Discussion USA and gun

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Demonic Poring, Oct 10, 2018.

  1. Ai chan

    Ai chan Queen of Yuri, Devourer of Traps, Thrusted Witch

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,278
    Likes Received:
    24,346
    Reading List:
    Link
    So basically just stay away from people, period. Because every people can be the wrong people, and when those people carry guns, it gets hard to determine if that person is the wrong person or the right person.

    No, that still means criminals can't have guns. If criminals are found to carry guns, they are prosecuted within the bounds of the local law. If your elementary school teacher say you can't go to the toilet, but you go anyway, it doesn't mean you're physically unable to piss. It simply means if you do despite the warning, you will be punished.

    Pro-gun advocates keep saying that 'If the public can't have guns, only criminals will have guns' but that's because they have never tried buying a gun in a country that outlaw guns. Unlike America, countries that outlaw guns control their guns strictly. Gun stores? No such thing, you usually find only one gun store in a major city, and that's usually near a police station. Guns sold are labelled and inventoried so that no guns go missing. The only way that criminals can get guns apart from robbing a police station or a military supply depot is through smuggling it across the border or the sea, but that means they will have to deal with customs and sea patrols. That's very hard, that's why there are significantly less gun-related crimes in a country that bans guns than USA. Even criminals find it hard to get guns.

    Also, just because 'guns are illegal', doesn't mean the public can't have it. It simply means as long as they abide by the rules in the gun control law, they can have guns. Open carry guns are usually not allowed in countries that forbid guns. And in some (read:some) countries, you're not allowed to carry any firearms unless you're police, so if you're found to carry guns in your handbag, you go to jail. Same goes to criminals. If you carry a gun, you're a criminal. If you have a license, you can still keep it in your house.

    Most countries allow the public to have guns with very strict requirements. America allow everyone to have guns. And when there's a move to put more restrictions, the pro-gun advocates would shoot it down, saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people". If Person A has a knife and Person B has a gun, both with proficiency in their weapons and their victims (6 people) are 20 meters in front of them, who will get more kills?
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  2. MEGA SPARTA CHICKEN

    MEGA SPARTA CHICKEN Planet sized warrior Tony without wisdom teeth

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Reading List:
    Link
    Person A would kill the gunman then shoot everyone.
     
    Ai chan likes this.
  3. TooLazyToThink

    TooLazyToThink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2016
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    391
    Reading List:
    Link
    There are also mass murderers in other countries like japan and china but they used a knife instead of gun. Just imagine if gun is legal in their country and they used it instead of a knife. More dead people
     
  4. SolInvictus

    SolInvictus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    130
    Reading List:
    Link
    No, you're incorrect. About as incorrect as it gets. You're using the word 'can't' to mean something it doesn't. In some cases, it doesn't matter because it's just semantics but in your case, it matters because it makes your argument sound naive.

    Can't, a contraction for 'cannot' means to be unable to do otherwise so yes. If a teacher says "you can't go to the toilet" as opposed to '"You may not" then that teacher doesn't have a good grasp of grammar. May is permissive, 'can' is wether or not a thing is possible. So can't would mean that teacher knows far too much about their student's bladder...or they mean to physically stop the student from using the pisser.

    My grammar isn't perfect and I am not going to fault you or anyone for typos and other errors but, in your case it made your argument sound naive because your statements meant that 'the law doesn't allow criminals to have guns so they don't'.

    That would mean that in whatever country you come from there are no: drugs, no rapes, no murders, no sexual abuses, no molestation...well- no crime at all because crime isn't allowed. It would mean you don't need prisons, nor police for that matter, because everybody does as they are told.

    Again I think you greatly underestimate the issue of firearms. Some large criminal organisations make billions (with a b) of dollars every year. They smuggle in tons of industrial paraphernalia, launder those billions of dollars, and even traffic human beings. Now I am far from being a gun expert but, I think that a gun is generally easier to traffic than a human being.

    Criminals don't need to buy guns. They acquire them through criminal acts. Even if they can't purchase or smuggle weapons (highly unlikely) then you have the issue of the police themselves. Many guns that criminals have come from the police. Threatening the police, bribing them, or inserting criminals within the police itself. Take Italy and Mexico for example. It is most likely just that criminals in your country can kill and rape and murder well enough without them. Or organised crime would be unprofitable in the area. Or in the case of Islamic states, the risks are far too high compared to the reward.

    If your country doesn't have lots of guns that doesn't have much to do with the law. It's most likely a mix of social, cultural, and economic factors. Examine the rates of other crimes that don't require guns in your country. If they are less prolific, then congrats, your country just has less crime per capita. Even if you allowed guns, it's likely that those rates wouldn't change much though of course, the number of gun crimes would rise.
    With a lot of petty crimes, you'll find that the motivation is not psychotic but, financial. If you have a lot of poor people and a strong culture of entitlement, you will have a lot of murder. Look at South Africa.
     
  5. SolInvictus

    SolInvictus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    130
    Reading List:
    Link
    I see where you are going but, I disagree. I don't think using a grenade or a bazooka is very practical. I don't think a robber or a burglar would use them because they'd likely damage whatever they were trying to steal. Also, it the attack happened in public, it would most likely be easier to defend yourself with a gun. So I doubt that would be necessary but, that doesn't answer your question.

    Yes, if the only way you could protect yourself was with a gun or a bazooka then a person should be allowed to own one. In the exaggerated example. If a band of lunatics were known to drive around in armoured vehicles killing folk and the police were unable to prevent all cases of it, then yes, you should be allowed to own a weapon that can protect you from that threat.

    In practical terms though, a burglar will not engage in a drawn-out shootout to rob a house. Once a few shots go off, the jig is up. Someone's dead or someone's fled. Or both. That's why rifles, grenades, bazookas, etc are excessive force, not necessary force for the task of self-defence.

    If you live out on a farm. Wide open space with no police for miles then a sniper rifle might be the necessary force to stop and deter intruders. That weapon should stay on your farm because it isn't practical or necessary to have one in the city for defence purposes.

    Again, if you'd prefer a blunt object that is fine but, if you've ever had a gun pulled on you, you would know better...unless you're the main star of this show and have impressive plot armour...or are ridiculously lucky. I don't think it wise to leave your safety to luck and in any death duel, I'd pick a gun over a golf club.
     
  6. asriu

    asriu fu~ fu~ fu~

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages:
    18,546
    Likes Received:
    18,145
    Reading List:
    Link
    sorry but I disagree with it have not much thing with law~ law enforcement is part of law it self
    social, cultural, and economic factors can forced to change by law because law itself is by product of social, cultural, and economic factors
    yes there probability crime still exist because of social, cultural, and economic factors which can influence corruption and it does have relation with criminal can bribe police to get gun and that mean bigger problem than own a gun which is corruption problem

    you use Italy and Mexico and to be honest from your post I see bigger problem than Gun which is corruption and law enforcement caused by factors which idk because I have no idea about that country internal affair
    smuggling Gun sure profitable if the target country somehow have problem with national security, armed rebellion, and corruption plus gun restriction law~ so I think it really hard to smuggle arms if country really strict on it~

    I will use my country Indonesia
    it have Gun restriction law
    why such law still hold?
    because of decades of restriction start from 1951 till now, have some change around 80 and 90's about air soft gun and hmm wind based gun and da likes~ I forget da detail~ on 1951 it just after hmm great war to defend independence~ many ex militia still hold weapon and with that law The Government forced them to kick da weapon~ then there various bloody rebellion using arms cuz various reason~ it made Government put stricter restriction toward arms~ with that thing The Government forced social, cultural, and economic factors to put away gun from it mind~ that what I mean law can force social, cultural, and economic factors~ the change on gun restriction law about air soft gun and wind based gun is example law it self by product of social, cultural, and economic factors~ oh Indonesia also have legal arms manufacturer Pindad owned by government~

    of course there still criminal who can access gun despite such law~
    cuz various reason~ the reason I know are
    1st there exist artisan/smith who can make gun. da knowledge is like fiction story~ from teacher to disciple or father to son
    2nd with such big area and limited law enforcer member. smuggling still problem
    3rd the advance of technology, like it or not internet is double edge sword
    4th corruption~ yup da smuggler bribe those on authority~
    most criminal used artisan made gun
    I personally know cat who have shot gun, sniper riffle or pistol made by artisan~ when I asked why you not search da factory made gun? da cat said nope it mean make trouble with police, military and intelligence~ da government really strict on gun smuggler~
    so yup~ law have big influence on gun~

    just because law prohibit and there no criminal sure quite stretch opinion but because of there criminal law is ineffective also funny opinion

    each country have different stance toward gun restriction law~
    you can learn history if you really interested why your country make a stance toward gun restriction law
     
    doomeye1337 likes this.
  7. Ai chan

    Ai chan Queen of Yuri, Devourer of Traps, Thrusted Witch

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,278
    Likes Received:
    24,346
    Reading List:
    Link
    You're using the classic use of the term then. It's exactly what I used to teach elementary school kids the difference between "Teacher, may I go to the toilet" and "Teacher, can I go to the toilet". My point is, the usage here is in the form of sociopolitical restrictions. It's like how parents tell their children, "No, you can't have a car" but there's nothing stopping that kid from getting a car if he can fork the bills. Are you not an American? Because this is how Americans speak, don't they?

    Oh boy, you base your arguments on Mexico, Italy and the Islamic State? Dude, seriously? Mexico is home to the drug cartels, and their police and military have been so ineffective that the drug cartels even can go to war with them, not to mention the top level corruption inherent in their government.

    I do not know the history of Italy, but why do you bring Italy into the discussion? In 2012, Italy has only 780 deaths and injury related to guns while USA has 38, 658 deaths and injury caused by guns. Looking at the figures, doesn't this show that gun control has been somewhat successful despite the Italians' propensity for violence? Looking at the figures, USA is 33 times bigger than Italy, but only 4 times more people. Can you do the math of 'person per square acre'? Because by right, Italy should have a lot more gun related injuries due to their denser living space, but they don't. Doesn't this mean that gun restrictions have been successful in Italy? Why do you bring up Italy?
    https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/88/total_number_of_gun_deaths/194

    Islamic State is not a legitimate state. The very basis of their state is violence, murder and war. Don't bring them up, please. Because just like you, nobody knows what happens inside for sure, so nobody can argue or dispute whatever you want to say about them. If you were to say there are flying camels in the Islamic State, nobody can say you're a liar, because apart from what the media and western military tell us, there is nothing freely available for anyone to argue about. The only people who'd know are the jihadist and they for sure won't tell anyone about anything that can be used against them.

    I do not know where you get the idea that the police supply arms to the criminals, but it certainly doesn't happen enough for it to make a difference. Can you give your source for this? I cannot agree or dispute this unless I've seen the source material of how you can be so convinced that this is the case. For the record, this doesn't happen in Taiwan, because unlike Mexico, our police have to register their guns and ammo and they're not allowed to fire their guns unless given permission, so missing guns and ammo cannot possibly happen.

    As for guns on farm, of course, you should have one if you live in the rural areas. And the same countries that ban firearms allows you, the farmer, to have one as long as you've gone through psych evaluation, written exams and other stuff the state finds necessary to ensure that you will use it responsibly within the bounds of government authority. I did say that in my previous post. And no, you're not allowed to buy a sniper rifle. You're allowed a hunting rifle, but there's nothing wrong if you put a sniper scope on it.

    Also, 'if you got a gun pulled on you'? Ok, you keep thinking 'America'. How about going to the countries that ban guns first? You will NOT see guns on the street AT ALL. Merely having the gun seen anywhere on you, you will go to jail first without question unless you can prove that you're a policemen. And out of a hundred criminals, only a few will actually own guns. The policemen in those countries are very serious about guns and since there's so few people who own guns, it's much easier to crack down on criminals with unlawful ownership of guns.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  8. Yukkuri Oniisan

    Yukkuri Oniisan 『Procrastinator Archwizard Translator and Writer』

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    5,416
    Likes Received:
    9,276
    Reading List:
    Link
    As an Indonesian deep in the Borunean Forest and a medical doctor, let me offer my two cents...

    In Indonesia, having a gun is as hard as this Yukkuri getting a wife :blobconfounded:, which is to say, unless you have a valid reason like for sport or job security, no handgun will ever grace your hand :notlikeblob:. Hence, handguns are a curiosity here. You will never meet with anyone with handgun other the cops, as any civilian won't ever bring their guns (legal or illegal) to public space since it will attract lots of unwanted attention (you will be treated like a potential criminal, similar like if you carry a sword publicly :blobhero:). Of course, any rifle and shotgun are illegal.

    There are hunting air rifles, usually used to hunt the famed Bornean Boar (I swear the meat won't be used to adulterate the beef in bakso/meatball). However, the number is not that significant. There is also homemade pelantak/musket in the rifle or handgun variant, but they are usually only be owned by the Dayak tribesmen living deep inside the jungle. There are some region which produced this homemade gun illegally, but they usually are monitored by police.

    That is not to say that no criminal use gun, but unless those criminals are robbing a bank or jewelry store, you will not have any encounter with a mob thug enemy equipped with a gun. Most mob thug in my place uses short pointy metals, which unless in serious assault, won't leave you with a cavitation injury in your abdomen as a lead projectile deformed when passing your abdomen. An abdominal stab wound was surprisingly more survivable (I had treated some of them, most didn't even penetrate fully into the abdominal wall, thanks to belly fat). Hence why I don't really worry that random thug will shot me with a handgun just because he wanted my cracked Zenphone 2. The chance that this happens will be much lower than if Indonesia entered a post-apocalyptic disaster where everyone sports a mohawk and carry Baretta like you bring yer wallet everywhere.

    For a criminal to carry a gun, he must make sure that the reward worth it. If the cops see you waving a gun, prepare to eat some good old plumbum. The Police will try to inflict No-Move debuff by holing yer legs, but ye can't always rely on Indonesian police to be a good shooter. Hence, criminals will not carry a gun unless he premeditated for murder or trying to rob something in the level of thousand dollars, like my LN collection.

    Of course, illegal gun trade exists and some crooked cop will sell (actually loan) their guns to any criminal who will want to get his hand on a piece. However, for a normal chap on the street, the chance of him encountered illegal gun or be in the receiving end of that sleek barrel will be slimmer than the chance of having your Japanese imported Master Grade Gundam kit passing Indonesian Custom Office without a monetary lubrication.

    I had treated only 3 gunshot wound in my 5 year career. All 3 are from hunting air rifle (the one for shooting the famed Bornean Boar), so the resulting wound will not be that worse than if they get hit by a 5.56 mm projectile shot by a semi-automatic rifle.

    TLDR:
    In Indonesia (at least here in Borunean):
    Civilian held guns are very rare.
    Illegal guns are not that prevalent. Gun attract unwarranted attention if you are not a police.
    Street criminals don't use a gun. Only big ones and they will be hunted by the police.
    No school shooting with a gun every 1 or 2 weeks.
    The chance you get shot by a gun in Indonesia is higher than the chance of me getting married in 5 years.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
    Lonelycity and asriu like this.
  9. Deleted member 37987

    Deleted member 37987 Guest

    Reading List:
    Link
    Wait what? I've heard the Philippines has guns and it's right next door, plus you guys have more terrorists than the Philippines.

    I can't even believe the criminality would be so different than on one side there's a lot of guns and the other side is like Japan, unless I've been misinformed about PH.
     
  10. Yukkuri Oniisan

    Yukkuri Oniisan 『Procrastinator Archwizard Translator and Writer』

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    5,416
    Likes Received:
    9,276
    Reading List:
    Link
    Don't know about the Philippines, but Indonesian terrorists are not street criminals that you can encounter just by walking 5 steps. I have a greater chance of getting married than meeting a terrorist here in the sleepy Borunean forest.
    Also, unlike the old-breed terrorists, the new terrorists are underfunded and underequipped. The guns they had either needs to be smuggled from the Philipines or other countries, or bought from corrupt police/military. Holding lots of guns are very difficult in Indonesia. Your neighbor or local citizen will report you if they see you carry many firearms (which lead to how Indonesian police successfully nabbed many local terrorists). After all, In Indonesia, the maximum penalty for unlawful possession of a firearm is 20 years to life imprisonment or the death penalty, no common criminal will want to risk 20 year being butt-raped.

    Of course, if a criminal intended to inflict bodily harm, no gun or with a gun, you will be hurt, however, at least without easy access to a gun, you won't end up as a hole-riddled corpse.
    For example, not too long ago, a man run amok in a credit union office, he hurt several employees by using a hammer. The employees got various wounds, but nothing life-threatening. Imagine if the perpetrator uses a handgun.

    So I am thankful that Indonesia is a relatively gun-free society and no one in Indonesia will say: "you can pry the gun from my cold dead arms". After all no Second Amendment thingy here...
     
  11. bleh360

    bleh360 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2017
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    66
    Reading List:
    Link
    It's one country.... Under god...indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Rest assured it's only one country.

    Now to the rest of your story I think some sleuthing is in order. Was your friends gun a handgun? Or a an automatic weapon? Depending on which will tell you whether or not you should be concerned about going to USA or letting your friend continue to be near you! Cause your friend probably knows your address...the random other people in the US don't.....just a thought...

    Anyways it's a little irrational to be that wary of guns in the US, if you mind your own the chances of you being targeted are so slim. If you are fearful of being collateral damage or getting hit by stray bullets, then just don't walk through sketchy neighborhoods. Maybe I'm just desensitized to it but I have come to terms with gunshot incidents being as common and as deadly as a car wreaks in the US. You might die, you might be severely injured, just make sure to stay in public places so someone can call 911 for you.

    Sure there are scary events that happen when citizen holds a public place hostage, like a bank or a movie theater, but strangely thats not happened to me ever in my life, so consider yourself a very unlucky person if that happens to you. And if you are that unlucky, chances are there are many dangerous other shiz that could happen in your own country. Poison by a deadly bug only found in your country, natural disasters that could only happen in places like your country, choke on a corndog that could only be found in your country....I am just saying there is much more to be frightened of than guns in US you could be injured just from sneezing too hard and that could happen anywhere.

    Maybe I'm just desensitized to it but I have come to terms with gunshot incidents being as common and as deadly as a car wreaks in the US. You might die, you might be severely injured, just make sure to stay in public places so someone can call 911 for you.

    I do understand guns are a certain kind of weapon that we as humans haven't fully learned to handle with caution. However, thinking of Guns from my perspective, I can't help thinking of Samurais, regardless of their social dynamic and the whole caste stuff. When you think about it having a weapon meant something to those people, so much so that when new rulers came to power they would forbid people from carrying swords. In my irrational mind I go "they are just swords yo" but that was the heavy artillery for them....and their governments would forbid them from having weapons of heavy artillery to ensure that they could always stay in power and they could not be usurped.
    Because to me hurting someone, or killing someone is the same no matter how easy it was for them to do, I have accepted minimal gun restriction knowing that my government just like any could very well turn its arms on me at any time it pleases. For those that are insecure about who will be on their side when that happens, I feel it would be wrong of me to object to them having their protection against the government or those who are not in agreement. So I have always abstained from pro gun or against because it's a fine line that is very sore and any sort of regulation would require the public to put in a lot more trust in their government and I do not see that happening as Americans have always be entitled.

    I am a neutral party and quite lax. So do not mistake my candor here as opposition. If Person A was trained in Archery and Person B was Trained in Taekwondo and their victims (6 people) are 20 meters in front of them, who will get more kills? Do you see my dilemma? I don't see anyone making the argument either one should be heavily restricted....then again it's probably not a popular topic in my circles so maybe it was and I just don't know. I'm just saying you compare two things that are used for different purposes. Close combat (knife and Taekwondo) vs Ranged Combat (Gun and Archery) your not really making the best argument for my mind to truly believe that the Gun is a weapon that should be restricted. That part just confused me a bit.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  12. MEGA SPARTA CHICKEN

    MEGA SPARTA CHICKEN Planet sized warrior Tony without wisdom teeth

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Reading List:
    Link
    So they controlled you as they pleased forcing you to give up guns.
     
  13. Nyamsus

    Nyamsus Life is full of shit and we live in it

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,567
    Likes Received:
    9,252
    Reading List:
    Link
    I don't remember where I heard this...

    Some survey is taken and ask why they buy Gun

    Some of the people , said it was for Zombie Apocalypse...
     
  14. Sir Edric

    Sir Edric Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2017
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    41
    Reading List:
    Link
    What most law abiding citizens buy guns for is FUN. The idea of zombies kind of falls in line with that b.c its a good god damn time to go and shoot things and blow shit up in the woods or at a range. the very very small minority of LEGAL gun owners actually buy them because of paranoia, worries of saftey, or with the intent to commit a crime.

    Biggest problem in the US is not the loose laws on gun control, but the repeated failure of the government to enforce the laws we have already passed. Shit I live in California, arguable the most restrictive of all the states regarding gun ownership and they dont enforce the gun control laws for shit, and instead when something bad happens because someone commits a crime with a gun they want more laws to prevent what already should have been prevented had they enforced the laws in the first place.
     
    MEGA SPARTA CHICKEN likes this.
  15. Ai chan

    Ai chan Queen of Yuri, Devourer of Traps, Thrusted Witch

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,278
    Likes Received:
    24,346
    Reading List:
    Link
    My argument is actually about the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' stuff pro-gun advocates always use. There is one constant in my example, which was 'person' or 'human' or 'people'. Both the Person A and Person B are human beings with skill in their chosen weapons.

    If you follow the pro-gun advocates argument, then there should be no difference between Person A and Person B, because they're both people. People kill people, by their arguments. Therefore, the weapon of choice should make no difference, but there is.

    Person with a gun can potentially kill all 6 people before they can run away. Person with a knife cannot. It's simple as that. Person with a knife has to chase people to kill people, which unless you're Jason the Immortal, you probably won't even be able to kill even one. So a psychopath with a knife is a lot less dangerous and harmful than a psychopath with a gun before the cops can get to them.

    The one with a gun, if he goes insane, can just empty the clip into the crowd. He will be guaranteed maximum kills or injuries. The one with the knife cannot do the same even if he goes insane and has two knives.
     
  16. bleh360

    bleh360 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2017
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    66
    Reading List:
    Link
    Ah that explains it....sort of...it seems the purpose of the argument is to say one is less likely to succeed in killing people a distance away with a short range weapon skill....which is to say "people kill people" should be "people with long range weapons kill people"? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I probably will never understand. Don't mind me.
     
    Ai chan likes this.
  17. SolInvictus

    SolInvictus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    130
    Reading List:
    Link
    .
    We can't have a meaningful discussion if we don't speak the same language. I speak English and have already provided the meaning of the word 'can't' and why I think it makes your argument sound naive.

    You have admitted teaching elementary kids the correct use of the word but, won't admit your own incorrect use.

    For the record, I agree with you, In American English, it is correct to use 'can't' when discussing permission or as you call it "sociopolitical restrictions" - though I don't see how politics come into it unless the elementary kids you were teaching were very hardcore about toilet breaks.

    However, the issue is that that's not how you yourself used the word 'can't' and you are now changing what you said rather than admit fault. Let's follow the flow of the previous conversations [read: let's look at the evidence]

    (i) You replied to my discussion with a fellow commenter. His/her original comment was-
    "what about law? Cause in my place, the one that can have a gun are police and military personnel"

    (ii) I replied to him/her-
    "...Police and Military are 'allowed' to have guns but, I'm absolutely certain that criminals have guns. That's why they're criminals"
    It is clear that I am saying that though the law says criminals "can't' have guns (permission) it's not like they 'can't', in fact, have guns (possibility).

    (iii) Then you put forward your argument that because the law says criminals 'can't' have guns (permission) they can't have guns (possibility) i.e. that if the law says people can't have guns they don't have guns-
    "No, that still means criminals can't have guns..."

    You go on to provide evidence to support that point of view. From the context, it is clear that you yourself used 'can't' to mean a thing will not happen (i.e., as the alternate meaning in American English and the only meaning in the Queen's English - like you taught the children)

    Your explanation makes it clear that you are using 'can't' this way.

    That's why I replied, pointing out that it was naive of you to argue that 'because a thing is not allowed by law, it doesn't happen'.

    Why I am so adamant about this is because if we can't even agree on basic English terms then it isn't possible to get anything productive out of our discussion. At any point, you could arbitrarily warp the meaning of any words you wrote. You can write something then try to deny that the words you wrote mean what they mean.

    It becomes a discussion where a lie or a mistake becomes an 'alternative fact'.

    It reminds me of a discussion with a woman about her eating fish while still claiming to be a vegan. Her response was that "fish aren't really alive".
    There were so many things wrong with that statement that it was...perfect (definitely going on a t-shirt." fish aren't really alive." gold)

    She had her "own definitions" of veganism...and fish...and alive- that is to say she didn't know their actual meaning and so used them incorrectly. The bigger issue was that shifted those definitions each round of discussions so we got nowhere- slowly. In response to my criticism, you have shifted your definition of the word 'can't from the context you originally used it in to avoid admitting that it does make your argument sound naive.

    I am in no way trying to insult you by comparing your intelligence to that woman's but, the methods being employed are the same and so will be the result (getting nowhere). Any time I present evidence, your go-to defence will be that you meant something else that "Grab em' by the pussy" means "Gain consent to stroke their kitten in the park" or that a "Devil's threeway" is, in fact, "a wholesome drinking game".

    Many of your points are sound but, you seem to be more concerned with being superior in this discussion than getting to the truth of the issue. I don't think you would stand behind a statement you made or admit to making a mistake. You would keep changing and twisting so that you would 'feel right' rather than 'be right' #fisharentreallyalive
     
  18. Ai chan

    Ai chan Queen of Yuri, Devourer of Traps, Thrusted Witch

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,278
    Likes Received:
    24,346
    Reading List:
    Link
    Dude, what are you even on anymore?

    I've already explained that I used the word in a way that Americans use it, did I not? And you agreed that it's how Americans use it. Therefore, there is no need for me to say that I was wrong because I used it in the correct context, which you agreed. Why do you still need to attack me over it? Do you attack people when you can't argue over the actual topic of discussion? Is this how you react when you lose an argument?

    As for my argument? I have evidence. I saved it in an alternate tab just for you to ask. You can't provide the same, can you? That's why my argument is superior, not because I twist it, but because I have evidence and reference, you don't. If you can't accept people will twist facts to support their own arguments, then stop arguing because people do that all the time. A good debater is not someone who speaks the absolute truth, but someone who can make use of real facts to support their point of view.

    If you want to keep arguing about this, then stick to the topic. I will not respond your reply that does not address the topic again. Despite saying that, it's possible I won't reply here again anyway, since it seems to be a popular topic and it'll probably go several more pages until being closed by the mods before I finish my photoshoot in the morning.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  19. King0Mik

    King0Mik 【An Actual Idiot】

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    750
    Reading List:
    Link
    I think other posters have answered this, but in the US, a normal citizen is capable of legally owning a firearm (or multiple firearms for that matter).

    I like those policies.

    In the United States, you do need to take a short course and a written test, but really, the questions on that test are almost all common sense.

    I think that the US should have more thorough background checks to determine if a person is mentally fit and reasonable enough to own a firearm. I also think that perhaps gun owners should have check-ins with the government to ensure that they are properly storing their weapons. In the US, we have a problem of "straw buyers" where person A, who is legally allowed to own a gun, will buy a gun for person B, who is not legally allowed to own a gun.
     
  20. asriu

    asriu fu~ fu~ fu~

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages:
    18,546
    Likes Received:
    18,145
    Reading List:
    Link
    hahaha
    on 1998 da citizen forced one of Most Powerful President of Our Country to resign put conspiracy theory aside~
    we have our way to smack da government beside using arms~ we have bloody history for independence and war to defend it, smacking government use arms is not new thing for us~ so if da government turn really bad yup by use arms or not we can smack down them~
    there still disparity on development across da country but compared with our past~ it still ok~
    New Order era, da Reformation era and few President election give good lesson for us to make way how to criticize da government~ still learning to perfect it cuz well we are development country so it is given there various factor which make it difficult~ da freedom of media play critical role~ there media side with government, there media mocking da government while there also media relatively neutral~ those 3 side each have huge audience here~ good thing to learn what actually da government doing~

    it remind me even advance country like USA piking fight against China on current trade war and seem da USA citizen quite calm despite it raise fuss globally~ good luck USA against da arrogant young master maker~ here, there already fuss made by opposition and some intellectual cuz our currency weakening which make oil price increasing~ and it near da President election time~ really good issue~ way more concerning than Gun here~ hey we use USA dollar to buy da crude oil ya know~

    that news aside
    wanna become repressive Government here? good luck with that~

    da spring will come for you
    19642.png
    one day~
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018