gun control

123457

Comments

  • MrXMrX CO
    edited February 2018
    chrisk said:
    So my final say on this thread is, I am skeptical that we can make a semi-automatic ban actually work in the US, for a variety of reasons.  The number of guns that are out there, the fact that it's going to take decades for a ban to impact the availability of the guns in question, the fact that this is going to really fire up the conservatives and jeopardize a lot of progress we can potentially make in a much larger swath of problems that face all Americans.  

    I'm super bummed out that the democrat response as is now is to essentially roll out the 1994 Assault Weapons ban again, with all of the sloppy language and structural problems of the last one.  There are so many reforms that both conservatives and liberals would support, that would make meaningful progress and help address the vast, vast majority of gun violence in the country that are NOT mass shootings, and to dredge this retread is very disappointing to me.  Also, when the 1994 ban went into effect, it lead to a massive backlash and ensuing red wave where the democrats lots their control of congress and eventually crested with the administration of George W. Bush.  The ban of course eventually sunset-ed 10 years later, and what do we have to show for it but a gun culture that has been forever corrupted and co-opted by people pushing boogeymen for cash, a worsened political divide in the country, more guns on the street, more ammo on the street, and a continued media glorification / hysteria around these shooting events?

    I hope it goes differently this time around, because I think it goes without saying that we can ill afford a red wave in 2018 and 2020.  We're really on a brink here.  Not much in this thread has made me feel like much is going to happen differently, but we'll see.  I don't agree with a lot of arguments and sentiments in this thread, but I wholeheartedly wish to see a reduction if not end to kids and other civilians being gunned down en masse in this country.

    Just a couple points - 

    In '94, the red wave had more to do with the Clintons and their push for universal health care among other perceived "liberal" programs they wanted to push at the time. I have a pretty good memory of '94 and followed Congress closely. Actually watched CSPAN recreationally back then. There's nothing in Gingrich's Contract with America about guns and outside of a few specifics, it was a general response to a Democratic president. 

    I agree with needing some precision in the type of weapons listed, but guns are a very gray area when you have modifications that can change semi autos to auto, or semi autos to behave like automatics. Some of those can even be homemade of course. I think trying to parse a fine line between specific models is doomed to failure. That's why I'd suggest semi-automatic rifles on up. That should be the floor. I share skepticism about Feinstein’s ban. Chris Murphy is a really smart Democrat who’s passionate on this and I hope would have a hand in any legislation that might come up for vote. Also a lot of veteran Democrats who should have good input.

    Public opinion is strongly in favor of gun control measures and it seems clear to me these Parkland kids have deepened support what was already broadly favored. I'm not afraid of gun owners as a voting bloc, especially when most of them appear to favor some restrictions. 

    Repeating myself from before, but a ban on new sales plus voluntary buybacks is plenty significant and would tighten up the semi-automatic market. Cruz bought his guns off the shelf. I'm happy to force someone like him to try and find an illegal dealer. That's a barrier to entry for most people not otherwise already engaged in criminal activity.


    Exactly; in 1994 conditions were prime for Republican wave, before taking guns into account.

    This year, most indicators point towards Democratic pickups if not a wave in 2018 (2 more state legislature seats flipped last night in Trump districts!), so why not spend some political capital? Not saying a retread of the 1994 ban is the way to go, but I think the timing is good to be strong on this issue and not shy away for fear of electoral consequences.
  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    edited February 2018
    MrX said:
    chrisk said:
    So my final say on this thread is, I am skeptical that we can make a semi-automatic ban actually work in the US, for a variety of reasons.  The number of guns that are out there, the fact that it's going to take decades for a ban to impact the availability of the guns in question, the fact that this is going to really fire up the conservatives and jeopardize a lot of progress we can potentially make in a much larger swath of problems that face all Americans.  

    I'm super bummed out that the democrat response as is now is to essentially roll out the 1994 Assault Weapons ban again, with all of the sloppy language and structural problems of the last one.  There are so many reforms that both conservatives and liberals would support, that would make meaningful progress and help address the vast, vast majority of gun violence in the country that are NOT mass shootings, and to dredge this retread is very disappointing to me.  Also, when the 1994 ban went into effect, it lead to a massive backlash and ensuing red wave where the democrats lots their control of congress and eventually crested with the administration of George W. Bush.  The ban of course eventually sunset-ed 10 years later, and what do we have to show for it but a gun culture that has been forever corrupted and co-opted by people pushing boogeymen for cash, a worsened political divide in the country, more guns on the street, more ammo on the street, and a continued media glorification / hysteria around these shooting events?

    I hope it goes differently this time around, because I think it goes without saying that we can ill afford a red wave in 2018 and 2020.  We're really on a brink here.  Not much in this thread has made me feel like much is going to happen differently, but we'll see.  I don't agree with a lot of arguments and sentiments in this thread, but I wholeheartedly wish to see a reduction if not end to kids and other civilians being gunned down en masse in this country.

    Just a couple points - 

    In '94, the red wave had more to do with the Clintons and their push for universal health care among other perceived "liberal" programs they wanted to push at the time. I have a pretty good memory of '94 and followed Congress closely. Actually watched CSPAN recreationally back then. There's nothing in Gingrich's Contract with America about guns and outside of a few specifics, it was a general response to a Democratic president. 

    I agree with needing some precision in the type of weapons listed, but guns are a very gray area when you have modifications that can change semi autos to auto, or semi autos to behave like automatics. Some of those can even be homemade of course. I think trying to parse a fine line between specific models is doomed to failure. That's why I'd suggest semi-automatic rifles on up. That should be the floor. I share skepticism about Feinstein’s ban. Chris Murphy is a really smart Democrat who’s passionate on this and I hope would have a hand in any legislation that might come up for vote. Also a lot of veteran Democrats who should have good input.

    Public opinion is strongly in favor of gun control measures and it seems clear to me these Parkland kids have deepened support what was already broadly favored. I'm not afraid of gun owners as a voting bloc, especially when most of them appear to favor some restrictions. 

    Repeating myself from before, but a ban on new sales plus voluntary buybacks is plenty significant and would tighten up the semi-automatic market. Cruz bought his guns off the shelf. I'm happy to force someone like him to try and find an illegal dealer. That's a barrier to entry for most people not otherwise already engaged in criminal activity.


    Exactly; in 1994 conditions were prime for Republican wave, before taking guns into account.

    This year, most indicators point towards Democratic pickups if not a wave in 2018 (2 more state legislature seats flipped last night in Trump districts!), so why not spend some political capital? Not saying a retread of the 1994 ban is the way to go, but I think the timing is good to be strong on this issue and not shy away for fear of electoral consequences.
    Also - this is just my read, but I think a big driver of pushback is when politicians aren't clear about what they're for. They take office and overstep or pursue different policies than what they ran on. Obama didn't run on the specifics of Obamacare for example. I think Democrats (generally) this time around are being more openly liberal and making clear arguments for things like Medicare for All, criminal justice reform, and gun control. There will be some negative response but the electorate is getting more liberal on the whole and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone what they're getting this time. 

    (Meant Democratic military veterans above - not old Democrats. They've been part of the problem. Not that veterans are better, but on this issue they should have helpful knowledge and some have been outspoken about it - Jason Kander, Seth Moulton, Tammy Duckworth, etc...)
    MrX
  • lengmolengmo RTP, NC
    asmallcat said:
    I don't think those videos show what you want them to show.

    My point was if someone is in the US and after seeing the videos if they're uncomfortable with people having high capacity revolvers which can quickly be reloaded, etc. then they should just admit what they really want is a ban on guns.

    ---

    Bill Clinton wrote in his 2004 autobiography about the 1994 election “The N.R.A. could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House speaker.”  Sure the election wasn't only about gun control but it probably tipped the balance.
  • lengmo said:
    asmallcat said:
    I don't think those videos show what you want them to show.

    My point was if someone is in the US and after seeing the videos if they're uncomfortable with people having high capacity revolvers which can quickly be reloaded, etc. then they should just admit what they really want is a ban on guns.
    If I was creating a country from scratch? Sure, no guns, that would be my preference, and I have no qualms admitting it.

    But I'm not an naive, I know that isn't possible here and it would be counter-productive to propose doing so. 

    So instead I'll support reasonable measures that reduce the number of people killed by guns. Seems like that includes regulations on what kind of firearms and ammo and accessories are legal, regulations on who can buy guns and how, and better ways to identify and intervene for people who pose a risk to themselves or others.
    chrisk
  • seanrayseanray Texas
    edited March 2018
    @MrX so... how do you create a republic from scratch without a militia?
  • And then, how do you defend it without guns?
  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    edited March 2018
    Wal Mart raising it's age minumum to 21 for the purchase of firearms and ammo.

    Stopped selling "sporting rifles"*** like the AR-15 in 2015. Don't sell handguns except in Alaska.

    Also removing all "assault-style" rifles from their website including airsoft guns and toys.


    ***Just as a side note - yet another term! I don't think it's fair to get angry with people for not knowing "proper" terms. I've made an effort to learn gun differences the last few years and I'm sure I still mess up. There's been a lot of military, government, industry, and academic examples going around Twitter the last few days showing conflicting terms for all these weapons. Assault weapons may have some specific meaning to some people, but it clearly isn't universal. I've seen gun owners say there's no such thing as an "assault rifle" and I've seen a gun manufacturer advertisement listing items under that term. You can argue it should be a certain way, but the preciousness over the terms very often comes off as pedantry. People may not always know terms but they know what they mean. I wish gun enthusiasts would make more effort to explain terms rather than criticize, and of course that cuts both ways. There's nothing I hate worse than hearing my 12 year old criticize his younger brother for not knowing a fact, or a specific word. 


  • sean.ray said:
    @MrX so... how do you create a republic from scratch without a militia?
    I was speaking in a hypothetical, not about the nuts and bolts of the genesis of MrX-landia, but instead the preferred policy about gun ownership of the citizens once the country is established. Clearly the military would need firearms and weaponry for defense.

    In said fictional land I'd be amenable to some reasonable degree of citizen owned firearms allowed, but in a much more controlled manner than exists today on the US.
    seanray
  • sean.ray said:
    @MrX so... how do you create a republic from scratch without a militia?
    I dunno, ask the Romans. 
    hisdudeness915
  • The Romans began with a civilian militia.
  • **According to wiki, so I’m taking it with a grain of salt
  • seanrayseanray Texas
    edited March 2018
    “From it’s early history as an unsalaried militia to a later professional force.”

    again, wiki, so I will accept if it’s incorrect.
  • Hundreds of millions of people have managed it without an over the top gun culture.  

      sean.ray said:
    And then, how do you defend it without guns?

     
  • sean.ray said:
    And then, how do you defend it without guns?
    You create a “well regulated” citizen army that is taken from the families of the people they are defending and train them extensively. Thus they are highly motivated to protect the people of their nation. they are highly trained, proficient and screened. And they will not blindly follow any laws to kill their own families. 

    Singapore and Isreal are 2 perfect examples. Mandatory citizen military service with very high tech and well trained armies that have protected their borders for decades while being surrounded by numerically superior enemies from all sides. Singapore for example is the size of a city and surrounded by Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is one of the largest populations in the world and has actually fought Singapore in the past. Singapore is also the second largest port in the world and a key location. Yet they can remain independent and protect themselves while simulataneously having the 2nd lowest crime rate in the world and no guns for citizens. 

    Actually singapore implemented its military based on Israel and the two have been very close allies and supporters of each other since then. 


  • @Hatorian that’s an interesting alternative, definitely something I can come to the table on.
    Hatorian
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Hatorian said:
    sean.ray said:
    And then, how do you defend it without guns?
    You create a “well regulated” citizen army that is taken from the families of the people they are defending and train them extensively. Thus they are highly motivated to protect the people of their nation. they are highly trained, proficient and screened. And they will not blindly follow any laws to kill their own families. 

    Singapore and Isreal are 2 perfect examples. Mandatory citizen military service with very high tech and well trained armies that have protected their borders for decades while being surrounded by numerically superior enemies from all sides. Singapore for example is the size of a city and surrounded by Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is one of the largest populations in the world and has actually fought Singapore in the past. Singapore is also the second largest port in the world and a key location. Yet they can remain independent and protect themselves while simulataneously having the 2nd lowest crime rate in the world and no guns for citizens. 

    Actually singapore implemented its military based on Israel and the two have been very close allies and supporters of each other since then. 


    And they’re also a country where you can be hung for strolling into customs with a joint in your pocket, so forgive me if I don’t want to accept Singapore culture as a guide for how to run my country 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    chrisk said:
    Wal Mart raising it's age minumum to 21 for the purchase of firearms and ammo.

    Stopped selling "sporting rifles"*** like the AR-15 in 2015. Don't sell handguns except in Alaska.

    Also removing all "assault-style" rifles from their website including airsoft guns and toys.


    ***Just as a side note - yet another term! I don't think it's fair to get angry with people for not knowing "proper" terms. I've made an effort to learn gun differences the last few years and I'm sure I still mess up. There's been a lot of military, government, industry, and academic examples going around Twitter the last few days showing conflicting terms for all these weapons. Assault weapons may have some specific meaning to some people, but it clearly isn't universal. I've seen gun owners say there's no such thing as an "assault rifle" and I've seen a gun manufacturer advertisement listing items under that term. You can argue it should be a certain way, but the preciousness over the terms very often comes off as pedantry. People may not always know terms but they know what they mean. I wish gun enthusiasts would make more effort to explain terms rather than criticize, and of course that cuts both ways. There's nothing I hate worse than hearing my 12 year old criticize his younger brother for not knowing a fact, or a specific word. 


    I do wonder since Georgia has gone to the extent of withholding tax breaks to Delta over their NRA stance if some states are just going to make age discrimination in firearm sales illegal. 

    I mean the states that will never pass background check laws this will only encourage straw buying or secondary market sales 
  • Hatorian said:
    sean.ray said:
    And then, how do you defend it without guns?
    You create a “well regulated” citizen army that is taken from the families of the people they are defending and train them extensively. Thus they are highly motivated to protect the people of their nation. they are highly trained, proficient and screened. And they will not blindly follow any laws to kill their own families. 

    Singapore and Isreal are 2 perfect examples. Mandatory citizen military service with very high tech and well trained armies that have protected their borders for decades while being surrounded by numerically superior enemies from all sides. Singapore for example is the size of a city and surrounded by Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is one of the largest populations in the world and has actually fought Singapore in the past. Singapore is also the second largest port in the world and a key location. Yet they can remain independent and protect themselves while simulataneously having the 2nd lowest crime rate in the world and no guns for citizens. 

    Actually singapore implemented its military based on Israel and the two have been very close allies and supporters of each other since then. 


    And they’re also a country where you can be hung for strolling into customs with a joint in your pocket, so forgive me if I don’t want to accept Singapore culture as a guide for how to run my country 
    Maybe you should do some research before commenting on Singapore because you’re absolutely incorrect in your statement. 

    You only will get the death penalty if you are caught with over 500 grams or they can prove intent to distribute. And while I support legalizing things like drugs in terms of personal use it’s pretty rediculous comparing weapons whose main purpose is harming others with personal use of drugs that at worst only harms yourself. Also it’s hard to deny that while archaic and extreme the laws in singapore work as evidenced by the extremely Low use of drugs and the fact it’s the 2nd safest city on the planet when drug abuse is a factor in other crimes like robbery and assault. 

    Maybe people shouldn’t live in the US because you can get fined/arrested for importing the Kinder Surprise candy egg. Every country has crazy laws that need to be reconsidered. 

    But it that’s fine. You continue to live in a country with the highest per capita incarceration rate spending billions on the war on drugs and I’ll live in the 2nd safest city on the planet. 

    Flukes
  • Alkaid13Alkaid13 Georgia
    edited March 2018
    I will say hanging is kind of a hardcore way to execute people in 2018, on the other hand I’m not particularly a fan of the death penalty in general even the way we currently do it in the US. That’s probably a discussion for the general politics thread though. 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited March 2018
    Hatorian said:
    Hatorian said:
    sean.ray said:
    And then, how do you defend it without guns?
    You create a “well regulated” citizen army that is taken from the families of the people they are defending and train them extensively. Thus they are highly motivated to protect the people of their nation. they are highly trained, proficient and screened. And they will not blindly follow any laws to kill their own families. 

    Singapore and Isreal are 2 perfect examples. Mandatory citizen military service with very high tech and well trained armies that have protected their borders for decades while being surrounded by numerically superior enemies from all sides. Singapore for example is the size of a city and surrounded by Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is one of the largest populations in the world and has actually fought Singapore in the past. Singapore is also the second largest port in the world and a key location. Yet they can remain independent and protect themselves while simulataneously having the 2nd lowest crime rate in the world and no guns for citizens. 

    Actually singapore implemented its military based on Israel and the two have been very close allies and supporters of each other since then. 


    And they’re also a country where you can be hung for strolling into customs with a joint in your pocket, so forgive me if I don’t want to accept Singapore culture as a guide for how to run my country 
    Maybe you should do some research before commenting on Singapore because you’re absolutely incorrect in your statement. 

    You only will get the death penalty if you are caught with over 500 grams or they can prove intent to distribute. And while I support legalizing things like drugs in terms of personal use it’s pretty rediculous comparing weapons whose main purpose is harming others with personal use of drugs that at worst only harms yourself. Also it’s hard to deny that while archaic and extreme the laws in singapore work as evidenced by the extremely Low use of drugs and the fact it’s the 2nd safest city on the planet when drug abuse is a factor in other crimes like robbery and assault. 

    Maybe people shouldn’t live in the US because you can get fined/arrested for importing the Kinder Surprise candy egg. Every country has crazy laws that need to be reconsidered. 

    But it that’s fine. You continue to live in a country with the highest per capita incarceration rate spending billions on the war on drugs and I’ll live in the 2nd safest city on the planet. 


    No, the real ridiculous thing is he didn't even respond to your ideas, just dismissed your whole argument based on something you weren't even claiming, which is that we should model all of our laws after Singapore's. Straw Man logical fallacy. Not helpful. 

    And with 1 sentence he successfully moved the argument away from your well-reasoned appeal, and you probably wasted your time responding, because Singaporean drug laws. Oy. Who cares?

    I was in Singapore for 3 weeks, btw. Amazing country. My cousin's wife is Singaporean, so with her to show me around I got a citizen's view of things. I would live there.
    Hatoriangguenothisdudeness915
  • asmallcat said:
    sean.ray said:
    @MrX so... how do you create a republic from scratch without a militia?
    I dunno, ask the Romans. 
    I quoted the wrong post. Meant to quote the guns one. 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    JaimieT said:
    Hatorian said:
    Hatorian said:
    sean.ray said:
    And then, how do you defend it without guns?
    You create a “well regulated” citizen army that is taken from the families of the people they are defending and train them extensively. Thus they are highly motivated to protect the people of their nation. they are highly trained, proficient and screened. And they will not blindly follow any laws to kill their own families. 

    Singapore and Isreal are 2 perfect examples. Mandatory citizen military service with very high tech and well trained armies that have protected their borders for decades while being surrounded by numerically superior enemies from all sides. Singapore for example is the size of a city and surrounded by Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is one of the largest populations in the world and has actually fought Singapore in the past. Singapore is also the second largest port in the world and a key location. Yet they can remain independent and protect themselves while simulataneously having the 2nd lowest crime rate in the world and no guns for citizens. 

    Actually singapore implemented its military based on Israel and the two have been very close allies and supporters of each other since then. 


    And they’re also a country where you can be hung for strolling into customs with a joint in your pocket, so forgive me if I don’t want to accept Singapore culture as a guide for how to run my country 
    Maybe you should do some research before commenting on Singapore because you’re absolutely incorrect in your statement. 

    You only will get the death penalty if you are caught with over 500 grams or they can prove intent to distribute. And while I support legalizing things like drugs in terms of personal use it’s pretty rediculous comparing weapons whose main purpose is harming others with personal use of drugs that at worst only harms yourself. Also it’s hard to deny that while archaic and extreme the laws in singapore work as evidenced by the extremely Low use of drugs and the fact it’s the 2nd safest city on the planet when drug abuse is a factor in other crimes like robbery and assault. 

    Maybe people shouldn’t live in the US because you can get fined/arrested for importing the Kinder Surprise candy egg. Every country has crazy laws that need to be reconsidered. 

    But it that’s fine. You continue to live in a country with the highest per capita incarceration rate spending billions on the war on drugs and I’ll live in the 2nd safest city on the planet. 


    No, the real ridiculous thing is he didn't even respond to your ideas, just dismissed your whole argument based on something you weren't even claiming, which is that we should model all of our laws after Singapore's. Straw Man logical fallacy. Not helpful. 

    And with 1 sentence he successfully moved the argument away from your well-reasoned appeal, and you probably wasted your time responding, because Singaporean drug laws. Oy. Who cares?

    I was in Singapore for 3 weeks, btw. Amazing country. My cousin's wife is Singaporean, so with her to show me around I got a citizen's view of things. I would live there.
    The case he made though was more for how they have mandatory military service. After all of that explanation the argument shifted to a one sentence “they are the second safest country in the world and have no civilian guns” without explaining how that was related to their military philosophy or even making a case for how their public safety stats were linked to the a specific firearm policy, 

    Singapore is far different then any other society in the world, certainly any society in the Americas. The fact that most gun violence in the US is linked to street crime and drugs are a huge driver of street crime means that if Singapore has a super strict drug policy that’s effectively enforced means that their crime stats will already be lower. They have extreme political stability, the same party has held parliament for the city’s entire independent history and by a huge margin, that’s another plus 
  • JaimieT said:
    Hatorian said:
    Hatorian said:
    sean.ray said:
    And then, how do you defend it without guns?
    You create a “well regulated” citizen army that is taken from the families of the people they are defending and train them extensively. Thus they are highly motivated to protect the people of their nation. they are highly trained, proficient and screened. And they will not blindly follow any laws to kill their own families. 

    Singapore and Isreal are 2 perfect examples. Mandatory citizen military service with very high tech and well trained armies that have protected their borders for decades while being surrounded by numerically superior enemies from all sides. Singapore for example is the size of a city and surrounded by Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is one of the largest populations in the world and has actually fought Singapore in the past. Singapore is also the second largest port in the world and a key location. Yet they can remain independent and protect themselves while simulataneously having the 2nd lowest crime rate in the world and no guns for citizens. 

    Actually singapore implemented its military based on Israel and the two have been very close allies and supporters of each other since then. 


    And they’re also a country where you can be hung for strolling into customs with a joint in your pocket, so forgive me if I don’t want to accept Singapore culture as a guide for how to run my country 
    Maybe you should do some research before commenting on Singapore because you’re absolutely incorrect in your statement. 

    You only will get the death penalty if you are caught with over 500 grams or they can prove intent to distribute. And while I support legalizing things like drugs in terms of personal use it’s pretty rediculous comparing weapons whose main purpose is harming others with personal use of drugs that at worst only harms yourself. Also it’s hard to deny that while archaic and extreme the laws in singapore work as evidenced by the extremely Low use of drugs and the fact it’s the 2nd safest city on the planet when drug abuse is a factor in other crimes like robbery and assault. 

    Maybe people shouldn’t live in the US because you can get fined/arrested for importing the Kinder Surprise candy egg. Every country has crazy laws that need to be reconsidered. 

    But it that’s fine. You continue to live in a country with the highest per capita incarceration rate spending billions on the war on drugs and I’ll live in the 2nd safest city on the planet. 


    No, the real ridiculous thing is he didn't even respond to your ideas, just dismissed your whole argument based on something you weren't even claiming, which is that we should model all of our laws after Singapore's. Straw Man logical fallacy. Not helpful. 

    And with 1 sentence he successfully moved the argument away from your well-reasoned appeal, and you probably wasted your time responding, because Singaporean drug laws. Oy. Who cares?

    I was in Singapore for 3 weeks, btw. Amazing country. My cousin's wife is Singaporean, so with her to show me around I got a citizen's view of things. I would live there.
    It’s a great city and we got our Permanent Residency a few years back and have no intention of moving back to the US (where I am from) or Australia (where my Wife is from). Definitely would choose AU over the US if it came to it though. 

    SG is definitely not perfect. Far from it. I do agree some laws are extreme. I read a story about a SG citizen who went to Amsterdam for holiday and smoked up in the cafes and when he came back SG customs subjected him to a drug test and he tested positive and was fined even though he brought nothing back or did nothing illegal in the actual country. I 100% agree stuff like that is pretty bogus. Really bogus. 

    But i will say both me and my Wife grew up around drugs our entire lives witnessing first hand the lives it destroys and having 2 young children here in Singapore i feel very safe they will grow up with much less bad influences and chances to ruin their lives. It’s not imposssible to get caught up in bad behaviour but it’s definitely harder to do so. 

    Also doesn’t hurt that the SG public school system is always ranked in the top 5-10 school systems in the world and not only is it an extremely safe environment to grow up in but they are also getting an amazing education. Oh and 10-15% taxes is pretty sweet too even though cost of living is really high. 

    Sorry, a bit off topic on the core thread. 
    JaimieT
  • JaimieT said:
    Hatorian said:
    Hatorian said:
    sean.ray said:
    And then, how do you defend it without guns?
    You create a “well regulated” citizen army that is taken from the families of the people they are defending and train them extensively. Thus they are highly motivated to protect the people of their nation. they are highly trained, proficient and screened. And they will not blindly follow any laws to kill their own families. 

    Singapore and Isreal are 2 perfect examples. Mandatory citizen military service with very high tech and well trained armies that have protected their borders for decades while being surrounded by numerically superior enemies from all sides. Singapore for example is the size of a city and surrounded by Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is one of the largest populations in the world and has actually fought Singapore in the past. Singapore is also the second largest port in the world and a key location. Yet they can remain independent and protect themselves while simulataneously having the 2nd lowest crime rate in the world and no guns for citizens. 

    Actually singapore implemented its military based on Israel and the two have been very close allies and supporters of each other since then. 


    And they’re also a country where you can be hung for strolling into customs with a joint in your pocket, so forgive me if I don’t want to accept Singapore culture as a guide for how to run my country 
    Maybe you should do some research before commenting on Singapore because you’re absolutely incorrect in your statement. 

    You only will get the death penalty if you are caught with over 500 grams or they can prove intent to distribute. And while I support legalizing things like drugs in terms of personal use it’s pretty rediculous comparing weapons whose main purpose is harming others with personal use of drugs that at worst only harms yourself. Also it’s hard to deny that while archaic and extreme the laws in singapore work as evidenced by the extremely Low use of drugs and the fact it’s the 2nd safest city on the planet when drug abuse is a factor in other crimes like robbery and assault. 

    Maybe people shouldn’t live in the US because you can get fined/arrested for importing the Kinder Surprise candy egg. Every country has crazy laws that need to be reconsidered. 

    But it that’s fine. You continue to live in a country with the highest per capita incarceration rate spending billions on the war on drugs and I’ll live in the 2nd safest city on the planet. 


    No, the real ridiculous thing is he didn't even respond to your ideas, just dismissed your whole argument based on something you weren't even claiming, which is that we should model all of our laws after Singapore's. Straw Man logical fallacy. Not helpful. 

    And with 1 sentence he successfully moved the argument away from your well-reasoned appeal, and you probably wasted your time responding, because Singaporean drug laws. Oy. Who cares?

    I was in Singapore for 3 weeks, btw. Amazing country. My cousin's wife is Singaporean, so with her to show me around I got a citizen's view of things. I would live there.
    The case he made though was more for how they have mandatory military service. After all of that explanation the argument shifted to a one sentence “they are the second safest country in the world and have no civilian guns” without explaining how that was related to their military philosophy or even making a case for how their public safety stats were linked to the a specific firearm policy, 

    Singapore is far different then any other society in the world, certainly any society in the Americas. The fact that most gun violence in the US is linked to street crime and drugs are a huge driver of street crime means that if Singapore has a super strict drug policy that’s effectively enforced means that their crime stats will already be lower. They have extreme political stability, the same party has held parliament for the city’s entire independent history and by a huge margin, that’s another plus 
    What I was saying is it’s possible to defend your country without arming your citizens to the teeth. I also was making the argument that strict gun and drug laws have been extremely effective and the very low crime statistics are directly correlated to these laws. yea, SG is very unique but then my argument would be its unique because the laws and policies they have enacted work. Maybe if other countries followed the SG example they could have similar results too. Maybe not. 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    JaimieT said:
    Hatorian said:
    Hatorian said:
    sean.ray said:
    And then, how do you defend it without guns?
    You create a “well regulated” citizen army that is taken from the families of the people they are defending and train them extensively. Thus they are highly motivated to protect the people of their nation. they are highly trained, proficient and screened. And they will not blindly follow any laws to kill their own families. 

    Singapore and Isreal are 2 perfect examples. Mandatory citizen military service with very high tech and well trained armies that have protected their borders for decades while being surrounded by numerically superior enemies from all sides. Singapore for example is the size of a city and surrounded by Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is one of the largest populations in the world and has actually fought Singapore in the past. Singapore is also the second largest port in the world and a key location. Yet they can remain independent and protect themselves while simulataneously having the 2nd lowest crime rate in the world and no guns for citizens. 

    Actually singapore implemented its military based on Israel and the two have been very close allies and supporters of each other since then. 


    And they’re also a country where you can be hung for strolling into customs with a joint in your pocket, so forgive me if I don’t want to accept Singapore culture as a guide for how to run my country 
    Maybe you should do some research before commenting on Singapore because you’re absolutely incorrect in your statement. 

    You only will get the death penalty if you are caught with over 500 grams or they can prove intent to distribute. And while I support legalizing things like drugs in terms of personal use it’s pretty rediculous comparing weapons whose main purpose is harming others with personal use of drugs that at worst only harms yourself. Also it’s hard to deny that while archaic and extreme the laws in singapore work as evidenced by the extremely Low use of drugs and the fact it’s the 2nd safest city on the planet when drug abuse is a factor in other crimes like robbery and assault. 

    Maybe people shouldn’t live in the US because you can get fined/arrested for importing the Kinder Surprise candy egg. Every country has crazy laws that need to be reconsidered. 

    But it that’s fine. You continue to live in a country with the highest per capita incarceration rate spending billions on the war on drugs and I’ll live in the 2nd safest city on the planet. 


    No, the real ridiculous thing is he didn't even respond to your ideas, just dismissed your whole argument based on something you weren't even claiming, which is that we should model all of our laws after Singapore's. Straw Man logical fallacy. Not helpful. 

    And with 1 sentence he successfully moved the argument away from your well-reasoned appeal, and you probably wasted your time responding, because Singaporean drug laws. Oy. Who cares?

    I was in Singapore for 3 weeks, btw. Amazing country. My cousin's wife is Singaporean, so with her to show me around I got a citizen's view of things. I would live there.
    The case he made though was more for how they have mandatory military service. After all of that explanation the argument shifted to a one sentence “they are the second safest country in the world and have no civilian guns” without explaining how that was related to their military philosophy or even making a case for how their public safety stats were linked to the a specific firearm policy, 

    Singapore is far different then any other society in the world, certainly any society in the Americas. The fact that most gun violence in the US is linked to street crime and drugs are a huge driver of street crime means that if Singapore has a super strict drug policy that’s effectively enforced means that their crime stats will already be lower. They have extreme political stability, the same party has held parliament for the city’s entire independent history and by a huge margin, that’s another plus 

    There's a good rebuttal.
  • "Hey guys I think violent video games are to blame for violent tendencies in our youth."

    Meanwhile on the official DoD propga- I mean Twitter page....


    Hatorianhisdudeness915cdrivedarwinfeeshy
  • MrX said:
    "Hey guys I think violent video games are to blame for violent tendencies in our youth."

    Meanwhile on the official DoD propga- I mean Twitter page....


    Good luck defending against Tyranny! I can just see a group of well armed “militiamen” fighting against tyranny then BRRRRRRRRRR, they all explode into pink clouds of guts. 
  • Hatorian said:
    MrX said:
    "Hey guys I think violent video games are to blame for violent tendencies in our youth."

    Meanwhile on the official DoD propga- I mean Twitter page....


    Good luck defending against Tyranny! I can just see a group of well armed “militiamen” fighting against tyranny then BRRRRRRRRRR, they all explode into pink clouds of guts. 

    Of course what first comes to mind is:




    Hatorian
  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    Here's this term again, only expanded:



    Never heard of AR's and AK's referred to as "Sporting Rifles" until this retailer and WalMart. I would've assumed that meant hunting rifles until now. 
    darwinfeeshy
Sign In or Register to comment.