Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[Hobotronic2037]

JerryJohn wrote

If I don't post again it's because I dropped over dead in shock that I agree with Hobotronic.

Well said and I agree totally.

Regards,

JJ

Thanks. Glad we could agree on something as important as this.

[Andrew66]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

So what would you propose? Anything specific? And what I’m asking for is what would have prevented these shootings? People having free will and all. I mean nobody is for school shootings. Except the shooters. I’d love to hear an actual proposal with details.

The right to protect oneself with a gun is supreme, and will never change.

Hence, to protect children the measures must be defensive.

.Make schools like a fortress - with limited entry, metal detectors, and armed guards at such entry points. Parents should not be afraid when their child is at school.

Is this so hard??

[JerryJohn]

hertz vanrental wrote

Threat, blah, blah, blah.

Going to hell, blah, blah, blah.

Threat, blah, blah, blah.

Repent and be saved, blah, blah, blah.

Threat, blah, blah, blah.

Not here to answer questions about christardology, blah, blah, blah.

Threat, blah, blah, blah.

Burn in hell, blah, blah, blah.

Threat, blah, blah, blah.

That, papist bitch, is the FULL extent of your repertoire.

You know fuck all about christardology or about anything else for that matter.

Oh, and ffs, change your incontinent pad, you old, senile, ugly christard. The stench coming from you is horrible.

This is Raving Atheist Forum, you dumbass. Not ask a theist a question. Find the answers to your own questions; it's not my problem.

JJ

[JerryJohn]

Andrew66 wrote

Atheists are non insightful and dumb - so their political views, can for the most part be ignored.

I couldn't agree more. Hertzy can't pull his head out of his ass to even ask a legitimate question. I don't answer questions but I've noticed you usually answer them, Andrew. You are a real asset to Christianity.

JJ

[Noodle]

I think an important question is, "Would more gun control reduce the overall murder rate?" The pro-gun crowd would say it wouldn't because people would just find different ways to kill each other.

If it would though, we should ask ourselves to what extent the freedom to own guns is worth the death it causes.

[Noodle]

JJ is right. Apparently this thread is where the party's at.

[Hobotronic2037]

Noodle wrote

I think an important question is, "Would more gun control reduce the overall murder rate?" The pro-gun crowd would say it wouldn't because people would just find different ways to kill each other.

If it would though, we should ask ourselves to what extent the freedom to own guns is worth the death it causes.

I mean I would question your premise that freedom to own guns = more deaths. I think that’s perhaps a bit simplistic. Maybe freedom to own guns have actually saved a lot more lives than they have taken. If you look like a country like Mexico where it’s illegal to own one I think you could make a case that an armed citizenry could have a civilizing effect on the cartels who are illegally armed and slaughtering large numbers of people.

But let’s say for sake of argument that you are 100% correct. What is your specific gun control proposal for USA, 2018? I’m genuinely interested in hearing the details. Not that I would ever give up my civil and human right to defend myself against loss of life liberty or property. I mean you gotta have principles.

[Noodle]

Well, yeah, if a high rate of gun ownership doesn't have any effect on death rates, or even saves lives, then more gun control would be dumb. And if criminals would have easy access to illegal guns, you bet your ass I would want one too. The big question is, what effect, if any, does easy gun access have?

I would require background checks in all 50 states for all sales, including private sales. You'd have to sell your privately owned guns through a licensed intermediary nationwide. A ban on high-capacity magazines could be smart. As well as national laws that your right to own firearms will be taken away if you're credibly shown to be violent or otherwise unstable. And those actually need to be enforced.

Thanks for talking to me about this in a logical, reasonable way. The crazy 2Aers on Facebook were driving me nuts. My opinions on this kind of go back and forth, so you can definitely change my mind about stuff.

[Noodle]

I may have been a bit dishonest there. To be clear, I do think reducing easy access to guns would reduce the overall murder rate in the US. Whether that's achievable through legislation is a different question.

[JerryJohn]

Noodle wrote

I think an important question is, "Would more gun control reduce the overall murder rate?" The pro-gun crowd would say it wouldn't because people would just find different ways to kill each other.

If it would though, we should ask ourselves to what extent the freedom to own guns is worth the death it causes.

Yes, that's the fine line we need to discern and where do we put that line so we can reduce the murder rate and keep citizens safe.

JJ

[Hobotronic2037]

Noodle wrote

I may have been a bit dishonest there. To be clear, I do think reducing easy access to guns would reduce the overall murder rate in the US. Whether that's achievable through legislation is a different question.

I mean, again, I get why people would think this logically. One thing I’ve noticed is that everyone on this issue has their own pet data and whatnot to back it up. I mean that said, you can find charts that show US gun ownership at historic highs and US homicide rates at near historic lows. So I could logically also say that easier access to guns reduces murder. I just think that both correlations are probably overly simplistic. I think it should be VERY easy to get guns except for non-felons, maybe foreign nationals, and maybe some who are, through due process, identified as a danger to themselves and others. I don’t think mental illness should be blanket vilified or the mentally ill should be blanket discriminated against. Again, due process on a case by case basis. I’m not opposed to a screening process but am opposed to the government retaining information about who owns what guns. And if given the power they will do this. Even if they say they don’t. We know straight up we can’t trust our government to do, well, just about anything right, including protect us. Though perhaps some king of reverse blockchain could be employed to remedy privacy concerns. Idk.

[JerryJohn]

Noodle wrote

Well, yeah, if a high rate of gun ownership doesn't have any effect on death rates, or even saves lives, then more gun control would be dumb. And if criminals would have easy access to illegal guns, you bet your ass I would want one too. The big question is, what effect, if any, does easy gun access have?

I would require background checks in all 50 states for all sales, including private sales. You'd have to sell your privately owned guns through a licensed intermediary nationwide. A ban on high-capacity magazines could be smart. As well as national laws that your right to own firearms will be taken away if you're credibly shown to be violent or otherwise unstable. And those actually need to be enforced.

Thanks for talking to me about this in a logical, reasonable way. The crazy 2Aers on Facebook were driving me nuts. My opinions on this kind of go back and forth, so you can definitely change my mind about stuff.

This seems like a very reasonable approach to me.

Well stated.

JJ

[Andrew66]

Noodle wrote

I think an important question is, "Would more gun control reduce the overall murder rate?" The pro-gun crowd would say it wouldn't because people would just find different ways to kill each other.

If it would though, we should ask ourselves to what extent the freedom to own guns is worth the death it causes.

I think the general consensus is that automatic and Perhaps semi automatic weopons with massive quick multi life kill potential should be banned to the general public. The problem is that there are so many in the public domain already that it would be tough to round them up. A law could make it illegal to carry them outside one's home, but the creeps that do the shooting won't care about that.

So for USA - schools need to be protected in a defensive manner. Moreover, p ublic events with large congregations and limited escape need tight security, metal detectors - barricades from snipers.

[Noodle]

I am not in favor of rounding up any type of gun and I don't think I would ever change my mind about that. What could be done is simply discontinuing the sale of those types of weapons. Weapons get old and become inoperable. Owners die and their kids turn them in. You could also do voluntary buy backs. It would be slow, but I think it's the best option if you want to do something about particular categories of firearms.

I agree, for people to feel safe, we need tighter security where people congregate. It's the world we live in.

[Noodle]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

I mean, again, I get why people would think this logically. One thing I’ve noticed is that everyone on this issue has their own pet data and whatnot to back it up. I mean that said, you can find charts that show US gun ownership at historic highs and US homicide rates at near historic lows. So I could logically also say that easier access to guns reduces murder. I just think that both correlations are probably overly simplistic. I think it should be VERY easy to get guns except for non-felons, maybe foreign nationals, and maybe some who are, through due process, identified as a danger to themselves and others. I don’t think mental illness should be blanket vilified or the mentally ill should be blanket discriminated against. Again, due process on a case by case basis. I’m not opposed to a screening process but am opposed to the government retaining information about who owns what guns. And if given the power they will do this. Even if they say they don’t. We know straight up we can’t trust our government to do, well, just about anything right, including protect us. Though perhaps some king of reverse blockchain could be employed to remedy privacy concerns. Idk.

People definitely have pet data and it's certainly not a simple topic. There was a link to an article in the gun control thread. And yeah, it said that gun violence is now at historic lows after peaking in the early 90s. The article suggested that the high level of violence could have been related to the crack cocaine market. (It could also be partially related to environmental lead levels, but that's my own take.) It occurred to me that even though gun violence has actually lessened, maybe we care more about it now because it's not just crack dealers and people who live in those neighborhoods who are getting shot.

I agree about the mentally ill. I've read that they're more likely to be victims of violence than they are to be perpetrators. And if gun ownership is our right, there needs to be due process.