«12. . .2,4682,4692,4702,4712,4722,4732,474. . .2,6472,648»
you have the right to bear an automobile, but not to drive it, without a license on a public roadway.
an automobile is a deadly weapon. a gun is a deadly weapon.
an automobile can actually serve a useful purpose, and does so more often then a gun.
also there are alternatives to both which are able to serve most of their same purposes.
just a random collection of what are pretty much facts.
there are also legitimate disputes as to the intent and purpose of that second amendment.
also, in my perspective at least, regulating the MASS production and sale of an item,
does NOT in any way impinge upon anyone's right to posses anything they can make, as a hobbyist, for themselves.
there is no absolute prevention that i know of, but reducing probability is a real and significant thing.
Einswenn, Jutsa, Lord Dominator, Uan aa Boa, and 2 othersCanaltia, and Middle Barael
Guns can be incredibly useful, as the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club (among many others) have demonstrated in protecting LGBT people from conservative militias.
If what you're saying is you want to regulate the commercial production of guns to the point where people are driven to make homemade ones, I absolutely can't get behind that. Homemade firearms are far more dangerous to use (and would thus harm many innocent civilians) and make it even more difficult for the less wealthy to obtain. All it would serve would be to further concentrate guns in the hands of the middle class and above (which will make conservative militiamen and nut jobs even more disproportionately powerful compared to law-abiding citizens).
Projection:
Well it is definitive... The Embassy of The North Pacific will be ejected and off site relations will be maintained with the Forest...
Everyone who enjoyed our luxuries from the The North Pacific, I hope to see you in another form :)
Siornor, Jutsa, Lord Dominator, Uan aa Boa, and 4 othersWestern Vapia, Canaltia, Neptunian Military Administration, and Difinbelk
I'd observe that what both guns and vehicles have in common is that they help individual citizens maintain a level of independence from their governments, and thus are both useful safeguards against tyranny. Freedom of movement is a useful freedom both in everyday life, and in extremis situations. If your government suddenly turns bad, and your nation turns against you, having the ability to flee at speed could be quite useful. Having a gun is wholly unnecessary in a civilised democracy, but civilised democracies can transform into uncivilised tyrannies in a matter of moments.
That's not to say I'm unreservedly in favour of unlimited access to guns and vehicles. Both have major downsides. The presence of guns in the general population undoubtedly results in crimes of violence becoming more lethal, and increases the chances of major tragedies. The presence of invidividually owned vehicles has a death toll in accidents, in damage to societal structure, and in massive environmental harm.
However, I think that in a world where tyranny is on the rise, and there is an ideological and existential war of ideas between autocracy and liberty, we have to be very cautious about limiting the rights of self defence OR the rights of freedom of movement within our democratic societies.
I'm probably unusual amongst British people in wanting to see looser restrictions on gun ownership in our country, because to me the benefit to freedom is worth the cost in lives. Not that I'd buy a gun, if they were legal, but my personal feel is that both in thus country and in western democracies as a whole we're shifting more and more towards authoritarianism without any voices standing up for freedom, and this is something I feel very uncomfortable with.
Like, for example, the media narrative at present seems to be taking it as given that social media companies require more regulation, and that we need more laws controlling the internet. That's not something I see as positive, personally. In the US at least, there are voices arguing against government intervention in social media companies. In the UK, nothing.
I think its very easy for many Brits to automatically see the British way as best. This is true of any patriotic nation, of course. However, I think good critical thinkers within mature democracies should be asking more questions. Is the British position on gun law, abortion, internet regulation and so on automatically the best one? Maybe those nutjob Republicans in the US actually have a point on all these things?
Siornor, Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, and 7 othersLord Dominator, Uan aa Boa, Canaltia, Sean fiobha, Difinbelk, York Zionia, and Forest Virginia
Holy ****. I just got another season 3 legendary on one of my card farming alts. And it was the same one I got on my main.
Lord Dominator and Kuraiva
I was talking about the EC because that's what was brought up but technically speaking the US is a Consitutional Federal Republic. Not a democracy.
Perhaps though it's difficult for the minority to control everything the way the US has so many checks and balances in place.
You would be surprised how many well regulated militias there are in the United States.
I tend to agree that their could be a better balance but I do think it is either a "heart" (hate) problem or a mental health problem. At it's core, I believe it goes back to having so many broken homes in the world today. In the majority of mass shooting events you have two or three common denominators: either the person was bullied a lot growing up or they did not grow up in a loving/caring home. Occasionally the parents are "enablers" so to speak.
Oh and while we are at it, are we going to ban knives too? If we didn't have knives those 4 college kids in Idaho would still be alive, right?
Evil will always be evil.
Siornor, Lord Dominator, Canaltia, McClandia Doge 2, and 1 otherDifinbelk
I've sometimes meant to say more in response to your well made points on these areas but not found time to, so here goes. As a preface, of course you're right about questioning and critical thinking.
Guns
It's hard to get around the disbelief most British people feel watching reports of yet another US massacre. I know there isn't a direct correlation between owning guns and using them, and that ownership rates in Norway and Switzerland are at least as high as in the US. Since the UK is in the important respects more like those countries than it's like the US we could maybe have some more guns in circulation without major harm resulting, but do you think people in significant numbers are being restrained by UK law or is it more the case that people don't really want them? I don't pick up on much popular demand for change. In New Zealand after the Christchurch mosque shooting many people disposed of legally held guns as a response. There have been two mass shootings in the UK in my lifetime (Hungerford and Dunblane) and both led directly to widely supported tightening of the rules. Different countries have different cultures. So maybe there are some valid points to be made, but not by US Republicans. The American debate on guns takes place in a uniquely American context that is incomprehensible to most outsiders. It has limited relevance elsewhere.
Abortion
I genuinely respect the carefully explained case you've made that's anti-abortion on the basis of scientific evidence and moral reasoning consistently applied from clearly stated premises. In the case of most other pro-life people, especially in the US, you don't have to scratch far below the surface to find that what they actually want to regulate is sex in general and female sexuality in particular. I know you've argued that the fact that unsavoury people agree with you doesn't undermine the validity of your position. Logically it certainly doesn't. In terms of realpolitik it absolutely does. In a way your position is a bit like that of the people who made a leftwing case for Brexit - that didn't turn out so well.
Corporations
On both sides of the Atlantic the horse has bolted and we have to be honest about the limited effectiveness of closing the stable door now. Look at the flow of personnel between government and corporations (e.g. Sajid Javid's rapid move from cabinet to the board of JP Morgan and back, or Nick Clegg's transition from deputy PM to Facebook) and the likely later career trajectory of many politicians. Look at the relationship between the UK politics and the print media, the data on the role of social media in the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum, the PPE contract fast lane and the failure to enforce what rules there are on lobbying. Perhaps in a cosy Politics 101 seminar government regulates corporations over which it holds power, but the real world situation is considerably more complex.
Siornor, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Canaltia, and 3 othersMiddle Barael, Difinbelk, and Vrigny
Fun Fact: Democracy is when the people of the country elect who runs the country and leads them :) in free, open and equitable elections.
so par de do
America is a democracy 😏😏😏
Because you have things called elections ;)
There are multiple levels of democracy depending on how close the democratic process is to the definition of democracy...
America is a flawed democracy
Norway is a true democracy
Australia is a good democracy
China isn't a democracy
;) :) :p
I think on the whole this definition of democracy is well-accepted, as is the claim that america "has elections." to what extent those elections qualify as "free, open, and equitable," and whether or not they actually constitute a situation wherein "the people of the country elect who runs the country and leads them" is debatable at best.
Lord Dominator, Middle Barael, and Far away enough
Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and Sean fiobha
The statement that <country> has almost as high ownership rates as the US does is wrong. The US has by far the highest number of guns, with roughly quadruple the per capita number that Norway and Switzerland have (although, within the US, neither gun control nor gun ownership is a good predictor of gun deaths). Focusing on mass shootings, as we tend to do, is roughly the worst way to try to measure gun deaths, given that deaths from mass shootings are statistically meaningless everywhere. In the US, the person who is by far the most likely to kill you with a gun is you, and no amount of gun control is going to deal with the mental health crisis.
But yeah, there's a pretty different culture around guns here in the US than anywhere else. After all, rates of gun purchases go up after mass shootings, as democrats immediately try to pass the next wave of doomed gun control bills, so people buy more guns while they still can. I've noticed the cultural differences in literature too. Reading a fiction book set in Australia, I initially got confused why a couple of characters were freaking out over the fact that one guy owned a gun, until I remembered that oh yeah, people don't own guns in Australia.
It's worth noting that at least in the western world, while corporations have more power than they should, whenever the government decides to put its foot down corporations either yield or die, and there are plenty of regulatory agencies (eg OSHA) that are pretty much able to have their way with misbehaving companies.
Once you get past Trump's whining (also, his company was recently found guilty on all counts for a bunch of financial charges, hurray) it becomes apparent that America's elections are free, open, and mostly equitable (thanks for the "mostly", gerrymandering). Continued examination of the political system reveals that most how deeply engrained the need for politicians to have support from the voters is. Even when only one party is competitive, getting primaried is a serious concern for most politicians, and when it isn't, even those politicians have to do their best to help the many others who are in less stable circumstances.
First off, shooting guns is definitely a bunch of fun. Since you mentioned you were potentially interested in buying a gun, it might be a good idea to have a friend take you out to go target shooting.
Second off, since said you think it's immoral to shoot and kill somebody on purpose in self-defense, don't get or carry a gun for self-defense. If you're ever shooting at another living being you should always be shooting to kill. Don't point a loaded gun at anyone you aren't willing to kill.
Thirdly, "sniper rifles" is a pretty bad distinction to try to make. Realistically, almost every rifle would probably qualify if you bolted a scope on them, and any rifle you would take big game hunting would definitely qualify. Speaking of hunting, add that to your good reasons to own a gun- well-managed hunting is an important part of wildlife conservation efforts, and something that a lot of people enjoy.
One final thing to note: in the US, despite easy legal access to far superior firearms, almost every gun crime is committed with an illegally obtained pistol.
I like this whole argument, although I'd counterargue in saying that, as someone who knows a great deal of people who own guns in a relatively rural state, that owning a gun is useful in other ways. Granted, it's rarely necessary outside of being a hermit living off of wildlife. But then again cars are not necessary per se (though they're far closer to it in the US given our lack of public transportation).
Certainly, we've a lot of individuals who use guns for hunting (which I'm not in favor of, but apparently they help fill an ecological niche of sorts during hunting seasons so... I guess). Plus it does provide a lot more protection from wildlife. As someone whose mother was in relatively close proximity to a rabid raccoon, she was quite thankful a neighbor had a gun to take it out. (Rabies might not kill a great deal of humans each year, but it's a surprisingly frightening and frankly efficient-in-nature disease.) Plus you never know if you disturb a mother bear or pack of coyotes or some jack.
Is that useful in the inner city? Well, no... maybe? Admittedly I'm not too well-versed on gang violence / modern mafia so idk if guns are that relevant or, if they are, if heavily restricting them would help a great deal or not due to illegal acquirement anyway; if anyone knows a bit more about this topic in particular I'd be delighted to know more ^^ (ideally not at gunpoint) [also I'm aware of your huge post Canaltia but I already took like 40 minutes typing this instead of doing my math homework and I've got two chapters I haven't started due tonight. hnghgnhghhj) [edit2: I see Window Land mentioned illegally obtained pistols; was kinda what I was referring to lol]
It's flawed, for sure. But we're significantly more democratic than most places, and I'd also argue that individual states are more democratic than others or even the federal government itself. To start, even though the EC is definitely flawed (giving substantially more weight to rural places with fewer people*, gerrymandering, etc.) it's not entirely broken. It's pretty rare for the EC to actually vote counter to the majority of people in their jurisdiction; in fact I think some state constitutions outright prohibit doing such. (Though if anyone could confirm or disprove that '^^) Maine and Nebraska are interesting in that they actually do vote with the majority of their state population in addition to individual voting districts (which I believe, along with them both being rural, is partly why they aren't in favor of signing up to the whole "EC votes with the majority of US voters" thing).
Plus, on a state or local level, things are also done significantly differently. Some towns elect a figure head and have a council that basically decides everything else; others have a town-meeting style of handling things (rare; Maine's got a lot of those still though). Some states have judges elected, recall elections, the right to petition to make ideas become laws, and/or a constitutional provision ensuring amendments or even some statutes acquire a majority public vote, while others don't even have term limits. So even if the federal system is definitely sketchy, at least on a lower level many states are significantly more democratic (and in some cases, like electing judges... maybe slightly "too" democratic, but that's how they run things and they're free to disagree with my stance on that ;p)
*Extensive Sidenote: Giving rural states a bit more power isn't entirely uncalled for, since honestly if a civil war broke out between urban and rural populations I think the rural side would easily win, given they have far more land, barebones resources (food) and control of it, and are generally more physically coordinated and less afraid of guns. Not to say it's "fair" in any way, but it's true they have different values and a partial concession was a way of ensuring they stay happy (ed: and maybe also keep city-folks from making unrealistic demands on rural folks causing systemic collapse or whatever). Well, that, and I'd argue they're a bit less easily corrupted than major cities much of the time. Plus then there's the whole "states get two votes" thing which is a remnant from the old confederacy (no not the southern one, the one before the union) giving individual states more autonomy. Whether that's fair is up for debate but it did lend to the fact that the federal government used to have significantly less power in domestic affairs and used to act less nationalistic and a bit more akin to how the EU is today.** Heck, it used to be that senators were not even elected; but eventually states decided that people would elect them, so that's something at least.
**Addendum: I might also add that today's president is ludicrously more powerful (and I'd argue dangerous) than old ones. Probably better than the laissez-faire ones of ye olden but honestly I fear how much they can straight-up ignore congressional statutes and do what they want.
I will add, though, that even with primaries (open/closed/closed-but-open-for-independents) I frankly do not understand how we've been ending up with our only two options. Alas.
Siornor, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Sean fiobha, and 2 othersGarbelia, and Difinbelk
Bye-Bye embassy.
Have a good day forest!
Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 7 othersSean fiobha, Lura, Garbelia, Furilisca, Laforeia, Far away enough, and Kuraiva
Hello all! Resurfacing here. Just wanted to say thank you to whoever nominated me for the nice list. It was lovely to have been thought of in that way. The nation who nominated me did not leave their name, so if it was you then thank you!
Cuillin also wonders if it will also get added to this year's naughty list too ;)
Einswenn, Siornor, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and 5 othersLord Dominator, Sean fiobha, Garbelia, Laforeia, and Far away enough
hi
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. All good points!
To be honest I've never considered the morality of self defense but if my life is ever in imminent danger I will do everything in my power to ensure I walk away in one piece with no holes.
Siornor, Jutsa, Window Land, Lord Dominator, and 4 othersSean fiobha, Garbelia, Difinbelk, and Laforeia
I can sadly say that this embassy will be ending soon, however I and many others will always know you all as friends of The North Pacific, I apologize for all the troubles we have caused in your regional message board over the time we have been an embassy. I wish you all a merry Christmas this year, you are all on my nice list, I bid you farewell in three days Forest.
- CHERN0BYL 2 of The North Pacific
Siornor, Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, and 9 othersLord Dominator, Sean fiobha, Lura, Middle Barael, Garbelia, Forest Virginia, Annarheim, Laforeia, and Far away enough
Don't worry; we'll still hopefully be involved together somehow off-site, like on-forum or via discord. Likewise, I hope you all have a good Christmas and good fortune in your region. Y'all are my personal favorite GCR (sorry TEP but you've fallen to second lol); I do hope we can interact with each other in some other way in due time. ^^
Siornor, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Sean fiobha, and 5 othersMcClandia Doge 2, Garbelia, CHERN0BYL 2, Annarheim, and Laforeia
To be clear, I wouldn't advocate to legally treat self-defense killings as crimes. That's pretty stupid. It's just a position I arrived at through my own thoughts. I don't know if I'd agree with the "always be shooting to kill" thing personally, but I've never taken a gun safety course and you sound like you have, so I'll defer to your knowledge. Point taken.
I shoulda just said "assault weapons". At least I'd have been wrong in the usual way. I was using it as shorthand for weapons clearly intended to kill from long distances, like a Barrett .50 cal or something (bad example in this case, since you can't restrict the ammo, but still). Just really excessive for anything non-military. If you're hunting from 1,000 yards out, I think you are boring, so I don't mind it if you have to move closer, or if you go to a shooting range.
And I'm actually friends with quite a few people who hunt, so I'd have a group to go out with. We get deer meat from one of them sometimes. I'm definitely interested in hunting, so hopefully I get around to getting a license at some point in the future.
Aren't most gun deaths also suicides? Really speaks to it being more of a "mental health" thing than an "inherently evil" thing imo, but I'm no sociologist. But yeah, most violent crimes aren't premeditated and thought out in great detail, so it doesn't surprise me that gun crime just happens with what's available.
"Illegally obtained" surprises me though. It's not unbelievable, but it wasn't expected at the very least. I have a sneaking suspicion it's somehow related to the war on drugs, but it'd probably be too indirect to prove definitively if that was the case.
If I could borrow a couple endorsements for a quick GA proposal submission, I would appreciate it.
Siornor, Jutsa, McClandia Doge 2, Difinbelk, and 2 othersOceanica Empire, and Ecologist Hegemony
heyo
And with those two, I depart once more lest my stats take a beating.
My moment of glory continues to draw near.
There isn't really a point in regulating long guns any further. They're far less regulated than handguns are already and still are used in far fewer crimes. Also, violent crimes aren't committed from a thousand yards away, they're done up close and personal. Further restrictions will simply make law-abiding gun owners grumpy, rather than make any meaningful impact on crime.
Well, I mentioned earlier that most gun deaths are suicides (about 2/3 of gun-related deaths), in the US at least. But when I said gun crimes, I meant crimes committed with the use of guns, rather than suicides or accidents, or legal usage of guns. And those gun crimes are pretty definitely done with illegal guns, especially in large cities, and states with more restrictive gun laws[1]. Things do seem tangentially tied to drug dealers, as some of them unsurprisingly do weapons deals as well. A lot of early gun control had the implicit or explicit goal of preventing black from defending themselves, as well.
[1]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/
Jutsa, Lord Dominator, and Canaltia
Awe, no more embassies with the TNP, and hey, I respect the decision, you gotta do what you gotta do. Besides, I reckon the relationships are not strained and will continue even without embassies. <3
Bye bye to 
Valentine Z on this RMB, BUT say hello to 
Victoriaans Nederlands!
(I was supposed to put Nederland as I learned but I can't fix the name so... Ouch.)
Einswenn, Siornor, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and 11 othersLord Dominator, Uan aa Boa, McClandia Doge 2, Frokolia, Difinbelk, Communist Beijing Must be China, Nordustra, Marlducro, Furilisca, Far away enough, and Kuraiva
«12. . .2,4682,4692,4702,4712,4722,4732,474. . .2,6472,648»
Advertisement
