• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tamanon

Banned
On that note:

I don't see why schools are against a police officer in schools. It's better than security cameras. You still have to watch the cameras which is only a preventative measure rather than an active one. Someone still has to be paid. This wouldn't solve issues like the elementary shooting.

In bigger cities, they always have security guards hanging around in the hallways, and they have a police station near every university college. They can't not have this, it's too much of a security risk, and even having these police officers or security guards is a deterrent in practice. Check rates of every large college and see how many crimes of those are gun related (hint: almost none, they're very rare. The highest are alcohol, drugs, and assault/battery)

Anecdotal, I feel safer knowing that someone's there simply to protect me.

Aren't you now arguing in favor of the government protecting us from guns, which are intended to protect us from the government?
 

remist

Member
What happens when there is a shooting in a grocery store? The mall? Your neighborhood park? Movie theaters? Political rallies?

What's the solution?

More police? More guns?

Again I'm not saying that is the solution. We could have police around every corner and as long as they conducted themselves within the boundaries of our current law, we still wouldn't be a police state.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

bdgZa.jpg
 
Nothing will happen. Republicans will kill any reform, conservatives will cry about the "freedom" to kill, and life will go on as it always has. People will continue to die in gun-related accidents and murders day after day without a peep, and then there will be a mass killing at a mall, school, or amusement park somewhere, and the entire country will wonder how something like that could happen, and then things will start from the top again.

Sadly, I think you're 100% correct. This fucks with me.

I have also seen "Sandy hook was an inside job". People are saying that the administration made this happen to take our guns away. I don't have words for that kind of stupidity. I think I'm going to stop following politics for a while too. Shit is just depressing.
 

RDreamer

Member
Why do they all look so sad, they all make at least twice a much a year as I do. Boohoo your taxes went up, come back when your not making like triple what the average family does.

Not only do they all make at least about 5 times as much as me, my taxes are going up too with the payroll tax.

Cry moar richers.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
The only thing I don't get is why the old, African American couple is sad too considering their taxes didn't go up?
 

gcubed

Member
Oh fuck me. The married couple that makes 650 THOUSAND FUCKING DOLLARS is going to have to cough up some more change. That's the top ZERO POINT TWO percent of households. HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE???????????

maybe they should check out Obamacares free birth control
 

leroidys

Member
Look at how sad those kids are, Obama.

The real story here is that Obama is raising taxes to make depressed children to plant the seeds of mental illness which will lead to more Sandy Hook style incidents. Then big government takes your guns away and forces you to sacrifice at the alter of Baal. WAKE UP AMERICA.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
Let's ignore for a moment how ludicrous it is to think the government will suddenly decide to "impose itself on its people." In what way, exactly? Is it going to play out like 1984? I'm not even sure all the people that are afraid of it even know what exactly would be done. Though I'd love to see an "uprising" of gun nuts thinking they'd be able to do anything about it, just to see how fast they get taken out by military trained snipers.

Aren't you now arguing in favor of the government protecting us from guns, which are intended to protect us from the government?
Just like they're now calling for expanded mental health care, all the while condemning Obamacare. It's all ridiculous hypocrisy.
 

JohnDonut

Banned
Let's ignore for a moment how ludicrous it is to think the government will suddenly decide to "impose itself on its people."
Just like no one expected that hitler would start by taking away everyone's guns. That's a pretty good example of it. How would a citizen protect its liberty then? They didn't know or have warning that would happen.

But I digress, I wanted to point that out.
 

Magni

Member
Just like no one expected that hitler would start by taking away everyone's guns. That's a pretty good example of it. How would a citizen protect its liberty then? They didn't know or have warning that would happen.

But I digress, I wanted to point that out.

Are you trolling?

In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated, and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control
 

JohnDonut

Banned
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

No not quite. They cataloged then told everyone in austria to turn their guns in. And since they knew who had the guns, they knew who wasn't turning them in.

As you posted, NAZI affiliated people were allowed to have guns. everyone who wasn't, was not.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
Just like no one expected that hitler would start by taking away everyone's guns. That's a pretty good example of it. How would a citizen protect its liberty then? They didn't know or have warning that would happen.

But I digress, I wanted to point that out.
Except that's not what happened. Hilter prohibited Jews from owning guns, but not all German citizens.

The American government has far too many moving parts to ever become a dictatorship. Look at how difficult it was just to raise taxes on the rich. No one's getting away with anything like Hitler.
 

Magni

Member
^ I love how paranoid right wingers think our democracy is as weak as the Weimar Republic. Completely out of touch with reality. Obama is so hell bent on being a dictator that he went through the process of getting reelected instead of pulling a 18 Brumaire like a real president-turned-dictator.

No not quite. They cataloged then told everyone in austria to turn their guns in. And since they knew who had the guns, they knew who wasn't turning them in.

The quote I posted from that MJ article does mention that Jews were prohibited from owning guns. That has nothing to do with the fact that gun laws, in general, were relaxed under Nazi rule (not that it mattered that much since not that many civilians in the first place had guns).

As for mentioning Austria? Thanks for confirming that you are indeed trolling.
 

JohnDonut

Banned
Except that's not what happened. Hilter prohibited Jews from owning guns, but not German citizens.

The Anerican government has far too many moving parts to ever become a dictatorship. Look at how difficult it was just to raise taxes on the rich. No one's getting away with anything like Hitler.
No, I don't think american government would evolve into a dictatorship. The only way would be if there was a coup d'État or something, but that is also unlikely.

As for mentioning Austria? Thanks for confirming that you are indeed trolling.
I was talking about nazi controlled areas but okay. I am not trolling. Austria at first was happy to have them there, at least at first.

Saying they started by taking away guns would be completely wrong, though, still. As pointed out, gun laws were relaxed. Before Hitler no one was allowed guns. So, realistically you could only say "they started by letting some people own guns." That'd be far more truthful than what you said.
Upon further googling, it seems that is more of the case. I admit my rashness.
 

RDreamer

Member
No not quite. They cataloged then told everyone in austria to turn their guns in. And since they knew who had the guns, they knew who wasn't turning them in.

As you posted, NAZI affiliated people were allowed to have guns. everyone who wasn't, was not.

Saying they started by taking away guns would be completely wrong, though, still. As pointed out, gun laws were relaxed. Before Hitler no one was allowed guns. So, realistically you could only say "they started by letting some people own guns." That'd be far more truthful than what you said.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
America doesn't have a gun problem, it has two gun problems -- urban gun violence and mass shootings. They're different issues and require different solutions*, but people only actually care about one of them. That's why these discussions are always so discursive -- people are using one problem to argue about a different problem. Assault weapon bans or magazine restrictions won't do a thing about gun violence, which is typically committed with handguns, but it might help slow down the pace of mass shootings. Personally I think that's okay, because I think urban gun violence is a symptom rather than a disease. It's also a symptom that's rapidly dropping in frequency -- one of our policy problems in this country is that we keep using a mental model that assumes the urban blight issues from the 60s to the 80s were ongoing trends, rather than, as they now appear, temporary blips in an otherwise positive trendline towards less crime and healthier urban life.

* well, a blanket ban would solve both, but it would also be impossible.

Well the temporary blips went away for a reason.
 

mj1108

Member
Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

bdgZa.jpg

Wait, are we supposed to feel sorry for these people?

A single person makes $230k a year and we are supposed to feel bad they have to pay $3k more in taxes? If someone who makes that is bitching about that I will gladly trade salaries with them.

What the god damned fuck?

Can I have their problems please? Single and making 230K a year and looking sad? Jesus.

They will have to start living off of Ramen noodles with this kind of increase.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

bdgZa.jpg

What the fuck!? My parents usually end up in the 100-120k range and we lead a comfortable middle class lifestyle, bordering on upper-middle class depending on what metrics you use. I cannot feel any sympathy for people complaining about a few thousand more in taxes at the 250k level
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom