Trucks... My Opionin whats yours
|
The lesson to be learned here is that someone who wants to commit mass murder will be able to do so, no matter what you ban. Human beings are fragile creatures, and we can't let the accounting of the slain obscure the often much higher numbers of those injured or even crippled by these attacks, or the lasting damage to a free society which is the goal of terrorism.
Firearms, pressure cooker bombs (Boston Marathon), trucks, airliners, toxins, disease, radiological contaminants... And those are only some of the obvious possibilities. Humans are as ingenious as they are capable of applying that ingenuity to whatever their aim. You can't ban the weapons. So what do you ban? ='[.]'= =^[.]^= basic (happy/amused) cheetahmoticon: Whiskers/eye/tear-streak/nose/tear-streak/eye/
whiskers =@[.]@= boggled / =>[.]<= annoyed or angry / ='[.]'= concerned / =0[.]o= confuzzled / =-[.]-= sad or sleepy / =*[.]*= dazzled / =^[.]~= wink / =~[.]^= naughty wink / =9[.]9= rolleyes #FourYearLie |
|
|
I think they should ban trucks TBO. If anything this recent occurrence just proves how much more OP trucks are than AR-15s. The difference is, some of you are for gun control, but I'm for truck control.
Last edited by MrSmiley21 on Jul 15, 2016, 5:27:57 AM
|
|
" We should just stop giving muslims to trucks. Trucks are not responsible for this tragedy. Ban all the muslims drivers and trucks will be peaceful again. Forum pvp Last edited by lolozori on Jul 15, 2016, 6:05:23 AM
| |
" I don't know a lot about French Politics, but Front National in France seems to be the only one who's against flooding their country with Muslim refugees. People in France should vote for Front National. Here in the USA, we got Donald Trump. People just need to start electing better leadership, and not leftist "Islam is a religion of peace" mouth breathers. There is already political backlash over this in many countries, and its only gaining in popularity the more they engage in attacks like this. They're going to not only find themselves not welcome in most of the world, but find themselves being attacked by most of the world at the same time if they keep up these terrorist attacks. Attacks like this don't just impact France, but the opinions of people and potential policy decisions in other countries as well. Look, here is what I expect from refugees: - Make an effort to assimilate. - Learn our language. - Make an effort to find and keep a job. - Don't make demands. - Don't think raping 5 year olds is OK. And most important of all - don't blow me up! Last edited by MrSmiley21 on Jul 15, 2016, 6:24:33 AM
|
|
" Counterpoint: the other day, in the Dallas shooting, many people open carried semiautomatic rifles in a pacific protest and yet no one went of their way to kill the guy. In Texas. That's bad luck Brian tier shit. He was so deadly that cops had to use a robot with a bomb (a bad guy with a gun will be stopped by a good guy with a bomb! Open Carry bombs!). People often forget that arming the population means that police will have bigger guns. It's a question of time until a militia decides to attack for random reasons (we already have terrorists, not just muslims, but of all flavors in a place like US). Should we make it easier? I think giving big guns to the population is stupid for those outliers, but in the big scheme of things (if you read statistics) are infrequent, so I admit that is useless to attack it by mere bans. Also, what will happen in the future? For example, if a big economic collapse happens. How violent people will be? People get emotional about guns (I'm to blame too I admit it), but it seems one of those problems that you have to study and see how to solve, and it may have a solution that doesn't satisfy any side with a strong ideology (be pro gun and anti gun). The long term strategy is people getting peaceful (not necessarily a gun ban). But we have to consider how much power is right for everyone. Add a Forsaken Masters questline https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 Last edited by NeroNoah on Jul 15, 2016, 6:52:54 AM
| |
|
.
Last edited by Entropic_Fire on Oct 26, 2016, 8:40:08 PM
|
|
" "people break laws, so why have laws?" Surely you know how friggin stupid that is. A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785 Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403 | |
" Antnee, you have always had my admiration and respect as a poster. Don't spoil that by calling me stupid. The question is "Why have ineffective laws which only penalize the law abiding?" ='[.]'= =^[.]^= basic (happy/amused) cheetahmoticon: Whiskers/eye/tear-streak/nose/tear-streak/eye/
whiskers =@[.]@= boggled / =>[.]<= annoyed or angry / ='[.]'= concerned / =0[.]o= confuzzled / =-[.]-= sad or sleepy / =*[.]*= dazzled / =^[.]~= wink / =~[.]^= naughty wink / =9[.]9= rolleyes #FourYearLie |
|
"I'd never call you stupid. Sorry. But the sentiment you expressed... it's very reductive and lazy reasoning. I've seen it a hundred times, and each time it makes me wince. All laws that aren't "don't kill" are restrictive to the law-abiding. If drinking and driving wasn't such a problem, we wouldn't need to ban it. After all, the act of being drunk behind the wheel isn't bad in and of itself... but we know that drunk people tend to get in fatal accidents more often than sober drivers. So I can't drink and drive because someone else fucked that up. The logic is the same. Guns with a high rate of fire, or ones that are too easily reloadable, or whatever metric you wanna use... Well, someone fucked that up. Doing nothing is exactly that; doing nothing. Banning whatevergunyouwish is something, and I can at least see why people want to do it. Grow up where I grew up and tell me MORE GUNS is the answer. To say that people will just kill people anyway so why bother? It's lazy as fuck. Taking that logic to its natural conclusion is anarchy, and I have never seen an anarchist that wasn't thoroughly intoxicated on their own farts. For what it's worth, I'm pretty back-and-forth on the 2nd. I think there are compelling arguments on both sides, and I don't really know which side I'm on. But, I hope you get the following: "People will just kill people anyway, so why not let people enrich uranium?" A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785 Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403 | |
" In the US, at least, there is a line drawn at infringing upon enumerated rights, e.g., keeping and bearing arms. Note I said enumerated, not granted, as the Constitution merely guarantees those rights the Founders acknowledged as inherent, human rights. We may just be a bunch of cranky rednecks who cling bitterly in defiance of all rationality, but then, maybe we're NOT. There is no right enumerated OR granted within the law to willfully endanger others (which the simple lawful possession of any weapon does not constitute), thus, drunk driving is illegal. It's just citing a false equivalency, and is disingenuous on the face of it, as is your last question. Finally, my point was not "people will just kill people anyway so why bother?" It was that terrorists will just kill people anyway so why attempt to limit the established rights of the law-abiding to try to stop those who will stop at NOTHING to kill? ='[.]'= =^[.]^= basic (happy/amused) cheetahmoticon: Whiskers/eye/tear-streak/nose/tear-streak/eye/
whiskers =@[.]@= boggled / =>[.]<= annoyed or angry / ='[.]'= concerned / =0[.]o= confuzzled / =-[.]-= sad or sleepy / =*[.]*= dazzled / =^[.]~= wink / =~[.]^= naughty wink / =9[.]9= rolleyes #FourYearLie |
|
