ITT: we begin to understand why voting for mainline parties is a dumb idea

Maybe it is because the right to bear arms harms more people the protects.
Just a thought, but then I always thought the left had more of a issue with the type of guns being owned, and no record of where these type of guns are.

>>289235
That's just the problem - the assumption that gun ownership is more harmful than beneficial is blatantly false. The ILLEGALLY OWNED guns are the dangerous ones. Legal ownership involves a background check and paperwork to the ATF, and legal gun owners are, and have always been surprisingly law abiding people.

Example: Concealed carry permit holders across the country commit only 0.01% of all firearms-related crimes.

http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/314208 #opcensor #opsyria #freesyria #stopbashar #globalrevolution

>>289257
But illegal guns are just stolen legal gun.

>>289293
or stolen/purchased black market gun brought in illegally

or constructed

criminals will find a way to get what they want, law-abiding citizens will be and are the limited party

>>289293
So are illegal knives, and illegal theft.

>>289293
And? How is this anyone's responsibility but the thief's? We don't punish people for having other items stolen.

Leftist here. I don't know why the left is against guns either. Good thing Obama hasn't been pushing it at all.

>>289257
No.
Legal guns actually cause more accidental deaths than they do in self defense.
And several massacres have been performed with legally purchased guns.

And OP, you are ever so fucking wrong.
The left doesn't want to take your gun away, mostly they just want to make sure that the checks and regulations are actually followed, and at worst they want to limit the access to guns.

OP again. The thing that REALLY chaps my ass is all the rhetoric about the "gun show loophole." People, there IS NO SUCH THING. It simply does not exist.

Go ahead, go to a gun show. Ask a dealer to sell you a gun without a background check. Bribe him, even. He will laugh in your fucking face at the very least, and will most likely have you arrested.

The "loophole" they keep mentioning and blowing way out of proportion is that people are allowed to sell their own firearms privately to other private purchasers. This is just a basic right to private property! The gun show is almost completely unrelated to this, except for the fact that a private seller will find a larger audience.

>>289321
I can't tell if that was sarcastic or not.

I am a britfag.
Just wondering, when a child get holds of gun and accidently shoots himself or a friend.
Is the gun own held accountable for poor gun control, safety, manslaughter or child abuse/neglect?

In the UK if your dog kills a child you could be sentenced for manslaughter, depend on the nature of crime. I would assume it would be the same if a child got hold of one of the many legal shot guns in this country.

>>289366
Usually, yes, depending on circumstances. The mere fact that a child got a hold of a loaded gun means that it was unsafely stored in the first place, which would be the parent's fault.

>>289366
Don't pay any attention to our gun laws they're fucking retarded.

>>289364
Obama has made gun ownership easier, he's loosened gun control laws.
He's only passed laws about guns that the NRA wanted.
Fuck you.

Because personal freedom to take someone else's life is an oxymoron, and very retarded?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

By making guns illegal, the state is empowering the criminal.

>>289392
Wow, really? God, I hope this is a troll.

>>289366
LOL, Britain?

What if the kid killed himself with a knife? Are you going to ban those too?

>Right wing person posts an issue
>Gets a response
>Ignores response, keeps whining.

>>289386
>implying he hasn't threatened to ban handguns

>>289341
Do you have any stats to back this up? This runs counter to every single statistic I've ever seen on the topic.

>>289404
Yes, responding to a response to further the discussion is SO RETARDED!! God, I'm dumb!

>>289377
Thats what i thought. Thanks.

I personally don't have a problem with american gun ownership, it'll be imposable for the government to enforce a ban considering the amount of owners,and the affect it'll have on businesses and industry.

Because the left is HUMANIST, it defends the individual's right to life and prosperity. Enabling every citizen to kill any other citizen on a whim is not humane, and not conductive to preservation of life.

Contrary to the right and in tune with the ancients, the left believes that people should be cultivated, their selfish desires subdued by the government (or another legitimate entity) which holds the people's mandate, for the good of the whole of humanity.

No gun policies work in mainland Europe. There is next to none gun crime on the entire continent excluding Britain.

>>289403
Children can not buy knives in the UK until the age of 16, but it might of gone up to 18. Its been a long time since I worked in a shop.

>>289427
>There is next to none gun crime on the entire continent excluding Britain.

Which ironically has the toughest firearms laws.

Nevermind the 100 million people that were disarmed and then killed by their own government.

>>289407
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
More accidents than Homicides, I could not find stats for self defense, give me a couple minutes and I shall continue my attempts.

>>289433
>Which ironically has the toughest firearms laws.

Not really. Here in Slovenia, you can get sent to prison for up to 5 years for owning a gun with no license, and there is no gun crime. There are illegal gun owners who also indulge in crime, but they're not stupid enough to actually use them.

Gun control sure helped all of those socialists on that island....

>>289437
>Nevermind the 100 million people that were disarmed

They weren't disarmed as much as they weren't armed in the first place. Europe is a safer, more civilized place than America, which is why guns are not a part of everyday life here - people only resort to them in the direst need. The Soviet Union started with the Bolsheviks distributing arms to workers in Petrograd. In Communist Yugoslavia, people took up arms against the Germans and Italians. And they also willingly relinquished them after it was all done.

Based on Obama's record, he voted for strict gun laws.
Just as it is nature of every Democrat president, he has done a great job in avoiding anything gun related throughout his term.

Now, I did hear about this Semi-Auto gun ban. I have limited knowledge about guns and the law itself, though I am sure that handguns are semi-auto for most part in modern world. Sounds to me like a state law in California or something along the lines.

>>289460

You obviously have no knowledge of how accessible guns are here in Norway. Anyone that wants a gun can get a gun comepletly legal.

>>289489

BUT HE HASN'T.
HE DOESN'T.

HE LOOSENED THE LAWS

No, fuck it. I don't care any more.
Facts simply do not apply to you people.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

>>289437
Thing is, owning a gun will not protect you from US military. Maybe a single police officer, but that's about it. Many times when SWAT made a mistake and stormed a wrong house, the gun owner was shot MANY TIMES before even getting a chance to aim at any opposing human being. It's like someone taking a semi-auto rifle and shooting a single piece of paper, ya know?

>>289504
Before his presidency: Obama voted many time for strict laws.
During presidency, he tried to avoid the issue as much as possible.

Where am I wrong?
Sure, I missed the part where he eased up on the laws. It doesn't make my statement any less true.

>>289504
While he is President, yes.

Pre-Presidency? Not so much.

See pic, dumbass.

>>289512
So let's all just give up, right?

I'm sorry the rest of us aren't as limp-wristed as you.

>>289520
Half of that shit is spun so far out of context it has no hold in reality.

>>289528
Nah, not really. Just filling in for the opposing side, which is missing. As it should, might I add. I am all for Second Amendment.

>>289539
What the fuck are you talking about?

It is all direct quotes and the sources are right there.
He has said that he wants to make the AWB PERMANENT.

>Shortly after the November 4, 2008 election, Change.gov, the website of the office of then President-Elect Barack Obama, listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration. This includes "making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."[16] This statement was originally published on Barack Obama's campaign website, BarackObama.com.[17] When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the agenda statement was moved to the administration's website, WhiteHouse.gov, with its wording intact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban#Urban_policy_agenda_of_President_Obama

I think it is safe to say he is not a pro-gun President.

In Maxico they only have one gun shop, and it is owned by the military.
There gun laws are quite strict but its all being undermined by the north.

>>289512
Owning a gun is not going to protect you from the military, this is true. But consider this:

1. The US military has repeatedly been bogged down in quagmire conflicts against guerilla fighters armed with far inferior weaponry. Just look at Vietnam. We had bombers, Agent Orange, napalm, the latest and greatest assault rifles, and yet still we got dragged into a guerilla shithole for 9 years against peasants with cheap, mass produced shit-tier weapons and homemade bombs. We lost.

2. The reason we can't stand up against the military anymore is BECAUSE of gun control efforts. We're not allowed to own the most modern military arms anymore, ever since 1986. The government has been slowly breaking down the quality of the citizenry's defenses. If we didn't have these restrictions, the use of arms against tyranny would be a much more legitimate aim.

(And don't bring up nukes. For fuck's sake, does anyone REALLY think that the US would get so desperate during a civil war as to nuke it's own territory?)

>>289257
this is the problem w ith american politics, people choose to close their eyes to the truth and simplify everything in 1st grade logic in order to make their point

Do you think it will be easier or harder for a gangbager to buy a gun illegally if they are floating around being sold to anyone that passes a background check?

>>289584
they are already easy to get, you can never change that.. that genie will never go back in the bottle

>>289570
this notion that if we had the right to carry ak47s Americans would be able to overthrow the government is just stupid

Plus, is this really what we want?
Armed rebellion against the government?
Is this really desirable?
Lol

>>289591
Strong logic you got there

>>289570
1. Well yeah, smaller forces in middle of nowhere are more effective than fatass with a gun inside a house.

2. Well, our laws becoming stricter is pretty common place in modern world. Not that we should accept stricter laws, but each generation will accept more and more of such limitations, especially with how much easier our lives are. I do agree though. Kinda sad if I think about it now.

(Why should I bring up Nukes? It's a failed argument for those not up-to-date with war and war tech. We all saw how (in)effective this was with Eisenhower.)

>>289584
Of course it's easier. That's not the point. The point is that it's incredibly bad policy to preemptively punish law-abiding citizens for possible crimes. Just because someone CAN irresponsibly sell a gun to a criminal doesn't mean that the government should take punitive measures to prevent anyone from owning one, or prevent the otherwise legal and responsible transfer of guns.

>>289321

OPERATION FAST AN FURIOUS

obama tried to discredit small, privately-owned gun shops by claiming they sold guns to illegals

turns out they were FORCED to by the fucking DOJ

>>289597
>Plus, is this really what we want?
>Armed rebellion against the government?
>Is this really desirable?

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
-Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson sure thought so..

leftist here. don't lump me in with those spineless liberals who, as op has pointed out, have no consistent principles and just follow the herd.

Same as conservatives who don't want to legalise drugs

>>289604
So youre saying the policy should be to give guns for both sides, so whenever someone disagrees with someone else we can have a mexican standoff

>>289597
I'm not advocating armed rebellion against the government... not NOW, in modern society.

This definitely is desirable in the event that the government becomes tyrannical. Despite lots of hyperbole in modern politics, there is nothing tyrannical about the modern US government. This does not in any way mean that it COULDN'T happen at some point. It is the absolute right of the people to throw off the chains of oppressive government.

And it's not stupid. Allow the populace to arm themselves with similar weaponry to the standing military, and you have a force to be reckoned with. The American Revolution successfully overthrew and ousted an arm of the most powerful empire in the history of the world.

leftist here. don't lump me in with those spineless liberals who, as op has pointed out, have no consistent principles and just follow the herd.

I'm sure I'm not the only leftist (or rightist for that matter). who actually considers an issue before making their mind up on it.

Same as conservatives who don't want to legalise drugs

I can easily answer this one, OP.
The left likes to present itself as the defenders of liberty and freedoms because that's what Americans generally tend to relate to the most and because of that leftists have been able to establish for themselves as appealing and attractive to the American public.
However, keep in mind that leftists/liberals are really nothing like what they present themselves as.
The reality is that leftists like nothing more than power and control, as can be seen by the efforts of the present leftist Presidential administration.
If you look at the history of the Soviet Union you'll see that the leftists that started the revolution in Russia appealed strongly to the desires of the Russian people, which got them popular support.
After the revolution, however, the true nature of leftist agendas showed themselves. The result? Dictatorship. Where leftists have gained power dictatorships have been the result. This is remarkably consistent throughout the entire history of the 20th century. The history and facts speak for themselves. Leftists are chameleons, liars, manipulators and total control freaks.

>>289624
Epic strawman, bro.

The policy is to allow the maximum amount of freedom that does not directly infringe upon the freedom of others.

>>289188

washington also had young farmers that didn't want to die for his freemasonic empire shot.

>>289636

Agreed! Now, with you having said that I see, now, that this thread will now either be filled with leftist double-speak, obfuscation, distractions or it'll just be allowed to die and 404.

>>289643

>>289629
Our system is designed so we avoid tyrannical government through sociopolitical means, and there are lots of provisions ensuring that, so that armed rebellion doesnt become a necessity.

Furthermore, there is a great disconnect between American Revolution and modern age. Back then they had muskets, and civillians had muskets. Even if we have ak47s, the government has drones, surveillance devices, anti-guerrilla warfare. Logistics of weaponry have evolved to the point that civilians will never be a substantial military threat to government ( Im talking about America, not freaking Lybia) . We are still a threat, but it terms of sociopolitical rebellion

>>289632
Conservative here

*BROFIST*

Drug legalization makes sense to me. I guess maybe statists on the left and right want drugs to stay outlawed?

>>289636
You disagree with me.
you are obviously Stalin

>>289653
There are plenty of checks and balances in place... all of which can be overridden by a simple one-party majority in all three branches.

For an example, look at FDR and the New Deal.
(Aside: While I do despise FDR more than any leader in modern history, this is an analogy and example. I'm not implying FDR was a dictator.)
FDR in the White House.
Majority in the Congress.
Supreme Court willing to roll over under threat of "court packing."
All three branches at the time were overrun by an incredibly expansive effort that bloated federal authority to unprecedented levels. Again, this was not a dictatorship, but it just shows how easily the system COULD be steamrolled under the right conditions. Conditions that are not so rare as to impossible.

>>289341
No they don't, the study claiming that has been debunked a million times over.

But anyway, I have had to defend myself from a home invader TWICE. In both circumstances it took over 45 minutes for police to arrive.

I'm keeping my guns, whether liberal faggots like it or not. Even if you do somehow circumvent the 2nd amendment, the people you send to take my guns are getting shot. Deal with it.

>>289655

*INTER POLITICAL BROFIST*

I respect those who have consistent views, even if i disagree.

You right wing shitbags are retarded.
Every first world country has more stricter gun control then the US and look at the results...
US has the most crime out of all first world nations and the most in prisons in the world.
Why is it other first world nations can have gun control and it works but supposively it wont work here in the US?
Join us in the present, we dont fucking need guns like they are here in the US.
No different then universal healthcare, you retards dont want that either but it works in all other first world nations.
Just go fucking break away again, this time we will let you retards go without a civil war, ship all retards in liberal states to join you as well.

>>289653
Back then the government also had cannons, trained cavalry, and warships.

Besides, the assymetry in technology hasn't stopped the ragheads from giving the US military headaches...

>>289665
No, because elections.
Even the people who argue that FDR's term was somewhat a cryptotyrannicism, they usually point out to the first two years of his presidency.
A one-party majority in the three branches is not a condition that arises out of thin air, its a democratically elected state of government. If the people are discontent, that will begin to change in the next two years. And since FDR was elected for another four terms, along with a back-and-forth congress, the people really didnt have a problem with that state.

>>289675

I'm not right wing. I support universal health care for everyone on the planet. I also think people should be allowed to have guns. what's your argument against me?

>>289675
>Every first world country has more stricter gun control then the US and look at the results...

Crime went up when they enacted those laws.

That they have lower static crime rate means nothing. The resulting trend in crime rates after laws a changed are what matters.

Crime rates tend to rise when stricter gun control is enacted.

Crime rates then to fall when restrictions are loosened.

And personally, guns have saved my life on more then one occasion. They also substantially reduce my food costs over the winter. So go fuck youself you suburban faggot.

>>289704
Guns are used in crime and are used to kill.
The us has more people in jail and more crime than first world nations.
Our gun crime is astronomical, but yet other first world nations its significantly lower, why is that?
It could never be because of the gun control, no that is just silly.

>>289706
With all due respect, you probably should be living in Cambodia then, you are not representative of America at all.

>>289716
I'm perfectly representative of America, just not the America your authoritarian ass wants.

If you want my guns, you are welcome to die trying. Get bent.

>>289713
Those countries had lower crime rates before they enacted gun control laws.

However, their crime rates have gone up since then. Meanwhile ours have gone down.

Your argument is irrelevant.

>>289724
>that feel when these people actually exist and are allowed to vote

>>289730
Yeah the number of murders mean nothing.
The amount of people that have died from guns in the US is so much higher than any other first world nation.
Yeah go ahead and put human lives above your retarded guns. Go ahead and die for oil while you are at it. Having people die for material things is fucking retarded.

>>289713
Did you watch Bowling for Columbine? he went to Canada which also allows citizens to have guns, and showed that the gun crime was lower. it's a cultural thing. Switzerland also has a liberal gun laws.

>implying that the american criminal justice system is full because of gun crime and not the war on drugs.

I'm seriously in favour of Chris Rock's idea for having bullets cost astronomical prices.

>>289745
Way to have zero reading comprehension, retard.

The fact is, gun control laws appear to have very little effect on crime.

We have more crime here because we have more people shitty social/economic situations.

>>289743
>Thinks people who disagree with him shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Typical freedom-hating leftitst....

you guys seriously have to get this getting shot down in a blaze of glory fantasy out of your heads.

people shouldn't die because you want toys. you want a gun? join the army. go into police work.

YFW in the USA the safest states have the least gun control
Cali, NY and NJ have massive crime and guess what, strictest gun laws.

Banning guns just takes them away from law abiding citizens and leaves them with criminals.
Look at when a handgun ban was enacted in Washington DC, murder rate up 300%.

>>289743
And you are powerless to do anything about it.

Deal With It.

>>289754
Heres where you and I differ, outside of the fact that I can properly interpret a sentence.
I dont think you shouldnt be allowed to vote
Im just disappointed that in 2011 there are people with this kind of mindset and they actually pull a weight in the way the country is heading

>>289762
and all those murders were gun related, right?

numbers can lie if you want them to

>>289745
The amount of people that die from guns is not related to gun laws you brainwashed libby. The high amount of gun homicide in the United States is because it is one of the most active centers in the world for the illegal drug trade.

>>289770
>>289745
refer to
>>289771

>>289756
As I have already said, I have defended my self with a gun on more than one occasion. I use guns to supplement my supply of food.

A gun is a tool which I use to defend myself and my property, and to improve my own life.

I have no intention of letting a bunch of suburban pussies take that away from me simply because they are frightened of something they have zero understanding of.

>>289781
Fucking this.

As a lefty, (and I think most lefty actually agree) I don't really give a damn about gun control. I'm in favor of a background check and a waiting period, but after that, game on as far as I'm concerned. Also, I own a CZ75B

Another thing, gun control is really an issue that FAR lefties love in the same way that FAR righties think sex before marriage is a sin. If anything, restricting the right to bare arms is political strategy to get other issues past.

>>289756
animals shouldn't die just because you want to eat meat.

you want to eat meat. go hunting, become a farmer.

>>289781
How about you join the first world and not live like a redneck in the middle of nowhere?
Our taxes have to pay for the costs of building and maintaining roads into the middle of nowhere because idiots like you want to live in the middle of nowhere...
Fucking rednecks.

>They will go nuts and summon the ACLU to defend a person's freedom of speech to the death.

WUT?

Only if they agree with them. Otherwise their a stupid racist redneck pig that should be arrested for hate speech.

>>289811
>Implying owning a gun makes you a redneck
>Implying the states with strictest gun ownership aren't just 3 states(cali, Ny,Nj, with highest crime rates) How abouts you guys catch up to the 47 civilized states?

>>289675
In the the USA the availability of firearms of any type has not been shown to have a huge measurable effect on crime inurban areas. Instead the treads of crime fluctuate with trends in unemployment and drug enforcement more than anything else. In rural areas increased gun control almost always leads to slightly elevated crime rates.

Taking away the guns has been shown not to decrease crime rates, and in a few cases the crime rates went up. The DC gun ban was the rare exception to the rule that gun laws make little difference in the crime rate, there the crime rate went upt. Though that is merely correlation and may be due to other trends in law enforcement and the economic situation of the area in question.

Changing the gun laws either way has not shown any instance of improving the rate of gun crimes. So why bother with legislation that won't do a damn thing?

95% of crimes are committed with illegally purchased firearms because they have no serial numbers or paper trail. Where do the guns come from? They are reverse imported. A shady firm will ship them off by boat then sneak them back in easily. So long as we have open and profitable ports and have a profitable firearms industry as the number 1 producer of smaller arms in the world we will have black market firearms. Illegalizing them won't get rid of the black market. Which means the availability to criminals will not decrease any appriciable amount. Unless you faggots want to dismantle part of our industrial base or close ports.

Compared to Europe the US has a higher rate of murder but lower rates of assault, burglary, petty theft, car theft, rape, and mugging.

Compared to Canada which as a slightly fewer rifles and outlawed handguns we have a very low rate of theft and rape, which is not hard because Canada has one of the highest recorded rates of rape around despite the fact that they define and record instances of rape exactly the same way the US does.

>>289820
continued

Further when the /k/ faggots talk about using firearms to defend yourself of the goverment they don't even mean that you can fight the army. They are talking about killing individual public servants than step across the legal line.

As an example a couple of years back in western St Marys Pennsylvania this guy was being hassled by a cop. Apparently their was some love triangle bullshit between them and some woman. The cop eventually tried to get in his house without a warrant. When the cop broke in the guy shot him because the cop had be screaming at him and had drawn his gun, as was corroborated by neighbors. They cop died from a shotgun wound. The guy was not charged or tried. He acted within the writ of the law for his self defense and defense of his property.

It's not that the government just flips a Nazi switch one day and starts arresting people, it's that sometimes a cop gets a little crazy and steps over the line. That is what you are defending against.

It's the castle law. If someone breaks in you can kill them with gun, knife, or fist, and you will not be charged.

>>289479
> Europe is a safer, more civilized place than America

Is this real life?

>>289811
And I feed your stupid, arrogant ass. How about you grow the fuck up and stop pretending the food you eat is just magicked into existence.

But hey, if you want to stop paying for roads into rural areas, you're perfectly welcome to grow your own damn vegetables and raise your own damn cattle. Enjoy your famine.

Liberals are big on gun control because they don't suffer the same tragedy as the white guy in this picture...

>>289833
Yeah because we import no food at all and wont be able to import anymore.

>>289833
This. Cities need farms, but farms don't need cities.

>>289845
I thought liberals were more likely to be pro-homosexual

>>289853
Where do you think that food is imported from, stupid?

>>289866
Because we import no food from other countries...

>>289872
Not nearly enough to sustain yourself, stupid.

umad urop

urop you just jelly

>>289855
>farms don't need cities

Yeah, totally. Not unless those farmers want clothes, medicine, electricity, plumbing, or gasoline!

keep being mad no gunz

>>289889
>Portable Howitzer

Just don't get assault clips for it! That will make the brady fags really mad.

>>289889
Jelly of your murders, prison population, gun crime?
No thanks
But its ok, the more liberals get elected the more guns will be restricted.

>>289891
OMG how did those poor farms ever survive before the invention of the city? i hope really aren't this stupid.

keep being faggots that can't understand why guns are needed in society.

Most gun deaths in the US are suicides. People do not become suicidal from owning a firearm. They're suicidal because they have mental health problems.
The number of accidents involving firearms is extremely low when put into perspective. You're more likely to die from slipping and falling than you are from shooting yourself, or having someone else accidentally shoot you.

The real gun crime problem in the US shouldn't even be called gun crime. Its almost exclusively gang and drug related. Incidences are focused around the few high crime areas in inner cities that you'd expect. Criminals use firearms as a tool in the commission of their crimes against one another. The tools they use are not the root of their criminal behavior.
Just look at all the chavs in England running around slashing and stabbing people. Banning the tool doesn't curb the behavior.
Empowering the people to provide for their own security and eliminating the street drug industry would solve the problem.

>>289899
He so mad.

>>289811
No township roads are paid with local taxes. States pay for highways. And the federal government chips in for highways and interstates if the State in question meets their criteria for stuff like speed limits.

You don't pay for our roads if you live in a city.

HEY GUYS
did u kno that guns were used in 100% of gun crimes?
we need to ban gunz to stop these crimes
loloccupywallstreet XD

>>289188
Gun owner here, private sales do not require background check or information exchange. If you are a felon you can go buy a gun at a gun show with no checks. It's illegal to do so and you have already broken the law so it's not a legally owned gun but surely you can see a valid argument to require ffl. Personally, rather than worry about someone taking care of it for me, I'd rather just have a gun on me also. I know how to handle one responsibly and safely.

As stated I'm a gun owner and I vote. I got into guns because I think they're fun. Our last governor of this state was a democrat and pro-gun so it's not a valid conclusion that all left people are anti-gun. A number of my democrat friends aren't. Libertarians which are arguably the most liberal of all are very pro-gun.

I think the sentiment of anti-gun comes from ignorance as does all hate. And I see a lot of simple people who are trying to form an identity for themselves so they decide to try and fit into a mold without understanding it. "I'm pro this issue so I guess I'll be this person so naturally I'm anti-this other unrelated issue."

For you guys without guns, understand the Brady bunch gets nearly everything wrong. They're statistics are twisted falsities designed to prey on the ignorant. I would like to see a country of powerful individuals, empowered through education, open mindedness, physical fitness and responsible gun ownership.

>pic related, same kind of argument brady campaign uses

If guns cause crime then my guns are defective!

>>289931
Well that explains it, the conservative retards from /k/ are here.
Go die for oil since you are so willing to let others die so that you can own a stupid gun.

The Czech Republic has looser gun laws than most U.S. states (their permits to own are shall-issue) and someone legally permitted to own handguns can legally carry concealed throughout most of the country. They also have far less restrictions on machine guns than the United States.

The Czech Republic is one of the most peaceful countries on earth with a high human development index, on par with the Scandinavian countries.

If guns are the problem why aren't they drowning in blood?

>>289951
Honest question
Why do you hate freedom so much? Personal responsibility too much for you to handle?

>>289891
Clothing is about the only thing on that list made in cities. And I could make my own damn clothing if it came down to that.

My electricity comes from both a nearby hydroelectric dam, and my own solar array on one of the barns.

I get my water from a nearby natural spring.

I have an underground tank filled with bio diesel from a nearby plant which I contribute part of my corn crop to every year. I get deliveries every month, and my contribution pays for all the diesel I need to run my equipment and my personal vehicle all year long.

Haven't had much need for any medicine, but it's not like you shitheads actually make that anyway.

Cityfags cannot into self-sufficiency.

I'm left leaning but I fully support the right to bear arms. I mean, yeah, I don't want people owning a large stock of sub-machine guns and what have yous, but I'm perfectly fine with some neighbors owning a supply of rifles, personal handguns, and other such arms. Where does that put me?

>>289891
Actually since manufacturing moved out of cities to a certain extent the rural areas produce more industrial products per capita than cities do. Also gasoline is made in refineries dumbass, they are always located outside of the city. They give off a shitton of fumes.

Rural towns and cities so small that they don't have a single ten story building are our current centers of industry because easy highway and rail access make shipping cheap.

>>289960
> Where does that put me?
Normal.

>>289951

>thinks there aren't any liberals on /k/

Keep fuckin' that chicken, liberal douche.

/heathen liberal here
//from my cold, dead hands

Good thing gun control people are in the minority, on the wrong side of the logic, and on the wrong side of most U.S. legal doctrine. IOW: my guns are safe from your dumb asses no matter what you want to do, and firearms resrtrictions will most likely be increasingly lifted as time goes on.

Also, this is now a weapons thread.

deal. with. it.

>>289951
Protip: the majority of /k/ is slightly left of center, and always has been. Hard line conservatives are a minority.
Pretty pathetic that you have to try and use fallacies to force us to fit in your little narrow minded freedom hating world view.

>>289956
exactly, sir. We should focus more on personal accountability of all citizens. Make everyone strong rather than reducing everyone to a lowest common denominator. Yes personal empowerment is firstly, education and open mindedness but there's no reason not to include gun ownership in it.

>>289951
please see
>>289923

>>289977
>dat PSL
>dat SKS
>dat Nugget
>dat Tokarev

Slavshit all around me
I want it all!

>>289977
>Guy posts gun pics
>Nugget

ALWAYS.

>>289977
>Pile of Slavshit
>Collection

I'm all for gun ownership, I just think that it should be as well regulated as owning and operating a car. I don't think that is an unreasonable stance. I would also add that since most crime guns are stolen guns it should be legally required to report theft of your guns within 24 hours.

>>289977
That assault clip, sniper ak47 glock on the top. That's legal in Commiefornia because the small piece of wood going to the handle right? I'd like to know.
Not that I think gun laws are written by the ignorant or anything.

>>289960
>>289966

Poorly informed. By submachine gun you mean automatic weapon I presume? You need to read about the National Firearms Act, the first major piece of gun control legislation passed by Congress.

It was passed in the Depression, to "combat crime." It required a $200 tax stamp for any short-barreled rifle, silencer, or full-auto gun. It was supposed to make it harder for the likes of Dillinger et. al to get a hold of powerful weapons. It didn't. It was mainly aimed at screwing the poor. During the Depression, many people resorted to hunting (poaching) to feed their starving families. The powers that be didn't like that, so they made it harder to get away with poaching by effectively outlawing silencers.

Also, the Hughes Amendment (which was rammed through Congress by Charlie Rangel, and didn't actually have enough votes to make it on its own without his corrupt ass pushing it along) banned the manufacture/importation of any full-auto guns after 1986. So machine guns are extremely expensive as a result and require extensive background checks and permit applications (like submitting fingerprints to the FBI).

You're a victim of a common tactic from the antis: Deliberately use misleading language and incorrect terms in order to scare you.

Oh you leftists that say you are all for the right to bear arms just make me lol.
When it comes down to it who will you most likely vote for? A democrat or republican?
Most likely the democrat. Damn near every democrat running for the office of president has at one time in their political career voted for more gun control.
You wont vote for any republicans. So in the end you will most likely vote democrat which will in turn lead to more gun control. Just look at the most liberal states and the gun control they have. Just think of that on a national level and how good that would be for the nation.
That or you just wont vote, but in the end the democrats elected wil try their hardest to get more gun control and bans through legislation, and I am all the happier they are doing.

>>289951
>mfw a liberal faggot who probably prides himself on being open minded was actually a closed minded shithead that knew nothing about the world outside his city limits.

>>290005

Cars are only regulated for use on public roadways. Driving and car ownership are also not explicit rights.

Think more, faggot.

>>289979

Protip: there are a lot of libertarian leaning people on /k/, so it throws off any left-right comparison you want to make of the posters there. Also, there are a disproportionate number of libertarian leaning people on gun boards pretty much all over the internet. (it makes a lot of sense when you think about it)

The reason /k/ seem a little left of center to outsiders is because stick-up-their-ass conservatives tend to stay away from places like 4chan. So, on /k/ you get a lot of non-gun owning liberal kids and a lot of gun-owning easy going types which who mostly seem to be made up of centrists and libertarian minded people with just a few solid conservative and leftist gun owners also thrown in.

>>289960
What difference does it make how many or what type of gun someone has anyway. If you want to be scared, it'd make the most sense to be scared of the smallest guns as they fit in a pocket and are quickly drawn.
I'm sorry to be offensive to you but your comment highlights the ignorance out there of people who are trying to get restrictions passed. There are some restrictions that are good. Some regulation is smart but it frankly should be implemented only after consultation with actual experts on the topic, i.e. people who actually own and enjoy guns and not the ignorant, misinformed and often dishonest Brady Campaign.

>>290001

Son, you don't want to go there.

>>290025
I don't think it should be a more fundamental right in the 21st century than owning a car. The constitution can be amended, not to mention the courts have decided some regulations are okay.

Yes! Let us build a country where we equally fear each other!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

You may notice that you are five times more likely to get killed in the USA than Sweden.

Guns are prohibited yet criminals doesn't roam freely and prey on innocents.

In a country like sweden you are not allowed to kill trespassers/thieves/anything that wouldn't lethaly wound someone else.

Here we also have a law that's called "Allemansrätten". Translated to every mans right. this law allows you to freely pick berries and camp for a short time anywhere you want. On the basis that you do not destroy anything or leave any trace of you behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

Compare that to the insane situation in the USA where people are okay with others taking someone elses life. For what? Trespassing?

The first thing that you shouldn't be afraid of is your fellow human beings. Removing guns is a step in the right direction.

>>290048

Then that's what you support. You are not supportive of "common sense" regulations. You want to alter the Constitution to limit rights. Stop trying to use legislative fiat to alter our Constitution and be honest about what you really want.

/the only Constitutional Amendment that ever limited or took away a right was a disaster that cost our country tons of money and lives and was later repealed
//good luck

>>290057
In most places you can't kill someone because they are trespassing. In my mind it should depend on the situation. If I have a bunch of farm land and some people are on it, I should not be able to shoot them unless they are a clear and present danger. If someone breaks into my house their life is forfeit. They knew the consequences of such an act and the life is my family is of a much higher value to me than the life of a scumbag who knew the consequences but chose to pursue his foolish course of action.

>>290014
Interesting. Reading up on these now. Thanks for the info

>>290057
Sweden is ranked 10 in gun ownership per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
You highlight the argument that the presence of guns is not the problem.

>>290057
I wish it could be like that here in the US.
But it wont be until we decide to change it, however that is unlikely due to the rights obsession with guns and how owning damn near any type of gun is a "right".

>>290073
I have never lied about what I want. When have I done anything with legislative fiat? I'm a fat fucker sitting on his couch posting on 4chan. I don't think the sort of regulations I support are outside the realm of constitutionality as it is anyway, but that is for the courts who are empowered by the constitution to decide.

>>290024

It's actually VERY surprising how much I encountered this once I started traveling a lot. Luckily I almost never encounter it from liberals who are from outside of the NE U.S. because it's really fucking annoying. It makes rednecks look worldly. Also, rednecks usually don't claim to be all knoing and always right like NE liberals, so it just makes those provential liberals look even worse.

It seems like half the younger people I have met from NY were incapable of doing things that are basically necessary skills in the rest of the counrty like driving, lighting a fire, or reading a map. When these people claim they are better than someone else because they are from NY (predjucial much?) while they are not in NY, it makes them look really dumb and everyone hates them, especially when they have to be fed and driven around by the people that they think they are superior to, lol.

>>290040
Well, I am ignorant, which is why I am posting here and reading what others are posting so I can be more informed.

I don't really have a problem with someone owning multiple types of guns. My biggest problem would be someone owning enough to the point where they can arm a radical group that has a violent agenda or something like that. Again though, I'm sure that stance is bathed in ignorance and misinformation, which is why I'm openly admitting it and listening to the information people are giving me about why I would be wrong.

>>290082
I knew it, I shouldn't have combined the two topics about trespassing and violence/gun-control.

But to counter you argument. Yes, I agree, if someone stands there and threatens you with a gun or a knife etc. You should be able to defend your family, which is allowed in Sweden too.

But if someone breaks into your home and is carying out your tv. You should not be allowed to kill that person because human life is worth more.

>/the only Constitutional Amendment that ever limited or took away a right was a disaster that cost our country tons of money and lives and was later repealed

Doesnt matter, the amount of firearms that will be destroyed will be worth it.
After the amendment is repealed all we need to do is enact laws that heavily tax semi auto weapons and handguns to where it would be too costly for manufacturers to produce them.
All we have left is shotguns and bolt action rifles. No handguns, no machine guns, no semi auto rifles. Even then who will want to go back to owning guns? Why dont you go back to religion while you are at it, both of them are archaic bullshit that needs to be flushed down the toliet.

>>290057
I'd say it's more a cultural and environment thing than anything. Look at the post a few bits up about the Czech Republic

Well I think most people are for gun rights in this country. That is simply why we have them. I've been around guns and gun people my whole life and have never witnessed an act of violence. Sure there's violence in the ghetto but realize that is socioeconomic problem and not caused by the presence of guns.
I vote as do my gun owning buddies. If two candidates are equal on gun rights then I'll vote based on job creation, the environment etc... If your candidate is has any anti-gun record then I will vote against him or her every time, period. Please let your congressman know this.

>>290118
Dont feel bad it is typical of republikans to put objects ahead of human life. Television are worth more than a human life and guns of course are worth more than a human life.

>>290057
Actually you can only kill them if the force entry to the property or enter an in habited building uninvited(they don't need to force entry, if they sneak through an open window it is open season on shitheads).

People that wander onto open property can't get shot legally.

It's the castle laws, taking to effort to break in indicates you plan and stealing something or killing something. Both can be met with lethal force by the property owner.

Animals too. Any animal that fucks with your property is fair game.

I live in Pennsylvania and have shot 4 bear that were fucking about with my property, one tour up my vinyl siding to get a a wasp nest to eat the grubs. Well I gave him a .260 caliber lead and copper sandwich.

>>290118
But how do I know he isn't packing? That is the thing. I am simply unwilling to take a chance. I agree that human life is more important, but I value the lives of the innocent far more than the lives of the guilty. If there is a button that says "DO NOT PUSH OR YOU WILL DIE" and someone pushes it, whose fault is it? It is their own fault for setting themselves on a course of action they knew would lead to death. Breaking into homes is like pushing the button. You know you are doing something wrong that can get you killed but you do it anyway.

>>290084
These guns are not used for self defence, no one that I have spoken to or no where in media it is mentioned that you buy rifles for self defence.

There is a very active hunting community in Sweden. Mainly moose.

ITT: a bunch of college age, mentally and emotionally immature libfags who are using blatant, logical fallicies in a sad attempt to justify their own desire to shirk as much responsibility for their own actions and their own safety as possible.

>>290123

Atheist here. Jesus returning to Earth for Judgment Day will happen before the 2A is repealed.

Why don't you emigrate to the UK, I've heard their gun control laws are the best in the world and they're the safest developed country to live in with a very low crime rate.

>>290157
I'm the guy who responded to him. I'm not a Republican, nor did I ever say I valued objects above human life.

>>290175
Sorry but its time for the US to join the 21st century and not live in the past with archaic believes that are imposed on the people.

>>290118
Fuck that. I value my TV more than I do a criminals life.

Don't want to get shot? Get a job and buy your own damn tv.

When you steal my TV your aren't just stealing my TV, your stealing the part of my life I had to sacrifice to earn that TV.

>>290189
Guy arguing for sensible regulations here. I'd just like to note that this guy isn't me. He is responding to the guy I was responding to, but I assure you he isn't me.

>>290189

>thinks he is forced to own a gun
>doesn't want beliefs forced on other people
>wants to ban and confiscate all guns

You are a huge faggot.

>>290123
And who is exactly is going to be compensating me for the loss of my property?

>>290166
You're implying that a hunting gun can't be used just as well in a crime as an "assault rifle".

There is also a very active hunting community in America therefore the number per capita and America could be equally reduced. It's also very difficult to identify which gun is a "hunting" gun and which gun is a self defense gun. The restrictions on California gun types are ridiculous and so easily engineered around.

>>290118
>>290157
Breaking into your house and stealing shit is indicative of hostile action. It indicates that he may attack you if caught. You can't shoot them if they are running away but if they break in and are facing you then you can kill them since they aren't retreating.

add ",but" in the middle

>>290189

WTF are you talking about? Seriously, don't even try to justify that statement; it makes NO sense. (And yes, i understand what you are trying to get at, but it is pretty ignorant of, well, everything)

my M1 Garand frowns on your shenanegans.

>>290189
>ownership of weapons is an archaic belief
>kings used to deny the right to weapons on a regular basis to prevent peasant uprisings

L2history

>herp derp
If you are too stupid to see that doing crime increases your chances of getting shot, than you are a little slow.
Here this one is simple:
Dont do crime --
Dont get shot.
You will have nobody to blame but yourself.
You bleeding heart fags blame the guns when you should actually be blaming the cumstain of a person who made the decision to break the law.
inb4 herp hes too poor he just wanted food
I dont think you can eat a fucking TV.
>mfw i shoot a fucking crackhead stealing my tv and society as a whole is a little bit better.
Oh hey, you guys make such a fuss about civilians owning weapons when militarized police are no-knocking raids without fucking warrants and the FUCKING BATFE is smuggling untrackable weapons south of the border to mexican cartels.
Nah,
fuck you.

>>290165
No, breaking into someones house is not equal to pushing a button that risks a life.

And further, most people who comit theft are the people who society doesn't catch in its safety net. People who didn't get proper education, wasn't raised correctly, under influence, in my opinion they are almost not even guilty of the crime they are commiting but absolutely not guilty of murder and that you are allowed to kill them.

(I support prosecution of thieves, I'm not that detached from reality.)

>>290193
Exactly, a lack of personal accountability is the problem in this country.
A tv isn't worth anyones life, hell it isn't even worth hurting someones feelings imo but the idea that we have a culture of personal responsibility and accountability is everything and that is worth a life. This is what the anti-gun wacko does not get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZU1P38KJno

You disagree and I understand that but this man is a hero.

"How does one go from "civil rights for all!!!" to "no guns for anyone!!!" in the same breath?"

How does one go from "civil rights for all!!!" to "no grenades for anyone!!!" in the same breath?

How does one go from "civil rights for all!!!" to "no stuff that kills other people for anyone!!!" in the same breath?

MY ANSWER: EASILY

>>290251
You absolutely symbolize everything that is wrong with this country and truly make me want to vomit. You are wrong on such a fundamental level I don't even know where to start.
If someone makes it to adulthood but didn't get an education that does not make it okay for them to not be responsible for themselves.

>MFW the insecure anti-gun faggots ITT have been thoroughly crushed by logic.

>>290123
The problem is that this approach will not keep a nut from getting a gun in the first place. If he want to murder randomly the law is not going to dissuade him. He has already decided to break it. He will get the gun, he will purchase it illegally. So the legal program doesn't stop him. Or he will just act normal and get it through legal channels like that jackass in Norway did(pic related). And he planned on buying them illegally than sneaking them in if he couldn't get them.

98% of crimes involving a gun are committed with illegally purchased firearms because they have no serial numbers or paper trail. Where do the guns come from? They are reverse imported. A shady firm will ship them off by boat then sneak them back in easily. So long as we have open and profitable ports and have a profitable firearms industry as the number 1 producer of smaller arms in the world we will have black market firearms. Illegalizing them won't get rid of the black market. Restricting access to rifles certainly won't. Which means the availability to criminals will not decrease any appriciable amount. Unless you want to dismantle part of our industrial base or close the ports.

Look I can make a pipe bomb in day. I can make a fertilizer bomb in a week with a septic truck. Molotov cocktails are illegal I've made them for starting garbage fires in refuse pits. If you can get them easily then restrictions do nothing. If I had the uranium 235 I could make a gun type nuke like Little Boy. But uranium 235 is actually really hard to get so you can actually restrict it's sale and accomplish something. Same thing with more technically complicated and hard to smuggle stuff like RPGs. That and they don't have a defensive function or domestic utility the way a rifle does. They are to cumbersome and too powerful. I can get dynamite for blasting though. We use it for opening up coal veins in the area when we can get old stuff that is cheap.

>mfw RPG's and grenades are legal to own with a 200$ tax stamp
If you can find one anyway.

>>290252
So you would rather live in a country of fear? Where every mistake you make (dropping out of school and steal tv's etc.) automatically risks your life?

And you can't in any way see the correalation between being raised by proper parents vs. not being raised at all?

People are not accounatble for every situation they get into. I am no more special when I am studying at a university compared to an individual who steals tv's. I'm just lucky.

>>290108
The NE US and the west coast too. Just full of people who's opinion on the rest of the world colored by what they've heard from other people who have also never left their little alcove.

Comedian Todd Barry has a great bit on it.

"A while back I did a show in Birmingham, Alabama, and I whenever I tell my friends in New York about it they go 'Oh my god, what was that like?'"

"Well, I'll tell you what it was like, I was picked up at the airport by the grand imperial wizard of the klan. We drove into town on a wagon pulled by a crippled mule. The comedy club was an old run down wooden building, with only candles for lighting. I tried to get a few jokes out on stage, but they just kept shouting jewboy go home.... that's totally what it was like... or you could just go down there and see it for yourself you narrowminded fake-liberal fuck."

>>290301
**EDIT
And you can't in any way see the correalation between being raised by proper parents vs. not being raised at all, and crime rates?

(Doesn't make any sense without this edit.)

>>290123

I can and have built several functional, effective firearm for less than $20 of supplies from a corner home improvement store. Protip: it's legal in most of the U.S. to do this, but that isn't the point of course.

I will be armed no matter what, and so will a lot of other people, including criminals.

also:
>implying ther was/is not wide spread violent crime with the absences of firearms
>implying your statement was not merely a jumble of emotional rantings with a hint of fallicious ligic

>Why is it that the left has generally and traditionally held itself up as the defender of personal freedoms, yet fights so vigorously against the right to bear arms?

Except the left generally HASN'T fought for that. That's actually a conservative issue.

It's just the definition of 'conservative' in the US is muddy at best. And the idea of right-wing movements has been highjacked by political parties around the world that want to push their own special brand of totalitarianism. No one fights for personal freedoms anymore, because freedom doesn't accumulate, it erodes. Political parties only fight for the freedoms that they do because it benefits them personally, not because they feel it is the right thing to do.

>>290301
I'm talking about a society free of fear.
I heard an expert say that we are 1 generation away from total barbarism. Meaning if we don't raise our kids right then they will basically be savages and running the country in 20 years. I look at places where the type of "not raised" mentality is prevalent. There's crime everywhere.
If that criminal knows that he is going to be help accountable DIRECTLY by the person who's home he is breaking into then he won't do it. I've helped him. The courts are a joke, it's catch and release because we can't afford to jail a generation that wasn't raised.
What I'm talking about is re-instituting (notice the re-) a reality of strong individuals in this country and personal accountability for breaking certain obvious rules. There is no misunderstanding that invading someones home is wrong.
I'll give you a better example:
A criminal, even one that wasn't raised right, knows that if he steps in front of a semi on the highway he will die. He doesn't do this for obvious reasons. Are YOU suggesting that this creates a society that lives in fear of highways?

>>290301
>I am no more special when I am studying at a university compared to an individual who steals tv's.
Exactly.
Neither of you will be able to get a job.
But only one of you will have the better common sense as to not break the law to get what you need.
The funny thing is, you will be the one in debt, and he will be the one with a clean slate still breaking the law.

>>290215
No, I am implying that they are not used for self defence.

I know that guns magicaly seizes to exist when you ban them.

(I'm not sure of this but I think autmatic rifles are banned in Sweden and pistols.)

On 22 July 2007 two men broke into the home of Dr. William Petit.
They assaulted Dr. Petit, then forced his wife to go to the bank, where she withdrew money for the burglars. At the bank, Mrs. Petit notified the teller of the situation. The teller notified the police.

During the next hour, while the police developed their plan, the two men raped Dr. Petits 11 year old daughter, his 17 year old daughter, and his wife.
They strangled his wife. She was lucky.
His two daughters were tied to their beds, doused with gas, and lit on fire. They burned to death.

All you people who claim that a gun has no place in society need to pay attention.
If Dr. Petit had a firearm, the outcome might have been different.
No one knows for sure.
But his family would have had a better chance.
You people that want to ban guns would see a world where the Petit family live at the mercy of people like Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky.

Guns stop over 2,000,000 crimes every year.

Guns, so important gadget to them USAnians.

>>290123
>enact laws that heavily tax semi auto weapons and handguns to where it would be too costly for manufacturers to produce them.

Ha ha in the place that makes most of the worlds assault weapons, semi-auto rifles, and handguns. Right, you'll turn over an industry worth over a hundred billion dollars a year, sure.

>>290157
>>290118
>>290193
>>290251
>>290252

Just to point something out to you wimps. Human life does have an average monetary value. A skilled worker will produce 6 million $ in profit over his life. WE have less than 10,000 homicide and manslaughter by firearms cases each year in the US. So the total profit that could be lost is around 60 billion but even that figure is inflated due to counting an entire life's production as lost. And most of these homicide victims are members of the chronically criminal underclasses that are not very productive anyway. So even in the worst case scenario we make a 40 billion dollar profit as a society each year at the very least.

>>290345
>I heard an expert say that we are 1 generation away from total barbarism

That is such bullshit, people have been saying that about the younger generations for centuries.

>>290348
Except that I study engineering with a 99%~ hiring rate. 50% before graduation.

And I live in Sweden where the best schools are free and I take loans to support my living and half of it is free and the other half is one of the best loans you can get.

>>290301

You think you are lucky for working and not robbing people? LOL! Thanks for proving my point about wanting to deny responsibility and personal accountability for your own actions!

You must feel really secure having none of your mistakes ever be your fault huh? Luckily this opinion will be forced to change when you get older (either that or you will end up a total failure at life)

I know merely telling you this won't change your self desrtuctive philsophy, but eventually events in your life probably will.

Guns will never be banned in the US. People feel that they are a welcome place in our society.

Deal w/ it Eurofriends.

>>290365
>Google Steven Hayes
>Read account of murder.
I'm very anti-death penalty, and pro strict gun control. But a case like this.
It makes me think, and I'm man enough to admit that it makes me think. Even on /pol/ where no one ever stops to think.

I carry a gun every day and I vote. I meet liberals every day. Say hello and open doors. I'm friends with liberals. What if they knew I had a gun?
Their opinion of me would change, the idea that I have a gun would "instill fear" why?
What if I learned karate? What's the difference really, the most powerful weapon is the mind.
The ONLY thing a gun ads is a few yards to the distance you can attack or defend. If you are shoulder to shoulder to me then I wouldn't even pull a gun to defend myself. Your fear is blown way out proportion and all this "gun violence" only really happens in the ghetto. The violence isn't going to go away if there are no guns.

>>290402
I'm not sure what's more pathetic. Not placing blame on people who fuck up, or not taking pride in your own accomplishments.

>>290345
Sorry, I can't take your word for "crime everywhere because of the "not raised" mentality" and I also think that the crimes comitted are because of not raised properly, so yeah, target the caring of individuals and correct people who make mistakes give them another chance and do not kill them.

And your other example:
Yes, we should fear big masses moving at high velocities.

>>290397
Enjoy your outsourced job.

I advocate the beating of your kids.
Props to that video of the judge.

>>290447
So you're afraid, right now of a semi? You're living in fear? Wow man seek help.

Fear happens when the rules aren't clear, when there's ignorance.

>>290421
The fear that exist is: "If you have a gun, I must have a gun!" "If you know karate, I must know karate!"

And comparing to karate is quite silly. It takes a lot of time to learn and you are not a trigger away from killing someone.

>>290491
>>290491
Too bad Dr. Petit wasn't a trigger away, amirite?

>>290491
>guns are magical heat seeking death machines capable of being used accurately and efficiently without any practice

if you really think this you are beyond stupid

>>290417
When I was 12, one of our neighbors broke into our house wielding a machete. My dad killed him with a shotgun.

It turned out the guy was on a laundry list of drugs and had just killed his own wife and child, as well the the old lady in the house next to us. We were next.

A little buckshot put an end to that bullshit, and why I'm alive today.

>>290468
Yeah, I have bad dreams about semi's!

No seriously. It is different to fear malicious intent of a living being than obvious immaterial objects.

>>290503
He's going to ignore that because he's an intellectual coward.

>>290510
>it is hard to fire a few rounds across a room with people standing still (The gun threat situation.)


Also, the fear I'm talking about is the kind of fear I experienced when I visted the United States.

To every hotel I went to there were a lot of locks. Everything was fenced of. Security everywhere.
Security checkpoints everywhere. Automatic locks on car doors(No one locks their doors while they drive in Sweden.). Warnings of bad neighbourhods.

Fear of each other restricts your freedom.

(My mouse died here, I will try to still respond.)

>>290588
have fun in sweden then stay the fuck away from my guns and my locked up property

>>290531
>>290503
>>290365
Ok, I will respond to petit.

It might take some time. My mouse works for short periods.

Incoming.

>>290491

You are afraid because there are people out there stronger than you? I got news, friend, banning guns will make the danger you face from miscreents FAR greater.

Also, I hope you're not implying that any average person with greater capability that another will force their will upon them or attack them on a mere whim. Because, if so this means that you are VERY detached from reality. You are mostly likely a violent person (likely a narcisist) yourself at heart and fear yourself owning firearms becausue you know you'll be tempted to harm another with them. And, to make yourself feel as though you fit in with other people (doing it subconciously) you project this terrible personal quality on others.

The other possiblilty is that you are extremely weak minded and get trod over by basically everyone, and even if you did have firearms you wouldn't have the back bone to ever use them. Because of your mental weakness, you emotionally want to bring other people down as close to your weak, unassertive level as possible so that you can feel safer.

Anyway you look at it, civilian firearms ownership is actually helping you achieve your goal of being safer from a logical perspecive, but you are too emotionally blinded to think it through. Also, there is an extremely high probability that your personality and character it totally worthless.

I'm not being harsh, I'm being honest. Calling it like I see it. Maybe you should take a long hard look in the morrior. (just don't say "Biggie Smalls" three times in a row while doing so)

>>290602
So that's the society you prefer? Have fun!

>>290588
Nobody protects their property in Sweden because the government buys it all for them anyway and the years of preposterously high taxation have gotten them used to the idea of not holding on to what is rightfully theirs.

You know who else isn't very protective of their stuff? Kids with rich parents who will replace it for them when it gets stolen.

>>290649
i'd rather live in a society that owns up to their actions and is much more aware that there are people that do bad things. unlocked doors are why people steal in the first place.

>>290588

Damn! I was right one one of them! This post confirms that you are a weak minded child who gets pushed around by everyone.

>>290650
So you mean that the goverment is buying property and giving it to them? Please clarify, I think I am missunderstanding you.

Pro-gun lefty here, the support for gun control is weaker than it's ever been, left or right.

Nationally, it's pretty much a dead issue.

Let's not forget that modern gun control laws started from the right, after the Black Panthers started exercising their right in public.

>>290674
>unlocked doors are why people steal in the first place.

um, NO. People wanting your shit for free and not understanding the consequences of their action among many other reason cause people to steal. Unlocked shit just makes it easier.

Would you take anything that didn't belong to you just becasue it wasn't locked or tied down?

pic: look what I've got Swedefag

Regarding the Petit case.

I say that it doesn't justify guns.

My reasoning is this: The fear that I have talked about. It distances you from society, you get detached from society. If you think that everyone is there to help you don't commit these unspeakable acts.

But if you think that everyone is out to get you and your wrong decision makes you a worthless human being, then that will cause you to commit these acts.

I'm REALLY left of center, and I <3 guns and favor deregulation. Most of the crimes committed with guns are committed by inner city nignogs. We don't have a gun problem we have a nigger problem, sane people understand this.

I have taken at least 7 anti-gun people shooting over the past 3 years. 6 of which have since changed their stance on gun control, 5 of which now have at least a .22, and 2 of which who have a prolific arsenal far outclassing mine. (the other one was a cunt, who last I heard got herself knocked up by a nignog).

However I have NEVER seen a single instance of a pro-gun friend turning anti-gun.

I imagine if you could get the brady campaign to stop being terrified of inanimate objects for more than 20 minutes, if you took them shooting I'd be willing to bet at least half of them would reconsider.

>>290716
You sir suck balls at history.

Modern U.S. gun control was started by Southern Democrats during reconstruction IOT keep blacks from owning firearms, it then quickly progressed into Democrats attempting to prevent non-wealthy people from owning them.

You were right on the predjudice part tatleast though. To keep things civil: i hope you realize that the Democratic party today is an entiely different animal than the pre civil rights Democratic party.

>>290773
>meant to say 4 of which now have at least a .22

>>290646
>Also, I hope you're not implying that any average person with greater capability that another will force their will upon them or attack them on a mere whim. Because, if so this means that you are VERY detached from reality. You are mostly likely a violent person (likely a narcisist) yourself at heart and fear yourself owning firearms becausue you know you'll be tempted to harm another with them. And, to make yourself feel as though you fit in with other people (doing it subconciously) you project this terrible personal quality on others.

No I do not, in no way imply this.

The rich should give to the poor, everyone should help each other. Strong or weak.

>>290776
you don't realize that the only reason the dems turned to the minorities was after they were able to vote.

>>290728
Sweet gun. I loved it in Call of Duty 2.

//Swedefag

(Also, I hope you didn't assume that I said that people steal stuff because it's not locked down.)

>>290588
I think you are attributing fear to things that are better characterized by aggressiveness and insularity.

Things are fenced off and cars have automatic locks not because we fear things being stolen, since we have a lower burglary and petty theft rate than most of Europe. We are just way more territorial. More of us are landowners, especially in rural areas. We are very protective of our property even if there is no threat. Though a lot of people designate their property as open to hunting, fishing, and movement that is just so we don't have to pay taxes on unimproved property. Most areas you could camp around like in your precious Sweden, but you would be looked down on for doing so. Other people want to keep their property posted, though nobody will beat your ass for trespassing they will kick you off, and if you keep doing it a trip to the woodshed will result. Most people post property because they are leasing timber or mineral rights.

America will not become Europe if you change some laws about guns or punishment of crime. Americans don't want to be Romans, we prefer to be barbarians. We take the good parts of civilization like science and industry and spit upon that "high culture" bullshit. We don't want a society founded on peace, we want a society founded on the protection of ourselves, our blood, and our allies. We want to maximinze the amount of force we can bring to bare in our own defense and not rely on others, because we don't trust anyone we are not related to or allied with. Lack of trust is not indicative of fear it is simply that we refuse to anyone them until we know them.

This is the general sentiment of the rural US. I have a MS in stratigraphy, make 80 grand a years, work for an small oil company, and usually vote democrat. Being well off financially and any other political leanings will not change this sentiment.

>>290776
1) I'm not a Democrat (in part because of gun control, also I just don't like "party line" politics.)
2) Very true about Reconstruction-era laws.
3) I'm talking about modern gun control laws - post 1960.
Interesting read:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/#

>>290844
>I loved it in Call of Duty 2
>Call of Duty

>>290798
>Let's not forget that modern gun control laws started from the right, after the Black Panthers started exercising their right in public.

Technically some of the black panthers were dumbasses and got themselves caught because they had the firearm loaded in a moving motor vehicle which you can't do. You can have the clip in, but the breech has to be open and empty. You can close the breech if their is no clip in the gun though or shells in the cylinder.

The other ones that just stood on the sidewalk with their rifles were left alone.

>>290751
Are you serious?

You think that MAKING A MISTAKE IN YOUR LIFE makes you rape an entire family and then set them on fire?

Are you serious?

Those guys set out that night to do exactly what they did.
And the only thing that had a chance of saving those peoples lives was if Dr. Petit had a fucking gun in his house.
You really think that the fact that guns exist played into these guys thinking and caused them to go out and rape an 11 year old girl and then set her on fire?

Is that REALLY what you are trying to say?

>>290798
>The fear that exist is: "If you have a gun, I must have a gun!" "If you know karate, I must know karate!"
>a trigger away from killing someone

Ok, but explain what you mean then. If your 'fear' does not come from those with greater capability of force than yourself, then where does the fear you are referring to come from? Cause I'm pretty sure you've referenced the fear coming, at least in part, from people with greater capability for force than yourself. "fear from eachother..."

If you didn't fear people with greater force at their disposal, then why do you fear peaceful citizen owning firearms? You have just as little to fear from someone like myself hurting you as you would any other educated, well of, non-criminal person. I am very well arms and decently skilled with firearms too.

>The rich should give to the poor, everyone should help each other. Strong or weak.

(What does this have to do with firearms ownership?)

As long as I'm not forced to help, i'm cool with that. I only help people I respect, not people who 'need' my help the most. Most 'less fortunate' people got there from their own bad action, so I have no respect for them.

The weak deserve to die of their own poor actions if they cannot help themselves. If they can help themselves, then they are not weak and may warrant some of my charity. Retarded squirrels can feed themselves, if a human cannot (other than medical related issues) then I don't give half a shit about them. People who have the capability to produce more, but just need a little help here and there deserve my help.

Personal accountability; learn it, live it.

>>290852
And this is where we differ. I see lack of trust as fear.

Your position is healthy and well thought out.
I assume that I can't "convert" you but allow me to defend my position:

I believe in a strong government that supports even the weakest links. The weakest may sometimes be the poor homeless that struggles but in some cases it is the psychopathic killer.

Even if someone burned down my apartment and went and killed my family I would still want that person rehabilitated and given another chance in society. Some of that care is intended for the criminal but mostly that care is indirectly affecting future potential criminals. They know that they can get help from society, they are not forsaken. They can know that people do good things to each other and they do not see government/corporations or anyone as evil people. If they think others are evil, they will rationalize their acts that way.


Being well off financially and any other political leanings will not change this sentiment.

>>290958
Oh I see where I missunderstood you and where you missunderstood me.

I do not fear people who have guns.

You fear people so much that you feel the need to own guns. That is what I am saying.

It is this fear that I am talking about.

>>290990
Did you see what those two guys did to that family?

I don't fear people. I fear lunatics.

>>290716
>Nationally, it's pretty much a dead issue.

Thankfully yes because people realized

1) The guns are not the source of the problem and regulation hasn't done shit

2) Even though people moving into cities more the vast majority of rural people hunt or shoot stuff. So guns would just be smuggled into cities anyway.

3) Though the US still has three times the industrial output of China, we mostly make computers and components for things. The exception is guns, and we make a ton of money, and as long as we manufacture half the guns on the planet we are going to have a huge black market for guns.

4) It's feel good legislation that does nothing but give the impression of improvement and moral superiority to those that advocate it.

Ofcourse Eurofags don't know this, it's not their business what happens across an ocean nor should they be expected to know. But not knowing this they are the ones the bitch about it making the same emotionally driven arguments about "being nice" and "having a peaceful society" despite the fact that those concepts are alien to us yanks. America/=Europe but "less advanced" America= The British Empire + The Iroquois League + fondness for heavy industry, mining, and religion. It is a separate offshoot. You don't expect Japan to be America just because we have a close relationship these days, so why expect America to turn into Europe even when demographics show opposite trends in most things?

>>290962

Are you dense?

A system designed as such promotes a total shirk of persoanl accaountability.

In that system, a person could murder everyone they didn't like and never produce a dollar in their life. That person would still be just as successful as a hard working unskilled wroker wh was a peaceful, producive citizen.

Guess which is easier? The ciminal, lazy, shirking one is. Because of theis, eventuually such a system would fail due to lack of production.

Only systems which reward pruductivity and responsibility are successful in the long run.

It's fucking obvious. Have you been sheltered your entire lofe or are you trolling, because if so 9/10.

>>290962
>>290962
>Even if someone burned down my apartment and went and killed my family I would still want that person rehabilitated and given another chance in society.

Do you really feel that the two guys who did raped and murdered that family need another chance?

What about justice for the murdered little girl?
What about Justice for the father left alone?
What about making sure that these people never have the opportunity to do this to another family?

>>290909
Not only one mistake but a buildup of things:

>They were psychologicaly ill.
>Detachment from society.
>No or little education and/or proper raising.

Detachment of society:
And the guns and policies of that nature caused them to be detached from society. The fear that exists, (not the fear of guns) but the fear of each other and the notion that every has fight for themselves.

>>290990
Not the person you're talking to, but honestly, self-defense is very low on the list of reasons I own guns.

I've never had to use one in self-defense and doubt I ever will.

I like the mechanical precision of the things, I like their significance as historical artifacts, and I like target shooting.

>>291036
Of course you should be isolated from society and rehabilitated. But that is punishment enough.

Of course there is market economy and what have you to promote productivity.

The government should attend to everyones needs. But you work for the extra things that you want.

A happy life is a right in my opinion.

>>291043
Justice is worthless.

The criminals should be isolated for some time because of their higher probability to harm others. Meanwhile they should be rehabilitated and hopefully brought back into society.

>>290990

>You fear people so much that you feel the need to own guns. That is what I am saying.

What you are saying is wrong, and proves my point about not understanding personal responsibility.

I own firearms, not because I am afraid or they make me "feel" safe. I own them because I find they are fun and also because they allow me a personal autonomy to choose the destiny of my own life in the remote chance that I would be presented with violence from another person. It is all about personal autonomy.

Also, what you just said is still NO reason to restrict firearms. Merely owning them does not do anything to actually affect another person, and a person should be free to choose to do somthing that does no harm. Any restrictions on such a thing would be illogical and unjust.

So, i'll ask you again, what fear do you have from me owning firearms? Because you obviously fear something about them. Projecting that fear on me in illogical because I have no fear associated with firearms.

>>291036
I'm not trolling. (You're welcome, there is your 10/10)

ITT: The right accuses the left of being anti-gun when that's simply not true.

I don't know if you've noticed but there are many lawmakers that are stepping away from the gun issue because many in their constituency are liberal gun owners.

>Giving them another chance
You can barely rehabilitate a criminal.
What makes you think you can rehabilitate demons?

>>291055
>the notion that every has fight for themselves.

What? Looks like you are hopeless...

People who do not strive for theor own success deserve what they sow. People who honestly strive (together or separately) for their own success achive at least some measure of decency.

One who hopes to just just have the groups carry them along in their lives or is caounting on other to ensure that he never can fail is totally worthless towards benifitting society and themselves. People such as that deserve what should be coming to them. (starvation)

>>291131

0/10 because of you life fail, and may god not have mercy on your... ...fuck you don't have a soul do you, you Marxist degenerate?

>>291117
I fear that your guns is a brick in the self defence arming race. And people don't trust each other. Trust is vital in a healthy society.

In my world, absence of trust equals fear: "Will somebody come here and kill me? I do not know because I do not trust them, therefore I must have a gun."

>>291159

I don't think i've ever said that...

I seen our culture warm up somewhat to firearms since the 1990's. I hope the trend continues. I would be hilarious and awesome to have both sides of the aisle agreeing on the 2nd.

>>291183
In my opinion. Happiness is a right.

We are different.

>>291255
Guaranteed by whom?
Its only achievable by oneself.

>>291212
See my first image: >>290057

No I don't think I have a soul sorry.

>>291275
(Guaranteed by no one.)
So you say only yourself can make you happy? Yet some people don't achieve it.

Then we must help them.

You can't undo crimes with punishment.

>Even if someone burned...

While this is a high minded personal attitude which I assume is founded on some form of religious or philosophical moralistic stance about turning the other cheek and non-violence, you have to understand why that can't work at a societal level. There are those both criminal and law abiding like myself are completely without morals or empathy, 5-15% of the population has sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies which is way more than the number of the population that is homosexual which is around 1%. These tendencies are inborn, and though I suppose you could modify them with chemical treatment the very nature of those with antisocial personalities means most of them despise treatment, help, and pity. Most of these people have a way to keep themselves totally under control. Some are pathologically loyal to their family, state, and species. Some see killing humans as a waste of resources. Others are focused entirely on their bloodlines and just fain loyalty to allies and nation states. A few only care about themselves but understand that a stable society an environment desirable to them and will follow the rules even when they are contrary to their current interests for the sake of perpetuating the social structures they want.

>>290962

>>291331
However a few of them are dangerous. They don't understand limits, or if pressured they take to crime easily because they have not compunctions about it. If a man burned down your home and killed your family he has proven himself untrustworthy to society. This is not the matter of bludgeoning a spouse in a rage because they betrayed you. This is not killing off a long held rival. Some of these fuckers are crazy and can never be trusted again. Whether they can be rehabilitated is almost a moot point(though most cannot). They can never be trusted again. Killing three people is going too far. We have to get rid of them. They are an implicit danger to their warders and they can never be set free. It's not even punishment it's just taking out the trash.

>>291331
If this is true.
Is the 5-15% always the criminal?

We can't know if they are psychologically ill or had a bad life beforehand.

So therefore we can't know which, then we should take care of them all. And not let the sane but still criminal people not feel happiness.

We need to care for the people that we can help and atleast try to make the psychopaths lifes good but not letting them hurt other people.

(My view of life stems from philosphy.)

>>291339
But we don't know for certain that they cannot be trusted again. I have a difficulty with killing someone that could have been taken care of and adapted to society.

>>291255
>In my opinion. Happiness is a right.

I'm this guy >>291339 >>291331 and I hope to fuck you are trolling.

Now understand that this is coming from a blood soaked(literally since I just killed a turkey this morning) psychopath scientist.

You are fucking retarded. Seriously. Survival and propagation is what matters, not happiness. Happiness doesn't give your or your line of descent anything. Feelings and emotions have no value in of themselves. They are only useful in reinforcing desirable behaviors. Love your wife because it makes your bond stronger and ensures that you can stay together to raise and properly indoctrination your offspring to your survival strategies. Don't get involved for the sake of love, love those you become involved with.

You want a specific society because of some philosophical/emotional tenet you are stuck on. Not because it creates an environment conducive to the continued survival of you and your offspring.

You probably think empathy is a virtue don't you? Let me tell you something about empathy it's a selfish illusion. You don't really feel what they feel. Feelings have no value on their own. And your concern for them is based purely on this pussy feeling you have. "Oh what if that was me?", you say to yourself. Fuck you it wasn't you. You only care about your own little impressions, feelings, and morality rather than the actual survival of that person and the propagation of their blood. You only really care about yourself.

It's bad when a borderline sociopath thinks YOU are the selfish one.

>>291468

>>291468
Yes, I agree feelings are worthless for survival. They are just chemical reactions.

I am a strict materialist.

But what do I want?
What is my goal?
Is my goal to merely survive?
I can easily survive.

Then what is my goal?
My goal is to feel pleasure.
Pleasure sounds perverted so I use the word happinesss.

I realise that there is a possibility that others also want happiness. I may very well be the only one wanting happiness but I don't know therefore I take the chance and assume you are like me.

I also realise that since we are material and our universe is governed by physical laws.

We are equal.

Since we are equal, you and I should have equally good life experiences.

Therefore I strive for happiness for all.

>>291225

Alright, you keep on reiterating the same nonsensical things without ever actually answering my questions. This is the last time I'm going to correct you. I don't own firearms because I'm insecure (quite the opposite), I own them mainly because they are fun and aditionally I am not naive enough to think that I am safe from everyone else and everything no matter what.

Firearms are not some totem that attracts violence. Merely owning firearms does basically nothing.

What you are doing (notice I'm not actually asling you anything, I'm telling because I know you won't answer it due to you emotional defense mechanisms) is projecting a fear YOU have on others. You 'feel' that by owning firearms one would be admitting that society can be dangerous and that you might have to do something in response, so to make yourself feel like you fit in with others, you project this same fear that you have onto other, emotionally sercure people who do not actually have your same fear. This is where your suggestions that I and others own firearm because we are afraid or that because we own firearms it contributes to violence, and other illogic suggestions come from. Firearms and firearms owners are really a third party though. What you are really afraid of is responsibility and accountability for your own actions. By refusing methods that by which you would more greatly exploit your own efforts for your personal benifit, you are shirking as much risk (in actual fact it is responsibility, but emotionally you justify it as reducing risk) as possible to feel more secure in your own environment.

Firearms are a clear target of your fear of responsiblity because they represent an ultimate self-determination. The power to save your own life from peril using physical force.

>>291545
(cont)

By accepting firearms (or capitalism too) you would be acknowleging a fact to yourself that your own actions and personal decisions greatly influence the outcome of events in you life more than anything else. You fear this because it would mean you must also face and overcome you personal shortcomings on far more deep emotional and logical levels than you ever have done before.

So, it is easier for you to not take responsibility because then you are safe from having to deal with yourself which amy be a daunting task. To further shield yourself from confronting what actually scares you, you make up things that are not based in reality in order to insulate yourself from discovering the truth. Things such as 'Firearms reduces valuable trust in society' or there must be a social safety net in place, or 'any person can come down on their luck and be "forced" to turn to crime.'

To everyone else it seems rediculous, bu to you, it seems very real because the alternative is confronting your fear and your own shortcommings as a person.

>>291468
And also, yes, I am very selfish.

I find pleasure in thinking that I do good for others.

But am I really deluded?

>>291385
>Is the 5-15% always the criminal?
No no, it's like 1% at most. Most people with antisocial personalities score high on that sociopathy test but have something that makes them what most people would consider a good person. Some of them have cultivated such unshakable love and loyalty for their families, nation, gods, or species that they willingly give their lives to defend them. Others have a kind of morality based on philosophical or religious tenets that might even make them a pacifist. Others put on a pretty face so as not to disturb others, and not just so they don't get caught. Some of them just do it because they think disturbing people is counter productive in general. Others openly admit it, not out of some odd pride or desire for recognition that "minorities" often seem to want, but because they think open and truthful relationships are more expedient and profitable to them.

But these people myself included are not good, we are evil men who are nominally allied to good. We are on the side of what is generally thought of as good despite having no morals of our own, even those of us that are devoutly religious or have some kind of personal code of honor.

Having and antisocial personality is about spitting on the idea that feelings have any value. These people are what are commonly referred to as assholes.

>>291549
>>291545
Thank you. This is what I need.

You presented what I said correctly.

During a long time I have thought I was correct.

I still think so.

Let me think.

I may fear that I can affect things in my life.
(Although I often dismiss this on the basis that I haven't done shit and my life is perfect in my eyes.)

(Also, I like to think that you do not lose when you lose an argument. You win knowledge. (Just so I can save some face, you haven't won yet.))

>>291583
To me, that sounds like all the "normal" people haven't reasoned for their feelings.

I too see that feelings are worthless but that is the only thing we have. Survival is also pointless.

>We can't know if they are psychologically ill or had a bad life beforehand.
Illness is defined as a tentancy toward behaviors that cause a biologic problem. For an example an asexual, celibate, fetishist, and homosexual might all be defined as "ill" if the criteria was reproductive fitness. But they still can be useful as workers so we tolerate this.

Being antisocial doesn't mean you are violent toward humans. Several other people I suspected of being anitsocial revel in the killing of animal. Not their pain, it's hard to be a sadist when you have no empathy. They just like killing things. But killing humans fills me will disgust, it wastes a possible ally and a bloodline that my children might interbreed with in the future. I have intentionally cultivated a mental block about killing humans. But if somebody tried to my wife I would slaughter the bastard, I'd eat the living eyes right out of the orbits. He has proven to me that is my enemy and a threat, the value he once held has been nullified and he now has negative value in my eyes.


>So therefore we can't know which, then we should take care of them all. And not let the sane but still criminal people not feel happiness.
>We need to care for the people that we can help and atleast try to make the psychopaths lifes good but not letting them hurt other people.
I think you aren't getting something. People with antisocial personalities despise being offered help. They will tolerate it form blood relations and people that they love, because it is a given they care about. And if you say that you want to make them "happy" when most have only an intellectual understanding of the concept, they will become suspicious and hostile. You are not offering anything they want or can understand.

>>291781
>I think you aren't getting something. People with antisocial personalities despise being offered help. They will tolerate it form blood relations and people that they love, because it is a given they care about. And if you say that you want to make them "happy" when most have only an intellectual understanding of the concept, they will become suspicious and hostile. You are not offering anything they want or can understand.

I got it. What I mean is, sure the help they will get may be wasted on them. BUT not on the actual not antisocial people, and we do not know if they are antisocial or not, so we treat them.

>>291721
>To me, that sounds like all the "normal" people haven't reasoned for their feelings.

>I too see that feelings are worthless but that is the only thing we have. Survival is also pointless.

Survival is objectively measurable, happiness is subjective. I could crack open your head, excise your brain, cut it up in 3D grid, grind the individual cubic subsections into a slurry, then measure the amount of neurotransmitters like in them and I would still be no closer to determining whether you are happy. I could take EEG scans of your brain while you claimed to be feeling happy an determine which neurons fired, but I still couldn't measure your happiness in millismiles. Feelings are known but subjective phenomena by their nature.

If you think survival is pointless then you will not try to ensure the propagation of your bloodline, and it may die out as a result. So be it. But I am bothered by the loss of any unique mutations you may have accumulated and will not pass on. It limits the options available to my descendants. Though if this strange attitude of yours is not do to pre-natal or cultural factors I don't think I would want my children interbreeding with yours at any rate, unless they displayed a very different temperment.

It think this is the fundamental conflict here. People like you want a society that is just, fair, and moral. Everyone else wants a society that will survive indefinitely. You're society has no selective pressures, no way to force adaptation. It is a society were strength and intelligence has no value, where everyone is fine just they way they are. And it is bullshit. The universe cannot be held in a static state, we need selective pressures if we are to survive. But then just as I do not recognize feelings as valuable in of themselves you don't desire survival.