Switzerland is being used by people who want more guns in the US

[evilcheadar]

that wasn't really my point, but OK

Lol

[momuuu]

I can't be fucked to argue this (otherwise interesting) topic with internet liberal warriors hiding behind confirmation bias and refusing to see the other side of the issue.

Anyone arguing to take away rights from citizens to give it to the government needs to have very solid arguments; they are otherwise merely fascists or communists. Just look at what the French governments have done to France over the past few decades- transforming a once proud country into a fucking shithole.

claims people opposing guns have confirmation bias while strongly for guns.

10/10 thread.

Don't you realize how retarded and ignorant it is to claim that someone has a confirmation bias because they have an idea which is different than your own, or what is widely accepted?

There are many good arguments out there which would advocate banning firearms, however whenever I have this debate with people, they never come up. Instead the arguments which I find are communist ideas and people hiding behind "you're wrong because you're a fucking stupid american" which Europeans love. That's what these debates often come to, instead of rational and intelligent argumentation.

I'm not saying that you have confirmation bias because you "oppose guns". I'm saying that quite a lot of the (european) idiots on the internet which DO oppose guns are 110% more guilty of confirmation bias than some of the pro-gun advocates. However the idea that someone with a different idea than you could actually be right is waaaaay over the top of most peoples' heads.

Well for as far as I see confirmation bias in any of these threads is pro gun people that don't understand how researches and facts about the influence of removing guns from society on safety works.

Other than that it's mostly believing shitting stuff out like "you can't take away right from the civillians" while they are the same people that oppose weed and other drugs being legal, or gay marriage lol. Or in general oppose things like murder and theft lol. The argument is shitty because it's filled with people devoid of logic that reason in terrible cringyworthy manners.

Sorry for the shots fired but it's just sad and retarded in my opinion. And Im not going to back that up because then I'd be wasting time playing chess against a bunch of pigeons.

[noissance]

Guns are for noobs... throw rocks instead..

Joking aside, let people kill each other (cops or criminals or crazies) till they figure shit out. Government is not meant to babysit everyone. I do think that military grade gear needs to go... but whats wrong with having a firearm to defend yourself? Criminals have guns, so should we be at their mercy? Guns dont cause violence, people cause violence. The problem is that people have itchy trigger fingers and a gun ego to boot, and will acquire milotary equipment. That's what we need to stop. (Sales of snipers, fully auto, semi auto rifles on the internet and gun expo's)

[legion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Cometk]

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHX5jsomq_U[/video]

If you're against guns you probably suffer from a testosterone deficiency.

looking at the upload date and the description of the video:

Published on Oct 28, 2015

This video shows a group of "refugees" attacking a man who they do not know has his concealed carry license and a firearm."

the uploader of this video is feeding you a lot of misinformation. the men in the video are not explicitly muslim nor refugees. the frenchman is not just a citizen exercising concealed carry, he is a police officer. this clip is not new. it's not from 2015. it happened years ago in september of 2010, as part of footage for news magazine/tv show "Zone Interdite".

here is the original clip on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WfgO_s869s
the clip on the show's official site: http://www.m6.fr/emission-zone_interdit ... apens.html
[spoiler=and the on-site summary]Suite au viol d’une jeune femme, une équipe de la Police judiciaire se rend sur les lieux de l’agression. L’enquête amène les policiers dans la Cité des poètes de Pierrefitte, en Seine Saint-Denis. La cité abandonnée est le lieu de regroupement de plusieurs bandes. Alors que les policiers et la victime inspectent les lieux, ils se font courser par une bande de jeunes qui n’apprécient pas leur présence sur « leur territoire ».
--
Following the rape of a young woman, a team from the Judicial Police went to the scene of the assault. The investigation leads the police in the City of Pierrefitte poets, in Seine Saint-Denis. The abandoned city is the place of aggregation of several bands. While the police and the victim inspect the scene, they are racing by a gang of young people who do not appreciate their presence on "their territory".[/spoiler]

the thing that scares me is how years later this footage is being packaged up, relabeled, and spun towards an agenda so as to mislead the folks who don't understand the french or are not willing to question and find the clips source.

[momuuu]

Don't you realize how retarded and ignorant it is to claim that someone has a confirmation bias because they have an idea which is different than your own, or what is widely accepted?

There are many good arguments out there which would advocate banning firearms, however whenever I have this debate with people, they never come up. Instead the arguments which I find are communist ideas and people hiding behind "you're wrong because you're a fucking stupid american" which Europeans love. That's what these debates often come to, instead of rational and intelligent argumentation.

I'm not saying that you have confirmation bias because you "oppose guns". I'm saying that quite a lot of the (european) idiots on the internet which DO oppose guns are 110% more guilty of confirmation bias than some of the pro-gun advocates. However the idea that someone with a different idea than you could actually be right is waaaaay over the top of most peoples' heads.

Well for as far as I see confirmation bias in any of these threads is pro gun people that don't understand how researches and facts about the influence of removing guns from society on safety works.

Other than that it's mostly believing shitting stuff out like "you can't take away right from the civillians" while they are the same people that oppose weed and other drugs being legal, or gay marriage lol. Or in general oppose things like murder and theft lol. The argument is shitty because it's filled with people devoid of logic that reason in terrible cringyworthy manners.

Sorry for the shots fired but it's just sad and retarded in my opinion. And Im not going to back that up because then I'd be wasting time playing chess against a bunch of pigeons.

! Again !

This is why we can't have these discussions here. You're proving my point spot fucking on. I myself am pro-gun, yet when have you heard me oppose gay marriage? You think that BECAUSE you support the right to own firearms, you AUTOMATICALLY don't support gay marriage? You think that BECAUSE someone supports the right to own firearms, they automatically CAN'T understand how data and research works?

You're taking people and slapping stupid tags on them from the get-go, without even taking the time to fully hear out their arguments and look at the issue from another perspective. That is why I don't want to discuss this in ESOC's off topic. Whenever I want to discuss this topic, I head over to teamliquid.net and go into the gun-thread there. I can actually have engaging discussions there where people look at what I'm saying instead of invalidating my arguments "just because i like guns".

That is my point. You're one the of people who think that they know everything and as such, whenever you see something which doesn't fit your own view, you automatically disregard the other party as "incapable of basic logic" or brand them as homophobes. You really think you can have a real discussion if that's what your mindset is?

You're arguing about things while I'm saying why I am, in general, extremely tired from discussing in loops with gun supporters that apperantly don't seem to understand my logic in the slightest. It doesn't mean I'm right or anything, but it feels like playing chess with a pigeon you know. Which is why Id be happy that you won't quote me anymore so I dont have to read this stuff.. We already had the gun control topic I think.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[_venox_]

What is best now? Gun control, aggro, midrange or combo?

[fightinfrenchman]

You're once again saying that people with different views than you do are too stupid to argue with you. Saying that is nice and all, but you can't then pretend that you're automatically right. It's extremely pretentious to say what you're saying, but I'll leave it at that.

I remember you using the same argument against me.

[silky]

Speaking from an Australian perspective, we banned firearms after the Port Arthur Massacre ....

This is completely wrong.

[momuuu]

You're once again saying that people with different views than you do are too stupid to argue with you. Saying that is nice and all, but you can't then pretend that you're automatically right. It's extremely pretentious to say what you're saying, but I'll leave it at that.

I have no clue how you jumped to this conclusion after carefully reading my post - which I assume you did.

Im just saying that discussing gun control always ends up feeling like you're trying to convince dr Legend about something (btw, thats the types of persons that support guns mostly). Its a continuous loop of two arguments:
- you cant take away my right to have guns blablabla freedom blabla.
- people have guns so I need to have guns to be safe so people should be able to get guns so people have guns so I need to have guns to be safe so people should be able to get guns etc.

Like, it'd be an interesting discussion if it would be hard to choose a side. For example, discussion capitalism vs socialism is interesting, and there's good arguments either way. Even discussing death sentence is interesting, or discussion God or whatever, because its hard to decide what you think and because its hard to come up with a solid reasoning. While flawless reasoning never turns up I always find at least a few interesting and refreshing ways to look at it and also usually manage to develope my own reasoning further.

The gun control debate has nothing like that. As far as evidence and researches go, banning guns increases safety. I have no ides what this special notion of freedom is, where there are tons of laws to increase safety and wellbeing which apperantly do not interfere with freedom, but whete taking away guns is suddenly taking away your freedom. It usually gets stuck convincing someone that you are in fact not safer if you are allowed to own a gun, statistically speaking. Somehow this does not click with anyone pro guns, or at least anyone Ive discussed it with.

The result is that the pro gun side start bringing up all these useless specific cases that do not matter much since its not about specific cases but about the grand scheme of things. And the grand scheme of things (in other words, the increase/decrease in casualties due to gun control) seems to be that there will be much fewer murders/casualties if you take away guns.

But go ahead. Surprise me. Ive read your reasoning before and personally consider it very much flawed. As I said, surprise me. Surpass the general way this discussion goes for once with a strong but creative argument. Im not the worst, if its good you might even convince me.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Dolan]

I actually agree with Jerome on gun possession. I think normally you don't need to carry a firearm on you if you live in an urban area. If there are areas with high crime rate where it's dangerous not to have one, then that's a problem for your local authorities. It just makes no sense for citizens to defend themselves with firearms in urban areas. Maybe if you lived in a forest or some isolated wildlife place, you'd definitely need a rifle, but in areas with a high density of population, firearms can only increase risks of shootings, not decrease them.

It would be interesting to see some statistics on how many incidents involving firearms in countries which allow possession have been cases of misuse and how many were considered proper use of firearms. In other words, in how many cases when firearms were used (shots were fired), it was legimitate use, and in how many it was illegitimate use (mass shootings, accidental injuries, abuse, etc).

It's also possible that Americans believe in the right to carry firearms because the USA has a lot of territory and so many citizens have large properties which are hard to guard and defend without using the weapons deterrent. Which may not apply to other countries.

Then again, the US also have the highest percentage of population in prisons. This seems to point to another cause (such as a culture where individualism is not only encouraged but it's praised in the most aggressive forms: the gold rush mentality).

[Laurence Drake]

The quality of discussion here has deteriorated since the admins started locking threads. I don't understand why we can't just have laissez-faire.

[lesllamas]

Strange, as it seems the United States has a chronic problem with old guys getting their panties in a bunch. That's a gross generalization, but then again, you knew that didn't you?

[Laurence Drake]

Strange, as it seems the United States has a chronic problem with old guys getting their panties in a bunch. That's a gross generalization, but then again, you knew that didn't you?

How else are you meant to spark discussion? If you write a long post nobody reads it and everyone dismisses you as a troll. If you write a short post generalizing something they do the same thing. So now the only thing to talk about it is pools and 'basement games', because everything else gets ignored/denigrated/locked.

[fightinfrenchman]

We SJW now Drake. Why would anybody write a big post when the thread will get locked because somebody said something mean or racist. I'm legitimately worried about the decrease in testosterone levels among young people today. It seems guys nowadays are as emotional and averse to conflict as a 6 year old girl.

There have been some pretty pro-Nazi posts here that weren't locked so I'm not sure why you think this. Although you are just a notorious troll as I've said.

[Laurence Drake]

I'd say the whole basement gang is just a load of trolls. Trolls tend to live in basements, after all.