7 ms·

> It's the same argument people make for banning guns in the US. To be fair, I think most are arguing to restrict guns rather than ban. I’m not saying you did

> It's the same argument people make for banning guns in the US. To be fair, I think most are arguing to restrict guns rather than ban. I’m not saying you did this, but many people deliberately distort that into “they wanna take all your guns” in bad faith.

seanw444 4y ago
Taking some leads to all. It's not something that should be compromised on. Gun restrictions won't end until ownership is so legally complex and time consuming that nobody can reasonably do it anymore. Of course it won't be an outright ban. That would never succeed. The frog in boiling water analogy applies here perfectly.
- Brybry 4y ago
  "Taking some leads to all" logic doesn't really follow. If that idea applied then the US would already not have guns as many types of firearms (ex. fully automatic) and weapons (explosive munitions) are heavily restricted (and have been for a very long time).
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    > are heavily restricted They aren’t. Just pay the $200 tax and wait for the ATF to process your transfer form. (3 months to a year, generally) Unless explicitly banned your state, if you can legally own a firearm, you can legally own an NFA item. Including explosives and automatic firearms. Which is why the NFA is generally bullshit. It’s pointless extra bureaucracy that ultimately achieves nothing but delays.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      Why is this downvoted? This is very much true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons
- desperadovisa 4y ago
- babypuncher 4y ago
  Would that really be a bad thing? Most other developed nations seem to get by fine with very strict rules on gun ownership, and coincidentally they have far lower rates for gun violence. When something has far more capacity for harm than practical utility, it makes sense to regulate the crap out of it. Most people buying AR-15s in the US are not buying them to keep pests off their farm.
  - loceng 4y ago
    Here's a comedic piece by Awaken with JP, where he points out many historical events where within ~2-10 years of a government taking the guns away from the population then genocide occurred: "Why Guns Must Be Banned Now!" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      This is the same guy who didn't know the difference between Infection Fatality Rate and Infection Fatality Ratio, then compared the The IF Ratio of Covid to the IF Rate of the Flu and proclaimed the Flu was deadlier because math, and straight faced didn't realize he had two orders of magnitude error. Then he post a video making fun of his video getting removed due to misinformation that he never retracted or corrected.
      - loceng 4y ago
        [flagged]
        SigmundA 4y ago
        I am claiming this guy puts huge amounts of one sided misinformation out there including this video. 1. Mass shootings are committed by those brainwashed by government psy-ops programs to motivate the masses to outlaw guns so they can become tyrannical. 2. Only tyrannical governments enact gun control 3. Gun control leads to extermination of a population. 4. The USA is following this pattern and I guess the left is essentially compared to Hitler or Stalin rising to power to perform genocide after they successfully disarm the right. He never mentions once all the countries with successful strict gun control and free societies such as most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. As though by enacting more strict gun control will lead to genocide always with complete surety. His whole channel is an exercise in Brandolini's law and he's is most definitely a huge part of the problem. The funny thing I am a gun owner and support the second amendment, but everyone seems to forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment and the fact that currently there are many "arms" we are not allowed to own, the same ones the military uses. Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? What about a nuke? We already draw a line at certain arms moving that line or adjusting the regulations around it would not be without precedent.
- ribosometronome 4y ago
  >Taking some leads to all. Like how the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 in the US led to the complete and total restriction of guns in the US.
  - MrPatan 4y ago
    Like how the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 in the US is leading to the complete and total restriction of guns in the US.
    - croes 4y ago
      I see nothing of a ban
      - WFHRenaissance 4y ago
        No ban, just increasingly restrictive laws on ownership and use that end up resulting in something tantamount to a ban. Look at gun ownership in most countries in Europe if you want an idea of what the future could look like. Then give some thought to what Europe was like in the early 20th century!
        mulmen 4y ago
        As always, correlation doesn't imply causation. It's not clear that gun laws themselves even enabled the rise of fascism or that they had any negative impact on quality of life. With widespread gun ownership early 20th century Europe could have been even worse. This argument is so tired it has it's own Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument > "The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson's suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on."
- alangibson 4y ago
  > Taking some leads to all No it doesn't. Here in Austria, only cops have pistols and semiautomatic arms virtually don't exist. However most of the guys I know have at least one hunting rifle.
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    Ever growing restrictions start creeping in. In many US states where handguns are hard to acquire it is now difficult to buy small caliber rifle ammunition that can be used in some handguns.
    - throwaway742 4y ago
      Take for example California's "safe handgun roster". They added a new rule that for every one pistol that is added three are removed. It's hard to construe that regulation as anything other than a backdoor attempt at banning pistols.
teakettle42 4y ago
> I’m not saying you did this, but many people deliberately distort that into “they wanna take all your guns” in bad faith. Well, who is “they”? The majority of activist organizations arguing for restrictions absolutely have an end-goal of banning all guns. Claiming “we just want common sense gun laws” is a far larger bad-faith distortion of the truth than “they wanna take all your guns”. Gun laws proposed by these organizations only go one way: more restrictive.
- ribosometronome 4y ago
  Discussions on the internet are tons of fun and extremely useful when we just ascribe whatever secret end goal on to organizations that we want. May I try? Actually, the majority of activist organizations are fronts for gun manufacturers to create a fear of them being regulated away to help push a buy-now mentality. claiming otherwise is bad faith distortion of reality!
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Nobody (other than you, with that intentionally ridiculous claim) is ascribing a secret end goal; their goals are quite plainly articulated.
    - alangibson 4y ago
      Links? I need to know who to send donations to.
      - optimuspaul 4y ago
        donations?! you just buy guns and they get your money, and "bonus" you get a gun.
        alangibson 4y ago
        I think you followed the thread wrong. I was referring to sending money to groups trying to ban all guns.
phpisthebest 4y ago
To be Fair, based on the History of " restrict guns " it is clear no amount of restrictions is enough to satisfy those that want to restrict guns, confiscation and total ban is the clear end goal it is NOT "bad faith" to say that, when there is clear evidence that no matter how many times compromise is reached they return the very next day asking for more and more restrictions
- shkkmo 4y ago
  Factually false, if you believe this you are in an echo chamber. Yes, there are a few who want to ban guns, but I know many people, some of whom are gun owners, who support reasonable restrictions. Trying to paint the entire movement with the views of it's most extreme members is absolutely bad faith communication.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    So "gun owners" fall into 2 camps 1. Sport Shooters 2. Self Defenders There are some that over lap, but I am not a sport shooter, i own guns exclusively for self defense, most gun owners that "support reasonable restrictions" do so because they only care about maintaining shooting sports, and are fine with restrictions because normally they are targeted to self defense uses of fire arms. There is also a small subset of gun owners that are ignorant of the current state of law and believe rhetoric like "closing the gun show loop hole" or other such non-sense. None of this however changes the fact that the MAJOR organizations that support gun control, and big name politicians pushing for gun control have their implicit stated goal of total ban of the most common weapons in use today, (Semi-Auto rifles and pistols with capacities greater than 8) So sure maybe they will allow people to have a black power musket, or some other such non-sense and you believe that classifies as "not a total ban" but to me that is a total ban
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      > So "gun owners" fall into 2 camps Again, not true. You need to get out of your filter bubble and meet more kinds of people. People own guns for many reasons and those different reasons do drive different gun usage. A ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity pistols is not even remotely the same thing as banning all guns or even banning all non muskets. I don't think such a ban has popular support even among those who do support greater restrictions.

seanw444 4y ago

Taking some leads to all. It's not something that should be compromised on. Gun restrictions won't end until ownership is so legally complex and time consuming that nobody can reasonably do it anymore. Of course it won't be an outright ban. That would never succeed. The frog in boiling water analogy applies here perfectly.

Brybry 4y ago
"Taking some leads to all" logic doesn't really follow. If that idea applied then the US would already not have guns as many types of firearms (ex. fully automatic) and weapons (explosive munitions) are heavily restricted (and have been for a very long time).
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  > are heavily restricted They aren’t. Just pay the $200 tax and wait for the ATF to process your transfer form. (3 months to a year, generally) Unless explicitly banned your state, if you can legally own a firearm, you can legally own an NFA item. Including explosives and automatic firearms. Which is why the NFA is generally bullshit. It’s pointless extra bureaucracy that ultimately achieves nothing but delays.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Why is this downvoted? This is very much true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons
desperadovisa 4y ago
babypuncher 4y ago
Would that really be a bad thing? Most other developed nations seem to get by fine with very strict rules on gun ownership, and coincidentally they have far lower rates for gun violence. When something has far more capacity for harm than practical utility, it makes sense to regulate the crap out of it. Most people buying AR-15s in the US are not buying them to keep pests off their farm.
- loceng 4y ago
  Here's a comedic piece by Awaken with JP, where he points out many historical events where within ~2-10 years of a government taking the guns away from the population then genocide occurred: "Why Guns Must Be Banned Now!" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    This is the same guy who didn't know the difference between Infection Fatality Rate and Infection Fatality Ratio, then compared the The IF Ratio of Covid to the IF Rate of the Flu and proclaimed the Flu was deadlier because math, and straight faced didn't realize he had two orders of magnitude error. Then he post a video making fun of his video getting removed due to misinformation that he never retracted or corrected.
    - loceng 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - SigmundA 4y ago
        I am claiming this guy puts huge amounts of one sided misinformation out there including this video. 1. Mass shootings are committed by those brainwashed by government psy-ops programs to motivate the masses to outlaw guns so they can become tyrannical. 2. Only tyrannical governments enact gun control 3. Gun control leads to extermination of a population. 4. The USA is following this pattern and I guess the left is essentially compared to Hitler or Stalin rising to power to perform genocide after they successfully disarm the right. He never mentions once all the countries with successful strict gun control and free societies such as most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. As though by enacting more strict gun control will lead to genocide always with complete surety. His whole channel is an exercise in Brandolini's law and he's is most definitely a huge part of the problem. The funny thing I am a gun owner and support the second amendment, but everyone seems to forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment and the fact that currently there are many "arms" we are not allowed to own, the same ones the military uses. Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? What about a nuke? We already draw a line at certain arms moving that line or adjusting the regulations around it would not be without precedent.
ribosometronome 4y ago
>Taking some leads to all. Like how the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 in the US led to the complete and total restriction of guns in the US.
- MrPatan 4y ago
  Like how the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 in the US is leading to the complete and total restriction of guns in the US.
  - croes 4y ago
    I see nothing of a ban
    - WFHRenaissance 4y ago
      No ban, just increasingly restrictive laws on ownership and use that end up resulting in something tantamount to a ban. Look at gun ownership in most countries in Europe if you want an idea of what the future could look like. Then give some thought to what Europe was like in the early 20th century!
      - mulmen 4y ago
        As always, correlation doesn't imply causation. It's not clear that gun laws themselves even enabled the rise of fascism or that they had any negative impact on quality of life. With widespread gun ownership early 20th century Europe could have been even worse. This argument is so tired it has it's own Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument > "The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson's suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on."
alangibson 4y ago
> Taking some leads to all No it doesn't. Here in Austria, only cops have pistols and semiautomatic arms virtually don't exist. However most of the guys I know have at least one hunting rifle.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Ever growing restrictions start creeping in. In many US states where handguns are hard to acquire it is now difficult to buy small caliber rifle ammunition that can be used in some handguns.
  - throwaway742 4y ago
    Take for example California's "safe handgun roster". They added a new rule that for every one pistol that is added three are removed. It's hard to construe that regulation as anything other than a backdoor attempt at banning pistols.

teakettle42 4y ago

> I’m not saying you did this, but many people deliberately distort that into “they wanna take all your guns” in bad faith. Well, who is “they”? The majority of activist organizations arguing for restrictions absolutely have an end-goal of banning all guns. Claiming “we just want common sense gun laws” is a far larger bad-faith distortion of the truth than “they wanna take all your guns”. Gun laws proposed by these organizations only go one way: more restrictive.

ribosometronome 4y ago
Discussions on the internet are tons of fun and extremely useful when we just ascribe whatever secret end goal on to organizations that we want. May I try? Actually, the majority of activist organizations are fronts for gun manufacturers to create a fear of them being regulated away to help push a buy-now mentality. claiming otherwise is bad faith distortion of reality!
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Nobody (other than you, with that intentionally ridiculous claim) is ascribing a secret end goal; their goals are quite plainly articulated.
  - alangibson 4y ago
    Links? I need to know who to send donations to.
    - optimuspaul 4y ago
      donations?! you just buy guns and they get your money, and "bonus" you get a gun.
      - alangibson 4y ago
        I think you followed the thread wrong. I was referring to sending money to groups trying to ban all guns.

phpisthebest 4y ago

To be Fair, based on the History of " restrict guns " it is clear no amount of restrictions is enough to satisfy those that want to restrict guns, confiscation and total ban is the clear end goal it is NOT "bad faith" to say that, when there is clear evidence that no matter how many times compromise is reached they return the very next day asking for more and more restrictions

shkkmo 4y ago
Factually false, if you believe this you are in an echo chamber. Yes, there are a few who want to ban guns, but I know many people, some of whom are gun owners, who support reasonable restrictions. Trying to paint the entire movement with the views of it's most extreme members is absolutely bad faith communication.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  So "gun owners" fall into 2 camps 1. Sport Shooters 2. Self Defenders There are some that over lap, but I am not a sport shooter, i own guns exclusively for self defense, most gun owners that "support reasonable restrictions" do so because they only care about maintaining shooting sports, and are fine with restrictions because normally they are targeted to self defense uses of fire arms. There is also a small subset of gun owners that are ignorant of the current state of law and believe rhetoric like "closing the gun show loop hole" or other such non-sense. None of this however changes the fact that the MAJOR organizations that support gun control, and big name politicians pushing for gun control have their implicit stated goal of total ban of the most common weapons in use today, (Semi-Auto rifles and pistols with capacities greater than 8) So sure maybe they will allow people to have a black power musket, or some other such non-sense and you believe that classifies as "not a total ban" but to me that is a total ban
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > So "gun owners" fall into 2 camps Again, not true. You need to get out of your filter bubble and meet more kinds of people. People own guns for many reasons and those different reasons do drive different gun usage. A ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity pistols is not even remotely the same thing as banning all guns or even banning all non muskets. I don't think such a ban has popular support even among those who do support greater restrictions.