[Gnaw]

Nicodimas, on 27 December 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

1stly: My sister in law is now armed..was anti...gets the argument..wants to carry to her classes. She likes the fact it would help kids stay in line. I like this standpoint as a fear based tactic it would really go a long way in keeping some in line. Open Carry in the class..your going to listen to your freaking lesson. Our school system is failing these kids.

Lesson #1 of the internet tubes:

Do NOT feed the trolls.

But jesus christ it's hard not to forget that rule sometimes.

[Tapper]

Quote

1stly: My sister in law is now armed..was anti...gets the argument..wants to carry to her classes. She likes the fact it would help kids stay in line. I like this standpoint as a fear based tactic it would really go a long way in keeping some in line. Open Carry in the class..your going to listen to your freaking lesson. Our school system is failing these kids.

I'll bite. Because what, she'll shoot me if I don't listen? Pff. Also, Gnaw, you are clearly the better man by not rising to this.

Nicodimas, on 27 December 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

If we could with current technology strip the will to murder/kill..does that increase or decrease our humanity?

<As a grow older the more i want to get into politics to run a program on eugenics/gene modification/technology. I could win on a platform that everyones likes and run my own program.
Interestingly I do have some political ties.. This sounds fun and being a member of the government would have its perks. like your kids as a senator don't have to repay student loans>

Regarding the first: I tink I taw a Godwin. I did, I did!
Regarding the second: I thought you were anti-politician because they're corrupt and benefitting from stuff not open to normal citizens. Yet one whiff of financial gain, and gone are your principals. How easily you are swayed.

[Gnaw]

Tapper, on 27 December 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 27 December 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

If we could with current technology strip the will to murder/kill..does that increase or decrease our humanity?

<As a grow older the more i want to get into politics to run a program on eugenics/gene modification/technology. I could win on a platform that everyones likes and run my own program.
Interestingly I do have some political ties.. This sounds fun and being a member of the government would have its perks. like your kids as a senator don't have to repay student loans>

Regarding the first: I tink I taw a Godwin. I did, I did!
Regarding the second: I thought you were anti-politician because they're corrupt and benefitting from stuff not open to normal citizens. Yet one whiff of financial gain, and gone are your principals. How easily you are swayed.

Yeah, you did. Not only is that a Godwin; it's a "for" Godwin. You don't see much of those outside Stormfront set of tubes.

[Ulrik]

Nicodimas, on 27 December 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

@ ulrik

Sorry i guess i should clarify

Semis Jam. 100 rounds mags are very unpractical. I have yet to see that high of a count really..... I am also arguing on the guise too that if you ban an AR, they will just use pistols to bombs,etc.

There is probably 100s of million's of magazine in circulation. A ban would be useless..black market/craiglist would be right there.. You can't disappear them people.

Figure out the person and why people dissociate. Our society created these monsters..what in our society does this.

Funny thing, how many jammed during those shootings? Sorry mate, war FPS wont make you expert...and classic cliches as well. You said bolt action is more dangerous. I have shot from all of those, I have some levels of self defense and weapon training. I know exact difference between attacker with bolt action and semi rifle - and told you.

And every security professional will tell you same thing. In CQ shooting, you dont have to spray with automat, you just need quick reloading mechanism, trigger finger, enough of bullets in mag and ... nothing more. For bolt action... try it.

And now is your argument that its unpractical? Yeah, tell it to those dead kids... It was killing with unpractical jamming weapons...

Sorry, we are talking about real events, not discovery channel theory and Winter War sniper documentary...

And attackers using pistols? Yeah...its bad...but not bad as AR. You can do nothing and say "hey, there will be killing, who cares how much?" or you can try to lower the count...and restrict access of kids to guns.

This post has been edited by Ulrik: 28 December 2012 - 12:04 AM

[Nicodimas]

I disagree Ulrik. I don't know what else to say. Seems pretty cut and dry really. I get where your coming from, your just not hearing me.
Guns have jammed on a couple of instances now in the real world.. A bolt action is easily equally dangerous.

On the other side of things I hear of two things from my inner workings in the gun industry.

1) NFA Tax Stamp for semi-automatics. I don't mind this.

2) A mass forced gun buy back. I mind anything forced.

[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 27 December 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

@obigore

Quote

And no, arming teachers is easily the stupidest thing that has been suggested

.Explain this standpoint.. I don't understand.

Quite simply that people being around 30+ children have no need to be armed. Simply that FORCING people to carry firearms is just as against being an 'american' as telling them they aren't allowed to own firearms.

Quote

1stly: My sister in law is now armed..was anti...gets the argument..wants to carry to her classes. She likes the fact it would help kids stay in line. I like this standpoint as a fear based tactic it would really go a long way in keeping some in line. Open Carry in the class..your going to listen to your freaking lesson. Our school system is failing these kids.

So your sister in law wants to carry a firearm to threaten the kids in her class? Fucking fabulous. Because that is what we need, fear that your teacher is going to shoot you. Your sister in law needs to no longer be a teacher if she has thoughts of threatening children with guns.

Quote

2ndly..Schools would be less likely to become a soft target. They would choose where-ever the anti gunners are.. The anti's will get it..they will arm up.

What? So your entire viewpoint is that everyone should always be armed because that isn't going to increase the murder rates at all, right? Its like you don't even understand WHY people commit crimes.

Quote

3rdly: With teachers being armed more children would be exposed to the gun culture, which would be a good thing. Can we run a gun class to arm kids at a certain age..We are America after all and the 2nd amendment was created for a very real point. The government should really start teaching kids on this standpoint. I don't wanna strip the 2nd amendment, but empower it. It would really help in our future security. I don't see why we don't let military culture into schools at a younger age, this will teach values and proper authority/regiment.

I think its funny that you talk about 'proper authority' when you are pretty vehemently against our elected president. Perhaps you should stop fucking thinking that only people you like are 'proper authorities' and start realizing that there are reasonable people out here who see both sides of the debate and think that you stockpiling weapons in your bunker is just as much of a psychological break as the sandy hook shooter had. And no, guns are not toys. That is the problem with gun culture in the US. Tons of people treat items which have only one real function (killing) as toys and then people are confused when people die. Aren't you all about how the government is brainwashing people with floride and everything, but you want to indoctrinate the children in schools to do whatever they are told by the government? Its like you can't even have a single world view because your different views contradict each other.

Quote

We need to figure out why people feel the need to murder.. Dr. drew showed this recently that this is very detectable with current technology..It can be treated and worked on. It is not..why?

As noted numerous times, the NRA is against it. Dr. Drew can suck a bag of dicks, hes a fucking retard.

Quote

Quote

Why are you, Nico, against making the murder of innocents harder?

I'm not i just think you all using your time and energy should concentrate on the part that actually matters...why are you sidestepping this?

I'm not using all my time and energy. There are numerous ways to work on preventing mass murders, one is stopping easy access to the tools used to murder dozens of people, and the other is mental health checks. I addressed both points in my post. Welcome to the real world where it isn't all black and white.

Quote

Why do we as people feel the need to murder...until you solve this I am carrying..I believe we should access to the best tools at our disposal..plain and simple.

Both socio-economic reasons and chemical imbalances in the brain. Republicans fight against fixing the first and NRA and republicans fight against requiring treatment (or having free treatment) for the second, but want guns for everyone.

Quote

I get that most don't agree with that here...but I really hope you don't think that means someone might not try to murder you, because you don't believe it can happen to you. Baffles me.

4x bad guys raid your house with ARs...you better have something appropriate to deal with this situation. Your family depends on you..

How are they going to get in? Your supposition that 'bad guys' are wandering around with what I assume you mean semi-automatic rifles (your 'knowledge' of the gun industry is really telling, here...) and they are going to break into my house? Why? How? They are just going to bust through my steel door (with wood paneling) and torture me to death? Or are they going to go through my bulletproof glass windows (well, plastic really, but I digress)? Crawl in through the drainpipes?

Quote

The world we live in is very crazy place..we need to find better solutions with current technology then banning stuff and putting effort into the wrong areas. Once this is solved guns will probably no longer be a necessity. Weird concept.

The weird concept is that you are so fucking paranoid you need to have a fucking arms race between yourself and the big bogey man criminals. Do you carry on you while you walk around your house? What if those scary 4 bad guys 'burst in' with grenade launchers while you are in the shower? Do you keep your gun with you in the shower? The fucking paranoia that abounds in the people who seem to think everything they have is going to be stolen from them the second they sell their guns is something that needs to be addressed by quite a few psychologists. It is called being well-adjusted. You are not.

[LinearPhilosopher]

guys let's all be honest here. there is no way nico is being serious. He's just trolling you all. If on the flip he actually is stupid enough to hold all of these asinine views do you seriously believe he possesses the mental capacity required to process information that contradicts his views on the world? Whether he's trolling or being serious you gain nothing from posting, you merely give him the impetus to post even more hogwash.

[Obdigore]

BalrogLord, on 28 December 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

guys let's all be honest here. there is no way nico is being serious. He's just trolling you all. If on the flip he actually is stupid enough to hold all of these asinine views do you seriously believe he possesses the mental capacity required to process information that contradicts his views on the world? Whether he's trolling or being serious you gain nothing from posting, you merely give him the impetus to post even more hogwash.

Calling someone a troll because you don't agree with what they are posting is a pretty shitty thing to do.

[Gnaw]

Obdigore, on 28 December 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 28 December 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

guys let's all be honest here. there is no way nico is being serious. He's just trolling you all. If on the flip he actually is stupid enough to hold all of these asinine views do you seriously believe he possesses the mental capacity required to process information that contradicts his views on the world? Whether he's trolling or being serious you gain nothing from posting, you merely give him the impetus to post even more hogwash.

Calling someone a troll because you don't agree with what they are posting is a pretty shitty thing to do.

Seriously?

[Obdigore]

Gnaw, on 28 December 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 28 December 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 28 December 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

guys let's all be honest here. there is no way nico is being serious. He's just trolling you all. If on the flip he actually is stupid enough to hold all of these asinine views do you seriously believe he possesses the mental capacity required to process information that contradicts his views on the world? Whether he's trolling or being serious you gain nothing from posting, you merely give him the impetus to post even more hogwash.

Calling someone a troll because you don't agree with what they are posting is a pretty shitty thing to do.

Seriously?

If you disagree with someone, show them where you disagree. If you just want to call someone a troll you can fuck off out of the discussions forum.

[Coco with marshmallows]

Obdigore, on 28 December 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

If you disagree with someone, show them where you disagree. If you just want to call someone a troll you can fuck off out of the discussions forum.

Harsher than I would have put it, but yes. Its a discussion forum, there will ALWAYS be people who disagree with your viewpoint.

BalrogLord - Nico is not a troll, those are his beliefs that he holds true to. You may not agree with them, but he certainly isn't creating them exclusively for the purpose of winding up you and others.

Gnaw - as I said, I agree with Obdi on this, and as I mentioned, Nico doesn't troll, he just abjectly disagrees with most of the people on the board with regard to personal beliefs.

Getting back on track somewhat - Nico, would you rather face down 4 crooks in your house who are carrying automatic rifles, or 4 crooks in your house who had pistols?

(speaking personally if there were 4 armed crooks in my house, first response would be to get me and the loved ones the fuck out the house. Real life is NOT like die hard, generally speaking multiple opponents v single opponent ends BADLY for the solo guy)

[cerveza_fiesta]

Maybe move the debate over which guns jam less to a new thread. I'd be interested to read about it, but it's more than beside the point for this discussion.

Nico did have one point among the rest of the (imo) drivel - What *do* you do about all the guns and extended mags already out there? Nico put it well I think: "you can't just disappear them people". It's true, and so is the fact that the second a ban gets seriously talked about, there will be a massive run on all mags and guns covered by the ban, leading to EVEN MORE of them being out there. Furthermore, with so many in circulation, it's hard to imagine a system that would function to remove them - even if the US gov't were offering to buy them back from owners at twice their list value.

This would lead (without too much of a logical leap) to a black market, but not a black market for rare and valuable things, rather, a black market for unbelievably common and inexpensive things. Such a market would be pretty easy to access for anyone premeditating a mass murder.

I'm not ready to make the further logical leap to say "a ban on guns won't work" for the reasons Nico states, but the problem of existing & circulating weapons is a difficult one to overcome.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 28 December 2012 - 01:35 PM

[Tapper]

Cocoreturns, on 28 December 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 28 December 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

If you disagree with someone, show them where you disagree. If you just want to call someone a troll you can fuck off out of the discussions forum.

Harsher than I would have put it, but yes. Its a discussion forum, there will ALWAYS be people who disagree with your viewpoint.

BalrogLord - Nico is not a troll, those are his beliefs that he holds true to. You may not agree with them, but he certainly isn't creating them exclusively for the purpose of winding up you and others.

Be that as it may, over every single topic Nicodemas partakes in, he never offers much support for his arguments, seldom offers reasoning or even doing people he argues with the courtesy of answering their questions to him - instead, his points drift off in a gazillion different directions and coherence is something that's incredibly hard to find, unless you count the obligatory zerohedge link when we talk finance.
An example, on bolt action vs (semi)automatic:

Quote

I disagree Ulrik. I don't know what else to say. Seems pretty cut and dry really. I get where your coming from, your just not hearing me.

No argument why.In such a way, he seldom shows and what and why he disagrees.

Let's just say that if you don't know Nic, the assumption that he is trolling is a reasonable one - only when you realise that this is his natural style and his PoV here is seamlessly supported elsewhere does it make sense that he is indeed 100% serious.

[Gnaw]

Tapper, on 28 December 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

Cocoreturns, on 28 December 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 28 December 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

If you disagree with someone, show them where you disagree. If you just want to call someone a troll you can fuck off out of the discussions forum.

Harsher than I would have put it, but yes. Its a discussion forum, there will ALWAYS be people who disagree with your viewpoint.

BalrogLord - Nico is not a troll, those are his beliefs that he holds true to. You may not agree with them, but he certainly isn't creating them exclusively for the purpose of winding up you and others.

Be that as it may, over every single topic Nicodemas partakes in, he never offers much support for his arguments, seldom offers reasoning or even doing people he argues with the courtesy of answering their questions to him - instead, his points drift off in a gazillion different directions and coherence is something that's incredibly hard to find, unless you count the obligatory zerohedge link when we talk finance.
An example, on bolt action vs (semi)automatic:

Quote

I disagree Ulrik. I don't know what else to say. Seems pretty cut and dry really. I get where your coming from, your just not hearing me.

No argument why.In such a way, he seldom shows and what and why he disagrees.

Let's just say that if you don't know Nic, the assumption that he is trolling is a reasonable one - only when you realise that this is his natural style and his PoV here is seamlessly supported elsewhere does it make sense that he is indeed 100% serious.

Ok. I'll take the word of the 3 of you that Nico is not a troll. He does a damn good impression of one. But that brings up the question of why would you actually want to attempt a dialogue with somebody whose views you know are that stark and unchangeable?

As I said earlier, the biggest problem with discussing this issue is the two sides who simply scream at (past) each other, completely ignoring anything that doesn't fit their worldview and usually refusing to even admit that the people shouting from the other side might, just might, buried deep inside the shouts, have an actual reason for their views. In my opinion, that leaves those of us stuck in the middle, trying to find common ground or even ground that allows "I agree to disagree on this point; let's move on to the next idea." In the US, the only other subject that seems to bring out that level of emotion and irrationality is abortion.

I am a huge fan of John Stuart Mill. His argument that speech should never be restricted, even allowing slander and libel, is well thought out and eminently defensible. (And, btw, the whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" thing disappears when studied by actual scientists: crowds don't panic that easily over fire anymore.)

I also strong dislike generalizations and categorization. Either one usually (generalization!) leads to less understanding and less actual useful dialogue.

Having said those two things, I admit that on this issue I tend to see the category "screamers" and mentally move people into that category as they reveal themselves. And Nico seems to me to fit that category in spades.

As always, YMMV. *shrug*

[worry]

I'm not sure that describes Nico at all. He's at the extreme (for the board, and in general) in terms of his opnions, but I don't think he's ever been deliberately rude to anybody. Also, I think I almost convinced him of something once, long ago. It's hard to tell. But I'll do it someday!

[LinearPhilosopher]

Obdigore, on 28 December 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

<br />

BalrogLord, on 28 December 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

<br />guys let's all be honest here. there is no way nico is being serious. He's just trolling you all. If on the flip he actually is stupid enough to hold all of these asinine views do you seriously believe he possesses the mental capacity required to process information that contradicts his views on the world? Whether he's trolling or being serious you gain nothing from posting, you merely give him the impetus to post even more hogwash.<br />

<br /><br />Calling someone a troll because you don't agree with what they are posting is a pretty shitty thing to do.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

It's got nothing to do with disagreement. It has to due with flawed reasoning. There are many individuals who I've disagreed with in the past. Nico is a whole new level. Admittedly i'm not a big poster, very few names are familiar to me. As such considering the posts here i could not help but conclude it was trolling. While the burden of proof lies upon me, other posters have pointed out flaws that would make any elaboration of mine quite redundant. Some of them were replies to other replies, thus giving a proper account of the causality would be quite tedious.

edit:this computer hates this forum.

My own opinion on this matter is quite simple. Things being what they are (culture, politics, lobbyists) any change will have to happen gradually and slowly and while some type of policies have large amounts of inertia, any legislation against guns will have very little inertia for reasons already mentioned. Ultimately a change needs to happen as this gun culture is leading to these events (indirectly but the causality is there), and in the long run make for a rather unsustainable future. The cold war showed us that arms race will ultimately ruin the other nation, even to the point of insanity as evidenced by MAD. A cold war of burglar/criminal/big bad goverment and it's own people isn't only unsustainable, it's incredibly dangerous and defies proper reasoning. Science has little to say on this matter, partially due to the NRA and other groups blocking research, but what little research is around shows households with guns are far more likely to have gun related incidents.

To what extent do we go to protect ourselves? Gun advocates, being in opposition to good reasoning would have us carry this need for protection to ridiculous extremes as by arming ourselves we merely exacerbate the problem and ignore the cause of the issue. Guns become even more widespread, fear becomes more widespread, causing more incidents and we end up with a lovely catch 22. The precedent is there as such this doesn't qualify as slippery slope fallacy.

Here's an idea
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ce-results.html

[Nicodimas]

Im not trying to be difficult, or rude. I just know myself..my experiences and my reality very well. We are all different and I like differences as if nobody thought different really whats the freaking point..

The only reason most think differently than me in my opinion is their wrong...sometimes people make very cognitive points here that due cue a mark..but i will be sure to point out exactly where there logic fails.

You all are cool..i do admit I like to argue to see how I as a person stand on points..cause really if your going to let some random person you don't know sway you on a forum..what do you really actually stand for?

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 30 December 2012 - 09:32 AM

[Nicodimas]

Back to the thread..stop focusing on how awesome my argument is. You can't all be baffled that hard by my cold hard logic.

..I don't really mind mental checks...but then you get into the area of HIPPA violations. Protocols and stuff.

I would propose a ban of 1 year after SSRI's..nothing on SSRIs. A breakdown of any sort..doctor//Psychology discretion.

Have people who screen a 4473 ask more questions..deny when possible..having sold guns for years..you can deny someone for anything really. I did..I don't like your tats..BYE.

I don't believe it changes much due to craigslist/forums and the gun show loopholes to be honest. I could buy any gun tomorrow with a "record" from a honest citizen. So tough call. Give people more power over me..for no real exchange. Not my thing at all.

If I as a pro gunner was going to make real good changes it would be this:

NFA everything with a tax stamp. To keep your tax stamp legal you have to TRAIN. Just like a license some state could say five years..others could say 50. Up to the state level.
Training would be a informal legal session with so much range time each year. So this would be very capitalist as it would force people to hit a local private range.
Hey more jobs!

I really like the training, tax stamp idea. I don't like a national license...but at a state level thats cool. Less fed power all good.



Hard part license suspended over other stuff...do police show up to take take your stuff? I mean all your guns are on record...I would argue you can't go to a range and if your caught plinking a serious fine type situation..states can decide this..
You have the right to own on your private property then..just not take them off type of situation.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Quote

If I as a pro gunner was going to make real good changes it would be this:


NFA everything with a tax stamp. To keep your tax stamp legal you have to TRAIN. Just like a license some state could say five years..others could say 50. Up to the state level. <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">Training would be a informal legal session with so much range time each year. So this would be very capitalist as it would force people to hit a local private range. <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">Hey more jobs!<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">I really like the training, tax stamp idea. I don't like a national license...but at a state level thats cool. Less fed power all good. <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">Hard part license suspended over other stuff...do police show up to take take your stuff? I mean all your guns are on record...I would argue you can't go to a range and if your caught plinking a serious fine type situation..states can decide this..
You have the right to own on your private property then..just not take them off type of situation.

This is a pretty reasonable solution really, and more or less in line with my ideas on gun education. Requiring education about firearms as a prerequisite for owning one is just about the most sensible thing I can imagine. A federally mandated minimum amount of training hours per 5 years (or whatever) would be a good starting point and then states could top that up to whatever levels they feel like.

And as to your question "do police show up to take your stuff?"...my personal feeling is YES. If you are convicted of a serious crime or are found to be mentally incompetent, then yes, the police should show up and at least detain your guns for an appropriate period of time (as determined by state courts). Your situation where you are restricted to use your guns only on your property is a poor alternative I think, as it would be pretty unenforceable.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 31 December 2012 - 03:39 PM

[Nicodimas]

Quote

pretty unenforceable.

I don't know..it's more of going with blinders on than unenforceable.

Your going to have to SWAT a house to take someone crazies guns. They can just hide them, bury them, give them away..etc.

Once you start SWATing peoples house you are playing into pro constitution greatest fears. I don't mind a stipulation that says the person can voluntarily store them somewhere though, most people are scary reasonable.

If you have a suspended drivers license, they don't take your car..you own your car...You will however get fines/possible jail time/ guns taken until you pay/re-up training. Most gun peeps aren't going to let it expire.

There is a certain fear with a license..but FBI NICS already tracks what people have at their residence <longgun/pistol>. moot point here.

I as a pro gun guy like the idea of tax stamps too as it would hopefully lead to more class 3 items being in the arms of citizens as they would learn the system.

Russian PoV:


http://english.pravd...ericans_guns-0/