Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[Elder Iptuous]

regarding the article:
it seems a given that men are more violent than women (as a generalization, of course).  since forever.
the race issue is, perhaps, worth analyzing a good amount, but as far as gender, it confuses me why it would be anything other than expected. 

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

regarding the article:
it seems a given that men are more violent than women (as a generalization, of course).  since forever.
the race issue is, perhaps, worth analyzing a good amount, but as far as gender, it confuses me why it would be anything other than expected. 

Because socialisation is the main factor in gender roles,  related behavior and performance of them, not biology. That gender  is obviously overlooked as a contributing factor. Socialisation can be changed, and attitudes can change.

the status quo obviously isn't working.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'll take that as a compliment.

Good, because it was intended as one.

Thing is, we've lived in an armed camp since 1600 CE or so, and we're not about to change, especially given the other insanities we've heaped on ourselves.

In my case, it goes back to my central philosophy concerning humans.

Humans are big, diseased sacks of meat that fly apart with appalling ease.  If they manage to avoid that fate, they instead get to slowly break down over 20-30 years and die anyway.  They are also pack-oriented, and tend to let the pack do their thinking - or at least decision making - for them.  So, everyone dies, but hardly anyone lives.

Humans only become alive, or functionally better than animals when they learn to say "FUCK YOU, I'LL DO WHAT *I* WANT".  Because of our national history, Americans typically (but not always, of course) require guns - or at least the availability of guns - as a prop to accomplish this.

Here's why:  If you live in an armed camp, going against the pack is a negative trait, survival-wise.  We've spent 400 years living on "lifeboat rules", against Native Americans, the threat of slave rebellion, the British, the Nazis, communists, and now we've manufactured terrorists because we can no longer function without an external threat.  So a prop such as the right to own deadly weapons is REQUIRED for many people, before they can buck the group.

And nobody likes this...In fact, it's where the "rugged individualist" concept comes from.  Everyone likes to think that they could survive outside the fort, and do their own thinking.  But again, you aren't leaving the "fort" without a firearm.  Bad shit is out there.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

the status quo obviously isn't working.

Of course it's working.  It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.

Now, if you're saying it isn't desireable or optimal or even a fit environment for people as anything other than biots, then you have a point.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

the status quo obviously isn't working.

Of course it's working.  It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.

Now, if you're saying it isn't desireable or optimal or even a fit environment for people as anything other than biots, then you have a point.

You got my point, pretty much.

[AFK]

the status quo obviously isn't working.

Of course it's working.  It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.

Well Jesus, if THAT's your measuring stick, there is no sense in tackling any problems ever, we'll always be able to outbreed them until the Earth goes out. 


I think that's a fairly pointless level to be examining and measuring problems.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

the status quo obviously isn't working.

Of course it's working.  It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.

Well Jesus, if THAT's your measuring stick, there is no sense in tackling any problems ever, we'll always be able to outbreed them until the Earth goes out. 


I think that's a fairly pointless level to be examining and measuring problems.

Well, cutting off the last half of my statement was fairly dishonest, RWHN.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

My measuring stick was included in this post:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34040.msg1237594.html#msg1237594

Not that you give a shit.  You're not here to debate, you're here to share your butthurt around.

[P3nT4gR4m]

the status quo obviously isn't working.

Of course it's working.  It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.

Now, if you're saying it isn't desireable or optimal or even a fit environment for people as anything other than biots, then you have a point.

You got my point, pretty much.

It's a perfectly fit environment. You just need a robust sense of humour and a complete inability to donate airborne copulations about practically anything. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way.  The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example.  Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died. 

And, as I demonstrated, it did not reduce gun deaths one iota.

Because it was a shitty policy with tons of loopholes.

Oh, so it failed because it wasn't pure enough?

Where have I heard THAT before?

Sounds familiar.

"Didn't work!"

"That means we have to do it HARDER!"

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

the status quo obviously isn't working.

Of course it's working.  It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.

Now, if you're saying it isn't desireable or optimal or even a fit environment for people as anything other than biots, then you have a point.

You got my point, pretty much.

It's a perfectly fit environment. You just need a robust sense of humour and a complete inability to donate airborne copulations about practically anything. 

That's all fine and dandy if your not getting your sickness and associated benefits slashed by the fucking Tories, and get paid on average more than I will, even if i'm well enough to work. I've got a lot to BE pissed off about and plenty of fucks to give about shit.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

One man's "try" is another man's "complete fucking waste of time"

I'm with LMNO - the key to this is to work on banning (read "eradicate") this national fixation you guys have with blowing the living piss out each other.

I don't agree with the NRA's "guns don't kill people" schtick. Guns do kill people and quite effectively too but they do need human intervention to work their magic.

Given that you can't prevent guns (just trust me on this) maybe there's avenues worth exploring that would reduce the homicidal intent that causes the guns to kill people?

Reducing economic inequality reduces crime of all kinds. But I'm a filthy librul socialist, so....

In social science circles, that's pretty widely regarded as the one thing that would have a major effect on violence and crime. Not "Fixing the economy", which is something that is well outside the scope of any single country's legislation, but simply reducing income inequality to reduce both poverty, and to reduce stress on those I am starting to refer to as "pre-poor", ie. the middle class.

[AFK]

the status quo obviously isn't working.

Of course it's working.  It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.

Well Jesus, if THAT's your measuring stick, there is no sense in tackling any problems ever, we'll always be able to outbreed them until the Earth goes out. 


I think that's a fairly pointless level to be examining and measuring problems.

Well, cutting off the last half of my statement was fairly dishonest, RWHN.

You do it to me all the time, sucks doesn't it? 


Of course it isn't optimal because people are dying, so what is the point in even saying the first thing?  Of course the human species will survive, that is not, and has never been up for debate.  I mean, shit, you can say that about any tragedy from mushroom clouds in Japan to AIDs to starvation in Africa.  But how does that help trying to solve any of those problems? 


I mean, if you are okay to say "fuck it, we'll survive" okay, well, great that's your world-view.  But you can't do public policy, ANY kind of public policy at that level.  Might as well just fold up all of the governments because in the end the human species will continue to exist.


Or, we can actually try to fix shit and maybe make human existence a little more tolerable for more of the humans.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You do it to me all the time, sucks doesn't it? 

We're not really having a conversation.  I think you and I should probably just talk to other people in this thread.

The strawman that represented the rest of your post isn't worth responding to.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way.  The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example.  Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died. 

And, as I demonstrated, it did not reduce gun deaths one iota.

Because it was a shitty policy with tons of loopholes.

Oh, so it failed because it wasn't pure enough?

Where have I heard THAT before?

Sounds familiar.

"Didn't work!"

"That means we have to do it HARDER!"

Also:  I cannot answer your argument, so I'll generate another one and issue it to you.

Pathetic.