Roleplayer's Off Topic Thread #1

[ColonelKillaBee]

7 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

Though gun control seems to have an affect in that not anyone can get their hands on dangerous guns. By that I mean unhinged people that don't use much logic or reason about their methods. 

Knives ar however also much harder to kill someone with. Especially en masse as you're quite by the range.

I think you’re grossly underestimating the intelligence of those type of people. Unhinged, “crazy”, radical, whatever, it doesn’t mean they think illogically necessarily or that they’re stupid.

My point about the knives is that Britain has people pushing to prohibit access to knives lol, and have issues with stabbings despite it. It’s done nothing to make them not want to stab each other and this is in a country with a lack of interest in guns.

Theres no correlation.

[BTC]

Yeah, I would say attributing the rise of the Nazis, Soviets, and Communists to gun control is grossly oversimplifying things. Especially because we’ve seen, in more modern times, effective gun control.

Also, there was an armed security guard on campus that the sheriff said never encountered the shooter. Maybe the answer is more guards, but that seems reactive to a shooter versus proactively making shootings harder in the first place, such as requiring better training for gun usage and requiring better weapon safety as far as storage within homes goes. 

Though I will say I appreciate what the 2nd amendment gives us, but at the same time I don’t think we can keep going on the way we have. We can’t and shouldn’t confiscate every weapon, but more limitations are needed imo. 

[ColonelKillaBee]

5 minutes ago, BigBossBalrog said:

At least we don't have mass shootings everyweek...

Anyways like BT says if the massacre of a bunch of children didn't change gun laws nothing will. America has an epidemic of fun violence and it isn't anywhere near as bad here because we don't have the right to bear arms so maybe our way just works. It's foolish to think the States will levy restrictions on the more dangerous (because every weapon is dangerous) guns, but  I do hope they educate more people on gun safety and as BT suggested more access to mental health facilities.

 

We don’t have mass shootings every week, lol. 

And Canada has the population of what, 25 million? Of course it’s not gonna match ours anyway.

So right from the start you’re wrong. There is no epidemic of gun violence here, that’s a false rhetoric created by liberal media in an attempt to help gun control.

[ColonelKillaBee]

I don’t think we need to worry about mental health facilities but I’m all for educating citizens. In fact I think they need to teach gun safety in schools again, nationwide. As a required class.

[ColonelKillaBee]

Not sure where y’all got that from Doc’s response, that bit about Germany and Nazis. No one said they rose to power because of gun control, he means simply that before these countries committed their atrocities, gun control and gun bans were the first step.

In fact gun control pushes here in the US started because they didn’t want us niggas arming ourselves.

[Witchking of Angmar]

Did they really ban guns? I remember that Nazis first plan on genocide was to rile up extremist common folk to go around murdering people. Death camps was something they came up with when that first idea proved too slow for their liking. 

[The Good Doctor]

1 hour ago, BTCollins said:

Things like bump stocks need to be restricted, and you shouldn’t be able to buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check.

The thing about bump stocks is that they don’t really make the weapon particularly more deadly and I could replicate one’s effects myself in 2 minutes with shit in my house. Few people are really fighting too hard to prevent that particular ban because they were fairly obscure anyway, but the entire thing would just be an a sham to make it look like measures are being taken.

And the gun show “anything goes” background check thing is a myth. The vast majority of gun show merchants are licensed and do require them. Buying guns illegally is easy, but not at gun shows.

1 hour ago, BTCollins said:

I wonder why some people are so averse to taking a look in the mirror and asking if there’s something wrong with us, or if we can change anything to help prevent further shootings. 

Most of us ain’t averse to looking in the mirror. We just think that the restrictions everyone likes to propose would be ineffectual at best and have an agenda behind them at worst, and we get heated and annoyed when people take that to mean we don’t care about the people who’ve died.

13 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

Though gun control seems to have an affect in that not anyone can get their hands on dangerous guns. By that I mean unhinged people that don't use much logic or reason about their methods. 

Knives ar however also much harder to kill someone with. Especially en masse as you're quite by the range. 

Don't know what you're talking about for those countries. Germany went that way because of failed economy and a desperate people. Russia and China turned out as they did because of people with guns carrying out a revolution against the government. 

Obviously not having guns didn’t create the political climates. Geeze man.

But every one of those regimes went through lengths to disarm the people. Stalin and Hitler straight up said that it was necessary. That if the people didn’t give up their guns that they would have to be taken. Do you think it would be as easy to literally round up an armed population?

[Celan]

15 minutes ago, BTCollins said:

Yeah, I would say attributing the rise of the Nazis, Soviets, and Communists to gun control is grossly oversimplifying things. Especially because we’ve seen, in more modern times, effective gun control.

Also, there was an armed security guard on campus that the sheriff said never encountered the shooter. Maybe the answer is more guards, but that seems reactive to a shooter versus proactively making shootings harder in the first place, such as requiring better training for gun usage and requiring better weapon safety as far as storage within homes goes. 

Though I will say I appreciate what the 2nd amendment gives us, but at the same time I don’t think we can keep going on the way we have. We can’t and shouldn’t confiscate every weapon, but more limitations are needed imo. 

I would be fine with mandatory gun safety training in schools, and a civil defense program with some additional training and service. Like I said earlier, the Israeli model. Most of these random shooters shit their pants as soon as armed opposition shows up, as with the church shooting recently which was stopped by a neighbor with a rifle. Yeah you won't stop all of them, such as hardened terrorists, but we never will anyway.

I am not fine with banning semi automatic weapons for civilian use, either outright or by overtaxing and over-regulation. That just ensures the only ones who have access to them are police and criminals.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Celan

[BTC]

Just now, ColonelKillaBee said:

So right from the start you’re wrong. There is no epidemic of gun violence here, that’s a false rhetoric created by liberal media in an attempt to help gun control.

Gun violence in general? No, as Celan pointed out murder rates are declining. But we have seen an uptick in these types of mass shootings, and that’s not a narrative created by the media. Maybe that’s the trade off for fewer individual murders, but I don’t think it has to be.

2 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

I don’t think we need to worry about mental health facilities but I’m all for educating citizens. In fact I think they need to teach gun safety in schools again, nationwide. As a required class.

Why not? It’s clear that individuals who perpetrate these crimes are some level of disturbed, and anything we can do to help them or to identify them as potential risks is a good thing. 

4 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

Not sure where y’all got that from Doc’s response, that bit about Germany and Nazis. No one said they rose to power because of gun control, he means simply that before these countries committed their atrocities, gun control and gun bans were the first step.

In fact gun control pushes here in the US started because they didn’t want us niggas arming ourselves.

Gun control was already tight under the Weimar Republic, and when Hitler took power he actually loosened gun control laws in some cases, by giving greater gun access to military members. He did restrict gun access to Jews and others he considered threats, but they hardly had many weapons to begin with and weren’t trained in using them. And even if they were, the Nazi military was much better armed and trained and it wouldn’t have made any difference in their perpetrating the Holocaust. 

[The Good Doctor]

2 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

Did they really ban guns? I remember that Nazis first plan on genocide was to rile up extremist common folk to go around murdering people. Death camps was something they came up with when that first idea proved too slow for their liking. 

Yes. And a specifically from Jews in the 1930s. 

[Celan]

6 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

Yes. And a specifically from Jews in the 1930s. 

And gun control in the US was instituted in response to the Black Panthers.

It's always about making sure the elite are the only ones who can protect themselves. edit- And about increasing federal revenues, as I said earlier. Which amounts to the same thing.

What people don't get is that private property is the basis of civil freedom, and without being able to protect your property, you might as well not have any. If there's anything that makes this clear in US history, it's the civil rights movement, which contrary to popular belief was not all of the Gandhi variety.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Celan

[ColonelKillaBee]

58 minutes ago, BTCollins said:

Gun violence in general? No, as Celan pointed out murder rates are declining. But we have seen an uptick in these types of mass shootings, and that’s not a narrative created by the media. Maybe that’s the trade off for fewer individual murders, but I don’t think it has to be.

Why not? It’s clear that individuals who perpetrate these crimes are some level of disturbed, and anything we can do to help them or to identify them as potential risks is a good thing. 

Gun control was already tight under the Weimar Republic, and when Hitler took power he actually loosened gun control laws in some cases, by giving greater gun access to military members. He did restrict gun access to Jews and others he considered threats, but they hardly had many weapons to begin with and weren’t trained in using them. And even if they were, the Nazi military was much better armed and trained and it wouldn’t have made any difference in their perpetrating the Holocaust. 

Because I'd rather that money first go to educating people. I'm not convinced the people doing these shootings are all disturbed. They always say and assume that, so long as the person's white or islamic. Especially the latter.

As for the so called uptick, the only uptick is how often the media has decided to cover it, same as police violence which has been going on the same for years and is only now receiving attention.

Loosening it for military personnel shouldn't count considering they're the ones doing the atrocities... certainly not when we're talking about civilian access to firearms which you stated yourself they did indeed restrict access to.

[BTC]

4 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

Most of us ain’t averse to looking in the mirror. We just think that the restrictions everyone likes to propose would be ineffectual at best and have an agenda behind them at worst, and we get heated and annoyed when people take that to mean we don’t care about the people who’ve died.

Ineffectual restrictions are at least an attempt. Maybe they wouldn’t help, but we’ve got to try something, I think. Either we do or we accept the current situation as just how things are going to be. I’m just saying I’m open to trying to fix it with some restrictions, like strengthening background checks or restricting certain modifications or attachments or whatever. 

6 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

Because I'd rather that money first go to educating people. I'm not convinced the people doing these shootings are all disturbed. They always say and assume that, so long as the person's white or islamic. Especially the latter.

I do think there’s a tendency to overplay the disturbed card, but it would be wrong to say none of them are. And we could do with better mental health facilities in general. And we’re the richest country on earth, so there’s plenty of money to do both if we wanted to. And any politician who argues otherwise is only doing so because they want to make sure their donors don’t have to pay much in taxes. 

1 minute ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

Loosening it for military personnel shouldn't count considering they're the ones doing the atrocities... certainly not when we're talking about civilian access to firearms which you stated yourself they did indeed restrict access to.

It wasn’t just military members he loosened it for, though. It was former military members and certain groups of civilians. And even doing so for the military was to allow them access to weapons outside of their jobs as military members. Some historians consider the Nazi regime more gun friendly than the Weimar Republic, if you look at access given versus access taken away. The populations who were restricted were minority populations who did not own many guns, so even if they did have access to weapons, they were still out numbered. Not to mention that there wasn’t resistance in many cases because many people thought that if they kept their heads down things would blow over, and it wasn’t until it was too late to do anything that they realized this was something different than past racism. I think it’s ahistorical to try and use the case of the Nazis as the dangers of gun control when there were so many other, more important factors that led to the Holocaust, and gun control was not one of them.

Hitler of course believed they needed to keep guns from the Jews, but not doing so wouldn’t have stopped the Nazis, or likely even slowed them down because of the progression of how the Holocaust happened. It wasn’t immediately into the death camps, there were a series of steps that slowly led down that road, and the final result was not only not planned by the Nazis when they took power, but was unexpected by most Jews and basically unforeseeable. 

 

I’m open to the idea gun control isn’t the answer, but far too often we see politicians not offer any solutions at all. Maybe they’re right and this is our new reality, but I do think we can do more and should try more before we accept this as something that just is. Maybe something we can try is certain restrictions around guns. Maybe it won’t work, but I don’t think that means we shouldn’t try. 

[ColonelKillaBee]

 You’re missing the point though my man, the point is the people that they wanted to commit atrocities against, were restricted on gun rights. The fact that some for of the civilians he actually lifted their gun rights irrelevant. In fact you could even say that they did that to purposefully put them against the Jews and others restricted. That’s how it always works. 

Like in the dome by Stephen King. The mayor of the town assigned some so called police, gave them better access to supplies and weapons, and everyone else was restricted. 

When he needed people on their side, he lifted those restrictions for them, except those he deemed troublesome.

 I mean, if you take that same argument, and apply it to America, it automatically sounds infinitely worse and yet it still applies. Like I said and like Gina said, it started because white people in America didn’t want blacks to have guns. And yet America even then was and is the most gun friendly country in the world. 

As for their being mentally ill, some of them sure but not enough for me to attribute it to that.

Dylan Ruth for instance they said the same thing but he sure wasn’t crazy when they tried giving his ass death row.

 I’d rather they focus on educating our young men and women, so that the next time somebody like Dylan rolls in one of our churches, they know how to shoot his ass, rather than how to cater to him.

[ColonelKillaBee]

You could try and make the point that restricting everyone equally vs specific groups makes it different but just like how police now brutalize everyone, I’m not convinced the govt wouldn’t try to control and abuse the populace in general in the future either if they deemed it necessary. 

I still remember Obama talking about a move to make the military more active here in the US... ominous as all hell.

[BigBossBalrog]

1 hour ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

We don’t have mass shootings every week, lol. 

And Canada has the population of what, 25 million? Of course it’s not gonna match ours anyway.

So right from the start you’re wrong. There is no epidemic of gun violence here, that’s a false rhetoric created by liberal media in an attempt to help gun control.

Don't give me the population crap. Americans kill each other with guns over 51 times amount that Canadians are. Even when you take the population into account that still a massive difference in death.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/07/08/news/americans-are-killing-51-times-more-people-guns-canadians

Something that's working in Canada is not in the States. And that's our form of gun control.

[The Good Doctor]

 

26 minutes ago, BTCollins said:

I’m open to the idea gun control isn’t the answer, but far too often we see politicians not offer any solutions at all. Maybe they’re right and this is our new reality, but I do think we can do more and should try more before we accept this as something that just is. Maybe something we can try is certain restrictions around guns. Maybe it won’t work, but I don’t think that means we shouldn’t try. 

The problem with experimenting with federal restrictions is that they tend to be permanent or very hard to remove, and small ones can snowball into bigger ones when they inevitably don’t have much or any effect. That’s why so many 2A activists refuse to give an inch if they don’t think it will have any effect, even for things they personally don’t care about. If the government can ban X in the name of protecting people, then you’ve officially given them that power and they can do it again with Y for the same reason. I wouldn’t give a shit about losing bump stocks, but when that does nothing, they’re gonna look for the next thing, probably suppressors, and work their way on up from there. They already have a hard-on for targeting AR-15s despite no one on the news who talks about them ever knowing what the hell they are.

And I’d be surprised if we ever got any of it back. 

It’s not that people on the right don’t want to solve the problem. They just see that the attempts being proposed wouldn’t work and could have irreparable negative consequences on the rights of the people. 

[BTC]

6 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

You’re missing the point though my man, the point is the people that they wanted to commit atrocities against, were restricted on gun rights. The fact that some for of the civilians he actually lifted their gun rights irrelevant. In fact you could even say that they did that to purposefully put them against the Jews and others restricted. That’s how it always works. 

You’re missing the point that, contrary to popular belief, that gun control laws did not lead to the Holocaust. That’s what I’m arguing against, the specific belief that gun control leads to genocide. I completely agree that often times such laws are used to oppress minority populations. But the argument that it was gun control, and not the Nazi ideology, that led to the Holocaust is untrue. Just like it was America’s racism that led to gun control after the Black Panthers armed themselves  

Gun control, like guns themselves, are not inherently evil. It’s what is done with each of them that leads to good or bad things. 

If you want to make the argument that our government is too untrustworthy to allow it to restrict guns, that’s fine. But that’s a different argument entirely than gun control as an idea is itself evil or bad. As with all laws, it is the application of it that results in the good or bad, not the thing itself. And I don’t think our government is so untrustworthy that we could not allow it to put in place some restrictions.

[ColonelKillaBee]

11 minutes ago, BigBossBalrog said:

Don't give me the population crap. Americans kill each other with guns over 51 times amount that Canadians are. Even when you take the population into account that still a massive difference in death.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/07/08/news/americans-are-killing-51-times-more-people-guns-canadians

Something that's working in Canada is not in the States. And that's our form of gun control.

 No I will give you the population crap because you guys have 25 million, maybe 30 million people. We have 323 million people....

And that’s 25 Mill, 30 mill that you have, is far more spread out then our people. Canada doesn’t have nearly as many cities or populated towns as we do.

 A lot of your people live in friggin woods and shit. The most have to worry about is bears and moose. 

So even ignoring the fact that our cultures are different, we’re already not on an even playing field. I’m not saying population is the only reason you guys don’t have the same amount of gun violence as we do, but it is a big contributor.

[ColonelKillaBee]

Collins

 No one here is saying that gun control leads to the Holocaust, not a single person. We’re saying that, and as Celan  already put it, and better than I can, especially on my phone while driving, that the people  pushing for gun control typically have an agenda behind it. And his store Ikelea that agenda, has always been to better control the Undesirables. It’s never been for the benefit of citizens, it’s always been for their detriment.

[The Good Doctor]

4 minutes ago, BTCollins said:

You’re missing the point that, contrary to popular belief, that gun control laws did not lead to the Holocaust.

That is a popular belief? None of us are saying that gun control literally caused the holocaust. We’re saying that it was a component of the regime’s plans to make it go over so terrifyingly smoothly. Even if the minorities of Germany being armed wouldn’t have been enough to stop what was happening, I doubt you could’ve found a single one who wouldn’t have preferred to have been armed. 

[Centurion]

Repeal the NFA, get rid of gun free zones, educate and arm. That’s it. That’s my solution. Restricting attachments will do nothing. Restricting specific firearms will do nothing. “Stronger background checks” will do nothing. Background checks, extensive background checks, are already a thing. Gun show loophole doesn’t exist. Bang bang

[ColonelKillaBee]

There’s also the point that after a certain population level, crime no longer increases at a consistent linear level and instead increases exponentially. So looking at two populations in talking about crime and how they compare percentagewise is not an accurate model to go by. 

[The Good Doctor]

13 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

 No I will give you the population crap because you guys have 25 million, maybe 30 million people. We have 323 million people....

And that’s 25 Miller 30 mill that you have, is far more spread out then our people. Canada doesn’t have nearly as many cities or populated towns as we do.

 A lot of your people live in friggin woods and shoot. The most have to worry about is bears and moose. 

So even ignoring the fact that our cultures are different, we’re already not on an even playing field. I’m not saying population is the only reason you guys don’t have the same amount of violence as we do, but it is a big contributor.

Not to mention that they conveniently left out the fact that according to their own source we have more legal and justified self defense shootings in a year than Canada has gun deaths overall. Can’t talk about those, though.

[ColonelKillaBee]

3 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

There’s also the point that after a certain population level, crime no longer increases at a consistent linear level and instead increases exponentially. So looking at two populations in talking about crime and how they compare percentagewise is not an accurate model to go by. 

 In fact, Balrog you should know that from those rat to human overpopulation studies we were talking about before.