lol no it wouldn't. you act like there hasn't just been fucking 10 years of medical debate and new legislation based on weed's benefits/harms. i think 'direct and easy link to psychotic killings' would have been mentioned.I'm sure it would be pretty easy to prove the case that weed has pushed many thousands of people into psychosis and murder -
I also think we're losing sight of how immediate a danger these things are. Take our favorite example, chainsaws. Can I easily murder 22 people with a chainsaw? We all understand that literally anything can be used to kill people. Rocks. Branches. Ropes. Fists. Pavement. The difference being degree of difficulty, the primary purpose/use of these things, and their historical uses.
Last edited by Pochsy (2020-05-02 18:20:59)
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
So take the British approach and ban everything that goes pow and everything with an edge. It has zeroed out their murder and assault rates.Pochsy wrote:
I also think we're losing sight of how immediate a danger these things are. Take our favorite example, chainsaws. Can I easily murder 22 people with a chainsaw? We all understand that literally anything can be used to kill people. Rocks. Branches. Ropes. Fists. Pavement. The difference being degree of difficulty, the primary purpose/use of these things, and their historical uses.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you can get rifles and shotguns in the UK with a license.
most of our serious violent crime is with knives, which is no great secret. it's a little harder to justify banning kitchen knives than it is AR-15s.
most of our serious violent crime is with knives, which is no great secret. it's a little harder to justify banning kitchen knives than it is AR-15s.
I can't speak for what the British do. What I do know is Canadians aren't planning on taking away all the guns.Jay wrote:
So take the British approach and ban everything that goes pow and everything with an edge. It has zeroed out their murder and assault rates.Pochsy wrote:
I also think we're losing sight of how immediate a danger these things are. Take our favorite example, chainsaws. Can I easily murder 22 people with a chainsaw? We all understand that literally anything can be used to kill people. Rocks. Branches. Ropes. Fists. Pavement. The difference being degree of difficulty, the primary purpose/use of these things, and their historical uses.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
I can't be bothered to dig up all the data on the connection between weed and psychosis, didn't your drug use cause you to threaten mass murder?uziq wrote:
lol no it wouldn't. you act like there hasn't just been fucking 10 years of medical debate and new legislation based on weed's benefits/harms. i think 'direct and easy link to psychotic killings' would have been mentioned.
Maybe that next hit of coke will flip you out completely, we should ban all drugs, think of the children.
There's no question an AR15 is the first choice for a spree killer, but don't think banning them will see an end to spree killings.I also think we're losing sight of how immediate a danger these things are. Take our favorite example, chainsaws. Can I easily murder 22 people with a chainsaw? We all understand that literally anything can be used to kill people. Rocks. Branches. Ropes. Fists. Pavement. The difference being degree of difficulty, the primary purpose/use of these things, and their historical uses.
Someone could take it into their head to use a chainsaw, probably very effectively against defenceless people.
This nut in canada killed people one by one over 13 hours, he could just as easily have done it with a bolt action rifle.
He used an unregistered gun, illegally held, most likely illegally imported from the US. Preventing Canadians from owning them legally wouldn't have prevented this and will achieve exactly nothing.
Once again social failings are distracted from by focusing on the tool.
But once again, I agree that guns like AR15s shouldn't be easily available, I just think the arguments are weak, little will be achieved and could just as easily be turned on something else. Then people like you will be 'up in arms'.
Personally I'd be fine with banning drugs and meat consumption, both are dangerous, I don't enjoy either and I don't see why anyone else should.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
You just want to ban the most useful ones, got it.Pochsy wrote:
I can't speak for what the British do. What I do know is Canadians aren't planning on taking away all the guns.Jay wrote:
So take the British approach and ban everything that goes pow and everything with an edge. It has zeroed out their murder and assault rates.Pochsy wrote:
I also think we're losing sight of how immediate a danger these things are. Take our favorite example, chainsaws. Can I easily murder 22 people with a chainsaw? We all understand that literally anything can be used to kill people. Rocks. Branches. Ropes. Fists. Pavement. The difference being degree of difficulty, the primary purpose/use of these things, and their historical uses.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Non of that is true.Jay wrote:
So take the British approach and ban everything that goes pow and everything with an edge. It has zeroed out their murder and assault rates.Pochsy wrote:
I also think we're losing sight of how immediate a danger these things are. Take our favorite example, chainsaws. Can I easily murder 22 people with a chainsaw? We all understand that literally anything can be used to kill people. Rocks. Branches. Ropes. Fists. Pavement. The difference being degree of difficulty, the primary purpose/use of these things, and their historical uses.
As uzi said shotguns and bolt action rifles (including modern sniper rifles, with the right paperwork) can be held by anyone who is eligible for a licence...
And whisper it quietly even pistols and semi autos, if you're in the right line of work...
If you mean useful for killing PEOPLE, then yes, that's exactly what I want. If you mean useful for hunting, I think the bolt action does great.Jay wrote:
You just want to ban the most useful ones, got it.Pochsy wrote:
I can't speak for what the British do. What I do know is Canadians aren't planning on taking away all the guns.Jay wrote:
So take the British approach and ban everything that goes pow and everything with an edge. It has zeroed out their murder and assault rates.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
They're the most useful in general. If a hunter or a hiker gets mauled by a bear because you only allowed him to carry a bolt action rifle, that's on you. If someone defending their home is attacked and killed by someone carrying an illegal weapon, because you banned the homeowners legal options, that's also on you.Pochsy wrote:
If you mean useful for killing PEOPLE, then yes, that's exactly what I want. If you mean useful for hunting, I think the bolt action does great.Jay wrote:
You just want to ban the most useful ones, got it.Pochsy wrote:
I can't speak for what the British do. What I do know is Canadians aren't planning on taking away all the guns.
Weapons that are easy to use are the best for defense, as well as offense, but you are only thinking of their offensive uses. People are going to die because of your support for this anti-gun legislation.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The awesome thing about people is we can produce more than one solution to a problem. Such as, for example, if you will, bear spray.Jay wrote:
They're the most useful in general. If a hunter or a hiker gets mauled by a bear because you only allowed him to carry a bolt action rifle, that's on you. If someone defending their home is attacked and killed by someone carrying an illegal weapon, because you banned the homeowners legal options, that's also on you.Pochsy wrote:
If you mean useful for killing PEOPLE, then yes, that's exactly what I want. If you mean useful for hunting, I think the bolt action does great.Jay wrote:
You just want to ban the most useful ones, got it.
Weapons that are easy to use are the best for defense, as well as offense, but you are only thinking of their offensive uses. People are going to die because of your support for this anti-gun legislation.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Sure, just pray the bear is downwind of you rather than upwind.Pochsy wrote:
The awesome thing about people is we can produce more than one solution to a problem. Such as, for example, if you will, bear spray.Jay wrote:
They're the most useful in general. If a hunter or a hiker gets mauled by a bear because you only allowed him to carry a bolt action rifle, that's on you. If someone defending their home is attacked and killed by someone carrying an illegal weapon, because you banned the homeowners legal options, that's also on you.Pochsy wrote:
If you mean useful for killing PEOPLE, then yes, that's exactly what I want. If you mean useful for hunting, I think the bolt action does great.
Weapons that are easy to use are the best for defense, as well as offense, but you are only thinking of their offensive uses. People are going to die because of your support for this anti-gun legislation.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
This thing is hilarious, it reminds me of the fart gun from Despicable Me
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Another day another dick in a pickup kills two blameless people.
We really should ban these things.
We really should ban these things.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3711
we should ban pick up trucks
i still think it’s incredible that someone can make the category error of conflating a vehicle with an assault rifle. dilbert you have missed a sterling career as a lawyer, or, failing that, an analytic philosopher. i’m looking forward to more of this wittgensteinian critique in future. hmm, both objects belong to the category of things that can kill ... make u think ...
with regards to weed and psychosis murders and me threatening to kill people, no and no. there’s a far bigger link between alcohol and aggressive behaviour/violent crime, in any case, so your favourite tipple is top of the list. several hundred thousand battered women who shrink in fear when they hear the ‘heavy boots on the stairs’ after pub closing hours would like a word. a person having a schizophrenic episode because of weed use and then going on to kill someone because of that is, er, not quite as common chap.
i’d be happy to ban pickup trucks and 4x4s on environmental arguments alone. the mantra of ‘freedom for freedom’s sake’ is dumb and morally/socially reprehensible in many ways. freedom for what/from what are far more important concepts. freedom to pollute the planet and contribute 5x the emissions on your school run? that can be revoked thank you. on the level of vehicle safety and public health, we don’t let regular drivers get behind the wheel of HGVs or articulated lorries without special licenses and qualifications. i don’t see why pickups and 4x4s couldn’t be restricted and licensed in this way for those that need them.
with regards to weed and psychosis murders and me threatening to kill people, no and no. there’s a far bigger link between alcohol and aggressive behaviour/violent crime, in any case, so your favourite tipple is top of the list. several hundred thousand battered women who shrink in fear when they hear the ‘heavy boots on the stairs’ after pub closing hours would like a word. a person having a schizophrenic episode because of weed use and then going on to kill someone because of that is, er, not quite as common chap.
i’d be happy to ban pickup trucks and 4x4s on environmental arguments alone. the mantra of ‘freedom for freedom’s sake’ is dumb and morally/socially reprehensible in many ways. freedom for what/from what are far more important concepts. freedom to pollute the planet and contribute 5x the emissions on your school run? that can be revoked thank you. on the level of vehicle safety and public health, we don’t let regular drivers get behind the wheel of HGVs or articulated lorries without special licenses and qualifications. i don’t see why pickups and 4x4s couldn’t be restricted and licensed in this way for those that need them.
Last edited by uziq (2020-05-03 02:55:27)
Doesn't matter that there's a 'bigger link' between alcohol and aggressive behaviour and weed and psychosis - there's still a well known linkage and people don't have a 'schizophrenic episode' they're tipped over into psychosis for life.
There's any number of spree shooters who were psychotic and into drugs, I don't remember any drunks.
But what about meat consumption? Thats the one thing here in which killing stuff is absolutely inherent, and apparently killing stuff is bad.
Funny how people are ready to ban things 'for the greater good' and because 'its the right thing to do' right up until its something they enjoy.
I would do something to crimp monster truck use, same speed limit as HGVs on motorways, zero alcohol limit, annual health checks, no bull bars unless you actually farm cows etc
There's any number of spree shooters who were psychotic and into drugs, I don't remember any drunks.
But what about meat consumption? Thats the one thing here in which killing stuff is absolutely inherent, and apparently killing stuff is bad.
Funny how people are ready to ban things 'for the greater good' and because 'its the right thing to do' right up until its something they enjoy.
I would do something to crimp monster truck use, same speed limit as HGVs on motorways, zero alcohol limit, annual health checks, no bull bars unless you actually farm cows etc
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-05-03 03:03:20)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
if the world can affordly and sustainably replace animal-proteins with plant-based or synthetic ones, i’d of course agree and say an argument can be made. as it stands, veganism is a first-world ideology and not really a very consistent one at that. crop monocultures such as soy are just as bad for the environment and are handily wiping us off the face of the earth as well. we need better solutions. luckily there are some promising alternatives.
i only eat meat in 30-40% of my meals per week. it’s best viewed as a luxury. i don’t think it’s particularly healthy to eat red meat more than once every week or two. it’s the equivalent of taking a flight once every few years for that long-distance holiday rather than 5 times a year for business and avoidable trips. habits and behaviour can be nudged in the right direction without outright bans.
again, conflating basic sustenance and food with assault rifles doesn’t seem to me like the subtlest of logical arguments. don’t try that one in a court of law. i’ve got a feeling it won’t be a shiner.
i have read of very few cases where people are tipped into psychosis for life by weed. again, any number of reactions are possible with any number of drugs. if weed sending people to the psych ward for life was at all common, america, the most moralistic nation in the western world, wouldn’t be widely legalising the stuff.
i only eat meat in 30-40% of my meals per week. it’s best viewed as a luxury. i don’t think it’s particularly healthy to eat red meat more than once every week or two. it’s the equivalent of taking a flight once every few years for that long-distance holiday rather than 5 times a year for business and avoidable trips. habits and behaviour can be nudged in the right direction without outright bans.
again, conflating basic sustenance and food with assault rifles doesn’t seem to me like the subtlest of logical arguments. don’t try that one in a court of law. i’ve got a feeling it won’t be a shiner.
i have read of very few cases where people are tipped into psychosis for life by weed. again, any number of reactions are possible with any number of drugs. if weed sending people to the psych ward for life was at all common, america, the most moralistic nation in the western world, wouldn’t be widely legalising the stuff.
Last edited by uziq (2020-05-03 03:52:51)
But you're not having much of an effect on public safety by banning AR-15s, either. About 300 people get killed by rifle fire in the US every year. That's all rifles, not just the dreaded AR.Pochsy wrote:
Uzi, I see that. Nothing's 'ruined' in my world. I phrase it that way because that's the understanding of the pro-gun folks, who I do sympathize with to an extent. I'm not against biathlons or target shooting, but I think those hobbies can't be placed above public safety and you just don't absolutely need an AR15 to still enjoy them. So I see that we're taking away a 'nice to have' for some, but I also think it's justified. It's not 'nice to have' for me because I don't care for those hobbies.
But let's take your "need" reasoning to other things. Alcohol-related fatalities annually are 2-3 times the number of deaths caused by firearm. I think we all can agree that no one "needs" fully automatic military-style assault liquor. So we should ban it, right? It kills thousands, despite millions using it responsibly, so you should absolutely be on at least as much of a crusade to ban it as you are to ban a rifle that kills a fraction of 300 people per year. Tobacco's another good example. What's the number these days - 400,000 dead every year? If it's lives you're worried about, why aren't you making a fuss about banning smokes and booze?
also
unfortunately the data is there, and you are wrong.
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/chatta … -violence/
the guy in canada like two weeks ago was an alcoholic, ffs. you just have simple images in your head. 'drug people' = crazed whackos. it's like being in a school classroom.There's any number of spree shooters who were psychotic and into drugs, I don't remember any drunks.
unfortunately the data is there, and you are wrong.
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/chatta … -violence/
In the wake of the [2015] mass shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, investigators and the media have pored over the gunman’s personal life, trying to find an explanation for what might have caused the tragedy. As the FBI continues to look into the shooter’s potential terror ties, reports have already begun to reveal a troubling history of depression, drug use, and alcohol abuse — factors that are often implicated in mass shootings.
Despite accounting for a small fraction of America’s overall gun homicides, mass shootings are often used as a proxy to better understand gun violence in general. The seeming ubiquity of mental illness and substance abuse as causal factors in these headline-grabbing incidents often leads to overarching conclusions about people who commit violent acts with firearms — particularly by pro-gun advocates who regularly blame mass shootings on mental illness. But academic research suggests that the link associating mental illness with shootings is less clear than gun advocates claim. And the correlation between drug use and violent crime, it turns out, is unclear. What a closer look at the data does reveal is this: Outside of the availability of firearms, the chief factor influencing gun violence is alcohol abuse.
A 2013 meta-analysis of 23 studies concluded that “48 percent of homicide offenders were reportedly under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offense and 37 percent were intoxicated.”
Last edited by uziq (2020-05-03 03:54:23)
please legalize cocaine mr. officer.HollisHurlbut wrote:
But let's take your "need" reasoning to other things. Alcohol-related fatalities annually are 2-3 times the number of deaths caused by firearm. I think we all can agree that no one "needs" fully automatic military-style assault liquor. So we should ban it, right? It kills thousands, despite millions using it responsibly, so you should absolutely be on at least as much of a crusade to ban it as you are to ban a rifle that kills a fraction of 300 people per year. Tobacco's another good example. What's the number these days - 400,000 dead every year? If it's lives you're worried about, why aren't you making a fuss about banning smokes and booze?
This is going to be another of those things were you pull up flaky data to support your argument.
That article conflates mass shootings and individual firearm crimes, they're two wholly different events.
It states alcohol abuse is implicated in mass shootings, then provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Yes people who are drunk are more likely to murder someone on the spur of the moment than someone sober, whereas spree shootings are typically planned well in advance.
That article conflates mass shootings and individual firearm crimes, they're two wholly different events.
It states alcohol abuse is implicated in mass shootings, then provides no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Yes people who are drunk are more likely to murder someone on the spur of the moment than someone sober, whereas spree shootings are typically planned well in advance.
reports have already begun to reveal a troubling history of depression, drug use, and alcohol abuse
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unlike your 'weed leads to life-time psychosis but not before they commit a spree murder' assertion. lots of data for that one. if it's
let's just move on, you weren't really making a good point in the assault rifle debate anyway.
then where are your meta-studies?pretty easy to prove the case that weed has pushed many thousands of people into psychosis and murder -
let's just move on, you weren't really making a good point in the assault rifle debate anyway.
Last edited by uziq (2020-05-03 04:02:27)
Uh, what?uziq wrote:
please legalize cocaine mr. officer.
i was asking you to do to me a favour, seeing as you're right, hundreds of thousands of alcohol- and tobacco-related deaths per year are a negligible price to pay.