# Lots of shootings...



## /wrists

If you're American, how does it feel to risk your life getting shot when you shop at a grocery store now more than ever? 

If you're a parent, even more relevant, what are some thoughts you have around sending your child to a public school that could potentially be shot up due to the culture? 

Any thoughts of what should be done or if anything should be done at all? 

There definitely appears to be an increase in mass shootings and I'm interested in hearing different thoughts.


----------



## MFB

evade said:


> If you're American, how does it feel to risk your life getting shot when you shop at a grocery store now more than ever?



Well, I'm white and avoid country music festivals and schools (easy when you're not allowed within 100 ft of them! *insert canned laugh here*) so I'm not really too worried. Plus, even if I do get shot, I'm fine with my ticket gets punched early, I feel like I've been on borrowed time for about ...12 years now.


----------



## /wrists

MFB said:


> Well, I'm white and avoid country music festivals and schools (easy when you're not allowed within 100 ft of them! *insert canned laugh here*) so I'm not really too worried. Plus, even if I do get shot, I'm fine with my ticket gets punched early, I feel like I've been on borrowed time for about ...12 years now.


Word brother. That's how I feel too.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

how to not get murdered at *insert location*

1. actually having situational awareness
2. always know where the closest exits are
3. run and hide if you can't easily escape
4. stay strapped or get clapped* (also train with your gat) 


1 and 2 are wayyyyyyy more important.


----------



## /wrists

KnightBrolaire said:


> how to not get murdered at *insert location*
> 
> 1. actually having situational awareness
> 2. always know where the closest exits are
> 3. stay strapped or get clapped* (also train with your gat)


Imagine that being the mindset when sending a child to school.


----------



## mbardu

evade said:


> Imagine that being the mindset when sending a child to school.



Silly you.
No, the mindset for children in school is armed teachers, tactical blankets and bulletproof backpacks


----------



## DarrellM5

I carry protection and have a lot of training, plus I maintain situational awareness at all times. It's not like the U.S. is a shooting gallery. There are sick people in every country that do really bad things with whatever tools they can get their hands on. For the most part, we have very little of these types of incidents in the states where people can concealed carry. An armed society is a polite society.

BTW, there will always be an uptick in shootings when the politicians are trying to pass gun control restrictions. It seems like as soon as they start pushing their anti-gun agenda someone says "cue the shootings in the gun free zones". Also, the media is in on it. They go all out to exploit any shooting and will rarely ever show when a good person with a gun stops a bad situation (which happens a lot).

Our highest violent crime rates are in our cities and states with the most restrictions on firearms ownership.


----------



## /wrists

DarrellM5 said:


> I carry protection and have a lot of training, plus I maintain situational awareness at all times. It's not like the U.S. is a shooting gallery. There are sick people in every country that do really bad things with whatever tools they can get their hands on. For the most part, we have very little of these types of incidents in the states where people can concealed carry. An armed society is a polite society.
> 
> BTW, there will always be an uptick in shootings when the politicians are trying to pass gun control restrictions. It seems like as soon as they start pushing their anti-gun agenda someone says "cue the shootings in the gun free zones". Also, the media is in on it. They go all out to exploit any shooting and will rarely ever show when a good person with a gun stops a bad situation (which happens a lot).
> 
> Our highest violent crime rates are in our cities and states with the most restrictions on firearms ownership.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not also saying you're right. Mass shootings is a culture that is uniquely American. Yes, there are sick people in every country. We have a lot of people. We do a lot of nothing about it.

But yes, since it's most likely impossible to disarm everyone, I agree that arming everyone is the right idea.


Kinder Guardians | Who Is America? | Sacha Baron Cohen SHOWTIME Series ​


----------



## mbardu

DarrellM5 said:


> I carry protection and have a lot of training, plus I maintain situational awareness at all times. It's not like the U.S. is a shooting gallery. There are sick people in every country that do really bad things with whatever tools they can get their hands on. For the most part, we have very little of these types of incidents in the states where people can concealed carry. An armed society is a polite society.
> 
> BTW, there will always be an uptick in shootings when the politicians are trying to pass gun control restrictions. It seems like as soon as they start pushing their anti-gun agenda someone says "cue the shootings in the gun free zones". Also, the media is in on it. They go all out to exploit any shooting and will rarely ever show when a good person with a gun stops a bad situation (which happens a lot).
> 
> Our highest violent crime rates are in our cities and states with the most restrictions on firearms ownership.



And here's the reason why this only happens in America


----------



## bostjan

I grew up in Detroit in the 80's. I now live in rural VT. I feel safer now than ever before. There were school shootings in Detroit way back before it was the popular thing to do, just no one talked about them in the national forum.

Violence here in the USA is a huge problem. Guns are a huge problem, because you hand out guns to a bunch of people and a large portion of those people have violent tendencies, well, guess what happens. But, take their guns away and they'll stop shooting (which is good and I don't want to sound like it's a bad idea), and they'll still be violent people.

So, the root cause of the problem is the violent people, and those people are supercharged with powerful killing tools. There might not be any way to mitigate the root cause in any case, and there may not be any way to keep those tools designed for mass killing out of their hands as long as the NRA has it's hand up the government's ass, so, what can you do?

I predict that this never gets properly addressed in the USA. We'll just keep getting crazier and crazier until we are a third world country.


----------



## MFB

DarrellM5 said:


> I carry protection and have a lot of training, plus I maintain situational awareness at all times.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

evade said:


> Imagine that being the mindset when sending a child to school.


situational awareness and knowing where the closest exit is are just basic survival skills. They apply to other issues like fires, other environmental hazards, etc. It's a lot harder to get caught in bad situations when you pay attention to your surroundings and avoid getting trapped. They're useful skills at any age. 

I'm not advocating for kids or untrained dipshits carrying weapons. Tools are useless without proper training.


----------



## sleewell

schools
hospitals
concerts
places of worship
busy intersections
movie theatres


i think all of these places and more need to have a strong police presence and fort knox level security at all times. this is the only way we are going to be safe and feel free. just a total and complete police and military presence everywhere we go and we should get mexico to pay for it. the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have more good guys with guns who wait around for at least an hour while kids are getting killed. send in the gravy seals!!!!


----------



## /wrists

KnightBrolaire said:


> situational awareness and knowing where the closest exit is are just basic survival skills. They apply to other issues like fires, other environmental hazards, etc. It's a lot harder to get caught in bad situations when you pay attention to your surroundings and avoid getting trapped.
> 
> I'm not advocating for kids or untrained dipshits carrying weapons. Tools are useless without proper training.


Take a moment and watch that video I linked.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

evade said:


> Take a moment and watch that video I linked.


lmao


----------



## jaxadam

Hey god - Funny


20,997 points • 239 comments




9gag.com


----------



## mbardu

jaxadam said:


> Hey god - Funny
> 
> 
> 20,997 points • 239 comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9gag.com



Hey don't post stuff like that, you're going to bruise some egos.
Everyone thinks they're secretly a self-defense-expert sharpshooting-uberman and that they'd be the good guy with a gun that easily wins against any assailant.


----------



## bostjan

That's the thing. It's good to have a laugh, but the comedy hits because it's got a pound of truth in it.

A gun is a very powerful tool for killing things. It doesn't protect you in any situation where being able to kill something could protect you. For example, against a person with a gun who intends to kill you, you are already necessarily at a disadvantage in that, by the time you go for your gun, you are already dead by the other person's gun. This is a logical problem with the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

People aren't storming schools or nightclubs or churches with a musket or a revolver or even a semi-automatic pistol, these people are coming in with multiple shotguns and semi-auto rifles and sometimes bombs, too. Sometimes they buy these guns legally, sometimes not. So some people in congress are trying to pass legislation banning magazines that hold large amounts of ammo, which is a step, but those high capacity magazines are already out there and there's no way they will suddenly stop being used in mass shootings.

It's like early 90's congress (Bill Clinton era) saw the cat coming out of the bag and shoved him back in there, and put a sticker over the bag saying "Do not open until Christmas," assuming that, by Christmas, people would wise up. But, instead, someone opened the bag and let the cat out and now the mice are standing around going "Hmm, how do we get the cat back into this ripped-open bag and seal him in there?"

Except it's way worse than that, because the cat is crazed murders, the bag is them not having guns, and the mice are ourselves, our family, and our children. Except we can't even agree to stop the bad people from getting guns because, well, what if that means that some of the good people who want guns can no longer get them conveniently anymore...


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I work in public schools. I don't worry about it beyond a baseline level of awareness.

As for what should be done, the history of gun control is inextricably connected to cis-hetero-white-supremacy. All of the suggested gun control measures will disproportionately effect trans/queer/POC, the very populations at high risk for being victims of gun violence.

The only people I'd be happy seeing guns taken from is cops, there's no way to take or keep guns away from anyone else without disenfranchising already-marginalized populations even further.

In other words, what I think should be done looks a lot like Black Panthers at polling places and:








EDIT: I'd drop the obligatory "mental health" too, but I'm taking a realistic view, and the amount of shit that needs reformed or just burnt down and the earth around it salted in order to prevent these problems _via_ mental health counseling is _too damn high_.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I have absolutely zero fear of getting shot at any time that I'm out in public. I'd venture a guess that everyone around me at the grocery or wherever feels the same way. I live in a conservative town just outside Austin and at least here, most of us go about our daily lives without fear. But I'm not a minority either... I'm not gay, nor Jewish, nor Asian so it's hard to say if I was anything other than an ugly white male, that I'd feel the same way. And that's not to say that a lot of us aren't living with a heightened awareness about what's going on in the world as well as here at home, but I think that people in general are mostly just trying to get by the best that they can while they raise their kids, work, and enjoy their leisure time. 

It's a much different world now as opposed to a couple years ago but I have to say that the majority of people that I know well or that I simply shoot the shit with, are not at all consumed with the news headlines. I'd guess that many of them don't watch or listen to much news at all in fact. I dunno if that's a good or bad thing... the whole "ignorance is bliss" mentality. But I know that most people don't want to be stressed or agitated... likely because that negativity takes so much out of them. They just want to get through their day the best that they can and for better or for worse, that's partly how they do it. They stay away from the news and the hot-button topics for the most part. I'm not defending anyone nor am I wagging my finger at them as if they should care more about current events and world issues. It's just how they are and if nothing else, I do understand that perspective. 

Even my wife doesn't wish to hear about all the negativity and infuriating or heart-breaking news stories because she ( like so many others) works long hours and just wants to come home and relax/ decompress. And although I'm different because I have more free time and more of an interest in what's going on in the world, I certainly don't wish to bring her down with a lot of "Oh you'll never believe what happened today" because it's not what she wants to hear and I respect that. She's a very upbeat and positive person and she deserves to live her life that way despite that I wish she would take more of an interest in some of what may ultimately affect her at some point down the road.

I do think that we've reached a point though, where more needs to be done in the context of a society that has become seriously divided and compromised in regards to gun violence. Sadly though, there is no simple nor assured solution at this point. I'm afraid that this country, already divided... will only become more so with one side constantly "infringing" upon the "rights" of the other side.. That seems to be the perception anyway. So anger and tension rise... then fall... and nothing really changes. 

I wasn't much of an advocate of gun reform until a few years ago... Honestly it wasn't really on my radar much because it didn't directly affect me. But now as I'm able to step back and look at things from a broader view, I realize that there is a lot wrong with the way that state and federal govt addresses ( or ignores) gun issues. And I don't think as long as we live in a country that is so helpless of government, religion, and corporate interest being so intertwined, we will ever be able to get a handle on bipartisan legislation. Add into that our "patriotic" citizen's nauseating interpretation of "freedom" and we just have one hell of an uphill battle to stem the tide. 

I think that responsible consciousness starts at home and in our schools... education, selflessness, and social awareness. And I think that it starts with our health and welfare system which is absolutely broken ( maybe beyond repair at this point). It incenses me and breaks my heart at the same time, that physical and mental healthcare is so far out of reach of those that need it in the US. And I feel that prison reform and drug rehabilitation comes into play here as well. We desperately need and deserve to have a government that is level-headed and able to come together for the benefit and safety of its citizens... leaders mindful of accountability and steadfast in resolution. But as long as our US government continues to engage in such depths of corruption and dirty greedy politics as they do, I think that we can kiss that prospect goodbye. 

Sadly, I really doubt it at this point that anything can or will be done to make a significant impact on gun violence in the US. We are again heading for quite a tumultuous and potentially dangerous time as we move into the next few years and I unfortunately feel that very little will be done nor that any effectiveness may be long-lived. We have the tools to make changes but I don't believe that between our corruptible government and strongly divided citizens, that we will ever be able to change things for the better in this country.


----------



## AMOS

There's mass shootings in Chicago every weekend that the media never talks about, but they always welcome the stats to make the total tally look more gruesome to the public eye.


----------



## jaxadam

No better time for everyone to brush up on their favorite MMA uncle, Bas Rutten's tips for self defense.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

All I want for Christmas is for this thread to entail real discussions of the legacy of gun control in the US, and not to turn into 5 pages of uselessly dogpiling the forum's token conservative for cheap dopamine hits.

Y'all can do it.


----------



## AMOS

wheresthefbomb said:


> I work in public schools. I don't worry about it beyond a baseline level of awareness.
> 
> As for what should be done, the history of gun control is inextricably connected to cis-hetero-white-supremacy. All of the suggested gun control measures will disproportionately effect trans/queer/POC, the very populations at high risk for being victims of gun violence.
> 
> The only people I'd be happy seeing guns taken from is cops, there's no way to take or keep guns away from anyone else without disenfranchising already-marginalized populations even further.
> 
> In other words, what I think should be done looks a lot like Black Panthers at polling places and:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: I'd drop the obligatory "mental health" too, but I'm taking a realistic view, and the amount of shit that needs reformed or just burnt down and the earth around it salted in order to prevent these problems _via_ mental health counseling is _too damn high_.


An Un-regulated Militia? That'll go over well.


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> All I want for Christmas is for this thread to entail real discussions of the legacy of gun control in the US, and not to turn into 5 pages of uselessly dogpiling the forum's token conservative for cheap dopamine hits.
> 
> Y'all can do it.


SSO gonna SSO...

Honestly, I don't think there can ever be a productive discussion about gun control. If you put ten people in a room and ask them to hash it out, 8 people won't be able to get a word in over the two diametrically opposed who will just shout nonsense at each other from extreme logical places.


----------



## StevenC

DarrellM5 said:


> I carry protection and have a lot of training, plus I maintain situational awareness at all times. It's not like the U.S. is a shooting gallery. There are sick people in every country that do really bad things with whatever tools they can get their hands on. For the most part, we have very little of these types of incidents in the states where people can concealed carry. An armed society is a polite society.
> 
> BTW, there will always be an uptick in shootings when the politicians are trying to pass gun control restrictions. It seems like as soon as they start pushing their anti-gun agenda someone says "cue the shootings in the gun free zones". Also, the media is in on it. They go all out to exploit any shooting and will rarely ever show when a good person with a gun stops a bad situation (which happens a lot).
> 
> Our highest violent crime rates are in our cities and states with the most restrictions on firearms ownership.


You're fucking mad.

We could all sit and have the conversation about how to stop this, but it is a solved problem and a large chunk of americans don't want to hear it.


----------



## bostjan

The top ten states with the most gun violence:

1. Mississippi (concealed carry state)
2. Louisiana (concealed carry state)
3. Wyoming (concealed carry state)
4. Missouri (concealed carry state)
5. Alabama (concealed carry state)
6. Alaska (concealed carry state)
7. New Mexico (concealed carry state)
8. Arkansas (concealed carry state)
9. South Carolina (concealed carry state)
10. Tennessee (concealed carry state)


----------



## AMOS

wheresthefbomb said:


> All I want for Christmas is for this thread to entail real discussions of the legacy of gun control in the US, and not to turn into 5 pages of uselessly dogpiling the forum's token conservative for cheap dopamine hits.
> 
> Y'all can do it.


I don't go long enough without getting banned to get dogpiled that much


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I think acknowledging the _deeply_ racist legacy of gun control before rushing to institute _more_ policies that would effectively carry on Jim Crow style institutional disenfranchisement is a pretty solid first step that doesn't require anyone to give up their convictions, just to consider them in the light of some historical context. Nothing happens in a vacuum. 

Bad people killing people with guns is bad, but being unable/unwilling to ask whether more gun regulations is the correct solution is a symptom of this issue being politicized. 

Gun violence in the US is a cultural issue, steeped in a legacy of imperialism and slavery. No amount of regulation will change that, and while it would be nice if we could create something different, in the meantime we are left with only the material conditions of our existence, against which I unconditionally support the right of the most vulnerable to be able to defend themselves.


----------



## AMOS

There are lots of local liberals that have gotten their LTC, and that was before all this stuff started. They know what crime is, they know what defenseless is, and they don't want to be a victim. I support anyone that's lawful that carries a gun, I don't care if they're gay, hindu, black or latino. Everyone deserves the same right to self defense.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> that was before all this stuff started


You're going to need to define some terms here


----------



## AMOS

bostjan said:


> The top ten states with the most gun violence:
> 
> 1. Mississippi (concealed carry state)
> 2. Louisiana (concealed carry state)
> 3. Wyoming (concealed carry state)
> 4. Missouri (concealed carry state)
> 5. Alabama (concealed carry state)
> 6. Alaska (concealed carry state)
> 7. New Mexico (concealed carry state)
> 8. Arkansas (concealed carry state)
> 9. South Carolina (concealed carry state)
> 10. Tennessee (concealed carry state)


Are the ones creating the gun violence the ones with conceal carry permits? or are they the ones that can't get a conceal carry permit because of their criminal record? But they conceal carry a gun anyway. Massachusetts is a conceal carry state btw. Vermont, Maine and NH requires no license to carry a handgun, so I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> You're going to need to define some terms here


School shootings etc..


----------



## Xaios

Christ...

The notion of children having to know how to react in the event of an active shooter in a school is just so fucking ridiculous. Anyone who says otherwise has either come to terms that they live in a dystopian hellscape, or just utterly lost the plot.

Definitely glad I grew up going to public school in Canada, where the danger of having to deal with an active shooter in an elementary school is actually _lower_ than the risk of choking on a stick of glue. Crazy, right?


----------



## /wrists

bostjan said:


> The top ten states with the most gun violence:
> 
> 1. Mississippi (concealed carry state)
> 2. Louisiana (concealed carry state)
> 3. Wyoming (concealed carry state)
> 4. Missouri (concealed carry state)
> 5. Alabama (concealed carry state)
> 6. Alaska (concealed carry state)
> 7. New Mexico (concealed carry state)
> 8. Arkansas (concealed carry state)
> 9. South Carolina (concealed carry state)
> 10. Tennessee (concealed carry state)


I see your stats and raise you a graph.





Combined, we have a lot of states with a problem.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/mass-shootings-by-state





Something something California something something Texas.


----------



## mbardu

Xaios said:


> Christ...
> 
> The notion of children having to know how to react in the event of an active shooter in a school is just so fucking ridiculous. Anyone who says otherwise has either come to terms that *they live in a dystopian hellscape, or just utterly lost the plot.*



Bruh, this is America. 
It's obviously both.


----------



## jaxadam

AMOS said:


> I don't go long enough without getting banned to get dogpiled that much



:high-five:


----------



## AMOS

California and Illinois have a crazy level of gang violence, I'm not surprised to see them up there. The south has a lot of poverty, as does some of the north central-western states. Then there's states with smaller populations that creates more shootings per capita than larger states that actually have more shootings in general. Some stats can be misleading.


----------



## /wrists

AMOS said:


> California and Illinois have a crazy level of gang violence, I'm not surprised to see them up there. The south has a lot of poverty, as does some of the north central-western states. Then there's states with smaller populations that creates more shootings per capita than larger states that actually have more shootings in general. Some stats can be misleading.


When do we stop making excuses and start making changes?


----------



## mbardu

evade said:


> When do we stop making excuses and start making changes?


----------



## Empryrean

I've been drilled since elementary school to duck and hide and honestly as an adult it's kind of surreal. Being a kid at the time, I didn't understand my own mortality. It was just something you do. I even remember being kinda happy to do something besides classwork, how fucked up is that? 

Now I'm older I only understand if I die it'll be a hassle for my fam to bury me. Maybe they'll start going to town hall or something\ but what power do they really have? 
I think what I'm feeling is apathy. No point getting all wound up about it when nothing I do can make it stop.


----------



## /wrists

Empryrean said:


> I've been drilled since elementary school to duck and hide and honestly as an adult it's kind of surreal. Being a kid at the time, I didn't understand my own mortality. It was just something you do. I even remember being kinda happy to do something besides classwork, how fucked up is that?
> 
> Now I'm older I only understand if I die it'll be a hassle for my fam to bury me. Maybe they'll start going to town hall or something\ but what power do they really have?
> I think what I'm feeling is apathy. No point getting all wound up about it when nothing I do can make it stop.


I can relate a lot to the not doing classwork part and the apathy part, but I also think apathy is part of the problem. I'm just admitting that I'm part of the problem.


----------



## bostjan

AMOS said:


> There are lots of local liberals that have gotten their LTC, and that was before all this stuff started. They know what crime is, they know what defenseless is, and they don't want to be a victim. I support anyone that's lawful that carries a gun, I don't care if they're gay, hindu, black or latino. Everyone deserves the same right to self defense.


Everyone? Children? Felons? People committed to the psychiatric ward? Because those people don't get lawful self defense. And I'm not saying that they don't deserve it, but despite the second amendment, they simply aren't covered.



AMOS said:


> Are the ones creating the gun violence the ones with conceal carry permits? or are they the ones that can't get a conceal carry permit because of their criminal record? But they conceal carry a gun anyway. Massachusetts is a conceal carry state btw. Vermont, Maine and NH requires no license to carry a handgun, so I'm not sure what your point is.



People with permits rarely commit violent crime, but it happens. People with a record of violent crime are far more likely to commit more violent crime.

My point was that I wasn't sure what @DarrellM5 's point was in saying that concealed carry reduces violent crime. It doesn't seem to make much difference one way or the other. People with concealed weapons are not a deterrent to violent crime. Maybe open carry is, in some instances, but most likely it won't even make a sizeable difference.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> California and Illinois have a crazy level of gang violence, I'm not surprised to see them up there. The south has a lot of poverty, as does some of the north central-western states. Then there's states with smaller populations that creates more shootings per capita than larger states that actually have more shootings in general. Some stats can be misleading.


So the rich places with lots of people and the poor places with fewer people all have a lot of gun violence. Could there be a common denominator here do you think?


----------



## wheresthefbomb

If you want to see the racist legacy of gun control in the US at work in real time, check out how quickly these discussions get centered on "gang violence." The narrative of "law-abiding gun owners" conveniently ignores a history of wrongful convictions, mandatory minimum sentencing, disproportionate enforcement and sentencing, and legitimizes violence against overwhelmingly poor, nonwhite communities by, wait for it, roving gangs of violent thugs who happen to be in uniform.



Xaios said:


> Anyone who says otherwise has either come to terms that they live in a dystopian hellscape . . .



I mean, this isn't the dystopian hellscape I would've asked for, but it's the one I got. 

All joking aside, I think it is legitimately important to acknowledge just how fucked things are before making any determinations about what's to be done. I have all sorts of ideas about how I think things "should" be organized, but they're all predicated on a radically different system and paradigm that would require burning it down and starting over, and I suspect the same can be said for most of us, if not all.

All that leaves us with is looking at the reality we were handed and doing the best with that. If there is a real danger that someone could come into a school and start murdering people, children _need _to be prepared for that and know how to act, as completely fucked as that is. I have participated in many lockdown drills working in public schools, it never gets any more comfortable, but I'd rather we be prepared.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> So the rich places with lots of people and the poor places with fewer people all have a lot of gun violence. Could there be a common denominator here do you think?


Cities in general imo, poverty stricken areas have been ignored way too long.


----------



## AMOS

bostjan said:


> People with a record of violent crime are far more likely to commit more violent crime.


Which has been my main argument against gun control forever, because gun control doesn't apply to people like that. It only creates more regulations that apply to law abiding citizens.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

This is like the Gibson thread of P&CE. You know how it's going to go. 

There was a shooting at my work a few years back. The law abiding, responsible gun owner decided to destroy six families that day. 

Take your situational awareness and blow it out your ass you fucking clowns. No one thinks you're tough. No one thinks you're smart. You'd probably be the first dead IRL.


----------



## odibrom

Solution is simple: no guns = no shootings. Australia had the same problem in the 80s but not anymore, I wonder why...

Will a "no guns policy" stop violent crime? No, but will reduce it a lot. Look at Australia.

The problem of guns is that they give the carrier a false sense of security and power over the other. There is no such thing as "good guy with a gun", that's marketing propaganda and if one believes it, one's brainwashed. It's so easy to go from "good guy with a gun" to "bad guy shooting everyone", all it takes is fear, fear of what others think, say or might do... "but hey, I'll silence them for good"... and then comes responsibility and ownership of one's shit. Add some beers with the bros to the mix and... well you guessed were it all ends...

People are stupid by nature, more so when they're thought to compete instead of cooperate/help each other. Give stupid people the idea of power over the neighbors and you have automatic population control. China opted for chemical castration... just saying.

Owning a gun won't make anyone braver, only a target because one becomes a potential idiot with a gun... and you know, fear comes and goes as a trendy fashion from what the media is selling at the moment...


... but this is just an outsider's perspective...


----------



## Hollowway

odibrom said:


> Solution is simple: no guns = no shootings. Australia had the same problem in the 80s but not anymore, I wonder why...
> 
> Will a "no guns policy" stop violent crime? No, but will reduce it a lot. Look at Australia.
> 
> The problem of guns is that they give the carrier a false sense of security and power over the other. There is no such thing as "good guy with a gun", that's marketing propaganda and if one believes it, one's brainwashed. It's so easy to go from "good guy with a gun" to "bad guy shooting everyone", all it takes is fear, fear of what others think, say or might do... "but hey, I'll silence them for good"... and then comes responsibility and ownership of one's shit. Add some beers with the bros to the mix and... well you guessed were it all ends...
> 
> People are stupid by nature, more so when they're thought to compete instead of cooperate/help each other. Give stupid people the idea of power over the neighbors and you have automatic population control. China opted for chemical castration... just saying.
> 
> Owning a gun won't make anyone braver, only a target because one becomes a potential idiot with a gun... and you know, fear comes and goes as a trendy fashion from what the media is selling at the moment...
> 
> 
> ... but this is just an outsider's perspective...


Yep. But everyone in America that likes military assault weapons likes to say, "but will banning guns work? If only there was another country in the world (or a lot of them) that has run this experiment for us to have an idea. Oh well, I guess we'll never know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

It doesn't help that there are a million straw man arguments and conspiracy theories, like Chicago banning guns but still having deaths, the 2nd amendment, that gun violence is a false flag that comes after a call for gun control (other than the other way around). The fact is that it's not going to get fixed because there are too many people entrenched in their beliefs, and who feel that a bunch of dead school children is the price we pay for a "free society." 

The fact that they think that semi automatic rifles and pistols in the hands of citizens could stop the government is, to me, ludicrous. I can't picture myself on my front lawn trying to shoot at a MQ drone with any reasonable accuracy.


----------



## Randy

Hollowway said:


> The fact that they think that semi automatic rifles and pistols in the hands of citizens could stop the government is, to me, ludicrous.



The idea of people appealing to the government to not change the rules so that they're capable of taking up arms to overthrow them is also quite perplexing.


----------



## narad

wheresthefbomb said:


> If you want to see the racist legacy of gun control in the US at work in real time, check out how quickly these discussions get centered on "gang violence." The narrative of "law-abiding gun owners" conveniently ignores a history of wrongful convictions, mandatory minimum sentencing, disproportionate enforcement and sentencing, and legitimizes violence against overwhelmingly poor, nonwhite communities by, wait for it, roving gangs of violent thugs who happen to be in uniform.



What is the discussion supposed to be centered on? Gang violence makes up a nontrivial amount of gun violence. You know you've gone too woke when I'm not on board with it.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> What is the discussion supposed to be centered on? Gang violence makes up a nontrivial amount of gun violence. You know you've gone too woke when I'm not on board with it.


Maybe but the umbrella of "gun violence" is too large to group mass shooting and gang violence without ignoring the nuance that is required to address either of them, unless you're just gonna say "melt em down" and leave it at that.


----------



## Gudbrand

Addressing just one part of this much larger issue: the idea that armed bystanders are the solution to mass shootings.

Have you seen panicked bystanders try to help in an emergency? It would be an absolute shit show. They’d shoot each other. They’d shoot themselves. They’d get shot by the police.

I’m not just speculating. All that has happened, and more. It would get worse the more people are armed.

I say this as someone that’s probably better prepared than most gun owners (by which I mean I do dynamic drills in high-stress situations a couple times a year. I’m not actually that well trained). You do crazy things when you’re stressed. All your training goes out the window. You miss obvious things. You can’t think critically. You repeat useless actions over and over, trying to solve a problem that would be obvious if you were calm. Your fine motor skills disappear.

That’s in an actual shooting event. Not to mention all the other incidents, accidents, and escalated confrontations that would occur statistically from arming that many more people.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Maybe but the umbrella of "gun violence" is too large to group mass shooting and gang violence without ignoring the nuance that is required to address either of them, unless you're just gonna say "melt em down" and leave it at that.



Well I am pretty much a "melt em down" type of person -- make it a bureaucratically painful procedure to acquire a gun, vastly reduce the number of new guns entering circulation each year, and start the process of a year-on-year net decrease in guns on the street, and maybe some years out we could be like a normal country. But if we're talking statistics, it's weird we even create these threads in synch with mass shootings, since they are almost statistically negligible. Of course it pulls on heart strings to have a group of young kids killed senselessly, but large swaths of kids are killed each year in numbers that typically dwarf those of mass shooter situations. I'm in favor of red flag type laws that might decrease the loner loser in the school situation, but that's still a lot of fuss for barely a dent in a hypothetical incident while not reducing the more pervasive gun violence.

So still not really sure why I'd have to acknowledge some racial past to talk about moving in these directions policy-wise.


----------



## AMOS

narad said:


> What is the discussion supposed to be centered on? Gang violence makes up a nontrivial amount of gun violence. You know you've gone too woke when I'm not on board with it.


Gang violence is responsible for most of the gun violence. 30-50 shootings per weekend in Chicago. You really should check your facts.


----------



## AMOS

odibrom said:


> Solution is simple: no guns = no shootings. Australia had the same problem in the 80s but not anymore, I wonder why...
> 
> Will a "no guns policy" stop violent crime? No, but will reduce it a lot. Look at Australia.
> 
> The problem of guns is that they give the carrier a false sense of security and power over the other. There is no such thing as "good guy with a gun", that's marketing propaganda and if one believes it, one's brainwashed. It's so easy to go from "good guy with a gun" to "bad guy shooting everyone", all it takes is fear, fear of what others think, say or might do... "but hey, I'll silence them for good"... and then comes responsibility and ownership of one's shit. Add some beers with the bros to the mix and... well you guessed were it all ends...
> 
> People are stupid by nature, more so when they're thought to compete instead of cooperate/help each other. Give stupid people the idea of power over the neighbors and you have automatic population control. China opted for chemical castration... just saying.
> 
> Owning a gun won't make anyone braver, only a target because one becomes a potential idiot with a gun... and you know, fear comes and goes as a trendy fashion from what the media is selling at the moment...
> 
> 
> ... but this is just an outsider's perspective...


When they banned guns in England violent crime went up 300%. With all the unlawful elements in the USA it would be far greater than 300%. As it is now home invasions are minimal because the bad guys don't know who is armed and who isn't, once they know the general populace is un-armed there's going to be a field day. Violent crime in the UK is still increasing btw. I guess gun control worked.


----------



## AMOS

In the U.S., the cities of Chicago, Detroit, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, St. Louis, and New Orleans have some of the highest homicide numbers in the nation. Interestingly, they also have some of the most strict gun control laws. With the inclusion of those cities, the U.S. ranks as the third-highest rate of homicide in the world. If you remove those cities from the equation, the U.S. drops to fourth from the bottom in the world. Think about that. If you removed the homicide rates of the cities with the most strict gun control laws, the U.S., as large as we are, drops to fourth from the bottom. Wow!









COLUMN: Despite gun bans, violent crime in the UK increasing


Gun control advocates love to point to the United Kingdom as a great example of gun laws. However, the London Assembly's Police and Crime Committee noted that in the 12




www.tahlequahdailypress.com


----------



## ThomasUV777

AMOS said:


> When they banned guns in England violent crime went up 300%. With all the unlawful elements in the USA it would be far greater than 300%. As it is now home invasions are minimal because the bad guys don't know who is armed and who isn't, once they know the general populace is un-armed there's going to be a field day. Violent crime in the UK is still increasing btw. I guess gun control worked.


Sceptical here. Can't find anything on it either. Source?


----------



## narad

AMOS said:


> Gang violence is responsible for most of the gun violence. 30-50 shootings per weekend in Chicago. You really should check your facts.



Maybe you should re-read what I wrote, or learn what "nontrivial" means. What you said would be totally in line with what I wrote. But speaking of checking my facts, would love to see those statistics where gang violence is responsible for most of the gun violence. Most stats cite it around 20%.


----------



## ThomasUV777

AMOS said:


> In the U.S., the cities of Chicago, Detroit, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, St. Louis, and New Orleans have some of the highest homicide numbers in the nation. Interestingly, they also have some of the most strict gun control laws. With the inclusion of those cities, the U.S. ranks as the third-highest rate of homicide in the world. If you remove those cities from the equation, the U.S. drops to fourth from the bottom in the world. Think about that. If you removed the homicide rates of the cities with the most strict gun control laws, the U.S., as large as we are, drops to fourth from the bottom. Wow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COLUMN: Despite gun bans, violent crime in the UK increasing
> 
> 
> Gun control advocates love to point to the United Kingdom as a great example of gun laws. However, the London Assembly's Police and Crime Committee noted that in the 12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tahlequahdailypress.com


The following states have the highest homicide numbers AND the most lenient gun laws:

South Carolina
Texas
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas
Missouri

Not sure if your sources hold up.
I cross-referenced these sites:
Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm

Additionally, the first website states:

_Additionally, gun deaths are significantly lower in states with strict gun laws and low gun ownership. Rhode Island's gun ownership is the second-lowest in the country at 14.8% and has the lowest gun death rate at 3.28 per 100,000 people. Massachusetts has the second-lowest gun death rate at 3.46 per 100,000 people, followed by New York and Hawaii with 4.03 each and New Jersey with 4.75._


----------



## AMOS

ThomasUV777 said:


> The following states have the highest homicide numbers AND the most lenient gun laws:
> 
> South Carolina
> Texas
> Mississippi
> Louisiana
> Arkansas
> Missouri
> 
> Not sure if your sources hold up.
> I cross-referenced these sites:
> Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state
> Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm
> 
> Additionally, the first website states:
> 
> _Additionally, gun deaths are significantly lower in states with strict gun laws and low gun ownership. Rhode Island's gun ownership is the second-lowest in the country at 14.8% and has the lowest gun death rate at 3.28 per 100,000 people. Massachusetts has the second-lowest gun death rate at 3.46 per 100,000 people, followed by New York and Hawaii with 4.03 each and New Jersey with 4.75._


Big poverty rates in those states, or maybe it's the comfy middle class with good jobs that are carrying out those shootings. I'm all for background checks for private sales and gun shows, have at it. Also, are those gun homicides or homicides in general? You didn't say so I'm asking.


----------



## AMOS

ThomasUV777 said:


> Sceptical here. Can't find anything on it either. Source?


That was old news and word of mouth by a Brit I knew. It did level out at some point, but it's on the increase again. That's what happens when you open your borders.


----------



## AMOS

narad said:


> Maybe you should re-read what I wrote, or learn what "nontrivial" means. What you said would be totally in line with what I wrote. But speaking of checking my facts, would love to see those statistics where gang violence is responsible for most of the gun violence. Most stats cite it around 20%.


How many mass shootings do you see here that aren't gang related? There are some and it's heartbreaking, but out of 100,000,000 gun owners nation wide the % is still way down. 15 here and 20 there is very tragic and I hope they find the answer, you want to see homicides? Go to Mexico. Per capita they dwarf us.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I see we've entered the stage of discussion where the smooth brains try to compare the United States to countries with half the HDI with absolutely no irony to be found. None.

How can you argue with the fact that the United States is safer than Iraq and Yemen and South Sudan? We must really be doing something right.


----------



## Empryrean

MaxOfMetal said:


> I see we've entered the stage of discussion where the smooth brains try to compare the United States to countries with half the HDI with absolutely no irony to be found. None.


It's such a bummer too cause I think only me and maybe 3 others answered OPs question(s).

I think to some level it's a weird power-fantasy thing. Luckily I get the same buzz just reading a book or watching anime..guns would be too expensive for my blood. Hah


----------



## Steinmetzify

evade said:


> If you're American, how does it feel to risk your life getting shot when you shop at a grocery store now more than ever?
> 
> If you're a parent, even more relevant, what are some thoughts you have around sending your child to a public school that could potentially be shot up due to the culture?
> 
> Any thoughts of what should be done or if anything should be done at all?
> 
> There definitely appears to be an increase in mass shootings and I'm interested in hearing different thoughts.



I’m not going to get into this whole thing on SSO because it always goes bad.

Do I worry about going to the grocery store? Nah, I shop at Whole Foods, the only danger there is soccer moms and vegan dudes that want to tell you about it.

Did I worry about sending my kid to school? Not gonna lie, yeah I did and I’m glad she’s out.

I’m an OTR truck driver and carry a gun cause I’ve seen some weird shit out here, smugglers/drugs being planted on my truck/people following me/slavery/hookers etc.

My wife has a gun in the nightstand because I’m gone a week at a time.

Do I want to shoot someone? Hell no. Do I think that I can manage it if the need arises? I hope so. My real hope is that if someone breaks into my house and I show them the gun they just leave.

I kind of feel I have a responsibility to own one; my wife and daughter are the most important things in the world to me and I’ll do whatever I need to do to make sure they’re safe. That includes being safe while I’m gone, so I can come home/continue working/putting food on the table.

As far as gun laws, we’re fucked. The people that are committing the serious gun violence are the people that aren’t following laws anyway for the most part.

Is it a problem? Yeah it really is. Do I have any ideas on how to fix it? No.

I have zero desire to see guns banned entirely; we’ve seen what happens and I don’t want to go down that road.

I don’t know what the solution is, really. Like said above, sometimes weird shit happens, dude that was completely normal his entire life decides to go to work and shoot up the place and murder six people. If he hadn’t had access to a gun that wouldn’t have happened. I GET that, and sympathize. However, I’m not willing to give up the freedom to own a gun, just because the guy that might try to break into my house won’t follow laws anyway.

It’s a catch 22 for me. Do I want to carry one? No. Do I realize that bad shit might happen to me on the road/at home? Yeah I do.

For me it’s along the lines of wearing a seatbelt. Hope I never need it, but I wear one all the time anyway. End of the day I don’t know how to fix this. Until someone more intelligent than me comes along to fix it, I’ll have a 9mm in the drawer.


----------



## ThomasUV777

AMOS said:


> Big poverty rates in those states, or maybe it's the comfy middle class with good jobs that are carrying out those shootings. I'm all for background checks for private sales and gun shows, have at it. Also, are those gun homicides or homicides in general? You didn't say so I'm asking.



Your initial post just stated homicide, not gun homicide. If we're specifically talking gun homicides in regards to the aforementioned states, which are most lenient in regards to gun restrictions:
Ranking (per 100.000):

1. Mississippi
2. Louisiana
4. Missouri
8. Arkansas
9. South Carolina
26. Texas

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm



AMOS said:


> That was old news and word of mouth by a Brit I knew. It did level out at some point, but it's on the increase again. That's what happens when you open your borders.


Ok so worthless in terms of an argument.


----------



## StevenC

I have to say, I agree with @AMOS. America needs a robust social safety net to help impoverished people, and a much reduced number of guns in circulation.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> That was old news and word of mouth by a Brit I knew. It did level out at some point, but it's on the increase again. *That's what happens when you open your borders.*


Oh my goodness, you don't know anything about the UK and it shows.


----------



## ThomasUV777

bostjan said:


> The top ten states with the most gun violence:
> 
> 1. Mississippi (concealed carry state)
> 2. Louisiana (concealed carry state)
> 3. Wyoming (concealed carry state)
> 4. Missouri (concealed carry state)
> 5. Alabama (concealed carry state)
> 6. Alaska (concealed carry state)
> 7. New Mexico (concealed carry state)
> 8. Arkansas (concealed carry state)
> 9. South Carolina (concealed carry state)
> 10. Tennessee (concealed carry state)


Sorry, should've just quoted you in my other post(s).


----------



## odibrom

AMOS said:


> When they banned guns in England violent crime went up 300%. With all the unlawful elements in the USA it would be far greater than 300%. As it is now home invasions are minimal because the bad guys don't know who is armed and who isn't, once they know the general populace is un-armed there's going to be a field day. Violent crime in the UK is still increasing btw. I guess gun control worked.


Bad examples are everywhere, you follow what you feel is right for you... but there still is no such thing as "good guy with a gun"...


----------



## ThomasUV777

ThomasUV777 said:


> The following states have the highest homicide numbers AND the most lenient gun laws:
> 
> South Carolina
> Texas
> Mississippi
> Louisiana
> Arkansas
> Missouri
> 
> Not sure if your sources hold up.
> I cross-referenced these sites:
> Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state
> Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm
> 
> Additionally, the first website states:
> 
> _Additionally, gun deaths are significantly lower in states with strict gun laws and low gun ownership. Rhode Island's gun ownership is the second-lowest in the country at 14.8% and has the lowest gun death rate at 3.28 per 100,000 people. Massachusetts has the second-lowest gun death rate at 3.46 per 100,000 people, followed by New York and Hawaii with 4.03 each and New Jersey with 4.75._


Was wrong about Texas, rest was correct.


----------



## narad

Steinmetzify said:


> I have zero desire to see guns banned entirely; we’ve seen what happens and I don’t want to go down that road.



Have we though?


----------



## /wrists

I've always been interested in why people think statistics and research would be necessary to establish some sort of reality for some people when some things are common sense. For those not interested in statistics and research, anyway, it doesn't do much for the community of objectivity.

Honestly, who comes up with these irrelevant studies to show correlation and who pays for them?

Without guns there would be no gun violence. (Read that statement until you understand what I'm saying.) No sun = no sunlight. No guns = no gun violence. Some genius probably thought "Hm. Maybe I can use a study to show that guns don't kill people, people kill people." 




Rationality out the fucking window in this day and age.


----------



## narad

evade said:


> I've always been interested in why people think statistics and research would be necessary to establish some sort of reality for some people when some things are common sense. For those not interested in statistics and research, anyway, it doesn't do much for the community of objectivity.
> 
> Honestly, who comes up with these irrelevant studies to show correlation and who pays for them?
> 
> Without guns there would be no gun violence. (Read that statement until you understand what I'm saying.) No sun = no sunlight. No guns = no gun violence. Some genius probably thought "Hm. Maybe I can use a study to show that guns don't kill people, people kill people."
> 
> View attachment 109335
> 
> 
> Rationality out the fucking window in this day and age.



Well I mean you started this thread asking, "If you're a parent, even more relevant, what are some thoughts you have around sending your child to a public school that could potentially be shot up due to the culture?" 

Some people do, but the real question is not whether they do -- anyone can fear anything -- but if that is a rational fear. Do you have any thoughts around sending your child outside when they could potentially be struck by lightning? Statistically it is more likely.

Gun violence as a whole is a significant problem. I don't have any issues with pushing policy to help prevent mass shootings, but worrying about these, or focusing on these as a priority over more general gun violence, is missing the forest for the trees.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I don't have kids but the three conservative republican dads that I know, all send their kids to private schools. All of them are against any kind of gun reform and all say that there's no way that they'd ever send their kid to a public school. And my wife wonders why I don't talk to them much anymore.


----------



## /wrists

narad said:


> Well I mean you started this thread asking, "If you're a parent, even more relevant, what are some thoughts you have around sending your child to a public school that could potentially be shot up due to the culture?"
> 
> Some people do, but the real question is not whether they do -- anyone can fear anything -- but if that is a rational fear. Do you have any thoughts around sending your child outside when they could potentially be struck by lightning? Statistically it is more likely.
> 
> Gun violence as a whole is a significant problem. I don't have any issues with pushing policy to help prevent mass shootings, but worrying about these, or focusing on these as a priority over more general gun violence, is missing the forest for the trees.


Perhaps I wasn't explicit that school shootings and mass shootings were part of gun violence in a sense that it has now dominated American culture as a whole, but that is most definitely the topic at hand as several have posted. 

I also don't have issues with solutions to prevent mass shootings or gun violence in general. Although I agree talking about the general issue as a whole is much more conducive, the post you quoted is more of a showcase of why statistics for gun violence in general, is irrelevant to the actual issue. It's a misdirection. That's all I was saying.


----------



## Randy

Is the "we've seen what happens when you ban all guns" thing in reference to Nazi Germany? Because I was under the impression the German people were excused for the atrocities of the Holocaust based on the notion they didn't know it was going on. Am I led to believe there was a concerted desire from the German people to overthrow the Nazi regime from within? Because I've never heard that.


----------



## AMOS

odibrom said:


> Bad examples are everywhere, you follow what you feel is right for you... but there still is no such thing as "good guy with a gun"...


You're talking to one


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> Oh my goodness, you don't know anything about the UK and it shows.


So when I read those articles about immigrant gang violence I should assume it's fake news? Sweden and France have them too. I'll assume that's fake news as well.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> So when I read those articles about immigrant gang violence I should assume it's fake news? Sweden and France have them too. I'll assume that's fake news as well.


Yes, because they are. It's nationalist propaganda.


----------



## Adieu

evade said:


> If you're American, how does it feel to risk your life getting shot when you shop at a grocery store now more than ever?
> 
> If you're a parent, even more relevant, what are some thoughts you have around sending your child to a public school that could potentially be shot up due to the culture?
> 
> Any thoughts of what should be done or if anything should be done at all?
> 
> There definitely appears to be an increase in mass shootings and I'm interested in hearing different thoughts.



It's a conspiracy. To make you shop at Amazon.


----------



## Randy

AMOS said:


> You're talking to one


One half of that description is debatable. Maybe patently false. Also, bad guys don't think they're bad guys.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> One half of that description is debatable. Maybe patently false. Also, bad guys don't think they're bad guys.


----------



## Adieu

AMOS said:


> Are the ones creating the gun violence the ones with conceal carry permits? or are they the ones that can't get a conceal carry permit because of their criminal record? But they conceal carry a gun anyway. Massachusetts is a conceal carry state btw. Vermont, Maine and NH requires no license to carry a handgun, so I'm not sure what your point is.



Ahem... if concealed carry is the NORM, nobody checks permits or gets spooked by a gun bulge.

It helps potential perpetrators of random or intentional violence BLEND and lowers others' wariness of them.


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> Ahem... if concealed carry is the NORM, nobody checks permits or gets spooked by a gun bulge.
> 
> It helps potential perpetrators of random or intentional violence BLEND and lowers others' wariness of them.


You just can't handle being Situationally Aware® of everyone at the same time.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> What is the discussion supposed to be centered on? Gang violence makes up a nontrivial amount of gun violence. You know you've gone too woke when I'm not on board with it.



I'm not sure it is.

Actually, I'm fairly sure the single biggest category of gun violence is brandishing a weapon in what amounts to UNREPORTED ABUSE, COERCION, OR RAPE AT GUNPOINT. Mostly while drunk or high and within the family or their social circle.

Most gun crime is people waving guns around, not piles of bodies.


----------



## narad

The biggest category of gun violence is unreported gun violence? I guess the gun owners would know better than me how often such things occur.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> The biggest category of gun violence is unreported gun violence? I guess the gun owners would know better than me how often such things occur.



In our days, guns are more for "point and threaten"


----------



## vilk

Here's my wacky idea for a compromise:

Allow basic bolt action hunting rifles. Then those of you who want to go to the range, go hunting, have a self defense firearm in your home, can still have that.

Would we still have psychos that murder people? Yes, but they wouldn't be able to do it as well or as easily as they can now, as it's difficult to conceal a hunting rifle, and you'd have to manually reload between shots.


Of course, it's halfway joking, because we all know that ammosexuals will never accept any amount of compromise. But on the surface, they would have all their boxes checked. 2nd amendment?—uninfringed. Your favorite hobby?—go nuts. Gotta be ready for things that go bump in the night? Blast that boogie man.

Meanwhile, if someone is coming to rob your quick stop, you'll see them from a mile away. When the school shooter pops the first kid, rush him before he can reload.


----------



## odibrom

AMOS said:


> You're talking to one


... I can only hope to... in reality, I can't know for sure...


----------



## Adieu

Or maybe just let them have the black powder and ball muskets the founding fathers had intended?

Ban self-propelled ammo cartridges


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> The biggest category of gun violence is unreported gun violence? I guess the gun owners would know better than me how often such things occur.


Officer: "So three bullets in his head and five in his abdomen, do you think this was a case of gun violence?"
Detective: "I dunno, maybe he had eight bullets in his pocket and he fell into a fire and they went off. When he fell down, the shell casings rolled out of his pocket and ended up 15 feet away."
Officer: "Why isn't he burned?"
Detective: "Elementary: fire retardant pants."


----------



## Louis Cypher

John Oliver's recent piece on Last Week Tonight on the disgusting Uvalde school shooting and gun control was very powerful


----------



## Steo

vilk said:


> Here's my wacky idea for a compromise:
> 
> Allow basic bolt action hunting rifles. Then those of you who want to go to the range, go hunting, have a self defense firearm in your home, can still have that.
> 
> Would we still have psychos that murder people? Yes, but they wouldn't be able to do it as well or as easily as they can now, as it's difficult to conceal a hunting rifle, and you'd have to manually reload


That's more or less the law here in Ireland and it works. Are there shooting, yes*, but, nothing on the scale you see in America, and other countries. 

* mostly families in land disputes.


----------



## philkilla

evade said:


> If you're American, how does it feel to risk your life getting shot when you shop at a grocery store now more than ever?
> 
> If you're a parent, even more relevant, what are some thoughts you have around sending your child to a public school that could potentially be shot up due to the culture?
> 
> Any thoughts of what should be done or if anything should be done at all?
> 
> There definitely appears to be an increase in mass shootings and I'm interested in hearing different thoughts.



It feels sketchy as fuck. Years of training, and I carry everywhere (except when I go on post..go figure)


Tighter gun laws. It's hilariously awful that you can buy a gun before buying alcohol (another parallel of military service)

Bipartisan agreement would be best, however unlikely.

I certainly don't know the secret sauce to fix it; I doubt there's anyway to passively "remove all guns" from the hands of citizens.


Omnibus bills that make law abiding gun owners criminals are certainly not an avenue of success either.


----------



## fantom

Steinmetzify said:


> I have zero desire to see guns banned entirely; we’ve seen what happens and I don’t want to go down that road.



We have? Can you be more specific? You mean like Australia?




Steinmetzify said:


> I don’t know what the solution is, really. Like said above, sometimes weird shit happens, dude that was completely normal his entire life decides to go to work and shoot up the place and murder six people. If he hadn’t had access to a gun that wouldn’t have happened. I GET that, and sympathize. However, I’m not willing to give up the freedom to own a gun, just because the guy that might try to break into my house won’t follow laws anyway.
> 
> It’s a catch 22 for me. Do I want to carry one? No. Do I realize that bad shit might happen to me on the road/at home? Yeah I do.
> 
> For me it’s along the lines of wearing a seatbelt. Hope I never need it, but I wear one all the time anyway. End of the day I don’t know how to fix this. Until someone more intelligent than me comes along to fix it, I’ll have a 9mm in the drawer.



There is a huge flaw in your argument. You are basing your position on feeling safer with a gun, which I get. But all statistics I have seen indicate that having a gun in your home increases your chance of being a victim of gun violence. By your seatbelt analogy, that is like saying people should wear seatbelts even if they are more likely to die with a seatbelt on. It's a false equivalence.


----------



## odibrom

... why arm people when the government could be giving them bullet proof vests?... a gun in the streets is a potential problem (can be stolen, lost, put to bad use), a bullet proof vest is not.

Will bullet proof vests stop violent gun crimes? not, but will reduce the victims' numbers a lot.

One must ask about what the politicians' agenda is when they ask the people to take arms to defend themselves from themselves... you're being brain washed. Vote differently next elections day.

There is no such thing as a "good guy with a gun" simply because good guys don't carry objects built with the sole purpose of killing or doing serious harm to other people. That's what bad guys do.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> Yes, because they are. It's nationalist propaganda.


Phony Baloney?








The French city zones where police rarely escape unscathed


In December 2015, Donald Trump claimed parts of the French capital were no-go zones for the police. ‘Paris is no longer the same city it was,’ said the then-Republican presidential hopeful. ‘They have sections in Paris that are radicalised… The police refuse to go in there.’ His remarks echoed a...




www.spectator.co.uk


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> Phony Baloney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The French city zones where police rarely escape unscathed
> 
> 
> In December 2015, Donald Trump claimed parts of the French capital were no-go zones for the police. ‘Paris is no longer the same city it was,’ said the then-Republican presidential hopeful. ‘They have sections in Paris that are radicalised… The police refuse to go in there.’ His remarks echoed a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.spectator.co.uk


Op-ed in The Spectator is not a real source.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Something that might be a bit humorous if it wasn't so sad is how the recent abortion and gun debates have rising to a VERY high level so close to each other so now it's that some people will do everything in their fucking power to see a fetus all the way out of a vagina once it's a baby, even if it's a detriment to the mother (which pregnancy is for how hard it is on a woman) but won't do a goddamn thing about that "life" once they're out of the womb. They don't know want to know shit about that child. No school lunches, no kind of care for the child, nothing, nada, zip. As a matter of fact, they give such little of a shit about children that they value inanimate hunks of metal and sometimes wood WAY more than the life of a child. A child in the womb at the beginning of conception, a talking point for gun control once they get holes blown into them. #Savethechildren my motherfucking ass.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> Op-ed in The Spectator is not a real source.


What's a real source? Please don't say a far left tabloid that's pro immigration. I don't know the Spectator from the Boston Globe..


----------



## AMOS

TheBlackBard said:


> Something that might be a bit humorous if it wasn't so sad is how the recent abortion and gun debates have rising to a VERY high level so close to each other so now it's that some people will do everything in their fucking power to see a fetus all the way out of a vagina once it's a baby, even if it's a detriment to the mother (which pregnancy is for how hard it is on a woman) but won't do a goddamn thing about that "life" once they're out of the womb. They don't know want to know shit about that child. No school lunches, no kind of care for the child, nothing, nada, zip. As a matter of fact, they give such little of a shit about children that they value inanimate hunks of metal and sometimes wood WAY more than the life of a child. A child in the womb at the beginning of conception, a talking point for gun control once they get holes blown into them. #Savethechildren my motherfucking ass.


Babies get holes blown through them while mommy strolls them down Chicago sidewalks, that's also a bit humorous when some refuse to address gang violence. In these cases the police know who has the guns, and they still do nothing because the Mayor doesn't want to lose any votes. Add up all the deaths to gang violence to all the deaths by school shootings, the stats won't even be close.


----------



## fantom

AMOS said:


> So when I read those articles about immigrant gang violence I should assume it's fake news? Sweden and France have them too. I'll assume that's fake news as well.


You are aware that the 2nd amendment gives the people the right to arm themselves so that they can stand up to a tyrannical government.

You are citing an article that is claiming police, which are an arm of the government, are afraid to enter areas where people are a threat to them. You are using that to justify why you should own a gun to protect yourself from other citizens, which the 2nd amendment was not intended to influence.

Do you see the hypocrisy here?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Stage III: We Explain The Difference Between Editorials and Journalism

Like clockwork. For a bunch of folks who give a shit what guns are called, they sure suck at knowing how a newspaper works.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> You are aware that the 2nd amendment gives the people the right to arm themselves so that they can stand up to a tyrannical government.
> 
> You are citing an article that is claiming police, which are an arm of the government, are afraid to enter areas where people are a threat to them. You are using that to justify why you should own a gun to protect yourself from other citizens, which the 2nd amendment was not intended to influence.
> 
> Do you see the hypocrisy here?



Hypocrisy is a pillar of right wing ideology. 

The very concept that there are those who deserve, and those who do not. 

That's why they fall for this "good guy with a gun" bullshit. Because there will always be a "good" and a "bad", where the "good" is "us" and the "bad" is "them".


----------



## philkilla

MaxOfMetal said:


> Hypocrisy is a pillar of right wing ideology.
> 
> The very concept that there are those who deserve, and those who do not.
> 
> That's why they fall for this "good guy with a gun" bullshit. Because there will always be a "good" and a "bad", where the "good" is "us" and the "bad" is "them".



Also a pillar of left wing ideology, but that sort of conversation is exactly why nothing ever gets done to solve the root problem.


----------



## TheBlackBard

AMOS said:


> Babies get holes blown through them while mommy strolls them down Chicago sidewalks, that's also a bit humorous when some refuse to address gang violence. In these cases the police know who has the guns, and they still do nothing because the Mayor doesn't want to lose any votes. Add up all the deaths to gang violence to all the deaths by school shootings, the stats won't even be close.


Ever ready to give more energy to posts about keeping the gun rather than the victims. Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> What's a real source? Please don't say a far left tabloid that's pro immigration. I don't know the Spectator from the Boston Globe..


This is the problem with trying to have discourse. You provide a right wing op-Ed instead of facts and statistics, but when I call out same you immediately assume I want as much bias but in the other direction. 

Here's a quick guide to debate:

You: make a claim
Interlocutor: challenges your claim
You: provide facts based on statistics to support your claim

The assumption that everyone else is a biased fool makes you look like a biased fool.


----------



## MFB

I'm pretty sure this dude right here represents the vast majority of actual gun-owners:



Gets mad at someone else for his actions (cutting them off/brake-checking)? Check.
Immediate response is to pull out gun? Check.
Doesn't roll down his own window to shoot at them? Check.
Also fires into his own windshield to get more rounds off? Check.
Can't keep his eyes open because he's afraid of his own gun's recoil? Check.

But no, I'm sure if he were to run into a Kyle Rittenhouse/Brooklyn shooter, he'd really man up to be a "good guy with a gun." Trust me guys.


----------



## StevenC

MFB said:


> I'm pretty sure this dude right here represents the vast majority of actual gun-owners:
> 
> 
> 
> Gets mad at someone else for his actions (cutting them off/brake-checking)? Check.
> Immediate response is to pull out gun? Check.
> Doesn't roll down his own window to shoot at them? Check.
> Also fires into his own windshield to get more rounds off? Check.
> Can't keep his eyes open because he's afraid of his own gun's recoil? Check.
> 
> But no, I'm sure if he were to run into a Kyle Rittenhouse/Brooklyn shooter, he'd really man up to be a "good guy with a gun." Trust me guys.



Bonded out


----------



## possumkiller

People are just shooting up the wrong places. They are killing kids and civilians in schools, stores, clubs or whatever. Nobody gives a shit your little baby Johnny eats buckshot and dies in art class. If people started shooting up political rallies, government buildings, police buildings, guns would be banned before you had a chance to reload.


----------



## odibrom

possumkiller said:


> People are just shooting up the wrong places. They are killing kids and civilians in schools, stores, clubs or whatever. Nobody gives a shit your little baby Johnny eats buckshot and dies in art class. If people started shooting up political rallies, government buildings, police buildings, guns would be banned before you had a chance to reload.



This is the way!... political rallies is the place to test a machine gun... throw some grenades to the mix as well... lol... hey, why stop there, let's go all the way up to the representatives house, to the parliament, let's re-build this shit from the ground up!...

... or not and go the Gandhi way...


----------



## narad

MFB said:


> I'm pretty sure this dude right here represents the vast majority of actual gun-owners:
> 
> 
> 
> Gets mad at someone else for his actions (cutting them off/brake-checking)? Check.
> Immediate response is to pull out gun? Check.
> Doesn't roll down his own window to shoot at them? Check.
> Also fires into his own windshield to get more rounds off? Check.
> Can't keep his eyes open because he's afraid of his own gun's recoil? Check.
> 
> But no, I'm sure if he were to run into a Kyle Rittenhouse/Brooklyn shooter, he'd really man up to be a "good guy with a gun." Trust me guys.




What do you mean - these guys think Kyle Rittenhouse is the "good guy with a gun" 

The video is also kind of why I'm just for getting rid of them right out. The just let people act more macho than they should probably get away with. In this instance, this guy cuts off another guy on the highway - typical asshole, but nothing out of the ordinary. Then when he feels he's being tailgated, he slams on the brakes, which is just unnecessarily escalating the situation because he's gonna be the tough guy here. And then of course he feels threatened, now that he's thinking that he's maybe pissed off the wrong person. In his mind, someone slamming on their brakes while you're tailgating him is the type of action that might warrant pulling out a gun for. Why? Because that's what he'd do in that situation.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

That video is a perfect example of how ineffective current firearm background checks are. Assuming he purchased that gun legally of course.

It's the absolute most shallow inquiry for such a potentially deadly outcome.

Could you imagine how much fewer guitars would be sold if you had to prove that you could play a full song well, and properly clean and setup the instrument, as well as recite theory and your intentions, and then have your friends and family vouch for you? Then after getting the guitar you need to legally insure it.

But it's easy as fuck. Why? Because gun manufacturers and associated businesses make a shit fuck ton of money the easier it is. They don't spend millions of dollars buying politicians for your "rights" it's the cost of doing business.


----------



## /wrists

possumkiller said:


> People are just shooting up the wrong places. They are killing kids and civilians in schools, stores, clubs or whatever. Nobody gives a shit your little baby Johnny eats buckshot and dies in art class. If people started shooting up political rallies, government buildings, police buildings, guns would be banned before you had a chance to reload.


Yeah agreed as well.


----------



## bostjan

Didn't Timothy McVeigh blow up a government building with fertilizer? I don't think they banned fertilizer after that. We also had an angry mob kick in the doors to the US Capitol during a counting of votes, with the stated intention of kidnapping and murdering politicians, yet, some of those very same politicians made it a point to stand in the way of investigating the incident.

I kind of get the feeling that the insanity has gone beyond the point where greed can even begin to explain it. This is about principles, but some of those principles are disjointed enough between the various factions of the minority party that the overall picture makes absolutely no sense. I think, rather than judge congress or the GOP holistically, these nonsensical arguments need to be countered with more logical ones. Otherwise, it puts the voter in the awkward position of choosing between two different opposing hyperboles.

As for gun control, yes. Gun control is a joke here in the USA. But taking all guns away would be nonsense at this point, because the people simply won't agree to that. Instead, what about a multi-pronged approach of a) addressing gun control laws, b) addressing problems with the criminal justice system, and c) addressing problems with public mental health.

*A) Addressing gun control laws*

First, the current gun control laws need to be re-assessed in some logical way, prioritizing what is measurable versus what is conjecture. Not all conjecture is wrong, but whatever people think that they know is true without any actual data to back it up needs to be placed at a lower priority than actual data-driven root cause analyses. I'm quite certain that there are many problems with the current gun control laws that allow people with bad intentions to purchase guns through simple flaws in those laws. It needs to also be kept in mind that some portion of gun violence cannot be prevented simply by gun control laws, because written laws need to be enforced to be effective, and there is no such thing as a 100% enforceable law.

A lot of people want to repeal the Second Amendment. Forget about that ever happening. I think both gun guys and anti-gun guys alike need to read the damned thing before getting too foamed up at the mouth. Arms means weapons, so don't get too worked up over that word. But what's this about a well-regulated militia? What's the basic idea here? Maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means.

*B) Addressing problems with the criminal justice system*

The USA has the worst criminal justice system of any developed nation. There, I said it. It's a nightmare here. Prisons are overcrowded with non-violent offenders, so dangerous people are released unreformed every day. Virtually every other nation with the money to properly manage a criminal justice system has a more effective system than we do. For-profit prisons are unsurprisingly counter-effective at rehabilitating criminals. Prisons should only exist to segregate violent people from the rest of society anyway. No prison term should be seen as a punishment. It should be seen as a necessary system to keep society safe. Somehow the US government lost the plot on the fundamental purpose of the criminal justice system. It's ended up being this bizarre hybrid of modern criminal reform and medieval practices like public humiliation punishment and slavery. It needs to get overhauled. Until that can occur, I'm not sure that any other plan to address violence in the USA will be able to be as effective as necessary.

The fact that violence and violent crime are both so closely related to the criminal justice system, and that all three are huge problems in the USA can be no coincidence. The fact that the USA has a criminal justice system unlike any other should be a huge hint that something there needs to be re-envisioned.

*C) Addressing the issues with public mental health*

People here are crazy. It's stigmatized to be crazy. People need to stop being so crazy, but when receiving any sort of help is so heavily looked-down-upon, it'll be highly unlikely to happen. Also, 40 years ago, we closed most of our public mental health facilities because they weren't working properly. So, rather than fix a broken, but necessary social program, we just nuked it. Way to go. So now we are way behind on a fix for the program. It'll be a long road, but until we set out on it, we'll never make any progress toward the end of it.

Again, we are back to the pseudo medieval system of assuming that crazy people's families will provide for them and keep them safe and keep everyone safe from them, but that doesn't work in an industrialized society. You can't give the government all of the power and still kick the responsibility of wielding that power to families and small social groups. Also, just look at how insane our own leaders are!


----

But none of those three can really be addressed separately with any expected success. Without gun control reform, criminal justice reform is not going to be able to take root. Without criminal justice reform, mental health reform won't be able to take root. And without mental health reform, gun control reform isn't likely to be enforceable.


----------



## dtrax

evade said:


> If you're American, how does it feel to risk your life getting shot when you shop at a grocery store now more than ever?
> 
> If you're a parent, even more relevant, what are some thoughts you have around sending your child to a public school that could potentially be shot up due to the culture?
> 
> Any thoughts of what should be done or if anything should be done at all?
> 
> There definitely appears to be an increase in mass shootings and I'm interested in hearing different thoughts.


I live in an affluent area, so I feel relatively safe. Years ago when I lived in Philadelphia (in a fairly high crime area) and I was definitely more "on edge". I haven't looked up stats, but in my lifetime (almost 42), gun violence has *always* been a problem. Social media has just made people more aware.

Thoughts on how to stop it? Sure, melt all guns and put all the crazies in a rubber room. Ofc doing that will violate our 2A and 4A rights. 

Sarcasm aside, I do think Red Flag laws can help. Stiffer federal background checks, grace periods, etc can help. But, IMHO, the certifiable nut jobs shooting up schools/churches/stores is the root of the problem, but is next to impossible to stop.

As it stands now, unless you've been involuntarily committed and are not a felon, you can by a gun at 18. Our gun laws don't do shit for people if they don't 'present' as crazy. Or at least crazy enough for people to notice and do something about it.

If it were up to me, I'd require qualifying with firearms in order to purchase. You can't by a car - let alone drive one - without a driver's license. But you can buy a gun without even knowing the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine".

BUT, that only somewhat addresses lawful gun ownership. It ignores straw purchases or other means to acquire gun illegally. To that issue, I have no idea. Just melt all the guns I guess.

Full disclosure, I'm a democrat and a gun owner. If the 'guvment came and wanted to take my AR, I'd not be happy. But gun violence is not getting better. It's been a problem for as long as I can remember. Changes ARE needed because the status quo - the "good guy with a gun" rhetoric - ain't fucking working.


----------



## odibrom

@dtrax start a movement, return your guns to state/police, publicize it, get momento and change the world, social media is waiting for you.


----------



## dtrax

odibrom said:


> @dtrax start a movement, return your guns to state/police, publicize it, get momento and change the world, social media is waiting for you.


Jokes aside, that is an issue for lawful gun owners who don't have murder fantasies. It's like, why am I being punished for the actions of other ppl?

For the greater good? IDK.


----------



## bostjan

Just 'cause I'm a nit-picky sort of guy, you can straw purchase a car just the same. It happens a lot with 15 year olds and wealthy people. You purchase the car and put the title in your name, but then put the registration in your name AND another person's name, then have it insured to the other person. Obviously this doesn't work if you have to finance the car, but it IS legal.

As far as I know, though, there aren't a significant number of 15 year old or unlicensed millionaires out there driving around dangerously. Maybe it's different in Beverly Hills, though, IDK.

Gun violence is just violence involving a gun. Since guns enable violence at a much higher level, gun violence has a much higher ceiling of frequency than non-gun violence. But if everyone has a gun and no one is violent, there would be no gun violence. Of course, this is absolutely an unrealistic prerequisite. 

Consider Honduras, for a moment. The average US resident has 40x more guns than the average Honduras resident. Yet Honduras has 5x more gun violence. How can that be? Well, Honduras has, essentially, no public mental health programs, criminal justice possibly worse than the USA, greater income inequality, etc. That's why I'm saying that even melting down as many guns as you can won't do the trick.

Here might be some other factors that lead to more violence:
1. More armed conflict. People, in general (not just soldiers, but certainly also soldiers) get more desensitized to violence when they see more violence. The more wars we get ourselves into, the more violence everyone sees, either first-hand, second-hand, in the news, whatever, and the more desensitized everyone becomes to it. The less sensitive a person is to violence, the more likely that people who are jerks will turn violent. The same goes for police brutality both in general and in the news. Violence in movies and games isn't the same, because everyone suspends their disbelieve and knows it's make-believe. If your neighbour is shot in their home by the police, you can't just reload from an earlier save and try again; and there's no turning off the game and sitting down to a peaceful dinner.
2. More poverty. As people get more desperate, they will try more activities to make ends meet. I don't remember anyone in kindergarten telling the teacher that they want to be a hitman or kingpin when they grow up. The more conventional opportunities exist, the fewer career criminals you get. Public education is cognate with this.
3. Corrupt government. The less fair life ends up being, they more people will consider not playing by the rules.

Of course, with all of this, violence begets more violence, so the whole thing snowballs, but you might see right away why the USA is getting more violent since 2000- we've been making more wars, we've been widening the inequality gap, we've had more government corruption and we've been doing less and less about addressing it, and our news media has become more and more sensational.

I agree with the right-wing people in that simply taking away the guns that people will be least unwilling to give up isn't going to solve the issue on its own. If you address these other problems, not only will it make a bigger difference, but people will be less unwilling to give up their guns (and less likely to buy them in the first place) if we just focus on making this a safer place to live. Maybe where we disagree is where I say that better and more effective gun control laws are a necessary piece to the puzzle.

But, then again, this is the USA, and it's the "information age" where, if the solution to the problem can't be summarized into 6 words or fewer, and aren't read by a sexy person, no one cares anyway.


----------



## StevenC

dtrax said:


> Jokes aside, that is an issue for lawful gun owners who don't have murder fantasies. It's like, why am I being punished for the actions of other ppl?
> 
> For the greater good? IDK.


Once there are no lawful gun owners it becomes a whole lot easier to find the unlawful gun owners.

And once you've lived in a world without the constant barrage of mass shooting news for a few years, you'll realise it's pretty good.


----------



## odibrom

dtrax said:


> Jokes aside, that is an issue for lawful gun owners who don't have murder fantasies. It's like, why am I being punished for the actions of other ppl?
> 
> For the greater good? IDK.



How / why is returning your guns a punishment? It would be voluntary on your behalf, publicize correctly, get momento on the webz, start a peace movement, change the world with less guns on the hands of people. People don't need guns, they need food, a roof and health/social care. Let go of the fear that led you to buy a gun in the first place, you really don't need it. You know it to be true and that this is the way...


----------



## bostjan

One problem might be the loss of value for the gun owners. The average American owns 1.2 guns. With the average gun costing $650, that's nearly $800 worth of guns.


----------



## dtrax

odibrom said:


> How / why is returning your guns a punishment? It would be voluntary on your behalf, publicize correctly, get momento on the webz, start a peace movement, change the world with less guns on the hands of people. People don't need guns, they need food, a roof and health/social care. Let go of the fear that led you to buy a gun in the first place, you really don't need it. You know it to be true and that this is the way...


I inherited my guns, if you must know. And I keep them because they have sentimental value.

So yes, giving away the few things I have of my dad would be punishment.

Stop being so presumptuous. Furthermore, it's not my place, nor yours, to tell people what they do or do not need.


----------



## philkilla

bostjan said:


> Just 'cause I'm a nit-picky sort of guy, you can straw purchase a car just the same. It happens a lot with 15 year olds and wealthy people. You purchase the car and put the title in your name, but then put the registration in your name AND another person's name, then have it insured to the other person. Obviously this doesn't work if you have to finance the car, but it IS legal.
> 
> As far as I know, though, there aren't a significant number of 15 year old or unlicensed millionaires out there driving around dangerously. Maybe it's different in Beverly Hills, though, IDK.
> 
> Gun violence is just violence involving a gun. Since guns enable violence at a much higher level, gun violence has a much higher ceiling of frequency than non-gun violence. But if everyone has a gun and no one is violent, there would be no gun violence. Of course, this is absolutely an unrealistic prerequisite.
> 
> Consider Honduras, for a moment. The average US resident has 40x more guns than the average Honduras resident. Yet Honduras has 5x more gun violence. How can that be? Well, Honduras has, essentially, no public mental health programs, criminal justice possibly worse than the USA, greater income inequality, etc. That's why I'm saying that even melting down as many guns as you can won't do the trick.
> 
> Here might be some other factors that lead to more violence:
> 1. More armed conflict. People, in general (not just soldiers, but certainly also soldiers) get more desensitized to violence when they see more violence. The more wars we get ourselves into, the more violence everyone sees, either first-hand, second-hand, in the news, whatever, and the more desensitized everyone becomes to it. The less sensitive a person is to violence, the more likely that people who are jerks will turn violent. The same goes for police brutality both in general and in the news. Violence in movies and games isn't the same, because everyone suspends their disbelieve and knows it's make-believe. If your neighbour is shot in their home by the police, you can't just reload from an earlier save and try again; and there's no turning off the game and sitting down to a peaceful dinner.
> 2. More poverty. As people get more desperate, they will try more activities to make ends meet. I don't remember anyone in kindergarten telling the teacher that they want to be a hitman or kingpin when they grow up. The more conventional opportunities exist, the fewer career criminals you get. Public education is cognate with this.
> 3. Corrupt government. The less fair life ends up being, they more people will consider not playing by the rules.
> 
> Of course, with all of this, violence begets more violence, so the whole thing snowballs, but you might see right away why the USA is getting more violent since 2000- we've been making more wars, we've been widening the inequality gap, we've had more government corruption and we've been doing less and less about addressing it, and our news media has become more and more sensational.
> 
> I agree with the right-wing people in that simply taking away the guns that people will be least unwilling to give up isn't going to solve the issue on its own. If you address these other problems, not only will it make a bigger difference, but people will be less unwilling to give up their guns (and less likely to buy them in the first place) if we just focus on making this a safer place to live. Maybe where we disagree is where I say that better and more effective gun control laws are a necessary piece to the puzzle.
> 
> But, then again, this is the USA, and it's the "information age" where, if the solution to the problem can't be summarized into 6 words or fewer, and aren't read by a sexy person, no one cares anyway.



I pictured you as a sexy person that typed that, so it made it an easy read .


Real talk though, excellent points.

There's so many ideologies that oppose each other when it comes to guns it's stirring; at the crux though it's fair to say the majority of people on all sides do not want to see innocent people losing their lives.


----------



## odibrom

dtrax said:


> I inherited my guns, if you must know. And I keep them because they have sentimental value.
> 
> So yes, giving away the few things I have of my dad would be punishment.
> 
> Stop being so presumptuous. Furthermore, it's not my place, nor yours, to tell people what they do or do not need.



I'm sorry for your loss. However, the fear is still present, hence why you still keep them. If you want to inherit it from your father, it's up to you, doesn't really matter how far it goes. A gun represents fear of your neighbor, of the fellow next to you at the grocery store, of your own police, of your government or whomever you see crossing the street. Let go of it.

I'll inherit lots of shit from my father, shit he gathered during his life that doesn't mean anything to me. His belongings are not really mine to preserve, but hey, one's trash is another's treasure, right?

... now, do people not need food, a roof and health/social care?...


----------



## dtrax

odibrom said:


> I'm sorry for your loss. However, the fear is still present, hence why you still keep them. If you want to inherit it from your father, it's up to you, doesn't really matter how far it goes. A gun represents fear of your neighbor, of the fellow next to you at the grocery store, of your own police, of your government or whomever you see crossing the street. Let go of it.
> 
> I'll inherit lots of shit from my father, shit he gathered during his life that doesn't mean anything to me. His belongings are not really mine to preserve, but hey, one's trash is another's treasure, right?
> 
> ... now, do people not need food, a roof and health/social care?...


Whether or not you value your father's things is irrelevant to me.

I do reject your fear narrative though. Perhaps my original post wasn't clear, but I am 100% for serious measures being taken in order to combat gun violence. However, there is no way our government is going to take away our guns. It will literally be civil war.


----------



## bostjan

Here in rural VT, and I'm sure in other isolated rural areas of the USA as well, guns are used for hunting by hunters who hunt to eat. Like, I'm not even joking or exaggerating, but there are people who won't have enough to eat over the winter if they don't kill at least a couple deer in the late autumn.

Then there are the people where I grew up in Michigan who live in Detroit, but go way up north of Escanaba to hunt, and, every year, 5-10 fewer come back than set out. I guess they think each other are the deer? IDK. There's also a huge number of criminals in the Detroit area who will never give up their guns, because, whoever gives theirs up first will merely be murdered by the others. And then you have the suburbanite Michigan Militia guys who are convinced that they are the world's last hope in the inevitable zombie apocalypse (or they blow up buildings in OKC, or plot to kidnap the governor, or storm the Capitol in Washington, etc.), and they'll never give up their guns. Essentially, what I'm saying, is that no one is going to willingly give up their guns in the USA. The ones who might give them up under just the perfect conditions will still probably be a tiny minority of gunowners.


----------



## odibrom

dtrax said:


> Whether or not you value your father's things is irrelevant to me.
> 
> I do reject your fear narrative though. Perhaps my original post wasn't clear, but I am 100% for serious measures being taken in order to combat gun violence. However, there is no way our government is going to take away our guns. It will literally be civil war.



... as is irrelevant to me your sentimental value over those inherited guns. Objects are just that, as is money, you won't take them with you to the afterlife (if there's such thing).
You can reject whatever you want, doesn't mean I'm wrong about thinking that guns are bought and kept (inherited or not) because of fear and that it's fear that drives all those crazy shit shootings happening in the USA. Fear is a sentiment that can be inherited from your family, it can be indoctrinated and silently install itself in one's lifestyle. Mind your fear. Give up your guns.


----------



## jaxadam

odibrom said:


> ..as is money, you won't take them with you to the afterlife (if there's such thing).



Don’t be so sure…. I’ve been working with some investors on some crypt-currency called aftercoin. We will host all of your money for you, and it will be awaiting in the afterlife ending of your religious choosing!


----------



## odibrom

jaxadam said:


> Don’t be so sure…. I’ve been working with some investors on some crypt-currency called aftercoin. We will host all of your money for you, and it will be awaiting in the afterlife ending of your religious choosing!



LOLOLOLOLOLOL... now that's a scam that could work wonders...


----------



## jaxadam

odibrom said:


> LOLOLOLOLOLOL... now that's a scam that could work wonders...



Only problem is there is a slight upcharge for atheists because we haven't really hammered out all the details for that one yet...


----------



## dtrax

odibrom said:


> ... as is irrelevant to me your sentimental value over those inherited guns. Objects are just that, as is money, you won't take them with you to the afterlife (if there's such thing).
> You can reject whatever you want, doesn't mean I'm wrong about thinking that guns are bought and kept (inherited or not) because of fear and that it's fear that drives all those crazy shit shootings happening in the USA. Fear is a sentiment that can be inherited from your family, it can be indoctrinated and silently install itself in one's lifestyle. Mind your fear. Give up your guns.


I just smelted my weapons. And posted about it on Myspace. And thanks to you, I am no longer living in fear.


----------



## c7spheres

I've spent hours typing and retyping paragraphs. I'm just way to harsh on this subject and I don't wanna get banned because I know only certain POV's are allowed here. Which is sso's right.


----------



## StevenC

c7spheres said:


> I've spent hours typing and retyping paragraphs. I'm just way to harsh on this subject and I don't wanna get banned because I know only certain POV's are allowed here. Which is sso's right.


Plenty of POVs are allowed here, the issue is opposing voices tend to be incapable of posting a coherent argument or standing up to scrutiny without lashing out.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> these nonsensical arguments need to be countered with more logical ones.


Hate to break out this old chestnut, but as the saying goes...
"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired"


----------



## odibrom

dtrax said:


> I just smelted my weapons. And posted about it on Myspace. And thanks to you, I am no longer living in fear.


... good for you... I'm glad to be helpful...


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Consider Honduras, for a moment. The average US resident has 40x more guns than the average Honduras resident. Yet Honduras has 5x more gun violence. How can that be? Well, Honduras has, essentially, no public mental health programs, criminal justice possibly worse than the USA, greater income inequality, etc. That's why I'm saying that even melting down as many guns as you can won't do the trick.



I think it's a little disingenuous to throw in "no public mental health programs" into the causes for Honduras's gun violence. Is mental health to blame in countries where violence is a way of life?


----------



## Adieu

jaxadam said:


> Don’t be so sure…. I’ve been working with some investors on some crypt-currency called aftercoin. We will host all of your money for you, and it will be awaiting in the afterlife ending of your religious choosing!



You know what you need?

SHAMANS. And interpreters.

Really ups your game if you got some dude in feathers banging a drum and speaking mumbo jumbo and a business casual type in a suit jacket and glasses "translating" from spiritese


----------



## High Plains Drifter

odibrom said:


> How / why is returning your guns a punishment? It would be voluntary on your behalf, publicize correctly, get momento on the webz, start a peace movement, change the world with less guns on the hands of people. People don't need guns, they need food, a roof and health/social care. Let go of the fear that led you to buy a gun in the first place, you really don't need it. You know it to be true and that this is the way...


I completely support realistic ideas that would lead to imposing heavier and more assured/ consistent penalties for those that engage in crimes involving firearms. I also fully support many ideas that would place more scrutiny upon buyers of firearms.

But as much as I like, appreciate, and respect @odibrom , I just have to say that this "fear that led you to buy a gun" idea is not at all the mindset of many gun owners. Many people purchase firearms for nothing more than the enjoyment of shooting. And certainly that activity should carry with it a great deal of reverence for how dangerous the handling of a firearm is... unlike some other "thrilling" activities where possible injury or death to bystanders may be significantly less concerning. But many people that like to spend an afternoon honing their proficiency at a gun-range simply do so for the recreational aspect. And if nothing else, I feel as if that should be recognized here.


----------



## Randy

So no more buying guns, just state owned/sanctioned shooting ranges where you can buy a membership and shoot all the cool AF guns you want for one low, low price.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> So no more buying guns, just state owned/sanctioned shooting ranges where you can buy a membership and shoot all the cool AF guns you want for one low, low price.



But then how do you intimidate your political rivals?


----------



## Randy

On the range, brother.


----------



## odibrom

High Plains Drifter said:


> I completely support realistic ideas that would lead to imposing heavier and more assured/ consistent penalties for those that engage in crimes involving firearms. I also fully support many ideas that would place more scrutiny upon buyers of firearms.
> 
> But as much as I like, appreciate, and respect @odibrom , I just have to say that this "fear that led you to buy a gun" idea is not at all the mindset of many gun owners. Many people purchase firearms for nothing more than the enjoyment of shooting. And certainly that activity should carry with it a great deal of reverence for how dangerous the handling of a firearm is... unlike some other "thrilling" activities where possible injury or death to bystanders may be significantly less concerning. But many people that like to spend an afternoon honing their proficiency at a gun-range simply do so for the recreational aspect. And if nothing else, I feel as if that should be recognized here.


That is a very good point, owning guns for the recreational aspect of just aiming at a target and trying to get better at shooting it in controlled environments.

I own a saber*, have made several nunchakus, re-purposed 2 medium sized stainless steel pipes for medium size staffs, also built several 3 section staff / 3 stick nunchakus (?) and I don't know how many ways I know of how to kill a man bare handed. Did I kill any so far, no, thankfully.
- Have I ever used these instruments on anyone with the purpose of hurting them?, no.
- Do I conceal carry my nunchakus (all other weapons are un-concealable) when I go to the grocery or go out at night?, no again.
- I'll only carry these objects when I'm going to my practice or when going to my summer vacations' home, where I have a large backyard that allows me to openly train these in my privacy and without anyone outside my family knowing it.

Guns are in a different level because they can do harm at distance and it's pretty damn hard (impossible) to dodge a bullet. I've lost one nunchakus in 1999/2000, they were in my backpack and it was stolen from my father's car. It's a pity, but I doubt they'll be used to assault anyone since it's not easy to effectively use these as an assault weapon**. The same cannot be said about guns. A lost gun that ends in a "bad guy's hands" is a responsibility of the original/official owner. I understand one's need to train his aim at target practice on his own and not depend on a shooting facility, but the risk of loosing your own guns to some lowlife or to misfire it and hurt a relative is way too high. Accidents happen, always and when we least expect them. The more danger the object is, the higher stakes for shit accidents to happen and when they do, shit hits the fan fast.

It's way harder to kill someone with a sword or a nunchaku than with a gun, simply because it gets way too personal.

Knifes are also super dangerous because are easily concealable, super easy to speed move with. Most lowlifes using them don't know shit about the human body and think "a cut here and a cut there won't do much harm"... until they hit an artery and the victim drains out of blood. Prisons are full of these young lowlifes that are easy on the trigger or knifes, simply because their ego is/was too big behind their weapons.

So, I side with @Randy on practicing at controlled shooting ranges and be done with it. There's no need to buy guns for recreation purposes... but then again, this is an outsider's perspective...

:::::::::::

* which I bought sharp at a local shop without having to identify myself, about 20 years ago. Nowadays the local law about these swords have changed considerably and I need a licence to own this saber that must be renowed every 5 years or so.
** they come around, right?...

:::::::::::

Last but not least, I have a far relative that was (accidentally?) shot with a hunting shot gun and left to die without help. The shooter was a hunter and this happened in October 2019. This relative was saved by couple passing by a little after, had more than 100 lead debry in her, some encrusted to the bones. The shooter/shot gun owner never declared himself guilty, probably because he might have had a few too many beers at the time or is covering some else's ass. With this "accident" lots of lifes were destroyed:
- my relative's (obviously), although she lives still but with more difficulties (which she didn't need, because her husband has Alzeimer or Parkinson),
- the gun owner (his going to jail for sure),
- the local hunting association because they're in for the trial as well for misshandling the event and will loose a huge amount of money and/or even their hunting activity license,
- the other hunters whom will need to search for other hunting associations and have seen their guns seized for inspection and so on.
One "simple" accident (?), lots of victims.

We have a saying here that goes like this, _paga o justo pelo pecador _(_the righteous pays for the sinner_ - free literal translation)... yeah, guns should be willingly delivered to the police, period.

@MaxOfMetal that's super scary... why? what's the need for that? why? That's fear stamped allover their faces/feces...


----------



## possumkiller

StevenC said:


> Once there are no lawful gun owners it becomes a whole lot easier to find the unlawful gun owners.
> 
> And once you've lived in a world without the constant barrage of mass shooting news for a few years, you'll realise it's pretty good.


mic drop


----------



## AMOS

2nd Forever!


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> Once there are no lawful gun owners it becomes a whole lot easier to find the unlawful gun owners.
> 
> And once you've lived in a world without the constant barrage of mass shooting news for a few years, you'll realise it's pretty good.


Sorry to piss in your corn flakes, but we won't be disarmed, ever. But you CNN Parrots can dream right?


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> Sorry to piss in your corn flakes, but we won't be disarmed, ever. But you CNN Parrots can dream right?


Remember that last post I replied to you about assumptions? I live in a different country with strict gun control. I don't even get CNN on my TV and it doesn't even slightly align with my views.

At least try to engage with the topic without getting upset that other people see the world differently.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> Remember that last post I replied to you about assumptions? I live in a different country with strict gun control. I don't even get CNN on my TV and it doesn't even slightly align with my views.
> 
> At least try to engage with the topic without getting upset that other people see the world differently.


Then see it your way and keep it to yourself. How you do things in Ireland is none of my business, you should have the same attitude regarding our issues. You don't vote here, you have no say here. But yet you spout off daily about what you want to see happen here. Get a hobby.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> Then see it your way and keep it to yourself. How you do things in Ireland is none of my business, you should have the same attitude regarding our issues. You don't vote here, you have no say here. But yet you spout off daily about what you want to see happen here. Get a hobby.


It's called empathy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AMOS said:


> Then see it your way and keep it to yourself. How you do things in Ireland is none of my business, you should have the same attitude regarding our issues. You don't vote here, you have no say here. But yet you spout off daily about what you want to see happen here. Get a hobby.



Stop canceling and censoring @StevenC, what are you MSNBC?


----------



## AMOS

I bet you don't even know the IRS is stockpiling ammo! The IRS? why? you parrots want to see us become disarmed so we can become the next China with no human rights. be careful what you wish for.


----------



## AMOS

On that note I'm out of here, have fun parrots.


----------



## odibrom

AMOS said:


> 2nd Forever!


Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Slavery was legal...

When one uses disrespectful language as an argument (who are you calling parrots to?), one has already lost the argument.

On that note, thank you and fair well...


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> I bet you don't even know the IRS is stockpiling ammo! The IRS? why? you parrots want to see us become disarmed so we can become the next China with no human rights. be careful what you wish for.


What are you talking about, human rights? You guys don't even have universal healthcare, affordable or effective education, access to abortion is being restricted, and don't get me started on trans rights in america. I can't vote in America, but the GOP is trying to extend that to as many citizens as possible.

Guns doesn't equal freedom.


----------



## thraxil

AMOS said:


> I bet you don't even know the IRS is stockpiling ammo! The IRS? why? you parrots want to see us become disarmed so we can become the next China with no human rights. be careful what you wish for.


Not that I necessarily agree with it, but the IRS has a Criminal Investigation Division with more than 2000 officers that deal with things like narcotics investigations. Should those officers really be in a different, more law enforcement oriented branch of the government like the FBI? I think you could argue that, but given how complicated things get in large organizations, I don't think anyone should be surprised that the IRS has a division to do some of that themselves. They have something like 4500 firearms and 5 million rounds of ammunition (per 2017 numbers). Is two firearms per officer and 1000 rounds per firearm excessive? Maybe, but given how contorted government purchasing can be, I can see that being reasonable. What are the numbers like for other armed law enforcement divisions?


----------



## odibrom

StevenC said:


> What are you talking about, human rights? You guys don't even have universal healthcare, affordable or effective education, access to abortion is being restricted, and don't get me started on trans rights in america. I can't vote in America, but the GOP is trying to extend that to as many citizens as possible.
> 
> Guns doesn't equal freedom.



He's shooting arguments like the guy in the car video...


----------



## StevenC

thraxil said:


> Not that I necessarily agree with it, but the IRS has a Criminal Investigation Division with more than 2000 officers that deal with things like narcotics investigations. Should those officers really be in a different, more law enforcement oriented branch of the government like the FBI? I think you could argue that, but given how complicated things get in large organizations, I don't think anyone should be surprised that the IRS has a division to do some of that themselves. They have something like 4500 firearms and 5 million rounds of ammunition (per 2017 numbers). Is two firearms per officer and 1000 rounds per firearm excessive? Maybe, but given how contorted government purchasing can be, I can see that being reasonable. What are the numbers like for other armed law enforcement divisions?


You can tell it's a bogus conspiracy theory because all of the "Biden's IRS stockpiling weapons" articles from this week are using the same numbers as 2017.


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> On that note I'm out of here, have fun parrots.


I mean you're just parroting decades old, conservative old fart nonsense like a broken record? Be conservative, that's your problem, but don't be like most conservatives in this country, about as hypocritical as they come.


----------



## c7spheres

I'm not saying it's right but if saving lives is the main purpose of gun control, then wouldn't it take decades of this going on to equal the number of people that'd die just by the act of attempting to collect the guns themselves taking place? Any attempt to collect the guns will lead to lot's of death imo. Lot's more than mass shootings it would seem.


----------



## thraxil

StevenC said:


> You can tell it's a bogus conspiracy theory because all of the "Biden's IRS stockpiling weapons" articles from this week are using the same numbers as 2017.


And when it was going around in 2017 it was "Obama's IRS stockpiling weapons" even though Trump was president.

Who says conservatives don't support recycling?


----------



## narad

c7spheres said:


> I'm not saying it's right but if saving lives is the main purpose of gun control, then wouldn't it take decades of this going on to equal the number of people that'd die just by the act of attempting to collect the guns themselves taking place? Any attempt to collect the guns will lead to lot's of death imo. Lot's more than mass shootings it would seem.



Less children and more conspiracy loony-tunes morons.


----------



## c7spheres

narad said:


> Less children and more conspiracy loony-tunes morons.


 Like an investment in the future? I dunno, I think the kids nowadays will be the one's that euthanize us. I might wanna take my chances with the looneys. I guess I'm open to change. If we actually gave a generation of kids a chance, maybe they would be nice to us. I'm in. Just don't bring any of them little shits around my gear. jk.


----------



## StevenC

c7spheres said:


> I'm not saying it's right but if saving lives is the main purpose of gun control, then wouldn't it take decades of this going on to equal the number of people that'd die just by the act of attempting to collect the guns themselves taking place? Any attempt to collect the guns will lead to lot's of death imo. Lot's more than mass shootings it would seem.


No one died when Australia got rid of guns. New Zealand is currently buying back guns and no one has died.


----------



## dtrax

StevenC said:


> No one died when Australia got rid of guns. New Zealand is currently buying back guns and no one has died.


I'm quoting you, but this is more in response to those outside the US making the argument for gun buy back programs.

I'm not debating it doesn't work. I mean, it's not hard to see that if guns go bye-bye, you have no gun violence. But here, in America, it will never fucking happen.

Instead of clutching to ideals, constituents and our policy makers need to find a middle ground and reject the NRA's hold over our gun laws.


----------



## c7spheres

StevenC said:


> No one died when Australia got rid of guns. New Zealand is currently buying back guns and no one has died.


 I was talking more about like a forced situation.


----------



## thraxil

c7spheres said:


> I was talking more about like a forced situation.


Australia's National Firearms Agreement made automatic and semi-automatic rilfes and shotguns illegal and then introduced a mandatory buyback program for illegal guns.

I'm not sure exactly what the key difference is between "mandatory" and "forced".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

c7spheres said:


> I was talking more about like a forced situation.



Anyone who needs to be packing to go to Dairy Queen on Tuesday in broad daylight isn't the fearless soldier of fortune they think they are. 

Besides, don't you remember? Blue lives matter.


----------



## MFB

MaxOfMetal said:


> Besides, don't you remember? Blue lives matter.


----------



## c7spheres

thraxil said:


> Australia's National Firearms Agreement made automatic and semi-automatic rilfes and shotguns illegal and then introduced a mandatory buyback program for illegal guns.
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what the key difference is between "mandatory" and "forced".


 How strongly it's actually enforced. Forced is they will come get them and kill you if you refuse or they'll create a standoff situation etc. 



MFB said:


>


can't see picture.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Anyone who needs to be packing to go to Dairy Queen on Tuesday in broad daylight isn't the fearless soldier of fortune they think they are.
> 
> Besides, don't you remember? Blue lives matter.


 I don't wanna talk about cops because my life experience is so unbelivable it sounds preposterous. It comes off as fiction. I support good cops with common sense that aren't over zealous though. One's that know when to let things slide, and one's that go out of their way to make things right without fines and jails or courts involved.


----------



## MFB

c7spheres said:


> can't see picture.



Gadsden Flag but the snake is gagged and wearing a MAGA hat saying "Tread Harder on Me, Daddy" because bootlickers don't realize Blue Lives Matter is the exact opposite of the DTOM flag they love to fly so much


----------



## yan12

I stay out of political discussions. This will be the first time I have ever posted in a thread like this. But I feel it necessary on this topic.

The greatest challenge in all of this is defining a narrow area of focus to change, modify, or fix. GUN CONTROL is far too wide and too partisan. Not only that, you have 250 yrs of history in this country where the gun and it's manufacture plays a major roll in weaving the fabric of this nation.

Understanding 2a is not easy in today's world, especially for our younger generations. Especially when the sole purpose of any lawyer is to twist words to fit their narrative. Lawyers are the cancer of language. They constantly screw with things until it all blends together and you can't make heads or tails of the original argument. That's why this country, our republic, is failing on all fronts. All republics fail and our experiment in self-governance and freedom is about over.

All politicians are lawyers these days. No more civic duty, but a career to embark on to enrich one's self at the sacrifice of others. A lifetime of families ruling the rest of us. A good old boys club that has an inner sanctum that cannot be broken. If you don't think people like Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell get together at the end of the day to sip 25yr old scotch you are truly blind. Yes, they muck it up and argue in front of cameras, but they are on the same team, and it's not ours, the so-called free people.

2a has but one purpose. Armed citizens can overthrow a government. Period. Don't mince words and don't play games. Our founding fathers knew the only way they succeeded was due to arms, and so future generations must be armed in case this experiment put people in chains.

Many today say this is not needed, guns are bad, and folks that like them or own them are bad too. We have evolved and become more civilized. But the facts remain that if you look at FBI statistics, more homicides happen with hands, feet, bats, knives and other weapons then they do with firearms. Guns are a tool that might make it easier, but evil folks will continue to do evil no matter what we do as a nation. If you snapped your finger today and guns disappeared, you would make up tomorrow to the same number of rapes, murders, car jackings, thefts, etc. People do bad things to other people, and with morality at an all time low, children are now targets too.

Since we are a nation founded upon the principle of self-reliance, it is up to the individual to provide for themselves in all manners, and this includes self-protection and the protection of one's loved ones and personal property. There is no one out there protecting you and yours other than yourself. Cops do a job, so does the military. But watching over you personally is not on the list.

Do I think raising the age to 21 helps? Sure. Can I see changes in the law that will do anything to help? No. We don't enforce the laws we have now, thanks to lawyers twisting words and getting clients off or having sentences reduced. Half our problems go away with just sticking to the rules we already have. They other half goes away if lawyers become extinct.

Allocation of funds. Instead of sending other countries billions of dollars, what about real security systems and single entry point modifications for schools. Real safety officers paid by the district. So many things we can do to save lives, but we will spend millions on legislation that does nothing that comes to producing results. Mental health awareness, nothing gets done. Not ever.

At the end of the day, taking guns away from citizens will only lead to the greatest revolt and death toll you would ever see. It's not feasible in any manner, so let it go. Clamp down, limit purchases, tax the piss out of them, whatever. But firearms are here to stay, just like lawyers and a government that cares only for it's own interests. Our government should be controlled buy US, the people, but it is not. The switch has flipped and the we do what we are told. WE think we have a say in governance, but we do not.


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> Hate to break out this old chestnut, but as the saying goes...
> "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired"


If not by logic, then what, though?



narad said:


> I think it's a little disingenuous to throw in "no public mental health programs" into the causes for Honduras's gun violence. Is mental health to blame in countries where violence is a way of life?


Yes, particluarly in latin america, according to several sources, whether triggered by external factors, or not.

Maybe you can debate the efficacy of those mental health programs, but that's another side-topic. However, the link between mental health and violence are well-documented.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> So no more buying guns, just state owned/sanctioned shooting ranges where you can buy a membership and shoot all the cool AF guns you want for one low, low price.


Is "State owned/sanctioned shooting range" a euphemism for joining the military?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Is "State owned/sanctioned shooting range" a euphemism for joining the military?



No, the police.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> No, the police.


Oh, I guess my mind went to a dark place, but it wasn't dark enough to catch @Randy 's drift.

If we got things the way I outlined, those potential abusers of power would have no where to go other than therapy, unless they actually act on their impulses, then into a rehabilitation program.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Oh, I guess my mind went to a dark place, but it wasn't dark enough to catch @Randy 's drift.
> 
> If we got things the way I outlined, those potential abusers of power would have no where to go other than therapy, unless they actually act on their impulses, then into a rehabilitation program.



Nah, I don't think Randy meant it that way.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> If not by logic, then what, though?


That's the billion dollar question, isn't it?


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> That's the billion dollar question, isn't it?


Right. I think there's potentially little-or-no value in saying that a particular solution won't work, but offering no alternative idea. Maybe we've been trying to reason with people like @AMOS and getting nowhere, because logic has little value to them. I'd say, though, that, in the absence of a better idea, persistence might be the only hope.


----------



## Adieu

Btw, can somebody explain how assault rifles are legal... but large knives AREN'T?

Didn't the original right to bear arms most certainly include swords and daggers?


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> Right. I think there's potentially little-or-no value in saying that a particular solution won't work, but offering no alternative idea. Maybe we've been trying to reason with people like @AMOS and getting nowhere, because logic has little value to them. I'd say, though, that, in the absence of a better idea, persistence might be the only hope.


"...nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

If Covid has taught us anything, it's that the typical American conservative doesn't give a damn about how their privilege might affect other people until it turns around and bites them or their family in the ass. We're long past the point of trying to constructively point out how gun legislation will lead to a safer society, because it always ends up circling back to "Mah freedumbs!!" The only way they're going to figure it out on their own is when the time finally comes that it hurts them personally, and even that's potentially a dubious assertion; after all, remember the phrase "he's hurting the wrong people"? Still aptly represents the Republican mindset, being willing to hurt themselves just so long as it hurts people they don't like too.

America really only has two choices at this point: 1) pass the legislation and deal with the fallout as it happens, _whatever_ it might be, or 2) watch helplessly as it slowly bleeds out, but one absolute undeniable fact is that you won't be able to building a bridge between parties in order to make it happen, because one of those parties is always looking for an opportunity to blow up that bridge from their side, even if it kills them in the process.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Btw, can somebody explain how assault rifles are legal... but large knives AREN'T?
> 
> Didn't the original right to bear arms most certainly include swords and daggers?


That's a can of worms to open.

There are no federal laws banning the ownership of large knives (such is not the case for switchblades and ballistic knives, though). State laws banning bowie knives often had racist motives. For example, most states in the deep south shortly after the American Civil War banned non-whites from owning large knives. As the slow process of pointing out that those laws were racist finally started bearing fruit, few of the laws were repealed, and most of them were simply reworded so as to include all races in the ban, and then the bans were simply not enforced on white people by the police.

Usually, whenever anyone was arrested for possessing a knife that wasn't a switchblade or otherwise spring-loaded has had the financial resources available to challenge the charges, the courts have ruled in their favour, setting the precedent that knives _are_ legal to own, just not to use in crimes, but that hasn't stopped states and cities/town from banning them anyway.

Weirdly, in San Antonio, city law prohibits ownership of knives with blades _less than_ 5.5", but Texas State law prohibits knives with blades _greater than_ 5.5" in urban areas, so you are technically allowed to carry a knife that is _exactly _5.5" - no more, no less.


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> "...nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
> 
> If Covid has taught us anything, it's that the typical American conservative doesn't give a damn about how their privilege might affect other people until it turns around and bites them or their family in the ass. We're long past the point of trying to constructively point out how gun legislation will lead to a safer society, because it always ends up circling back to "Mah freedumbs!!" The only way they're going to figure it out on their own is when the time finally comes that it hurts them personally. After all, remember the phrase "he's hurting the wrong people"? Still aptly represents the Republican mindset, being willing to hurt themselves just so long as it hurts people they don't like too.
> 
> America really only has two choices at this point: 1) pass the legislation and deal with the fallout as it happens, _whatever_ it might be, or 2) watch helplessly as it slowly bleeds out, but one absolute undeniable fact is that you won't be able to building a bridge between parties in order to make it happen, because one of those parties is always looking for an opportunity to blow up that bridge from their side, even if it kills them in the process.


Well, this being a constitutional democracy, you _cannot_ pass the legislation, so option 1 isn't even on the table. Either you eliminate the democracy, or amend the Constitution such that it is clearer or just no longer has the provision to guarantee self defense.  There's no option to simply "pass the legislation" that a minority of the voting legislators want, even if a majority of the actual people want it, and even if a supermajority of the people want it when the constitution is interpreted as banning it and there is not a supermajority of states that want it.

So your options are:
1. Fascism. Round up everyone who stands in your way and murder them in cold blood.
2. Revolution. Declare yourself supreme overlord and murder anyone who disagrees in cold blood.
3. Debate. Convince the shot callers in power that your idea is better.
4. Give up. Just forget it, because none of the above solutions are ever going to happen. People are just going to continue to be more violent and they are going to randomly kill each other until we are all dead from either being murdered by them or being obstructed until we die of old age.
5. Magic. Just convince yourself that reality is not what you observe, but whatever you want it to be. Convince yourself that everything is fine and that there is no gun violence, and go on living your life. If anyone tries to murder you in a mass shooting, just tell them "Pfaw, guns aren't real!"


----------



## SCJR

I tend to fall on the side of guns have been around a very long time but a lot of these problems surrounding them are more contemporary. Is it cliche? Yes. Unscientific in its scope? Probably.

But it's a common sense notion. I think it's a fair question to ask the question: Why now? You could probably raise some significant points that apply to the modern societal mental health condition and also the actual firearms industry. Truth on both sides of the fence.

But something has obviously changed because to let those not from the U.S. that seem to have all of the answers regarding this situation know, it was not always like this. Even 12-15 years ago in high school this was not a thought on anyone's mind. It was basically just Columbine and the VT shooting that primarily lived in the cultural zeitgeist.

But of course that's just my perspective. I've had a great upper-middle class upbringing and never had to worry about barring my windows or dealing with a lot of the crime in a lot of the areas where having the right to personal protection means something a LOT different to somebody who does deal with those things.

Edit: Something else the American population deals with is an armed police force and an armed criminal population. Many arguments for reducing gun violence are compelling but become less so when the police have guns, the criminals have guns, and the general public is expected to defend their homes with what, a baseball bat?


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Weirdly, in San Antonio, city law prohibits ownership of knives with blades _less than_ 5.5", but Texas State law prohibits knives with blades _greater than_ 5.5" in urban areas, so you are technically allowed to carry a knife that is _exactly _5.5" - no more, no less.


Texas is home to some REALLY weird laws.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> Well, this being a constitutional democracy, you _cannot_ pass the legislation, so option 1 isn't even on the table. Either you eliminate the democracy, or amend the Constitution such that it is clearer or just no longer has the provision to guarantee self defense.  There's no option to simply "pass the legislation" that a minority of the voting legislators want, even if a majority of the actual people want it, and even if a supermajority of the people want it when the constitution is interpreted as banning it and there is not a supermajority of states that want it.


I should have been more clear, but you also kinda jumped the gun. In the instance where I said "pass the legislation", I was making that statement under the pretense that the governing party would be in the position to do so legally, not based on the current deadlock.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Texas is home to some REALLY weird laws.





Texas Penal Code Title 10 Chapter 48 said:


> Sec. 48.02. PROHIBITION OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF HUMAN ORGANS. (a) In this section, "human organ" means the human kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, eye, bone, skin, or any other human organ or tissue, but does not include hair or blood, blood components (including plasma), blood derivatives, or blood reagents. The term does not include human fetal tissue as defined by Section 48.03.
> (b) A person commits an offense if he or she knowingly or intentionally offers to buy, offers to sell, acquires, receives, sells, or otherwise transfers any human organ for valuable consideration.
> (c) It is an exception to the application of this section that the valuable consideration is: (1) a fee paid to a physician or to other medical personnel for services rendered in the usual course of medical practice or a fee paid for hospital or other clinical services; (2) reimbursement of legal or medical expenses incurred for the benefit of the ultimate receiver of the organ; or (3) reimbursement of expenses of travel, housing, and lost wages incurred by the donor of a human organ in connection with the donation of the organ.
> (d) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.


Huh?

Pat, I'd like to buy an "I", please. [enter SWAT team]



Xaios said:


> I should have been more clear, but you also kinda jumped the gun. In the instance where I said "pass the legislation", I was making that statement under the pretense that the governing party would be in the position to do so legally, not based on the current deadlock.


But that's the sticking point - they aren't in the position to do so and have no path to get to that point.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> But that's the sticking point - they aren't in the position to do so and have no path to get to that point.


Then the second choice of "watch helplessly as it slowly bleeds out" wins by default.

Hate to be callous, but what else is there really to say? The pro-gun lobby is going to fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo of gun ownership which results in an endless parade of death and despair, and the opposition seems congenitally incapable of stopping them. Sorry to be a downer, but we've been over this ad nauseam. Retreading the same territory over, _and over_, _*and over*_ isn't going to help.

Perhaps America really is so far gone that the only way out really is for the carnage to escalate to the point that that enough people eventually come to their senses when their loved ones are murdered by the violence that they themselves wrought.

Sorry guys, I guess you've already lost.


----------



## bostjan

Picking on the Second Amendment for a moment:



US Constitution said:


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



History time. Precursor to this, proposed to Congress by James Madison:


James Madison said:


> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.


Informed by the Massachusetts Bill of Rights:


> The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.



It's clear, historically, that the purpose of the 2A has to do with militias, i.e. the National Guard. The idea here is that the Army is only supposed to exist in times of war, and, otherwise, the nation should be defended by the National Guards, which are commanded ultimately by the state governments rather than the federal government. This is a balance to federal power as well as a preventative measure from war mongering. After the American Civil War, with the consolidation of federal power and the realization that states would potentially go to war with each other over policy, this whole idea sort of became scrapped.

But, as with most everything to do with the American Civil War, revisionists re-imagined the amendment to mean something else.

There may very well have been some push to intentionally make the language of the actual Constitutional law vague so as to include the interpretation of self-defense, but if you actually read it, that's not what it explicitly says. If it was kept vague about this, then it's clear that it was made to leave the door open for further interpretation. But there is no sane interpretation that means that private citizens can arm themselves with whatever they want and that the government can do nothing about it. Even with the most generous interpretation, the idea is that people should be allowed to have weapons in their homes to protect their collective rights from foreign or domestic governments. It doesn't mean you grab your weapons and march around the town square during peace time. In fact, doing so would be contrary to the entire point of the law.

Switzerland, until very very recently, had a similar idea, but not taken to a weird direction post-Civil War. People there were trained to do a particular military job upon reaching adulthood, and then were basically on-call to serve the military for life. So maybe you were trained to be a heavy machine gun operator. You'd get a heavy machine gun, be trained on how to operate it, and then you have to keep that sucker ready to operate in case your country is ever invaded. They used to get sealed boxes of ammo, too. I guess now the idea is that you'd head over to some secret weapons and ammo cache to pick up your minute-men style military gear, rather than keeping a giant chain-fed automatic weapon in the attic.

Anyway, the NRA has absolutely misinterpreted the 2A to mean whatever serves their purpose and they throw away the entire original meaning of it. The way they see it, 2A guarantees that everyone should be allowed to waltz around with an AR-15. And honestly, interpreting the 2A historically, it probably does mean that civilians should get AR-15-type weapons, or, at least weapons that serve that exact purpose, but those weapons should stay locked up in a gun cabinet and the people who receive them should be trained and certified before issue. Then the weapon isn't even really yours, necessarily, it's society's weapon and society is trusting _you_ to use it, _if necessary_. This whole model sounds crazy, because in modern society, it _is_. We don't rely on small social groups like villages anymore, as we did in the 18th century.

The NRA has probably done more damage to whatever ideals they generally were trying to protect than any other organization, simply by taking things ridiculously far. Most gun owners are responsible. Some are not. I think that, no matter how careful we are about who gets guns and who doesn't, there will be irresponsible gun owners. But the fact that this thread even exists is proof that the number of irresponsible gun owners has reach epidemic proportions. We all take a step back and say "holy shit! something _needs_ to be done about this!" and the far right says "hmm, naw, everything looks good here."

And, this being an echo-chamber, we might get the feeling that the average American wants stricter gun control. That might have been true in the past, but the trend is surprising. So likely, nothing will happen.


----------



## possumkiller

So maybe they should just do like in Texas and when a shooting happens somewhere just tear down the whole building afterward. Sooner or later there won't be any schools left to shoot up.


----------



## bostjan

The flood gates are now open.

The Supreme Court of the US just issued their ruling on _NYSRPA v Bruen_ and ruled that concealed carry is a Constitutional right. States that do not allow concealed carry, like New Jersey and California must be scrambling right now. And virtually every state that requires a permit needs to be bracing for lawsuits. With a conservative court, it shouldn't be a big surprise, but the opinions are worded with stronger language than I think was anticipated:



Clarence Thomas said:


> The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.


----------



## Choop

bostjan said:


> The flood gates are now open.
> 
> The Supreme Court of the US just issued their ruling on _NYSRPA v Bruen_ and ruled that concealed carry is a Constitutional right. States that do not allow concealed carry, like New Jersey and California must be scrambling right now. And virtually every state that requires a permit needs to be bracing for lawsuits. With a conservative court, it shouldn't be a big surprise, but the opinions are worded with stronger language than I think was anticipated:



Is it definitely in favor of concealed carry, or at least just open carry? Just wondering, that quote doesn't differentiate. That said, KY has been a "constitutional carry" state for a little while now, no longer requiring a permit to conceal carry and I think it's a horrible idea haha. Not necessarily bad that people have the right to carry, but the permit course has some very insightful gun safety and gun law information that would be beneficial to everybody. Having a gun is one thing, but the laws surrounding guns are situational and can vary from state to state as well. Is America actually testing out the "if everybody had a gun..." scenario in like a real life beta test?


----------



## bostjan

Choop said:


> Is it definitely in favor of concealed carry, or at least just open carry? Just wondering, that quote doesn't differentiate. That said, KY has been a "constitutional carry" state for a little while now, no longer requiring a permit to conceal carry and I think it's a horrible idea haha. Not necessarily bad that people have the right to carry, but the permit course has some very insightful gun safety and gun law information that would be beneficial to everybody. Having a gun is one thing, but the laws surrounding guns are situational and can vary from state to state as well. Is America actually testing out the "if everybody had a gun..." scenario in like a real life beta test?


The context is that the quote was from the written majority opinion on the case that was over a guy being rejected for a concealed carry permit in New York. The guy's reason for wanting to conceal a weapon was that New York is a dangerous place, but New York law states that, to get a CCW, you need to state a specific reason that makes your needs special.

So, this reads, to the political right, that you don't need a reason to conceal a weapon. There is already quite a bit of chatter all over the web about how this is going to gut gun control laws. I don't think it'll quite do that, but it sure does make it seem unlikely that there will be much fast-tracking of new gun control laws.

For the record, I'm in VT, where concealed carry does not require any permit. I do personally think that the public would be safer if everyone left their guns at home, and I also think that there are a lot of idiots with guns out there who are a threat to other people, and I believe that there is empirical evidence to support that. I don't think that taking away people's guns is the answer (see my other posts here), but I think that _this particular Supreme Court ruling_ is going to set us back, merely because it's poorly worded and coming up at just the perfectly wrong time.


----------



## profwoot

So Alito says abortion isn't protected because it wasn't in British common law, but now says that the constitution _requires_ allowance of concealed carry. It's almost like he's not actually making good faith efforts to interpret the law!


----------



## odibrom

You guys are screwed big time, the zombiecalipse is near..


----------



## Choop

bostjan said:


> The context is that the quote was from the written majority opinion on the case that was over a guy being rejected for a concealed carry permit in New York. The guy's reason for wanting to conceal a weapon was that New York is a dangerous place, but New York law states that, to get a CCW, you need to state a specific reason that makes your needs special.
> 
> So, this reads, to the political right, that you don't need a reason to conceal a weapon. There is already quite a bit of chatter all over the web about how this is going to gut gun control laws. I don't think it'll quite do that, but it sure does make it seem unlikely that there will be much fast-tracking of new gun control laws.
> 
> For the record, I'm in VT, where concealed carry does not require any permit. I do personally think that the public would be safer if everyone left their guns at home, and I also think that there are a lot of idiots with guns out there who are a threat to other people, and I believe that there is empirical evidence to support that. I don't think that taking away people's guns is the answer (see my other posts here), but I think that _this particular Supreme Court ruling_ is going to set us back, merely because it's poorly worded and coming up at just the perfectly wrong time.



Ohhh I see now. Thanks for clarifying -- I'm at work and can't read too deeply into this stuff right this minute.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> The flood gates are now open.
> 
> The Supreme Court of the US just issued their ruling on _NYSRPA v Bruen_ and ruled that concealed carry is a Constitutional right. States that do not allow concealed carry, like New Jersey and California must be scrambling right now. And virtually every state that requires a permit needs to be bracing for lawsuits. With a conservative court, it shouldn't be a big surprise, but the opinions are worded with stronger language than I think was anticipated:


That’s not my read.

My interpretation is that 1) the Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to carry guns outside their homes, and 2) that the New York law requiring the citizen to provide a specific need for a carry permit is overreaching. I don’t find either of those to be a negative in and of themselves, nor do I think that this specific ruling prevents gun control measures on the whole.

What looks to be an issue is that the Court is going back to the original language and intent, and the original context in which it was passed into law, and applying that literally to modern cases in modern contexts. This could be an issue on multiple fronts.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> That’s not my read.
> 
> My interpretation is that 1) the Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to carry guns outside their homes, and 2) that the New York law requiring the citizen to provide a specific need for a carry permit is overreaching. I don’t find either of those to be a negative in and of themselves, nor do I think that this specific ruling prevents gun control measures on the whole.
> 
> What looks to be an issue is that the Court is going back to the original language and intent, and the original context in which it was passed into law, and applying that literally to modern cases in modern contexts. This could be an issue on multiple fronts.


Not sure where we disagree here. I noticed you omitted "concealed." Is that the disagreement? Or in how I am observing people's reaction?


----------



## AMOS

bostjan said:


> Right. I think there's potentially little-or-no value in saying that a particular solution won't work, but offering no alternative idea. Maybe we've been trying to reason with people like @AMOS and getting nowhere, because logic has little value to them. I'd say, though, that, in the absence of a better idea, persistence might be the only hope.


Logic is everything, if you guys weren't foaming at the mouth over your gun confiscation rhetoric you might see it. You might see that gun control doesn't affect the habits and actions of criminals. Common sense prevailed in NY as well, don't you love it?


----------



## AMOS

odibrom said:


> You guys are screwed big time, the zombiecalipse is near..


The un-armed are anyway... you reap what you sow.


----------



## MFB

AMOS said:


> The un-armed are anyway... you reap what you sow.



How so? Any smart person will just sit back for a minute while all you 'good guys with guns' fight each other IMMEDIATELY and then we can just come in at the 11th hour and clean up when you're tired with the weapons the fallen ones have dropped.


----------



## bostjan

AMOS said:


> Logic is everything, if you guys weren't foaming at the mouth over your gun confiscation rhetoric you might see it. You might see that gun control doesn't affect the habits and actions of criminals. Common sense prevailed in NY as well, don't you love it?


I've never once said gun confiscation was a good idea. I've also said that gun control reform on its own won't improve anything.


----------



## fantom

bostjan said:


> I kind of get the feeling that the insanity has gone beyond the point where greed can even begin to explain it. This is about principles, but some of those principles are disjointed enough between the various factions of the minority party that the overall picture makes absolutely no sense. I think, rather than judge congress or the GOP holistically, these nonsensical arguments need to be countered with more logical ones. Otherwise, it puts the voter in the awkward position of choosing between two different opposing hyperboles.



The biggest problem is that one side falsely raises a specific perceived point that the other side doesn't even believe. They use that to act outraged and push the opposite extreme. You don't need 2 factions for that. You need an agenda and a fallguy. Bernie Sanders fans are just as guilty of this behavior as Trump supporters.



odibrom said:


> How / why is returning your guns a punishment? It would be voluntary on your behalf, publicize correctly, get momento on the webz, start a peace movement, change the world with less guns on the hands of people. People don't need guns, they need food, a roof and health/social care. Let go of the fear that led you to buy a gun in the first place, you really don't need it. You know it to be true and that this is the way...



People are thinking locally about their own experience. Think about it for a second, how much crime exists on the internet that didn't exist before 1995 or so? Should we ban the internet because people in Kolkata steal millions from old peoples' nest eggs? Should we say piracy online is enough to ban your access to information? Imagine someone without internet access coming to you and saying that you don't need the internet and could start a peace movement by banning the internet. You would probably throw a fit.



bostjan said:


> One problem might be the loss of value for the gun owners. The average American owns 1.2 guns. With the average gun costing $650, that's nearly $800 worth of guns.



We have given far more in "stimulus" checks in the last 2 years to many of those same people... they can go suck my balls of they don't like it.


----------



## bostjan

fantom said:


> The biggest problem is that one side falsely raises a specific perceived point that the other side doesn't even believe. They use that to act outraged and push the opposite extreme. You don't need 2 factions for that. You need an agenda and a fallguy. Bernie Sanders fans are just as guilty of this behavior as Trump supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> People are thinking locally about their own experience. Think about it for a second, how much crime exists on the internet that didn't exist before 1995 or so? Should we ban the internet because people in Kolkata steal millions from old peoples' nest eggs? Should we say piracy online is enough to ban your access to information? Imagine someone without internet access coming to you and saying that you don't need the internet and could start a peace movement by banning the internet. You would probably throw a fit.
> 
> 
> 
> We have given far more in "stimulus" checks in the last 2 years to many of those same people... they can go suck my balls of they don't like it.


1. Case in point was my most recent post above. It doesn't matter what point I made, as long as there is a political disagreement. My point was characterized by the pro-gun person as being the exact thing I had explicitly said was not an idea I supported in a previous post. But if my ideas aren't ridiculous enough, these right-wingers have to erect a strawman and slap my quote on it to argue with it for some reason.
2. There are definite similarities with Sanders supporters. But at least there was some wrongdoing to complain about. It wasn't nearly as important as it was made out to be, but I think the distinction between exaggeration and flat out lying should be clear.
3. I'd always put financial crime on a tier lower than violent crime. Maybe a better example would be how there were no fatal car accidents prior to 1886, etc. It's still a good point, though. 
4. You're right. It's like 9x as much, not even including stimulus checks for businesses. The military might even buy back all of the ammo, and it'd still be cheaper than the stimulus. But whatever, it'll still never happen... because this is the USA- guns, pickup trucks, eagles, flags, guns, beer, crushing student debt, ridiculous medical expenses, guns, and guns.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Not sure where we disagree here. I noticed you omitted "concealed." Is that the disagreement? Or in how I am observing people's reaction?


We may not disagree. I may have interpreted the phrase “The flood gates are now open” a bit differently (more emphatic) than you intended.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> because this is the USA- guns, pickup trucks, eagles, flags, guns, beer, crushing student debt, ridiculous medical expenses, guns, and guns.


Now now, don't forget about racism and religion. They'll feel left out.


----------



## AMOS

bostjan said:


> I've never once said gun confiscation was a good idea. I've also said that gun control reform on its own won't improve anything.


Rhetoric like that is about the only thing I see in this thread. I said it before and I'll say it again. I am FOR background checks in all gun shows and private sales. Normally you only have to show your license to the seller, but what if the buyer committed a domestic violence or other crime that hasn't resulted in his arrest or a revocation of his license yet? A license can be revoked in the computer system but if you dodge the police long enough you can keep it on your person and get a gun through a private sale. We need background checks for all that here in MA. It really isn't a hassle since I have nothing to hide.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Xaios said:


> Now now, don't forget about racism and religion. They'll feel left out.



Not to worry, those were written directly into our founding document. Cool magic piece of paper, bro!


----------



## AMOS

MFB said:


> How so? Any smart person will just sit back for a minute while all you 'good guys with guns' fight each other IMMEDIATELY and then we can just come in at the 11th hour and clean up when you're tired with the weapons the fallen ones have dropped.


If unlawful elements invade your home, or anything like that, muggings etc.. remember that couple that visited DC? They got mugged and gave the perps all they had and they still got their throats cut.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> The flood gates are now open.
> 
> The Supreme Court of the US just issued their ruling on _NYSRPA v Bruen_ and ruled that concealed carry is a Constitutional right. States that do not allow concealed carry, like New Jersey and California must be scrambling right now. And virtually every state that requires a permit needs to be bracing for lawsuits. With a conservative court, it shouldn't be a big surprise, but the opinions are worded with stronger language than I think was anticipated:


Weird that the right to bear arms must be federally protected, but privacy can be left to the states.


----------



## fantom

StevenC said:


> Weird that the right to bear arms must be federally protected, but privacy can be left to the states.


Don't forget that we also need to federally ban voting by mail... But it really doesn't matter because states should also have the right to totally replace their electors with puppets.


----------



## Adieu

Hey here's an idea:

Bring "well-regulated militia" into the 21st century. By making a gun license into a QR code.

Mandatory to be tattooed on your forehead.

And make it a misdemeanor to cover it in public.

Want a gun? Forfeit privacy forever and choose to look like an idiot.


----------



## possumkiller

Adieu said:


> Hey here's an idea:
> 
> Bring "well-regulated militia" into the 21st century. By making a gun license into a QR code.
> 
> Mandatory to be tattooed on your forehead.
> 
> And make it a misdemeanor to cover it in public.
> 
> Want a gun? Forfeit privacy forever and choose to look like an idiot.


I like your thinking. "If you want a gun, you have to take The Mark." That will really get these religious nutjobs whining.


----------



## AMOS

Adieu said:


> Hey here's an idea:
> 
> Bring "well-regulated militia" into the 21st century. By making a gun license into a QR code.
> 
> Mandatory to be tattooed on your forehead.
> 
> And make it a misdemeanor to cover it in public.
> 
> Want a gun? Forfeit privacy forever and choose to look like an idiot.


What kind of drugs are you on?


----------



## AMOS

possumkiller said:


> I like your thinking. "If you want a gun, you have to take The Mark." That will really get these religious nutjobs whining.


I can see you're with stupid


----------



## Adieu

AMOS said:


> What kind of drugs are you on?



Just Stone IPA, Monster Energy, and dragonfruit vape juice

Btw, my suggestion was both semi-serious and quite feasible in some form, albeit perhaps less grotesque. The "well regulated" wording can, given proper political will, be turned into SUCH an absolute nightmare to comply with that nobody would ever do so. Just regulate wannabe "militiamen" into capitulation and done.

And this would NOT require amending the constitution.

It can literally be ANYTHING. Hell, you could make them march with 2 drummers carrying 15-foot banners for public carry to be legal (think "wide load" style), put GPS beacons on every gun AND ankle bracelets on anyone certified to carry, forbid transportation of firearms except hy horse or mule (for *safety reasons*), make them file weekly reports in person at the state capitol building from 3 to 3:30 pm on a Friday, etc.

Right to regulate = ample legal cause to turn any regulated activity into a cruel and unusual punishment


----------



## AMOS

Adieu said:


> Just Stone IPA, Monster Energy, and dragonfruit vape juice
> 
> Btw, my suggestion was both semi-serious and quite feasible in some form, albeit perhaps less grotesque. The "well regulated" wording can, given proper political will, be turned into SUCH an absolute nightmare to comply with that nobody would ever do so. Just regulate wannabe "militiamen" into capitulation and done.
> 
> And this would NOT require amending the constitution.
> 
> It can literally be ANYTHING. Hell, you could make them march with 2 drummers carrying 15-foot banners for public carry to be legal (think "wide load" style), put GPS beacons on every gun AND ankle bracelets on anyone certified to carry, forbid transportation of firearms except hy horse or mule (for *safety reasons*), make them file weekly reports in person at the state capitol building from 3 to 3:30 pm on a Friday, etc.
> 
> Right to regulate = ample legal cause to turn any regulated activity into a cruel and unusual punishment


Mental health screenings are needed for more people than just gun owners, obviously. I belong to a sportsmans club and no one talks about militia's, some of you guys don't have a clue what's even coming out of your own mouths. My friend teaches gun safety course which is mandatory here to get a license. 75% of the classes are liberal females. What's that tell you?


----------



## odibrom

AMOS said:


> I can see you're with stupid


What kind of drugs are you on?


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> My friend teaches gun safety course which is mandatory here to get a license. 75% of the classes are liberal females. What's that tell you?


Conservative men are violent towards women and keep forcing them to carry rape babies to term.


----------



## Adieu

AMOS said:


> I belong to a sportsmans club and no one talks about militia's, some of you guys don't have a clue what's even coming out of your own mouths.



There's no constitutional right to arms without well regulated militias. Like, LITERALLY.

Rtfm.


----------



## MFB

AMOS said:


> I belong to a sportsmans club and no one talks about militia's,



Tell me you haven't read the second amendment without telling me you haven't read the second amendment


----------



## ArtDecade

StevenC said:


> Conservative men are violent towards women and keep forcing them to carry rape babies to term.


When all those tax breaks for the wealthy trickle down, things will get better - even for rape babies.


----------



## narad

AMOS said:


> I can see you're with stupid


At least from my perspective,


----------



## tedtan

Adieu said:


> Hell, you could make them march with 2 drummers carrying 15-foot banners for public carry to be legal (think "wide load" style), put GPS beacons on every gun AND ankle bracelets on anyone certified to carry, forbid transportation of firearms except hy horse or mule (for *safety reasons*), make them file weekly reports in person at the state capitol building from 3 to 3:30 pm on a Friday, etc.


So should women seeking an abortion, where there is no constitutional right in the US at this point supporting them in doing so, have to “march with 2 drummers carrying 15-foot banners… (think "wide load" style), put GPS beacons… AND ankle bracelets on anyone” seeking an abortion, “forbid transportation of” fetuses “except hy horse or mule (for *safety reasons*), make them” travel to the single abortion clinic “in person at the state capitol building from 3 to 3:30 pm on a Friday, etc.” in order to have an abortion?

Of course not, that would be stupid.

And its just as stupid to apply that to gun ownership and/or carry.

I’m not in favor of everyone carrying guns, as there is typically no need; hell, I have a license to carry (even though I don’t need one to carry in Texas) but tend not to carry since it isn’t necessary in most circumstances. But there is no legitimate reason to go out of the way to make it that difficult and ridiculous to do so.

The issue isn’t “guns” or ”people carrying guns”, its criminals doing things that are already illegal. I’m not opposed to tightening restrictions on owning and carrying guns, but the emphasis needs to be on 1) preventing people with criminal and mental health issues from accessing them, and 2) red flag laws that prevent people with temporary stressors that may cause them to act out from accessing them.

Other gun control measures, such as training prior to being able to carry a firearm, are fine, but they don’t address the gun violence we have in the US.

Violence is a cultural thing here. Guns are a cultural thing here. And they don’t come together well.


----------



## bostjan

Hey, the gun control bill passed in the Senate, and by a fairly healthy margin. It's not quite a s strong as I hoped, but this has to be a step in the right direction!

States will be incentivized to raise the legal age to buy a gun to 21. I'm not super stoked about that, since I always thought that solution was because of people looking the the problem from a weird perspective.

But...

If you want to buy a gun, now they will unseal your juvenile records. That means that if you were a little hell-spawn as a 17 year old, and try to buy a handgun as soon as you are old enough (18 in most places), you can't hide in the blind spot anymore. I think that's monumental. The records remain sealed unless you try to buy a gun.

Red flag for domestic violence is broadened to dating partners. It's a tiny step in the right direction. I think it should be any violent crime. I don't understand the logic of allowing violent people to have dangerous weapons. Also, though, a person can petition the court to order seizure of another person's guns for any reason, and the court has to consider the petition. I don't know all of the details yet as to how this works, but it could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the mechanics behind it and how easy it ends up being to exploit for nefarious purposes.

But the real win is the new mental health programs written into this. Hopefully these will be developed seriously, but we will see. It's definitely great to see this going more in the right direction:

Pediatric mental health assessments will be a thing now, broadening the net to diagnose who might need help before reaching adulthood.

Schools will have mental health programs.

And a quarter billion set aside for the development of other general community public mental health programs. I wish there was some specific plan for this, but without that money, nothing will happen. Hopefully the money does something other than line the pockets of bureaucrats, but, well, here we go.

What isn't happening:

No one is taking away AR-15's or the like (light infantry-style semi-automatic rifles).
No new federal limits on magazine capacity.
I can't find anything about safe storage requirements that had been kicked around, so I'm assuming that's not happening.
No criminal justice system reform. Hopefully another piece of legislation will address that.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> But the real win is the new mental health programs written into this. Hopefully these will be developed seriously, but we will see. It's definitely great to see this going more in the right direction:
> 
> Pediatric mental health assessments will be a thing now, broadening the net to diagnose who might need help before reaching adulthood.
> 
> Schools will have mental health programs.



That is good to hear. My sister is a school counselor and tells me that they are able to identify a lot of mental health issues in children, including violent tendencies, and they report them but nothing happens. Hopefully this will allow those children to get help (and be prevented from obtaining weapons) much earlier and we can start to see a decline in the violence we have here in the States.




bostjan said:


> What isn't happening:
> 
> No one is taking away AR-15's or the like (light infantry-style semi-automatic rifles).
> No new federal limits on magazine capacity.
> I can't find anything about safe storage requirements that had been kicked around, so I'm assuming that's not happening.
> No criminal justice system reform. Hopefully another piece of legislation will address that.


I wouldn’t get my hopes up over any of these happening for at least the next six years; maybe in 2028 we’ll have a better shot of reasonable-ness.

But short term, I see a republican contrrolled Senate, and possibly House, coming up later this year in the mid terms and a republican president in 2024.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> That is good to hear. My sister is a school counselor and tells me that they are able to identify a lot of mental health issues in children, including violent tendencies, and they report them but nothing happens. Hopefully this will allow those children to get help (and be prevented from obtaining weapons) much earlier and we can start to see a decline in the violence we have here in the States.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t get my hopes up over any of these happening for at least the next six years; maybe in 2028 we’ll have a better shot of reasonable-ness.
> 
> But short term, I see a republican contrrolled Senate, and possibly House, coming up later this year in the mid terms and a republican president in 2024.


That means Trump, since he's seriously the only leader they have who unites the GOP. If Trump takes office again, I don't see how he'll ever be willing to step down willingly. If that's the future toward which we are headed, the future immediately after is going to be very difficult to understand. Not that I feel any attachment at all to Biden, but at least he isn't actively uprooting checks and balances.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> That means Trump, since he's seriously the only leader they have who unites the GOP. If Trump takes office again, I don't see how he'll ever be willing to step down willingly. If that's the future toward which we are headed, the future immediately after is going to be very difficult to understand. Not that I feel any attachment at all to Biden, but at least he isn't actively uprooting checks and balances.



Dude's going to be on his deathbed by then. I gotta give him some credit... must take a lot of willpower to push that chunky aging body around with no exercise and a diet primarily of mcdonald's. But I don't think functioning in that capacity in his 80s is in the cards for him.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Dude's going to be on his deathbed by then. I gotta give him some credit... must take a lot of willpower to push that chunky aging body around with no exercise and a diet primarily of mcdonald's. But I don't think functioning in that capacity in his 80s is in the cards for him.


That's only two years from now, and, you should ask yourself if you truly believe that any of Trump's supporters would care if he had dementia or, hell, even if he was in a persistive vegetative state. If you take Trump off the game board, who do you have left on the GOP side other than sycophants who have never had ideas of their own?


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> If you take Trump off the game board, who do you have left on the GOP side other than sycophants who have never had ideas of their own?



Other members of the Trump dynasty?


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> That means Trump, since he's seriously the only leader they have who unites the GOP. If Trump takes office again, I don't see how he'll ever be willing to step down willingly. If that's the future toward which we are headed, the future immediately after is going to be very difficult to understand. Not that I feel any attachment at all to Biden, but at least he isn't actively uprooting checks and balances.


We knew Biden wouldn’t be a great president when we elected him - he was just someone everyone could unite behind to vote against Trump. And the economy and inflation, the war in Ukraine and resulting gas prices, are doing him no favors.

But I certainly hope that the January 6th committee hearings are making Trump into too much of an albatross for the GOP to consider running him again. Trump in the office a second term would be the worst possible outcome short of bringing Putin over to take the office.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Other members of the Trump dynasty?


Maybe. I'm tempted to counter by stating that they are all idiots, but, well, I'm not that impressed by Trump's brainpower.



tedtan said:


> We knew Biden wouldn’t be a great president when we elected him - he was just someone everyone could unite behind to vote against Trump. And the economy and inflation, the war in Ukraine and resulting gas prices, are doing him no favors.
> 
> But I certainly hope that the January 6th committee hearings are making Trump into too much of an albatross for the GOP to consider running him again. Trump in the office a second term would be the worst possible outcome short of bringing Putin over to take the office.


Heh, I'd go so far as to say that Biden won because he was not Trump. Period.

Trump was his own worst enemy when it came to voters. A huge portion of people would have sooner voted for Mickey Mouse than stayed home to not vote, knowing that their inaction would allow Trump to get more votes by percentage. And, more importantly, swing voters would have voted for pretty much any less-insane candidate, which was practically the same thing.

The GOP could not care any less about the Jan 6th hearings, aside from maybe scolding anyone with an [R] after their name who takes any part in them.

As far as a Putin vs. Trump election, I hope you aren't inadvertently giving the DNC any ideas.


----------



## fantom

Adieu said:


> Right to regulate = ample legal cause to turn any regulated activity into a cruel and unusual punishment



You can't just make up definitions... In the context of the 2nd amendment, "well-regulated" is ambiguous.

At best, it means that the right to bear arms is granted to the equivalent of a state-level army to fight the federal government. Contextually, that means that anyone who trained with the military had a right to bear arms. In modern terminology, that would be the same as protecting the right of State Troopers to arm themselves against the US Army.

Another angle is that "well-regulated" means that some rules are enforced by a militia. Those rules don't need to be placed by the government. A militia could literally say anyone who lives in the town has a right.

At worst, the historical interpretation tends to suggest that "well-regulated" means "trained". Ie, if you do a gun safety course, it probably satisfies "well-regulated" for many people.

The 2nd amendment is irrelevant in modern times. Even if a state was unhappy and ended up in a dispute with the federal government, no state owns missiles, bombs, and jets.




AMOS said:


> 75% of the classes are liberal females. What's that tell you?




It probably just means that they don't know anyone to teach them safely at home, or they don't know anyone who openly owns a gun, or they are worried about image to the point they won't ask friends to teach them how to use a gun.

I wouldn't read anything into it unless you are a single dude looking for better odds of finding a liberal woman who wants to play with a gun. Giggity giggity goo.


----------



## Glades

bostjan said:


> Maybe. I'm tempted to counter by stating that they are all idiots, but, well, I'm not that impressed by Trump's brainpower.
> 
> 
> Heh, I'd go so far as to say that Biden won because he was not Trump. Period.
> 
> Trump was his own worst enemy when it came to voters. A huge portion of people would have sooner voted for Mickey Mouse than stayed home to not vote, knowing that their inaction would allow Trump to get more votes by percentage. And, more importantly, swing voters would have voted for pretty much any less-insane candidate, which was practically the same thing.
> 
> The GOP could not care any less about the Jan 6th hearings, aside from maybe scolding anyone with an [R] after their name who takes any part in them.
> 
> As far as a Putin vs. Trump election, I hope you aren't inadvertently giving the DNC any ideas.



I think if you are a hard-line democrat, and want the dems to win no matter what, your best hope is for Trump to run in '24. He carries a lot of baggage with him, and could lose again like he did in the last election. 
Who you really don't want to run is DeSantis. He is IMMENSELY popular here in Florida and across the US. He has a clean record, he is articulate and intelligent, he is a veteran and he is a fairly moderate republican that can bring a lot of swing votes. If Biden runs again in '24, he has no shot against Desantis. Where I think he might have a shot against Trump.


----------



## Adieu

fantom said:


> You can't just make up definitions... In the context of the 2nd amendment, "well-regulated" is ambiguous.
> 
> At best, it means that the right to bear arms is granted to the equivalent of a state-level army to fight the federal government. Contextually, that means that anyone who trained with the military had a right to bear arms. In modern terminology, that would be the same as protecting the right of State Troopers to arm themselves against the US Army.
> 
> Another angle is that "well-regulated" means that some rules are enforced by a militia. Those rules don't need to be placed by the government. A militia could literally say anyone who lives in the town has a right.
> 
> At worst, the historical interpretation tends to suggest that "well-regulated" means "trained". Ie, if you do a gun safety course, it probably satisfies "well-regulated" for many people.
> 
> The 2nd amendment is irrelevant in modern times. Even if a state was unhappy and ended up in a dispute with the federal government, no state owns missiles, bombs, and jets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It probably just means that they don't know anyone to teach them safely at home, or they don't know anyone who openly owns a gun, or they are worried about image to the point they won't ask friends to teach them how to use a gun.
> 
> I wouldn't read anything into it unless you are a single dude looking for better odds of finding a liberal woman who wants to play with a gun. Giggity giggity goo.



Not only CAN, but MUST

The amendment DEMANDS the creation of regulation and further emphasizes that it cannot be light or symbolic


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> I think if you are a hard-line democrat, and want the dems to win no matter what, your best hope is for Trump to run in '24. He carries a lot of baggage with him, and could lose again like he did in the last election.
> Who you really don't want to run is DeSantis. He is IMMENSELY popular here in Florida and across the US. He has a clean record, he is articulate and intelligent, he is a veteran and he is a fairly moderate republican that can bring a lot of swing votes. If Biden runs again in '24, he has no shot against Desantis. Where I think he might have a shot against Trump.


Why is this the only thing in the thread you're responding to?


----------



## narad

Anyone who is immensely popular in Florida is the wrong choice to lead the country.


----------



## profwoot

Glades said:


> I think if you are a hard-line democrat, and want the dems to win no matter what, your best hope is for Trump to run in '24. He carries a lot of baggage with him, and could lose again like he did in the last election.
> Who you really don't want to run is DeSantis. He is IMMENSELY popular here in Florida and across the US. He has a clean record, he is articulate and intelligent, he is a veteran and he is a fairly moderate republican that can bring a lot of swing votes. If Biden runs again in '24, he has no shot against Desantis. Where I think he might have a shot against Trump.


lol. Desantis has been positioning himself as the heir to trump since trump came down the escalator. There's nothing moderate about him. And if he's intelligent it's only of the variety leading him to not mind seeming like a moronic sociopath, because his positions make no sense whatsoever unless he is one or is acting like one to attract voters who are.


----------



## fantom

Adieu said:


> Not only CAN, but MUST
> 
> The amendment DEMANDS the creation of regulation and further emphasizes that it cannot be light or symbolic



You must have magic reading glasses that have evaded historians for decades.



narad said:


> Anyone who is immensely popular in Florida is the wrong choice to lead the country.


He isn't popular on Florida. He is definitely wrong for any office.


----------



## Adieu

fantom said:


> You must have magic reading glasses that have evaded historians for decades.
> 
> 
> He isn't popular on Florida. He is definitely wrong for any office.



Wdym? The amendment literally INSTRUCTS the government to regulate militias.

In plain English.


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> Wdym? The amendment literally INSTRUCTS the government to regulate militias.
> 
> In plain English.


Come on, you can't call other people illiterate in one thread and then try to die in this hill. 

It says "A well regulated militia". It doesn't say government regulated. It could simply mean a militia with a hierarchy or command structure. 

If your argument was that the wording leaves open the ability for the government to regulate to whatever extent they chose, then you would be right.


----------



## Glades

Adieu said:


> Wdym? The amendment literally INSTRUCTS the government to regulate militias.
> 
> In plain English.


Read Scalia’s opinion on Heller, so you can understand it better. Militia membership is unrelated to arms possession and bearing. There are 2 clauses in the legal text, a prefatory clause (right to militia) and an operational clause (right to own and carry farms). If you really want to get deep into the mindset of the founders, the federalist papers are a good place to start. There are other Jefferson writings that are also helpful. Madison was heavily influenced by Jefferson in the writing of the Bill of Rights, which is essentially a document that protects citizens from a tyrannical government. The entire document is based on a fundamental distrust for the federal government. The second amendment is no different. Madison wrote this amendment to set a line in the sand, that this right is not given by the government to the people, but it is a natural right. It is the last line of defense for the American people against a tyrannical government.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

narad said:


> Anyone who is immensely popular in Florida is the wrong choice to lead the country.


----------



## bostjan

Trump has been the only president in history who had any association with Florida.

I'd say that Desantis has no chance, but I honestly thought that neither Trump nor Hilary stood any chance...


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> Read Scalia’s opinion on Heller, so you can understand it better. Militia membership is unrelated to arms possession and bearing. There are 2 clauses in the legal text, a prefatory clause (right to militia) and an operational clause (right to own and carry farms). If you really want to get deep into the mindset of the founders, the federalist papers are a good place to start. There are other Jefferson writings that are also helpful. Madison was heavily influenced by Jefferson in the writing of the Bill of Rights, which is essentially a document that protects citizens from a tyrannical government. The entire document is based on a fundamental distrust for the federal government. The second amendment is no different. Madison wrote this amendment to set a line in the sand, that this right is not given by the government to the people, but it is a natural right. It is the last line of defense for the American people against a tyrannical government.



One dead conservative's opinion does not close the book on the nature of the constitution


----------



## mbardu




----------



## mbardu

Adieu said:


> One dead conservative's opinion does not close the book on the nature of the constitution



No, it does not. It just highlights how open to interpretation the text is, and anybody claiming a 100% accurate reading is misguided.
In both directions.

The real issue is that the document itself is grossly outdated, and like the other excuse of a book in Conservatives' libraries, it's cherrypicked willy-nilly to justify asinine policies.


----------



## Adieu

mbardu said:


> No, it does not. It just highlights how open to interpretation the text is, and anybody claiming a 100% accurate reading is misguided.
> In both directions.
> 
> The real issue is that the document itself is grossly outdated, and like the other excuse of a book in Conservatives' libraries, it's cherrypicked willy-nilly to justify asinine policies.



If you throw common sense out the window, sure. Constitution says to regulate the damn militia well, maybe that's referring to divine oversight by Haysoos, and maybe "militia" actually somehow means letting friendless loners who don't know anybody except their estranged mother buy machine guns

CLEARLY


----------



## mbardu

Adieu said:


> If you throw common sense out the window, sure. Constitution says to regulate the damn militia well, maybe that's referring to divine oversight by Haysoos, and maybe "militia" actually somehow means letting friendless loners who don't know anybody except their estranged mother buy machine guns
> 
> CLEARLY



Don't get me wrong, I am far from supporting the conservative reading; but anyone can claim that the two statements are unrelated and _easily _get away with it. Or that "regulated" is subject to interpretation. Whether we like it or not, you're just not going to make progress with that line of reasoning, especially when the other side has demonstrated that bad faith is their modus operandi.
And the proof of that is right in front of us. We have just not made _any _progress.


----------



## tedtan

Adieu said:


> maybe "militia" actually somehow means letting friendless loners who don't know anybody except their estranged mother buy machine guns


Who’s buying machine guns?


----------



## Crungy

mbardu said:


> View attachment 109819



Shit like this is why there should be a death penalty with no appeals. No one is afraid of consequences, clearly. 

Be a fuck head and do shit like this and go to prison, maybe have the police kill you but yolo anyways... Man killed someone over a fucking sandwich and critically injured another. And the (hopefully) surviving employee's kid had to see it? The guy should get cruel AND unusual punishment.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mbardu said:


> View attachment 109819



"That toddler should have had a gun."

- AMOS probably


----------



## Crungy

Heyo!


----------



## Crungy

NRA bootlickers be like "iF oNlY a gOod gUy wItH a gUn was tHeRe"


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> "That toddler should have had a gun."
> 
> - AMOS probably



No, it's clearly the _sandwich _which should have open-carried.


----------



## MFB

mbardu said:


> No, it's clearly the _sandwich _which should have open-carried.



Well it's a Subway, and legally since they can't call it "bread," does that still qualify it as a sandwich?


----------



## Glades

Adieu said:


> If you throw common sense out the window, sure. Constitution says to regulate the damn militia well, maybe that's referring to divine oversight by Haysoos, and maybe "militia" actually somehow means letting friendless loners who don't know anybody except their estranged mother buy machine guns
> 
> CLEARLY



You can join a regulated militia in your county. Most places have one that you can join and train with. However, they will expect you to provide your own firearms and gear to train with.

Also, the ATF prohibits the purchase of "machine guns" by regular citizens. Civilians can only purchase rifles designed for civilian use, like the AR-15.


----------



## bostjan

Crungy said:


> Shit like this is why there should be a death penalty with no appeals. No one is afraid of consequences, clearly.
> 
> Be a fuck head and do shit like this and go to prison, maybe have the police kill you but yolo anyways... Man killed someone over a fucking sandwich and critically injured another. And the (hopefully) surviving employee's kid had to see it? The guy should get cruel AND unusual punishment.


Whoah, there...

I know that appeals are often used to drag out the sentence, but the courts here are so fucked that I'd never trust them to get it right the first time.

The last thing we need is a bunch of innocent people getting executed just because the cops are lazy and care more about passing a case off to the prosecutor than actually solving it and also because the juries are more interested in going home and going back to work rather than sit dozing off in a court room making $6.25/hour.


----------



## mbardu

MFB said:


> Well it's a Subway, and legally since they can't call it "bread," does that still qualify it as a sandwich?



OK. The "_baked confectionary item garnished with pasteurized processed dairy and meat-like products_" should have open carried.

And god bless America.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> You can join a regulated militia in your county. Most places have one that you can join and train with. However, they will expect you to provide your own firearms and gear to train with.
> 
> Also, the ATF prohibits the purchase of "machine guns" by regular citizens. Civilians can only purchase rifles designed for civilian use, like the AR-15.


*It's not prohibited outright. It's highly regulated. It is _possible_ for a regular citizen to buy a machine gun, if a) it was manufactured before May of 1986 and b) if they obtain written permission from the ATF. 

Most of the people who own fully automatic weapons are both very wealthy and also have a very deep interest in collecting.

A legally purchased machine gun has not been used in a crime in the USA since the restriction law passed in 1934.

----

This whole thing about idiots shooting up delis over too much mayo is, of course, very frightening, as hyperbole comes to real life. But this is yet another case of a person behaving in a way that is completely insane, and that person being armed with a gun. Had this guy not had a gun, for all we know, he might have bashed someone's head with a rock. But 1. it's much more difficult to kill a person with a rock than it is with a gun, so you'd have to be at least a little more committed to the act, and 2. limiting his ability to cause someone's death would 100% be a good step, but limiting that crazy person's crazy state would also be a necessary step beyond that.

So again, I'm in favour of better gun control that limits how easily guns are available to crazy people, but, again, I think that a necessary part of the USA turning around from its journey to becoming a third world country pivots on the resources society has to diagnose people like this and to treat them to make them better, or, at least minimize the damage that they can do to society. And I really don't think that having just one or the other is going to do enough good. We need both. I don't want to come off as the right-wing guy who yells something about public mental health services being a joke every time gun control comes up, but I think I'm at the point where I'm just going to come off that way. I don't think it's right-wing to say that we *need* to do something about how crazy people are behaving as a society.


----------



## Xaios

The only condiment/topping/garnish-related situation in which homicide is justifiable is pineapple on pizza, because at that point it's legitimate self-defense.


----------



## MFB

Xaios said:


> The only condiment/topping/garnish-related situation in which homicide is justifiable is pineapple on pizza, because at that point it's legitimate self-defense.



Tune in tomorrow for out next ten year old hot take: is _Die Hard_ the best Christmas movie?



Spoiler



And for those who are going to say yes, you're wrong and nobody cares.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> *It's not prohibited outright. It's highly regulated. It is _possible_ for a regular citizen to buy a machine gun, if a) it was manufactured before May of 1986 and b) if they obtain written permission from the ATF.
> 
> Most of the people who own fully automatic weapons are both very wealthy and also have a very deep interest in collecting.
> 
> A legally purchased machine gun has not been used in a crime in the USA since the restriction law passed in 1934.
> 
> ----
> 
> This whole thing about idiots shooting up delis over too much mayo is, of course, very frightening, as hyperbole comes to real life. But this is yet another case of a person behaving in a way that is completely insane, and that person being armed with a gun. Had this guy not had a gun, for all we know, he might have bashed someone's head with a rock. But 1. it's much more difficult to kill a person with a rock than it is with a gun, so you'd have to be at least a little more committed to the act, and 2. limiting his ability to cause someone's death would 100% be a good step, but limiting that crazy person's crazy state would also be a necessary step beyond that.
> 
> So again, I'm in favour of better gun control that limits how easily guns are available to crazy people, but, again, I think that a necessary part of the USA turning around from its journey to becoming a third world country pivots on the resources society has to diagnose people like this and to treat them to make them better, or, at least minimize the damage that they can do to society. And I really don't think that having just one or the other is going to do enough good. We need both. I don't want to come off as the right-wing guy who yells something about public mental health services being a joke every time gun control comes up, but I think I'm at the point where I'm just going to come off that way. I don't think it's right-wing to say that we *need* to do something about how crazy people are behaving as a society.



If the USA had a semi-decent education and actual social safety net including health insurance, 95%+ of those incidents could be avoided altogether.
Minimally rational people with decent life prospects don't just go around shooting up their neighborhood over a piece of doesn-t-even-qualify-as-bReAd.

But a semi-decent education and actual social safety net are anti American (*cough* I mean anti-corporate-oligarchy *cough*) so we all know that's not going to happen.


----------



## Crungy

Xaios said:


> The only condiment/topping/garnish-related situation in which homicide is justifiable is pineapple on pizza, because at that point it's legitimate self-defense.


Why do you have to say such hateful things about pineapple on pizza, Sam Panapoulous is spinning in his grave.


----------



## profwoot

Glades said:


> You can join a regulated militia in your county. Most places have one that you can join and train with. However, they will expect you to provide your own firearms and gear to train with.
> 
> Also, the ATF prohibits the purchase of "machine guns" by regular citizens. Civilians can only purchase rifles designed for civilian use, like the AR-15.


Yes, yes, god forbid anyone refer to a semi-auto with a term generally reserved for full-autos.

But you'll continue referring to embryos as children, because that's a far less important distinction.


----------



## mbardu

profwoot said:


> Yes, yes, god forbid anyone refer to a semi-auto with a term generally reserved for full-autos.
> 
> But you'll continue referring to embryos as children, because that's a far less important distinction.



All those technicalities are just there to drown the actual debates and yet people keep falling for it.

Like...is pineapple on pizza considered a fruit or a vegetable? 
But who cares, doesn't change anything about the debate!


----------



## ArtDecade

Pineapple is a fruit made up a bunch of berries that are all fused together and it is welcome on pizza. 

Guns don't belong on pizza.


----------



## bostjan

mbardu said:


> If the USA had a semi-decent education and actual social safety net including health insurance, 95%+ of those incidents could be avoided altogether.
> Minimally rational people with decent life prospects don't just go around shooting up their neighborhood over a piece of doesn-t-even-qualify-as-bReAd.
> 
> But a semi-decent education and actual social safety net are anti American (*cough* I mean anti-corporate-oligarchy *cough*) so we all know that's not going to happen.



I'm not sure about the actual percentage, but I could believe 95%, and I definitely agree that _a majority_ of these sorts of shootings wouldn't happen if people in the USA were offered a first-world education and first-world healthcare options, rather than the current situation of inner city kids either dropping out due to how bullshit schooling here is or else graduating illiterate a shockingly high proportion of the time // or the healthcare policy of "you just better not get sick!"

I think it's obvious that both of these two had their nadir during Dubya, and Obama, who promised to fix it, either dropped the ball or had the ball stolen from him by an ineffective congress. Trump was "supposed" to fix it, too, but I think we all knew how that was going to go before he even set foot in the oval office.

I don't believe that there is some big conspiracy to keep people here stupid, but it's easier to keep them stupid and it certainly benefits the more dishonest politicians over the less dishonest ones. I can see how it gets perpetuated by the government despite there not being some sort of conscious conspiracy.

Same with health care, to a degree. I know I've had some members here take exception to my views on how insurance companies drive the fucked-ness of our broken health care system, but having seen it from both the provider's and patient's perspectives, I see that it has to be deliberate. Maybe it's not consciously deliberate, but who cares. Any person, corporation, or entity that fucks people over for profit and then willfully remains ignorant of anyone pointing out the human cost by simply ignoring them or brushing them off is a monster.



mbardu said:


> All those technicalities are just there to drown the actual debates and yet people keep falling for it.
> 
> Like...is pineapple on pizza considered a fruit or a vegetable?
> But who cares, doesn't change anything about the debate!


Here's the solution - vegetables are the edible parts of plants. Fruits are the seed-bearing parts of plants. All edible fruits are technically vegetables. (But not all vegetables are fruits)

Culinary people who define vegetables and fruits (and nuts, too) based on how they taste rather than what they actually are can stick to their definitions, but I'll stick to mine. Tomato is a fruit, it goes in pizza sauce. Olives are a fruit, most people who don't just simply hate olives don't bitch about them being on pizza. Peppers are fruit - pizza. Pineapple on pizza? Up to you - that's the beauty of pizza, you order it however you want it or else let someone else order and trust that they know your preferences or else won't just be a dick and deliberately order what you don't like.

If you want to eat pizza with clams and mayo on it, go for it! If you want a sandwich with hot shell casings and a splash of human blood, then that's sick and you need professional help.


----------



## Glades

mbardu said:


> If the USA had a semi-decent education and actual social safety net including health insurance, 95%+ of those incidents could be avoided altogether.
> Minimally rational people with decent life prospects don't just go around shooting up their neighborhood over a piece of doesn-t-even-qualify-as-bReAd.
> 
> But a semi-decent education and actual social safety net are anti American (*cough* I mean anti-corporate-oligarchy *cough*) so we all know that's not going to happen.



I agree with you. There was some study that said that 2/3 of Americans wouldn’t pass the civics test required for naturalization. I can’t name the source but it wouldn’t surprise me if that figure is true.
It’s amazing how kids are graduating from high school without ever reading the federalist papers, probably the most fundamental document in American history, and then claim to have an opinion about American politics.
School zoning is another huge issue. Public schools in poor neighborhoods are much worse than public schools in affluent neighborhoods due to funding. There are kids in the inner cities that graduate and are illiterate. They walk into the real world with no real tools to make much for their lives. How about we stop sending billions of dollars to foreign powers, and invest in our education system?


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> I agree with you. There was some study that said that 2/3 of Americans wouldn’t pass the civics test required for naturalization. I can’t name the source but it wouldn’t surprise me if that figure is true.
> It’s amazing how kids are graduating from high school without ever reading the federalist papers, probably the most fundamental document in American history, and then claim to have an opinion about American politics.
> School zoning is another huge issue. Public schools in poor neighborhoods are much worse than public schools in affluent neighborhoods due to funding. There are kids in the inner cities that graduate and are illiterate. They walk into the real world with no real tools to make much for their lives.





https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-10-12/2-of-3-americans-wouldnt-pass-us-citizenship-test



Might not be the source you were thinking of, but it says basically the same thing.

One thing that irks me is the way funds are allocated heavily toward the better schools. Like, the schools that are falling apart and can barely keep kids from dropping out on a good day don't deserve money? Hypothetically, in a world where corruption was not an issue, schools that show the lowest test scores should get _more_ money to help get them up to snuff. However, in a world where big cities are full of government (city level) corruption, this won't work, so, again, we need a two-pronged approach of education budget reform coupled with anti-corruption enforcement.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> juries are more interested in going home and going back to work rather than sit dozing off in a court room making $6.25/hour.


$6.25/hour is a step up from here. We only get $7/day to help offset parking (which is generally between $15 and $50 per day depending on how far you want to walk from the parking lot to the court house).


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> *It's not prohibited outright. It's highly regulated. It is _possible_ for a regular citizen to buy a machine gun, if a) it was manufactured before May of 1986 and b) if they obtain written permission from the ATF.
> 
> Most of the people who own fully automatic weapons are both very wealthy and also have a very deep interest in collecting.
> 
> A legally purchased machine gun has not been used in a crime in the USA since the restriction law passed in 1934.
> 
> ----
> 
> This whole thing about idiots shooting up delis over too much mayo is, of course, very frightening, as hyperbole comes to real life. But this is yet another case of a person behaving in a way that is completely insane, and that person being armed with a gun. Had this guy not had a gun, for all we know, he might have bashed someone's head with a rock. But 1. it's much more difficult to kill a person with a rock than it is with a gun, so you'd have to be at least a little more committed to the act, and 2. limiting his ability to cause someone's death would 100% be a good step, but limiting that crazy person's crazy state would also be a necessary step beyond that.
> 
> So again, I'm in favour of better gun control that limits how easily guns are available to crazy people, but, again, I think that a necessary part of the USA turning around from its journey to becoming a third world country pivots on the resources society has to diagnose people like this and to treat them to make them better, or, at least minimize the damage that they can do to society. And I really don't think that having just one or the other is going to do enough good. We need both. I don't want to come off as the right-wing guy who yells something about public mental health services being a joke every time gun control comes up, but I think I'm at the point where I'm just going to come off that way. I don't think it's right-wing to say that we *need* to do something about how crazy people are behaving as a society.


If someone shoots the SUBWAY employees ovef the amount of mayo on a sandwich, there is clearly something wrong with that person’s mental health. It may not have been diagnosed to date, and it may not yet be a diagnosable pathology, but that behavior is absolutely not how sane people behave. Whether it sounds right wing or not, its true.


----------



## mbardu

tedtan said:


> If someone shoots the SUBWAY employees ovef the amount of mayo on a sandwich, there is clearly something wrong with that person’s mental health.



Clearly. To put so much mayo on a sandwich, you can't really be right in the head.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

From this point forward, I will be Standing My Ground™ against any and all unruly customers, just to be on the safe side. I'm not about to get shot because Steve and Karen didn't want salt on their margaritas.


----------



## arasys

AMOS said:


> Logic is everything, if you guys weren't foaming at the mouth over your gun confiscation rhetoric you might see it. You might see that gun control doesn't affect the habits and actions of criminals. Common sense prevailed in NY as well, don't you love it?




"You might see that gun control doesn't affect the habits and actions of criminals." Ya I've never seen anyone with an assault rifle killing kids at a random school where I grew up. In fact I don't remember seeing a single gun on the streets in the country I lived for 23 years. 

Hint: It's not USA, but you are more than welcome to use your "logic" and defend "gud pepul vith gunz da solushoon" - logic must be a wide open term for some.


----------



## Randy

wheresthefbomb said:


> From this point forward, I will be Standing My Ground™ against any and all unruly customers, just to be on the safe side. I'm not about to get shot because Steve and Karen didn't want salt on their margaritas.


Here in Albany someone got mouthy with a worker at, errrr, some fast food establishment and the worker shot 'em.


----------



## jaxadam

A gunman killed 3 people and wounded others at a Copenhagen mall


A 22-year-old suspect was arrested after the shooting at the Field's shopping mall in Denmark's capital. Police said the victims included a man in his 40s and two young people.




www.npr.org













Oslo shooting: Norway attack being treated as Islamist terrorism, police say


Witnesses hid in a gay bar's basement as a gunman fired on a crowd, killing two and injuring 21.



www.bbc.com


----------



## spudmunkey

Happy Birthday, 'merica!








What we know about Highland Park July 4th parade mass shooting


Witnesses said they heard multiple shots fired at the parade.




www.axios.com





Two 30-round magazines emptied in seconds, reportedly from a rooftop, heard in this video. Video does not show anyone hurt, posted just for the audio:


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Six people dead. I hate that I'm numb... I fucking hate that. 

Happy Independence Day, America!


----------



## SpaceDock

I really wonder at what point people will wake up to the fact that their right to purchase and own something has taken away their freedom to live a life without fearing a violent random death. Plenty of cops at that parade and no good guys with guns could do shit.


----------



## Xaios

Oh look, another one.


----------



## Crungy

Sure glad psychos have easy access to high cap magazines for guns they don't need and also shouldn't have access to. On the fucking fourth of July. For fucks sake.


----------



## narad

Why wasn't there a good guy with a gun on that rooftop?


----------



## Hollowway

narad said:


> Why wasn't there a good guy with a gun on that rooftop?


Yeah, this opened up a whole new perspective on the good-guy-with-a-gun idea. How could anyone hit the guy, unless they had a rifle with a scope, and time to set up? I just don't understand why people are against even the minor inconveniences like background checks.


----------



## spudmunkey

Fox News, of course, is focusing on his rap career, and doesn't mention once that he's a die-hard Trump fan who regularly shared racist memes.


----------



## Glades

I sure wish media would stop posting the identity of these crazies online/tv. The dude’s face was posted online within an hour. They are just making a buck and inciting more violence.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, this opened up a whole new perspective on the good-guy-with-a-gun idea. How could anyone hit the guy, unless they had a rifle with a scope, and time to set up? I just don't understand why people are against even the minor inconveniences like background checks.


 
In a situation like what happened today in Highland Park, part of me feels as if it could've been even worse had there been some untrained and unrestrained "good guy" involved. And I very much doubt that there would've been any fewer victims. I don't even like the thought these days of a cop safely taking out a threat much less some suburban redneck. I would feel less safe in almost any given situation with twitchy-eyed Red White & Blue Bob from Home Depot feeling like today's the day to be a hero. That's not how we reduce gun violence. I hear if you buy a kids meal at Burger King, you can get some kinda hat and a prize. Go do that. And if we happen to run into each other at the convenience store... you can go first. I'll wait outside till you've gone. I'll take my chance without you pissing fuel onto a fire.


----------



## Hollowway

High Plains Drifter said:


> In a situation like what happened today in Highland Park, part of me feels as if it could've been even worse had there been some untrained and unrestrained "good guy" involved. And I very much doubt that there would've been any fewer victims. I don't even like the thought these days of a cop safely taking out a threat much less some suburban redneck. I would feel less safe in almost any given situation with twitchy-eyed Red White & Blue Bob from Home Depot feeling like today's the day to be a hero. That's not how we reduce gun violence. I hear if you buy a kids meal at Burger King, you can get some kinda hat and a prize. Go do that. And if we happen to run into each other at the convenience store... you can go first. I'll wait outside till you've gone. I'll take my chance without you pissing fuel onto a fire.


Yeah, I don’t understand the idea of the good guy with a gun being the solution. I mean, I’m fully aware that there are instances where a good Guy with a gun DID take out a shooter. But there are loads of situations where good guys with a gun do not, or cannot. And you’re right - there’s a real worry when people who are THAT motivated to shoot someone else are on scene. That’s asking a lot of someone, in terms of judgement, collateral damage, etc. I mean, we can’t even get cops - trained professionals - to follow their training and take out the bad guys consistently. How is RWB Bob going to? I’ve yet to be presented with evidence on how this idea will work. But there’s plenty of other countries that have restricted guns and reduced deaths.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Not to go off topic but notice how suspect in mass shooting arrested without incident and 90 rounds fired over a traffic violation for a black man in Ohio.

That country can't be reformed. Nuclear war is what we deserve.


Edit: not just America but just our entire planets destroying greedy society is just hell on earth for so many


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> I sure wish media would stop posting the identity of these crazies online/tv. The dude’s face was posted online within an hour. They are just making a buck and inciting more violence.



Why? What additional violence was incited?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Why? What additional violence was incited?



Against poor defenseless guns. 

We're like three whacky congresses away from declaring firearms people.


----------



## Edika

Hot take: The reason why Republicans are so resistant in creating or enforcing gun laws is not due catering to NRA or gun lobbies interests (with huge campaign contributions) but an elaborate plan to tackle mental health issues in the US. They know their constituents are not going to accept a reasonable way to improve access to mental health services that will cost money and make them look like "dirty, rotten, no good socialists". So the situation has to reach to such a critical point so they can swoop in and start investing in that, reluctantly of course, but they'll eradicate the cause of mass shootings. Guns would be of course still there, but since there won't be any "crazies" out there to empty magazines in unsuspecting civilians. Right? Right?


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> Why? What additional violence was incited?





MaxOfMetal said:


> Against poor defenseless guns.
> 
> We're like three whacky congresses away from declaring firearms people.


Most people on the street can’t name 3 signers of the Declararion of Independence, but I’m sure they can name 3 mass shooters.
Media makes these crazy people famous. Other crazy people see this coverage and fame, and decide to go the same way.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> Most people on the street can’t name 3 signers of the Declararion of Independence, but I’m sure they can name 3 mass shooters.
> Media makes these crazy people famous. Other crazy people see this coverage and fame, and decide to go the same way.



The fact there are more mass shooters a quarter _every year_ than the number of people who signed the declaration probably has something to do with it.

It's just a bullshit deflecting argument. The shooter is the problem, not whatever associated "fame" you think they get. 

I think its important to see who is doing this and why. But that makes ammosexuals uncomfortable, because it's supposed to be monsters, literally boogeymen, not someone who they see themselves in.


----------



## odibrom

... these shooters were previously known as "a good guy with a gun"...


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Most people on the street can’t name 3 signers of the Declararion of Independence, but I’m sure they can name 3 mass shooters.
> Media makes these crazy people famous. Other crazy people see this coverage and fame, and decide to go the same way.



I remember one of the Columbine shooters' last names... the others I'm not sure I ever learned. 

So sounds like pretty tenuous logic, both in how much people pay attention to these guys in terms of who they are personally, and in how that connects to other shootings. There's so many shootings that even if you take the leaning that all attention is good attention, no single shooter occupies enough of the media's attention these days to matter.


----------



## odibrom

narad said:


> (...) no single shooter occupies enough of the media's attention these days to matter.


... it's like all new bands searching for their radio air play and spot at the sunlight of fame...!

:::::::::::

Honest question here, how many of these mass shooters have/had known criminal record? Like how many of these were known violent criminals? Please answer with percentage values. My bet is way bellow 30%...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I'm glad they were putting face of armed murder suspect who was still at large on TV seems smart.


----------



## narad

I'm seeing reports of shootings at the fireworks in Phili too now.


----------



## thraxil

odibrom said:


> Honest question here, how many of these mass shooters have/had known criminal record? Like how many of these were known violent criminals? Please answer with percentage values. My bet is way bellow 30%...


Don't have time to do extensive research right now, but a quick search turned up: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217375/

> Significantly, 41.2% of the sample had previous criminal convictions, and this figure is far higher than what is anecdotally suggested regarding members of formal terrorist organizations, who prefer recruits with clean records as they are unlikely to raise red flags among the security community.

Would need to dig a bit deeper to figure out exactly how they're defining "lone terrorist" though vs "mass shooting". In general, "mass shooting" perpetrators would have a higher rate of criminal records because a large number of them are associated with other crimes (ie, happen during a robbery, gang violence, etc. and aren't what we tend to be what we're usually discussing here but are included in the statistics).

Also noteworthy: https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0

> We found that 59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were [Domestic Violence]-related


----------



## odibrom

My definition of mass shooting in this context is excluding gang and terrorists acts, was aiming (possible pun here) at those crazies that shoot at schools or at parades, for example, but I understand the line is very difficult to draw (another pun here)...


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> I sure wish media would stop posting the identity of these crazies online/tv. The dude’s face was posted online within an hour. They are just making a buck and inciting more violence.


This is the story of reaction to a terrorist attack that only a psychopath world have.


----------



## ArtDecade

Saw pictures of the shooter at a Trump rally and wearing a Trump flag like a super hero cape. @Glades Your people. Be sure to send him some fan mail.

Receipts


----------



## Glades

ArtDecade said:


> Saw pictures of the shooter at a Trump rally and wearing a Trump flag like a super hero cape. @Glades Your people. Be sure to send him some fan mail.
> 
> Receipts



I will disregard the personal insult, when I have not insulted you, or anybody on this board.

All I will say is this was clearly a mentally deranged person. Possessed by evil in his heart, with no love or compassion. Time will tell his motivations.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

@Glades Jesus Christ- Mental Illness doesn't have a damn thing to do with some Christian's idea of "evil". The "evil" angle can be debated ad nauseam but that's completely arbitrary. The actual concerns here are mental health and access to weapons. Let's not make this a topic about a boogey man in some fairy tale.


----------



## bostjan

Saddest part is that we can only say that the Highland Park shooting was the worst mass shooting in the USA in at least a month.

With it being a parade and there being tons of people there, especially law enforcement, how this guy managed to evade for 8ish hours is crazy.

There were, what - 8 mass shootings in the USA on July 4th, and like a dozen and a half over the holiday weekend?! Maybe people just wanted to live up to this thread title.


----------



## Crungy

The comment section on that video is disgusting, as well as the channel host. 

Someome commented saying to chill out with with the conspiracy theories and consider the possibility the shooter was fucked in the head regardless of who he followed on Twitter.... The channel pins the comment and calls the commenter a "soy boy" with all the other idiots joining in. 

This shit is icing on the we're fucked cake in my opinion. Conspiracy theories getting unnecessary traction and the fucking idiots eating it up.


----------



## bostjan

Yeah, about 16% of Americans believe in some sort of covid conspiracy theory. Also about 16% of Americans have been to a museum.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> I will disregard the personal insult, when I have not insulted you, or anybody on this board.


Insult? Oh no. You misunderstood. I was trying to put you in touch with other Trump supporters so that you could be pen pals.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Glades said:


> Most people on the street can’t name 3 signers of the Declararion of Independence



so what? I could probably "name three signers" if I really thought about it, but what does that actually represent? a useless factoid I absorbed during my schooling, more akin to a slogan than anything else.

how many people on the street uncritically accept these documents as being good, necessary, and/or beyond reproach? I'm being (mostly) facetious but that would still make a more actionable data point.

amerikans have a strange, occult fascination with magic pieces of paper


----------



## mmr007

I'm glad we Americans have ignored that pesky "well regulated militia" part and the Hamilton papers that clearly explained what that means. It has had amazing benefits. For me life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is only attainable if you start semiannual active shooter drills at age 5. 

I always found going into Walmart boring...personally...but now I get to guess if the person following me in with a gun is going to shoot me, or if he is actually just the good guy with a gun, constitutionally guaranteed the right to carry but who is going to shoot the bad guy with a gun who is following us both in. Gosh this is so exciting no?


----------



## odibrom

wheresthefbomb said:


> (...)
> 
> amerikans have a strange, occult fascination with magic pieces of paper



... the dollar included, right?


----------



## wheresthefbomb

odibrom said:


> ... the dollar included, right?



at the top of the list, I'd say! eyeballing my stack right now.... (no really)


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> with no love or compassion


Your first thought was about television.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Shooter from yesterday's killing spreee... two priors with police, audible threats "kill everyone", knives taken away in one incident in 2019, spoke openly of suicide, family felt threatened... but...

"Here, guy... Have a gun!" 

Holy shit... at what point do we refuse sales of firearms to mentally unstable individuals?

And bystander yesterday "I never thought it would happen here". 

I understand complacency, but Jesus... we need to wake the fuck up.


----------



## SpaceDock

Glades said:


> I will disregard the personal insult, when I have not insulted you, or anybody on this board.
> 
> All I will say is this was clearly a mentally deranged person. Possessed by evil in his heart, with no love or compassion. Time will tell his motivations.




We should all recognize that no group has a monopoly on evil or mentally ill people, but I found that video to be super cringe. Trying to say “this guy was a fake Trump supporter” falls right into the “they were antifa!” in regards to Jan 6th. These people are criminals independent of their politics.


----------



## odibrom

SpaceDock said:


> We should all recognize that no group has a monopoly on evil or mentally ill people, but I found that video to be super cringe. Trying to say “this guy was a fake Trump supporter” falls right into the “they were antifa!” in regards to Jan 6th. These people are criminals independent of their politics.



... whitewashing the shit out of their responsibilities... they KNOW, but don't care or/nor want to loose ground on their _creeds _(dollars)...


----------



## Adieu

High Plains Drifter said:


> Shooter from yesterday's killing spreee... two priors with police, audible threats "kill everyone", knives taken away in one incident in 2019, spoke openly of suicide, family felt threatened... but...
> 
> "Here, guy... Have a gun!"
> 
> Holy shit... at what point do we refuse sales of firearms to mentally unstable individuals?
> 
> And bystander yesterday "I never thought it would happen here".
> 
> I understand complacency, but Jesus... we need to wake the fuck up.



My mother's best friend knew one of the victims and had considered going to the place where it occurred, when it occurred

Is this indicative of more shootings more often or just odds I wonder?


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> I will disregard the personal insult, when I have not insulted you, or anybody on this board.
> 
> All I will say is this was clearly a mentally deranged person. Possessed by evil in his heart, with no love or compassion. Time will tell his motivations.




"And I don't roll down that rabbit hole of conspiracy theory but..."


----------



## StevenC

SpaceDock said:


> We should all recognize that no group has a monopoly on evil or mentally ill people, but I found that video to be super cringe. Trying to say “this guy was a fake Trump supporter” falls right into the “they were antifa!” in regards to Jan 6th. These people are criminals independent of their politics.


Glades thinks Jan 6th was a hoax, though.


----------



## Glades

J4 shooter didn’t use AR-15 as previous reports indicated. Just a Keltec Sub2000, a folding pistol-caliber carbine (9mm or 40SW).


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> J4 shooter didn’t use AR-15 as previous reports indicated. Just a Keltec Sub2000, a folding pistol-caliber carbine (9mm or 40SW).


"Guys it wasn't a gun, it was a gun"


----------



## odibrom

Glades said:


> J4 shooter didn’t use AR-15 as previous reports indicated. Just a Keltec Sub2000, a folding pistol-caliber carbine (9mm or 40SW).



... which still can't resurrect dead people...


----------



## Glades

It wasn’t an “assault rifle”, like the media always likes to say about the AR-15


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> It wasn’t an “assault rifle”, like the media always likes to say about the AR-15


Stop caring that the media is being mean to the guns and start caring about the people who fucking died.


----------



## SpaceDock

Glades said:


> It wasn’t an “assault rifle”, like the media always likes to say about the AR-15


Great point! We need to ban or create ownership barriers for far more guns than just “assault rifles.” These repeater carbines are just as bad.


----------



## Glades

SpaceDock said:


> Great point! We need to ban or create ownership barriers for far more guns than just “assault rifles.” These repeater carbines are just as bad.


Would you like to roll any other constitutional rights in your plight to extend the power of the federal government? Maybe you’d like to repeal the 1st amendment too? The 13th maybe?


----------



## spudmunkey

Glades said:


> J4 shooter didn’t use AR-15 as previous reports indicated. Just a Keltec Sub2000, a folding pistol-caliber carbine (9mm or 40SW).



FWIW, the previous reports were reporting on the word of the police in a press conference, where the officer called it "An AR-15-style rifle."


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Would you like to roll any other constitutional rights in your plight to extend the power of the federal government? Maybe you’d like to repeal the 1st amendment too? The 13th maybe?



I'm cool with people owning muskets.


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> I'm cool with people owning muskets.


So police and the military (foreign and domestic) will revert back to muskets as well?


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> So police and the military (foreign and domestic) will revert back to muskets as well?



I'm cool with advanced weaponry being deployed_ by military on battlefields_. Call me crazy but I don't think the same weapons you bring to meet an invading russian force are the same ones that should be a permanent fixture inside US high schools.


----------



## mmr007

here is a question for you Glades and I am being serious...I will not insult or be sarcastic. I promise. Tell me WHY the 2nd amendment is soooo important to you that the daily life of mass murders is considered unfortunate but a necessary evil we should endure to preserve the "right to bear arms"? Why is that right, above all else, important?


----------



## SpaceDock

I am very pro 2A but I think we need qualified ownership and the types of guns to be regulated. The free for all isn’t working out very well. I grew up in a house with many guns, bolt action rifles. Now people got semi automatic like it’s no big thing to have something so dangerous for “hunting and recreation.”


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Would you like to roll any other constitutional rights in your plight to extend the power of the federal government? Maybe you’d like to repeal the 1st amendment too? The 13th maybe?


It feels trivially obvious that the freedom of speech is significantly more important a right than holding the power to end people's lives in your hands. Specifically because the only justification ever provided for the latter is impingement of the former. Fundamentally, the right to bear arms is a lesser right than freedom of speech, so don't see how your argument tracks.

As for the 13th amendment, you don't seem to care even at all about the 4th, 9th, or 14th amendment to the point where you're happy to violate them to incarcerate women into prison (read: slave) labour.


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> J4 shooter didn’t use AR-15 as previous reports indicated. Just a Keltec Sub2000, a folding pistol-caliber carbine (9mm or 40SW).



Who gives a crap, it's a semiauto long gun with a large mag that's cheaper than eating McDonalds for a month

It also has clear paramilitary styling rather than hunting or competitive shooting aesthetics.

It's marketed at people with wet dreams about shooting lots of people.


----------



## Lemonbaby

Glades said:


> J4 shooter didn’t use AR-15 as previous reports indicated. Just a Keltec Sub2000, a folding pistol-caliber carbine (9mm or 40SW).



Very interesting to see how Americans discuss this topic. 99% of the German population don't even know what both of those are.


----------



## odibrom

Lemonbaby said:


> Very interesting to see how Americans discuss this topic. 99% of the German population don't even know what both of those are.


Let's extend that to the rest of the world, shall we?


----------



## profwoot

Seriously, Glades. It was a semi-auto tactical-style long gun with 30-round mags. You really need to ask yourself why you think the distinction matters. Your thinking is extremely sloppy in general, so it's not like you have some kind of anal-retentive perfectionism regarding terminology and logic.

Your comments here wouldn't be any different if you truly believed that guns are more important than human lives. Do you not see it, or is that actually the impression you try to give folks about yourself? 

Is "batshit insane" no longer considered an undesirable condition?


----------



## tedtan

I don’t get the push back for Glades’ comment here regarding the type of gun used. And its not just this case, the media, especially the left leaning media, frequently uses incorrect information and terminology in reference to guns that are wrong enough to come across as propaganda or, at the very least, spin.

We don’t tolerate Fox News putting out factually incorrect info, propaganda, and spin, so why do we tolerate it when “our” side’s news outlets put out factually incorrect info, propaganda, and spin? Even when its done unintentionally, we need to hold the news outlets, ALL news outlets, to a higher standard.

And don’t mistake this for me saying its OK to go around killing people, or something of that ilk; that’s a non sequitur.

We are too divided; we need facts, not propaganda, if we want to save ourselves and our institutions. If we rely on propaganda and fantasies, we’re all doomed .


----------



## mmr007

Can you all indulge me with a brief story? A while back I lived in northern Alabama. I became friends with a woman (because we used the same gym and our kids went to the same school) who was an arch conservative bible thumper who hated gays. I found her views on homosexuality offensive but we engaged in healthy conversation about it among all the other things we enjoyed talking about or debating about. Fast forward about three years into our friendship and not only had she completely moderated her opinions on homosexuality she did it to the point that she and her husband (who was a professional homebuilder in Huntsville) rented out the back house they built on their property to a gay couple AND she told me that she regularly hung out with them, invited them to dinner and one of the gay men became her best friend. 

We all have opinions that other hate and find offensive. But talk with people not at them. No one has ever been bullied into changing their mind. It may happen. This is such a sensitive subject...guns and the mass shootings because of them....but insults (ON EITHER SIDE) do not help.


----------



## narad

tedtan said:


> I don’t get the push back for Glades’ comment here regarding the type of gun used. And its not just this case, the media, especially the left leaning media, frequently uses incorrect information and terminology in reference to guns that are wrong enough to come across as propaganda or, at the very least, spin.
> 
> We don’t tolerate Fox News putting out factually incorrect info, propaganda, and spin, so why do we tolerate it when “our” side’s news outlets put out factually incorrect info, propaganda, and spin? Even when its done unintentionally, we need to hold the news outlets, ALL news outlets, to a higher standard.
> 
> And don’t mistake this for me saying its OK to go around killing people, or something of that ilk; that’s a non sequitur.
> 
> We are too divided; we need facts, not propaganda, if we want to save ourselves and our institutions. If we rely on propaganda and fantasies, we’re all doomed .



That's fine, but "the media" is not one thing. I grabbed 3 random articles when I first went to read about it, and none of them mentioned an AR-15. I think two mentioned "high powered rifle" and another said "assault style rifle", which I don't know if any of those fit, but they were admittedly early reports. So what do you want exactly?

EDIT: and the "high-powered rifle" was a quote from an officer after they recovered the weapon. So whether that's accurate or not, what do you want them to do? Not report what the officer said?


----------



## narad

And actually, I'm seeing the J4 Highland Park shooting gun listed as the M&P 15 SPORT II, which is:







An "AR-15 style" weapon "Compatible with most standard AR15 components and accessories". So... are we going to hear any apologies about the claimed inaccuracy of what the media reported, or no?


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> Can you all indulge me with a brief story? A while back I lived in northern Alabama. I became friends with a woman (because we used the same gym and our kids went to the same school) who was an arch conservative bible thumper who hated gays. I found her views on homosexuality offensive but we engaged in healthy conversation about it among all the other things we enjoyed talking about or debating about. Fast forward about three years into our friendship and not only had she completely moderated her opinions on homosexuality she did it to the point that she and her husband (who was a professional homebuilder in Huntsville) rented out the back house they built on their property to a gay couple AND she told me that she regularly hung out with them, invited them to dinner and one of the gay men became her best friend.
> 
> We all have opinions that other hate and find offensive. But talk with people not at them. No one has ever been bullied into changing their mind. It may happen. This is such a sensitive subject...guns and the mass shootings because of them....but insults (ON EITHER SIDE) do not help.


I too, remember the pre-facebook days of political debates with friends. Tons of my bandmates and coworkers were either way more conservative or way more liberal than me, and I overall enjoyed debates with them, since I got to see different perspectives. Actually, those who've kept in touch are still cool. It seems like the people from my past who went totally bonkers with the political stuff were typically apolitical pre-Obama.

As far as all of these shootings go, I guess there were always shootings, and they were always insane. They tend to seem much more random now. For example, if an insane man in the 1800's shot the president because he wasn't appointed as an ambassador to France (despite speaking no French and having zero ties to France as well as zero knowledge of international politics), at least he still had some illogical reason. Today, many of these mass shooters are just spraying bullets into crowds with no concern for whom they are harming and no reason for doing it other than for the attention.

I had said here long long ago that, if the media simply stopped showing the photos of the killers and naming them, this would probably stop happening. I think I was partially right and partially wrong about that. But maybe the point is moot, because there is no was that someone committing a mass act of violence will not become a public interest. We cannot take the guns away from the crazy people, and we cannot treat the crazy people, so I guess we are just stuck with this being the American way of life.


----------



## Adieu

IS there such a thing as a low-powered 9mm though???

What does it take to qualify for high powered in supersize everything Murica? 30mm AA autocannon?


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> And actually, I'm seeing the J4 Highland Park shooting gun listed as the M&P 15 SPORT II, which is:
> 
> An "AR-15 style" weapon "Compatible with most standard AR15 components and accessories". So... are we going to hear any apologies about the claimed inaccuracy of what the media reported, or no?



If anyone is looking at this gun and say calling it an AR-15 or "AR-15 style" weapon is inaccurate, you're part of the problem and need to remove yourself from the debate.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I don’t get the push back for Glades’ comment here regarding the type of gun used. And its not just this case, the media, especially the left leaning media, frequently uses incorrect information and terminology in reference to guns that are wrong enough to come across as propaganda or, at the very least, spin.
> 
> We don’t tolerate Fox News putting out factually incorrect info, propaganda, and spin, so why do we tolerate it when “our” side’s news outlets put out factually incorrect info, propaganda, and spin? Even when its done unintentionally, we need to hold the news outlets, ALL news outlets, to a higher standard.
> 
> And don’t mistake this for me saying its OK to go around killing people, or something of that ilk; that’s a non sequitur.
> 
> We are too divided; we need facts, not propaganda, if we want to save ourselves and our institutions. If we rely on propaganda and fantasies, we’re all doomed .


I think the issue is that nit-picking the words used to describe a gun used in a mass shooting has become a standard tactic and trope of the pro-2A movement.

"Well actually, 'AR' doesn't stand for 'assault rifle," "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it's just a term made up by the left" etc etc etc. It's an attempt to deflect, and usually followed by a very overt claim that if you "don't even know what type of gun was used, then you don't know enough to try to regulate it." Whereas, as you point out, to the left, that's actually pretty irrelevant, we don't really care that deeply if it was an AR-15 or an M&P 15 Sport, we just want the law changed so anyone who had his knife and sword collection confiscated at 16 because he made credible threats to "kill everyone" can't go and at 18 buy an arsenal capable of killing a half dozen and wounding dozens more from a rooftop overlooking a parade.

So, the actual literal content of what he's saying... sure, whatever, he's not wrong. But this is adding as much to this dialogue, and is as much of a broken record, as saying "it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun," and I think anyone recognizing and pointing out the attempt at deflection as part of the long-standing NRA playbook is absolutely right to do so.

And, as a commentator half-joked recently, the good guys with guns must be pretty embarrassed, because they're getting their asses kicked by the bad guys with guns.


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> And, as a commentator half-joked recently, the good guys with guns must be pretty embarrassed, because they're getting their asses kicked by the bad guys with guns.


thats fucking funny


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> thats fucking funny


It would be, if it wasn't fucking accurate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

tedtan said:


> I don’t get the push back for Glades’ comment here regarding the type of gun used. And its not just this case, the media, especially the left leaning media, frequently uses incorrect information and terminology in reference to guns that are wrong enough to come across as propaganda or, at the very least, spin.
> 
> We don’t tolerate Fox News putting out factually incorrect info, propaganda, and spin, so why do we tolerate it when “our” side’s news outlets put out factually incorrect info, propaganda, and spin? Even when its done unintentionally, we need to hold the news outlets, ALL news outlets, to a higher standard.
> 
> And don’t mistake this for me saying its OK to go around killing people, or something of that ilk; that’s a non sequitur.
> 
> We are too divided; we need facts, not propaganda, if we want to save ourselves and our institutions. If we rely on propaganda and fantasies, we’re all doomed .



Because he's wrong.

The Kel-Tec was found in the shooter's vehicle when he was arrested.

The S&W AR-15 was the weapon used to commit the July 4th shooting and recovered at the scene.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> IS there such a thing as a low-powered 9mm though???
> 
> What does it take to qualify for high powered in supersize everything Murica? 30mm AA autocannon?


I guess I lost my place. What 9mm?

If the gun killed some, it was high powered enough. But "high" anything is a relative term. So, if someone was nitpicking about calling a weapon "high powered," and that weapon was used to commit mass murder, then I suppose it's already clear that the nitpicker has lost touch with reality.

Anyway, 90%+ of "9mm" weapons in the USA are 9mm parabellum, which literally means "for warfare." Anyone complaining that it's not powerful enough is probably being disingenuous, unless they are fighting armored vehicles or flying whales or godzilla or some shit.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

a rifle made for assaulting is an assault rifle the same way an oven made for pizza is a pizza oven. playing semantics around the function of tools made for killing people is sick shit, imo we should come up with as scary names as possible for these things, and I say this as someone who is very much opposed to most suggested forms of gun control.


----------



## /wrists

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-04/july-4-sacramento-shooting



https://patch.com/california/orange-county/shooting-la-habra-leaves-1-man-critically-injured



https://patch.com/california/lakeforest-ca/shooting-suspect-arrested-irvine-roommate-found-dead




https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-injured-july-4th-shooting/story?id=86222883



https://billypenn.com/2022/07/05/ph...h-shooting-welcome-america-concert-fireworks/


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/shootings-united-states-july-4-weekend-gun-violence.html


Some in California and other places in the US over 4th of July


----------



## StevenC

tedtan said:


> I don’t get the push back for Glades’ comment here regarding the type of gun used. And its not just this case, the media, especially the left leaning media, frequently uses incorrect information and terminology in reference to guns that are wrong enough to come across as propaganda or, at the very least, spin.
> 
> We don’t tolerate Fox News putting out factually incorrect info, propaganda, and spin, so why do we tolerate it when “our” side’s news outlets put out factually incorrect info, propaganda, and spin? Even when its done unintentionally, we need to hold the news outlets, ALL news outlets, to a higher standard.
> 
> And don’t mistake this for me saying its OK to go around killing people, or something of that ilk; that’s a non sequitur.
> 
> We are too divided; we need facts, not propaganda, if we want to save ourselves and our institutions. If we rely on propaganda and fantasies, we’re all doomed .


Because it really, profoundly doesn't matter.

Like, what's the argument here? "This gun is much smaller than an AR-15 and can be used to do a mass murder too"? Because, to me as a person who cares about people not getting shot, that sounds like an argument for regulating way more guns than assault rifles. Glades (factually incorrect) argument was basically "They media said it was an AR-15, but it was actually much more like a handgun", which is an argument for regulating handguns.

It's just a braindead thing to argue about.


----------



## Randy

evade said:


> https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-04/july-4-sacramento-shooting
> 
> 
> 
> https://patch.com/california/orange-county/shooting-la-habra-leaves-1-man-critically-injured
> 
> 
> 
> https://patch.com/california/lakeforest-ca/shooting-suspect-arrested-irvine-roommate-found-dead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-injured-july-4th-shooting/story?id=86222883
> 
> 
> 
> https://billypenn.com/2022/07/05/ph...h-shooting-welcome-america-concert-fireworks/
> 
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/shootings-united-states-july-4-weekend-gun-violence.html
> 
> 
> Some in California and other places in the US over 4th of July


Blurs the issue tho. 

99 times out of 100, a shooting that happens in an apartment are two people that are known to eachother. We can debate whether that minimizes anyone dying but two people arguing or in some relationship with each other, policy wise, shouldn't be lumped in with someone standing on a roof and spraying people underneath indiscriminately.


----------



## tedtan

narad said:


> That's fine, but "the media" is not one thing. I grabbed 3 random articles when I first went to read about it, and none of them mentioned an AR-15. I think two mentioned "high powered rifle" and another said "assault style rifle", which I don't know if any of those fit, but they were admittedly early reports. So what do you want exactly?
> 
> EDIT: and the "high-powered rifle" was a quote from an officer after they recovered the weapon. So whether that's accurate or not, what do you want them to do? Not report what the officer said?





narad said:


> And actually, I'm seeing the J4 Highland Park shooting gun listed as the M&P 15 SPORT II, which is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An "AR-15 style" weapon "Compatible with most standard AR15 components and accessories". So... are we going to hear any apologies about the claimed inaccuracy of what the media reported, or no?





Drew said:


> I think the issue is that nit-picking the words used to describe a gun used in a mass shooting has become a standard tactic and trope of the pro-2A movement.
> 
> "Well actually, 'AR' doesn't stand for 'assault rifle," "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it's just a term made up by the left" etc etc etc. It's an attempt to deflect, and usually followed by a very overt claim that if you "don't even know what type of gun was used, then you don't know enough to try to regulate it." Whereas, as you point out, to the left, that's actually pretty irrelevant, we don't really care that deeply if it was an AR-15 or an M&P 15 Sport, we just want the law changed so anyone who had his knife and sword collection confiscated at 16 because he made credible threats to "kill everyone" can't go and at 18 buy an arsenal capable of killing a half dozen and wounding dozens more from a rooftop overlooking a parade.
> 
> So, the actual literal content of what he's saying... sure, whatever, he's not wrong. But this is adding as much to this dialogue, and is as much of a broken record, as saying "it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun," and I think anyone recognizing and pointing out the attempt at deflection as part of the long-standing NRA playbook is absolutely right to do so.
> 
> And, as a commentator half-joked recently, the good guys with guns must be pretty embarrassed, because they're getting their asses kicked by the bad guys with guns.





MaxOfMetal said:


> Because he's wrong.
> 
> The Kel-Tec was found in the shooter's vehicle when he was arrested.
> 
> The S&W AR-15 was the weapon used to commit the July 4th shooting and recovered at the scene.





StevenC said:


> Because it really, profoundly doesn't matter.
> 
> Like, what's the argument here? "This gun is much smaller than an AR-15 and can be used to do a mass murder too"? Because, to me as a person who cares about people not getting shot, that sounds like an argument for regulating way more guns than assault rifles. Glades (factually incorrect) argument was basically "They media said it was an AR-15, but it was actually much more like a handgun", which is an argument for regulating handguns.
> 
> It's just a braindead thing to argue about.



If the S&W M&P-15 was used, then it *IS* and AR15, but as I said in my prior post, my concern isn’t about the specific incident Glades mentioned or guns, that is just a singular incident and tangential to my comment. Point out any talking points and straw men you want; I’m not addressing guns in my comment, but news and information. And whereas Glades motivations are suspect, that doesn’t mean that we should ignore his post altogether, as it does bring up a legitimate issue, even if it was not Glades’ intent to bring it up.

My issue here is a larger concern regarding the quality and accuracy of information we receive from the media. I’ve seen so many TV news interviews, on channels with various political leanings, where a ”reporter” repeatedly interrupts the subject of the interview to ask extremely leading questions in an attempt to get the subject to answer the question in such a way as to validate the “reporter’s” political agenda. News with incorrect information that is not retracted and corrected. It happens all the time. And while this may be well suited to a trial lawyer, it is not reporting the news.

The best position to be in when making a decision is to have complete and perfectly accurate information. In the real world, we never have either so we must make do with incomplete and imperfect information. But there is no reason to allow more imperfection than necessary into the decision making process.

Why I am concerned with this is because we are at a more divided point here in the US than we have been since the civil war and a large part of the reason why is due to incorrect information. Some of it BS, some propaganda, some sloppy “reporting”, but we are fast approaching a point where the US may stand or fall based on the decisions we make and we mustn’t allow this BS to influence our decisions.


----------



## StevenC

tedtan said:


> If the S&W M&P-15 was used, then it *IS* and AR15, but as I said in my prior post, my concern isn’t about the specific incident Glades mentioned or guns, that is just a singular incident and tangential to my comment. Point out any talking points and straw men you want; I’m not addressing guns in my comment, but news and information. And whereas Glades motivations are suspect, that doesn’t mean that we should ignore his post altogether, as it does bring up a legitimate issue, even if it was not Glades’ intent to bring it up.
> 
> My issue here is a larger concern regarding the quality and accuracy of information we receive from the media. I’ve seen so many TV news interviews, on channels with various political leanings, where a ”reporter” repeatedly interrupts the subject of the interview to ask extremely leading questions in an attempt to get the subject to answer the question in such a way as to validate the “reporter’s” political agenda. News with incorrect information that is not retracted and corrected. It happens all the time. And while this may be well suited to a trial lawyer, it is not reporting the news.
> 
> The best position to be in when making a decision is to have complete and perfectly accurate information. In the real world, we never have either so we must make do with incomplete and imperfect information. But there is no reason to allow more imperfection than necessary into the decision making process.
> 
> Why I am concerned with this is because we are at a more divided point here in the US than we have been since the civil war and a large part of the reason why is due to incorrect information. Some of it BS, some propaganda, some sloppy “reporting”, but we are fast approaching a point where the US may stand or fall based on the decisions we make and we mustn’t allow this BS to influence our decisions.


And that's a righteous conversation to have, but the disinformation here was Glades. TV got it right apparently.


----------



## profwoot

bostjan said:


> If the gun killed some, it was high powered enough. But "high" anything is a relative term. So, if someone was nitpicking about calling a weapon "high powered," and that weapon was used to commit mass murder, then I suppose it's already clear that the nitpicker has lost touch with reality.



This is outside my direct expertise, but I work in a med school and frequently have clinicians guest lecture in my classes, including EM physicians, and they have been clear that the damage done by a bullet from a pistol vs one from a rifle is night and day different. A pistol puts a hole through you, whereas a rifle puts a bigger hole through you plus a shockwave that destroys all the tissue in a radius around that hole. I assume the latter is what "high powered" is getting at.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

tedtan said:


> If the S&W M&P-15 was used, then it *IS* and AR15, but as I said in my prior post, my concern isn’t about the specific incident Glades mentioned or guns, that is just a singular incident and tangential to my comment. Point out any talking points and straw men you want; I’m not addressing guns in my comment, but news and information. And whereas Glades motivations are suspect, that doesn’t mean that we should ignore his post altogether, as it does bring up a legitimate issue, even if it was not Glades’ intent to bring it up.
> 
> My issue here is a larger concern regarding the quality and accuracy of information we receive from the media. I’ve seen so many TV news interviews, on channels with various political leanings, where a ”reporter” repeatedly interrupts the subject of the interview to ask extremely leading questions in an attempt to get the subject to answer the question in such a way as to validate the “reporter’s” political agenda. News with incorrect information that is not retracted and corrected. It happens all the time. And while this may be well suited to a trial lawyer, it is not reporting the news.
> 
> The best position to be in when making a decision is to have complete and perfectly accurate information. In the real world, we never have either so we must make do with incomplete and imperfect information. But there is no reason to allow more imperfection than necessary into the decision making process.
> 
> Why I am concerned with this is because we are at a more divided point here in the US than we have been since the civil war and a large part of the reason why is due to incorrect information. Some of it BS, some propaganda, some sloppy “reporting”, but we are fast approaching a point where the US may stand or fall based on the decisions we make and we mustn’t allow this BS to influence our decisions.



This is a very valid position but it's important to point out that the contention over what guns are called didn't start with the liberal media mislabelling them. These are what are called "contested terms" in sociolinguistics, and the meaning of the term is a proxy for the political/social debate taking place. Very broadly, we have one side that wants our language to represent that guns are dangerous, and another that wants our language to represent that guns are (less dangerous) tools.

Even in the realm of "accurate information," terms are hotly contested, hence my oft-repeated refrain regarding "assault rifles." Information is only as accurate as our understanding of (and mutual agreement upon this understanding) the medium through which it is relayed, there is no such thing as perfectly accurate information. Even outside of personal bias our very perception eventually becomes a barrier: everything we perceive is merely an imperfect representation of something inherently unknowable. Without getting too far down that rabbithole, the salient point here is that there is no shelter in the storm. There is no truly accurate information and no objective reality.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Was just coming in here to rant a little about how I get annoyed with people's ignorance when referencing situations, and it's annoying being stuck somewhere in the middle. 

I see it's made its way into this discussion too, but he didn't use the kel tec sub 2000 in the shooting. If you go back and listen to what C Covelli said at the news conference, he first mentions four firearms being purchased in 2020. The first one, he doesn't specify what it was but calls it "the weapon used in the shooting." Then he mentions the kel tec sub2000, a remington 700 and an un-named shotgun. Then in 2021, he bought a fifth weapon, which was a glock.

It's important to watch that whole news conference as there are tons of things that clear up his piss-poor choice of only naming some of the guns and mashing sentences together.

I've seen pro gun people misinterpret it as "the gun used, (which was) a kel tek sub2000" I've seen anti-gun people say "The four guns mentioned were the gun used, (as well as) a kel tec sub2000, a remington shotgun, and a glock.

Both statements are incorrect, and listening to the whole conference shows that. First, he mentions four guns bought in 2020: The one used in the shooting (he didn't specify what it was,) a kel tec sub2000, a remington 700 (a rifle, not a shotgun), and an unspecified shotgun. He bought one gun in 2021, which was a Glock of sorts. (too lazy to go back and look what model, but it's irrelevant.)

Two reasons it's important to watch the whole conference, as it gives context to the poorly worded statement above, is 1: It is mentioned how the goblin had purchased 5 firearms total. And 2: The weapon used in the shooting was dropped at some point while fleeing the scene. The Sub2000 was in his car, not discarded.

Maybe I missed it in the news conference, but I didn't see the S&W M&P 15 mentioned anywhere other than written news articles so I have no clue where that info came from. I'm not 100% confident (unless someone can provide a source link) in saying the S&W was used. I *am* however 100% confident that the sub2000 *wasn't* used in the shooting.

What I'm personally curious about is how did the red flag laws and assault weapon bans in his state get circumvented. There appears to be a ton of laws in place that weren't followed that allowed this ghoul to do this the way he did. It would almost be preferable if he *did* use the sub2000, because as it stands... He wasn't legally allowed to buy an "assault style/ ar 15 style weapon in his state but somehow did... As far as I'm aware, he didn't cross state lines to buy the weapon.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

profwoot said:


> This is outside my direct expertise, but I work in a med school and frequently have clinicians guest lecture in my classes, including EM physicians, and they have been clear that the damage done by a bullet from a pistol vs one from a rifle is night and day different. A pistol puts a hole through you, whereas a rifle puts a bigger hole through you plus a shockwave that destroys all the tissue in a radius around that hole. I assume the latter is what "high powered" is getting at.


Personally, as someone who indulges in firearms as a hobby, people who say a 5.56 aren't high powered are only technically correct. It's a small bullet, the same size as a .22 just about. The difference, because there obviously *is* one, is that there's a whole lot more powder behind the .223/5.56 and it's going much faster. It will definitely fuck you up more than any ol' .22 would. Just look up pictures of Gaige Grosskreutz's bicep after getting shot and any .22 injury and tell me they're anything the same. And while a 5.56 is definitely a pretty damn small rifle round, it is still immensely dangerous and it's disingenuous to argue semantics about "high powered" when the fact is that, high powered or not, a 5.56 is scary stuff when used on people.


----------



## bostjan

profwoot said:


> This is outside my direct expertise, but I work in a med school and frequently have clinicians guest lecture in my classes, including EM physicians, and they have been clear that the damage done by a bullet from a pistol vs one from a rifle is night and day different. A pistol puts a hole through you, whereas a rifle puts a bigger hole through you plus a shockwave that destroys all the tissue in a radius around that hole. I assume the latter is what "high powered" is getting at.


Hmm. Seems to me like it'd just be much clearer and also much more concise to say "rifle" rather than "high powered firearm." I imagine that, in an emergency medical situation, the 0.6 seconds saved saying it and 30 additional seconds saved explaining it would potentially be appreciated.

I'm more prone to think, in this context, that "power" refers to how much harm can be done in a short amount of time rather than the nature of each of the injuries. An elephant gun dispatches a lot of energy per shot, but unless you are shooting at people standing in single file lines, something like an Uzi or Tech9 would probably be more deadly, and thus, in this sort of context "more powerful," but it's unclear wording in my opinion either way. Then again, if we distributed body armor to everyone, maybe we could make the Uzis and Tech9s sort of useless.

Maybe we need to just give up and give everyone body armor. Sounds ridiculous, but I think we've already crossed the threshold of ridiculous years ago. "Honey, have you seen my flak jacket? I want to get more dog food, but the loner guy next to the pet store just bought a grenade launcher."


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Randy said:


> If anyone is looking at this gun and say calling it an AR-15 or "AR-15 style" weapon is inaccurate, you're part of the problem and need to remove yourself from the debate.



Apologies for spamming, but even as a gun person, I've been arguing with other gun folks all day because they are convinced they heard something they did not. I think it's asinine to make a big deal if it was the sub2000 or an ar-15 in the first place, as 60+ hunks of potentially lethal high speed metal is still 60+ hunks of potentially lethal high speed metal. I don't think anyone is arguing that weapon isn't or isn't *like* an AR15. They're basing it off of the news conference I mentioned in my first post here where the cop words things poorly where it almost sounds like he says the weapon used was the sub2000, which most definitely doesn't resemble an AR like the S&W does.

As irrelevant as it is, people are thinking the sub2000 is the gun being referenced as the AR-15 style weapon when it isn't. (but it also hasn't been said that it was by anyone in the media.)


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Why I am concerned with this is because we are at a more divided point here in the US than we have been since the civil war and a large part of the reason why is due to incorrect information. Some of it BS, some propaganda, some sloppy “reporting”, but we are fast approaching a point where the US may stand or fall based on the decisions we make and we mustn’t allow this BS to influence our decisions.


But again I think my point here was that intent also matters, and Glade wasn't trying to add useful information to a discussion on gun violence, he was trying to deflect and turn it into a discussion of how little liberals know about guns. The fact media reports he was pointing to actually turned out to be fairly accurate - not an AR-15, but an equivalent model from a different manufacturer that bore a different name but was functionally identical - was kind of the icing on the cake.


----------



## Drew

Señor Voorhees said:


> Personally, as someone who indulges in firearms as a hobby, people who say a 5.56 aren't high powered are only technically correct. It's a small bullet, the same size as a .22 just about. The difference, because there obviously *is* one, is that there's a whole lot more powder behind the .223/5.56 and it's going much faster. It will definitely fuck you up more than any ol' .22 would. Just look up pictures of Gaige Grosskreutz's bicep after getting shot and any .22 injury and tell me they're anything the same. And while a 5.56 is definitely a pretty damn small rifle round, it is still immensely dangerous and it's disingenuous to argue semantics about "high powered" when the fact is that, high powered or not, a 5.56 is scary stuff when used on people.


First, I too am curious how red flag laws were circumvented. I understand the shooter's father co-signed on his application, and his father has since claimed he knew nothing about the prior knife seizure - maybe this was it? 

Second, I'm NOT a gun person, but my wife is a doctor and a number of her med school friends are emergency/trauma doctors. They say the same - caliber isn't hugely important in treating gunshot wounds, within limits, but muzzle velocity is. The size of the hole a bullet pokes through your body doesn't (again, within limits) change your treatment plan. What DOES matter, however, is if the bullet hits with enough impact to basically vaporize tissue behind the impact site, at which point you no longer have a neat little hole poked through the body, you have a hole on entry and a giant cavity on exit.

Maybe the pro-2A types have a point here - if we focused more on restricting access to high velocity military style weapons where this destruction of tissue and intent to maim rather than puncture is a feature and not bug of the design, maybe, just maybe, we might get somewhere.


----------



## tedtan

StevenC said:


> And that's a righteous conversation to have, but the disinformation here was Glades. TV got it right apparently.


Yeah, it’s looks like Glades was the one with the mis-information and should retract it, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen Any more than I would waiting for AMOS to comment on any of my responses to him.




Señor Voorhees said:


> Was just coming in here to rant a little about how I get annoyed with people's ignorance when referencing situations, and it's annoying being stuck somewhere in the middle.
> 
> I see it's made its way into this discussion too, but he didn't use the kel tec sub 2000 in the shooting. If you go back and listen to what C Covelli said at the news conference, he first mentions four firearms being purchased in 2020. The first one, he doesn't specify what it was but calls it "the weapon used in the shooting." Then he mentions the kel tec sub2000, a remington 700 and an un-named shotgun. Then in 2021, he bought a fifth weapon, which was a glock.
> 
> It's important to watch that whole news conference as there are tons of things that clear up his piss-poor choice of only naming some of the guns and mashing sentences together.
> 
> I've seen pro gun people misinterpret it as "the gun used, (which was) a kel tek sub2000" I've seen anti-gun people say "The four guns mentioned were the gun used, (as well as) a kel tec sub2000, a remington shotgun, and a glock.
> 
> Both statements are incorrect, and listening to the whole conference shows that. First, he mentions four guns bought in 2020: The one used in the shooting (he didn't specify what it was,) a kel tec sub2000, a remington 700 (a rifle, not a shotgun), and an unspecified shotgun. He bought one gun in 2021, which was a Glock of sorts. (too lazy to go back and look what model, but it's irrelevant.)
> 
> Two reasons it's important to watch the whole conference, as it gives context to the poorly worded statement above, is 1: It is mentioned how the goblin had purchased 5 firearms total. And 2: The weapon used in the shooting was dropped at some point while fleeing the scene. The Sub2000 was in his car, not discarded.
> 
> Maybe I missed it in the news conference, but I didn't see the S&W M&P 15 mentioned anywhere other than written news articles so I have no clue where that info came from. I'm not 100% confident (unless someone can provide a source link) in saying the S&W was used. I *am* however 100% confident that the sub2000 *wasn't* used in the shooting.
> 
> What I'm personally curious about is how did the red flag laws and assault weapon bans in his state get circumvented. There appears to be a ton of laws in place that weren't followed that allowed this ghoul to do this the way he did. It would almost be preferable if he *did* use the sub2000, because as it stands... He wasn't legally allowed to buy an "assault style/ ar 15 style weapon in his state but somehow did... As far as I'm aware, he didn't cross state lines to buy the weapon.


The S&W M&P-15 could be the first, unnamed, firearm purchased, but I haven’t verified that personally.




Señor Voorhees said:


> Personally, as someone who indulges in firearms as a hobby, people who say a 5.56 aren't high powered are only technically correct. It's a small bullet, the same size as a .22 just about. The difference, because there obviously *is* one, is that there's a whole lot more powder behind the .223/5.56 and it's going much faster. It will definitely fuck you up more than any ol' .22 would. Just look up pictures of Gaige Grosskreutz's bicep after getting shot and any .22 injury and tell me they're anything the same. And while a 5.56 is definitely a pretty damn small rifle round, it is still immensely dangerous and it's disingenuous to argue semantics about "high powered" when the fact is that, high powered or not, a 5.56 is scary stuff when used on people.


The term “hi power” isn’t really a defined term, kind of like “assault rifle”, so that leaves them open to interpretation. I think we have to take it in comparison with something else. Is a rifle hi powered compared to a pistol? Yes, absolutely. Is a 5.56 NATO round hi powered compared to other rifle calibers? No, its actually towards the lower end compared to other rifle calibers.

And specifically regarding the various .22s, the .223/5.56 is certainly more powerful than a rimfire like a .22LR or .22Mag, but compared to other .22 caliber centerfires like the .222 Remington, the .22-250 or the 220 Swift, they’re roughly equal.



Drew said:


> But again I think my point here was that intent also matters, and Glade wasn't trying to add useful information to a discussion on gun violence, he was trying to deflect and turn it into a discussion of how little liberals know about guns. The fact media reports he was pointing to actually turned out to be fairly accurate - not an AR-15, but an equivalent model from a different manufacturer that bore a different name but was functionally identical - was kind of the icing on the cake.


I agree that it matters in the original context and the responses to it, but it doesn’t matter to the point I was making, which was separate from any gun propaganda on either side.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Second, I'm NOT a gun person, but my wife is a doctor and a number of her med school friends are emergency/trauma doctors. They say the same - caliber isn't hugely important in treating gunshot wounds, within limits, but muzzle velocity is. The size of the hole a bullet pokes through your body doesn't (again, within limits) change your treatment plan. What DOES matter, however, is if the bullet hits with enough impact to basically vaporize tissue behind the impact site, at which point you no longer have a neat little hole poked through the body, you have a hole on entry and a giant cavity on exit.
> 
> Maybe the pro-2A types have a point here - if we focused more on restricting access to high velocity military style weapons where this destruction of tissue and intent to maim rather than puncture is a feature and not bug of the design, maybe, just maybe, we might get somewhere.



The physics are fascinating. Conversely, my dad's opinion (far from an expert, but an EMT in an area where openning day of deer hunting season was a school holiday, and grew up a farmer/hunter) that in his experience, non-rifle bullets tend to tumble, and cause more trauma than a similar-caliber-at-similar-speed bullet fired through a long, "rifled" barrel which is much more likely to pass through *relatively* cleanly...so while a rifle has more penetrating power, a handgun may still do more damage.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> First, I too am curious how red flag laws were circumvented. I understand the shooter's father co-signed on his application, and his father has since claimed he knew nothing about the prior knife seizure - maybe this was it?
> 
> Second, I'm NOT a gun person, but my wife is a doctor and a number of her med school friends are emergency/trauma doctors. They say the same - caliber isn't hugely important in treating gunshot wounds, within limits, but muzzle velocity is. The size of the hole a bullet pokes through your body doesn't (again, within limits) change your treatment plan. What DOES matter, however, is if the bullet hits with enough impact to basically vaporize tissue behind the impact site, at which point you no longer have a neat little hole poked through the body, you have a hole on entry and a giant cavity on exit.
> 
> Maybe the pro-2A types have a point here - if we focused more on restricting access to high velocity military style weapons where this destruction of tissue and intent to maim rather than puncture is a feature and not bug of the design, maybe, just maybe, we might get somewhere.


To clarify a bit, the diameter of the hole a bullet makes doesn’t matter, its the amount of energy transferred into the target that does damage. The amount of energy transferred can be increased by either 1) using a faster bullet, ceteris paribus; or 2) using a heavier bullet, ceteris paribus; or 3) both.

So an AR15 firing a common round like the 62 grain green tip at 3,100 feet per second generates 1,289 lb/ft of energy at the muzzle whereas the elephant gun that someone mentioned earlier, such as a .500 Nitro Express, fires a 570 grain bullet at only 2,150 feet per second, but manages to generate almost five time as much energy at the muzzle (5,850 lb/ft) Even with the slower bullet. And the heavier bullet retains energy better down range than the lighter, faster bullet will.

In comparison, a handgun like the 9mm fires a 115 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 1,150 feet per second for a muzzle energy of 365 lb/ft.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> he was trying to deflect and turn it into a discussion of how little liberals know about guns.


This whole conversation has reminded me of this comic, but you really hit the nail on the head here.


----------



## odibrom

Drew said:


> (...)
> 
> And, as a commentator half-joked recently, the good guys with guns must be pretty embarrassed, because they're getting their asses kicked by the bad guys with guns.


Because they can't ID is which until shit hits the fan, and even then they'll all believe they're the good ones, spreading shit all over...


----------



## Hollowway

Not to pull this topic too far off... topic..., but one of the major issues I have with the 2nd amendment crew (and the NRA) is that they seem to only be concerned about guns when black people have them. In fact, the NRA was actually FOR gun control when the Black Panthers pushed for the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment. To answer Glades' question about which other rights I want the federal government to infringe on, I don't. I'm actually for the Federal government staying the hell away from taking away rights. That includes pretty much all of the power grabs they're trying to do. But I think they really need to get serious about shooting every black person carrying a pen or phone, or adjusting their waistband. Or, like Philando Castile, who was reaching for his actual permit to hold a gun when he was shot. The fact is that the 2nd amendment group has fuck all to do with protecting themselves from the government. If they were ready to "defend" themselves against the government, then they'd have a problem with cops killing unarmed people. They'd have a problem with cops not helping people in need (aka standing by why someone drowns, because they're training is that they can't swim, so they should call the fire department to come rescue the drowning person). But instead, they support cops in these things. Why? I think it's because the people supporting the 2nd amendment are xenophobic misogynists, and like when the government goes after the non-white, non-male population. 

I think a gun ban would work. Reason being is that it's literally worked in the other countries that have done it. It's not an academic argument.

But if I WAS of the mindset that I needed to be a part of a well regulated militia to fight back, I'd try to identify my enemy. And my most likely enemy would be either the cops or the military. Yet, for some reason most 2nd amendment guys think AOC is going to strap up and come after them. It's not politicians that will enforce martial law. It's the cops and/or military. But they don't seem to worry about that.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

BTW here is the Keltec. So I really hope they would have made proper distinction if that's what had been used....



Like get a grip


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> BTW here is the Keltec. So I really hope they would have made proper distinction if that's what had been used....
> View attachment 110229
> 
> 
> Like get a grip



The "confusion" popped up when pictures of the Kel-Tec recovered from the shooter's car at his arrest started making the right wing rounds via social media and local Fox affiliates where it was quickly picked up as "the gun".


----------



## Bodes

Dineley said:


> BTW here is the Keltec. So I really hope they would have made proper distinction if that's what had been used....
> View attachment 110229
> 
> 
> Like get a grip


Call me ignorant, but to me, there is not much difference between this gun and the AR-15 that was posted a few pages back. The AR just looks a little 'beefier' to me.

Then again, I am a person who has only held an air rifle, shot it at a beer can, and thought: meh, not for me.

I even passed on a fully paid for phd in ballistics physics as I couldn't care for guns. Was honoured to have been given the opportunity, but I had more interest in other areas.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Bodes said:


> Call me ignorant, but to me, there is not much difference between this gun and the AR-15 that was posted a few pages back. The AR just looks a little 'beefier' to me.
> 
> Then again, I am a person who has only held an air rifle, shot it at a beer can, and thought: meh, not for me.
> 
> I even passed on a fully paid for phd in ballistics physics as I couldn't care for guns. Was honoured to have been given the opportunity, but I had more interest in other areas.


Sorry I was being insanely Sarcastic both weapons are obviously insane. Like you going to pull that out in a home invasion to defend yourself?? Please any situationally aware bros let me know how that's going to go


----------



## narad

Yea, in summary: Glades was wrong -- the rifle used was really an AR-15 style rifle. It's named that way, marketted that way, and parts are compatible between the two models. And Glades was wrong -- the media reports were accurate, and the media was not trying to falsely blame AR-15 style rifles as some sort of woke agenda. But, if Glades was correct in terms of which gun was used, it'd still be totally stupid because the other gun is still a semi-automatic rifle.


----------



## Bodes

Dineley said:


> Sorry I was being insanely Sarcastic both weapons are obviously insane. Like you going to pull that out in a home invasion to defend yourself?? Please any situationally aware bros let me know how that's going to go



Oh I got that. Damn this typing with a difficulty in adding nuances when needed. Who'd have thought that miscommunication can be had without appropriate inflections and syllable pronunciation?!?
Just more of an observation based on some posts saying an AR-15 was not used, but to me... same same?!? More of a agreeing with you, poorly that is, it seems.


----------



## jaxadam

Shinzo Abe's assassin used a handmade firearm


The man who killed the longest serving leader of modern Japan admitted to using a handmade firearm made from metal and wood. Police arrested a suspect at the scene of attack.




www.reuters.com


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> Yea, in summary: Glades was wrong -- the rifle used was really an AR-15 style rifle. It's named that way, marketted that way, and parts are compatible between the two models. And Glades was wrong -- the media reports were accurate, and the media was not trying to falsely blame AR-15 style rifles as some sort of woke agenda. But, if Glades was correct in terms of which gun was used, it'd still be totally stupid because the other gun is still a semi-automatic rifle.




It looks like I was wrong. I got my information from Tuesday's news conference Lake County Major Crimes Taskforce spokesman Sgt. Christopher Covelli, who said ".. the weapon used in the July 4th attack, a Keltec SUB200" (SUB2000). It was poorly worded by the Sargent and misunderstood by me. My bad.



Dineley said:


> Sorry I was being insanely Sarcastic both weapons are obviously insane. Like you going to pull that out in a home invasion to defend yourself?? Please any situationally aware bros let me know how that's going to go



Millions of Americans use set-ups like this every single day in home defense platforms and sporting. The S&W M&P15 is the most popular sporting rifle sold in the past decade.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> To clarify a bit, the diameter of the hole a bullet makes doesn’t matter, its the amount of energy transferred into the target that does damage. The amount of energy transferred can be increased by either 1) using a faster bullet, ceteris paribus; or 2) using a heavier bullet, ceteris paribus; or 3) both.
> 
> So an AR15 firing a common round like the 62 grain green tip at 3,100 feet per second generates 1,289 lb/ft of energy at the muzzle whereas the elephant gun that someone mentioned earlier, such as a .500 Nitro Express, fires a 570 grain bullet at only 2,150 feet per second, but manages to generate almost five time as much energy at the muzzle (5,850 lb/ft) Even with the slower bullet. And the heavier bullet retains energy better down range than the lighter, faster bullet will.
> 
> In comparison, a handgun like the 9mm fires a 115 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 1,150 feet per second for a muzzle energy of 365 lb/ft.


Yeah, that was my point exactly. 

I guess the flippancy about the size of the hole not really mattering didn't come across well, but the only reason I hedged at all is if you hit someone with something the size of a football at 1,150 feet per second, well, at the extremes muzzle speed does become a little less important, too.


----------



## JSanta

There's also the matter of how a bullet actually performs in the air. My assigned weapon in the infantry was a 240B. The rounds for that weapon (same used as an AK47) work much differently in the air and tend to go through bodies. The 240B is devastating because it is an automatic weapon and firing those rounds in immediate succession is unreal. They are typically used as a suppressive fire support, along those troops with M4s to either reload or relocate during a firefight. The typical M4/AR-15 round slips or yaws if there is enough kinetic energy left in the round, and causes devastating effects when it hits a person or animal. 

I think that's a piece most people generally don't understand. It's not just the weapon itself that is dangerous, it is how those different types of ammunition react when they hit a person. Having been in a weapons squad in the Army, I firmly believe that 5.56 and perhaps even 7.62 rounds have no business being in the hands of civilians except in very limited circumstances.


----------



## sleewell

20 pages in... you guys solve the gun debate yet??


----------



## MFB

sleewell said:


> 20 pages in... you guys solve the gun debate yet??



We came close but then we all got too hot from the gun fever, and shot right past each other with our ideologies. The anti-gun folks are now pro-gun, and vice versa.


----------



## Edika

Dineley said:


> Sorry I was being insanely Sarcastic both weapons are obviously insane. Like you going to pull that out in a home invasion to defend yourself?? Please any situationally aware bros let me know how that's going to go


Hey you better watch it buddy, all those good guys with the guns that have confused all the 80's, 90's, 00's etc action movies as reality, are going to take offense. I mean how more realistic can you get than fantasising of saving the day like John McClane or John Rambo (pick your John even though I was mostly an Arnold fan  )? 
I bet most of them are in such a state of awareness that with the slightest sound in the night they cock the glock (did I say it correctly, or do glocks not work like that and I'm confusing them with other handguns) they've been holding on to all night under their pillow.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

sleewell said:


> 20 pages in... you guys solve the gun debate yet??



Nah, too busy dogpiling low hanging fruit for the sweet sweet dopamine of stacking those "likes"


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Glades said:


> It looks like I was wrong. I got my information from Tuesday's news conference Lake County Major Crimes Taskforce spokesman Sgt. Christopher Covelli, who said ".. the weapon used in the July 4th attack, a Keltec SUB200" (SUB2000). It was poorly worded by the Sargent and misunderstood by me. My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans use set-ups like this every single day in home defense platforms and sporting. The S&W M&P15 is the most popular sporting rifle sold in the past decade.



I'm sure many claim their AR 15 type weapon is for home defense I just mean realistically how effective is that weapon going to be in that scenario when someone is in your house already.

I actually would say that a handgun as defense against home invasion actually kind of makes sense although I think for defense nobody should need more than a revolver in terms of capacity.

Do handguns still end up being used in crimes and deaths.... Yes, however I can kind of talk myself into them existing in the public.


----------



## Adieu

Guns are weird

They're shockingly UNreliable in real world usage, but often catastrophically too effective on the off chance they actually hit something

You want reliable, you want brass knuckles. Also extremely unlikely to hit anything you're NOT aiming at. But the government knows they work reliably and has banned them.

Machine guns a-ok, brass knuckles evil... figures


----------



## Glades

Adieu said:


> Guns are weird
> 
> They're shockingly UNreliable in real world usage, but often catastrophically too effective on the off chance they actually hit something
> 
> You want reliable, you want brass knuckles. Also extremely unlikely to hit anything you're NOT aiming at. But the government knows they work reliably and has banned them.
> 
> Machine guns a-ok, brass knuckles evil... figures


Machine guns are also banned to 99% of Americans.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Eyyy, I just looked it up. In my state, I'm allowed to open carry brass knuckles. I'm also allowed to conceal them if I get a concealed carry permit, which I'm in the process of getting so I don't have to open carry my handgun.


----------



## Randy

Señor Voorhees said:


> Eyyy, I just looked it up. In my state, I'm allowed to open carry brass knuckles. I'm also allowed to conceal them if I get a concealed carry permit, which I'm in the process of getting so I don't have to open carry my handgun.


Sounds like a shithole.


----------



## Randy

Anyway, what kinda job did this Crimo kid have?


----------



## Randy

Glades said:


> Machine guns are also banned to 99% of Americans.


Ah, here we go with this again. He means black long barreled _semi_automatic rifle.


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> I'm sure many claim their AR 15 type weapon is for home defense I just mean realistically how effective is that weapon going to be in that scenario when someone is in your house already.
> 
> I actually would say that a handgun as defense against home invasion actually kind of makes sense although I think for defense nobody should need more than a revolver in terms of capacity.
> 
> Do handguns still end up being used in crimes and deaths.... Yes, however I can kind of talk myself into them existing in the public.


I think consensus home defense weapon of choice would be something like a shotgun loaded with buckshot because in a dark room, you can just point it at the doorway and guarantee you'll hit something.

People who think they need an AR-15 for home defense are under some illusion it's going to be like John Wick and they're gonna need several rounds, both hands and a stock to stabilize the gun while they're in a full-on fire fight in the cramped ass house, in near pitch black with sleep in their eyes and no idea how many people there are.

In actuality, the only thing that's needed to repel 99.999% of home invaders (besides literally just a flood light, alarm or a dog) is bright flash, loud sudden noise, and being surprised by the homeowner being awake and projectiles flying your way. Oh, and if you're concerned they're there to murder you and your family, don't worry because you're probably going to kill or cripple them in the process.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> I think consensus home defense weapon of choice would be something like a shotgun loaded with buckshot because in a dark room, you can just point it at the doorway and guarantee you'll hit something.
> 
> People who think they need an AR-15 for home defense are under some illusion it's going to be like John Wick and they're gonna need several rounds, both hands and a stock to stabilize the gun while they're in a full-on fire fight in the cramped ass house, in near pitch black with sleep in their eyes and no idea how many people there are.
> 
> In actuality, the only thing that's needed to repel 99.999% of home invaders (besides literally just a flood light, alarm or a dog) is bright flash, loud sudden noise, and being surprised by the homeowner being awake and projectiles flying your way. Oh, and if you're concerned they're there to murder you and your family, don't worry because you're probably going to kill or cripple them in the process.



Yeah 100% on all points. 10000% on get a dog if possible just because


----------



## Glades

That’s not what 2A is for


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Glades said:


> That’s not what 2A is for



Ah yes it's so that you can overthrow the forces of government tyranny.




The small arms and situational awareness are going to come through I'm sure


----------



## Randy

Glades said:


> That’s not what 2A is for


I'm not sure what this is in reference to because the quote is not there and I posted four different things.

I'm assuming you mean an AR-15 is not meant for home defense, it's meant for whatever the 2A was meant for, which was some kind of anti-tyranny arms?

Alright, assuming the AR-15 is effective against the tyrannical government and everybody should have one just like plainsmen and colonists had above their fireplace... Wouldn't step 2 in your thought process (after making sure we've all got one for when "it" happens) be, hey how do we make sure these are being used for their intended purpose and not to shoot people from the rooftops during (ironically) a celebration of freeing this country from tyranny? At some point doesn't the crippling realization someone might kill you, or your kids while you're doing some totally menial thing and not expecting something to happen feel like a maybe co-equal impediment as this imagined tyranny the government is going to subject you to? The government can't tread on you but soyboy white kid rappers in drag can?

That feels like an awfully big blind spot if you're so concerned about being oppressed.


----------



## narad

Dineley said:


> Ah yes it's so that you can overthrow the forces of government tyranny.
> 
> View attachment 110313
> 
> 
> The small arms and situational awareness are going to come through I'm sure



Well that does explain why our police look a lot like military.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

profwoot said:


> This is outside my direct expertise, but I work in a med school and frequently have clinicians guest lecture in my classes, including EM physicians, and they have been clear that the damage done by a bullet from a pistol vs one from a rifle is night and day different. A pistol puts a hole through you, whereas a rifle puts a bigger hole through you plus a shockwave that destroys all the tissue in a radius around that hole. I assume the latter is what "high powered" is getting at.


Temporary cavitation is the term you're looking for. It's more to do with the overall mass/speed of the projectile and the way it's made rather than overall caliber. Soft core (eg mostly lead or other soft metal) bullets will mushroom on impact, which imparts more of the kinetic energy into the target. Full metal jacket (hard copper or other metal jacket around softer core) tend to pass more cleanly due to the limited ability to expand.
Rifle bullets are typically heavier, faster and thus cause much nastier wounds when non fmj is used.
The army surgeons I've met have said that 7.62x54 (one of the rounds used by iraqis/afghanis when we were overseas) tend to punch straight through in fmj form. 5.45 can pinball inside the body. I've seen entry wounds near the shoulder and exit wounds near their hip before.

5.56 is a small round but has a lot of velocity, and was designed to tumble rather than fly straight past 100m (at least with the proper barrel twist and powder load). If you're interested you can read the vietnam era SOCOM tests where they describe its wound patterns. The gist is that it can rip people to shreds


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I'm not sure what this is in reference to because the quote is not there and I posted four different things.
> 
> I'm assuming you mean an AR-15 is not meant for home defense, it's meant for whatever the 2A was meant for, which was some kind of anti-tyranny arms?
> 
> Alright, assuming the AR-15 is effective against the tyrannical government and everybody should have one just like plainsmen and colonists had above their fireplace... Wouldn't step 2 in your thought process (after making sure we've all got one for when "it" happens) be, hey how do we make sure these are being used for their intended purpose and not to shoot people from the rooftops during (ironically) a celebration of freeing this country from tyranny? At some point doesn't the crippling realization someone might kill you, or your kids while you're doing some totally menial thing and not expecting something to happen feel like a maybe co-equal impediment as this imagined tyranny the government is going to subject you to? The government can't tread on you but soyboy white kid rappers in drag can?
> 
> That feels like an awfully big blind spot if you're so concerned about being oppressed.



You missed this gem before the edit. 




Not sure what he's getting at, but I think Crimo could better answer that question.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Randy said:


> Sounds like a shithole.


Not as bad as you'd imagine, unless you consider the cities, but that goes for back in my home state as well. Ever seen someone get stabbed by juggalos over a pack of smokes at a Burger King? (those juggalos were a source of a lot of small robberies to the point they were labeled as a local gang by police.) What about a man who murdered prostitutes and dismembered their bodies in his bath tub, discarding their parts around town in random dumpsters? If not, then come on down to Woonsocket, RI. I remember back in my really young childhood hearing about someone being murdered at that same burger king the stabbing happened at. My dad worked at the gas station across the street. Two people were shot execution style by a hit man, and apparently (after looking it up just now) six pipe bombs were strapped to one of their cars. (not the exact timeline, but it all happened.) Every other week our schools had bomb/shooting threats, and we'd get suspended when we left during the fire drills that the shootings were supposed to happen during because we were scared.

I definitely prefer it where I am now. A lot more rural areas, which is where I spend most of my time, and it's easy to avoid the city. Worst we have to deal with around here is coyotes, possums, and squirrels that try to fuck with the livestock and such. .223, 9mm, and .22 deal with each pest in that order.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Machine guns are also banned to 99% of Americans.









Glad I bookmarked this two days ago when I saw it. Knew it would come in handy eventually.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> You missed this gem before the edit.
> 
> View attachment 110316
> 
> 
> Not sure what he's getting at, but I think Crimo could better answer that question.


My mistake. I'd definitely consider an AR-15 for my 300m+ bedroom.


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> Machine guns are also banned to 99% of Americans.



1% with machine guns still sounds problematic


----------



## Adieu

Btw, if 2A rights are about capability to stand up to government tyranny, do we get to privately own MLRS, loitering munitions, Javelins, anti-ship missile batteries etc.?

Any modern shopping list for resisting a large army should be roughly based on what Ukraine has been asking for or buying in recent months.


----------



## mmr007

If your "target" is 300+ meters away it is not a threat. You have time to go back to sleep and call the police in the morning.

Btw are there any stats on home many home invasions were foiled by an armed and at the ready sleeper vs how many spouses and/or children were shot accidently for coming home late at night?

Btw #2. This has been discussed. No amount of civilian held firearms are going to succeed against a tyrannical government should we come to that point. If we get to the point that the social fabric and contract between government and citizen is so broken that people resort to armed conflict, the government has tanks, drones and the ability to shut off your electricity, water and food supply. They will NEVER have to get into house to house street fighting.

And for the people who still insist the guns they have are an equalizer to government tyranny, the fact that you spent a weekend learning how to open an MRE and drink from a canteen you got at the sporting goods store is not going to help. You are going to get decimated in a war with the government's military and militarized police forces. Uncle Sam is not scared of our guns, they are scared of our free press which is what actually protects everything else.


----------



## odibrom

mmr007 said:


> If your "target" is 300+ meters away it is not a threat. You have time to go back to sleep and call the police in the morning.
> 
> Btw are there any stats on home many home invasions were foiled by an armed and at the ready sleeper vs how many spouses and/or children were shot accidently for coming home late at night?
> 
> Btw #2. This has been discussed. No amount of civilian held firearms are going to succeed against a tyrannical government should we come to that point. If we get to the point that the social fabric and contract between government and citizen is so broken that people resort to armed conflict, the government has tanks, drones and the ability to shut off your electricity, water and food supply. They will NEVER have to get into house to house street fighting.
> 
> And for the people who still insist the guns they have are an equalizer to government tyranny, the fact that you spent a weekend learning how to open an MRE and drink from a canteen you got at the sporting goods store is not going to help. You are going to get decimated in a war with the government's military and militarized police forces. Uncle Sam is not scared of our guns, they are scared of our free press which is what actually protects everything else.



... The pen is mightier than the sword...


----------



## Randy

odibrom said:


> ... The pen is mightier than the sword...


----------



## mmr007

Randy said:


>



Isn't that the accepted theory for AR15 ownership? That some were not endowed by their creator with adequate....um....might


----------



## Xaios

MaxOfMetal said:


> You missed this gem before the edit.
> 
> View attachment 110316
> 
> 
> Not sure what he's getting at, but I think Crimo could better answer that question.


Apparently he thinks he lives in a Tom Clancy novel.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> That’s not what 2A is for


Really if the 2nd Amendment isn't for self defense, and it's only for fighting the government, then there is literally no need to take your gun out of the gun safe unless you are planning a coup that day.

Which seems like a strong case for arresting anyone carrying a gun on grounds of treason.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Really if the 2nd Amendment isn't for self defense, and it's only for fighting the government, then there is literally no need to take your gun out of the gun safe unless you are planning a coup that day.
> 
> Which seems like a strong case for arresting anyone carrying a gun on grounds of treason.



The creepiest fucking thing someone ever said on here was a, since banned, RWNJ user whose answer to the "fighting the government" excuse was that it's not meant to hit back directly at the military or police, but what they called "soft targets". 

Take that as you will.


----------



## odibrom

What is a RWNJ user...? Honestly, I'm lost there...

... as for "soft targets", was he thinking on himself?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

odibrom said:


> What is a RWNJ user...? Honestly, I'm lost there...
> 
> ... as for "soft targets", was he thinking on himself?



"Right Wing Nut Job"


----------



## odibrom

MaxOfMetal said:


> "Right Wing Nut Job"


Thanks... those abbreviations sometimes pass by me like I wasn't even there...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

odibrom said:


> Thanks... those abbreviations sometimes pass by me like I wasn't even there...



It's all good. I'm sure it's a mostly American term. Which is probably either a good or bad thing.


----------



## odibrom

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's all good. I'm sure it's a mostly American term. Which is probably either a good or bad thing.


Extremists exist everywhere, either on the right as on the left side of the political spectrum... all nut jobs for sure...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

odibrom said:


> Extremists exist everywhere, either on the right as on the left side of the political spectrum... all nut jobs for sure...



You're not wrong.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> "soft targets"


They make a pill for that.


----------



## odibrom

Randy said:


> They make a pill for that.


The mighty Pen is... soft on them, probably...


----------



## Señor Voorhees

MaxOfMetal said:


> The creepiest fucking thing someone ever said on here was a, since banned, RWNJ user whose answer to the "fighting the government" excuse was that it's not meant to hit back directly at the military or police, but what they called "soft targets".
> 
> Take that as you will.


Wait, does this imply killing unarmored politicians/government workers. Like... You know, maybe breaking into the capital and opening fire? Because, you know... Breaking into the capital totally never happens for illegitimate reasons or anything. "Unhinged" is an understatement for that shit.


----------



## StevenC

Señor Voorhees said:


> Wait, does this imply killing unarmored politicians/government workers. Like... You know, maybe breaking into the capital and opening fire? Because, you know... Breaking into the capital totally never happens for illegitimate reasons or anything. "Unhinged" is an understatement for that shit.


You have to understand that anyone who believes the fairytale of the Second Amendment's actual purpose also believes that the police and military would be on their side in overthrowing the government. 

And as we've seen over and over again, the only thing a "good guy with a gun" is good at shooting is innocent people without guns.


----------



## Lemonbaby

It seems that the American way to solve issues (even firearms related issues) is more firearms. Below US patent from 1882 says it all.










US269766A - Animal-trap - Google Patents


----------



## jaxadam

At least 15 dead in a mass shooting at a bar in Soweto, South Africa


At least 15 people have died after a shooting at a bar in the South African township of Soweto on Sunday, according to the country's public broadcaster SABC.




amp.cnn.com


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> At least 15 dead in a mass shooting at a bar in Soweto, South Africa
> 
> 
> At least 15 people have died after a shooting at a bar in the South African township of Soweto on Sunday, according to the country's public broadcaster SABC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amp.cnn.com



Another country with lax gun laws and too many guns.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> And for the people who still insist the guns they have are an equalizer to government tyranny, the fact that you spent a weekend learning how to open an MRE and drink from a canteen you got at the sporting goods store is not going to help. You are going to get decimated in a war with the government's military and militarized police forces. Uncle Sam is not scared of our guns, they are scared of our free press which is what actually protects everything else.


No shit, this, so much. I've been saying this for YEARS. I don't care how many AR15s you own, they're not gonna do a goddamn thing when you can't even see the F-22 that drops a laser guided bomb on your compound. If the US ever decided to treat something like the Bundys as a military threat rather than as a police matter, well, this whole "we need our guns to protect ourselves from the government" would end in a hurry. 

I'm with you on the First as the biggest check against the government, too. Not just because it clearly isn't the second, for the reasons above and because an odd number of those 2A "we need our guns to protect ourselves from the government" nutjobs were actually the ones who DID try to overthrow a democratically elected government, but also because the First is ultimately about the flow of information and the ability of the government to limit what its civilians know, and if they never learn they're being oppressed, then they never have cause to uprise. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Not that dystopian fiction is always a perfect guide, but it's no coincidence that you always see governments go after truth and understanding and knowledge in people's worst visons of what the future _could_ be.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Another country with lax gun laws and too many guns.


Interesting juxtaposition to the once in a decade shootings in Oslo, Copenhagen and Japan.


----------



## mmr007

The surveillance footage in Uvalde proves that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is false because apparently you also need an ounce of courage and between 20 cops they couldn’t muster even that much. And these people are trained and somehow we think that we’re going to solve this mess by arming untrained people?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mmr007 said:


> The surveillance footage in Uvalde proves that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is false because apparently you also need an ounce of courage and between 20 cops they couldn’t muster even that much. And these people are trained and somehow we think that we’re going to solve this mess by arming untrained people?



I've been following the release of footage and it's absolutely awful. Even the die hard "blue lives matter" folks I know aren't making excuses. No wonder they tried to sue to keep it secret. 

The disclaimer that "screams of children and teachers have been digitally removed" just makes your skin crawl.


----------



## mmr007

Here will be my hot take and it will be controversial (but it is not my idea I just agree with it)...

We need to release the full video and photos of what happened. It would be awful but as others have said before me, if the child survivors have to suffer a lifetime of therapy to get over seeing a dead child in a pool of blood next to them so do we because WE are the ones saying WE need guns, you kids just need to learn how to close doors.

I remember when the Ray Rice thing first hit and nobody cared...until the video of the incident in the elevator was shown and suddenly everyone wanted him jailed and banned for life from the NFL because images matter. And as much as I have zero interest in watching death or any faces of death type video, I think if we SEE the carnage we have become numbed to hopefully there will be an unstoppable groundswell of support to rid our nation of this blight once and for all.

I think it was Stalin who said one death is a tragedy, a million a statistic. Let stop looking at this as just statistics. Oh...19 school children shot dead. That's at least less than last week but slightly more than the week before. Let talk about it. Offer thoughts and prayers and then do nothing! It is time for guns to be confiscated, melted down and use their metal to repair the thousands of bridges that need it.

The whole reason the meat industry won't let anyone see what they do is because images would turn public opinion (which it has to some degree). We are a gun crazed society and it is time to see the carnage we have welcomed, real change would occur and those who have been killed so far would not have died in vein

If you love guns...great...I get it. They are fun to fire. Been in the military, had to carry one for work myself. But gun owners should want to become gatekeepers. You should want that owning a gun is something really hard to do, to prove that you are responsible, like becoming a marine. Instead, I get to lump you responsible gun owners in with incel losers whose parents would rather let them use their credit card than pay attention to them. Cuz apparently it for just anyone and everyone


----------



## dspellman

DarrellM5 said:


> I carry protection and have a lot of training, plus I maintain situational awareness at all times. It's not like the U.S. is a shooting gallery. There are sick people in every country that do really bad things with whatever tools they can get their hands on. For the most part, we have very little of these types of incidents in the states where people can concealed carry. An armed society is a polite society.
> 
> BTW, there will always be an uptick in shootings when the politicians are trying to pass gun control restrictions. It seems like as soon as they start pushing their anti-gun agenda someone says "cue the shootings in the gun free zones". Also, the media is in on it. They go all out to exploit any shooting and will rarely ever show when a good person with a gun stops a bad situation (which happens a lot).
> 
> Our highest violent crime rates are in our cities and states with the most restrictions on firearms ownership.


With all due respect, that's pretty much the creed of the NRA these days. 
The highest numbers of mass shootings occur within the states with the most firearms per capita. 
Coincidentally, most of those have the least restrictions on firearms ownership. Concealed carry is no deterrent to mass shootings. Very few of NRA's talking points hold up. OTOH, the government has never put in place any kind of gun control that made sense or that was effective in any way. I'm not sure what, exactly, effective gun control would look like, but I'm also not a fan of politicians being purchased with NRA money. 

I don't carry (none of my jobs permit it) and probably couldn't find and ready a firearm in case of a home invasion. 
As you note, there are violent people at every level of society. 

That said, I have a lifetime membership in the NRA, purchased long ago when I was on a shooting team in my high school (we actually had a 50' range set up on the top floor of our buildings for ROTC). I think I got National Rifleman forever. I'm absolutely not interested in their political stands. I worked as a sniper in Vietnam and I've remained proficient. My .45s are (mostly) full-race and were competitive 10 years ago, though I haven't done a lot of that lately, and I"m sure tech has changed a bit. I'm still very good with one out to 25 yards. I have an S&W Model 41 (I think that's what it is) with roughly the same dimensions and weight as a Government model, but it shoots .22 LR. Lots cheaper ammunition. I shoot holes in paper or, if I'm feeling expansive, I go outdoors and make metal plates go *tink*. I don't practice "center of mass" shooting on cartoon drawings of bad guys. I don't buy "tactical* gear in camo. I don't own body armor. I like guitars better.


----------



## jaxadam

dspellman said:


> With all due respect, that's pretty much the creed of the NRA these days.
> The highest numbers of mass shootings occur within the states with the most firearms per capita.
> Coincidentally, most of those have the least restrictions on firearms ownership. Concealed carry is no deterrent to mass shootings. Very few of NRA's talking points hold up. OTOH, the government has never put in place any kind of gun control that made sense or that was effective in any way. I'm not sure what, exactly, effective gun control would look like, but I'm also not a fan of politicians being purchased with NRA money.
> 
> I don't carry (none of my jobs permit it) and probably couldn't find and ready a firearm in case of a home invasion.
> As you note, there are violent people at every level of society.
> 
> That said, I have a lifetime membership in the NRA, purchased long ago when I was on a shooting team in my high school (we actually had a 50' range set up on the top floor of our buildings for ROTC). I think I got National Rifleman forever. I'm absolutely not interested in their political stands. I worked as a sniper in Vietnam and I've remained proficient. My .45s are (mostly) full-race and were competitive 10 years ago, though I haven't done a lot of that lately, and I"m sure tech has changed a bit. I'm still very good with one out to 25 yards. I have an S&W Model 41 (I think that's what it is) with roughly the same dimensions and weight as a Government model, but it shoots .22 LR. Lots cheaper ammunition. I shoot holes in paper or, if I'm feeling expansive, I go outdoors and make metal plates go *tink*. I don't practice "center of mass" shooting on cartoon drawings of bad guys. I don't buy "tactical* gear in camo. I don't own body armor. I like guitars better.



Wait, you don’t sleep with a nightstand ready H&K slammed with Federal Hydra-Shok 45 ACP 230 gr locked cocked and ready to rock?


----------



## DarrellM5

dspellman said:


> With all due respect, that's pretty much the creed of the NRA these days.
> The highest numbers of mass shootings occur within the states with the most firearms per capita.
> Coincidentally, most of those have the least restrictions on firearms ownership. Concealed carry is no deterrent to mass shootings. Very few of NRA's talking points hold up. OTOH, the government has never put in place any kind of gun control that made sense or that was effective in any way. I'm not sure what, exactly, effective gun control would look like, but I'm also not a fan of politicians being purchased with NRA money.
> 
> I don't carry (none of my jobs permit it) and probably couldn't find and ready a firearm in case of a home invasion.
> As you note, there are violent people at every level of society.
> 
> That said, I have a lifetime membership in the NRA, purchased long ago when I was on a shooting team in my high school (we actually had a 50' range set up on the top floor of our buildings for ROTC). I think I got National Rifleman forever. I'm absolutely not interested in their political stands. I worked as a sniper in Vietnam and I've remained proficient. My .45s are (mostly) full-race and were competitive 10 years ago, though I haven't done a lot of that lately, and I"m sure tech has changed a bit. I'm still very good with one out to 25 yards. I have an S&W Model 41 (I think that's what it is) with roughly the same dimensions and weight as a Government model, but it shoots .22 LR. Lots cheaper ammunition. I shoot holes in paper or, if I'm feeling expansive, I go outdoors and make metal plates go *tink*. I don't practice "center of mass" shooting on cartoon drawings of bad guys. I don't buy "tactical* gear in camo. I don't own body armor. I like guitars better.


I'm not a member of the NRA. I am a member of other organizations that I feel better represent my views. I disagree with your 'per capita' statement though. I'd suggest taking a look at the very comprehensive statistical analysis by John Lott (it's called More Guns, Less Crime). Cities that have the most restrictive gun controls by far have the highest violent crime rates (Chicago, Washington D.C., etc..). I believe the ability to concealed carry is a deterrent to mass shootings and the main reason these dirtbags choose gun-free zones for their crimes.


----------



## spudmunkey

Restrictive gun laws and high guns-per-capita are not mutually exclusive, especially when so many firearms come in to states like Illinois from their neighbors with looser laws. I forget the specific numbers, but itxs something like 15% of guns used in Illinois gun crime came from 2 specific stores near the border in Indiana.


----------



## Empryrean

There’s probably something to be said about violent crime and population density and inequity and proximity of young unguided youths to violent crime but I could not be bothered to look it up


----------



## Adieu

DarrellM5 said:


> I'm not a member of the NRA. I am a member of other organizations that I feel better represent my views.



Proud Boys? Taliban? Aryan Brotherhood?

...Big Bubba's Local Militia (formerly known as Little Bub's Treehouse Crew)?


----------



## ArtDecade

DarrellM5 said:


> John Lott



Dude has zero credibility.


----------



## CanserDYI

DarrellM5 said:


> . I believe the ability to concealed carry is a deterrent to mass shootings....


Please open this can of worms.


----------



## Glades

There are events every single day where guns save lives. Many when nobody gets hurt (best case scenario). Media is very hush about these events for some reason.
See below some examples from the last few days.


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> There are events every single day where guns save lives. Many when nobody gets hurt (best case scenario). Media is very hush about these events for some reason.
> See below some examples from the last few days.


I'm sorry but if the media is hush on these shootings then how are you able to source media coverage of the shootings? Your presentation of evidence undermines your very thesis no?


----------



## spudmunkey

mmr007 said:


> I'm sorry but if the media is hush on these shootings then how are you able to source media coverage of the shootings? Your presentation of evidence undermines your very thesis no?


"Nobody goes to the beach any more because of the crowds."


----------



## narad

Empryrean said:


> There’s probably something to be said about violent crime and population density and inequity and proximity of young unguided youths to violent crime but I could not be bothered to look it up



How to discredit a John Lott book without even exerting enough effort to google stuff.


----------



## Drew

DarrellM5 said:


> I'm not a member of the NRA. I am a member of other organizations that I feel better represent my views. I disagree with your 'per capita' statement though. I'd suggest taking a look at the very comprehensive statistical analysis by John Lott (it's called More Guns, Less Crime). Cities that have the most restrictive gun controls by far have the highest violent crime rates (Chicago, Washington D.C., etc..). I believe the ability to concealed carry is a deterrent to mass shootings and the main reason these dirtbags choose gun-free zones for their crimes.


Yeah, @spudmonkey already addressed this a bit, but that's kind of a matter of missing the forest for the trees. 

Chicago literally borders on Indiana, a state with very lax gun laws. DC borders Virginia which has fairly weak gun laws, and is a short drive fro West Virginia, which is a free for all. Most of the guns used i gun crime in both cities come from out of state, which is something guys like Lott conveniently ignore. 

The irony is, this is the best possible reason to support federal gun legislation - because if we leave it up to the states, but don't have any sort of state-level border control, then there's no way to stop criminals from buying guns legally in one state and moving them illegally into another, and a city's gun laws are as weak as those of any state within driving distance.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> There are events every single day where guns save lives. Many when nobody gets hurt (best case scenario). Media is very hush about these events for some reason.
> See below some examples from the last few days.



^ Texas and Florida. What a $hit $how...


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> There are events every single day where guns save lives. Many when nobody gets hurt (best case scenario). Media is very hush about these events for some reason.
> See below some examples from the last few days.


It's weird how few news stories I see in the rest of the world which are "If only I had an AK-47, I could have stopped that teenager from walking near my car".


----------



## DarrellM5

Adieu said:


> Proud Boys? Taliban? Aryan Brotherhood?
> 
> ...Big Bubba's Local Militia (formerly known as Little Bub's Treehouse Crew)?


Haha, not my cup of tea. i was referring more to groups like The 2nd Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America.


----------



## Randy

ArtDecade said:


> ^ Texas and Florida. What a $hit $how...


Had open invitation for free room and board in Florida, which I was partaking in for a few years to escape Northeastern winters in February and March.

I stopped doing it literally because I got sick of the "Florida-man..." stories in the local news and encountering it out and about. I think I've mentioned it here before, the very last time I was there, I having breakfast in Denny's on my last day and the TV was live footage of a guy that tackled a cop in the middle of six-lane highway and was beating the shit out of him until a good Samaritan got out of his car and shot the guy in the head.

When that's the world you live in, yeah, it's no wonder they think "good guy with a gun" is a real solution. That's what I call shithole living, I don't care what the weather is like or the price of real estate.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Randy said:


> Had open invitation for free room and board in Florida, which I was partaking in for a few years to escape Northeastern winters in February and March.
> 
> I stopped doing it literally because I got sick of the "Florida-man..." stories in the local news and encountering it out and about. I think I've mentioned it here before, the very last time I was there, I having breakfast in Denny's on my last day and the TV was live footage of a guy that tackled a cop in the middle of six-lane highway and was beating the shit out of him until a good Samaritan got out of his car and shot the guy in the head.
> 
> When that's the world you live in, yeah, it's no wonder they think "good guy with a gun" is a real solution. That's what I call shithole living, I don't care what the weather is like or the price of real estate.



Outside of the mentally ill guy who ate someone’s face (the guy the media reported as being on bath salts, which was false), once you get below West Palm Beach the Florida Man shit isn’t nearly as prevalent.

And really, our Sunshine State laws are the biggest reason Florida Man even exists. I really wish every state had the same laws in place. I’ve lived in 5 different states now, I’ve ran into idiots/racists/white trash in all of them. And really, Maine had a fuck of a lot more of them than I’ve ever met down here.

Overall, the correlation between remaining teeth in one’s head matching their IQ is the same in every state I’ve been in.


----------



## StevenC

RevDrucifer said:


> Outside of the mentally ill guy who ate someone’s face (the guy the media reported as being on bath salts, which was false), once you get below West Palm Beach the Florida Man shit isn’t nearly as prevalent.
> 
> And really, our Sunshine State laws are the biggest reason Florida Man even exists. I really wish every state had the same laws in place. I’ve lived in 5 different states now, I’ve ran into idiots/racists/white trash in all of them. And really, Maine had a fuck of a lot more of them than I’ve ever met down here.
> 
> Overall, the correlation between remaining teeth in one’s head matching their IQ is the same in every state I’ve been in.


Then again, that guy shooting up another car from road rage was on I-75.


----------



## Glades

StevenC said:


> Then again, that guy shooting up another car from road rage was on I-75.



We have 22 million people in Florida. Our people are not trashier than anyone else, but we have more trashy people because we have more people than most states.

Sometime I do want to move to NW Kansas and get away from it all haha


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> We have 22 million people in Florida. Our people are not trashier than anyone else, but we have more trashy people because we have more people than most states.
> 
> Sometime I do want to move to NW Kansas and get away from it all haha


Yeah, I live in a failed state run populated by paramilitaries (not army men in parachutes). Nobody shoots anybody here anymore.


----------



## Randy

RevDrucifer said:


> Outside of the mentally ill guy who ate someone’s face (the guy the media reported as being on bath salts, which was false), once you get below West Palm Beach the Florida Man shit isn’t nearly as prevalent.
> 
> And really, our Sunshine State laws are the biggest reason Florida Man even exists. I really wish every state had the same laws in place. I’ve lived in 5 different states now, I’ve ran into idiots/racists/white trash in all of them. And really, Maine had a fuck of a lot more of them than I’ve ever met down here.
> 
> Overall, the correlation between remaining teeth in one’s head matching their IQ is the same in every state I’ve been in.


Methinks this plays a role in the varied perception and varied craziness semi specific to Florida but in some levels elsewhere:



> While Florida is not a poor state overall, it is fifth in income inequality, according to a 2018 study, with most of its wealth concentrated in the south. Rural counties, particularly in central Florida and the Panhandle, are traditionally much poorer, and produce a disproportionately high number of Florida Man stories, a sample geographical study by the Guardian found.
> 
> “I always think about how diverse our state is and in some areas it takes a lot of money to go a little bit, and in other parts of Florida that’s less true,” said Deana Rohlinger, professor of sociology at Florida State University.
> 
> “Poverty in north Florida might look different than in the south. I was interested in that [as a factor] and drugs and alcohol, and mental health, which is an issue all across the US.
> 
> “That’s where, as a sociologist, I really think about the diversity of the state, the economy and mythology.”
> 
> The natural environment also plays a role. From the Florida Everglades packed with alligators and pythons to bears, panthers and other wild animals encroaching into urban areas, nature has always played a role in Florida Man stories.











Florida Man: what lies behind the Sunshine State's crazy stereotype?


Brawling Easter bunnies, alligator-filled pants, naked basketball … all reflect Florida’s antic spirit but perhaps also its darker side




www.theguardian.com













US states with the highest levels of income inequality


Here's how all 50 U.S. states compare when ranked from most income inequality to least.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> guy that tackled a cop in the middle of six-lane highway and was beating the shit out of him until a good Samaritan got out of his car and shot the guy in the head.



Who? The cop or the outraged citizen?


----------



## Glades

Adieu said:


> Who? The cop or the outraged citizen?


Shot the bad guy, not the cop.


----------



## Edika

Glades said:


> Shot the bad guy, not the cop.


You're making the assumption that the cop was the good guy. Which he might have been, but still a big leap of faith from your part .


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Glades said:


> Shot the bad guy, not the cop.


----------



## Glades

Edika said:


> You're making the assumption that the op was the good guy. Which he might have been, but still a big leap of faith from your part .


Haha I was making an assumption. I think I know the case he was talking about but I might be wrong.


----------



## CanserDYI

StevenC said:


> Then again, that guy shooting up another car from road rage was on I-75.


Fun fact, I can throw a football and hit I-75 from my backyard here in Ohio, that same stretch of concrete runs all the way down to Fort Lauderdale in Florida. For those of you in Europe, that'd be like driving from Paris to Athens on one road and staying in the same country the entire time. 

This might not be weird, but I always found that wild.


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> Shot the bad guy, not the cop.



Wtf, Florida?

How can you just wilfully MURDER somebody for a lively dispute with some pig?

Much less without even knowing the damn situation, if the murderer was truly just some passerby shithead


----------



## StevenC

CanserDYI said:


> Fun fact, I can throw a football and hit I-75 from my backyard here in Ohio, that same stretch of concrete runs all the way down to Fort Lauderdale in Florida. For those of you in Europe, that'd be like driving from Paris to Athens on one road and staying in the same country the entire time.
> 
> This might not be weird, but I always found that wild.


Yeah, I got mixed up. Odd numbers are North-South, even numbers are East-West. I should know better, seeing the "I-95 Miami" signs in Boston and Florida.

But yeah, the section of I-75 was between Miami and Naples going perfect East-West.


----------



## Glades

CanserDYI said:


> Fun fact, I can throw a football and hit I-75 from my backyard here in Ohio, that same stretch of concrete runs all the way down to Fort Lauderdale in Florida. For those of you in Europe, that'd be like driving from Paris to Athens on one road and staying in the same country the entire time.
> 
> This might not be weird, but I always found that wild.


I just learned I-90 is almost twice as long (Seattle-Boston). 3,021 miles.


----------



## mastapimp

RevDrucifer said:


> Outside of the mentally ill guy who ate someone’s face (the guy the media reported as being on bath salts, which was false), once you get below West Palm Beach the Florida Man shit isn’t nearly as prevalent.
> 
> And really, our Sunshine State laws are the biggest reason Florida Man even exists. I really wish every state had the same laws in place. I’ve lived in 5 different states now, I’ve ran into idiots/racists/white trash in all of them. And really, Maine had a fuck of a lot more of them than I’ve ever met down here.
> 
> Overall, the correlation between remaining teeth in one’s head matching their IQ is the same in every state I’ve been in.


Heard the same thing about Maine from my coworker. His brother and sister-in-law (both originally from Ohio) moved up there thinking it'd be a nice change from central Florida and didn't last a year because of the shittiness of all their neighbors and absurd laws about historic upkeep of properties.

As for the teeth comment, I swear you must get a discount for missing teeth at Dollywood in Tennessee. I've never seen such rotted-out meth mouths in my life, but the people there were all very nice.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

RevDrucifer said:


> Outside of the mentally ill guy who ate someone’s face (the guy the media reported as being on bath salts, which was false), once you get below West Palm Beach the Florida Man shit isn’t nearly as prevalent.



Ummm that's not exactly leaving much real estate lol


----------



## RevDrucifer

Dineley said:


> Ummm that's not exactly leaving much real estate lol
> View attachment 110776



That‘s no lie and I’ve never looked it up, but I’d be curious to see what the populations of WPB, Ft. Lauderdale and Miami is equal compared to the rest of the state. The Everglades make up a huge amount of land that’s not inhabited by anything but giant pythons and monkeys with herpes.

It’s entirely the bigger cities down here that keep this state a swing state.….which is funny, because I’ve been asked before “How can you live down there?” (with all the red areas) while simultaneously get told I need to vote blue no matter who…..well, if all the people who vote blue move out of the city, guess what this state turns into? It won’t be swinging anymore.


----------



## Adieu

Giant pythons and monkeys with herpes? 

And not even good exotic food to balance it out?

Screw that, why would anyone choose such a shithole?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I know that when people say "Why would anyone live there?" that it's sometimes more in a figurative context but still.. .living in Texas, I've seen the "Why live in that shit-hole?" question quite a bit recently. Yeah... beleieve it or not, I didn't really hear it much until the past year or so. 

So disregard my answer but I'll use a good friend of mine as an example... Like me, he was born in Ohio and also like me, had no real desire to stay there. But then around the same time that I moved to Texas, he moved to Florida to go to school because that prospect provided him the best bang for the buck regarding his chosen field of study, cost of college, housing opportunities, etc. And he had some family connections there as well. Then during his undergraduate studies, he met his now wife there. And her parents lived there, so obviously he decided to stay because she didn't wantt o leave her parents and they wanted to raise a family. they wanted to get married and raise a family. All pretty standard issue stuff.

It happens to most of us in one way or another. Not like many of us have sure-fire opportunities elsewhere, or the financial freedom to move across the country, or that we don't intentionally/ unintentionally start laying down roots where we're at. And places change a lot too. Texas wasn't always a shit hole or at least I didn't see it when I moved here like 30 years ago. It was still hot af but I lived in a really fun, interesting, and culturally diverse place. It was good... and a fuck ton better than my life ever was in Ohio. And the rest is history. I hate what it's become here... whether it's really changed or if it's just that so much of the negative shit is more apparent now, I dunno... but I'm stuck here and I gotta make the best of it cause I'm too old, too poor, and too invested to leave now. Plus... where am I gonna go? Back to Ohio? Ugh. 

Sorry.. more of a rant or vent than anything else. I think seeing the shit-hole stuff just gets me down sometimes b/c I know that Texas is another place that everyone hates on. And tbh, I'm not very happy here anymore. Just gets a lot harder to pull up roots and roll the dice the older you are.


----------



## CanserDYI

High Plains Drifter said:


> I know that when people say "Why would anyone live there?" that it's sometimes more in a figurative context but still.. .living in Texas, I've seen the "Why live in that shit-hole?" question quite a bit recently. Yeah... beleieve it or not, I didn't really hear it much until the past year or so.
> 
> So disregard my answer but I'll use a good friend of mine as an example... Like me, he was born in Ohio and also like me, had no real desire to stay there. But then around the same time that I moved to Texas, he moved to Florida to go to school because that prospect provided him the best bang for the buck regarding his chosen field of study, cost of college, housing opportunities, etc. And he had some family connections there as well. Then during his undergraduate studies, he met his now wife there. And her parents lived there, so obviously he decided to stay because she didn't wantt o leave her parents and they wanted to raise a family. they wanted to get married and raise a family. All pretty standard issue stuff.
> 
> It happens to most of us in one way or another. Not like many of us have sure-fire opportunities elsewhere, or the financial freedom to move across the country, or that we don't intentionally/ unintentionally start laying down roots where we're at. And places change a lot too. Texas wasn't always a shit hole or at least I didn't see it when I moved here like 30 years ago. It was still hot af but I lived in a really fun, interesting, and culturally diverse place. It was good... and a fuck ton better than my life ever was in Ohio. And the rest is history. I hate what it's become here... whether it's really changed or if it's just that so much of the negative shit is more apparent now, I dunno... but I'm stuck here and I gotta make the best of it cause I'm too old, too poor, and too invested to leave now. Plus... where am I gonna go? Back to Ohio? Ugh.
> 
> Sorry.. more of a rant or vent than anything else. I think seeing the shit-hole stuff just gets me down sometimes b/c I know that Texas is another place that everyone hates on. And tbh, I'm not very happy here anymore. Just gets a lot harder to pull up roots and roll the dice the older you are.


What part of the Buckeye state you from friend? Personally, I have been to i think 45 of 50 states and Ohio has always just felt....less insane than anywhere else? Maybe its just home, but we don't have insane weather, we don't have insane laws, SUPER cheap to live here. Sure we have trashy people and crazy weird stuff happens here all the time, but just seems so mild compared to the rest of the country. $43k yearly does me quite well here.


----------



## ArtDecade

CanserDYI said:


> What part of the Buckeye state you from friend? Personally, I have been to i think 45 of 50 states and Ohio has always just felt....less insane than anywhere else? Maybe its just home, but we don't have insane weather, we don't have insane laws, SUPER cheap to live here. Sure we have trashy people and crazy weird stuff happens here all the time, but just seems so mild compared to the rest of the country. $43k yearly does me quite well here.


Spend 10 minutes in Akron and we can reevaluate.


----------



## CanserDYI

ArtDecade said:


> Spend 10 minutes in Akron and we can reevaluate.


Hahah lots of family there and Youngstown, but you're in Philly and you're talking about craziness


----------



## ArtDecade

CanserDYI said:


> Hahah lots of family there and Youngstown, but you're in Philly and you're talking about craziness


Which is saying something about Akron!


----------



## bostjan

Ohio has tons of diverse culture. Toledo is like Detroit lite. Cincinnati is like Louisville with Germans and chili and somehow people sound like they're from New Jersey. Cleveland is like an alternate Buffalo. Columbus is an actual nice town. Southeastern Ohio is basically West Virginia and the rest is either smoky factories or pig farms.

I'm oversimplifying, of course, but I've been all over Ohio, and there's a lot to it.


----------



## CanserDYI

bostjan said:


> Toledo is like Detroit lite.


*South Detroit, and not windsor


----------



## DiezelMonster

CanserDYI said:


> *South Detroit, and not windsor


As a Canadian and more specifically an Ontarian, I would rather go to Detroit than Windsor.....


----------



## StevenC

RevDrucifer said:


> That‘s no lie and I’ve never looked it up, but I’d be curious to see what the populations of WPB, Ft. Lauderdale and Miami is equal compared to the rest of the state. The Everglades make up a huge amount of land that’s not inhabited by anything but giant pythons and monkeys with herpes.
> 
> It’s entirely the bigger cities down here that keep this state a swing state.….which is funny, because I’ve been asked before “How can you live down there?” (with all the red areas) while simultaneously get told I need to vote blue no matter who…..well, if all the people who vote blue move out of the city, guess what this state turns into? It won’t be swinging anymore.


Palm Beach County, Broward County and Dade County are about 6 million people. Florida is 21 million people.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> Columbus is an actual nice town.


Can confirm. Also really good burgers.


----------



## CanserDYI

StevenC said:


> Can confirm. Also really good burgers.


Last time I was in Columbus some frat guys tripped me down some stairs when I was drunk, my other drunk friend thought it'd be funny to whip a bottle into the crowd for retaliation. Stupid idea, we were then chased about 20 city blocks by about 20 frat dudes and ended up just jumping in this random back yard which had this lone dude sitting at a little bonfire. He laughed and said "you guys are into some trouble, wanna smoke a joint?" and we toked a joint with some rando dude while an entire party ran up and down High street looking for us.

Ahh college.

Point being if we did that in Toledo where I live, there would be gun shots ringing out everywhere.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

CanserDYI said:


> What part of the Buckeye state you from friend? Personally, I have been to i think 45 of 50 states and Ohio has always just felt....less insane than anywhere else? Maybe its just home, but we don't have insane weather, we don't have insane laws, SUPER cheap to live here. Sure we have trashy people and crazy weird stuff happens here all the time, but just seems so mild compared to the rest of the country. $43k yearly does me quite well here.


Born in Columbus and spent my childhood into my early 20s in Delaware... just north of Worthington. NGL I loved growing up there and have incredibly fond memories of the typical stuff... changing of the seasons, Cedar Point, Kings Island, partying on North High St, camping down in Hocking Hills, etc. But as I got older I felt like I was meant to go elsewhere... felt kinda lost or unfulfilled staying there. So I packed it up and moved away.

And fwiw Texas was fucking awesome for the first couple decades or so. I can't say that I necessarily regret moving here as living here and traveling all around the state and elsewhere has provided me some fantastic experiences and memories. And most of my time here has been spent living in very liberal and diversified areas... wonderful people, friends, acquaintances as well as some great opportunities that always made me feel as if I made the right call moving here. 

But it all began to shift and change within the past decade or so... especially the past few years... like I gradually felt less of a connection here and that I was almost becoming kind of an outsider... which was depressing and strange because I had never felt that way in all the years that I've been here. Just so much of the ignorant christian gun-toting redneck attitude here.... makes me feel sick to be a part of. You can probably file a lot of this under "sucks getting old" but Idk... between the oppressive heat and lack of family/ friends these days... I'm siding more with the "Texas is a shit-hole" crowd and that just sucks.

I honestly think I just miss my youth, and having family and friends all around, and living in a time when people didn't seem so stressed, self-absorbed, and unkind. And I feel like innocence seems to have been replaced with ignorance. I dunno... I've been back to Ohio quite a few times in the last 30 years and I gotta say... that "home" is gone now too. I waited too long, people died, and the world changed. Even if I could move back there now... it's too late.

Sorry... I shouldn't have hijacked this thread topic with all this. Oh, how I do babble lol.

Anyway, "Bang bang, shoot em up!" There... back on track.


----------



## Randy

High Plains Drifter said:


> Born in Columbus and spent my childhood into my early 20s in Delaware... just north of Worthington. NGL I loved growing up there and have incredibly fond memories of the typical stuff... changing of the seasons, Cedar Point, Kings Island, partying on North High St, camping down in Hocking Hills, etc. But as I got older I felt like I was meant to go elsewhere... felt kinda lost or unfulfilled staying there. So I packed it up and moved away.
> 
> And fwiw Texas was fucking awesome for the first couple decades or so. I can't say that I necessarily regret moving here as living here and traveling all around the state and elsewhere has provided me some fantastic experiences and memories. And most of my time here has been spent living in very liberal and diversified areas... wonderful people, friends, acquaintances as well as some great opportunities that always made me feel as if I made the right call moving here.
> 
> But it all began to shift and change within the past decade or so... especially the past few years... like I gradually felt less of a connection here and that I was almost becoming kind of an outsider... which was depressing and strange because I had never felt that way in all the years that I've been here. Just so much of the ignorant christian gun-toting redneck attitude here.... makes me feel sick to be a part of. You can probably file a lot of this under "sucks getting old" but Idk... between the oppressive heat and lack of family/ friends these days... I'm siding more with the "Texas is a shit-hole" crowd and that just sucks.
> 
> I honestly think I just miss my youth, and having family and friends all around, and living in a time when people didn't seem so stressed, self-absorbed, and unkind. And I feel like innocence seems to have been replaced with ignorance. I dunno... I've been back to Ohio quite a few times in the last 30 years and I gotta say... that "home" is gone now too. I waited too long, people died, and the world changed. Even if I could move back there now... it's too late.
> 
> Sorry... I shouldn't have hijacked this thread topic with all this. Oh, how I do babble lol.
> 
> Anyway, "Bang bang, shoot em up!" There... back on track.



Entirely possible the demographics have shifted.

Here in upstate NY, it's always been deep red outside of the cities but the towns have shifted more purple and even pure blue depending on where you go. My county in particular was red from one end to the other, then the one city (which is relatively low population) had large central American population move in as the old Italians/Polish died off and it's reliably democrat now. Even in the towns, down staters and small city folks have been branching out as the desire for remote work and owning a house with a yard has increased, so the old hardware and hunting/fishing stores have been replaced with juice bars and thai restaurants.

Texas and Florida both have become a weird mix. Florida in particular, I've known a ton of northeners that've moved there but all of them are boomers lured there by Desantis and the promise of a conservative open carry utopia. Even Texas, people like Musk that are leaving liberal SoCal are moving to Texas over the (perceived) libertarian boner and the taxes. In other words, even if they're from blue states or otherwise left leaning people, they choose red states so that they can lean into red policies that benefit them.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Randy said:


> Entirely possible the demographics have shifted.
> 
> Here in upstate NY, it's always been deep red outside of the cities but the towns have shifted more purple and even pure blue depending on where you go. My county in particular was red from one end to the other, then the one city (which is relatively low population) had large central American population move in as the old Italians/Polish died off and it's reliably democrat now. Even in the towns, down staters and small city folks have been branching out as the desire for remote work and owning a house with a yard has increased, so the old hardware and hunting/fishing stores have been replaced with juice bars and thai restaurants.
> 
> Texas and Florida both have become a weird mix. Florida in particular, I've known a ton of northeners that've moved there but all of them are boomers lured there by Desantis and the promise of a conservative open carry utopia. Even Texas, people like Musk that are leaving liberal SoCal are moving to Texas over the (perceived) libertarian boner and the taxes. In other words, even if they're from blue states or otherwise left leaning people, they choose red states so that they can lean into red policies that benefit them.


Certainly, a shift seems to be happening here. And at least from my interactions with a lot of people over the years, the majority of non-native residents are ( or have been) coming from California. And I think you're right again that at least in appearance, those CA transplants are fairly conservative as opposed to the assumption of many, that "they're all a bunch of liberal hippies". 

The majority of native-Texans that I've interacted with seem to be more moderate to liberal leaning. I don't think that means much on a larger scale as I know that there are a ton of conservatives here and my dealings with a lot of people have been in more urban environments, coastal towns, tourist traps, etc but I think that the typical outsider's perspectives that "All Texans are gun-loving hillbillies" just isn't true. Those people definitely exist and I'm not meaning to contradict what I said earlier about the fact that I'm seeing more and more of those redneck types everywhere, but Texas truly does encompass a very diversified demographic. We're certainly not all christian conservative right-wing extremists, despite that they've gotten a lot louder and more obnoxious lately.


----------



## Glades

I don’t know. I have a good friend friend from Colorado and he says Cali transplants ruined the state. According to him, they left California but brought with them the ideologies that destroyed their home state. Now Colorado is blue and headed down the same blue trash chute.


----------



## profwoot

Glades said:


> I don’t know. I have a good friend friend from Colorado and he says Cali transplants ruined the state. According to him, they left California but brought with them the ideologies that destroyed their home state. Now Colorado is blue and headed down the same blue trash chute.


But is your good friend friend characterized by the same blinkered philistine pig-ignorance that you demonstrate here every day? What exactly didn't he like about it, or was he just parroting vague 4chan culture war memes like you?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I mean... antagonizing others, talking trash, spreading misinformation, passing judgement... it's all part of today's religious extremist. 

"Did I do good, Lord... putting that liberal in his place? High five!"


----------



## narad

Typical Florida Man. If one of his friends says Colorado is ruined, it probably means GDP and education standards went up significantly.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> I don’t know. I have a good friend friend from Colorado and he says Cali transplants ruined the state. According to him, they left California but brought with them the ideologies that destroyed their home state. Now Colorado is blue and headed down the same blue trash chute.


Colorado hasn't voted red in the presidential election since 2004, their governor has been a Democrat since 1974 except for 8 years between 1998 and 2006, the state houses have been blue or a one seat Republican majority since 2005, and their population has not increased dramatically enough for it to all Californians.

You're going to have to specify what "destroy with blue ideologies" means to me, because it sounds more like partisan nonsense than anything else.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> You're going to have to specify what "destroy with blue ideologies" means



Less dead citizens. 









Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) Program


Denver Public Health & Environment (DDPHE) is expanding the Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) Program, which has been piloted by the Denver Department of Safety since 2020.




www.denvergov.org


----------



## mmr007

I say this as a liberal living in California. Liberal policies have ruined this state. Not much of an alternative available because conservative policies bankrupt it. There are a lot of people in California who leave for a reason, liberal and conservative and it's not just the high cost of living. Everyone that doesn't have a chauffer is miserable. It's an unhappy place to live. Everywhere else I have been people are generally nicer to each other.
The cost to rent a truck and move out of California is 6x higher than moving in with distance being equal because moving companies know once a rental truck leaves California it's never coming back.

I don't want to defend Glades but I too have talked to at least several people who live in the Denver area who say they hate what has happened to the quality of life in Colorado and are leaving. Does that mean everyone in Colorado hates it in Colorado. Doubt it as my sample size is too small but I also find it odd that when I meet and talk to people from Colorado and I tell them that driving from Denver to Vail is the prettiest stretch of America I've ever seen, they all agree and then say they no longer enjoy living in the state and start listing reasons.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel

People that are violent prone will use whatever they have available in their resources. I have a traditional war club that hangs on the wall as tribal art, but it’s strategically placed so that I can grab it if I happen to not have my pistol on me, like when I’m in my Jammie’s watching a movie. Situational awareness is of great value armed or unarmed. There is so much value in the training of firemarms that has little or nothing to do with the gun itself. I’m 56 years old with a history of back and neck injuries, including a broken back. Hand to hand combat training is beneficial in my case, but only minimally given my physical condition. Carrying, equalizes my odds in my 160 lb frame against a 240lb crack addict pumped up on adrenaline and booger sugar. I don’t want to get within reach of this individual if a threat is already present, and “reach” can be quick. In my training a 67 year old man advanced a span of 10 feet in 1.6 seconds. Imagine if that were a younger, beefier coke fiend.


----------



## narad

I like these hypothetical battles between monster-like crack addicts and situationally aware Clint Eastwood types. I would probably say, "Smoke this" and fire into him with my colt magnum. When the police arrive and asked what happened, I'd probably say, "Looks like he OD'd. On hot lead.", in my gravely voice.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel

narad said:


> I like these hypothetical battles between monster-like crack addicts and situationally aware Clint Eastwood types. I would probably say, "Smoke this" and fire into him with my colt magnum. When the police arrive and asked what happened, I'd probably say, "Looks like he OD'd. On hot lead.", in my gravely voice.


The investigation that follows might not be in your favor. You can 9 out of 10 gems remove yourselves from the conditions that may result in an altercation. See a fight breakout in a bar? Leave. Don’t want to get caught off guard while leaving a bar at 1am? Don’t leave a bar at 1am. When walking to your car, walk in the middle of the parking lot, rather that the edge of the car line until you get to your car, with your hand in your pocket with a firm grasp on your keys. Sometimes if I see someone around that might be too close for comfort, then I’ll hit the panic button on the remote just to raise enough attention to dissuade a potential antagonist long by gathering a slight bit of additional attention just long enough to unlock my car, get in, and lock it BEFORE a situation has a chance to manifest. Situational Awareness when properly utilized can often prevent a gun incident.


----------



## StevenC

240lb crack addict?


----------



## btbg

DarrellM5 said:


> I carry protection and have a lot of training, plus I maintain situational awareness at all times. It's not like the U.S. is a shooting gallery. There are sick people in every country that do really bad things with whatever tools they can get their hands on. For the most part, we have very little of these types of incidents in the states where people can concealed carry. An armed society is a polite society.
> 
> BTW, there will always be an uptick in shootings when the politicians are trying to pass gun control restrictions. It seems like as soon as they start pushing their anti-gun agenda someone says "cue the shootings in the gun free zones". Also, the media is in on it. They go all out to exploit any shooting and will rarely ever show when a good person with a gun stops a bad situation (which happens a lot).
> 
> Our highest violent crime rates are in our cities and states with the most restrictions on firearms owners



You sound like an idiot.


----------



## jaxadam

People who think Florida doesn’t have culture or epicurean culinary delights have clearly never been to Sonic or Sonny’s Real Pit BBQ.


----------



## Randy

mmr007 said:


> I say this as a liberal living in California. Liberal policies have ruined this state. Not much of an alternative available because conservative policies bankrupt it. There are a lot of people in California who leave for a reason, liberal and conservative and it's not just the high cost of living. Everyone that doesn't have a chauffer is miserable. It's an unhappy place to live. Everywhere else I have been people are generally nicer to each other.
> The cost to rent a truck and move out of California is 6x higher than moving in with distance being equal because moving companies know once a rental truck leaves California it's never coming back.
> 
> I don't want to defend Glades but I too have talked to at least several people who live in the Denver area who say they hate what has happened to the quality of life in Colorado and are leaving. Does that mean everyone in Colorado hates it in Colorado. Doubt it as my sample size is too small but I also find it odd that when I meet and talk to people from Colorado and I tell them that driving from Denver to Vail is the prettiest stretch of America I've ever seen, they all agree and then say they no longer enjoy living in the state and start listing reasons.


Definitely something that happens, but not IMO always the fault of capital R or D political issues. 

NYS passed this awful bail reform law that basically lets all criminals out on bail by default, and they recommit crime in epic numbers. It was passed by Democrats, and the idea of confronting the fact only people with money could get out on bail is admirable but the interest in letting people commit crime over and over again is not a Democratic principal, and a mega majority of people in my state (and party) would say the same thing.

There's an epidemic of virtue signaling policies that have no root in making life better for people in those communities. It's almost all about splashy national headlines and climbing the political ladder. That goes left and right.


----------



## budda

Only in the US is “lots of shootings” a regular thing. Weird.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> People who think Florida doesn’t have culture or epicurean culinary delights have clearly never been to Sonic or Sonny’s Real Pit BBQ.



Or Checkers!


----------



## Shoeless_jose

You figure all this situational awareness would make someone aware that there aren't any 240 pound crack heads.

And really 99.9999999% of drug addicted persons invading your home (which is still a super low likelihood of happening) could be prevented by money in mental health services, end War on Drugs policing strategy. Criminal justice reform that would not stop people from being able to find work after falling into the system and just generally not criminalizing poverty. 

These are the things that make society safer. You shouldn't need a gun to protect your belongings and people shouldn't need to have to steal from others to survive.

As much as it's about gun control it's also this late stage capitalism dystopia paired with just awful approach to drugs and substances in American culture.


----------



## Adieu

Dineley said:


> You figure all this situational awareness would make someone aware that there aren't any 240 pound crack heads.



In America, there are. Lots.


----------



## narad

I think there's a nontrivial amount of gun owners in the US that relish in the thought of being able to "justifiably" kill someone. Like guys on rigtalk were going back and forth about how they'd shoot the people (like in detail, where the bullets would go, what the type of ammo would do internally) if someone came into their home. Really sick stuff. I guess since that's in theory a guitar forum is just some indication that some % of populations are going to have guys like that, or some demographic of men just always think that way. Improving the situation on the outside doesn't help them satiate this desire to get the drop on someone that they see as a drain on society. It's kind of like that opening scene from "American History X" -- not going out to kill people you hate and making it a murder, but secretly hoping the opportunity to "defend" yourself presents itself.


----------



## Andromalia

What most of these people would actually do, is get shot by the thieves. 

When all is said and done, with equal access to weapons, who do you think is going to get the best training, the various kinds of outlaws or you ? 
You can arm yourself to the teeth, all that is going to change is that instead of being knifed during a robbery, you end up bazookaed on the wall.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Adieu said:


> In America, there are. Lots.



If you are so deeply addicted to a drug you are breaking into a random persons home to commit petty theft to meet your addiction you are not going to be anywhere near a healthy weight American obesity jokes aside.


----------



## Adieu

Dineley said:


> If you are so deeply addicted to a drug you are breaking into a random persons home to commit petty theft to meet your addiction you are not going to be anywhere near a healthy weight American obesity jokes aside.



Some people just steal shit or do violence AND do drugs.

It may or may not be related to desperation.

Besides, "crackhead" is an American blanket term for someone in a deeply mind-altered state that leads to irrational behaviour.


----------



## narad

Slippery slope. Who would break into your apartment? A crackhead. Who is a crackhead? Someone who would want to break into your apartment.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel

Dineley said:


> If you are so deeply addicted to a drug you are breaking into a random persons home to commit petty theft to meet your addiction you are not going to be anywhere near a healthy weight American obesity jokes aside.



That was meant to be a generalization, it was not meant in offense and had no intent of referencing obesity. The point that I was attempting to make is that a perpetrator can often be in much better physical strength than me as a potential victim, combine that with the added affects of drug of choice, the odds are already in the perps favor.

That being said, thankfully I’ve never had to use my training beyond simply being aware of what’s going on around me, and using the good sense to depart a potential situation early in its development in order to keep my family safe.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

narad said:


> Slippery slope. Who would break into your apartment? A crackhead. Who is a crackhead? Someone who would want to break into your apartment.



Yeah also the irrational amount of fear over being the victim of a violent crime at random is mind boggling.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel

Dineley said:


> Yeah also the irrational amount of fear over being the victim of a violent crime at random is mind boggling.


Well, Antifa riots in Seattle, the ever increasing opioid crisis and homeless situations, it’s very real in the Seattle area. True, that the world is broken and these circumstances are not ideal, but because they are not, you have to be prepared to respond appropriately to protect your family, all the while being cautious not to cross over into becoming the aggressor.


----------



## /wrists

TonyFlyingSquirrel said:


> Well, Antifa riots in Seattle, the ever increasing opioid crisis and homeless situations, it’s very real in the Seattle area. True, that the world is broken and these circumstances are not ideal, but because they are not, you have to be prepared to respond appropriately to protect your family, all the while being cautious not to cross over into becoming the aggressor.


And I'll cross off another city for prospective migration...


----------



## StevenC

TonyFlyingSquirrel said:


> Well, Antifa


ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding

They said the word, everybody take a shot!


----------



## Randy

:shitholeliving:









Man shoots 2 teens after they opened door to family SUV in Houston


The man and his family were returning to their home just after midnight on July 11 when the teens walked up to the SUV.




www.kxan.com


----------



## spudmunkey

If I remember right, wasn't the only deaths during the Seattle protests/riots someone who got run over, and twp people shot inside that walled-off compound (seemingly likely gang activity)? Oh, and a protester who had a heart attack possibly linked to being shot at with tear gas cNisters/flash bangs by police.

That said, I dont think calling them "ANTIFA riots" is entirely inaccurate, as that was indeed the theme. They were definitely ANTIFA protests, anyway...but one has to draw the line, I think, from saying ANTIFA is an organization itself, like ,"ANTIFA showed up" or similar.


----------



## StevenC

spudmunkey said:


> If I remember right, wasn't the only deaths during the Seattle protests/riots someone who got run over, and twp people shot inside that walled-off compound (seemingly likely gang activity)? Oh, and a protester who had a heart attack possibly linked to being shot at with tear gas cNisters/flash bangs by police.
> 
> That said, I dont think calling them "ANTIFA riots" is entirely inaccurate, as that was indeed the theme. They were definitely ANTIFA protests, anyway...but one has to draw the line, I think, from saying ANTIFA is an organization itself, like ,"ANTIFA showed up" or similar.


If they said "a bunch of people showed up to protest fascism and we didn't like that" it would be telling.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

I've lived in Seattle most of my life. I'm much more afraid of getting shot by some angry white guy from Auburn ready to lose it over some perceived injustice than I am from some made-up antifa boogeyman.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel

Riff the Road Dog said:


> I've lived in Seattle most of my life. I'm much more afraid of getting shot by some angry white guy from Auburn ready to lose it over some perceived injustice than I am from some made-up antifa boogeyman.



There are plenty of them everywhere else in addition to Auburn.


----------



## Adieu

Dineley said:


> Yeah also the irrational amount of fear over being the victim of a violent crime at random is mind boggling.



YMMV

I've gotten my ass kicked quite violently in various circumstances more than a few times over the years.

Various degrees of medical intervention were necessary 3 times (reconstructive surgery, stitches, stitches).

Couple more times I probably should have seen a doctor and just didn't.


----------



## narad

To tie in with the COVID thread, it's times like these I curse the Chinese for inventing gun powder.

("The Rehearsal" )


----------



## Shoeless_jose

TonyFlyingSquirrel said:


> Well, Antifa riots in Seattle, the ever increasing opioid crisis and homeless situations, it’s very real in the Seattle area. True, that the world is broken and these circumstances are not ideal, but because they are not, you have to be prepared to respond appropriately to protect your family, all the while being cautious not to cross over into becoming the aggressor.




Ah yes the Antifa home invasions are rampant. I'd get a second war club 


Adieu said:


> YMMV
> 
> I've gotten my ass kicked quite violently in various circumstances more than a few times over the years.
> 
> Various degrees of medical intervention were necessary 3 times (reconstructive surgery, stitches, stitches).
> 
> Couple more times I probably should have seen a doctor and just didn't.




Was it just random people you don't know chasing you down and attacking you?

Also sucks that none of the *376 officers on scene *in Uvalde learned their situational awareness


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> Also sucks that none of the *376 officers on scene *in Uvalde learned their situational awareness



On the contrary, they did a great job at not getting shot.


----------



## Adieu

Dineley said:


> Was it just random people you don't know chasing you down and attacking you?



3 yes - skinheads, a random passerby idfk wtf (fully minding my own business, some rando punches and kicks me without so much as a word, I pull a knife, he leaves), and street gang

2 no, bad social choices (acquaintances of acquaintances)

One case involved getting knifed without warning, another came with multiple orbital fractures (collapsed shattered cheekbone) and titanium plate surgery

Btw one of these was also resolved by threatening the attacker with an entirely fictional firearm (lol)


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Adieu said:


> 3 yes - skinheads, a random passerby idfk wtf (fully minding my own business, some rando punches and kicks me without so much as a word, I pull a knife, he leaves), and street gang
> 
> 2 no, bad social choices (acquaintances of acquaintances)
> 
> One case involved getting knifed without warning, another came with multiple orbital fractures (collapsed shattered cheekbone) and titanium plate surgery
> 
> Btw one of these was also resolved by threatening the attacker with an entirely fictional firearm (lol)


Makes for vivid memories, huh? I feel for you. I was knifed once in the side just above my kidney, shot at twice and completely unrelated to those, had guns pulled on me three other times. Can't even count how many times I was chased but several times while riding bikes and at least a half doz more times in vehicles... mostly road-rage motivated. Add in a home invasion and some random assaults not involving weapons, and I've been quite the little target for one reason or another.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

High Plains Drifter said:


> Makes for vivid memories, huh? I feel for you. I was knifed once in the side just above my kidney, shot at twice and completely unrelated to those, had guns pulled on me three other times. Can't even count how many times I was chased but several times while riding bikes and at least a half doz more times in vehicles... mostly road-rage motivated. Add in a home invasion and some random assaults not involving weapons, and I've been quite the little target for one reason or another.



Wow America is unreal.


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> Wow America is unreal.



I still contend it's lifestyle dependent. I've never had anything like that happen to me. I used to work in a really bad neighborhood where there were stabbings/shootings, but the victims and assailants were always known to eachother, and they always happened on off hours (middle of the night). I knew when and who to avoid when I was there, and I relocated my office (paying the same or less rent) in a nicer neighborhood ASAP.

My dad lived in NYC for 40 years during some of the worst times in the city (50s till the early 90s) and never had any of those things happen to him despite living in some sketchy neighborhoods. I think his one scary event was in the 70s a guy banged on his apartment window demanding to come in, turned out the old tenant owed the guy a drug debt and my dad said sorry that's not me and he's not here, and the guy left 

That's pretty much it. Myself, my entire close family and all of my close friends none of us have been mugged, beaten, shot, robbed, etc.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> I still contend it's lifestyle dependent. I've never had anything like that happen to me. I used to work in a really bad neighborhood where there were stabbings/shootings, but the victims and assailants were always known to eachother, and they always happened on off hours (middle of the night). I knew when and who to avoid when I was there, and I relocated my office (paying the same or less rent) in a nicer neighborhood ASAP.
> 
> My dad lived in NYC for 40 years during some of the worst times in the city (50s till the early 90s) and never had any of those things happen to him despite living in some sketchy neighborhoods. I think his one scary event was in the 70s a guy banged on his apartment window demanding to come in, turned out the old tenant owed the guy a drug debt and my dad said sorry that's not me and he's not here, and the guy left
> 
> That's pretty much it. Myself, my entire close family and all of my close friends none of us have been mugged, beaten, shot, robbed, etc.




Yeah overall I would say most violence happens between known parties so even if those other guys experience aren't exactly the normal they were still pretty extreme


----------



## Randy

Clearly they weren't Situationally Aware® enough.


----------



## jco5055

narad said:


> I think there's a nontrivial amount of gun owners in the US that relish in the thought of being able to "justifiably" kill someone. Like guys on rigtalk were going back and forth about how they'd shoot the people (like in detail, where the bullets would go, what the type of ammo would do internally) if someone came into their home. Really sick stuff. I guess since that's in theory a guitar forum is just some indication that some % of populations are going to have guys like that, or some demographic of men just always think that way. Improving the situation on the outside doesn't help them satiate this desire to get the drop on someone that they see as a drain on society. It's kind of like that opening scene from "American History X" -- not going out to kill people you hate and making it a murder, but secretly hoping the opportunity to "defend" yourself presents itself.


tbf, Rigtalk is a lost cause...I'm pretty sure the majority of posters there honestly are Qanon guys


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Lifestyle played a part in several of the incidents that I spoke of. Also being in the wrong place at the wrong time played a part. A few confrontations occurred in what were considered high crime areas but a few were quite random Anywhere USA incidents that really had no rhyme/ reason. And I will say that road-rage here in the US is absolutely a very real thing everywhere you go... at least anywhere close to any heavily populated location.


----------



## Glades

I grew up in South America and have been robbed at gunpoint many times, including one time when 4 guys broke into our house at gunpoint. There is nothing you can do down there. You cant protect your family. Your family’s life is at the mercy of the criminals. If your shoot a criminal in your house you go to jail. 
I am so glad to live in America now, in a state with sound castle laws. Where if you break into my house and put me and my family in danger, I have a right to defend myself and my family.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Adieu said:


> Giant pythons and monkeys with herpes?
> 
> And not even good exotic food to balance it out?
> 
> Screw that, why would anyone choose such a shithole?



Well, I dunno how exotic you’re going with the exotic food thing, but I can literally get any nationality/culture of food here in Ft. Lauderdale and it’s AWESOME. The food is seriously a huge thing that keeps me here; Cuban, Venezuelan, Creole, Dominican, Mexican, Thai, I can keep going. There’s so many nook and cranny joints down here I didn’t even know they existed until I saw them all in the Uber Eats app.


----------



## wankerness

narad said:


> Well that does explain why our police look a lot like military.


Wow, what an insult to servicemen! Maybe if our military was incredibly out of shape and too scared to go armed into a building and stop a teenager from shooting little kids.

Did anyone see the news about Denver cops shooting a whole bunch of civilians while trying to shoot a suspect in the back? It's like they're taking out the middleman!


----------



## dspellman

DarrellM5 said:


> I'm not a member of the NRA. I am a member of other organizations that I feel better represent my views. I disagree with your 'per capita' statement though. I'd suggest taking a look at the very comprehensive statistical analysis by John Lott (it's called More Guns, Less Crime). Cities that have the most restrictive gun controls by far have the highest violent crime rates (Chicago, Washington D.C., etc..). I believe the ability to concealed carry is a deterrent to mass shootings and the main reason these dirtbags choose gun-free zones for their crimes.


Sorry, but most of the "stats" I've seen have been heavily skewed and self-serving. I've shied away from "organizations that represent my views," because I'm not interested in Lowest Common Denominator organizations speaking for me at a ny level. I don't need my views validated and I prefer to be well clear of folks that want to be in lock step with some other folks. 

And I think there are better things that we can be doing to reduce crime. The problem is that we're not the ones who elect and control our politicians any more, and those guys just don't care.


----------



## jaxadam

RevDrucifer said:


> Well, I dunno how exotic you’re going with the exotic food thing, but I can literally get any nationality/culture of food here in Ft. Lauderdale and it’s AWESOME. The food is seriously a huge thing that keeps me here; Cuban, Venezuelan, Creole, Dominican, Mexican, Thai, I can keep going. There’s so many nook and cranny joints down here I didn’t even know they existed until I saw them all in the Uber Eats app.



We have a total hole in the wall here called the Balkan Cafe. The place is straight amazing.









Balkan Cafe - Jacksonville, FL


Delivery & Pickup Options - 103 reviews of Balkan Cafe "Being from Bosnia I was very excited to find out that there is actually a place that sells Bosnian food, especially chevapi. My hometown, Sarajevo, is known as "the birthplace of chevapi" so I was bit hesitant to try chevapi from this...




www.yelp.com


----------



## dspellman

wankerness said:


> Wow, what an insult to servicemen! Maybe if our military was incredibly out of shape and too scared to go armed into a building and stop a teenager from shooting little kids.


Ever notice in the photos of the police standing around after one of these shootings how many of them have incredible guts?


----------



## RevDrucifer

jaxadam said:


> We have a total hole in the wall here called the Balkan Cafe. The place is straight amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Balkan Cafe - Jacksonville, FL
> 
> 
> Delivery & Pickup Options - 103 reviews of Balkan Cafe "Being from Bosnia I was very excited to find out that there is actually a place that sells Bosnian food, especially chevapi. My hometown, Sarajevo, is known as "the birthplace of chevapi" so I was bit hesitant to try chevapi from this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.yelp.com



It’s those hole in the wall joints that make the best spots. I looked at the pics on their Yelp page, totally looks like something I’d just go in, fuck up pronouncing whatever is on the menu repeatedly until I just point to it instead and then pig the fuck out. 

I’m getting ready to go back to a mainly plant-based diet, I’m going for broke in the next two weeks. Going to try to get as many different kinds of food in me between now and the 31st!


----------



## jaxadam

RevDrucifer said:


> It’s those hole in the wall joints that make the best spots. I looked at the pics on their Yelp page, totally looks like something I’d just go in, fuck up pronouncing whatever is on the menu repeatedly until I just point to it instead and then pig the fuck out.
> 
> I’m getting ready to go back to a mainly plant-based diet, I’m going for broke in the next two weeks. Going to try to get as many different kinds of food in me between now and the 31st!



This place is up in Stuart, but it is the best vegan restaurant I’ve been to, it is absolutely amazing. Everything.






Vegan Restaurants, Stuart, FL: Organic, Vegan Cuisine, Sandwiches, Wraps, Appetizers, Smoothies


Plant-Based Vegan Cuisine in Stuart, FL. Fruits & Roots offers Vegan Cuisine Cold-Pressed Juices, Smoothies, Desserts, Organic Ingredients, Vegan Sandwiches, Wraps, Appetizers, Soups, Salads, Acai Bowls, Oat Bowls, Flatbreads, Desserts, Healthy Ingredients, French Press Coffee, Ginger Beer...




www.fruitsandrootsvegancafe.com


----------



## wankerness

dspellman said:


> Sorry, but most of the "stats" I've seen have been heavily skewed and self-serving. I've shied away from "organizations that represent my views," because I'm not interested in Lowest Common Denominator organizations speaking for me at a ny level. I don't need my views validated and I prefer to be well clear of folks that want to be in lock step with some other folks.
> 
> And I think there are better things that we can be doing to reduce crime. The problem is that we're not the ones who elect and control our politicians any more, and those guys just don't care.


I've heard from my gun-nut friend (he has a monstrous collection of like, vintage pistols and things like that, he's not an AR home defense kind of guy) that a lot of the real crazies in his neck of the woods (alabama) have basically disregarded the NRA the last few years cause they're too liberal. Maybe that's what this guy meant too.


----------



## Randy

dspellman said:


> Ever notice in the photos of the police standing around after one of these shootings how many of them have incredible guts?


Like, the physical kind, not the courageous kind.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> I grew up in South America and have been robbed at gunpoint many times, including one time when 4 guys broke into our house at gunpoint. There is nothing you can do down there. You cant protect your family. Your family’s life is at the mercy of the criminals. If your shoot a criminal in your house you go to jail.
> I am so glad to live in America now, in a state with sound castle laws. Where if you break into my house and put me and my family in danger, I have a right to defend myself and my family.


Dude emigrates from South America and becomes a Trumpublican. Pssst. He wanted a wall to keep all of you out. It was the work of Liberals that ensures an immigration policy. That must sting a bit. Take as much time as you need.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> I grew up in South America and have been robbed at gunpoint many times, including one time when 4 guys broke into our house at gunpoint. There is nothing you can do down there. You cant protect your family. Your family’s life is at the mercy of the criminals. If your shoot a criminal in your house you go to jail.
> I am so glad to live in America now, in a state with sound castle laws. Where if you break into my house and put me and my family in danger, I have a right to defend myself and my family.


I mean, the fact that America also has strong rule of law might also have just a wee little bit to do with it, instead of a wildly corrupt police force on the payroll of the drug trade, as is the case with most crime-ridden parts of South America, no?

We may bitch about all its failings, but for all that the States at least HAVE a criminal justice system that's transparent enough that we can see when it's being violated to let white cops get away with killing black men. Even that is a much bigger deterrent than you're giving it credit for.

Now, accusations of racism in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> I grew up in South America and have been robbed at gunpoint many times, including one time when 4 guys broke into our house at gunpoint. There is nothing you can do down there. You cant protect your family. Your family’s life is at the mercy of the criminals. If your shoot a criminal in your house you go to jail.
> I am so glad to live in America now, in a state with sound castle laws. Where if you break into my house and put me and my family in danger, I have a right to defend myself and my family.


Yes, the solution to crime is legalised murder.

Definitely isn't rehabilitation, fighting corruption, social safety nets, and education.


----------



## narad

wankerness said:


> Wow, what an insult to servicemen! Maybe if our military was incredibly out of shape and too scared to go armed into a building and stop a teenager from shooting little kids.


I meant more like, shows up in armored vehicles, fancy helmets, and camo gear. But on the other hand, I never saw policeman piss on the bodies of the people they killed and laugh about it, so, not sure who's insulting who here.


----------



## narad

ArtDecade said:


> Dude emigrates from South America and becomes a Trumpublican. Pssst. He wanted a wall to keep all of you out. It was the work of Liberals that ensures an immigration policy. That must sting a bit. Take as much time as you need.



Damn, castle doctrine can't protect you from that level of burn.


----------



## Glades

ArtDecade said:


> Dude emigrates from South America and becomes a Trumpublican. Pssst. He wanted a wall to keep all of you out. It was the work of Liberals that ensures an immigration policy. That must sting a bit. Take as much time as you need.


There is a fundamental difference between legal and illegal immigration. All legal immigrants I have ever met are staunchly opposed to illegal immigration, and we all believe in stricter border control. It is fundamental that we protect our country from human, drug and sex trafficking.
You have been brainwashed to think that legal immigrants are pro-illegal immigration and that couldn't be further from the truth. The majority of us escaped our countries because of the crime. Why would we want to move here and promote more crime?

Also, please tell me when Trump opposed legal immigration?


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> There is a fundamental difference between legal and illegal immigration. All legal immigrants I have ever met are staunchly opposed to illegal immigration, and we all believe in stricter border control. It is fundamental that we protect our country from human, drug and sex trafficking.
> You have been brainwashed to think that legal immigrants are pro-illegal immigration and that couldn't be further from the truth. The majority of us escaped our countries because of the crime. Why would we want to move here and promote more crime?
> 
> Also, please tell me when Trump opposed legal immigration?



I can tell this still stings. No one ever said anything about illegal immigration. Liberals are why you even had a chance to walk the streets of this fine nation. You are welcome.


----------



## narad

Trump specifically said he didn't want more people from shithole countries.


----------



## ArtDecade

narad said:


> Trump specifically said he didn't want more people from shithole countries.


Well clearly @Glades does not come from a shithole country. Trump likes him. Said he would even let him hand a staff member a coffee for him.


----------



## bostjan

Mass shooting yesterday at a mall where I used to buy CD's 15ish years ago (Greenwood Park Mall). I've been in VT for 13 years, so at least no one can blame this on my bad influence moving there from Detroit.



Glades said:


> There is a fundamental difference between legal and illegal immigration. All legal immigrants I have ever met are staunchly opposed to illegal immigration, and we all believe in stricter border control. It is fundamental that we protect our country from human, drug and sex trafficking.
> You have been brainwashed to think that legal immigrants are pro-illegal immigration and that couldn't be further from the truth. The majority of us escaped our countries because of the crime. Why would we want to move here and promote more crime?
> 
> Also, please tell me when Trump opposed legal immigration?


Being in favour of making immigration illegal may not be opposing legal immigration, but it is certainly logically congruent with him wanting to keep immigrants from coming here in the first place, which was the point you were trying to argue against.

And Trump certainly _did_ try to restrict immigration into the country via executive orders.


----------



## Randy

Trump Cuts Legal Immigrants By Half And He’s Not Done Yet


Donald Trump has reduced legal immigration by an estimated 49%, which will have a significant negative impact on U.S. economic growth.




www.forbes.com





President Trump Reduced Legal Immigration. He Did Not Reduce Illegal Immigration



> President Trump entered the White House with the goal of reducing legal immigration by 63 percent. Trump was wildly successful in reducing legal immigration. By November 2020, *the Trump administration reduced the number of green cards issued to people abroad by at least 418,453 and the number of non‐immigrant visas by at least 11,178,668 during his first term through November 2020*. President Trump also entered the White House with the goal of eliminating illegal immigration but Trump oversaw a virtual collapse in interior immigration enforcement and the stabilization of the illegal immigrant population. Thus, Trump succeeded in reduce legal immigration and failed to eliminate illegal immigration.


----------



## mmr007

Sorry but if you immigrated to the US in this day and age and feel you’ve upgraded your situation then by definition you came from a shithole country


----------



## wankerness

narad said:


> I meant more like, shows up in armored vehicles, fancy helmets, and camo gear. But on the other hand, I never saw policeman piss on the bodies of the people they killed and laugh about it, so, not sure who's insulting who here.


Eh, I'm sure that footage is out there somewhere!

Soldiers I feel like are more likely not to go nuts and totally over-react by pulling out the guns and starting to hyperventilate in every situation, unlike cops. I also give cops less of an excuse since they're supposed to be helping their fellow citizens instead of sometimes being put in situations where they're told to go fight an enemy force. But yeah, definitely neither exactly gives me the warm fuzzies.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> There is a fundamental difference between legal and illegal immigration. All legal immigrants I have ever met are staunchly opposed to illegal immigration, and we all believe in stricter border control. It is fundamental that we protect our country from human, drug and sex trafficking.
> You have been brainwashed to think that legal immigrants are pro-illegal immigration and that couldn't be further from the truth. The majority of us escaped our countries because of the crime. Why would we want to move here and promote more crime?
> 
> Also, please tell me when Trump opposed legal immigration?


Trump's war on legal immigration was if anything more effective than his war on illegal immigration, and was the tell that made his defense that this wasn't about xenophobia, it was about border security impossible to take at face value. 









Trump Cuts Legal Immigrants By Half And He’s Not Done Yet


Donald Trump has reduced legal immigration by an estimated 49%, which will have a significant negative impact on U.S. economic growth.




www.forbes.com





Some of this you could argue was maybe pandemic related, but some of it unquestionably was not - the annual cap on refugees admitted into the US, in the last year of the Obama administration, was 110,000. Trump's cap for 2020, set before the pandemic unfolded, was 18,000, a decline of 84%. 

Even before the pandemic hit - this was Feb 2020 - we'd seen an 11% drop in legal immigration that was projected to hit about 35% by the end of his first term: 









As Trump Barricades the Border, Legal Immigration Is Starting to Plunge (Published 2020)


President Trump’s border wall is beginning to rise, but a thick curtain of policy changes is more responsible for suppressing the flow of immigrants into the country.




www.nytimes.com





Trump talked about illegal immigration whenever the subject of immigration came up, so you could be forgiven for maybe not noticing this... but Trump was opposed to immigration almost across the board, unless it was from "white" countries. I'm sure you've seen this story before, sourced from the AP which is about as nonpartisan as you get: 









Trump: Why allow immigrants from 'shithole countries'?


WASHINGTON (AP) — In bluntly vulgar language, President Donald Trump questioned Thursday why the U...




apnews.com


----------



## Drew

You know, I suppose we DO have to consider the possibility that Glades never actually saw a story about Trump wanting to block immigration from "shithole countries" like Haiti and instead get more immigrants from "nice" places like Norway, because I can't imagine Fox News or Newsmax (were they even around back then) gave it much time back in the day.


----------



## jaxadam

Chief: 3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman


Police say three people were fatally shot and two were injured at an Indiana mall after a man with a rifle opened fire in a food court and an armed civilian shot and killed him.




www.news4jax.com


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> Why wasn't there a good guy with a gun on that rooftop?





Hollowway said:


> Yeah, this opened up a whole new perspective on the good-guy-with-a-gun idea.





jaxadam said:


> Chief: 3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman
> 
> 
> Police say three people were fatally shot and two were injured at an Indiana mall after a man with a rifle opened fire in a food court and an armed civilian shot and killed him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.news4jax.com


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Trump's war on legal immigration was if anything more effective than his war on illegal immigration, and was the tell that made his defense that this wasn't about xenophobia, it was about border security impossible to take at face value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Cuts Legal Immigrants By Half And He’s Not Done Yet
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has reduced legal immigration by an estimated 49%, which will have a significant negative impact on U.S. economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this you could argue was maybe pandemic related, but some of it unquestionably was not - the annual cap on refugees admitted into the US, in the last year of the Obama administration, was 110,000. Trump's cap for 2020, set before the pandemic unfolded, was 18,000, a decline of 84%.
> 
> Even before the pandemic hit - this was Feb 2020 - we'd seen an 11% drop in legal immigration that was projected to hit about 35% by the end of his first term:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Trump Barricades the Border, Legal Immigration Is Starting to Plunge (Published 2020)
> 
> 
> President Trump’s border wall is beginning to rise, but a thick curtain of policy changes is more responsible for suppressing the flow of immigrants into the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump talked about illegal immigration whenever the subject of immigration came up, so you could be forgiven for maybe not noticing this... but Trump was opposed to immigration almost across the board, unless it was from "white" countries. I'm sure you've seen this story before, sourced from the AP which is about as nonpartisan as you get:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump: Why allow immigrants from 'shithole countries'?
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — In bluntly vulgar language, President Donald Trump questioned Thursday why the U...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apnews.com



Don't forget this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/us/politics/trump-h1b-work-visas.html


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Reply isn't working for me @Glades but first of all one of your quotes is referring to the 386 officers not confronting the shooter in Texas.

And not sure why you're pro life but celebrate people being killed by fellow citizens, like it's basically a free for all gun battle in that country.


----------



## StevenC

So @Glades, here's how maths works. Since 2000, assumed bystanders have ended 22 mass shootings out of 433. That's 5%, basically, so that would suggest that "good guy with a gun" very rarely happens. 

This also suggests that more people with guns creates more shootings than it stops. 

Imagine for a moment that there were no guns taken to that mall in Indiana. How many people would be dead? 

And I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that your think people dying is a bad thing.


----------



## Glades

StevenC said:


> So @Glades, here's how maths works. Since 2000, assumed bystanders have ended 22 mass shootings out of 433. That's 5%, basically, so that would suggest that "good guy with a gun" very rarely happens.
> 
> This also suggests that more people with guns creates more shootings than it stops.
> 
> Imagine for a moment that there were no guns taken to that mall in Indiana. How many people would be dead?
> 
> And I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that your think people dying is a bad thing.



You make a good case for more CCWs. Not coincidentally Indiana passed constitutional carry 2 weeks ago.


----------



## narad

Basically @Glades wants the US to be like the wild west where someone pulls out a gun and suddenly everyone in the bar spins around with guns drawn and everyone sits down peacefully, or the bad guy is gunned down. Honestly, kinda making me regret letting people like this immigrate... I can't say it's not an American perspective, but it's just ~1600-1700s American perspective.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> You make a good case for more CCWs. Not coincidentally Indiana passed constitutional carry 2 weeks ago.


America has now guns than people. Why isn't that enough guns yet? 

Please answer my earlier question too.


----------



## Randy

Arguing a "good guy with a gun" stopping a mass shooter (who killed multiple people with a gun) as a net positive argument for giving people guns is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


----------



## c7spheres

- Guns haven't been about protecting the people from gov't for a long itme now, imo. The U.S. military could win against it's own people, assuming it could keep itself together internally in such a time. I imagine it would look like a never ending drawn out war like Afghanistan. I hope this time never comes because the military will turn on it's own citizens if forced to, imo.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Man... I put way too much thought into this it seems. We just need more good guys out in public with guns. The solution was so obvious all along. If we can just offset all these shootings everywhere by making sure that the number of GGWG outnumber the crazy violent shooters then everything will get better and mass shootings will eventually be a thing of the past. More guns in public really was the answer all along. We all win!


----------



## NoodleFace

It sucks really. Thankfully I live in MA with fairly stringent gun laws and we haven't had a mass shooting in something like 22 years. It'll happen though, I'm sure of it.

Since I'm no politician, and our politicians just like to blow wind, I got my CCW and carry wherever legally allowed almost 100% of the time. I'm not trying to be some good guy with a gun, but if I find myself in a situation where someone points a gun at me I at least want a fighting chance.


----------



## spudmunkey

I remember reading a stat that *seemed* like it was saying that a crime victim in possession of a firearm was 4x more likely to be shot during a violent crime than someone without a gun, and in cases where they attempted to use said gun, that went up to 5.5x.

It's entirely possible the source if this may have cherry-picked or mis-representes their data, as I dont remember it in detail, nor the source.

But it reminded me a bit about the fear of self-driving cars. It wouldn't matter to some people if self-driving cars were 4x or 5.5x or 10x safer on average if it meant that they weren't in control of their own vehicle, convinced that _ their_ situation/skill is different.


----------



## StevenC

High Plains Drifter said:


> Man... I put way too much thought into this it seems. We just need more good guys out in public with guns. The solution was so obvious all along. If we can just offset all these shootings everywhere by making sure that the number of GGWG outnumber the crazy violent shooters then everything will get better and mass shootings will eventually be a thing of the past. More guns in public really was the answer all along. We all win!


Really the logical next step is to preemptively shoot anyone that might commit a mass shooting.


----------



## Lemonbaby

StevenC said:


> Really the logical next step is to preemptively shoot anyone that might commit a mass shooting.



Exactly. And if the bad guy doesn't carry a firearm - now THAT makes him even more suspicious!


----------



## Randy

New rule, only good guys are allowed to have guns.


----------



## bostjan

How would the idea of just handing everyone a gun would play out, too, technically, yes, more shootings would be stopped by good guys with guns, but since there would almost certainly just be more shootings all around, I don't see how that helps. 

I once asked an AI to solve the problem of mass shootings and it suggested that if humanity was made to go extinct, there would be no more mass shootings. Technically correct, but somehow not helpful.


----------



## Randy

Very helpful actually


----------



## StevenC

Solves the climate, pandemic and inequality too.


----------



## zappatton2

Man, things are so messed right now that I feel the only way to stand my ground is to use my gawd-given right to weaponry, leave the planet altogether, and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


----------



## Randy

The only way to stop a bad guy baby raping murderer is a good guy baby raping murderer.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> Really the logical next step is to preemptively shoot anyone that might commit a mass shooting.


Sounds like the premise for a Minority Report reboot!


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> You make a good case for more CCWs. Not coincidentally Indiana passed constitutional carry 2 weeks ago.


Weird how you just dropped the subject of Trump's war on legal immigration, once we pointed out he actually HAD been cracking down on legal immigration.


----------



## Grindspine

Glades said:


> You make a good case for more CCWs. Not coincidentally Indiana passed constitutional carry 2 weeks ago.


Yeah, so that happened within an hour from where I live. Now all of the GOP is going to be like "see! More guns make the world safer!" Of course with no regulation, that means that there will be a lot of untrained civilians carrying guns. A stray bullet does not care if someone is law-abiding or not. 

Have you ever been in a hospital ER trauma room when a shooting victim arrives?

I have. It is not something that I want to see again.


High Plains Drifter said:


> Man... I put way too much thought into this it seems. We just need more good guys out in public with guns. The solution was so obvious all along. If we can just offset all these shootings everywhere by making sure that the number of GGWG outnumber the crazy violent shooters then everything will get better and mass shootings will eventually be a thing of the past. More guns in public really was the answer all along. We all win!


Yeah, because the "wild west" was full of law-abiding citizens. 

Once at a party, I broke up a fight between two guys. One pulled a knife and I managed to get stabbed in the back of the head. Since it was a knife, it did not pierce the skull, so I got out of the situation with just a really bad cut on my scalp. Had that been a gun, I'd be dead.

I am not a fan of guns. Although the 2nd amendment is important, the Bill of Rights specifically states the following: 



> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Why are gun activists trying to get rid of all gun regulation, saying that gun regulation infringes on their rights? The amendment does not imply regulation, it specifically calls for regulation as necessary for the right to exist!


----------



## High Plains Drifter

bostjan said:


> How would the idea of just handing everyone a gun would play out, too, technically, yes, more shootings would be stopped by good guys with guns, but since there would almost certainly just be more shootings all around, I don't see how that helps.
> 
> I once asked an AI to solve the problem of mass shootings and it suggested that if humanity was made to go extinct, there would be no more mass shootings. Technically correct, but somehow not helpful.


When my [no longer] best friend decided to start open carrying, my "wtf?" radar was just going bonkers trying to understand the rationale... Like are you doing this to protect yourself in public? If so.. what reality do you live in that you feel as if while you're buying a bag of Doritos and a Super Squishy, you're going to be forced to whip out your firearm and kill someone? Are you planning to piss someone off to the point that you fear they might assault you? Or are you assuming that the clerk at the Circle K will need you to step in and kill the dude that just stole $300 from the register? Or do you think that you'll just randomly happen upon some bizzarre situation that without ANY training nor prior experience, you'll be called upon to save the day... by putting a round square between someone's eyes or in the heart ( that hopefully is deserving of death... Well, you'll make that decision on the spot there... You know, judge, jury, and executioner all in one)? And all without: escalating the situation nor hitting an innocent bystander? 

I'm sorry but if you have some incessant need to carry a gun around with you, you are NOT part of any 'end-all' solution to gun violence nor the active shooter plague. Whether you're carrying because you're just that paranoid of the world around you, or because you intend to maybe/ possibly/ doubtfully wind up in the perfect place at the perfect time to take someone down ( and willing to roll the dice on accidentally striking someone else in the process), or because you're just begging for a validating pat on the back and a little "good guy" lapel-pin from the local police department.... you're off your rocker. None of that "logic" justifies you and a bunch of other gun-toting jack-offs walking around just salivating at the thought of brandishing your favorite lil' penis enhancing, liberal owning, big boy toy. 

You're not even as alarmingly dense as you are disgustingly pathetic.


----------



## Adieu

StevenC said:


> And I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that your think people dying is a bad thing.



Not people, they only value prenatal humans and rich humans.


----------



## Adieu

StevenC said:


> America has now guns than people. Why isn't that enough guns yet?



Because:
1) The average American has almost two hands
2) We keep leaving things in our trucks or losing them
3) All that pre-legal weed didn't help things so with legal weed? Y'all gonna need about 4 guns per head. If you count babies, grannies, and the currently incarcerated.

Maybe more?


----------



## Grindspine

bostjan said:


> How would the idea of just handing everyone a gun would play out, too, technically, yes, more shootings would be stopped by good guys with guns, but since there would almost certainly just be more shootings all around, I don't see how that helps.
> 
> I once asked an AI to solve the problem of mass shootings and it suggested that if humanity was made to go extinct, there would be no more mass shootings. Technically correct, but somehow not helpful.





Randy said:


> Very helpful actually





StevenC said:


> Solves the climate, pandemic and inequality too.


My wife and I concur and often say, in reference to Avengers: Infinity War, that Thanos was right.



High Plains Drifter said:


> When my [no longer] best friend decided to start open carrying, my "wtf?" radar was just going bonkers trying to understand the rationale... Like are you doing this to protect yourself in public? If so.. what reality do you live in that you feel as if while you're buying a bag of Doritos and a Super Squishy, you're going to be forced to whip out your firearm and kill someone? Are you planning to piss someone off to the point that you fear they might assault you? Or are you assuming that the clerk at the Circle K will need you to step in and kill the dude that just stole $300 from the register? Or do you think that you'll just randomly happen upon some bizzarre situation that without ANY training nor prior experience, you'll be called upon to save the day... by putting a round square between someone's eyes or in the heart ( that hopefully is deserving of death... Well, you'll make that decision on the spot there... You know, judge, jury, and executioner all in one)? And all without: escalating the situation nor hitting an innocent bystander?
> 
> I'm sorry but if you have some incessant need to carry a gun around with you, you are NOT part of any 'end-all' solution to gun violence nor the active shooter plague. Whether you're carrying because you're just that paranoid of the world around you, or because you intend to maybe/ possibly/ doubtfully wind up in the perfect place at the perfect time to take someone down ( and willing to roll the dice on accidentally striking someone else in the process), or because you're just begging for a validating pat on the back and a little "good guy" lapel-pin from the local police department.... you're off your rocker. None of that "logic" justifies you and a bunch of other gun-toting jack-offs walking around just salivating at the thought of brandishing your favorite lil' penis enhancing, liberal owning, big boy toy.


Yeah, this is the scary part. All of the open carry, no permit, no regulation shit that is starting up. I can kind of get someone having a handgun for home defense or even car defense (friend of a friend shot someone who was trying to carjack him in my friend's driveway when I was younger). 

This attitude of wanting to brandish a gun only invites conflict. Those who want to show off their guns are wanting to intimidate all around them and win every argument with the fact that they have a deadly weapon and are too dense to even be cautious with it.


----------



## thraxil

NoodleFace said:


> It sucks really. Thankfully I live in MA with fairly stringent gun laws and we haven't had a mass shooting in something like 22 years. It'll happen though, I'm sure of it.
> 
> Since I'm no politician, and our politicians just like to blow wind, I got my CCW and carry wherever legally allowed almost 100% of the time. I'm not trying to be some good guy with a gun, but if I find myself in a situation where someone points a gun at me I at least want a fighting chance.



We haven't had a tornado here since 2006 but I wear a parachute every time I go outside. I'm not trying to be a professional skydiver, but if I find myself in a situation where a freak tornado picks me up and tosses me 1000 feet in the air I at least want a fighting chance.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Grindspine said:


> Yeah, this is the scary part. All of the open carry, no permit, no regulation shit that is starting up.
> 
> This attitude of wanting to brandish a gun only invites conflict. Those who want to show off their guns are wanting to intimidate all around them and win every argument with the fact that they have a deadly weapon and are too dense to even be cautious with it.


This is where my concern lies. Wish I could sum up my thoughts as succinctly lol. But yeah... we're now entrenched in such a dangerous and unprecedented time in this country. It really does take some top-tier mental gymnastics to feel as if promoting an armed America is somehow going to actually reduce gun violence or create some kind of positive impact on our society as a whole.

And here conservative christians sit... justifying these kinds of things and reveling in this mess. And these hypocrites... like the lone troll that keeps weighing in here in this thread... continue preaching their agenda wrapped in christian values while taunting and laughing at others, while spewing misinformation, while supporting conspiracies and while worshiping some god that is supposedly kind and just. It's absolutely mind-numbing the denigration and vindictiveness of these people. And that contempt has infected our government and our society in a way that I don't think we'll ever get out from under as a nation.

And I know that at times I rant a little much in the political threads but good lord... the insanity just knows no end. I'm sitting here atm listening to news stories about women being robbed of their human rights, secret service's missing texts, and back to school transparent backpack requirements, etc... stories that continue to assure me that democracy and humanity have just outright failed and may never be obtainable. It's as if I've been forced to adapt to being simultaneously scared, angry, and numb just so that I can get through each day without screaming.


----------



## NoodleFace

thraxil said:


> We haven't had a tornado here since 2006 but I wear a parachute every time I go outside. I'm not trying to be a professional skydiver, but if I find myself in a situation where a freak tornado picks me up and tosses me 1000 feet in the air I at least want a fighting chance.


To each his own


----------



## bostjan

thraxil said:


> We haven't had a tornado here since 2006 but I wear a parachute every time I go outside. I'm not trying to be a professional skydiver, but if I find myself in a situation where a freak tornado picks me up and tosses me 1000 feet in the air I at least want a fighting chance.


That parachute won't help you at all in that case. Do like we do in the good ole USA and shoot at the tornado. The lead will weigh it down until it stops spinning.


----------



## Randy

NoodleFace said:


> To each his own



I honest to God envy the confidence you have carrying gun and expecting the chances of you using to protect yourself outweigh the chances of an accidental discharge, or that it's stolen or used against you. Secondarily, the belief you would only use your gun to protect yourself and not use it against someone else in anger or in a moment of confusion.


----------



## Lemonbaby

High Plains Drifter said:


> And I know that at times I rant a little much in the political threads but good lord... the insanity just knows no end. I'm sitting here atm listening to news stories about women being robbed of their human rights, secret service's missing texts, and back to school transparent backpack requirements, etc...



For a brief moment (and before I looked it up on Google), I thought you were joking about those transparent backpacks. What the funk's going wrong over there...?


----------



## Chokey Chicken

Randy said:


> I honest to God envy the confidence you have carrying gun and expecting the chances of you using to protect yourself outweigh the chances of an accidental discharge, or that it's stolen or used against you. Secondarily, the belief you would only use your gun to protect yourself for protection and not use it against someone else in anger or in a moment of confusion.


This says a lot more about you than other people if you can't fathom getting mad at someone without the idea of "I'm going to shoot them because I'm mad at them." I'm glad you're anti gun, because you're the type of person to be scared of having one. The fact that you're surprised someone would be confident that they'd only use their gun to protect themselves/others leads me to believe that you think most people, yourself included, would shoot someone over too much mayo because they're mad about it.


High Plains Drifter said:


> When my [no longer] best friend decided to start open carrying, my "wtf?" radar was just going bonkers trying to understand the rationale... Like are you doing this to protect yourself in public? If so.. what reality do you live in that you feel as if while you're buying a bag of Doritos and a Super Squishy, you're going to be forced to whip out your firearm and kill someone? Are you planning to piss someone off to the point that you fear they might assault you? Or are you assuming that the clerk at the Circle K will need you to step in and kill the dude that just stole $300 from the register? Or do you think that you'll just randomly happen upon some bizzarre situation that without ANY training nor prior experience, you'll be called upon to save the day... by putting a round square between someone's eyes or in the heart ( that hopefully is deserving of death... Well, you'll make that decision on the spot there... You know, judge, jury, and executioner all in one)? And all without: escalating the situation nor hitting an innocent bystander?


They're probably living in the same world as the rest of us, where going to a parade, movie, grocery store, convenience store, going to school, or walking home from a concert comes with the risk of getting shot or harmed by some prick with no regard for the law or life.

Here's a fun little anecdotal story before I excise myself from this community. I used to be anti gun once upon a time. Then, in a state that says I'm not allowed to carry, I was raped at gunpoint. He was stronger than me, I had no ability to fight them off. Perhaps they didn't want to kill me, but in the moment I almost wanted them to. I still feel sick about it to this day sometimes. So you can all keep on with your shitty little "oNlY tHiNg ThAt StOpS a BaD gUy bAbY rApIsT iS a GoOd GuY bAbY rApIsT" quips, and sympathizing with criminals, but if it ever comes down to it in the future, I now have a means to defend myself, and I'll have zero qualms with taking the life of a man who forces their cock inside me, or wants to shoot a bunch of kids. Have fun shouting down from your high horses. Don't bother @ ing me. I'm logging out and not coming back. I don't really feel like being part of a community that is more in favor of allowing the worst thing that has ever happened to me vs me or others taking the life of the absolute worst woman-raping, kid-killing scum of the earth. 

I honestly hope I never have to use my weapon. And that none of you, or even myself, ever has a need to be put in that position where it's a rational choice.


----------



## MFB

Chokey Chicken said:


> This says a lot more about you than other people if you can't fathom getting mad at someone without the idea of "I'm going to shoot them because I'm mad at them." I'm glad you're anti gun, because you're the type of person to be scared of having one. The fact that you're surprised someone would be confident that they'd only use their gun to protect themselves/others leads me to believe that you think most people, yourself included, would shoot someone over too much mayo because they're mad about it.



Not to speak for the man, but based on what I've seen from him here, Randy's one of the most level headed people I've interacted with, and it sounds like he's also saying that we're all human and prone to acting irrationally at times; now imagine that one of those times you're irrational you ALSO have a gun? See how that might be a bad scenario.

Do you think ever person who's carrying a gun is cool, calm, collected 100% of the time and never prone to that happening? 'Cause I've sure seen a lot of videos that prove there's way more people who aren't like that with guns than those that are. Even if he would like to think it'd never happen to him, the fact that there's a possibility it could is probably part of what keeps him from not carrying.


----------



## mmr007

We don't shout down from high horses...we beat dead ones....or haven't you been paying attention? While I'm sorry that a bad thing happened to you...a very bad thing...just remember people can make jokes about or make light of something without thinking the thing itself is funny or not serious. If you run away from every group that has a different take from your life experience, you'll soon run out of places to run to. We can make analogies about cancer, rape, murder, incest, incarceration all the while without having to self censor because someone somewhere was personally affected by said thing


----------



## Drew

MFB said:


> Not to speak for the man, but based on what I've seen from him here, Randy's one of the most level headed people I've interacted with, and it sounds like he's also saying that we're all human and prone to acting irrationally at times; now imagine that one of those times you're irrational you ALSO have a gun? See how that might be a bad scenario.


I'll also chime in, @Chokey Chicken, and point out that Randy DID list that as a secondary concern in his post. Was this addressed at Noodle Face?


----------



## Drew

TC204 said:


> Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility, and only those that carry one know how much of a good boy you have to be. Any Police Chief at any time will revoke your right to carry if you slip up just a little. I've been carrying one for 35 years and have never had a mishap, or accident, or have even felt the need to use one even though I've worked in some very sketchy areas. I know my own self and if my anger ever got to the point where I thought I might use one (out of anger) I would call the police and tell them to come get them. People that have never carried can only make assumptions.


That varies WIDELY by state, you know. Plenty of examples in the last five years of people with large arsenals who would have failed red flag laws if only their state had them.


----------



## bostjan

TC204 said:


> Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility, and only those that carry one know how much of a good boy you have to be. Any Police Chief at any time will revoke your right to carry if you slip up just a little. I've been carrying one for 35 years and have never had a mishap, or accident, or have even felt the need to use one even though I've worked in some very sketchy areas. I know my own self and if my anger ever got to the point where I thought I might use one (out of anger) I would call the police and tell them to come get them. People that have never carried can only make assumptions.


If so, then why did the Highland Park shooter have two priors, one which involved threatening someone, yet he was still able to purchase and continue to possess 4 firearms?


----------



## Randy

Chokey Chicken said:


> This says a lot more about you than other people if you can't fathom getting mad at someone without the idea of "I'm going to shoot them because I'm mad at them." I'm glad you're anti gun, because you're the type of person to be scared of having one. The fact that you're surprised someone would be confident that they'd only use their gun to protect themselves/others leads me to believe that you think most people, yourself included, would shoot someone over too much mayo because they're mad about it.
> 
> They're probably living in the same world as the rest of us, where going to a parade, movie, grocery store, convenience store, going to school, or walking home from a concert comes with the risk of getting shot or harmed by some prick with no regard for the law or life.
> 
> Here's a fun little anecdotal story before I excise myself from this community. I used to be anti gun once upon a time. Then, in a state that says I'm not allowed to carry, I was raped at gunpoint. He was stronger than me, I had no ability to fight them off. Perhaps they didn't want to kill me, but in the moment I almost wanted them to. I still feel sick about it to this day sometimes. So you can all keep on with your shitty little "oNlY tHiNg ThAt StOpS a BaD gUy bAbY rApIsT iS a GoOd GuY bAbY rApIsT" quips, and sympathizing with criminals, but if it ever comes down to it in the future, I now have a means to defend myself, and I'll have zero qualms with taking the life of a man who forces their cock inside me, or wants to shoot a bunch of kids. Have fun shouting down from your high horses. Don't bother @ ing me. I'm logging out and not coming back. I don't really feel like being part of a community that is more in favor of allowing the worst thing that has ever happened to me vs me or others taking the life of the absolute worst woman-raping, kid-killing scum of the earth.
> 
> I honestly hope I never have to use my weapon. And that none of you, or even myself, ever has a need to be put in that position where it's a rational choice.



For a guy who raves about his ability to self diagnose his temper and what they "would" or "wouldn't" do, your post reads very aggro. Which was kind of my point. You know, people have questionable objectivity when it comes to rating their own degree of rationality at any given time.


----------



## Randy

TC204 said:


> I would call the police and tell them to come get them. People that have never carried can only make assumptions.



Are you arguing that people who legally carry never use their weapon to commit crime?


----------



## mmr007

TC204 said:


> You don't need red flag laws in order to turn someone in. There's been plenty of examples where a Looney spouts of on facebook or to his friends about what he's going to do and no one turns him in.


You're suggesting our lives should depend not on preventing sociopaths from getting guns in the first place but on a system of teenagers reporting what they see on social media? Remember they're too busy collecting bounties on those suffering a miscarriage


----------



## tayistay

evade said:


> If you're American, how does it feel to risk your life getting shot when you shop at a grocery store now more than ever?



Teeny tiny probability times 10x is still a teeny tiny probability.



evade said:


> If you're a parent, even more relevant, what are some thoughts you have around sending your child to a public school that could potentially be shot up due to the culture?



Teeny tiny probability, despite all recent events. They shouldn't bother with active shooter drills.



evade said:


> Any thoughts of what should be done or if anything should be done at all?



Reduce the gun industry's ability to advertise their products.


----------



## dspellman

DarrellM5 said:


> I'm not a member of the NRA. I am a member of other organizations that I feel better represent my views. I disagree with your 'per capita' statement though. I'd suggest taking a look at the very comprehensive statistical analysis by John Lott (it's called More Guns, Less Crime). Cities that have the most restrictive gun controls by far have the highest violent crime rates (Chicago, Washington D.C., etc..). I believe the ability to concealed carry is a deterrent to mass shootings and the main reason these dirtbags choose gun-free zones for their crimes.


BTW, the stats don't agree with you. Perhaps more importantly an idiot pulling a gun to be a hero is more likely to get himself killed by the police when they arrive on the scene. Nobody knows who the bad guys are, but you're standing there with a gun in your hand. The number of "mass murder" shooters foiled by some Good Samaritan with a concealed weapon is minuscule, and most of those are off duty police, security. Not some chucklehead who owns an inside-the-waistband holster with a Glock and who doesn't have the discipline or training to go with it. 

There WAS an incident recently where an armed citizen neutralized a guy who shot three people, and he's being feted as a hero. Extremely tiny likelihood of that happening and an even finer likelihood of it happening again. 

 

There's *always* a John Lott who claims a "very comprehensive statistical analysis" and that analysis is nearly always motivated by confirmation bias and an anally implanted approach to stats. They write books and the folks who wear camo into Walmart every day suck them up. Critical thinking be damned.


----------



## MFB

TC204 said:


> I'm sure some have, but I'd say out of the 100,000,000 gun owners in the country, the % is miniscule, as opposed to thugs that can't buy one through legal means. We've been hearing that this guy or that guy purchased his AR-15 legally at age 18, their friends need to speak up when they hear him say something effed up.



A. What qualifies saying something "effed up"?
B. How many times do you get to say something 'effed up' before it becomes worth reporting? 1? 2? 5?
C. Who qualifies as a "thug"?
D. Why _can't_ vs. don't they buy them legally, I'm very curious to know what's preventing them?
E. Of the gun owners who DO legally carry and do commit a crime, is that crime less illegal than those who are illegally carrying and committing a crime? 

Lot to unpack in just two simple sentences


----------



## dspellman

Randy said:


> Trump Cuts Legal Immigrants By Half And He’s Not Done Yet
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has reduced legal immigration by an estimated 49%, which will have a significant negative impact on U.S. economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump Reduced Legal Immigration. He Did Not Reduce Illegal Immigration


Silicone Valley found a whole lot of their best talent running into immigration delays despite their processes being absolutely legal.


----------



## philkilla

Just a thought. What's up with this generation?


----------



## bostjan

TC204 said:


> I'm sure some have, but I'd say out of the 100,000,000 gun owners in the country, the % is miniscule, as opposed to thugs that can't buy one through legal means. We've been hearing that this guy or that guy purchased his AR-15 legally at age 18, their friends need to speak up when they hear him say something effed up.


Let's put some less vague numbers with that statement - https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

...so 63% of guns used to commit "crime" (not sure exactly how that's defined, though") were purchased through legal means.

Out of 131 M gun owners in the USA, 52 k commit gun-related crimes (again, I'm not 100% clear on that definition) every year. That's only about 0.04% per year. But over an adult's life span that's a total of about 2% all-time projected.

While that's not a large percentage, I don't know if it's at all fair to classify as "miniscule" either. Would you settle for just saying that it is a percentage?


----------



## Mike_R

As a preface: I haven't ever posted in the politics subforum here. I mostly plays 6 strings, so maybe I don't belong here, but in good faith I am posting a dissenting opinion from what seems to be the popular one on this forum. I have lurked quite a bit because I am curious to learn what other people think as a way of trying to understand people, grow, and evaluate my own biases. I am of the opinion that we need to build bridges with people that don't see the world the same way we do, and I work very hard to understand other people's positions. This is intended to respond to OP's question and will include some calculations related to violence which is intended to compare the magnitude of certain issues but not to diminish the fact that every loss of life is tragic.

It absolutely blows my mind that educated people who know that:

1) Prohibition was a failure in the US
2) The War on Drugs is a failure in the US

will sometimes think that the War on Guns in the US would somehow work. Even if you were willing to go full Swalwell and threaten your fellow citizens with nuclear weapons to achieve your political goals there are likely close to 400 million guns in the US and more being 3d printed at home every day - rounding them up would be a task that would make Sisyphus blush. Besides, the very people promising to solve the Schrodinger's AR 15 paradox (where a semi-automatic rifle is simultaneously a "weapon of war" that needs to be off our streets and a completely useless implement in resisting a government with nukes) are the same people literally deploying MRAPs and grenade launchers to American streets.

The US has a gun violence problem. Some people think the guns are the problem, some people think the violence is the problem.



evade said:


> If you're American, how does it feel to risk your life getting shot when you shop at a grocery store now more than ever.
> 
> There definitely appears to be an increase in mass shootings and I'm interested in hearing different thoughts.



https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/

https://www.responsibility.org/wp-c...Driving-Fatalities_Shareable_JPGS-V2-Pg03.jpg

I don't worry about getting shot at the grocery store. While there has been an increase in mass shootings, I am aware that the probability of being killed in one is pretty close to zero, so I mitigate my risk as best as I can and move on with life. There are other things that are far more likely to befall me that I do adjust my behaviors for - like limiting driving around the holidays and at night to the extent that I can while still living my life.

You are roughly 88x more likely to be killed in a DUI related fatality than in a mass shooting (check my math, but I came up with appx. 10,000 DUI deaths per year in the same timeframe as Everytown's study, higher lately though- divided by 114 (which is itself 1,363 mass shooting deaths in 12 years per Everytown, a gun control advocacy group tracking mass shootings). Maybe somebody cares enough to pull the detailed alcohol related traffic death stats to refine my calculation, but it is going to fall between probably between 75x to 100x - the point stands, the ratio is colossal. Of those "mass shootings", 61% were entirely in private homes- not in public at all, so you can determine whether or not fit the type of mass shootings you are discussing (grocery stores, schools, etc). When they say mass shooting you think grocery store because it has happened a few times and politicians/the media will tell you it's one of the top problems facing our country today. I'll let you come up with your own reason why they do this. Also, governments are actually working to ban purchases of life saving body armor that might shield you from gun violence. New York passed their bill already. You can come to your own conclusion about why that might be too.

If one were being more discerning than the problematic media definition (essentially being intellectually honest) and talking about mass shootings (where the public is targeted) by the FBI definition of an active shooter incident, with an "active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area" the risk goes down even more significantly. The FBI said 38 victims were killed in active shooter incident in 2020, compared to a population in 2020 of 329.5 million, so you would be looking at about a 1 in 8.7 million chance of being killed in an active shooter incident in the US in 2020. For @StevenC in Ireland, population 5m - that probability would mean likely zero to 1 people killed in mass shootings adjusted per capita. Someone in the US would be about 307 times more likely to be killed in an alcohol involved traffic fatality than an active shooter incident in 2020.

2021 saw a huge uptick (in percentage terms) compared to 2020 with 103 victims killed in active shooter incidents - out of 332.9m, that would put your odds of being killed in an active shooter incident at 1 in 3.2 million. This still means that the death toll from active shooters in the US in a year is eclipsed by DUI fatalities in the US in just over 3 days.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2020-070121.pdf/view

The vast majority of "gun violence" in the US is firearm suicide, which absolutely sucks but happens by other methods and in other countries too. The confiscatory types love that it pads the numbers, which is sick and sad. There are other disarmed, first world countries with similar or higher suicide rates and lack of access to firearms doesn't end suicide. Gang violence accounts for a significant amount of firearms homicide. Non-gang related mass shootings are actually an extremely rare cause of death, but they seem to be extra painful because they kill the innocent without much warning. Which, you know, DUIs often do too, and DUIs kill far more people - without getting into any other alcohol related morbidity or mortality.

SSO, would you put down your drinks and embrace Prohibition because drunk driving kills people? If not, why? Is it because you are more responsible than others, or you don't drive drunk, or you have a right to drink that overrides other people's safety? Or is it because guns are "designed only for killing human beings", unlike literal poison intentionally brewed and ingested that impairs judgement, causes preventable disease, and fuels domestic violence and automobile fatalities? It's for the children. No good person needs to own, purchase, manufacture, or consume high capacity assault poison juice. I don't drink, so I think society could be a lot safer if nobody did... do you see where this is going?

The right to self defense, I believe, is a basic human right. You might fully believe that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in the 2A doesn't mean the right of the people (and the militia means the National Guard, or whatever), but the right to defend yourself and your family is a natural right. Even if you prefer to outsource your protection, it is unconscionable to use government (i.e. send people with guns) to enforce your preference on others. Some people abuse firearms, just as some people abuse alcohol. Or perhaps you are more targeted in your disarmament goals - just calling for "assault weapons" to be banned. So maybe we start with banning hard liquor, and place purchase limits and background checks on beer and wine. Or perhaps as Rep. Don Beyer suggests, a 1,000 percent tax on the naughty items to leverage taxation instead of an outright ban due to lack of support (knowing full well that a war was fought in the US over the taxation of alcohol)?

I'm not going to pretend that it's my place to get in between another adult and their adult beverages. I believe in personal liberty and accountability. If you really want to save lives of people and especially kids at the cost of a little liberty, though, alcohol statistically harms far more children than mass shootings do. We should start with the policies that save the most innocent people, right? Or is evidence based policy only important if it supports your personal biases? Why is it that we as a society accept something unnecessary that kills more children than mass shootings - more people than mass shootings? I am not advocating for a repeat of the disaster of Prohibition, or saying nothing should be done about violence in the US. I am honestly curious as to why we as a society accept the damage from alcohol but claim "not one more" and say 100m+ people should be stripped of their rights about something statistically far less likely.

The solution being called for I think is not viable. Prohibition doesn't work, and there is no 650k gun Aussie style buyback that will disarm the country that holds nearly half of the world's privately owned guns (besides the fact that you can't buy back something you never owned - buy back in this sense is a euphemism for taken involuntarily under duress). Civilian disarmament in the US would have to occur by threat of impoverishment or imprisonment enforced by people armed with guns, and that has a societal cost too. I have some ideas on how as a society we could work towards reducing violence. I do know that whatever David Hogg or Ted Cruz's miracle solutions are- that probably isn't it. There are social and economic factors that drive the violence and those factors need to be addressed. They are much harder to address than talking about reviving a failed bill that didn't stop violence or door control or video games.


----------



## tedtan

MFB said:


> I've sure seen a lot of videos that prove there's way more people who aren't like that with guns than those that are.


While I don’t doubt you, I suspect that the videos you’ve seen are a bit skewed, as a video of someone with a concealed handgun leaving that gun concealed and walking away from the situation rather than engaging doesn’t exactly make for an exciting video.




bostjan said:


> If so, then why did the Highland Park shooter have two priors, one which involved threatening someone, yet he was still able to purchase and continue to possess 4 firearms?


Poorly worded and incomplete laws not being applied and enforced properly. This is one reason these laws need to be national rather than state or local. They won’t be perfect, but a consistent law applied universally will leave far fewer loopholes.




mmr007 said:


> You're suggesting our lives should depend not on preventing sociopaths from getting guns in the first place but on a system of teenagers reporting what they see on social media? Remember they're too busy collecting bounties on those suffering a miscarriage


The two are not mutually exclusive, though.




Randy said:


> Are you arguing that people who legally carry never use their weapon to commit crime?


I’m sure there are plenty of crimes committed by those legally carrying.

For example, in Texas, we have a “permitless carry” law that went into effect last September that says that anyone who is legally allowed to own a firearm can carry one in public. It is not quite a “constitutional carry” law, but very similar.

There is also a federal law that says that it is illegal to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of an elementary, middle, or high school. There is an exception to this law for those who hold a license to carry a firearm issued by the state in which the school exists, so a person who is in law enforcement or a holds a license to carry is not violating this 1,000 foot law. However, I’m sure that plenty of people who carry under the “permitless carry” law drop their children off at school in the morning and pick them up in the evening while carrying. The “permitless carry” law does not supersede the federal 1,000 for law, so this is a case of a person legally carrying a gun (while not within 1,000 feet of the school property) committing a crime while on, and within 1,000 feet of, school property.

Is that the kind of crime you’re talking about, or are you meaning more along the lines of a person carrying legally shooting people illegally? I’m sure the latter occurs, too, but its more a case of “constitutional carry” or “permitless carry” laws allowing almost anyone to carry rather than legally carrying with a license/permit.


----------



## Mike_R

bostjan said:


> Let's put some less vague numbers with that statement - https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
> 
> ...so 63% of guns used to commit "crime" (not sure exactly how that's defined, though") were purchased through legal means.
> 
> Out of 131 M gun owners in the USA, 52 k commit gun-related crimes (again, I'm not 100% clear on that definition) every year. That's only about 0.04% per year. But over an adult's life span that's a total of about 2% all-time projected.
> 
> While that's not a large percentage, I don't know if it's at all fair to classify as "miniscule" either. Would you settle for just saying that it is a percentage?



That is not how statistics work. Even if it were, a single year from nearly 30 years ago when there was far more crime and far less guns can't reasonably be extrapolated into a "all-time projected" figure.

There are multiple flaws in the math you present, but a huge one is "recidivism". Considering that, do you still think 2 percent of gun owners will commit a crime with a gun?


----------



## Randy

Btw that post wasn't to chastise @NoodleFace I really meant that.

Myself as a person, I'm risk adverse. That doesn't mean I don't do things that take risk, it means I weigh the risks and benefits, then choose the one that sounds less risky as long as it still accomplishes the goal. Carrying a gun with me everywhere doesn't feel like the solution with the least problems to go with it. But I guess that's different for different people idk.


----------



## Randy

Mike_R said:


> Considering that, do you still think 2 percent of gun owners will commit a crime with a gun?



Sounds like a wild number but if you expanded that to say "commit a violent crime", no, 1 in 50 people over the course of a lifetime doesn't sound like all that many no. And if people are willing or irrational enough to commit violent crime, I don't think it's a stretch to say they'd be willing to commit that crime using their gun if it's available to them at the time they commit it.


----------



## bostjan

Mike_R said:


> That is not how statistics work. Even if it were, a single year from nearly 30 years ago when there was far more crime and far less guns can't reasonably be extrapolated into a "all-time projected" figure.
> 
> There are multiple flaws in the math you present, but a huge one is "recidivism". Considering that, do you still think 2 percent of gun owners will commit a crime with a gun?


It's fair to say that there are flaws in what I presented. But I think that the best estimate is not horribly far off from that. If you have a better estimate, let's hear it. Otherwise, take the flaws at face value and assign some uncertainty to them - if the flaws are large enough to justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so be it, but I don't think they are. Certainly that's at least somewhat subjective, but in lieu of perfect data, imperfect data will have

The stated non-statistic that way more crimes are committed with stolen or smuggled guns than with legally purchased guns - is false.


Mike_R said:


> It absolutely blows my mind that educated people who know that:
> 
> 1) Prohibition was a failure in the US
> 2) The War on Drugs is a failure in the US
> 
> will sometimes think that the War on Guns in the US would somehow work.



Who is suggesting a war on guns, though? I feel like most people here are requesting more effective gun control laws that apply better common sense.



Mike_R said:


> The US has a gun violence problem. Some people think the guns are the problem, some people think the violence is the problem.



Why would we not use the starting guess that both guns and violence are related to gun violence? Seems like a rational default position to take. Take it one step further: Is there evidence that more guns lead to more gun violence? Yes. Is there evidence that more violence leads to more gun violence? Yes.

So... I guess what's your point? Seems to be that you are implying that fewer guns won't mean less gun violence. If both common sense and data suggest that cultures with more guns deal with larger amounts of gun violence than cultures with fewer guns, I think that point needs better support.



Mike_R said:


> Stats



I guess I don't understand the conclusion you are making from all of this. Is it that you are saying that the current system in place to control gun violence is doing its job?



Mike_R said:


> SSO, would you put down your drinks and embrace Prohibition because drunk driving kills people? If not, why?



Because drunk driving = drinking + driving. No one is condoning drinking and driving. To equate gun control with drinking in this analogy just seems strange.

If we are talking about the more recent part of the discussion that everyone carrying a firearm with them would prevent mass shootings, then maybe we could make the analogy of "well then don't drive yourself to a bar without a DD." Which, yeah, okay, don't do that.



Mike_R said:


> The right to self defense, I believe, is a basic human right.





But let's take just a moment to acknowledge right here that, as US citizens, we *do not* get a universal right to self-defense, because we don't. Some places don't let you own body armor, which is purely self-defense and cannot hurt anyone. If you are deemed mentally deficient or criminal or a minor or whatever, you do not get the same rights for self-defense as otherwise.


Mike_R said:


> Even if you prefer to outsource your protection, it is unconscionable to use government (i.e. send people with guns) to enforce your preference on others. Some people abuse firearms, just as some people abuse alcohol.



Not sure where this analogy is going... When was the last time alcohol abuse led to a mass murder at a parade or in a mall or whatever?



Mike_R said:


> Or perhaps you are more targeted in your disarmament goals - just calling for "assault weapons" to be banned. So maybe we start with banning hard liquor, and place purchase limits and background checks on beer and wine.



False equivalency.



Mike_R said:


> Or perhaps as Rep. Don Beyer suggests, a 1,000 percent tax on the naughty items to leverage taxation instead of an outright ban due to lack of support (knowing full well that a war was fought in the US over the taxation of alcohol)?



What, the Whiskey Rebellion? What do you mean?



Mike_R said:


> I'm not going to pretend that it's my place to get in between another adult and their adult beverages. I believe in personal liberty and accountability. If you really want to save lives of people and especially kids at the cost of a little liberty, though, alcohol statistically harms far more children than mass shootings do. We should start with the policies that save the most innocent people, right? Or is evidence based policy only important if it supports your personal biases? Why is it that we as a society accept something unnecessary that kills more children than mass shootings - more people than mass shootings? I am not advocating for a repeat of the disaster of Prohibition, or saying nothing should be done about violence in the US. I am honestly curious as to why we as a society accept the damage from alcohol but claim "not one more" and say 100m+ people should be stripped of their rights about something statistically far less likely.
> 
> The solution being called for I think is not viable. Prohibition doesn't work, and there is no 650k gun Aussie style buyback that will disarm the country that holds nearly half of the world's privately owned guns (besides the fact that you can't buy back something you never owned - buy back in this sense is a euphemism for taken involuntarily under duress). Civilian disarmament in the US would have to occur by threat of impoverishment or imprisonment enforced by people armed with guns, and that has a societal cost too. I have some ideas on how as a society we could work towards reducing violence. I do know that whatever David Hogg or Ted Cruz's miracle solutions are- that probably isn't it. There are social and economic factors that drive the violence and those factors need to be addressed. They are much harder to address than talking about reviving a failed bill that didn't stop violence or door control or video games.



You make some good points and some not-so-good points, but overall, I don't get your main idea.  What proposed idea are you arguing against?


----------



## profwoot

TC204 said:


> Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility, and only those that carry one know how much of a good boy you have to be. Any Police Chief at any time will revoke your right to carry if you slip up just a little. I've been carrying one for 35 years and have never had a mishap, or accident, or have even felt the need to use one even though I've worked in some very sketchy areas. I know my own self and if my anger ever got to the point where I thought I might use one (out of anger) I would call the police and tell them to come get them. People that have never carried can only make assumptions.


It doesn't make you feel at all silly to have been carrying a gun around for 35 years without it ever once being useful? I don't even like it when I occasionally have to carry around the slightly larger key to my wife's car.


----------



## Randy

profwoot said:


> It doesn't make you feel at all silly to have been carrying a gun around for 35 years without it ever once being useful? I don't even like it when I occasionally have to carry around the slightly larger key to my wife's car.



I wonder how often he carries an umbrella.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Just a thought. What's up with this generation?


The alt-right pipeline targeting them.


----------



## bostjan

profwoot said:


> It doesn't make you feel at all silly to have been carrying a gun around for 35 years without it ever once being useful? I don't even like it when I occasionally have to carry around the slightly larger key to my wife's car.


Hey, how many guys carry around condoms and only have a slim chance of using them?


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Hey, how many guys carry around condoms and only have a slim chance of using them?



Based on what those guys say when the lights go off, most women would say none.


----------



## StevenC

TC204 said:


> There's nothing silly about protecting yourself or your home, it's something you hope never happens. But in reality there are two outcomes if it does happen, being carried by 6 or being judged by 12. Take your pick.


"Edge" of insanity?


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## profwoot

> There's nothing silly about protecting yourself or your home, it's something you hope never happens. But in reality there are two outcomes if it does happen, being carried by 6 or being judged by 12. Take your pick.



You got a bit poetical toward the end but I think you're saying that you either kill or be killed? In your imagined kill-or-be-killed situation this would seem tautological, no? Obviously those aren't always the only two options. Look, It's not hard to imagine a situation and then work to protect yourself against it. For me, at least, the more relevant factor is whether the added risk to oneself and one's family plus the daily personal effort/inconvenience/weirdness of always having a gun on you is outweighed by the chance you'll someday be confronted with a situation in which it can be used in a net-positive way.

I do stipulate that the calculus would change if guns also offer you some measure of fun/pride/confidence/comfort, you live in an especially dangerous area, you've recently testified against a mobster, etc.


----------



## narad

profwoot said:


> You got a bit poetical toward the end but I think you're saying that you either kill or be killed? In your imagined kill-or-be-killed situation this would seem tautological, no? It's not hard to imagine a situation and then work to protect yourself against it. For me, at least, it's a matter of whether the risk to oneself and one's family plus the daily personal effort/inconvenience/weirdness is outweighed by the chance you'll someday be confronted with a situation in which lives can be saved with bullets.
> 
> I do stipulate that the calculus would change if guns also offer you some measure of fun/pride/confidence/comfort, you live in an especially dangerous area, you've recently testified against a mobster, etc.



Of course all but the staunchest of gun control people would still want the gun if it's a kill-or-be-killed situation where a gun is statistically likely to help. Like in a duel. But if we flip it around and say "there's a chance that you will have to walk through one of these doors, the door on the left has a 0.7 chance of survival, the door on the right a 0.4, which do you choose?"*, gun advocates are basically walking through that second door and saying, (again in a graveling Clint Eastwood voice), "I like those odds".

* These are not the actual stats and IIRC they're not so drastic, but in aggregate it's clear that by bringing the gun into the situation you are only making the situation statistically worse for yourself. Basically the gun owner is confidently proclaiming, "I'm not a statistic", or is too proud to hide in a closet or whatever out of pride than to do the smarter thing.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Mike_R said:


> As a preface: I haven't ever posted in the politics subforum here. I mostly plays 6 strings, so maybe I don't belong here, but in good faith I am posting a dissenting opinion from what seems to be the popular one on this forum. I have lurked quite a bit because I am curious to learn what other people think as a way of trying to understand people, grow, and evaluate my own biases. I am of the opinion that we need to build bridges with people that don't see the world the same way we do, and I work very hard to understand other people's positions. This is intended to respond to OP's question and will include some calculations related to violence which is intended to compare the magnitude of certain issues but not to diminish the fact that every loss of life is tragic.
> 
> It absolutely blows my mind that educated people who know that:
> 
> 1) Prohibition was a failure in the US
> 2) The War on Drugs is a failure in the US
> 
> will sometimes think that the War on Guns in the US would somehow work. Even if you were willing to go full Swalwell and threaten your fellow citizens with nuclear weapons to achieve your political goals there are likely close to 400 million guns in the US and more being 3d printed at home every day - rounding them up would be a task that would make Sisyphus blush. Besides, the very people promising to solve the Schrodinger's AR 15 paradox (where a semi-automatic rifle is simultaneously a "weapon of war" that needs to be off our streets and a completely useless implement in resisting a government with nukes) are the same people literally deploying MRAPs and grenade launchers to American streets.
> 
> The US has a gun violence problem. Some people think the guns are the problem, some people think the violence is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/
> 
> https://www.responsibility.org/wp-c...Driving-Fatalities_Shareable_JPGS-V2-Pg03.jpg
> 
> I don't worry about getting shot at the grocery store. While there has been an increase in mass shootings, I am aware that the probability of being killed in one is pretty close to zero, so I mitigate my risk as best as I can and move on with life. There are other things that are far more likely to befall me that I do adjust my behaviors for - like limiting driving around the holidays and at night to the extent that I can while still living my life.
> 
> You are roughly 88x more likely to be killed in a DUI related fatality than in a mass shooting (check my math, but I came up with appx. 10,000 DUI deaths per year in the same timeframe as Everytown's study, higher lately though- divided by 114 (which is itself 1,363 mass shooting deaths in 12 years per Everytown, a gun control advocacy group tracking mass shootings). Maybe somebody cares enough to pull the detailed alcohol related traffic death stats to refine my calculation, but it is going to fall between probably between 75x to 100x - the point stands, the ratio is colossal. Of those "mass shootings", 61% were entirely in private homes- not in public at all, so you can determine whether or not fit the type of mass shootings you are discussing (grocery stores, schools, etc). When they say mass shooting you think grocery store because it has happened a few times and politicians/the media will tell you it's one of the top problems facing our country today. I'll let you come up with your own reason why they do this. Also, governments are actually working to ban purchases of life saving body armor that might shield you from gun violence. New York passed their bill already. You can come to your own conclusion about why that might be too.
> 
> If one were being more discerning than the problematic media definition (essentially being intellectually honest) and talking about mass shootings (where the public is targeted) by the FBI definition of an active shooter incident, with an "active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area" the risk goes down even more significantly. The FBI said 38 victims were killed in active shooter incident in 2020, compared to a population in 2020 of 329.5 million, so you would be looking at about a 1 in 8.7 million chance of being killed in an active shooter incident in the US in 2020. For @StevenC in Ireland, population 5m - that probability would mean likely zero to 1 people killed in mass shootings adjusted per capita. Someone in the US would be about 307 times more likely to be killed in an alcohol involved traffic fatality than an active shooter incident in 2020.
> 
> 2021 saw a huge uptick (in percentage terms) compared to 2020 with 103 victims killed in active shooter incidents - out of 332.9m, that would put your odds of being killed in an active shooter incident at 1 in 3.2 million. This still means that the death toll from active shooters in the US in a year is eclipsed by DUI fatalities in the US in just over 3 days.
> 
> https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2020-070121.pdf/view
> 
> The vast majority of "gun violence" in the US is firearm suicide, which absolutely sucks but happens by other methods and in other countries too. The confiscatory types love that it pads the numbers, which is sick and sad. There are other disarmed, first world countries with similar or higher suicide rates and lack of access to firearms doesn't end suicide. Gang violence accounts for a significant amount of firearms homicide. Non-gang related mass shootings are actually an extremely rare cause of death, but they seem to be extra painful because they kill the innocent without much warning. Which, you know, DUIs often do too, and DUIs kill far more people - without getting into any other alcohol related morbidity or mortality.
> 
> SSO, would you put down your drinks and embrace Prohibition because drunk driving kills people? If not, why? Is it because you are more responsible than others, or you don't drive drunk, or you have a right to drink that overrides other people's safety? Or is it because guns are "designed only for killing human beings", unlike literal poison intentionally brewed and ingested that impairs judgement, causes preventable disease, and fuels domestic violence and automobile fatalities? It's for the children. No good person needs to own, purchase, manufacture, or consume high capacity assault poison juice. I don't drink, so I think society could be a lot safer if nobody did... do you see where this is going?
> 
> The right to self defense, I believe, is a basic human right. You might fully believe that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in the 2A doesn't mean the right of the people (and the militia means the National Guard, or whatever), but the right to defend yourself and your family is a natural right. Even if you prefer to outsource your protection, it is unconscionable to use government (i.e. send people with guns) to enforce your preference on others. Some people abuse firearms, just as some people abuse alcohol. Or perhaps you are more targeted in your disarmament goals - just calling for "assault weapons" to be banned. So maybe we start with banning hard liquor, and place purchase limits and background checks on beer and wine. Or perhaps as Rep. Don Beyer suggests, a 1,000 percent tax on the naughty items to leverage taxation instead of an outright ban due to lack of support (knowing full well that a war was fought in the US over the taxation of alcohol)?
> 
> I'm not going to pretend that it's my place to get in between another adult and their adult beverages. I believe in personal liberty and accountability. If you really want to save lives of people and especially kids at the cost of a little liberty, though, alcohol statistically harms far more children than mass shootings do. We should start with the policies that save the most innocent people, right? Or is evidence based policy only important if it supports your personal biases? Why is it that we as a society accept something unnecessary that kills more children than mass shootings - more people than mass shootings? I am not advocating for a repeat of the disaster of Prohibition, or saying nothing should be done about violence in the US. I am honestly curious as to why we as a society accept the damage from alcohol but claim "not one more" and say 100m+ people should be stripped of their rights about something statistically far less likely.
> 
> The solution being called for I think is not viable. Prohibition doesn't work, and there is no 650k gun Aussie style buyback that will disarm the country that holds nearly half of the world's privately owned guns (besides the fact that you can't buy back something you never owned - buy back in this sense is a euphemism for taken involuntarily under duress). Civilian disarmament in the US would have to occur by threat of impoverishment or imprisonment enforced by people armed with guns, and that has a societal cost too. I have some ideas on how as a society we could work towards reducing violence. I do know that whatever David Hogg or Ted Cruz's miracle solutions are- that probably isn't it. There are social and economic factors that drive the violence and those factors need to be addressed. They are much harder to address than talking about reviving a failed bill that didn't stop violence or door control or video games.


TLDR.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

jaxadam said:


>



That was pretty good. I need to listen to more TMac.


----------



## Mike_R

bostjan said:


> Otherwise, take the flaws at face value and assign some uncertainty to them - if the flaws are large enough to justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so be it, but I don't think they are.
> 
> The stated non-statistic that way more crimes are committed with stolen or smuggled guns than with legally purchased guns - is false.


Let me preface this by saying this is not a criticism of you personally, but rather of the calculation presented here. I think you are one of the most reasonable posters in this thread (from my viewpoint), and appreciate your dialogue over the course of this thread. I think in seeking truth and challenging each others ideas we can all get closer to truth. That said, the calculation presented here cannot be close to correct.

I think the best estimate is far less than the 2% you estimate- in other words, miniscule.

Where did I state anything about stolen or smuggled guns? I didn't, so I am not sure what you are saying is false about what I said. I said that recidivism was a flaw in the calculation.

Your calculation assumes that a given gun owner has a 0.04% probability of committing a crime with a gun in a year, and then you multiply that by 50 years - right? I am guessing at how you got your 2% (your post says 52k, the study says 582k, but your calc seems to use 582k) .

First - you assume that in a year, each of the 582k violent crimes involving a gun are committed by unique individuals, which isn't true. Within a given year it is not uncommon (perhaps it is most common?) for a single criminal to commit multiple crimes. The number of crimes committed does not equal the number of criminals.

When you then try to extend that over time it gets even further from the truth, because a majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. A study in Sweden found that 1% of the population there was responsible for 63% of violent crime. The numbers for the US bounce around, but most of them for recidivism seem to hover at or above the 50% mark.

This is especially true with firearms. 69% of firearms offenders released from prison are re-arrested within 8 years, and of those re-arrested the mean time to re-arrest was less than 2 years. See: https://www.ussc.gov/research/resea... recidivated at a,all other offenders (45.1%)

Then - committing crime isn't a dice roll. It isn't like if everyone just lived long enough they would end up committing violent crimes with a gun. That isn't how probabilities work. If you roll a dice 6 times you aren't guaranteed to see each number once, either.

Finally, 1993 was one of the worst years in history for violent crime. Violent crime today is almost 50% less prevalent, so taking an extreme high year from 30 years ago (the likes of which haven't been seen since) and multiplying it by 50 is not a reasonable forecast.




For these reasons I believe it can't possibly be close to 2%. I think it is far less than that.


----------



## Mike_R

bostjan said:


> Who is suggesting a war on guns, though? I feel like most people here are requesting more effective gun control laws that apply better common sense.



Biden, Pelosi, various posters on this thread (ranging from limiting advertising to banning certain guns to "round them up and melt them all down"). What is a prohibition? There are certainly people arguing for prohibition of private gun ownership (or at least certain guns) in office, on TV daily, and in this very thread. 



bostjan said:


> Why would we not use the starting guess that both guns and violence are related to gun violence? Seems like a rational default position to take. Take it one step further: Is there evidence that more guns lead to more gun violence? Yes. Is there evidence that more violence leads to more gun violence? Yes.
> 
> So... I guess what's your point? Seems to be that you are implying that fewer guns won't mean less gun violence. If both common sense and data suggest that cultures with more guns deal with larger amounts of gun violence than cultures with fewer guns, I think that point needs better support.



Both correlated (by necessity, guns and violence are the two words that make up gun violence) but I don't agree that more guns = more violence. Look at the violent crime FBI data, and then the fact that there are more guns than ever in the US. I know there are mental gymnastics that people do to justify why that "common sense" doesn't make sense, but at least at face value there are more guns in circulation than 30 years ago and far lower rates of violent crime.

But the US is the only developed country with mass shootings, right? Not really. The most? Sure, it is also one of the most populous countries on the planet. But there are other differences between the US and Europe or Japan besides the number of guns owned, too. 

Finland has more than double the guns per capita than Honduras (actually more than most of the world, although US ownership is far and away higher)... and far less violent crime. Someone was berated for having the audacity of pointing something similar out on this forum recently without considering differences in economic development, but that is an important point. The US has a high average income, but also some of the most extreme income inequality among developed nations. There are swaths of people that are getting left behind. There are high schools in this country where more than 3 out of 4 of students are reading at an elementary school level. Do you care to venture a guess as to whether those places have a lot of violent crime?

Gun violence is highly concentrated among the economically disadvantaged. An individual's education, income, family, career, friend network and neighborhood aren't really able to be legislated, which is why politicians focus on objects (like "assault weapons" or door locks). But they are incredibly significant in affecting how likely someone is to engage in gun violence. It is relatively rare (but still a non-zero number) for someone for whom life is working out to engage in gun violence. One way of reducing violence could be advocating for policies that provide dignity and economic opportunity to all, but that actually isn't a very popular opinion these days.

Most people are surprisingly ok with that form of gun violence, because if you aren't poor, living in the wrong neighborhood or engaging in other crimes you aren't likely to be a victim. Mass shootings seem to be so sensational because they affect poor and rich, young and old - even though in real terms your risk of dying in a mass shooting are very, very low- and far lower than other preventable causes of death that society deems acceptable.

People are using the idea that if there were zero guns, there would be zero gun violence. That might be technically true, but zero guns in a country that already has more guns than people will never happen. And even places with near zero gun ownership rates do not have zero gun violence.



bostjan said:


> I guess I don't understand the conclusion you are making from all of this. Is it that you are saying that the current system in place to control gun violence is doing its job?



Where did I say anything like that? I think that there is a lot that can be done to prevent violence, but I don't agree that disarming peaceful people is the way to do that - and that is what several major proposals (including a currrent bill in the House) are calling for.



bostjan said:


> Because drunk driving = drinking + driving. No one is condoning drinking and driving. To equate gun control with drinking in this analogy just seems strange.



And gun violence = guns + violence. No one is condoning mass shootings. Owning a gun isn't violent crime, just like drinking isn't drunk driving. The majority of gun owners never commit a crime with a gun (you say 98%, I think it is closer to 99.9+%- either way it is a clear majority). I am not equating gun control with drinking. I am equating gun control with Prohibition, where a law is implemented that will infringe on the rights of responsible people that will not stop irresponsible people from doing irresponsible things. If history has been any indicator before, attempts to change human behavior by banning inanimate objects doesn't have a great track record (see Prohibition, War on Drugs).



bostjan said:


> Not sure where this analogy is going... When was the last time alcohol abuse led to a mass murder at a parade or in a mall or whatever?


Why is it that only parade or mall shootings are important to discuss? If we could eliminate booze we would eliminate drinking and driving which would be a 88x to 300x greater reduction in deaths than eliminating mass shootings targeting the public. If your response to that is that we couldn't eliminate booze then you would understand that you couldn't eliminate guns either. If your response wasn't that - is there something about being murdered with a gun at a parade that makes it 100x worse for society than being killed by a drunk driver? We recently had a mass murder at a parade that killed almost as many people and wounded far more than the Highland shooting committed by someone driving a Ford Escape (who had already been arrested for running someone over).



bostjan said:


> But let's take just a moment to acknowledge right here that, as US citizens, we *do not* get a universal right to self-defense, because we don't. Some places don't let you own body armor, which is purely self-defense and cannot hurt anyone. If you are deemed mentally deficient or criminal or a minor or whatever, you do not get the same rights for self-defense as otherwise.


It is true that there are some tyrannical jurisdictions that limit ownership of body armor. I'll let you come up with your own reason as to why the government would do that. That isn't a legitimate reason to disarm peaceful people.

The right to self defense is a natural right. I do not believe that society has a right to prevent peaceful people from exercising the right to defend themselves with modern firearms if they so choose. Are violent criminals peaceful people? No.



bostjan said:


> You make some good points and some not-so-good points, but overall, I don't get your main idea.  What proposed idea are you arguing against?



Disarming peaceful people is both immoral and ineffective. If people have a right to infringe on other peoples natural rights (which I don't believe that they do) then common sense would dictate starting with the factors responsible for the most harm, not just the most sensational. Focusing on addressing the causes of violence rather than the accessories used is likely to have a more positive effect on reducing gun violence than infringing on people's right to self defense.

I am also curious as to why politicians/media/this guitar forum care so much more about highly improbable senseless killings than far more probable (but less sensational) senseless killings. I didn't see a 30 page thread condemning or talking about restricting alcohol purchases due to DUI fatalities, however, there is a thread of people's experiences driving drunk.


----------



## narad

Mike_R said:


> Finland has more than double the guns per capita than Honduras (actually more than most of the world, although US ownership is far and away higher)... and far less violent crime. Someone was berated for having the audacity of pointing something similar out on this forum recently without considering differences in economic development, but that is an important point. The US has a high average income, but also some of the most extreme income inequality among developed nations. There are swaths of people that are getting left behind. There are high schools in this country where more than 3 out of 4 of students are reading at an elementary school level. Do you care to venture a guess as to whether those places have a lot of violent crime?



Finland is kind of the case for like, "This is why we can't have nice things." There's nothing inherently wrong with guns, it's just guns and idiots who grew up watching too many action movies that leads to issues. It's guns and kids who grow up in a society where shooting people is just a far more normalized concept. And when faced with two options, (1) make americans more finnish so that they can own guns responsibly, or (2) get most of the guns off the streets, (2) seems far more viable.

Culturally America is like the least appropriate place to have guns, and just happens to be the one with all the guns. How many pictures of guitars have I seen with guns in them? How many gear demo vids does a gun make an appearance? I'm not bothered by that stuff I'm just like...WTF was that supposed to accomplish? There's just an effort to flaunt guns whenever possible. I'm not sure how many videos of finnish guys in cars driving around, quickly flashing a gun out the window I've seen, but I've seen a huge number of such behavior in the US. So like, Americans just show time and time again an inability to treat a gun as a serious thing that warrants responsible mature behavior, and not like a tattoo or a new car. Basically if you own a gun for your own protection and I don't know you have a gun, then kudos to you. You get to keep yours. Everyone who spends their days talking about how they'd love for someone to come into their home so they can blast them, everyone whose profile photo is themselves in the mirror with a gun, everyone who posts photos of a bed with 8 guns on it, anyone who didn't graduate high school, yours have gotta go... 

It's America. Honestly not sure why there just isn't some superficially high gun tax that applies per gun. And any tiny infraction be met with actual jail time. Criminals and licensed gun owners the same, how about I see your gun outside your house and outside a hunting spot, you go to jail? Concealed carry, fine by me. Just get it out of the culture. In about a decade we turned cigarettes from being associate with the cool guy to being associated with losers, I'm sure we could probably manage the same with guns.


----------



## Lemonbaby

Mike_R said:


> Both correlated (by necessity, guns and violence are the two words that make up gun violence) but I don't agree that more guns = more violence. Look at the violent crime FBI data, and then the fact that there are more guns than ever in the US. I know there are mental gymnastics that people do to justify why that "common sense" doesn't make sense, but at least at face value there are more guns in circulation than 30 years ago and far lower rates of violent crime.



As I'm sure you know, correlation doesn't imply causation. We also have more battery electric vehicles on the roads than thirty years ago, which doesn't mean that crime rates will drop to zero once the last car with combustion engine is banned from the roads.

For more on this topic, consult Tyler Vigen -> https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations


----------



## budda

c7spheres said:


> - Guns haven't been about protecting the people from gov't for a long itme now, imo. The U.S. military could win against it's own people, assuming it could keep itself together internally in such a time. I imagine it would look like a never ending drawn out war like Afghanistan. I hope this time never comes because the military will turn on it's own citizens if forced to, imo.


The US doesnt need the military to turn on its populace because the police already did.


----------



## bostjan

Mike_R said:


> Biden, Pelosi, various posters on this thread (ranging from limiting advertising to banning certain guns to "round them up and melt them all down"). What is a prohibition? There are certainly people arguing for prohibition of private gun ownership (or at least certain guns) in office, on TV daily, and in this very thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Both correlated (by necessity, guns and violence are the two words that make up gun violence) but I don't agree that more guns = more violence. Look at the violent crime FBI data, and then the fact that there are more guns than ever in the US. I know there are mental gymnastics that people do to justify why that "common sense" doesn't make sense, but at least at face value there are more guns in circulation than 30 years ago and far lower rates of violent crime.
> 
> But the US is the only developed country with mass shootings, right? Not really. The most? Sure, it is also one of the most populous countries on the planet. But there are other differences between the US and Europe or Japan besides the number of guns owned, too.
> 
> Finland has more than double the guns per capita than Honduras (actually more than most of the world, although US ownership is far and away higher)... and far less violent crime. Someone was berated for having the audacity of pointing something similar out on this forum recently without considering differences in economic development, but that is an important point. The US has a high average income, but also some of the most extreme income inequality among developed nations. There are swaths of people that are getting left behind. There are high schools in this country where more than 3 out of 4 of students are reading at an elementary school level. Do you care to venture a guess as to whether those places have a lot of violent crime?
> 
> Gun violence is highly concentrated among the economically disadvantaged. An individual's education, income, family, career, friend network and neighborhood aren't really able to be legislated, which is why politicians focus on objects (like "assault weapons" or door locks). But they are incredibly significant in affecting how likely someone is to engage in gun violence. It is relatively rare (but still a non-zero number) for someone for whom life is working out to engage in gun violence. One way of reducing violence could be advocating for policies that provide dignity and economic opportunity to all, but that actually isn't a very popular opinion these days.
> 
> Most people are surprisingly ok with that form of gun violence, because if you aren't poor, living in the wrong neighborhood or engaging in other crimes you aren't likely to be a victim. Mass shootings seem to be so sensational because they affect poor and rich, young and old - even though in real terms your risk of dying in a mass shooting are very, very low- and far lower than other preventable causes of death that society deems acceptable.
> 
> People are using the idea that if there were zero guns, there would be zero gun violence. That might be technically true, but zero guns in a country that already has more guns than people will never happen. And even places with near zero gun ownership rates do not have zero gun violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything like that? I think that there is a lot that can be done to prevent violence, but I don't agree that disarming peaceful people is the way to do that - and that is what several major proposals (including a currrent bill in the House) are calling for.
> 
> 
> 
> And gun violence = guns + violence. No one is condoning mass shootings. Owning a gun isn't violent crime, just like drinking isn't drunk driving. The majority of gun owners never commit a crime with a gun (you say 98%, I think it is closer to 99.9+%- either way it is a clear majority). I am not equating gun control with drinking. I am equating gun control with Prohibition, where a law is implemented that will infringe on the rights of responsible people that will not stop irresponsible people from doing irresponsible things. If history has been any indicator before, attempts to change human behavior by banning inanimate objects doesn't have a great track record (see Prohibition, War on Drugs).
> 
> 
> Why is it that only parade or mall shootings are important to discuss? If we could eliminate booze we would eliminate drinking and driving which would be a 88x to 300x greater reduction in deaths than eliminating mass shootings targeting the public. If your response to that is that we couldn't eliminate booze then you would understand that you couldn't eliminate guns either. If your response wasn't that - is there something about being murdered with a gun at a parade that makes it 100x worse for society than being killed by a drunk driver? We recently had a mass murder at a parade that killed almost as many people and wounded far more than the Highland shooting committed by someone driving a Ford Escape (who had already been arrested for running someone over).
> 
> 
> It is true that there are some tyrannical jurisdictions that limit ownership of body armor. I'll let you come up with your own reason as to why the government would do that. That isn't a legitimate reason to disarm peaceful people.
> 
> The right to self defense is a natural right. I do not believe that society has a right to prevent peaceful people from exercising the right to defend themselves with modern firearms if they so choose. Are violent criminals peaceful people? No.
> 
> 
> 
> Disarming peaceful people is both immoral and ineffective. If people have a right to infringe on other peoples natural rights (which I don't believe that they do) then common sense would dictate starting with the factors responsible for the most harm, not just the most sensational. Focusing on addressing the causes of violence rather than the accessories used is likely to have a more positive effect on reducing gun violence than infringing on people's right to self defense.
> 
> I am also curious as to why politicians/media/this guitar forum care so much more about highly improbable senseless killings than far more probable (but less sensational) senseless killings. I didn't see a 30 page thread condemning or talking about restricting alcohol purchases due to DUI fatalities, however, there is a thread of people's experiences driving drunk.


Okay, I *think* I understand your overall argument much better.

I think the trouble here is that you are quoting me and also arguing with a lot of other people, when I agree with a good portion of your points, and even made the same or similar points in the past.

Where we seem to disagree is the correlation between more guns and more gun violence. Maybe it should reinforce your other conclusions that I believe that the amount of gun violence is a function of the number of guns in a society (among other things) and still strongly advocate against banning guns.

Drunk driving fatalities are, indeed, awful, but are on the decline, probably due as much to culture as changes in laws, but I'd bet that's why the media talks about it less than they used to. Mass shootings, however, are rapidly increasing in frequency, which is why the media is talking about them so much. There may be other variables, but I bet that is the gist of it in a nutshell.

It's a personal opinion, I suppose, to say that gun control laws in general in the USA need an overhaul, because they have not been as effective lately. As for drunk driving, do you think it is a violation of people's rights to have the checkpoints over holiday weekends? If yes, is it worth the reduction in drunk driving accidents since they were implemented? If no, which federal gun control laws are, then?


----------



## Randy

Mike_R said:


> Biden, Pelosi, various posters on this thread (ranging from limiting advertising to banning certain guns to "round them up and melt them all down"). What is a prohibition? There are certainly people arguing for prohibition of private gun ownership (or at least certain guns) in office, on TV daily, and in this very thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Both correlated (by necessity, guns and violence are the two words that make up gun violence) but I don't agree that more guns = more violence. Look at the violent crime FBI data, and then the fact that there are more guns than ever in the US. I know there are mental gymnastics that people do to justify why that "common sense" doesn't make sense, but at least at face value there are more guns in circulation than 30 years ago and far lower rates of violent crime.
> 
> But the US is the only developed country with mass shootings, right? Not really. The most? Sure, it is also one of the most populous countries on the planet. But there are other differences between the US and Europe or Japan besides the number of guns owned, too.
> 
> Finland has more than double the guns per capita than Honduras (actually more than most of the world, although US ownership is far and away higher)... and far less violent crime. Someone was berated for having the audacity of pointing something similar out on this forum recently without considering differences in economic development, but that is an important point. The US has a high average income, but also some of the most extreme income inequality among developed nations. There are swaths of people that are getting left behind. There are high schools in this country where more than 3 out of 4 of students are reading at an elementary school level. Do you care to venture a guess as to whether those places have a lot of violent crime?
> 
> Gun violence is highly concentrated among the economically disadvantaged. An individual's education, income, family, career, friend network and neighborhood aren't really able to be legislated, which is why politicians focus on objects (like "assault weapons" or door locks). But they are incredibly significant in affecting how likely someone is to engage in gun violence. It is relatively rare (but still a non-zero number) for someone for whom life is working out to engage in gun violence. One way of reducing violence could be advocating for policies that provide dignity and economic opportunity to all, but that actually isn't a very popular opinion these days.
> 
> Most people are surprisingly ok with that form of gun violence, because if you aren't poor, living in the wrong neighborhood or engaging in other crimes you aren't likely to be a victim. Mass shootings seem to be so sensational because they affect poor and rich, young and old - even though in real terms your risk of dying in a mass shooting are very, very low- and far lower than other preventable causes of death that society deems acceptable.
> 
> People are using the idea that if there were zero guns, there would be zero gun violence. That might be technically true, but zero guns in a country that already has more guns than people will never happen. And even places with near zero gun ownership rates do not have zero gun violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything like that? I think that there is a lot that can be done to prevent violence, but I don't agree that disarming peaceful people is the way to do that - and that is what several major proposals (including a currrent bill in the House) are calling for.
> 
> 
> 
> And gun violence = guns + violence. No one is condoning mass shootings. Owning a gun isn't violent crime, just like drinking isn't drunk driving. The majority of gun owners never commit a crime with a gun (you say 98%, I think it is closer to 99.9+%- either way it is a clear majority). I am not equating gun control with drinking. I am equating gun control with Prohibition, where a law is implemented that will infringe on the rights of responsible people that will not stop irresponsible people from doing irresponsible things. If history has been any indicator before, attempts to change human behavior by banning inanimate objects doesn't have a great track record (see Prohibition, War on Drugs).
> 
> 
> Why is it that only parade or mall shootings are important to discuss? If we could eliminate booze we would eliminate drinking and driving which would be a 88x to 300x greater reduction in deaths than eliminating mass shootings targeting the public. If your response to that is that we couldn't eliminate booze then you would understand that you couldn't eliminate guns either. If your response wasn't that - is there something about being murdered with a gun at a parade that makes it 100x worse for society than being killed by a drunk driver? We recently had a mass murder at a parade that killed almost as many people and wounded far more than the Highland shooting committed by someone driving a Ford Escape (who had already been arrested for running someone over).
> 
> 
> It is true that there are some tyrannical jurisdictions that limit ownership of body armor. I'll let you come up with your own reason as to why the government would do that. That isn't a legitimate reason to disarm peaceful people.
> 
> The right to self defense is a natural right. I do not believe that society has a right to prevent peaceful people from exercising the right to defend themselves with modern firearms if they so choose. Are violent criminals peaceful people? No.
> 
> 
> 
> Disarming peaceful people is both immoral and ineffective. If people have a right to infringe on other peoples natural rights (which I don't believe that they do) then common sense would dictate starting with the factors responsible for the most harm, not just the most sensational. Focusing on addressing the causes of violence rather than the accessories used is likely to have a more positive effect on reducing gun violence than infringing on people's right to self defense.
> 
> I am also curious as to why politicians/media/this guitar forum care so much more about highly improbable senseless killings than far more probable (but less sensational) senseless killings. I didn't see a 30 page thread condemning or talking about restricting alcohol purchases due to DUI fatalities, however, there is a thread of people's experiences driving drunk.



Alright, so you addressed how you "fix" the most prevalent conditions of gun violence (which has strong racial overtones) but you know well that the "other" type of gun violence is a legitimate concern (like the financially stable guy that shot hundreds of people from the window of a resort hotel). Any reason why you just ignore that brand of gun violence?


----------



## Randy

Btw, something missing in this statistical debate is that we keep arguing over volume of events and so far looks like we're ignoring volume of victims per event.


----------



## NoodleFace

Randy said:


> I honest to God envy the confidence you have carrying gun and expecting the chances of you using to protect yourself outweigh the chances of an accidental discharge, or that it's stolen or used against you. Secondarily, the belief you would only use your gun to protect yourself and not use it against someone else in anger or in a moment of confusion.


I practice a lot with it, when I can. I take it apart completely to clean it, I use it a lot so I'm very familiar with it. Additionally my holder is made out of Kydex and covers the trigger so there's 0 chance the trigger gets stuck on something.

I'm not some weird gun nut though. Legitimately got it just for personal protection. Not saying I'd change the outcome if someone attacked me, but I at least want the option there. It's not for everyone though, and I definitely am not the "good guy with a gun" that people always talk about. If I have a chance to run, that's my first option.


----------



## Randy

NoodleFace said:


> I practice a lot with it, when I can. I take it apart completely to clean it, I use it a lot so I'm very familiar with it. Additionally my holder is made out of Kydex and covers the trigger so there's 0 chance the trigger gets stuck on something.
> 
> I'm not some weird gun nut though. Legitimately got it just for personal protection. Not saying I'd change the outcome if someone attacked me, but I at least want the option there. It's not for everyone though, and I definitely am not the "good guy with a gun" that people always talk about. If I have a chance to run, that's my first option.



Refreshing take, tbh. 

You ask a lot of people why they own a gun or carry a gun and it reads like a fucking Kennedy Center Awards acceptance speech. In most cases it's really more like (1) I like them (2) they make me feel safer. Which, even if I disagree(d), it's at least authentic.

I think the crux of the debate here, at least on my part, is what if the guidelines that enable you to own a gun legally are the same guidelines that allow dangerous/violent people to have them as well? What if Peyton Gendron contended he needed his guns for personal protection and he believed in earnest that he was a good guy with a gun? And ancillary to that, what if even well meaning people who believe they're owning guns for the right reason are, in fact, directly less safe by carrying/owning them (hypothetically) and also less safe because of the system that allows them to own them also enables the "bad guys"?

That's kinda where I'm at. Not saying that's the ultimate conclusion but other than "they'll get them anyway" or "they'll use other means" (neither of which I can resolve intellectually), I havent heard anything overall that addresses that.


----------



## odibrom

In order to diminish gun violence, one shouldn't put out more guns in the streets but more bullet proof vests... The more guns are out there, the bigger the probability of those being used for violence, which is what they are built for... It's simple math...


----------



## narad

We gotta work on developing those Holtzman shields from Dune.


----------



## Xaeldaren

narad said:


> We gotta work on developing those Holtzman shields from Dune.



Only if we're talking Lynchian shields, because, you know, _aesthetics_.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## bostjan

I think @Mike_R raised one particularly good point about self defense. I know this is a huge debate on its own.

Self defense is a hot issue, and might always be.

As soon as you mention anything future tense, things will get tense.

So it's always easy to say, "look, I can swing my fists around all I want, and as long as it's not making contact with anyone else, I'm merely exercising my rights," but, let's be honest - If you were running around in a mall parking lot swinging your fists around like mad, it'll only be minutes before someone calls the cops, the cops come and tell you to stop and possibly taze or shoot you for acting insane. So, in practice, we know that cops take it upon themselves to prevent crime, whether or not the pretenses are logical from hindsight or whatever.

So, extending that to weapon ownership, people will always want to draw lines around "the right to own weapons." We (speaking in general here) don't want people to own weapons that are too powerful, and we don't want people who tend to be criminal nor violent to own weapons. The problem arises when you try to set that line somewhere, someone is going to be unhappy. Like, what is the line for weapon power? Explosives? What if I want to use explosives to tunnel under my house? That doesn't hurt anyone. "Well, you might use them to blow up a bunch of people." I mean, even if you say "okay, have some dynamite," what if I ask for C4 or an atom bomb? And then the other issue, who do we consider safe and who do we consider a risk? If someone cheated on their taxes, should they get a weapon? If someone assaulted their SO, do they get one? What about someone who committed no crime but showed violent tendencies? What about a 17 year old who committed a violent crime, but was a juvenile, and now they are of age and want a weapon?

I could go on and on about these little details. I don't think anyone is saying "everyone gets whatever weapon they want, regardless," and I don't think anyone is saying "no one gets any weapon at all, regardless," but people are quick to characterize the other side of the debate that way as a convenient strawman.

So, honing in on the target of the topic - the sorts of weapons that are considered "okay" versus not. 

Say, for example 1, an 18 year old with a sealed juvenile record, who dropped out of HS, follows QAnon, posts violent videos online, had over a dozen blades seized from his house after threatening to "kill everyone," and whose father sponsors him for purchasing a firearm, wants to purchase a Smith and Wesson M&P15 with three magazines. And say that's all you know, would you approve?

Example 2, an 18 year old with no criminal record, also HS dropout, with a job, no official mental health concerns, wants to buy a Smith and Wesson M&P15 and 1650 rounds of ammo. No red flags there, right? Well, his social media told a different story, but background checks don't look into that.

Example 3, a 62 year old man, who already owns a number of handguns, wants to purchase a Colt AR-15 and several thousand rounds of ammunition. He's got a BA in Business Administration, no mental health record, and only a bunch of speeding tickets on his record.

Well, all three of purchases were cleared, and those people went on to murder tons of people in a mass shooting. What's the common thread here?

If you said the AR-15-style rifle, then what about the Virginia Tech shooting? The guy wasn't even American and used pistols, and it was, what, the 3rd deadliest mass shooting in the US? Clearly, no single-pronged approach is going to fix it. This is why I had earlier proposed reforms to A) gun control laws, B) the criminal justice system, and C) public mental health services. I really think that's the only way to put a significant dent in this. A tripod can't stand on two legs.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Hey, how many guys carry around condoms and only have a slim chance of using them?


You kidding me? Those things degrade quickly if kept in a wallet and warmed by body heat, and abortion is now illegal in half the country!!


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> You kidding me? Those things degrade quickly if kept in a wallet and warmed by body heat, and abortion is now illegal in half the country!!



What's the matter, afraid to make it a double homicide?


----------



## Drew

Mike_R said:


> It absolutely blows my mind that educated people who know that:
> 
> 1) Prohibition was a failure in the US
> 2) The War on Drugs is a failure in the US
> 
> will sometimes think that the War on Guns in the US would somehow work.


Mike, first off, this and - especially - your second post here are thoughtful, articulate, and while I don't agree with you, I appreciate having a non-knee-jerk dissenting opinion in this conversation.  

Honing in on this part in particular, there are two things I think make these not great precedents. I'm going to be a huge nerd and give them seperate headers. 

*Is US drinking, drug use, and gun violence somehow uniquely American? *
Put simply, I don't think these are especially analogous. The US wild west may have been notoriously boozy... but so too was the British empire, and drinking culture was embedded pretty thoroughly globally. It's not like the rest of the world was sober and upstanding before Prohibition and the States were just a bunch of booze bags and something needed to be done - every "modern" civilization featured heavy drinking when the US Temperance movement was getting up to speed. Likewise, I'd also say the US isn't _unusually_ druggy - illegal drug use is a global issue, and much of the drug trade exists outside of the US (and, ironically, is fueled by the flow of guns in the opposite direction). Gun violence, meanwhile, IS a uniquel American problem - we drink and use illegal drugs at a per capita rate in line with global first-world norms, but shoot each other to death at a rate FAR above any other first world nation. That implies there's something uniquely American about gun violence, and while correlation is not causation, an obvious point to start is the fact that US per capita gun ownership is also way above first world norms.

*If Prohibition and the War on Drugs were eventually abandoned in favor of harm mitigation, what might that look like for gun violence? *
That, honestly, is. question I think I'll just turn over to you. If we abandoned prohibition for alcohol and drugs, and instead adopted policies like criminalizing drunk driving, legalizing and taxing less personally harmful drugs like pot, and providing safe injection sites and clean needles for heroin (as well as methedone for addicts looking to manage withdrawal symptoms), and if we believe these are the best ways to "combat" drug and alcohol use... if we were to apply the same model to gun use, how would we go about doing that?


----------



## Drew

MFB said:


> What's the matter, afraid to make it a double homicide?


I mean, for risk of sounding "pro-life," yes, a little.


----------



## Mike_R

bostjan said:


> As for drunk driving, do you think it is a violation of people's rights to have the checkpoints over holiday weekends? If yes, is it worth the reduction in drunk driving accidents since they were implemented? If no, which federal gun control laws are, then?



CDC stats seem to suggest a 10 to 20% reduction in alcohol related crashes with checkpoint implementation. That means they likely save more lives than reducing mass shootings in the US to zero would. Does they violate individual rights? Some people think so, only 38 states allow sobriety checkpoints. But the inconvenience of driving through an occasional checkpoint is pretty minor compared to, for example, banning cars or banning alcohol or even mandatory breathalyzers in every car- which would be solutions more similar to the media/politician proposed gun control du jour.

I think background checks are probably the most influential "gun control law" in reducing gun violence. In 1993, a majority of guns used in violent crimes were purchased legally. In 1994 a federal background check requirement was implemented for handguns purchased at retail sources. In 1993 you could have prior convictions, walk into a gun store and buy a gun anywhere that didn't have state or local laws requiring a background check. If you look at more recent data a very small proportion of firearms used in crime were purchased legally at a retail source (about 10%). These are somewhat apples and oranges because there are still firearms sales conducted privately without background checks - although it is generally illegal for felons to purchase and posses guns, so such a sale wouldn't be legal. The missing variable here is potentially new criminals buying guns legally in private sales. This report using data from 2016 indicates only about 10% of criminals obtained their gun by purchase or trade at a retail source: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

Background checks are never going to be 100% effective, and I understand concerns from people like @wheresthefbomb that they may disproportionately disenfranchise some populations that have been targeted by the criminal justice system. There are other concerns about privacy and how that data gets handled, too, but yeah - that is probably the most productive on the "gun control" side of things if you are so inclined. For the record, I think that a proposal that expanded background checks but included robust privacy and data handling provisions could likely get bipartisan support.



Randy said:


> Alright, so you addressed how you "fix" the most prevalent conditions of gun violence (which has strong racial overtones) but you know well that the "other" type of gun violence is a legitimate concern (like the financially stable guy that shot hundreds of people from the window of a resort hotel). Any reason why you just ignore that brand of gun violence?



I understand that you don't know me, so your strong racial overtones comment is more understandable than if you did know me.

Mass shootings are a legitimate concern. They are also extremely rare as a cause of death in a country of 330m people. We are still hearing about Buffalo and Uvalde in the news every day even though more people are killed every day by drunk driving than both of those tragedies combined.

You have already contended in this thread that being victimized by violent crime is lifestyle dependent. I get that public shootings aren't that way (unless you eliminate your risk by being a hermit). That might make them more frightening, but the odds are still incredibly low. People talk about extremely rare occurrences as "one in a million", being killed in a mass shooting is like a one in three to nine million occurrence.

I'm not saying nothing can or should be done to reduce mass shootings. I don't claim to have all the answers. I do believe that stripping basic human rights from over a hundred million people because a few dozen people commit atrocities is not justified. If you start (as some people do) from the point of view that everyone with a gun is just one bad sandwich away from becoming a murderer I could see how you might think that way, though. I am bringing stats into the discussion because a few YouTube videos or news articles about people being irresponsible with guns is not representative of the majority of gun owners (contrary to the celebratory dogpiling over irresponsible behavior throughout this thread).

Lots of people on this thread fantasize about the mindset of gun owners, how they must think, how they are just itching to pull the trigger and end another human life. Do some people think that way? Sure. Just like some anti-gun politicians fantasize about running over children (amiright Beto?). But I don't think it is a majority - and if it is a majority, then people sure do a great job of repressing those urges because a tiny fraction of gun owners commit most violent gun crime. I know several people I've talked to that recently received licenses to carry have told me that they feel more of an obligation to deescalate conflicts like road rage than before because escalation could be fatal to one or both parties.



Randy said:


> Btw, something missing in this statistical debate is that we keep arguing over volume of events and so far looks like we're ignoring volume of victims per event.



Every loss of life is tragic. That isn't being reduced to just a number, or just a statistical debate - at least that isn't my intention. That said, if faced with a choice between pulling two levers, and pulling one of them saves 11,000 people, and pulling the other saves 100 people - would you make your decision based on how many people are saved or how many people are saved per event? That doesn't mean we cant have a multifactorial approach to reducing senseless killings but in this thread just about everyone is debating how to pull the 100 person lever - few people seems to care about the 11,000 person one.



bostjan said:


> I think @Mike_R raised one particularly good point about self defense. I know this is a huge debate on its own.
> 
> Self defense is a hot issue, and might always be.
> 
> As soon as you mention anything future tense, things will get tense.



Thank you. It is refreshing to hear at least someone understands that it may be justifiable to use a weapon to avoid being raped, killed, etc.



bostjan said:


> I could go on and on about these little details. I don't think anyone is saying "everyone gets whatever weapon they want, regardless," and I don't think anyone is saying "no one gets any weapon at all, regardless," but people are quick to characterize the other side of the debate that way as a convenient strawman.



I mean, "melt 'em all down" (a position of several in this thread) is in effect saying no one gets any weapon at all. I guess you could argue maybe you are ok with melee weapons but not guns like @odibrom (where you are skilled and responsible enough with your unlicensed saber and home-made nunchaku).



bostjan said:


> If you said the AR-15-style rifle, then what about the Virginia Tech shooting? The guy wasn't even American and used pistols, and it was, what, the 3rd deadliest mass shooting in the US? Clearly, no single-pronged approach is going to fix it. This is why I had earlier proposed reforms to A) gun control laws, B) the criminal justice system, and C) public mental health services. I really think that's the only way to put a significant dent in this. A tripod can't stand on two legs.



Your approach, generally speaking, seems to be more reasonable than many. You unfortunately seem far too reasonable to be a politician or make decisions on public policy, though. I would add a fourth leg to this tripod to make it a table (where's James Hetfield?) and say that social and economic factors (@Randy if that is racist I can use the SSO approved term HDI?) greatly influence violent crime. I also recognize that ending gun violence isn't the same thing as ending violence, although many people treat it as such.


----------



## Randy

My alarms start going off any time someone says there's a problem that's broad but the solution to it are only the things that restrict other people unlike myself. Like orchestrating a perfect policy scenario where no poor people have guns but make sure I don't have to fill out one more form, or have my name appear on one more list. Incredibly convenient. 

I'm also weary of "I don't support [very specific policy that reduces incidents now but doesn't eliminate them entirely now], I only support [vague uninstitutable series of cultural charges that may bear fruit several generations later]". Because it's again, easy to recommend things that don't inconvenience you, but also remain vague and unattainable, so that there's no benchmarks for success but you're allowed to remain right in theory.


----------



## budda

The comparison to drunk driving - but how hard is it to buy a car? What policies are in place for vehicle ownership? Do drunk drivers who kill people steal the cars they use, or were they sold legally? Etc.


----------



## bostjan

Mike_R said:


> CDC stats seem to suggest a 10 to 20% reduction in alcohol related crashes with checkpoint implementation. That means they likely save more lives than reducing mass shootings in the US to zero would. Does they violate individual rights? Some people think so, only 38 states allow sobriety checkpoints. But the inconvenience of driving through an occasional checkpoint is pretty minor compared to, for example, banning cars or banning alcohol or even mandatory breathalyzers in every car- which would be solutions more similar to the media/politician proposed gun control du jour.
> 
> I think background checks are probably the most influential "gun control law" in reducing gun violence. In 1993, a majority of guns used in violent crimes were purchased legally. In 1994 a federal background check requirement was implemented for handguns purchased at retail sources. In 1993 you could have prior convictions, walk into a gun store and buy a gun anywhere that didn't have state or local laws requiring a background check. If you look at more recent data a very small proportion of firearms used in crime were purchased legally at a retail source (about 10%). These are somewhat apples and oranges because there are still firearms sales conducted privately without background checks - although it is generally illegal for felons to purchase and posses guns, so such a sale wouldn't be legal. The missing variable here is potentially new criminals buying guns legally in private sales. This report using data from 2016 indicates only about 10% of criminals obtained their gun by purchase or trade at a retail source: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
> 
> Background checks are never going to be 100% effective, and I understand concerns from people like @wheresthefbomb that they may disproportionately disenfranchise some populations that have been targeted by the criminal justice system. There are other concerns about privacy and how that data gets handled, too, but yeah - that is probably the most productive on the "gun control" side of things if you are so inclined. For the record, I think that a proposal that expanded background checks but included robust privacy and data handling provisions could likely get bipartisan support.


Tiny clarification - those statistics are for guns owned by prisoners at the time of arrest, not guns used in violent crimes, although the numbers should not fundamentally be different. The study I had posted earlier has some such statics, but the time frames are too coarse to draw any conclusions about trending. But, I think it would surprise no one to find out that making it illegal for criminals to purchase a gun would lead to a shift from legally purchased guns to guns purchased through private sales (or stolen) for guns used in crimes.

Of course, you cannot background check someone before they can steal a gun or purchase it off the street, or even from another upstanding citizen. The only solution to this is to require a broker, like if you have to go to the gun store to make a private sale, which I think some more liberal states actually do, if I'm not mistaken.

But in terms of these mass shootings, a majority of the recent ones involved legally purchased guns and ammo. There's a different level of gun violence between mass shootings and street crime, typically.

And nothing is ever, _ever _100% effective. That doesn't mean "don't do the thing that is <100% effective," just like anything in life, you weigh the costs and risks and make a decision whether or not it's appropriate. ...And furthermore, we don't have data on how effective different sorts of background checks are, and even any data on how effective background checks are in general is going to necessarily be from uncontrolled study. We can't make an exact copy of, say Minneapolis, then have one with background checks and one without, and even if we could, it would be unethical to do such a study. So what we can do is study holistically what we are doing and see if it's working or not. 


Mike_R said:


> I mean, "melt 'em all down" (a position of several in this thread) is in effect saying no one gets any weapon at all. I guess you could argue maybe you are ok with melee weapons but not guns like @odibrom (where you are skilled and responsible enough with your unlicensed saber and home-made nunchaku).


There are plenty of places where that saber and that nunchuck are illegal. Gravity knives, which deploy no more quickly than many other legal knives, are illegal lots of places due to their rapid speed of deployment. None of our weapons laws make sense. I think I had pointed out earlier the absolute insanity that is knife blade length laws in different parts of Texas that make no sense whatsoever. Gun laws don't have to be complicated, nor do they have to be absolute, in order to be better than what we currently have. There is a lot of room for improvement, if only the government would be able to get some actual governing done.


Mike_R said:


> Your approach, generally speaking, seems to be more reasonable than many. You unfortunately seem far too reasonable to be a politician or make decisions on public policy, though. I would add a fourth leg to this tripod to make it a table (where's James Hetfield?) and say that social and economic factors (@Randy if that is racist I can use the SSO approved term HDI?) greatly influence violent crime. I also recognize that ending gun violence isn't the same thing as ending violence, although many people treat it as such.


That's also a great point. There have been tons of studies on this in Central America. Why is gun violence so bad in some places, not-so-bad in others, and in between in others still. There is a large diversity of culture in a small landmass, and yet the gun violence there is particularly bad compared to other nations. And the strongest correlation seems to be economic. I mean, if your options are to either starve or commit crime to survive, there is going to me more crime. And when your community starts resorting to normalizing gun violence, you are more likely to resort to gun violence. It's kind of common sense. But how you break that cycle is not easily understood. How many countries have had really bad gun violence and then solved the issue? That's a serious question.

But, we come back to that question from earlier about self defense. Does a rich person get a more robust right to self-defense than a poor person? I mean, not just because of direct economic factors, but indirectly, because the government enforces it? Obviously that doesn't pass a sniff test. I think that the public mental health problem is fixable, not easy, but fixable, and I think that the criminal justice system (talking about policing, courts, and corrections) in the USA is about as broken as it can be, so it's at least on a scale of fixable. I think that if those two things were worked out, people would have far less motivation to commit crime, and, over time, the economic problems would improve and the "fourth leg" would take care of itself for the most part, at least from this perspective. Of course, I'm talking in very very broad strokes and with a pound of optimism. In reality, this country's politics are so mired in stalemate that any of this would take decades to get through congress anyway, even if it had widespread support.


----------



## Adieu

budda said:


> The comparison to drunk driving - but how hard is it to buy a car? What policies are in place for vehicle ownership? Do drunk drivers who kill people steal the cars they use, or were they sold legally? Etc.



Harder than a gun.

I've seen them advertised for as low as $39


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> My alarms start going off any time someone says there's a problem that's broad but the solution to it are only the things that restrict other people unlike myself. Like orchestrating a perfect policy scenario where no poor people have guns but make sure I don't have to fill out one more form, or have my name appear on one more list. Incredibly convenient.
> 
> I'm also weary of "I don't support [very specific policy that reduces incidents now but doesn't eliminate them entirely now], I only support [vague uninstitutable series of cultural charges that may bear fruit several generations later]". Because it's again, easy to recommend things that don't inconvenience you, but also remain vague and unattainable, so that there's no benchmarks for success but you're allowed to remain right in theory.



Then they'll blather on about the "big changes" and still vote against them at every level because there's no way a mainstream right of center candidate would ever endorse that kind of structural progress.


----------



## StevenC

budda said:


> The comparison to drunk driving - but how hard is it to buy a car? What policies are in place for vehicle ownership? Do drunk drivers who kill people steal the cars they use, or were they sold legally? Etc.


Cars are actually vital for life in the USA yet you need to pass (a joke of) an exam and keep insurance. I don't know if those crazy guys have an equivalent to MOT testing, but I hope so.


----------



## odibrom

Mike_R said:


> CDC stats seem to suggest a 10 to 20% reduction in alcohol related crashes with checkpoint implementation. That means they likely save more lives than reducing mass shootings in the US to zero would. Does they violate individual rights? Some people think so, only 38 states allow sobriety checkpoints. But the inconvenience of driving through an occasional checkpoint is pretty minor compared to, for example, banning cars or banning alcohol or even mandatory breathalyzers in every car- which would be solutions more similar to the media/politician proposed gun control du jour.
> 
> I think background checks are probably the most influential "gun control law" in reducing gun violence. In 1993, a majority of guns used in violent crimes were purchased legally. In 1994 a federal background check requirement was implemented for handguns purchased at retail sources. In 1993 you could have prior convictions, walk into a gun store and buy a gun anywhere that didn't have state or local laws requiring a background check. If you look at more recent data a very small proportion of firearms used in crime were purchased legally at a retail source (about 10%). These are somewhat apples and oranges because there are still firearms sales conducted privately without background checks - although it is generally illegal for felons to purchase and posses guns, so such a sale wouldn't be legal. The missing variable here is potentially new criminals buying guns legally in private sales. This report using data from 2016 indicates only about 10% of criminals obtained their gun by purchase or trade at a retail source: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
> 
> Background checks are never going to be 100% effective, and I understand concerns from people like @wheresthefbomb that they may disproportionately disenfranchise some populations that have been targeted by the criminal justice system. There are other concerns about privacy and how that data gets handled, too, but yeah - that is probably the most productive on the "gun control" side of things if you are so inclined. For the record, I think that a proposal that expanded background checks but included robust privacy and data handling provisions could likely get bipartisan support.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you don't know me, so your strong racial overtones comment is more understandable than if you did know me.
> 
> Mass shootings are a legitimate concern. They are also extremely rare as a cause of death in a country of 330m people. We are still hearing about Buffalo and Uvalde in the news every day even though more people are killed every day by drunk driving than both of those tragedies combined.
> 
> You have already contended in this thread that being victimized by violent crime is lifestyle dependent. I get that public shootings aren't that way (unless you eliminate your risk by being a hermit). That might make them more frightening, but the odds are still incredibly low. People talk about extremely rare occurrences as "one in a million", being killed in a mass shooting is like a one in three to nine million occurrence.
> 
> I'm not saying nothing can or should be done to reduce mass shootings. I don't claim to have all the answers. I do believe that stripping basic human rights from over a hundred million people because a few dozen people commit atrocities is not justified. If you start (as some people do) from the point of view that everyone with a gun is just one bad sandwich away from becoming a murderer I could see how you might think that way, though. I am bringing stats into the discussion because a few YouTube videos or news articles about people being irresponsible with guns is not representative of the majority of gun owners (contrary to the celebratory dogpiling over irresponsible behavior throughout this thread).
> 
> Lots of people on this thread fantasize about the mindset of gun owners, how they must think, how they are just itching to pull the trigger and end another human life. Do some people think that way? Sure. Just like some anti-gun politicians fantasize about running over children (amiright Beto?). But I don't think it is a majority - and if it is a majority, then people sure do a great job of repressing those urges because a tiny fraction of gun owners commit most violent gun crime. I know several people I've talked to that recently received licenses to carry have told me that they feel more of an obligation to deescalate conflicts like road rage than before because escalation could be fatal to one or both parties.
> 
> 
> 
> Every loss of life is tragic. That isn't being reduced to just a number, or just a statistical debate - at least that isn't my intention. That said, if faced with a choice between pulling two levers, and pulling one of them saves 11,000 people, and pulling the other saves 100 people - would you make your decision based on how many people are saved or how many people are saved per event? That doesn't mean we cant have a multifactorial approach to reducing senseless killings but in this thread just about everyone is debating how to pull the 100 person lever - few people seems to care about the 11,000 person one.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. It is refreshing to hear at least someone understands that it may be justifiable to use a weapon to avoid being raped, killed, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, "melt 'em all down" (a position of several in this thread) is in effect saying no one gets any weapon at all. I guess you could argue maybe you are ok with melee weapons but not guns like @odibrom (where you are skilled and responsible enough with your unlicensed saber and home-made nunchaku).
> 
> 
> 
> Your approach, generally speaking, seems to be more reasonable than many. You unfortunately seem far too reasonable to be a politician or make decisions on public policy, though. I would add a fourth leg to this tripod to make it a table (where's James Hetfield?) and say that social and economic factors (@Randy if that is racist I can use the SSO approved term HDI?) greatly influence violent crime. I also recognize that ending gun violence isn't the same thing as ending violence, although many people treat it as such.


I'd "love" to hear news of mass killing by nunchaku or a blunt sword perpetrated by one only man... maybe in a right wing political rally...?... death by blunt nuchaku... yeah, there ain't any, right? I wonder why...

As far as I know, melee weapons are kind of one-on-one shit shows, giving the opponent a way higher chance of survival. Also, it makes the kill way harder to perform since one is at a breath range. Guns put the killing in a way less personal action and therefore easier for the empty headed...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Cars are actually vital for life in the USA yet you need to pass (a joke of) an exam and keep insurance. I don't know if those crazy guys have an equivalent to MOT testing, but I hope so.



Not really, some states have trivial safety inspections, but they're really a joke when you see what does and doesn't pass. There is emissions testing...unless you don't have to in your area or your vehicle fits a certain profile.


----------



## spudmunkey

Why do any measures have to always be about some grand, multi-faceted "plan"?

Like...why can't there just be logical baby steps that pretty much everyone can agree on, and easily pass? Like, no matter what side of the gun control debate you fall, it seems like there wouldn't be any argument about creating an official, structured, go-forward gun buy-back program. If someone has a gun that they don't want anymore, rather than selling it, they can turn it in for disposal rather than it being stolen or sold to someone else. It literally takes guns off the "streets"? Yes, it would likely get mostly old hunting rifles, but every time some community runs a gun drive, there's always handguns and high-powered rifles in the mix. Why would this have to be a part of some larger "package"/"deal"?


----------



## tedtan

spudmunkey said:


> Why do any measures have to always be about some grand, multi-faceted "plan"?
> 
> Like...why can't there just be logical baby steps that pretty much everyone can agree on, and easily pass? Like, no matter what side of the gun control debate you fall, it seems like there wouldn't be any argument about creating an official, structured, go-forward gun buy-back program. If someone has a gun that they don't want anymore, rather than selling it, they can turn it in for disposal rather than it being stolen or sold to someone else. It literally takes guns off the "streets"? Yes, it would likely get mostly old hunting rifles, but every time some community runs a gun drive, there's always handguns and high-powered rifles in the mix. Why would this have to be a part of some larger "package"/"deal"?


We currently have a gun “buyback” drive going on in Houston. They are offering:

- $50 for a non-functioning firearm of any kind;
- $100 for a functioning rifle or shotgun;
- $150 for a functioning handgun; and
- $200 for a fully automatic rifle.

I expect some people will go for this, but any gun is worth more than the city is offering, so unless the goal of the seller is specifically to have the gun destroyed, why would they give up so much money to turn it in rather than sell it to a gun store? That’s not rational.

For perspective, a decent gun costs as much as a decent guitar (think a minimum of $400), a fully automatic rifle is likely into the tens of thousands of dollars, and I’ve seen custom one-off hand made shotguns in the $250-500K range (one four barrel Purdey .410 shotgun at Gordy & Sons in Houston comes to mind). Granted, those expensive ones are quite rare, but any gun is worth more than what Houston is offering.


----------



## Mike_R

Drew said:


> Mike, first off, this and - especially - your second post here are thoughtful, articulate, and while I don't agree with you, I appreciate having a non-knee-jerk dissenting opinion in this conversation.


Thank you - I am honestly not expecting many people to agree with me here, but I still think it is worth discussing. I also appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion and thoughts (which is somewhat the point of a forum, especially this subforum addressing politics, right?), which at least haven't so far been met with, "haha, gun owners have smooth brain and smol, soft pp" posts yet (although I suspect somebody will be along to rectify that shortly, and that certainly is a feature in this marathon of a thread).


Drew said:


> *Is US drinking, drug use, and gun violence somehow uniquely American? *
> Put simply, I don't think these are especially analogous. The US wild west may have been notoriously boozy... but so too was the British empire, and drinking culture was embedded pretty thoroughly globally. It's not like the rest of the world was sober and upstanding before Prohibition and the States were just a bunch of booze bags and something needed to be done - every "modern" civilization featured heavy drinking when the US Temperance movement was getting up to speed. Likewise, I'd also say the US isn't _unusually_ druggy - illegal drug use is a global issue, and much of the drug trade exists outside of the US (and, ironically, is fueled by the flow of guns in the opposite direction). Gun violence, meanwhile, IS a uniquel American problem - we drink and use illegal drugs at a per capita rate in line with global first-world norms, but shoot each other to death at a rate FAR above any other first world nation. That implies there's something uniquely American about gun violence, and while correlation is not causation, an obvious point to start is the fact that US per capita gun ownership is also way above first world norms.


My comparisons to Prohibition and the War on Drugs aren't intended to suggest that these factors are uniquely American. The comparisons are more directly intended to highlight that changing human behavior by legislating objects is notoriously ineffective, and that the cost of enforcing such laws is non-zero. In both cases (Prohibition decades ago, and perhaps the War on Drugs more recently) people have come to understand that the benefits of enforcement are not worth the costs (direct and indirect) of enforcement, and focused instead on alternative mitigation policies.

I do not agree that gun violence is a uniquely American problem, but I understand that the US certainly is an outlier among "first world nations". That first world nations bit is part of my point, though. The US has one of the highest poverty rates in the OECD, and has a higher rate of poverty than Mexico according to OECD data (which is considered a "developing economy", i.e. not a first world country by the UN). If guns per capita are what causes gun violence it would be impossible to explain why Finland, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Sweden, etc... have far less violent crime than Central America in spite of a higher number of guns per capita. Is the only difference that affects violent crime between Denmark and the US that the US has more guns?

I believe that the fact that nearly 1 in 5 Americans live in poverty (by OECD standards anyway) has something to do with why violent crime rates are higher here than other "first world" countries.


Drew said:


> *If Prohibition and the War on Drugs were eventually abandoned in favor of harm mitigation, what might that look like for gun violence? *
> That, honestly, is. question I think I'll just turn over to you. If we abandoned prohibition for alcohol and drugs, and instead adopted policies like criminalizing drunk driving, legalizing and taxing less personally harmful drugs like pot, and providing safe injection sites and clean needles for heroin (as well as methedone for addicts looking to manage withdrawal symptoms), and if we believe these are the best ways to "combat" drug and alcohol use... if we were to apply the same model to gun use, how would we go about doing that?


This is an excellent question. I don't have all the answers, but I think this warrants further discussion. This is perhaps more rambly than my already TLDR posts.

More than half of US gun violence is suicide. An assault weapons ban, magazine capacity restrictions, or other similar measures are likely to have zero impact on the gun suicide rate. This one I think is primarily mental health and sometimes economic in nature. Policies that address those factors are key in reducing gun (and overall) violence.

The next category (in terms of prevalence) would be general violent crime (whether that is related to gangs, drug trafficking, theft, etc). A smaller subset of this category would include personal conflicts (including affairs, disagreements, and the like). For this category, I think that policies that center on lifting people out of poverty would have the greatest effect on this type of gun violence. I think the next biggest impact is addressing recidivism. We haven't figured that out as a country, so I won't pretend to know how to solve recidivism - that might be a "look to Scandinavia" sort of scenario.

Mass shootings take up an overwhelming share of policy discussion despite being one of the least common forms of gun violence. This one, I think, is again mental health and occasionally economic in nature- not like grand theft auto, but lack of future prospects. The Buffalo shooter cited among other things the great replacement theory as inspiration for his violence, which is a conspiracy theory rooted in political and economic grievances.

People pretend that mass shootings were solved during the 1994-2004 assault weapons and magazine bans. Columbine, which arguably was one of the most influential mass shootings that has inspired dozens of copycat incidents, was right in the middle of the ban timeframe.

A more actionable and specific target here centers on appropriately responding to known threats. One common feature in several mass shootings is that the individuals carrying out the attacks had already indicated a desire to commit a mass shooting and/or murder people that were known to law enforcement and/or the public:

The Buffalo shooter had already been interviewed by police after saying he wanted to commit a mass shooting:








The Buffalo suspect had threatened his high school last year, police say


Authorities in Buffalo say the alleged gunman had threatened a shooting at his school in 2021. He was then sent for a mental health evaluation that lasted a day and a half.




www.npr.org





The Parkland shooter had been reported to the FBI:




__





FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida — FBI


The FBI issued a statement concerning the shooting in Parkland, Florida.




www.fbi.gov





The Uvalde shooter indicated his intentions ahead of time, too:








'Know the Signs' Could Have Saved Lives in Uvalde — Sandy Hook Promise


Shooter at Robb Elementary School exhibited warning signs, nobody took action.




www.sandyhookpromise.org





I think that harm reduction for mass shootings should start with identifying and addressing known threats instead of stripping 100m+ people of what I believe to be a natural right.

Similarly appropriate responses to in progress shootings would also reduce harm.

What the media/politician mainstream suggestions are (assault weapons bans, magazine bans, mandatory buybacks, criminalization of firearms ownership) is more Prohibition, and is likely to meet the same lack of success or worse.



Randy said:


> My alarms start going off any time someone says there's a problem that's broad but the solution to it are only the things that restrict other people unlike myself. Like orchestrating a perfect policy scenario where no poor people have guns but make sure I don't have to fill out one more form, or have my name appear on one more list. Incredibly convenient.


If you think that I am trying to ban poor people from having guns you might want to re-read what I have said. I think the solution to poverty induced crime is addressing the poverty, not making the impoverished second class citizens. I think that the poor face the greatest risk of being victims of violent crime, and that policies that would deny peaceful people access to means of self defense are immoral.

As far as having a name on one more list, it is more than an inconvenience:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/california-gun-owners-data-breach
If you think that sharing a shopping list, names and home addresses of where to find guns to the internet is no big deal and positive for public safety then I guess it is just inconvenience.


----------



## Glades

StevenC said:


> Cars are actually vital for life in the USA yet you need to pass (a joke of) an exam and keep insurance. I don't know if those crazy guys have an equivalent to MOT testing, but I hope so.


Driving and gun ownership are quite different. Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.


----------



## Randy

Glades said:


> Driving and gun ownership are quite different. Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.



Here we go, right on cue.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Why do any measures have to always be about some grand, multi-faceted "plan"?
> 
> Like...why can't there just be logical baby steps that pretty much everyone can agree on, and easily pass? Like, no matter what side of the gun control debate you fall, it seems like there wouldn't be any argument about creating an official, structured, go-forward gun buy-back program. If someone has a gun that they don't want anymore, rather than selling it, they can turn it in for disposal rather than it being stolen or sold to someone else. It literally takes guns off the "streets"? Yes, it would likely get mostly old hunting rifles, but every time some community runs a gun drive, there's always handguns and high-powered rifles in the mix. Why would this have to be a part of some larger "package"/"deal"?





tedtan said:


> We currently have a gun “buyback” drive going on in Houston. They are offering:
> 
> - $50 for a non-functioning firearm of any kind;
> - $100 for a functioning rifle or shotgun;
> - $150 for a functioning handgun; and
> - $200 for a fully automatic rifle.
> 
> I expect some people will go for this, but any gun is worth more than the city is offering, so unless the goal of the seller is specifically to have the gun destroyed, why would they give up so much money to turn it in rather than sell it to a gun store? That’s not rational.
> 
> For perspective, a decent gun costs as much as a decent guitar (think a minimum of $400), a fully automatic rifle is likely into the tens of thousands of dollars, and I’ve seen custom one-off hand made shotguns in the $250-500K range (one four barrel Purdey .410 shotgun at Gordy & Sons in Houston comes to mind). Granted, those expensive ones are quite rare, but any gun is worth more than what Houston is offering.



Gun buybacks, as they are now, are bullshit. 

It's just away for local PDs to passively accumulate the lowest of the low hanging fruit in a nice box they can take a picture of and go "see, look at all this gun violence we stopped" while not actually doing anything. 

They're setup to be ineffective.


----------



## Randy

Mike_R said:


> A more actionable and specific target here centers on appropriately responding to known threats. One common feature in several mass shootings is that the individuals carrying out the attacks had already indicated a desire to commit a mass shooting and/or murder people that were known to law enforcement and/or the public:
> 
> The Buffalo shooter had already been interviewed by police after saying he wanted to commit a mass shooting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Buffalo suspect had threatened his high school last year, police say
> 
> 
> Authorities in Buffalo say the alleged gunman had threatened a shooting at his school in 2021. He was then sent for a mental health evaluation that lasted a day and a half.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Parkland shooter had been reported to the FBI:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida — FBI
> 
> 
> The FBI issued a statement concerning the shooting in Parkland, Florida.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fbi.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Uvalde shooter indicated his intentions ahead of time, too:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Know the Signs' Could Have Saved Lives in Uvalde — Sandy Hook Promise
> 
> 
> Shooter at Robb Elementary School exhibited warning signs, nobody took action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sandyhookpromise.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that harm reduction for mass shootings should start with identifying and addressing known threats instead of stripping 100m+ people of what I believe to be a natural right.



All of which I believe were allowed to buy the guns they used to carry our their crimes legally. The implication is that this is all on authorities dropping the ball to communicate from one entity to the other, but I've seen little indication there's a federal statute that would've prohibited the purchase or seized the weapon even if everyone was talking to everyone like they should've been.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

On top of that, there are zero repercussions for moving parts in the system failing. Even if the local police, FBI, mandatory reporters, etc. fail, nothing happens. 

But any way to reduce that fail rate is going to be looked at as a barrier to gun ownership or too expensive which is where the pushback is strongest.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> On top of that, there are zero repercussions for moving parts in the system failing. Even if the local police, FBI, mandatory reporters, etc. fail, nothing happens.
> 
> But any way to reduce that fail rate is going to be looked at as a barrier to gun ownership or too expensive which is where the pushback is strongest.



Bingo. Show me a significant number of "lawful gun owners" that think social media posts should be considered red flag for prohibition or removal.

For all that dick waving earlier about how having a gun makes people think more responsibly about what they say and do, it was just a couple months ago a conservative acquaintance of mine said he wish a [prominent public figure] was infront of him so he could shoot him right between the eyes. With a gun. Which he owns. 

But I'm lead to believe there's some mental forcefield that prevents that kind of thought once you have a gun in a holster.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Bingo. Show me a significant number of "lawful gun owners" that think social media posts should be considered red flag for prohibition or removal.
> 
> For all that dick waving earlier about how having a gun makes people think more responsibly about what they say and do, it was just a couple months ago a conservative acquaintance of mine said he wish a [prominent public figure] was infront of him so he could shoot him right between the eyes. With a gun. Which he owns.
> 
> But I'm lead to believe there's some mental forcefield that prevents that kind of thought once you have a gun in a holster.



I think all the deep dives into how trained law enforcement officers, military, and just random gun schmos act and say on public, and especially private, social media is enough to drive that home. 

If you think that some peoples' lives don't matter because they have different political opinions or lifestyles, or race if we're going there, you probably shouldn't be able to have a gun, especially in public. 

That's where the ambiguity in "red flags" gets real.


----------



## Randy

I live in a red region, in a red county, in a red town on a red block but most of my neighbors are pretty ambiguous about their political beliefs, for the most part. Typically very few political lawn signs a and the ones that pop-up are usually for friends or family or Joe Random Guy that came by with a petition and was nice.

Then had a guy move in last year with his family, and he's always got lawn signs and Trump this and that flags, Grunt Life wardrobe and the handful of times I've talked to him, figured out a way to work his guns or his politics into the conversation even if it's like two sentences about something unrelated like grass clippings.

Anyway, his wife is much nicer and more approachable than him and on the handful of occasions we've spoken, she's mentioned he's paranoid/prepper guy, super protective of her, his kids and his house. Kill anyone to protect his family.

Welp, two weeks ago the cops escort him out of the house because he beat her up. Loved her so much, he beat her. Loved his kids so much, he jeopardized ever seeing them again. Cares about his house so much, he got dragged out of it and isn't allowed back.

Forgive me if I'm pessimistic or broad brushing gun folks, but I absolutely hear shades of this same facade from all the vocal 2A guys I hear. The projection that you're this altruistic person with this fantastic life that's of greater value than the one you're willing to take, then it turns out you're a shitty coward that created a persona to distract from the fact you're a shitty coward.


----------



## CanserDYI

Interested in some people's takes on a buddy of mine's gun dealer's situation he's in. For reference, I am EXTREMELY pro gun control. I live in Ohio, where its easier to get a gun than sign up for a cell phone plan. I just want to hear opinions on this guys situation.

He owns a small gun shop here in Ohio, 2 people walk in, a man and a woman. The woman says absolutely nothing the entire duration of the visit, the man walking through a few pistols with the clerk and eventually selects one and makes the purchase. There is no waiting period here in Ohio, so they were able to walk out with the purchase. 

They go back to their home, and apparently the woman grabs the gun and kills herself.

The gun dealer is now being pursued criminally/legally for the sale, but even as a left winger, "please-make-it-difficult-to-get-guns"-er I see this as ridiculous. 

Thoughts?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

CanserDYI said:


> Interested in some people's takes on a buddy of mine's gun dealer's situation he's in. For reference, I am EXTREMELY pro gun control. I live in Ohio, where its easier to get a gun than sign up for a cell phone plan. I just want to hear opinions on this guys situation.
> 
> He owns a small gun shop here in Ohio, 2 people walk in, a man and a woman. The woman says absolutely nothing the entire duration of the visit, the man walking through a few pistols with the clerk and eventually selects one and makes the purchase. There is no waiting period here in Ohio, so they were able to walk out with the purchase.
> 
> They go back to their home, and apparently the woman grabs the gun and kills herself.
> 
> The gun dealer is now being pursued criminally/legally for the sale, but even as a left winger, "please-make-it-difficult-to-get-guns"-er I see this as ridiculous.
> 
> Thoughts?



Do you have a link to the specifics? If it was a straw purchase, yeah, he can be in some trouble for now, but if need to know more.


----------



## CanserDYI

MaxOfMetal said:


> Do you have a link to the specifics? If it was a straw purchase, yeah, he can be in some trouble for now, but if need to know more.


Unfortunately no, I'm relaying second hand details from word of mouth unfortunately, so for all I know I'm bullshitting you, but from face value if what I'm told is true, you think he'd be on the hook for it? Even if it looked like a completely honest sale? What would the difference be if the woman stayed in the car or something?

And not sure if this isnt clear, but my buddy's friend is the one who SOLD the weapon, not the man who purchased it. Forgive me if that's obvious.

EDIT: Yeah, that's obvious, sorry.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

CanserDYI said:


> Unfortunately no, I'm relaying second hand details from word of mouth unfortunately, so for all I know I'm bullshitting you, but from face value if what I'm told is true, you think he'd be on the hook for it? Even if it looked like a completely honest sale? What would the difference be if the woman stayed in the car or something?
> 
> And not sure if this isnt clear, but my buddy's friend is the one who SOLD the weapon, not the man who purchased it. Forgive me if that's obvious.
> 
> EDIT: Yeah, that's obvious, sorry.



Is he actually in trouble, like charges filed, or are cops just asking for specifics of the sale to make sure everything was good?

It just seems like we're missing just about all the details, so it's just not anything I think anyone can really make much of a judgment on. 

I think dealers should be held to a high standard, but unless things were really sketchy, I don't see your friend being in too much trouble.


----------



## NoodleFace

CanserDYI said:


> Interested in some people's takes on a buddy of mine's gun dealer's situation he's in. For reference, I am EXTREMELY pro gun control. I live in Ohio, where its easier to get a gun than sign up for a cell phone plan. I just want to hear opinions on this guys situation.
> 
> He owns a small gun shop here in Ohio, 2 people walk in, a man and a woman. The woman says absolutely nothing the entire duration of the visit, the man walking through a few pistols with the clerk and eventually selects one and makes the purchase. There is no waiting period here in Ohio, so they were able to walk out with the purchase.
> 
> They go back to their home, and apparently the woman grabs the gun and kills herself.
> 
> The gun dealer is now being pursued criminally/legally for the sale, but even as a left winger, "please-make-it-difficult-to-get-guns"-er I see this as ridiculous.
> 
> Thoughts?


I mean, what are you going to do? If someone is going to kill themselves, they're going to do it.

This doesn't sound like a straw purchase to me, which would be the biggest issue. Unless he specifically said or inferred he was buying it for her, I don't see how legally he can be in any trouble. Technically my wife could grab one of my guns and kill herself if she was so inclined.. I certainly wouldn't blame the gun store.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Driving and gun ownership are quite different. Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege.


----------



## Mike_R

bostjan said:


> There are plenty of places where that saber and that nunchuck are illegal.


Wherever @odibrom is at he seems to be obsessed with the idea of violence at right wing political rallies. First it was machine guns and grenades, now it is nunchucks.
I am glad I don't go to right wing political rallies.


bostjan said:


> But, we come back to that question from earlier about self defense. Does a rich person get a more robust right to self-defense than a poor person? I mean, not just because of direct economic factors, but indirectly, because the government enforces it?


They shouldn't but in practice it seems that often they do. Additionally, a lot of the proposals (1000% tax, punitive mandatory insurance schemes) and existing laws (like the NFA) were designed to make guns inaccessible to those with less resources and/or sidestep the constitution. 


Randy said:


> Forgive me if I'm pessimistic or broad brushing gun folks, but I absolutely hear shades of this same facade from all the vocal 2A guys I hear. The projection that you're this altruistic person with this fantastic life that's of greater value than the one you're willing to take, then it turns out you're a shitty coward that created a persona to distract from the fact you're a shitty coward.


You must have a very deep resentment towards gun owners to feel that a pair of anecdotes is adequate support to broad brush tens of millions of people. I don't think you know very many gun owners but it sounds like the interactions you have had with them so far have left you with some pretty strong negative impressions. I am sorry that the ones you are talking about have caused you so much distress.

I don't take that personally but I hope that you can have some positive experiences with "gun folks" at some point. I think @NoodleFace seems pretty level headed, I consider myself to be as well. 

There is a pretty broad range of gun owners, including Olympic athletes, competitors, people putting meat on the table, people wanting to protect themselves, and yes, some people who say or do stupid things. Nearly all of them have never and will never commit a crime with a gun.


----------



## Randy

Mike_R said:


> You must have a very deep resentment towards gun owners to feel that a pair of anecdotes is adequate support to broad brush tens of millions of people. I don't think you know very many gun owners but it sounds like the interactions you have had with them so far have left you with some pretty strong negative impressions. I am sorry that the ones you are talking about have caused you so much distress.
> 
> I don't take that personally but I hope that you can have some positive experiences with "gun folks" at some point. I think @NoodleFace seems pretty level headed, I consider myself to be as well.
> 
> There is a pretty broad range of gun owners, including Olympic athletes, competitors, people putting meat on the table, people wanting to protect themselves, and yes, some people who say or do stupid things. Nearly all of them have never and will never commit a crime with a gun.



I used the term "vocal 2A guys" for a reason, and the fact you 1:1 took that to mean gun owners is, IMO, telling. Also, it's a bit curt to assume my impression is based on two recent anecdotes I chose to share instead of a lifetime of experience that preceded it.

One of the shittiest of shitty gun guy takes is that people who have opposition to guns have no knowledge of them or have never been around them.

I've lived in a rural conservative town my entire life, and most of my family come from rural conservative towns. Most of my family, my friends and my inlaws my whole life have owned guns, I've been around guns and gun owners my whole life. I've gone hunting and fired a variety of guns.

So you can cross lack of familiarity off your list of reasons why I'm not enamored by guns, gun people, and gun culture.


----------



## Mike_R

Randy said:


> Forgive me if I'm pessimistic or broad brushing gun folks





Randy said:


> I used the term "vocal 2A guys" for a reason, and the fact you 1:1 took that to mean gun owners is, IMO, telling. Also, it's a bit curt to assume my impression is based on two recent anecdotes I chose to share instead of a lifetime of experience that preceded it.
> 
> One of the shittiest of shitty gun guy takes is that people who have opposition to guns have no knowledge of them or have never been around them.
> 
> I've lived in a rural conservative town my entire life, and most of my family come from rural conservative towns. Most of my family, my friends and my inlaws my whole life have owned guns, I've been around guns and gun owners my whole life. I've gone hunting and fired a variety of guns.
> 
> So you can cross lack of familiarity off your list of reasons why I'm not enamored by guns, gun people, and gun culture.


I interpreted your broad brushing of gun folks as broad brushing of gun folks, but I don't take it personally. I don't identify with the condemnation you heap on "vocal 2A guys", either - although I did interrupt 30 pages of regularly scheduled programming to talk about the prevalence of several kinds of senseless killings, some of the policies that haven't been effective and some ideas for policies that potentially could be effective. Maybe that makes me a vocal 2A guy?

I have a difficult time treating groups of people as a monolith. The NRA, for example, has endorsed some very problematic candidates- some of whom have gone on to office and done terrible things. But the other, non-political side of the NRA has trained millions of people on how to safely use firearms and prevent fatal accidents. Not all bad, not all good.

I want the country to be a safer and more prosperous place. I want mass shootings to stop, I want for people to be out of poverty and have lives that they find fulfilling so that they don't feel a need or desire to harm themselves or others. There are probably more goals that you and I share than goals we do not. That doesn't mean that we don't have differences of opinion on how to achieve those goals.

At the end of the day this is the politics subforum on a niche guitar forum. I think it is beneficial to hear from people who don't think or believe the way that I do. Maybe other people don't.

I believe that the right to self defense is a human right. I believe policies that can mitigate harm while respecting that right would make the country a safer place.


----------



## MFB

Curious to see what happens to those good guys with a guns when they're up against autonomous gunmen. Wonder if when the machines finally gain sentience, they'll also not be willing to enter a school to stop a shooter.









Robot Dog Not So Cute With Submachine Gun Strapped to Its Back


Someone in Russia appears to be firing a gun from the back of a robot dog.




www.vice.com


----------



## Drew

Mike_R said:


> A more actionable and specific target here centers on appropriately responding to known threats. One common feature in several mass shootings is that the individuals carrying out the attacks had already indicated a desire to commit a mass shooting and/or murder people that were known to law enforcement and/or the public:


Yeah, I mean, we can argue the causes of gun violence, particularly homicide gun violence, ad nauseum and we likely won't change each other's mind. And that's probably ok, because I think there IS ground to have some sensible discussion on harm mitigation and to focus policy proposals here. 

I guess, though, my point on the comparisons to prohibition and the war on drugs, is if America IS an outlier in first world gun violence (and, honestly we're way out on the tails when it comes to per capita gun deaths for _all_ nations), is that if we're unusual in some respect, there's very likely a reason for that, and that's something worth thinking about. Neither here nor there - we can still have a fruitful conversation on risk mitigation measures without agreeing on this point, but, well... I disagree on this point.  

But, I'd also argue that I don't think things like "assault rifle" bans or high capacity magazine bans ARE akin to prohibition - I think they're harm reduction. It is technically possible, as I understand, to buy a fully automatic weapon in parts of the US, it just requires an incredibly stringent licensing process, and the reason for that is that the ability to fire dozens of rounds with a single pull of a trigger is considered pretty damned harmful, so in the interest of mitigating that harm we've put a lot more controls in place. I see no reason why applying those same standards to any gun capable of firing at high muzzle velocities for similar reasons wouldn't be a sensible step to mitigate harm. 

Similarly, alcohol is legal in every state, and virtually every county, in the States, but I can't buy grain alcohol here in Massachusetts. I can in Connecticut... but I also can't go into a bar and order a shot of Everclear. And yet, we all consider these measures well short of prohibition. 

I think there's a lot of room to restrict gun ownership in ways intended to mitigate harm, that are nowhere close to full prohibition and bear strong parallels to how we've addressed the failures of outright prohibition elsewhere.


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> Bingo. Show me a significant number of "lawful gun owners" that think social media posts should be considered red flag for prohibition or removal.
> 
> For all that dick waving earlier about how having a gun makes people think more responsibly about what they say and do, it was just a couple months ago a conservative acquaintance of mine said he wish a [prominent public figure] was infront of him so he could shoot him right between the eyes. With a gun. Which he owns.
> 
> But I'm lead to believe there's some mental forcefield that prevents that kind of thought once you have a gun in a holster.



10/10 citizens that post pics of themselves with poorly setup weapons and gear in their driveway/garage/living room have no business touching the equipment, and it provides an endless sort of memes for professionals.

The #sheepdog LARP warrior trend is a cancer.


----------



## philkilla

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think all the deep dives into how trained law enforcement officers, military, and just random gun schmos act and say on public, and especially private, social media is enough to drive that home.
> 
> If you think that some peoples' lives don't matter because they have different political opinions or lifestyles, or race if we're going there, you probably shouldn't be able to have a gun, especially in public.
> 
> That's where the ambiguity in "red flags" gets real.



You're 100% right. 

Those strongly opposed to red flag laws are likely paranoid the system could get abused, Ala falsified sexual harassment and domestic abuse cases in some instances.

Even if you're acquitted of all charges (with all examples) the damage is still done via character and monetary methods.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> You're 100% right.
> 
> Those strongly opposed to red flag laws are likely paranoid the system could get abused, Ala falsified sexual harassment and domestic abuse cases in some instances.
> 
> Even if you're acquitted of all charges (with all examples) the damage is still done via character and monetary methods.


I'm sure there are at least some opponents of red flag laws who do have a sincere concern the system will be abused. 

I'm also sure that at least some opponents of red flag laws seize on the possibility of abuse as a convenient excuse to refuse to consider laws that in theory would be a sensible check against gun violence, in ways that would never even cross their minds to consider opposing, say, low residential speed limits because black drivers and pedestrians might get disproportionately targeted for enforcement going 27 in a 25 in a predominately white neighborhood whereas I might cruise through at 30 and just get a friendly wave. 

The very fact sensible laws COULD be abused by bigots isn't in and of itself a reason not to have sensible laws. It's a reason to do everything we can to stop bigots from being the ones enforcing them.


----------



## Glades

Red Flag Laws violate the 4th and 5th amendments.


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> Red Flag Laws violate the 4th and 5th amendments.



Unlawful search and seizures? Bolded for emphasis below.




__





What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?


The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.




www.uscourts.gov







> Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. *On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety*.



Are you saying a shooting in a public place is in violation of public safety?

5th amendment just says you cannot be compelled to provide incriminating evidence against yourself, so are you saying that one's own mental health is incriminating evidence?


----------



## /wrists

tedtan said:


> We currently have a gun “buyback” drive going on in Houston. They are offering:
> 
> - $50 for a non-functioning firearm of any kind;
> - $100 for a functioning rifle or shotgun;
> - $150 for a functioning handgun; and
> - $200 for a fully automatic rifle.
> 
> I expect some people will go for this, but any gun is worth more than the city is offering, so unless the goal of the seller is specifically to have the gun destroyed, why would they give up so much money to turn it in rather than sell it to a gun store? That’s not rational.
> 
> For perspective, a decent gun costs as much as a decent guitar (think a minimum of $400), a fully automatic rifle is likely into the tens of thousands of dollars, and I’ve seen custom one-off hand made shotguns in the $250-500K range (one four barrel Purdey .410 shotgun at Gordy & Sons in Houston comes to mind). Granted, those expensive ones are quite rare, but any gun is worth more than what Houston is offering.


The only way this will work is if there is someone actively stealing someone else's gun and selling it back haha.
No rational person would take that much of a hit off their initial investment, guns or not. Let's say it's your guitar that you paid $2K for, and they're offering you $200.


----------



## Glades

MFB said:


> Unlawful search and seizures? Bolded for emphasis below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
> 
> 
> The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.uscourts.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying a shooting in a public place is in violation of public safety?
> 
> 5th amendment just says you cannot be compelled to provide incriminating evidence against yourself, so are you saying that one's own mental health is incriminating evidence?



Boy read the Bill of Rights


----------



## Adieu

evade said:


> The only way this will work is if there is someone actively stealing someone else's gun and selling it back haha.
> No rational person would take that much of a hit off their initial investment, guns or not. Let's say it's your guitar that you paid $2K for, and they're offering you $200.



Actually, there are examples where it DOES work

There's moms and spouses/ex-spouses of bad boys or idiots who either got incarcerated or moved away and left a stash of hardware. They have no idea what to do with it and definitely DON'T want to sell it grey market to potentially dodgy or dangerous people...or to legalize it through a store, because they have no clue where it came from and whether it might create legal troubles galore if checked

I've met people like that


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> Actually, there are examples where it DOES work
> 
> There's moms and spouses/ex-spouses of bad boys or idiots who either got incarcerated or moved away and left a stash of hardware. They have no idea what to do with it and definitely DON'T want to sell it grey market to potentially dodgy or dangerous people...or to legalize it through a store, because they have no clue where it came from and whether it might create legal troubles galore if checked
> 
> I've met people like that


This is what I'm saying. Why does it have to be a flawless solution, when it's clearly SOME help, and completely voluntary.

And if those amounts are too low, then raise them.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Red Flag Laws violate the 4th and 5th amendments.


Why do you only care about the Constitution when the conversation is about guns?


----------



## Randy

@Glades increasingly feeling like a guy making arguments on sheer bad faith. Don't take guns away from people even when they flaunt that they're insane and going to use them to do harm because it's vaguely interpreted as a BoR violation. Guys like this water down the rest of what guys like @Mike_R claim they're trying to argue. Come get your boy.


----------



## Glades

Randy said:


> @Glades increasingly feeling like a guy making arguments on sheer bad faith. Don't take guns away from people even when they flaunt that they're insane and going to use them to do harm because it's vaguely interpreted as a BoR violation. Guys like this water down the rest of what guys like @Mike_R claim they're trying to argue. Come get your boy.


The government taking away rights and property away from its citizens without due process does not sound like tyranny at all.


----------



## Randy

Glades said:


> The government taking away rights and property away from its citizens without due process does not sound like tyranny at all.



Define "due process". I've seen no indication there's no recourse for having your weapons taken away or process for having them returned.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Define "due process". I've seen no indication there's no recourse for having your weapons taken away or process for having them returned.



A meme I've seen family share on facebook:



Which is such a frustrating mind-fuck because, as we all know... (skip to 0:31)


----------



## Randy

Isn't that how due process works? The arrest (you know, like detaining you in jail) precedes the court proceedings?

But when it comes to arms, you can threaten to kill people and keep the arms while they prove you were going to kill people through a full court case? That's considered a practical thing?


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> The government taking away rights and property away from its citizens without due process does not sound like tyranny at all.


Please for the love of God explain to me what rights have been taken from you and tell me one argument or source that would show that anyone has had their guns stripped from them other than fucking felons. If you are a normal every day citizen that you know, doesn't shoot up schools, then you should have nothing to worry about other than "oh poor me there is a couple day WAIT to go SHOOT STUFF??? FASCISM! TYRANNY!!!"


----------



## Glades

CanserDYI said:


> Please for the love of God explain to me what rights have been taken from you and tell me one argument or source that would show that anyone has had their guns stripped from them other than fucking felons. If you are a normal every day citizen that you know, doesn't shoot up schools, then you should have nothing to worry about other than "oh poor me there is a couple day WAIT to go SHOOT STUFF??? FASCISM! TYRANNY!!!"


We are talking about red flag laws bud


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Isn't that how due process works? The arrest (you know, like detaining you in jail) precedes the court proceedings?
> 
> But when it comes to arms, you can threaten to kill people and keep the arms while they prove you were going to kill people through a full court case? That's considered a practical thing?



This. 

The state removes children from homes when there are claims of sexual or extreme physical abuse all the time, but you don't hear advocates talk about leaving kids in those situations until due process, because the potential for harm far outweighs the alternative. 

I don't see why it should be _that_ different for firearms.


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> We are talking about red flag laws bud


I can't understand why any rational thinking human being wouldn't want some sort of safety net protecting society from people who are obviously worrying those around them. People don't just "get worried" JUST because someone owns a gun.


----------



## Randy

CanserDYI said:


> I can't understand why any rational thinking human being wouldn't want some sort of safety net protecting society from people who are obviously worrying those around them. People don't just "get worried" JUST because someone owns a gun.



This is exactly what led to my post earlier that triggered what's his name that went nuclear on me and ducked out. When someone starts telling you they don't want any policies in place that monitor behavior to preemptively remove weapons from dangerous people "on principal", ask yourself why. Then run.

We're supposed to assume bad guys know they're bad guys, crazy people know they're crazy and will therefore self report (someone legit suggested this earlier) or abstain from owning a fire arm. Self policing! 

Oh btw, "bad" and "crazy" are subjective designations, and also completely fluid.


----------



## Mike_R

Randy said:


> This is exactly what led to my post earlier that triggered what's his name that went nuclear on me and ducked out. When someone starts telling you they don't want any policies in place that monitor behavior to preemptively remove weapons from dangerous people "on principal", ask yourself why. Then run.



Not sure who went nuclear on @Randy.

If you are trying to imply that I suggested that there should be no policies to address threats from violent people, you might want to read what I said. I've quoted it here for your convenience:


Mike_R said:


> A more actionable and specific target here centers on appropriately responding to known threats. One common feature in several mass shootings is that the individuals carrying out the attacks had already indicated a desire to commit a mass shooting and/or murder people that were known to law enforcement and/or the public:
> 
> The Buffalo shooter had already been interviewed by police after saying he wanted to commit a mass shooting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Buffalo suspect had threatened his high school last year, police say
> 
> 
> Authorities in Buffalo say the alleged gunman had threatened a shooting at his school in 2021. He was then sent for a mental health evaluation that lasted a day and a half.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Parkland shooter had been reported to the FBI:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida — FBI
> 
> 
> The FBI issued a statement concerning the shooting in Parkland, Florida.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fbi.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Uvalde shooter indicated his intentions ahead of time, too:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Know the Signs' Could Have Saved Lives in Uvalde — Sandy Hook Promise
> 
> 
> Shooter at Robb Elementary School exhibited warning signs, nobody took action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sandyhookpromise.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that harm reduction for mass shootings should start with identifying and addressing known threats instead of stripping 100m+ people of what I believe to be a natural right.



Peaceful people have a right to self defense. Is threatening a mass shooting peaceful? No.

I think the big difference we have here is that you seem to think most people who choose to own a gun are dangerous, at risk people. I don't agree with that.


----------



## Mike_R

Drew said:


> But, I'd also argue that I don't think things like "assault rifle" bans or high capacity magazine bans ARE akin to prohibition - I think they're harm reduction. It is technically possible, as I understand, to buy a fully automatic weapon in parts of the US, it just requires an incredibly stringent licensing process, and the reason for that is that the ability to fire dozens of rounds with a single pull of a trigger is considered pretty damned harmful, so in the interest of mitigating that harm we've put a lot more controls in place. I see no reason why applying those same standards to any gun capable of firing at high muzzle velocities for similar reasons wouldn't be a sensible step to mitigate harm.
> 
> I think there's a lot of room to restrict gun ownership in ways intended to mitigate harm, that are nowhere close to full prohibition...


Bans aren't prohibition?

Again- I don't expect you to agree with me, but the National Firearms Act of 1934, which created a tax/registration scheme for automatic weapons and several forms of concealable weapons, wasn't done for "harm mitigation" in the sense you are suggesting. It was another hook created to be able to go after organized crime (that itself was made extremely profitable by prohibition of alcohol).

Even the attorney general drafting the law acknowledged that banning the guns would be unconstitutional. The AG felt a loophole that they could use was to add an obscene tax (at the time, $200- now, that's a tank of gas in some places) that would ensure only the wealthy could own the restricted items.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one, but that is OK.

If you are curious about the effects of "assault weapons bans", there are studies on the US Federal ban (from 1994 to 2004), Australia's ban, and various state implementations. If you want a spoiler alert, they generally don't seem to have a statistically significant effect on reducing gun violence. Some fact checking outlets will do some mental gymnastics to avoid rating Biden's claims on this one as "false", but most primary sources will tell you there was no effect on overall gun violence.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> The government taking away rights and property away from its citizens without due process does not sound like tyranny at all.


You and irony aren't on speaking terms, are you?


----------



## CanserDYI

I'm still baffled at the comments saying we are stripping 100m plus people from rights.

Not one single person I've heard argue sanely is saying "line up and disarm yourself and submit to the US government". They're saying something INCREDIBLY simple to understand:

"Bruh, there are more guns than humans here. There are too many people that don't know how to use a gun responsibly. Let's make them just a BIT harder to get so you know Johnny Psychopath doesn't get his hands on one, ESPECIALLY not same day so he can go make an aggressive impulsive decision without a cooldown. And hey, since you can only use one gun at a time anyways, and more guns don't make you kill stuff deader faster, why don't we only have a couple, you know? Oh yeah, and a bump stock isn't useful in hunting or sport, it's only useful in gunning people down."

Responsible gun owners are fucking fine. It's these asshole conservative "they're taking our rights" dudes that believe a gun should be as accessible as a pack of smokes to almost anyone that is insane to me.


----------



## Mike_R

CanserDYI said:


> I'm still baffled at the comments saying we are stripping 100m plus people from rights.
> 
> Not one single person I've heard argue sanely is saying "line up and disarm yourself and submit to the US government".
> 
> Responsible gun owners are fucking fine. It's these asshole conservative "they're taking our rights" dudes that believe a gun should be as accessible as a pack of smokes to almost anyone that is insane to me.



If somebody in 2022 has a right to free speech, and you restrict them to mid-1800s technology (no internet, no phones, no radios, no typewriters), do you still say they have a full right to free speech because they could walk over and talk to their neighbor?

What if instead of doing that to one person, you do it to an entire country?

It is possible to be responsible and believe that peaceful people have a right to self defense that potentially includes the last 170 years of technology.

Cigarettes kill over 10x more people than guns in the US, BTW. Mostly self inflicted (which gun violence is too) but the CDC says second hand smoke is directly killing over 15,000 people per year between strokes and lung cancer only. If you include heart disease it's 34k people per year, which is far higher than the gun violence homicide rate and orders of magnitude above the mass shooting rate. But that should be easy, right?


----------



## CanserDYI

Mike_R said:


> If somebody in 2022 has a right to free speech, and you restrict them to mid-1800s technology (no internet, no phones, no radios, no typewriters), do you still say they have a full right to free speech because they could walk over and talk to their neighbor?
> 
> What if instead of doing that to one person, you do it to an entire country?
> 
> It is possible to be responsible and believe that peaceful people have a right to self defense that potentially includes the last 170 years of technology.


Holy shit this is such a shit take I don't even know where to start, I can spend all day arguing, but if you are comparing gun restrictions that are being proposed to 1800s communications technologies, this conversation has lost all dynamic and it will be two opposing forces yelling into the void.

I really hope you can read this and feel your own reaching.


----------



## StevenC

Mike_R said:


> If somebody in 2022 has a right to free speech, and you restrict them to mid-1800s technology (no internet, no phones, no radios, no typewriters), do you still say they have a full right to free speech because they could walk over and talk to their neighbor?
> 
> What if instead of doing that to one person, you do it to an entire country?
> 
> It is possible to be responsible and believe that peaceful people have a right to self defense that potentially includes the last 170 years of technology.
> 
> Cigarettes kill over 10x more people than guns in the US, BTW. Mostly self inflicted (which gun violence is too) but the CDC says second hand smoke is directly killing over 15,000 people per year between strokes and lung cancer only. If you include heart disease it's 34k people per year, which is far higher than the gun violence homicide rate and orders of magnitude above the mass shooting rate. But that should be easy, right?


Hey, nice try. That would be a great analogy if incitement wasn't also an exception to free speech on the internet.

The Second Amendment hasn't kept up with technology the way the First has, because the wording of the First naturally extends to modern venues (like, go read it and tell me what limit is placed on it) whereas the wording of the Second is very explicit about why there is a right to bear arms (seriously, go read it). The justification for the Second, as it is written, does not exist anymore.


----------



## Mike_R

StevenC said:


> Hey, nice try. That would be a great analogy if incitement wasn't an exception to free speech on the internet.
> 
> The Second Amendment hasn't kept up with technology the way the First has, because the wording of the First naturally extends to modern venues (like, go read it and tell me what limit is placed on it) whereas the wording of the Second is very explicit about why there is a right to bear arms (seriously, go read it). The justification for the Second, as it is written, does not exist anymore.



I've seen you argue different elements of this throughout the thread. Whether you believe the prefatory clause in the 2A is an introduction or a qualifier I don't really care (I know how you feel about it BTW).

Is self defense a human right? Do peaceful people have a right to defend themselves?

I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse here. This thread is 35 pages. I shouldn't have interrupted everyone clubbing the horse here that is clearly dead.

I'm gonna go flip on an amp and let you all continue without further interruption from my end.


----------



## CanserDYI




----------



## narad

Mike_R said:


> I've seen you argue different elements of this throughout the thread. Whether you believe the prefatory clause in the 2A is an introduction or a qualifier I don't really care (I know how you feel about it BTW).
> 
> Is self defense a human right? Do peaceful people have a right to defend themselves?



This is silly. Of course you have a right to defend yourself -- treating this as a discrete things is clearly doing no justice to the argument. It's that obviously there should be bounds on what tools you use to defend yourself, if such tools wind up doing more harm than good. We make those value judgements all the time. Why don't I get to own a full automatic? I could imagine a situation in which a full automatic would better protect me from a horde of potential threats, and now you say I can't have it? Can't I have a grenade to defend myself against an aggressor pinning me in a bad spot from a fortified position? Don't peaceful people have a right to defend themselves?

From my pov, a lot of currently legal guns and accessories are similarly preposterous. Things that could be used to protect yourself, but are way over a reasonable spec to do so, and when used for evil have disastrous consequences.


----------



## StevenC

Mike_R said:


> I've seen you argue different elements of this throughout the thread. Whether you believe the prefatory clause in the 2A is an introduction or a qualifier I don't really care (I know how you feel about it BTW).
> 
> Is self defense a human right? Do peaceful people have a right to defend themselves?
> 
> I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse here. This thread is 35 pages. I shouldn't have interrupted everyone clubbing the horse here that is clearly dead.
> 
> I'm gonna go flip on an amp and let you all continue without further interruption from my end.


There's no interpretation necessary. It's one line without semicolons. The First Amendment includes semicolons because there are different freedoms being outlined between them.

So then you have to argue that it's just dressing and not relevant to the right being enshrined. Except then you'd need some other example of that, but the words are chosen very carefully in the Bill of Rights and those examples don't exist.

So now you're just left with either accepting the Second Amendment isn't about personal self defense, but national defense against tyranny; or the Bill of Rights is so incompetently written that it should be disregarded.

You're arguing a different point entirely based on emotional attachment to guns. The right to self defense may or may not exist. The question is where is it mentioned in the Second Amendment?


----------



## Hollowway

So I just read that sig sauer has a gun that fires bullets at twice the kinetic energy of an AR 15. Meaning it will puncture bullet proof vests. This is an honest question for the 2nd amendment supporters. (@Mike_R , @Glades , etc) Is this a good thing? I’m curious, because I have a hard time understanding (meaning that I just don’t understand - not meant as a slight) the positive relationship between the 2nd amendment supporters and the police and military, but also their need to protect themselves from the police and military, should they turn on them. 

In other words, I know that 2nd amendment guys believe all guns should be legal, BUT don’t believe citizens should have access to RPGs, etc. So with this Sig Sauer, do you see it as A) a good thing, because if Biden declared martial law, and conscripted the police and military to enforce it, you could do use such a gun to shoot them through their vest, or B) a bad thing, because now the police are even more defenseless against criminals? (I’m asking honestly, so please don’t be snide. I’m for gun control, mainly based on the success of other countries, but I’m also skeptical of the government overreaching, and see the potential need for defense against that. I would hope that we never need to storm the Bastille, as it were, but you never know.)


----------



## tedtan

There are quite a few rounds that will penetrate most body armor; is there a specific Sig Sauer gun/caliber you’re referencing?

For what its worth, the AR15 and its 5.56 NATO round are only high powered when compared to handguns. It’s nothing of note when compared to other rifles in typical calibers. When I was growing up, it was even illegal to use for hunting deer (in Texas) as it was considered to be underpowered to make a clean kill, though that has since changed. And it is still illegal for deer hunting in the UK; they require a .240 caliber or larger (the 5.56 NATO is .223) even for the small Roe deer that only get up to around 75 pounds.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

tedtan said:


> There are quite a few rounds that will penetrate most body armor; is there a specific Sig Sauer gun/caliber you’re referencing?
> 
> For what its worth, the AR15 and its 5.56 NATO round are only high powered when compared to handguns. It’s nothing of note when compared to other rifles in typical calibers. When I was growing up, it was even illegal to use for hunting deer (in Texas) as it was considered to be underpowered to make a clean kill, though that has since changed. And it is still illegal for deer hunting in the UK; they require a .240 caliber or larger (the 5.56 NATO is .223) even for the small Roe deer that only get up to around 75 pounds.



I feel like minutiae like this separates what the real world effects of firearms on the human body are.

The kids in Uvalde were _unrecognizable_ because that "measly .223" absolutely destroyed their bodies.

It just reeks of the chodes on firearm forums that "won't go anywhere without" a 10mm or .357 because they have absolutely no idea and think the real world is Call of Duty or some shit.


----------



## Adieu

Btw, cartridge ammo w/ pre-packed propellant wasn't even INVENTED at the time all these amendments happened. No reason to believe that stuff falls under 2A any more than owning a privately-held HIMARS or a nuke.

Let the 2A crowd have their ball and powder muskets. AND make it illegal to store, transport, or carry it loaded and ready to fire.

FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL, ENJOY YOUR 2A MUZZLELOADERS YA DAMN LARPERS


----------



## tedtan

MaxOfMetal said:


> I feel like minutiae like this separates what the real world effects of firearms on the human body are.
> 
> The kids in Uvalde were _unrecognizable_ because that "measly .223" absolutely destroyed their bodies.
> 
> It just reeks of the chodes on firearm forums that "won't go anywhere without" a 10mm or .357 because they have absolutely no idea and think the real world is Call of Duty or some shit.


My response was in reference to Holloway’s post pertaining to piercing body armor, not close range “soft” targets.

We know all to well that a 5.56 will kill people; we have too much evidence of that. Hell, even a well placed .22LR shot will kill someone, and we’ve seen actors killed when hit by the paper wad from a blank fired on a movie set (Lee, Hexum). A piece of paper.

Neither will penetrate body armor, however.

Context, people.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

tedtan said:


> My response was in reference to Holloway’s post pertaining to piercing body armor, not close range “soft” targets.
> 
> We know all to well that a 5.56 will kill people; we have too much evidence of that. Hell, even a well placed .22LR shot will kill someone, and we’ve seen actors killed when hit by the paper wad from a blank fired on a movie set (Lee, Hexum). A piece of paper.
> 
> Neither will penetrate body armor, however.
> 
> Context, people.



Yeah, context.


----------



## Bodes

Mike_R said:


> If you are curious about the effects of "assault weapons bans", there are studies on the US Federal ban (from 1994 to 2004), Australia's ban, and various state implementations. If you want a spoiler alert, they generally don't seem to have a statistically significant effect on reducing gun violence. Some fact checking outlets will do some mental gymnastics to avoid rating Biden's claims on this one as "false", but most primary sources will tell you there was no effect on overall gun violence.



Sorry, gonna have to rebut you here.

1996 Martin Bryant in Port Arthur massacre. Tasmania, Australia. Then our Federal Government brought in the assault rifle (and other gun) ban with a buy back scheme.
The following graph is from https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths
(Sorry if it doesn't auto load to the Aussie stats)



Death by gun dropped by almost half very quickly after these laws were brought in.

Yes, I do recognise that death by guns does not equate to gun violence rates (threats using a gun, armed robberies, etc.) But those stats poopoo on your statement.

Most shootings (deaths or near-misses) we hear about in Aus are gang-related, mostly higher level crims trying to take out the head of another drug criminal organisation.
We don't generally hear reporting of suicides by gun.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304640 An interesting read about the effect of the 1996 gun reforms and rate of deaths from guns in Aus.

Edit: spelling and silly auto correct adjustments only


----------



## Hollowway

@tedtan yeah, it’s the MCX-SPEAR. I topped up in a couple of news threads today. It shoots harder, rather, and comes with a silencer built in. So people are asking about what happens when the official release of these happens (not just the early release that already has) and if one gets into the hands of a mass murderer.


----------



## philkilla

Hollowway said:


> @tedtan yeah, it’s the MCX-SPEAR. I topped up in a couple of news threads today. It shoots harder, rather, and comes with a silencer built in. So people are asking about what happens when the official release of these happens (not just the early release that already has) and if one gets into the hands of a mass murderer.



Coincidentally that's the Army's newest service rifle.

Muzzle velocity and penetration are on par for most .30 cal rifles; it's just a spiced up 6.8 round that was developed years ago when the GWOT was in its prime.

A civilian buying that gun with a suppressor isn't exactly a turn key process.

The rifle and the suppressor purchase would both require tax stamps via the NFA through the ATF. That requires 3-15 months, background checks, finger prints and an additional $200 per stamp.


----------



## Glades

Hollowway said:


> @tedtan yeah, it’s the MCX-SPEAR. I topped up in a couple of news threads today. It shoots harder, rather, and comes with a silencer built in. So people are asking about what happens when the official release of these happens (not just the early release that already has) and if one gets into the hands of a mass murderer.


That’s the civilian version of the new military contract rifle. There is nothing special about the rifle itself, it’s the new 277 Fury that is all the hype. It’s performance is somewhat in between a 6.5 creedmore and a 308. But the case is bimetal, and will be extremely expensive to shoot. I really doubt this will take off in popularity due to how prohibitive the cost will be.


----------



## Randy

Hollowway said:


> @tedtan yeah, it’s the MCX-SPEAR. I topped up in a couple of news threads today. It shoots harder, rather, and comes with a silencer built in. So people are asking about what happens when the official release of these happens (not just the early release that already has) and if one gets into the hands of a mass murderer.



Synopsis appears to be "don't worry about it because it's expensive".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Synopsis appears to be "don't worry about it because it's expensive".



Remember Randy, only the poors shoot people.


----------



## Glades

Randy said:


> Synopsis appears to be "don't worry about it because it's expensive".


It is pretty early to tell how popular this platform will be with consumers, and how widely available the ammunition will be. Time will tell.
On paper it looks like a great platform for many applications. But my guess is few will carry this.
The AR-15 is a modular, versatile affordable platform with affordable ammunition. So is the AK platforms. Those of us that go through thousands of rounds a month will have a hard time justifying this platform.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> Those of us that go through thousands of rounds a month will have a hard time justifying this platform.



Some only ever need a couple dozen.


----------



## Glades

MaxOfMetal said:


> Some only ever need a couple dozen.


It’s an $8k rifle that will take the average person more than a year to obtain. Forms and extensive paperwork. You can’t go to your local FFL and pick one up off the shelf. 
All these articles are just trying to scare regular people that don’t know anything about guns.


----------



## narad

Finally. I only play PRS private stock, so shooting a common AR15 seemed a bit plebeian.


----------



## Randy

There's not a Rondo Music version of this thing in the works?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> It’s an $8k rifle that will take the average person more than a year to obtain. Forms and extensive paperwork. You can’t go to your local FFL and pick one up off the shelf.
> All these articles are just trying to scare regular people that don’t know anything about guns.



So what you're saying is that making access more difficult makes it less dangerous?



Randy said:


> There's not a Rondo Music version of this thing in the works?



Don't worry, you can get an AR10, that shoots a real-world-similar round, regularly for <$1k. Just ask Stephen Paddock.


----------



## tedtan

Hollowway said:


> @tedtan yeah, it’s the MCX-SPEAR. I topped up in a couple of news threads today. It shoots harder, rather, and comes with a silencer built in. So people are asking about what happens when the official release of these happens (not just the early release that already has) and if one gets into the hands of a mass murderer.


If a mass shooter had one it could be an issue. Not for regular folks (the standard 5.56 is dangerous enough for those of us not wearing a plate carrier/body armor) but for law enforcement. Unless something has changed in the last few years, most LE officers wear body armor that will stop handgun rounds, but not rifle rounds. But it will still help with rifle rounds like the 5.56 by slowing them down, making them less lethal than if it hit with full velocity. But then the police would probably move towards a heavier duty body armor, like a class 4 ceramic plate, to offset the more powerful rifle.

So ultimately, I don’t know if it will be any different than now.

The suppressor does change things a bit, though. A background check for a gun can be done in a few minutes, but for a suppressor, you have to apply for a license with he ATF and their process can take six or eight months, maybe longer. So this won’t be a gun someone can go get and then shoot up a school with in the near term. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be used in such a situation, but it does remove the possibility of an impulse purchase based on someone losing their cool.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> apply for a license with he ATF and their process can take six or eight months, maybe longer.



What are they doing over these six to eight months?


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> What are they doing over these six to eight months?


It is supposed to be a $200 tax, registering the supressor with the ATF, and an ATF background check. I’ve heard that it can be done in 90 days, but a lot of people complain about it taking close to a year, too.

I‘ve never done it myself, so I don’t know if its a really thorough check or, more likely, just typical US government inefficiency causing the delay.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> It is supposed to be a $200 tax, registering the supressor with the ATF, and an ATF background check. I’ve heard that it can be done in 90 days, but a lot of people complain about it taking close to a year, too.
> 
> I‘ve never done it myself, so I don’t know if its a really thorough check or, more likely, just typical US government inefficiency causing the delay.



I'm just curious what the background check is, like what they check above and beyond a regular one.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> On paper it looks like a great platform for many applications.


Can you give any examples?


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> Can you give any examples?



Defeating real world near-peer threats, hence why it's developed as a new service rifle for the Army.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Defeating real world near-peer threats, hence why it's developed as a new service rifle for the Army.


You might want to consider the context of the discussion.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> You might want to consider the context of the discussion.



I have considered it and applied context.

You asked what applications such a weapon is for, and I told you.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> I have considered it and applied context.
> 
> You asked what applications such a weapon is for, and I told you.


I'm sorry. You must have missed something. The context was high powered rifles for sale to civilians. Not war applications.


----------



## philkilla

Dude, you try to create arguments just to see your words on a screen. 


I referenced Glades post, and the implications of various NFA items.

I even defined the general purpose of the fire arm and WHY it wouldn't be conducive for a civilian to own in a previous post.


----------



## MFB

philkilla said:


> I even defined the general purpose of the fire arm and WHY it wouldn't be conducive for a civilian to own in a previous post.



And notice how the question wasn't direct at you for that very reason?


----------



## philkilla

MFB said:


> And notice how the question wasn't direct at you for that very reason?



Last I checked it's an open forum; maybe you're better suited for morbid jokes.


----------



## MFB

philkilla said:


> Last I checked it's an open forum; maybe you're better suited for morbid jokes.



Honestly, if you're that offended over a joke about a guy you've never even met, you might need to take time off the internet.

Glades is saying that it's a "great platform for many applications," barring MILITARY WARFARE that is a fruit hanging so low it's on the ground, what are they?


----------



## Hollowway

So, it looks like my original question got sidelined a bit by the cost of the rifle. I'm more wondering about the capabilities. In other words, from a pro 2nd amendment perspective, is there a point in the development of gun lethality that we would want to say, "whoa, this is getting too scary to manage," or no? Because, on the one hand, the more lethal a gun is, the more we could fend off the bad guys (aka the military and police force trying to take over the country), but the downside is that criminals would be able to fend off the good guys (aka the military and police force trying to do their regular job). I guess I'm just confused on the relationship between the pro 2nd amendement guys and the police and military. Because on a regular basis, 2nd amendment people want them to be able to take out any threat with ease. BUT, if Biden decides to declare martial law, for instance, and the military and police force come to take your guns or whatever, then you want them to NOT be able to take out any threat with ease, but instead the other way around. 

@Glades , am I making sense with this?


----------



## Hollowway

I think philkilla is stating the same thing, but in a more matter-of-fact, sarcastic tone. As in: There are many uses for this gun. None of them civilian.


----------



## BornToLooze

CanserDYI said:


> Oh yeah, and a bump stock isn't useful in hunting or sport, it's only useful in gunning people down."





No it's not, it's only good for wasting money. The only reason why people want stupid shit like bump stocks is government said you can't have it, and that makes even a POS you could make for a couple hundred bucks from stuff from the hardware store into a $10k gun. I mean, I got my first gun when I was 9 years old, and to say I'm used to them is an understatement, but the one time I shot a machine gun I could barely control it. The last dipshit that did a mass shooting hit 5 people out of a standard capacity AR magazine.

I feel kinda bad for saying it, but thankfully, the POS couldn't shoot worth a shit. But due to recoil and physics and all that, if fuckhead would have had a full auto AR, one dude would have had a maybe center mass shot, a grazing wound on the shoulder and then the mall would need to do some drywall work.



Hollowway said:


> So, it looks like my original question got sidelined a bit by the cost of the rifle. I'm more wondering about the capabilities. In other words, from a pro 2nd amendment perspective, is there a point in the development of gun lethality that we would want to say, "whoa, this is getting too scary to manage," or no? Because, on the one hand, the more lethal a gun is, the more we could fend off the bad guys (aka the military and police force trying to take over the country), but the downside is that criminals would be able to fend off the good guys (aka the military and police force trying to do their regular job). I guess I'm just confused on the relationship between the pro 2nd amendement guys and the police and military. Because on a regular basis, 2nd amendment people want them to be able to take out any threat with ease. BUT, if Biden decides to declare martial law, for instance, and the military and police force come to take your guns or whatever, then you want them to NOT be able to take out any threat with ease, but instead the other way around.
> 
> @Glades , am I making sense with this?



I am as pro 2A as they come. My relationship with the police is this...


----------



## tedtan

Hollowway said:


> So, it looks like my original question got sidelined a bit by the cost of the rifle. I'm more wondering about the capabilities. In other words, from a pro 2nd amendment perspective, is there a point in the development of gun lethality that we would want to say, "whoa, this is getting too scary to manage," or no? Because, on the one hand, the more lethal a gun is, the more we could fend off the bad guys (aka the military and police force trying to take over the country), but the downside is that criminals would be able to fend off the good guys (aka the military and police force trying to do their regular job). I guess I'm just confused on the relationship between the pro 2nd amendement guys and the police and military. Because on a regular basis, 2nd amendment people want them to be able to take out any threat with ease. BUT, if Biden decides to declare martial law, for instance, and the military and police force come to take your guns or whatever, then you want them to NOT be able to take out any threat with ease, but instead the other way around.
> 
> @Glades , am I making sense with this?


I get what you’re going for with Glades, but to put things into perspective, we’re really not developing more powerful rifle capabilities at this point.

Back in the 1800s, the US military used rifles chambered for the 45-70 “government” round. We then moved to the slightly more powerful 30-06 in the early 1900s through WW1. Those rounds were too powerful and kicked too much for the average soldier to shoot it as accurately as possible, so we then went down in power to the 7.62/.308 WIN for WW2 through the US’s early involvemnet in Viet Nam.

During the 1940s and the 1950, the US government conducted studies and learned that what wins fire fights on the military battlefield is firepower in terms of the number of rounds available rather than the power of the round. They found that they expend a lot of rounds as cover/suppressive fire to keep the enemy down (and not shooting at them) so they can move into or out of position, so volume of fire proved to be more important on the military battlefield than the power of the individual shots.

The AR15 and its 5.56mm round were initially disliked by the military, but eventually won out because the 5.56 NATO round is light, allowing a grunt to carry over two times as many rounds as he could with the prior 7.62 NATO round, while still being “powerful enough”.

So with the new 6.8mm round the US Army has adopted, they haven’t developed someting more powerful than what’s currently available. We’ve had more powerful rounds for at least 150 years.

What we are seeing at this point is a response to the “bad guys” developing better armor. So when they develop better armor, we have to move to a more powerful round for our rifles so that our rifles can penetrate that armor.

And when the US Army adopts a new caliber, the US Marine Corp will probably adopt it within 5 years or so. And our NATO allies will probably adopt it within that timeframe, too.

So the new 6.8mm SIG Fury round is probably the round du juor for the next 15-30 years.


----------



## MFB

tedtan said:


> What we are seeing at this point is a response to the “bad guys” developing better armor. So when they develop better armor, we have to move to a more powerful round for our rifles so that our rifles can penetrate that armor.



If the government has these rifles, to take down the "bad guys" - what happens when those same bad guys buy the same rifle of their own? Does it not work on "good guys"?

The market is a two way street at the moment, if it means putting an end to them dying and being able to fight back - they'll pay for it. And then we're just moving on to the next caliber and moving that goalpost.


----------



## Randy

What's grosser are the gun companies setting a price tag for civilian weapon they know will penetrate police body armor. It's like big game hunting. $8k to kill cops..


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> What's grosser are the gun companies setting a price tag for civilian weapon they know will penetrate police body armor. It's like big game hunting. $8k to kill cops..



Don't forget the financing!


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> What's grosser are the gun companies setting a price tag for civilian weapon they know will penetrate police body armor. It's like big game hunting. $8k to kill cops..



Any rifle firing a .30 cal cartridge or higher will do that already.

You aren't highlighting anything special here randy.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Last I checked it's an open forum; maybe you're better suited for morbid jokes.


It sure is an open forum, but the question was in relation to Glades saying a rifle for sale to the public had plenty of applications. So you've answered that by saying it's a great gun for an army man to use, which given your previous stance here probably isn't making the argument you want it to make.


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> Any rifle firing a .30 cal cartridge or higher will do that already.
> 
> You aren't highlighting anything special here randy.



Okay so extend my point to cover any civilian available rifle that will shoot a cop through the vest. Gun companies know openly that's the only practical use for it when they sell it to a Joe Anybody. Pay [insert Rondo Music cop killer gun pricetag], to kill cops.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Okay so extend my point to cover any civilian available rifle that will shoot a cop through the vest. Gun companies know openly that's the only practical use for it when they sell it to a Joe Anybody. Pay [insert Rondo Music cop killer gun pricetag], to kill cops.



Ah, you forget the good guys with guns who need more stopping power in vest-wearing bad-guys with a gun situations.

I started mostly as a joke, but now I remember the Buffalo case -- I think the cop got off some shots and the story at the time was that the guy was wearing armor and it couldn't take him down. Not that I'm in favor of the implied arms race that addressing this causes.


----------



## Randy

Yeah, Buffalo shooter took hits to the vest from the security guard (who was a retired cop).

Probably not worth stating but I gotta think there would be some consideration between what the cops/military carry versus regular folks but meh whatever. This part of the discussion has kinda exhausted itself. 2A guys support new ways to kill cops, just won't put it that way because they want the option to own them guilt (and red flag) free.

That's ultimately where we're at. Open up the full military arsenal to anybody 18+ (maybe younger).


----------



## tedtan

MFB said:


> If the government has these rifles, to take down the "bad guys" - what happens when those same bad guys buy the same rifle of their own? Does it not work on "good guys"?
> 
> The market is a two way street at the moment, if it means putting an end to them dying and being able to fight back - they'll pay for it. And then we're just moving on to the next caliber and moving that goalpost.


You missed my point, which is that it probably won’t make any real world difference because:

1) The 5.56mm round is already powerful enough in most situations (even body armor only covers the lungs and heart from the front and back; everything else is still vulnerable); and

2) This new round isn’t more powerful than other rounds already available. We’ve had more powerful rounds than this new 6.8mm for 150 years. The only thing newsworthy about the new rifle and its round are that A) the rifle has a built in suppressor, and B) the round uses a bi-metal case instead of brass to reduce weight. So while the media may make this out to be something new and super powerful, they’re just sensationalizing this like they do everything in order to sell time slots for commercials.

So can someone use this new gun and round for nefarious purposes? Sure, but that holds true for any gun/round combination; its not unique to this new SIG rig.




Randy said:


> Okay so extend my point to cover any civilian available rifle that will shoot a cop through the vest. Gun companies know openly that's the only practical use for it when they sell it to a Joe Anybody. Pay [insert Rondo Music cop killer gun pricetag], to kill cops.


Those rounds are common hunting rounds and their power is needed when hunting animals larger than whitetail deer (caribou, elk, moose, sheep, goats, bears, exotics, etc.).


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> It sure is an open forum, but the question was in relation to Glades saying a rifle for sale to the public had plenty of applications. So you've answered that by saying it's a great gun for an army man to use, which given your previous stance here probably isn't making the argument you want it to make.



What are you trying to infer my previous stance is here?


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> Yeah, Buffalo shooter took hits to the vest from the security guard (who was a retired cop).
> 
> Probably not worth stating but I gotta think there would be some consideration between what the cops/military carry versus regular folks but meh whatever. This part of the discussion has kinda exhausted itself. 2A guys support new ways to kill cops, just won't put it that way because they want the option to own them guilt (and red flag) free.
> 
> That's ultimately where we're at. Open up the full military arsenal to anybody 18+ (maybe younger).



TIL the full military arsenal is everything 9mm parabellum up to 6.8x51 according to randy.



I'll just leave this pic here again..


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> What are you trying to infer my previous stance is here?


The fact that the last time I addressed that picture you've just reposted, you didn't respond because the truth doesn't work with your reality.


----------



## CanserDYI

I don't even understand what the picture is supposed to "prove". That most mass shooters are angsty edgelord white guys? Duh.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> The fact that the last time I addressed that picture you've just reposted, you didn't respond because the truth doesn't work with your reality.



I didn't see you response

@StevenC nvm, i found it.

If you think that, than you must be nuttier than squirrel turds. Your natural assumption is they MUST be left of the spectrum (since that's all you take into account when it comes to character profiling)

Sounds like a weak deflection of your own general character; but whatever. I'll make sure not to engage you anymore in conversation, because you only have a one track mind for desolving a differing opinion.

@CanserDYI I'd say it represents the last few horrific ahootings (that made MSM) were gen Z, and likely Incels.

More a product of current society than anything.

Solve that problem, and thay would reduce the violence.


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> I didn't see you response
> 
> @CanserDYI I'd say it represents the last few horrific ahootings (that made MSM) were gen Z, and likely Incels.
> 
> More a product of current society than anything.
> 
> Solve that problem, and thay would reduce the violence.


Yeah solving gen z incel's is totally going to stop gang violence, teenagers having their cars shot into for pulling into the wrong driveways, brothers angry that the other drank their root beer, road rage incidents, or any of the other insane reasons I've seen shootings in the news for.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> I didn't see you response
> 
> @StevenC nvm, i found it.
> 
> If you think that, than you must be nuttier than squirrel turds. Your natural assumption is they MUST be left of the spectrum (since that's all you take into account when it comes to character profiling)
> 
> Sounds like a weak deflection of your own general character; but whatever. I'll make sure not to engage you anymore in conversation, because you only have a one track mind for desolving a differing opinion.
> 
> @CanserDYI I'd say it represents the last few horrific ahootings (that made MSM) were gen Z, and likely Incels.
> 
> More a product of current society than anything.
> 
> Solve that problem, and thay would reduce the violence.


I didn't assume they were left leaning.


----------



## philkilla

CanserDYI said:


> Yeah solving gen z incel's is totally going to stop gang violence, teenagers having their cars shot into for pulling into the wrong driveways, brothers angry that the other drank their root beer, road rage incidents, or any of the other insane reasons I've seen shootings in the news for.



I typed the word reduce, not solve.

Thank you for the added context though (and I genuinely mean that).


----------



## Adieu

CanserDYI said:


> Yeah solving gen z incel's is totally going to stop gang violence, teenagers having their cars shot into for pulling into the wrong driveways, brothers angry that the other drank their root beer, road rage incidents, or any of the other insane reasons I've seen shootings in the news for.



Does Castle Law extend to your driveway?

And if it doesn't, are Republicans working day and night to change that?


----------



## bostjan

MFB said:


> If the government has these rifles, to take down the "bad guys" - what happens when those same bad guys buy the same rifle of their own? Does it not work on "good guys"?
> 
> The market is a two way street at the moment, if it means putting an end to them dying and being able to fight back - they'll pay for it. And then we're just moving on to the next caliber and moving that goalpost.


Not only that, but, as the government decommissions all of those old rounds and rifles, where do you think they go? I guarantee that a fair portion of them go into the hands of sketchy paramilitary groups who are our allies today and our enemies tomorrow.

I always get a little flustered when people start arguing about how x round is so less deadly than y round. 3 out of 10 shooting victims shot with a .22LR end up dying. That only goes up to 3 1/2 out of 10 with a .38. The difference, in the criminal's mind, or specifically, the killer's mind, is that the .22LR costs a third as much, the gun is easier to conceal, and the "bang" is much less alarming. If someone sneaks up behind someone else with a small caliber, low powered handgun, and pops them right in the dome, that's it - it doesn't matter whether it was a .44MAG or a .22LR. From 15 feet away, it's a different story, but just because my odds of survival roughly double, it doesn't mean I'm ready to volunteer as a target for the little gun.

This will probably sound absolutely insane to anyone who grew up not in Michigan and/or was born after 1985 or so, but, when I was in middle school, we went to the shooting range. The teachers handed us kids a breach-loading rifle and a handful of .22 cartridges. So 1. that's the shittiest age, 2. very little supervision, and 3. absolutely no control over inventory (anyone could have easily pocketed a couple of rounds and no one would have known). Seems like such a dumb idea now. But the smart bit of it was that there was a class in gun safety that went along with it. A lot of kids my age were around guns a lot, and their parents didn't always tell them common sense stuff like "don't point the gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy" or even "if the gun misfires, point it downrange and wait - what ever you do, don't be a moron and look up the barrel." Anyway, the silly idea was that these teachers in charge of this really didn't think that a .22 could actually hurt anyone. Stupid. Well, at least as long as I was around, no one ever got hurt at gun class.


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> @CanserDYI I'd say it represents the last few horrific ahootings (that made MSM) were gen Z, and likely Incels.
> 
> More a product of current society than anything.
> 
> Solve that problem, and thay would reduce the violence.


 
Ah yes, reprogramming an entire generation of people to preemptively stop them from commiting mass homicide. Sounds entirely practical. Incidentally, how old are you? Who raised these kids this way?


----------



## jaxadam

Yeah @philkilla have you ever even seen a gun in real life? I DIDN'T THINK SO.


----------



## mmr007

The authors of the second amendment didnt know what a supersonic plane was, or a cellphone or the internet, they didnt know what a submarine launched ICBM is or even understand electricity refrigeration or how malaria spread but for fucks sake lets let their understanding of 18th century muskets rule how we live (and mostly die) today thanks to modern weaponry.


----------



## Glades

mmr007 said:


> The authors of the second amendment didnt know what a supersonic plane was, or a cellphone or the internet, they didnt know what a submarine launched ICBM is or even understand electricity refrigeration or how malaria spread but for fucks sake lets let their understanding of 18th century muskets rule how we live (and mostly die) today thanks to modern weaponry.


They also didn’t have the internet in the 18th century. Does that mean that “freedom of press” and “freedom of speech” doesn’t extend to the modern press (internet journalism) or social media?


----------



## mmr007

It means the free speech is protected not the technology used. I dont have a constitutional right to youtube or twitter….duh


----------



## budda

38 pages and its still only America with all the guns and all the horrific gun violence. Damn.


----------



## philkilla

jaxadam said:


> Yeah @philkilla have you ever even seen a gun in real life? I DIDN'T THINK SO.



Nope, they terrify me.


@Randy do you think the gen Z kids are not the result of programming from society?


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> Nope, they terrify me.
> 
> 
> @Randy do you think the gen Z kids are not the result of programming from society?



Okay who programs society and what is the failed programming?


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> Okay who programs society and what is the failed programming?



Any of the hundreds of sources of input that could affect an impressionable young mind.


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> Any of the hundreds of sources of input that could affect an impressionable young mind.



Nothing in particular? You seemed to imply a correlation, especially since they're all around the same age and committed similar crime despite being from a variety of places. I'd think that means you had something in mind.


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> Nothing in particular? You seemed to imply a correlation, especially since they're all around the same age and committed similar crime despite being from a variety of places. I'd think that means you had something in mind.



4chan would be a start if I had to pinpoint something.

I personally think they're radicalized by some entity.


----------



## narad

One guy's so strict on the constitution he's trying to get free speech applying to the internet, the other guy's so strict on the constitution he's trying to shut down 4chan to prevent incels from doing mass shootings so everyone can keep their guns. Ha!


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> 4chan would be a start if I had to pinpoint something.


This is an interesting thought you disagreed with when I said.


----------



## MFB

If we could turn 2A supporters ability to dodge questions into the ability to dodge bullets, there wouldn't be any more victims.


----------



## Empryrean

narad said:


> *there should be bounds on what tools you use to defend yourself*, if such tools wind up doing more harm than good. We make those value judgements all the time. Why don't I get to own a full automatic? I could imagine a situation in which a full automatic would better protect me from a horde of potential threats, and now you say I can't have it? *Can't I have a grenade to defend myself *against an aggressor pinning me in a bad spot from a fortified position? Don't peaceful people have a right to defend themselves?





Hollowway said:


> So, it looks like my original question got sidelined a bit by the cost of the rifle. I'm more wondering about the capabilities. In other words, from a pro 2nd amendment perspective,* is there a point in the development of gun lethality that we would want to say, "whoa, this is getting too scary to manage," or no? *
> @Glades , am I making sense with this?



Both of you posed similar questions that I've also pondered. 
A few years ago I came home to my apartment with an opened front door and the lights on. I called the non emergency line and sat in my car wondering what to do if I saw someone walking out holding any of my belongings and really considered getting a gun at that point in my life. 

later I considered that the power of taking someone's life was really too heavy a burden and I'd only truly consider owning a gun if I were living in bear country or some other strange neck of the woods.

BUT I did look into bear traps. I thought "if some fucker wants to break into my place and steal my shit they gotta deal with the consequences and a bear trap wont kill em but it'll hurt like hell and I'd feel better for it if I came home with my front door busted open again and saw that my traps dealt some damage in my absence. apparently that's wildly illegal, but if I shot and killed someone breaking into my home.. whatever i'm too tired for this




budda said:


> 38 pages and its still only America with all the guns and all the horrific gun violence. Damn.


I was thinking the same thing.. the dick waving contest never ends
here's the OP for everyone who's forgotten the question


evade said:


> If you're American, how does it feel to risk your life getting shot when you shop at a grocery store now more than ever?
> 
> If you're a parent, even more relevant, what are some thoughts you have around sending your child to a public school that could potentially be shot up due to the culture?
> 
> Any thoughts of what should be done or if anything should be done at all?
> 
> There definitely appears to be an increase in mass shootings and I'm interested in hearing different thoughts.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> This is an interesting thought you disagreed with when I said.



Are you sure about that?


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Are you sure about that?


See, this whole pretending to be aloof and noncommittal on the issue of people being murdered in your country doesn't make you look clever. You know that right? And if you don't you need to hear it.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> See, this whole pretending to be aloof and noncommittal on the issue of people being murdered in your country doesn't make you look clever. You know that right? And if you don't you need to hear it.



What in the hell are you on about? Read back through what you tagged me on.

You said I disagreed with your opinion of 4chan; I never did.

I'm not acting aloof when it comes to murder of innocent men, women and children in America; I fucking hate it. It makes me sick to my stomach when I read an article about it. I still force myself to read and watch every detail so I can know who/what/why/when and where it happened.

I've made my thoughts about gun control known in this thread once before. 

You, @narad and others prefer to twist words and join the dog piling theme without ever coming to a resolution yourselves.


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> What in the hell are you on about? Read back through what you tagged me on.
> 
> You said I disagreed with your opinion of 4chan; I never did.
> 
> I'm not acting aloof when it comes to murder of innocent men, women and children in America; I fucking hate it. It makes me sick to my stomach when I read an article about it. I still force myself to read and watch every detail so I can know who/what/why/when and where it happened.
> 
> I've made my thoughts about gun control known in this thread once before.
> 
> You, @narad and others prefer to twist words and join the dog piling theme without ever coming to a resolution yourselves.


If you "fucking hated it" then you'd be asking for stricter laws. Look at Australia and Japan, gun restrictions work. They haven't worked out well historically in our country BECAUSE of toxic gun culture that has just seeped and waterlogged our society.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> What in the hell are you on about? Read back through what you tagged me on.
> 
> You said I disagreed with your opinion of 4chan; I never did.
> 
> I'm not acting aloof when it comes to murder of innocent men, women and children in America; I fucking hate it. It makes me sick to my stomach when I read an article about it. I still force myself to read and watch every detail so I can know who/what/why/when and where it happened.
> 
> I've made my thoughts about gun control known in this thread once before.
> 
> You, @narad and others prefer to twist words and join the dog piling theme without ever coming to a resolution yourselves.


4chan is the OG alt right pipeline.

If you didn't realise this, I apologise, but you insulted me for suggesting exactly the same thing as you've just suggested.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> What in the hell are you on about? Read back through what you tagged me on.
> 
> You said I disagreed with your opinion of 4chan; I never did.
> 
> I'm not acting aloof when it comes to murder of innocent men, women and children in America; I fucking hate it. It makes me sick to my stomach when I read an article about it. I still force myself to read and watch every detail so I can know who/what/why/when and where it happened.
> 
> I've made my thoughts about gun control known in this thread once before.
> 
> You, @narad and others prefer to twist words and join the dog piling theme without ever coming to a resolution yourselves.



Seems like an unnecessary shoutout. I've had a stance from day one. Gun nuts don't like it.


----------



## philkilla

CanserDYI said:


> If you "fucking hated it" then you'd be asking for stricter laws. Look at Australia and Japan, gun restrictions work. They haven't worked out well historically in our country BECAUSE of toxic gun culture that has just seeped and waterlogged our society.



I have. I'm not opposed to most civilians being locked out from owning weapons.

Not a popular opinion for people in my profession, but I don't care.


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> It means the free speech is protected not the technology used. I dont have a constitutional right to youtube or twitter….duh


I know that, at this point, both sides of the argument are appealing to satire; however, there is something there that might be worth a more serious discussion.

The idea behind the necessity of the 2A was guaranteeing the right to self defense.


Empryrean said:


> Both of you posed similar questions that I've also pondered.
> A few years ago I came home to my apartment with an opened front door and the lights on. I called the non emergency line and sat in my car wondering what to do if I saw someone walking out holding any of my belongings and really considered getting a gun at that point in my life.
> 
> later I considered that the power of taking someone's life was really too heavy a burden and I'd only truly consider owning a gun if I were living in bear country or some other strange neck of the woods.
> 
> BUT I did look into bear traps. I thought "if some fucker wants to break into my place and steal my shit they gotta deal with the consequences and a bear trap wont kill em but it'll hurt like hell and I'd feel better for it if I came home with my front door busted open again and saw that my traps dealt some damage in my absence. apparently that's wildly illegal, but if I shot and killed someone breaking into my home.. whatever i'm too tired for this
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same thing.. the dick waving contest never ends
> here's the OP for everyone who's forgotten the question


You might be surprised, but, it is illegal to set booby traps in your home, even if great care is taken to ensure that they only affect burglars. You'd be in a lot _less_ legal hot water if you just shot the person.

There was a case in Iowa, where a guy's house repeatedly was broken into. He tried putting up tons of different warning signs to no avail. Finally, he got sick of it, so he set up a trap to injure the intruder's leg only if the intruder forced the bedroom door open. Thinking that the intruder would _only _enter the bedroom if he intended to physically harm the man or his wife, the property owner thought that he'd be legally in the clear if anyone was hurt. Two career criminals entered the house. One of them forced their way into the bedroom and subsequently injured his leg in the trap. The other criminal aided the injured man in exiting the house, where he was able to successfully pursue legal action against the property owner. The court even told the property owner that if he had been present and had blown this intruder's head off with a shotgun, he would have been justified, but, because there are strict laws against booby traps, the property owner ended up having to sell his property to cover his legal expenses.

Congress tried to pass legislation to prevent the next such case from turning out the same way, but, ultimately, none of the proposed bills ever passed.


----------



## PatientMental76

Insert stupid comment to go with rest here


----------



## Empryrean

bostjan said:


> I know that, at this point, both sides of the argument are appealing to satire; however, there is something there that might be worth a more serious discussion.
> 
> The idea behind the necessity of the 2A was guaranteeing the right to self defense.
> 
> You might be surprised, but, it is illegal to set booby traps in your home, even if great care is taken to ensure that they only affect burglars. You'd be in a lot _less_ legal hot water if you just shot the person.
> 
> There was a case in Iowa, where a guy's house repeatedly was broken into. He tried putting up tons of different warning signs to no avail. Finally, he got sick of it, so he set up a trap to injure the intruder's leg only if the intruder forced the bedroom door open. Thinking that the intruder would _only _enter the bedroom if he intended to physically harm the man or his wife, the property owner thought that he'd be legally in the clear if anyone was hurt. Two career criminals entered the house. One of them forced their way into the bedroom and subsequently injured his leg in the trap. The other criminal aided the injured man in exiting the house, where he was able to successfully pursue legal action against the property owner. The court even told the property owner that if he had been present and had blown this intruder's head off with a shotgun, he would have been justified, but, because there are strict laws against booby traps, the property owner ended up having to sell his property to cover his legal expenses.
> 
> Congress tried to pass legislation to prevent the next such case from turning out the same way, but, ultimately, none of the proposed bills ever passed.


I am completely unsurprised and my point was that if we objectively consider the lethality of a bear trap vs a slug to any part of the body I'm quite certain a bullet is doing far more damage.
I find it odd that doing harm to another human being with a weapon vs a trap is seen as unlawful based on the agency of the wielder and not the amount of harm it can cause. Am I crazy? the difference between justifiably harming someone is being there to blow their brains out vs a trap that hurts them after they've broken into my home? I'm probably a little crazy, this is driving me nuts. 


edit: some quick google fu indicates this man rigged a shotgun to fire at the intruder... i mean if you want to only call it a "leg trap" sure. There is a difference between a broken shin and a leg full of pellets. this all makes no sense


----------



## profwoot

bostjan said:


> The idea behind the necessity of the 2A was guaranteeing the right to self defense.


This isn't really true though, unless you're referring to the country rather than individuals. The 2nd amendment was created in consideration of the USA needing to protect itself but also not wanting to have a standing army, necessitating the formation/maintenance of state militias (the national guard, basically), requiring that citizens participating in these militias have access to weapons. That's not really germane to the usual scenarios we hear about home invasion and the like.

Granted, a recent, radical interpretation by the supreme court does interpret it as guaranteeing individuals the right to own a gun for personal protection, but that's because they're brainwashed ideologues, not because they give a shit about the founders' intent (as much as they pretend otherwise when it serves their goals).


----------



## profwoot

Empryrean said:


> I am completely unsurprised and my point was that if we objectively consider the lethality of a bear trap vs a slug to any part of the body I'm quite certain a bullet is doing far more damage.
> I find it odd that doing harm to another human being with a weapon vs a trap is seen as unlawful based on the agency of the wielder and not the amount of harm it can cause. Am I crazy? the difference between justifiably harming someone is being there to blow their brains out vs a trap that hurts them after they've broken into my home? I'm probably a little crazy, this is driving me nuts.
> 
> 
> edit: some quick google fu indicates this man rigged a shotgun to fire at the intruder... i mean if you want to only call it a "leg trap" sure. There is a difference between a broken shin and a leg full of pellets. this all makes no sense


I don't have a source on this, but I've heard that one reason booby traps are banned is because the vast majority of the time they're triggered it's by the person who set the trap. But I'm sure our constant catering to cops plays a role as well -- they expect to be able to break into your house and start shooting in safety.


----------



## Empryrean

profwoot said:


> I don't have a source on this, but I've heard that one reason booby traps are banned is because the vast majority of the time they're triggered it's by the person who set the trap. But I'm sure our constant catering to cops plays a role as well -- they expect to be able to break into your house and start shooting in safety.


I didn't think about the trap springing off on an unintended intruder but I can see where things would go awry if it were an emt or firefighter. I still stand by my position that a bear trap really can't be compared to a spring loaded shotgun aimed at a door. I'm about to have an aneurism I feel unhinged for believing a rather sensible thing become somehow morally grey when the *financially sensible thing is "be there and shoot them with a gun".


----------



## zappatton2

I mean, don't guns _very _often end up unloading into unintended targets? Could not the same thing apply?


----------



## profwoot

zappatton2 said:


> I mean, don't guns _very _often end up unloading into unintended targets? Could not the same thing apply?


Yes, you're statistically more likely to hurt yourself or your family than anyone else with a gun. 

And yes, I think the same logic should apply, but I also don't think logic has much to do with anything in politics.


----------



## bostjan

profwoot said:


> This isn't really true though, unless you're referring to the country rather than individuals. The 2nd amendment was created in consideration of the USA needing to protect itself but also not wanting to have a standing army, necessitating the formation/maintenance of state militias (the national guard, basically), requiring that citizens participating in these militias have access to weapons. That's not really germane to the usual scenarios we hear about home invasion and the like.
> 
> Granted, a recent, radical interpretation by the supreme court does interpret it as guaranteeing individuals the right to own a gun for personal protection, but that's because they're brainwashed ideologues, not because they give a shit about the founders' intent (as much as they pretend otherwise when it serves their goals).


Well, you're not wrong, but also kind of missing the big picture.

In the 1790's, the military, the police, the fire department, everything, fell on volunteer citizens. Also, (white) people were expected to own and maintain weapons to maintain slavery as an institution. So, there was really no distinction between self defense and neighbourhood watch. This is obviously quite a problem now, as that philosophy is strongly contrary to the society we now have set up with police, national guard, military, etc., all acting as independent and well-funded agencies, and "ordinary" people being far more focused on things like working and family life, which were vastly different concepts 230ish years ago.

Back in 179X, if someone broke into your home, it was your duty to shoot them, not just to protect your property, but because they would probably keep breaking into other homes if they got away with it. With no official police force and no official criminal justice system in much of the nation, there really weren't a great deal of alternatives.


profwoot said:


> I don't have a source on this, but I've heard that one reason booby traps are banned is because the vast majority of the time they're triggered it's by the person who set the trap. But I'm sure our constant catering to cops plays a role as well -- they expect to be able to break into your house and start shooting in safety.


That's a huge part of it. EMS or whomever might have to break in to tend to someone who triggered a booby trap, only to step in another booby trap. The whole thing could get especially out of hand, and likely no one would be there to disarm the traps in that scenario either.



Empryrean said:


> I didn't think about the trap springing off on an unintended intruder but I can see where things would go awry if it were an emt or firefighter. I still stand by my position that a bear trap really can't be compared to a spring loaded shotgun aimed at a door. I'm about to have an aneurism I feel unhinged for believing a rather sensible thing become somehow morally grey when the *financially sensible thing is "be there and shoot them with a gun".



Read about it again. The fact that the trap utilized a gun had literally nothing to do with the legality of it. The fact that it was a trap at all, however, did.



zappatton2 said:


> I mean, don't guns _very _often end up unloading into unintended targets? Could not the same thing apply?



Yes, but, similar to why we don't like the idea of self-driving cars, we don't like the idea of machines that harm people without someone driving them.

Also, in US politics, the moment the word "gun" enters the conversation, any and all logic is legally required to exit the conversation, so be careful not to get yourself into trouble by using "reason" there.


----------



## philkilla

zappatton2 said:


> I mean, don't guns _very _often end up unloading into unintended targets? Could not the same thing apply?



Frequently with adults that leave them unsecured with children in the vicinity.


----------



## Empryrean

bostjan said:


> Read about it again. The fact that the trap utilized a gun had literally nothing to do with the legality of it. The fact that it was a trap at all, however, did.


I'm using this as my reference.


> serious bodily injury


there's a big emphasis on "serious" or "great" injury. It leaves me to question if the Briney's had used a bear trap, would they have been liable for the charges held against them? 


> "2. That the force used by defendants was in excess of that force reasonably necessary and which persons are entitled to use in the protection of their property.


how much force is _reasonably necessary_ ? An ACME springloaded boxing glove signed by Wile E Coyote himself? sorry to be so facetious but I really can't deal with the ambiguous implications of the verbiage. 


then there's this



> dynamite exploded and he was injured about his feet and a leg


Dynamite is ok somehow as long as the intent wasn't to blow someone's leg off even though it could have and did happen to an extent.
They decided the severity of the injury was not serious or great and the defendant was let off the hook because he expected it to only scare away intruders. Regardless of intent there's a severe lack of objectivity in regards to the outcome (which again.. is far greater than a bear trap snapping on your foot). 
There's also the angle that this case was to protect company property vs personal dwelling where people live, the latter of which I believe should be better defended.

I cannot perform the mental gymnastics that the use of non-lethal force causing minor punitive injury by the means of a trap should be illegal. I do not have the wherewithal to continue reading about the subject and I appreciate your time in helping to further my understanding. I simply cannot agree with the logic behind it.


----------



## bostjan

Empryrean said:


> I'm using this as my reference.
> 
> there's a big emphasis on "serious" or "great" injury. It leaves me to question if the Briney's had used a bear trap, would they have been liable for the charges held against them?
> 
> how much force is _reasonably necessary_ ? An ACME springloaded boxing glove signed by Wile E Coyote himself? sorry to be so facetious but I really can't deal with the ambiguous implications of the verbiage.
> 
> 
> then there's this
> 
> 
> Dynamite is ok somehow as long as the intent wasn't to blow someone's leg off even though it could have and did happen to an extent.
> They decided the severity of the injury was not serious or great and the defendant was let off the hook because he expected it to only scare away intruders. Regardless of intent there's a severe lack of objectivity in regards to the outcome (which again.. is far greater than a bear trap snapping on your foot).
> There's also the angle that this case was to protect company property vs personal dwelling where people live, the latter of which I believe should be better defended.
> 
> I cannot perform the mental gymnastics that the use of non-lethal force causing minor punitive injury by the means of a trap should be illegal. I do not have the wherewithal to continue reading about the subject and I appreciate your time in helping to further my understanding. I simply cannot agree with the logic behind it.


Cool, so, yes, read that case law. It clearly states


> A person in control of premises may be responsible even to a trespasser for injuries caused by pitfalls, mantraps, or other like contrivances so dangerous in character as to imply a disregard of consequences or a willingness to inflict injury.



If you place a beartrap somewhere people will go, intending to catch a person, then it becomes a mantrap.

As for the dynamite, I think you got entirely the wrong impression:



> The court held the question whether a particular trap was justified as a use of reasonable and necessary force against a trespasser engaged in the commission of a felony should have been submitted to the jury. The Ohio Supreme Court recognized plaintiff's right to recover punitive or exemplary damages in addition to compensatory damages.



So, in that case, the court found that



> An owner of property is not justified in inflicting without warning bodily harm upon the person of a trespasser or petit pilferer in the open by means of traps, spring guns, or other instrumentalities of destruction, unless, as a matter of law, such owner would have been justified, had he been personally present, in using the same force.



If you read the case itself, the defendant (the guy who set the trap) was held liable for the injuries and all attorney's costs and court fees, as well as punitive damages.

I'm not agreeing with the logic here, either, I'm just telling you that, according to the law, whether you agree, disagree, or neither, you _will be held fully liable if anyone is hurt by a trap you placed on your property._ That's all. No mental gymnastics required, because I'm not asking you to make sense of it or agree with it.


----------



## BornToLooze

bostjan said:


> Also, in US politics, the moment the word "gun" enters the conversation, any and all logic is legally required to exit the conversation, so be careful not to get yourself into trouble by using "reason" there.



I know what you mean by that, but I've yet to meet anyone who says we need more gun laws that knows what gun laws we actually have.


----------



## tedtan

zappatton2 said:


> I mean, don't guns _very _often end up unloading into unintended targets? Could not the same thing apply?





philkilla said:


> Frequently with adults that leave them unsecured with children in the vicinity.


I’m not sure I would even say that. In terms of the percentage of all shots fired, those that hit an unintended target are likely minuscule and even reducing that to cases of shots fired in self defense shootings, “very often” is likely a drastic overstatement.


----------



## tedtan

Empryrean said:


> I cannot perform the mental gymnastics that the use of non-lethal force causing minor punitive injury by the means of a trap should be illegal. I do not have the wherewithal to continue reading about the subject and I appreciate your time in helping to further my understanding. I simply cannot agree with the logic behind it.


You are conflating criminal law and civil law.

Under criminal law, it is illegal to injure another person. Punching someone is assault or assault and battery. Hitting someone with a stick is aggregated battery. Setting a trap for someone is likely in the aggravated battery realm as well. Going further, if I were to shoot someone, it could be considered attempted mruder (if the live) or murder (if they don’t live) unless it is a clear case of self defense. Self defense is the only exception to the concept that it is illegal to injure another person, and the amount of force used defending yourself has to be proportional to the amount of force the attacker is using in most cases (castle and other laws can allow exceptions, but vary widely from region to region).

Under civil law, any time someone is injured on my property or as a result of my actions, I may be liable under civil law, even if it is not a case of criminal action on my part (e.g., someone tripping over an uneven crack in my driveway and falling and hitting thier head). And if I were to shoot someone in self defense, I may or may not be prosecuted criminally by the local distric attorney’s office, but even if I am not (or were tried and found not guilty), the person I shot (if they live) or thier family (if they don’t live) can still sue me civilly for injuries and other damages they suffered as a result of me shooting them.


----------



## philkilla

tedtan said:


> I’m not sure I would even say that. In terms of the percentage of all shots fired, those that hit an unintended target are likely minuscule and even reducing that to cases of shots fired in self defense shootings, “very often” is likely a drastic overstatement.



There's certainly a lot of data there.

My mind gravitated towards instances (via video or report) of 3-10 year olds over the past year or so that have been involved in firearm incidents.

Self defense and suicide belong in separate categories IMO.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Frequently with adults that leave them unsecured with children in the vicinity.


And with the cops who murdered Breonna Taylor


----------



## Drew

Mike_R said:


> Bans aren't prohibition?
> 
> Again- I don't expect you to agree with me, but the National Firearms Act of 1934, which created a tax/registration scheme for automatic weapons and several forms of concealable weapons, wasn't done for "harm mitigation" in the sense you are suggesting. It was another hook created to be able to go after organized crime (that itself was made extremely profitable by prohibition of alcohol).
> 
> Even the attorney general drafting the law acknowledged that banning the guns would be unconstitutional. The AG felt a loophole that they could use was to add an obscene tax (at the time, $200- now, that's a tank of gas in some places) that would ensure only the wealthy could own the restricted items.
> 
> I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one, but that is OK.
> 
> If you are curious about the effects of "assault weapons bans", there are studies on the US Federal ban (from 1994 to 2004), Australia's ban, and various state implementations. If you want a spoiler alert, they generally don't seem to have a statistically significant effect on reducing gun violence. Some fact checking outlets will do some mental gymnastics to avoid rating Biden's claims on this one as "false", but most primary sources will tell you there was no effect on overall gun violence.


I can't walk into a bar and order a shot of Everclear in Massachusetts. On Sunday, I can't order a bloody mary before 11. If I order seven beers in two hours, a bartender is within their legal rights to not serve me an eighth. Does that mean Prohibition is still in place? This isn't a binary - drinking can be legal, but there can still be individual prohibitions on what drinks I can buy and when I can buy them (this, as the meme goes, is a post about guns).

Bodes, I think it was, also ran through the stats on Australia's "assault gun" bans, which were quite effective at reducing gun violence. Carefully targeted restrictions CAN be a highly effective form of harm mitigation.


----------



## Glades

Drew said:


> I can't walk into a bar and order a shot of Everclear in Massachusetts. On Sunday, I can't order a bloody mary before 11. If I order seven beers in two hours, a bartender is within their legal rights to not serve me an eighth. Does that mean Prohibition is still in place? This isn't a binary - drinking can be legal, but there can still be individual prohibitions on what drinks I can buy and when I can buy them (this, as the meme goes, is a post about guns).
> 
> Bodes, I think it was, also ran through the stats on Australia's "assault gun" bans, which were quite effective at reducing gun violence. Carefully targeted restrictions CAN be a highly effective form of harm mitigation.



Consumption of alcohol is a privilege, not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a right that is fundamental to the security of our state and our identity as a nation. Any and all regulations on firearms are an overreach of power and an infringement to our natural rights of self-preservation.

Australia (like Canada and New Zealand) didn’t fight a war of independence against a tyrannical monarchy. And Australia is the last country on earth we would want to emulate, if we’ve learned anything from the COVID pandemic. We are free men, living in a free nation.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Consumption of alcohol is a privilege, not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a right that is fundamental to the security of our state and our identity as a nation. Any and all regulations on firearms are an overreach of power and an infringement to our natural rights of self-preservation.
> 
> Australia (like Canada and New Zealand) didn’t fight a war of independence against a tyrannical monarchy. And Australia is the last country on earth we would want to emulate, if we’ve learned anything from the COVID pandemic. We are free men, living in a free nation.


I'm sorry, maybe it wasn't clear, somehow, but I wasn't talking to you.


----------



## bostjan

I think that was the sort of idea I was going to try to type out in an earlier post before I lost my train of thought - certain weapons are great for home defense and others are downright dumb in that context.

For example, defending my home from an intruder, when I am armed with an elephant rifle, or a fully automatic weapon, would be dumb. If I'm spraying 5 0.500" depleted uranium rounds a second at a guy with a tyre iron and a stocking over his face, the property damage is very quickly going to exceed whatever he could have stolen, and if he's taken my loved ones hostage, then I guess they'd all be collateral damage in that sort of volley - so what would be the point?



Glades said:


> Consumption of alcohol is a privilege, not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a right that is fundamental to the security of our state and our identity as a nation. Any and all regulations on firearms are an overreach of power and an infringement to our natural rights of self-preservation.
> 
> Australia (like Canada and New Zealand) didn’t fight a war of independence against a tyrannical monarchy. And Australia is the last country on earth we would want to emulate, if we’ve learned anything from the COVID pandemic. We are free men, living in a free nation.



The point is that we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. You cannot have people with their own personal thermonuclear weapons. You cannot take away people's own fists. Somewhere in between those two hyperbolic endpoints, there must be a reasonable level fit for self-defense.

What is that level?

As for wanting "more gun control laws," I don't even think that's at all accurate. We have gun control laws in the USA that just don't make sense. They need an overhaul. Same with our criminal justice system. There's too much extreme variety from one state/district to another. Punishments are doled out in arbitrary ways. The most dangerous people are managing to stay out of the criminal justice system and the most dangerous people are able to get ahold of weapons that are being used to do great harm to innocent people. Meanwhile, people guilty of minor things are getting their rights stuffed in a lockbox never to be exercised again. I think we can mostly agree that this needs to change, but it seems like no one can figure out a proposal for how to fix it that doesn't immediately get shitcanned by the other side of the political isle.

Would you disagree with that?


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> Consumption of alcohol is a privilege, not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a right that is fundamental to the security of our state and our identity as a nation. Any and all regulations on firearms are an overreach of power and an infringement to our natural rights of self-preservation.



Up until recently women also had the right to an abortion and the government took that away, so isn't that an infringement on their natural rights? Which one do you want more: your guns, or the ability for women to not have a choice?


----------



## BornToLooze

MFB said:


> Up until recently women also had the right to an abortion and the government took that away, so isn't that an infringement on their natural rights? Which one do you want more: your guns, or the ability for women to not have a choice?



Personally I think the government needs to fuck off out of peoples lives. Gun laws are unconstitutional, and so are passing laws based on your religious views.

And if we are gonna go with religious extremism,

Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Consumption of alcohol is a privilege, not a right.


Actually...


----------



## profwoot

BornToLooze said:


> Gun laws are unconstitutional


No. Read Bostjan's last post. He's attempting the same thing I often do, which is to try to get people to admit that there must be a line somewhere, the only question is where. But almost every discussion of guns devolves into absolutism because one side refuses to admit this obvious fact.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Australia (like Canada and New Zealand) didn’t fight a war of independence against a tyrannical monarchy. And Australia is the last country on earth we would want to emulate, if we’ve learned anything from the COVID pandemic. We are free men, living in a free nation.



Though probably one of the first if you wanted to be happy, healthy men, living in a free nation with a high quality of life, not having every large gathering of people turn into a bloodbath. Americans as a whole are fucking miserable. Australians are the opposite.


----------



## StevenC

BornToLooze said:


> Gun laws are unconstitutional


Several laws exist that limit free speech and have never been found unconstitutional. Why, therefore, would gun laws also be?


----------



## StevenC

StevenC said:


> Several laws exist that limit free speech and have never been found unconstitutional. Why, therefore, *wouldn't *gun laws also be found constitutional?


FTFY


----------



## BornToLooze

profwoot said:


> No. Read Bostjan's last post. He's attempting the same thing I often do, which is to try to get people to admit that there must be a line somewhere, the only question is where. But almost every discussion of guns devolves into absolutism because one side refuses to admit this obvious fact.



That the government only cares about their own self interest and severely needs their power limited? And that people don't know history which is why they support a racist party pushing what started as racist laws?


----------



## Glades

MFB said:


> Up until recently women also had the right to an abortion and the government took that away, so isn't that an infringement on their natural rights? Which one do you want more: your guns, or the ability for women to not have a choice?


Negative. Abortion is not a constitutional right and never was. The SCOTUS ruling was neither pro-abortion nor pro-life. It deferred to the states issues not outlined in the constitution, per the 10th amendment. As outlined in Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, the SCOTUS took a neutral stand on the matter, and stated the federal government doesn’t have the power to make that determination for the people. It is now in the hands of the people of each state to decide.
Have you read the ruling in its entirety yet?


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Negative. Abortion is not a constitutional right and never was. The SCOTUS ruling was neither pro-abortion nor pro-life. It deferred to the states issues not outlined in the constitution, per the 10th amendment. As outlined in Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, the SCOTUS took a neutral stand on the matter, and stated the federal government doesn’t have the power to make that determination for the people. It is now in the hands of the people of each state to decide.
> Have you read the ruling in its entirety yet?


Wrong.

_Roe v Wade_ ruled that it _*was*_ a constitutional right. _Dobbs_ overturned that decision directly. So, the statement that it "never was" a constitutional right is 100% inaccurate. It _was_ and it is no more.

The opinion stated that the federal government doesn't have the power to make that determination _for the states. _Obviously, _Dobbs_ did not kick any of the determination power back to the people, it kicked it back to the _states. _You are choosing wording that is purposefully misleading, tantamount to lying. Maybe you do it unintentionally or subconsciously or whatever, but, whether for or against abortion, you could use arguments that don't willfully misrepresent facts and be taken seriously, or you can try to bend the truth to fit your narrative better and get called out for it. 

Well, I'm calling you out. Do better.


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> Negative. *Abortion is not a constitutional right and never was. *The SCOTUS ruling was neither pro-abortion nor pro-life. It deferred to the states issues not outlined in the constitution, per the 10th amendment. As outlined in Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, the SCOTUS took a neutral stand on the matter, and stated the federal government doesn’t have the power to make that determination for the people. It is now in the hands of the people of each state to decide.
> Have you read the ruling in its entirety yet?



Except for that part where it was?






And yes, the SCOTUS ruling very clearly was pro-life as they know very well that certain states will outlaw it which will be the end goal everywhere. Don't act like they've got their heads in the sand and don't have a full read on the picture, the ruling was the most blatant dog-whistling we've seen since Trump left office. Let me guess, when state's wanted rights to own slaves it's not that they were pro-slavery too right?


----------



## CanserDYI

My god if I had a penny for every time a conservative used deliberately misleading words and technicalities and weird mental gymnastics to convince THEMSELVES that their insane logic was rational, I'd own an Adam Jones 1979 Silverburst.


----------



## BornToLooze

CanserDYI said:


> My god if I had a penny for every time a conservative used deliberately misleading words and technicalities and weird mental gymnastics to convince THEMSELVES that their insane logic was rational, I'd own an Adam Jones 1979 Silverburst.



Actually, as far as abortion goes, most conservatives aren't misleading about it. They don't agree with it because of their religion, which is there right to think that.

That being said, creating religious extremist laws against women and gays, I feel like I've seen that one before.

And with misleading words, it took me a long time to realize liberals promoting tolerance of the LGBT community isn't a good thing. I believe accepting is the word you're looking for.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Glades said:


> We are free men, living in a free nation.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> We are free men, living in a free nation.


Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of Kinder Eggs and unpasteurised cheese.


----------



## CanserDYI

StevenC said:


> Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of Kinder Eggs and unpasteurised cheese.


And I'm sorry I can't hear you, too many gunshots going off I cant hear shit.


----------



## StevenC

CanserDYI said:


> And I'm sorry I can't hear you, too many gunshots going off I cant hear shit.


I would tell you to run away, but you might happen upon a road and jaywalking is illegal in 49 states for some reason.


----------



## CanserDYI

StevenC said:


> I would tell you to run away, but you might happen upon a road and jaywalking is illegal in 49 states for some reason.


Don't worry, I'm a SWM. They'll probably ask me why I'm not in uniform.


----------



## BornToLooze

StevenC said:


> Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of Kinder Eggs and unpasteurised cheese.



What does homemade cheese and (from a quick google) chocolate eggs have to do with freedom?


----------



## spudmunkey

StevenC said:


> Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of Kinder Eggs and unpasteurised cheese.


And also haggis, and rare medical bankruptcy.


----------



## spudmunkey

BornToLooze said:


> What does homemade cheese and (from a quick google) chocolate eggs have to do with freedom?


Both are illegal to sell (in the case of cheese, unless it's been aged for at least 60 days) or import into the US, but are available widely in Europe, for example.


----------



## BornToLooze

spudmunkey said:


> Both are illegal to sell (in the case of cheese, unless it's been aged for at least 60 days) or import into the US, but are available widely in Europe, for example.



I'm not going to lie, I have no clue what a Kinder Egg is, other than the quick google search, and it seems to be a chocolate egg.

But with the cheese, it seems like how I can't make my own whiskey at home because then the government can't steal more money from me. The same government that was formed because taxation is theft.


----------



## spudmunkey

BornToLooze said:


> I'm not going to lie, I have no clue what a Kinder Egg is, other than the quick google search, and it seems to be a chocolate egg.


It's a chocolate egg with a toy inside, which is illegal in the US. You know those little plastic capsules you can get from a little coin-op vending machine with little toys, like plastic spider rings or those sticky hand whip things? Imagine that, inside a hollow chocolate bunny. In the US, that'd be illegal since food cannot contain inedible objects, even if it's too large for a child to choke on even if they were to try to eat it. 



In the US, our shitty chinese-made plastic crap toys have to be in a separate comparment from the food, so someone is _less_ likely to try to eat it and choke.




This even extends to the Louisiana tradition, the King Cake. It used to be sold with a little baby figurine in it, and whoever found the baby in their piece....wins, or something. Now, they can sell you the cake, they can give you the plastic baby, and they can give you the instrustions on how to shove the palstic baby into the cake, but they can't sell you the cake with the baby inside.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

BornToLooze said:


> What does homemade cheese and (from a quick google) chocolate eggs have to do with freedom?



The gist of it is that, even though we have a bunch of guns, we are by no means more "free" to do "whatever" than most of the rest of the developed world. So using something like the Second Amendment to highlight "freedom" is kind of silly. Unless of course the benchmark for freedom is more guns in the first place, which turns into a weird game of "chicken or the egg."


----------



## BornToLooze

MaxOfMetal said:


> The gist of it is that, even though we have a bunch of guns, we are by no means more "free" to do "whatever" than most of the rest of the developed world. So using something like the Second Amendment to highlight "freedom" is kind of silly. Unless of course the benchmark for freedom is more guns in the first place, which turns into a weird game of "chicken or the egg."



That depends on your point of view. I found out a couple posts ago that I've had illegal cheese, so I'm going to assume I've had illegal milk too. I can kinda see the hoops you could jump through for the love of Honey Boo Boo where someone got sued over the chocolate egg thing...but if I milk a cow and make me some cheese...better clap the irons on me.

Or as far as guns go, I have 80 acres that are completely ate up with hogs, and all the rumors about them being able to disappear a body are very true. While I don't agree with them, I can see where most people are coming from on some of the gun control stuff. I have walked into a clearing and had to use the better part of a standard capacity magazine on my AR, because 5.56 being a high powered round is about the same as Ghost being a heavy metal band. I've switched to 6.8 spc (1-2 shots over 3-5), so I feel better because it's more humane, and I'm just curious if anyone has an argument against that instead of the usual bullshit republicans use.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

BornToLooze said:


> That depends on your point of view. I found out a couple posts ago that I've had illegal cheese, so I'm going to assume I've had illegal milk too. I can kinda see the hoops you could jump through for the love of Honey Boo Boo where someone got sued over the chocolate egg thing...but if I milk a cow and make me some cheese...better clap the irons on me.
> 
> Or as far as guns go, I have 80 acres that are completely ate up with hogs, and all the rumors about them being able to disappear a body are very true. While I don't agree with them, I can see where most people are coming from on some of the gun control stuff. I have walked into a clearing and had to use the better part of a standard capacity magazine on my AR, because 5.56 being a high powered round is about the same as Ghost being a heavy metal band. I've switched to 6.8 spc (1-2 shots over 3-5), so I feel better because it's more humane, and I'm just curious if anyone has an argument against that instead of the usual bullshit republicans use.



The problem is that there's not a reliable mechanism in place to make sure that whoever buys said firearm is a guy trying to kill pests on his back 80, or a dude who plans to shoot up a school.


----------



## Andromalia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Remember Randy, only the poors shoot people.


It's not like everybody buys their guns, either. A significant number are stolen. When you buy a weapon, you give the opportunity to steal it from you to a bad guy.


----------



## StevenC

BornToLooze said:


> What does homemade cheese and (from a quick google) chocolate eggs have to do with freedom?


The point is, as Max said, that freedom has a different definition in the USA that seems to just mean "how things are in the USA". Because by no other definition is the USA the most free nation in the world.

In fact, by most definitions you're living in a pretty tyrannical place at the moment. The SCOTUS just arbitrarily removed bodily autonomy from women using a justification that would allow organ harvesting, and they're going to reexamine and remove some more basic rights soon, too. You have one of the fullest prison systems in the world backed by an unequal justice system. Your system of governance is wildly unrepresentative to the point that 2 of the last 4 presidents were elected without a majority in a two horse race. You have a wildly outsized military despite never facing a war on your own soil in your entire existence. You have a highly militarised police force that won't even save children being shot at. Your health is sold to private companies for profit.

And it's illegal to cross the street because the auto industry, like the gun industry, is more important than people.

How tyrannical does a country have to be to justify those guns?


----------



## thraxil

StevenC said:


> You have a wildly outsized military despite never facing a war on your own soil in your entire existence.


I agree with the rest, but British troops did burn down the capital during the War of 1812: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

So, it's been a *while*, but the US has had foreign invaders waging war on its soil.


----------



## StevenC

thraxil said:


> I agree with the rest, but British troops did burn down the capital during the War of 1812: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
> 
> So, it's been a *while*, but the US has had foreign invaders waging war on its soil.


Ah yeah, forgot about that one. And there's also the Civil War, but the point is more about invasion, and even then the force "rebelling against tyranny" couldn't win when it was still mostly just muskets.


----------



## tedtan

StevenC said:


> You have one of the fullest prison systems in the world backed by an unequal, *partially privately owned, for profit, *justice system.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## StevenC

tedtan said:


> Fixed that for you.


Yeah, and while we're at it, you can't say cunt on TV.


----------



## zappatton2

StevenC said:


> The point is, as Max said, that freedom has a different definition in the USA that seems to just mean "how things are in the USA". Because by no other definition is the USA the most free nation in the world.
> 
> In fact, by most definitions you're living in a pretty tyrannical place at the moment. The SCOTUS just arbitrarily removed bodily autonomy from women using a justification that would allow organ harvesting, and they're going to reexamine and remove some more basic rights soon, too. You have one of the fullest prison systems in the world backed by an unequal justice system. Your system of governance is wildly unrepresentative to the point that 2 of the last 4 presidents were elected without a majority in a two horse race. You have a wildly outsized military despite never facing a war on your own soil in your entire existence. You have a highly militarised police force that won't even save children being shot at. Your health is sold to private companies for profit.
> 
> And it's illegal to cross the street because the auto industry, like the gun industry, is more important than people.
> 
> How tyrannical does a country have to be to justify those guns?


So much this. This is what I find so baffling about the guns = freedom argument.

There are so many demonstrably _freer _nations, by virtually any metric of what freedom stands for, that have no equivalent concept of the 2nd amendment or weaponization as a condition of "rights" or "freedoms".


----------



## Lemonbaby

StevenC said:


> Yeah, and while we're at it, you can't say cunt on TV.



And rightfully so! Don't want that shit to mess with your kid's heads while they're cleaning their guns.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Yeah, and while we're at it, you can't say cunt on TV.



This is not true. Back when the Donald was hosting "The Apprentice" and I was living in America, I would often find myself saying "cunt on TV".


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> This is not true. Back when the Donald was hosting "The Apprentice" and I was living in America, I would often find myself saying "cunt on TV".


I know you are just trying to be funny, but back in the apprentice days, Trump was an extremely popular and loved public figure. The tv show was extremely popular in the US.
It wasn’t until he declared his candidacy as a republican that TDS started.


----------



## Mike_R

Popping in to address a few people who have quoted me. I would highly recommend that anyone who has cited Australia in this "discussion" actually read the study @Bodes has linked.


Bodes said:


> Sorry, gonna have to rebut you here.
> 
> Death by gun dropped by almost half very quickly after these laws were brought in.
> 
> Yes, I do recognise that death by guns does not equate to gun violence rates (threats using a gun, armed robberies, etc.) But those stats poopoo on your statement.
> 
> Most shootings (deaths or near-misses) we hear about in Aus are gang-related, mostly higher level crims trying to take out the head of another drug criminal organisation.
> We don't generally hear reporting of suicides by gun.
> 
> https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304640 An interesting read about the effect of the 1996 gun reforms and rate of deaths from guns in Aus.
> 
> Edit: spelling and silly auto correct adjustments only



What do you think that study says? I am quoting the study you linked directly here:

"Many claims have been made about the NFA’s far-reaching effects and its potential benefits if implemented in the United States. However, more detailed analysis of the law shows that it likely had a negligible effect on firearm suicides and homicides in Australia and may not have as large an effect in the United States as some gun control advocates expect."

It is beyond me why you would try to "poopoo" on my statement and then link a scholarly study that validates my statement. Negligible is in line with my claim and completely at odds with your "by almost half" claim.

You can read the volumes of studies that have been done. There are at least a half dozen big ones out there. Gun violence researchers are desperate to prove it did what the anti-gunners said it would- people have been trying for decades, but the data doesn't support the (preconceived) conclusion.

There is a reason that the graph you posted isn't the proof that you seem to think that it is. If you read and understood the study that you linked, you would understand why.



Drew said:


> I can't walk into a bar and order a shot of Everclear in Massachusetts. On Sunday, I can't order a bloody mary before 11. If I order seven beers in two hours, a bartender is within their legal rights to not serve me an eighth. Does that mean Prohibition is still in place? This isn't a binary - drinking can be legal, but there can still be individual prohibitions on what drinks I can buy and when I can buy them (this, as the meme goes, is a post about guns).
> 
> Bodes, I think it was, also ran through the stats on Australia's "assault gun" bans, which were quite effective at reducing gun violence. Carefully targeted restrictions CAN be a highly effective form of harm mitigation.



If you think that the Australia semiauto rifle "assault guns" ban was "quite effective at reducing gun violence", you are at odds with a majority of the scholarly studies published on the subject. You said Bodes "ran through the stats". Read the study.



narad said:


> This is silly. Of course you have a right to defend yourself





StevenC said:


> The right to self defense may or may not exist.


You two should sort this out.


----------



## StevenC

Mike_R said:


> You two should sort this out.


Did you read either of what we said, because if you did you would find the statements to be compatible?


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> I know you are just trying to be funny, but back in the apprentice days, Trump was an extremely popular and loved public figure. The tv show was extremely popular in the US.
> It wasn’t until he declared his candidacy as a republican that TDS started.



Dude, that's some alternate reality take. He was like a Simon Cowell or Kim Kardashian figure. Entertaining. Not loved. Not respected. Just kinda trashy TV. Popular, but so was Jerry Springer or Dancing with the Stars.


----------



## tedtan

StevenC said:


> Yeah, and while we're at it, you can't say cunt on TV.


I’ve heard dick and pussy quite a hit on net work TV lately, which is a big change in the us, but I don’t think I’ve heard cunt.

But then we don’t use cunt the way you do; in the US its almost always an insult to a woman, rather than something used fairly casually.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> I know you are just trying to be funny, but back in the apprentice days, Trump was an extremely popular and loved public figure. The tv show was extremely popular in the US.
> It wasn’t until he declared his candidacy as a republican that TDS started.




How many reality television stars are "extremely popular and loved?" People tune into those shows to make themselves feel better about how much mentally well they are in comparison. Even Trump's most vocal supporters in 2016 were apologizing for "The Apprentice" rather than citing it as a reason why he should be elected.


Mike_R said:


> If you think that the Australia semiauto rifle "assault guns" ban was "quite effective at reducing gun violence", you are at odds with a majority of the scholarly studies published on the subject. You said Bodes "ran through the stats". Read the study.









I don't know what sort of adjective should go before "effective," but there is a downward trend in both firearm homicide and firearm suicide since 1996.


----------



## StevenC

tedtan said:


> I’ve heard dick and pussy quite a hit on net work TV lately, which is a big change in the us, but I don’t think I’ve heard cunt.
> 
> But then we don’t use cunt the way you do; in the US its almost always an insult to a woman, rather than something used fairly casually.


Yeah, I saw recently that in the US it is more of a word to describe a woman, whereas the rest of the world it's just slang for reproductive organs and therefore no different to calling someone a dick.


----------



## jaxadam

See You Next Tuesday


----------



## Mike_R

bostjan said:


> I don't know what sort of adjective should go before "effective," but there is a downward trend in both firearm homicide and firearm suicide since 1996.



Read the study @Bodes posted. A logarithmically scaled line chart is not a substitute for statistical analysis. If you think that line chart tells you everything you need to know then you are missing out.

I've made a case for how we could reduce violence without infringing on people's rights. I think they have some merit, and that implementation of those ideas could help save lives.

People here generally don't seem to want to hear that. The consensus here seems to be that prohibition is the solution. That is fine - I didn't expect to change anyone's opinion, just share an additional perspective and some information. I think that is far too rare. People would rather read 40+ pages of dogpiling, insults, and confirmation bias than a single academic paper that @Bodes linked.

Now I can go back to arguing about what 5150 is best.


----------



## Randy

Mike_R said:


> I didn't expect to change anyone's opinion


You're wrong about that, BTW. 

I can't speak for everyone else but I change my mind on stuff all the time based on facts as they're presented. And frequently that comes from people I disagree with and yes, includes people on here and conservatives. Again, I can't speak for everyone else but I *usually* push back hardest if the facts I'm presented with still don't overcome the facts I've already got.

If a pro-gun, or zero prohibition argument presented itself that looked like it was going to make a dent in the specific kind of violence I'm concerned with, I'd be the first to advocate it. Instead I get "don't tread on me, those people aren't my problems" basically, which isn't a proposed solution. The other one I usually get is "the problem isn't what you think it is..." to abdicate any responsibility and move the issue further away from inconveniencing them.

So when a school gets shot up and someone says 1.) the problem isn't school shootings 2.) the problem is not enough guns (even though there armed, trained dudes flooding the hallways) 3.) the problem is an entire generation of people, that's a HEAVY lift to overcome with me right off the bat. Those all lean a lot closer to "don't do anything, just accept it" which, to me, doesn't give you (rhetorically, not literally you) a seat at the table.


----------



## bostjan

Mike_R said:


> Read the study @Bodes posted. A logarithmically scaled line chart is not a substitute for statistical analysis. If you think that line chart tells you everything you need to know then you are missing out.
> 
> I've made a case for how we could reduce violence without infringing on people's rights. I think they have some merit, and that implementation of those ideas could help save lives.
> 
> People here generally don't seem to want to hear that. The consensus here seems to be that prohibition is the solution. That is fine - I didn't expect to change anyone's opinion, just share an additional perspective and some information. I think that is far too rare. People would rather read 40+ pages of dogpiling, insults, and confirmation bias than a single academic paper that @Bodes linked.
> 
> Now I can go back to arguing about what 5150 is best.


Ok, as unlikely as it is for you to come back to the discussion, I think the problem is that, in your last two posts, you didn't make any actual point.



> It is imperative that this political moment, which is so rare in the face of 20 years of political action to restrain real action on firearms-related mortality, not be squandered on a law that will have limited impact. To achieve real, sustained reductions in the majority of causes of firearm-related mortality, the United States needs a broader, more comprehensive range of gun control measures than those in the NFA. If American public health policymakers focus on policy on the basis of Australia’s full suite of gun policy laws, they may be able to achieve real and sustainable public health benefits and make real progress toward minimizing this completely preventable and uniquely American problem.



Is that the point you wanted to make?

As far as the statistic mentioned in the paper:



> _Results._ The NFA had no additional statistically observable impact on firearm-related suicides in women (_P_ = .09) and was associated with a statistically significant increase in the trend in men (_P_ < .001). Trends in non–firearm-related suicide deaths declined by 4.4% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.1%, 4.8%) in men after the introduction of the NFA and increased in women by 0.3% (95% CI = 0.1%, 0.7%). Trends in non–firearm-related homicides declined by 2.2% per year (95% CI = 1.5, 3.8%) in women and 2.9% per year (95% CI = 2.0%, 3.7%) in men after the introduction of the NFA, with a statistically significant improvement in trends for women (_P_ = .04) but not for men (_P_ = .80).



IDK, 4.4% decline in gun violence per year is good. 2.9% decline in non-gun violence per year is also good. One out-of-context statement about how more study is needed doesn't undo the significance of that. But I can see why you didn't quote the more relevant parts of the paper - because these arguments are a lot more subtle. There was a hugely successful suicide prevention program in Australia starting in the mid-1990's. You can't really assign the success of that to the NFA, nor vice-versa, but there's no way to isolate the variable in that system. Gun violence was already trending downward since the early 1990's, which you can see in the graphs, so there's less significance than what is often attributed to the NFA, and maybe that decline in violence had nothing to do with the NFA.

Yeah, those are good points, and the paper does a great job, but the gist of what it's saying just boils down to the old adage "correlation is not causation." But that's not at all the way your argument of "you didn't read the paper!" comes off.

The paper 100% is _not_ saying that the NFA was ineffective at controlling gun violence, it's saying that there were too many other social changes happening all around the same time to isolate the exact cause.

And I think that's exactly why we need to be advocating for more reforms than simply an "assault" weapons ban. However, some sort of reform over gun control laws in the USA is definitely necessary. Whether that means some sort of additional restrictions on certain types of weapons or not, requires some thought, but, if we are talking about mass shootings in general, well, those do tend to generally be associated with certain types of weapons more than others, and we all know that. It also does tend to generally be associated with shooters of a certain age and a certain sex, more than others. And I don't think we ought to profile people based on things outside of their control, but we can openly discriminate against certain objects, and we can do a better job discriminating certain behaviours. I mean, a person on a rooftop with a bolt-action rifle or a shotgun or even a handgun, is going to be less deadly to a crowd of concertgoers or paradewatchers than that same person armed with a high-performance semi-auto rifle with a duffle bag full of extra magazines. Furthermore, if you are hunting for food for survival, the bolt-action rifle or shotgun will likely be a _better_ tool than the rifle in question. Hell, in most home invasions, the hundgun is going to be a better tool than the rifle in question, unless you want to leave a few random holes in your neighbours' walls as well.

So, I guess, what point are you trying to make??


----------



## Andromalia

StevenC said:


> Yeah, I saw recently that in the US it is more of a word to describe a woman, whereas the rest of the world it's just slang for reproductive organs and therefore no different to calling someone a dick.


Can you claim exception of truth when clamoring Richard is a dick ?


----------



## Xaios

Andromalia said:


> Can you claim exception of truth when clamoring Richard is a dick ?


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> Ok, as unlikely as it is for you to come back to the discussion, I think the problem is that, in your last two posts, you didn't make any actual point.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the point you wanted to make?
> 
> As far as the statistic mentioned in the paper:
> 
> 
> 
> IDK, 4.4% decline in gun violence per year is good. 2.9% decline in non-gun violence per year is also good. One out-of-context statement about how more study is needed doesn't undo the significance of that. But I can see why you didn't quote the more relevant parts of the paper - because these arguments are a lot more subtle. There was a hugely successful suicide prevention program in Australia starting in the mid-1990's. You can't really assign the success of that to the NFA, nor vice-versa, but there's no way to isolate the variable in that system. Gun violence was already trending downward since the early 1990's, which you can see in the graphs, so there's less significance than what is often attributed to the NFA, and maybe that decline in violence had nothing to do with the NFA.
> 
> Yeah, those are good points, and the paper does a great job, but the gist of what it's saying just boils down to the old adage "correlation is not causation." But that's not at all the way your argument of "you didn't read the paper!" comes off.
> 
> The paper 100% is _not_ saying that the NFA was ineffective at controlling gun violence, it's saying that there were too many other social changes happening all around the same time to isolate the exact cause.
> 
> And I think that's exactly why we need to be advocating for more reforms than simply an "assault" weapons ban. However, some sort of reform over gun control laws in the USA is definitely necessary. Whether that means some sort of additional restrictions on certain types of weapons or not, requires some thought, but, if we are talking about mass shootings in general, well, those do tend to generally be associated with certain types of weapons more than others, and we all know that. It also does tend to generally be associated with shooters of a certain age and a certain sex, more than others. And I don't think we ought to profile people based on things outside of their control, but we can openly discriminate against certain objects, and we can do a better job discriminating certain behaviours. I mean, a person on a rooftop with a bolt-action rifle or a shotgun or even a handgun, is going to be less deadly to a crowd of concertgoers or paradewatchers than that same person armed with a high-performance semi-auto rifle with a duffle bag full of extra magazines. Furthermore, if you are hunting for food for survival, the bolt-action rifle or shotgun will likely be a _better_ tool than the rifle in question. Hell, in most home invasions, the hundgun is going to be a better tool than the rifle in question, unless you want to leave a few random holes in your neighbours' walls as well.
> 
> So, I guess, what point are you trying to make??


Their point is that they don't know what statistical analysis is.


----------



## Bodes

Mike_R said:


> Read the study @Bodes posted. A logarithmically scaled line chart is not a substitute for statistical analysis. If you think that line chart tells you everything you need to know then you are missing out.
> 
> I've made a case for how we could reduce violence without infringing on people's rights. I think they have some merit, and that implementation of those ideas could help save lives.
> 
> People here generally don't seem to want to hear that. The consensus here seems to be that prohibition is the solution. That is fine - I didn't expect to change anyone's opinion, just share an additional perspective and some information. I think that is far too rare. People would rather read 40+ pages of dogpiling, insults, and confirmation bias than a single academic paper that @Bodes linked.
> 
> Now I can go back to arguing about what 5150 is best.



Ok, so you don't like the links I referred to. That is fine. Why is it that when someone posts statistics or links to academic papers, people, like yourself, say more academic papers are required. However, we are the only ones to provide links and statistics that back up our cases.
Doesn't matter the context of the argument - guns, vaccines, abortion, etc. - the conservative (term used very loosely, here, and apologise to lump people in this category) side of the argument never seem to be able to counter with statistics of their own to back up their side of the argument?

Do I need to link to the video about gun control with John Oliver?

Maybe I could point you towards our official Australian Bureau of Statistics web page on recorded crime which clearly shows that homicides, robberies, uawful entry, etc. reduced quite a lot in the few years after the 1996 gun reforms and continue to stay much lower? Pointing to crimes I would considered to include gun violence.

Yes, yes, again I know. Recorded =/= all crimes as many go unreported. Although I like to think that a big drop in reported crime does correlate, and have causation towards, to a reasonable drop in the level in total crime, both reported and unreported. 

Yes sexual crimes and family violence are up, but imagine if Australia had the same attitude to guns as the USA, how different might the homicide rate look?


----------



## BornToLooze

MaxOfMetal said:


> The problem is that there's not a reliable mechanism in place to make sure that whoever buys said firearm is a guy trying to kill pests on his back 80, or a dude who plans to shoot up a school.



Yes, but the thing is, as this thread goes on, it's further proving my point. I keep finding out laws I've broken because of this thread for dangerous things like making cheese and crossing the street.

How does more laws make sense when there are already so many people are breaking them without knowing it.


----------



## CanserDYI

BornToLooze said:


> Yes, but the thing is, as this thread goes on, it's further proving my point. I keep finding out laws I've broken because of this thread for dangerous things like making cheese and crossing the street.
> 
> How does more laws make sense when there are already so many people are breaking them without knowing it.


Because we're not really asking for _more _laws, we're asking for _better _laws. Less ambiguity, less room for wiggle, better verbage for universal understanding, laws that will be easier to enforce, etc. 

We don't want to add to the list, we want to rewrite it.


----------



## StevenC

BornToLooze said:


> Yes, but the thing is, as this thread goes on, it's further proving my point. I keep finding out laws I've broken because of this thread for dangerous things like making cheese and crossing the street.
> 
> How does more laws make sense when there are already so many people are breaking them without knowing it.


Because you're mixing up what is being said. 

It's illegal to import cheese and Kinder Surprise, and people get stopped at border points daily for it. It is basically impossible to buy these things in the USA, because laws that regulate what you can and can't buy are very easy to enforce. If tomorrow the sale of firearms is made illegal, you will find it very hard to find a shop selling then. 

The point about crossing the road is about whether America is a free country which, compared to most of Europe, it objectively isn't.


----------



## narad

I find that America is not nearly free enough to tout itself as the land of the free, but, having said that, I'm not sure we should let the main criteria of freedom rest on the ability to have chocolate eggs and cheese.


----------



## Glades

What’s y’all’s opinion on HR1808?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> What’s y’all’s opinion on HR1808?



It's a good start, but it barely cleared the House, so it's pretty much dead in the water. 

It's a decent compromise. 

Everyone gets to keep their guns that they already have, but they need to properly store them, and you have to do a background check through an intermediary for private sales. 

But again, this will never be a law. 

Oh well, maybe the next time someone kills a bunch of kids.


----------



## GenghisCoyne

Glades said:


> What’s y’all’s opinion on HR1808?


fuck you. no.


----------



## BornToLooze

CanserDYI said:


> Because we're not really asking for _more _laws, we're asking for _better _laws. Less ambiguity, less room for wiggle, better verbage for universal understanding, laws that will be easier to enforce, etc.
> 
> We don't want to add to the list, we want to rewrite it.



I've actually had this discussion before, and the whole problem with it is people, and the fact that most of the problems go a lot deeper that face value.

I posted earlier about how I have a legitimate need for a rifle like an AR or an AK. Say I get into an argument with my wife (and she's a crazy bitch, not an actual level headed adult like she is), she can call the cops and say I threatened violence against her, boom, gun rights gone until I prove myself innocent in a court of law. On paper, red flag laws are a great idea, but you're crazy if you think there is not a vindictive piece of shit out there that's going to use it as a threat to someone. How many innocent people have to be punished to make sure you catch the bad guys?

And I don't know what better verbiage you need than it is illegal to murder people. It's pretty much the only law that's strong enough we will kill you if you break it. If you're okay with that, are any other laws going to stop you?

That and the people talking about how we need stricter gun laws aren't even capable of googling anything about guns. One of these is a high powered assault rifle round and the other is from a hunting rifle. Care to guess which is which?






StevenC said:


> Because you're mixing up what is being said.
> 
> It's illegal to import cheese and Kinder Surprise, and people get stopped at border points daily for it. It is basically impossible to buy these things in the USA, because laws that regulate what you can and can't buy are very easy to enforce. If tomorrow the sale of firearms is made illegal, you will find it very hard to find a shop selling then.
> 
> The point about crossing the road is about whether America is a free country which, compared to most of Europe, it objectively isn't.



Well I've also found out my coworker is into shoes, I was like oh, cool, I'm into cowboy boots, but apparently you can sell a pair of fucking Nikes for $10k. So as far as stuff like that, I'm firmly in the your making stuff up camp. As far as finding a firearm if they were made illegal tomorrow, I live in a state where marijuana is still illegal, but I'll raise you Willie Nelson, Matthew Mcconaughey, and Willie fucking Nelson.

As far as guns go...I'll refer you to this video


You will not stop evil doing evil. And people think that the government that is the poster child for red flag laws (Trail of Tears, slavery, concentration camps in WW2, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Operation Fast and Furious) has your best interest at heart. Call me crazy, but I trust myself a lot more than the government and cops.


----------



## StevenC

BornToLooze said:


> I've actually had this discussion before, and the whole problem with it is people, and the fact that most of the problems go a lot deeper that face value.
> 
> I posted earlier about how I have a legitimate need for a rifle like an AR or an AK. Say I get into an argument with my wife (and she's a crazy bitch, not an actual level headed adult like she is), she can call the cops and say I threatened violence against her, boom, gun rights gone until I prove myself innocent in a court of law. On paper, red flag laws are a great idea, but you're crazy if you think there is not a vindictive piece of shit out there that's going to use it as a threat to someone. How many innocent people have to be punished to make sure you catch the bad guys?
> 
> And I don't know what better verbiage you need than it is illegal to murder people. It's pretty much the only law that's strong enough we will kill you if you break it. If you're okay with that, are any other laws going to stop you?
> 
> That and the people talking about how we need stricter gun laws aren't even capable of googling anything about guns. One of these is a high powered assault rifle round and the other is from a hunting rifle. Care to guess which is which?
> View attachment 111693
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've also found out my coworker is into shoes, I was like oh, cool, I'm into cowboy boots, but apparently you can sell a pair of fucking Nikes for $10k. So as far as stuff like that, I'm firmly in the your making stuff up camp. As far as finding a firearm if they were made illegal tomorrow, I live in a state where marijuana is still illegal, but I'll raise you Willie Nelson, Matthew Mcconaughey, and Willie fucking Nelson.
> 
> As far as guns go...I'll refer you to this video
> 
> 
> You will not stop evil doing evil. And people think that the government that is the poster child for red flag laws (Trail of Tears, slavery, concentration camps in WW2, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Operation Fast and Furious) has your best interest at heart. Call me crazy, but I trust myself a lot more than the government and cops.



Except it's worked in every other county.


----------



## mmr007

BornToLooze said:


> I've actually had this discussion before, and the whole problem with it is people, and the fact that most of the problems go a lot deeper that face value.
> 
> I posted earlier about how I have a legitimate need for a rifle like an AR or an AK. Say I get into an argument with my wife (and she's a crazy bitch, not an actual level headed adult like she is), she can call the cops and say I threatened violence against her, boom, gun rights gone until I prove myself innocent in a court of law. On paper, red flag laws are a great idea, but you're crazy if you think there is not a vindictive piece of shit out there that's going to use it as a threat to someone. How many innocent people have to be punished to make sure you catch the bad guys?
> 
> And I don't know what better verbiage you need than it is illegal to murder people. It's pretty much the only law that's strong enough we will kill you if you break it. If you're okay with that, are any other laws going to stop you?
> 
> That and the people talking about how we need stricter gun laws aren't even capable of googling anything about guns. One of these is a high powered assault rifle round and the other is from a hunting rifle. Care to guess which is which?
> View attachment 111693
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've also found out my coworker is into shoes, I was like oh, cool, I'm into cowboy boots, but apparently you can sell a pair of fucking Nikes for $10k. So as far as stuff like that, I'm firmly in the your making stuff up camp. As far as finding a firearm if they were made illegal tomorrow, I live in a state where marijuana is still illegal, but I'll raise you Willie Nelson, Matthew Mcconaughey, and Willie fucking Nelson.
> 
> As far as guns go...I'll refer you to this video
> 
> 
> You will not stop evil doing evil. And people think that the government that is the poster child for red flag laws (Trail of Tears, slavery, concentration camps in WW2, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Operation Fast and Furious) has your best interest at heart. Call me crazy, but I trust myself a lot more than the government and cops.



If you have a crazy wife who falsely accuses you of a violent crime to the police your biggest concern is you have to surrender your gun until it gets sorted out? um....ok

Also I missed your earlier post you mentioned but why do you need an AR or AK?

Also, I will be honest the minutiae of caliber and shell casing size doesn't matter when not only could either split a child's head open like a melon, it does so with great regularity in this country.


----------



## BornToLooze

mmr007 said:


> If you have a crazy wife who falsely accuses you of a violent crime to the police your biggest concern is you have to surrender your gun until it gets sorted out? um....ok
> 
> Also I missed your earlier post you mentioned but why do you need an AR or AK?
> 
> Also, I will be honest the minutiae of caliber and shell casing size doesn't matter when not only could either split a child's head open like a melon, it does so with great regularity in this country.



Yes, because at that point you are guilty of thought crime.

Because I have property out in the country, that has a large population of a violent, invasive species of animal, and to put it into not country terms, I have a higher K ratio than John Wick.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

BornToLooze said:


> Yes, because at that point you are guilty of thought crime.
> 
> Because I have property out in the country, that has a large population of a violent, invasive species of animal, and to put it into not country terms, I have a higher K ratio than John Wick.



I really hope your ratio is good using your gun to kill pigs. Hope you get some food out of them at least too.


----------



## Adieu

BornToLooze said:


> I posted earlier about how I have a legitimate need for a rifle like an AR or an AK. Say I get into an argument with my wife (and she's a crazy bitch, not an actual level headed adult like she is), she can call the cops and say I threatened violence against her, boom, gun rights gone until I prove myself innocent in a court of law. On paper, red flag laws are a great idea, but you're crazy if you think there is not a vindictive piece of shit out there that's going to use it as a threat to someone. How many innocent people have to be punished to make sure you catch the bad guys?
> 
> And I don't know what better verbiage you need than it is illegal to murder people. It's pretty much the only law that's strong enough we will kill you if you break it. If you're okay with that, are any other laws going to stop you?
> 
> That and the people talking about how we need stricter gun laws aren't even capable of googling anything about guns. One of these is a high powered assault rifle round and the other is from a hunting rifle. Care to guess which is which?
> View attachment 111693
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've also found out my coworker is into shoes, I was like oh, cool, I'm into cowboy boots, but apparently you can sell a pair of fucking Nikes for $10k. So as far as stuff like that, I'm firmly in the your making stuff up camp. As far as finding a firearm if they were made illegal tomorrow, I live in a state where marijuana is still illegal, but I'll raise you Willie Nelson, Matthew Mcconaughey, and Willie fucking Nelson.
> 
> As far as guns go...I'll refer you to this video
> 
> 
> You will not stop evil doing evil. And people think that the government that is the poster child for red flag laws (Trail of Tears, slavery, concentration camps in WW2, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Operation Fast and Furious) has your best interest at heart. Call me crazy, but I trust myself a lot more than the government and cops.




Wtf is a LEGITIMATE NEED...for an *AK*???

Is enemy infantry storming your bunker?


----------



## narad

BornToLooze said:


> I posted earlier about how I have a legitimate need for a rifle like an AR or an AK. Say I get into an argument with my wife (and she's a crazy bitch, not an actual level headed adult like she is), she can call the cops and say I threatened violence against her, boom, gun rights gone until I prove myself innocent in a court of law. On paper, red flag laws are a great idea, but you're crazy if you think there is not a vindictive piece of shit out there that's going to use it as a threat to someone. How many innocent people have to be punished to make sure you catch the bad guys?



Is this satire? 

You're basically saying if there is a domestic dispute with and a guy actually threatens her (and probably calls her a crazy bitch), that he should be able to keep his AR or AK, and then inevitably in some cases go back and shoot her, because it would be a shame to inconvenience people like yourself. As sad as that is, it also didn't do anything to help provide an argument of why you should even have one in the first place.


----------



## narad

BornToLooze said:


> You will not stop evil doing evil. And people think that the government that is the poster child for red flag laws (Trail of Tears, slavery, concentration camps in WW2, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Operation Fast and Furious) has your best interest at heart. Call me crazy, but I trust myself a lot more than the government and cops.



And stop with the tautologies. We all trust ourselves more than the government or cops. But I trust the government or cops a lot more than I trust the typical person who wants an AK or AR. 

The government does bad things. But it also does good things. Listing either is neither useful to the idea that your guns are necessary or able to do anything against the government. The government, which is of course not some singular enemy, but a bunch of americans following the orders of other americans who were elected by americans-at-large and put in charge of military equipment so unfathomably more advanced that it comparatively makes your collective arsenal look like a ballistic analog of micropenis.


----------



## Adieu

Yeah... that.

If I can't have Patriot missile defense systems, wtf am I gonna do with a single AK? Other than cap some rando civilians in the ass, which is the exact concern people have about private owners of AKs


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I've been charged or lunged at by feral boars on three different occasions that I can recall off the top of my head... one time in Big Bend, another time in Kingsland, and once in Seguin. Fortunately, two of these were false-charges and the other time I was able to jump into my Jeep. But had I needed to, I could have likely dispatched of the fuckers with something in a 4+1 30-06 or .45-70 or something similar. A boar is typically only aggressive when protecting their passel or when they're rutting so I dunno... an AR seems pretty excessive in many instances... whether for protection or population control. Texas does have a shit load of wild hogs but I've never personally known any rancher or farmer that ever uses an automatic to put down hogs or any other wild animal that they encounter.


----------



## StevenC

The rest of the world has wild animals but no ARs. 

For real though. I know plenty of farmers who have guns for legitimate reasons that don't seem inconvenienced by my inability to get one.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> The rest of the world has wild animals but no ARs.
> 
> For real though. I know plenty of farmers who have guns for legitimate reasons that don't seem inconvenienced by my inability to get one.


If Australia can survive without ARs, id say the wildlife argument is moot.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> If Australia can survive without ARs, id say the wildlife argument is moot.


The wild boar has undergone rapid evolution since its introduction to the USA and since 1776 in particular. Back then all that was required to take down a boar was a musket, but these new boars are black powder resistant.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> The wild boar has undergone rapid evolution since its introduction to the USA and since 1776 in particular. Back then all that was required to take down a boar was a musket, but these new boars are black powder resistant.



I'm guessing it's a Rittenhouse situation where someone grabs a gun then travels across state lines to get themselves surrounded by boars, then fires into them screaming self defense. Then talks about how they're a responsible gun owner with an extremely tactical mindset and exceptional situational awareness at all times.


----------



## c7spheres

Everything the military has should be available at Walmart, including nukes and bio weapons. This is equaltiy. Anyone who disagrees is anti-equality and pro-oppresion. Fact, not fiction.


----------



## MFB

StevenC said:


> The wild boar has undergone rapid evolution since its introduction to the USA and since 1776 in particular. Back then all that was required to take down a boar was a musket, but these new boars are black powder resistant.



Unfortunately in the US, boars - and coincidentally rhinos too - have learned to use firearms to protect themselves from their own natural predators: mutated turtles who are of teenage age possessing ninja-like abilities.


----------



## c7spheres

MFB said:


> Unfortunately in the US, boars - and coincidentally rhinos too - have learned to use firearms to protect themselves from their own natural predators: mutated turtles who are of teenage age possessing ninja-like abilities.


 If you use a flame thrower you can cook some dinner too. Two boars with one stone. I want a flame thrower. I wonder if we go out in the desert with all these fires we can find pork roast just lying around in nature. Mmm. yum.


----------



## MFB

c7spheres said:


> If you use a flame thrower you can cook some dinner too. Two boars with one stone. I want a flame thrower. I wonder if we go out in the desert with all these fires we can find pork roast just lying around in nature. Mmm. yum.



I heard people in California don't even need flame throwers, they're just letting the "natural" forest fires cook them on their own while they try to escape deforestation; now that's my kind of global warming!


----------



## Randy

c7spheres said:


> Everything the military has should be available at Walmart, including nukes and bio weapons. This is equaltiy. Anyone who disagrees is anti-equality and pro-oppresion. Fact, not fiction.


Underrated point TBH.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

c7spheres said:


> Everything the military has should be available at Walmart, including nukes and bio weapons. This is equaltiy. Anyone who disagrees is anti-equality and pro-oppresion. Fact, not fiction.



Seems reasonable, after all F-35s are on par with the engineering of your average crap from wal mart.


----------



## mmr007

wheresthefbomb said:


> Seems reasonable, after all F-35s are on par with the engineering of your average crap from wal mart.


The quote while obviously an exaggeration makes a very valid point. The 2A people seem to accept a very arbitrary demarcation between military weapons and civilian pseudo-military weapons. If you won't take one step back from the absolutely unnecessary carnage inflicting weapons available now because its a threat to your basic human rights then why aren't you arguing for even more destructive weapons while simultaneous resting your case on a 230 year old piece of parchment that only knew muskets and maybe witchcraft wasn't as real a thing as first believed?


----------



## odibrom

wheresthefbomb said:


> Seems reasonable, after all F-35s are on par with the engineering of your average crap from wal mart.


I want an F-35 to go to work... perfect vertical landing and take off on the roofs of my house and office's... and if there's a traffic jam, well, I'll shoot them of the sky!

... and nuke the boss when he's indisposed... that would be awesome... civilian casualties are parte of the game, I mean soft targets, so who cares!...

...


----------



## wheresthefbomb

mmr007 said:


> The quote while obviously an exaggeration makes a very valid point. The 2A people seem to accept a very arbitrary demarcation between military weapons and civilian pseudo-military weapons. If you won't take one step back from the absolutely unnecessary carnage inflicting weapons available now because its a threat to your basic human rights then why aren't you arguing for even more destructive weapons while simultaneous resting your case on a 230 year old piece of parchment that only knew muskets and maybe witchcraft wasn't as real a thing as first believed?



if it wasn't evident, I was adding to the sarcasm 

I gave a whole speech at our city council about what a waste it was to spend $100k of our borough's money trying to get a "consultant" to tell the air force we needed f-35s here. they are famously unreliable, overengineered, nuclear-capable abominations of modern technology. 

I titled my speech, "how I learned to stop caring and love the F-35" which got a few chuckles from the older councilmembers. 

The worst part of the night was when the only councilmembers on our side of the discussion (all the peacenicks turned out) were the two fucking libertarian clowns. Everybody lost something that day.


----------



## mmr007

ahhh. Now I see your quote differently


----------



## Randy

mmr007 said:


> The quote while obviously an exaggeration makes a very valid point. The 2A people seem to accept a very arbitrary demarcation between military weapons and civilian pseudo-military weapons. If you won't take one step back from the absolutely unnecessary carnage inflicting weapons available now because its a threat to your basic human rights then why aren't you arguing for even more destructive weapons while simultaneous resting your case on a 230 year old piece of parchment that only knew muskets and maybe witchcraft wasn't as real a thing as first believed?



Also, the classism of the argument that weapons are necessary for self defense or protection against tyrannical governments, then agitating toward disarming minority communities; who are more frequently endangered and disproportionately oppressed by their government.


----------



## mmr007

Randy said:


> Also, the classism of the argument that weapons are necessary for self defense or protection against tyrannical governments, then agitating toward disarming minority communities; who are more frequently endangered and disproportionately oppressed by their government.


I see it differently. I see it as a very noble cause...a proactive retrenchment of the centuries old "white man's burden" approach to people (and nations) of color. Too long have we allowed others to enjoy the fruits of our labors to impose proper civilization on the "half child half devils." 

We have not only decided they don't need guns, We have done the honorable thing and attempted to take them away entirely so we no longer impose our "civilized" way of life and thus deprive them of the benefits of school shootings and church shootings and mall shootings and....

We shouldn't let them have guns of their own but should they decide they want at least just a little taste of our brand of civilization and experience shootings for themselves then they only need drive 37mph in a 35mph zone with expired tags or find a similar method of threatening a cop.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Was wondering when this discussion would lead to the seemingly inevitable worst case scenario. Maybe Kim Jong Un could take advantage of this possible new market to prop up his cash strapped regime. He's already made a ton selling arms to our neighbors. When are we gonna get a homegrown militia with nuclear warheads?


----------



## Glades

Alcohol is responsible for approximately 95,000 deaths in the US every year. We should ban it. Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Sudan all banned it and their deaths due to alcohol use is 0. We should adopt their model. It worked for them.


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> Alcohol is responsible for approximately 95,000 deaths in the US every year. We should ban it. Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Sudan all banned it and their deaths due to alcohol use is 0. We should adopt their model. It worked for them.



Yeah, I'm sure those numbers aren't falsified like, at all


----------



## Glades

MFB said:


> Yeah, I'm sure those numbers aren't falsified like, at all


That's the value posted on the NIH website, with the original source being the CDC. I thought you liberals loved the CDC.

Alcohol Facts and Statistics (NIH)


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> That's the value posted on the NIH website, with the original source being the CDC. I thought you liberals loved the CDC.
> 
> Alcohol Facts and Statistics (NIH)


Wrong set of numbers.  

But I'm surprised, and glad, to see you're a supporter of prohibition, for alcohol AND firearms. Glad to see we finally won you over.


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> That's the value posted on the NIH website, with the original source being the CDC. I thought you liberals loved the CDC.
> 
> Alcohol Facts and Statistics (NIH)



I meant the ones that are being reported from those countries, not the US. Shit, 95K sounds low for our love of boozing it up


----------



## Glades

Drew said:


> Wrong set of numbers.
> 
> But I'm surprised, and glad, to see you're a supporter of prohibition, for alcohol AND firearms. Glad to see we finally won you over.


Of Course! Why would anyone need a gun? There is no use for guns in 2022. I trust the government has my best interest in mind! 

PS.: I also want to see vegetables banned.


----------



## tedtan

High Plains Drifter said:


> I've been charged or lunged at by feral boars on three different occasions that I can recall off the top of my head... one time in Big Bend, another time in Kingsland, and once in Seguin. Fortunately, two of these were false-charges and the other time I was able to jump into my Jeep. But had I needed to, I could have likely dispatched of the fuckers with something in a 4+1 30-06 or .45-70 or something similar. A boar is typically only aggressive when protecting their passel or when they're rutting so I dunno... an AR seems pretty excessive in many instances... whether for protection or population control. Texas does have a shit load of wild hogs but I've never personally known any rancher or farmer that ever uses an automatic to put down hogs or any other wild animal that they encounter.


The 30-06 or 45-70 are more appropriate for the task than the 5.56mm.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> PS.: I also want to see vegetables banned.


If you want to make jokes you have to sane enough in the rest of your posts that this doesn't just seem like something you believe.


----------



## MFB

StevenC said:


> If you want to make jokes you have to sane enough in the rest of your posts that this doesn't just seem like something you believe.



Maybe he meant paraplegics?


----------



## StevenC

MFB said:


> Maybe he meant paraplegics?


That does follow their earlier oppression of women.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> Of Course! Why would anyone need a gun? There is no use for guns in 2022. I trust the government has my best interest in mind!



Really? Why are you here? I have shirts older than your time here as a citizen yet you have a desperate fear of the government - the same government that allowed you to be here. Every word is out of you is flaming bs.


----------



## mmr007

The gun manufacturers are in bed with the government (the one you don't trust)....they work together. If you think supporting gun rights legislation protects YOU....you are delusional.


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> The gun manufacturers are in bed with the government (the one you don't trust)....they work together. If you think supporting gun rights legislation protects YOU....you are delusional.


No no, not that part of the government. He doesn't trust the rich, corrupt, frump old white men that sit on the _left_ side of the room. The ones who sit on the _right_ side are friends.


----------



## Xaios

Glades said:


> Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Sudan all banned it and their deaths due to alcohol use is 0. We should adopt their model.


Translation: Hey, you know what the best way is to deal with a significant problem in America? *Sharia Law!*

It's times like that where I wonder "okay, maybe he _is_ being satirical." But then you double down in a way that makes it apparent that you're completely serious, and I wonder if creation might be better off if humanity weren't a part of it.


----------



## Adieu

MFB said:


> Yeah, I'm sure those numbers aren't falsified like, at all



Their LEGAL alcohol deaths are indeed 0


----------



## odibrom

... so we have another argument shooter like the one in the car way back in page 4 or 5 of this thread?...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Glades said:


> Of Course! Why would anyone need a gun? There is no use for guns in 2022. I trust the government has my best interest in mind!
> 
> PS.: I also want to see vegetables banned.



You also want the government to make medical decisions for women. Quit being such a clown.


----------



## narad

Xaios said:


> Translation: Hey, you know what the best way is to deal with a significant problem in America? *Sharia Law!*
> 
> It's times like that where I wonder "okay, maybe he _is_ being satirical." But then you double down in a way that makes it apparent that you're completely serious, and I wonder if creation might be better off if humanity weren't a part of it.



This guy is like the worst chess player in the world. Whatever move superficially counters the latest post, with no thought of the ramifications of what he's saying. The anti-immigration anti-government immigrant republican.


----------



## mmr007

Cant SSO institute random captchas to block russian troll bots


----------



## narad

mmr007 said:


> Cant SSO institute random captchas to block russian troll bots



Select all of the following images which you can fight with an AK:


----------



## mmr007

How dare you exercise free speech and in so doing disrespect the country we plan to overthrow for oppressing our freedoms.....


----------



## odibrom

narad said:


> Select all of the following images which you can fight with an AK:



... eeerrr... all of them obviously, specially the last one which can't hover in place and is always moving towards its target right? one just have to align with it and shoot it out of the sky, easy-peasy... I can't see what the problem is, I could also do it blindfolded with a water gun shooting at its exhaust end or spinning my nunchakus really fast. Haven't you seen the 4th Karate Kid movie (the one with the girl)? Mr Miyagi catches an arrow shot at him with his bare hands in the last instant (I thaught him that), me, I'd use my unregistered ninja sword and cut that obscene flying penis in the same manner, last instant right before it hit me, I'd dodge it and bam, my sword would cut right in the middle...

I still want an F-35 to go the work or shopping, above all traffic jams and park it wherever I want, police can't lock it because it lifts off vertically. Those wheel chains/locks won't work haha...


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> Select all of the following images which you can fight with an AK:





narad said:


>



Have you ever read a history book? Are you at all aware of the failures of the American military against militia warfare in the 20th/21st Century? You fool. The AK-47 has been whooping the US since the Korean War and Vietnam.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Have you ever read a history book? Are you at all aware of the failures of the American military against militia warfare in the 20th/21st Century? You fool. The AK-47 has been whooping the US since the Korean War and Vietnam.


It's a shame there are no well regulated militias then to shoot down the helicopters.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Have you ever read a history book? Are you at all aware of the failures of the American military against militia warfare in the 20th/21st Century? You fool. The AK-47 has been whooping the US since the Korean War and Vietnam.


Yea n00b, there's a VA burial flag in my living room -- I'm somewhat aware of America's military involvements of the 20th/21st century. 

It's a shame you don't seem to be acknowledging any of the obvious aspects of those conflicts that contributed to US difficulties. Hint: the AK-47 isn't a big part of it, and unless you are inhabiting some intricate tunnel system in some unmapped area of Florida, mixed in with a bunch of civilians we don't want to kill, fighting off against a bunch of circa 1970 government tech, that is cut off from robust supply lines, you don't have a chance in hell. In recent conflicts, facing off against people who are probably well-described as battle hardened on their home turf and generally unfamiliar to the soldiers, the enemy/military death toll tends to be ~100:1. You like those odds? Have you ever read a math book?


----------



## CanserDYI

Why do conservatives see the government as this one singular evil entity when in reality its just a bunch of people who frankly are just trying to get a fuckin paycheck like everyone else?


----------



## odibrom

CanserDYI said:


> Why do conservatives see the government as this one singular evil entity when in reality its just a bunch of people who frankly are just trying to get a fuckin paycheck like everyone else?


... I'd add "at the cost of everyone else"  ... but that would be giving the enemy free to use arguments...


----------



## mmr007

StevenC said:


> It's a shame there are no well regulated militias then to shoot down the helicopters.


There are. They march around in tin foil hats following orders from a lunatic conman


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> Have you ever read a history book? Are you at all aware of the failures of the American military against militia warfare in the 20th/21st Century? You fool. The AK-47 has been whooping the US since the Korean War and Vietnam.


You're calling us fools? This is rich. You are a fool. The failures of the American military are NOT because of the AK-47, they are because of a FREE MOTHERFUCKING PRESS that reported on the war and it turned public opinion against it (not that it was ever there to begin with). The US government didn't go all out and try and win the wars not because their apache helicopters (which didn't exist back then) were scared of small arms fire...they were scared of China or the Soviet Union intervening and subsequent direct conflict because as dumb as McNamara was even he knew the only way to stop a good guy like us with a nuke is a bad guy with a nuke (give or take thousands more)

Yes I've read history books and what's more some of us have been real soldiers, not pretend ones who got cum stains on their shorts from watching die hard.

What's actually more disturbing is this undercurrent you espouse....do you ACTUALLY think that you owning small arms that right now others are using children to practice on will actually help you in the great war with the government? You are delusional unless you and hundreds of thousands more just like you are TRAINING for this in which case I have no reason to respect you as a fellow citizen because you clearly aren't interested in being one. Too bad you don't recognize that global warming and nuclear proliferation are still a greater threat to you and me than Pelosi "coming for your guns"


----------



## MFB

mmr007 said:


> There are. They march around in tin foil hats following orders from a lunatic conman



That's why Steven said a well-regulated one, not just, _A_ militia


----------



## mmr007




----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> You're calling us fools? This is rich. You are a fool. The failures of the American military are NOT because of the AK-47, they are because of a FREE MOTHERFUCKING PRESS that reported on the war and it turned public opinion against it (not that it was ever there to begin with). The US government didn't go all out and try and win the wars not because their apache helicopters (which didn't exist back then) were scared of small arms fire...they were scared of China or the Soviet Union intervening and subsequent direct conflict because as dumb as McNamara was even he knew the only way to stop a good guy like us with a nuke is a bad guy with a nuke (give or take thousands more)
> 
> Yes I've read history books and what's more some of us have been real soldiers, not pretend ones who got cum stains on their shorts from watching die hard.
> 
> What's actually more disturbing is this undercurrent you espouse....do you ACTUALLY think that you owning small arms that right now others are using children to practice on will actually help you in the great war with the government? You are delusional unless you and hundreds of thousands more just like you are TRAINING for this in which case I have no reason to respect you as a fellow citizen because you clearly aren't interested in being one. Too bad you don't recognize that global warming and nuclear proliferation are still a greater threat to you and me than Pelosi "coming for your guns"


Only about 1 in 4 military personnel wounds in armed conflict are from bullets, according to the Red Cross. In Iraq and Afghanistan, that number was only 9% for US troops. Far more injuries are caused by explosions. So, even if you assume that the wars were lost by traditional battle (which we know that they weren't), it wasn't bullets from AK-47's that caused the majority of the problem.


----------



## mmr007

bostjan said:


> Only about 1 in 4 military personnel wounds in armed conflict are from bullets, according to the Red Cross. In Iraq and Afghanistan, that number was only 9% for US troops. Far more injuries are caused by explosions. So, even if you assume that the wars were lost by traditional battle (which we know that they weren't), it wasn't bullets from AK-47's that caused the majority of the problem.


ok. Color me either dim or perplexed (your choice) but why is what you are saying a response to what I was saying? Are we in disagreement about something?


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> ok. Color me either dim or perplexed (your choice) but why is what you are saying a response to what I was saying? Are we in disagreement about something?


Sorry, should have been clearer if I had started that out with "not only that, but additionally..."

Yeah, I agree with what you said, just thought that, even if someone were to argue that you were wrong about the high-level stuff (not saying you are), @Glades would still be wrong, since what that user had said was just nonsense.


----------



## BornToLooze

narad said:


> Is this satire?
> 
> You're basically saying if there is a domestic dispute with and a guy actually threatens her (and probably calls her a crazy bitch), that he should be able to keep his AR or AK, and then inevitably in some cases go back and shoot her, because it would be a shame to inconvenience people like yourself. As sad as that is, it also didn't do anything to help provide an argument of why you should even have one in the first place.



No it's not, try reading what I wrote again.


----------



## narad

BornToLooze said:


> No it's not, try reading what I wrote again.



If you want to stop red flag laws so that some "vindictive piece of shit" can't use a false claim so the police take away your guns, then it obviously follows that you'll be protecting actual pieces of shit that threaten their domestic partners with weapons, and wind up actually shooting them. You didn't write it, but what you wrote directly implies it.

Like you say, "How many innocent people have to be punished to make sure you catch the bad guys?" and the innocent people you refer to are the guys with guns whose wives call the cops on them when they didn't actually threaten them, and not like, wives who get shot by their husbands. Weird priorities and a little bit too specific.


----------



## BornToLooze

narad said:


> If you want to stop red flag laws so that some "vindictive piece of shit" can't use a false claim so the police take away your guns, then it obviously follows that you'll be protecting actual pieces of shit that threaten their domestic partners with weapons, and wind up actually shooting them. You didn't write it, but what you wrote directly implies it.
> 
> Like you say, "How many innocent people have to be punished to make sure you catch the bad guys?" and the innocent people you refer to are the guys with guns whose wives call the cops on them when they didn't actually threaten them, and not like, wives who get shot by their husbands. Weird priorities and a little bit too specific.



As someone who has almost gotten assault charges from stopping that one inlaw that's never invited but always finds out about the family events and shows up anyways, from beating the shit out of their kid I have so many problems with what you said. 

And as far as pieces of shit that threaten their domestic partner with weapons, she threatened to kill me, my wife, our kids, her boyfriend, his son, and his N-word loving momma. But she tried to file assault charges on me, because I wasn't as gentle as I could have been when I stopped her from beating the shit out of a twelve year old and an 8 month old. Also, it's surprising how many felonies someone can catch at one time.

But even besides that, as cliched quote as it is, God made all men, Sam Colt made 'em equal. If a woman weighs half of what her boyfriend does, that's probably the only chance she has from getting beat to death.


----------



## narad

BornToLooze said:


> As someone who has almost gotten assault charges from stopping that one inlaw that's never invited but always finds out about the family events and shows up anyways, from beating the shit out of their kid I have so many problems with what you said.
> 
> And as far as pieces of shit that threaten their domestic partner with weapons, she threatened to kill me, my wife, our kids, her boyfriend, his son, and his N-word loving momma. But she tried to file assault charges on me, because I wasn't as gentle as I could have been when I stopped her from beating the shit out of a twelve year old and an 8 month old. Also, it's surprising how many felonies someone can catch at one time.
> 
> But even besides that, as cliched quote as it is, God made all men, Sam Colt made 'em equal. If a woman weighs half of what her boyfriend does, that's probably the only chance she has from getting beat to death.



I mean, I read this and all I think is we need more red flag laws. This is exactly the type of nonsense police should handle.

The problem with the US is that some people are living in 2023 and others are living in 1823 and somehow one set of rules is supposed to apply to both. Call the police, stop trying to be John Wayne.


----------



## tedtan

Calling the police is generally the best option, but it still doesn’t apply to every situation. For example, I live out in the country, so the police wouldn’t get here in time to prevent anything from happening, they’d only be able to try to sort things out after the fact. If I want to prevent something from happening, its pretty much on me to do so.

Also, Florida implemented some red flag laws that aren’t terrible. After a complaint, the case goes before a judge who examines the evidence and makes a temporary (or, in some cases, permanent) ruling as to whether the defendant gets to keep their firearms. If the judge rules no firearms for one year, the case can then be revisited after that one year period to determine whether the individual is able to recieve their firearms back at that point.

I’m sure there are some issues that could be improved, but Florida’s flag laws could serve as a viable model for national red flag laws.


----------



## profwoot

The average cop is also an ignorant simpleton so I'd think twice about calling a cop to any situation more complicated than "I got robbed" or else you're as likely to be the one getting abused/shot/arrested. Especially if you're black, in which case you already know to basically never call the cops.

It sucks, because "just call the cops" should be the correct answer. That cops are so corrupt, incompetent, and unaccountable does change the calculus.


----------



## CanserDYI

Anyone else rubbing their nips to the Alex Jones trial? This shit is too funny.


----------



## Drew

profwoot said:


> The average cop is also an ignorant simpleton so I'd think twice about calling a cop to any situation more complicated than "I got robbed" or else you're as likely to be the one getting abused/shot/arrested. Especially if you're black, in which case you already know to basically never call the cops.
> 
> It sucks, because "just call the cops" should be the correct answer. That cops are so corrupt, incompetent, and unaccountable does change the calculus.


I mean, if the reason red flag laws won't work is the cops are too corrupt, incompetent, and unaccountable to be trusted to enforce them and not shoot the people calling in red flags, that's a pretty strong argment for reducing the number of guns in private AND police hands.

The fact modern policing involves treating basically every police interaction as a SWAT exercise is, I'd argue, one of the biggest problems with American gun culture.


----------



## profwoot

Drew said:


> I mean, if the reason red flag laws won't work is the cops are too corrupt, incompetent, and unaccountable to be trusted to enforce them and not shoot the people calling in red flags, that's a pretty strong argment for reducing the number of guns in private AND police hands.
> 
> The fact modern policing involves treating basically every police interaction as a SWAT exercise is, I'd argue, one of the biggest problems with American gun culture.


Agreed that it's all part of the same big problem, but drastic police reform would sure make it easier.


----------



## Glades

CanserDYI said:


> Anyone else rubbing their nips to the Alex Jones trial? This shit is too funny.


As crazy as AJ is, he was right about a lot of things. But inthe process he’s made a lot of really powerful enemies. 
He was talking about Epstein and the island 20 years ago. Uncovering secret societies for the powerful and the military industrial complex. His reporting on Bohemian Grove was groundbreaking.


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> As crazy as AJ is, he was right about a lot of things. But inthe process he’s made a lot of really powerful enemies.
> He was talking about Epstein and the island 20 years ago. Uncovering secret societies for the powerful and the military industrial complex. His reporting on Bohemian Grove was groundbreaking.


How the fuck did I know you'd come in with a "I know he's crazy but...."


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> As crazy as AJ is, he was right about a lot of things. But inthe process he’s made a lot of really powerful enemies.
> He was talking about Epstein and the island 20 years ago. Uncovering secret societies for the powerful and the military industrial complex. His reporting on Bohemian Grove was groundbreaking.


Wow, yeah, like how he predicted that we'd all be in FEMA camps by 2011 or how Michelle Obama is transgender, or how Barack Obama has a machine that controls tornados, or how gay people are a conspiracy by the New World Order to decrease the surplus population by making people gay using chemicals?

Right about so many things, it's scary.


----------



## Glades

bostjan said:


> Wow, yeah, like how he predicted that we'd all be in FEMA camps by 2011 or how Michelle Obama is transgender, or how Barack Obama has a machine that controls tornados, or how gay people are a conspiracy by the New World Order to decrease the surplus population by making people gay using chemicals?
> 
> Right about so many things, it's scary.


Mod edit: one more report of this kind of trolling and you're gone.


----------



## CanserDYI

He's trolling us now.


----------



## tedtan

CanserDYI said:


> He's trolling us now.


He’s been trolling the whole time.


----------



## spudmunkey

It's rare that I "ignore" someone, because there's usually some amusement to be had, but...yeah, no.


----------



## BornToLooze

tedtan said:


> Calling the police is generally the best option, but it still doesn’t apply to every situation. For example, I live out in the country, so the police wouldn’t get here in time to prevent anything from happening, they’d only be able to try to sort things out after the fact. If I want to prevent something from happening, its pretty much on me to do so.



Ya, like in the example I posted, cops were called right when shit started to go down, and they were there like maybe 30-45 minutes later.



profwoot said:


> The average cop is also an ignorant simpleton so I'd think twice about calling a cop to any situation more complicated than "I got robbed" or else you're as likely to be the one getting abused/shot/arrested. Especially if you're black, in which case you already know to basically never call the cops.
> 
> It sucks, because "just call the cops" should be the correct answer. That cops are so corrupt, incompetent, and unaccountable does change the calculus.



So much this. I live in a small town, and thanks to a job I used to have I have been friends at one point or another with quite a few of the cops. There were some of them I genuinely liked. Damn good people who really wanted to make a difference and help people, and also fresh out of the academy and not jaded yet. Not even counting the corrupt, incompetent, and unaccountable dirtbag cops...think of how many retail workers loathe the general public. Now imagine with every time you interact with the public, instead of helping them buy the cool dikfer they wanted to buy, it's always something shitty. Some shit like I went through, your stuff got stolen, state sponsored revenue enforcement of laws that don't hurt anybody...

Which is my problem with the whole thing. People. Since it seems prevelent in modern politics, we'll go with the right wing religious extremist ideology. Their god made a dude, then their god made a chick (shit I think I mighta used them pronouns in that), their god told the people he made not to do ONE thing. And what's the first thing they did, ate the damn apple. I get the reasoning behind red flag laws, but the war on drugs and Prohibition proves, all government overstep is going to do is make more outlaws. If you are dead set on murdering someone does it really matter what laws you break in the process?




CanserDYI said:


> Anyone else rubbing their nips to the Alex Jones trial? This shit is too funny.



What is his deal/he even on trial for? I've seen his name popping up, and shit like this comes up on youtube and I'm kinda like that Chris Pratt meme, I don't know what's going on and I'm scared to ask.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

BornToLooze said:


> What is his deal/he even on trial for?



He's being sued by the families of Sandy Hook victims who received death threats because he actively pushed the conspiracy theory that the massacre never happened, and that the family of victims were crisis actors. 

That's way too short of a summary, if you feel like hating the world more, dive down the rabbit hole of how depraved people can be to people whose children just died violently at school.


----------



## odibrom

MaxOfMetal said:


> He's being sued by the families of Sandy Hook victims who received death threats because he actively pushed the conspiracy theory that the massacre never happened, and that the family of victims were crisis actors.
> 
> That's way too short of a summary, if you feel like hating the world more, dive down the rabbit hole of how depraved people can be to people whose children just died violently at school.


Shit people are going to be shit people...


----------



## works0fheart

Sorry in advance for the triple post.

I just read through most of this thread and I'm deciding (against my better judgement) to weigh in on some things.
A bit about me: Born and raised in Florida, but I've lived in a lot of different places (including other countries). My work takes me all over. In 4 and 1/2 years I've moved 7 times. I've been to every continental US state except Texas (Not sure how that coincidence happened).

Living in Japan in 2020 was very eye opening compared to the states because it's generally very peaceful. A very calm place overall where I'm hard pressed to name more than 1 area that I felt unsafe. It wasn't uncommon for parents to let their young children transit unsupervised to subway stations and to school with little worry of anything happening.

While I have my own views on guns (I'm military so I have pretty frequent training on how and when to properly use them) I don't think that this issue is 100% the fault of our gun laws, but they damned well aren't helping. Would I prefer they weren't a thing? Absolutely. I've seen too many people that I've known personally lose their lives to them (Pulse Nightclub).

Here's a few points I really wanted to touch on before anything else though.



Dineley said:


> Ummm that's not exactly leaving much real estate lo
> View attachment 110776



Having lived in Miami and Fort Lauderdale both areas are fairly unstable and have been for longer than a lot of other places currently. Miami especially so. I really don't think Florida is much worse off than most other major cities at this point though, which is sad. It's always been bad, just the other places have caught up somehow, which is pretty crazy.


DiezelMonster said:


> As a Canadian and more specifically an Ontarian, I would rather go to Detroit than Windsor.....



Detroit is probably far and away the worst US city I've ever seen, and this was years ago before being ravaged by Covid and before the rise of mass homeless problems that most cities are having now. I don't wish that place upon anyone. It really does feel like a 3rd world country there.



Glades said:


> I don’t know. I have a good friend friend from Colorado and he says Cali transplants ruined the state. According to him, they left California but brought with them the ideologies that destroyed their home state. Now Colorado is blue and headed down the same blue trash chute.



I will agree that California certainly has it's issues to sort out, but I don't think the decline of any of these states lately are due to transplants like you're referring. Here in Washington people like to say that same thing in regards to the homeless population. The same thing in Portland. Unfortunately highly addictive prescription drugs (fentanyl) have really done a number on people across the country and lead to an uptick in addictions to drugs like heroin and meth. I've unfortunately had the displeasure of seeing my friends and love ones go this route and it's very sad.

It's not a matter of "oh, the homeless people migrated here and ruined it" so much as a matter of the FDA operating in a way that's outright malicious to the citizens of this country.



mmr007 said:


> I say this as a liberal living in California. Liberal policies have ruined this state. Not much of an alternative available because conservative policies bankrupt it. There are a lot of people in California who leave for a reason, liberal and conservative and it's not just the high cost of living. Everyone that doesn't have a chauffer is miserable. It's an unhappy place to live. Everywhere else I have been people are generally nicer to each other.
> The cost to rent a truck and move out of California is 6x higher than moving in with distance being equal because moving companies know once a rental truck leaves California it's never coming back.
> 
> I don't want to defend Glades but I too have talked to at least several people who live in the Denver area who say they hate what has happened to the quality of life in Colorado and are leaving. Does that mean everyone in Colorado hates it in Colorado. Doubt it as my sample size is too small but I also find it odd that when I meet and talk to people from Colorado and I tell them that driving from Denver to Vail is the prettiest stretch of America I've ever seen, they all agree and then say they no longer enjoy living in the state and start listing reasons.



This one really hit me a bit for whatever reason. I honestly think that the whole finger-pointing between the major political parties is one of the most hilarious things ever. Both groups are blatantly corrupt and are actively tearing this country down. Our founding fathers actually feared a political party system arising and having the exact effect we're seeing now, both set on short term gains with no intent to help the working class.

On the second part of this though, Colorado was indeed one of my favorite states as well. So was Virginia, so was Oregon, and so was Washington. The issues that are now rampant in these places are unfortunately issues that we're facing everywhere across the states to varying degrees. Washington DC, our nations capitol is one of the biggest shitholes I've ever seen, as was Philadelphia. I enjoyed myself in both places when visiting and I at least recognize these issues they're having as the same issues I've seen in many states at this point.




Dineley said:


> Yeah also the irrational amount of fear over being the victim of a violent crime at random is mind boggling.



While I get the point you're trying to make, violent crime in the US is a very real thing now. I mean, this thread was made because there are school shootings regularly now, as well as at supermarkets and parades. At this point I wouldn't call it irrational to fear those things when they regularly occur. I would call it irrational though to think that more people with guns would fix the issue.



TonyFlyingSquirrel said:


> Well, Antifa riots in Seattle, the ever increasing opioid crisis and homeless situations, it’s very real in the Seattle area. True, that the world is broken and these circumstances are not ideal, but because they are not, you have to be prepared to respond appropriately to protect your family, all the while being cautious not to cross over into becoming the aggressor.



I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but this is just plain false (the antifa bit). The last semblance of anything like this happening in Seattle was in the summer of 2020 and it being by "antifa" is conjecture at best. I live 20 minutes away from Seattle, and while I wouldn't call it a safe place, it's not as bad as it was 2 years ago. I do agree though, I obviously would like to be able to protect my family but there's not a clear answer on how that should be done in this day and age. Deadly weapons in the hands of regular citizens isn't a great idea. Our "trained" police officers can barely use them properly so I definitely don't trust Harry the right-wing YouTube watcher to do the job either.

Ironically enough, when I was in Portland last year people tried claiming that the violence going on there at the time was antifa as well, but low and behold when the people were taken into custody they ended up being in the proud boys or your typical RWNJ (as Max refers to them).


----------



## works0fheart

Riff the Road Dog said:


> I've lived in Seattle most of my life. I'm much more afraid of getting shot by some angry white guy from Auburn ready to lose it over some perceived injustice than I am from some made-up antifa boogeyman.



This isn't inaccurate, but I've definitely had people approach me in Seattle and the surrounding area with questionable intentions but I've never had, or seen a situation escalate. Hell, earlier this week a homeless man tried opening my car door while it was moving. In the last couple months I've had to call the police because of people shooting up on the stairs leading up to my apartment that I have to pay way too much money for. That being said, I do feel safer here than I do in a lot of places. The police presence here is at least noticeable enough to deter people I think. I do wish something could be done to help these people around here who are suffering from very bad addictions problems and I don't think "guess I'll just wait on them to fuck up and then I'll shoot them" is the answer.



Glades said:


> I grew up in South America and have been robbed at gunpoint many times, including one time when 4 guys broke into our house at gunpoint. There is nothing you can do down there. You cant protect your family. Your family’s life is at the mercy of the criminals. If your shoot a criminal in your house you go to jail.
> I am so glad to live in America now, in a state with sound castle laws. Where if you break into my house and put me and my family in danger, I have a right to defend myself and my family.



As a married man myself I can sympathize with you here. My wife and my dogs are my world. However, South America is unfortunately known for having a lot more problems than just criminal violence. Some countries there have 1st world economies with 3rd world infrastructure and it's because of corrupt political parties running these places and money isn't allocated properly so systems aren't put in place to protect their people. A road that the US is steadily going down now. While you may think that owning a firearm will help to keep you safe (and it may to some degree) a large group of regular people with deadly weapons and living in fear will just lead to more turmoil.



ArtDecade said:


> Dude emigrates from South America and becomes a Trumpublican.



As someone who works with a pretty diverse group of people I find this often the case pretty frequently, oddly enough.



Drew said:


> I mean, the fact that America also has strong rule of law might also have just a wee little bit to do with it, instead of a *wildly corrupt police force on the payroll of the drug trade, as is the case with most crime-ridden parts of South America, no?*



We do have these things though. In most major police forces throughout the country it's pretty much gone from the point of "suspected" to "continuously proven" that the police are wildly corrupt or involved in the drug trade in some manner. I can't speak for places like Los Angeles where I've heard about this pretty commonly but I can tell you that Miami and Orlando very much fit that criteria.

We may have it better than some other countries in regards to this, but make no mistake, our justice system is very blatantly corrupt.


Glades said:


> All legal immigrants I have ever met are staunchly opposed to illegal immigration, and we all believe in stricter border control. It is fundamental that we protect our country from human, drug and sex trafficking.



Trafficking of people and drugs aren't unheard of here either. I wouldn't go as far as to say they're rampant, but it's very much a thing. Controlling our borders is a whole other can of worms, because I do think it's important to some degree, but I don't think that putting people in internment camps and chemically castrating them the way we have been is the way forward either.



wankerness said:


> Eh, I'm sure that footage is out there somewhere!
> 
> Soldiers I feel like are more likely not to go nuts and totally over-react by pulling out the guns and starting to hyperventilate in every situation, unlike cops. I also give cops less of an excuse since they're supposed to be helping their fellow citizens instead of sometimes being put in situations where they're told to go fight an enemy force. But yeah, definitely neither exactly gives me the warm fuzzies.



While we certainly have our crazies in the military, we're held to a much higher standard when it comes to being issued a weapon for our position. Are there people in the military who are unfit to carry a weapon? You bet your ass there are. A lot of them. But, we are constantly trained on how, when, if, and why we use them. If I shoot someone I'm under extreme scrutiny as to why I did it, even if I'm in the right and I followed every instruction permitting me to do so. This isn't like the type of situation where a police department investigates themselves and deem themselves in the right. The military has no problem whatsoever with absolute ruining me if I so much as slipped up in any regard to even drawing a firearm. We're also taught that it should be the absolute last line of defense after exhausting all other options. Just this alone has made me realize that if it's this much trouble for me, that it should be moreso for police, and significantly more for a regular person to obtain them.



c7spheres said:


> - Guns haven't been about protecting the people from gov't for a long itme now, imo. The U.S. military could win against it's own people, assuming it could keep itself together internally in such a time. I imagine it would look like a never ending drawn out war like Afghanistan. I hope this time never comes because the military will turn on it's own citizens if forced to, imo.



This is the funny thing that gun nuts don't realize, and a few of you have made this point already. If the government really wanted to go to war with civilians it wouldn't even be a close fight. They don't even need to do that though because the political party owned media companies are doing a fine job of pitting the working class against each other while those same parties systematically rob us. The irony would be hysterical if it weren't so real that it's numbing. Remember when people were brainstorming about microchips being in the vaccines so the government could spy on them? Meanwhile most people over the age of 15 have a smart phone. The government has very easy systems in place to "defeat" the American people without ever needing to fire a shot.



NoodleFace said:


> It sucks really. Thankfully I live in MA with fairly stringent gun laws and we haven't had a mass shooting in something like 22 years. It'll happen though, I'm sure of it.
> 
> I'm not trying to be some good guy with a gun, but if I find myself in a situation where someone points a gun at me I at least want a fighting chance.



You guys did unfortunately have the Boston marathon bombing a few years ago. A gun wouldn't have helped that situation, but I can't fault anyone that feels they need to at least own one to defend themselves. I can see why you would feel that way. I don't think it will really help most of the time, but I do at least sympathize.


----------



## works0fheart

StevenC said:


> Really the logical next step is to preemptively shoot anyone that might commit a mass shooting.



Police here are already one step ahead on this one, unfortunately.



bostjan said:


> I once asked an AI to solve the problem of mass shootings and it suggested that if humanity was made to go extinct, there would be no more mass shootings. Technically correct, but somehow not helpful.





StevenC said:


> Solves the climate, pandemic and inequality too.



It's sad and pessimistic that these are the truth.



Drew said:


> Weird how you just dropped the subject of Trump's war on legal immigration, once we pointed out he actually HAD been cracking down on legal immigration.


This usually ends up being the tactic for most Trump supporters. They'll argue with you vehemently on something until you prove them wrong, and then they'll change the subject, lose that argument and then come first circle back to the original subject again, get proven wrong again, etc. That's if they don't stop the conversation or, even better, their signature move: childish name calling with the word libtard sprinkled in somewhere, topped off by the fact that they can't comprehend that just because you aren't a supporter of one party doesn't by-default make you a supporter of the other.


budda said:


> The US doesnt need the military to turn on its populace because the police already did.


Bingo.


Randy said:


> Btw, something missing in this statistical debate is that we keep arguing over volume of events and so far looks like we're ignoring volume of victims per event.


Also true. I saw it pretty recently and linked it to my friends, but apparently there have been around 4,300 children killed by gun violence since 2020 alone. All other gun violence statistics aside, that's absolutely sickening. If people really believe there isn't an issue at hand then they're just wrong. As I said above though, I don't think guns are the only thing causing this. They most certainly aren't helping, but this country has had deepening mental health issues for years now. As a people we've become calloused and unsympathetic for people we don't directly see. The vaccine thing showed this, and so has the issues in Ukraine where I've heard people say we shouldn't be helping them because of money that could be used to help our own people (spoiler, that won't happen).

The wage gap is growing larger and larger, health care is a joke, inflation is a joke, our political leaders are a joke, our humans rights are being abolished, and all the while the people who run this country who are growing more and more wealthy would have you believe that all of these things are the fault of your neighbor, in the same situation as you.


----------



## c7spheres

works0fheart said:


> This is the funny thing that gun nuts don't realize, and a few of you have made this point already. If the government really wanted to go to war with civilians it wouldn't even be a close fight. They don't even need to do that though because the political party owned media companies are doing a fine job of pitting the working class against each other while those same parties systematically rob us. The irony would be hysterical if it weren't so real that it's numbing. Remember when people were brainstorming about microchips being in the vaccines so the government could spy on them? Meanwhile most people over the age of 15 have a smart phone. The government has very easy systems in place to "defeat" the American people without ever needing to fire a shot.


I think the more important reason to have a gun is to protect oneself from your 'good neighbors' that will break into your house and take whatever they want when food and water and other supplys start getting low and looting begins. I should buy a gun but I figure if I just blast my amp when they come inside they'll leave because of the terrible noise, lol. jk. I think most people will behave but in the case of gov't taking control they got contol of everything (food, water, electric, supply lines, roads in and out of town, communcations etc) they could literally flick a few swtiches and shut everyone down and the only way to get food or water would be to comply. Scary stuff. I really hope it never gets to this point but unfortunately I think in that type situation we'd see a lot of citizens killing eachother to get what they want and others killing them so they can't. After the fall it'd look a lot like little communities of people trying to re-establish normalcy with a lot of Jabba the Hutt and Mad Max type characters floating around waring and trading and stealing supplys etc. City's would look like the Megadeth Dystopia album cover or something. Maybe I should get at least a bb gun. They'll be plenty of pigeons to eat still and bb's are low cost ammo, plus you could shoot peoples eyes's out. I also want a laser so I can burn little holes in people. People can't shoot you easy if you burn out their eyes. jk. Trying to keep it light.


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> Which of those are untrue?



Fine, we'll give you one:

Michelle Obama is a bigger man than you'll ever be.


----------



## StevenC

c7spheres said:


> I think the more important reason to have a gun is to protect oneself from your 'good neighbors' that will break into your house and take whatever they want when food and water and other supplys start getting low and looting begins. I should buy a gun but I figure if I just blast my amp when they come inside they'll leave because of the terrible noise, lol. jk. I think most people will behave but in the case of gov't taking control they got contol of everything (food, water, electric, supply lines, roads in and out of town, communcations etc) they could literally flick a few swtiches and shut everyone down and the only way to get food or water would be to comply. Scary stuff. I really hope it never gets to this point but unfortunately I think in that type situation we'd see a lot of citizens killing eachother to get what they want and others killing them so they can't. After the fall it'd look a lot like little communities of people trying to re-establish normalcy with a lot of Jabba the Hutt and Mad Max type characters floating around waring and trading and stealing supplys etc. City's would look like the Megadeth Dystopia album cover or something. Maybe I should get at least a bb gun. They'll be plenty of pigeons to eat still and bb's are low cost ammo, plus you could shoot peoples eyes's out. I also want a laser so I can burn little holes in people. People can't shoot you easy if you burn out their eyes. jk. Trying to keep it light.


So guns for when the apocalypse happens? Shouldn't the goal of humanity be to prevent apocalypse?


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> So guns for when the apocalypse happens? Shouldn't the goal of humanity be to prevent apocalypse?



People watching "The Road" and thinking, oh, I want to be prepared in case that happens! I want to make sure I live as long as possible in that world!


----------



## works0fheart

StevenC said:


> So guns for when the apocalypse happens? Shouldn't the goal of humanity be to prevent apocalypse?





narad said:


> People watching "The Road" and thinking, oh, I want to be prepared in case that happens! I want to make sure I live as long as possible in that world!



Come on guys, this is obviously what 2A is meant for. /s


----------



## odibrom

StevenC said:


> So guns for when the apocalypse happens? Shouldn't the goal of humanity be to prevent apocalypse?


... unless everyone turns "whole food vegan" in this very instant, I very much doubt it's possible to prevent anything, only delay it...


----------



## StevenC

odibrom said:


> ... unless everyone turns "whole food vegan" in this very instant, I very much doubt it's possible to prevent anything, only delay it...


Not really the thread for it, but as an advocate of plant based diets this isn't really even close to a priority.


----------



## Glades

Adieu said:


> Fine, we'll give you one:
> 
> Michelle Obama is a bigger man than you'll ever be.


As a 6’-4” muscular, rugged, bearded man … I agree


----------



## philkilla

Glades said:


> As a 6’-4” muscular, rugged, bearded man … I agree



That doesn't sound like a very progressive diet plan to me


----------



## vilk

Glades said:


> As a 6’-4” muscular, rugged, bearded man … I agree


Rugged, eh? That means like, you don't bathe?


----------



## narad

When you get your personal adjectives from a truck commercial.


----------



## shredmechanic

StevenC said:


> Not really the thread for it, but as an advocate of plant based diets this isn't really even close to a priority.


To learn just how wrong you are give Vaclav Smil's book "Should We Eat Meat?" a read.


----------



## StevenC

shredmechanic said:


> To learn just how wrong you are give Vaclav Smil's book "Should We Eat Meat?" a read.


Go read my comment again, particularly the first 6 words. If you can give book recommendations, you should be able to read 6 words.


----------



## narad

shredmechanic said:


> To learn just how wrong you are give Vaclav Smil's book "Should We Eat Meat?" a read.



Not really the thread for it, but how would that book show someone to be wrong for advocating a plant-based diet?


----------



## jaxadam

Glades said:


> As a 6’-4” muscular, rugged, bearded man … I agree



Not really the thread for it, but so was I... then I had kids and now I’m only 5’11 & 3/4”, not very muscular and rugged anymore, and no beard. It's crazy what they will do to you.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> Not really the thread for it, but so was I... then I had kids and now I’m only 5’11 & 3/4”, not very muscular and rugged anymore, and no beard. It's crazy what they will do to you.


 Cut you off at the shins?


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Cut you off at the shins?



"You little ankle biters"


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Randy said:


> Cut you off at the shins?


THE TOJOS DUN SHOT OFF MY SHINS


----------



## shredmechanic

StevenC said:


> Go read my comment again, particularly the first 6 words. If you can give book recommendations, you should be able to read 6 words.


Ok Boomer...


----------



## Randy

The mere allusion of veganism in a public forum is like summoning the fucking Candyman.


----------



## StevenC

shredmechanic said:


> Ok Boomer...


Alternatively, go back and read the comment I was replying to, then the rest of my comment, then reconsider what point I was trying to make and what point you were trying to make, and whether those are at odds or not.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Alternatively, go back and read the comment I was replying to, then the rest of my comment, then reconsider what point I was trying to make and what point you were trying to make, and whether those are at odds or not.



OMG boomer stop asking us to read stuff. Isn't there a new John Grisham novel you could attend to?


----------



## odibrom

... and I derailed the thread back then... sorry.

Please, let's get back on *shooting *each others with arguments about why guns are useless or not for civil usage on our actual (actual IS the word) western culture lifestyle.



shredmechanic said:


> To learn just how wrong you are give Vaclav Smil's book "Should We Eat Meat?" a read.



Since you're so acknowledged on such book, please enlighten us in a dedicated new thread about it, you could sumarize it, highlight is stronger arguments and so on, and let it develop a health conversation about why we should or not eat meat.


----------



## Randy

I propose we should eat guns.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Randy said:


> I propose we should eat guns.



A modest proposal if I've ever heard one.


----------



## CanserDYI

odibrom said:


> Since you're so acknowledged on such book, please enlighten us in a dedicated new thread about it, you could sumarize it, highlight is stronger arguments and so on, and let it develop a health conversation about why we should or not eat meat.


dO yOuR oWn ReSeArCh


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> I propose we should eat guns.



To learn how wrong you are you should give Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" a read.


----------



## CanserDYI

Guys don't prod too hard, these guys will take you seriously and then we'll have Marjorie Taylor Greene and the bunch tweeting out "First our rights, then our DINNERS? LIBERALS want us to EAT our GUNS."


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

narad said:


> To learn how wrong you are you should give Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" a read.


..
and follow it up with _Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail Or Succeed_.


----------



## BornToLooze

CanserDYI said:


> Guys don't prod too hard, these guys will take you seriously and then we'll have Marjorie Taylor Greene and the bunch tweeting out "First our rights, then our DINNERS? LIBERALS want us to EAT our GUNS."



Nah, they can't do that. I called shotgunning a Rockstar doing a Kurt Cobain, and apparently that's "offensive", because something something joking about suicide.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## wheresthefbomb

narad said:


> To learn how wrong you are you should give Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" a read.



More like "Guns, Gold, and Toilet Paper"


----------



## MFB

wheresthefbomb said:


> More like "Guns, Gold, and Toilet Paper"



Tonight, on MTV Cribs: Trump Tower


----------



## mmr007

I'm not sure what direction this thread is headed but I will say I hate vegetables nearly as much as guns....nearly


----------



## BornToLooze

mmr007 said:


> I'm not sure what direction this thread is headed but I will say I hate vegetables nearly as much as guns....nearly



I mean, my opinion on guns should be fairly obvious...but when it comes to a forced vegan diet...


----------



## mmr007

BornToLooze said:


> I mean, my opinion on guns should be fairly obvious...but when it comes to a forced vegan diet...
> View attachment 112136


I believe vegetables have a right to exist, but I agree with you that if I was forced into a vegan diet I would rather start stockpiling guns for the same reason Glades does...allegedly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...kids won't eat vegetables but they'll eat their own boogers. That tells you what you need to know about the taste vegetables.


----------



## BornToLooze

mmr007 said:


> I believe vegetables have a right to exist, but I agree with you that if I was forced into a vegan diet I would rather start stockpiling guns for the same reason Glades does...allegedly.
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again...kids won't eat vegetables but they'll eat their own boogers. That tells you what you need to know about the taste vegetables.



Yes, vegetables have a right to exist. My food desreves to have something to eat. And I'll agree with most of the stuff vegans say about slaughterhouses, which is why a large part of the meat I eat had a face when I got it. It just feels more respectful to the animal that way, and I know exactly what I'm eating.


----------



## mmr007

BornToLooze said:


> Yes, vegetables have a right to exist. My food desreves to have something to eat. And I'll agree with most of the stuff vegans say about slaughterhouses, which is why a large part of the meat I eat had a face when I got it. It just feels more respectful to the animal that way, and I know exactly what I'm eating.


Hell no. I'll send an apology letter to the pig's family but there is no way I want to see the critter's face or I will start sobbing and then starve to death


----------



## BornToLooze

mmr007 said:


> Hell no. I'll send an apology letter to the pig's family but there is no way I want to see the critter's face or I will start sobbing and then starve to death



I get that, just the way I look at it, would you rather be on death row for a while or just go to eat dinner one night and it's lights out?

And I've plowed and planted a field before to plant vegetables. On any scale to make it feasible to feed people off of, you're still going to kill animals, it's just are they cute enough for vegans to care about them?

I do my best to make sure the majority meat I consume is humanely harvested, I hunt animals, use every part of them that I am capable of, and use the rest of them to contribute to the circle of life. I mean the fish, worms and the buzzards have to eat, same as everything else.

I feel like a large part of peoples fear/hatred of guns is just due to a lack of exposure to them, and a lack of knowledge about how they work, but vegans straight up lie about shit.


----------



## mmr007

I'm not one of those people who is scared of guns or lacks exposure to them.....I've fired everything from an M1's main gun to grenade launchers and everything in between. I've owned guns...I use to have to carry one for work when I wasn't in the military. I just don't like their prevalence in our society and the havoc they wreck. Again I wish ALL guns owners would tell the NRA to fuck off and stop trying to put guns in vending machines. Gun owners should want to be gate keepers and prevent loser dickheads from getting access to them as a necessary evil or by-product of protecting the 2A.

It may not be the best analogy but I use to love mustangs...owned a ton....then I turned against them because too many completely immature idiot dickheads were buying, driving and ultimately crashing while flexing a machine they couldn't handle.

I get it...guns are fun. I had a friend who owned several hundred and we used to fire them a lot. He had actual civil war era rifles and pistols even stuff that probably belonged to 18th century pirates. But he was responsible. He was a collector and enthusiast. I don't know how someone who didn't know him as well as I did differentiates him from a hoarder who plans a mass attack. But if I have a choice...until we get that figured out, I would rather err on the side that keeps kids alive so they can keep eating their boogers and thumb their nose at veggies.


----------



## StevenC

BornToLooze said:


> I feel like a large part of peoples fear/hatred of guns is just due to a lack of exposure to them, and a lack of knowledge about how they work, but vegans straight up lie about shit.


No it's definitely that they're used to kill people. I also really dislike that a lot of guns that are in the hands of my local terrorists were bought in America legally then exported, because that's way easier.

But I've also worked on farms and been around them my whole life, and if you want to talk about dishonesty maybe check your own post. Vegetable farming uses far less land for the yield it produces and that's a great thing because it means we can eat the same amou t of food, but destroy fewer habitats and fewer animals die.

I'm not going to say that no vegan has ever made the argument that plant based diets are without suffering, because somebody will have made that argument and been wrong. However, the actual argument is that it minimises suffering while being for the planet.

Again, I have a lot of exposure to farms. I can see cows and sheep from my house right now. I am all for the destruction of every goat in existence. Farm animals aren't cute animals and I have no compassion for them. The cow as we know it today, much like the bulldog, is an abomination of forced breeding and should be let go extinct.

Stop making disingenuous arguments.


----------



## odibrom

BornToLooze said:


> I get that, just the way I look at it, would you rather be on death row for a while or just go to eat dinner one night and it's lights out?
> 
> And I've plowed and planted a field before to plant vegetables. On any scale to make it feasible to feed people off of, you're still going to kill animals, it's just are they cute enough for vegans to care about them?
> 
> I do my best to make sure the majority meat I consume is humanely harvested, I hunt animals, use every part of them that I am capable of, and use the rest of them to contribute to the circle of life. I mean the fish, worms and the buzzards have to eat, same as everything else.
> 
> I feel like a large part of peoples fear/hatred of guns is just due to a lack of exposure to them, and a lack of knowledge about how they work, but vegans straight up lie about shit.



There is no "humane way" of "harvesting meat". You kill and that's it, the animal still dies so you can debouch on its flesh for a mere 5 minutes of mouth pleasure if that much.

It takes a hell lot more resources from the planet to "produce" the same amount of meat versus vegetables and this is not counting the derived pollution, which will still be way larger on the meat industry. It's just not feasible anymore. Let animals roam free. Eat your vegies.

Regarding guns exposure, in fact you are right, the more exposure to toxic elements one has, the more one becomes tolerant and numb by it until one eventually dies from overdose, and this is valid also on the ideas realm... I've never heard vegies to be toxic...


----------



## StevenC

It should also be noted that "organic" "non-GMO" etc are also incredibly harmful and pointless, and entirely separate from plant based diets.


----------



## vilk

I think we should eat bugs. 

I think we should eat all edible things. Plants, animals, pets, people. You name it, I'd eat it—if it tastes good.

I wish there were a name for this kind of movement. Some kind of Nihilism? That sounds too dark. We need to make it sound more normal. How about: _everythingtarianism_


----------



## narad

vilk said:


> I think we should eat bugs.
> 
> I think we should eat all edible things. Plants, animals, pets, people. You name it, I'd eat it—if it tastes good.
> 
> I wish there were a name for this kind of movement. Some kind of Nihilism? That sounds too dark. We need to make it sound more normal. How about: _everythingtarianism_



Crickets, people, fine. I draw the line at natto though.


----------



## mmr007

I googled natto and I think I would rather eat lead, literally or figuratively…

Can we talk about why cannibalism seems to be getting casually mainstreamed on sso?


----------



## narad

mmr007 said:


> I googled natto and I think I would rather eat lead, literally or figuratively…
> 
> Can we talk about why cannibalism seems to be getting casually mainstreamed on sso?


I heard if you eat someone you gain their guitar skills. But I suppose that still is no reason for people to want to eat sso members.


----------



## mmr007

narad said:


> I heard if you eat someone you gain their guitar skills. But I suppose that still is no reason for people to want to eat sso members.


Ok I’m safe. Never thought that being on the bottom of a skill level would land me on the top of food chain….yet here we are


----------



## odibrom

mmr007 said:


> Ok I’m safe. Never thought that being on the bottom of a skill level would land me on the top of food chain….yet here we are


It all depends on whom you ate yesterday...


----------



## mmr007

After careful analysis of my skill set I realized I can honestly advertise myself as a zero calorie meal. Im the guitar equivalent of celery.


----------



## zappatton2

I've tried to understand this fear that necessitates a need to be armed, and a refusal to acknowledge that America has a distinct statistical problem with firearm violence, and I thought this was an interesting clip in discussing those separate ways of perceiving issues; 

Sometimes, coming from traditionally conservative vs progressive positions, it's like we're not processing the same things in our brains, like we're literally talking about two separate things and just not landing on an ounce of understanding.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> I heard if you eat someone you gain their guitar skills. But I suppose that still is no reason for people to want to eat sso members.


I've been hanging around @Lorcan Ward for years waiting for my chance


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Y'all want a real horror story of late capitalist police state veganism, google "carceral veganism." Or don't, just use your imagination combined with the fact that the infamous Joe Arpaio was a huge fan.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> To learn how wrong you are you should give Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" a read.


On someone's recommendation, I packed that on a flight once, and pulled it out to start reading only to have the (very attractive) woman in the seat next to me say, "I'll ruin it for you - the ones with the guns, germs, and steel win." 

She was right, she did ruin it for me, and i ended up just chatting with her for the rest of the flight instead.


----------



## eaeolian

odibrom said:


> Shit people are going to be shit people...


Yeah, but if you're a media figure and you direct shit people at grieving parents using your media mouthpiece under false pretenses, there should be culpability.


----------



## eaeolian

Drew said:


> On someone's recommendation, I packed that on a flight once, and pulled it out to start reading only to have the (very attractive) woman in the seat next to me say, "I'll ruin it for you - the ones with the guns, germs, and steel win."
> 
> She was right, she did ruin it for me, and i ended up just chatting with her for the rest of the flight instead.


I've read it - "Collapse" was better, so you made the right choice. Were you wearing pink? 

Some of the conclusions are hotly debated - and I didn't agree with some of them as I was reading the book - but combining that with "1491" was a very illuminating experience at how bad my history courses were.


----------



## eaeolian

Randy said:


> I propose we should eat guns.


How long do you boil a Colt .45 for maximum edibility?


----------



## MFB

I'm just mad that I can't see the named Jared Diamond and not picture Jared Dines; I had to read that book for AP Euro history, made it like, a chapter in and was like, "this is gonna be a rough end to the year."


----------



## eaeolian

Riff the Road Dog said:


> ..
> and follow it up with _Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail Or Succeed_.


That was considerably better, but still lacking a bit in non-authoritarian solutions.


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> I heard if you eat someone you gain their guitar skills.


Who told you that? Kirby? That fuckin' guy...


----------



## wheresthefbomb

spudmunkey said:


> The Holocaust



just wanted to lyk I absolutely love how this is both a punchline and the literal actual succinct answer 11/10 post 



Drew said:


> On someone's recommendation, I packed that on a flight once, and pulled it out to start reading only to have the (very attractive) woman in the seat next to me say, "I'll ruin it for you - the ones with the guns, germs, and steel win."
> 
> She was right, she did ruin it for me, and i ended up just chatting with her for the rest of the flight instead.



Lucky. I had a woman who looked like Snooki interrupt me once while I was reading "The Art of Not Being Governed" to ask me if I'd ever read The Fountainhead, and then tell me "oh, it's about that" and pointing at my book.

Never mind that my book was about upland southeast Asia and the rise of rice paddies, statism, and capitalism in that area.

It's always funny to me how inconceivable it is to Libertarians in the wild that you're already deeply familiar with their nonsense and just don't want any. Snooki really thought she was enlightening me, but Libertarianism is the art of literal self-government. It's the art of being your own cop and your own shift supervisor.



eaeolian said:


> How long do you boil a Colt .45 for maximum edibility?



you boil it in colt 45 (the malt liquor) since they're made of the same element (colt-45ium) it will permeate more readily and make the gun metal nice and tender


----------



## Drew

eaeolian said:


> I've read it - "Collapse" was better, so you made the right choice. Were you wearing pink?
> 
> Some of the conclusions are hotly debated - and I didn't agree with some of them as I was reading the book - but combining that with "1491" was a very illuminating experience at how bad my history courses were.


This was long enough ago that I honestly don't remember.  She was also the first person I'd ever met who referred to tiny purse-sized dogs of the sort Paris Hilton was then accessorizing with as "puntables." When we got back to Logan and got to our gate, I was just about to ask her out when her boyfriend walked out of the crowd to meet her. Pity.


----------



## eaeolian

Drew said:


> This was long enough ago that I honestly don't remember.  She was also the first person I'd ever met who referred to tiny purse-sized dogs of the sort Paris Hilton was then accessorizing with as "puntables." When we got back to Logan and got to our gate, I was just about to ask her out when her boyfriend walked out of the crowd to meet her. Pity.


She was shopping for a replacement, bro.


----------



## MFB

eaeolian said:


> She was shopping for a replacement, bro.



So was Drew!


----------



## wheresthefbomb

eaeolian said:


> She was shopping for a replacement, bro.



real talk, it can be really difficult to be in a relationship where partners are on different levels intellectually. 

like yeah my partner doesn't need to care about everything I do but if we can't have casual discussions about north amerikan imperialism and the rise of capitalism in SE Asia I'm gonna be a sad camper 

I know that sounds like a joke but I'm not joking lmao


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> On someone's recommendation, I packed that on a flight once, and pulled it out to start reading only to have the (very attractive) woman in the seat next to me say, "I'll ruin it for you - the ones with the guns, germs, and steel win."
> 
> She was right, she did ruin it for me, and i ended up just chatting with her for the rest of the flight instead.



I sat next to this (very attractive) woman once on a plane and I asked her what her name was. She said Carmen. I asked her if her mom or dad gave that name to her, and she replied that she gave it to herself. I said "Oh really, how'd you choose that one?" and she said, "It's simple, I like cars and I like men". Then she said "What about you, what's your name?" and I said "Beerfuck!".


----------



## wheresthefbomb

jaxadam said:


> I sat next to this (very attractive) woman once on a plane and I asked her what her name was. She said Carmen. I asked her if her mom or dad gave that name to her, and she replied that she gave it to herself. I said "Oh really, how'd you choose that one?" and she said, "It's simple, I like cars and I like men". Then she said "What about you, what's your name?" and I said "Beerfuck!".



"We are here today to join in holy matrimony, Weedriff and Filthstoner. Name a more iconic duo, I'll wait."


----------



## Drew

eaeolian said:


> She was shopping for a replacement, bro.


She very well may have been, and I'd have been game, but I'm not gonna ask someone out directly in front of her then-boyfriend.  


jaxadam said:


> I sat next to this (very attractive) woman once on a plane and I asked her what her name was. She said Carmen. I asked her if her mom or dad gave that name to her, and she replied that she gave it to herself. I said "Oh really, how'd you choose that one?" and she said, "It's simple, I like cars and I like men". Then she said "What about you, what's your name?" and I said "Beerfuck!".


----------



## Glades

Maybe this AR will have some fans on this guitar forum! Getcha Pull!


----------



## MFB

Man, the joke is right god damn there, but how did they not call it DIMEBAG BARREL

edit: also a great irony dedicating a gun to the man who was shot doing what he loved


----------



## CanserDYI




----------



## wheresthefbomb

Jesus Stood His Ground For Your Sins


----------



## BornToLooze

wheresthefbomb said:


> Jesus Stood His Ground For Your Sins



Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without. 

I mean, you do what works for you, but one of my gods actually says stay strapped or get clapped.


----------



## bostjan

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, shoot them full of lead.

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels with shotguns? Live by the sword - die by the gun!”

Of David. Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle;

Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is dishonorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live violently with all. Beloved, always avenge yourselves, but do not leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Indeed, “if your enemy is thirsty, shoot him; if he is hungry, give him some lead to eat; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with bullets.

EDIT: One of those is a real Bible verse.


----------



## profwoot

And the LORD spake, saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you: Do unto others before they do unto you." And the pharisees murmured, for their hearts were hardened unto his words. And the LORD spake again, saying, "Behold, blessed be those who bus' caps in foo' domes." But the pharisees went away to their homes, for their necks were stiff. And Jesus called after them, saying, "Catch me outside, how 'bout dat?".


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, shoot them full of lead.
> 
> Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels with shotguns? Live by the sword - die by the gun!”
> 
> Of David. Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle;
> 
> Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is dishonorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live violently with all. Beloved, always avenge yourselves, but do not leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Indeed, “if your enemy is thirsty, shoot him; if he is hungry, give him some lead to eat; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with bullets.
> 
> EDIT: One of those is a real Bible verse.


Replace the references to “lead” with the term “freedom seeds” and the diehard 2A folks may mistake you for their new prophet.


----------



## /wrists

For the record, I am for a combination of gun control, psychological intervention, early education, and parenting classes.


----------



## CanserDYI

3 people were shot outside of the High School I attended this weekend. The High School I want to send my two children to. I'm just hurt and terrified and fucking hate gun violence. We need to fucking change gun culture in this country.


----------



## odibrom

CanserDYI said:


> 3 people were shot outside of the High School I attended this weekend. The High School I want to send my two children to. I'm just hurt and terrified and fucking hate gun violence. We need to fucking change gun culture in this country.



I'd extend that to everywhere. The "eye for an eye" mentality needs to go, fast.


----------



## bostjan

There was a shooting in a US Representative's (republican Lee Zeldin's) front yard. Authorities believe that the shooting had nothing to do with the representative, just that his house happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Anyone wondering if he'll take a tougher stance on gun control now?

Preschoolers have to go through drills to hide and remain silent to train them in case of a school shooting. Every year, there are more school shootings than the year before. Currently, the odds of a school having a shooting this year are around 30 per 100k. The odds of choking on your food are 36 per 100k (over a lifetime, not just a year). It's insane.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

CanserDYI said:


> 3 people were shot outside of the High School I attended this weekend. The High School I want to send my two children to. I'm just hurt and terrified and fucking hate gun violence. We need to fucking change gun culture in this country.



That's terrible man, I don't even know what to say. This kind of stuff makes me thankful I don't have kids, which is an awful reason to think that. I feel for you.

At this point, I have to legitimately weigh the possibility of getting shot along with all of the other things hanging in the balance as I decide whether to stay on track for a career in public schools. Add to that, I'm consistently drawn to jobs supporting/intervening with kids who are at-risk, struggling with behavior issues, substance issues, etc.


----------



## Xaios

wheresthefbomb said:


> Jesus Stood His Ground For Your Sins


"So you betrayed me for thirty pieces of silver, Judas? Well, let me do you one better by giving you thirty pieces OF LEEEAAAAD!!!" *RA-TA-TA-TA-TA-TA-TA-TA*

_/Peter proceeds to burn down Gethsemane with a flame thrower._


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Xaios said:


> "So you betrayed me for thirty pieces of silver, Judas? Well, let me do you one better by giving you thirty pieces OF LEEEAAAAD!!!" *RA-TA-TA-TA-TA-TA-TA-TA*
> 
> _/Peter proceeds to burn down Gethsemane with a flame thrower._


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> There was a shooting in a US Representative's (republican Lee Zeldin's) front yard. Authorities believe that the shooting had nothing to do with the representative, just that his house happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Anyone wondering if he'll take a tougher stance on gun control now?
> 
> Preschoolers have to go through drills to hide and remain silent to train them in case of a school shooting. Every year, there are more school shootings than the year before. Currently, the odds of a school having a shooting this year are around 30 per 100k. The odds of choking on your food are 36 per 100k (over a lifetime, not just a year). It's insane.



Scalise took one to the pelvis and is still an absolute turd-golem, so I don't see anything happening.


----------



## bostjan

Another school shooting in St. Louis. 3 reported killed so far, a child and an adult, plus the gunman. I don't understand this pattern of graduates going back to shoot up the school. But then again, I don't understand any of this sort of violence against children.


----------



## odibrom

bostjan said:


> Another school shooting in St. Louis. 3 reported killed so far, a child and an adult, plus the gunman. I don't understand this pattern of graduates going back to shoot up the school. But then again, I don't understand any of this sort of violence against children.


I don't think it's against children per se, I think it's against the institution that a school is and something like a revenge on the toll it took on these fellows. Mental illness is serious business and unfortunately also seriously misunderstood by the majority of people, fellow students and teachers included. Society is a monster on those who are different somehow, on those that don't fit the canon, on those who are bullied every single day for just being different. It grows anger and frustration, it's a time bomb ready to explode... add very loose rules for firepower use/buy/access by the civilian, a gun culture spread all over and you get that, those with less probability to fight back are those who get the lead on/in them, that's the rule for bulling, you repeat what you learned on those bellow your _power_... it's a "they did it to me, I'll do it to them"...


----------



## bostjan

odibrom said:


> I don't think it's against children per se, I think it's against the institution that a school is and something like a revenge on the toll it took on these fellows. Mental illness is serious business and unfortunately also seriously misunderstood by the majority of people, fellow students and teachers included. Society is a monster on those who are different somehow, on those that don't fit the canon, on those who are bullied every single day for just being different. It grows anger and frustration, it's a time bomb ready to explode... add very loose rules for firepower use/buy/access by the civilian, a gun culture spread all over and you get that, those with less probability to fight back are those who get the lead on/in them, that's the rule for bulling, you repeat what you learned on those bellow your _power_... it's a "they did it to me, I'll do it to them"...


The insanity isn't jus tin the head of the perpetrator, though, it's in our society! This happens over and over and we keep trying to stop it by doing the same thing over and over, even though it doesn't work. So do we need better mental health provided by our society or better mental health provided TO our society? I think it's both, but I'm leaning more and more toward the latter being more important than the former.


----------



## CanserDYI

Semi unrelated but walked out to find this in my workplace....





It's this type of shit that we have to stop....I know it seems small, but these red, maga hat wearing psychopaths are so horny for guns that they have novelty bullet pins.

The FUCK America?


----------



## MFB

I thought that was lying on your desk and was some sort of NoHo Hank warning that they're coming for you


----------



## tayistay

bostjan said:


> The insanity isn't jus tin the head of the perpetrator, though, it's in our society!



That's just what the gun industry wants you to think. Fear your fellow man, and buy a gun for protection.

Americans, according to various measures, aren't much more insane than other countries. The difference is that we have more guns than people, which is just staggering. When you have so many guns, more are gonna end up in the hands of the nuts.


----------



## bostjan

Also, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, so it makes a positive feedback loop for the violence. The more crazies have guns, the more 1) people without guns get murdered and 2) people without guns are convinced to get guns to not get murdered.

The problem is, that if you buy a gun in order to shoot the person who is planning to gun you down, you just contributed more to gun violence. If you don't, you get shot and it contributes more to gun violence. Every gun is another spoke for the wheel that just keeps going 'round and 'round getting bigger and bigger. It only ends once people all set their guns down and stop shooting each other or they all die and there's no one left to shoot.


----------



## odibrom

... Instead of guns get bullet proof vests... one is not contributing to put more guns in the streets and is getting a bigger chance of survival in a public shooting... seams easy enough, right? it's a fair assessment, right?


----------



## wheresthefbomb

CanserDYI said:


> Semi unrelated but walked out to find this in my workplace....
> 
> View attachment 116227
> View attachment 116228
> 
> 
> It's this type of shit that we have to stop....I know it seems small, but these red, maga hat wearing psychopaths are so horny for guns that they have novelty bullet pins.
> 
> The FUCK America?



I'd replace them with normal ones and throw them in the trash when nobody is looking. I regularly take down military recruiter ads/business cards on public bulletin boards, as well as anything from the bible baptist church, and throw it in the trash. Just doing my part.


----------



## mastapimp

wheresthefbomb said:


> I'd replace them with normal ones and throw them in the trash when nobody is looking. I regularly take down military recruiter ads/business cards on public bulletin boards, as well as anything from the bible baptist church, and throw it in the trash. Just doing my part.


Better yet, replace them with "Pecker Push Pins" that you'd find at a bachelorette party


----------



## odibrom

wheresthefbomb said:


> I'd replace them with normal ones and throw them in the trash when nobody is looking. I regularly take down military recruiter ads/business cards on public bulletin boards, as well as anything from the bible baptist church, and throw it in the trash. Just doing my part.


This is the way...


----------



## CanserDYI

wheresthefbomb said:


> I'd replace them with normal ones and throw them in the trash when nobody is looking. I regularly take down military recruiter ads/business cards on public bulletin boards, as well as anything from the bible baptist church, and throw it in the trash. Just doing my part.


Unfortunately, it's under glass.

Same with this....




And yes, this bulletin board is changed weekly. This is intentional.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

CanserDYI said:


> Unfortunately, it's under glass.
> 
> Same with this....
> 
> View attachment 116250
> 
> 
> And yes, this bulletin board is changed weekly. This is intentional.



How do you get to be a part of the changing of the bulletin? Here are some suggestions:


----------



## CanserDYI

wheresthefbomb said:


> How do you get to be a part of the changing of the bulletin? Here are some suggestions:


Love all of them, but I would be shunned in my workplace. I already feel stigmatized because I reported some anti trans speak in my workplace, already feel like people don't speak to me because of it. 

Please don't speak to me if you feel like me speaking out for trans people is wrong, but it sure makes it hard when fucking Betsy doesn't answer her emails because I'm a commie (this doesnt actually happen, but its kinda what I'm afraid of).


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Or for something more subtle, I can't find them now but my friend made a series of propaganda memes that were people like Clint Eastwood with slogans like "Single Payer Healthcare has always been a Conservative Value" superimposed.


----------



## /wrists

another shooting  

tragic


----------



## mmr007

evade said:


> another shooting
> 
> tragic


Where? I checked my news feed and it is overwhelmed with stories of a 22ft reticulated python swallowing a grandmother in indonesia and the world's dirtiest man dying after taking his first bath in 50 years


----------



## CanserDYI

mmr007 said:


> Where? I checked my news feed and it is overwhelmed with stories of a 22ft reticulated python swallowing a grandmother in indonesia and the world's dirtiest man dying after taking his first bath in 50 years


Think he's referring to St Louis shooting.


----------



## Lemonbaby

mmr007 said:


> Where? I checked my news feed and it is overwhelmed with stories of [...] the world's dirtiest man dying after taking his first bath in 50 years


Scary, bro. And every household has a bathroom. This madness needs to stop!


----------



## jaxadam

Lemonbaby said:


> Scary, bro. And every household has a bathroom. This madness needs to stop!


----------



## /wrists

Guns don't kill people, bullets do.


----------



## vilk

evade said:


> Guns don't kill people, bullets do.


Then we ought to have better bullet control laws.


----------



## spudmunkey

I feel like I can be pretty sure there have been more murders committed with guns without bullets than bullets without guns.


----------



## CanserDYI

spudmunkey said:


> I feel like I can be pretty sure there have been more murders committed with guns without bullets than bullets without guns.


Okay I laughed way harder than I should have for this one.


----------



## odibrom

evade said:


> Guns don't kill people, bullets do.



No, unless there's a computer AI controlling the loaded guns, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE with whatever they find that fits... it happens that guns loaded with bullets are a tool to make it work pretty fast, it's like getting a burger or a slice of pizza on the corner's junk food joint, one doesn't even think of it... it's a ready made thing, right out the supermarket shelves to be put directly into the microwave so one doesn't even has to cook.

People are bad, everyone knows it. Give them tools and they'll do the worst with them. Guns are tools as are bullets, too dangerous ones to be handed over without proper control. There was a time when killing a brother would mean to look him in the eye, although there have been other means to do it without having to face the dead man's eyes/look, guns have made it too easy for those with them, and that gives the false sense of power, which to which mad people feel like a drug. Violence is a fucking drug one gets addicted to and it only generates more violence. We don't need any ilegal drug to get high, violence get us there pretty fast and more so with a gun in one's hands.

Stop the violence by removing the tools from the fools. We aren't all equal. Stop behaving like we are. Not everyone can handle these burdens, most would go mad... when a fool is empowered, nothing good comes from there...


----------



## /wrists

odibrom said:


> No, unless there's a computer AI controlling the loaded guns, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE with whatever they find that fits... it happens that guns loaded with bullets are a tool to make it work pretty fast, it's like getting a burger or a slice of pizza on the corner's junk food joint, one doesn't even think of it... it's a ready made thing, right out the supermarket shelves to be put directly into the microwave so one doesn't even has to cook.
> 
> People are bad, everyone knows it. Give them tools and they'll do the worst with them. Guns are tools as are bullets, too dangerous ones to be handed over without proper control. There was a time when killing a brother would mean to look him in the eye, although there have been other means to do it without having to face the dead man's eyes/look, guns have made it too easy for those with them, and that gives the false sense of power, which to which mad people feel like a drug. Violence is a fucking drug one gets addicted to and it only generates more violence. We don't need any ilegal drug to get high, violence get us there pretty fast and more so with a gun in one's hands.
> 
> Stop the violence by removing the tools from the fools. We aren't all equal. Stop behaving like we are. Not everyone can handle these burdens, most would go mad... when a fool is empowered, nothing good comes from there...


calm down it was a joke


----------



## odibrom

evade said:


> calm down it was a joke



This is a too sensible matter to make jokes like those, one risks being misunderstood.

Other than that, i'm stupidly calm, it's not on my doorsteps that these shootings are happening...


----------



## narad

odibrom said:


> This is a too sensible matter to make jokes like those, one risks being misunderstood.
> 
> Other than that, i'm stupidly calm, it's not on my doorsteps that these shootings are happening...



I'm okay with jokes on sensitive matters, provided they are good.


----------



## odibrom

narad said:


> I'm okay with jokes on sensitive matters, provided they are good.


I'm ok as well as long as they are designated as such. If not, sarcasm can lead to serious misunderstandings... the internet is not a coffee table kind conversation... I'm not reading anyone's facial/body expression nor voice tones...


----------



## narad

odibrom said:


> I'm ok as well as long as they are designated as such. If not, sarcasm can lead to serious misunderstandings... the internet is not a coffee table kind conversation... I'm not reading anyone's facial/body expression nor voice tones...


Yea, you probably don't want to use sarcasm if the non-sarcastic interpretation aligns with the viewpoint of 95% of what you've posted in the thread and forum in general.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

St. Louis school shooter failed a background check. Why didn’t police take his gun?


Police say slight differences in state and federal gun possession laws tied their hands when school shooter Orlando Harris’ mother asked them to remove the gun from her home nine




www.stltoday.com


----------



## /wrists

narad said:


> Yea, you probably don't want to use sarcasm if the non-sarcastic interpretation aligns with the viewpoint of 95% of what you've posted in the thread and forum in general.


You must've missed the post where I said I was an advocate for a mix of gun control, education, and psychological intervention.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> St. Louis school shooter failed a background check. Why didn’t police take his gun?
> 
> 
> Police say slight differences in state and federal gun possession laws tied their hands when school shooter Orlando Harris’ mother asked them to remove the gun from her home nine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.stltoday.com


Stupid.

Did anyone click on the link to the Missouri law in question?



> 571.070. Possession of firearm unlawful for certain persons — penalty — exception. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm if such person knowingly has any firearm in his or her possession and:
> 
> (1) Such person has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, or of a crime under the laws of any state or of the United States which, if committed within this state, would be a felony; or
> 
> (2) Such person is a fugitive from justice, is habitually in an intoxicated or drugged condition, or is currently adjudged mentally incompetent.
> 
> 2. Unlawful possession of a firearm is a class D felony, unless a person has been convicted of a dangerous felony as defined in section 556.061, in which case it is a class C felony.
> 
> 3. The provisions of subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to the possession of an antique firearm.



I suppose the police missed the part right in the Missouri State Law that they cited about "ajudged mentally incompetent." Ajudged does not mean "declared in court," it only means "considered under law to be." A person in Missouri cannot be involuntarily committed to an institution without being legally considered incompetent to care for themselves, so, umm...

IDK, this pretty much doesn't hold any water no matter how you slice it.

Just another instance of cops not doing their job and making excuses that boil down to their own lack of comprehension of the laws. No big surprise, I guess, but wouldn't it be nice if cops made a concerted effort to *understand the damned laws* that they are trying to enforce?


----------



## /wrists

this guy's face the whole time - unflinching, no remorse for what he did

fkin scary


----------



## CanserDYI

/wrists said:


> this guy's face the whole time - unflinching, no remorse for what he did
> 
> fkin scary



Ready for one creepier?










Confessed killer Stephen McDaniel keeps his body eerily still during 2 hour interrogation


1537006 views on Imgur: The magic of the Internet




imgur.com





Check out how fucking eery this is.


----------



## odibrom

No mental health help ends in these sad situations...


CanserDYI said:


> Ready for one creepier?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessed killer Stephen McDaniel keeps his body eerily still during 2 hour interrogation
> 
> 
> 1537006 views on Imgur: The magic of the Internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> imgur.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out how fucking eery this is.


That video is kind of funny to watch if not for its context...


----------



## bostjan

odibrom said:


> No mental health help ends in these sad situations...
> 
> That video is kind of funny to watch if not for its context...


But, then, Cruz had got mental help. So did the Aurora shooter guy. It's starting to look more and more like the human race just doesn't know anything about mental health science. Either that or the professionals are too lazy or scared to do what's necessary.

Anyway, I caught a few of the videos of victim impact statements, and it's honestly just too hard to process that sort of information. Who knows what, if anything, is going through Cruz's mind. The entire courtroom scene was just a bunch of drama. It's not like this guy was going to get anything more or anything less than life without parole. Once the death penalty was off the table, sentencing him to N number of consecutive life sentences without parole is just purely ceremonial.


----------



## mastapimp

bostjan said:


> It's starting to look more and more like the human race just doesn't know anything about mental health science. Either that or the professionals are too lazy or scared to do what's necessary.


Unless somebody is very specific in their therapy sessions about what they plan on doing, the doctors cannot authorize the kind of interventions that would lock somebody up and keep them out of society. My wife is a psychologist and has had to Baker Act several people over the years and for her to use that kind of power takes very specific homicidal/suicidal intentions. She's often worried about a few of her patients that she feels are going to one day snap and kill somebody, but they won't say what's necessary, by law, to institutionalize them.


----------



## bostjan

mastapimp said:


> Unless somebody is very specific in their therapy sessions about what they plan on doing, the doctors cannot authorize the kind of interventions that would lock somebody up and keep them out of society. My wife is a psychologist and has had to Baker Act several people over the years and for her to use that kind of power takes very specific homicidal/suicidal intentions. She's often worried about a few of her patients that she feels are going to one day snap and kill somebody, but they won't say what's necessary, by law, to institutionalize them.


1. It's since come out about James Holmes, the Aurora Cinema shooter, that he _did_ specifically tell his psych that he was going to do a mass shooting, but it was brushed off. I can't say that I blame the psych personally, one bit. I just don't think that the state of the science is equipped to figure out when people are serious or not about saying such things.

2. That wasn't my point anyway. My point is that we keep saying that these mass shooters should have gotten mental help, and now that there are literally hundreds of case studies of actual mass shooters, and we see a number of them sought mental help and it didn't matter. So, we need to either start making breakthroughs in the science of the medicine at the fundamental level or else we need to stop saying that.

I don't hear very many people suggesting that we forcefully take away people's self-autonomy when they seem to be at risk of doing something awful. And I don't think that's the solution anyway. But psych medicine (by medicine I mean any form of treatment, chemical, surgical, therapeutic, etc.) is still sort of in its infancy. Just 40 years ago, they were still chopping up people's frontal lobes, in fact, it's still a procedure that exists and is legal for a doctor to do to a person. And we've known now for more than 50 years that it doesn't work. So, no disrespect to anyone who works in this field of medicine, but, you have to admit that we need more data before we can really start expecting to see effectiveness in our treatments.

Being a branch of medicine, we can't exactly go experimenting to see "what if" - so you can't really apply the scientific method, and when you are talking about how various people perceive things and, more fundamentally, what is best or worst for a patient, when the outcome is pretty much only determined by what the patient is telling you and there being so few outward signs one can observe, it's already a pretty difficult field of study. Might as well be philosophy.

That said, _every time_ I see something in the news about a shooter, there's *always* one person saying "if only they got the mental help they needed." I agree, in theory, but, more practically, where does that person go to get the mental help that they need? I don't think it exists. I don't think that the government is particularly interested in funding the basic research necessary to make it exist. I don't think the people are necessarily crazy about giving the doctors enough power to make the determinations necessary to prevent stuff like this. And I don't think that the doctors are particularly keen on having that extra responsibility over people's lives anyway.

We need to make a lot of improvements to cut down on these shootings, but the mental help aspect of it is just a single piece of a fairly large puzzle that also involves tons of other taboo topics like gun control, police training, and our violent culture as well.


----------



## mastapimp

bostjan said:


> 1. It's since come out about James Holmes, the Aurora Cinema shooter, that he _did_ specifically tell his psych that he was going to do a mass shooting, but it was brushed off. I can't say that I blame the psych personally, one bit. I just don't think that the state of the science is equipped to figure out when people are serious or not about saying such things.
> 
> 2. That wasn't my point anyway. My point is that we keep saying that these mass shooters should have gotten mental help, and now that there are literally hundreds of case studies of actual mass shooters, and we see a number of them sought mental help and it didn't matter. So, we need to either start making breakthroughs in the science of the medicine at the fundamental level or else we need to stop saying that.
> 
> I don't hear very many people suggesting that we forcefully take away people's self-autonomy when they seem to be at risk of doing something awful. And I don't think that's the solution anyway. But psych medicine (by medicine I mean any form of treatment, chemical, surgical, therapeutic, etc.) is still sort of in its infancy. Just 40 years ago, they were still chopping up people's frontal lobes, in fact, it's still a procedure that exists and is legal for a doctor to do to a person. And we've known now for more than 50 years that it doesn't work. So, no disrespect to anyone who works in this field of medicine, but, you have to admit that we need more data before we can really start expecting to see effectiveness in our treatments.
> 
> Being a branch of medicine, we can't exactly go experimenting to see "what if" - so you can't really apply the scientific method, and when you are talking about how various people perceive things and, more fundamentally, what is best or worst for a patient, when the outcome is pretty much only determined by what the patient is telling you and there being so few outward signs one can observe, it's already a pretty difficult field of study. Might as well be philosophy.
> 
> That said, _every time_ I see something in the news about a shooter, there's *always* one person saying "if only they got the mental help they needed." I agree, in theory, but, more practically, where does that person go to get the mental help that they need? I don't think it exists. I don't think that the government is particularly interested in funding the basic research necessary to make it exist. I don't think the people are necessarily crazy about giving the doctors enough power to make the determinations necessary to prevent stuff like this. And I don't think that the doctors are particularly keen on having that extra responsibility over people's lives anyway.
> 
> We need to make a lot of improvements to cut down on these shootings, but the mental help aspect of it is just a single piece of a fairly large puzzle that also involves tons of other taboo topics like gun control, police training, and our violent culture as well.


Yeah, I often hear that "if they only got the help they needed" comment too. The person has to want to change for a lot of these treatments to be effective. You can prescribe meds all day long, but it's only going to be effective if the patient puts in the work to change their state of mind.


----------



## odibrom

mastapimp said:


> Yeah, I often hear that "if they only got the help they needed" comment too. The person has to want to change for a lot of these treatments to be effective. You can prescribe meds all day long, but it's only going to be effective if the patient puts in the work to change their state of mind.



Mental illness doesn't affect only the individual, but also (and specially) those around him. It has to be a group effort in order for the unstable individual to heal and grow out of its psycho mental state... although psychopathy is said to be a different wiring to the brain due to unknown causes (often trauma?)... love heals many things and these fellows probably never felt it nor are properly and emotionally educated...


----------



## CanserDYI

Over 10 schools in my tricounty area were put in lock down today because of prank active shooter calls. The caller should be charged all the money it cost LE to mobilize for this and tack on an asshole charge at the end.


----------



## bostjan

CanserDYI said:


> Over 10 schools in my tricounty area were put in lock down today because of prank active shooter calls. The caller should be charged all the money it cost LE to mobilize for this and tack on an asshole charge at the end.


I bet whoever did that thought it was hilarious.

But I think that pretty much highlights the reason why things are so bad here in the USA now. 

It's because we are assholes.


----------



## StevenC

Newport News: Boy aged six detained after shooting teacher in US


The teacher is left with life-threatening injuries after the shooting in the state of Virginia.



www.bbc.co.uk





What if you just got rid of the fucking guns already?


----------



## odibrom

StevenC said:


> Newport News: Boy aged six detained after shooting teacher in US
> 
> 
> The teacher is left with life-threatening injuries after the shooting in the state of Virginia.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if you just got rid of the fucking guns already?



Shit...


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Newport News: Boy aged six detained after shooting teacher in US
> 
> 
> The teacher is left with life-threatening injuries after the shooting in the state of Virginia.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if you just got rid of the fucking guns already?



Dude, that district has recently had 3 school shootings! Sorry, I mean, mental health problem instances.


----------



## thraxil

Guns don't kill people. Six year olds with guns kill people.


----------



## Wiltonauer

Well, anyone who’s ever lived out in the country in a community where everyone had guns and no one ever got shot can tell you that the guns themselves aren’t the problem. People trust themselves with guns because they’ve been around them their whole lives, doing things with them that don’t have a damned thing to do with hurting people. You trust your neighbors with their guns not to hurt you, because you know them, or you see them hunting or at the shooting range, and everyone is pretty laid back. You can actually let a cop see you with a shotgun and not get blown away where you stand. Not that many assholes, criminals, psychos, or people in desperate situations out there. Or if there are, having a gun doesn’t necessarily give them a way to do something about it quickly and with a lot of impact.

Go into a city and increase the population density by orders of magnitude, and the stakes get higher very quickly. Nobody trusts anyone else, regardless of who has a gun and who doesn’t. In a city law enforcement, and anyone else with an in interest in keeping a particular area safe, isn’t gonna trust anyone outside of their little group with a gun, knife, pepper spray, or the sharp edge of a magazine page, so that’s the approach they take. Get all the guns and anything vaguely weapon-like, and take them away from everyone else. But not yourself. And while you’re at it make sure no one has anything they could use to defend themselves. That’s right, nothing but soft targets. 

The problem then is the combination of three things:

1.) We concentrate people into tight areas with few exists and make most of them sitting ducks. This by itself should not be a problem, but in reality it is making things worse in many ways.

2.) Nobody thinks psychos and criminals should have guns, but nobody considers themselves a psycho or a criminal. And yet we keep makings lots of all three and not keeping them away from each other. More twisted psychos, more determined criminals, and guns that can be used to kill more people faster, when someone decides that’s what they want to do. Most people don’t even pretend they want to hunt or go target shooting anymore; they are all getting hyped up about the “zombie apocalypse”. 

3.) We socialize people to value life cheaply, and we don’t have safety valves for people to blow off steam without attaching a lot of stigma. Some people marinade in negativity and come to attach a kind of fetishism to violence through presentations in media and elsewhere. These defective specimens consume the same media the rest of us do, but their minds are weak and they don’t process it in healthy ways. So we keeping minting new antisocial assholes who think they are the center of time and space, solipsistic egomaniacs who get sore about something and decide it has to be someone else’s fault, that they are supremely entitled to pass judgment on a group of people and carry out what they consider some kind of righteous execution. 

How can we keep doing all three of these things and pretend to be surprised at these results?


----------



## narad

The kid's 6 years old. Pretty sure the problem was just having guns...


----------



## Wiltonauer

narad said:


> The kid's 6 years old. Pretty sure the problem was just having guns...


I was shooting guns at six and got annoyed by my teacher sometimes. Never once did I think of hurting her. How does society produce a six-year-old who wants to kill a teacher? You gonna trust that kid with a sharp pencil or a pair of scissors? The problem is we’re not paying enough attention to kids to know what they are turning into. Maybe you don’t give every kid a gun, sure, but is it really that much better if the only reason a teacher is still alive is because no one in her class has a gun? There’s still a problem that needs solving.


----------



## narad

Wiltonauer said:


> I was shooting guns at six and got annoyed by my teacher sometimes. Never once did I think of hurting her. How does society produce a six-year-old who wants to kill a teacher? You gonna trust that kid with a sharp pencil or a pair of scissors? The problem is we’re not paying enough attention to kids to know what they are turning into. Maybe you don’t give every kid a gun, sure, but is it really that much better if the only reason a teacher is still alive is because no one in her class has a gun? There’s still a problem that needs solving.



You can't control thoughts or make humans somehow non-violent. We're violent by nature. However, you can stop 6 year olds from having access to firearms.


----------



## profwoot

Having more guns than people is a big problem because it makes every other problem more dangerous. It's like soaking your house in lighter fluid and then blaming the candle.

Guns are not THE problem, because effects don't have single causes. Seeing this same dumb argument repeated for going on three decades gives me hives.


----------



## Wiltonauer

narad said:


> You can't control thoughts or make humans somehow non-violent. We're violent by nature. However, you can stop 6 year olds from having access to firearms.


I honestly have no idea how many kids that young are successfully taught to be safe with guns, or could be. I always mock those PSA’s that purport to teach kids about gun safety these days; it’s always, “Don’t touch it. Leave the room. Close the door. Tell an adult.” The training I got as a child was a bit more hands-on. It taught me a lot about responsibility, and how to respect and get along with other people. I took a hunters’ safety course when I was seven. At the end of it there was a written test about safety, operation, maintenance, etc. I took the test with my older brother, a good number of older kids, and a lot of adults. I outscored all of them. But if you asked me if I would let my own kid have a gun, I would tell you that I never had children and don’t plan to, and this is one of the reasons. I don’t want to be responsible for controlling someone else’s behavior. I think it’s a cop-out to say that people are inherently violent when we keep conditioning them to fetishize violence and fantasize about it. Still, I will always feel like it’s people who are the problem if you have to take their guns away to keep them from shooting each other. Take all the guns away from everyone, and I’m still not walking around in any American city by myself at night. Guns may be making the problem worse, but it’s bullshit not to also address the reasons _why _people keep doing this. Jesus. Doesn’t anybody ever go down to the crick and plink at pop cans with a .22 anymore?


----------



## Wiltonauer

Just so I’m clear: In no way do I think my right to own a firearm is more important than a parent’s right to see their kid come home from school at the end of the day. I’m in favor of keeping guns away from people who’ve not demonstrated some level of competence and responsibility, and getting rid of all the paramilitary shit that’s clearly designed for throwing a lot of bullets at people in a short time. I also believe in attacking the problem on multiple fronts.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I feel like the litmus test for wanting to shift the conversation away from guns in good faith is the support for said other fronts, like poverty, education, and mental health, and not just "in theory" but by action. It's just hard to not see it as deflection otherwise.


----------



## Wiltonauer

MaxOfMetal said:


> I feel like the litmus test for wanting to shift the conversation away from guns in good faith is the support for said other fronts, like poverty, education, and mental health, and not just "in theory" but by action. It's just hard to not see it as deflection otherwise.


Totally agree. I would be happy to live in a world without guns if we actually took care of each other and ourselves and stopped turning out people who want to prey on others. Letting people fall through the cracks to such an extent that they don’t feel like they’re a part of humanity, that’s the other side of the tragedy that also needs to be addressed.


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> I feel like the litmus test for wanting to shift the conversation away from guns in good faith is the support for said other fronts, like poverty, education, and mental health, and not just "in theory" but by action. It's just hard to not see it as deflection otherwise.


Every other country had problems with poverty, education, and mental health. But the difference is we don't have guns. 

Because guns are the problem.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Every other country had problems with poverty, education, and mental health. But the difference is we don't have guns.
> 
> Because guns are the problem.



Guns are definitely the "x factor" here.

We either completely reshape our society from the ground up...or limit access to firearms.

As much as I love the idea of fixing all the problems, restricting guns seems a heck of a lot easier most of the time, and probably won't take generations to have an impact.

Is it "fair" to the "good" gun owners? Probably not. But getting shot at work or school doesn't seem fair either.

Which brings up something that bothers me, talking about some sense of "fairness", gun owners have never really had to really give up anything. Nothing really tangible. As long as I've been alive the most they've lost is a little time and money and maybe some rhetorical sense of "freedom". But look at the parents of school shooting victims. Look at what they've lost. How many kids are worth not having a big fancy gun? Like is having an AR15 to pose with on Instagram worth three 5th graders? Five? A dozen?


----------



## Wiltonauer

StevenC said:


> Every other country had problems with poverty, education, and mental health. But the difference is we don't have guns.
> 
> Because guns are the problem.


I think we suck at the other stuff, too.

Guns aren’t the problem. Guns are what’s making the problem so deadly.


----------



## StevenC

Wiltonauer said:


> I think we suck at the other stuff, too.
> 
> Guns aren’t the problem. Guns are what’s making the problem so deadly.


The problem is people dying. So get rid of the thing that's killing people.

I've said it before: this line of reasoning is obfuscation. The USA is not going to fund mental health and education, or fight poverty any time soon. Suggesting that is the solution is advocating for gun violence.


----------



## Wiltonauer

StevenC said:


> Every other country had problems with poverty, education, and mental health. But the difference is we don't have guns.
> 
> Because guns are the problem.





StevenC said:


> The problem is people dying. So get rid of the thing that's killing people.
> 
> I've said it before: this line of reasoning is obfuscation. The USA is not going to fund mental health and education, or fight poverty any time soon. Suggesting that is the solution is advocating for gun violence.


I’m saying we need to do both. How is that advocating for gun violence?


----------



## StevenC

Wiltonauer said:


> I’m saying we need to do both. How is that advocating for gun violence?


12 hours ago you wrote a big post about how guns aren't the problem actually.


----------



## narad

It's weird that this argument about mental health and better society comes up when talking about gun violence, but basically no other crime whatsoever. Like right now, let's say drug crime, republican policy is more for stricter sentences, mandatory minimums, and the cause of these crimes basically seems to amount to "it's what those people do". When it comes to guns it's like, hold up, why don't we try changing society? Isn't that really the issue here?


----------



## Wiltonauer

StevenC said:


> 12 hours ago you wrote a big post about how guns aren't the problem actually.


That’s a gross oversimplification of what I posted. We have multiple problem, and I advocate addressing two of them, one of them being guns. I want to get rid of all or most of the guns _and _get people to chill out and stop trying to kill each other.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> It's weird that this argument about mental health and better society comes up when talking about gun violence, but basically no other crime whatsoever. Like right now, let's say drug crime, republican policy is more for stricter sentences, mandatory minimums, and the cause of these crimes basically seems to amount to "it's what those people do". When it comes to guns it's like, hold up, why don't we try changing society? Isn't that really the issue here?


I wonder if it's because drug crimes and mass shootings are committed by different kinds of people.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> I wonder if it's because drug crimes and mass shootings are committed by different kinds of people.



Edit: nvm, misread.


----------



## narad

Wiltonauer said:


> That’s a gross oversimplification of what I posted. We have multiple problem, and I advocate addressing two of them, one of them being guns. I want to get rid of all or most of the guns _and _get people to chill out and stop trying to kill each other.



So less guns and widespread legalization of marijuana?


----------



## Wiltonauer

StevenC said:


> I wonder if it's because drug crimes and mass shootings are committed by different kinds of people.


Onto something here. Two very different things with some common elements. Both very sad.


----------



## Wiltonauer

narad said:


> So less guns and widespread legalization of marijuana?


Marijuana can be extremely dangerous, and not necessarily for direct health reasons. But we need to chill and have more respect for each other, or getting rid of guns will motivate some people to look at other things.


----------



## Wiltonauer

narad said:


> It's weird that this argument about mental health and better society comes up when talking about gun violence, but basically no other crime whatsoever. Like right now, let's say drug crime, republican policy is more for stricter sentences, mandatory minimums, and the cause of these crimes basically seems to amount to "it's what those people do". When it comes to guns it's like, hold up, why don't we try changing society? Isn't that really the issue here?


We really need to look out beyond their own block or subdivision and see others across town as our own people, too.


----------



## narad

Wiltonauer said:


> We really need to look out beyond their own block or subdivision and see others across town as our own people, too.


Sure, but I really feel that's just a general property of what we want in a society and tangential to the issue of shootings. Of course if everyone wants to hug everyone else all the time, there'd be no shootings, but hey, if everyone shared we wouldn't have poverty or theft or homelessness, etc. Humans aren't built for that, and that's what keeps these ideas in the realm of futuristic utopia in scifi and not indicative of basically any society on earth.


----------



## MFB

Wiltonauer said:


> We really need to look out beyond their own block or subdivision and see others across town as our own people, too.



In Sarah Palin's case, she looked across the ocean and thought Russians were her people too.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

StevenC said:


> The problem is people dying. So get rid of the thing that's killing people.
> 
> I've said it before: this line of reasoning is obfuscation. The USA is not going to fund mental health and education, or fight poverty any time soon. Suggesting that is the solution is advocating for gun violence.



The USA isn't going to start protecting black, indigenous, or trans women any time soon, either, so I'd rather they had guns, because the people who want to kill them _absofuckinglutely _have guns. Gun control for _all _of this country's history has functioned explicitly to take guns out of the hands of marginalized groups, making them that much easier to control and eradicate. That's not "obfuscation," it's a factual description of the historic and current material conditions in this country, facts which are conspicuously absent from discussions on gun control and gun violence. Good intentions don't magically divorce gun control from that legacy, nor do they do anything to protect marginalized people whose lives are at risk every day. 

I work in public schools, with the at-riskest of at-risk youth, so it's not like I don't appreciate what's at stake here. I also recognize that the issue is much more complicated than the current politicized dichotomy. It seems to me a lot of folks are giving themselves a pass on the more complex bits by way of good intentions. "Save the children" is well and good, but we really have to ask ourselves what it would mean to institute more gun control without interrogating the historical function of gun control in this country.


----------



## StevenC

Wiltonauer said:


> But we need to chill and have more respect for each other, or getting rid of guns will motivate some people to look at other things.


No, they won't. Look at every other country in the world. No one does mass stabbings.


----------



## StevenC

wheresthefbomb said:


> The USA isn't going to start protecting black, indigenous, or trans women any time soon, either, so I'd rather they had guns, because the people who want to kill them _absofuckinglutely _have guns. Gun control for _all _of this country's history has functioned explicitly to take guns out of the hands of marginalized groups, making them that much easier to control and eradicate. That's not "obfuscation," it's a factual description of the historic and current material conditions in this country, facts which are conspicuously absent from discussions on gun control and gun violence. Good intentions don't magically divorce gun control from that legacy, nor do they do anything to protect marginalized people whose lives are at risk every day.
> 
> I work in public schools, with the at-riskest of at-risk youth, so it's not like I don't appreciate what's at stake here. I also recognize that the issue is much more complicated than the current politicized dichotomy. It seems to me a lot of folks are giving themselves a pass on the more complex bits by way of good intentions. "Save the children" is well and good, but we really have to ask ourselves what it would mean to institute more gun control without interrogating the historical function of gun control in this country.


When did I say we need to limit who gets guns? 

Get rid of all the fucking guns. White people shouldn't have them either. 

I'm about as lefty/pro human rights as they come and no one should have guns because they serve no purpose in society.


----------



## Wiltonauer

StevenC said:


> No, they won't. Look at every other country in the world. No one does mass stabbings.


Stabbings aren’t what I’m worried about, and yes, people do it.


----------



## TheBlackBard

StevenC said:


> When did I say we need to limit who gets guns?
> 
> Get rid of all the fucking guns. White people shouldn't have them either.
> 
> I'm about as lefty/pro human rights as they come and no one should have guns because they serve no purpose in society.



As a hunter who doesn't believe that everyone needs a gun and that more stringent measures should be in place to keep those who shouldn't have them from getting them, I disagree. Even countries with FAR more stringent gun laws that don't have the shooting issues that we do allow guns for hunting. Why? Because they understand that some people view them as merely tools for putting food on the table.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> No, they won't. Look at every other country in the world. No one does mass stabbings.


Not to deflate your point, but there are definitely mass stabbings, they just are way less prevalent than mass shootings. The third most infamous one was in your very own nation, where 8 were killed and 53 were injured. That's as bad as your typical corn-fed good ol' US-style mass-shooting. There was also a mass stabbing in China while ago when more than 30 people were killed and well over a hundred were injured by a coordinated group of stabbers.

The trouble here in the USA is that our political system is hardened, so "get rid of all of the guns" is never an option. You can say "make it an option," but you're dreaming. And that ties this into where all of the ubiquitous mental health discussion come up. It's not that we don't want to get rid of the guns here, it's that we can't. Our crazy people are not only a large enough voting constituent to block any popular movement, but guns are (people believe, but that's another discussion as to whether the language means what people think it means) in our national constitution, so it'd take 2/3rds of our states to get rid of guns, when 49% of our senators are vehemently pro-gun. And those people are from states where >50% of the population is pro-gun.

And, in general, I definitely agree with the common sense behind "fewer guns = fewer murders," but I also think that, even if you magically erased all of the firearms from the USA, people here are crazy enough that the USA would quickly become the #1 place for stabbings. This is a nation on the verge of large scale civil unrest as the crazy and ignorant all seem to have been led to believe that they can violently overthrow the government the moment they disagree with something. We have people getting murdered every day for reasons as stupid as "he put too much mayo on my sandwich" or "he looked at me funny." We are, after all, the worlds most boisterous culture and we have purposefully engineered people here to be as ignorant as possible and have zero access to mental health care, so our violence problem won't go away, nor even improve as well as you think, if we get rid of all of the guns, and, furthermore, we can't get rid of the guns without a totally new government. And and, if the old government went away, it'd be the people who are the most violent and have the most guns who would take over.

So, as much as I want to agree with everything you say at the philosophical level, it's simply impossible for any of this to materialize.


----------



## Wiltonauer

Getting rid of all guns on one hand, and just letting everyone have all the weapons they want (including whatever military equipment they can afford) and having everyone just try to get along, are both so ludicrous that neither is ever going to happen in an America that looks anything like a democracy. To be unwilling to compromise and accept moderation is to insist on failure.

Saying “No guns for anyone” or “Everyone should carry an automatic weapon wherever they go” are both horseshit. You will get concessions from a lot more people if you don’t insist on such extremes. I would support _a lot_ of gun restrictions as long as I could keep a couple of fairly primitive manually operated, low-capacity pieces that would be comically inconvenient in a mass shooting scenario. Tell me that I can’t ever be trusted with any kind of gun, ever, and I will fight your efforts instead of helping them. Tell me that we have to tolerate children being murdered at school every year so that mall-ninja chumps can have AK-47s and feel like self-styled badasses, and I will fight you on that.


----------



## bostjan

Wiltonauer said:


> Getting rid of all guns on one hand, and just letting everyone have all the weapons they want (including whatever military equipment they can afford) and having everyone just try to get along, are both so ludicrous that neither is ever going to happen in an America that looks anything like a democracy. To be unwilling to compromise and accept moderation is to insist on failure.
> 
> Saying “No guns for anyone” or “Everyone should carry an automatic weapon wherever they go” are both horseshit. You will get concessions from a lot more people if you don’t insist on such extremes. I would support _a lot_ of gun restrictions as long as I could keep a couple of fairly primitive manually operated, low-capacity pieces that would be comically inconvenient in a mass shooting scenario. Tell me that I can’t ever be trusted with any kind of gun, ever, and I will fight your efforts instead of helping them. Tell me that we have to tolerate children being murdered at school every year so that mall-ninja chumps can have AK-47s and feel like self-styled badasses, and I will fight you on that.


Yeah, but where do you draw the line and why?

Why should I be allowed to own a 22 revolver?

OTOH, why shouldn't I be allowed to own a MIM-104 air defense system?


----------



## Wiltonauer

narad said:


> Sure, but I really feel that's just a general property of what we want in a society and tangential to the issue of shootings. Of course if everyone wants to hug everyone else all the time, there'd be no shootings, but hey, if everyone shared we wouldn't have poverty or theft or homelessness, etc. Humans aren't built for that, and that's what keeps these ideas in the realm of futuristic utopia in scifi and not indicative of basically any society on earth.


 Now, now, don’t straw-man me on this by taking it to an unrealistic extreme.  I’m not talking about anything like that. Just a few steps in that direction. Dialing down the adversarial rhetoric that’s been growing in this country in the last twenty years or so, taking a step back, and really examining what we value. 

There has been a lot of talk in recent decades about self esteem in how we raise young people, and I feel like that, and other mis-steps, are keeping a lot of younger people from developing a deeper kind of self-respect that’s not diminished by also having respect for other people. We are still “othering” people and putting them into convenient little boxes in our minds so that we can look at their situation, demographics, status, and figure out how to “deal” with them without ever having to think about them as fully human. In this way it is easier to assume that their values are in direct opposition to our own, and that consequently anything that is good for them is bad for us, and the inverse. From there it doesn’t take to much to get to their destruction also being to our benefit.

The answer to this is not self-sacrificing altruism or joining hands and singing round a campfire. The answer is the look at the other person and see the humanity, and extend the kindness you would wish for from others in the same situation.


----------



## Wiltonauer

bostjan said:


> Yeah, but where do you draw the line and why?
> 
> Why should I be allowed to own a 22 revolver?
> 
> OTOH, why shouldn't I be allowed to own a MIM-104 air defense system?


Pragmatism, pure and simple. The idealism of both extremes is the folly here that will get us nowhere.

Since you asked, I draw the line in such a way that it allows most folks guns they can use for hunting, sport, peaceful hobbies, but which would severely lack in the kinds of situations that typically appeal to mass shooters. When people tell you having a single-action .22 revolver that’s been tactically obsolete for over a hundred years is too dangerous, they are full of it. When people tell you they need a submachine gun and ten 30-round mags for hunting or home defense, they are full of it.


----------



## ArtDecade

Wiltonauer said:


> Marijuana can be extremely dangerous.


Agreed. I saw a hippie choke on a taco while trying to handle a severe case of the munchies.


----------



## Wiltonauer

ArtDecade said:


> Agreed. I saw a hippie choke on a taco while trying to handle a severe case of the munchies.


How about a pretty, white, blonde college student getting tied up and shot to death execution-style because the guys robbing her boyfriend’s house of his inventory didn’t want to leave witnesses.


----------



## bostjan

Wiltonauer said:


> Pragmatism, pure and simple. The idealism of both extremes is the folly here that will get us nowhere.
> 
> Since you asked, I draw the line in such a way that it allows most folks guns they can use for hunting, sport, peaceful hobbies, but which would severely lack in the kinds of situations that typically appeal to mass shooters. When people tell you having a single-action .22 revolver that’s been tactically obsolete for over a hundred years is too dangerous, they are full of it. When people tell you they need a submachine gun and ten 30-round mags for hunting or home defense, they are full of it.


I've had police officers tell me that those single action .22 revolvers are, like the #2 or #3 most common weapons in the evidence locker, though. Growing up in Militiagan, I know tons of 12 year old kids would scoff at a .22 LR cartridge as though it were a harmless toy, but one of those to a human head is certain death! Why? Because the bullet is small enough to penetrate the skull going in, yet small enough in mass that it cannot penetrate the skull a second time. I won't get into any more detail than that, but it kills people every day! It's actually arguably useless for hunting game, since it's too precise to hit a duck and too underpowered for a deer. Even if someone breaks into my house to murder my family, and all I had was that weapon, it'd take a fair bit of either luck or psychology to allow it to be an effective tool for defense. So, unless you are shooting cans, rats, or human heads, it really doesn't have much of a purpose.

On the other hand, if you have $2M USD and want a Patriot Missile Defense System equipped with radar, I could see the logical justification that it's for home defense. It'd be ridiculous to use a $2M missile to target a human being, and the missiles are really limited to specific uses, anyway, so, if you happen to be purchasing one of the surface-to-air style, well, unless you are shooting down a larger missile, it's pretty useless.

So, logically, the MIM-104 Air is a lot easier to justify, under the second amendment, than a .22 single action revolver. Right?


----------



## Wiltonauer

bostjan said:


> I've had police officers tell me that those single action .22 revolvers are, like the #2 or #3 most common weapons in the evidence locker, though. Growing up in Militiagan, I know tons of 12 year old kids would scoff at a .22 LR cartridge as though it were a harmless toy, but one of those to a human head is certain death! Why? Because the bullet is small enough to penetrate the skull going in, yet small enough in mass that it cannot penetrate the skull a second time. I won't get into any more detail than that, but it kills people every day! It's actually arguably useless for hunting game, since it's too precise to hit a duck and too underpowered for a deer. Even if someone breaks into my house to murder my family, and all I had was that weapon, it'd take a fair bit of either luck or psychology to allow it to be an effective tool for defense. So, unless you are shooting cans, rats, or human heads, it really doesn't have much of a purpose.
> 
> On the other hand, if you have $2M USD and want a Patriot Missile Defense System equipped with radar, I could see the logical justification that it's for home defense. It'd be ridiculous to use a $2M missile to target a human being, and the missiles are really limited to specific uses, anyway, so, if you happen to be purchasing one of the surface-to-air style, well, unless you are shooting down a larger missile, it's pretty useless.
> 
> So, logically, the MIM-104 Air is a lot easier to justify, under the second amendment, than a .22 single action revolver. Right?


It’s the symbolism of the thing. And I am literally shooting old soda cans full of water, so it’s perfect. Like I said, pragmatism. People who want to kill will use what they can get their hands on. Take the .22 away and they will use a baseball bat. But mass shooters? Please.


----------



## TheBlackBard

bostjan said:


> I've had police officers tell me that those single action .22 revolvers are, like the #2 or #3 most common weapons in the evidence locker, though. Growing up in Militiagan, I know tons of 12 year old kids would scoff at a .22 LR cartridge as though it were a harmless toy, but one of those to a human head is certain death! Why? Because the bullet is small enough to penetrate the skull going in, yet small enough in mass that it cannot penetrate the skull a second time. I won't get into any more detail than that, but it kills people every day! It's actually arguably useless for hunting game, since it's too precise to hit a duck and too underpowered for a deer. Even if someone breaks into my house to murder my family, and all I had was that weapon, it'd take a fair bit of either luck or psychology to allow it to be an effective tool for defense. So, unless you are shooting cans, rats, or human heads, it really doesn't have much of a purpose.
> 
> On the other hand, if you have $2M USD and want a Patriot Missile Defense System equipped with radar, I could see the logical justification that it's for home defense. It'd be ridiculous to use a $2M missile to target a human being, and the missiles are really limited to specific uses, anyway, so, if you happen to be purchasing one of the surface-to-air style, well, unless you are shooting down a larger missile, it's pretty useless.
> 
> So, logically, the MIM-104 Air is a lot easier to justify, under the second amendment, than a .22 single action revolver. Right?


Never hunted squirrels, huh?


----------



## ArtDecade

Wiltonauer said:


> How about a pretty, white, blonde college student getting tied up and shot to death execution-style because the guys robbing her boyfriend’s house of his inventory didn’t want to leave witnesses.


Once again, sounds like guns are the problem. But, surely that can't be the point you are making.


----------



## Wiltonauer

ArtDecade said:


> Once again, sounds like guns are the problem.


Okay, take the guns away. You still want to live next to those guys?


----------



## bostjan

Wiltonauer said:


> People who want to kill will use what they can get their hands on. Take the .22 away and they will use a baseball bat.


The bat takes a lot longer and tires your arm out more quickly. 

There are tons of countries where guns are forbidden and bats are allowed, and they don't have that big of a national issue with mass battings in any of those places.

But the point is neither here nor there. If you don't think guns are part of the problem, it doesn't affect anything. Guns are definitely a huge part of the problem, but the fact that the culture and psychology and ignorance and sense of entitlement here are so deeply engrained, I'm with you that, if you took all of the guns out of the USA, people would just grab whatever to kill. And half of that might even be just to go _that far _to prove the stupid point.



TheBlackBard said:


> Never hunted squirrels, huh?


Nope. Lucky for me, I was born long after the Great Depression, so I never had to resort to eating a harmless woodland creature that yields three ounces of meat.


----------



## Wiltonauer

TheBlackBard said:


> Never hunted squirrels, huh?


I have, shotgun. More trouble than it’s worth. Wish I’d used a .22.


----------



## Wiltonauer

bostjan said:


> The bat takes a lot longer and tires your arm out more quickly.
> 
> 
> Nope. Lucky for me, I was born long after the Great Depression, so I never had to resort to eating a harmless woodland creature that yields three ounces of meat.


No shit.

And aren’t you glad we’ve ended poverty in America?


----------



## ArtDecade

Wiltonauer said:


> Okay, take the guns away. You still want to live next to those guys?


I like my chances against violent asshats without guns over those with guns. My guess is that the teacher felt the same way with that 6 year old.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Wiltonauer said:


> No shit.
> 
> And aren’t you glad we’ve ended poverty in America?


Not just poverty, but liking to eat a particular thing. Preferences? What a POS I am.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Wiltonauer said:


> I have, shotgun. More trouble than it’s worth. Wish I’d used a .22.


Yep. Much easier to clean.


----------



## Wiltonauer

ArtDecade said:


> I like my chances against violent asshats without guns over those with guns. My guess is that the teacher felt the same way with that 6 year old.


Would you be satisfied just doing something about the guns? Would you stop there and not look at the things that lead to those people being in those situations?


----------



## ArtDecade

Wiltonauer said:


> Would you be satisfied just doing something about the guns, or would you stop there and not look at the things that put people in those situations?


You realize that crimes happen in countries that have banned guns...? The difference is that the US has more mass murders because of access to - wait for it - guns.


----------



## Wiltonauer

ArtDecade said:


> You realize that crimes happen in countries that have banned guns...? The difference is that the US has more mass murders because of access to - wait for it - guns.


We also have more blustering jackwagons. I want to do something about _both _things.


----------



## ArtDecade

Wiltonauer said:


> blustering jackwagons


Don't get down on yourself, mate. At worst, you are a well-meaning jackwagon. Dial 988 to talk about it.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, I mean, sure, there's room to debate how effective a total prohibition on owning guns in the United States would be at totally samping out gun crime and reducing homicide. 

But, like, pretty clearly outlawing or _severely_ regulating gun ownership would _help, _based on the experience of, oh, every other country in the world. Sure, criminals would still break the law, so people would still illegally get guns and shoot other people, but speed limits save lives by reducing traffic accidents too, and yet I've never once heard someone point to the fact that people still speed as a reason to do away with speed limits. 

Applying the same sort of common sense risk mitigation to guns that we apply to basically every other risk factor in modern American life just triggers (heh) this knee-jerk reaction on the part of gun advocates for some reason.


----------



## Wiltonauer

ArtDecade said:


> Don't get down on yourself, mate. At worst, you are a well-meaning jackwagon. Dial 988 to talk about it.


Can we not do personal attacks? I’ve said repeatedly here that I’m in favor of much more restrictive gun laws, and here you are belittling me just because I don’t agree with going to your extreme.


----------



## Wiltonauer

Drew said:


> Yeah, I mean, sure, there's room to debate how effective a total prohibition on owning guns in the United States would be at totally samping out gun crime and reducing homicide.
> 
> But, like, pretty clearly outlawing or _severely_ regulating gun ownership would _help, _based on the experience of, oh, every other country in the world. Sure, criminals would still break the law, so people would still illegally get guns and shoot other people, but speed limits save lives by reducing traffic accidents too, and yet I've never once heard someone point to the fact that people still speed as a reason to do away with speed limits.
> 
> Applying the same sort of common sense risk mitigation to guns that we apply to basically every other risk factor in modern American life just triggers (heh) this knee-jerk reaction on the part of gun advocates for some reason.


I mean, look how great it worked out when we banned alcohol. When you leave people with nothing, you give them no reason to stop once they start taking it.


----------



## Drew

Wiltonauer said:


> I mean, look how great it worked out when we banned alcohol. When you leave people with nothing, you give them no reason to stop once they start taking it.


Yeah, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the American pubic is a real shame something should do something about. 

Idunno, I mean, being a hair more serious, if every other first-world country out there figured it out, I _have_ to think that America can too, you know?


----------



## ArtDecade

Wiltonauer said:


> Can we not do personal attacks? I’ve said repeatedly here that I’m in favor of much more restrictive gun laws, and here you are belittling me just because I don’t agree with going to your extreme.


Stop playing the victim. You are the one that used blustering jackwagon (seriously, is it 1846 where you live) rather than actually citing something as dangerous as guns used in mass murders. It is called deflection.


----------



## bostjan

Did this person just do a 180° between how marijuana leads to murders and needs to be prohibited and then how prohibition was a total disaster and everything should be legal?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Did this person just do a 180° between how marijuana leads to murders and needs to be prohibited and then how prohibition was a total disaster and everything should be legal?


Late to the party so I missed that entire conversation, but I do believe you're right.


----------



## arasys

TheBlackBard said:


> Not just poverty, but liking to eat a particular thing. Preferences? What a POS I am.



I hope killing squirrels makes you feel powerful.


----------



## Wiltonauer

bostjan said:


> Did this person just do a 180° between how marijuana leads to murders and needs to be prohibited and then how prohibition was a total disaster and everything should be legal?


Now you are simply putting words in my mouth.


----------



## bostjan

Switzerland has similar gun laws to the USA, and has significantly fewer mass shootings than the USA. But also there _have_ been high profile mass shootings there, versus, not in the rest of Europe... Meanwhile, Mexico has a shit ton of gun violence, but very strict gun control, similar to Europe. 

That's why I firmly believe that our gun laws here are a part of the problem, but also not the entire problem. Unfortunately, though, the culture of violence that seems to be closer to the heart of the problem isn't really anything that can be fixed without either waiting for generations to come and go or else putting our nation through some serious growing pains.


----------



## Wiltonauer

ArtDecade said:


> Stop playing the victim. You are the one that used blustering jackwagon (seriously, is it 1846 where you live) rather than actually citing something as dangerous as guns used in mass murders. It is called deflection.


I wasn’t talking about you or anyone else here.


----------



## bostjan

Wiltonauer said:


> Now you are simply putting words in my mouth.





narad said:


> So less guns and widespread legalization of marijuana?





Wiltonauer said:


> Marijuana can be extremely dangerous, and not necessarily for direct health reasons. But we need to chill and have more respect for each other, or getting rid of guns will motivate some people to look at other things.





ArtDecade said:


> Agreed. I saw a hippie choke on a taco while trying to handle a severe case of the munchies.





Wiltonauer said:


> How about a pretty, white, blonde college student getting tied up and shot to death execution-style because the guys robbing her boyfriend’s house of his inventory didn’t want to leave witnesses.





Wiltonauer said:


> I mean, look how great it worked out when we banned alcohol. When you leave people with nothing, you give them no reason to stop once they start taking it.




I mean, I didn't truncate any of those posts...


----------



## Wiltonauer

There is a lot of subtlety here. It’s not as simple as people are trying to make it out to be. I’m against completely banning guns as a matter of political expediency. I’m in favor of stopping a little short, because I think it’s something that might actually be achievable.


----------



## Wiltonauer

bostjan said:


> I mean, I didn't truncate any of those posts...


Prohibition. Did it let people have a sip now and then, or was it ham-handed and overreaching? Did it lead to violent criminals being the ones in charge of the industry?


----------



## TheBlackBard

arasys said:


> I hope killing squirrels makes you feel powerful.



Is that projection? Sorry, hunting doesn't make me feel powerful. Do you feel powerful when you go to the grocery store? You probably think people go fishing as a way to feel masculine as well.


----------



## ArtDecade




----------



## bostjan

Wiltonauer said:


> Prohibition. Did it let people have a sip now and then, or was it ham-handed and overreaching?


Huh?

Is that supposed to be a rhetorical point?

In case not, I'll answer anyway. No. It _did_ let people have a sip every now and then. It literally prohibited the sale of alcohol. You could still drink wine in church or drink whatever you owned, and you could even sometimes manufacture certain alcoholic beverages as long as you weren't trying to sell them.

Do you know how marijuana laws work? Because they are way *less* lenient in the places that they are enforced. In Georgia, for example, you can be arrested if a police officer thinks you are acting like you are high on cannabis. Without any sort of field sobriety, any sort of evidence, anything. And then you go to jail and literally have a criminal record.

Not sure how any of that helps your point at all...

As for subtlety, I'm also not at all sure what you are going for. Why don't you make it a lot less subtle for the readers at home?


----------



## Wiltonauer

bostjan said:


> Huh?
> 
> Is that supposed to be a rhetorical point?
> 
> In case not, I'll answer anyway. No. It _did_ let people have a sip every now and then. It literally prohibited the sale of alcohol. You could still drink wine in church or drink whatever you owned, and you could even sometimes manufacture certain alcoholic beverages as long as you weren't trying to sell them.
> 
> Do you know how marijuana laws work? Because they are way *less* lenient in the places that they are enforced. In Georgia, for example, you can be arrested if a police officer thinks you are acting like you are high on cannabis. Without any sort of field sobriety, any sort of evidence, anything. And then you go to jail and literally have a criminal record.
> 
> Not sure how any of that helps your point at all...
> 
> As for subtlety, I'm also not at all sure what you are going for. Why don't you make it a lot less subtle for the readers at home?


If people who wanted to drink had been content to make it for themselves and not try to sell it, how do you think the outcome would have been different?

As far as subtlety, I’ve been misinterpreted a lot in this thread, so let me clarify a few things:

1.) I’m not a gun nut. I don’t even own any right now.
2.) I’m disgusted by gun violence, and by the other kinds, too.
3.) I believe guns are chosen as weapons of crime and mass violence so often because of their availability and effectiveness.
4.) I believe in having fewer guns available, and guns that are less effective at mass killing, is something we should strive for, and now.
5.) I believe efforts to ban guns entirely in the United States in my lifetime will fail, at the expense of legislation that could be passed and save lives.
6.) I care about crime victims, including those who have not been shot.
7.) I believe marijuana should be legal but regulated to try to keep it relatively safe for everyone involved.
8.) I believe creating positive opportunities and looking out for people will help reduce the numbers and severity of people turning to violence.


----------



## Wiltonauer

ArtDecade said:


>


I was thinking of this movie, too.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> In Georgia, for example, you can be arrested if a police officer thinks you are acting like you are high on cannabis. Without any sort of field sobriety, any sort of evidence, anything. And then you go to jail and literally have a criminal record.



And to think I had a friend make a whole career out of being a drug cop in Georgia. They even gave them a 50k trained Malinois! If only they would have trusted their thinking over the dogs...

I do have a funny story about this though... DO NOT take your 50k drug-trained Malinois to a weekend dirt bike race/concert event in the middle of Georgia where everyone is smoking weed.


----------



## jaxadam

arasys said:


> I hope killing squirrels makes you feel powerful.



The rule where I grew up was if you kill it, you eat it. So I had a lot of pan fried squirrel filled with #6 shot. I mean I'd be sitting there trying to eat just spitting out bb's. People always wondered if eating that much squirrel was bad for me, but nothing *slight head twitch, foam in corners of mouth*.


----------



## TheBlackBard

jaxadam said:


> The rule where I grew up was if you kill it, you eat it. So I had a lot of pan fried squirrel filled with #6 shot. I mean I'd be sitting there trying to eat just spitting out bb's. People always wondered if eating that much squirrel was bad for me, but nothing *slight head twitch, foam in corners of mouth*.


Nvm, not worth it.


----------



## Glades

arasys said:


> I hope killing squirrels makes you feel powerful.


Squirrel is actually pretty good to eat. Get you 4-5, put them in the crockpot with some bouillon, garlic, onions, peppers and some golden potatoes. That's good eating right there. Meat falls off the bone.


----------



## Wiltonauer

I don’t hunt myself anymore, just a personal choice. I don’t think it’s necessarily more cruel than factory farming, but that’s pretty off-topic. I do think going after hunting in the context of gun violence is a bad political move right now.


----------



## jaxadam

Glades said:


> Squirrel is actually pretty good to eat. Get you 4-5, put them in the crockpot with some bouillon, garlic, onions, peppers and some golden potatoes. That's good eating right there. Meat falls off the bone.



My go-to was soaked in salt water (and try to get all the bb's out!), roll in flour and pan fry in butter.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Wiltonauer said:


> I don’t hunt myself anymore, just a personal choice. I don’t think it’s necessarily more cruel than factory farming, but that’s pretty off-topic. I do think going after hunting in the context of gun violence is a bad political move right now.


They've already proven that they're willing to look down upon and denigrate people for hunting, making even people who are willing to meet in the middle about gun safety look like bad guys. I'm not asking to own an AR-15 or even a shotgun, but apparently even a single shot bolt action rifle from the 70's is enough to make people accuse you of being insecure, even if you only look at it as a mere tool. When you have extreme polarization like that, one crowd believes you should be unrestricted in owning anything you can pay for (wrong) and others who apparently don't want you to have anything (and insult you if you do) gee, wonder why there's so much pushback.


----------



## tedtan

jaxadam said:


> (and try to get all the bb's out!)


.22LR.


----------



## Glades

jaxadam said:


> My go-to was soaked in salt water (and try to get all the bb's out!), roll in flour and pan fry in butter.


That's pretty much how I cook most of my ducks. I kill around 150-200 a season, and end up with a lot of duck at the end of the season. Pan fried is a pretty fast and easy way to go through my meat freezer.


----------



## jaxadam

Glades said:


> That's pretty much how I cook most of my ducks. I kill around 150-200 a season, and end up with a lot of duck at the end of the season. Pan fried is a pretty fast and easy way to go through my meat freezer.



I've done squirrel a lot of different ways (baked, roasted, boiled, pan fried, soup, etc...) and the only way I ever really liked it was pan fried (basically like how I like grouse). I thought I was a big time chef when I was a kid, and I would add vanilla extract to the soup. I am absolutely not shitting you on this one.


----------



## Glades

jaxadam said:


> I've done squirrel a lot of different ways (baked, roasted, boiled, pan fried, soup, etc...) and the only way I ever really liked it was pan fried (basically like how I like grouse). I thought I was a big time chef when I was a kid, and I would add vanilla extract to the soup. I am absolutely not shitting you on this one.


Hahaha sounds like that Forrest Gump scene about shrimp.


----------



## Glades

But I digress ..

I think hunting is a great tool to get kids started with firearm safety and responsibility from a young age. My dad started taking me since I was 8-9 years old, and have been around it my whole life. A big problem is a lot of kids do not grow up shooting, and around guns. And so guns never become a fundamental tool in their lives. For me, guns have always been part of our daily lives. They are just another tool in the shed, that allow us to fill freezers, have great fellowship and enjoy the outdoors that the Lord blessed us with.
I will forever treasure all the times I spent afield with my dad chasing birds. And I hope to pass it to my children.


----------



## bostjan

A lot of mass shooters had no hunting experience. Some of them did, though. A lot of them had no firearm safety training; some of them did, though. Sometimes they even get flagged during background checks and still found ways to get guns. Some don't use their own guns. Some day, there will be a mass shooting where the shooter uses homemade guns...

In retrospect, it's often easy to say these perpetrators are obviously crazy, but, sometimes they seem okay up to the moment they started shooting.

Anyone saying "just stop there from being guns" is being unrealistic to the point where their argument is meaningless. I think that I've made a strong case that no simple solution will ever work in the USA and I fear that no more complex solution will be sound bytey enough for anyone to care, so we are doomed to keep repeating the pattern until either our government collapses or our culture fades away. And if kids keep bringing guns to school, maybe our culture willpush itself into oblivion.


----------



## CanserDYI

"a big problem is kids not growing up around guns"

Nah, man. That sounds like a fucking dream.


----------



## Wiltonauer

CanserDYI said:


> "a big problem is kids not growing up around guns"
> 
> Nah, man. That sounds like a fucking dream.


I have to agree. It obviously works great sometimes, but I think a lot of kids grow up too quickly in the wrong ways, too quickly for this kind of training and discipline to help.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

CanserDYI said:


> "a big problem is kids not growing up around guns"
> 
> Nah, man. That sounds like a fucking dream.



Fair, but so does "make all the guns magically disappear like in Superman IV"

The real dichotomy here is between people who want reality to conform to their ideals vs people whose ideals are based in reality.


----------



## odibrom

CanserDYI said:


> "a big problem is kids not growing up around guns"
> 
> Nah, man. That sounds like a *horror film nightmare*.



...  ... ?

Now seriously, regarding kids, when one have a weapon of some sort at home, even kitchen knives, one has the responsibility to instruct the kids on how NOT to use these objects and their associated perils of misuse. It's a must. This way they'll learn to respect said objects faster than they'll think they can control them. It's way more important to teach how NOT to use weapons than to teach them how to aim and shoot.


----------



## CanserDYI

odibrom said:


> ...  ... ?


I think you misunderstood me, I'm saying it'd be a dream for children to not grow up around firearms.


----------



## ArtDecade

CanserDYI said:


> I think you misunderstood me, I'm saying it'd be a dream for children to not grow up around firearms.


I thought you made plenty of sense when you said it the first time.


----------



## odibrom

CanserDYI said:


> I think you misunderstood me, I'm saying it'd be a dream for children to not grow up around firearms.





ArtDecade said:


> I thought you made plenty of sense when you said it the first time.



My bad, sorry for my lazy reading... we're on the same page here, no gun territory...

Nevertheless my previous point stands...


----------



## Wiltonauer

Much would depend on _how_ the kid grows up around guns. Before I had a chance to be influenced otherwise, my father taught me that guns were tools and neither toys nor things to be misused. Guns were for hunting and sport shooting and never to be used against people except in self-defense. The self-defense part was never really a focus for us, because we lived out in the country. We almost never bought guns with an eye toward how much damage they could do to human bodies; it would have made about as much sense to us as buying a car, hammer, shovel, chainsaw, or guitar with the same thing in mind. My dad had a handgun that he kept reasonably ready somewhere in the house in case something happened, but it never did.

Not every kid is introduced to firearms in that kind of way. I think a lot of people grow up associating guns with power, violence, gangs, drug trafficking, revenge, control, etc. I can’t blame people for hating guns when all they see is the terrible things people choose to do with them. I can’t blame people for hating guns when someone they love was killed with one.

I think too many kids these days are already going to have their heads filled with nonsense (from movies) and negativity (from the city) by the time it would occur to anyone to try and instruct them. Too many of them would want to horseplay or just be traumatized. What finally matters is how they come to deal with other people.


----------



## Glades

CanserDYI said:


> I think you misunderstood me, I'm saying it'd be a dream for children to not grow up around firearms.


We must come from completely different planets man. Honestly, you might as well be from Jupiter.


----------



## arasys

Glades said:


> We must come from completely different planets man. Honestly, you might as well be from Jupiter.


he's not the one who enjoys killing & eating squirrels.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> We must come from completely different planets man. Honestly, you might as well be from Jupiter.


... says the dude that claims to have fled South America because of the violence. But yeah, more guns.


----------



## Wiltonauer

arasys said:


> he's not the one who enjoys killing & eating squirrels.


I ate a few when I was a kid, but I’m tight with squirrels these days. I google for tips on how to keep the birds out of my squirrel feeders.

(I know you weren’t talking about me, but that was my last chance to make that joke.)


----------



## Wiltonauer

TheBlackBard said:


> They've already proven that they're willing to look down upon and denigrate people for hunting, making even people who are willing to meet in the middle about gun safety look like bad guys. I'm not asking to own an AR-15 or even a shotgun, but apparently even a single shot bolt action rifle from the 70's is enough to make people accuse you of being insecure, even if you only look at it as a mere tool. When you have extreme polarization like that, one crowd believes you should be unrestricted in owning anything you can pay for (wrong) and others who apparently don't want you to have anything (and insult you if you do) gee, wonder why there's so much pushback.


Extreme polarization is what keeps two sides constantly battling each other for power, blocking progress, and spending their time in power undoing what the other side just did.


----------



## odibrom

ArtDecade said:


> ... says the dude that claims to have fled South America because of the violence. But yeah, more guns.



How in hell do you keep track of these things?


----------



## narad

arasys said:


> he's not the one who enjoys killing & eating squirrels.



Not a valid criticism. There are no squirrels on Jupiter.


----------



## CTID

i'm not gonna read all 59 pages of this but it doesn't take a genius to realize that while going to a range and shooting guns is fucking _rad, _there are tons of people in the country (and the world at large) who are a danger to themselves and to others and that it's not worth it.

anecdotally, 6-7 years ago my old band practiced at our vocalist's uncle's place because they had a lot of property where we wouldn't bother me, and they had a completely finished/heated barn that we used. right after christmas we had a practice, and uncle rolls up and asks if we want to come shoot his new gun. sure, hell yeah. man pulls out a fucking Barrett .50 BMG rifle, and we all get to shoot a round out of. very cool experience, BUT WHY THE FUCK IS A CIVILIAN ALLOWED TO OWN THAT THING


----------



## Wiltonauer

bostjan said:


> I've had police officers tell me that those single action .22 revolvers are, like the #2 or #3 most common weapons in the evidence locker, though.


Hold up a sec. .22 single-action revolvers specifically? I would have thought there would be way more short-barreled double-action revolvers and compact semi-autos. The guns I’m talking about look like old cowboy guns. The are bulky, harder to maneuver and conceal, and you have to cock them manually for each shot. Are they in evidence lockers because cops like them and want to take them home to plink at cans on their days off?


----------



## Glades

CTID said:


> i'm not gonna read all 59 pages of this but it doesn't take a genius to realize that while going to a range and shooting guns is fucking _rad, _there are tons of people in the country (and the world at large) who are a danger to themselves and to others and that it's not worth it.
> 
> anecdotally, 6-7 years ago my old band practiced at our vocalist's uncle's place because they had a lot of property where we wouldn't bother me, and they had a completely finished/heated barn that we used. right after christmas we had a practice, and uncle rolls up and asks if we want to come shoot his new gun. sure, hell yeah. man pulls out a fucking Barrett .50 BMG rifle, and we all get to shoot a round out of. very cool experience, BUT WHY THE FUCK IS A CIVILIAN ALLOWED TO OWN THAT THING



When that squirrel that has been tearing up your bird feeders bunkers up behind an 8” reinforced masonry wall, load up an incendiary round into that puppy and send it.


----------



## bostjan

Wiltonauer said:


> Hold up a sec. .22 single-action revolvers specifically? I would have thought there would be way more short-barreled double-action revolvers and compact semi-autos. The guns I’m talking about look like old cowboy guns. The are bulky, harder to maneuver and conceal, and you have to cock them manually for each shot. Are they in evidence lockers because cops like them and want to take them home to plink at cans on their days off?


Purportedly because they are cheap and easy to obtain. Since they typically don't have a manual safety, they are more idiot-proof for people who have zero experience.


----------



## Wiltonauer

bostjan said:


> Purportedly because they are cheap and easy to obtain. Since they typically don't have a manual safety, they are more idiot-proof for people who have zero experience.


Okay, then, I’ll get a flint-lock pirate pistol.

I don’t know how it is now, but it used to be that double-action revolvers didn’t have manual safeties, either. That ridiculously long, heavy double-action trigger pull was your manual safety, coupled with many of them not having exposed hammers so that you couldn’t fire them single-action if you wanted to. Now that’s idiot-proof. I guess.


----------



## StevenC

wheresthefbomb said:


> Fair, but so does "make all the guns magically disappear like in Superman IV"
> 
> The real dichotomy here is between people who want reality to conform to their ideals vs people whose ideals are based in reality.


You mean the thing that has happened in other countries successfully?


----------



## bostjan

Wiltonauer said:


> Okay, then, I’ll get a flint-lock pirate pistol.
> 
> I don’t know how it is now, but it used to be that double-action revolvers didn’t have manual safeties, either. That ridiculously long, heavy double-action trigger pull was your manual safety, coupled with many of them not having exposed hammers so that you couldn’t fire them single-action if you wanted to. Now that’s idiot-proof. I guess.


Matchlocks are safer. 

Just hope that the animal you are hunting or the bear you are defending yourself against holds still long enough to light it...

Coming full circle back to the fact that a six year old brought a gun to school and used it to murder his teacher - obviously no one should be bringing a gun to school. I think there probably had to have been a lot of mistakes that must have led up to that event. But I also grew up in a bad city with lots of bad kids, and I'm sure that almost everyone who grew up in a nice neighbourhood would call me wrong for my beliefs...

Anyway, if no one in the US legally owned a gun, would that event still have transpired? We'll never know. I'm sure 99% of people here would argue that it's stupid, but the kind of kid who would shoot a teacher at 6 years old isn't going to have the type of parents who give two shits about whether or not it's legal to own a gun, if you catch my drift. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but there's no scenario where this could happen if the kid had the best parents. Furthermore, if the teacher and the student can't get along with each other, then the kid should have been taken out of class and put with a different teacher. Probably the school system is such that the teacher didn't feel like that was an option, and maybe it is or maybe it isn't, I guess too late now. 

But the overarching point is that, since a hell of a lot had to have gone wrong for this situation to be the actual present situation, there are a lot of factors to address here. Limiting access of certain people (in this case 6 year olds) to certain weapons (in this case, we don't know anything more than "handgun") in certain places (school) is a huge part of that. I think virtually everyone agrees, no matter right or left or independent or whatever, that a 6 year old should not have a handgun at a school. And I assert than anyone who disagrees with that much is a moron and has a worthless opinion.

Furthermore, I don't think it's at all productive to either a) take this as an opportunity to complain about gun control, as many of my more extreme right-wing friends are doing, nor b) dismiss any discussion that comes of this that isn't about gun control, as we've seen others in this thread suggest. It's because, at this time, we are assuming that the circumstances leading up to this could have been prevented with certain restrictions that are not codified into the current laws. I think that's probably the case, but not probably enough to bet my bottom dollar.

At any rate, if this kid was anything like the psycho kid who lived 3 houses down from where I grew up, who was already torturing animals by the time he was three with his addict mom and dad who was in prison by the time the kid was born, then there would be no feasible gun control law that could have saved that teacher's life. In that kid's case, his house was chocked full of illegal substances and items at any given moment. Not sure if the kid in question has a similar situation, but I know thousands of kids are in those situations anyway. Even though I was only ever a substitute teacher at a primary school, I came across a couple such kids that honestly frightened me. You bring it up to school administration trying to be constructive, and they brush you off as being dramatic or even worse, sanction you and you lose your job.

But yeah, here in the USA, pretty much every system we have is broken now, so you can't point at how incredibly broken our gun control system is and say that's all it is. Because everything else is broken as well.


----------



## Wiltonauer

All joking, sarcasm, and snarkiness aside, how has it worked in other countries where guns were completely (or nearly) banned? I’m asking because I want to learn. How was it achieved politically? What did the existing legislation look like? How was the legislation changed? How was it subsequently enforced?


----------



## Wiltonauer

bostjan said:


> Matchlocks are safer.
> 
> Just hope that the animal you are hunting or the bear you are defending yourself against holds still long enough to light it...
> 
> Coming full circle back to the fact that a six year old brought a gun to school and used it to murder his teacher - obviously no one should be bringing a gun to school. I think there probably had to have been a lot of mistakes that must have led up to that event. But I also grew up in a bad city with lots of bad kids, and I'm sure that almost everyone who grew up in a nice neighbourhood would call me wrong for my beliefs...
> 
> Anyway, if no one in the US legally owned a gun, would that event still have transpired? We'll never know. I'm sure 99% of people here would argue that it's stupid, but the kind of kid who would shoot a teacher at 6 years old isn't going to have the type of parents who give two shits about whether or not it's legal to own a gun, if you catch my drift. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but there's no scenario where this could happen if the kid had the best parents. Furthermore, if the teacher and the student can't get along with each other, then the kid should have been taken out of class and put with a different teacher. Probably the school system is such that the teacher didn't feel like that was an option, and maybe it is or maybe it isn't, I guess too late now.
> 
> But the overarching point is that, since a hell of a lot had to have gone wrong for this situation to be the actual present situation, there are a lot of factors to address here. Limiting access of certain people (in this case 6 year olds) to certain weapons (in this case, we don't know anything more than "handgun") in certain places (school) is a huge part of that. I think virtually everyone agrees, no matter right or left or independent or whatever, that a 6 year old should not have a handgun at a school. And I assert than anyone who disagrees with that much is a moron and has a worthless opinion.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't think it's at all productive to either a) take this as an opportunity to complain about gun control, as many of my more extreme right-wing friends are doing, nor b) dismiss any discussion that comes of this that isn't about gun control, as we've seen others in this thread suggest. It's because, at this time, we are assuming that the circumstances leading up to this could have been prevented with certain restrictions that are not codified into the current laws. I think that's probably the case, but not probably enough to bet my bottom dollar.
> 
> At any rate, if this kid was anything like the psycho kid who lived 3 houses down from where I grew up, who was already torturing animals by the time he was three with his addict mom and dad who was in prison by the time the kid was born, then there would be no feasible gun control law that could have saved that teacher's life. In that kid's case, his house was chocked full of illegal substances and items at any given moment. Not sure if the kid in question has a similar situation, but I know thousands of kids are in those situations anyway. Even though I was only ever a substitute teacher at a primary school, I came across a couple such kids that honestly frightened me. You bring it up to school administration trying to be constructive, and they brush you off as being dramatic or even worse, sanction you and you lose your job.
> 
> But yeah, here in the USA, pretty much every system we have is broken now, so you can't point at how incredibly broken our gun control system is and say that's all it is. Because everything else is broken as well.


The teacher is still alive and in the hospital, no? (Not that that’s the point.)


----------



## bostjan

Wiltonauer said:


> All joking, sarcasm, and snarkiness aside, how has it worked in other countries where guns were completely (or nearly) banned? I’m asking because I want to learn. How was it achieved politically? What did the existing legislation look like? How was the legislation changed? How was it subsequently enforced?



So, our Second Amendment is actually somewhat based on the British right to self defense, which existed before. You might note that the UK has no handguns. Well, the first time there was a mass shooting in a school in the UK, their government said "no more," and banned handguns with very very few exceptions.

The big difference between the UK and the USA, though, was that, in the antebellum period, the government decided that handguns were not valid self defense weapons. In the UK, the general response was "roit, well, you've gotta good point 'ere, and I reckon I don't want me kids to get shot." And in the USA, the NRA stepped in and said "naw, partner, you ain't takin our guns." And the cultures diverged ever since.

But now, the US has the second most shootings of any country (Brazil is #1), and the UK has 0.4% of the per capita gun violence rate of the USA. Are there more stabbings? No, the UK has a lower per capita stabbing rate than the USA.


----------



## Drew

Wiltonauer said:


> All joking, sarcasm, and snarkiness aside, how has it worked in other countries where guns were completely (or nearly) banned? I’m asking because I want to learn. How was it achieved politically? What did the existing legislation look like? How was the legislation changed? How was it subsequently enforced?


Equally serious answer - in addition to the UK, similar laws were passed in NZ and Australia after mass shootings, and have seen gun violence drop to next to nothing.

I think the problem in the US isn't legislative, exactly, or at least not _entirely_. Gun control, on the left, and gun rights, on the right, have been politicized as wedge issues to the degree that it's extremely difficult to have a non-polarized conversation about this. I personally (and with a fair amount of justification; the NRA used to be a gun owners' lobby that supported gun control, until gun manufacturers took economic control of the entity and turned it into an anti-gun-control lobby) blame the right for this more than the left, but we're in a situation where even modest and reasonable proposals like universal background checks, red flag laws, and closing the "gun show" private sales loophole are non-starters because one side of the discussion sees them as "an unconstitutional attack on my liberties," rather than a modest safeguard to try to save lives by taking guns out of the hands of people disproportionately more likely to use them to harm others.

So, as long as guns are a third rail of American politics, we get nowhere. Honestly, this is the thing that over the years has brought me around to wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment - not because I actually want to ban all private ownership of guns in America, but as long as the 2nd both exists, and is popularly misunderstood (the first part of the amendment explicitly recognizes the need for regulation) then I don't think we can make meaningful progress on making gun ownership safer for the average American, because one side of the discussion thinks even _discussing_ gun regulation is an affront to their liberties.

So, I guess I'm saying I think actually crafting legislation is the easy part - the hard part is getting gun supporters to even entertain legislation, and THAT is a uniquely American problem.


----------



## Wiltonauer

bostjan said:


> So, our Second Amendment is actually somewhat based on the British right to self defense, which existed before. You might note that the UK has no handguns. Well, the first time there was a mass shooting in a school in the UK, their government said "no more," and banned handguns with very very few exceptions.
> 
> The big difference between the UK and the USA, though, was that, in the antebellum period, the government decided that handguns were not valid self defense weapons. In the UK, the general response was "roit, well, you've gotta good point 'ere, and I reckon I don't want me kids to get shot." And in the USA, the NRA stepped in and said "naw, partner, you ain't takin our guns." And the cultures diverged ever since.
> 
> But now, the US has the second most shootings of any country (Brazil is #1), and the UK has 0.4% of the per capita gun violence rate of the USA. Are there more stabbings? No, the UK has a lower per capita stabbing rate than the USA.


I’ve always thought of people in the UK as being, on average, a little more sensible than we are over here in the states. It doesn’t surprise me one bit if the UK also has fewer stabbings per capita than we do. I know they went hard against handguns. I was reading some FBI statistics last night, with data as recent as 2019, and various types of guns, were about 3/4 of all homicides in the US, that the FBI had data on. Not such a high % used “assault rifle” types of guns, unless you just look at what we usually think of as mass shootings. Handguns alone were about 1/2 of all homicides. We still manage to kill our fellow Americans without using a gun about 1/4 of the time, though I do not consider that a reason not to pursue gun control. Just an observation.

I don’t especially like handguns. They weren’t terribly useful in most of the sports shooting I did growing up, and most of them (I think) are ugly and designed for situations I don’t want to be in. I do like the aesthetics of some of the antique designs from before warfare took the quantum technological and tactical leaps it went through beginning around the start of the 20th Century. I also like the idea of a gun that would get me killed in a modern encounter, for some reason, maybe because it’s a nod to the past and it reminds me that avoidance and de-escalation are better approaches most of the time, like when you are not the lead character in an action movie. (I hate it when that happens.)


----------



## tedtan

Wiltonauer said:


> All joking, sarcasm, and snarkiness aside, how has it worked in other countries where guns were completely (or nearly) banned? I’m asking because I want to learn. How was it achieved politically? What did the existing legislation look like? How was the legislation changed? How was it subsequently enforced?


Just to clarify, guns haven’t been banned. They are more difficult to obtain and there are more (reasonable) hoops to jump through, but people can still own guns. There are restrictions on the types of guns that are legal, though.


----------



## Wiltonauer

tedtan said:


> Just to clarify, guns haven’t been banned. They are more difficult to obtain and there are more (reasonable) hoops to jump through, but people can still own guns. There are restrictions on the types of guns that are legal, though.


UK? I was thinking that some guns were still permitted, certain rifles and shotguns.


----------



## tedtan

Shotguns and rifles are still generally available in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and most other places.

Handguns aren’t, nor are automatic guns (which are available, but restricted, in the US). In the UK, specifically, semi-auto guns are only legal if they are .22LR (rimfire) or smaller. So a 5.56mm caliber rifle, including the AR15, wouldn’t be legal in semi-auto; even though it is a .22 caliber, it is center fire and more powerful than a .22LR.


----------



## Wiltonauer

tedtan said:


> Shotguns and rifles are still generally available in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and most other places.
> 
> Handguns aren’t, nor are automatic guns (which are available, but restricted, in the US). In the UK, specifically, semi-auto guns are only legal if they are .22LR (rimfire) or smaller. So a 5.56mm caliber rifle, including the AR15, wouldn’t be legal in semi-auto; even though it is a .22 caliber, it is center fire and more powerful than a .22LR.


Yeah, that’s a much heavier bullet going a lot faster.


----------



## Glades

N


Wiltonauer said:


> Yeah, that’s a much heavier bullet going a lot faster.


Not that much heavier. 556 ball ammo is usually 55 grains, and 22LR around 40 grains. Speed is the big difference.
Not a big fan of the AR platform or 556 in general. But it’s a fun little rifle to plink around with. And millions of americans use it every single day, so I’m not gonna bash the darn thing. I’m more of a 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 guy myself.


----------



## odibrom

Glades said:


> N
> 
> Not that much heavier. 556 ball ammo is usually 55 grains, and 22LR around 40 grains. Speed is the big difference.
> Not a big fan of the AR platform or 556 in general. But it’s a fun little rifle to plink around with. *And millions of americans use it every single day*, so I’m not gonna bash the darn thing. I’m more of a 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 guy myself.



This is super scary, I wonder how you're still up as a nation and haven't exterminated yourselves yet...


----------



## Wiltonauer

Glades said:


> N
> 
> Not that much heavier. 556 ball ammo is usually 55 grains, and 22LR around 40 grains. Speed is the big difference.
> Not a big fan of the AR platform or 556 in general. But it’s a fun little rifle to plink around with. And millions of americans use it every single day, so I’m not gonna bash the darn thing. I’m more of a 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 guy myself.


I was thinking 60 grains, but you’re right, it’s not _that_ much heavier. It might be going three times as fast, though, so the kinetic energy is dramatically greater.


----------



## Wiltonauer

odibrom said:


> This is super scary, I wonder how you're still up as a nation and haven't exterminated yourselves yet...


Most of them are shooting at inanimate targets and posing for cheesy Facebook pics.


----------



## narad

Would be great if we weren't exchanging people's lives for cheesy Facebook pics.


----------



## CTID

would be great if people didn't identify themselves solely on the fact that they own guns either, but here we are. i know very few people who just own a gun for home/personal defense, and know scores of people who have gun safes full of entire arsenals of weapons, because their entire life is centered around obtaining more guns, especially since those people seem completely taken with the idea that the government is going to stop the sale of firearms any second now, and they "dare anyone to try to take their guns away from them"


----------



## Glades

CTID said:


> would be great if people didn't identify themselves solely on the fact that they own guns either, but here we are. i know very few people who just own a gun for home/personal defense, and know scores of people who have gun safes full of entire arsenals of weapons, because their entire life is centered around obtaining more guns, especially since those people seem completely taken with the idea that the government is going to stop the sale of firearms any second now, and they "dare anyone to try to take their guns away from them"


Some people are just sick about collecting. Shoes, cars, Pokémon cards, etc. Even guitars. Why would anybody need more than 1 guitar?


----------



## TheBlackBard

Wiltonauer said:


> UK? I was thinking that some guns were still permitted, certain rifles and shotguns.




Anytime anyone in this thread tells you that all guns have been banned in their own countries, they're bullshitting you. Hell, Ireland, Canada, and Australia alone all have gun laws that I'd be more than happy to support since it means that I wouldn't be attempting to own a gun for self-defense, rather hunting. Funny thing is, have a preference for a kind of game, and they ridicule you even if you're someone who agrees with them on how gun rights should be in this country. Bullshit, I tell you.


----------



## Wiltonauer

narad said:


> Would be great if we weren't exchanging people's lives for cheesy Facebook pics.


Would be super great, actually.


----------



## CanserDYI

odibrom said:


> This is super scary, I wonder how you're still up as a nation and haven't exterminated yourselves yet...


I ask myself this the same thing every day I swear.


----------



## CTID

Glades said:


> Some people are just sick about collecting. Shoes, cars, Pokémon cards, etc. Even guitars. Why would anybody need more than 1 guitar?


the difference is that none of the things you listed are weapons. sure you could kill someone with a car or even a guitar, but that's not their purpose. feels like a very bad faith argument, but then again i'm not surprised


----------



## odibrom

Wiltonauer said:


> Most of them are shooting at inanimate targets and posing for cheesy Facebook pics.


People should be studying math instead... or (martial) arts, guitar playing!... or making  to their special one(s)...

... let the inanimate objects alone, they deserve a life too...


----------



## narad

CTID said:


> the difference is that none of the things you listed are weapons. sure you could kill someone with a car or even a guitar, but that's not their purpose. feels like a very bad faith argument, but then again i'm not surprised



And people collecting guns just means more guns in circulation, which makes it easy for guns to fall into the wrong hands, and then you have cheaply armed all the criminals and you have exactly what it's like in the US.


----------



## odibrom

narad said:


> And people collecting guns just means more guns in circulation, which makes it easy for guns to fall into the wrong hands, and then you have cheaply armed all the criminals and you have exactly what it's like in the US.



The more opportunities / possibilities for people to become criminals themselves as well...


----------



## Wiltonauer

odibrom said:


> People should be studying math instead... or (martial) arts, guitar playing!... or making  to their special one(s)...
> 
> ... let the inanimate objects alone, they deserve a life too...


You probably won’t get very far by taking people to task over how they choose to waste their time, energy, and money — not by emphasizing the opportunity cost, anyway. Yes, it’s vain and shallow to use a gun to plump up your ego, but so are a lot of other things. The thing that irks me about it is, they’re posing and grinning with this gun, congratulating themselves for being such badasses, and I’m looking at it and wondering how many people in America are getting killed with a gun like that today.


----------

