patrick.net

tatupu70 says

Your point seemed to be that it was pointless to ban any guns since there are always other weapons that someone could find to kill people.

My point was that by using liberal logic, we should all live in padded cells. There is a level of risk in living.

Using nukes as an example in your case is a strawmans argument.

Reality: The bad guys aren't going to give up their guns. Duh. Why would you? Ban them, make them illegal, create gun-free zones and guess what - the bad guys/terrorists/crazies will still show up and mow people down. Libs will then stand around and be like "WTF, I thought we banned guns?"

joshuatrio says

My point was that by using liberal logic, we should all live in padded cells. There is a level of risk in living.

Yep, and my point is that it's still beneficial to try to reduce that risk whenever possible.

joshuatrio says

Reality: The bad guys aren't going to give up their guns. Duh. Why would you? Ban them, make them illegal, create gun-free zones and guess what - the bad guys/terrorists/crazies will still show up and mow people down. Libs will then stand around and be like "WTF, I thought we banned guns?"

Of course some criminals will still be able to get assault rifles. But if you can make it more difficult for them to obtain guns, it may stop some % of attacks. I'd rather stop 10% than stop 0%. It's not an all or nothing thing.

tatupu70 says

Yep, and my point is that it's still beneficial to try to reduce that risk whenever possible.

You proved my point.

tatupu70 says

Of course some criminals will still be able to get assault rifles. But if you can make it more difficult for them to obtain guns, it may stop some % of attacks. I'd rather stop 10% than stop 0%. It's not an all or nothing thing.

The reality is, stricter laws won't do anything. Look how well that's worked in other countries.

Whether it's an assault rifle or a handgun: if a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it. If the Orlando shooter didn't get it from the local gun shop, he would have found a different way.

Or used a pressure cooker.

Or a fork.

Or a plastic knife.

Or maybe he would have just lit the place on fire.

joshuatrio says

The reality is, stricter laws won't do anything. Look how well that's worked in other countries.

It's worked damn well in Australia, the most recent and relevant example.

joshuatrio says

Whether it's an assault rifle or a handgun: if a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it. If the Orlando shooter didn't get it from the local gun shop, he would have found a different way.

Does that apply to nuclear weapons, land mines, grenades, armored vehicles, etc.? No. Why not? Because those things are strictly regulated.

And what's up with the logic that because some people will obtain contraband then we shouldn't make such things contraband in the first place? Why the fuck does that apply to guns and nothing else? It does not apply to drugs, cryptography, military hardware, copyright infringement, wiretapping, and thousands of other things. Why the fuck do guns get a free pass when nothing else does?

And since laws don't deter terrorists at all, then why is terrorism illegal at all? Oh, so we can prosecute the shit out of terrorists. There is no other law that people say, well people break this law so why bother having it.

Dan8267 says

That's why the entire country must be a gun-free zone. Allowing guns any place means the plague will spread. Treat guns like narcotics. Zero tolerance.

It's worked well in Mexico, it's bound to work here!

What next Dan, disarm all bordering nations? The world? You're a dictators wet dream.

joshuatrio says

The reality is, stricter laws won't do anything. Look how well that's worked in other countries

This is correct. What's even more insane is that the democrats refuse to take steps that will actually decrease crimes. Namely:

-stop illegal immigration into the US
-deport those here who entered illegally
-have all states adopt federal sentencing of 15 year minimum for illegal gun possession and especially for felons in possession of a gun.

Why they scream gun control left and right when that will do little to decrease gun deaths while eschewing the above named steps...you got me on that one. I don't have a clue.

Terrorists should be able to buy their weapons directly, without resorting to the black market.

I'm the NRA.

joshuatrio says

The reality is, stricter laws won't do anything. Look how well that's worked in other countries.

That's clearly not true. Stricter laws WILL do something. Of course they won't be 100% effective, but so what. Isn't saving 1 life better than saving 0 lives?

No law is 100% effective. By your logic, we should have no laws? Seriously--if someone breaks a law, that means the law is useless?

We still have traffic accidents so we should eliminate stoplights? We still have rapists so therefore we should make rape legal?

Do you see how ridiculous this logic is?

tatupu70 says

That's clearly not true. Stricter laws WILL do something. Of course they won't be 100% effective, but so what. Isn't saving 1 life better than saving 0 lives?

No law is 100% effective. By your logic, we should have no laws? Seriously--if someone breaks a law, that means the law is useless?

We still have traffic accidents so we should eliminate stoplights? We still have rapists so therefore we should make rape legal?

Do you see how ridiculous this logic is?

And by your logic, we should only drink smoothies for breakfast, lunch and dinner - due to the risk of choking from solid food.

And hell, why stop at rape, let's ban sex for fear of STD's.

Per Ironman: How are the gun laws in Chicago working out for you?

joshuatrio says

And by your logic, we should only drink smoothies for breakfast, lunch and dinner - due to the risk of choking from solid food.

And hell, why stop at rape, let's ban sex for fear of STD's.

Nope--my logic is to assess the risks and then make a decision about the risk/reward of any law. If the reduction in risk outweighs the harm from the restriction, then it's worth doing. In this case, I think the harm to society from banning AR-15s is very small.

joshuatrio says

Per Ironman: How are the gun laws in Chicago working out for you?

Fine for me. Obviously it's not difficult for criminals to obtain guns when they are legal a short distance away.

NuttBoxer says

It's worked well in Mexico, it's bound to work here!

Does Mexico have the same laws as Australia? No.

So your argument might apply if I were proposing adopting the Mexican laws. I'm not. I'm proposing adopting the Australian laws. You have no arguments to refute the effectiveness of those laws.

And to be honest, you don't give a shit if adopting Australia's gun control laws did stop all mass shootings and most violence. You simply wouldn't care. You'd rather live in a country that was dangerous but allowed you to play with guns than one that was completely safe and didn't let you play with guns. Have the balls to admit that.

The gun debate isn't about safety. We already know what works. The gun debate is about recreational shooting and feeling like your a man because you can easily kill someone. But why should I give a damn about your recreational activities that allow for mass shootings when you don't give a damn about other people's recreational activities that do not result in the deaths of innocent people?

NuttBoxer says

What next Dan, disarm all bordering nations? The world? You're a dictators wet dream.

Your statement is nonsensical bullshit. Limiting firearms is not what makes a dictatorship a dictatorship. You are a fool if you actually believe that debunked lie.

Just apply your argument to other types of arms, all of which would be protected by the Second Amendment if that amendment were actually in effect. Why hasn't your inability to plant land mines in your front lawn caused the U.S. to be taken over by Nazis? Come on, the Nazis didn't let the Jews have land mines, so the U.S. is just like Nazi Germany because it does not let citizens plant land mines on their property.

We can substitute thousands of arms everywhere you use the word gun and it shows how fucking ridiculous your arguments are especially since the Second Amendment is about arms, not just firearms. The word gun appears nowhere in the Second Amendment. Funny how no person on the pro-gun side is willing to admit or discuss that fundamental flaw in their world view.

Guns are not special. The should receive no special protection that does not apply to any other kind of arm. The reason why some arms are illegal apply to all arms based on the degree to which that arm can be used to kill people against the law.

tatupu70 says

Nope--my logic is to assess the risks and then make a decision about the risk/reward of any law. If the reduction in risk outweighs the harm from the restriction, then it's worth doing. In this case, I think the harm to society from banning AR-15s is very small.

If you are going to asses the risks, then we really should ban sex. I mean, seriously!!! **GASP** There are around 50,000 new HIV cases reported each year!!!

Didn't you say this earlier -

tatupu70 says

Of course some criminals will still be able to get assault rifles.

Then...

tatupu70 says

I think the harm to society from banning AR-15s is very small.

Uhhhhh, you do realize the AR-15 is not an assault rifle right?

tatupu70 says

Obviously it's not difficult for criminals to obtain guns when they are legal a short distance away.

Or just get them illegally.

joshuatrio says

If you are going to asses the risks, then we really should ban sex. I mean, seriously!!! **GASP** There are around 50,000 new HIV cases reported each year!!!

You forgot the other half of my sentence. Balancing it with the harm to society. Don't you think banning sex would have a pretty harmful effect on society?? Like, ending it.

joshuatrio says

Uhhhhh, you do realize the AR-15 is not an assault rifle right?

Really, that's the best you have? Notwithstanding those are clearly from two different posts--who cares?

joshuatrio says

tatupu70 says

Obviously it's not difficult for criminals to obtain guns when they are legal a short distance away.

Or just get them illegally.

It would be much more difficult to get them illegally. And unless you think laws have no deterrence value, it should keep some people from obtaining them.

tatupu70 says

You forgot the other half of my sentence. Balancing it with the harm to society. Don't you think banning sex would have a pretty harmful effect on society?? Like, ending it.

Is it though? Would you rather take a shot to the head, or be diagnosed with an incurable disease - and be subjected to an expensive assortment of drug cocktails for the rest of your life?

And how many couples actually reproduce after being diagnosed with HIV? My guess is very few.

So, put two and two together with liberal logic.

HIV infections = 5 times more common than gun murders
HIV risk > gun risk
WE MUST BAN SEX
IF WE DON'T BAN SEX, HIV WILL KILL EVERYONE ANYWAYS

tatupu70 says

Really, that's the best you have? Notwithstanding those are clearly from two different posts--who cares?

Posts yes. Posters no.

One post you're talking about criminals getting assault rifles. Later you're talking about banning AR-15's. Maybe you should clarify?

tatupu70 says

It would be much more difficult to get them illegally. And unless you think laws have no deterrence value, it should keep some people from obtaining them.

Those who want them, will get them. Period.

I'd encourage you to scroll up and read what some of the other posters have said.

With that said. I really think we should ban propane tanks. A few of those present a much greater hazard than a few non "assault rifles."

joshuatrio says

Is it though? Would you rather take a shot to the head, or be diagnosed with an incurable disease - and be subjected to an expensive assortment of drug cocktails for the rest of your life?

And how many couples actually reproduce after being diagnosed with HIV? My guess is very few.

So, put two and two together with liberal logic.

HIV infections = 5 times more common than gun murders

HIV risk > gun risk

WE MUST BAN SEX

IF WE DON'T BAN SEX, HIV WILL KILL EVERYONE ANYWAYS

You're not following. You advocated banning sex. With no sex there are no kids. With no kids, society dies. I know it's hard for conservatives to consider anything except for selfish considerations, but try.

joshuatrio says

One post you're talking about criminals getting assault rifles. Later you're talking about banning AR-15's. Maybe you should clarify?

No clarification is necessary. Does it matter if I'm talking about assault rifles or AR-15s? How does that affect the point? It's a very blurry distinction in any case.

joshuatrio says

Those who want them, will get them. Period.

I disagree. You could say the same about ANYTHING that is banned. So are you in favor of the US becoming Somalia? Are you in favor of banning any weaponry at all?

joshuatrio says

I'd encourage you to scroll up and read what some of the other posters have said.

I've read this entire thread (minus CIC, but he never has anything useful to say). What specifically are you referring to?

tatupu70 says

Which policy caused a closet homosexual to take out his frustrations on a group of gay folks

1)Withdrawal of troops from Iraq before a stable government was formed.
2)Cooperation with the Saudis to destabilize Syria using militant Islam.
3)Letting ISIS export oil to Turkey for years so they could finance their unholy regime of terror (and hopefully attack Assad). This created the ISIS monster.
4)Refuse to see or acknowledge the radical Islam problem.
5)Continue to import Muslims from countries that hate us.
6)Refuse to let the FBI investigate radical clerics or mosques that radicalize Muslim youths.
7)refuse to let the FBI investigate a gun store owner's warning about this particular Muslim asshole.

That should be enough just for starters.
The FACT is that a Muslim man committed this act of barbary while pledging allegiance to the Islamic State. He could have used a bomb instead but chose to make it more personal.

Wake the fuck up dipshit!

Quigley says

1)Withdrawal of troops from Iraq before a stable government was formed.

2)Cooperation with the Saudis to destabilize Syria using militant Islam.

3)Letting ISIS export oil to Turkey for years so they could finance their unholy regime of terror (and hopefully attack Assad). This created the ISIS monster.

4)Refuse to see or acknowledge the radical Islam problem.

5)Continue to import Muslims from countries that hate us.

6)Refuse to let the FBI investigate radical clerics or mosques that radicalize Muslim youths.

7)refuse to let the FBI investigate a gun store owner's warning about this particular Muslim asshole.

How did any of those things contribute to a gay man being embarrassed about his sexuality and taking it out on other gays?

tatupu70 says

You're not following. You advocated banning sex. With no sex there are no kids. With no kids, society dies. I know it's hard for conservatives to consider anything except for selfish considerations, but try.

Did you read what I wrote earlier about plastic utensils?

tatupu70 says

No clarification is necessary. Does it matter if I'm talking about assault rifles or AR-15s? How does that affect the point? It's a very blurry distinction in any case.

Clarify then. Are you talking about a total gun ban? Or banning AR-15's? Or just assault rifles?

It sure looks like you are talking about assault rifles... or.... AR's - which in terms of greater good - utensils are more dangerous :)

So, I really think we should ban solid foods. Straws are much safer.

tatupu70 says

I disagree.

Crack's illegal, but if you want it - you can get it. So is prostitution (in most states), but if I wanted a prostitute, why the hell would I go all the way to a legal state (like the chicago example) to get it? Point is, bad guys would still get their guns.

joshuatrio says

Did you read what I wrote earlier about plastic utensils?

Yes. I fail to see any relevance.

joshuatrio says

Clarify then. Are you talking about a total gun ban? Or banning AR-15's? Or just assault rifles?

It sure looks like you are talking about assault rifles... or.... AR's - which in terms of greater good - utensils are more dangerous :)

So, I really think we should ban solid foods. Straws are much safer.

Not a total gun ban. I'm talking about banning weapons whose harm outweighs its benefit. The comments about utensils being more dangerous than assault rifles isn't worth a reply.

joshuatrio says

Crack's illegal, but if you want it - you can get it. So is prostitution (in most states), but if I wanted a prostitute, why the hell would I go all the way to a legal state (like the chicago example) to get it? Point is, bad guys would still get their guns.

OK--so you are for removing all laws then, right? Murders happen, even with a law so get rid of the law. Rapes still happen, so get rid of the law. Bad guys still murder. Bad guys still rape. Let's get rid of all laws.

You still seem to be stuck in an all or nothing viewpoint. If you can't stop all gun violence, then any attempt is useless. Don't you see the flaw yet? Stopping 10%, while less than I'd hope, is still saving hundreds (thousands?) of lives. You don't think those thousands of lives are worth saving??

tatupu70 says

Not a total gun ban. I'm talking about banning weapons whose harm outweighs its benefit. The comments about utensils being more dangerous than assault rifles isn't worth a reply.

According to Ironman's homocide table, it is relevant. Especially if you're concerned for the greater good.

tatupu70 says

OK--so you are for removing all laws then, right? Murders happen, even with a law so get rid of the law. Rapes still happen, so get rid of the law. Bad guys still murder. Bad guys still rape. Let's get rid of all laws.

I didn't say that. I said the bad guys are still going to get their guns regardless of regulation - or laws on the books.

I believe a more effective law would be to require every household to own a firearm - and implement a castle law at the federal level. Especially for the greater good.

Since this conversation obviously stems from the Orlando shooting, one or two armed individuals in the club would have been able to take down the Islamic sack of crap in seconds/minutes from when this started. Not 3 hours.

tatupu70 says

How did any of those things contribute to a gay man being embarrassed about his sexuality and taking it out on other gays?

I see. So you're saying that it was because he was a GAY Muslim that he committed this atrocity. A normal Muslim would never shoot up a gay bar. Only the deviant and perverse GAYS could own that sort of act!
Funny, I never figured you for a homophobe...

joshuatrio says

According to Ironman's

Anything that starts with those three words is almost certainly wrong.

joshuatrio says

I believe a more effective law would be to require every household to own a firearm - and implement a castle law at the federal level. Especially for the greater good.

I think there are many examples throughout history showing this to be a very poor solution.

Quigley says

I see. So you're saying that it was because he was a GAY Muslim that he committed this atrocity. A normal Muslim would never shoot up a gay bar. Only the deviant and perverse GAYS could own that sort of act!

Funny, I never figured you for a homophobe...

Just curious--how does my statement make me a homophobe exactly?

But to answer your question--I'm saying he could have been a gay Christian and felt the same shame, pressure, and self-disgust that might cause him to snap. Religion was the problem. In this case Islam. But this wasn't a radicalized freedom fighter wanting to become a martyr.

tatupu70 says

Anything that starts with those three words is almost certainly wrong.

Actually it was a chart he posted that was from the Criminal Justice Services Information Division.

tatupu70 says

I think there are many examples throughout history showing this to be a very poor solution.

Please share those many examples.

Dan8267 says

Does Mexico have the same laws as Australia? No.

No Dan, Mexico has stricter gun laws than Australia, and they've been in place for almost two decades longer. FYI, I don't see anything groundbreaking in Australian gun law, and in fact many states in the US already have stricter guns laws than Australia, where laws can also vary by state.

Hear that hissing sound? It's all the air going out of your Australia bullshit balloon from the holes I just poked in it.

Feel free to respond with inane diatribes backed by nothing, per your norm on this subject.

Dan8267 says

Your statement is nonsensical bullshit.

tatupu70 says

I'm saying he could have been a gay Christian and felt the same shame, pressure, and self-disgust that might cause him to snap

So according to you, he could be a different religion, and as long as he was still GAY, he would have killed those people by one means or another. And you don't see why I called you a homophobe? I'm curious: do you always blame the victim of a crime or is this a special occasion because you prefer Muslims over horrible awful GAY people?

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

Quigley says

So according to you, he could be a different religion, and as long as he was still GAY, he would have killed those people by one means or another. And you don't see why I called you a homophobe? I'm curious: do you always blame the victim of a crime or is this a special occasion because you prefer Muslims over horrible awful GAY people?

You have a reading comprehension problem. I'm blaming society and religion for making him feel ashamed of being gay. I think you are letting your prejudices cloud your comprehension.

No, you were saying it was because he was gay and also ashamed of it. By stating that, you abrogated the fault of Islam for brainwashing him into believing that:
1)All gays must die
2)He is gay, and thus must die
3)The only way for him to paradise is through martyrdom in jihad.

So Islam took what could have been a normal happy-go-getting-lucky-under-a-rainbow gay man and turned him into a murderous lunatic. That one is on Islam. Islam is the cause. Blaming it on gays or the gay lifestyle or the fact that he was gay is just blaming the victim. Islam owns this one.
Your pathetic attempts at blame redirecting to guns and gays won't be accepted here.

tatupu70 says

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

Historical examples of societies where gun ownership is mandatory? Uhhh fail.

Quigley says

No, you were saying it was because he was gay and also ashamed of it. By stating that, you abrogated the fault of Islam for brainwashing him into believing that:

wtf is wrong with you? My points were/are very clear. I'm not going to keep repeating them to you as you clearly do not want to understand.

Quigley says

So Islam took what could have been a normal happy-go-getting-lucky-under-a-rainbow gay man and turned him into a murderous lunatic. That one is on Islam. Islam is the cause. Blaming it on gays or the gay lifestyle or the fact that he was gay is just blaming the victim. Islam owns this one.

Your pathetic attempts at blame redirecting to guns and gays won't be accepted here.

Except that's not I'm doing. I'm indicting religion. Christianity is just as guilty of ostracizing gays.

NuttBoxer says

Hear that hissing sound? It's all the air going out of your Australia bullshit balloon from the holes I just poked in it.

Lol. When Australia implemented the ban on guns - homicides went up, armed robberies went up and home invasion s went up.

tatupu70 says

Except that's not I'm doing. I'm indicting religion. Christianity is just as guilty of ostracizing gays.

a lot of nonsense is done in the name of "religion". If you want to understand a faith, study it's texts, not it's followers. Most of them only practice half-assed lip service, and I'm including my personal sect, US protestants, in that statement.

tatupu70 says

Except that's not I'm doing. I'm indicting religion. Christianity is just as guilty of ostracizing gays

Except you're indicting a true religion of peace, headed by a founder whose word on the subject of violence was to "turn the other cheek," essentially offering oneself as a target for additional abuse. And by lumping all religions together in blame for this attack you're indicting Buddhists, Jews, Jainists, and every other peace-preaching sect with the jihadist Muslims. Attempting to dilute blame from a clearly culpable ideology is a coward's move, quite similar to a gross polluter who dumps toxic waste water into the river because "it's just water, it's mostly all the same."
Dilution is not the solution to pollution!
Sheesh, a homophobe and a toxic waste apologist. How could you sink so low, tatupu?