Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 12. (Read 36631 times)

It would be so, except things are not as you have described.  You and I can on the cable, see movies with their versions of sexuality, or subscribe to the playboy channel etc, or hit the internet  nipples ad nauseum.

The old rules of broadcast television are just a blip while we speed down the road.

As an aside, one interesting aspect of South Africa was the radically different treatment of nudity on broadcast television.  But they got massive other kinds of problems...

Derailing the thread here, but a quick observation. Isn't it perverse that every night on TV I can see a brutal murder followed by a grotesque autopsy. They might be burned to death or beheaded, etc. But, show a nipple on TV and it's pornography!!! Someone must go to jail and be punished for this. That seems very sick to me.

NONSENSE...

maybe we just figured out that preachers' daughters were hot....

The moral of the story is: the freer the people, the better; coercion is for animals.

Yes. Teach it like any other biology lesson, and treat it as a non-issue.



Practically every country in Europe.


You wouldn't be able to guess that looking at America now. It is way more sexually repressed than most of Europe. So, compare the sexually repressed America to the much more sexually liberal Europe, and you'll clearly see that more repression here has resulted in more sexual problems.



If that were true, you'd think that drinking problems were higher in countries where drinking age is lower, or more like guideline than a law, but the contrary is true. Why? Same reason sex, drugs, and guns are a problem here: we try to repress them, and end up with the "forbidden fruit" problem. It's easy for kids to get alcohol in Italy, so they don't care about it, and prefer things like gelato. It's hard to get alcohol here, so kids actively seek it out, just because they can't normally get it, and it's considered cool to get what others can't.

These are actually very astute perspectives.

Unfortunately, these perspectives are that of someone within a functioning society.  Others have other problems.  If FirstAscent had his way, there would have been no US independance from Britian.  There would have been no Alamo.  There would have been no advantage of the US early settlers against the Indians, which would have meant no western expansion, no cross continental railroad.

Today in various places, people have serious problems.  By FirstAscent's logic, these people are "wrong" and should not fight back against the gangsters who murder their friends and rape their daughters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/in-the-hills-of-michoacan-self-defense-groups-battle-a-mexican-drug-cartel/2013/09/09/6947e47a-119f-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story.html

So we should remove our focus on contraception then? Simply ignore it, yes? Higher instances of unwanted pregnancies compared to what? Exactly. If you could take an alternative universe America and compare it to that, now that would be different case.
America was the start point for sexual revolution around the world, there you have it.

Banning abortion is stupid though, it has no benefits. Population is not on the decline in America, why bother? Religion? Fuck that.

Drinking age is completely different issue. Why do you think lowering the age will lower poisoning count? Do those teens buy black market low quality stuff because they cannot buy in shops? No. They buy same stuff as you from same shops. If you open the gates, there will be same if not bigger amount of poisonings, cause restrains might keep some 2% at bay.

Do you have a gun or want a gun?

Simply put, talking about banning guns, increases gun sales.
You are talking about assault weapon bans.
Therefore you are contributing to increased gun sales by this activity,
and so this is contrary to your stated goal of reducing guns in your population.

...

Consider instead, advocating something that might reduce the desire for gun ownership, you mentioned the poverty issue, might that be an example?  I work with a number of charities (none of whom advocate guns and all which seek non-violent resolutions and health and well being).

More fundamentally, the use of THE LAW against others ought not be the first place one goes to resolve an issue.  Think of THE LAW as a gun, that is what backs it.  When you propose these laws, these bans, you are proposing using guns against your fellow country people in the mistaken belief that the end will justify the means, but the result is that you are going further from your own desired end.  The effort is ill-conceived, and it not only results in a worse circumstance, it does exactly what you are hoping to avoid, the use of guns to accomplish something.

Instead seek to obsolete the need for weapons, it is not only time better spent for you, the incremental steps are each rewarding such as helping the homeless and unfortunate, abused women or other charitable work.

No need to speculate. He says he wants guns. And he says what the poor want.

And you're a mind reader?

I somehow doubt your claim.

M

Why does it matter? Because that's where his motives are. He pretends to speak for the poor, but the simple truth of the matter is, he just wants to have guns.

Why do you continue to focus on guns?  Why does it matter if he wants one or owns one?

Maybe you're a troll IRL?

M

Because you just contradicted yourself. You have numerous guns. Thus, you're a guy who wants guns. If you had no guns tomorrow, you'd obviously want a gun really bad.

Me who wants a gun?  I've got numerous guns, so it's a non issue to me.  So I'm not projecting my own wants.  Why don't you answer the question?


Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN.

If you would like to offer more clarity, I'm all ears.

Please explain why these facts are either not true in your mind, or why you think they are unimportant.
Try to avoid claiming that I have a belief that I have not offered.

I am not claiming that guns are good or bad or that I want them or don't, only that your mission is ill conceived and ill executed.

There may be some really great way to reduce the number of guns.  What you are doing is simply the opposite of that.  Add to this that you are doing it so poorly and one might easily conclude that you are the one that wants guns, not I.

If you were able to clear your mind, you might realize that by listening to those who question you instead of tossing it on your mental pile of "things people who like guns say", you can improve your rhetoric and have a chance of progressing your agenda instead of running it in the opposite direction.

No. The best thing to do is to address poverty.

I think you should keep in mind that you're projecting your own wants onto the poverty class in general. Why don't you just blatantly admit that it's you who wants a gun?