F Champ Receives Lifetime Ban, Racism in the FGC/USA, and Other Prevalent Social Discussions

[CrimsonShadow]

This kind of leads back to my original response to truefenix which kicked all of this off, did those other first world countries have to disarm as many people as we do? Was it close? What I'm saying is our unique (uniquely bad lmao) situation makes things more complicated. No it won't happen overnight, which of course nobody expects. I just don't think it can happen. I think it is very complex, not simple at all, wouldn't be peaceful either. I think compensation would actually do some good, someone earlier in this thread said that and I thought that was a good idea. Closing the shops and banning sales would help with new guns to some extent, but imo the problem isn't new guns, the real problem in implementing this is seizing all of the existing ones.

The thing is though, I'm not even saying nothing should happen. I asked truefenix if those other countries were like ours in terms of quantity of guns, but you felt the need to explain to me the importance of trying, which obviously is true, it's not the question I was even asking.

46% of the civilian guns owned WORLDWIDE are owned by American civilians. There are only like 300 million people in America, definitely not representative of 46% of the world population. I think this issue is a lot less simple and would require much more drastic solutions than you guys are suggesting. Once again, this is just registered guns.

And that leads back to my point, which is that that was the same argument used to justify keeping slavery. People saying "Well do other countries have as many slaves as we do? Are they as reliant on it as the South's economy was? Won't things fall apart in the South?"

And the answer is, it doesn't matter. "It's hard/it's worse here" has never, ever been a valid excuse to not make a change for the better. The fact that you can't flip a switch and make it disappear overnight, is not a justfiication to not start eliminating the problem.

And that, again, is why it correlates to things like murder. We can not eliminate murder entirely. Someone will always choose to do it. But there would be far more murders if it was legalized, and that's the point. Any reduction in murder ultimately saves lives. You start where you can start and make progress as you go toward a better future. That's how laws work.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

Wtf -- and the victims of slavery were voluntarily complicit in not being given rights? This makes no sense.

Slave owners could choose to own slaves because it was legal and they were considered to be property. That designation changed later, due to intervention.

Also, outside of that point, plenty of 'voluntary' things have been made illegal. You don't get to own a working sherman tank or an F16 just because you have the money to afford it. Literally nothing in our legal system works this way.

Slave owners were forcing an involuntary situation on other human beings, which is immoral. People are not things. Me owning things for me is voluntary and doesn't become immoral until I intrude upon the rights of another. As you said, "it's not that complex". BTW.... I actually CAN own all of those things.

(after original post)

The law by definition is a monopoly of force over a given geographical area. There are absolutely concessions that are made, like taxation and such, that are immoral for individual citizens such as slave owners. The right of voluntary ownership firearms is NOT one such concession we decided to make here, and thanks to that decision this debate will forever be had.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Slave owners were forcing an involuntary situation on other human beings, which is immoral. People are not things. Me owning things for me is voluntary and doesn't become immoral until I intrude upon the rights of another. As you said, "it's not that complex". BTW.... I actually CAN own all of those things.

It's commonly held to be immoral now. At the time in the US it was not, or it was seen as debatable. Thus my point about changing culture and attitudes.

Also no, you cannot buy a militarized plane as a private citizen. They have to be demilitarized and properly decommissioned so that you are not a thread to others around you. Surely if you could, people would, and that's why it's illegal.

Likewise you don't get to import or buy a tank with working firing systems and weaponry. And you can't go driving a tank off your property. Again, if people could, they definitely would, and that's why we have laws.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

And that leads back to my point, which is that that was the same argument used to justify keeping slavery. People saying "Well do other countries have as many slaves as we do? Are they as reliant on it as the South's economy was? Won't things fall apart in the South?"

And the answer is, it doesn't matter. "It's hard/it's worse here" has never, ever been a valid excuse to not make a change for the better.

I never said not to make change for the better.

Once again... The south had a viable example to follow in the North for a new economic model.... We do not have a viable model on how the fuck to find and seize 400+ million guns. And the South also had the North as direct opposition and more powerful opposition. The North went in their and wrecked their shit.

The South was only stopped because they had the bigger and stronger North that WANTED to. The gun owners as a whole DON'T face a more powerful direct opposition, meaning the people who will disarm them and the means they have to do so. We average 120 guns per 100 people, like I said, good luck. It's not about making an excuse, it's not about saying nothing should be done. It is about looking at the obvious numbers in front of our faces. Maybe gun control will be solved in 200 or so years.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I never said not to make change for the better.

Once again... The south had a viable example to follow in the North for a new economic model.... We do not have a viable model on how the fuck to find and seize 400+ million guns. And the South also had the North as direct opposition and more powerful opposition. The North went in their and wrecked their shit.

Again, this is untrue. The South never had an example to follow that was as extensive as slavery was in the South. And that is both because of the climate and economics of the south, the way the cities and states were laid out, and other things.

But it's exactly what I'm saying -- that fact that it was less extensive before being outlawed in the North was not allowed to be used as a justification for not doing it in the South at all. And likewise, the fact that our situation may be more more extensive than other nations is not an excuse to simply keep guns legal because it'll take time and tenacity to correct the problem.

You are literally making the SAME argument that southern slaveowners made -- that it wouldn't be as easy because their economy and lifestyle in the South was far more reliant on large-scale slavery than the North ever was. You are repeating anti-abolitionist talking points nearly word for word.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

It's commonly held to be immoral now. At the time in the US it was not, or it was seen as debatable. Thus my point about changing culture and attitudes.

Also no, you cannot buy a militarized plane as a private citizen. They have to be demilitarized and properly decommissioned so that you are not a thread to others around you. Surely if you could, people would, and that's why it's illegal.

Likewise you don't get to own a tank with working firing systems and weaponry. It's illegal for a reason.

Not a militarized on point of purchase, no. You'd lose your shit if you'd seen some of the warehouses I've seen from people with more money and contacts than sense. As I said, the Prohibition effect.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Not a militarized on point of purchase, no. You'd lose your shit if you'd seen some of the warehouses I've seen from people with more money and contacts than sense.

People with more money than sense are near the root of this entire issue in the first place.

That's why we have laws like this:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332g

Because if we just let people do whatever they want, they definitely would.

And personally, I don't think "Cool factor" is a great justification for owning things that are in operating condition and made specifically to kill other human beings.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

People with more money than sense are near the root of this entire issue in the first place.

That's why we have laws like this:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332g

Because if we just let people do whatever they want, they definitely would.

And personally, I don't think "Cool factor" is a great justification for owning things that are in operating condition and made specifically to kill other human beings.

You know there are FFL designations that DO indeed allow for explosive ordnance in stock? And I agree with the concept of law and certain concessions that need to be made. I don't accept firearms ownership as one of them.

Cool factor is indeed insufficient for my tastes as well, as is most corporate money for that matter.

 

[Sage Leviathan]

The fact that this present conversation is even happening should be substantial evidence that American gun control is, in short terms, fucking horrible. And so are the police.

After Kenosha my faith in humanity is at an all time low.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

Again, this is untrue. The South never had an example to follow that was as extensive as slavery was in the South. And that is both because of the climate and economics of the south, the way the cities and states were laid out, and other things.

But it's exactly what I'm saying -- that fact that it was less extensive before being outlawed in the North was not allowed to be used as a justification for not doing it in the South at all. And likewise, the fact that our situation may be more more extensive than other nations is not an excuse to simply keep guns legal because it'll take time and tenacity to correct the problem.

You are literally making the SAME argument that southern slaveowners made -- that it wouldn't be as easy because their economy and lifestyle in the South was far more reliant on large-scale slavery than the North ever was. You are repeating anti-abolitionist talking points nearly word for word.

I'm gonna give you some credit and assume you aren't actually comparing me thinking it would be borderline impossible to do this while still agreeing with the moral reasoning behind it to fucking slave owners.

They didn't have an example to follow in terms of what a region where slavery was as common to follow, but they had an example to follow on how to REPLACE slavery. And more importantly, they had the North to force it to happen. Gun owners do not have someone that could actually force this to happen. Every other disarmed country faced a force that could feasibly disarm them....

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I'm gonna give you some credit and assume you aren't actually comparing me thinking it would be borderline impossible to do this while still agreeing with the moral reasoning behind it to fucking slave owners.

They didn't have an example to follow in terms of what a region where slavery was as common to follow, but they had an example to follow on how to REPLACE slavery. And more importantly, they had the North to force it to happen. Gun owners do not have someone that could actually force this to happen. Every other disarmed country faced a force that could feasibly disarm them....

I don’t understand what this means. Every country that made it illegal to own firearms simply used their own government.

Everything that we make illegal doesn’t simply disappear overnight. But you have to start somewhere — which is what laws are for. Then you incentivize people to cooperate, and punish people who don’t. The fact that it can be a years-long process (and that some people will still break the laws) is not an excuse not to start.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

I'm curious as to other people's perspective on the Prohibition effect issue that is seemingly going to otherwise go unaddressed from my post.

What was the effect of Prohibition?
What was the effect of the Drug War?

What would be worse than our current gun violence problem? A whole new breed of black market facilitating the procurement of completely untraceable, unaccounted for, and indeterminable (in terms of forensic ballistic testing) firearms the likes of which has never been seen.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I don’t understand what this means. Every country that made it illegal to own firearms simply used their own government.

Everything that we make illegal doesn’t simply disappear overnight. But you have to start somewhere — which is what laws are for. Then you incentivize people to cooperate, and punish people who don’t. The fact that it can be a years-long process (and that some people will still break the laws) is not an excuse not to start.

I didn't say don't start, the entire reason I'm even having this conversation is because I responded to truefenix who made it sound easy.

What I'm saying is that these countries who disarmed their citizens

1. Didn't have to take NEARLY as many guns and it is not even comparable on any level.
2. Were the dominant force in doing so, unless they literally sent in the military to just start shooting gun owners and shit, there is no force in America that can make this happen.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I'm curious as to other people's perspective on the Prohibition effect issue that is seemingly going to otherwise go unaddressed from my post.

What was the effect of Prohibition?
What was the effect of the Drug War?

What would be worse than our current gun violence problem? A whole new breed of black market facilitating the procurement of completely untraceable, unaccounted for, and indeterminable (in terms of forensic ballistic testing) firearms the likes of which has never been seen.

Be careful what you wish for.

Prohibition fucking failed and alcohol is legal.
The drug war is also a disaster.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I'm curious as to other people's perspective on the Prohibition effect issue that is seemingly going to otherwise go unaddressed from my post.

What was the effect of Prohibition?
What was the effect of the Drug War?

What would be worse than our current gun violence problem? A whole new breed of black market facilitating the procurement of completely untraceable, unaccounted for, and indeterminable (in terms of forensic ballistic testing) firearms the likes of which has never been seen.

Be careful what you wish for.

There’s a black market for everything illegal. That’s not a justification to make everything.

Again, “some people will do it anyway” has never, ever been a valid reason not to enact laws to help change outdated and dangerous aspects of our culture.

Alcohol is not made specifically to be lethal and is legal over a certain age in most modern countries. Guns are made specifically to kill and are outlawed in almost all modern countries. Apples and oranges.

This isn’t some puritan leaning or a quasi-religious ban. The point is saving lives.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

There’s a black market for everything illegal. That’s not a justification to make everything.

Again, “some people will do it anyway” has never, ever been a valid reason not to enact laws to help change outdated and dangerous aspects of our culture.

The point was in reference to the black market activities that specifically spawned as the result of the mentioned endeavors. The point isn't "they'll do it anyway", it's "what monster comes forth from Pandora's box?".

 

[CrimsonShadow]

The point was in reference to the black market activities that specifically spawned as the result of the mentioned endeavors. The point isn't "they'll do it anyway", it's "what monster comes forth from Pandora's box?".

We are already living with the monster every day and it’s claiming 30,000 to 40,000 lives each year.

We don’t need Pandora’s box to open it here. We’ve screwed up already and it’s time to start correcting the problem.

 

[Sage Leviathan]

Racism (and indeed insufficient/whitewashed education) has so deeply infected our society that a successful and peaceful disarmament would disproportionately affect non-white communities and you know I'm right because why the fuck not, have you seen the news lately.

I'm also in some agreement with @Dankster Morgan . There are just... too many firearms in circulation. No other country has romanticized this idea of defending oneself with lethal force quite like America has.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

We are already living with the monster every day and it’s claiming 30,000 to 40,000 lives each year.

60% are suicides. Still horrific, but that's not really whaat we are talking about here.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

60% are suicides. Still horrific, but that's not really whaat we are talking about here.

I don't think making it easier for people to suicide is a good thing, either. I don't like the idea of someone who might be depressed or entertaining suicidal thoughts owning or keeping something in their home that is specifically made to kill people.

20k gun homicides is also not a good thing.

Nor 100,000k firearms injuries a year.

The entire point is that making these things easier makes the issue worse.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I don't think making it easier for people to suicide is a good thing, either. I don't like the idea of someone who might be depressed or entertaining suicidal thoughts owning or keeping something in their home that is specifically made to kill people.

20k gun homicides is also not a good thing.

Nor 100,000k firearms injuries a year.

The entire point is that making these things easier makes the issue worse.

No absolutely, its horrible

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

We are already living with the monster every day and it’s claiming 30,000 to 40,000 lives each year.

We don’t need Pandora’s box to open it here. We’ve screwed up already and it’s time to start correcting the problem.

Let's do it. Let's recreate our success with Prohibition. Let's repeat our victory over cartels. Except we didn't succeed, and the cartels thrive.
My scenario posed was specific and very possible, but you make no reference to it. In today's climate 99.98% of firearms are in SOMEONES FFL book (regardless of the date of disposition), all commercially available firearms are forensically identifiable given the right evidence to work with, and public incentive to have any interactions with 3D printed firearms is nill. If I am correct in my theoretical scenario, you would plead on your knees to be in a world with current 4473s.

(after original post)
On second thought, what's been the most successful means of making headway on the effects of the Drug War? Places making recreational drugs legal and widely available. Funny how that works.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Let's do it. Let's recreate our success with Prohibition. Let's repeat our victory over cartels. Except we didn't succeed, and the cartels thrive.
My scenario posed was specific and very possible, but you make no reference to it. In today's climate 99.98% of firearms are in SOMEONES FFL book (regardless of the date of disposition), all commercially available firearms are forensically identifiable given the right evidence to work with, and public incentive to have any interactions with 3D printed firearms is nill. If I am correct in my theoretical scenario, you would plead on your knees to be in a world with current 4473s.

(after original post)
On second thought, what's been the most successful means of making headway on the effects of the Drug War? Places making recreational drugs legal and widely available. Funny how that works.

I don't understand pushing this logical fallacy that because Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, no legal prohibition of anything is valid.

Again:
Alcohol prohibition: Banning of a substance not made explicitly to kill people, that is legal in most countries, mostly on puritanical/semi-religious grounds (it was a movement led by Protestants)
Firearms: Specifically made to kill people, illegal in most countries, humanitarian and practical grounds

You couldn't get more different in terms of apples and oranges.

We are decades behind in the USA on culture of firearms. This isn't some momentary ideological crusade.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

I don't understand pushing this logical fallacy that because Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, no legal prohibition of anything is valid.

Again:
Alcohol prohibition: Banning of a substance not made explicitly to kill people, that is not legal in most countries, mostly on puritanical/semi-religious grounds (it was a movement led by Protestants)
Firearms: Specifically made to kill people, illegal in most countries, humanitarian and practical grounds

You couldn't get more different in terms of apples and oranges.

Funny how you throw the apples and oranges line at me after such a fallacy is what sparked our interaction. Yes, firearms are tools designed to end life(not just human, a distinction that hints at your lack of experience in certain geographies where man is the least of your worries). Funny how you were just toting the number of gun deaths as a principle reason for the need to change, but alcohol kills a couple times more. What measures need to be taken in the modern world about alcohol?

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Funny how you throw the apples and oranges line at me after such a fallacy is what sparked our interaction. Yes, firearms are tools designed to end life(not just human, a distinction that hints at your lack of experience in certain geographies where man is the least of your worries). Funny how you were just toting the number of gun deaths as a principle reason for the need to change, but alcohol kills a couple times more. What measures need to be taken in the modern world about alcohol?

I don't think it's funny at all -- deaths from something not made to cause death can be though of as more incidental. Deaths from something specifically made to kill people are obvious results of what they were designed for.

People die in car accidents, but passenger cars are not made specifically to kill people. They are made to transport people from place to place safely. Thus the main job of the government is to make sure that they're used for what they were manufactured for.

Firearms will not get you to the office on time. They're not made to clean things or for you to have a little extra enjoyment in your drink. They are manufactured to kill, first and foremost, period. I find this argument of "people die from other stuff, too!" to be ridiculous.

The fact that you cannot see a connection between outlawing killing other people, and outlawing the tools that are made specifically to kill other people, is pretty ironic to say the least.