The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Yes. Even if terrorist strikes in the US were to raise 20x, it would mean still mean less loss of civilian lives. I value American lives over others as I believe it is the responsibility of a nation to defend their own. That doesn't mean we should kill other civilians, just that we shouldn't defend them as readily.

On top of that, the US is so ridiculously widely distributed that the risk of attacks increasing to the point where people will be "afraid to ride the bus" is near 0%. The risk of a bus crashing and everybody dying from that would STILL be higher by a significant margin.

As long as we continue to drop bombs on civilians, things will continue to escalate. We need more intelligence before we strike, and the strikes need to be precise enough to keep civilian casualties in the single digits.

People need to understand the reality of the situation. Real numbers. Not bullshit war mongering politically fueled alarmism. The real risk of terrorist strikes hitting any individual are super ******* low. The number of aliens coming into the US from non-checkpoints is super ******* low. The ability for a wall to help anything is super ******* low.

People like Trump are arguing in favor of bullshit non-solutions based on xenophobic impulses instead of real solutions based on facts and statistics.

Yay, back from school so I can post now instead of just reading your repeated rebuttals to Kiwi's nonsense.

Back on to the subject of drugs, Portugal legalized all drugs a few years ago. My understanding is that crime and drug-usage have gone down significantly since then. It's a country with problems, but drugs and their associated issues aren't among them now.

You've proven to be completely resilient to any reasonable arguments that favor my moral standard. There is nothing more to say.
I mean imagine an argument about the question: Does this 1+1 is 2 and one person keeps claiming it is not even after long arguments in favor of it are presented.
There always is a point where all one can do is accept that no argument in the world is gonna make a difference. In that situation there are only few options to take:
1.) Walk away and accept that all humans are just stupid in one way or the other.
2.) Start a war/get violent about it.
3.) Middle way: get angry, tell them they are stupid and leave.

1 is probably the wise choice here. I ended up at 3, as at some point anger becomes hard to control.
I feel like I am discussing "is PA a scam" on steam. Just that the topic isn't whether PA is worth a few dollars, but whether it is okay to go and kill other people so you can feel good in your comfortable home.

In the end the situation is simple.
You say that it is better to cause the death and suffering of whole foreign nations just so you can feel secure in the bus. That is what your arguments come down to. That is what the US "war on terrorism" has come down to over the last 15 years. That is what Trumps "we'll just bomb ISIS really hard" comes down to.
I say that is a horrible concept.
Neither is really absolutely wrong, as morals are just a weird human inventions and for the universe it all has no meaning anyway.
But in my moral standards your statements from the last few pages picture you as a horrible person.
Now I am pretty sure you might actually be a decent guy as long as you just don't tell me your political views, but oh well...

Kiwi, if you want to feel safe and secure at other's expense, why not outlaw all guns?

lol

You would be hung for thinking this in my local area xDDD

The question was totally not dodged.

If I had the choice between going to war in the middle east and banning guns, I'd choose the latter. Not only would more American lives be saved so that we can live in comfort, but no Muslim civilians would be killed in the process and we'd just lose an important civil liberty. Oh wait, guns are important because reasons and we're Americans so what do we care about Muslim civilians? Good point, position reverse. Let's go nuke the middle east, 20 less American deaths a year is totally worth it.

I guess people are formed by their environment.

Good talk, I now have stories to share.

Should I change my profile pic to Hitler?

here's the most ironic bit :

anytime you mention gun control to an american gun owner he brings up the Second Amendment.
wikipedia on this reads : "The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state."

now that gun owner probably wouldn't be able to tell you what the second amendment actually reads or the History behind it other than "I can have guns".

but whenever you try to "resist against oppression" in America, you're a traitor to the nation, a commy and the scum of the earth.

now if everyone's beating down on you like that I see not how the original incentive of the second amendment is being fullfilled rather than exploited for consumerist masturbation. ............also teenage revenge bloodbaths.

I'm against gun bans. A majority of guns related deaths in the US are suicides. A majority of what is left is attributed to gang violence. Legally owned guns are almost never used against another citizen, and fatal accidents are extremely rare.

I think we do need proper gun tracking systems in place to hurt the illegal gun market. And hell, allow people to legally cross state lines with guns they own. You're not allowed to cross the border of a state with a gun you don't own the license for in each state you go through. Some states don't require licenses for certain guns(usually shotguns), but even still that's not always the case and cross country hunting trips are unfeasible legally.


Thankfully a choice between gun bans and a war in the middle east isn't a thing. We can choose to do neither.

Going to link this here (An Aussies point of view when it comes to the whole gun issue). Bit of strong language here just as a warning.

one word: robberies.

And if you think people won't get illegal access to guns, well think again.

Yeah people are always going to manage that, but do you think the same amount of people will be able to go out of their way to get them illegally? It will never be impossible to get your hand on a gun but it would be a hell of a lot more difficult to get your hands on said gun. Many individuals would not know how to get their hands on the product illegally and even if they did know, again my point stands about effort required. It is because of this that gun violence would go down massively because every person and their children can't pick one up from the store down the road.

What about school shootings by younger kids as well? Think they'll know how to go find where to get illegal weapons purchased half the time, and if they did would they have the money and would the gun even be sold to them?

Anyway don't want to go into this too much as I know some individuals are very passionate about the whole thing (As am I to some extent on the other side of the fence). But yeah videos there and they pretty much summarise most of my thoughts on the issue.

EDIT:
Infact the guy makes that point at the end of part 2. Especially about the cost of guns on the black market.

I don't agree with bans but I agree with heavy restrictions. A complete ban could make things worse, simply because people defending won't take the chance to illegally purchase guns on the off-chance that they get robbed etc. People who really want to do harm will get their hands on guns, then no one will be able to defend.

If only you had some sort of... nationwide group. Like a bunch of people who worked for the government who's job it was to enforce the law and protect society from criminal elements.

OH WAIT.

The reliability of police goes down pretty drastically when the crime rate of the area goes up. Nice areas in the US have next to no crime and good police officers. Places that need good officers tend to be rife with corrupt officers. And they're notoriously difficult to get them out of their positions. I get your point, but it's really unfortunate that it just doesn't work where it needs to.

I personally don't give a damn about guns for self defense. I understand it's a right according to the supreme court, but I don't care. I just want them for recreational purposes and I haven't seen a good argument against them in the US yet.

Violent gun deaths are directly related to gang violence. Gangs need taken care of, and they have the funding to get black market arms no matter what the prices rise to.

Honestly it's not really an easy issue to deal with. So many homes in America have more than one rifle in the house. You can't simply ban all firearms and expect people to fork over their previously owned weapon. Illegal weapon marketing happens everywhere, sure, but it'd happen A LOT in the US if weapons were out of nowhere banned. Much of the American people are too set in their minds on this issue. Simply saying "ban all weapons in the US' is just.. Impossible.

Realistic restrictions are fine, but weapons shouldn't be banned based on aesthetics like they've been in the past (Many weapons which serve the exact same function as others but look "scary" are banned.) What do I want to see? A large record on firearm owners, thorough background checks on anyone seeking to own a weapon, and mandatory classes/training on whatever particular weapon someone wants to own.

There aren't enough police officers to stand in every single jewelry store in America.

You really seem to feel like you are living in the wild west.

Welcome to politics. This is why I largely keep my political opinions to myself these days.