In other words Inuits exiled people after they committed crimes not before just because they thought they might like you want.
Inuits didn’t have MRI scanners and genetic marking capabilities to track the neurologically unempathetic, so they have no choice but to rely on repeated transgressions as a deciding factor. I also never said anything about about exiling non-offending psychopaths from society (where would they go anyway?) just screen and prevent them from gaining careers where they can cause a lot of damage. I, for one, wouldn’t like the idea of a sociopathic cop with a gun, or an unfeeling psychopathic caretaker at a daycare center. But hey, that’s just me.
Pretty sure you were thinking about banning all guns and exiling people you don’t like even if you didn’t say it @“white shadow” , why no I am not projecting and low key showing you how I would actually react if the situation was reversed in some manner.
Lol @ the 16-18 year olds voicing political opinions that they don’t understand the consequences of.
lol Banning all guns in America is unrealistic, and exiling people is equally absurd. If anything, I’m creating a thought experiment about an American society that could never see happening. What would be more likely is genetic engineering being use to eradicate those genes responsible for creating these neurological tendencies in the very distant future, not enacting laws within legislative bodies that are controlled by the very same politicians with antisocial tendencies.
No bro even though you just CLEARLY stated that these ideas are both unrealistic and absurd I still beleive that is what you are trying to push upon me and I morally and righteously object with every grain of strength invested into my soul through the power of white jesus christ himself.
Why is it always the same people spouting absolute nonsense claiming they’re rational? Like can’t you guys hear yourselves? Isn’t there an emphatic bone anywhere that thinks you know… Since the current way has been working so great (sarcasm obviously) maybe it’s worth at least trialing change.
No because there’s always someone on here who thinks they know everything and will remind you how stupid you are. They’ll flip on a dime being a troll and then be serious to make you seem like a fool.
With that said, It’s obvious that _____ is wrong and _____ is right!
The very notion of basing policy/change off of empathy means that any new policy is based off of emotion, not logic.
I used to be hardcore anti-gun, as most Australians are. But facts don’t care about feelings.
When I discovered a while back that the EU (another union of member states, with a comparable population), has worse experiences with mass shootings than the US (refer to stats from crimeresearch.org previously), I realised gun control is generally futile, and that any form of change needs to focus on “why” these events occur.
Do I really need to quote Einstein about repeating things and expecting different results?
I don’t troll man, I just occasionally lay bait when I’m tired, frustrated and drunk.
Of course the causes are what’s most important. You can say the same thing about why people do drugs and most crime. Why do people steal? Generally it’s not for the hell of it. We still lock our doors to make it harder on them despite the fact that determined criminals can break in. I view gun control in the same way, why make things easier?
Been of the opinion for years and years that bullets should be extremely expensive, and make it a crime with a life sentence to the one caught making them illegally or selling them for cheap.
One may think; “what about the hunters and pest control?” - Fuck hunters. Pest control is a government’s responsibility.
How much should a bullet cost? Depends on caliber and how common it is. Not lower than $100/bullet/projectile in my opinion, and preferably higher.
It should hurt bigly, tremendously and greatly to get bullets. Just unbelievable. Believe me. Big water, ocean water.
Something I find unbelievable and quite frankly outrageous and disgusting, is the following:
Currently, a box with 1,000 9mm bullets used for a variety of guns, go for approximately $170-$230 depending on brand.
Currently, a box with 1,000 5.56 (for Assault Rifle) projectiles go for approximately $300-$400 depending on brand.
Way too cheap.
One 9mm bullet costs around 20c to $2 depending on brand. - Insanity. Increase by $100.
One 5.56 projectile costs around 32c to $1.50. - Again, fucking lunatics.
No wonder you have constant mass-shootings.
274 this year. It was 273 with Vegas, but there’s been 1 more since then. October 3, 2017 - Florida, Miami.
2014 - Mass shootings - 273
2015 - Mass shootings - 318
2016 - Mass shootings - 383
2017 - Mass shootings - 274 and counting.
Also, fuck high-capacity magazines.
“But knives…” - Fuck you for even trying. - Would a 64 year old man with a knife be able to kill 59 people, let alone injure 200+ people…? No? No.
“But cars…” - Cars aren’t intended to be used to kill people. Guns firing bullets are for? …Yes. Killing.
“But guns don’t kill people!!” - Guns do indeed not kill people, although there are times where people may have gotten killed by being bludgeoned with a gun. However, in general, the BULLETS fired from the gun… kills people, you saggy, wrinkly, non-beautiful tit.
And I think it’s straight up foul and inhuman to penalize people who haven’t committed any crime because some test has flagged them up as someone who might do in the future.
That shit just straight up isn’t justifiable, we live in a society where you are innocent until proven guilty for a reason.
Unless you’re Black.
That’s not quite true. This may be dated by now, but it’s the best I could find:
Table 1, page 69. 53% of responses from burglars (i.e. stealing from properties) and 59% of robbers (i.e. stealing from people/mugging) cited ease of opportunity.
Similar distributions were found among responses that included stealing of drugs, alcohol, money, or simply doing it for the thrill.
I’m fine with baseline requirements like security measures, mandatory registration, federal and comprehensive background checks, no full autos, etc. Measures that are comparable to what you described. At some point however, these measures become excessive and futile.
You’re acting like I would tell this dude not to buy a gun safe. Legal requirements aside, why would you not? At some point though, additional restrictions become pointless.
No matter what restrictions are brought in, they are never enough. The silly thing is - the death counts are getting HIGHER in spite of it.
There are clear loopholes that need to be fixed, and at least working to unify the laws and government processes around access would be a start. Eventually though, you quickly hit a point where you’re not really making things harder at all, you’re only creating the illusion that you are.
I’m pretty sure an additional restriction on having a semi-auto rifle with a high capacity magazine wouldn’t be pointless or redundant.
You cited ease of opportunity. Do you know what makes mass murder an easy opportunity? Assault rifles.
Except Restrictions are pointless as we don’t enforce the laws we have on the books now, plus there so many loopholes.
Also the shooter is rich, you think making his ammo more expensive would make it he has less? He will just spend more.
Just FYI, gambling with $160k doesn’t mean he lost $160k. Another article I read said they were unsure if he won or lost anything from that money.
Just going off the thread seeing how people are quite knee jerky in responding. But even then the point is still valid.
If you hate the Government (Trump), Police and white people; why wouldnt you want a gun to protect yourself or at the very least. Would you trust Trump to enforce gun control laws?
Has knee jerk reaction to something that never even occured. Blames others for knee jerking. Please stop posting.