying "Guys, I know how we can solve the Global Warming crisis. Okay? First, stop using coal. Nuke all the countries that continue to do so"
    Wow.

  9. #389
    Say my name Ultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    84,441
    Like are you even interested in solving this issue or are you just in this to mentally masturbate about what your own neoliberal paradise would look like?

    Because you completely ignored my attempts at discussing real, controllable factors that contribute to gun violence and are still stuck on "WuT iF tHeRe WeRe NO GuNZ GuISe? "

    You sure you haven't been hitting the reefer, R?

  10. #390
    Doesn't Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the States?

    Legitimately asking.

  11. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Like are you even interested in solving this issue or are you just in this to mentally masturbate about what your own neoliberal paradise would look like?

    You completely ignored my attempts at discussing real, controllable factors that contribute to gun violence and are still stuck on "WuT iF tHeRe WeRe NO GuNZ GuISe? "

    You sure you haven't been hitting the reefer, R?
    Just amazed that you either intentionally or unintentionally completely misconstruct what I was aiming for, together with you, while at the same time I am actively doing the thing I originally planned with you with someone else.

    Either you did not read my posts or you decided to misunderstand them (or did so honestly).

  12. #392
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Like are you even interested in solving this issue or are you just in this to mentally masturbate about what your own neoliberal paradise would look like?

    Because you completely ignored my attempts at discussing real, controllable factors that contribute to gun violence and are still stuck on "WuT iF tHeRe WeRe NO GuNZ GuISe? "

    You sure you haven't been hitting the reefer, R?
    Did you just accuse him of being a (((degenerate criminal)))?
    Quote Originally Posted by X View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Honey, you know I love your vagina.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiRo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I must say i am baffled by the fact that someone would date Tifa, or that someone like Tifa is able to put a dude in a friendzone. Like are you really so depleted on the good looking girls? In my country no one would ever even look at her twice. We have 2/1 (Girl/Boy) ratio, and most of the girls are decent looking or hot. We have obese girls but they mostly die alone because even the ugly looking dudes can find a good looking girl if they are just not poor as fuck..
    Quote Originally Posted by X View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    2:1 ratio and you still can't get any ass? Damn.

    Quote Originally Posted by rubber View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Dammit I deleted that so I could be saved from your rebuttal.

    I regret ever giving you the opportunity to be more right about anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    i used to drink mayonnaise as a kid
    Quote Originally Posted by Masakazu Chiba View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What truth? The fact that you're an annoying dimwit? Most of your posts are cringe. Nothing worse than a cocky asshole who gets proven wrong and lies to save face. The fact that you have a gold bar pretty much exemplifies that rep is worthless. You are the face of awful modern day TMF posters. SpiRo back into whatever cave you crawled out of, please.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ava View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just because someone likes dick in their ass doesn't mean they're not your brother.

  13. #393
    Quote Originally Posted by Makenzye View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think I've been doing that more and more around the forum. Just sort of posting about things and not conversing like I used to.

    Now that you've pointed it out though? I can't say I like that.
    Well every cat has its day. No big deal, just wanted to mention it.

  14. #394
    Dai Don Dedede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    6,169
    So are there only americans defending it here?

  15. #395
    Say my name Ultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    84,441
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just amazed that you either intentionally or unintentionally completely misconstruct what I was aiming for, together with you, while at the same time I am actively doing the thing I originally planned with you with someone else.

    Either you did not read my posts or you decided to misunderstand them (or did so honestly).
    Could you just get to your point already

  16. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Could you just get to your point already
    The point was us working together attempting to solve the issue as good as we can by starting on a common ground and then gradually moving forward. Which I am advocating for for 2 pages now already. Just re-read my proposal and/or what I am currently discussing with Ratchet.

  17. #397
    Alright, sorry for the delay R.
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The number of guns getting added in circulation is one thing, albeit it is not the most important thing.

    Building upon the fact that law enforcement would get access to guns the next step would be to judge their

    a) training
    b) responsibility
    c) state of mind / health

    It can not be denied that a police officer is trained to handle his gun and constantly has to update his training

    It can also not be denied that a police officer is required by law to handle his gun responsible (locking it away etc.)

    It can also not be denied that to become a police officer and to stay one there are several medical and psychological checks in place to confirm that both a) and b) are still valid points and can be confirmed for that particular officer.

    -

    While gun related crimes from this point onward can not be completely ruled out, simply due to them being in circulation, the likelihood of it happening can be judged as rather small to abysmal small (e.g. i dont know about many cases from stolen police guns being used for crime)
    Ah, let me stop you here. The issue here is that it depends on your society. Now for all we know, this society could have extremely high murder rates, or average murder rates, or below average murder rates. When you introduce guns to that, you cannot linearly calculate the outcome it would have on said society. For example, let's rule out the possibility that a cop would go rouge with his gun due to those sanity checks, even though I don't believe we can rule it out entirely. There is still the potential for guns to be stolen from cops. Now, you say the numbers for stolen cop weapons being used for crime are low, and I would agree. But the reasons for that are important here. See, those numbers come from our society, wherein guns are accessible. In other words, guns aren't stolen from cops because there isn't really much of a need to do so. Not to mention, we as humans tend to hold less-accessible things in higher esteem compared to more easily-accessible items. Now if you have a society where guns are until law enforcement gets them pretty much mythical, if that society is even a little above average in terms of violence I would argue you could expect to see criminals making a concerted effort to get these guns, whether that be from stealing from the police or even corruption within the law enforcement agencies and what have you supplying criminals with these weapons (maybe to reduce the chance of having their own members killed by gangs or something). Of course, this is all conjecture, but the flaw here is you're assuming this society without guns would react to guns the same way a society with a prevalence of them (and, dare I say, almost a glorification of them when it comes to media and entertainment), and I don't think this can be assumed.

    This is why I say it's exponential. Because there are a lot of variables introduced and because the baseline requires a society that is fundamentally different to our own, it is nigh on impossible to use our own metrics and argue they would be applied exactly the same way there. My question to you is, if you have a somewhat violent society, and you introduce to said society a weapon that is far more destructive than the usual knives etc, do you not think that you would see a sharp rise in gun-related deaths at least at the initial point of introduction? Because I certainly think you would, and from there it could trend in any direction to be frank.

    For that reason, I can't give you the assumption that gun-related deaths through criminal activity would be small to abysmally small as I don't feel like there is sufficient evidence to assert that. Of course, if we follow the thought experiment to assume that it would, similar to how we initially reached the assumption of the baseline to begin with, then you could follow that trains of thought, but you are running the risk of your experiment becoming a series of increasingly unrealistic or unsubstantiated assumptions, which in my view defeats the point of the excercise.

    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    -

    So in a country like the USA, with 120.000 full fledged officers and about 1 million officers if we account everyone with a badge we would now look at 1 million guns in professional, trained, responsible and healthy hands.

    Do you agree on this and should we move forward a step?
    While I am not in agreement with it, by all means, as I said above we can assume the above to be true, but I do feel like it's a major stretch. That said, I do want to see you conclude the limits of this so by all means, take us to the next step.

  18. #398
    Quote Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Alright, sorry for the delay R.
    Ah, let me stop you here. The issue here is that it depends on your society. Now for all we know, this society could have extremely high murder rates, or average murder rates, or below average murder rates. When you introduce guns to that, you cannot linearly calculate the outcome it would have on said society. For example, let's rule out the possibility that a cop would go rouge with his gun due to those sanity checks, even though I don't believe we can rule it out entirely. There is still the potential for guns to be stolen from cops. Now, you say the numbers for stolen cop weapons being used for crime are low, and I would agree. But the reasons for that are important here. See, those numbers come from our society, wherein guns are accessible. In other words, guns aren't stolen from cops because there isn't really much of a need to do so. Not to mention, we as humans tend to hold less-accessible things in higher esteem compared to more easily-accessible items. Now if you have a society where guns are until law enforcement gets them pretty much mythical, if that society is even a little above average in terms of violence I would argue you could expect to see criminals making a concerted effort to get these guns, whether that be from stealing from the police or even corruption within the law enforcement agencies and what have you supplying criminals with these weapons (maybe to reduce the chance of having their own members killed by gangs or something). Of course, this is all conjecture, but the flaw here is you're assuming this society without guns would react to guns the same way a society with a prevalence of them (and, dare I say, almost a glorification of them when it comes to media and entertainment), and I don't think this can be assumed.

    This is why I say it's exponential. Because there are a lot of variables introduced and because the baseline requires a society that is fundamentally different to our own, it is nigh on impossible to use our own metrics and argue they would be applied exactly the same way there. My question to you is, if you have a somewhat violent society, and you introduce to said society a weapon that is far more destructive than the usual knives etc, do you not think that you would see a sharp rise in gun-related deaths at least at the initial point of introduction? Because I certainly think you would, and from there it could trend in any direction to be frank.

    For that reason, I can't give you the assumption that gun-related deaths through criminal activity would be small to abysmally small as I don't feel like there is sufficient evidence to assert that. Of course, if we follow the thought experiment to assume that it would, similar to how we initially reached the assumption of the baseline to begin with, then you could follow that trains of thought, but you are running the risk of your experiment becoming a series of increasingly unrealistic or unsubstantiated assumptions, which in my view defeats the point of the excercise.

    While I am not in agreement with it, by all means, as I said above we can assume the above to be true, but I do feel like it's a major stretch. That said, I do want to see you conclude the limits of this so by all means, take us to the next step.
    Reminder/Placeholder for future reply

    either continuing in the scenario or replying first to your made points. Or both.

    Will be back.

  19. #399
    It’s needed in America, I guess.

    It’s not about guns, it’s more about the mental fucks out there that need to be dealt with. US goverment is full of shit that refuse to focus on stuff like that.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •