# Another mass shooting in America



## fps

BBC News - Gunman at Connecticut primary school 'shot dead'
How many more of these before enough of America sees enough sense to introduce serious gun controls? How awful.


----------



## potatohead

Argggghhhh second amendment arggghhhhhhh 

*fires AR-15 in the air*


----------



## tripguitar

LIVE UPDATES: Newtown, CT School Shooting - ABC News

i really dont understand this... what motivation would someone have to shoot and kill children????

i'm so disgusted.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

@fps
Has no one explained to you the other side of the coin?

If everyone eligible by law carried a legal and licensed firearm, then each time a tragedy like this occurred there would be an armed response on scene to deal with it, and hopefully defuse the situation.

Taking guns away from legal civilian owners would mean only psychopaths and the criminally intent would have (illegal) access to firearms, as it is in the UK, where most firearms are illegal.

I was recently reading a notice from a Illinois ammunition suppliers, specialising in NATO calibers. _"Sold out for foreseeable future, accepting back orders for when supply returns."_

It seems election time is when people stock up on ammo.


----------



## synrgy

But, "guns don't kill people".


----------



## synrgy

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> If everyone eligible by law carried a legal and licensed firearm, then each time a tragedy like this occurred there would be an armed response on scene to deal with it, and hopefully defuse the situation.



That's crap. A concerned citizen shooting/killing somebody _after_ they've shot and killed other people is moot. If nobody had the guns in the first place, nobody would have been shot/killed. If the point is to save lives, arming _everyone_ is the worst possible idea anyone could conceive.


----------



## potatohead

synrgy said:


> That's crap. A concerned citizen shooting/killing somebody _after_ they've shot and killed other people is moot. If nobody had the guns in the first place, nobody would have been shot/killed. If the point is to save lives, arming _everyone_ is the worst possible idea anyone could conceive.




You don't want the Wild West all over again? How unconstitutional of you.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell

The only thing is criminals who want to do this won't obey stricter gun laws. If they want an automatic then by all means they'll find a way to illegally own one. Stricter gun laws however, may make those weapons harder to get.

Also, I could lay a gun on a table and it not kill anyone. May freak people out but that gun won't kill anyone until someone picks it up and shoots it. 

Now, I believe the only people who should carry heavy artillery such as an automatic should be military and police forces. What is someone going to do with an automatic put 16 bullets in a deer? I see no civilian need/ use for an automatic. They're designed not just to kill, but kill numerous people in a short period of time.


----------



## avenger

Wtf? 

As a whole we are a pathetic excuse for a species.


----------



## wlfers

Sorry but it is pretty sad that a bunch of children get murdered by two adults and the first issue that comes to mind is American gun control. 

There's obviously a greater fucking issue when people are mass murdering children regardless of the tool/weapon.


----------



## Church2224

All I am going to say is that my heart goes out to the families and victims of this tragedy.

There is a lot more I could say about the whole situation but it is not the time, nor is this the place to discuss it. Right now we should be focusing on the victims and families before we get into yet ANOTHER bullshit pro/anti gun control rant. 

Some people need to get off their high horse.


----------



## Church2224

athawulf said:


> Sorry but it is pretty sad that a bunch of children get murdered by two adults and the first issue that comes to mind is American gun control.
> 
> There's obviously a greater fucking issue when people are mass murdering children regardless of the tool/weapon.



Agree 100%

I cannot believe that when CHILDREN were lost for no reason everyone wants to talk about gun control no matter your argument...


----------



## PettyThief

Yeah, people suck. This makes me sick.

First the Mall shooting earlier this week, and now this.


Holidays are forever ruined for many families. Screw people.


----------



## synrgy

It's completely related. We can't have an honest discussion about the shooting without discussing the cause. Giving lip service to how sorry we feel (or don't feel) is pretty irrelevant.


----------



## potatohead

So if an old folks home got shot up, would it be ok to talk about gun control then?


----------



## Randy

As I've said before... if the issue is crazy people killing people... what's an easier solution, gun control or profiling ever single person in the entire United States...?

Yes, every time a shooting happens, people go to gun control. Likewise, conservatives go to 'it's not guns, it's a deeper problem with people'. Yet literally no actual advised solution?


----------



## Dickicker

I saw a great picture the other day. I should have saved it so I could post it here. It said something along the lines of "Oh, you wanna make guns illegal? Oh well lets make heroin and meth illegal too and see if that works." pretty funny, I thought

Oh and I saw another one that said if guns kill people, How come no one ever dies at a gun show. haha


----------



## fps

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> @fps
> Has no one explained to you the other side of the coin?
> 
> If everyone eligible by law carried a legal and licensed firearm, then each time a tragedy like this occurred there would be an armed response on scene to deal with it, and hopefully defuse the situation.
> 
> Taking guns away from legal civilian owners would mean only psychopaths and the criminally intent would have (illegal) access to firearms, as it is in the UK, where most firearms are illegal.
> 
> I was recently reading a notice from a Illinois ammunition suppliers, specialising in NATO calibers. _"Sold out for foreseeable future, accepting back orders for when supply returns."_
> 
> It seems election time is when people stock up on ammo.



Hi Ryan, thanks for your response. I have considered the other side of the coin, the argument is that nutters with guns open fire and kill people, and it's solved by more guns, but that involves a lot of people dying in the first place. How successful was the armed response here? Is this incident a success in terms of armed response, with those children dead? Should teachers have access to guns? What for safety in terms of children getting hold of them then? The problem seems to be all the guns. 

If no-one had a gun the nutter wouldn't be firing in the first place. Check out British gun control and how many gun crimes there are. You've gotta think *What kind of country would we want to be* and start working towards that, somehow, no matter how small the first steps.


----------



## potatohead

Dickicker said:


> I saw a great picture the other day. I should have saved it so I could post it here. It said something along the lines of "Oh, you wanna make guns illegal? Oh well lets make heroin and meth illegal too and see if that works." pretty funny, I thought
> 
> Oh and I saw another one that said if guns kill people, How come no one ever dies at a gun show. haha



Hahah wow so funny! I've never heard any of that before!

Ever.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell

Here's the other thing. Background checks may help but nothing is going to prevent these tragedies from happening. You can have a clean record and still plan to shoot up a school or hospital.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead

OP has THEE worst username for this thread -.-

But my heart goes out to everyone involved out there :/ this world is coming to shit.


----------



## fps

Church2224 said:


> Agree 100%
> 
> I cannot believe that when CHILDREN were lost for no reason everyone wants to talk about gun control no matter your argument...



It's because guns are the most efficient way of killing people, and the killer (killers? according to one report) could not have killed anywhere near as many people if there weren't guns.

No-one talks about 25 people dying after a guy goes on a knife rampage.


----------



## Randy

fps said:


> It's because guns are the most efficient way of killing people, and the killer (killers? according to one report) could not have killed anywhere near as many people if there weren't guns.



Chinese man on stabbing spree hurts 22 kids

Operative word being "hurt".


----------



## Bloodbath Salt

The only role for gun control advocates is being a human shield, when the bullets start firing. Hypothetically speaking, if all firearms became illegal to buy or possess, it wouldn't decrease the amount of firearms that already exist. If it were up to me, it'd be legal to carry an RPG for self-defense. 

As for preventing or dealing with random mass murders, is to use ancient Roman forms of punishment. As in, the CO shooter should be publicly tortured/execution, and this guy's body should be mutilated and his head on a pike. The Romans also used the execution of one's entire family as a deterrent.


----------



## potatohead

Randy said:


> Chinese man on stabbing spree hurts 22 kids
> 
> Operative word being "hurt".



China doesn't count


----------



## yellowv

My condolences to all of those affected by this tragedy. However taking guns away from lawful citizens will not stop things like this from happening in any way. Criminals will still obtain guns and commit crimes. Banning guns all together does nothing but make law abiding civilians unable to protect themselves, their families and their homes. Meth is illegal. I guess that why there's not a huge meth epidemic across the country..... Oh wait.


----------



## Ayo7e

This is sad and it will happen again... and again...


----------



## yellowv

GuitaristOfHell said:


> T What is someone going to do with an automatic put 16 bullets in a deer? I see no civilian need/ use for an automatic. They're designed not just to kill, but kill numerous people in a short period of time.



Automatic weapons are not legal in the US.


----------



## Randy

yellowv said:


> Criminals will still obtain guns and commit crimes. Banning guns all together does nothing but make law abiding civilians unable to protect themselves, their families and their homes. Meth is illegal. I guess that why there's not a huge meth epidemic across the country..... Oh wait.



So your proposed solution is...?


----------



## sawtoothscream

You cant unarm law abiding citizen because a few psychopaths use firearms to kill. If thats how things work cars, knifes, pillows, hammers, bats etc... should be banned since they are frequently used as well. Disarming makes things worse, most of the people in gun crimes are not using registered guns as far as I know, so what good would it do to unarm the good guys and leave the bad guys with guns? Lets look at how many times guns have saved lives as well. Blame the person not the weapon used


----------



## Randy

sawtoothscream said:


> You cant unarm law abiding citizen because a few psychopaths use firearms to kill. If thats how things work cars, knifes, pillows, hammers, bats etc... should be banned since they are frequently used as well. Disarming makes things worse, most of the people in gun crimes are not using registered guns as far as I know, so what good would it do to unarm the good guys and leave the bad guys with guns? Lets look at how many times guns have saved lives as well. Blame the person not the weapon used









Also, so_ your_ proposed alternative is...?


----------



## Furtive Glance

What a cowardly fucking piece of shit.

And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## RustInPeace

Gun laws prevent shootings? Please, tell me more about how criminals follow laws.


----------



## tacotiklah

This is so horrible and my heart goes out to the victims and their families. Eleven days before Christmas too. 

I consider myself a moderate on gun control. I'm all for Americans having the right to own and carry a holstered firearm, but only after passing very stringent background checks, mental health screenings, and firearm safety courses. 
Basically you have to prove that you are mentally fit to earn the right to carry. Just giving a gun out to any crazy asshole out there is going to lead to crap like this. Yes, criminals can still obtain weapons illegally. I have no delusions regarding that; however, the idea is to make that more difficult for them. 

I also agree with GoH; there is no legitimate need for automatic rifles. Ever. Or hollow point bullets. It's not like deer and bears are gonna start donning kevlar and waging an epic final solution on all humans. (although shit like this that happens kinda makes me wish that WERE the case) Keep that shit to single shot (semi-automatic at absolute max) and normal ammo.


----------



## synrgy

Stop the production of, and sales of ammo?


----------



## fps

RustInPeace said:


> Gun laws prevent shootings? Please, tell me more about how criminals follow laws.



List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are criminals in every country. If the police have guns, the criminals feel it is more necessary to have guns too. That's how it is. I'm from the UK. The police aren't armed, the public aren't armed, and yet innocent people aren't regularly getting shot to hell left right and centre. How can this be?


----------



## sage

Attempting to institute gun control in the US would be nothing short of hubris. There are too many registered firearms to even begin to start, let alone the tens of millions of unregistered guns floating around out there. While I believe that gun control works and support fully the way we do things up north here with access to firearms, especially handguns, requiring far more thought, effort, and red tape than what Americans have to go through, we still have mass shootings. We still have gang warfare with unregistered guns. We still have unhinged people doing horrible things to other people. And, as a society, we will always have sociopaths. 

In Norway, they have outstanding gun control, didn't stop a right-wing Christian fundamentalist on a cultural cleansing bent from blowing up a building and killing 77 people over the course of an hour an a half. Could that have ended sooner if there was a guy with a conceal and carry permit on that island? You'd sure like to think so, but read on:

There have been very few incidents where a gun-toting private citizen has stopped a mass killing. Here's a neat link on that: Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics - Daily Anarchist - not sure how reliable the data is, but out of 15 mass shootings stopped by private citizens since the 60's, 5 were stopped by someone carrying a gun and 10 were stopped by people tackling the lunatic. 

People kill people. Sometimes they use guns to do it. Everyone got on Bob Costas last week for quoting Jason Whitlock on air regarding the murder-suicide perpetrated by Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher. Whitlock stated that if Belcher didn't have access to a gun, he and his girlfriend might both still be alive today. Yeah, probably true, but how do you keep the guns out of the hands of people without the emotional tools to deal with societal/familial pressures? 

There is no solution. We live right on top of each other. We smell bad, we act poorly, we do things no human should be proud of. We are a flawed species that thinks too much, does too little, hates too easily, loves too guardedly, and we are prone to blind fits of inconsolable rage. It looks like the perpetrator of this horrible incident is the 20 year old father of 3 children in that school. As a father of young children, how? What could be that wrong in life that you'd go shoot up your kids' school? We can never understand. And it will be repeated and there is the square root of sweet fuck all that anybody can do about it.


----------



## fps

ghstofperdition said:


> This is so horrible and my heart goes out to the victims and their families. Eleven days before Christmas too.
> 
> I consider myself a moderate on gun control. I'm all for Americans having the right to own and carry a holstered firearm, but only after passing very stringent background checks, mental health screenings, and firearm safety courses.
> Basically you have to prove that you are mentally fit to earn the right to carry. Just giving a gun out to any crazy asshole out there is going to lead to crap like this. Yes, criminals can still obtain weapons illegally. I have no delusions regarding that; however, the idea is to make that more difficult for them.
> 
> I also agree with GoH; there is no legitimate need for automatic rifles. Ever. Or hollow point bullets. It's not like deer and bears are gonna start donning kevlar and waging an epic final solution on all humans. (although shit like this that happens kinda makes me wish that WERE the case) Keep that shit to single shot (semi-automatic at absolute max) and normal ammo.



I agree with what you say, but it would appear in your country criminals don't NECESSARILY have to do anything illegally, unless they're after automatic weapons. I think a good start is to make it very difficult for criminals to obtain guns legally, and make it very difficult for would-be criminals to have any first contact with guns.


----------



## TIBrent

So heart breaking  I have a little girl who is going into Kindergarten next fall, which is where this idiot began to open fire. I don't understand humanity. These poor families, god bless each & every one of them.
-Brent


----------



## yellowv

There is enough ammo on this earth to last hundreds of years. There are still billions of rounds left over from both World Wars and Vietnam. Making guns and ammo illegal, once again WILL NOT stop killers and phychopaths from obtaining them. I wish I had a solution to stop people from being crazy and or being criminals, but sorry I do not. But making it so civilians can't defend themselves isn't going to stop these events from happening. Rarely in crime are guns obtained legally.


----------



## HighGain510

Not going to get into the whole gun control/gun laws debate as it's pointless, but that's like saying "well gasoline is what that guy used to burn down that church! BAN THE SALE AND USE OF GASOLINE!!!" or "the guy stabbed that lady in the neck with a kitchen knife?! Guess it's time to outlaw cutlery, because it can be used to kill someone!"  I get it, guns used by idiots kill people. We don't need yet another thread about a tragedy to be the soapbox for "get rid of guns!" once again, those debates go nowhere and just get a whole bunch of folks fired up.


----------



## Randy

sage said:


> We live right on top of each other. We smell bad, we act poorly, we do things no human should be proud of. We are a flawed species that thinks too much, does too little, hates too easily, loves too guardedly, and we are prone to blind fits of inconsolable rage.



Well said and absolutely true.

Lots of other stuff in that post that I can agree with, despite having a different overall opinion on how this should be handled.

I live in a very gun-friendly area and I've known a lot of hunters and people who've kept guns for either personal protection or hobby shooting. Most or all of the people I know, I would never imagine executing a violent crime with those weapons (minus crimes of passion). So, as liberal as I am, I don't conclude that nobody has a right to own a gun and I'm also realistic enough to say that there are too many guns out there that you'll never get them all back. So there's a few things myself and a lot of gun owners/enthusiast could probably agree on.

That doesn't mean there's not a problem and that doesn't mean there's no solution, and it also doesn't mean _some form_ of gun control isn't the solution. As I've mentioned previously, as it stands, there's no mechanism out there with tracks people purchasing large numbers of weapons or ammunition. Yes, you need to register guns but you don't need to register ammo and, as far as I know, there's no numeric "red flag" number that gets you investigated. And there's no requirement to so proof you still have possession of said guns and ammunition, so they can easily show back up on the street (which is where they usually do). Again, repeating myself... there's not some epidemic of guns being stolen from factories; they're being stolen or sold by "legal owners".


----------



## Randy

HighGain510 said:


> Not going to get into the whole gun control/gun laws debate as it's pointless, but that's like saying "well gasoline is what that guy used to burn down that church! BAN THE SALE AND USE OF GASOLINE!!!" or "the guy stabbed that lady in the neck with a kitchen knife?! Guess it's time to outlaw cutlery, because it can be used to kill someone!"  I get it, guns used by idiots kill people. We don't need yet another thread about a tragedy to be the soapbox for "get rid of guns!" once again, those debates go nowhere and just get a whole bunch of folks fired up.



So far this thread equal parts "get rid of guns" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people", so in the interest of trying to find some common ground, I'd say both sides get thrown in all the time.


----------



## wlfers

fps said:


> I agree with what you say, but it would appear in your country criminals don't NECESSARILY have to do anything illegally, unless they're after automatic weapons. I think a good start is to make it very difficult for criminals to obtain guns legally, and make it very difficult for would-be criminals to have any first contact with guns.




They have to do something illegal to be a criminal in the first place... that's what defines a criminal. At that point if they are convicted felons they cannot legally buy firearms anyway.


----------



## Church2224

Randy said:


> Well said and absolutely true.
> 
> I live in a very gun-friendly area and I've known a lot of hunters and people who've kept guns for either personal protection or hobby shooting. Most or all of the people I know, I would never imagine executing a violent crime with those weapons (minus crimes of passion). So, as liberal as I am, I don't conclude that nobody has a right to own a gun and I'm also realistic enough to say that there are too many guns out there that you'll never get them all back. So there's a few things myself and a lot of gun owners/enthusiast could probably agree on.
> 
> .



Well said. I own four guns guns and plan on getting more soon, many people on this very forum own guns, my father, mother, grandfather, cousins and many of my friends own guns. None of them would I ever think of hurting a fly let alone another human being. Why take away some one's rights when they have done nothing wrong? What many do not understand is that there are millions of gun owners in this country who have never committed a violent act in their lives. We cannot overlook them in situations regarding gun control. A silent majority, really.

I thought i was not going to get involved...dammit I did 

My solution is reform in law enforcement and better education, I always thought that education, or lack there of, and crime rates had a correlation. We can start there. But another law or regulation will not do any good,


----------



## Randy

yellowv said:


> Rarely in crime are guns obtained legally.



In street crimes. Assuming most of us don't need to worry too much about getting shot in a drug deal, that's not the issue here. I'd like to see some statistics on the number _mass shootings_ and the legal status of the weapons used. As far as I remember, a lot of the weapons used in those crimes are either obtained legally or obtained from a family member who purchased them legally.

As I said in my previous post, who's checking to make sure people still have possession of their legally purchased firearms and ammunition? Who's checking to make sure they're not being illegally modified? Let's be realistic... We all know people who leave guns lying around, leave their safe unlocked, etc.

And even still, no solution? I mean anything. I'll try a non-gun control idea. How about police with better response time? How about armed security guards that don't necessarily interact with the children, but they're nearby incase of emergency? How about being more strict about who are allowed in and out of school building and when? 

See, that wasn't hard.


----------



## fps

HighGain510 said:


> Not going to get into the whole gun control/gun laws debate as it's pointless, but that's like saying "well gasoline is what that guy used to burn down that church! BAN THE SALE AND USE OF GASOLINE!!!" or "the guy stabbed that lady in the neck with a kitchen knife?! Guess it's time to outlaw cutlery, because it can be used to kill someone!"  I get it, guns used by idiots kill people. We don't need yet another thread about a tragedy to be the soapbox for "get rid of guns!" once again, those debates go nowhere and just get a whole bunch of folks fired up.



No it isn't, and you know it isn't, because both those things you mentioned have practical primary applications that don't involve killing people. That is not the case with guns. 

The correct analogy is this. If someone has a sudden uncontrollable urge to write something down, and has a pencil on them, they can write it down. If they don't have a pencil on them, they can't. 

To stretch this, by the time they have obtained a suitable substitute for the pencil, they will probably have forgotten what they wanted to write in the first place.

Hint, a gun is the pencil.


----------



## synrgy

yellowv said:


> There is enough ammo on this earth to last hundreds of years. There are still billions of rounds left over from both World Wars and Vietnam.



So, why do we need more, then?

Further, how many people do you figure still personally own weapons that are compatible with all that old ammo? Sure, there are pellets left from the Civil War, but they're not gonna help somebody looking to load a modern pistol, are they?


----------



## wlfers

Actually a ton of people. He said leftover surplus from vietnam and wwii, not the civil war. The popular .223/5.56 dates back to vietnam and there are still plenty of people using surplus ammo from WWII. Much of the combat in the middle east is done with leftovers from the campaigns that took place there during the cold war


----------



## Church2224

synrgy said:


> So, why do we need more, then?
> 
> Further, how many people do you figure still personally own weapons that are compatible with all that old ammo? Sure, there are pellets left from the Civil War, but they're not gonna help somebody looking to load a modern pistol, are they?



.45 could still be used in .45 caliber hand guns and carbines used today, not to mention the abundance of leftover weapons from those wars that collectors have. You would be surprised how many people own M1 rifles from WWII.

Also ammo after the 1950s is still compatible with most guns today. NATO Standard 7.62 and 5.56 used back then is still used on many guns across the world today. The AK-47 has also not changed caliber in years except for the AK101 and AK-74, so the 7.62x 39 rounds are still used by many countries, as well as modded AR-15s.


----------



## Church2224

athawulf said:


> Actually a ton of people. He said leftover surplus from vietnam and wwii, not the civil war. The popular .223/5.56 dates back to vietnam and there are still plenty of people using surplus ammo from WWII. Much of the combat in the middle east is done with leftovers from the campaigns that took place there during the cold war



There have even been reports of old soviet T-34 tanks still in use by guerrilla groups from the 40s and 50s, plus I remember seeing a report of Soviet surplus PPSH SMGs being found by troops over there.


----------



## synrgy

But it WOULD run out EVENTUALLY if we stopped making it. Non-debatable fact. Also not answering my question regarding why we need more if we already have so much.

Anyway, here's a poignant opinion posted by an artist I follow on Facebook:



> So much deep respect to the victims and families in the recent shootings. Very little angers me more than hurting or killing innocent people, especially children. While all of these circumstances and tragedies are extremely complex and unique, I hope people begin realizing the importance of Mental Health in society (lack there of in our case)... Gun control is necessary, violence in video games, better assistance to parents with troubled children, better protection near schools: all of that is important, but i don't think any of it is nearly as important as developing ways that normal humans can spend intentional & self-critical time and work on their mental health. Just like going to the gym and exercising, the mind and emotional body is so fragile and complex. They can pass laws and argue on the news, but with so many troubled individuals attacking innocent people and then killing themselves it is SHOUTING IN LOUD CAPITAL LETTERS: We need to spend more time, attention, and money on positive, encouraging social mental health, and less on prisons. Less time arguing against gun control, less time on distracting issues like adultery or the sex life of celebrities and more right here at home where we have semi-regular acts of horrific violence on innocent people.


----------



## Randy

athawulf said:


> Actually a ton of people. He said leftover surplus from vietnam and wwii, not the civil war. The popular .223/5.56 dates back to vietnam and there are still plenty of people using surplus ammo from WWII. Much of the combat in the middle east is done with leftovers from the campaigns that took place there during the cold war



Lot of mass shootings, muggings and car jackings going on in this country using WWII surplus, lemme tell ya'.


----------



## fps

I'm reposting this, because no-one has offered a counter to it 

The correct analogy is this. If someone has a sudden uncontrollable urge to write something down, and has a pencil on them, they can write it down. If they don't have a pencil on them, they can't. 

To stretch this, by the time they have obtained a suitable substitute for the pencil, they will probably have forgotten what they wanted to write in the first place.

A gun is the pencil.


----------



## J7string

Gun control is a bleeding heart liberal idea that tugs at the heart strings of people and causes them to believe that this solution actually solves anything. No matter what gets done, people will always find a way obtain things illegally. Me and a friend thought up an idea to make guns and ammunition very expensive and tax the hell out of them, but the conclusion was there was people would always get things by other means.


----------



## fps

J7string said:


> Gun control is a bleeding heart liberal idea that tugs at the heart strings of people and causes them to believe that this solution actually solves anything. No matter what gets done, people will always find a way obtain things illegally. Me and a friend thought up an idea to make guns and ammunition very expensive and tax the hell out of them, but the conclusion was there was people would always get things by other means.



With all respect, that is not evidence, or data, or even an experiment, that's just you and a friend thinking things you clearly already think. This is obvious from your use of the right-wing media catchphrase *bleeding heart liberal* instead of just liberal, showing you're against gun control on an engrained, tribal level. I am liberal in some ways, and not in others, I do not fit black and white categorisations, I am more complicated than that, as most people are. 

If your country's culture did not celebrate guns in such an overt way, and market them as just another lifestyle choice, fewer children would be interested in them, fewer teenagers would covet them, fewer adults would buy them, and not only eventually would the number of guns decrease, but people's appetites to own and use them would also decrease. Fewer guns means less gun crime. Again I use the UK as an example of this. Alternatively in terms of engrained crime between opposing factions Northern Ireland and the work done there would be a good example of what can be achieved.


----------



## J7string

> With all respect, that is not evidence, or data, or even an experiment, that's just you and a friend thinking things you clearly already think.



I never said I was providing evidence, or data, or anything. I was just stating my own two cents, or is there a two cents control I'm unaware of?


----------



## fps

J7string said:


> I never said I was providing evidence, or data, or anything. I was just stating my own two cents, or is there a two cents control I'm unaware of?



Well, you rather presented it as if tax hikes on legal guns were the only solution, and it was either that or the anarchy that currently reigns. 

This is of course not true. There are many, many things that could be done, big and small, politically or with communities, to encourage fewer people to own guns, make it more difficult for people to get hold of guns, or even just to stop glamorising guns in order to bring up a generation that has less interest in owning them. 

You were kinda presenting two cents while trying to distract us from the trillion dollars slightly to your right.


----------



## ballr4lyf

fps said:


> Well, you rather presented it as if tax hikes on legal guns were the only solution, and it was either that or the anarchy that currently reigns.
> 
> This is of course not true. There are many, many things that could be done, big and small, politically or with communities, to encourage fewer people to own guns, make it more difficult for people to get hold of guns, or even just to stop glamorising guns in order to bring up a generation that has less interest in owning them.
> 
> You were kinda presenting two cents while trying to distract us from the trillion dollars slightly to your right.


 
What happened was an absolute tragedy, however new gun laws will not solve the problem. There are already existing laws that should have prevented this (i.e. no guns allowed on school grounds). Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is also not the answer. That would mean that the only people who could get guns would be criminals, and law abiding citizens would have no way to fight back.

The gun has its uses. There has been no other tool that equalizes the footing between a 120 lb woman and a 200 lb rapist.

I do agree with you, tough, that glamorizing guns has got to stop. What's really funny though is that Hollywood--probably the biggest players in the gun "glamorizing" industry--is run by liberals who are largely anti-gun. Think of the movies Mark Wahlberg has made, and I'd bet you'd be surprised he's anti-gun. The same thing goes for the hip-hop industry which glamorizes gun violence... Russell Simmons is also anti-gun, but has made millions on "songs" that glamorize gun violence.


----------



## Faine

I dont understand how someone could do that. That town is 30 minutes from me. My girlfriends co-worker lost her kindergardener. I really have no words...


----------



## fps

ballr4lyf said:


> What happened was an absolute tragedy, however new gun laws will not solve the problem. There are already existing laws that should have prevented this (i.e. no guns allowed on school grounds). Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is also not the answer. That would mean that the only people who could get guns would be criminals, and law abiding citizens would have no way to fight back.
> 
> The gun has its uses. There has been no other tool that equalizes the footing between a 120 lb woman and a 200 lb rapist.
> 
> I do agree with you, tough, that glamorizing guns has got to stop. What's really funny though is that Hollywood--probably the biggest players in the gun "glamorizing" industry--is run by liberals who are largely anti-gun. Think of the movies Mark Wahlberg has made, and I'd bet you'd be surprised he's anti-gun. The same thing goes for the hip-hop industry which glamorizes gun violence... Russell Simmons is also anti-gun, but has made millions on "songs" that glamorize gun violence.



I completely disagree with the first part of your post! You see people as on sides, goodies and baddies, and can't see that the culture that defines people as goodies and baddies is part of the problem. *Everyone I know would never kill someone with a gun*. Well hey everyone I know wouldn't kill anyone with a gun either, but I don't think we should all have them! No-one ever thinks it's someone they know, and then bam, it happens, and what does it matter what anyone ever thought? There aren't goodies and baddies, there are people who often have a desire to access weapons that should never, ever be allowed to have, and in your country it is far, far too easy to get a hold of them. Say the guy doesn't rock up to a store, but buys used? Say he hasn't committed a crime before, how you going to screen that? Doesn't happen.

Women are not big gun-buyers either, it's a macho masculine thing, by a wide majority, so that is a derailing argument that doesn't address the fundamental issue. Women tend not to carry guns in the street, in fact correct me if I'm wrong but you need a licence that is very difficult to get hold of in order to carry a gun in a street don't you? So how would that help if a woman was attacked? That's a hypothetical which is a complete side-issue, a *ticking time-bomb and torture* argument, it's not what the debate is about. 

The only people who get guns would be criminals? Dude, a person who wants to gun down lots of people is not always already a criminal when they get the weapons that allow them to do so!! They have certainly seen a lot of guns though, and their culture has certainly bigged up those items, as a sign of masculinity, of POWER, of making all those people who ignore them listen to them. *Then they'll listen to me, then they'll remember me*... you know? Like those thoughts you have when you're a teenager and nobody cares about you- *I wish I could show them* (usually that you're better than them, or you're worth something, rather than that you want to hurt everyone), everyone has that once or twice in their lives, but in most countries you can't then obtain a gun easily and act on those feelings. 

Guns are an intrinsic part of a certain kind of American psyche, and that psyche is what informs murders like these ones. If you can't see beyond goodies and baddies I despair, it's such a simplistic argument, and completely ignores the gun crime stats I posted on the previous page, the lack of these kinds of mass shootings ON A REGULAR BASIS (don't even try and mention Breivik, we know it happened, if anything the calls are for even tighter regulations on firearms) in Europe, and a vision of a country where the inhabitants aren't all involved in a permanent Mexican stand-off with one another.

No guns allowed on school grounds? Bless you.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Sorry to interrupt the gun arguments, but they're now saying the shooter may have been Adam Lanza, the brother who they have in custody, not the one found dead. It's going back and forth. They're saying Adam, at the very least, had a part in the shooting.


----------



## Toxic Dover

This world has gone to hell... Most of the victims were between 5 and 10 years old. What the hell is wrong with people? 

Thoughts and prayers going out to all the families and victims...


----------



## Sunyata

I just want to add a point I feel people are ignoring when they go on and on about "criminals" and how they will obtain and use guns no matter what so there is no reason to ever have any sort of increase in gun control ever...ever...

Please look at every mass murder that happens in the US. You'll find something interesting. It's almost never criminals perpetrating them. It's never the drug dealer, the bank robber, or the carjacker who is killing a bunch of random innocent people. It's always the mentally ill young adult, or the reclusive hate-filled extremist. People who in their normal lives were never legally "criminals". Having ridiculously lax gun laws and an idiot segment of the population who supports them blindly, allows these insane people to act out their violent fantasies so much easier. 

The simple fact is that if ______ didn't have access to ridiculous amounts of firepower, his recent breakup or whatever wouldn't lead to dozens of people dead somewhere. If _______ didn't have easy access to his parents guns, he never would have overreacted and killed them in a rage over not getting halo. If _______ didn't have access to firearms, he wouldn't have acted in a temporarily enraged state and killed his coworkers because of a layoff or something.


No matter how deep your fingers are in your ears, and no matter how loud your own voice is, this kind of atrocious senseless massacre rarely happens anywhere with the frequency of the US. There is a reason for that.


----------



## renzoip

This is horrible, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families. It's a shame that these tragedies keep happening and will probably keep on happening since there is so much polarization about how to deal with this issue.

I don't know anything about statistics, but the way I see it is that most street crime occurs with illegally obtained guns. But most of the non street/gang/drug related crime shootings like this one occur with legally obtained weapons. So, I think stricter gun control should be enacted, but not without a serious crackdown on the illegal market. Guns shouldn't be easy to obtain in the legal market, and should be nearly impossible to get in the illegal market. No matter who you are, or what you think you are entitled to for being a self-righteous moralist. 

And no, I don't have a problem with guns themselves. I have a problem with all the nationalist garbage that is fed to people and how that shapes their ideas about guns and gun control.


----------



## ballr4lyf

fps said:


> I completely disagree with the first part of your post! You see people as on sides, goodies and baddies, and can't see that the culture that defines people as goodies and baddies is part of the problem. *Everyone I know would never kill someone with a gun*. Well hey everyone I know wouldn't kill anyone with a gun either, but I don't think we should all have them! No-one ever thinks it's someone they know, and then bam, it happens, and what does it matter what anyone ever thought? There aren't goodies and baddies, there are people who often have a desire to access weapons that should never, ever be allowed to have, and in your country it is far, far too easy to get a hold of them. Say the guy doesn't rock up to a store, but buys used? Say he hasn't committed a crime before, how you going to screen that? Doesn't happen.
> 
> Women are not big gun-buyers either, it's a macho masculine thing, by a wide majority, so that is a derailing argument that doesn't address the fundamental issue. Women tend not to carry guns in the street, in fact correct me if I'm wrong but you need a licence that is very difficult to get hold of in order to carry a gun in a street don't you? So how would that help if a woman was attacked? That's a hypothetical which is a complete side-issue, a *ticking time-bomb and torture* argument, it's not what the debate is about.
> 
> The only people who get guns would be criminals? Dude, a person who wants to gun down lots of people is not always already a criminal when they get the weapons that allow them to do so!! They have certainly seen a lot of guns though, and their culture has certainly bigged up those items, as a sign of masculinity, of POWER, of making all those people who ignore them listen to them.
> 
> Guns are an intrinsic part of a certain kind of American psyche, and that psyche is what informs murders like these ones. If you can't see beyond goodies and baddies I despair, it's such a simplistic argument, and completely ignores the gun crime stats I posted on the previous page, the lack of these kinds of mass shootings ON A REGULAR BASIS (don't even try and mention Breivik, we know it happened, if anything the calls are for even tighter regulations on firearms) in Europe, and a vision of a country where the inhabitants aren't all involved in a permanent Mexican stand-off with one another.


 
Wow... You've left a lot to respond to... but I'll try.

You're absolutely right.... There are some people who should never own guns. My basic anology to that is: If you need adult supervision to make sure you can function in civilized society, you should not own a gun. A lot of times, when a tragedy like this happens, the family and friends of the gunman say that "he was such a good boy" or "he would never hurt a fly". But then later, we find out, there were signs leading up to it. Jared Laughtner (sp) should have never been able to buy a gun. And many other criminals. But they all showed signs before it happened. So yeah, people don't just flip a switch and all of the sudden they go and kill somebody. There is a build-up to it. Along with that build-up are signs that things are not right.

Women are the largest growing demographic that are purchasing guns right now... look it up. It is still largely a male market, but that is diminishing. My 5'2" 120 lb mother purchased a gun this past year.

If you illegalize guns, by definition, the only people who could get guns would be criminals. Also, as stated earlier, there are usually signs leading up to the incident.

Also, I didn't ignore your stats earlier... I didn't look at them at all. I just jumped straight to this page. 

I could look up some stats for you as well, but I am awfully busy at work today, so it will have to wait until I get home. I'll also have a look at your stats when I get home.


----------



## flint757

yellowv said:


> Automatic weapons are not legal in the US.



Yes, but you can easily buy a gun that can be converted to automatic illegally. In fact that is what the Colorado shooter did if I'm not mistaken. The sell of guns that can even be converted in to auto's should be illegal, but they aren't. There is a loop hole where if they just alter it ever so slightly it is legal for sell as it is 'no longer an automatic'.



Randy said:


> In street crimes. Assuming most of us don't need to worry too much about getting shot in a drug deal, that's not the issue here. I'd like to see some statistics on the number _mass shootings_ and the legal status of the weapons used. As far as I remember, a lot of the weapons used in those crimes are either obtained legally or obtained from a family member who purchased them legally.
> 
> As I said in my previous post, who's checking to make sure people still have possession of their legally purchased firearms and ammunition? Who's checking to make sure they're not being illegally modified? Let's be realistic... We all know people who leave guns lying around, leave their safe unlocked, etc.
> 
> And even still, no solution? I mean anything. I'll try a non-gun control idea. How about police with better response time? How about armed security guards that don't necessarily interact with the children, but they're nearby incase of emergency? How about being more strict about who are allowed in and out of school building and when?
> 
> See, that wasn't hard.



While you won't get in serious trouble, if you don't have a purpose on campus or a child (and don't sign in) you are trespassing and they will throw you out. If they suspect you of something (being a pervert, theft, kidnapping, etc.) they will reprimand you, but at elementary schools and intermediate schools there are less off duty cops and security guards. High Schools have a bit more typically. They, however, are not well trained IMO.



ballr4lyf said:


> What happened was an absolute tragedy, however new gun laws will not solve the problem. There are already existing laws that should have prevented this (i.e. no guns allowed on school grounds). Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is also not the answer. That would mean that the only people who could get guns would be criminals, and law abiding citizens would have no way to fight back.
> 
> The gun has its uses. There has been no other tool that equalizes the footing between a 120 lb woman and a 200 lb rapist.
> 
> I do agree with you, tough, that glamorizing guns has got to stop. What's really funny though is that Hollywood--probably the biggest players in the gun "glamorizing" industry--is run by liberals who are largely anti-gun. Think of the movies Mark Wahlberg has made, and I'd bet you'd be surprised he's anti-gun. The same thing goes for the hip-hop industry which glamorizes gun violence... Russell Simmons is also anti-gun, but has made millions on "songs" that glamorize gun violence.



It'd be a lot easier to take you seriously if you didn't phrase your POV like a talking point. Saying 'liberals', 'conservatives, 'bleeding hearts' in the context your using is vastly overgeneralizing the situation. Not all liberals are anti-gun and not all conservatives are pro-gun. just like people who are against the ownership of guns aren't unconstitutional commie's.

I definitely agree that we over glorify weapons and that far too much damage has already been dealt, however, more guns are rarely the solution. Say you allow teachers to arm themselves. They keep it in a drawer and one of the students finds it and shoots someone. Far more plausible than a shooting occurring at a school (they don't happen frequently or at the same place twice most of the time).

Making guns and ammo more difficult to get would eliminate the source of 'new' weapons entering the underground and eventually we'd run out of bullets and eventually the guns would break (even if that was a couple hundred years from now). Wouldn't happen anytime soon, but there would be a deadline. Currently the solution is to do nothing which in turn means that there is zero deadline and with each passing day the problem increases exponentially. People keep using slipper slope arguments with the gasoline, knife etc. arguments, but lets flip that around to the other side (just as ridiculous example). "I'm a descent person and I want to collect nuclear war heads. I promise not to hurt anyone and they are just going to stay on the wall." That is about as silly as any other rebuttal I have heard. I'm a law abiding citizen so I should be able to do WHATEVER I want. Everyone is a law abiding citizen at some point. Guns have one function, to shoot and nothing else. Knifes serve a purpose, gas serves a purpose, cars, bats, axes, etc. all serve purposes. I don't need 30 bullets to shoot one deer and I'm not going to be cutting my steak or a tree with an AK-47.

I said this on another thread:



> Switzerland is not a relevant example anyhow. In Switzerland, from what I understand, citizens are taught incredibly thorough gun safety and to respect weapons and whatnot. NRA wants to reduce turn around time, classes, and any limitations whatsoever on gun ownership. They are so concerned with not letting the 'anti's' gain even an inch of ground that they, in a way, have begun the age of irresponsible ownership. Here in Texas getting a license only takes a couple of months. After you have received your license you pretty much never have to take classes again and you can reapply online when needed. Once I have a license (if even needed, otherwise a minimal, unthorough background check is all) I can leave the store that day with as many guns as I wish. The NRA is also fighting against proper documentation of ownership like if someone purchases weapons in bulk (5 or more). I'm not a huge proponent of gun rights personally, but I can live with people owning them. What puts me completely at odds with gun rights is the NRA pushing irresponsible gun rights regulation and gun owners thinking that it is the right thing to do to 'protect their freedom'.



My current problem with the US Gun lobbies is they are so afraid of us 'dirty liberals' that they would like to practically give a gun away with cereal if they could. It is ridiculously easy for me to obtain any number of weapons here in Texas. IMO a solution is not just a background check, but also maybe take a mental health examination. If background checks won't stop fresh criminals it may stop a few nutters before they leave the gate.

In any case, i heard this story and my heart dropped. I have a lot of little ones in my family at elementary school and I can only imagine what these parents must be going through. It is heartbreaking and terrible.

It is times like these I wish I was religious so that there'd be a hell and he(they) could suffer for eternity for what he(they) did.


----------



## SenorDingDong

.


----------



## fps

ballr4lyf said:


> Wow... You've left a lot to respond to... but I'll try.
> 
> You're absolutely right.... There are some people who should never own guns. My basic anology to that is: If you need adult supervision to make sure you can function in civilized society, you should not own a gun. A lot of times, when a tragedy like this happens, the family and friends of the gunman say that "he was such a good boy" or "he would never hurt a fly". But then later, we find out, there were signs leading up to it. Jared Laughtner (sp) should have never been able to buy a gun. And many other criminals. But they all showed signs before it happened. So yeah, people don't just flip a switch and all of the sudden they go and kill somebody. There is a build-up to it. Along with that build-up are signs that things are not right.
> 
> Women are the largest growing demographic that are purchasing guns right now... look it up. It is still largely a male market, but that is diminishing. My 5'2" 120 lb mother purchased a gun this past year.
> 
> If you illegalize guns, by definition, the only people who could get guns would be criminals. Also, as stated earlier, there are usually signs leading up to the incident.
> 
> Also, I didn't ignore your stats earlier... I didn't look at them at all. I just jumped straight to this page.
> 
> I could look up some stats for you as well, but I am awfully busy at work today, so it will have to wait until I get home. I'll also have a look at your stats when I get home.



Thanks for counter-arguing I never know if I'm just gonna get *fuck off*. I wish the signs were the kinds of things we can see without hindsight. I will look on stats with interest, looking forward to it.


----------



## HighGain510

Randy said:


> So far this thread equal parts "get rid of guns" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people", so in the interest of trying to find some common ground, I'd say both sides get thrown in all the time.



Absolutely agree with you there Randy, I'm saying the DEBATE (both sides) isn't really necessary as we both know it will just continue to go around and around as it always does.  Believe me, I don't own any guns nor do I plan do, so it's not like I'm arguing for or against either side. I just think the focus should be on the tragedy and not the debate that comes up every time this happens.  



fps said:


> No it isn't, and you know it isn't, because both those things you mentioned have practical primary applications that don't involve killing people. That is not the case with guns.
> 
> The correct analogy is this. If someone has a sudden uncontrollable urge to write something down, and has a pencil on them, they can write it down. If they don't have a pencil on them, they can't.
> 
> To stretch this, by the time they have obtained a suitable substitute for the pencil, they will probably have forgotten what they wanted to write in the first place.
> 
> Hint, a gun is the pencil.





fps said:


> I'm reposting this, because no-one has offered a counter to it
> 
> The correct analogy is this. If someone has a sudden uncontrollable urge to write something down, and has a pencil on them, they can write it down. If they don't have a pencil on them, they can't.
> 
> To stretch this, by the time they have obtained a suitable substitute for the pencil, they will probably have forgotten what they wanted to write in the first place.
> 
> A gun is the pencil.



No one has offered a counter to your post because it doesn't make any sense. You tried to claim what I said was not the same, how so? That crazy dude in China just stabbed 22 kids today... with.... a knife. Also an extreme tragedy, but not having a gun didn't stop him from going and doing something crazy, did it? Nope. So just like I said, crazy people with access to something, ANYTHING, that can do damage regardless or whether or not it is intended for that use (knives are used to cut and kill, by design, so yes it's completely applicable in the same light as a gun) will continue to be crazy and hurt people.  

I'm not going into the debate for or against gun control as just like I said before, there's no point in going in circles with people who are firmly on one side or the other as you're not going to change their minds through an internet debate, I promise you that.  I'm more concerned with the fact that there are bunch of innocent children who will never have the privilege of growing up into adulthood (as well as the faculty members who were shot and killed) because some fucking nutjob felt it was his right to take their lives. That is the tragedy here.


----------



## Randy

flint757 said:


> While you won't get in serious trouble, if you don't have a purpose on campus or a child (and don't sign in) you are trespassing and they will throw you out. if they suspect you of something (being a pervert, theft, kidnapping, etc.) they will reprimand you, but at elementary schools and intermediate schools there are less off duty cops and security guards. High Schools have a bit more typically. They, however, are not well trained IMO.



The school I went to (post-Columbine) was a mix of good and bad practices. On the good, the doors were locked after first bell and you had to go through a lot of hoops to get in (especially if you weren't a student). The glass doors would've been impossible to kick in and difficult to shoot through (reinforced with metal). Even after somebody gets inside, the classroom doors were reinforced and near impossible to force your way in.

On the negative, there were literally zero on staff security. The windows on the first floor were basic insulated glass and there was a large glass atrium that would've made it easy to shoot your way into. Also, the village police were very few and located a few miles away, on the other side of downtown; so response could have been an issue.

Anyway, the safety regulations of school are _so_ varied from place to place. With all the stimulus money spent of redoing infrastructure, how about some being thrown at across-the-board security upgrades for schools? There are a lot deterrents that could be implemented that wouldn't require armed guards and metal detectors.


----------



## flint757

HighGain510 said:


> No one has offered a counter to your post because it doesn't make any sense. You tried to claim what I said was not the same, how so? That crazy dude in China just stabbed 22 kids today... with.... a knife. Also an extreme tragedy, but not having a gun didn't stop him from going and doing something crazy, did it? Nope. So just like I said, crazy people with access to something, ANYTHING, that can do damage regardless or whether or not it is intended for that use (knives are used to cut and kill, by design, so yes it's completely applicable in the same light as a gun) will continue to be crazy and hurt people.



Here is the difference.



> 23 people including 22 pupils were stabbed by a man with knife in front of a primary school in Guangshan County, central Chinas Henan province Friday morning, local authorities said.
> *None of the injured was life threatening*, and the suspect was detained by the police, said the county official.


----------



## HighGain510

flint757 said:


> Here is the difference.



Yeah I understand that part of it and not to continue to argue the point, but just because he wasn't successful in being lethal with the object doesn't change anything other than the victims will survive the attack. Still a crazy person using an object intended to kill in the same manner, just not fatal attacks in this case. Many stabbings are just as lethal for the victims, it is fortunate in that case that the attacker was not successful in making his attacks fatal.


----------



## fps

HighGain510 said:


> No one has offered a counter to your post because it doesn't make any sense. You tried to claim what I said was not the same, how so? That crazy dude in China just stabbed 22 kids today... with.... a knife. Also an extreme tragedy, but not having a gun didn't stop him from going and doing something crazy, did it? Nope. So just like I said, crazy people with access to something, ANYTHING, that can do damage regardless or whether or not it is intended for that use (knives are used to cut and kill, by design, so yes it's completely applicable in the same light as a gun) will continue to be crazy and hurt people.



It stopped him from murdering anybody. If anything that proves my point over yours. My analogy is absolutely the correct one, a pencil is a tool for writing as a gun is a tool for killing, you take it away and the person cannot write, or kill, as well, as seen by the substitution of a knife for a gun.


----------



## Konfyouzd

synrgy said:


> That's crap. A concerned citizen shooting/killing somebody _after_ they've shot and killed other people is moot. If nobody had the guns in the first place, nobody would have been shot/killed. If the point is to save lives, arming _everyone_ is the worst possible idea anyone could conceive.



Yea no shit. The shooter alone took out what? 18? Imagine if everyone on scene wanted to "save the day" and started throwing hot lead.


----------



## fps

HighGain510 said:


> Yeah I understand that part of it and not to continue to argue the point, but just because he wasn't successful in being lethal with the object doesn't change anything other than the victims will survive the attack.



Er.....

Seriously?


----------



## Konfyouzd

fps said:


> It stopped him from murdering anybody. If anything that proves my point over yours. My analogy is absolutely the correct one, a pencil is a tool for writing as a gun is a tool for killing, you take it away and the person cannot write, or kill, as well, as seen by the substitution of a knife for a gun.



Dog... You don't always die from gunshots either but can die from both stabwounds and gunshots. You're trying too hard.

I'm gonna throw a name out there. Maybe you know it?

OJ Simpson...


----------



## habicore_5150

My thoughts go out to the families of the victims of the shooting

But unfortunately, with news like this, it was gonna be a matter of time until some other news corporation gets a hold of it, and blow it all out of proportion

Fox News Expert Links Connecticut Shooting To Violent Video Games

Fox, why can't you do this really amazing thing that's been around for ages, it's called doing your research


----------



## HighGain510

fps said:


> It stopped him from murdering anybody. If anything that proves my point over yours. My analogy is absolutely the correct one, a pencil is a tool for writing as a gun is a tool for killing, you take it away and the person cannot write, or kill, as well, as seen by the substitution of a knife for a gun.




But you're still not getting it... you take away the utensil from the crazy person, they can always find another one. The dude in China didn't have access to a gun, that didn't stop him from grabbing a knife and attacking 23 people with it, did it? You take away the pencil, what's to keep him from looking for a pen? He'll still be going for the same goal, he'll just find another way to pull it off. You can't rationalize with crazy, dude, that's what I'm saying.  If the person is fucked in the head and they're looking to do something terrible, they WILL find a way to do it.


----------



## fps

habicore_5150 said:


> Fox News Expert Links Connecticut Shooting To Violent Video Games



They're trying to derail the debate to placate their audience who favour no gun control, that's all.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Doing research =\= ratings!!!!


----------



## flint757

habicore_5150 said:


> My thoughts go out to the families of the victims of the shooting
> 
> But unfortunately, with news like this, it was gonna be a matter of time until some other news corporation gets a hold of it, and blow it all out of proportion
> 
> Fox News Expert Links Connecticut Shooting To Violent Video Games
> 
> Fox, why can't you do this really amazing thing that's been around for ages, it's called doing your research



If they did research and kept their OPINIONS to themselves they'd have nothing to report.


----------



## fps

HighGain510 said:


> But you're still not getting it... you take away the utensil from the crazy person, they can always find another one. The dude in China didn't have access to a gun, that didn't stop him from grabbing a knife and attacking 23 people with it, did it? You take away the pencil, what's to keep him from looking for a pen? He'll still be going for the same goal, he'll just find another way to pull it off. You can't rationalize with crazy, dude, that's what I'm saying.  If the person is fucked in the head and they're looking to do something terrible, they WILL find a way to do it.



You have just said THIS 

"Yeah I understand that part of it and not to continue to argue the point, but just because he wasn't successful in being lethal with the object doesn't change anything other than the victims will survive the attack."

Read that back. Do you think the families would settle for this? Do you think gun control would be worth it for this?

Once again, no-one ever talks about a 25 dead knife rampage. It's guns guns guns guns guns.


----------



## The Norsemen

fps said:


> It stopped him from murdering anybody. If anything that proves my point over yours. My analogy is absolutely the correct one, a pencil is a tool for writing as a gun is a tool for killing, you take it away and the person cannot write, or kill, as well, as seen by the substitution of a knife for a gun.



Fool, you could kill someone with that pencil. Should probably take those away too. 
You could kill with your bare hands if you WANTED.
We give things purpose.


----------



## fps

The Norsemen said:


> Fool, you could kill someone with that pencil. Should probably take those away too.
> You could kill with your bare hands if you WANTED.
> We give things purpose.



How long would it take to kill people with your bare hands? I seriously hope you're being sarcastic. Guns allow a disconnect between you and the people you're killing, that's why they're the perfect tool of the psychopath, your victims can't get near you, nothing can go wrong, you just point and click. If it's so easy to kill with your bare hands why does every mass murderer choose a gun?


----------



## HighGain510

fps said:


> You have just said THIS
> 
> "Yeah I understand that part of it and not to continue to argue the point, but just because he wasn't successful in being lethal with the object doesn't change anything other than the victims will survive the attack."
> 
> Read that back. Do you think the families would settle for this? Do you think gun control would be worth it for this?
> 
> Once again, no-one ever talks about a 25 dead knife rampage. It's guns guns guns guns guns.



Did you read my post following that one? Stabbings aren't always non-lethal, go grab the statistic on how many are fatal and get back to me. I said IN THAT CASE, the victims were survivors. That's the only difference when directly comparing THOSE TWO CASES. Don't pick apart the posts using the pieces you feel like it to try to make yourself seem correct. You missed the point of the post completely.

With that I'm bowing out of this, I've already explained it clearly through several posts, so if you'd like to take the time to read all of them and not pick out just the pieces you felt like reading, it's there. No point in continuing to debate a point if you're going to keep your fingers in your ears and yell "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", I don't have the time or energy to deal with that.


----------



## fps

HighGain510 said:


> Did you read my post following that one? Stabbings aren't always non-lethal, go grab the statistic on how many are fatal and get back to me. I said IN THAT CASE, the victims were survivors. That's the only difference when directly comparing THOSE TWO CASES. Don't pick apart the posts using the pieces you feel like it to try to make yourself seem correct. You missed the point of the post completely.



No no, you provided evidence backing up my point of view, then presented it triumphantly as if it were the exception that proved the rule. 

Gun- 25 dead

Knife- 23 alive

This does not advance your argument.


----------



## Randy

Konfyouzd said:


> Dog... You don't always die from gunshots either but can die from both stabwounds and gunshots. You're trying too hard.
> 
> I'm gonna throw a name out there. Maybe you know it?
> 
> OJ Simpson...





HighGain510 said:


> But you're still not getting it... you take away the utensil from the crazy person, they can always find another one. The dude in China didn't have access to a gun, that didn't stop him from grabbing a knife and attacking 23 people with it, did it? You take away the pencil, what's to keep him from looking for a pen? He'll still be going for the same goal, he'll just find another way to pull it off. You can't rationalize with crazy, dude, that's what I'm saying.  If the person is fucked in the head and they're looking to do something terrible, they WILL find a way to do it.



I get the analogy is imperfect but the point is, the gun is a VERY effective and efficient killing machine. If it weren't, why would people be arguing so strongly for their right to own one to defend themselves? After all, apparently knives and broken bottles are just as useful right? No, they're not because a gun is capable of killing at a further distance than a knife or other melee weapons, and obviously automatic/semi-automatic weapons have the ability to deliver their dose at a much faster rate than somebody could plunging a knife into somebody, then back out and into somebody else.

It's actually kinda silly that I have to explain this, TBH. Not to be insulting. But it's kinda obvious that a gun is a more effective weapon for killing large groups of people than a melee weapon...?

The only thing worse would probably be explosives, a lot of which can be constructed at home but guess what...? Those are illegal. I don't know whether there's a correlation or not but there aren't a lot of improvised explosives used in mass killings in the US. If there are, I'll go out on a limb and say they're responsible for a lot less of the fatal wounds inflicted on victims than bullets.


----------



## Konfyouzd

You can kill a man w your bare hands pretty fast if you know how or they accidentally fall the wrong way... 

It's not the tool. It's the intentions...


----------



## fps

Konfyouzd said:


> You can kill a man w your bare hands pretty fast if you know how or they accidentally fall the wrong way...
> 
> It's not the tool. It's the intentions...



Randy above me has said it all. Soldiers do not go into war armed with their bare hands, they wouldn't be useful because of ALL THE GUNS. I actually don't understand you, you can't be serious.


----------



## flint757

Yes anything can kill anyone, but in terms of efficiency of time, execution and (if the intent is to kill) success rate I imagine a gun is significantly higher overall.

I have to agree with Randy. If a knife, hand-to-hand, bottle or whatever is going to be set equal to guns then no legal citizen needs guns because 'they can do just as much damage'. Next time a mugger has a gun to your face, no worries take him out with some kung fu. 

If you think a gun is a handy thing for self defense then by admission you are saying it is far more effective.


----------



## Konfyouzd

It's not equal. It's the fact that getting rid of guns wouldn't stop anything and arming everyone is just plain stupid.

My posts merely demonstrate the former. There's no need to compare weapons. Where would that get us?


----------



## MikeH

On all of this bullshit arguing, let's see who can kill a large group of people quicker: Me in a full size pickup truck, or you with a handgun. In that case, we need more strict driving laws.  These comparisons are ridiculous. This is why, other than the obvious tragedy, when something like this happens, I just hide my head and try to avoid the nonsense bickering in which everyone thinks they have the right answer to avoid any and all similar situations. 20 children died today, and all we can do is argue about who can kill how many with what more efficiently. Sickening.


----------



## MythicSquirrel

The worst part about this shooting is the journalism. Seriously, I was reading an article where a 9 year old kid was recounting the events. I don't know about you guys, but if some guy from NBC asked my 9 year old son to tell him about how his school was just shot up, and everything that went through his mind when he heard the gunshots. The reporter would probably have a black eye.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Yea... Adults don't even wanna put up with that in most cases. It's got to be damn stressful on a child. It's amazing how some thrive on others' misfortune... Gotta get dem ratings, yo!


----------



## ballr4lyf

Randy said:


> I get the analogy is imperfect but the point is, the gun is a VERY effective and efficient killing machine. If it weren't, why would people be arguing so strongly for their right to own one to defend themselves? After all, apparently knives and broken bottles are just as useful right? No, they're not because a gun is capable of killing at a further distance than a knife or other melee weapons, and obviously automatic/semi-automatic weapons have the ability to deliver their dose at a much faster rate than somebody could plunging a knife into somebody, then back out and into somebody else.
> 
> It's actually kinda silly that I have to explain this, TBH. Not to be insulting. But it's kinda obvious that a gun is a more effective weapon for killing large groups of people than a melee weapon...?
> 
> The only thing worse would probably be explosives, a lot of which can be constructed at home but guess what...? Those are illegal. I don't know whether there's a correlation or not but there aren't a lot of improvised explosives used in mass killings in the US. If there are, I'll go out on a limb and say they're responsible for a lot less of the fatal wounds inflicted on victims than bullets.


 
I've seen what guns can do. And I've seen what knives and "melee weapons" can do. I can tell you that the latter is more apt to turn your stomach.

We defend the right to keep and bear arms because we recognize, like the founding fathers of this nation, that the right is second only in importance to the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. But don't let that confuse you. We are absolutely right there with you when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. We just know that all out bans did nothing to stop that before. Nor do more restrictive gun laws that only affect the law abiding citizen. 

Guns exist now... There's no getting around it. Criminals will always find a way to get them.

P.S. @fps, I don't know if you responded to my post earlier or not... I'm jumping back and forth between a work project and this thread. I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


----------



## fps

MikeH said:


> On all of this bullshit arguing, let's see who can kill a large group of people quicker: Me in a full size pickup truck, or you with a handgun. In that case, we need more strict driving laws.  These comparisons are ridiculous. This is why, other than the obvious tragedy, when something like this happens, I just hide my head and try to avoid the nonsense bickering in which everyone thinks they have the right answer to avoid any and all similar situations. 20 children died today, and all we can do is argue about who can kill how many with what more efficiently. Sickening.



If there had been a spate of incidents where large groups of people had been murdered by pickup trucks, maybe your point wouldn't come across as so misguided and poorly thought through. This discussion happens time and again after innocent people get killed and it gets derailed and nothing changes. I and many others are arguing for something to change that might mean people don't get shot, with guns, in mass murders any more. I find it sickening that people are so selfish they want to keep their guns even if it means things like this happen so often. 

It's not a complicated issue. People keep on going into random locations with guns and shooting people. Therefore clearly people can get their hands on guns too easily. Therefore something has to be done to get guns out of circulation so families don't get torn apart like this. 

It is irresponsible to just keep weeping on the sidelines and never ask what can be done to stop it happening again. I'm trying to have this discussion BECAUSE it's an abomination, and it keeps on happening, and some people need to wake up to the reasons why it keeps happening.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Oh and for the record... I couldn't care less about gun control for the reasons stated earlier in the thread. Taking them away won't help as those with the intent to use to to do harm will acquire them by the necessary means. And if they couldn't there'd be a new "most effective killer." What if he'd chosen explosives instead?

Allowing everyone to carry them doesn't guarantee that situations such as this would be handled any better either.

I think it's weird that folks will automatically jump to one of two extremes when something traumatic happens. There has to be an end all solution. I don't think one exists. 

Personally I'd like to live in a world where people would be vigilant of those close to them and be mindful of possible red flags for things of this nature. Obviously you can't always know, but I feel like some ppl are obvious ticking time bombs. When we see this sort of thing as a possibility it'd be nice if we all cared enough about one another to point it out and try to get help for those with mental illnesses that drive them to do these sorts of things.

But I guess that sounds like hippy talk to some. Not immediately effective and so on...


----------



## Sephiroth952

Randy said:


> How about armed security guards that don't necessarily interact with the children, but they're nearby incase of emergency? How about being more strict about who are allowed in and out of school building and when?
> 
> See, that wasn't hard.


Where i went to school there was atleast 2-4 armed security in every school in the city, notably at my high school one in every corner of the building.They were also quite strict on who they let in and why. I think this practice really needs to start becoming routine everywhere, and we never even had a threat of a shooting ever occur, just prepared.


----------



## Konfyouzd

My high school only became that way after I graduated... But while I was there ppl could come and go as they pleased... In retrospect that's a bit creepy.


----------



## MikeH

I'll be leaving now. Bye!


----------



## The Norsemen

No shit guns are the most efficient thing to slaughter children and everything else.
We get it. Gun>Judo chop. Thanks for that.
It doesn't mean that's what they're all going to be used for.

Banning guns for all law abiding citizens because of these tragedies isn't going to stop them.


----------



## fps

Konfyouzd said:


> Oh and for the record... I couldn't care less about gun control for the reasons stated earlier in the thread. Taking them away won't help as those with the intent to use to to do harm will acquire them by the necessary means. And if they couldn't there'd be a new "most effective killer." What if he'd chosen explosives instead?
> 
> Allowing everyone to carry them doesn't guarantee that situations such as this would be handled any better either.
> 
> I think it's weird that folks will automatically jump to one of two extremes when something traumatic happens. There has to be an end all solution. I don't think one exists.
> 
> Personally I'd like to live in a world where people would be vigilant of those close to them and be mindful of possible red flags for things of this nature. Obviously you can't always know, but I feel like some ppl are obvious ticking time bombs. When we see this sort of thing as a possibility it'd be nice if we all cared enough about one another to point it out and try to get help for those with mental illnesses that drive them to do these sorts of things.
> 
> But I guess that sounds like hippy talk to some. Not immediately effective and so on...



You clearly can't imagine a culture where people don't want to own guns, where there aren't guns to own, and as a result there aren't mass murders of this nature. It's about changing perceptions through small changes with time. You don't sound like a hippy at all, you just sound as if you believe that people have qualities they just don't have, that they have proven not to have all throughout history. You are suggesting a culture where every mass-murder is flukily avoided at the last minute by some person being in the right place at the right time, when the answer is putting a system in place where the mass-murder isn't possible in the first place because there's no access to the tools to carry it out.


----------



## fps

The Norsemen said:


> No shit guns are the most efficient thing to slaughter children and everything else.
> We get it. Gun>Judo chop. Thanks for that.
> It doesn't mean that's what they're all going to be used for.
> 
> Banning guns for all law abiding citizens because of these tragedies isn't going to stop them.



Isn't the fact that that's what SOME of them are going to be used for enough to have a serious review of gun ownership and introduce cutting restrictions on who can and cannot own them?


----------



## Konfyouzd

fps said:


> You clearly can't imagine a culture where people don't want to own guns, where there aren't guns to own, and as a result there aren't mass murders of this nature. It's about changing perceptions through small changes with time. You don't sound like a hippy at all, you just sound as if you believe that people have qualities they just don't have, that they have proven not to have all throughout history. You are suggesting a culture where every mass-murder is flukily avoided at the last minute by some person being in the right place at the right time, when the answer is putting a system in place where the mass-murder isn't possible in the first place because there's no access to the tools to carry it out.


Why the fuck are guns still the point? 

I get that that's what carried this out and I get that they're effective killers; you can kill many people at once. But it's the evil people harbor in their hearts that leads to shit like this regardless of the tool chosen. 

I'm out...


----------



## fps

Konfyouzd said:


> Why the fuck are guns still the point?
> 
> I get that that's what carried this out and I get that they're effective killers; you can kill many people at once. But it's the evil people harbor in their hearts that leads to shit like this regardless of the tool chosen.
> 
> I'm out...



It takes evil, and a gun. It's not an either/or, it's both.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Okay...


----------



## Char2000

avenger said:


> Wtf?
> 
> As a whole we are a pathetic excuse for a species.



Speak for yourself.


----------



## fps

Konfyouzd said:


> Okay...



I'm not having mockery, I'm trying to have a debate. If you're an awful person and you want to kill as many people as possible, what's the most realistic plan you can have to do so? One that people do again and again? They get a gun, or guns, and they fire on people. That is the pattern of the last ten years of mass murders in the US.


----------



## Sephiroth952

fps said:


> It takes evil, and a gun. It's not an either/or, it's both.


 tell that to people like Jim Jones and Tim McVeigh. Evil is evil regardless of how its spread.


----------



## fps

Sephiroth952 said:


> tell that to people like Jim Jones and Tim McVeigh. Evil is evil regardless of how its spread.



But one of the most obvious ways it's spread is through mass murders with guns....

http://www.newsmax.com/US/mass-shootings-us-colorado/2012/07/20/id/445971


----------



## The Norsemen

fps said:


> I'm not having mockery, I'm trying to have a debate. If you're an awful person and you want to kill as many people as possible, what's the most realistic plan you can have to do so? One that people do again and again? They get a gun, or guns, and they fire on people. That is the pattern of the last ten years of mass murders in the US.



Well it's good to know you've thought it all out man.
A box cutter at a packed concert is a tried and true method too.
Cuts so good people barely feel it eviscerate them I'm told.


----------



## TheOddGoat

I think these people committing(sp?) mass murder with firearms would probably make a bomb if they didn't have access to guns.


----------



## Konfyouzd

*Deleted* -- Irrelevant.


----------



## fps

The Norsemen said:


> Well it's good to know you've thought it all out man.
> A box cutter at a packed concert is a tried and true method too.
> Cuts so good people barely feel it eviscerate them I'm told.



Sorry I don't get the reference, what real life incident are you referring to? Seriously, if it's a real thing that happened, I'd like to know.


----------



## Sephiroth952

The Norsemen said:


> Well it's good to know you've thought it all out man.
> A box cutter at a packed concert is a tried and true method too.
> Cuts so good people barely feel it eviscerate them I'm told.


see this is actually a really good point. if us clear minded individuals can think of really simple ways of mass hurting/killing people without a gun, imagine what an unstable person can think up.


----------



## MikeH

fps said:


> I'm not having mockery, I'm trying to have a debate. If you're an awful person and you want to kill as many people as possible, what's the most realistic plan you can have to do so? One that people do again and again? They get a gun, or guns, and they fire on people. That is the pattern of the last ten years of mass murders in the US.








No firearms here. As others have stated, if you have strong intent, you will find the means necessary to execute the task.


----------



## fps

Sephiroth952 said:


> see this is actually a really good point. if us clear minded individuals can think of really simple ways of mass hurting/killing people without a gun, imagine what an unstable person can think up.



Thinking up and doing are separate things, and it is much easier to kill someone with a gun, with much less risk to the gun-user, which is why the army use guns, rather than box cutters.


----------



## fps

MikeH said:


> No firearms here. As others have stated, if you have strong intent, you will find the means necessary to execute the task.



And if you have strong intent to make sure it never happens again, you legislate and put in place rules that make it damn near impossible for it to ever happen again. After 9/11 everything changed in terms of airport and airspace policing. Yet after every gun-fuelled massacre nothing changes with regards to gun policing. That is a failure to protect innocents.


----------



## flint757

MikeH said:


> On all of this bullshit arguing, let's see who can kill a large group of people quicker: Me in a full size pickup truck, or you with a handgun. In that case, we need more strict driving laws.  These comparisons are ridiculous. This is why, other than the obvious tragedy, when something like this happens, I just hide my head and try to avoid the nonsense bickering in which everyone thinks they have the right answer to avoid any and all similar situations. 20 children died today, and all we can do is argue about who can kill how many with what more efficiently. Sickening.



It doesn't happen though. if it did you can bet your ass people would be advocating stricter restriction on drivers license. personally, excluding any incident like that, I feel it is way too easy to get a drivers license. My sister literally perpendicular parked at her exam. The guy said come back later to try again. 

He should have said you're a fucking idiot go back to drivers school. I prefer a few Europoean countries law regarding licenses. That is not relevant though.  



Konfyouzd said:


> Oh and for the record... I couldn't care less about gun control for the reasons stated earlier in the thread. Taking them away won't help as those with the intent to use to to do harm will acquire them by the necessary means. And if they couldn't there'd be a new "most effective killer." What if he'd chosen explosives instead?
> 
> Allowing everyone to carry them doesn't guarantee that situations such as this would be handled any better either.
> 
> I think it's weird that folks will automatically jump to one of two extremes when something traumatic happens. There has to be an end all solution. I don't think one exists.
> 
> Personally I'd like to live in a world where people would be vigilant of those close to them and be mindful of possible red flags for things of this nature. Obviously you can't always know, but I feel like some ppl are obvious ticking time bombs. When we see this sort of thing as a possibility it'd be nice if we all cared enough about one another to point it out and try to get help for those with mental illnesses that drive them to do these sorts of things.
> 
> But I guess that sounds like hippy talk to some. Not immediately effective and so on...



Explosives are more indirect and a tad more obvious. In crowded venues they actively seek such things as well. While the materials are easy to get, you don't see a whole lot of people making bombs. If that were true bombings would be rampant in countries where there are basically no guns.

I do agree that people should be more vigilant at home, but that applies to a lot more than public safety. Kids end up committing suicide, getting into hard drugs, pregnant, etc. all because nobody is paying attention at home or, in some cases, didn't care.



Sephiroth952 said:


> Where i went to school there was atleast 2-4 armed security in every school in the city, notably at my high school one in every corner of the building.They were also quite strict on who they let in and why. I think this practice really needs to start becoming routine everywhere, and we never even had a threat of a shooting ever occur, just prepared.



It varies from school-to-school. being prepared for a threat would definitely be optimal and given the job market would be a good thing to throw some stimulus money at too. Offers safety for the community and jobs. win-win.



The Norsemen said:


> No shit guns are the most efficient thing to slaughter children and everything else.
> We get it. Gun>Judo chop. Thanks for that.
> It doesn't mean that's what they're all going to be used for.
> 
> Banning guns for all law abiding citizens because of these tragedies isn't going to stop them.



I assume you are responding to me (people are posting at a rapid rate ). Anyhow, so how is that not relevant then. How can people sit here and compare murders by bombs, knives, cars, etc. and then when they admit that a gun is far more effective overall, the argument no longer pertains to the conversation. 

Realistically I don't care if it was an outright ban or not. Personally I would, but that is irrelevant. I do feel that there should be national laws pertaining restrictions, classes and proper examinations prior to receiving a weapon and a continuation of classes every so often (The NRA seems to hate these ideas as best I can tell). That assault rifles (and all weapons that can be easily converted into an automatic) be outright banned. You don't need an assault rifle for protection and criminals don't use them for muggings and burglaries. People may enjoy them for hobbies, but they are ripe for the pickling for the insane and, too me, that trumps 'your right'.

People keep bringing up how ineffective some laws are too. Well, hell criminals don't follow any laws so fuck it lets get rid of them all. 



TheOddGoat said:


> I think these people committing(sp?) mass murder with firearms would probably make a bomb if they didn't have access to guns.



Honestly, doesn't happen very often as is; Maybe they will, but it is highly unlikely IMO. If it were easy people would be doing that. As is getting a gun isn't hard at all.


----------



## Murmel

Sephiroth952 said:


> Where i went to school there was atleast 2-4 armed security in every school in the city, notably at my high school one in every corner of the building.They were also quite strict on who they let in and why. I think this practice really needs to start becoming routine everywhere, and we never even had a threat of a shooting ever occur, just prepared.



It's weird how some countries are alike, yet so different. There would be student riots if they started having security guards at our schools  Personally I think it's absolutely ridiculous, but hey, apparently it's not safe enough without them.


----------



## Jakke

Oh FFS people. "Gun control" does not mean "ban all guns", it means "make guns more difficult to get". What the hell is wrong with putting up a long licensing process, keep a proper register of second hand guns and getting rid of the possibilities to get an automatic weapon? You have among the laxest gun laws in the western world, and have a disproportionate amount of gun violence (8x times as high as the norm according to some statistics), if you do not have ideological blinders on, you can connect the dots pretty easily. 

Oh yeah, you'll need the guns for when the damn 'govment turns on you... Please, tell me how handguns are supposed to stop a full military operation. The US military (or any other military) will roll all over you.
And yes, a gun is extremely more dangerous than a blade, both with regards to range and force. Comparing a gun to strangling someone is just crazy, it's a lot easier to kill someone on impulse with a gun than to go through strangling the person, it's also probably (as I do not have experience in this field) easier to shoot someone than to stab a resisting person, hard to resist a bullet.

If we are talking about someone who wants to kill you, a gun is not going to deter this person because of one specific reason: people kill for a limited number of motives.
People kill for profit, because of passion, or because of compulsion. 
Someone who kills for profit is essentially a hitman, and thus a professional, meaning that you probably are involved in a criminal organization, has people to protect you, and will probably be dead before you can pull your own weapon. People who kill because of passion are not detered because they kill out of a spur of the moment, they do not think rationally about what they are about to do, and people who kill because of compulsion are not detered because killing for them is a compulsion (this category is where serial killers and other mentally disturbed people usually go), and they are therefore not thinking rationally either. If someone is hearing an archangel, and that archangel is telling this person to kill you, are rational arguments (such as threat of violence) going to work?



If you ask me, own as many guns as you want, but I would also like to see a long and mandatory certification process for even owning one firearm.




TheOddGoat said:


> I think these people committing(sp?) mass murder with firearms would probably make a bomb if they didn't have access to guns.



Oh yes, because of Sweden's stricter gun control, we have bombings with the same freqency that the US has mass shootings. Oh wait...


----------



## fps

Jakke I agree and especially on a point I haven't set out myself that I am not saying *ban all handguns* or *ban all guns* either.


----------



## Sephiroth952

Murmel said:


> It's weird how some countries are alike, yet so different. There would be student riots if they started having security guards at our schools  Personally I think it's absolutely ridiculous, but hey, apparently it's not safe enough without them.


I know I made it sound a little more extreme than it actually is. 

While they are there for the worst case scenario, they also played a real good job in just the day to day life of the school. They monitored the halls for people skipping, and monitored the parking lot since it was quite big. And who do you think is more qualified to break up a fight between to 18 year old males, a teacher or someone who atleast has a good idea what he is doing. We also had a woman officer who I witnessed pull two women apart. Overall they were quite cool people and really played a positive role to the school overall.


----------



## Double A

I say, screw it, ban them. As a species we apparently cannot handle them.


----------



## that short guy

I didn't read all of this because I didn't have time, but FPS this is a few points i'd like to make

I'm not gonna get into this too terribly much, however ok lets say they ban guns here... I can fucking kill you with a paper clip.... lets get rid of those too, shit pens and pencils also... wait you mean I can make a knife/shank out of regular house hold objects like tooth brushes, screw drivers, and news papers.... well fuck lets just lock everyone in padded rooms so no one can actually come in contact with one another...

Yes it's a tragedy what happened... but you'd have to be pretty out of touch with reality to think just making strict gun laws could've prevented this... whos to say he wouldn't have just locked all the doors and then set the entire school on fire.

You're intitled to your opinions and beliefs just like I am. And I respect your opinion however I do believe that it's wrong. Like people always say guns don't kill people, People kill people.


----------



## Mprinsje

i haven't read all of this either, but just one question:

how can someone in their right mind support something that is designed to kill?


----------



## yellowv

Randy said:


> Lot of mass shootings, muggings and car jackings going on in this country using WWII surplus, lemme tell ya'.



45 colt auto and 9mm parebellum are two of todays most popular handgun cartridges and have been used since before WWII.


----------



## that short guy

Mprinsje said:


> i haven't read all of this either, but just one question:
> 
> how can someone in their right mind support something that is designed to kill?


 

Fair question my friend, and I have a simple answer. 

Because I'm a soldier the gun that he uses to hurt people, is the same gun I use to put him in a wood box and to keep the people in my country safe. 

guns are dangerous and shouldn't be taken lightly, however a gun is just an object, it's not dangerous until you put it in a persons hand


----------



## synrgy

Thanks for the neg rep!


----------



## pink freud

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> If everyone eligible by law carried a legal and licensed firearm, then each time a tragedy like this occurred there would be an armed response on scene to deal with it, and hopefully defuse the situation.



An armed society isn't a polite society, simply a society that has an exponentially higher potential for collateral damage.


----------



## EOT

We had a an absolutely terrible thing happen today and you people wanna talk about gun control If we had no guns people would still find a way to kill one another. They've been doing for it centuries. The problem is not guns, or any other weapon for that matter. It's the screwed up people we have on this earth. Add to that the fact that violence has been so glamorized by the movie/tv and music industry and it's no wonder we have more and more tragedies all the time. Fewer and fewer people have any sort of moral standards or respect for others. We as a people have been declining forever. You want fewer tragedies? You need better morals and respect for human life. It must be taught from the start.


----------



## Tyler

I wanna personally know who could look a child in the eye, see their terror and have the balls to pull the trigger. 

bring on serious drugs or not, theres no sinking lower than that


----------



## that short guy

nellings6 said:


> I wanna personally know who could look a child in the eye, see their terror and have the balls to pull the trigger.
> 
> bring on serious drugs or not, theres no sinking lower than that


 
Agreed


----------



## Watty

EOT said:


> We had a an absolutely terrible thing happen today and you people wanna talk about gun control If we had no guns people would still find a way to kill one another. They've been doing for it centuries. The problem is not guns, or any other weapon for that matter. It's the screwed up people we have on this earth. Add to that the fact that violence has been so glamorized by the movie/tv and music industry and it's no wonder we have more and more tragedies all the time. Fewer and fewer people have any sort of moral standards or respect for others. We as a people have been declining forever. You want fewer tragedies? You need better morals and respect for human life. It must be taught from the start.



When are we going to have the talk about gun control if not when it just resulted in the death of multiple CHILDREN at an ELEMENTARY school? Stewart had a bit about this, go watch it...gist being that there isn't a day that goes by where people don't die as a result of gun violence. If we can't talk about it following a horrific example of such, we would never be able to.

And if people didn't have the "security" of knowing they could kill lots of people in the space of a single minute (i.e. ONLY a gun), they'd be less likely to try and hurt someone. You wouldn't walk into a mall with a bag of rocks and try to nail people dead in the head, because you'd maybe get one before people took you down. With a gun, they have NO chance. If everyone was legally allowed to own a 9 round pistol, maybe the story would be different...but as it stands, you can own a fucking assault rifle if you wanted. When in God's name do you need an assault rifle if not war?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to just see what walking around something like a mall with the following sign does:

"This is not a gun"
"You're not dead"

....

"Both could easily be the case"

2 cents


----------



## Konfyouzd

Double A said:


> I say, screw it, ban them. As a species we apparently cannot handle them.



We're already in the habit of banning everything we decide we can't handle as a species. And then we'll arbitrarily unban the ones we think "aren't working."


----------



## Konfyouzd

fps said:


> You clearly can't imagine a culture where people don't want to own guns, where there aren't guns to own, and as a result there aren't mass murders of this nature. It's about changing perceptions through small changes with time. You don't sound like a hippy at all, you just sound as if you believe that people have qualities they just don't have, that they have proven not to have all throughout history. You are suggesting a culture where every mass-murder is flukily avoided at the last minute by some person being in the right place at the right time, when the answer is putting a system in place where the mass-murder isn't possible in the first place because there's no access to the tools to carry it out.



I don't recall ever saying that you could avoid them all. Hell we can't even do that with fucking legislation AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE.

What I DID say, since you seem to have selective reading comprehension, is that I would LIKE to live in such a world. You seem far to heavily focused on guns specifically as if you haven't been given a million other ways to commit a mass murder. My approach sought more to go to the heart of the matter and attempt to help those mentally sick enough to want to do this in the first place rather than saying:



> Give EVERYONE guns so the next time an asshole does something like this we can all put him in his place



-Realistically, more people armed and shooting = more people hurt/killed. Great fucking solution! 

or



> If we ban guns it'll all go away



-No... No it won't. I could be 100% wrong, but the way I see it, if it becomes more difficult to kill large numbers of people and someone still wants to they're going to be creative and the killings may end up just as horrific if not worse. Vehicles, chemicals, whatever... Again, I could be wrong, but in addition to being a violent creature, human beings are also incredibly innovative... An example of the synthesis of these two things is... THE GUN. You think we can't come up with something else? Or learn to make guns at home? There was a thread the other day on here ab some dude that made a fuckin AK out of a shovel! Come on... 

An inanimate object can be at no fault. It's the person that decides to pick it up and use it. If you want to accept that we just inherently want to destroy each other and can't handle guns then I can see where you're coming from, but to be honest, I feel like the majority of us know better and if we care so much about each other the way we seem to suggest in this thread then perhaps it wouldn't hurt to reach out to those you think might be a bit unstable if not for your own sake for the sake of others. 

But yea... I'm sure the gov't will sort it out with more legislation... They seem to be really good at that.


----------



## that short guy

Watty said:


> When are we going to have the talk about gun control if not when it just resulted in the death of children? Stewart had a bit about this, go watch it. And if people didn't have the "security" of knowing they could kill lots of people in the space of a single minute (i.e. ONLY a gun), they'd be less likely to try and hurt someone. You wouldn't walk into a mall with a bag of rocks and try to nail people dead in the head, because you'd maybe get one before people took you down. With a gun, they have NO chance.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I want to just see what walking around something like a mall with the following sign does:
> 
> "This is not a gun"
> "You're not dead"
> 
> ....
> 
> "Both could easily be the case"
> 
> 2 cents


 






you don't need a gun to take out a lot of people in under a min. believe me, how many people do you think I could take out with that KA-BAR in 60 in school.... it's not the gun, it's the person


----------



## ballr4lyf

flint757 said:


> That assault rifles (and all weapons that can be easily converted into an automatic) be outright banned. You don't need an assault rifle for protection and criminals don't use them for muggings and burglaries. People may enjoy them for hobbies, but they are ripe for the pickling for the insane and, too me, that trumps 'your right'.



Actually, the .223 round that is used in most 'assault rifles' is an excellent choice for home defense. It tends to fragment on contact with solid objects like wood and drywall, thereby preventing overpenetration into adjoining dwellings (e.g. the kids' room or your next door neighbor's house/apartment). You would think that the 'less powerful' handgun rounds would do the same thing, but they don't. The 9mm round will go through multiple layers of drywall.

The myth that you can easily convert an 'assault rifle' into an automatic weapon, is simply not true. I can easily convert an AR-15 to fire automatically using the same process I can convert a handgun to fire automatically. I'm not going to tell you how because _it's not safe_. The proper way to do it involves machining your own parts to fit some pretty tight tolerances. There is nothing 'easy' about it... Nor is it cheap. And, if you do it wrong, you end up with a pretty expensive paperweight.


----------



## 3074326

The people who are going to do this kind of thing are going to get a gun whether they're legal or not. They're fucking crazy. They wouldn't want to get it legally. They'd steal it or buy it from someone who isn't supposed to have it. Come on, guys. It's not a perfect world. We're talking about a guy who shot up an elementary school. Hard to fix crazy. (don't take this as me being pro-guns, I'm not, but gun laws aren't why this happened)

Hell is too forgiving for this piece of shit. 

This is one of the saddest stories ever. My heart goes out to the kids who died, the kids who survived and have to deal with this burden the rest of their lives, and the families of all involved.


----------



## Watty

Fuck it, Nvmd.

We've got rednecks who like guns and liberals who don't.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

I was just putting forth a viewpoint that is seldom heard in the UK.

Britain has had it's share of of mass killings, excluding military action for political purposes, so even a society without civilian firearms has it's share of violence.

There are legal firearms in civilian hands in the UK, generally for culling predatory animals and bird hunting, to the best of my knowledge. There was a crackdown on sports marksman's pistols (kept in lockers at the clubs, to never leave the firing range) after the last school murder, IIRC.

Anyway, don't want to talk about this topic anymore, sorry.


----------



## ballr4lyf

pink freud said:


> An armed society isn't a polite society, simply a society that has an exponentially higher potential for collateral damage.



Says the guy whose avatar is pointing a gun at the viewer.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Watty said:


> Fuck it, Nvmd.
> 
> We've got rednecks who like guns and liberals who don't.



 

I R moderate liberal... I own many guns.


----------



## that short guy

Watty said:


> How would you feel taking on 10 men defending their wives in the middle of mall with that thing?


 
Me, personally its not impossible, but its not likely I'd come out uninjured. That being said you're talking to a logical person, the people that do these things aren't sane. you mix that with someone that knows how to use a knife, or who's like a phychotic mcguiver and can make a bomb out of toothepaste, a paperbag and a few rubber bands and it ends badly everytime for everyone. 

People like this don't care what happens to themself. 

and don't missunderstand what I'm trying to say, yes the gun made the numbers a lot higher than they probably would've been with a knife or something else, but to me it doesn't matter if it was 1 innocent life or 100, it's still horrible. All I'm saying is that worring about the instrument instead of what could've been done to indentify the indevidual like his shrink knowing he's unstable and doing nothing about it. the gun wasn't the problem my friend. everyone that sat back and let it happen are


----------



## Konfyouzd

that short guy said:


> and don't missunderstand what I'm trying to say, yes the gun made the numbers a lot higher than they probably would've been with a knife or something else, but to me it doesn't matter if it was 1 innocent life or 100, it's still horrible. All I'm saying is that worring about the instrument instead of what could've been done to indentify the indevidual like his shrink knowing he's unstable and doing nothing about it. the gun wasn't the problem my friend. everyone that sat back and let it happen are



This is what I've been saying! 

People say there were red flags with the VTech kid too. What'd ppl do? Shun him and call him weird which to him may have only validated his decision... 

I don't know shit about the guy that did this one, but not simply writing people off as crazy may actually save lives sometimes. Could be as simple as someone having a bad day, no one cares and the person snaps... Or some mental illness that isn't properly nurtured, etc. But no... We need to be putting inanimate objects we MANUFACTURE DAILY on trial for being available to the wrong person.

In that case, let's ban everything toxic, pointy or heavy enough to crush bones as well.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

athawulf said:


> Sorry but it is pretty sad that a bunch of children get murdered by two adults and the first issue that comes to mind is American gun control.
> 
> There's obviously a greater fucking issue when people are mass murdering children regardless of the tool/weapon.



Dead fucking on.


----------



## Watty

People suck; guns allow us to do it more easily and effectively. Why should we facilitate our failings?


----------



## mr_rainmaker

"And no guns were used despite their easy accessibility" 

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in second to sixth grades attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history. The perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe, who was upset by a property tax that had been levied to fund the construction of the school building. He blamed the additional tax for financial hardships which led to foreclosure proceedings against his farm. These events apparently provoked Kehoe to plan his attack. 

On the morning of May 18, Kehoe first killed his wife and then set his farm buildings on fire. As fire fighters arrived at the farm, an explosion devastated the north wing of the school building, killing many of the people inside. Kehoe used a detonator to ignite dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers started gathering at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and detonated a bomb inside his shrapnel-filled vehicle, killing himself and the school superintendent, and killing and injuring several others. During the rescue efforts, searchers discovered an additional 500 pounds (230 kg) of unexploded dynamite and pyrotol planted throughout the basement. 

SOURCE: Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## that short guy

Watty said:


> People suck; guns allow us to do it more easily and effectively. Why should we facilitate our failings?


 
More people are killed by cars a year than by guns, do you want to pass laws that make cars illegal.... didn't think so.


----------



## texshred777

One thing..automatic weapons CAN be purchased legally in the US(depending on state and their regulations). All it takes is a $200 tax/fee, a background check, a sheriff/chief of police to sign off on an ATF application and the money to buy the actual weapon(which is fucking expensive).


----------



## pink freud

ballr4lyf said:


> Says the guy whose avatar is pointing a gun at the viewer.



Malcolm Reynolds is just trying to make a livin'.


----------



## 3074326

Watty said:


> People suck; guns allow us to do it more easily and effectively. Why should we facilitate our failings?



Another failing is how easy it is to acquire weapons that are already illegal. Those are going to be around whether gun control law are strict or not. 

If someone wants a gun to kill people, the gun control law is going to be the last thing on his mind.


----------



## flint757

yellowv said:


> 45 colt auto and 9mm parebellum are two of todays most popular handgun cartridges and have been used since before WWII.



I don't think his point was that they weren't the same size and type, but more that it is unlikely to be what they are using in their weapons. I personally have no clue as I don't know anyone who buys ammo off the black market.



ballr4lyf said:


> Actually, the .223 round that is used in most 'assault rifles' is an excellent choice for home defense. It tends to fragment on contact with solid objects like wood and drywall, thereby preventing overpenetration into adjoining dwellings (e.g. the kids' room or your next door neighbor's house/apartment). You would think that the 'less powerful' handgun rounds would do the same thing, but they don't. The 9mm round will go through multiple layers of drywall.
> 
> The myth that you can easily convert an 'assault rifle' into an automatic weapon, is simply not true. I can easily convert an AR-15 to fire automatically using the same process I can convert a handgun to fire automatically. I'm not going to tell you how because _it's not safe_. The proper way to do it involves machining your own parts to fit some pretty tight tolerances. There is nothing 'easy' about it... Nor is it cheap. And, if you do it wrong, you end up with a pretty expensive paperweight.



Good to know for sure. I wasn't referring to the ammo, but the gun itself. If I had a gun in my home I wouldn't be grabbing an assault rifle and there is no reason to. People carry hand guns for portability. If you are going to grab something that is clearly not concealable then a hunting rifle would suit the job just fine IMO. There is still no justifiable reason to allow something so potentially dangerous in terms of quantity of damage. If you are using a hand gun, I'm sure you could also get a .38 which might not do as much damage.

Myth or not that jackass who shot up the Colorado theater bought a semi and converted it to an auto which did in fact break so maybe not easy, but dangerous nonetheless. I'll admit my gun crazy acquaintance did make it sound overly easy to accomplish though. Then again my family runs a metal fabrication shop too.


----------



## YngwieJ

So I see a lot of people argue that item X can be used to kill people, but we don't ban it. Some items I've seen in this thread have been cars, gasoline, knives, pillows, and more. But this is such a horrible argument and I don't understand why people use it. All of these items have other purposes, of which the primary use is not for killing. Cars are a necessity in the US for transportation of goods and people and is required to keep our economy running. The ONLY use for guns is to kill or to practice killing.

I also see the argument that more armed citizens will result in less homicides. Ok, well let's analyze the statistics. Here's an interactive map showing the percentage of people with guns and the rate of gun deaths by state. A quick glance over this map shows that states with more gun owners per capita also show more gun deaths per capita. Would stricter gun laws mean we won't have any mass murders like in Newtown? Of course not, but we could probably have fewer of them. But we shouldn't be focused solely on reducing mass murders, but also individual homicides and suicides.

I'm not advocating complete abolishment of guns, but without more thorough statistics on gun-related deaths, we really can't find areas to target gun regulation. In the early 1960s we had many vehicle-related deaths and we had safety advocates like Ralph Nader writing books such as Unsafe at any Speed. Public pressure to decrease the number of vehicle accidents finally led to the creation of the National Highway Safety Transportation Administration, which collected data and statistics on vehicle accidents so that lawmakers could effectively put more regulations on the manufacture of vehicles, such as requiring collapsible steering columns, seat belts, and airbags.

So the first step we need to take is to accept that there's a problem and create a non-partisan organization that can collect data and fund solutions to gun control in the US. There's no denying that there's a serious problem with gun crime in the US, but everyone just complains that nobody has a solution. Well we never will have a solution if we don't have enough data on the problem.


----------



## ballr4lyf

Can't we just talk about why ash is better than basswood, or why koa is so sexy?


----------



## flint757

that short guy said:


> and don't missunderstand what I'm trying to say, yes the gun made the numbers a lot higher than they probably would've been with a knife or something else, but to me it doesn't matter if it was 1 innocent life or 100, it's still horrible. All I'm saying is that worring about the instrument instead of what could've been done to indentify the indevidual like his shrink knowing he's unstable and doing nothing about it. the gun wasn't the problem my friend. everyone that sat back and let it happen are



This I agree with (although the numbers do matter, 100 deaths would be significantly more tragic if avoidable). We do need to better identify and help those who need it. That is why I feel like the standard background check being the only thing in your way to be far too minimal. People should have to undergo a psychiatric exam before procuring a weapon. The only reason that isn't the case is because the NRA would never have it and those that find themselves to be sane will feel it is arbitrary and thus claim a loss of 'rights' (but it isn't, considering you are a stranger to the world, no one knows you personally beyond your circle).


----------



## Furtive Glance

ballr4lyf said:


> Can't we just talk about why ash is better than basswood, or why koa is so sexy?



In the other 90% of this forum. This section exists for a reason.


----------



## texshred777

flint757 said:


> I don't think his point was that they weren't the same size and type, but more that it is unlikely to be what they are using in their weapons. I personally have no clue as I don't know anyone who buys ammo off the black market.
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know for sure. I wasn't referring to the ammo, but the gun itself. If I had a gun in my home I wouldn't be grabbing an assault rifle and there is no reason to. People carry hand guns for portability. If you are going to grab something that is clearly not concealable then a hunting rifle would suit the job just fine IMO. There is still no justifiable reason to allow something so potentially dangerous in terms of quantity of damage. If you are using a hand gun, I'm sure you could also get a .38 which might not do as much damage.
> 
> Myth or not that jackass who shot up the Colorado theater bought a semi and converted it to an auto which did in fact break so maybe not easy, but dangerous nonetheless. I'll admit my gun crazy acquaintance did make it sound overly easy to accomplish though. Then again my family runs a metal fabrication shop too.


 
Why bother with black market ammo? I must have missed something because 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP can be bought at most sporting goods stores.


----------



## flint757

texshred777 said:


> Why bother with black market ammo? I must have missed something because 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP can be bought at most sporting goods stores.



Well, are stores selling WWII bullets or freshly manufactured ones (serious question, again I have no clue)? Someone mentioned earlier that if we banned guns and ammo that there are still plenty usable bullets out there. That is how it got brought up.


----------



## texshred777

flint757 said:


> Well, are stores selling WWII bullets or freshly manufactured ones (serious question, again I have no clue)? Someone mentioned earlier that if we banned guns and ammo that there are still plenty usable bullets out there. That is how it got brought up.


 
Well, if you go to Walmart or Academy it's going to be new ammunition. The previously mentioned surplus ammo can be found in stores as well, but either gun stores or surplus stores.

I was just confused when black market ammo got put into the mix. My first thought was that the two rounds mentioned were in no way black market ammo.


----------



## EOT

Watty said:


> When are we going to have the talk about gun control if not when it just resulted in the death of multiple CHILDREN at an ELEMENTARY school? Stewart had a bit about this, go watch it...gist being that there isn't a day that goes by where people don't die as a result of gun violence. If we can't talk about it following a horrific example of such, we would never be able to.
> 
> And if people didn't have the "security" of knowing they could kill lots of people in the space of a single minute (i.e. ONLY a gun), they'd be less likely to try and hurt someone. You wouldn't walk into a mall with a bag of rocks and try to nail people dead in the head, because you'd maybe get one before people took you down. With a gun, they have NO chance. If everyone was legally allowed to own a 9 round pistol, maybe the story would be different...but as it stands, you can own a fucking assault rifle if you wanted. When in God's name do you need an assault rifle if not war?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I want to just see what walking around something like a mall with the following sign does:
> 
> "This is not a gun"
> "You're not dead"
> 
> ....
> 
> "Both could easily be the case"
> 
> 2 cents



You missed the point... The gun did not kill anyone. The deranged madman with no respect for human life did. If he didn't have a gun he would've used something else. A bomb maybe? A chemical weapon of some sort? In the end it doesn't matter. Crazy, deranged people will always find a way. Liberals in particular always point to the gun as being the problem when it's in fact the person. The only way to completely stop this sort of thing would be if the movie "Timecop" were a reality. 

I just think it's incredibly sad that people always use these tragic events to try and implement some sort of gun ban. You should be mourning. You want to make a difference? How about trying to teach children right and wrong, and respect for human life. As well as trying to recognize and treat mentally unstable people.


----------



## flint757

Speaking of, what was his motivation for attacking the children??? Seriously. I know he killed his mom and brother, I believe, and the principal as well which hints to me that there was some turmoil at home, but that doesn't really explain him unloading on a bunch of elementary school students. I'm only curious because how ever psychotic the individual there is usually a reason of some sort even if absurd. That reason, if known, can hopefully prevent this from happening again or at least diminish the number of occurrences.

It's scary that people are out there like that. I can think of countless thugs who would NEVER hurt a child and then you have people like this. 

[EDIT]

People don't 'use' these events in their favor in the sense you are meaning. People who begin attacking gun rights during tragedies are no more for gun rights any other time and some just feel empowered to attempt to prevent it from happening again by asking for change after such tragedies (when something is actually likely to happen versus the other 99% of the time). I know that is a small distinction, but the way you describe it makes it sound shady and it isn't (for the public, can't speak for politician's). It is ultimately a noble cause even if misguided in others' eyes.


----------



## synrgy

that short guy said:


> More people are killed by cars a year than by guns, do you want to pass laws that make cars illegal.... didn't think so.



As has already been discussed, that is an invalid argument. Vehicles aren't designed with the intent to kill. Guns are. A mode of transportation is not comparable to a tool designed with the sole purpose of killing.

Also, I'm sorry I'm not participating in the "my e-penis is bigger because I'm expressing e-sympathy" thing.


----------



## EOT

synrgy said:


> Also, I'm sorry I'm not participating in the "my e-penis is bigger because I'm expressing e-sympathy" thing.



What the hell is that supposed to mean?


flint757 said:


> [EDIT]
> 
> People don't 'use' these events in their favor in the sense you are meaning. People who begin attacking gun rights during tragedies are no more for gun rights any other time and some just feel empowered to attempt to prevent it from happening again by asking for change after such tragedies (when something is actually likely to happen versus the other 99% of the time). I know that is a small distinction, but the way you describe it makes it sound shady and it isn't (for the public, can't speak for politician's). It is ultimately a noble cause even if misguided in others' eyes.



That's what I was saying... 

Anyway, I don't really want to continue with this nonsense. There's no way for either side to "win" the argument. People think what they think and aren't likely to change there opinion. They usually see there side and only there side.


----------



## ss22

A few years ago I might have gotten impassioned about this issue but now, sadly, I'm resigned. No number of deaths, either in a single instance or cumulatively, will change a thing. Not 100, not 1,000, not 1,000,000. The US has an entrenched culture of firearms worship as enshrined in the holy gospel of their constitution. They will continue, now and forever more, to live and die by the sword (or gun, as it were).


----------



## Watty

that short guy said:


> More people are killed by cars a year than by guns, do you want to pass laws that make cars illegal.... didn't think so.



Really!? Do you ride your gun to work?

Someone needs to make a meme for this now.


----------



## that short guy

synrgy said:


> As has already been discussed, that is an invalid argument. Vehicles aren't designed with the intent to kill. Guns are. A mode of transportation is not comparable to a tool designed with the sole purpose of killing.
> 
> Also, I'm sorry I'm not participating in the "my e-penis is bigger because I'm expressing e-sympathy" thing.


 
I very well could be wrong about this due to the very little time i spent looking it up, but the gun's original purpose was to make it easier to hunt for food. but like i said I didn't spend too much time researching so if I am wrong please let me know. 

And you'll have to forgive me bro, I'm extremely tired and my brains moving pretty slow right now but I don't get your "e-penis" comment. please either PM me and explain it or just do it on here lol.


----------



## synrgy

that short guy said:


> I very well could be wrong about this due to the very little time i spent looking it up, but the gun's original purpose was to make it easier to hunt for food. but like i said I didn't spend too much time researching so if I am wrong please let me know.
> 
> And you'll have to forgive me bro, I'm extremely tired and my brains moving pretty slow right now but I don't get your "e-penis" comment. please either PM me and explain it or just do it on here lol.



Wasn't directed at anyone specific. Just like I was saying earlier, I'm not getting the admonishment being tossed around the net to people who aren't participating in the false sympathy. 

I mean, any reasonable person will obviously find this a terrible tragedy beyond comprehension. Trying to pretend there's some imaginary period of time during which we can't discuss the ramifications if the action or the cause behind it seems misguided, to me, let alone proposing the idea that others who want to discuss these matters instead of e-mourning are somehow "wrong" for feeling however they feel. Everybody processes tragedy in their own way, and I don't appreciate the implication that I don't care about what happened just because I'm not pretending to cry about it. Like I said the first time, we can't very well have an honest discussion about what happened if the cause is off limits. That's all.


----------



## potatohead

that short guy said:


> More people are killed by cars a year than by guns, do you want to pass laws that make cars illegal.... didn't think so.


 
Listen. You are the nine billionth person on planet earth to make this RIDICULOUS argument. Only children believe this. 

CARS SERVE A PURPOSE OTHER THAN KILLING SOMETHING. Every single gun ever made was built with the sole intention of killing something, be it a human, a deer, etc. 

A person can kill someone with anything they want. A gun is the easiest and most efficient way, and serves no other purpose.


Edit - Should have read this page looks like a bunch of guys jumped on this already


----------



## potatohead

ss22 said:


> A few years ago I might have gotten impassioned about this issue but now, sadly, I'm resigned. No number of deaths, either in a single instance or cumulatively, will change a thing. Not 100, not 1,000, not 1,000,000. The US has an entrenched culture of firearms worship as enshrined in the holy gospel of their constitution. They will continue, now and forever more, to live and die by the sword (or gun, as it were).


 
The only way it will change, is to grandfather it in. You can't simply ban guns and take them from people. You CAN enact new laws for applicable new generations and slowly change the mindset that way. It will take 100 years, but it's something. 

Switzerland and Israel both have high gun ownership because of the military service their citizens perform, but they are kept at home and locked up. Same thing here, it's easy enough to get a handgun but if you are ever found with it out of your home and not on the way to or from the range with it locked in the trunk, say goodbye to your gun.


----------



## Watty

EOT said:


> You missed the point... The gun did not kill anyone. The deranged madman with no respect for human life did. If he didn't have a gun he would've used something else. A bomb maybe? A chemical weapon of some sort? In the end it doesn't matter. Crazy, deranged people will always find a way. Liberals in particular always point to the gun as being the problem when it's in fact the person. The only way to completely stop this sort of thing would be if the movie "Timecop" were a reality.



The human pressed a "button," the gun fired, and a child died. Would we not be less cavalier with our intentions if it were the case that pressing that button did nothing? I've said that people suck, which you reiterated; this does not excuse the fact that the ease of use of the gun prompted some of instigation for the behavior in the end..

So, if we remove the ease by which these individuals CAN act on their violent proclivities, then why not do so? And again, you have to KNOW HOW to make a bomb (that will actually do anything). You have to KNOW how to mix chemicals in such a way that will kill people in a given situation. A gun requires neither of these. All you need if what you already have: money, a US DL (I assume?), and time for the permit to go through. If you hadn't noticed, most of America has these requirements met, whereas perhaps 0.00001% of the world, let alone the country, can make an effective bomb or chemical weapon.



EOT said:


> I just think it's incredibly sad that people always use these tragic events to try and implement some sort of gun ban. You should be mourning. You want to make a difference? How about trying to teach children right and wrong, and respect for human life. As well as trying to recognize and treat mentally unstable people.



I think it's sad that we even have to debate whether or not it's sad. People are dead right now because people are blindly following what should be a living document, one that evolves in parallel with society. And please don't try and refute this by saying its nature is static, we amended it to abolish slavery when we "realized" that it was wrong. Times have changed, and so should we. And yes, teaching children right from wrong should be our highest priority, but "forcing" parents to teach certain things would be stepping on their toes in a fashion INFINITELY more controversial. I'll be the conservatives would have a fucking field day with that one.

"This just in....Breaking news from Bullshit Mountain..."



EOT said:


> Anyway, I don't really want to continue with this nonsense. There's no way for either side to "win" the argument. People think what they think and aren't likely to change there opinion. They usually see there side and only there side.



*their

Religious people do this all the time in arguments (I pay a lot of attention to it which is why I mention it). They'll say that Atheists are close minded, despite the fact that their faith only allows for ONE interpretation of, well, everything. In the context of this argument, you're digging in your heels on the fact that it is a right guaranteed in the 2nd amendment, and everything else is secondary to this fact. Well, I don't deal in absolutes, especially when it comes to innocent people (let alone children) being killed.

I am, however, open to ANY compromise that would make the most sense in the context of our present day society. If that happens to be something like the Swiss model where everyone has mandatory gun training of some sort (at least those in a demographic most likely to commit a crime insofar as the US is concerned) and gun control is strictly enforced, then fine. I think it should be said though, that this isn't likely to eliminate all of these sorts of events, which is the ultimate goal. Thus, there is no argument that you can give me as to why ANYONE can legally own their own arsenal that would be good enough to outweigh the horrors that result from their presence in the general populace. Perhaps it's a bit Utilitarian of me to suggest this, but hey, sometimes we need to consider people other than ourselves when it comes to their possible death. Maybe we could "give up" just this ONE "right" in an effort to alleviate even just ONE life lost.


----------



## that short guy

synrgy said:


> Wasn't directed at anyone specific. Just like I was saying earlier, I'm not getting the admonishment being tossed around the net to people who aren't participating in the false sympathy.
> 
> I mean, any reasonable person will obviously find this a terrible tragedy beyond comprehension. Trying to pretend there's some imaginary period of time during which we can't discuss the ramifications if the action or the cause behind it seems misguided, to me, let alone proposing the idea that others who want to discuss these matters instead of e-mourning are somehow "wrong" for feeling however they feel. Everybody processes tragedy in their own way, and I don't appreciate the implication that I don't care about what happened just because I'm not pretending to cry about it. Like I said the first time, we can't very well have an honest discussion about what happened if the cause is off limits. That's all.


 
Agreed, I don't think this topic should be off limits by any means. My only complaint is that people are focusing too much on the gun and not enough on the man, and what caused him to do it. And if someone gets neg rep'd in this whoever did it needs to get over the fact that someone else has a different opinion. As far as I can tell we're all being polite and curtious of each others opinions and no one is being disrespectful to the victims today.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Jakke said:


> Oh yeah, you'll need the guns for when the damn 'govment turns on you... Please, tell me how handguns are supposed to stop a full military operation. The US military (or any other military) will roll all over you.


 
I dont know, man. If the last few armed conflicts we've been involved with have proven anything, it's that armed civilians can cause some serious grief against a force armed with significantly better weapons, technology and strategies. Mujahadin aren't coming at us in Apache attack helicopters in Iraq, after all.

By pointing that out I'm not saying we should be able to have whatever weapons we want so we can deal with the extremely unlikely case that the government turns its military might on its own citizens, I just felt like pointing it out . In fact, a better argument to use would be "The government is never going to turn its military on the civilian populace, your overparanoid dickbag," not "civilian firearms won't be able to stop the military."



On a lighter note, if the US is just going to keep sticking its head in the sand every time the issue of what to do about gun violence comes up, then perhaps we should consider there's _another_ thing we can ban in order to prevent school shootings...




...SCHOOLS.

BAN ALL SCHOOLS!!!


----------



## sawtoothscream

Randy said:


> Also, so_ your_ proposed alternative is...?



In this situation the only real thing I can see that would have helped would be to have armed guards in the schools or at least a metal detector. If someone wants to kill bad enough they will find a way, if he didnt have a gun im sure he would still have went on a killing spree. What would unarming innocent people do? Look at Australia for example they banned guns and there crime rate increased. 

What do you think should be done?


----------



## Watty

^ Oh, how I do love it when people comment on a serious issue utilizing facts that could be pertinent, but then fall flat because their ability to write coherently is lacking.


----------



## EOT

Watty said:


> Some text about "Bullshit mountain"...



Bombs aren't that hard to make. Look at all of them over in Iraq being made by uneducated, 3rd world people. How many people have been killed or disfigured by these? People will always find weapons...

I never said anything about forcing anybody to do anything. Only that human moral and values have been declining for quite some time. It's only getting worse. That's what needs fixed. 

And what is limiting the kind of gun you can own going to do? Have you looked at California's gun laws? They're pretty damn strict. Last I checked there's no shortage of crime out there. Saying people shouldn't be able to own certain types of weapons is like saying you can only have kitchen knives that are under 3". Or cars with no more than 100 hp. Or houses no more than 1000 sq ft per 2 people... This could go on for days.

You still don't get my point. I'm out. Like I said, people usually only see "their" own opinion as true.


----------



## ss22

sawtoothscream said:


> In this situation the only real thing I can see that would have helped would be to have armed guards in the schools or at least a metal detector. If someone wants to kill bad enough they will find a way, if he didnt have a gun im sure he would still have went on a killing spree. What would unarming innocent people do? Look at Australia for example they banned guns and there crime rate increased.
> 
> What do you think should be done?


 
I respectfully call "bullshit" on that claim about Australia.

The Coalition's gun ban was enacted in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre.

Here are the homicide stats:
















Source: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics


----------



## Jzbass25

I really really don't want to get into this debate mostly from having a terrible migraine but I have to say a few things: (excuse any rambling I may do, this headache is a real head spinner)

1) I don't think society is losing its morals or human values, there has been much worse done in the past, some of which in the name of values and morals. Some blame lack of faith currently as the issue too, I really don't want to get into that argument but I disagree there too. Though I do think mental illness may be increased depending on many variables, 1 being population density, I won't get into the others because they're tedious and debated

2) I do not think the public should have access to just any sort of guns unless possibly they pass some form of rigorous testing but I see no point unless there is some reason a need for militia(but if the government turns on us we won't be fighting long once they decide to jam the missiles up our asses). The prime directive of a fully automatic weapon is killing each other, sometimes in large numbers or to make your odds of hitting your foe higher. A hunting rifle can be used for killing humans sure, but it isn't as quick at killing and no one actually hunting for sport or for food is going to use an automatic weapon to kill their prey. "Well I killed our meal but the meat is ruined and full of holes."

I also think just to own a gun you should need a permit and have to at least have a thorough mental evaluation. Some will debate that if they really wanted a gun then they'd get one, sure that may be the case but we sure can narrow down the scope if we make it a little more tedious to get a weapon, at the very least it can attach your face to the weapon. Not everyone has the ability to find black market guns even if they are mentally unstable, that may even be a hindrance on their ability to buy guns under the table.

Obviously nothing is 100% since horrible people always will exist until either a) tom cruise starts working for a precrime division, b) modern medicine cures it all or c) We all die out probably by our own stupid, selfish hands fighting over some pointless patch of land

We can't look at a tragedy like this and say well there's nothing we can do about gun crimes in general because that isn't true, there is something we can do about gun crimes but there may not be much we can do against tragedies short of having armed guards literally everywhere (cops don't have the ability to be everywhere at once)


----------



## flint757

EOT said:


> What the hell is that supposed to mean?
> 
> 
> That's what I was saying...
> 
> Anyway, I don't really want to continue with this nonsense. There's no way for either side to "win" the argument. People think what they think and aren't likely to change there opinion. They usually see there side and only there side.



I know. The way you originally said it though sounded more devious than what it really is. We are all working at a common goal from different angles.



that short guy said:


> Agreed, I don't think this topic should be off limits by any means. My only complaint is that people are focusing too much on the gun and not enough on the man, and what caused him to do it. And if someone gets neg rep'd in this whoever did it needs to get over the fact that someone else has a different opinion. As far as I can tell we're all being polite and curtious of each others opinions and no one is being disrespectful to the victims today.



I asked a couple posts back, but no one answered. 

Did anyone ever get his motive?



Grand Moff Tim said:


> I dont know, man. If the last few armed conflicts we've been involved with have proven anything, it's that armed civilians can cause some serious grief against a force armed with significantly better weapons, technology and strategies. Mujahadin aren't coming at us in Apache attack helicopters in Iraq, after all.
> 
> By pointing that out I'm not saying we should be able to have whatever weapons we want so we can deal with the extremely unlikely case that the government turns its military might on its own citizens, I just felt like pointing it out . In fact, a better argument to use would be "The government is never going to turn its military on the civilian populace, your overparanoid dickbag," not "civilian firearms won't be able to stop the military."
> 
> 
> 
> On a lighter note, if the US is just going to keep sticking its head in the sand every time the issue of what to do about gun violence comes up, then perhaps we should consider there's _another_ thing we can ban in order to prevent school shootings...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...SCHOOLS.
> 
> BAN ALL SCHOOLS!!!



The Middle East isn't the best example because they have home field advantage and mountains. We have an uphill battle over there.



EOT said:


> Bombs aren't that hard to make. Look at all of them over in Iraq being made by uneducated, 3rd world people. How many people have been killed or disfigured by these? People will always find weapons...
> 
> I never said anything about forcing anybody to do anything. Only that human moral and values have been declining for quite some time. It's only getting worse. That's what needs fixed.
> 
> And what is limiting the kind of gun you can own going to do? Have you looked at California's gun laws? They're pretty damn strict. Last I checked there's no shortage of crime out there. Saying people shouldn't be able to own certain types of weapons is like saying you can only have kitchen knives that are under 3". Or cars with no more than 100 hp. Or houses no more than 1000 sq ft per 2 people... This could go on for days.
> 
> You still don't get my point. I'm out. Like I said, people usually only see "their" own opinion as true.



The people in the middle east making bombs are not morons and are trained to make bombs. Your average joe in america won't be so lucky as far as practice and access to knowledge. The people who handle bombs typically lose a couple fingers as well so there are plenty of deterrents for people to even bother making bombs. Gun's are easy and contain no risk to the user. Even if it wasn't too hard to make one it is certainly harder than point and shoot.

As for Cali, it is surrounded by pro-gun states so it isn't surprising that they have crime/gun problems even with their laws. Also, bordered quite nicely to Mexico as well. It isn't the legislation that is the issue it is the open door. You start closing some of those doors and things begin to work themselves out.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

flint757 said:


> The Middle East isn't the best example because they have home field advantage and mountains. We have an uphill battle over there.


 
The US has mountains, too . Besides, hunting down armed resistance in cities is just as difficult and dangerous for a military as hunting them down in the mountains. 

We have homefield advantage here, too. An invading military force won't know the lay of the land better than the locals, even if that military force is from the same country.


----------



## Winspear

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Taking guns away from legal civilian owners would mean only psychopaths and the criminally intent would have (illegal) access to firearms, as it is in the UK, where most firearms are illegal.



I see this as an incredibly common viewpoint - but honestly, how often do these things happen in the UK? I recall just one in my lifetime, a couple of years back. Might be wrong.

Of course, criminals still have access to guns over here and there is gang violence just the same. But it doesn't seem to be the criminals that we need to worry about. 99% of these incidents are seemingly normal non-suspicious people who have access to a gun because it's legal, and suddenly lose their shit. Luckily, most normal people suddenly losing their shit in the UK don't have access to a firearm. There's only one way to look at it in my opinion - whether or not citizens around me are armed, if I have a gun in my pocket I can pull it out and kill at_ least_ one person before anything is done about it. So fix the law and get that gun the fuck out of my pocket


----------



## flint757

Grand Moff Tim said:


> The US has mountains, too . Besides, hunting down armed resistance in cities is just as difficult and dangerous for a military as hunting them down in the mountains.
> 
> We have homefield advantage here, too. An invading military force won't know the lay of the land better than the locals, even if that military force is from the same country.



fair enough 

I think we are safe for now either way...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

flint757 said:


> I think we are safe for now either way...


 
NO WAY MAN! NWO ROTHSCHILD DAVID ICKE! TRUST NO ONE!


----------



## TRENCHLORD

The UK has about 1/6 the population of the USA. If you sectioned off 1/6 of the USA, and only looked at that section, then it would also appear to happen much less often.

What are the gun laws like in Norway where that guy mowed down dozens of kids?
(I've no idea what their laws are BTW)


----------



## flint757

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk

Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | guardian.co.uk

Here's the data. Make of it what you will, it is arguably inconclusive. Texas and California have the highest rate of gun crimes/ownership, but I think that also has a lot to do with how close we are to Mexico and not just guns/legislation. On the national chart mexico is the closest country with a way worse statistic for gun homicide. Something that could definitely be correlated. If you look at the state map most of the guns and the related crime are worse the further south you go it seems so it is definitely a possible correlation.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Texas and California are the perfect demonstration that gun laws/or lack thereof aren't the problem.
The state with the most relaxed laws, and the state with the toughest gun laws, and they are both a mess of gun violence.


----------



## Jakke

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I dont know, man. If the last few armed conflicts we've been involved with have proven anything, it's that armed civilians can cause some serious grief against a force armed with significantly better weapons, technology and strategies. Mujahadin aren't coming at us in Apache attack helicopters in Iraq, after all.



It's a good point. The Mujahedin would have been defeated though quite a long time ago if they did not have a constant refill of fighters from Pakistan and Somalia (mainly), I don't think that Canada and Mexico would send fighters if the US government went full retard




Grand Moff Tim said:


> By pointing that out I'm not saying we should be able to have whatever weapons we want so we can deal with the extremely unlikely case that the government turns its military might on its own citizens, I just felt like pointing it out . In fact, a better argument to use would be "The government is never going to turn its military on the civilian populace, your overparanoid dickbag," not "civilian firearms won't be able to stop the military."



I'm going start using that one

I just have to ask, you as a born american, how comes some segments of the US population are so paraniod about their own government?



Ok, over to the rest of the thread. The argument "Well, he would just have found another way to kill all those people" does not hold up. Basically everywhere else in the western world has stricter gun control than the US. Are we having killing sprees with... What were those examples? Oh yes, paper clips, rocks, knifes, strangulation, dirty pipe bombs, and bombs.

- We don't? But then maybe....

Then maybe that argument is horseshit. You have an extreme homocide rate in the US, and also the laxest gun laws. *Please, look past this as a partsisan issues, and please follow the smoke.* The gun control people are not an evil kabbal hellbent on banning all your guns, they just want to possibly reduce people getting *killed*.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Jakke said:


> The Mujahedin would have been defeated though quite a long time ago if they did not have a constant refill of fighters from Pakistan and Somalia (mainly), I don't think that Canada and Mexico would send fighters if the US government went full retard


 
The US also has a population ten times larger than Iraq, so it'd probably take a bit longer before we ran out of homegrown resistance than it took in Iraq.

It's more interesting to think about what _official_ international aid the American public would get if the government lost its mind. Do you figure the UN would send peacekeeping troops to the US under those circumstances? NATO? _Anyone_? 




Jakke said:


> I just have to ask, you as a born american, how comes some segments of the US population are so paraniod about their own government?


 
No idea, really. I'm sure I could sit and speculate about it, but since I _don't_ think it'll ever happen, it'd be pure conjecture.


----------



## anthonyferguson

I'm absolutely shocked and appalled by the news. I heard while driving home last night, and am totally lost for words as to how the families might be feeling.

Regarding comparing meth and firearms, I think that it's naive to use this as an argument for the legalisation of guns. Meth-amphetamine is incredibly addictive, and however much GAS you might have for a new gun, guitar, car, whatever, it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect as heroin or meth or any other highly addictive drug. With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to say guns should never have been legal in the first place, but we are all children of our time and things that seem like common sense to us now were probably dismissed as preposterous had they ever been suggested at the time the second amendment was made.


----------



## flint757

Well back then I imagine no gun would mean struggling to survive.

And jakke the paranoia is a slow build up. Someone tells you something everyday and people start believing it. The NRA calls people up during election time saying "Obama is gonna take your guns". What happens? People go our in droves and buy as many as they can afford and sales go up by a large margin (but they're looking out for you ). Some people have let others control their actions unintentionally. Same with politics; Both sides are fighting to convince us the ship is sinking so they can have our vote and they can 'fix' the problem. Same thing happens in journalism too. That bath salt 'zombie' thing sparked dishonest journalism and writers seeking far and wide to find correlated stories to up their viewer count. Chaos sells, simple as that.


----------



## Jakke

Grand Moff Tim said:


> The US also has a population ten times larger than Iraq, so it'd probably take a bit longer before we ran out of homegrown resistance than it took in Iraq.
> 
> It's more interesting to think about what _official_ international aid the American public would get if the government lost its mind. Do you figure the UN would send peacekeeping troops to the US under those circumstances? NATO? _Anyone_?



Yeah, not to mention that all afganis are not supporting the Mujahedin, but I am sure most americans would object to being shipped to FEMA camps (or whatever).

It's an interesting problem. What I would predict first is splintering in the resistance, we will have socialists going in one direction, religious guerrillas in one and the secular and moderate resistance going one, we will probably also see the neo-nazis forming a movement, as this is an opportunity for them to usher in the council-based dictatorship that most of these groups seems to want to have. We will also probably see a sharia-motivated muslim movement, even though it's hard to predict how big it would be. That group would however probably get a lot of support, in ways of both arms and soldiers, Al Quaida have a history of sending fighters to places where there is Jihad, and I suspect the majority of the world's muslim nations not in NATO would support them with materials.

The US has a permanent seat on the Security Council with the right of veto, which would make it possible to veto any official interventions from the UN's side. It is possible for the EU to send people, however, I'm not sure if we'd have a military collaboration between the EU nations, or even a standing EU military force. We probably will, but that's just a probably. A possibility is of course that NATO loyalties are greater than EU ones, and in that case we'd lose the bigger European military powers, such as Germany and France.

I would imagine that China and Russia would see a chance here to circumvent the Security Council, and I could very well see a Afghanistan-type situation, that is that the resistance has rabbited up into the woods and that they are being supported by Russian and Chinese arms, Chinese support will probably go first and foremost to the marxist and socialist groups.

I could also see that the mexican drug cartels would see this as an opportunity to seize parts of the United States, and they would probably be pretty harsh with anyone from the population objecting to the new management.


This is all very hypothetical of course, since the rest of the world with nuclear weapons would, at the first sign of batshittery, send a communiqé along the lines off:
"You lay the fuck off, or we will turn Washington into a fucking scorched desert. If you don't think we're serious, just fucking try us. We have had it up to here with you, and believe us, it would be a relief to bomb you back to the radioactive stone age" 
And then they would blow up Greenland for emphasis.


----------



## SenorDingDong

I think this tragedy was a perfect example of the media's vastly competitive nature taking precedence over even accuracy of event coverage. News stations were quite literally pointing fingers from one brother to the other, making up casualties, and doing practically whatever they could to act as if they had more information than other news channels. 

Instead of bitching about guns, I'm going to gripe about our country's media; besides being a joke, it has gotten to a point where it is now offensive to see them scrambling for threads of a story and simply pulling what they don't have out of their asses and representing it as fact. More than anything, it is entirely disrespectful to the families who lost loved ones. They care more about the story than they do about those involved. It's nothing new, but it's just as sickening as ever.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Gotta get dem ratings, yo!


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY

RustInPeace said:


> Gun laws prevent shootings? Please, tell me more about how criminals follow laws.



im sorry for quoting this so late but this thread got really big really fast lol. 

iv never understood why some people say this, its not about criminals suddenly following the law because of some change in our gun laws, its the thought that anyone or everyone around you has a gun and can take you out the second that you pull out your gun and use it to cause harm to innocent people.


----------



## fps

TRENCHLORD said:


> The UK has about 1/6 the population of the USA. If you sectioned off 1/6 of the USA, and only looked at that section, then it would also appear to happen much less often.
> 
> What are the gun laws like in Norway where that guy mowed down dozens of kids?
> (I've no idea what their laws are BTW)



Norway has been discussed, if anything the calls for gun regulation in Norway are now even greater than they were before. It was a complete one-off, and they are still looking at making it harder to own more weapons. In the US these kinds of things have happened about 25-30 times in the past decade. 

The gun crime stats for the UK and US per capita were posted earlier, by me, what you said about the UK is completely wrong I'm afraid, the gun crime per capita is much much lower.

Since mass murders almost always seem to be committed with guns, doesn't it make sense to take action against the things that ARE happening rather than shrugging and saying *theoretically something else could happen*?


----------



## synrgy

Good read with lots of verifiable/sources data: Washington Post



> When we first collected much of this data, it was after the Aurora, Colo. shootings, and the air was thick with calls to avoid politicizing the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for dont talk about reforming our gun control laws.
> 
> Lets be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. Its just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.


----------



## vstealth

Im not sure if it would work in America but introducing strict gun laws in Australia has meant there hasnt been a shooting massacre since 1996. It probably would work after some time but there is the issue of what to do with the people who already own guns.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

fps said:


> what you said about the UK is completely wrong I'm afraid


 

The only thing I said about the UK is that they have a population that is 1/6 that of the US.

So I'm afraid I was right.

I also said that if our population was 1/6 of what it is, that these crimes would likely happen not nearly as often.

Once again my statements are not false.


----------



## flint757

Statistically we do have higher gun crime by ratio. That being said I agree that if our population was smaller (and realistically we aren't all equal, so percentages don't necessarily shrink equally) we'd have less crime overall.

We shall never know...


----------



## chickenxnuggetz91

synrgy said:


> That's crap. A concerned citizen shooting/killing somebody _after_ they've shot and killed other people is moot. If nobody had the guns in the first place, nobody would have been shot/killed. If the point is to save lives, arming _everyone_ is the worst possible idea anyone could conceive.



You kind of missed the point. Criminals don't follow the law. The kid wasn't old enough to own a firearm, but had one anyway. I live in a dangerous part of Mississippi. I like to think that if someone busted up into my house with the intent of hurting my family I could protect them. I realize that other countries are happier with where they live, but here people take their anger out on their neighbors, but not just with firearms.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Home invasions and public shootings are slightly different. More lead thrown ups the possibility of injuring bystanders. I like guns and all but in practice, arming everyone would go poorly.


----------



## chickenxnuggetz91

fps said:


> Hi Ryan, thanks for your response. I have considered the other side of the coin, the argument is that nutters with guns open fire and kill people, and it's solved by more guns, but that involves a lot of people dying in the first place. How successful was the armed response here? Is this incident a success in terms of armed response, with those children dead? Should teachers have access to guns? What for safety in terms of children getting hold of them then? The problem seems to be all the guns.
> 
> If no-one had a gun the nutter wouldn't be firing in the first place. Check out British gun control and how many gun crimes there are. You've gotta think *What kind of country would we want to be* and start working towards that, somehow, no matter how small the first steps.



You have a point for the UK. However, in the USA, at least where I live, there are legitimate gangs who never follow the law. The only thing stopping them from busting up into everyones house is the fact that we are crazy rednecks with guns who know how to aim. It's scary knowing that there is a possibility that my right to bear arms, as a law abiding citizen, will be taken from me and that law breaking criminals will still have them, because they obtain them illegally in the first place.

Also, the kid in Connecticut was not of a legal age to own a firearm. Connecticut already has strict gun laws. This did not stop him. The victims were teachers and kids. KIDS DON'T HAVE GUNS! I'm not saying they should, but as far as your argument saying that an armed response wasn't successful doesn't mean much. Kids are defenseless. When do teachers think, "I need to carry a gun"? They expect the day to go just like any other.

Yes, this is a tragic incident, but it happened at the wrong place. The only people who are saying that we should have no guns are the ones who don't have to face the threat of a criminal everyday. Obama (no, I'm not Republican) can easily say that we need to get rid of guns, because he is protected by people with guns. They won't have their guns taken away. Neither will the gangsters in Jackson. One, because the police don't do shit around here. Two, because they are GANGSTERS!

Now, I will bombard you with a few cliché's. 
If guns kill people, then why don't people die at gun shows.
If guns were illegal.... then criminals and tyrants would possess them all.
How is taking away everyone else's rights going to stop people who are not legally supposed to have a firearm?
Since we're thinking of making guns illegal, why don't we make meth and pot illegal.......oh, wait.

I'm not picking on you. I'm just making my points to everyone that thinks making guns illegal is going to solve safety issues. These anti-gun laws may work in the UK, but I live in the southeastern part of United States. I need my gun.


----------



## chickenxnuggetz91

Konfyouzd said:


> Home invasions and public shootings are slightly different. More lead thrown ups the possibility of injuring bystanders. I like guns and all but in practice, arming everyone would go poorly.



I'm not saying we should arm everyone. No one ever did. I don't know where people get off saying that we think everyone should carry a gun. That is not the case, because not everyone should obviously. Home invasion and public shooting are not different. A criminal bust up into my house with a gun, he obtained illegally while it is legal to own firearms. He should have gone through the process like us law abiding citizens do to get one. He didn't because he doesn't obey the law. That's why he's trying to murder my family in the first place. I like to think that I can protect my loved ones and myself. 

What happened in Connecticut was unexpected. Usually when things like this happen in the south they usually hire security to people who need the job. Automatically, violence in schools drops. Got a guy who just left the military and needs a job? Give him a security position in a school. This would also discourage drug deals in the bathrooms. But, you didn't hear that from me.


----------



## flint757

Obama hasn't really stood against gun rights.

While I agree some areas are loaded with crime (like where I go to school) and a gun could very well be the only thing stopping them in your area, you can't be absolutely certain and as such come off as more paranoid than anything.

If there were no guns (not advocating that position, but setting the scenario) it isn't like there aren't other ways to defend your home. Like people have said over and over in this thread everything in your house is a weapon. Plus, if your area is that bad you should probably get an alarm system. Yes, the cops won't get there in time, but it is a deterrent and also means they can't make off with everything in your home. If your at home the alarm system will go off if someone busts in too which again will deter some of the supposed crime.

If crime is really that bad in your area what stops them from breaking into your house mid day? Me thinks you're exaggerating a bit.


----------



## Konfyouzd

My bad. Your point is more that we shouldn't take them from everyone just because folks can't handle thr responsibility (obviously a nicer way of putting it). With that I can agree. At the same time I own many guns and have more or less never needed them for anything but target practice.


----------



## Watty

chickenxnuggetz91 said:


> Home invasion and public shooting are not different. A criminal bust up into my house with a gun, he obtained illegally while it is legal to own firearms. He should have gone through the process like us law abiding citizens do to get one. I like to think that I can protect my loved ones and myself.



1) I'll assume you're a responsible gun owner.
2) You keep your gun locked in a safe, with the key "hidden."
3) You keep your ammunition in a separate location whether locked or no.
4) Thief breaks in and threatens you in the space of 15 seconds.

Remind me how having a gun locked away in a safe, which is the only real way to store it without a freak accident, will provide you ANY recourse at all in a home invasion? Take for example the craigslist killing over a diamond ring (happened within walking distance of my house). Man shows up with a gun to rob him after agreeing to pay. He may have owned a gun, but didn't expect trouble and so didn't think to "have it ready." He's now dead.

A thief is never going to allow you the time to "level" the playing field, so this argument is completely moot in all of its forms.



chickenxnuggetz91 said:


> What happened in Connecticut was unexpected. Usually when things like this happen in the south they usually hire security to people who need the job. Automatically, violence in schools drops.



There have been something like 8 mass shootings in the last 8 years. This is now an occurrence that is far from "unexpected." The who, what, where, and why might be up for grabs in any case, but people are people and thus these things will continue to happen. There's no need for us as a society to make it easier for the perpetrator to do so.


----------



## chickenxnuggetz91

flint757 said:


> Obama hasn't really stood against gun rights.
> 
> While I agree some areas are loaded with crime (like where I go to school) and a gun could very well be the only thing stopping them in your area, you can't be absolutely certain and as such come off as more paranoid than anything.
> 
> If there were no guns (not advocating that position, but setting the scenario) it isn't like there aren't other ways to defend your home. Like people have said over and over in this thread everything in your house is a weapon. Plus, if your area is that bad you should probably get an alarm system. Yes, the cops won't get there in time, but it is a deterrent and also means they can't make off with everything in your home. If your at home the alarm system will go off if someone busts in too which again will deter some of the supposed crime.
> 
> If crime is really that bad in your area what stops them from breaking into your house mid day? Me thinks you're exaggerating a bit.



You are right. Obama has not, as of yet, straight up said we need to get rid of guns. I was just saying it would be easy for him to say. I am paranoid. I'm weak and defenseless. True, I could use anything else in my house as a weapon. But what good is a kitchen knife against a handgun? I'm not Crocodile Dundee. Alarm system? My dogs are do a pretty good job. Also, like you said, the cops would not get there in time. People do break into houses midday here. When did I ever say they only broke in at night? I exaggerate? You should see the news from Jackson. You're from Houston, right? I would have expected the problems to be much worse.

Bottom line. I want to keep my gun for my family's protection and my own. However, it's not like I jump for the gun safe every time there is a knock on the door or when the dogs bark.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Gun safety courses warn against underestimating an attacker w a knife. Some ppl can't aim from 3 yds away. If you think you might die anyway you might as well try.


----------



## chickenxnuggetz91

Konfyouzd said:


> Gun safety courses warn against underestimating an attacker w a knife. Some ppl can't aim from 3 yds away. If you think you might die anyway you might as well try.



I have better chances with a gun. You own guns. Do you want those to be illegal? Or are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Not trying to talk down on you.


----------



## Konfyouzd

I have a machete too and know my house better than a potential attacker. I also live alone and think ab these things rather regularly. I have no reason to be paranoid. My guns are for sport first and foremost and defense in the absolute worst case scenario. I also own dogs AND a home security system. 

You can have my guns. They won't make or break me.


----------



## chickenxnuggetz91

Konfyouzd said:


> I have a machete too and know my house better than a potential attacker. I also live alone and think ab these things rather regularly. I have no reason to be paranoid. My guns are for sport first and foremost and defense in the absolute worst case scenario. I also own dogs AND a home security system.
> 
> You can have my guns. They won't make or break me.



I know I'm about to sound like a crazy redneck/ right wing nut job. Here's all I can think. They take the guns. Ok. Now let's entertain the notion that we live in a world where criminals can't get guns even if they want them. So they use knives and machetes to chop little kids up. People cry out, "KNIFE BAN". Am I being far-fetched?


----------



## Konfyouzd

That's a similar point to one myself and others have attempted to.make earlier in the thread.


----------



## chickenxnuggetz91

Konfyouzd said:


> That's a similar point to one myself and others have attempted to.make earlier in the thread.



You have your own point of view. So far I can't quite tell where you stand. I usually don't speak out on political issues, because well...fuck I really couldn't give a shit what or who someone marries. If a woman wants to abort her unborn child, that's her right to make that decision. But, I feel the need to make a stand on this. I'm grateful however, I can at least discuss this with people who won't tear me to shreds just for having a different opinion. Glad there is a forum of patient, open-minded people here.


----------



## Konfyouzd

My position is that ppl think there's a definite solution to ending violence and no matter what people do or don't have they'll do what they have to to achieve the desired results. Been saying that for several pages now. I don't gun control as *the* issue. People need better SELF control. No number of bans on objects will stop ppl from doing bad things. They're bad people.

I also don't feel I'm necessarily safer w a gun. I can still be killed. I just have the peace of mind of knowing I *could* defend myself which I can do with or without a gun. If someone breaks into your house to take things and has a gun and you don't, material possessions aren't worth your life. Let em fuckin have it.


----------



## lurgar

Konfyouzd said:


> I also don't feel I'm necessarily safer w a gun. I can still be killed. I just have the peace of mind of knowing I *could* defend myself which I can do with or without a gun.



At least you understand that a gun is not holy protection against "bad guys." Too many people just on my Facebook friends list think that more and more guns is the answer. I'm sure they're envisioning a scenario from a comedy movie where a bad guy walks in dressed like a bad guy and acts in a very bad guy manner. As he announces his presence, he slowly draws a gun out all dramatically and then before he can even finish, the camera zooms out and he has 15 guns pointed back at him. Haha, what a silly guy. The reality of a situation is that the people doing the shooting aren't that obvious and I cannot imagine that in a life or death situation that more people with itchy trigger fingers looking for a shooter while themselves holding out guns would come out as a very good scenario. 

Also, weren't a lot of people recently talking about how teachers are overpaid and had too many benefits? It's tangential, but I find it appalling that we can demonize teachers and their unions and then turn around and lift them up as heroes after a tragedy. Perhaps we should give teachers hazard pay now that school shootings are a little more common? Just a thought.

Back on topic, I really wish the US could get over it's gun worship so at least we can have a discussion about this topic that may address some shortcomings we have as a nation. I really think that if we could work on addressing how we perceive mental illness and how it's treated (especially through insurance) we might be able to prevent some people from going off the deep end.


----------



## benduncan

i didnt read any of this but heres a point that id like to add, which may have been said

think of all the guns being bought, sold, produced over the decades. if we would have enacted gun laws in the 50s there would be FAR fewer guns in existence here and it would just plain be much harder to get one, less guns in the hands of bad people

MY TWO MOTHER EFFIN CENTS!!!!


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Memo to 'murica: this shit has to stop. Everyone but gun enthusiasts think they are fucking stupid. They are not cool, they do not make you safer and because some guy with a beard way back when thought they were a good idea, does not mean that prevention of the death of thousands of people per year will somehow alter America's identity for the worse.


----------



## Konfyouzd

I'm not an enthusiast and I don't necessarily think they're stupid per se. Now some of the, "I have the right to own a deadly weapon bc others might," fear mongering is a little silly though. America never outgrew "cowboys and indians" in some places it seems.


----------



## craigny

As a parent, words cannot express how terrible i feel for those who lost loved ones or children. As a parent there is no greater horror. My heart goes out to the victims and anyone affected in this SENSLESS act including the poor children and adults who survived and that had to witness such a horrible thing.

IMO the big problem is how violent society has become...espically here in the US, im not going to even get into the whole gun debate, i know where i stand on that and i really dont need anyone else to know and nor would they care.....to me it has to start with changing peoples programing, violence is accepted and glorified in some instances...we need to start at the root of the problem. We are losing our way people. This is becoming a scary world to live in, and i fear the kind of world my children, or childrens children will live in when they get older. Again my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims.


----------



## flint757

chickenxnuggetz91 said:


> You are right. Obama has not, as of yet, straight up said we need to get rid of guns. I was just saying it would be easy for him to say. I am paranoid. I'm weak and defenseless. True, I could use anything else in my house as a weapon. But what good is a kitchen knife against a handgun? I'm not Crocodile Dundee. Alarm system? My dogs are do a pretty good job. Also, like you said, the cops would not get there in time. People do break into houses midday here. When did I ever say they only broke in at night? I exaggerate? You should see the news from Jackson. You're from Houston, right? I would have expected the problems to be much worse.
> 
> Bottom line. I want to keep my gun for my family's protection and my own. However, it's not like I jump for the gun safe every time there is a knock on the door or when the dogs bark.



My point is most robberies don't happen when you're home so you owning a gun wouldn't stop the event from occurring. Actually, if you own a gun and keep it in house and someone breaks in then you not only didn't prevent the incident, but gave a criminal a gun(s). 

It's like a few people have been saying, even if there is an incident most of the time you aren't going to be carrying so you're just as 'defenseless' as any one else. If you do have it, unless you have the instincts of the cowboys of old you'll have a gun in your face before you can grab the gun. If that is the case going for the gun would be suicide. Not worth it. 



craigny said:


> As a parent, words cannot express how terrible i feel for those who lost loved ones or children. As a parent there is no greater horror. My heart goes out to the victims and anyone affected in this SENSLESS act including the poor children and adults who survived and that had to witness such a horrible thing.
> 
> IMO the big problem is how violent society has become...espically here in the US, im not going to even get into the whole gun debate, i know where i stand on that and i really dont need anyone else to know and nor would they care.....to me it has to start with changing peoples programing, violence is accepted and glorified in some instances...we need to start at the root of the problem. We are losing our way people. This is becoming a scary world to live in, and i fear the kind of world my children, or childrens children will live in when they get older. Again my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims.



This is going to sound rather old fashioned, especially given my more 'progressive' leanings, but I think things started going down hill when families became working families and a generation being raised mostly by the internet. Everyone I knew when I was a kid who was in trouble all the time had no parents at home pretty much ever. It isn't such a big deal when a child is in their more 'grown up' stage, but I find that it creates an emotional disconnect with younger kids sometimes.


----------



## vstealth

So what action is taken after all these shooting massacres? Tt had only been a few days since the mall shooting now this. 

As soon as brevik when on that massacre in norway, they immediately started reviewing the gun laws and tightening them even more so there, a place where it is already difficult to acquire a gun legally. As soon as the port arthur massacre took place in Australia in 1996 (you could easily buy a rifles without even possessing a gun license in certain parts of Australia back then) they tightened gun laws too and guess what? Hasnt been a shooting massacre in Australia since 1996. Anyone with even a minor criminal offense has their firearms revoked, the drummer in my band had only a minor shop lifting offense as a kid and they took his rifles. Aquiring a gun in Australia is such a long and difficult process, it deters anyone but the proper enthusiast. 

Its just such bullshit and I really feel sorry for the American citizens who fall victim to this shit, even if tightening gun laws is not the answer, something has to be done about it.


----------



## vinniemallet

I feel pretty bad for what happened yesterday, I don't have kids but losing a parent is pretty hard, and killing children is like the worst thing ever. There's 3 things I fucking hate: raping, pedophiles and child killers. Ofc the biggest problem is the law about guns, correct If I am wrong but in some states of US you guys can buy guns without any psych exam or shooting lessons etc right? And btw I doubt the gun law is going to change on USA, no offense but USA based on their history is a country of "cowboys", values like private property, patriotism like defend your nation and country are pretty important and taked really serious, so I doubt something gonna change about it, also guns is a big industry like any other and give millions and millions of profit. RIP for the victims yesterday.


----------



## TheDivineWing22

I only read the first 3-4 pages of the thread, so maybe this has already been brought up.

I think one of the key elements in issues like this is the stigma associated for people who have mental disorders and other mental issues. People who potentially have problems do not wish to seek help, or don't know who to turn to. Whether this is due to fear, embarrassment, or just lack of knowledge, I don't know. People don't like thinking there is something wrong with them, don't like being called "nut jobs" or whatever. I think this is a key issue that needs to be addressed more than gun control. Unfortunately, however, I do not have any suggestions on how to fix this. Maybe it can't be.


----------



## fps

TheDivineWing22 said:


> I only read the first 3-4 pages of the thread, so maybe this has already been brought up.
> 
> I think one of the key elements in issues like this is the stigma associated for people who have mental disorders and other mental issues. People who potentially have problems do not wish to seek help, or don't know who to turn to. Whether this is due to fear, embarrassment, or just lack of knowledge, I don't know. People don't like thinking there is something wrong with them, don't like being called "nut jobs" or whatever. I think this is a key issue that needs to be addressed more than gun control. Unfortunately, however, I do not have any suggestions on how to fix this. Maybe it can't be.



This is a very good point. It's another one that involves a cultural shift in perception, I think.


----------



## tacotiklah

Here's a quote from Morgan Freeman on the subject that gives voice to EXACTLY how I feel about these shootings:

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

- Morgan Freeman



Gun control is putting a bandaid on much larger and more disturbing issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having more stringent requirements for owning a gun, but going on and on about it as THE solution to these tragedies isn't the answer either. Maybe we should take that funding and put it to better use by providing better mental health care for people since these emotionally disturbed people are gonna attack others regardless of what weapon they have in their hand. If there was ever a reason for us to maybe look into better healthcare and treatment for people that are disturbed, that reason happened back in 1999 when two psychos with a inferiority complex shot up a goddamn high school. Everything after that was a horrific reminder that we kept failing our kids' health and safety by allowing petty politics and squabbling to get in the way of implementing any kind of lasting safeguards or meaningful therapy for kids that are bullied or tortured in school. I see arguments time and again how people need to just "suck it up" when they get fucked with in school. It's not like how it used to be; kids these days will fucking snap and kill everything they see. 

I guess my point is that all these "hot button issues" are connected. We tell kids to fuck off when they're bullied, we skimp on affordable healthcare (which includes proper mental healthcare), we lax up on gun/weapon control, we skimp on funding schools (which would include better training of/more security, as well as proper conflict resolution training of students and better school counseling for people that have issues), we allow misinterpretations of freedom of press and freedom of speech to cause a sensationalism of people that are involved in shootings so that it perpetuates a bloody cycle of copy-cats that want to make a name for themselves, and we allow playing politics to be put above resolving ANY of that shit.

So who is responsible for killing all those kids? Everyone. I include myself in this. We let those poor children die because there was so many times that we could have done SOMETHING to intervene and didn't. We got complacent with our own bullshit lives and didn't do anything that could have helped.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

I don't think there's a source pointing that quote to Freeman, but I agree with it 100%.


----------



## tacotiklah

Well here's what I've found so far on it in terms of source:
Morgan Freeman's food for thought regarding the Sandy Hook shooting - Portland Celebrity | Examiner.com


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Well I was keeping an eye on Snopes, and they're saying there isn't any source for it yet.

snopes.com: Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary SChool in Newtown, Connecticut


----------



## tacotiklah

Gotcha. Well even if he never said those words, the fact of the matter is that they ring 100% true for me; regardless of who said it.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

ghstofperdition said:


> Gotcha. Well even if he never said those words, the fact of the matter is that they ring 100% true for me; regardless of who said it.



I agree fully. I was just trying to point that tidbit out. 

But I wouldn't be surprised if he said something like that.


----------



## flint757

Completely agree, the media is fucked up in every way possible. Not even just for incidents like these either. I remember when someone failed at making a car bomb awhile back. What did the news do? Told everyone what he did wrong and made fun of the wannabe terrorist. Well that's a great idea, lets motivate him and tell him what he did wrong.


----------



## Mayhew

American news is fucked. It has gone so far off track from providing facts, information and telling the story to becoming sensationalized reality as entertainment. Watch the Canadian coverage for comparison. It is handled with the respect this type of situation calls for. Provide the facts about a terrible situation and move on with the news. It doesn't need any embellishment to heighten the emotion. Splashing giant graphics with evocative words on screen, scary music and children's first hand accounts for ratings is fucking disgusting. Some of the little kids they interviewed were still smiling and happy as they recounted what happened because they aren't even emotionally capable of understanding and processing the reality of the situation (thank god). I changed the Chanel after that.

The only picture they could come up with was from 2005 when the guy was 13 and it was on every Chanel, every tv special coverage. I found that sad.


----------



## flint757

I got in the car twice today and iheart radio recounted a few details half a dozen times and told me to go to their website for more details. Fuck them. It's depressing/sad enough without it being shoved in my face for a few extra clicks.


----------



## Korbain

Thoughts and prayers to everyone involved in this. What a huge waste of life, kids that were no older than 7 and teachers, what a fucked up world we live in. 

No matter what the reasons are, i will never understand what would make someone want to kill children, teachers, or anyone in cold blood. 

Will still be curious to see why this all happened though.


----------



## narad

ghstofperdition said:


> Gotcha. Well even if he never said those words, the fact of the matter is that they ring 100% true for me; regardless of who said it.



But it carries so much more weight when you automatically read it in his voice! If I ever release a fake quote after a shooting I'll attribute it to James Earl Jones.


----------



## chickenxnuggetz91

Konfyouzd said:


> My position is that ppl think there's a definite solution to ending violence and no matter what people do or don't have they'll do what they have to to achieve the desired results. Been saying that for several pages now. I don't gun control as *the* issue. People need better SELF control. No number of bans on objects will stop ppl from doing bad things. They're bad people.
> 
> I also don't feel I'm necessarily safer w a gun. I can still be killed. I just have the peace of mind of knowing I *could* defend myself which I can do with or without a gun. If someone breaks into your house to take things and has a gun and you don't, material possessions aren't worth your life. Let em fuckin have it.



Ahhh......I get what you're saying now. What you say is very true.


----------



## fps

Konfyouzd said:


> My position is that ppl think there's a definite solution to ending violence and no matter what people do or don't have they'll do what they have to to achieve the desired results. Been saying that for several pages now. I don't gun control as *the* issue. People need better SELF control. No number of bans on objects will stop ppl from doing bad things. They're bad people.
> 
> I also don't feel I'm necessarily safer w a gun. I can still be killed. I just have the peace of mind of knowing I *could* defend myself which I can do with or without a gun. If someone breaks into your house to take things and has a gun and you don't, material possessions aren't worth your life. Let em fuckin have it.



Do you think people should also be allowed to own automatic weapons if they want? And if not, why not?


----------



## Korbain

narad said:


> But it carries so much more weight when you automatically read it in his voice! If I ever release a fake quote after a shooting I'll attribute it to James Earl Jones.



agreed lol when i was reading it i was picturing morgan freeman saying it, nothing beats that guys voice. As everyone said, even if he didn't say it, it's god damn true!


----------



## Konfyouzd

vinniemallet said:


> I feel pretty bad for what happened yesterday, I don't have kids but losing a parent is pretty hard, and killing children is like the worst thing ever. There's 3 things I fucking hate: raping, pedophiles and child killers. Ofc the biggest problem is the law about guns, correct If I am wrong but in some states of US you guys can buy guns without any psych exam or shooting lessons etc right? And btw I doubt the gun law is going to change on USA, no offense but USA based on their history is a country of "cowboys", values like private property, patriotism like defend your nation and country are pretty important and taked really serious, so I doubt something gonna change about it, also guns is a big industry like any other and give millions and millions of profit. RIP for the victims yesterday.



I can buy a gun VERY easily in VA. I think I had to wait 20 min to acquire a shotgun. I can acquire handguns prettt easily too without a license or shooting lessons. Creepy.


----------



## Konfyouzd

fps said:


> Do you think people should also be allowed to own automatic weapons if they want? And if not, why not?



Never thought ab it. That's not really a problem where I live. But whether they're allowed to have them or not, if they want them badly enough they'll get them.


----------



## fps

Konfyouzd said:


> Never thought ab it. That's not really a problem where I live. But whether they're allowed to have them or not, if they want them badly enough they'll get them.



But do you think people should be legally allowed to have them? Right to bare arms and all?


----------



## Konfyouzd

The right to bear arms thing gets misinterpretted and blown out proportion a lot. I couldn't care less if others own them or not. You can get some very large capacity semi autos and you can get off MANY rounds with a semi auto fairly quickly; learned that after spending some time at the range.

Automatics more than likely up the potential number of casualties but part of me feels like it might just be splitting hairs if we can agree that mental "instability" is the problem.


----------



## fps

Konfyouzd said:


> The right to bear arms thing gets misinterpretted and blown out proportion a lot. I couldn't care less if others own them or not. You can get some very large capacity semi autos and you can get off MANY rounds with a semi auto fairly quickly; learned that after spending some time at the range.
> 
> Automatics more than likely up the potential number of casualties but part of me feels like it might just be splitting hairs if we can agree that mental "instability" is the problem.



There is no single issue, there is a large group of issues, of which mental health problems can cause an urge to kill, and guns are the means by which that urge can be fulfilled. To reiterate, mental instability (and that in itself is a gross oversimplification of myriad unrelated things, kinda like saying *body injury* as a catch-all for anything that happens to the body) can cause an urge to kill large groups of people, but that's only possible if there is a tool available that allows a mentally unstable person to do so, and that tool, time after time, is a gun. It's important to look at the things that HAVE happened, rather than wave a hand and say *oh they'd do something else otherwise*. That something else can be tackled later but it's clearly more difficult to do than getting a gun, cos that's what they do now, so you're creating an obstacle that could save lives, so more families don't have to suffer like this. 

Why are automatic weapons not allowed legally? All legal guns are being kept in a cabinet with the ammo somewhere else and are used to do a bit of hunting or go down the gun club occasionally by utterly sane people right? Or in self-defence. So why is there a problem? The second amendment is held on to hard as the reason that guns should be allowed in the hands of anyone in America who wants one, it's one of the key battle cries politically against any further regulation of gun ownership, so it's a big deal. 

Perhaps just be guns from 1791 and before should be allowed?


----------



## Konfyouzd

fps said:


> There is no single issue, there is a large group of issues, of which mental health problems can cause an urge to kill, and guns are the means by which that urge can be fulfilled. To reiterate, mental instability (and that in itself is a gross oversimplification of myriad unrelated things, kinda like saying *body injury* as a catch-all for anything that happens to the body) can cause an urge to kill large groups of people, but *that's only possible if there is a tool available that allows a mentally unstable person to do so*, and that tool, time after time, is a gun. It's important to look at the things that HAVE happened, rather than wave a hand and say *oh they'd do something else otherwise*. That something else can be tackled later but it's clearly more difficult to do than getting a gun, cos that's what they do now, so you're creating an obstacle that could save lives, so more families don't have to suffer like this.
> 
> Why are automatic weapons not allowed legally? All legal guns are being kept in a cabinet with the ammo somewhere else and are used to do a bit of hunting or go down the gun club occasionally by utterly sane people right? Or in self-defence. So why is there a problem? The second amendment is held on to hard as the reason that guns should be allowed in the hands of anyone in America who wants one, it's one of the key battle cries politically against any further regulation of gun ownership, so it's a big deal.
> 
> Perhaps just be guns from 1791 and before should be allowed?



There are SO many possible tools. And yes I'm aware that mental illness is vague. That was the intention. There could be any number of reasons a person decides they wanna hurt themselves or other people and I think that trying to understands these reasons as opposed to simply letting them be and taking away anything with which these people might hurt themselves or others is a more effective use of our time. If you disagree that's fine, but I really don't want to keep going back and forth on what I see to be the same subject with different examples...

In winter time or perhaps a place that is typically very cold a large coat wouldn't necessarily be suspicious now would it? And folks have been known to strap bombs to themselves and go into public places with the intention of taking out of a lot of people. Far be it for me to think that w/o guns something like this is still very possible. Let the gun thing go... If you don't like them that's fine, but I don't think the gun itself is what's making people want to kill. There's something else driving them to pick up a gun and do what they do with it. You kill the snake by cutting off the head.


----------



## fps

Konfyouzd said:


> There are SO many possible tools. And yes I'm aware that mental illness is vague. That was the intention. There could be any number of reasons a person decides they wanna hurt themselves or other people and I think that trying to understands these reasons as opposed to simply letting them be and taking away anything with which these people might hurt themselves or others is a more effective use of our time. If you disagree that's fine, but I really don't want to keep going back and forth on what I see to be the same subject with different examples...



You miss the point. I cite real events, everyone else is citing hypothetical events that DO NOT EXIST. *Oh well they COULD do this.* Well they don't. When a lone person decides to kill a crowd of people, he (always he) uses guns. Guns guns guns! I am citing real things that have actually happened. You are suggesting things that might happen. They are not the same, your things are NOT REAL. This isn't a back and forth, it's me giving concrete examples of things that have happened and then other people apparently not being able to distinguish real things from things they imagine.

And again, it's not an either/or, BOTH, BOTH is the answer.

We're going round in circles because my points are not being answered. They are being deflected.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Good lord...

Okay you win. I just don't fuckin' care anymore...


----------



## fps

Konfyouzd said:


> Good lord...
> 
> Okay you win. I just don't fuckin' care anymore...



No, I want a debate. I want you to answer my points properly. Why would you think just one thing is the answer to this problem to the exclusion of all else? You should care, and of COURSE you care. Everyone cares. And they should be asking themselves what are ALL the things that could have been done to prevent this from happening? And the pattern is men with guns walking into places and shooting people.

By the way the paper I'm reading says the guns were legally owned by this guy's mother, who he lived with.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Clarification: I don't care about this debate anymore because you already have your mind made up. This is now pointless. Probably the reason we're the only two people even posting in this thread anymore. I'm out...


----------



## fps

Konfyouzd said:


> Clarification: I don't care about this debate anymore because you already have your mind made up. This is now pointless. Probably the reason we're the only two people even posting in this thread anymore. I'm out...



The guns used belonged to the guy's mother, legally. What other conclusion can be drawn than that if she didn't have them he wouldn't have been able to do this on this day, and there is the possibility the whole event would not have happened? There need to be more stringent checks on guns, who owns them, and who gets to have them, definitely.


----------



## Konfyouzd

The fact that if he didn't have that gun available and really wanted to hurt someone he still could have found a way. Maybe it wouldn't have been a shooting at a school due to logistics but the lack of that particular tool is not going to stop someone from hurting other people is that's how they really feel. Please stop making me repeat myself. Read your own thread.


----------



## vstealth

^ Although what you are saying is true, and I agree that without access to guns this guy could still do some damage as they are only elementary school children after all, there is a pretty big jump in lethality between a cutting/bludgeoning weapon/fists etc and a firearm.


----------



## Konfyouzd

I never specified the weapon and also said that it may not have been the same situation at all without the gun but it wouldn't have stopped him from hurting people. But let's just take your example... 

If he'd bludgeoned/stabbed/sucker punched just ONE child/person/whatever... Is that better? Fuck no...

Why not try to understand what it is that makes people want to hurt others instead? I can't help but think that perhaps *some* people didn't get the proper nurturing growing up and that *sometimes* they'll take that out on people that had nothing to do with it because of either some false association they've made in their mind, a complete lack of reasoning altogether or something somewhere in between.

Whatever the case, I couldn't care less whether or not we're "allowed" to have guns. I just don't think taking them away will keep people from finding ways to take people out.

Folks have planted bombs before...

Strapped bombs to themselves...

Make home made throwable/plantable explosives... 

Drive your car into a crowd (based on what I see in traffic on a daily basis they seem to just be handing out driver's licenses too)... 

Some of these have been brought up before, and I realize that they're less common, but I feel like that's only because there's what most would consider to be a quicker, more effective means of completing the task. That said, with the most effective gone, the next effective becomes the go-to move... 

It might also be interesting if we just outlawed "concealed" weapons. In other words, everyone must open carry. 

On the one hand... YES... Criminals will still conceal; that's a no brainer. But maybe if they saw the number of people in that area that DID have guns they'd be slightly less ballsy. That or they'd continue to prey on areas where they know the majority wouldn't have one, like a school. 

I just really don't think that a person sick enough to open fire on children would be any less likely to do something crazy if he'd had to choose another tool.


----------



## Greatoliver

Konfyouzd said:


> I just really don't think that a person sick enough to open fire on children would be any less likely to do something crazy if he'd had to choose another tool.



I think the issue is that guns are very damaging - you just pull a trigger and someone dies. If you have a knife, it is more personal as you have to be closer, and is arguably harder to kill someone. I agree that removing guns won't stop things like this from happening, but it does make it more difficult to commit such an atrocious act.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Point has been made and considered several times over... Saying it again and again isn't going to change the fact that I strongly believe people will just find another way if it's really what they want to do... 

There are people who abduct people and chop them up in a basement... Some of them end up killing a shitload of people before they get caught/turn themselves in because no one can find them. Equally atrocious. Why go after just one type of atrocity? And I find it hard to believe that the people close to these folks didn't notice that they were somewhat disturbed. It just seems weird. Then again you always hear the story, "He was so nice... I just don't know why he--"


----------



## The Norsemen




----------



## Jzbass25

Most people accept that if you really want a weapon to do something bad with, you will get it. Why is it still a debate to make acquiring a gun more in depth (or "harder") so that we can fully assess who the hell is buying said gun and why. Most sane people calling for gun regulation (that I know at least, and being at one of the biggest schools in the world, I know a lot of people) are simply trying to minimize the amount of crazies who own a gun and in states without permitting requirements we want to put a name and a face behind the gun to maybe make someone take some responsibility with their gun. Why does this scare people who own guns, we aren't taking guns away unless you're not stable enough to own one. I own a gun but it is locked away until I go camping somewhere where I need a gun to defend myself against animals.

If we do a good mental evaluation that may minimize not just the amount of mentally ill people with guns but also minimize gun violence from domestic disputes. Obviously, like I've said before, some can just lose it after the evaluation but that isn't an argument against any sort of regulation/testing, that is just something that can happen when guns are readily available and while humans are still dumb angry assholes. Maybe a test renewal would need to happen every few years to cut down even more but I would need to find or conduct some studies to see the optimal time frame for that. Again, minimizing gun violence is the name of the game, there is no stopping humans from hurting other humans, only minimizing. 

I feel like some better regulation of guns is a great middle ground, but we aren't getting anywhere with the party split in America with the us against them mentality. 

Removing guns entirely would lead to a probable optimal minimization of domestic violence and things of that nature but I'm not entirely for that and most of my friends and colleagues aren't either, maybe we're just stuck in our old ways though. Though I'm not going to use my gun to defend myself against another gun, it leads to a standoff of scared apes and whichever one is more scared will probably pull the trigger first. The statistics even proof that sort of thing happens.

All of this is just fear, I won't go into how outrageous some peoples' fears are because I can't change that but I will say that fear lately in america is from all the fear mongering on both sides and sensationalism of the media.


----------



## Konfyouzd

> Point has been made and considered several times over...





The Norsemen said:


>


----------



## wlfers

fps said:


> You miss the point. I cite real events, everyone else is citing hypothetical events that DO NOT EXIST. *Oh well they COULD do this.* Well they don't. When a lone person decides to kill a crowd of people, he (always he) uses guns. Guns guns guns!



Los Angeles Times bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wall Street bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George Metesky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ted Kaczynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

about a minutes worth of e-investigating brought up many more.


----------



## Watty

Konfyouzd said:


> Point has been made and considered several times over... Saying it again and again isn't going to change the fact that I strongly believe people will just find another way if it's really what they want to do...
> 
> There are people who abduct people and chop them up in a basement... Some of them end up killing a shitload of people before they get caught/turn themselves in because no one can find them. Equally atrocious. Why go after just one type of atrocity? And I find it hard to believe that the people close to these folks didn't notice that they were somewhat disturbed. It just seems weird. Then again you always hear the story, "He was so nice... I just don't know why he--"



Dude, obviously we know now that you feel strongly about the issue. And that's fine. However, when it gets to be that 1 out of every 3 posts are yours reaffirming that people will always find a way to do violence, I think you can bow out or offer a new argument. And we're "going after" one type of atrocity because it's so common and requires little to no skill. Sure, someone could plan out bombings/killings/etc in the vein of "Law Abiding Citizen," but at the end of the day, the gun represents the greatest percentage of violent crime when considering how easy it is to use and get ahold of.



athawulf said:


> Los Angeles Times bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Wall Street bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> George Metesky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Ted Kaczynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> about a minutes worth of e-investigating brought up many more.



Uh, I think that ANY police department in the nation could present you with a room full of reports filed on violence done by guns. Bringing up 40% of the notable bombings in the last century won't do much to help your case, especially given the reasons already discussed as to why bombing is not as feasible a means to kill people for the general populace.


----------



## wlfers

fps said he cites real events, and made it seem that mass violence is achieved through almost exclusively the usage of firearms. so I provided him with a handful of real events. 

we're not talking about single victim homicide are we now? i was clearly responding to 



fps said:


> When a lone person decides to kill a crowd of people, he (always he) uses guns.



which clearly isn't true. so yes, bringing up mass attacks carried out by bombing certainly is relevant whether or not you personally think that method isn't feasible. keep an eye on the context of the discussion.


----------



## wlfers

Jzbass25 said:


> I feel like some better regulation of guns is a great middle ground, but we aren't getting anywhere with the party split in America with the us against them mentality.



I agree with parts of your post, and I attribute it to the political climate where any concession is viewed as failure. During the discussion about the assault weapons ban, hunters gave in because they'd maintain their hunting rifles and accesories and that left a sour taste in the mouth of other gun owners who owned semi-auto rifles that "looked naughty".

On the other side the gun control folks view any concession as also failure. Here in California we have some of the most convoluted and outlandishly stupid gun legislation that does nothing for the safety of it's citizens. They picked out firearm attributes that look "scary" or names that are "scary" and started to ban them instead of implementing any reasonable gun control that entailed education and safety. They won't concede that most of them really don't know what they're talking about so they're nit picking over visual features- not conceding over completely trivial nonsense like a forward vertical handgrip on a centerfire semi auto. 

Also since they foolishly banned by make, you cannot buy a colt AR15 or a kalashnikov 47, but you can own a rifle of the same type. Saiga for example makes the same ak47 receiver with an altered trigger assembly in russia. Just throw a bullet button on a rifle with a "pistol style" handgrip (if it has a removable magazine) and you're good to go.

I view this as an analogy for the greater firearms issue in America, neither side is willing to concede anything for the greater good of the nation, no matter how dangerous or legitimately uninformed their viewpoint is.


----------



## fps

athawulf said:


> fps said he cites real events, and made it seem that mass violence is achieved through almost exclusively the usage of firearms. so I provided him with a handful of real events.
> 
> we're not talking about single victim homicide are we now? i was clearly responding to
> 
> 
> 
> which clearly isn't true. so yes, bringing up mass attacks carried out by bombing certainly is relevant whether or not you personally think that method isn't feasible. keep an eye on the context of the discussion.



It's a fair point to be bring up counter-evidence when I was that specific with my point. Point taken, there are other methods that people have used. A timeline like this A Timeline Of Mass Shootings In The US Since Columbine | ThinkProgress suggests in any case, action can surely be taken on both fronts? I was stunned that someone tried to use the example of 9/11 as *evil does what evil does*, and didn't advocate any kind of restrictions on guns, given the amazing number of extra checks now added to airport security in America, and also a no-fly zone for unapproved planes that extends into Canada, I think I read somewhere (please correct if wrong). The point being, action was taken to prevent it happening again. 

The killer's guns were, according to the paper I'm reading, legally owned by someone who he lived with. In basic terms surely everyone in a given house should have a licence to be in a house that has a gun. Is this already the case, does anyone know? I don't, if someone can enlighten me that would be great.


----------



## flint757

athawulf said:


> On the other side the gun control folks view any concession as also failure. Here in California we have some of the most convoluted and outlandishly stupid gun legislation that does nothing for the safety of it's citizens. They picked out firearm attributes that look "scary" or names that are "scary" and started to ban them instead of implementing any reasonable gun control that entailed education and safety. They won't concede that most of them really don't know what they're talking about so they're nit picking over visual features- not conceding over completely trivial nonsense like a forward vertical handgrip on a centerfire semi auto.



You know the one thing I notice is that the biggest issue with banning anything in particular is that it removes the responsibility so they no longer teach you about safety and proper practices. I relate this similar to abstinence being tought in schools. What does this accomplish? The schools not teaching students about safe sex at all (because they aren't having it, right ). This leads to high rates of pregnancies and other things we should want to avoid as a society.



fps said:


> It's a fair point to be bring up counter-evidence when I was that specific with my point. Point taken, there are other methods that people have used. A timeline like this A Timeline Of Mass Shootings In The US Since Columbine | ThinkProgress suggests in any case, action can surely be taken on both fronts? I was stunned that someone tried to use the example of 9/11 as *evil does what evil does*, and didn't advocate any kind of restrictions on guns, given the amazing number of extra checks now added to airport security in America, and also a no-fly zone for unapproved planes that extends into Canada, I think I read somewhere (please correct if wrong). The point being, action was taken to prevent it happening again.
> 
> The killer's guns were, according to the paper I'm reading, legally owned by someone who he lived with. In basic terms surely everyone in a given house should have a licence to be in a house that has a gun. Is this already the case, does anyone know? I don't, if someone can enlighten me that would be great.



Not everyone has to have a license. Would be impossible if you had children. What they should require, though, is that everyone in the home get taught gun safety and if there are children in the house add a special safety course for the owner as well. If the gun is in the home then everyone should be taught the proper safety practices.



Konfyouzd said:


> I never specified the weapon and also said that it may not have been the same situation at all without the gun but it wouldn't have stopped him from hurting people. But let's just take your example...
> 
> If he'd bludgeoned/stabbed/sucker punched just ONE child/person/whatever... Is that better? Fuck no...
> 
> Why not try to understand what it is that makes people want to hurt others instead? I can't help but think that perhaps *some* people didn't get the proper nurturing growing up and that *sometimes* they'll take that out on people that had nothing to do with it because of either some false association they've made in their mind, a complete lack of reasoning altogether or something somewhere in between.
> 
> Whatever the case, I couldn't care less whether or not we're "allowed" to have guns. I just don't think taking them away will keep people from finding ways to take people out.
> 
> Folks have planted bombs before...
> 
> Strapped bombs to themselves...
> 
> Make home made throwable/plantable explosives...
> 
> Drive your car into a crowd (based on what I see in traffic on a daily basis they seem to just be handing out driver's licenses too)...
> 
> Some of these have been brought up before, and I realize that they're less common, but I feel like that's only because there's what most would consider to be a quicker, more effective means of completing the task. That said, with the most effective gone, the next effective becomes the go-to move...
> 
> It might also be interesting if we just outlawed "concealed" weapons. In other words, everyone must open carry.
> 
> On the one hand... YES... Criminals will still conceal; that's a no brainer. But maybe if they saw the number of people in that area that DID have guns they'd be slightly less ballsy. That or they'd continue to prey on areas where they know the majority wouldn't have one, like a school.
> 
> I just really don't think that a person sick enough to open fire on children would be any less likely to do something crazy if he'd had to choose another tool.



Well that is presuming that someone, being unstable as is, would be capable of doing some of the alternatives. If it were possible to remove the guns from all of the mentally ill, there'd probably be a drop in incidents. If bombs really were the second go-to then at least they risk killing themselves before harming someone else.  I really don't think it'd be a 1:1 thing though. I do think it'd help if it could actually be enforced in a proactive way.

While any tragedy is terrible (and shouldn't be compared) it can't be ignored that someone beating up one kid would in fact be the better alternative than 26 dead. Both terrible things that I'd wish on no one, but can not be logically ignored either.

Mental instability is a tough bag of tricks to handle. Mental illnesses are hard to remedy unless the patient wants help in the first place. Therapy doesn't work otherwise.

Medication is an option, but then if you skip or quit taking it your disorder comes back. My friend does this from time to time (bipolar) and gets manic. When she is in this state she is a danger to herself and others, but no one can force her to take her med's either.

There are no simple solutions.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

fps said:


> When a lone person decides to kill a crowd of people, he _*(always he)*_ uses guns.



Ban all men!


----------



## Dooky

Here in Tasmania we had a mass shooting at Port Arthur in 1996. *35* people were killed. 
Weeks after this event the Australian government imposed new gun laws that severely restricted the availability of firearms. Since then, Australia has had 0 mass killings of any kind. So if the argument goes, "if the person doesn't have access to a gun they will find another way to commit mass murder", then how come in the last *16 years *it hasn't happened?


----------



## mr_rainmaker

*Fact: At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 109 wounded and 58 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public&#8212;neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs.)* 


*Fact: Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA&#8217;s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. Note: By the FDA&#8217;s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.* Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR - Nonprofit Mental Health Watchdog 



Psychiatric Drugs and Mass Shootings | 2012


----------



## mr_rainmaker

a interesting read? tinfoil required...

Sandy Hook Shooting &#8211; Discrepancies (not conspiracies&#8230;.. yet) | The Last Refuge


----------



## Jakke

Hey guis... Since criminals don't tend to follow laws.... Why not get rid of all laws then?


I also think we should ban all men.



Morgan Freeman denies making statement about school shooting


----------



## Konfyouzd

Watty said:


> Dude, obviously we know now that you feel strongly about the issue. And that's fine. However, when it gets to be that 1 out of every 3 posts are yours reaffirming that people will always find a way to do violence, I think you can bow out or offer a new argument. And we're "going after" one type of atrocity because it's so common and requires little to no skill. Sure, someone could plan out bombings/killings/etc in the vein of "Law Abiding Citizen," but at the end of the day, the gun represents the greatest percentage of violent crime when considering how easy it is to use and get ahold of.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, I think that ANY police department in the nation could present you with a room full of reports filed on violence done by guns. Bringing up 40% of the notable bombings in the last century won't do much to help your case, especially given the reasons already discussed as to why bombing is not as feasible a means to kill people for the general populace.



I'll change my argument when those coming at me propose a new one. It's been a stalement for several pages. I don't believe that removing guns will help anything. People just think that because it's the most obvious solution whenever you hear that someone has been shot.


----------



## Konfyouzd

flint757 said:


> You know the one thing I notice is that the biggest issue with banning anything in particular is that it removes the responsibility so they no longer teach you about safety and proper practices. I relate this similar to abstinence being tought in schools. What does this accomplish? The schools not teaching students about safe sex at all (because they aren't having it, right ). This leads to high rates of pregnancies and other things we should want to avoid as a society.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone has to have a license. Would be impossible if you had children. What they should require, though, is that everyone in the home get taught gun safety and if there are children in the house add a special safety course for the owner as well. If the gun is in the home then everyone should be taught the proper safety practices.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is presuming that someone, being unstable as is, would be capable of doing some of the alternatives. If it were possible to remove the guns from all of the mentally ill, there'd probably be a drop in incidents. If bombs really were the second go-to then at least they risk killing themselves before harming someone else.  I really don't think it'd be a 1:1 thing though. I do think it'd help if it could actually be enforced in a proactive way.
> 
> While any tragedy is terrible (and shouldn't be compared) it can't be ignored that someone beating up one kid would in fact be the better alternative than 26 dead. Both terrible things that I'd wish on no one, but can not be logically ignored either.
> 
> Mental instability is a tough bag of tricks to handle. Mental illnesses are hard to remedy unless the patient wants help in the first place. Therapy doesn't work otherwise.
> 
> Medication is an option, but then if you skip or quit taking it your disorder comes back. My friend does this from time to time (bipolar) and gets manic. When she is in this state she is a danger to herself and others, but no one can force her to take her med's either.
> 
> There are no simple solutions.



I read a story about a lady whose son had manic episodes and he was always threatening to kill her. It was written in response to the incident we've been discussing. She said it was one of the hardest decisions she'd ever made, but she ended up putting him in a mental institution since he was seemingily such a danger to her at the very least.

I'm not sure that decision is always made soon enough. Sometimes I think that the "kids" are no longer kids by the time those closest to them decide that that's what's best. It has to be tough to do.

In a way just pointing at guns seems like a cop out to avoid dealing with a more difficult problem.


----------



## caskettheclown

Staying out of the gun control conversation if possible.

Its horribly sad that things like this happen in this world.

I think people as a whole need to work together more to help each other grow to be better people while also teaching our kids to kinder and more caring. I'm not saying we should all be "hippies" and that anger is bad. Anger can be a positive thing if used positively and productively. I'm just saying we need to be more willing to spot out the people who need help even if they say the don't. When I was extremely depressed and suicidal, I told people I didn't need help and I was fine but I actually did need help desperately. 
Obviously there are going to be "bad apples" but when we as a whole change the way we live our lives for the better then there will be a whole lot less "bad apples" in this world


----------



## Konfyouzd

*applause*


----------



## Randy

A couple points, since I haven't had a chance to make it back into this thread over the weekend.

What's most frustrating to me is that, yes, there is no black-and-white, single piece of law solution to this but all the "we need to learn to love eachother" "pay closer attention to the mentally insane" comes up every time something like this happens, and is so vague that nothing is implemented to help. It's a convenient segway away from having to do anything.

While, personally, I think the media's done a better job not making Adam Lanza a superstar, I see all over the place, the media cautiously memorializing Nancy Lanza. The woman raised a psychopath and she obviously didn't do enough to protect us from him. She kept weapons unsecured in the house with a dangerous person. For that, she's proportionately responsible for what happened. She was the person closest to him so if "we're all supposed to watch out for one another" and all that crap, she failed in the worst possible way.

So what do we do? Another thing that frustrates me are all the people, across social media and in here as well, that say "well, evil exists and it's unpredictable so let's just accept it and do nothing". No, there are things that can be done but you break down problem bit by bit, so that you can handle them. Personally, yes, I think that means some form of gun control but no I don't think that means an outright ban. As I've said previously in this thread, more responsibility among gun owners to keep their weapons in safes and secured. One option would be regular inspections and if they're not in compliance, their license and their weapons should be taken away. If you're a responsible person and you take care of your weapon because you enjoy them so much, keeping them safe isn't a big deal and you don't have anything to worry about.

With regard to the "crazy people will kill with anything they can get their hands on" angle, fine. As was mentioned about 9/11 earlier in this thread, when those acts occur, we come up with guidelines accordingly (in the example of 9/11, stricter rules at the airport). Obviously there's no such thing as a "one size fits all crazy person and weapon" law that will cover all cases. No matter what, crazy people will exist and murder will happen. But we can reduce it. There are holes in the current system that are exploited regularly and there's nothing wrong with addressing those holes as they expose themselves.


----------



## flint757

Konfyouzd said:


> I read a story about a lady whose son had manic episodes and he was always threatening to kill her. It was written in response to the incident we've been discussing. She said it was one of the hardest decisions she'd ever made, but she ended up putting him in a mental institution since he was seemingily such a danger to her at the very least.
> 
> I'm not sure that decision is always made soon enough. Sometimes I think that the "kids" are no longer kids by the time those closest to them decide that that's what's best. It has to be tough to do.
> 
> In a way just pointing at guns seems like a cop out to avoid dealing with a more difficult problem.



A larger issue too, though, is that most parents will not do what the lady you described did. I'm sure some would, but a lot of parents live in perpetual denial about their kids problems whether they are physical, mental or behavioral. Nobody wants to think their child is broken and as such some choose to ignore it.


----------



## TheDivineWing22

The problem really is the stigma around mental illness/conditions, in my opinion. My girlfriend is in grad school for school psychology, so she knows obviously more than I do about the subject, but sent me two articles written about the shooting, one from the huffington post and the other, a response to the article from a member of the National Association of School Psychologists. I think everyone should take the time to read them both.

I am Adam Lanza's Mother

NASP member's response


----------



## YngwieJ

The Wonkette, which usually writes satire, wrote an interesting piece  on gun control and the absurdity of the arguments gun advocates typically use.


----------



## groph

Bloodbath Salt said:


> The only role for gun control advocates is being a human shield, when the bullets start firing. Hypothetically speaking, if all firearms became illegal to buy or possess, it wouldn't decrease the amount of firearms that already exist. If it were up to me, it'd be legal to carry an RPG for self-defense.
> 
> As for preventing or dealing with random mass murders, is to use ancient Roman forms of punishment. As in, the CO shooter should be publicly tortured/execution, and this guy's body should be mutilated and his head on a pike. The Romans also used the execution of one's entire family as a deterrent.



Good thing it's not up to you.


----------



## mr_rainmaker

*n '95, Holder called for anti-gun info campaign: 'Brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way'*

By Joel Gehrke _December 17, 2012 | 12:23 pm _ 

President Obama promised meaningful action to prevent gun violence, but he didnt explain exactly what that meant. Although a push for some kind of gun control legislation seems likely, theres also the possibility of an anti-gun informational campaign as described in 1995 by then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder. 
Holder, now Obamas attorney general, proposed using various levers of media and pop culture to attach a social stigma to guns, just as smoking has been stigmatized in recent decades. 


One thing that I think is clear with young people and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this, Holder told the Womens National Democratic Club while discussing how to curb gun violence in D.C. Its not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.
To that end, he called for the creative community  those ad agencies that create these snappy ads and make me buy things that I dont really need  to focus on convincing young people that its not acceptable, its not hip to carry a gun anymore. He emphasized that newspapers and television need to devote prime space to these ads.

More From WashingtonExaminer.com


12 Next


----------



## mr_rainmaker

a good read if ya got the time

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf


----------



## flint757

mr_rainmaker said:


> *n '95, Holder called for anti-gun info campaign: 'Brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way'*



Poor choice of words, but he isn't wrong. The idea of guns is ingrained into our society, we are already brainwashed to like them (every action movie ever, video games, what ends up on the news, NRA's clever word play), so the only remedy is to undo it via the same methods (in terms of general perception). Nobody complains when the government does this with meth or heroin. 



YngwieJ said:


> The Wonkette, which usually writes satire, wrote an interesting piece  on gun control and the absurdity of the arguments gun advocates typically use.



Great article that does point out the many fallacies in those very arguments. For once, I enjoyed the additional commentary written after the article as well. 

One of the commenter's pointed out something quite logical. New legislation will not resolve the current amount of guns in circulation. True. What someone responded with, that seems to be overlooked, is that we cannot, at all, resolve that problem without first slowing down/stopping the rate of entrants. You don't empty the water in the boat without first plugging the hole.

People are looking at the problem as a whole when it isn't just one problem. This is a problem that requires taking things a step at a time. That can actually apply to a lot of things currently occurring in politics (like the _'fiscal cliff'_). We are such an impatient society.



> The National Alliance on Mental Illness released State Mental Health Cuts: A National Crisis, a report documenting deep cuts to state spending on services for children and adults living with serious mental illness. These cuts, which occurred between 2009 and 2011, led to significant reductions in both hospital and community services for vulnerable individuals with serious mental illness. And for many the only help they do receive is in their public schools.



This is also something people don't consider. When we lower taxes, cut funding for programs, decide that poor people don't deserve help they can't get on their own, cut funding to education, etc. it doesn't just affect our taxes, the economy and the future economy, but also serves to create more incidents like what just happened. Our decisions have ramifications that many choose to ignore because of the indirect nature that they occur.


----------



## mr_rainmaker

Man Attempts to Open Fire on Crowd at Movie Theater, Armed Off-Duty Sheriff&#8217;s Deputy Drops Him With One Bullet





http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-atte....ith-one-bullet/


----------



## benduncan

mr_rainmaker said:


> Man Attempts to Open Fire on Crowd at Movie Theater, Armed Off-Duty Sheriffs Deputy Drops Him With One Bullet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-atte....ith-one-bullet/



yes, an officer trained to handle that type of situation


----------



## YngwieJ

flint757 said:


> Poor choice of words, but he isn't wrong. The idea of guns is ingrained into our society, we are already brainwashed to like them (every action movie ever, video games, what ends up on the news, NRA's clever word play), so the only remedy is to undo it via the same methods (in terms of general perception). Nobody complains when the government does this with meth or heroin.
> 
> Great article that does point out the many fallacies in those very arguments. For once, I enjoyed the additional commentary written after the article as well.
> 
> One of the commenter's pointed out something quite logical. New legislation will not resolve the current amount of guns in circulation. True. What someone responded with, that seems to be overlooked, is that we cannot, at all, resolve that problem without first slowing down/stopping the rate of entrants. You don't empty the water in the boat without first plugging the hole.
> 
> People are looking at the problem as a whole when it isn't just one problem. This is a problem that requires taking things a step at a time. That can actually apply to a lot of things currently occurring in politics (like the _'fiscal cliff'_). We are such an impatient society.
> 
> This is also something people don't consider. When we lower taxes, cut funding for programs, decide that poor people don't deserve help they can't get on their own, cut funding to education, etc. it doesn't just affect our taxes, the economy and the future economy, but also serves to create more incidents like what just happened. Our decisions have ramifications that many choose to ignore because of the indirect nature that they occur.


All very good points. I don't think banning any type of gun will have an immediate effect in reducing gun-related homicides, but there are many other approaches we can take. As you pointed out, increasing funding for mental health services is one. But even the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973) may have contributed to reducing crime rates, as Steven Levitt discusses in Freakonomics.

But I would go a few steps further and argue that we can do much more to curb homicides and suicides --providing every citizen with healthcare through a single-payer system, subsidized day care, free post-secondary education for all those who qualify and are want to go. And it may sound like these are all costly programs, but they're really not. Single-payer healthcare can save billions that's currently lost in fraud and waste. Free post-secondary education would only cost $30 billion at most, according to Jeffrey Sachs, but save the $35+ billion that the Department of Education already spends in subsidized loans and create a much more educated society and a stronger economy with higher wages.

The best thing we can do to curb crime and gun-related incidents is by eroding the romanticized ideology of gun ownership in the US. These programs can actually help reduce the number of violent criminals in a society by "brainwashing" them into being smarter, healthier, law-abiding citizens by providing them with education, healthcare, etc.


----------



## Randy

mr_rainmaker said:


> Man Attempts to Open Fire on Crowd at Movie Theater, Armed Off-Duty Sheriff&#8217;s Deputy Drops Him With One Bullet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-atte....ith-one-bullet/



Credit where credit is due. Good on Sgt. Castellano for stopping this from getting worse. 

As was said previously, this is a trained "13-year department veteran", not a random vigilante. 


The headline is deliberately sensationalist. Makes it sound like a gunman opened fire randomly in a movie theater and somebody just rose from the audience and blew him away. In truth, the gunman's weapon jammed and he resorted to chasing people around _away_ from the original venue to another one. Clearly something else was wrong with his gun because Sgt. Castellano was able to chase to a more secluded place in the theater before she shot him. 

This scenario is exceptional. If the gunman had better weapons, there would've been a lot more people injured/dead before Sgt. Castellano would've gotten a chance to intervene and even then, there could've been a full on shootout. 

As I said, full credit to Sgt. Castellano but, considering the nature of all your posts in this thread so-far, this headline is put out there to whitewash a very nuanced problem with an exceptional story.

EDIT: This is a better example of how a shotout goes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ing-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html



> New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said all nine bystanders wounded in Friday's Empire State Building shooting had been hit with police gunfire, CNN reported Saturday morning.


----------



## Konfyouzd

I know it seemed we were at odds a few pages ago and perhaps we were. 

I really have no problem with making guns harder to obtain. In fact, I know that would probably be a better idea. I was talking with some friends the other day and I started thinking about the clearance process here in the US for government positions and thought it might actually be a pretty cool idea to implement a similar system for gaining access to a gun.

Rather than the 20 minute wait it took me to buy a gun here, it should maybe just be an application I fill out and actually have to wait until they've done some real investigating. I know in some states you have to wait like a week or so at the least.

Hell... Go ahead and interview my neighbors... Require that I provide personal references beyond friends and family that will gladly lie for me... Etc.

If I'm not planning on doing anything crazy why should there be a time frame in which I need to have it? This way there would be fewer guns, perhaps as some folks might get red flagged and others might just say, "That's to much; eff that."

I'm sure some folks that shouldn't have them based on this new rule would still obtain them, but hopefully that number would be decreased.

My main issue is with people wanting to arm EVERYONE or all out ban them.


----------



## Randy

Konfyouzd said:


> My main issue is with people wanting to arm EVERYONE or all out ban them.



Here's where I take issue with your position throughout this entire thread.

We and pretty much most rational, thinking people can agree with the fact those two extremes will not help anything. The _only_ people who insist that's what we need to be doing are people who's minds are already made up based on their own opinion.

Where I take issue is when you say "my main issue". And I've been hearing a lot of that over the last few days. That's your main issue? It's arguing with the extremes of the spectrum? Everyone so hellbent on chiming into the discussion just to either attack the crazy or defend their position is _exactly_ why the discussion always gets watered down and nothing ends up happening. Also, to paint both sides with the exact same brush lacks the nuance the issue has, IMO.

If, overnight, with the snap of a finger, all guns disappeared or every single person in the United States had a gun... do you think the outcome would be the same? I don't think so. Yes, without taking care of the underlying issues in society, murder would still happen in both worlds but it's kind of obvious that literally every single person having a gun and _nobody_ having a gun would *not* yield the same results.



Konfyouzd said:


> If he'd bludgeoned/stabbed/sucker punched just ONE child/person/whatever... Is that better? Fuck no...



Um, sucker punching one person is no better than murdering two dozen of them? No. That's wrong. That's a very failed conclusion.

That's OT but goes to the frame of mind I have issue with. Yes, neither would be practical to implement but the validity or some of the parts of all ideas can't be given the same credibility. Sorry, that's just like, a huge pet peeve of mine.

For my two cents, the reason to argue against abolishing all guns isn't because "it wouldn't work, at all", it's because it's impractical (in terms of execution, it's impossible whereas "arming everyone" is sadly plausible) and I _do _sympathize with the existence of responsible gun owner (hunters, hobby shooters, etc). That's to say, it's not "a good idea" because it won't fucking happen and not all guns in all circumstances are dangerous. 

Arming everybody is "a bad idea" because it's outrightly fucking dangerous.  It's not as impractical as it just stupid. There's little value in that conclusion. I've already railed about then danger of "armed societies" and paranoia in other threads, so I don't think I need to go there. I mean, the one little nugget of something I can extract from that idea is I guess it goes to the thought that having more readily available response to an attack would help? So, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, more security or faster response times to police, etc.

Another issue I have, with regard to the impracticality of all the ideas that are being passed around, is very few of those ideas would have done anything to prevent this from happening. Taking away CCW? Wouldn't have made a difference. Stricter screening processes with regard to the mental state of the applicant? Wouldn't have made a difference. However, we shouldn't conclude that because most of the ideas that are out there are too extreme/too difficult to implement/wouldn't help or won't "save everybody" we should be apathetic.

I don't purport to have all the answers or even any of them, but I'll submit part of a conversation I had on a parallel thread on MG:



Daemoniac said:


> Can't speak for the rest, but I'm talking about the people (of whom I know more than a few) who literally do want to 'ban all guns'...
> 
> I agree with you on the rest. By all means, own what you want, as long as you're appropriately registered and licensed and have gone through the right channels to prove you are responsible and mature enough to warrant owning them.





Cancer said:


> This is all well and good, but it doesn't make a lick of difference when dealing with stolen weapons. Adam Lanza attempted to go through "the proper channels" and it worked completely. He was barred from buying a rifle, so he stole them instead.





Randy said:


> Would you consider "stolen weapons" to apply to the ones Adam Lanza used? As far as I've read, they were there in his house, out in the open and he was allowed (even encouraged) to use them.
> 
> If I remember correctly, the Columbine shooters got their's from somebody else who bought for them. There are other examples that I can't come up with at the moment, but that seems to be pretty common.
> 
> My point being, there are similarities there. People who either don't have proper training or authorization to own a weapon, finding another party who _is __authorized_ to own guns and handing it off. Even in the case of street/gang/drug crimes, you usually have repeat offenders getting their hands on guns that are either stolen from very irresponsible owners who leave them out in the open or knowingly sell them off and report them stolen.
> 
> The way weapons make it into the hands of dangerous people start at how easy it is for legal owners to pass them off. Perhaps that's where we need to be focusing?



My 

And I'm sorry. I don't mean to be insulting anybody but obviously this situation is a Rorschach test for everyone who speaks to it, and as such, I see a lot of the same arguments popping up that bug me.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Not insulting in the slightest. 

In fact, it was quite well played. And perhaps I owe you a bit of clarification. I got rather caught up in the issue of gun control itself more so than the topic at hand and it appears you remained focused. 

I don't like the extremes of that issue and spent more time arguing against those than something more productive and for that I apologize. 

I do think that analyzing someone's affiliations, interviewing neighbors and even a personal interview could be helpful in the screening process and hopefully weed a few folks out. 

Bc seriously... The last time I bought a gun I walked in, filled out a form, waited 20 min and walked out with a gun and several boxes of ammo. That's scary.


----------



## thepylestory

Being a father of a new born, my heart and thoughts go out to the families of those who have lost someone. 

Regardless of my stance on gun control.....people are going to kill people. 

Numbers and methods dont matter. People are going to kill one another.


----------



## Dooky

thepylestory said:


> Being a father of a new born, my heart and thoughts go out to the families of those who have lost someone.
> 
> Regardless of my stance on gun control.....people are going to kill people.
> 
> Numbers and methods dont matter. People are going to kill one another.



In my opinion, numbers and methods do matter. Assault rifles are designed to kill multiple people quickly and easily. When was the last time you heard of a mass killing in the UK or Australia (where there are very strict gun laws)?


----------



## YngwieJ

I'd say numbers matter. The US has a serious problem with gun violence, and I don't think we can ignore it. So I think it's good that we have this discussion after large tragedies such as the one in Connecticut. But the discussion seems to be mostly centered on preventing tragedies such as this, when it should be about reducing overall violence.

So there are three problems we really need to look closely at before enacting policies.
1. Mass killings - typically carried out by young, white, middle class, educated males who are typically described as socially awkward and deranged. 
2. Individual gun homicides - typically carried out by lower-class, uneducated, young, black males and people who think it's cool to own and flaunt their guns.
3. Suicides - carried out in large numbers by men, of many different age groups and are most often white. 56% of males who commit suicide use a gun, whereas 30% of women use a gun. Interestingly, a Gallup poll from 2011 shows that twice as many men personally own a gun than women.

When a tragedy like this occurs, we tend to lose focus on the problems with violence. The goal shouldn't be to reduce gun violence, it should be to reduce all violence, and there are many ways to do that. For example, suicide rates by age group used to show a trend that older groups committed suicide much more than the young. But when social security payments first started being distributed there was a rapid decline in suicides among people over 65 years of age, and a slight decline in those ages 45-65. But since the 1950s, the suicide rates among people aged 15-40 has grown steadily, and today the suicide rates seems to be about even among all age groups. Did social security cause a decline in suicide rates? Has the increasing personal debt burden (student loans, medical, mortgage debt) caused suicide rates among young people to increase? It's something worth investigating.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of factors that cause people to kill each other and themselves. There are many ways we can go about reducing that, and one of those ways is gun control. I refuse to accept the notion that "people are going to kill one another" and that there's nothing we can do about it. If we were to enact a ban on clip sizes of over 10 rounds, and that saved even one person in the next ten years because it bought someone a few more seconds while the shooter was reloading to get to safety or for someone else to take down the shooter, is that not worth the inconvenience to gun hobbyists and sportsmen? 

What I don't understand is why so many gun owners that I speak to are absolutely opposed to all gun control measures and refuse to even discuss or debate the matter. Political discourse, not apathy, should be the engine of democracy.


----------



## fps

thepylestory said:


> Numbers and methods dont matter. People are going to kill one another.



Numbers don't matter...? What an incredibly heartless thing to say.


----------



## viesczy

fps said:


> Numbers don't matter...? What an incredibly heartless thing to say.



You're missing the point, guns or no guns folks will still kill each other, just with other tools. Look up the Bath School Massacre for an example. No guns there, but still some crazy dipsharts killed a LOAD of kids. The myopia of guns = evil is just astounding. Guns are no more or less evil than a spork. 

To think that by disarming a populace it is safer, it isn't. Laws don't keep anyone safe, they only allow for greater punishment once a crime as been done and the perp is caught. Drugs are pretty much illegal everywhere and there is NO illegal drug trade. Right? 

Since we're all about tossing away liberty, let's look at something like...

Statistically speaking you're more apt to die by a doctor than a gun. Doctors kill more people a year than guns and car accidents combined. Should doctors be banned?

Statistically speaking serial killers are predominantly white males. Should the cops be able to kick down the doors of any and all white males any time they see fit, track any and all white males, deny them access to the internet, and relegate them all to second class citizens? 

Pedophiles seem to be all white guys too, should all white males be forced to have no liberty in the name of safety of children. Cops able to do what they want, when they want to whomever they want on a whim? 

High compression engines mean that cars might go fast and break the speed limit, should those be banned? 

You might say something that offends some lily hearted person, should freedom of speech be banned?

Lemme guess, you'll say no to all those but still say guns should be banned because of what the few might do and no matter what is said there is nothing that will change your mind. 

Here's a few more "truths" you might like if you believe that. The world is flat. Jesus existed, was white, and came back from the dead. 

Once the gov't disarms you, it enslaves you and then it eradicates you if it wants to. Don't believe me? 
What did we do to the Native Americans? The Nazis used our formula to slaughter those 12 million people! 

How about the camps we had for the Japanese Americans during WWII?

We don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem. Too many and too many with defects. 

Derek


----------



## thepylestory

fps said:


> Numbers don't matter...? What an incredibly heartless thing to say.



Dont be so blind.


----------



## thepylestory

Your concerned with numbers? How about Jonestown Massacre? What was the weapon used in that?

Are gun related deaths much much more? Absolutely. Dont think that making fire arms and ammunition illegal will make horrible horrible deaths non existent.


----------



## The Atomic Ass

I'm not going to read through 8 pages to see if it was mentioned, but did anyone hear about the shooting in a Portland, OR mall on the Tuesday before Newtown? Two people were shot before a concealed carrier drew on the shooter, and *without the carrier firing a single shot, the shooter committed suicide*. It could have been as deadly, or more so, (given to how crowded malls can be this time of year) than Newtown, had that carrier not interrupted the shooter.

I wonder how many such incidents occur that we don't hear about at the national level because they are stopped before the shooter can kill anyone.

All of you, claiming gun control is needed, are in need of a reality check. This same kind of tragedy could happen with a knife. And it does. See this, and these. (both are links to Wikipedia) If you could somehow manage to get all of the guns out of private hands, (itself a uselessly futile attempt, no matter the laws, as we see in European countries which have banned guns and yet still have guns all over the streets), they would use knives. Take away the knives, they'll use bats. Take away the bats, they'll use rocks. It will not end. Plus, guns stolen from police - Google Search. Even if you managed to take away all the guns from all private citizens *IN THE WORLD*, it would not end. "Oh, but without guns the death toll would be lower" you cry? BULLSHIT.

All of you clamoring for gun control, and especially those in politics using this incident for political firewood, should be ashamed of yourselves for building your bully pulpit on the graves of the dead. This is an issue of mental health, not guns. It was mental health, in Aurora. It was mental health, in Columbine. It has been mental health in the majority, if not every single mass shooting to happen within my lifetime.

And I'm going to rail on the current mental health system, as well. Most issues of mental health start with the diet. A brain, lacking in certain elements that it needs, and/or taking in chemicals that negatively affect it, will have disorders. PERIOD. A full blood workup should be done on anyone before any counseling should begin, as physical health is mandatory for mental health. Yet this does not occur, and at least in Aurora, we confirmed that drugs were being used to mask the problem. I've a gut feeling we'll hear something regarding medication about the Newtown shooter, I've already just read that he had been to counseling.

To make the previous point a little more personal, I had anger issues when I was younger, which lost me more than one good job. Since changing my diet, I've managed to control my anger, and channel that energy into my work, my playing, or whatever else I may be doing. (Like this post, for example)

tl;dr: Gun control? *FUCK OFF*.

The preceding message was written entirely without intention of using government as a means of improvement in any way. What we need are societal changes, which government cannot provide. Just in case anyone was confused, and thought I had switched sides from my previous comments on this forum.


----------



## narad

viesczy said:


> You're missing the point, guns or no guns folks will still kill each other, just with other tools. Look up the Bath School Massacre for an example. No guns there, but still some crazy dipsharts killed a LOAD of kids. The myopia of guns = evil is just astounding. Guns are no more or less evil than a spork.
> 
> To think that by disarming a populace it is safer, it isn't. Laws don't keep anyone safe, they only allow for greater punishment once a crime as been done and the perp is caught. Drugs are pretty much illegal everywhere and there is NO illegal drug trade. Right?
> 
> Since we're all about tossing away liberty, let's look at something like...
> 
> Statistically speaking you're more apt to die by a doctor than a gun. Doctors kill more people a year than guns and car accidents combined. Should doctors be banned?
> 
> Statistically speaking serial killers are predominantly white males. Should the cops be able to kick down the doors of any and all white males any time they see fit, track any and all white males, deny them access to the internet, and relegate them all to second class citizens?
> 
> Pedophiles seem to be all white guys too, should all white males be forced to have no liberty in the name of safety of children. Cops able to do what they want, when they want to whomever they want on a whim?
> 
> High compression engines mean that cars might go fast and break the speed limit, should those be banned?
> 
> You might say something that offends some lily hearted person, should freedom of speech be banned?
> 
> Lemme guess, you'll say no to all those but still say guns should be banned because of what the few might do and no matter what is said there is nothing that will change your mind.
> 
> Here's a few more "truths" you might like if you believe that. The world is flat. Jesus existed, was white, and came back from the dead.
> 
> Once the gov't disarms you, it enslaves you and then it eradicates you if it wants to. Don't believe me?
> What did we do to the Native Americans? The Nazis used our formula to slaughter those 12 million people!
> 
> How about the camps we had for the Japanese Americans during WWII?
> 
> We don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem. Too many and too many with defects.
> 
> Derek



Shit be cray.


----------



## wlfers

mr_rainmaker said:


> a good read if ya got the time
> 
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



definitely was a good read  thanks for the post. It addressed many of the topics brought up such as violence by country. People here have been posting their personal experience of recent memory "when have you heard of xxx happening here?" yet while violence was and has been declining in America it went up in other countries that pursued strict gun control.


----------



## nickgray

viesczy said:


> Guns are no more or less evil than a spork



I'm sorry, do you _eat_ with a gun? Last time I've checked, guns had pretty much one purpose - to kill humans and other animals, period. It's also a very efficient, easy and fast way to kill.



> Statistically speaking


Statistically speaking, merely owning a gun puts you at a higher risk of pretty much all gun-related violent stuff. You're more likely to get shot, you're more likely to commit suicide, you're more likely to threaten people with a gun and get threatened with a gun yourself, etc.



> Once the gov't disarms you, it enslaves you and then it eradicates you if it wants to.


You're a nutcase. If the US government actually decides at some point that it would be a good idea to "enslave" its population or whatever, you wouldn't stand a chance against them  If shit really hits the fan, then all bets are off, any opposition would simply be wiped out with whatever means.

Honestly, the paranoid delusions some of you US folks have  It might've been a neat idea in the 18th century, the whole second amendment thing, but in the age of biological warfare, tactical air strikes and ballistic missiles, a gun in the hands of a civilian would be about as useful as a spork. Especially considering that US spends more on military than almost the rest of the world combined. Not to mention the utter ridiculousness of such a scenario.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

nickgray said:


> You're a nutcase. If the US government actually decides at some point that it would be a good idea to "enslave" its population or whatever, you wouldn't stand a chance against them  If shit really hits the fan, then all bets are off, any opposition would simply be wiped out with whatever means.
> 
> Honestly, the paranoid delusions some of you US folks have  It might've been a neat idea in the 18th century, the whole second amendment thing, but in the age of biological warfare, tactical air strikes and ballistic missiles, a gun in the hands of a civilian would be about as useful as a spork. Especially considering that US spends more on military than almost the rest of the world combined.



Yup, which is why the vastly superior American military was able to swoop in and swiftly defeat the hostile forces of and end hostilities in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.





nickgray said:


> Not to mention the utter ridiculousness of such a scenario.



No, actually, you _should_ mention that, as it's a *much* more valid response to antigovernment paranoia than "lol you'd lose anyway."


----------



## narad

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Yup, which is why the vastly superior American military was able to swoop in and swiftly defeat the hostile forces of and end hostilities in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.



All scenarios where the intent was to suss out and destroy insurgencies with minimal civilan casualties. It was always the inability to identify and isolate targets that mitigated the superior American firepower. But when a government declares war on its own people history has shown that civilian casualties are not a big part of the equation. When you strip away any accountability, lol, you'd lose anyway.


----------



## flint757

viesczy said:


> You're missing the point, guns or no guns folks will still kill each other, just with other tools. Look up the Bath School Massacre for an example. No guns there, but still some crazy dipsharts killed a LOAD of kids. The myopia of guns = evil is just astounding. Guns are no more or less evil than a spork.



The intent to use an item that is not involved in mass killings to belittle the significance of gun violence makes your argument less viable IMO. In fact, for most people advocating that position, they'd have a lot more credence if they left out the BS slippery slopes all together. 



viesczy said:


> To think that by disarming a populace it is safer, it isn't. Laws don't keep anyone safe, they only allow for greater punishment once a crime as been done and the perp is caught. Drugs are pretty much illegal everywhere and there is NO illegal drug trade. Right?



Exactly, the punishment can be harsher. In fact, if guns were made less accessible, and a police officer saw a man with a weapon he could question said person before something may or may not happen. In the current scenario, especially in a place like Texas, they can't do that because a lot of people carry as is. It would be deemed profiling by the NRA most likely too. And, guess what, crime isn't lower as a side effect either. Go figure. The south overall has looser gun laws and we have an overall higher rate of murder/crime. It also seems too that the death penalty almost seems to encourage murder based on the statistics as well. Isn't relevant, but is interesting (and I'm typically pro death penalty).

It seems that a lot of these things are more from poverty and mental health than anything else. If you are unstable or poor enough that you need to steal, someone carrying isn't going to deter you.

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Crime rates vary greatly across the states. Overall, *New England had the lowest crime rates*, for both violent and property crimes. New England states also had the lowest homicide rates in the country.
> A closer look at per capita homicide rates for each state from FBI Uniform Crime Reports Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that Louisiana's per capita homicide rate has ranked first every single year from 1989 to 2010, which is 22 consecutive years.
> *Southern states had the highest overall crime rates.* Crime can also be isolated to one particular part of a state. Lafayette, Louisiana, for instance had 6 murders per 100,000 people in 2004, while New Orleans, Louisiana, had 56 murders per 100,000 people according to Bureau of Justice Statistics for the same year.[52]
> *Almost all of the nation's wealthiest twenty states, which included northern mid-western and western states such as Minnesota and California, had crime rates below the national average.* In addition to having the country's lowest crime rates, New England states also had the country's highest median household income, while the Southern states have the lowest.



Based on this guns haven't made crime rates better otherwise the North East would be overall worse than the majority of the South. I am, however, aware that it has nothing to do with gun ownership directly. It has to do with poverty, education and the overall wealth of its populace. In the South poverty is higher and education is worse so it makes sense that crime would also be worse. This is a problem that absolutely needs to be fixed.

Texas Crime Rate Drop Indicates Progress



> Significantly, this crime rate drop came while Texas&#8217; incarceration rate dropped 1.45 percent, it closed a prison, and it continued to emphasize alternatives to incarceration for low-level non-violent offenders.



This is also interesting, crime dropped when we reformed our legal system. Again gun ownership had nothing to do with it (just for clarification).

So what's my point? You owning a gun does not lower crime rates and doesn't solve the problem as a society. It doesn't necessarily contribute either, but it doesn't help as much as people have diluted themselves into believing.



viesczy said:


> Since we're all about tossing away liberty, let's look at something like...



It's not a right, it's a privilege. That is notable simply by the fact that to carry certain weapons requires certain paperwork, licensing, etc. and you can't legally buy ANYTHING you want either. It is just like driving, which is also a privilege, not a right. Yet I don't see people like you yelling in the street that someone is being denied their license to drive either (well AARP might be ). 



viesczy said:


> Statistically speaking you're more apt to die by a doctor than a gun. Doctors kill more people a year than guns and car accidents combined. Should doctors be banned?
> 
> Statistically speaking serial killers are predominantly white males. Should the cops be able to kick down the doors of any and all white males any time they see fit, track any and all white males, deny them access to the internet, and relegate them all to second class citizens?
> 
> Pedophiles seem to be all white guys too, should all white males be forced to have no liberty in the name of safety of children. Cops able to do what they want, when they want to whomever they want on a whim?
> 
> *High compression engines mean that cars might go fast and break the speed limit, should those be banned? *
> 
> *You might say something that offends some lily hearted person, should freedom of speech be banned?*
> 
> *Lemme guess, you'll say no to all those but still say guns should be banned because of what the few might do and no matter what is said there is nothing that will change your mind. *



Here goes the slippery slope 

As for cars, there are certain modifications that can make your car no longer street legal (some cars aren't all together) and we do not have absolute freedom of speech as is (hate speech, threats, dangerous situations, at airports, at schools, if you say something that can implicate you in a crime, etc.) so if you are going to build an argument, it should probably be with something that better supports your opinion.



viesczy said:


> Here's a few more "truths" you might like if you believe that. The world is flat. Jesus existed, was white, and came back from the dead.



Ahhh the condescension, how I do love it. 



viesczy said:


> Once the gov't disarms you, it enslaves you and then it eradicates you if it wants to. Don't believe me?
> What did we do to the Native Americans? The Nazis used our formula to slaughter those 12 million people!
> 
> How about the camps we had for the Japanese Americans during WWII?



<puts tin foil hat on>

Totally man. Completely agree!!! 

<takes hat off>

Since incidents like WWII, with the Nazi's and Japanese camps, our law has been significantly reformed. It would not be put up with today at all, also. To think that without your gun you might end up in an internment camp is borderline asinine.

Same with Native Americans, slavery, etc. That was a time when people felt superior to others at a much higher rate than exists today publicly. Doing what people did back then was normal by the standards of the time. Would not fly today...

We can look at the past for guidance, but not as a direct example for what will happen in any given circumstance. History can and sometimes does repeat itself, but not to the level you are insinuating.



viesczy said:


> We don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem. Too many and too many with defects.
> 
> Derek



Completely agree, people are a problem. Not regulating or having certain laws is not the answer though. We can handle both simultaneously; We don't have to choose. Don't actually know why people keep presenting it in such a manner in the first place.


----------



## flint757

thepylestory said:


> Your concerned with numbers? How about Jonestown Massacre? What was the weapon used in that?
> 
> *Are gun related deaths much much more? Absolutely.* Dont think that making fire arms and ammunition illegal will make horrible horrible deaths non existent.



Then doing something about guns would be a good thing. No one here AT ALL has argued that crime would disappear if guns did.



The Atomic Ass said:


> I'm not going to read through 8 pages to see if it was mentioned, but did anyone hear about the shooting in a Portland, OR mall on the Tuesday before Newtown? Two people were shot before a concealed carrier drew on the shooter, and *without the carrier firing a single shot, the shooter committed suicide*. It could have been as deadly, or more so, (given to how crowded malls can be this time of year) than Newtown, had that carrier not interrupted the shooter.



So the carrier did not shoot him? I fail to see a direct correlation. For any argument a hand full of examples doesn't make either side more or less right.



The Atomic Ass said:


> I wonder how many such incidents occur that we don't hear about at the national level because they are stopped before the shooter can kill anyone.



No idea, but with the internet if a multitude of incidents existed I'm sure you could find them. It isn't exactly a conspiracy. Hell, I'd be surprised if things like what you are describing didn't end up on the NRA's main web page. They look for any supporting arguments they can.



The Atomic Ass said:


> All of you, claiming gun control is needed, are in need of a reality check. This same kind of tragedy could happen with a knife. And it does. See this, and these. (both are links to Wikipedia) If you could somehow manage to get all of the guns out of private hands, (itself a uselessly futile attempt, no matter the laws, as we see in European countries which have banned guns and yet still have guns all over the streets), they would use knives. Take away the knives, they'll use bats. Take away the bats, they'll use rocks. It will not end. Plus, guns stolen from police - Google Search. Even if you managed to take away all the guns from all private citizens *IN THE WORLD*, it would not end. "Oh, but without guns the death toll would be lower" you cry? BULLSHIT.



No one has claimed anything different (well someone might have, I'm not paying close enough attention). At the very least I'm not.

To insinuate (using such incidents) that things wouldn't be better is just as ridiculous though. The numbers/fatality of such incidents if knives, bats, shoes, or whatever someone can come up with would be lower than if said person in the same situation had a gun. Always (assuming that it is feasible to do so in each circumstance). 

The only 2 example, off the top of my head, that could match or exceed those numbers would be a bomb or something like 9/11, but after 9/11 we increased regulation and security to the extent that an incident has not occurred since. As for bombs, countries that have incredibly strict gun laws do not have a bomb problem. In fact, in the case that someone was going to use a gun the next thing they'd reach for, most likely, is a knife not a bomb. So again, number of casualties/fatalities would more than likely go down (as well as overall incidents as the results might not be good enough for a suicide mission of that caliber (but that is pure speculation on my part). I'm not implying that a knife isn't deadly or that it isn't more so than a gun on the individual basis, but even so you can only stab so many people before someone starts to notice. It would take a lot longer to rack up the casualties and it seems that more people seem to survive these encounters overall.

It is an uphill battle, but doing nothing is not a solution at all. Even if we can't get rid of all the guns currently in circulation they can enact buy back programs (something poor people with guns would probably do) to get some back. At the very least there needs to be regulation on future and current ownership, that is the first step necessary either way. You can't empty the boat without fixing the hole first and right now it's overflowing.



The Atomic Ass said:


> All of you clamoring for gun control, and especially those in politics using this incident for political firewood, should be ashamed of yourselves for building your bully pulpit on the graves of the dead. This is an issue of mental health, not guns. It was mental health, in Aurora. It was mental health, in Columbine. It has been mental health in the majority, if not every single mass shooting to happen within my lifetime.
> 
> And I'm going to rail on the current mental health system, as well. Most issues of mental health start with the diet. A brain, lacking in certain elements that it needs, and/or taking in chemicals that negatively affect it, will have disorders. PERIOD. A full blood workup should be done on anyone before any counseling should begin, as physical health is mandatory for mental health. Yet this does not occur, and at least in Aurora, we confirmed that drugs were being used to mask the problem. I've a gut feeling we'll hear something regarding medication about the Newtown shooter, I've already just read that he had been to counseling.
> 
> To make the previous point a little more personal, I had anger issues when I was younger, which lost me more than one good job. Since changing my diet, I've managed to control my anger, and channel that energy into my work, my playing, or whatever else I may be doing. (Like this post, for example)



Ashamed? No. In almost all of the incidents you mentioned the guns were from legal owners these people knew. Even if they would have still used something else, the numbers would be lower and that does make a difference. It is still tragic, but less is better universally. No one has claimed that the people who commit these acts aren't mentally ill and don't need help either. Quite the opposite actually. However, we don't allow blind people to get a drivers license and you can't buy a car for actual use by said person if you are blind (since people are making ridiculous arguments I figured i would too ). Yet it is ridiculously easy for me to procure a weapon. Most people are asking for more regulation for the exact things you described too like better health screenings, more thorough checking overall, etc. that is more regulation is it not? Mental illness, even if we took better care of it, would still exist as well, so more regulation to prevent even the smaller subset would still be necessary.




The Atomic Ass said:


> tl;dr: Gun control? *FUCK OFF*.
> 
> The preceding message was written entirely without intention of using government as a means of improvement in any way. What we need are societal changes, which government cannot provide. Just in case anyone was confused, and thought I had switched sides from my previous comments on this forum.



No thank you. 

The NRA, if it were willing to be more proactive than it has ever been, could probably take on some of the responsibility on its own (much like the RIAA and MPAA have actually, though I disagree with those institutions). In fact, bills could stipulate certain things that are completely governed by the NRA or some other 3rd party group. We have certain systems in place already that work kind of like that. It doesn't happen because people like you (and many more) take the _fuck off_ approach which means you are unwilling to compromise at all.

The government is not evil or out to get anyone (in the general sense) and does in fact do some things pretty well.

As for your wiki links:



> At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He *killed eight* children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously *wounded thirteen* other children and two teachers.[2]





> The spate of attacks left at least 21 dead and some *90 injured*. Analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kind of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.[1]



With a gun the situation would have been a lot worse and more survived than died in the cases you presented. Given proximity, with a gun everyone who was directly attacked would probably be dead at such a close range.

How many died in the incident we are discussing? 27 How many wounded? As far as I can find, none.


It is all terrible and disgusting that doing this can even cross someones mind, but discussing remedies does not make anyone a terrible person.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

narad said:


> All scenarios where the intent was to suss out and destroy insurgencies with minimal civilan casualties. It was always the inability to identify and isolate targets that mitigated the superior American firepower. But when a government declares war on its own people history has shown that civilian casualties are not a big part of the equation. When you strip away any accountability, lol, you'd lose anyway.



I suppose it'd depend whether the US gov't was turning its weapons on ALL civilians or just the ones who aren't playing along, and to what degree they'd care about civilian casualties. If they decided to just nuke and/or carpet bomb their entire population (for some unfathomable reason), then sure, the civilians would have no chance. If they were trying to seek out and eliminate pockets of resistance, however, it'd be a different story entirely.

Ilikebig_*BUT*_tsandicannotlie,

As I've said before, that's never going to happen. Not ever. Never ever ever. I'm not even going to bother to use my usual qualifiers here, so confidant am I in the impossibility of such an event ever taking place. _That's_ what people should say when someone says they want to keep their assault rifles just in case the government turns on its own people, not tell them how futile resistance would be.

It keeps coming up, though, so perhaps it's just me...


----------



## bigchocolateman

I would just like to say that I hate the fact that gun control seems to be at the forefront of the issues here.

It seems like every time something like this happens the culprit is the same person. A young, intelligent, socially awkward and distant person with some signs of mental issues. 

How we handle mental health should be the issue. I have a cousin with mania. Needless to say when he goes off on his tangents, he goes OFF. Threats to kill his father, beating the shit out of people, and basically inhuman strength when he is on a rage. It took like five cops during one incident to bring him down. Unfortunately since he is an adult he gets to decide how his condition is handled which means he is out on his own doing as he pleases. We think with him it's not a matter of if but more a matter of what and when and it is really out of our control. Our whole family pretty much fears him but there's nothing we can do to keep him in the treatment he needs.

Addressing the mental health of our citizens and how we handle those with issues is what I think can be the most preventative action we can take against these kinds of things.


----------



## Randy

The Atomic Ass said:


> I'm not going to read through 8 pages to see if it was mentioned



*This is your warning and the warning of everybody else who decides to chime into this thread.

A lot of intelligent points have been made in this thread, on all sides of this debate. No matter what your position on the matter, I'm not going to tolerate people chiming in this late in the game, without reading the rest of the thread to blindly toss out talking points that have already been gone over and threaten to disrupt the civility of this thread.

If I get the feeling somebody came in here to stick their fingers in their ears and troll this thread with talking points just to set off the powder keg, they're getting banned.*


----------



## Randy

bigchocolateman said:


> I would just like to say that I hate the fact that gun control seems to be at the forefront of the issues here.
> 
> It seems like every time something like this happens the culprit is the same person. A young, intelligent, socially awkward and distant person with some signs of mental issues.
> 
> How we handle mental health should be the issue. I have a cousin with mania. Needless to say when he goes off on his tangents, he goes OFF. Threats to kill his father, beating the shit out of people, and basically inhuman strength when he is on a rage. It took like five cops during one incident to bring him down. Unfortunately since he is an adult he gets to decide how his condition is handled which means he is out on his own doing as he pleases. We think with him it's not a matter of if but more a matter of what and when and it is really out of our control. Our whole family pretty much fears him but there's nothing we can do to keep him in the treatment he needs.
> 
> Addressing the mental health of our citizens and how we handle those with issues is what I think can be the most preventative action we can take against these kinds of things.



Certainly one of the smarter points in this debate and it's been put out there a few times but I haven't heard a single 'nut and bolts' recommendation on how you address this...?

As is your case, how do you get help for somebody who doesn't want it? A lot of talk about the 'assault on liberty' that gun laws would be... what about involuntarily committing everyone who exhibits signs of mental disease?


----------



## Konfyouzd

Didn't someone post a link to that article "I am Adam Lanza's mother" in which the lady willingly put her son into a mental institution? The shitty thing about it is that's not always a feasible option in every case. :-\

I don't think immediately committing people is a good idea, but in the particular case I cited, he'd literally been threatening her for some time so his case was clearly a bit more obvious than others.

Most other examples I can come up with seem a bit farfetched even in my mind, but I can't help but wonder if the fact that we're becoming so busy as a society makes it so that parents don't necessarily pay as much attention as they should to their children all the time. People have brought up before that the children who get in the most trouble are usually those with parents that aren't around as much. 

A situation like that can and can't be helped. On the one hand I feel like if you make a child it's unfair to put the responsiblity of raising the kid on someone else, but folks at school should be able to notice signs of deviant behavior as well and notifiy parents accordingly. In conjunction with other methods yet to be named, this could help. And I honestly don't know for a fact how much of it goes on currently, but imagine there's a lot of:



> Oh he'll grow out of it...


 
from some parents and...



> Is this really *my* business?


 
from school officials as I'm sure expressing concern has been known to piss some parents off and unless a faculty member deems the person a direct threat to themselves or others, they may ignore it to save themselves a hassle.

I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that as well, though.


----------



## Randy

Tons of problems with that being the only course of action. Not all children display noticeable symptoms of mental disease in the first place. Then there's the issue of 'nature vs. nurture', so if the person in question isn't just 'chemically unstable', then chances are they're being raised in a shitty situation, so there's no banking on those same guardians to wise up and take action. Also, a lot of these random shooters go on a killing spree after they're over the age that somebody could have them committed... so once their parents fail to get them help, they're a lost cause and free to roam society until they erupt? Or with the case of Adam Lanza, yeah he displayed symptoms of mental illness but I haven't heard anything about severe fits of violence that would've set off an indication he was going to do what he did... so if we're using that as an kind of a model, what are you supposed to do? Kid acts weird and you lock them up forever?


----------



## Konfyouzd

I never said it should be the only course of action, sir... Just another thing to add to list of things that COULD be done... 

Don't lock them up if they seem weird. Keep an eye on them in case they get weird...

I think part of the problem is that people seem to assume that any one thing someone brings up is being put forth as THE answer. Not the case.


----------



## Randy

My original point in this thread is that the problem will required a multi-pronged approach. Part of it has to do with addressing mental illness in _some_ capacity (what exact course of action, I have yet to find reasonable answer to) but also security and gun control (read: not gun abolishment) to address the fact some people will slip through the cracks.

To say it can be all of one, all of the other or nothing at all is shortsighted.


----------



## Randy

Konfyouzd said:


> I never said it should be the only course of action, sir... Just another thing to add to list of things that COULD be done...
> 
> Don't lock them up if they seem weird. Keep an eye on them in case they get weird...



Okay, but how do you put that into a piece of legislation or a social movement? That seems pretty common sense, especially because I've been hearing that same thing since I was a kid and Columbine happened, yet things haven't changed?


----------



## Konfyouzd

Okay...

What am I supposed to do about the fact that people haven't come up with legislation for that? It's a tough situation. We've ALL already come to that conclusion. Common sense isn't always common. And some people would rather make it an issue of gun control. I think that might have something to do with why what I said has been ignored since Columbine. Obviously someone making decisions doesn't agree with me.


----------



## Randy

The Atomic Ass said:


> And I'm going to rail on the current mental health system, as well. Most issues of mental health start with the diet. A brain, lacking in certain elements that it needs, and/or taking in chemicals that negatively affect it, will have disorders. PERIOD. A full blood workup should be done on anyone before any counseling should begin, as physical health is mandatory for mental health.



So, counseling (which is almost entirely voluntary at this point), should require a person to also volunteer to undertake a physical workout and a diet? If we were talking about people rational enough to submit to those kind of things, we probably wouldn't have anything to worry about in the first place...?

Unless somebody here is seriously prescribing involuntary committal, I'm still missing how this makes a single bit of difference?


----------



## Konfyouzd

So explain to us all what WOULD make a difference, then.

Where's your 5 point plan?

I'm not seeing how attempting to monitor the mental state of students and/or citizens when and where possible is any WORSE than just not giving a fuck as we currently seem to do.


----------



## Randy

Konfyouzd said:


> And some people would rather make it an issue of gun control.



Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's an example of a time something happened, a piece of _gun control_ legislation was drafted and it had a positive effect. You'll probably read a few of the things in that bill and be shocked that they weren't law until 1993 and even more shocked that there was still opposition. Coincidentally from the same crowd opposing _any_ adjustment to gun laws currently.

If I had all the answers, I probably wouldn't be sitting infront of a computer posting on a forum.  

As I said here: 



Randy said:


> My original point in this thread is that the problem will required a multi-pronged approach. Part of it has to do with addressing mental illness in _some_ capacity (what exact course of action, I have yet to find reasonable answer to) but also security and gun control (read: not gun abolishment) to address the fact some people will slip through the cracks.



The gun thing should be obvious. As I've said a bajillion times, nobody worth listening to is talking about abolishment. Simple things like, if a person isn't qualified to own a gun, people living in a house with the same person shouldn't be allowed to either. There should also be stricter penalties for gun owners who are irresponsible and allow their weapon to fall into the hands of people who commit crimes or injure themselves (in the case of children) with them.

Those are simply preventative measures, as I said, to be taken just as an extra barrier for people who slip through the cracks. 

How do you legislate mental illness? As I admitted multiple times, I have no idea how you'd do it without people crying about an incredibly massive governmental overreach. The news the last few days has been about how, up until now, state governments have been defunding mental health programs. I'd say reversing that would be a start. Socially, changing the stigma of "mental disease" so that people or parents are more inclined to volunteer to get help is part of it. As somebody who's had my own bouts with depression/violence, I'm not aware of an organization that makes it convenient to get help unless you're forcibly committed to said program...?

I think TAA had a good point in mentioning the fact that there are a lot of anti-depression/anti-psychotic medications that just paper over the deeper issue. You can alter somebody's mood but you can't alter the person. Between side effects, and the 'ups and downs' of coming off meds, mentally unstable people are still a timebomb. I don't mean it to be flippant, but I seriously _do not_ know how you make a day-and-night difference in those situations without forcefully imprisoning people in mental institutions (which is obviously a terrible idea).

EDIT: I forgot to mention the security thing in the original post.

Police response time is a joke. Not having some kind of security (even if it's trained janitors) is also a joke. Having inconsistent security requirements on schools is a joke. Those are things that are easy to legislate.


----------



## synrgy

So.. I have this nephew. He's the oldest of 3 kids, currently in his earliest 20's.

In his late teens, he was (finally) diagnosed bi-polar. His swings are intense at the best, and frightening/life-threatening at the worst.

Among some of the highlights of his childhood, included are: Being suspended from school for snapping and shoving another kid through a (ground floor, thankfully) window, and having his own parents call the police to their own home to have him temporarily removed and placed in mental institutions, when his swings would include threats upon their lives and the life of my niece - his sister - who was barely a toddler at the time.

Post diagnosis, he is _theoretically_ medicated, but there's no system in place to ensure he takes what he's supposed to.

He never went to college, and he currently holds down a dead-end job at his local Wendy's, where he barely earns just enough to stay in the bottom-income lifestyle he's currently in.

A few weeks ago, when catching up with my other nephew - his younger brother, who shares an apartment with him after recently returning from a 2nd tour in Afghanistan - my sister learned that, in reaction to someone scratching his car, he spent the next several hours throwing a tantrum around the apartment, waving his loaded gun around and threatening to shoot everyone in the building.

Yesterday, he posted this on Facebook:


> Im tired of this gun control laws debate to the point of wanting to demonstrate the capabilities of my .45 hollow points on the next person I hear bring it up, i dont care how bad that makes me sound.



He followed that up with further nonsensical ranting, but it's _really_ hard to get past that opening statement.

What I guess I'm getting at here, is that we can't discuss the mental health issue as it relates to violence, without also including in the discussion how they are able to obtain the instruments they use to enact said violence. Frankly, I _love_ this kid, but that has no bearing on the fact that I don't think he has _any goddamn business_ owning a handgun, much less should he or any other untrained, private citizen have access to hollow point ammunition.

I mean, here's a guy who had the textbook shitty childhood (or lack thereof) due to divorces/moves/exposure to gangs/drugs/friends killing themselves or each other, etc. On top of that, he's been diagnosed with a severe mental illness, and has an on-record history of violent outbursts. While I have a hard time believing he would actually ever commit one of these massacres, I'd be kidding myself if I tried to say he wasn't the quintessential poster boy for one.

Do you folks feel differently? Is this clearly unstable kid someone you think should be allowed to wave his handgun around Ohio while it's loaded with hollow point ammunition? If so, why? If not, why? Once you've considered that, further consider how the same logic applies to everyone else, or doesn't, and why.


----------



## Randy

Konfyouzd said:


> Didn't someone post a link to that article "I am Adam Lanza's mother" in which the lady willingly put her son into a mental institution? The shitty thing about it is that's not always a feasible option in every case. :-\
> 
> I don't think immediately committing people is a good idea, but in the particular case I cited, he'd literally been threatening her for some time so his case was clearly a bit more obvious than others.
> 
> Most other examples I can come up with seem a bit farfetched even in my mind, but I can't help but wonder if the fact that we're becoming so busy as a society makes it so that parents don't necessarily pay as much attention as they should to their children all the time. People have brought up before that the children who get in the most trouble are usually those with parents that aren't around as much.
> 
> A situation like that can and can't be helped. On the one hand I feel like if you make a child it's unfair to put the responsiblity of raising the kid on someone else, but folks at school should be able to notice signs of deviant behavior as well and notifiy parents accordingly. In conjunction with other methods yet to be named, this could help. And I honestly don't know for a fact how much of it goes on currently, but imagine there's a lot of:
> 
> 
> 
> from some parents and...
> 
> 
> 
> from school officials as I'm sure expressing concern has been known to piss some parents off and unless a faculty member deems the person a direct threat to themselves or others, they may ignore it to save themselves a hassle.
> 
> I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that as well, though.




You added a lot to that post after I read it the first time, so I missed all of that.

Good points and I'd say I can agree on all of that. Still struggling on what direct action to take but still great points. If anything, perhaps it needs to be more of that 'social change'. Making it easy for parents to spend time with their children or something to that effect.


----------



## Randy

synrgy said:


> What I guess I'm getting at here, is that we can't discuss the mental health issue as it relates to violence, without also including in the discussion how they are able to obtain the instruments they use to enact said violence. Frankly, I _love_ this kid, but that has no bearing on the fact that I don't think he has _any goddamn business_ owning a handgun, much less should he or any other untrained, private citizen have access to hollow point ammunition



My sympathies. I'm afraid for the fact that story and similar are not uncommon.

Probably the main reason I've been so frustrated in this thread is that, you've got a heart-wrenching story that goes right to the base of the problem, but the debate is so wrapped around the mechanics of arguing that "the weapon has nothing to do with it" that we're arguing in circles. As I said previously, these problems need to be broken down into pieces. Your nephew shouldn't have a gun. He needs help. Kids with problems shouldn't have those problems evolve to this point. The stress of the kinda lifestyle that comes with living with a mental illness could probably drive anybody nuts.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Yea my bad. I reread it after I initially posted it and felt it didn't explain enough. And taking any one direction is difficult for me as I see no one solution to it, but rather that the solution may require many changes in many different areas to see the type of change we desire. And to state it any other way is to be ripped apart for having not considered something.


----------



## fps

thepylestory said:


> Dont be so blind.



In what sense am I being blind? That's saying *1 dead, 20 dead, what's the difference?* It's an appalling thing to say.


----------



## flint757

bigchocolateman said:


> I would just like to say that I hate the fact that gun control seems to be at the forefront of the issues here.
> 
> It seems like every time something like this happens the culprit is the same person. A young, intelligent, socially awkward and distant person with some signs of mental issues.
> 
> How we handle mental health should be the issue. I have a cousin with mania. Needless to say when he goes off on his tangents, he goes OFF. Threats to kill his father, beating the shit out of people, and basically inhuman strength when he is on a rage. It took like five cops during one incident to bring him down. Unfortunately since he is an adult he gets to decide how his condition is handled which means he is out on his own doing as he pleases. We think with him it's not a matter of if but more a matter of what and when and it is really out of our control. Our whole family pretty much fears him but there's nothing we can do to keep him in the treatment he needs.
> 
> Addressing the mental health of our citizens and how we handle those with issues is what I think can be the most preventative action we can take against these kinds of things.



Clearly, in this instance specifically, they should make it into law that if you get arrested for having a mental breakdown that you can be institutionalized at least temporarily. I honestly thought that was already the case. If it is and it still didn't happen then that means either the family or the police dropped the charges. That makes it a far more complicated problem.


----------



## texshred777

To get someone admitted into an institution(here) it usually happens like this.

Police/MHMR/other figures are notified of a subject having a mental issue that endangers themselves or others. They make contact with said person, and if there isn't any evidence of such an event/scenario and the subject denies the allegation they are let go. In the event of either proof or confession an MHMR professional contacts a judge for a mental health committment order warrant. 

source: I deal with these situations every day. Again, these are standard procedures in Texas. Even other agencies in Texas may have a different protocol, but the fact is in a forced detainment there has to be a warrant signed by a judge at the request of mental health professionals. 

What can we do with resources and already existing infrastructure? 
Police agencies should pursue the criminal charge(assuming there was a criminal act) that got everything started. If the call started as a disturbance, they should make an arrest for a charge they can resonably make. Whether it's assault(either from physical contact or threats), disorderly conduct, etc. 

If they don't pursue the charge the only record is in the local database and not subject to criminal history background checks. The only way to even know about it is to contact the agency and fill out an open records request.

The downside is that people will have a criminal history in addition to the mental issues they already suffer from. They will have greater difficulties in finding employment and that won't likely help them in the long run.


----------



## bigchocolateman

Randy said:


> Certainly one of the smarter points in this debate and it's been put out there a few times but I haven't heard a single 'nut and bolts' recommendation on how you address this...?
> 
> As is your case, how do you get help for somebody who doesn't want it? A lot of talk about the 'assault on liberty' that gun laws would be... what about involuntarily committing everyone who exhibits signs of mental disease?



In my cousins case, if the medication is right and taken as it is supposed to be he can be in society and function normally. There was a period of about 6 months where his meds were being taken and he was fine. Unfortunately he began drinking again and I believe it messed up his treatment and he is back to his manic issues.

I think the best thing for someone like him is to give them the equivalent of a parole officer. Someone he has to check into daily and make sure he continues to take his meds and to just check. Daily might be a little unrealistic but at least weekly to make sure he hasn't stopped taking meds and is still doing well. If they fail to report then they should be tracked down and evaluated. If they don't pass the evaluation, should be kept in a mental facility without say in the matter if they are deemed a threat.

But you are right, it would be very hard to detain these people in these situations and the question of liberty for these people would be a huge debate.


----------



## flint757

There is no solution that will work 100% of the time. If they quit their med's how will the parole officer even know? The one benefit is said person may notice that they seem different. In my experience it is really hard for bipolar people, as an example, to hide when they aren't normal.

Even then very tricky without somebody out there complaining.


----------



## ST3MOCON

flint757 said:


> It's not a right, it's a privilege. That is notable simply by the fact that to carry certain weapons requires certain paperwork, licensing, etc. and you can't legally buy ANYTHING you want either. It is just like driving, which is also a privilege, not a right. Yet I don't see people like you yelling in the street that someone is being denied their license to drive either (well AARP might be ).


 

*Amendment II*

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.

Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

It is a right. Just because our governemnt has chipped away at it does not make it anything else.

Also nowhere in the BILL OF *RIGHTS *does it say anything about a drivers license.


----------



## flint757

Because the constitution is written in stone and has never, ever been altered, right? I notice a lot of founder worship from people in general. They did not have all the answers and were not 100% right. Yes, currently speaking anyone can own a gun of some sort. Even in more strict states you can still buy a shotgun, but that doesn't make it any more a right from a society POV. If you'd like to take the constitution literally then I suggest that the laws be amended so that gun owners can only own weapons that existed when it was written, you know since a piece of paper can't predict the future. In any case, it starts out quite nicely with well regulated too, but I guess that means nothing as well.

The bill of rights actually have been altered after the 14th amendment: due process clause was ratified so they are not set in stone or beyond repair.



> The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. *While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.*
> 
> The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789, formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States. While twelve amendments were proposed by Congress, only ten were originally ratified by the states. Of the remaining two, one was adopted 203 years later as the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the other technically remains pending before the states.
> 
> *Originally, the Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only white men, excluding American Indians, people considered to be "black" (now described as African Americans), and women. These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Rights' text, but were well understood and applied.*
> The Bill of Rights plays a key role in American law and government, and remains a vital symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation. One of the first fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.



Good thing we don't look at the Constitution through the same lense of that time otherwise minorities and women would be screwed.



The point I was making about drivers licenses was the fact that people have a far greater need/use for driving than a use for a gun (I'd argue most people have no need), yet I hear more bitching from the gun subset than those who are denied a drivers license for whatever reason. It was a singular example, I could have easily chosen something else.



> It&#8217;s my constitutional right.
> 
> &#8220;There&#8217;s nothing we can do! It&#8217;s in the Constitution.&#8221; It&#8217;s a shrewd move, because it places blame for the American gun problem on the founders, instead of on the people furthering the problem now. But that&#8217;s a broken argument too.
> 
> That something is (possibly) enshrined in the Constitution does not mean it is invincible to change. Let&#8217;s not forget that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, eh? We&#8217;re still allowed to argue about that.
> 
> The Constitution is good at stuff like this. We&#8217;ve amended the thing 27 times, to fix the issues our founding fathers, in all their 18th-century wisdom, fucked up beyond comprehension. Women couldn&#8217;t vote, black people were 3/5ths of a person (and couldn&#8217;t vote), presidents could be reelected in perpetuity. Hell, the path of presidential succession wasn&#8217;t codified until 1965, after we needed it a bunch of times. (Mostly after angry people killed our presidents&#8230; with guns.)
> 
> And when an amendment like the 18th comes along and takes away our beer, we have the power to bring along an amendment like the 21st, which gives it back. Because one thing the Constitution does get right is the opening line: &#8220;We, the People.&#8221; Like Charles Pierce wrote Friday, our commitment to each other is the driving force behind our self-government, and when self-government stands by and watches Americans shoot each other in the face, we have failed each other.
> 
> So no, the constitutional argument against gun control is not good enough. We have a commitment to society that is above blind faith in 220-year-old dogma. We took away slavery. We can regulate guns. Providing for the common defense doesn&#8217;t only apply to drone-striking terrorists, and if we can repeal the 18th Amendment, we, the people, can certainly temper the bloody effects of the Second.
> 
> Some people will die, if their guns are taken away and they can&#8217;t defend themselves. But how many people would be saved? If taking away guns from the public makes gun deaths go down overall &#8212; and it would &#8212; how would someone argue against it? That it violates an American ideal, a notion that people should have that line of personal defense? It&#8217;s not good enough, if people are dying, senselessly, every day, to preserve that right. If &#8220;making sure less people die&#8221; is not preserving the general welfare, that section of the Preamble means nothing.



http://wonkette.com/493036/earnest-wonkette-think-piece-here


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Whether the Constitution is set in stone or not is irrelevant. If it currently says it's a right, then that's what it is: A right. Should its not being set in stone ever be used to _change_ it so that it doesn't say it's a right or explicitly says it isn't one, then it won't be one. However, that hasn't happened yet, and we can't use the possibility that it _might_ happen to say that it isn't a right.


----------



## flint757

I'll concede there, but to use it in this debate is rather pointless because it doesn't make the use or ownership in and of itself right in any other sense of the word nor is the second amendment even kind of specific about what it justifies as okay and not okay. It offers no scope at all actually. As such it is still up for debate. Hell, abortion is protected by the constitution and yet we still haven't shut up about that. 

It's not like:

"Post second amendment"

This is why....

<end of discussion>

Which is how a lot of the people who bring up the constitution tend to use it as. Since the constitution can and has been amended, it most definitely still warrants discussion.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

It deffo warrants discussion, yeah. I think it's high time the vagueness of it was sorted out, and end the squabbling about it once and for all.

Though it _has_ birthed some amusing exchanges...


----------



## fps

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Whether the Constitution is set in stone or not is irrelevant. If it currently says it's a right, then that's what it is: A right. Should its not being set in stone ever be used to _change_ it so that it doesn't say it's a right or explicitly says it isn't one, then it won't be one. However, that hasn't happened yet, and we can't use the possibility that it _might_ happen to say that it isn't a right.



Shouldn't automatic weapons also be available then? Also, since it's a right, should there really be any paperwork at all involved in owning one? The constitution isn't the bible, you can change the story if you want to.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

fps said:


> Shouldn't automatic weapons also be available then?


 
I'm not sure how you'd jump to that conclusion. Given the above-mentioned vagueness of the phrasing used in the Constitution, we don't have any set-in-stone idea of what specific "arms" we have the right to bear, just _that_ we have the right to bear them, whatever it's decided they are. People can (and do) argue that it means we can bear anything we want, including automatic weapons, flame throwers, and other dastardly goodies. Other can (and do) argue that the arms we have the right to bear should be limited to those that actually have a utilitarian purpose, such as hunting rifles and target-shooting pistols. 

Until further amendments appear that strictly delineate what exactly we have the right to bear, though, people will continue to argue about it. What _can't_ be argued is that we have a right to bear _something_, though I still don't see the logical bridge between "if you think you have the right to bear arms, then you must therefore think you have the right to bear automatic weapons" you seem to be seeing.



fps said:


> Also, since it's a right, should there really be any paperwork at all involved in owning one?


 
Why shouldn't there be? I'm no expert on Constitutional Rights, I'm willing to concede, but if there's a law stating that no paperwork whatsoever is to be used in the process of applying them, I've never heard about it. Adding paperwork to the mix isn't stripping the right, after all, it's organizing and codifying it.



fps said:


> The constitution isn't the bible, you can change the story if you want to.


 
Too true, and a fact many people often seem to forget at their own convenience. However, it really has no bearing on anything else in this post, so I'm not sure why you included it. I can legally change my name to Fluffenpants McDicksniffer in the future, but that doesn't mean my name _right now_ isn't Tim. The Constitution can be legally changed in the future to say that we don't have the right to bear arms, or that the arms we've the right to bear are limited in scope, but that doesn't mean that the Constution doesn't say _right now_ that we have the right to bear arms.


----------



## Pablo

With all said and done, in the USA 84 people lose their lives _every day_ from gun inflicted wounds... in my book that rates as unacceptable.
Moreover, if I were a US citizen, I would demand that those representing me in government did something to actively remedy this outrageous situation.

Regardless of political stance, ideology, race, colour or creed it should be fairly obvious that the logical solution to gun violence is to get rid of guns. Whether other types of violence would flurish in the aftermath is, frankly, acedemic until we get there.

Moreover, I love it when a 200 year old document is thrown around as a contemporary argument for, well anything really! Why not reintroduce witch trials? They seemed like a jolly good idea at the time - hence they must still hold merrit today! Moreover, the last witch excecution in Europe took place about the time of the US constitution... In short: Any historic data should be seen through the proper historic perspective. 

Case in point: the 2nd ammendment had both purpose and meaning in 1791 - through the proper historic lense, it is fairly obvoius that the sole purpose of the 2nd ammendment was to establish an _armed militia_ (as in a government sanctionned militia - not paranoid rednecks) to protect the newly formed state and constitution. The 2nd ammendment has in essence been abused for everything but its intended purpose ever since...

Cheers

Eske


----------



## Randy

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm not sure how you'd jump to that conclusion. Given the above-mentioned vagueness of the phrasing used in the Constitution, we don't have any set-in-stone idea of what specific "arms" we have the right to bear, just _that_ we have the right to bear them, whatever it's decided they are. People can (and do) argue that it means we can bear anything we want, including automatic weapons, flame throwers, and other dastardly goodies. Other can (and do) argue that the arms we have the right to bear should be limited to those that actually have a utilitarian purpose, such as hunting rifles and target-shooting pistols.
> 
> Until further amendments appear that strictly delineate what exactly we have the right to bear, though, people will continue to argue about it. What _can't_ be argued is that we have a right to bear _something_, though I still don't see the logical bridge between "if you think you have the right to bear arms, then you must therefore think you have the right to bear automatic weapons" you seem to be seeing.



I believe that was in response to the picture you posted above. The implication is that there are no specifics on what weapons you "have a right to bear" not because the framers didn't have foresight to expect weapons would evolve, but because they wanted the "people" to be able to arm themselves with weapons equivalent to those of the people they're fighting. If some people out there have full-automatic weapons, than this fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution implies that we should _also_ be allowed to use fully-automatic weapons; yet they're still illegal at the state and federal levels.

His point is valid and you're being deliberately obtuse.

To those arguing that, just because it's in the Consitution, it should remain unaltered or remain interpreted solely in the context it was originally written, maybe we've forgotten these little gems from our past:



> Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons





> Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.





> Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
> No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.





> Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
> ...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.



The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution

So the founding fathers didn't get it all right.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Randy said:


> I believe that was in response to the picture you posted above.


 
Perhaps it was unclear when I posted it, but I was only posting that picture as an example of the amusing discussions that have arisen as a result of the fact that the 2nd Amendment is so vague, not as an example of how I actually feel on the matter. He didn't include the picture in the snippet he quoted, so I assumed he was responding to what I had said, not was Piers Morgan and whoever that woman is had said in the picture. I _thought _I was being clear in pointing out that I think it's too vague and that something needs to be done about that, but apparently I wasn't.



Randy said:


> His point is valid and you're being deliberately obtuse.


 
It isn't, and I wasn't.

Rather, it isn't _if_ he was addressing what I said and not the picture that I posted, and I _definitely_ wasn't being deliberately obtuse. In fact, I thought *he* was being deliberately obtuse in responding the way he did, not thinking that he was responding to the picture (which he didn't quote) and not my actual words (which he did). Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that anyone would conclude that I was being deliberately obtuse, since the only two modes I've tried to demonstrate in this subforum are straightforward honesty and sarcasm, and I'm more than a little disappointed that you in particular would have come to that conclusion, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.



Randy said:


> To those arguing that, just because it's in the Consitution, it should remain unaltered or remain interpreted solely in the context it was originally written, maybe we've forgotten these little gems from our past:


 
Just in case it seemed like that's what I was arguing (and honestly, at this point it appears I can't assume I know what people think I'm arguing), that's not what I think at all.


----------



## Randy

Arguing solely on the semantics of "a right" (one which already comes with a mountain of restrictions, much like the "freedom of speech" which doesn't protect you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) is seemingly pointless. 

Assuming you were chiming in based on flint's post mentioning gun ownership as more of a "privilege than a right" (contextually, that's what it looks like), it's a valid point but tone deaf. Yes, on the issue of semantics, the beginning of the Constitution is the "Bill of Rights". To that end, you're right.

However, because the Constitution doesn't include or exclude certain weapons, what's allowed and not allowed is defined by law. The "privilege" lies in what guns you're allowed to own, who's allowed to carry them and where. Felons and mentally ill can't legally own them, people on parole for violent crime can't own them (or any crime, in a lot of cases), you can't carry a gun with you into a lot of places (last I knew, NYC has a ban on CCW or open carry, plus you're not allowed to bring a gun into a lot of public/government buildings [court, etc.]), you can't own a bazooka with ammunition, you can't own an uzi, you can't build a pipebomb, etc.). By the time it's said and done, the Constitution could still read "right to bear arms" and that could be restricted down to muskets, with that hollow definition of "a right" still intact.

I found your response to be obtuse because you're clearly smart enough to know what fps was inferring, yet you chose to stick directly to the strict definition of "a right" and used your sarcasm to imply you "had no idea what he's talking about".


----------



## ghostred7

The firearms are already in circulation, changing the laws now won't do anything but affect law-abiding citizens. We need to bring more reform to mental health care. The root of the problem is the people committing the crime, not the tools they use to do it.

Someone posted a link that shows mass-killing timelines...how about the stories that don't get national media attention? This page (although biased I'm sure) has gatherings of various articles/places where citizens SAVED lives or defended themselves b/c of their legally having a firearm: Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters 

As for violent crimes? Someone keeps bringing up how the UK doesn't have weapons so no gun crime, etc.....how about violence in general? The UK was among the highest in violent crimes recently (2009...taking article and stats at face value).
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

As for having vs. not having...Colorado theater, Columbine, Newtown, Malls, etc....all = gun-free zone (per posting on signs)....seems to me the badguys here are going places where they believe no one will be able to protect themselves.

In the end, I still believe we need to work on mental health issues and fix the cause of these tragedies instead of attacking the tools used to carry them out....taking those away still leaves the crazy.

Except for the last line of her arguement....although another tragic story, it does paint a good "what-if" picture (from the 80s Brady Bill hearings).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrIsuO5PLc


----------



## vstealth

There are people with mental health problems everywhere, guns however are not easily acquirable everywhere. There have been a fair few incidents recently where I live in the city with taxi drivers being bashed, people getting knocked out outside of clubs etc. As isolated and small in number as these incidents are, I cant even imagine how bad alot of these incidents would be if guns were as easily accessible as they are in the USA. No one doubts that the people that commit these shooting massacres in America have mental health problems, the problem is that they have access to firearms which nearly every other mentally disturbed person around the world does not have access to.


----------



## Randy

ghostred7 said:


> The firearms are already in circulation, changing the laws now won't do anything but affect law-abiding citizens. We need to bring more reform to mental health care.
> 
> In the end, I still believe we need to work on mental health issues and fix the cause of these tragedies instead of attacking the tools used to carry them out....taking those away still leaves the crazy.



So then you oppose any restrictions on who can own a gun, what kind of guns they're allowed to own and where they're allowed to bring them? Hand grenades? High caliber, fully automatic weapons? Since you're joining this discussion, I'd like some more depth on your perspective than just the talking point.

I argue that the effectiveness of certain weapons at killing large amounts of people in short periods of time make them dangerous by nature. Assuming people slip through the cracks of "mental illness", I personally find some value in making it _more difficult_ for those people to get their hands on weapons.

As has been stated by anyone with a brain, this isn't about an 'all out ban on guns'. If you think there's any one person who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun or any type of gun that you don't think a person should be allowed to own, then you're for some kind of gun control and you acknowledge "what weapon and who has it" has some value. If you don't, that fine to. Your opinion. I'm just curious.



ghostred7 said:


> As for having vs. not having...Colorado theater, Columbine, Newtown, Malls, etc....all = gun-free zone (per posting on signs)....seems to me the badguys here are going places where they believe no one will be able to protect themselves.



Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, with the exception of the Colorado theater, all the shooters you mentioned either killed themselves or put themselves in a "stand off" position, knowing they were going to be killed. That method doesn't lead me to believe the fear of anyone else being armed bothered them much. 

How do you suppose we address the mental health issue, in an effective, measurable way?


----------



## ghostred7

Randy said:


> So then you oppose any restrictions on who can own a gun, what kind of guns they're allowed to own and where they're allowed to bring them?
> *snip*
> 
> Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> How do you suppose we address the mental health issue, in an effective, measurable way?



Nope....never said I oppose restrictions....we already have those in place. I oppose lack of target at the real root cause of these issues....which said root cause is that these ppl are loony.

Ft. Hood shooting....not sure why you brought that up...that still VERY much fits the "gun-free zone." I'm not sure how many military bases you've been on, but I know when I was active duty...you were supposed to keep even KNIVES in the arms room and have special permission to even own a weapon (in the barracks). The entire military base is a gun-free zone unless doing a unit activity that specifically involves that (gunnery, qualification, etc). Hasan may have been a shrink...but even shrinks can be crazy...sometimes the most dangerous kind.


Randy said:


> Also, with the exception of the Colorado theater, all the shooters you mentioned either killed themselves or put themselves in a "stand off" position, knowing they were going to be killed. That method doesn't lead me to believe the fear of anyone else being armed bothered them much.


I don't see it that way....knowing in advance that there's reduced likelihood of someone being in the area to protect themselves b/c the follow the law allows pussies like the theater shooter to get in that position in the 1st place. The knowledge of citizens following the laws/signs allows them to capitalize on the situation

As for suggestions....I'd be all about FREE mental health screenings for our country and not opposed to one being require for legally purchasing of firearms.


----------



## Randy

Alright, well then we have some common ground. I agree mental health isn't being sufficiently addressed (although I still lack a personal answer to that) but there are _some_ dangerous and easily exploited loopholes in our current gun laws.

Fair point on the 'Ft. Hood Shooting'. For what you describe, yes, most of the people on the base aren't carrying a weapon on their person but you also acknowledge that there are weapons on the base and I'm sure there are also guards/MPs scattered throughout the base. Also, if keeping a weapon on you in a military base is such a difficult thing, how did he make it so far into the facility with them on his person?

I updated my post a little bit from probably the time you first saw it. I added:



> Also, with the exception of the Colorado theater, all the shooters you mentioned either killed themselves or put themselves in a "stand off" position, knowing they were going to be killed. That method doesn't lead me to believe the fear of anyone else being armed bothered them much.



I'd be curious about your take on that.


----------



## ST3MOCON

The first 10 amendments count for all man. Black, white and everyone in between. Those are the original 10 amendments. I caution anyone that saying any of those rights are not equally important to eachother. Free speech due process are other big rights given to us. I notice how many people complain on here about people's Due process being violated. Take away one right and we can take away others. Whether they take away the others is arelavent. The point is if that now they know they can take away your rights. Now they can wrongfully detain you. When I say "they" I mean anyform of our government, (local,state,federal). I also believe that the 2nd amendment is not vague at all. It means what it says but people in power have chosen how to interpret it. I also hope that FLlint someday changes his mentality over our rights in the bill of rights but I think it's save to say it may be to late. Don't worry guys they will pass bans on guns. They will eventually ban all guns. Just know that when they do, they have taken away one of your rights whether you use it or not. Excuse any grammar errors I am little late for work. Best wishes to everyone. Gun owners are not evil people we just respect that right more than people who don't own guns.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Randy said:


> Assuming you were chiming in based on flint's post mentioning gun ownership as more of a "privilege than a right" (contextually, that's what it looks like), it's a valid point but tone deaf. Yes, on the issue of semantics, the beginning of the Constitution is the "Bill of Rights". To that end, you're right.


 
That's actually exactly what I was doing. Someone brought up that the right to bear arms was a _Right_ granted by the Constitution. Flint argued that it's more of a privilege than a right. I pointed out that so far as the constitution is concerned, it is 100% a Right. That, I thought, was the end of it (supported by Flint conceding that point, I assumed). When FPS responded to that, I assumed he was still following that line of discussion, and tried to point out that the conclusions he was drawing didn't logically follow the points I had been attempting to make.



Randy said:


> because the Constitution doesn't include or exclude certain weapons, what's allowed and not allowed is defined by law. The "privilege" lies in what guns you're allowed to own, who's allowed to carry them and where. Felons and mentally ill can't legally own them, people on parole for violent crime can't own them (or any crime, in a lot of cases), you can't carry a gun with you into a lot of places (last I knew, NYC has a ban on CCW or open carry, plus you're not allowed to bring a gun into a lot of public/government buildings [court, etc.]), you can't own a bazooka with ammunition, you can't own an uzi, you can't build a pipebomb, etc.). By the time it's said and done, the Constitution could still read "right to bear arms" and that could be restricted down to muskets, with that hollow definition of "a right" still intact.


 
Completely agreed, and it was never my intention to imply that I thought otherwise.



Randy said:


> I found your response to be obtuse because you're clearly smart enough to know what fps was inferring


 
I must not be, since unless he chimes in saying otherwise, I thought thought that the parts of my post he was rebutting were the parts he quoted directly, not everything in the post including the picture.



Randy said:


> yet you chose to stick directly to the strict definition of "a right" and used your sarcasm to imply you "had no idea what he's talking about".


 
I stuck directly to the strict definition of a right, because I thought that what was still being discussed was whether or not is _is_ a right, and what that right may or may not entail. Given my interpretation of how the discussion was headed, it wasn't that I had "no idea what he was talking about," but rather that I didn't know why he was continuing to pursue a line of the discussion that I thought had been closed to everyone's satisfaction, or why he was putting words in my mouth based on points I had never been making to being with. I of course can see now how he was responding to the picture and not what I had said directly and therefore wasn't willfully putting words in my mouth, but we know what they say about hindsight.


----------



## ghostred7

Randy said:


> Also, if keeping a weapon on you in a military base is such a difficult thing, how did he make it so far into the facility with them on his person?
> 
> I'd be curious about your take on that.


Never said it was difficult....saying "it isn't allowed." Liken it to the gun-free zones. It was (and maybe still is) very easy to travel around w/ a firearm on base against the rules/laws/etc. The knowledge is that ALL potential firearms, except those used by the MPs, are under heavily secured lock & key...you can't just walk to the armory and get it (each unit has an arms room). In fact, I'd actually have been a little worried if our base would of been attacked b/c it'd take a lot of process, phone calls, etc to even get INTO our arms room, much less pull a M16/M60/whatever off of the racks. This knowledge probably helped comfort the Ft. Hood shooter.

For the stand-off position thingy....I answered my belief on that above...but here again: I don't see it that way....knowing in advance that there's reduced likelihood of someone being in the area to protect themselves b/c they follow the law allows pussies like the theater shooter to get in that position in the 1st place. The knowledge of citizens following the laws/signs allows them to capitalize on the situation (at least in their mind).


----------



## Randy

ST3MOCON said:


> I also believe that the 2nd amendment is not vague at all. It means what it says but people in power have chosen how to interpret it.
> 
> Gun owners are not evil people we just respect that right more than people who don't own guns.



So you believe there should be zero restrictions? Mentally ill and felons legally owning guns? Because from what you're saying, the law should be taken as exactly what it says on the paper.

As I said earlier, and I'm not trying to be cute, the Constitution also allowed for slavery. Do you consider that to have been a "right we had taken away"?

I'd, personally, be a little careful about saying "gun owners are not evil people" like you can speak for everybody. By nature, no, I don't believe owning a gun makes them evil or a person who owns a gun does so because they're evil. But to imply that you and all gun owners are of the same mind and of the same intention is... reaching.


----------



## Randy

ghostred7 said:


> For the stand-off position thingy....I answered my belief on that above...but here again: I don't see it that way....knowing in advance that there's reduced likelihood of someone being in the area to protect themselves b/c they follow the law allows pussies like the theater shooter to get in that position in the 1st place. The knowledge of citizens following the laws/signs allows them to capitalize on the situation (at least in their mind).



Good points all around, but I respectfully disagree here. If a person is suicidal, there's nothing indicating to me that the fear of somebody else being armed plays a significant role in their choice of venue. They're suicidal, they're planning on dying during/after their attack. If anything, the correlation is between public places being 'gun-free zones' because they house lots of people and shooters picking public places because they're densely populated. 

Also, the details are still emerging in the Newtown case, but the choice of venues seems to be linked to the actual issue with the shooter. The Ft. Hood shooter picked his base, the Columbine shooters picked the school where they were being bullied, by some accounts the Colorado shooter was mentally ill and was on some kind of 'trip' about the Joker (hence the opening of Batman), etc. Nothing there indicating that the majority reason people shoot up a place is because they don't think anybody will be armed. It's because they're insane and they're looking to take out their frustration on the people they think wronged them. In that sense, it's not much different than any murder. The victims are random, the venues are not.

Going back to your point about people targeting "gun-free zones", I don't think being a "not-gun free zone" would make the place any safer. A darkened movie theater? I lose my wallet in a seat easy enough, forget little kids or whoever else picking around in the dark while I'm watching my movie. But that might just be paranoia on my part.


----------



## ghostred7

Randy said:


> Good points all around, but I respectfully disagree here. If a person is suicidal, there's nothing indicating to me that the fear of somebody else being armed plays a significant role in their choice of venue. They're suicidal, they're planning on dying during/after their attack. If anything, the correlation is between public places being 'gun-free zones' because they house lots of people and shooters picking public places because they're densely populated.
> 
> Also, the details are still emerging in the Newtown case, but the choice of venues seems to be linked to the actual issue with the shooter. The Ft. Hood shooter picked his base, the Columbine shooters picked the school where they were being bullied, by some accounts the Colorado shooter was mentally ill and was on some kind of 'trip' about the Joker (hence the opening of Batman), etc. Nothing there indicating that the majority reason people shoot up a place is because they don't think anybody will be armed. It's because they're insane and they're looking to take out their frustration on the people they think wronged them. In that sense, it's not much different than any murder. The victims are random, the venues are not.
> 
> Going back to your point about people targeting "gun-free zones", I don't think being a "not-gun free zone" would make the place any safer. A darkened movie theater? I lose my wallet in a seat easy enough, forget little kids or whoever else picking around in the dark while I'm watching my movie. But that might just be paranoia on my part.



I'm not [intentionally] saying the gun-free zone is the motivator, but I do believe that being a "safe zone" could still play into the execution of it based on, pardon the statement, target of opportunity. The Columbine kids could of as easily waited outside...but instead went behind the closed doors (example: in GA, you're allowed to have a firearm in your car in the school parking lot while in transit) b/c it was safer for them inside. Ft. Hood guy....already made the statements there. CO shooter, again...parking lot vs. closed theater...still fits the "zone" mold.

I'm running to shop now....but I *DO* believe there is some mental health reform that will help a lot more than anything that further restricts healthy, law-abiding citizens, from executing their as-is-now rights. The firearms are in circulation....once that happens, they will ALWAYS be in circulation, no matter what laws are put in place. The amnesty program in Haiti was supposed to be like this (no citizens w/ guns, can turn them in to us (UN Peacekeepers: US, Djibouti, etc). They never all got turned in....only the citizens that wanted to do "the right thing." 3 days after the amnesty program, I had to secure a scene where a loony guy killed his neighbor's entire family....over bread (that's what started the argument). The neighbor just turned in his family firearms 2 days earlier (1 AK-47 & 1 12ga pump shotgun) whereas the guy that did the killing didn't. I'll NEVER forget that scene.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> How do you suppose we address the mental health issue, in an effective, measurable way?



Exactly, and have you heard one reasonable suggestion to this that sounds like it would make a significant impact? I haven't. It's funny too as mental health is such a fuzzy concept. A few decades ago being homosexual was considered the result of a mental malfunction. A few more decades back and if your son was acting up a bit - fix his behavior with a lobotomy! Truly one of the worst sciences! And now the logic seems to be: "if someone were to commit a mass murder, that person must have mental health issues, because a sane person would not act in that way." We have plenty of awful vices to motivate such crime without being insane, and when exactly did it become easier to measure, monitor, and adjust what people think, instead of simply restricting their access to the tools required for efficient mass slaughter?

I can see how restricting guns would still allow these violent occurrences, but to me the loopholes associated with gun reform are insignificantly small compared to the absolute incompetence of mental health services in the US.


----------



## synrgy

Never say 'never'. 

A legitimate 'buyback' program would very likely put a significant dent in whatever is currently in 'circulation'.


----------



## Randy

NRA&#8217;s Wayne LaPierre: Put &#8216;armed police officers&#8217; in every school



Wayne LePierre said:


> &#8220;There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like &#8216;Bullet Storm,&#8217; &#8216;Grand Theft Auto,&#8217; &#8216;Mortal Combat,&#8217; and &#8216;Splatterhouse,&#8217; &#8221;



Yep, the "don't blame guns" guy just blamed video games.


----------



## synrgy

'd me on that update! 

Can't say I'm the least bit surprised. It's always video games, violent media, and aggressive music. It's never 'this mentally unstable person was easily able to acquire the necessary tools to rapidly kill a room full of children'.

If he had a band, it'd be called Scapegoat.


----------



## Randy

Well, while I'm in the business of ing (since this point will inevitably come up) these are the small government people (LaPierre famously called federal agents "jack booted thugs") who now want armed police in EVERY school. 

Bear in mind, armed police in every school = need to purchase more guns = more money for the companies the NRA lobbies for.


----------



## AxeHappy

Mortal *K*ombat you son of a bitch!


----------



## synrgy

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who noticed the inherent hypocrisy between 'small government' and 'put an armed cop in every school'.

*edit*


----------



## Murdstone

So apparently there was just a shooting half an hour away from me in Altoona, a few people dead including a state trooper. Ruh roh.


----------



## synrgy

^Confirmed:

DA: 4 dead, 3 troopers hurt in shootings - AltoonaMirror.com - Altoona, PA | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - The Altoona Mirror


----------



## renzoip

synrgy said:


> I'm so glad I'm not the only one who noticed the inherent hypocrisy between 'small government' and 'put an armed cop in every school'.



Well, the only thing that conservatives love more than their so called "freedom and small government" is "national security". The later will most likely be favored at the over the former. The thing is, they make others carry the burden of their "national security" while they conveniently get to keep their "freedom and small government", that they so feel entitled to for being "responsible citizens", as if that was something they weren't supposed to be in the first place.


----------



## Randy

synrgy said:


> ^Confirmed:
> 
> DA: 4 dead, 3 troopers hurt in shootings - AltoonaMirror.com - Altoona, PA | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - The Altoona Mirror



If only those three troopers had guns this wouldn't have... oh wait.


----------



## Murdstone

Randy said:


> If only those three troopers had guns this wouldn't have... oh wait.



First thing I thought. Unfortunately I doubt this will make any ripples due to it being a smaller happening compared to the last few weeks.


----------



## Randy

Well, my condolences to everyone involved.

I've been so burned up over this shooting stuff over the last week, I think I came off a little calloused about today's events. So my apologies there.

Let's hope, regardless of "which side is right" we do something about this soon.


----------



## lurgar

In response to the NRA talking about armed guards at every school, a person put up this on another forum I frequent:

"I'm coming up with 138,925 public, private, and post-secondary schools in the United States. Assuming three guards to cover the full school day (buses start arriving around 6:30, you'll need at least two guards there during the day so that their is coverage during lunch breaks, bathroom breaks, etc., at least one guard during basketball and football games and other post-school activities), at the median security guard salary of $31,000 annually, plus the cost of benefits bringing the average cost per guard up to around $35,000, you're looking at $14,587,125,000 annually for security guards in each school.

Given that the median cost for a child's health insurance is around $940 a year, you could insure every one of the 7 million uninsured children in the United States twice for this amount of money. This would prevent 850 child deaths a year, compared with the around ~50 child deaths due to school shootings annually.

Given that it's children you're worried about and not your guns, I trust you'll support a universal healthcare program for every child under the age of 18? It will cost less than half the cost of hiring security guards for every school and save around 9 times more lives."

Citations:
Fast Facts
Armed ...ty Officer Salary | Indeed.com
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2011.pdf
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlth...highlights.html
http://healthland.time.com/2009/10/...ildrens-deaths/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ed_States#2010s


----------



## synrgy

lurgar said:


> In response to the NRA talking about armed guards at every school, a person put up this on another forum I frequent:



Got a link to the original quote/post? I'd like to share it elsewhere, if you wouldn't mind.


----------



## Randy

Also:

Columbine High School Had Armed Guards During Massacre In 1999


----------



## lurgar

synrgy said:


> Got a link to the original quote/post? I'd like to share it elsewhere, if you wouldn't mind.



Are you a member at the Somethingawful forums? If so I can link you to the exact post.


----------



## synrgy

lurgar said:


> Are you a member at the Somethingawful forums? If so I can link you to the exact post.



I am not. It hadn't occurred to me until you asked that this may be one of those 'if you're not a member, you can't see it' sort of things. I was just hoping to link to the post rather than copy/paste what you had copy/pasted. No worries, though. Life will go on.


----------



## ghostred7

Randy said:


> Also:
> 
> Columbine High School Had Armed Guards During Massacre In 1999


Seemingly untrained and irresponsible ones at that. Attempting to hit someone at 60yd w/a handgun.....i'm surprised one of these so-called security guards didn't kill an innocent themselves.


----------



## tacotiklah

I completely agree with this article:
I Am Adam Lanza

and especially this quote:
"In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it&#8217;s easy to talk about guns. But it&#8217;s time to talk about mental illness."

Granted I don't believe this was solely the work of just mental illness, or just guns, but these are large pieces of a much greater and more disturbing whole.


----------



## The Atomic Ass

flint757 said:


> The government is not evil or out to get anyone (in the general sense) and does in fact do some things pretty well.


This caused me to laugh uncontrollably for over a minute.


----------



## The Atomic Ass

Randy said:


> So, counseling (which is almost entirely voluntary at this point), should require a person to also volunteer to undertake a physical workout and a diet? If we were talking about people rational enough to submit to those kind of things, we probably wouldn't have anything to worry about in the first place...?
> 
> Unless somebody here is seriously prescribing involuntary committal, I'm still missing how this makes a single bit of difference?


First, I did not say physical, I said work*UP*.



> workup work·up (wûrk'&#365;p')
> n.
> A thorough medical examination for diagnostic purposes.


Just a little different from a workout.

Now, I probably need to clarify my previous statement somewhat. If one goes to a physical doctor, and says, "my leg's broken", of course they treat that. But if you go to the doctor and say something vague like "I feel like crap", then the doctor is going to order a workup done, to see what might be going on.

Same with the counseling bit. If you go in and say "my mom died and I'm depressed", then sure, you talk about it. But if you're just feeling depressed for no reason, then, the counselor should first check that there is not a dietary reason for that before proceeding.


----------



## flint757

ST3MOCON said:


> The first 10 amendments count for all man. Black, white and everyone in between. Those are the original 10 amendments. I caution anyone that saying any of those rights are not equally important to eachother. Free speech *due process* are other big rights given to us. I notice how many people complain on here about people's Due process being violated. Take away one right and we can take away others. Whether they take away the others is arelavent. The point is if that now they know they can take away your rights. Now they can wrongfully detain you. When I say "they" I mean anyform of our government, (local,state,federal).



Uhhh, you should probably brush up on your history. The 10 amendments were not adjusted to mean everyone until the 14th amendment. That's 77 years before it included all men and even later before women. 

You can think the patriot act for the other related things. That being said, despite their ability to do so (I am against the patriot act) it is unlikely that any everyday person is going to be unlawfully detained. Even so it seems the supreme court has done a fair job of over turning these instances involving non-citizens and citizens. 



ST3MOCON said:


> I also believe that the 2nd amendment is not vague at all. It means what it says but people in power have chosen how to interpret it. *I also hope that FLlint someday changes his mentality over our rights in the bill of rights but I think it's save to say it may be to late.* Don't worry guys they will pass bans on guns. They will eventually ban all guns. Just know that when they do, they have taken away one of your rights whether you use it or not. Excuse any grammar errors I am little late for work. Best wishes to everyone. Gun owners are not evil people we just respect that right more than people who don't own guns.



I can't help, but want to say fuck you. I really feel compelled to do so. That is a very arrogant position to take. Your implication is that I am an imbecile and thus you are right. Since you're going there I refer back to the first section on why our founding fathers weren't always right and historical context is absolutely necessary. It has been said elsewhere in this thread as well and I'm not going to rehash or write it out. If you'd like a better understanding look online or through this thread. 

Just because our founding fathers gave a set of amendments a fancy name doesn't make it untouchable. We don't seem to have a problem fiddling with subsections of those 10 amendments (originally 12 and 2 were removed, blasphemy!!!) or any other amendment in the constitution; Only guns are the untouchable section,right? You'd think they were written by God given the context people give it. You respect the 'right' more than we do because you have something to lose. Your guns. Not because you respect the rights themselves it seems.

The second amendment couldn't be more vague. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't. To pretend it isn't because it fits your agenda is dishonest.



> vague
> /v&#257;g/
> 
> Adjective
> 
> Of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning: "patients with vague symptoms".
> 
> Thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way: "he had been vague about his activities".
> 
> Synonyms
> 
> hazy - indistinct - obscure - nebulous - dim - *indefinite*





> in·def·i·nite
> /in&#712;def&#601;nit/
> 
> Adjective
> 
> Lasting for an unknown length of time: "indefinite detention".
> 
> Not clearly expressed or defined; vague: "their status remains indefinite".
> 
> Synonyms
> 
> vague - indeterminate - uncertain - indistinct







The Atomic Ass said:


> This caused me to laugh uncontrollably for over a minute.



Ohhh gee someone who owns guns and thinks the government is out to get them. What a surprise. 

Do tell how the government is fucking everything up and how we are the worst nation in the world as a consequence. We are a first world nation, rock solid status in the world economy and if you are using the internet much like I am then you are probably doing okay in your day-to-day life. If our government couldn't do anything right none of this would be the case, you wouldn't have an education, and we'd probably be worse off overall.

[EDIT]

Do you have any meaningful response to the rest of that post (everything you left out) or is that it???


----------



## fps

I think compulsory mental health screening is a far greater invasion of privacy than taking some simple steps to make it harder to get a gun. 

For instance, if you have a gun in your house every person in that house should have compulsory training and background checks, and if someone in the house doesn't have permission to own a gun then some kind of steps should be taken to make sure they cannot touch or get access to the gun at any point.


----------



## Mordacain

fps said:


> I think compulsory mental health screening is a far greater invasion of privacy than taking some simple steps to make it harder to get a gun.
> 
> For instance, if you have a gun in your house every person in that house should have compulsory training and background checks, and if someone in the house doesn't have permission to own a gun then some kind of steps should be taken to make sure they cannot touch or get access to the gun at any point.



Not that I particularly like the idea of further invasions of privacy, there is no guarantee of privacy in the Unites States consitution.

Personally, I'd willingly submit to mental health screening if the same rules would apply to politicians, CEO's and anyone else in a place of power; we keep the unstable away from guns and we keep the megalomaniacal and psychopathic out of positions of power.

I'll just go on and keep dreaming


----------



## fps

Mordacain said:


> Not that I particularly like the idea of further invasions of privacy, there is no guarantee of privacy in the Unites States consitution.
> 
> Personally, I'd willingly submit to mental health screening if the same rules would apply to politicians, CEO's and anyone else in a place of power; we keep the unstable away from guns and we keep the megalomaniacal and psychopathic out of positions of power.
> 
> I'll just go on and keep dreaming



Well this is the problem. Where do you draw the line once you start saying that mentally certain people aren't allowed guns? It's a very slippery slope. The law has clearly failed everyone in this instance, as the gunman was able easily to take a weapon in the house he lived in and use it against the owner. Even if mental health screenings were introduced, what would have been the answer to this conundrum?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Mordacain said:


> Personally, I'd willingly submit to mental health screening if the same rules would apply to politicians, CEO's and anyone else in a place of power; we keep the unstable away from guns and we keep the megalomaniacal and psychopathic out of positions of power.


 
Wow, that's a really good point. Corporations and politicians affect far more people every day than guns ever will, so if people are willing to impose mental health screens for gun owners, then why not for CEOs and politicians, too? We may not be able to come to any sort of consensus on whether or not gun control should be more strict, but in our hurry to agree with eachother about the fact that mental health is also an issue, many of us seem to be glossing over the far-reaching consequences that any laws enacted with the goal of curtailing negative effects of mental instability on society might have, or where we'd even be able to begin to draw the line.


----------



## Mordacain

fps said:


> Well this is the problem. Where do you draw the line once you start saying that mentally certain people aren't allowed guns? It's a very slippery slope. The law has clearly failed everyone in this instance, as the gunman was able easily to take a weapon in the house he lived in and use it against the owner. Even if mental health screenings were introduced, what would have been the answer to this conundrum?



Well, I think additional regulations regarding gun ownership could help. Not necessarily ban certain types of weapons or extended magazines (though personally I don't see the 2nd Amendment as blanket right to any and all types of arms) but introduce some follow-up requirements. Here are some suggestions:



Require licenses similar to driver's license classifications. You would have to be certified and licensed from a qualified instructor for handguns, semi-automatic, clip-fed rifles & carbines, shotguns, bolt-action rifles, etc. I think imperative with that is that you would need to get recertified every year or so (similar to getting your driver's license renewed).
Any new gun purchaser also has to purchase an approved gun-safe with registered serial numbers. You would tie this to their weapon sales for aiding law-enforcement in tracking stolen weapons but also to confirm that the gun owner has a secure storage method. Personally, I'd go one step further and have the lock be finger-print based.
The biggest one for me would be to start having manufacturers place serial numbers on magazines and then restrict the number of magazines a single individual may own for any particular weapon. This could be in lieu of extended magazine ban. However, I should note that we have had certain extended magazines banned for decades before the most recent Assault Weapons Ban (94). The Thompson drum mag for instance, was banned a long time ago. People get up in arms about this sort of thing, but it's nothing new and statistically, the absence of extended mags in years passed has not hurt anyone.
If any restrictions are passed on the sale and ownership of say assault rifles or extended ammo, I think it should be legal for gun stores / gun range owners be able to own those restricted items and that people be allowed to rent them for use at the rifle range on the premises, that way people that shoot these weapons for fun can continue to do so.

/Edit - I should add that I view restrictions not as a way to prevent mass-shootings, but as a way of making it more difficult for anyone to just go at it willy-nilly. Making things more difficult not only serves as a deterrent for those not seriously committed to going full-on psycho, but makes it more likely they'll be caught while trying to bypass the laws to acquire the tools they'll need to commit mass-murder on the scale we are used to seeing.


----------



## ghostred7

fps said:


> The law has clearly failed everyone in this instance, as the gunman was able easily to take a weapon in the house he lived in and use it against the owner.


What failed in this instance is the firearm owner's lack of properly securing his/her weapon. A simple trigger lock or gun safe/cabinet would of prevented them from being taken. Hell....mine are in a biometric safe beside my bed. Only myself & my woman can get into them unless someone clones our fingerprints. It's not the law that failed, its the home the weapons came from.


----------



## Captain_Awesome

America will never see any serious change, these shootings are going to be something that you guys will have to live with. Prohibition is the most effective measure against gun violence but I would be absolutely laughing if America took such steps. In America's case you'd probably need to have a total handover of guns to make the law enforcible but that would be virtually impossible - people seem to love their guns as much as their life.


----------



## Mordacain

ghostred7 said:


> What failed in this instance is the firearm owner's lack of properly securing his/her weapon. A simple trigger lock or gun safe/cabinet would of prevented them from being taken. Hell....mine are in a biometric safe beside my bed. Only myself & my woman can get into them unless someone clones our fingerprints. It's not the law that failed, its the home the weapons came from.



In this particular instance, I agree it was the owner's fault, which is why I think biometric safes should be required for gun ownership.

Still, can't guarantee it will be used, but you can certainly decrease the chance of this particular situation happening again.


----------



## flint757

Mordacain said:


> Well, I think additional regulations regarding gun ownership could help. Not necessarily ban certain types of weapons or extended magazines (though personally I don't see the 2nd Amendment as blanket right to any and all types of arms) but introduce some follow-up requirements. Here are some suggestions:
> 
> 
> 
> Require licenses similar to driver's license classifications. You would have to be certified and licensed from a qualified instructor for handguns, semi-automatic, clip-fed rifles & carbines, shotguns, bolt-action rifles, etc. I think imperative with that is that you would need to get recertified every year or so (similar to getting your driver's license renewed).
> Any new gun purchaser also has to purchase an approved gun-safe with registered serial numbers. You would tie this to their weapon sales for aiding law-enforcement in tracking stolen weapons but also to confirm that the gun owner has a secure storage method. Personally, I'd go one step further and have the lock be finger-print based.
> The biggest one for me would be to start having manufacturers place serial numbers on magazines and then restrict the number of magazines a single individual may own for any particular weapon. This could be in lieu of extended magazine ban. However, I should note that we have had certain extended magazines banned for decades before the most recent Assault Weapons Ban (94). The Thompson drum mag for instance, was banned a long time ago. People get up in arms about this sort of thing, but it's nothing new and statistically, the absence of extended mags in years passed has not hurt anyone.
> If any restrictions are passed on the sale and ownership of say assault rifles or extended ammo, I think it should be legal for gun stores / gun range owners be able to own those restricted items and that people be allowed to rent them for use at the rifle range on the premises, that way people that shoot these weapons for fun can continue to do so.
> 
> /Edit - I should add that I view restrictions not as a way to prevent mass-shootings, but as a way of making it more difficult for anyone to just go at it willy-nilly. Making things more difficult not only serves as a deterrent for those not seriously committed to going full-on psycho, but makes it more likely they'll be caught while trying to bypass the laws to acquire the tools they'll need to commit mass-murder on the scale we are used to seeing.



All great ideas that I'd be more than willing to back and that's exactly the point.



Something I'm surprised hasn't been brought up by gun rights supporters is how the '94 ban sounds like it was written by a bunch of elementary school kids (maybe someone has brought it up, I don't recall ). They used no practical or by definition accurate methods to determine legality. The way the bill was written is basically, "Does the gun look scary? Banned." I only care because under that law some guns were defined illegal for very arbitrary reasons. The way it was defined there were plenty of still legal weapons that had just as large clip sizes and/or lethality and I take issue with the inconsistency. It felt more like an attempt at appeasing the base than actually trying to solve a problem.

So lets hope whatever congress does this go around it isn't a bunch of gibberish.


----------



## Mordacain

flint757 said:


> All great ideas that I'd be more than willing to back and that's exactly the point.
> 
> 
> 
> Something I'm surprised hasn't been brought up by gun rights supporters is how the '94 ban sounds like it was written by a bunch of elementary school kids (maybe someone has brought it up, I don't recall ). They used no practical or by definition accurate methods to determine legality. The way the bill was written is basically, "Does the gun look scary? Banned." I only care because under that law some guns were defined illegal for very arbitrary reasons. The way it was defined there were plenty of still legal weapons that had just as large clip sizes and/or lethality and I take issue with the inconsistency. It felt more like an attempt at appeasing the base than actually trying to solve a problem.
> 
> So lets hope whatever congress does this go around it isn't a bunch of gibberish.



 the 94 ban was ludicrous on many levels.

What's really ridiculous is it would be fairly simple to define what an "Assault Weapon" is. Here's my simple, vague gun-enthusiast definition:



Design based on one submitted for military contract (this gets around defining an assault weapon as one that is currently in service).
Designed around high-capacity, high cyclic rate of fire
Built on military standard ammunition for service rifles: 5.56, 7.62, 9mm
Modular design for stocks, barrels, upper & lower receivers, etc
Design is one that either offers a fully-automatic variant or can be easily modified for fully-automatic fire


----------



## fps

ghostred7 said:


> What failed in this instance is the firearm owner's lack of properly securing his/her weapon. A simple trigger lock or gun safe/cabinet would of prevented them from being taken. Hell....mine are in a biometric safe beside my bed. Only myself & my woman can get into them unless someone clones our fingerprints. It's not the law that failed, its the home the weapons came from.



The law as it stands is clearly not enough then. Surely there need to be regular unadvertised inspections of houses to make sure owners are securing their weapons properly, and have all the weapons they say they do and haven't lent them to someone or sold some of them?


----------



## texshred777

fps said:


> The law as it stands is clearly not enough then. Surely there need to be regular unadvertised inspections of houses to make sure owners are securing their weapons properly, and have all the weapons they say they do and haven't lent them to someone or sold some of them?


 
Can you say civil rights clusterfuck?


----------



## YngwieJ

fps said:


> The law as it stands is clearly not enough then. Surely there need to be regular unadvertised inspections of houses to make sure owners are securing their weapons properly, and have all the weapons they say they do and haven't lent them to someone or sold some of them?


This would be protected from under the Fourth Amendment.


> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The only way they could search the home is if the police could show probable cause that someone is violating safe-storage laws.

As far as I could find, the safe-storage laws in Connecticut are only applicable to those with a minor (under 16 years of age) in the home. Safe storage of guns is just plain common sense and should be required in every home.


----------



## flint757

They could make it contractual with getting a license then no warrant would be necessary; similar to agreeing at your job to random drug testing. Even then there is a lot of money, paperwork, man hours and butt hurt to deal with if they went that route. It would still be infeasible.


----------



## Mordacain

YngwieJ said:


> This would be protected from under the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> The only way they could search the home is if the police could show probable cause that someone is violating safe-storage laws.
> 
> As far as I could find, the safe-storage laws in Connecticut are only applicable to those with a minor (under 16 years of age) in the home. Safe storage of guns is just plain common sense and should be required in every home.



Well, not that this would ever happen, but guns could easily be manufactured with small RFID tags that could be hard-coded to the owner's gunsafe that in turn could be tied into a massive Law-Enforcement database. Law enforcement could then know when you remove the gun from the safe and, by the same token, tell if you leave the gun out of the safe for extended periods. Of course you could setup exceptions for a handgun registered as a concealed carry weapon.

Seriously, not actually suggesting this, just spitting ideas out there. This all has to do with what people determine is an invasion of privacy. Me personally, I wouldn't care if Law Enforcement could track my guns' whereabouts. Any law-abiding citizen would only have occasion to remove their firearms in instance of defense of life and property, trips to the firing range (or competitions as the case were), when hunting, performing routine maintenance or when selling the weapon. 

Honestly, I actually really like the idea of Law Enforcement being able to account for all legally purchased / registered weapons at a given time. Should make it easier to crack down on illicit firearms sale and possession and also allow for more punitive laws for illegally owning a firearm.


----------



## flint757

Yeah, but the gun industry makes a lot of money indirectly through the black market. Someone at some point bought the gun legally to sell to someone else and will either buy another to replace it or buy another to sell. If it got stolen, same thing, they will replace it most likely. It is lucrative. Plus, you can't convince people their lives are in danger and they NEED guns to even survive if we actually solved the problem. If we got rid of illegal guns and got crime rates to drop so would their sales.

There is money to be made in the chaos and they don't want it fixed.

Similar to google 'fighting' for the internet's freedom. They are all using us as pawns to serve their best interest.

The RFID chip idea is quite interesting. It'd never happen and probably wouldn't have overall public support, but is interesting nonetheless.


----------



## fps

YngwieJ said:


> Safe storage of guns is just plain common sense and should be required in every home.



Sure but without laws to enforce it, people clearly don't follow the guidelines. It's common sense not to shoot people. But horribly, horribly, it has happened, this time at a school.


----------



## fps

flint757 said:


> The RFID chip idea is quite interesting. It'd never happen and probably wouldn't have overall public support, but is interesting nonetheless.



Yeah mordacain I have to say it's not a bad idea. It's very easy to use satellites to track phones, and phones can't be used to kill people! The issue would be with guns getting de-chipped of course, but if that happened you could find out where, or if it was done at the home of the person whose gun it was you could go find out exactly why they did it.


----------



## Mordacain

fps said:


> Yeah mordacain I have to say it's not a bad idea. It's very easy to use satellites to track phones, and phones can't be used to kill people! The issue would be with guns getting de-chipped of course, but if that happened you could find out where, or if it was done at the home of the person whose gun it was you could go find out exactly why they did it.



Yes, exactly. Honestly, depending on how thoroughly such a system is implemented it could be possible to not "ban" any types of firearms and instead have certain types of firearms (fully automatics, assault rifles, etc) be tightly tracked and owners would have to notify law enforcement when taking them out of the home and file a travel plan (similar to air-traffic coordination). 

If it could be implemented then I think most people would prefer it since it then doesn't restrict their ownership of the weapons, just their usage.

Of course that wouldn't sit well with militia, cults and government-insurrection types, but honestly they frighten me more than criminals.


----------



## Pablo

Let me get this straight: people here are contemplating house inspections and publicly accessible tracking systems for private property, but consider a ban on a piece of hardware that kills 30.000 US citizens every year an infringement? The US went to war for one tenth of those casualties after 9/11...

In the immortal (albeit slightly paraphrased) words of Obélix: _Ils sont fous ces Américains!_ 

Again, it's pretty basic stuff: 

Less guns = less gun violence
No guns = no gun violence

Cheers

Eske


----------



## Mordacain

Pablo said:


> Again, it's pretty basic stuff:
> 
> Less guns = less gun violence
> No guns = no gun violence



Unfortunately, banning guns outright does not equal gun violence magically ceasing. There is a steeply entrenched criminal element that does not obtain firearms legally. The US is also bordered by highly active criminal cartels that don't necessarily have to obtain their weapons from the US period (though statistically, deaths in Mexico by gun violence have gone up significantly since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004).

Now, there are steps that can be taken to minimize those cartels' influence and affect (namely the legalization of drugs), but I digress...


----------



## wlfers

Pablo said:


> Again, it's pretty basic stuff:
> 
> Less guns = less gun violence
> No guns = no gun violence
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Eske



yep 16 pages into a complex issue/discussion and still getting that. 

anyway on the current topic: gun stores that I've shopped at require you to either purchase a lock when you buy a firearm or provide them with a model and serial # of a gun safe you have.

I agree with a few of Mordacain's suggestion with exception to the serialized magazines, it would be a giant logistics issue and then would prohibit change of hands of magazines. Also as a Californian with no special privileges, I'm limited to a 10 round magazine so sometimes I can order 30 round magazine kits from out of state and assemble them with some epoxy in a way that blocks it at the 10th round. This may sound silly to some but for some rifles like the AK series 30round magazines are much more available and inexpensive than their 10 round counterparts. In the serialized magazine hypothetical, what part of the magazine gets serialized? Over time magazines can break or one can need to replace the case, or spring, or follower. If a magazine has a serial and individuals are limited on how many they can have then you cant gift, trade, replace, repair, etc.

When it comes to waiting periods like in California, they are intended as cool down periods so you can't run into a gunstore in the heat of the moment and walk out half an hour later. This is great and should definitely stay in place... for first time firearm purchasers since that logic fails when someone already owns a firearm. 

It is easy as hell to get a firearm, even in my state. I did not need to show any knowledge to buy my first shotgun at 18 years old, and when I turned 21 to buy a handgun you must take the easiest test and you bring your "certificate" to the salesman. There is no real safety instruction or first aid instruction. It's funny because I was learning about how many hurdles other countries have to go through in order to get a drivers license (CPR training, first aid knowledge) whereas here I just get my parents to sign that I've driven x amount of hours and take 2 basic tests. The same is true with firearms, we really need some safety instruction and first aid knowledge before being able to pick one up.

Now on the topic of "Assault Rifles". Assault might as well just mean "spooky looking" because there's no functional definition. Adding an extra way to hold the firearm can deem it an "Assault Rifle". I feel that Assault Rifle should just mean any automatic rifle, and that what we're currently "Assault Rifle" should just be called what they are: Semi-auto military style rifles.

There definitely needs to be some sort of gun reform where both sides come together in a manner that benefits the nation. Banning guns is just as ridiculous as posting an armed police officer everywhere. We have a constitutional right to own these firearms, but as responsible citizens we should prove we can handle this right. Safety, first aid, and other forms of instruction should be mandatory before being able to own one.

Anyway this semi incoherent rambling was for people unfamiliar with these issues, be they foreign or just have never purchased one for themself


----------



## The Atomic Ass

Randy said:


> Also:
> 
> Columbine High School Had Armed Guards During Massacre In 1999


Yep, I don't like the NRA. And this stupidity is only a small part of why.

Classically, mass shooters shoot, or shoot at cops/uniformed security. Cops arenecessarilycautious, and so won't usually jump into suicidal situations, except in very extreme cases. (read: the police have as many heroes among their ranks, on average, as the general population)


----------



## The Atomic Ass

ghostred7 said:


> Seemingly untrained and irresponsible ones at that. Attempting to hit someone at 60yd w/a handgun.....i'm surprised one of these so-called security guards didn't kill an innocent themselves.


While hitting anything at 60 yards with a handgun under stressful conditions is certainly beyond the ability of almost anyone to pick up a handgun, handguns are quite capable of placing rounds in an area much smaller than a center mass, at 100 yards, given to steady hands.

Next time I'm at the range, I'll see what I can do at 60 yards with mine.


----------



## Pablo

athawulf said:


> yep 16 pages into a complex issue/discussion and still getting that.


Please excuse my ignorance - it must stem from my non-native perspective. 

But do aid my obviously flawed maths: how many life-ending gunshots would be fired at hmm... say an elementary school, if no firearms were present?

I accept the fact that I am on the outside looking in, but it is my opinion that (unless you live in bear country) firearms serve no _civil_ purpose today. Let's face it: no-one on these boards are hunter-gatherers (in the true meaning of the term)!

Let's recap, you (as a nation) choose to _accept_ casualties to the rate of *TEN* 9/11s every year, for (what I concider) no civil purpose whatsoever. You accept these casualties on the strength of a 221 year-old document drawn up to insure the survival of a young and volatile republic. To this historically significant point, the 2nd ammendment outlived the founding fathers' intended purpose long ago.

You may think me uninformed and/or naïve, but no-one I know owns a handgun or assault rifle... and my countrymen aren't being shot by the thousands for _not_ owning said firearms.

I really just find it perplexing and downright sad that the worlds strongest economy with one of the highest BNPs per capita decides to accept such immense human loss, with little more than a shrug and prayer for the victims' families... Whilst the NRA suggests that the country simply needs _more guns_ to right the wrongs.

Cheers

Eske


----------



## YngwieJ

Pablo said:


> Let me get this straight: people here are contemplating house inspections and publicly accessible tracking systems for private property, but consider a ban on a piece of hardware that kills 30.000 US citizens every year an infringement? The US went to war for one tenth of those casualties after 9/11...
> 
> In the immortal (albeit slightly paraphrased) words of Obélix: _Ils sont fous ces Américains!_
> 
> Again, it's pretty basic stuff:
> 
> Less guns = less gun violence
> No guns = no gun violence
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Eske


As much as I'd like to one day see a ban on guns in the US, it just isn't a feasible option right now. There are about 250 - 300 million guns in the US (based on various reports), which accounts to more than one per every adult. Additionally, US politics has taken a strong pro-gun stance in recent years and the power of the NRA to influence elections is one that has our elected officials cowering in fear at the very thought of implementing any kind of gun control.
Conservatives of the past:

"Guns are an abomination" - Richard Nixon, who also confessed favoring making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles, if not for retaliation from gun owners' at the polls.
President George Bush Sr. banned the import of assault weapons in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes"
Governor Reagan signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on ones person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.
I support the Brady Bill... and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay. - Ronald Reagan, March 28, 1991.
New York State Governor George Pataki (R), on August 10, 2000, signed into law what _The New York Times_ called the nations strictest gun controls, a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and ballistic fingerprinting of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned assault weapons, the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.
I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I dont believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal, - Mitt Romney, 2004
But since these days, public support for gun control has dwindled. It will be interesting to see what the dialogue is in January when gun control legislation comes up for discussion in Congress. So far, many Democrats have been speaking out in favor of gun control, whereas Republicans have been silent. But Boehner has only said that the House will consider it.

If you think the fiscal cliff negotiations have been a soap opera, get ready for gun control to hit Congress next month.


----------



## The Atomic Ass

flint757 said:


> Ohhh gee someone who owns guns and thinks the government is out to get them. What a surprise.


To be fair... I thought the government was out to get me long before I got guns. 



flint757 said:


> Do tell how the government is fucking everything up and how we are the worst nation in the world as a consequence.


Hmm... I'm sure some people in this country have a rosier perspective, especially if they have not been too negatively effected by the collapse, (and I don't just mean the financial collapse), a lot of people I know have simply given up looking entirely. This affects statistics, as fewer job applications = lower unemployment, according to government bean counters.



flint757 said:


> We are a first world nation, rock solid status in the world economy and if you are using the internet much like I am then you are probably doing okay in your day-to-day life. If our government couldn't do anything right none of this would be the case, you wouldn't have an education, and we'd probably be worse off overall.


You realize, of course, that the "worlds" (first, second and third), have nothing to do with wealth, right? Third World - Wikipedia. I'll agree that we are first world, but that is NOT a compliment, it is a pejorative term.

Rock solid status? I've been hearing people talking about dropping the dollar as the reserve now for the last two years.

And I'm pretty bad off, thanks. I'm having to live with my parents because the best I can find around here is seasonal work. And even that, as of late, is starting to dwindle, as people buy fewer and fewer Christmas gifts.

I simply prioritize the relatively minimal cost of Internet over other things, as knowledge is more important to me, than say, keeping my living environment over 60F in the winter. I have a variety of hand-me-down sweatshirts I can put on if I'm chilly.

And although my early educationof which I remember precious littlemay have been influenced by government policy, it was not provided.



flint757 said:


> Do you have any meaningful response to the rest of that post (everything you left out) or is that it???


Sorry, nope. I just picked the best part, and commented appropriately. 

Anyway, let us re-rail the thread. Kids are dead. The insane are doing it. Solutions?


----------



## narad

Food for thought - An article detailing with Japan's gun control, a country which has .02 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people, vs. our rate which is 185 times more frequent [stats from 2009]. Naturally there are many cultural issues at play as well, but the discrepancy country-to-country is astounding.

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic


----------



## The Atomic Ass

Pablo said:


> Please excuse my ignorance - it must stem from my non-native perspective.
> 
> But do aid my obviously flawed maths: how many life-ending gunshots would be fired at hmm... say an elementary school, if no firearms were present?
> 
> I accept the fact that I am on the outside looking in, but it is my opinion that (unless you live in bear country) firearms serve no _civil_ purpose today. Let's face it: no-one on these boards are hunter-gatherers (in the true meaning of the term)!
> 
> Let's recap, you (as a nation) choose to _accept_ casualties to the rate of *TEN* 9/11s every year, for (what I concider) no civil purpose whatsoever. You accept these casualties on the strength of a 221 year-old document drawn up to insure the survival of a young and volatile republic. To this historically significant point, the 2nd ammendment outlived the founding fathers' intended purpose long ago.


We choose to accept ten times THAT number in hospital deaths from fuckups that should not happen, as well. We're more screwed up than you think. (Where's the insanity smiley?)



Pablo said:


> You may think me uninformed and/or naïve, but no-one I know owns a handgun or assault rifle... and my countrymen aren't being shot by the thousands for _not_ owning said firearms.


Just a vast difference in culture. I have not visited Denmark, so without seeing the culture with my own eyes, and delving into it's history, I can't understand how it works. But I understand how our's works. We came to this country, violently wiped out a portion of the Indian population, and continued doing so almost until WWI, we violently took our independence, and have been violently wielding ourselves around ever since. We're going through some growing pains, in getting ourselves out of our violent tendencies. 



Pablo said:


> I really just find it perplexing and downright sad that the worlds strongest economy with one of the highest BNPs per capita decides to accept such immense human loss, with little more than a shrug and prayer for the victims' families... Whilst the NRA suggests that the country simply needs _more guns_ to right the wrongs.


While I don't like the NRA, they're not wrong on this point. The state with the highest firearms ownership in the country, Wyoming, is dead last in terms of homicides, by any method, and has been for a long time. They have, in their entire state, nearly double the population as Cincinnati, Ohio, to which I live thankfully not too near, and have fewer homicides per year.

Another notable place is Kennesaw, Georgia, which in 1982 mandated gun ownership for all households. (with exceptions for federal legal disability and conscientious objection) This when the population was only about 5,500. Today it is nearly 30,000, and they had 28 straight years without a murder.

Breaking down gun violence by state, and correspondingly, gun ownership by state, we find an inverse relationship.


----------



## YngwieJ

The Atomic Ass said:


> While I don't like the NRA, they're not wrong on this point. The state with the highest firearms ownership in the country, Wyoming, is dead last in terms of homicides, by any method, and has been for a long time. They have, in their entire state, nearly double the population as Cincinnati, Ohio, to which I live thankfully not too near, and have fewer homicides per year.
> 
> Another notable place is Kennesaw, Georgia, which in 1982 mandated gun ownership for all households. (with exceptions for federal legal disability and conscientious objection) This when the population was only about 5,500. Today it is nearly 30,000, and they had 28 straight years without a murder.
> 
> Breaking down gun violence by state, and correspondingly, gun ownership by state, we find an inverse relationship.


This isn't quite accurate. Wyoming has a low homicide rate, but it isn't last. Wikipedia: Gun violence by state

Furthermore, it's important to note, not just homicide rates, but all deaths by a gun; homicides, suicides, and accidents -- this is the real measure of gun violence. And if we look at gun violence by state, there is a direct relationship between gun ownership and gun-related deaths, with a few outliers. By this measure, Wyoming ranks 1st in gun ownership and 2nd in gun deaths. Montana ranks 2nd in gun ownership and 4th in gun deaths. Meanwhile, Massachusetts ranks 48th in gun ownership and 50th in gun deaths; New Jersey 49th in gun ownership, 48th in gun deaths.

I wish this graphic was put into a graph so it'd be easier to see how the numbers correlate -- I may put a graph together myself using the data.


----------



## flint757

The Atomic Ass said:


> You realize, of course, that the "worlds" (first, second and third), have nothing to do with wealth, right? Third World - Wikipedia. I'll agree that we are first world, but that is NOT a compliment, it is a pejorative term.
> 
> Rock solid status? I've been hearing people talking about dropping the dollar as the reserve now for the last two years.
> 
> And although my early educationof which I remember precious littlemay have been influenced by government policy, it was not provided.



Yes, I do realize what it represents, but if we look at the GDP, average income, life expectancy, etc. of countries we consider first world nations it does reflect good things (and a trend of sorts) despite the title having nothing to do with that. So it isn't just irrelevant, but yes the title itself is meaningless.

Nope, even in our worst people still have great faith in the american dollar. Talk doesn't mean anything unless they act on it and nothing has changed in that regard for the most part.

Why the Dollar Will Remain the Global Currency - Businessweek

It refers to 2009, but that was just after the recession so I imagine it still stands.

I have no idea what you are implying here. Did you go to private school? If you went to public then it was organized and funded by the government (my education was great and so is my Uni). In any case, to ignore anything good the government has done or is capable of doing is looking at the world through some very pessimistic lenses (and does not reflect the whole story).

GDP - per capita (PPP) - Country Comparison



The Atomic Ass said:


> Hmm... I'm sure some people in this country have a rosier perspective, especially if they have not been too negatively effected by the collapse, (and I don't just mean the financial collapse), a lot of people I know have simply given up looking entirely. This affects statistics, as fewer job applications = lower unemployment, according to government bean counters.
> 
> And I'm pretty bad off, thanks. I'm having to live with my parents because the best I can find around here is seasonal work. And even that, as of late, is starting to dwindle, as people buy fewer and fewer Christmas gifts.
> 
> I simply prioritize the relatively minimal cost of Internet over other things, as knowledge is more important to me, than say, keeping my living environment over 60F in the winter. I have a variety of hand-me-down sweatshirts I can put on if I'm chilly.



I'm very sorry about your current situation, but it isn't a reflection of quite literally the majority of this country. Hell, even if unemployment were say 20% that still means 80% have jobs. Point being that even if your situation sucks that doesn't mean this country is in the toilet; It means you are a part of the fringe that is getting the grunt of our nations current problems. In any case, you were dealt some rough cards and sorry for coming off rash. It isn't so much rose colored glasses, but opportunities, location and timing. Where I live it isn't all that hard to find work. Where you live it is clearly different.

What other collapse are you speaking of?


As for mental illness, I think that a full workup by a physician should include mental health. I also think things like talk therapy should be covered by insurance (it's rather expensive and currently insurance forces doctors to prescribe rather than treat). Sometimes all these people need are someone to talk to who won't judge them. At the very least if they make a threatening gesture to the therapist they can then warn the police before it happens. So I guess that would just be mandated check ups and more overall health coverage. That'd be a lot easier to do with a single payer system though.

We can't force people to get help unless they are committing a crime and doing much else would be walking the line of what people consider acceptable.

On top of that some of the various suggestions for gun legislation to make it more difficult for those who still slip through the cracks.


----------



## YngwieJ

Ok, I plotted the data for gun ownership (Gallup 2011 poll) and gun-related deaths (Violence Policy Center 2009) and I created the following graph. Since I suck with OpenOffice Calc the states are not labelled, but the trend is obvious.






Additionally, I found a study by Douglas J Wiebe that has very similar data. The graphs look slightly different because of the scale used and different sources of data from a decade apart. But considering all that, I'm surprised the two graphs look as similar as they do.






> Study objective: I test the hypothesis that having a gun in the home is a risk factor for adults to be killed (homicide) or to commit suicide.
> 
> Methods: Two case-control analyses were based on national samples of subjects 18 years of age or older. Homicide and suicide case subjects were drawn from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey. Living control subjects were drawn from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey. Ten control subjects matched by sex, race, and age group were sought for each case subject.
> 
> Results: The homicide sample consisted of 1,720 case subjects and 8,084 control subjects. Compared with adults in homes with no guns, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for homicide was 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to 1.65) for adults with a gun at home and was particularly high among women (adjusted OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.89 to 3.90) compared with men (adjusted OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.49) and among nonwhite subjects (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.21) compared with white subjects (adjusted OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56). Further analyses revealed that a gun in the home was a risk factor for homicide by firearm means (adjusted OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.40 to 2.12) but not by nonfirearm means (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11).
> 
> The suicide sample consisted of 1,959 case subjects and 13,535 control subjects. The adjusted OR for suicide was 3.44 (95% CI 3.06 to 3.86) for persons with a gun at home. However, further analysis revealed that having a firearm in the home was a risk factor for suicide by firearm (adjusted OR 16.89; 95% CI 13.26 to 21.52) but was inversely associated with suicide by other means (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.84).
> 
> Conclusion: Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm. Physicians should continue to discuss with patients the implications of keeping guns at home. Additional studies are warranted to address study limitations and to better understand the implications of firearm ownership. [Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41:771-782.]



Wiebe, Douglas J. PhD. &#8220;Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated With Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study.&#8221; Annals of Emergency Medicine 41 (2003): 771-82.


----------



## fps

So you're saying there's evidence that more guns means more gun crime? I'm sorry but half the people in this thread will find some way to refute this.


----------



## Painhawg

YngwieJ said:


> Ok, I plotted the data for gun ownership (Gallup 2011 poll) and gun-related deaths (Violence Policy Center 2009) and I created the following graph. Since I suck with OpenOffice Calc the states are not labelled, but the trend is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, I found a study by Douglas J Wiebe that has very similar data. The graphs look slightly different because of the scale used and different sources of data from a decade apart. But considering all that, I'm surprised the two graphs look as similar as they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiebe, Douglas J. PhD. Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated With Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study. Annals of Emergency Medicine 41 (2003): 771-82.


 


And the population of wyoming is? 


I own guns. Handguns and long guns. I have no assault weapons. I don't need one. Folks also don't _need_ 15/30/50 round clips for their weapons either. It's never taken me more than one or tries to bag a deer, turkey or rabbit. Which I then consume in the form of dinner. I have had the guns long enough, and the rifle has taken enough game, that's it's cheaper to shoot a deer than buy ground beef.

So if an idea to take away all guns went through, it would cost me money. I don't like that. 

I have no intention of randomly shooting anyone. I go to work, I pay taxes, I have days when I am an asshole, but no-one has the right to take anything from me that's legal and responsibly used because others use those things to kill.

In response to another post,

Yeah, the numbers killed at one time means nothing. Each one is as dead as the other, and each family left behnds grieves as greatly. By saying that more is worse, you minimize those that were lost in less newsworthy fashion.

At this point in our society taking all guns away is not going to happen, we can't put mentally ill people away in cages, and we can't lock up our kids in schools with armed gaurds and fire doors. So what can we do?

Not much room left there. I wish I had the answer. 

I do know that emotional knee jerk reactions won't help in the long term.


----------



## fps

Painhawg said:


> And the population of wyoming is?
> 
> 
> I own guns. Handguns and long guns. I have no assault weapons. I don't need one. Folks also don't _need_ 15/30/50 round clips for their weapons either. It's never taken me more than one or tries to bag a deer, turkey or rabbit. Which I then consume in the form of dinner. I have had the guns long enough, and the rifle has taken enough game, that's it's cheaper to shoot a deer than buy ground beef.
> 
> So if an idea to take away all guns went through, it would cost me money. I don't like that.
> 
> I have no intention of randomly shooting anyone. I go to work, I pay taxes, I have days when I am an asshole, but no-one has the right to take anything from me that's legal and responsibly used because others use those things to kill.
> 
> In response to another post,
> 
> Yeah, the numbers killed at one time means nothing. Each one is as dead as the other, and each family left behnds grieves as greatly. By saying that more is worse, you minimize those that were lost in less newsworthy fashion.
> 
> At this point in our society taking all guns away is not going to happen, we can't put mentally ill people away in cages, and we can't lock up our kids in schools with armed gaurds and fire doors. So what can we do?
> 
> Not much room left there. I wish I had the answer.
> 
> I do know that emotional knee jerk reactions won't help in the long term.



It really isn't a question of what you do as an individual. Lots of people use guns to hurt other people. This thread was not a knee-jerk reaction to one event, it came about because I am just so greatly saddened by seeing this happen again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again in your country, and every time the answer from a significant proportion of the population appears to be *well people get shot, it happens, I'm not willing to do anything that might help prevent that. I like my guns, I want my guns, if people get shot because I'm not willing to support tighter gun controls, well I just don't care about that at all*. All evidence points to tightening up on who is allowed weapons and who is allowed access to weapons. That's not an emotional response, it's a statistical conclusion based on the facts relating to gun crime/ population ratios across different countries cross-referenced with their gun policies.

If there's a main emotional response here, it's from people who have guns and don't want to risk any change in their access to guns.


----------



## Painhawg

fps said:


> .
> 
> If there's a main emotional response here, it's from people who have guns and don't want to risk any change in their access to guns.


 

You are right, because I would like to beleive the people posting here are not, and have not been people of the type to go around shooting people. Why should the actions of cracked individuals cause me to lose things that I have never caused harm with? So someone else can be saved. maybe? 

If it were 100%, oh hell, I'll be generous, if it were 10% possible that random gun killing would stop if everyone that obeyed the law gave up their guns, I would support that.

You can see what I did there. I did not include the crimial element giving theirs up. Because they wouldn't, and gun violence would continue. But on a lesser scale, which to some is ok, because less death is ok.

So that's it then, we normal folk give ours up, and less death happens. Because 1 is ok, 10 isn't. Am I straight with that?.

How much bolder would the criminal element be, if they knew with certainty that I was unarmed in my home? If everyone on the block had no guns? Would you be willing to test your families safety with that? Given the ferocity and brutality of the drug cartels and gangs in this country, would you be willing to test the no gun theory in your town first?

Yes I know criminals kill armed people too and that they kill each other. With guns. And knives. Chainsaws, axes,machetes and whatever else is nearby. 

So tell me truly, if a criminal was threatening you or your family, what would you rather have, a gun or kind words?


----------



## flint757

Painhawg said:


> Yeah, the numbers killed at one time means nothing. Each one is as dead as the other, and each family left behnds grieves as greatly. By saying that more is worse, you minimize those that were lost in less newsworthy fashion.



I get what you mean by minimizing the damage that has been done (although I doubt that is what ANY victims are concerned with), but to say it means nothing is far more heartless. It isn't about what gets more news coverage or who grieved better, it is the simple fact that if one person died instead of 20 that is a better result. Still terrible, still deserves the same amount of care, affection and grieving, but it is not equally as bad. What you are doing is minimizing those who survived, saying that it makes no difference that they survived because it came at the cost of your guns.

The rest I pretty much agreed with.

The following post though you pretty much lost me. 



Painhawg said:


> You can see what I did there. I did not include the crimial element giving theirs up. Because they wouldn't, and gun violence would continue. But on a lesser scale, which to some is ok, because less death is ok.
> 
> So that's it then, we normal folk give ours up, and less death happens. Because 1 is ok, 10 isn't. Am I straight with that?.



It isn't that one is okay and ten isn't. If less death occurs, in your scenario nine survived, that is a positive impact. One death is still terrible, but ten is worse. You here again are saying that it makes no difference that they survived because it came at the cost of your guns. You keep pointing out how 'silly' we sound for saying the opposite of you, but can you not see just how ridiculous your perspective sounds here? It isn't a matter of how many we lost, it is how many we can save. 



Painhawg said:


> How much bolder would the criminal element be, if they knew with certainty that I was unarmed in my home? If everyone on the block had no guns? Would you be willing to test your families safety with that? Given the ferocity and brutality of the drug cartels and gangs in this country, would you be willing to test the no gun theory in your town first?
> 
> Yes I know criminals kill armed people too and that they kill each other. With guns. And knives. Chainsaws, axes,machetes and whatever else is nearby.
> 
> So tell me truly, if a criminal was threatening you or your family, what would you rather have, a gun or kind words?



I'm not armed and do not have weapons in my home and neither does a fairly significant portion of the population. I am not robbed daily, my car is not stolen frequently and my house has not been burglarized. I live a lot closer to the 'cartels' than you do and see no problem. 

People, with the exception of muggings (which is a surprise element where even if you had a gun, pulling it would be retarded), typically rob your things when you aren't around. In the store parking lot, while you are at work, while you are grocery shopping, etc. They want to take as much stuff as they can with the least possible risk. You being there armed or not is a huge risk. Unless the idea is kidnapping, which doesn't happen a lot (typically by family as well) and there is usually a reason behind it which means it isn't just a random occurrence either.

I also go to school in one of the worst areas of Houston. Do you know why I'm fairly safe? It is because without me being armed I'm not an idiot who feels so safe I quit looking over my shoulder, start parking in the furthest parking spots, walk down dark alleys, etc. I'm safe because I make it so. I make sure I park in smart places, stay in the light, make sure my vision is not impaired, I know all of my exits, etc. What I see from a lot of people who buy guns on a whim and never properly trained, is they have this false sense of security and accidentally end up taking more risks than they should have or probably would have if they actually let the fear in a bit. 

My Uncle got his car stolen about a year ago. What did he do? Got a gun to stick in his truck. Well that is useful since they stole his truck while he wasn't in it. Now they won't just steal his truck (statistically unlikely a second time), but if they did they'd also have his brand new gun. Not the only issue there either. He has a baby and a toddler and he has the gun placed where his kid can easily reach it. Responsible gun ownership and parenting right there.


----------



## Painhawg

flint757 said:


> I get what you mean by minimizing the damage that has been done (although I doubt that is what ANY victims are concerned with), but to say it means nothing is far more heartless. It isn't about what gets more news coverage or who grieved better, it is the simple fact that if one person died instead of 20 that is a better result. Still terrible, still deserves the same amount of care, affection and grieving, but it is not equally as bad. What you are doing is minimizing those who survived, saying that it makes no difference that they survived because it came at the cost of your guns.
> 
> The rest I pretty much agreed with.
> 
> The following post though you pretty much lost me.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't that one is okay and ten isn't. If less death occurs, in your scenario nine survived, that is a positive impact. One death is still terrible, but ten is worse. You here again are saying that it makes no difference that they survived because it came at the cost of your guns. You keep pointing out how 'silly' we sound for saying the opposite of you, but can you not see just how ridiculous your perspective sounds here? It isn't a matter of how many we lost, it is how many we can save.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not armed and do not have weapons in my home and neither does a fairly significant portion of the population. I am not robbed daily, my car is not stolen frequently and my house has not been burglarized. I live a lot closer to the 'cartels' than you do and see no problem.
> 
> People, with the exception of muggings (which is a surprise element where even if you had a gun, pulling it would be retarded), typically rob your things when you aren't around. In the store parking lot, while you are at work, while you are grocery shopping, etc. They want to take as much stuff as they can with the least possible risk. You being there armed or not is a huge risk. Unless the idea is kidnapping, which doesn't happen a lot (typically by family as well) and there is usually a reason behind it which means it isn't just a random occurrence either.
> 
> I also go to school in one of the worst areas of Houston. Do you know why I'm fairly safe? It is because without me being armed I'm not an idiot who feels so safe I quit looking over my shoulder, start parking in the furthest parking spots, walk down dark alleys, etc. I'm safe because I make it so. I make sure I park in smart places, stay in the light, make sure my vision is not impaired, I know all of my exits, etc. What I see from a lot of people who buy guns on a whim and never properly trained, is they have this false sense of security and accidentally end up taking more risks than they should have or probably would have if they actually let the fear in a bit.
> 
> My Uncle got his car stolen about a year ago. What did he do? Got a gun to stick in his truck. Well that is useful since they stole his truck while he wasn't in it. Now they won't just steal his truck (statistically unlikely a second time), but if they did they'd also have his brand new gun. Not the only issue there either. He has a baby and a toddler and he has the gun placed where his kid can easily reach it. Responsible gun ownership and parenting right there.


 
My exact point on the death is that they are both equal in scope, whether it's one or ten, and the number being bigger doesn't make it worse. They are both equally terrible.

I don't live near cartels, I live in the largest meth state. And I lived near the border in San Diego for 12 years. I choose to be safe. I don't tote my guns around and feel all tough-guy, they are at home, put away. I don't go into bad neighborhoods that I have no business in, or hang out in areas where I have to particulary worry about getting mugged. 

But as we can see, even the best places can go sour right away. I am in agreement that some guns don't belong in the populace, no-one really needs an AR15, or aK-74 or Fn-Fal, those could go away, and I wouldn't care, even if i owned one. As I said in my first post, large capacity magazines aren't needed. Shotguns have had a 3-5 round legal limit for as long as I remember.

To veer off the track for a second, don't you think it's odd that you have to do all those things to feel safe?

Back on track now. 

The whole number of dead feeds into a distaste I have for vultures in the media. I am positive a Grandmother, Uncle, father of 3 got killed on the same day as the shooting somewhere in the country.

Yet, all the attention is given to the more "sensational and interesting" shooting. Most certainly made larger simply because it fits neatly into an agenda that has been going on for a long time. It allowed people on both sides to start poking fingers at each other. How many gun related killings happened in Chicago this year? Over 4000. Where is the outrage against gun violence there? or LA, or DC and detroit? Are those dead somehow worth less because the weren't children killed by the scary assault weapon? Children being killed is beyond anything I can put words to. 

Short version, every life taken is a tragic thing, everything is taken away from them, and they will never be back. But to say this death is more tragic than that one because of numbers, to me, is heartless. The family in Houston that last thir son or daughter grieves no less than Newtown, even though only one died. Does that make sense?


Now, back to my guns, I am saying that I should not be punished because others fuck it up. Mine are legally bought, taken care of, registered and put away. My guns are not going to kill anyone. So why take mine away, or make it where I can't get one at all. I've done nothing wrong. 

That's where the rub is. People who obey the law and take care of their business doesn't want others who do not own guns to say they should be gotten rid of entirely. It's lumps the honest folk in with the criminal, only because of having a gun. 

I hope that made sense.


----------



## YngwieJ

Painhawg said:


> And the population of wyoming is?


568,158 as of July 2011. Your point is? All my figures were in per capita numbers. As I showed, and as the other research study I quoted showed, is that while homicides may not be directly correlated with gun ownership, the risk of death by a gun is statistically much higher among those that have a gun in their home. Therefore, there are many common sense laws we could implement to reduce this risk.


Painhawg said:


> So if an idea to take away all guns went through, it would cost me money. I don't like that.


Who is proposing that? There isn't a single Congressman (that I'm aware of, and I've been looking), Supreme Court Justice, or current or recent President or Vice President who supports a ban on all guns. So this is just plain paranoia and an attempt to steer the conversation into unintelligible banter about your Second Amendment right, when nobody is attacking the Second Amendment.



Painhawg said:


> I have no intention of randomly shooting anyone. I go to work, I pay taxes, I have days when I am an asshole, but no-one has the right to take anything from me that's legal and responsibly used because others use those things to kill.


Many people don't have an intention to kill, but accidents happen, and people act on impulse. If you look back at my numbers on gun deaths and gun ownership, there's something very odd going on. We mentioned that Wyoming has one of the lowest gun homicide rates, but they have the HIGHEST suicide rate. And as I've pointed out earlier in this thread, higher gun ownership has been linked to higher suicide rates. Here's a few interesting quotes from their research:


> Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.
> Suicide attempts using firearms, which constitute just 5% of all fatal and non-fatal attempts, are highly lethal--more than 90% of all suicidal acts by firearm are fatal. By comparison, individuals who use drugs to attempt suicide, which constitute 75% of all attempts, die in the attempt less than 3% of the time.
> People are less likely to die from attempting suicide when they don't have access to guns in homes.
> Short of removing all firearms, the next best thing is to make sure that all guns in homes are very securely locked up and stored separately from secured ammunition.



Additional research suggests that having a gun in the home not only increases suicide risk, it increases homicide and accidental risk. From Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home


> Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6).


So let me reiterate, none of our elected officials are suggesting that we entirely repeal the Second Amendment and take everyone's guns by force. But I think it's important that we warn people of the dangers of owning a firearm and the danger of improper storage of firearms. I really like Eric Holder's idea that someone linked to earlier in this thread to run ad campaigns about the dangers of gun ownership. We do it for all kinds of other dangerous activities, such as smoking, drinking and driving, texting and driving, not wearing seatbelts--the risk of death in a vehicle has been dropping significantly, and the number of people with lung cancer is dropping significantly. But it seems like the words "gun control" have become associated with a fascist attempt to steal everyone's guns, and that's just not the case.

PS. How in the hell are people still defending the idea that the number of deaths is irrelevant? In 2007 there were 31,224 deaths by firearms in the United States. It's completely ignorant to state that that number is unimportant.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Painhawg said:


> That's where the rub is. People who obey the law and take care of their business doesn't want others who do not own guns to say they should be gotten rid of entirely. It's lumps the honest folk in with the criminal, only because of having a gun.


 

For the sake of clarity, are you arguing that point against someone here, or a general "they" represented by the hardline anti-gun crowd? If the former, I don't think anyone here has actually suggested that the solution is to take everyone's guns away. If the latter, well, carry on, my wayward son.


----------



## flint757

Painhawg said:


> My exact point on the death is that they are both equal in scope, whether it's one or ten, and the number being bigger doesn't make it worse. They are both equally terrible.



I disagree, they are not the same scope at all, but I see we will probably not agree there. 

The implication is unchanged however. You are still discounting the relevance of those who survived just because someone died. Frankly, given your position on guns I'm not even sure why you are even arguing this point. The guns and mag size you'd be okay with getting banned are the weapons typically used in these slaughters. The advantage to them being banned is in fact that the amount of casualties in an incident would go down.

No one is arguing whether one is more terrible. We are arguing that more survivors equals better. Yes, that also means I'm implying less deaths equal better, but that isn't the main focus or even the point. You are taking a very impersonal stance towards this and ironically the reason for doing so is you don't want guns being taken away just to save one life, yet that is exactly what you are okay with.  If it is because you don't want them to take all your guns you can rest easy because no one intends to do so.



Painhawg said:


> I don't live near cartels, I live in the largest meth state. And I lived near the border in San Diego for 12 years. I choose to be safe. I don't tote my guns around and feel all tough-guy, they are at home, put away. I don't go into bad neighborhoods that I have no business in, or hang out in areas where I have to particulary worry about getting mugged.
> 
> But as we can see, even the best places can go sour right away. I am in agreement that some guns don't belong in the populace, no-one really needs an AR15, or aK-74 or Fn-Fal, those could go away, and I wouldn't care, even if i owned one. As I said in my first post, large capacity magazines aren't needed. Shotguns have had a 3-5 round legal limit for as long as I remember.



I agree with the second paragragh.

As for the first I wasn't actually talking about you. I was speaking generally and also about my personal experiences. Good to here nonetheless. It is always better to avoid a situation in the first place and it seems you do take measures to do so. 



Painhawg said:


> To veer off the track for a second, don't you think it's odd that you have to do all those things to feel safe?
> 
> Back on track now.



Not really. I take those measures everywhere I go even if it is in a place I should feel rather safe. It is something people should just do IMO. I'm not in a state of panic, tension or stress because of it, it is just a part of my routine (I'm a tad OCD to begin with ). I probably don't 'have to' all the time, but I do anyways. If I had a CHL I'd still do the same. Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I should put myself in a position to need it, so nothing in my behavior should change simply because I have one. I'm aware and alert, not stressed and panicked.



Painhawg said:


> The whole number of dead feeds into a distaste I have for vultures in the media. I am positive a Grandmother, Uncle, father of 3 got killed on the same day as the shooting somewhere in the country.
> 
> Yet, all the attention is given to the more "sensational and interesting" shooting. Most certainly made larger simply because it fits neatly into an agenda that has been going on for a long time. It allowed people on both sides to start poking fingers at each other. How many gun related killings happened in Chicago this year? Over 4000. Where is the outrage against gun violence there? or LA, or DC and detroit? Are those dead somehow worth less because the weren't children killed by the scary assault weapon? Children being killed is beyond anything I can put words to.
> 
> Short version, every life taken is a tragic thing, everything is taken away from them, and they will never be back. But to say this death is more tragic than that one because of numbers, to me, is heartless. The family in Houston that last thir son or daughter grieves no less than Newtown, even though only one died. Does that make sense?



Again, never said one death was more tragic than another and it does make sense. You are just missing my point entirely.

I personally am outraged 24/7 about the amount of death that occurs in this country, whether anyone else is I don't know. I wouldn't assume just because someone is pro gun reform that they aren't though. Or that they are only outraged because of the media. 

It goes both ways and the only reason I use the word 'better' is not because it is good, but because it isn't as bad as it could have been. To say that less death is better isn't heartless because what I'm saying is the more people that can survive to live another day is better (preventable deaths). How is that wrong? I'm not discounting anyone else's death by saying so. That is just how you are taking my perception. You are too busy comparing tragedies. I'm not saying the guy who broke into a house and shot a girl is better than the Newtown tragedy because it was just one. The one girls death is unavoidable in the example you give whereas if the gunman at Newtown were unable to commit the same level of violence as he did, some more children may have survived. Not that one is by definition better than any other tragedy that has ever occurred, but that potentially avoidable death is a good thing. You may still not understand what I'm saying, but just know we are more in agreement than you think and you are twisting what I'm saying to an extent.



Painhawg said:


> Now, back to my guns, I am saying that I should not be punished because others fuck it up. Mine are legally bought, taken care of, registered and put away. My guns are not going to kill anyone. So why take mine away, or make it where I can't get one at all. I've done nothing wrong.
> 
> That's where the rub is. People who obey the law and take care of their business doesn't want others who do not own guns to say they should be gotten rid of entirely. It's lumps the honest folk in with the criminal, only because of having a gun.
> 
> I hope that made sense.



Nobody is saying, "take them all". When we are setting up examples and scenarios it comes across that way, but in the policy portion of this debate no one is advocating outright removal. Not only for the reasons you give, but because it is just simply infeasible to begin with. Bringing up the gun statistics is to show pro gunners that your guns do not make the world a better place which is what some people have been advocating. It isn't the setup for a punchline.

You are advocating the removal of some weapons and ammo however. To people who own the weapons you described, they'd probably have the same gripe you are having with us. That should put things in a bit of perspective for you I think.


----------



## Painhawg

YngwieJ said:


> 568,158 as of July 2011. Your point is? All my figures were in per capita numbers. As I showed, and as the other research study I quoted showed, is that while homicides may not be directly correlated with gun ownership, the risk of death by a gun is statistically much higher among those that have a gun in their home. Therefore, there are many common sense laws we could implement to reduce this risk.
> 
> Who is proposing that? There isn't a single Congressman (that I'm aware of, and I've been looking), Supreme Court Justice, or current or recent President or Vice President who supports a ban on all guns. So this is just plain paranoia and an attempt to steer the conversation into unintelligible banter about your Second Amendment right, when nobody is attacking the Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> Many people don't have an intention to kill, but accidents happen, and people act on impulse. If you look back at my numbers on gun deaths and gun ownership, there's something very odd going on. We mentioned that Wyoming has one of the lowest gun homicide rates, but they have the HIGHEST suicide rate. And as I've pointed out earlier in this thread, higher gun ownership has been linked to higher suicide rates. Here's a few interesting quotes from their research:
> 
> 
> Additional research suggests that having a gun in the home not only increases suicide risk, it increases homicide and accidental risk. From Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home
> 
> So let me reiterate, none of our elected officials are suggesting that we entirely repeal the Second Amendment and take everyone's guns by force. But I think it's important that we warn people of the dangers of owning a firearm and the danger of improper storage of firearms. I really like Eric Holder's idea that someone linked to earlier in this thread to run ad campaigns about the dangers of gun ownership. We do it for all kinds of other dangerous activities, such as smoking, drinking and driving, texting and driving, not wearing seatbelts--the risk of death in a vehicle has been dropping significantly, and the number of people with lung cancer is dropping significantly. But it seems like the words "gun control" have become associated with a fascist attempt to steal everyone's guns, and that's just not the case.
> 
> PS. How in the hell are people still defending the idea that the number of deaths is irrelevant? In 2007 there were 31,224 deaths by firearms in the United States. It's completely ignorant to state that that number is unimportant.


 
Wow, that number thing really lit some folks up. Again each and every damn death is as tragic as another. whether it's one or ten. What part of that is so hard to grab onto? Why does no one seem to care at the child that died in car accident, but they sure as hell act sad and hurt when a child is thrown into a dryer for punishment and dies. They are both dead! 

To the families it means their loved one is dead. Because is was one does not make them less dead. Just less interesting to hear about and get all ragey over. 

Let me put it this way. People should clamor as much for one as the many. But truly, who really gives a rat's ass about a hobo or a banger, right? It's not really an issue until someone kills kids, then it's like OMG DO SOMETHING NOW! OMG WHAT A TERRIBLE BASTARD. What about a drunk that took out 5 after a long night of drinking? Where's the outrage and call for change on that? Where are the cries to ban fucking alcohol and cell phones cause they kill people too. Go tell the family their loss was worth less because is was humdrum and fucking boring. Sorry your family died, but look over here, lots died, so we'll get with you later. That's my point no-one gives a crap until it gets big. But the small is JUST AS DEAD.

How many media vultures have interviewed the parents of dead African child soldiers? They were kids pressed into service, what, they don't count? 

Take the assualt weapons ,I am good with that. But it.won't.stop.there.

I can guarantee that my house with guns in it, is as safe as anyone's without. They don't sit in the gun safe, randomly jump out and shoot people. I don't get in fits of rage and kill people, my wife is not suicidal. 


The highest suicide rate speaks more to why than how. 

Lung cancer has dropped, true. Many have died, and new smokers have not replaced the losses.

Cars are generally safer, and seat belts do save lives.

I have issue with the drinking and driving. It is illegal to do it. People continue to drunkenly kill people with cars. So the thing should be, we need to ban certain types of alcohol, or limit alcohol content. In this way, no-one would drive drunk and kill others.

Gun Control has been portrayed as a liberal leftist conpiracy to allow the people to be enslaved by the govt. Some people believe that. I see "Gun Control" as rather well intentioned, misguided attempt to "make it all better" 

Again, it's not the loss of weapons that irks me, it's the gall of others to suggest that I, as a gun owner, am somehow unsafe compared to a non gun owner, and that I present a threat and therefore should be controlled before I do anything stupid because I have no choice, since I am a neanderthal for owning a gun.


----------



## Painhawg

flint757 said:


> I disagree, they are not the same scope at all, but I see we will probably not agree there.
> 
> The implication is unchanged however. You are still discounting the relevance of those who survived just because someone died. Frankly, given your position on guns I'm not even sure why you are even arguing this point. The guns and mag size you'd be okay with getting banned are the weapons typically used in these slaughters. The advantage to them being banned is in fact that the amount of casualties in an incident would go down.
> 
> No one is arguing whether one is more terrible. We are arguing that more survivors equals better. Yes, that also means I'm implying less deaths equal better, but that isn't the main focus or even the point. You are taking a very impersonal stance towards this and ironically the reason for doing so is you don't want guns being taken away just to save one life, yet that is exactly what you are okay with.  If it is because you don't want them to take all your guns you can rest easy because no one intends to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the second paragragh.
> 
> As for the first I wasn't actually talking about you. I was speaking generally and also about my personal experiences. Good to here nonetheless. It is always better to avoid a situation in the first place and it seems you do take measures to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. I take those measures everywhere I go even if it is in a place I should feel rather safe. It is something people should just do IMO. I'm not in a state of panic, tension or stress because of it, it is just a part of my routine (I'm a tad OCD to begin with ). I probably don't 'have to' all the time, but I do anyways. If I had a CHL I'd still do the same. Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I should put myself in a position to need it, so nothing in my behavior should change simply because I have one. I'm aware and alert, not stressed and panicked.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, never said one death was more tragic than another and it does make sense. You are just missing my point entirely.
> 
> I personally am outraged 24/7 about the amount of death that occurs in this country, whether anyone else is I don't know. I wouldn't assume just because someone is pro gun reform that they aren't though. Or that they are only outraged because of the media.
> 
> It goes both ways and the only reason I use the word 'better' is not because it is good, but because it isn't as bad as it could have been. To say that less death is better isn't heartless because what I'm saying is the more people that can survive to live another day is better (preventable deaths). How is that wrong? I'm not discounting anyone else's death by saying so. That is just how you are taking my perception. You are too busy comparing tragedies. I'm not saying the guy who broke into a house and shot a girl is better than the Newtown tragedy because it was just one. The one girls death is unavoidable in the example you give whereas if the gunman at Newtown were unable to commit the same level of violence as he did, some more children may have survived. Not that one is by definition better than any other tragedy that has ever occurred, but that potentially avoidable death is a good thing. You may still not understand what I'm saying, but just know we are more in agreement than you think and you are twisting what I'm saying to an extent.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying, "take them all". When we are setting up examples and scenarios it comes across that way, but in the policy portion of this debate no one is advocating outright removal. Not only for the reasons you give, but because it is just simply infeasible to begin with. Bringing up the gun statistics is to show pro gunners that your guns do not make the world a better place which is what some people have been advocating. It isn't the setup for a punchline.
> 
> You are advocating the removal of some weapons and ammo however. To people who own the weapons you described, they'd probably have the same gripe you are having with us. That should put things in a bit of perspective for you I think.


 
I agree.

Less is so much better. I think the choice of words I used was not as carefully thought out. 

Short version.

To me, all death is equally tragic.
Something needs to be done.
I believe assault weapons/extended magazines are not needed
There is a underlying problem with mental health that needs looked at.

And I need to leave the thread before I piss someone off with my confusing dribble.


----------



## flint757

Okay, glad we cleared that up. It is really hard to phrase things in such a way to say exactly what we mean without someone getting confused. Things get lost in translation.

100% agree with you as well.


[EDIT]

The media is terrible. With that I also agree, but that is nothing new. As long as people click on the articles, watch the news, and talk about it they are going to continue to do it. No death is better than any other and they all deserve equal amounts of attention and resolution. It seems we do take measures to attempt fixing the things you mentioned. We make cars safer every year, police are out in full force every holiday season, drunk driving is taught in drivers education, law is fairly strict on it as well though there is a little too much leniency there IMO, the government tries very hard to get the amount of smokers down (and it has worked), they don't sell liquor after a certain hour to prevent too much drinking, etc. We could probably do more and people should probably be out doing more, that I have no doubt. All death is without a doubt tragic especially when avoidable.


----------



## The Atomic Ass

flint757 said:


> Nope, even in our worst people still have great faith in the american dollar. Talk doesn't mean anything unless they act on it and nothing has changed in that regard for the most part.
> 
> Why the Dollar Will Remain the Global Currency - Businessweek
> 
> It refers to 2009, but that was just after the recession so I imagine it still stands.


Ehm, we're still going downhill. The "rebound", such as it is, is a product of temporary government spending. That is the subject of this fiscal cliff that everybody's in a tizzy about these days. The excess spending that has already occurred has guaranteed us a rather nasty inflation in the next few years, and if the spending is continued, we see more inflation. If it is cut off, we get another recession. There is no fine line to tread.



flint757 said:


> I have no idea what you are implying here. Did you go to private school? If you went to public then it was organized and funded by the government (my education was great and so is my Uni). In any case, to ignore anything good the government has done or is capable of doing is looking at the world through some very pessimistic lenses (and does not reflect the whole story).


Home schooled. What I meant is that the curriculum my parents selected was influenced by federal policy. Which, generally most curricula is.



flint757 said:


> I'm very sorry about your current situation, but it isn't a reflection of quite literally the majority of this country. *Hell, even if unemployment were say 20% that still means 80% have jobs*. Point being that even if your situation sucks that doesn't mean this country is in the toilet; It means you are a part of the fringe that is getting the grunt of our nations current problems. In any case, you were dealt some rough cards and sorry for coming off rash. It isn't so much rose colored glasses, but opportunities, location and timing. Where I live it isn't all that hard to find work. Where you live it is clearly different.


The great depression was only 22% unemployment at it's peak. I think most people agreed that the country was in the toilet in the 30's.

And get your info on unemployment from the U6 measurement, not the U3 numbers the White House releases. (U6 includes underemployment, which is just as bad for the economy as unemployment).



flint757 said:


> What other collapse are you speaking of?


Collapse of society when the checks stop pouring forth to those on government stipends. 




flint757 said:


> As for mental illness, I think that a full workup by a physician should include mental health. I also think things like talk therapy should be covered by insurance (it's rather expensive and currently insurance forces doctors to prescribe rather than treat). Sometimes all these people need are someone to talk to who won't judge them. At the very least if they make a threatening gesture to the therapist they can then warn the police before it happens. So I guess that would just be mandated check ups and more overall health coverage. That'd be a lot easier to do with a single payer system though.


I won't disagree with any but the final sentence.


----------



## fps

According to this article it was actually pro-gun members of Congress who cut out money for research into mental health related issues as related to gun crime in the late 90s TwitDoc.com - the EASY way to share your documents on Twitter


----------



## fps

flint I have a few concerns over the mental health angle and was wondering what your thoughts were. 
I can't imagine that mental health checks for every person who wanted to own a gun would be met with anything other than outrage and massive resistance from a huge proportion of people. I mean, I'd find that very invasive, more invasive than someone coming into my home in fact (a check that you're storing your guns properly is less intrusive than being given a psychological rundown?) while being less conclusive. A common psychopathic trait is to be outwardly charming and friendly. This is something I read based on research reported in Jon Ronson's Psychopath Test. So it would be quite possible to miss a potential killer unless a lot of time was spent with them, even if you were well-trained. It would be very expensive to implement as well. Would there be an appeals process? Would owners be subjected to regular screening, or would it be a one-time thing, if you were advising on implementing this?


----------



## flint757

fps said:


> flint I have a few concerns over the mental health angle and was wondering what your thoughts were.
> I can't imagine that mental health checks for every person who wanted to own a gun would be met with anything other than outrage and massive resistance from a huge proportion of people. I mean, I'd find that very invasive, more invasive than someone coming into my home in fact (a check that you're storing your guns properly is less intrusive than being given a psychological rundown?) while being less conclusive. A common psychopathic trait is to be outwardly charming and friendly. This is something I read based on research reported in Jon Ronson's Psychopath Test. So it would be quite possible to miss a potential killer unless a lot of time was spent with them, even if you were well-trained. It would be very expensive to implement as well. Would there be an appeals process? Would owners be subjected to regular screening, or would it be a one-time thing, if you were advising on implementing this?



Yeah, there isn't a solution without any holes sadly. The problem has gotten too big for the truly simple solutions to work, so now we are having to resort to either doing nothing or less efficient methods.

I don't think it'd be a bad idea for people in general to have a mental health check every so often, but forcing anyone too would be pretty much impossible. I mean look at the reaction for just mandatory health insurance, mandatory doctor visits will definitely infuriate those who already hate the government for whatever reason.

FWIW there isn't ANYTHING we can implement related to guns that won't be met with a crazy level of resistance. Many see it as the 'slippery slope' which is funny given the lack of gun control today and assault weapons were banned for 10 years. One would think the slippery slope argument would officially be invalid and put to bed.

I'm a foster parent and when they come to visit they check the med's, doors, closets, etc. and I have to agree it isn't that invasive or a big deal. It is definitely less intrusive than medical examinations. That being said I don't think a medical examination is the wrong thing to do either. Will some slip through the cracks? Sure, but we are bound to stop some. We have to remember that not all mentally ill people have the same symptoms or devious personal traits. I'd argue that even though the people committing these massacres were mentally ill it doesn't eliminate the fact that it still could have been a crime of passion. They don't necessarily have to be as devious as serial killers (charming and friendly, etc.).

Overall, involving the mentally ill, society needs to change it's tone, offer better coverage, and proactively try and help those who need it. As for guns, it needs to be at the very least more difficult than it is because it is way too easy.

I think the benefit to forcing a mental examination is that if someone does have a mental illness they may not try, out of fear of being exposed. In any case, we need to work on proper documentation and updating the systems properly. I mean if a doctor anywhere has already diagnosed someone as bipolar, schizophrenic, depressed, etc. there is no reason you should be able to get a gun, but much like the cooperation between the CIA, FBI, etc. people are still able to purchase anyhow in a lot of cases.

As for your questions, if I were to implement such a plan it would be every 3-5 years probably and there'd be no appeals process, otherwise whats the point.


----------



## fps

Painhawg said:


> You are right, because I would like to beleive the people posting here are not, and have not been people of the type to go around shooting people. Why should the actions of cracked individuals cause me to lose things that I have never caused harm with? So someone else can be saved. maybe?
> 
> If it were 100%, oh hell, I'll be generous, if it were 10% possible that random gun killing would stop if everyone that obeyed the law gave up their guns, I would support that.
> 
> You can see what I did there. I did not include the crimial element giving theirs up. Because they wouldn't, and gun violence would continue. But on a lesser scale, which to some is ok, because less death is ok.
> 
> So that's it then, we normal folk give ours up, and less death happens. Because 1 is ok, 10 isn't. Am I straight with that?.
> 
> How much bolder would the criminal element be, if they knew with certainty that I was unarmed in my home? If everyone on the block had no guns? Would you be willing to test your families safety with that? Given the ferocity and brutality of the drug cartels and gangs in this country, would you be willing to test the no gun theory in your town first?
> 
> Yes I know criminals kill armed people too and that they kill each other. With guns. And knives. Chainsaws, axes,machetes and whatever else is nearby.
> 
> So tell me truly, if a criminal was threatening you or your family, what would you rather have, a gun or kind words?



We're not talking about a situation where suddenly all guns are removed from all houses. It actually derails the conversations to suggest that this is the argument being put forward by people who are pro gun control. Gun control means a lot of different thing to different people, noone I've spoken to apart from a coupla morons thinks it means a war on guns. That would be just as stupid as a war on drugs.... which is a different topic. It's a straw man, that's not what anyone here is saying. So you argue against that point instead of the one that is actually being made, which is that it is far too easy for far too many people to gain access to a gun who should not have one. 

I'm also not talking about an immediate removal of guns from every law-abiding gun owner's home either. Again that's a false point you're arguing against and it derails the conversation. I'm just trying to have an honest real conversation about lowering the levels of access to guns for everyone so that there can be less gun crime in the future. 

What you describe is a country in an endless Mexican stand-off with itself. That is not healthy. A change in culture is required. It takes time. It begins with things like stringent checks of who is in a house with guns and whether every person in a house is trained, stable and sensible enough to be around a gun, with minors and people without licences having no access to guns. It continues with efforts to track guns and their movements in the second-hand market. Advertising of guns and ammo becomes restricted and fewer people will want guns. 

It's like the smoking ban here in the UK, smoking is in freefall because of simple changes, and this in turn has saved lives. It takes time, but if a country wants to change, and in this case there is a culture of violence, it has to want to change and also take little steps to make itself anew. And a more responsible approach to the ownership and acquisition of lethal weapons seems a sensible and grown-up thing to have a discussion on.


----------



## Captain_Awesome

I've gathered that the main pro gun argument is "I enjoy owning a gun." Good going.


----------



## Watty

Captain_Awesome said:


> I've gathered that the main pro gun argument is "I enjoy owning a gun." Good going.



You almost made me lol in the middle of the office sir, which would have been awkward because it's dead quiet, kudos.

However, don't forget the "it's my right" argument.


----------



## YngwieJ

My favorite is, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws..."

They've created this false cliche that any form of gun control equates to banning guns and it completely destroys intelligent discourse on the topic.


----------



## wlfers

Captain_Awesome said:


> I've gathered that the main pro gun argument is "I enjoy owning a gun." Good going.



you haven't gathered much then


----------



## flexkill

sawtoothscream said:


> You cant unarm law abiding citizen because a few psychopaths use firearms to kill. If thats how things work cars, knifes, pillows, hammers, bats etc... should be banned since they are frequently used as well.



Yeah because i get up in the morning and butter my toast with my .357 Magnum then I hammer a few nails with my AK47 then I like to go to the batting cage and hit a few with my 12 gauge....then after all that i go home at night and lay my head on my UZI. Look I'm for citizens to have the right to own guns....but these comparisons are silly.

Guns have one main directive and that's to shoot stuff.


----------



## wlfers

Joke aside, I believe his knife analogy is valid. For Halloween a few years ago part of my costume included a full length sword which was completely legal to carry around publicly as long as it wasn't concealed. The one cop I saw gave a funny look but that was it.


----------



## flexkill

athawulf said:


> Joke aside, I believe his knife analogy is valid. For Halloween a few years ago part of my costume included a full length sword which was completely legal to carry around publicly as long as it wasn't concealed. The one cop I saw gave a funny look but that was it.



Well I don't butter my toast with a sword either....do you???


----------



## wlfers

But its still legal for me to carry around in public regardless of length or if its sharpened. As long as its not a switchblade or concealed.

edit: I'm not arguing for the ability to do this, just I'm suprised with how strict gun laws are in california I can walk around with a full length sword.


----------



## Randy

athawulf said:


> I'm not arguing for the ability to do this, just I'm suprised with how strict gun laws are in california I can walk around with a full length sword.



Not all that surprising considering simply running away is an effective defense against a sword. It's also a lot harder to unintentionally kill a person with a sword than it is with the item it's being compared to.


----------



## wlfers

It is surprising given we ban certain types of blades. I feel you can run just as fast away from a switchblade as you could from a spring assisted blade.


----------



## Randy

Oh yeah, a lot of the guidelines they put together for what's banned and not seem arbitrary.

I felt (partially still do) the "assault weapons ban" criteria were arbitrary, _however_, the killer in a recent story N.Y. Firefighter Shooting Update: Gunman left note saying he wanted to "do what I like doing best, killing people" - Crimesider - CBS News made it harder for his victims to see where the shooting came from because of the flash suppressor. In that context, the guidelines don't seem so arbitrary.

EDIT: In b4 somebody explains why it makes no difference or how there's a legal workaround.


----------



## wlfers

Indeed some of the bans were on functional aspects of the firearm, yet many were aesthetic too. When some of these bans were drawn up, the claim was that they were banning what they saw being used in gang violence, one of the items being a barrel shroud which functions to protect ones hand against a hot barrel and to dissipate heat.

Why that? Shouldn't the ban be focused on removing ways for criminals to get firearms to begin with instead of the cool looking attachments they put on it (I do agree with the flash suppresor though). Stricter punishment for straw purchases, not allowing ATF to have programs that let known smugglers escape to track firearms, banning the sale of certain functional accessories should be what they're doing in my opinion. Not nit picking over barrel shroud, vertical handgrips, pistol grips and other cool aesthetic features.

Another issue is the similar appearance of muzzle breaks to flash suppressors. As a Californian flash suppressors are illegal, and I don't really touch brakes as cops often don't know the difference. Hell since I avoid them I don't fully know, if anyone can give us some insight to that would be great . I know muzzle breaks spread the ejected gas to reduce felt recoil, and a flash suppressor does what its name suggests, but does the functionality of one overlap the other?


----------



## wlfers

Assault Weapons - Issues - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

Current proposed AW ban following the shootings


----------



## Watty

flexkill said:


> Guns have one main directive and that's to shoot stuff.



I agree with your entire post, but have one _minor_ point of clarification.

"Guns have one main directive and that's to kill stuff."


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Archery was also devised purely for killing, but nobody is crying about how easy it is to get a bow and arrows.

Before anyone jumps all over that, yes, I realize nobody is out committing mass killings with a bow and arrow, and that guns are more effective and lethal than a bow and arrow, so it'd obviously be perfectly logical that laws pertaining to the former be more stringent than those concerning the latter. I just bring it up to point out that the "guns are meant only for killing" argument doesn't really amount to much. It's not only _that_ they're designed for killing that's the issue, it's how _effective_ they are at doing it that causes the issues. That's why countries with strict gun control laws tend to limit gun owners to non-AR firearms and arms traditionally used for hunting or target shooting, with limits on things like capacity or ammo size.

Cliff's notes: Stop mentioning what they were designed for. It's irrelevant.


----------



## narad

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Cliff's notes: Stop mentioning what they were designed for. It's irrelevant.



Design intent and efficiency are a mixed bag and not mutually exclusive concepts. An old-timey musket is still designed to kill, but it is not designed to kill many things within the space of a minute. But I don't hear much talk of banning muskets, bows, and things that are both not designed for nor very capable of mass killings. It's just playing with semantics.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

narad said:


> Design intent and efficiency are a mixed bag and not mutually exclusive concepts. An old-timey musket is still designed to kill, but it is not designed to kill many things within the space of a minute. But I don't hear much talk of banning muskets, bows, and things that are both not designed for nor very capable of mass killings. It's just playing with semantics.



And when those semantics have to do with the various different kinds of gun and gun features and how they effect a gun's efficiency, playing with semantics is what needs to be done. Unless a person is taking the stance that "All things that were designed for killing should be banned," pointing out that that's what guns were designed for really doesn't get anybody anywhere.


----------



## Watty

Fair point Tim, but sometimes reductionist logic is what's called for.

Might be stupidly vague, but everything else I typed just didn't seem to come out like I intended for it to. Perhaps some sleep....


----------



## Randy

Grand Moff Tim said:


> "All things that were designed for killing should be banned," pointing out that that's what guns were designed for really doesn't get anybody anywhere.



Alright so how about "all things that were designed for killing _human beings_"? Not that I'm advocating such a thing but still, there's a distinction. A bow and arrow or a long rifle carry utility as a tool for hunting, which for some, is a necessity for survival. As far as a "bow and arrow" that's designed for killing people, the one that comes to mind is the crossbow and that _is_ (at least was...?) banned. 

Not that I think all guns should be banned but (at the risk of putting words in somebody's mouth) I think the argument is about guns that are designed to excel at _killing people_.

I think it's odd how you seem to have a pretty balanced opinion on the issue, but you only chime in to debate the semantics of statements by gun control advocates in this thread.


----------



## Randy

athawulf said:


> Assault Weapons - Issues - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
> 
> Current proposed AW ban following the shootings



That's actually a little better than I expected it to be. Not enough to satisfy either side but there's some substance there. 

That's the 'assault weapons' specific stuff, but I'm still hoping for some more 'across the board' type stuff like not allowing permits for weapons in homes with people who would otherwise be denied (as was the case with Adam Lanza), a requirement to show proof the registrant is still in possession of the firearm (to prevent 'straw purchase'), stricter penalty for straw purchase and some federal standards for purchase (to cut back on guns being purchased from more lenient states).

If you're a responsible gun owner who buys guns for your own use, to hunt, target shoot, stare at, or whatever, none of that would effect you (minus having to renew your registration).


----------



## flint757

The one argument I always find ridiculous is not when people compare the capability of different objects ability to kill, but when people start quoting statistics of other types of death as a reason why it is somehow ridiculous to attempt fixing gun violence.

Doctors don't decide whether they are going to treat you based on whether or not enough people have the same thing you do, a firefighter doesn't decide if he is going to put your house out if enough houses are on fire, and those are at least relative to each other. Comparing such things as car accidents and gun violence would be more like deciding whether it is worth pursuing a vaccine based on how many people die by polar bears. Saying things like more people die in car accidents is just as ridiculous when used to justify ignoring gun violence. 

We may sometimes prioritize our actions based on such things, but it is rarely used as an excuse to just ignore something, unless we are talking shady car manufacturers who decide people dying and suing is cheaper than a recall.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Randy said:


> Alright so how about "all things that were designed for killing _human beings_"? Not that I'm advocating such a thing but still, there's a distinction. A bow and arrow or a long rifle carry utility as a tool for hunting, which for some, is a necessity for survival. As far as a "bow and arrow" that's designed for killing people, the one that comes to mind is the crossbow and that _is_ (at least was...?) banned.
> 
> Not that I think all guns should be banned but (at the risk of putting words in somebody's mouth) I think the argument is about guns that are designed to excel at _killing people_.


 
That seems more to the point, yes, and harder to argue against. 

I can't speak for any specific states, but I think crossbows are still perfectly legal most places. 



Randy said:


> I think it's odd how you seem to have a pretty balanced opinion on the issue, but you only chime in to debate the semantics of statements by gun control advocates in this thread.


 
Do I?  

It isn't intentional, I promise. If anything, it could be a subconscious bias toward _either_ side of the issue. The red blooded ex-military American side of me that pops up in this subforum so often does bristle whenever gun control debates arise, sure, so perhaps I'm subconsciously leveling most of my arguments against the gun control crowd. On the other hand, I agree with most of the points the more reasonable gun control advocates (ie _not_ the "ban all guns" crowd) make, so perhaps I'm poking at the semantics of their arguments to hammer them out and make them stronger, more defensible, like tempering steel. Probably a little bit of both, I suspect .

I do think I've at least tried to point out to those saying "We can't ban all guns" that nobody in this thread is arguing that we should once or twice, but I don't feel like going through all 18 pages of the thread to see if you're right that _most_ of my arguments are nitpicking the gun control side of things, so I'll take your word for it .


----------



## habicore_5150

Trying to move away from this whole gun talk, apparently there's some Connecticut people wanting to do "something" about the shooting.

Only thing I can really say to this: "Not gonna get rid of the problem."

https://www.gamespot.com/news/connecticut-town-collecting-and-destroying-games-6401982

If any of those people come across this, I urge you to put down the wad of $100 bills, and use your heads for once


----------



## flint757

That is rather ridiculous. If we are going to talk psychology I'd argue the opposite, that violent video games in many way prevent serious violence in the real world (act out bizarre fantasy and what not). Reminds me of that Dungeons and Dragons movie that came out a long time ago (mom wouldn't let me buy Balder's Gate after that ). Won't solve anything at all. If anything it will make the notion of playing violent games more provocative to teenagers with overbearing parents. 

Whether people agree with gun regulation or not we can at least agree that the topic makes sense. Banning or destroying video games/ movies makes absolutely no sense at all. If we are arguing about the Bill of Rights (something I have a feeling those people in a way are doing since they aren't out destroying weapons, but games) then doing things like this article suggests is in a way a violation of the first amendment. They are doing so willingly so it technically isn't, but you get my point.


----------



## Jakke

This is too much for words... It takes a special kind of asshole to see this tragedy and think "hey, this must be actors hired to portray grieving families to enact stricter gun laws to make the US ripe for the NWO to take over!". People sometimes ask why I despise the crew around Alex Jones and the NWO/conspiracy-people, this is why. They treat reality like it's some sort of fucking Clancy-novel. Paranoid dipshits...



I completely respect if you do not want to view this and give this fuck credibility through views... I would however appreciate that you show our collective distaste through a dislike if you do watch it. This dumbfuckery has gone far enough, and that bar is far too green as it is now.


----------



## Fat-Elf

Did anyone hear there were a new shooting in the same town as the Batman-theater shooting in summer? Three people were killed among the killer.


----------



## J7string

I need to clarify a few things I've seen... 

No one complains about knives or bows and arrows because no one commits mass killings with these weapons. A bow and it's arrows are too bulky, and take too much time to make ready on the fly. Knives are easily concealed, but still too much effort in situations like mass murder.

Guns are just and easy, and attainable solution in cases like this because A: everyone knows, or can learn how to shoot a gun easily. B: We've become so desensitized to gun violence, to a person who's mentally unstable, what can be done in a video game or in a movie can seem simple enough in reality.

People cry so much about the second ammendment, and the arguements go both ways... BUT as a reader of the Constitution, the section of the great document itself clearly states that any natural citizen of the United States has the right to bear arms in a militia to ensure a free state, and that right* should not be infringed upon*. Meaning, all processes, permits, and other laws are unconstitutional. Granted that there are fewer militias than there were back in the 1700's and 1800's, and the interperetation of the second ammendment has gone to the dogs... I feel a radical change must be done constitutionally through the ammendmant process so all the modern issues concerning guns can be dealt with the proper way.

BUT... people are stupid and I don't see that happening, or the government abiding to the solemn word of the constitution anyway. So we're gonna continue to be screwed and watch hundreds more people die at the hands of psychopaths because no one knows how to do things logically and properly.


----------



## flint757

Gun-death tally: Every American gun death since Newtown Sandy Hook shooting (INTERACTIVE). - Slate Magazine

This website is a nice collection of data. It is an interactive chart.


----------



## longfxukxnhair

J7string said:


> I need to clarify a few things I've seen...
> 
> No one complains about knives or bows and arrows because no one commits mass killings with these weapons. A bow and it's arrows are too bulky, and take too much time to make ready on the fly. Knives are easily concealed, but still too much effort in situations like mass murder.
> 
> Guns are just and easy, and attainable solution in cases like this because A: everyone knows, or can learn how to shoot a gun easily. B: We've become so desensitized to gun violence, to a person who's mentally unstable, what can be done in a video game or in a movie can seem simple enough in reality.
> 
> People cry so much about the second ammendment, and the arguements go both ways... BUT as a reader of the Constitution, the section of the great document itself clearly states that any natural citizen of the United States has the right to bear arms in a militia to ensure a free state, and that right* should not be infringed upon*. Meaning, all processes, permits, and other laws are unconstitutional. Granted that there are fewer militias than there were back in the 1700's and 1800's, and the interperetation of the second ammendment has gone to the dogs... I feel a radical change must be done constitutionally through the ammendmant process so all the modern issues concerning guns can be dealt with the proper way.
> 
> BUT... people are stupid and I don't see that happening, or the government abiding to the solemn word of the constitution anyway. So we're gonna continue to be screwed and watch hundreds more people die at the hands of psychopaths because no one knows how to do things logically and properly.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

J7string said:


> I need to clarify a few things I've seen...
> 
> No one complains about knives or bows and arrows because no one commits mass killings with these weapons.


 
I know, that's why I said that very thing in the post where I first brought it up.

To reiterate/clarify the point of my having brought it up: I was trying to point out that merely saying "Guns were designed for killing things" as a tick against them isn't accomplishing very much, since there are _other_ perfectly legal, largely unregulated things that are, too. As was later pointed out, a much more productive argument is saying that "modern guns are designed for killing many things very quickly." Unless I'm forgetting something else, guns are the only legal thing that fits that bill.

Someone points out something I'm forgetting in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Why are you arguing semantics? 


Its pretty clear:

a) Nobody really has any good reason to own a fully automatic weapon.
b) More guns per capita = more mass shootings.

Why are some people so adamant about protecting a redundant right?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Why are you arguing semantics?


 
Because semantics are important in debate?

EDIT: And I wasn't arguing them so much as I was pointing out that more clarification was needed for the point people were trying to make to be valid. I had no interest in using that to try to bolster or weaken either side of the issue.

EDIT the 2nd: This particular debate has proven particularly sticky about semantics and definitions anyways, or it'd be alot more straightforward. If we knew _exactly_ what the framers of the constitution meant by "bear arms," alot of debate could be avoided. We don't, though, so all we can do is try to provide our own frameworks for the debates using our own definitions. They've already tried with the Assault Rifle ban a few years ago, but people complained about how they defined Assault Rifles when that went down, too.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Watty

Just saw this earlier this morning. There aren't words to describe this guy...thought Piers did the best he could in handling him though.


----------



## Randy

The sad thing being that Alex Jones' part sounded like any random 14 minute snippet from his show.

Piers is an elitist, ratings obsessed douche most of the time but I have to agree with getting Jones on air infront of the general public, instead of his regular following.

Since I posted this on MG and somebody said something already, I'll preemptively mention that I know Jones doesn't represent the "typical gun owner". He does, however, represent exactly the kind of person I fear having unrestricted access to them. I think Dershowitz is spot on in saying Jones is the kind of guy that, if you were at his house and got in a yelling match, you'd have to fear getting shot.


----------



## Watty

Randy said:


> T that I know Jones doesn't represent the "typical gun owner". He does, however, represent exactly the kind of person I fear having unrestricted access to them. I think Dershowitz is spot on in saying Jones is the kind of guy that, if you were at his house and got in a yelling match, you'd have to fear getting shot.



This, so much this.


----------



## Jakke

What an asshole, and for some reason do people listen to him.


----------



## ST3MOCON

'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible - Forbes


----------



## Watty

Tried to read the article, but after I saw the author's face...I couldn't concentrate on it...

Peter Ferrara - On The Cutting Edge - Forbes

JK, both it and his more recent piece are so overtly anti-liberal that I just didn't bother finishing them.


----------



## Jakke

ST3MOCON said:


> 'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible - Forbes



This is an opinion piece repeating most NRA talking points...


----------



## ST3MOCON

Jakke said:


> This is an opinion piece repeating most NRA talking points...



This whole thread is an opinion piece.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Why does Piers Morgan have a US TV show? Everyone hates the guy.

I'm glad that Alex Jones has shown his true colours though, I've never liked the guy and I want him to be exposed for the political extremist he is, in my mind he's no better than Limbaugh, just like the guy says.


----------



## Watty

Scar Symmetry said:


> Why does Piers Morgan have a US TV show? Everyone hates the guy.



Because he can? And not everyone hates him.... Hell, I'd never watched his show before this point and had therefore never formed an opinion about him. All I know is that he and I tend to agree on this topic.


----------



## Danukenator

That video is INSANE! He managed to plug: Rape, Hitler, Stalin, Suicide Pills, Invasion of America, America is born of guns, Gangs, Corporate cover ups, NWO conspiracy and 9/11 in the span of 30 seconds.


----------



## habicore_5150

habicore_5150 said:


> Trying to move away from this whole gun talk, apparently there's some Connecticut people wanting to do "something" about the shooting.
> 
> Only thing I can really say to this: "Not gonna get rid of the problem."
> 
> https://www.gamespot.com/news/connecticut-town-collecting-and-destroying-games-6401982
> 
> If any of those people come across this, I urge you to put down the wad of $100 bills, and use your heads for once



above quote is void:
I guess they finally listened, they decided to stop with this whole game burning BS: Connecticut Town Cancels Planned Game Burning | Side Mission | GameTrailers


----------



## Randy

Scapegoat Hunter - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/08/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## Dooky

I wonder what it's like to live inside the mind of Alex Jones... I'm quite certain it must be scary. 
That dude is paranoid as all hell! It's a wonder he's ever travelled overseas without his gun at the risk of being caught up in a "Red Coat" Civil War of a Government looking to take full control of its people. Sheez.


----------



## ST3MOCON

Mom who shot intruder inspires gun control foes - Yahoo! News

A woman home alone with her children shoots a home invader with her husband and 911 dispatch on the line. On the phone for 10 mins and no police are there. Got her gun from the safe goes and hides and husband reminds her of the lessons he taught her. Good for them that a responsible husband taught his wife how to defend herself and children.


----------



## Jakke

ST3MOCON said:


> This whole thread is an opinion piece.



Wow... Is that your comeback? Yes, there are a lot of opinions here, but they are different opinions. As you can see there are americans both pro and anti-guns, and the odd foreigner like me.

Did you actually think that an opinion piece written by someone who is very pro-guns would convince anyone? I mean, I could pull out a lecture by David Icke, would that convince you that there are reptilians living in the moon?
There are plenty of editorials claiming that the jews control the world, is that hypothesis automatically valid because someone published it?


----------



## ST3MOCON

Jakke said:


> Wow... Is that your comeback? Yes, there are a lot of opinions here, but they are different opinions. As you can see there are americans both pro and anti-guns, and the odd foreigner like me.
> 
> Did you actually think that an opinion piece written by someone who is very pro-guns would convince anyone? I mean, I could pull out a lecture by David Icke, would that convince you that there are reptilians living in the moon?



Do you actually think that after reading so many opinions on this thread from people who are very anti-gun would convince me?

Double standards I guess right?


----------



## Jakke

ST3MOCON said:


> Do you actually think that after reading so many opinions on this thread from people who are very anti-gun would convince me?



No, because I don't care what you believe. I would hope that you are a rational human being and therefore adjust your worldview based on observation, but my continued existance on this planet does not depend on what you believe.


But I do hope you know the difference between a partisan opinion piece in a newspaper and the more thoughtful members here on both sides who dig up statistics and facts on an in-depth level.


----------



## Randy

ST3MOCON said:


> Mom who shot intruder inspires gun control foes - Yahoo! News
> 
> A woman home alone with her children shoots a home invader with her husband and 911 dispatch on the line. On the phone for 10 mins and no police are there. Got her gun from the safe goes and hides and husband reminds her of the lessons he taught her. Good for them that a responsible husband taught his wife how to defend herself and children.



"Gun control foes" for like, the last fucking time, the number of people saying that we should take away "all the guns" is so little. I wish people would stop going that direction.

From the clips I posted just above (John Stewart and Piers Morgan), some of the most "liberal, anti-gun" folks you'll find in the mainstream media, both of them said they don't want to "take away all the guns" and Piers Morgan even mentions (on occasion) he supports the use of a firearm for self-defense in situations of home invasion.

How a story about an inept police force and a woman using a gun _exactly_ as fair minded Americans prescribe (try 911, keeping the gun in a safe but being trained on how to used it as a last resort) proves anything of substance in this debate is beyond me. Stop suggesting that all "gun control" advocacy means removing all guns. 

Jesus fucking christ.


----------



## Treeunit212

synrgy said:


> But, "guns don't kill people".



They don't. And that's a liberal saying that.

I'd recommend everyone to listen to the arguments of Dan Carlin in the "Gunning for Violence" episode of his podcast Common Sense. He explains very well why the NRA, despite it's current state of radical extremism and total disregard for common sense, is the best equipped to lead the conversation on gun control.

He argues that although guns, along with many many other factors, are the problem, attacking guns themselves won't solve anything. He cites the failings of Prohibition, pre-1970's NRA politics, and the idea that the only logical solution should be that of treating gun crime much, much more seriously.

Give thirty years to anyone who commits a gun crime of any kind, and, like with drunk driving, the disincentive will take care of a lot of the problem.


----------



## Randy

There's some truth to that, but it's not a perfect analogy.

You mentioned prohibition, I'm assuming it not preventing alcohol use...? We're not talking taking away all guns to prevent people from using them in any capacity (as prohibition was enacted to do with alcohol), we're talking about preventing guns being used to carry out murder. There's no comparison of a law built of moral prudishness and absolutes, to a nuanced bill about access to dangerous weapons specifically directed at criminals and the mentally ill. A closer comparison would be the fact we have DWI laws and restrictions on alcohol for those guilty of substance abuse related crimes, and those restrictions have proportionately led to reductions in those crimes.

I do agree that "gun crimes" should carry a stricter penalty but that needs to include incentives against straw purchase and unsecured weapons that can be easily stolen.

EDIT: Another point about DWI laws... don't forget, you don't need to wrap your car around a tree to lose your license or go to jail. It's a law of prevention. You might be Mario Andretti when you're buzzed but if you reach a road block and you blow over the legal limit, you're going to jail anyway.


----------



## ST3MOCON

Randy said:


> I do agree that "gun crimes" should carry a stricter penalty but that needs to include incentives against straw purchase and unsecured weapons that can be easily stolen.



So someone who can't afford to buy a safe but maybe puts a safety lock on their firearm should be punished for having it stolen in a shitty neighborhood?


----------



## synrgy

I don't think it's unreasonable to require safe keeping.

I can't just go out and buy/drive a car; I have to prove that I know how to operate one safely, and I have to pay for my license to drive it, and pay to insure my driving, and pay for regular safety and emissions inspections, not to mention any maintenance.


----------



## Randy

ST3MOCON said:


> So someone who can't afford to buy a safe but maybe puts a safety lock on their firearm should be punished for having it stolen in a shitty neighborhood?



It's certainly negligence. 

If Adam Lanza hadn't killed his mother, do you think she should have been held at all liable for him carrying out that attack with her weapons? Honest question.


----------



## ST3MOCON

In California you are required to have a trigger lock or safe when purchasing. You go through background and safety checks for handguns and rifles already. You need to pass a handgun certification test before you can buy a handgun.Essentially what randy is saying, if we apply this to cars synrgy is that if you forget to lock your car you will be punished. If you leave your window down you will be punished. I don't think punishing a victim is the answer. If your gun is in your house than it is already under lock and key.


----------



## Randy

Answer my question directly.


----------



## ST3MOCON

Randy said:


> It's certainly negligence.
> 
> If Adam Lanza hadn't killed his mother, do you think she should have been held at all liable for him carrying out that attack with her weapons? Honest question.



First off I wrote that response before I saw you post. 

Adam Lanza is responsible for the killing. No one else. Even if he didn't kill his mother. He stole the guns they weren't given to him. He killed his own mom. Who's to say the guns weren't locked and he unlocked them after he killed her. Neither you or I have any idea what went on in that house.


----------



## synrgy

Continuing my/your car analogy:

If my car is uninsured, then someone steals it and smashes it into another car, I'm at least partially liable for damages, not to mention being officially on the hook for having an uninsured vehicle.


----------



## tacotiklah

Treeunit212 said:


> They don't. And that's a liberal saying that.



QFT. I'm a lefty liberal and even I recognize guns for what they are; they are simply tools. Take a glock and lay it down on the bed (with the safety on of course). Guess what? It's not gonna shoot a fucking thing! But if you take that gun and put it in your hand, load and cock it, and remove the safety and pull the trigger, then a bullet will fly out of the damn thing and hit something; all due to concepts like choice, free will, and that crazy thing called physics. Difficult concepts for some to understand, but they do exist.

Which brings me to my next point; choice and free will. The purpose of guns is many fold, but generally it centers around hunting and self-defense. People choose to have a gun for these reasons, but I've heard others like target shooting at the range and whatnot. Perfectly acceptable reasons and nobody really questions that; on both sides of the political spectrum. Where the debate happens is we are essentially arguing over the free will of people. Who exactly is responsible enough to own a gun? As these continuous shootings point out, not everyone is entitled to own a gun. Not because the gun is at fault, but rather the crazy asshole that wants to buy it. People who aren't of sound mind that are given weapons that can harm other people is a recipe for disaster. Case in point; on OT there was a thread of giving a chimpanzee an ak-47. The monkey started randomly shooting at the idiots that gave the monkey the gun to begin with. Do we blame the gun, or do we blame the fucking idiots that made the gun accessible to the monkey (who lacks to cognitive processes to distinguish that firing guns at people is wrong) in the first place? The answer seems to be the latter to me. 

If you have kids and guns, that shit needs to be locked up tighter than the opening credits to the show Dragnet. But even then, kids are crafty as hell and will probably still find a way into your gun safes. The alternative then, is to teach them proper gun safety and respect for weapons at a young age. When they have their toy cap guns, instill into them that they should NEVER point guns at people; always keep it pointed at the floor or ceiling when handling it, and don't keep any caps in the gun when they are not using it. I've been using BB guns and airsoft rifles since I was 6, and I've never shot anyone or myself with them in the 21 years I've been using them. It comes down to taking the time for proper parenting and not being fucking haphazard when you own a tool that can fucking kill people. 

Cars can kill people when mishandled; hence why parents have to teach their kids to drive and why you have to have a license and other requirements before you can legally drive on the road. Nobody has a problem with this, so why are people all crazy about having a similar thing with guns? Ah yes, the 2nd amendment. The right to bear arms. Funny thing is, with licensing and things like that, you can STILL own a gun. Nobody would be taking away your right to own a gun; provided you pass the screening/licensing process. If you're nuttier than squirrel poo, then sorry but you have no fucking business owning a gun. I'm not for you having the tools to go shoot up a fucking post office, and I don't care if the gun is a full-auto assault rifle, a tricked out sniper rifle for quick-scope goodness, or a shitty .22 peashooter; you're not going to be given the ability to fuck with other people's lives until you get some goddamn help with your issues and a mental health professional (preferable more than one so as to avoid corruption) gives you the okay to own one. 

But if you're a regular joe of sound mind, you should pass the screenings no problem and be on the fast track to owning whatever gun you want; provided it's for civilian use. 

So that would be my proposed solution to this shit. Have a licensing/screening process for owning guns. The vast majority of people would pass it and be free to own several guns; the crazy as hell people would be prevented from having a gun to harm people with.


----------



## ST3MOCON

synrgy said:


> Continuing my/your car analogy:
> 
> If my car is uninsured, then someone steals it and smashes it into another car, I'm at least partially liable for damages, not to mention being officially on the hook for having an uninsured vehicle.



That's true but it still doesn't make it right. Insured or uninsured it was the criminals actions. Cars are not that great of an analogy anyways because we use cars on a daily basis. There are accidents every day with cars that amount to thousands of dollars per accident so we have insurance. If you don't have insurance someone's got to pay for the damages. If someone steals the car and runs someone over you are not responsible for their murder regardless of insurance. Maybe you get a slap on the wrist for not have car insurance.


----------



## ghostred7

Randy said:


> EDIT: Another point about DWI laws... don't forget, you don't need to wrap your car around a tree to lose your license or go to jail. It's a law of prevention. You might be Mario Andretti when you're buzzed but if you reach a road block and you blow over the legal limit, you're going to jail anyway.


FWIW....in most states (certainly in GA, US), if you get convicted of a DWI/DUI, it's almost automatic that any legal firearms carry permit will be revoked.


----------



## jawbreaker

Not trying to get involved in the shitstorm debate but this is interesting and i think you all should read it. Changed my perspectives quite a bit
4Chan discovers some shady stuff about the Sandy Hook shooting. : conspiracy


----------



## ST3MOCON

Randy said:


> From the clips I posted just above (John Stewart and Piers Morgan), some of the most "liberal, anti-gun" folks you'll find in the mainstream media, both of them said they don't want to "take away all the guns" and Piers Morgan even mentions (on occasion) he supports the use of a firearm for self-defense in situations of home invasion.




Of course they aren't going to say ban all guns, That would be career suicide. Saying one thing and doing another is something else entirely. They don't have to make guns illegal to stop people from getting them. Just ban certain features apply taxes and eventually an overly complicated application process that gives you some prison time for a stolen or lost firearm. 

That should do the trick


----------



## Randy

ST3MOCON said:


> First off I wrote that response before I saw you post.
> 
> Adam Lanza is responsible for the killing. No one else. Even if he didn't kill his mother. He stole the guns they weren't given to him. He killed his own mom. Who's to say the guns weren't locked and he unlocked them after he killed her. Neither you or I have any idea what went on in that house.



He shot her with one of her own guns, so he would've had to unlock said safe _before_ killing her unless she wasn't storing it in the safe.

Also, he was known mentally ill. She was in a sensitive situation and she knew that, and that situation required increased responsibility on her part. I could go to jail for negligence if a child is in my care and they're harmed by something I didn't restrict their access to (finger in a light switch, pills out of the cabinet, knives out of the cupboard, etc) If Adam was deemed unfit to own a weapon himself, making the weapons accessible to him in any fashion was irresponsible and by the scenario I mentioned, she should have been criminally negligent.

If you had (have?) a kid and they're shot by another kid at their friend's house, I'm sure you wouldn't hold the parents responsible either...?


----------



## Randy

ST3MOCON said:


> Of course they aren't going to say ban all guns, That would be career suicide.



Indeed. Ask Glenn Beck or Mike Savage or Howard Stern how "jumping the shark" ruined their careers. 

You're impossible to have a discussion with. Every post from you is counterpoint. Every other person in this thread, on either side, that's had some level of rationale gives a point here or there. Yet nobody's said anything to you to elicit anything other disagreement. Earlier in the thread (same post you yanked that quote from) I'm agreeing with you on guns for personal protection in home invasion and you ignored it, and jumped right to the part you disagreed with. And even then, it was in reference to two people who have gone on the record saying they don't agree with banning all guns and your only response is to call them liars.

Dude, seriously.


----------



## Randy

ghostred7 said:


> FWIW....in most states (certainly in GA, US), if you get convicted of a DWI/DUI, it's almost automatic that any legal firearms carry permit will be revoked.



Which I would, surprisingly, disagree with. 

Owning a gun or having a CCW or whatever doesn't have anything to do with drunk driving minus maybe drawing a parallel between the person and bad decision making...? But it's a stretch.

I could go on for days about the ridiculous restrictions we leverage against people in the legal system but that's another discussion for another day.


----------



## ST3MOCON

Randy said:


> Indeed. Ask Glenn Beck or Mike Savage or Howard Stern how "jumping the shark" ruined their careers.
> 
> You're impossible to have a discussion with. Every post from you is counterpoint. Every other person in this thread, on either side, that's had some level of rationale gives a point here or there. Yet nobody's said anything to you to elicit anything other disagreement. Earlier in the thread (same post you yanked that quote from) I'm agreeing with you on guns for personal protection in home invasion and you ignored it, and jumped right to the part you disagreed with. And even then, it was in reference to two people who have gone on the record saying they don't agree with banning all guns and your only response is to call them liars.
> 
> Dude, seriously.



Yes because I disagree with all the levels of gun control you have proposed. All of which can be too easily enforced improperly. I don't think they're are lying as much as I think this is the first step for a lot more gun control. 

As I said before the government doesn't need to ban guns, all they have to do is discourage you with an application process and exspensive taxes all the while banning features to dilute what is legal and illegal as much as possible. After all that apply some jail time for lost or stolen firearms like you proposed. 

Seriously randy, I don't need to discuss or compromise any of my rights given in the first 10 amendments. Remember the amendments that were so important that they had to be written right away. If you want to take that right away amend the constitution but you might have a problem with the shall not be infringed part. 

I have made plenty of rationale points. When they do ban or discourage fire arms ill make sure I message you and we can laugh about all of it.


----------



## Treeunit212

Randy said:


> There's some truth to that, but it's not a perfect analogy.
> 
> You mentioned prohibition, I'm assuming it not preventing alcohol use...? We're not talking taking away all guns to prevent people from using them in any capacity (as prohibition was enacted to do with alcohol), we're talking about preventing guns being used to carry out murder. There's no comparison of a law built of moral prudishness and absolutes, to a nuanced bill about access to dangerous weapons specifically directed at criminals and the mentally ill. A closer comparison would be the fact we have DWI laws and restrictions on alcohol for those guilty of substance abuse related crimes, and those restrictions have proportionately led to reductions in those crimes.
> 
> I do agree that "gun crimes" should carry a stricter penalty but that needs to include incentives against straw purchase and unsecured weapons that can be easily stolen.
> 
> EDIT: Another point about DWI laws... don't forget, you don't need to wrap your car around a tree to lose your license or go to jail. It's a law of prevention. You might be Mario Andretti when you're buzzed but if you reach a road block and you blow over the legal limit, you're going to jail anyway.



Exactly.

The point isn't to punish all gun owners, but to prevent serious crimes through serious punishment.

There was a time when drunk driving wasn't a big deal at all. If you got pulled over drunk, you got a ride home and maybe a ticket. Mothers Against Drunk Driving changed that, and the NRA can be the same force for gun violence (if they choose to be).

You drink to get drunk. That's the point. Take it too far, and you're screwed. Same should go for gun ownership. Their purpose is equally as obvious, yet infinitely more potentially dangerous. Therefore, if you commit a crime, any crime while in possession of a gun or is related to guns, you should be _severely_ punished.

In other news, another shooting being reported as I type!


----------



## synrgy

Show me where the Bill of Rights or Constitution expressly covers the right of the individual to (knowingly or otherwise) endanger the lives of their fellow citizens?


----------



## Randy

Treeunit212 said:


> and the NRA can be the same force for gun violence (if they choose to be).



Right. But they never would. They've made public their stance on the subject, and it's to blame Hollywood instead. There are probably other pro-gun organizations that could take the reins on this one, because the NRA is _too_ entrenched in keeping things the way they are. Don't forget, they represent the manufacturers. As ST3MCON made explicitly clear earlier, any restrictions or red tape disenfranchise buyers, and they move less product.

Lest we forget, the NRA strongly opposed the Brady Bill, including these restrictions: 



> Is a fugitive from justice;
> Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
> Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
> Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
> Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
> Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
> Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
> Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
> Has a record of being a felon



Those measures were controversial? 

Some kind of advocacy actually pertaining to guns would mean a lot coming from them but it will never happen. Their interests are elsewhere.


----------



## Randy

ST3MOCON said:


> When they do ban or discourage fire arms ill make sure I message you and we can laugh about all of it.



Finally something we can agree on.


----------



## Treeunit212

Randy said:


> Right. But they never would. They've made public their stance on the subject, and it's to blame Hollywood instead. There are probably other pro-gun organizations that could take the reins on this one, because the NRA is _too_ entrenched in keeping things the way they are. Don't forget, they represent the manufacturers. As ST3MCON made explicitly clear earlier, any restrictions or red tape disenfranchise buyers, and they move less product.
> 
> Lest we forget, the NRA strongly opposed the Brady Bill, including these restrictions:
> 
> 
> 
> Those measures were controversial?
> 
> Some kind of advocacy actually pertaining to guns would mean a lot coming from them but it will never happen. Their interests are elsewhere.



So unless something big enough can upset the sort of firearm-industrial complex the NRA is trying to perpetuate by offering no other solution to gun violence than more guns, nothing will change.

_Great._


----------



## flint757

I would like to point out, as it seems to not be obvious enough, what Randy has been repeating , but break it down where the disconnect seems to be occurring as I noticed this when having a discussion with a friend of mine as well.

There are 2 parts to the gun debate, the ideological side and realistic side. On the ideological side gun owners want to own their guns free from restriction and some pro regulators would ideally like their to be significantly less guns in the world in general (I'm oversimplifying it, but you get the idea). Now, realistically pro regulators want something significantly more in the middle and typically pro gunners are also willing to meet somewhere in the middle. The disconnect occurs because the ideal and realistic goals/expectations match on the pro gun side for the most part, but on the pro regulation side are vastly different. As such the pro gun side seems to continually pull the ideals into the discussion as they are one in the same with their realistic goals even though that isn't what is being discussed by those who wish for a better regulated gun culture. That doesn't even take into account the more neutral idealists who get corralled in one side or the other by the extreme topics nobody is asking to occur (no one who matters at least ).

As an example, bringing up how if there were no guns we'd be less safe because we will be more likely to get robbed is a fallacious argument as the point would require the other side to be realistically advocating a complete ban if it were even indeed true at all.

Of course one of the more irritating disagreements that keeps occurring is the notion of doing nothing because _you_ distrust the government for whatever reason. I have no response or argument for such thoughts and not because there aren't any.  That mentality roots itself deep into ones personality and once it sets in it is pretty much impossible to rebuke with said individual.

Every example my friend and I were discussing ended up derailing into a complete ban discussion because he was focused on my ideal perception that guns, IMO, are just generally bad for society (that is not relevant). I, however, (and the government and most other people) only want better regulation and bans on certain weapons realistically (or at lest very strict guidelines/restrictions on ones that would otherwise be banned). Which does not directly correlate to all guns being banned either. That is a leap that is not even historically sound yet is also brought up repeatedly. I don't know why it is so hard for them to stay separate, but it seems to be quite difficult. 

Not to say the conversation with him would go anywhere otherwise as he has a wild distrust for the government (and yet is cool with higher taxes and universal healthcare ) to the point of fully committed to believing our government was 100% directly involved in 9/11 and other such far fetched conspiracies.


----------



## 1000 Eyes

jawbreaker said:


> Not trying to get involved in the shitstorm debate but this is interesting and i think you all should read it. Changed my perspectives quite a bit
> 4Chan discovers some shady stuff about the Sandy Hook shooting. : conspiracy


----------



## Randy

Gun control debate: Is an assault weapons ban out of reach? | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

The latest is that the assault weapons ban might not be part of the Biden's recommendations.


----------



## Randy

CDC: Politics affected gun violence research | www.ajc.com


----------



## synrgy

White House may consider funding for police in schools after Newtown - The Washington Post

Because it made such a big difference in Columbine, amirite?


----------



## Randy

synrgy said:


> White House may consider funding for police in schools after Newtown - The Washington Post
> 
> Because it made such a big difference in Columbine, amirite?



And yesterday.


----------



## Watty

Randy said:


> And yesterday.



INB4 someone brings up the fact that it "wasn't covered by the media on a national scale" conspiracy crap.


----------



## Randy

Watty said:


> INB4 someone brings up the fact that it "wasn't covered by the media on a national scale" conspiracy crap.


----------



## Watty

This gif coupled with your current avatar serves to effectively reinforce the message.


----------



## Treeunit212

Watty said:


> INB4 someone brings up the fact that it "wasn't covered by the media on a national scale" conspiracy crap.



It wasn't covered heavily because no one died. 

I don't know what else to say. It's that simple.


----------



## right_to_rage

Mainstream news and politicians are still pushing loaded agendas in broad daylight. Let's take a look at the data, shall we?


----------



## Jzbass25

right_to_rage said:


> Mainstream news and politicians are still pushing loaded agendas in broad daylight. Let's take a look at the data, shall we?




For some reason I dislike him (maybe it's the 5oclock shadow =P) but he makes very good points all around especially near the end. People always look dumbfounded when I say we really need to work on our education and our economic system if we want to better nearly everything. Some call me a crazy liberal wanting a free handout... yeah because giving quality education to people for free is a bad idea... The only problem is that I'm not sure how well anything will work in metropolitan areas because from what I remember in my psychology courses, most animals when in dense populations tend to develop mental issues.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

@right_to_rage

I enjoyed the video you linked. Thing about England, law abiding citizens don't have guns or carry weapons, so they can duke it out whenever they want, then settle it in court if the law becomes involved, painting the statistics differently.

I guess violence would be lower if there was a fear that anyone you might offend could just run on home to fetch his gun.

A few friends of mine were pounding FB with statistics, people outside of America seem to forget that it's a country the size a continent, with the massive regional diversity that brings.


----------



## synrgy

So, here's some interesting historical perspective to throw into the mix. We're gonna go to California, back during the same year that gave us 'The Summer of Love'..

NRA was pro-gun control when it came to Black Panthers | theGrio

Cliff's notes =

Armed Black Panther patrols in California?
"We _must_ have stricter gun control! We must stand up to these street _thugs_ and _radicals_!"

Armed militia wannabes in Cracker Country? 
"_Tyranny_! _Dictator_! You can't take out guns away! You're attacking the Second Amendment!"



Anyway, it gets better, particularly given the context of contemporary political dialog..

Mulford Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check out who signed the bill in California banning public carry. Hint: It was 1967..

There are so many points to make, here, that I don't even know where to begin!


----------



## Ibanezsam4

right_to_rage said:


> Mainstream news and politicians are still pushing loaded agendas in broad daylight. Let's take a look at the data, shall we?




i came here to post a similar video, but this one blows mine out of the water.


----------



## Watty

Treeunit212 said:


> no one died.



That's part of the point though, isn't it? With the national debate raging away, any situation that provides contrast to either side is generally brought up. It doesn't matter that no one died, the "shooting" took place. And the debate (and by extension, the coverage of it) is not just about deaths caused, it's about the ramifications that the situation has long term, which introduces a whole host of other issues. That said, I'd like to think my joking comment still stands.

_______________

And, in reply to the video, I applaud this guy for making a no nonsense fact presentation. However, I always think it's odd when people think that poverty is an acceptable excuse or an equitable cause for going out, buying/stealing a gun, and using it to rob/kill someone; thus creating the situation in which a murder might occur. Do we need to fix the poverty situation, the education system, and create more jobs? YES....HELL YES. Will this change the fact that someone can go on a shooting rampage with a legally purchased and owned automatic rifle if they so choose? No. Obviously not. It's a step in the right direction, but even if only 1 out of every 100 million "properly raised and educated" people felt they wanted to go out in a "blaze of evildoing," all the societal improvements wouldn't mean a whole lot in the moment. Obviously, this is taking a bit of a pessimistic view on the matter, but saying that the proper improvements to social institutions will magically fix the problem is the positive counterpoint.

_On a side note: Do parents need to raise their children better. YES. Do the Republicans need to keep their shit out of Planned Parenthood? YES._

However, seeing this as being in direct correlation with the conversation about whether or not we can own assault rifles is almost (but not quite) a non sequitur. While it might be that only 3.5% of murders involved rifles, that's still 3.5% too many for my tastes given the lack of a need to own them in the first place; especially in looking at the fact that most of the mass murders are carried out by people using them. The legislation being introduced shouldn't take away all guns (if not only because crazy shits will try and go militia on the rest of us), it should serve to remove the ease by which the deranged people can get ahold of them; or, in looking at clip size, the ease of using them without time for a mounted response. Want to go down to range an shoot a government owned (insert Call of Duty gun here)? Fine, just don't let your male ego get caught in the door on your way out. Want to take it home to sit on a shelf until you feel crazy enough to use it on someone else? Not okay; that's what your handgun can be for if you feel SO strongly on the matter; might be time to bust out the stats on gun ownership and how likely it is that you'll hurt someone in your life rather than using it to defend yourself, but I suppose that's already been brought up in this thread.


----------



## Treeunit212

Can we just all agree how ridiculous this is?






If not, please share why. I simply do not understand what this statistic is trying to prove.

For one thing, the actual number of gun murder in the year 2011 is closer to the tens of thousands, since there were 11,098 gun homicides in 2010. This isn't a question of how to stop guns from killing people, because guns don't kill people; people kill people. Even if I used the same line of logic, I would post the number of gun homicides in all developed nations and it would be equally irrelevant to the issue.

The year cited is 2011, and Obamacare really doesn't take effect until 2014. Obamacare also has nothing to do with anything, since 
1: it isn't an actual program like medicare or social security, it's a broad term used to defined the reforms that were part of the 1800 pages of legislation, and
2:It's like saying you'll DIE by visiting the hospital with health insurance. Thing is, you're just as likely to die without it, too.

Violence is a cultural phenomenon and a reflection of society's overall state of mental health and economic well being. I have to use a fictional story to advance a point but the Joker was right: All you have to do to cause chaos in society is flip it back onto itself with fear. 

And it doesn't help that everyone in America is armed to the teeth and glued to Fox News.


----------



## flint757

It goes back to what I said earlier, a doctor doesn't decide to treat your illness based on the numbers of people sick with the same thing. Comparing various deaths or weapons is quite literally pointless as it does not prove that guns aren't a problem. It only points out that we have many problems that need resolution. Kind of like saying alcohol is worse than pot. Doesn't directly correlate that pot is good, just means alcohol is worse. 

The bit in red is rather hilarious though. People look at data and read exactly what they want from it almost instantaneously. The human brain is quite amazing.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Mo' guns mo' money


----------



## Watty

Treeunit212 said:


> Violence is a cultural phenomenon and a reflection of society's overall state of mental health and economic well being. I have to use a fictional story to advance a point but the Joker was right: All you have to do to cause chaos in society is flip it back onto itself with fear.
> 
> And it doesn't help that everyone in America is armed to the teeth and glued to Fox News.



This is what Alex Jones and his ilk are trying to peddle with "strategic relocation" and all that s%$&...er, I mean, jazz.

I think we're really on the brink of moving forward by leaps and bounds. I can't say that we'll be growing out of the "culture of violence," but in the next decade or two, the following will happen:

1) The Republican party as we know it will crash and burn, hard.
2) Conservative voters will finally give ground on the stupid social issues so that we can actually have two worthwhile people to vote for that can actually win. (As of now, I won't vote Republican because of the social stance, regardless of the legitimacy of their ideas on issues that matter)

With the social crap cleared out of the way, we can FINALLY focus our collective efforts on moving forward in a way that's meaningful to folks who just want to live their lives and not worry about what everyone else is doing. I realize this is not really a commentary on how guns play into this vision of where we're headed, but I know that I've never once given thought owning, let alone firing, a gun. I figure there's a lot more young people like myself than there are on the other side of the fence. Thus, as the gun nuts (typically older, white folks) begin to die off, there aren't going to be as many people peddling the NRA platform. It'll kind of phase itself out of importance, just like religion. I know it sounds callous, but sometimes speaking candidly is more efficient.

And, as to the Fox News comment, there are far fewer people glued to it than I figure we all assume. However, given that these people are ever so ignorant and weak-minded, the number doesn't actually matter much at all. If Alex Jones has 55 guns and can round up 54 other people like himself, not hard to imagine that even a small number of crazy people could do some damage before being put down. I figure most of us look at Fox News with pure and utter derision. Heck, I know that if you put me in a room with Beck, Limbaugh, or Bill-O and gave me a gun....I think I might actually be able to convince myself to shoot them (not kill, mind you) out of pure spite for the lies they spew with no regard to the type of people watching. They actually endanger the rest of us with their ability to reach the crazy people with relative ease and stoke their minds to action.

Edit: I also like how Mehtab's post came right after Flint's and had a bit of data in red that contradicted the original insinuation. Nice, most likely unintentional, touch!


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Yup, dying baby boomers.


----------



## Watty

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Yup, dying baby boomers.



Figured I owed it a bit more eloquence given the seriousness of the topic being discussed, but yes....dying baby boomers.


----------



## chickenxnuggetz91




----------



## Watty

Everything this guy states has probably been brought up in some form or another in this thread, so I don't see why you posted it, especially given his disclaimer presented at 3:42 into the video.

And yet AGAIN, he dodges the issue of assault rifles. Very few people want to remove ALL the guns, we just want to remove the ease by which some crazy asshole can literally MOW DOWN innocent people. Want to keep a bolt-action hunting rifle with a clip of 6 that's hard to aim at less than 300 feet? Fine, be my guest. Want to keep a shotgun for shooting trap in your spare time? Fine, just be sure to do it at a range and clean up the bigger pieces of clay when you're done. Want to keep a handgun with a clip of 4 in your home for the times that an intruder allows you time to unlock and consequently load it? Fine, knock yourself out. Want to own a gun that, under point and shoot conditions, will allow you to kill a hundred people in the space of mere seconds? No f^%$%ing way, keep that crap on your XBox live account.


----------



## wlfers

You are talking about military style semi automatic rifles that meet certain functional and aesthetic feature requirements to be called under law "Assault Rifle" right?

You made the point a few posts up that mass murders prefer military style semi automatic rifles, though I can't tell you if that's true or not for the bulk of the cases I can say that the Virginia Tech shooter, which is America's highest casualty mass shooting used two handguns. The massacre in Norway was taken out with a Ruger Mini-14 and a handgun.

Now this, which is the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle






Functionally fires just as quickly as a civilian accessible






Now to that 3.5% figure. Yes that is obviously too many, and nobody is contesting that gun violence isn't bad. Yet just it appears that the gun control advocates are exerting an extremely disproportional amount of energy, money, legislative effort over 3.5% of the problem. Now to my knowledge someone correct please if I'm wrong, the 3.5% figure reflects all Long Rifles and not just Assault rifles, therefore more "Assault Rifles" legislation really isn't doing much anyway since there are plenty of semi automatic "target shooting", "hunter" or "nice" looking rifles.

And just my opinion- I assume the vast majority of owners purchasing expensive military style semi automatic rifles do not want their expensive investment confiscated from them so they are strictly law abiding. My friends and family are pretty strict about storage and abiding by the law given that not only is it the responsible and smart thing to do, but you run the risk of losing your firearms. There are definitely exceptions to this on a greater scale, I'm just posting an observation.


----------



## Watty

athawulf said:


> You are talking about military style semi automatic rifles that meet certain functional and aesthetic feature requirements to be called under law "Assault Rifle" right?



You know full well what type of gun we've been talking about man. There's no need to dilute the issue by trying to introduce different "classes" of rifles. I clarified myself in detailing which guns I don't care about. Basically, if you can hold down the trigger and shoot more than one bullet at a time, the gun ceases to be for hunting, sport, or self-defense.



athawulf said:


> You made the point a few posts up that mass murders prefer military style semi automatic rifles, though I can't tell you if that's true or not for the bulk of the cases I can say that the Virginia Tech shooter, which is America's highest casualty mass shooting used two handguns. The massacre in Norway was taken out with a Ruger Mini-14 and a handgun.



I don't know a damn thing about guns, so I won't pretend to fluff a comment on the pictures you posted. My point has less to do with mass killings carried out in the past and more to do with stopping people from doing it in future. Can someone still kill a lot of people with a 4 round handgun? Yes. Are they a lot less likely to try given there's a significantly increased risk of being taken down while reloading? I'd say so.



athawulf said:


> Now to that 3.5% figure. Yes that is obviously too many, and nobody is contesting that gun violence isn't bad. Yet just it appears that the gun control advocates are exerting an extremely disproportional amount of energy, money, legislative effort over 3.5% of the problem. Now to my knowledge someone correct please if I'm wrong, the 3.5% figure reflects all Long Rifles and not just Assault rifles, therefore more "Assault Rifles" legislation really isn't doing much anyway since there are plenty of semi automatic "target shooting", "hunter" or "nice" looking rifles.



Again, no need to introduce a fact that confuses the issue. Now, if a murder is carried out by gang bangers warring over turf, do we really care? Yes and no. It's bad that it happened at all, but that statistic really isn't relevant to the discussion being that the people involved went into the situation knowing they might die. What we're looking at is the people that drop their kids off at school or go shopping at the mall. The expectation is that nothing like this would EVER happen. So, the 0.01% of killings that occur this way are SO MUCH MORE significant than the 99.99% that are generally perpetrated with malicious intent between two people (or groups of people) that have it out for each other and know it might be coming.



athawulf said:


> And just my opinion- I assume the vast majority of owners purchasing expensive military style semi automatic rifles do not want their expensive investment confiscated from them so they are strictly law abiding. My friends and family are pretty strict about storage and abiding by the law given that not only is it the responsible and smart thing to do, but you run the risk of losing your firearms. There are definitely exceptions to this on a greater scale, I'm just posting an observation.



So we offer to buy them back. I'd be okay with increasing my taxes a slight bit more in order to pay into a system that got guns out of the hand of Alex Jones and his ilk. And you call it an investment, which I find interesting. There are investments liable to make you a lot more money without endangering your family (back to the self inflicted harm stats by gun owning folks) or introducing a point of contention between other people who disagree. If "owning it as an investment" means it sits in a safe in your home, why not have it sit in a safe at a bank? If that's the only reason folks owned them, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And saying they're strictly law abiding for the sake of keeping their guns insinuates they wouldn't abide by the law if the risk of losing their guns wasn't on the table...strikes me as odd you mentioned that one.


----------



## wlfers

Watty said:


> You know full well what type of gun we've been talking about man. There's no need to dilute the issue by trying to introduce different "classes" of rifles. I clarified myself in detailing which guns I don't care about. Basically, if you can hold down the trigger and shoot more than one bullet at a time, the gun ceases to be for hunting, sport, or self-defense.
> 
> *I don't know a damn thing about guns*, so I won't pretend to fluff a comment on the pictures you posted. My point has less to do with mass killings carried out in the past and more to do with stopping people from doing it in future. Can someone still kill a lot of people with a 4 round handgun? Yes. Are they a lot less likely to try given there's a significantly increased risk of being taken down while reloading? I'd say so.
> 
> Again, no need to introduce a fact that confuses the issue. Now, if a murder is carried out by gang bangers warring over turf, do we really care? Yes and no. It's bad that it happened at all, but that statistic really isn't relevant to the discussion being that the people involved went into the situation knowing they might die. What we're looking at is the people that drop their kids off at school or go shopping at the mall. The expectation is that nothing like this would EVER happen. So, the 0.01% of killings that occur this way are SO MUCH MORE significant than the 99.99% that are generally perpetrated with malicious intent between two people (or groups of people) that have it out for each other and know it might be coming.
> 
> So we offer to buy them back. I'd be okay with increasing my taxes a slight bit more in order to pay into a system that got guns out of the hand of Alex Jones and his ilk. And you call it an investment, which I find interesting. There are investments liable to make you a lot more money without endangering your family (back to the self inflicted harm stats by gun owning folks) or introducing a point of contention between other people who disagree. If "owning it as an investment" means it sits in a safe in your home, why not have it sit in a safe at a bank? If that's the only reason folks owned them, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And saying they're strictly law abiding for the sake of keeping their guns insinuates they wouldn't abide by the law if the risk of losing their guns wasn't on the table...strikes me as odd you mentioned that one.




That is *not* which gun we are talking about. Assault Rifle does not equal Automatic rifle. If you're going to comment about a subject you should learn "a damn thing about guns" so you can discuss with knowledge what you're arguing about. Because Automatic Rifles, anything above 1 shot per trigger pull, are already banned by law with extremely limited circumstances in which they are allowed. 

Handguns fire just as fast as these "Assault Weapons". It's still 1 shot per trigger pull. 

I'm not introducing facts that confuse the issue... The issue is the facts and legislation surrounding guns are confusing in themselves. These are convoluted laws that make it so police officers don't even know whats legal, firearms businesses have to jump through numbers of expensive hoops over issues that do not contribute to a decline in gun violence. The legislation needs to be meaningful, not arbitrary and costly. 

You basically are dumbing down the entire complex issue of murder and violence into 2 categories: "Gang violence which doesn't matter" and "Mall Massacres which do". Not entirely sure how to dissect how you feel and create a response.. but man. Gun violence culture is an issue in whatever scenario it takes place in. 

You don't need something to sit in a bank if it's an investment. A house can be an investment, my guitar rig (given my income ) is an investment. 

Anyway, if you've spent this entire thread thinking we were arguing about Automatic rifles then you've really missed alot.


----------



## Watty

athawulf said:


> Anyway, if you've spent this entire thread thinking we were arguing about Automatic rifles then you've really missed alot.



I tried saying something long-winded in response, but each time I had something in the back of my mind; namely, you missed my points entirely because you were only focusing on the examples and/or overall language used. So:

1) I do know enough about guns to say with certainty that there is no good reason that your average Joe needs to own a weapon described as being "for assault purposes" or "automatic in it's ability to fire large amounts of bullets." So no need to call me out on my misuse of a two terms that insofar as this issue is concerned have a very small disparity existing in their definitions.

2) I'm not actively trying to "dumb it down" to two categories, but let's be honest with each other. The "criminals" that the NRA refers to as owning the guns illegally after the legislation is put in place are contributing to much of the gun violence listed in statistics. This sort of violence does very little to create a public hazard insofar as school/mall/etc shooting are concerned. Your average criminal who would shoot an acquaintance because he ripped his drug money off is not the same person who is going to walk into a mall and start shooting. And again, your average gun murder takes place with a handgun in a home and is carried out by a family member or friend; thus, these are not really a part of the conversation that we're having right now.

3) RE: Investments. I don't know what to say in reply as you completely missed the point.


----------



## wlfers

Just to add on, this is a complex and confusing issue especially when legislation is taken into account. It's already been hammered in this thread over and over again about how many different factors need to be taken into consideration when talking about gun violence.

It's also already been stated that we should assume that this is NOT a discussion between "Ban All Guns" vs "Everyone needs AR15s and Tanks vs NWO" because there is no way to realistically debate either. So to meet somewhere in between we have to unravel the complexities and the nuances of violence in general coupled with the arbitrary and partisan reality of politics/legislation.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

I still dont see why anyone needs an assault weapon...or a handgun for that matter.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I still dont see why anyone needs an assault weapon...or a handgun for that matter.



As far as I can tell, people want their machine guns in case the gubment gets too corrupt. 

...Which I find pointless, because an entire military arsenal > your little gun closet. 

Or I can be overgeneralizing things.


----------



## Chickenhawk

EDIT: Was already covered. My input retracted.


----------



## Watty

Chickenhawk said:


> Feel free to continue your discussion (aka gun bashing) without any more disruptions from me



I'd already been called out on this and addressed it, thanks for the levity though.


----------



## narad

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> As far as I can tell, people want their machine guns in case the gubment gets too corrupt.
> 
> ...Which I find pointless, because an entire military arsenal > your little gun closet.
> 
> Or I can be overgeneralizing things.



They should use ranch rifles. I read once that they fire just as fast as the civilian accessible assault rifles.


----------



## wlfers

^ Probably because they do.



Stealthdjentstic said:


> I still dont see why anyone needs an assault weapon...or a handgun for that matter.



I'm not arguing necessity, though some probably will.


----------



## flint757

I don't really care if people own weapons as long as they qualify and those in their household would qualify (based on a more stringent process than currently takes place). Also, as long as they are stored properly. 

If you can't afford a proper safe then you might want to reevaluate your priorities because a gun probably shouldn't be one of them. 

The trigger locks are good for family safety, but do nothing to keep weapons from getting stolen. IMO it'd be easier to get into a safe, especially if it uses biometric lock, anyhow and is both safe and protected from theft.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Watty said:


> I clarified myself in detailing which guns I don't care about. Basically, if you can hold down the trigger and shoot more than one bullet at a time, the gun ceases to be for hunting, sport, or self-defense.



Considering however that the process for getting automatic weapons is 8 months long, registers the owner into an ATF database and will cost the future owner over $16,000. Automatics are not an issue and very few people can afford them, the only private citizens who do own them are collection enthusiasts and weapons masters on movie production companies. Automatics are an already heavily regulated firearm and as such are passed over by politicians in their legislation. The most recent Feinstein bill does nothing about automatics because nothing more need be done. 





Watty said:


> I don't know a damn thing about guns, so I won't pretend to fluff a comment on the pictures you posted. My point has less to do with mass killings carried out in the past and more to do with stopping people from doing it in future. Can someone still kill a lot of people with a 4 round handgun? Yes. Are they a lot less likely to try given there's a significantly increased risk of being taken down while reloading? I'd say so.



my advice is to start. ignorance is never a good thing, specifically when debating someone who is knowledgeable on any given topic. in this case you're telling somebody who knows more than you about guns that they dont need them based off of your own uninformed interpretation. not good. this advice is applicable to other topics of course.. 

Case and point, you make the assertion that if a shooter has small capacity magazines (not clips, they are not one and the same), would be less likely to kill everyone because of the time it takes to reload. recent mass shooters have anticipated this inconvenience of reloading and simply carry more guns. Aurora shooter is a perfect example. All his magazines were low capacity after he discarded his jammed 100 round drum mag (which they do frequently). His intention was once he expended his AR15 drum he would use his shotgun, then proceed to small arms. Sandy Hook guy also brought extra guns for the same purpose. 
this guy uses self-defense as an example of why larger capacity mags are valuable to the law-abiding citizen 
 





Watty said:


> Again, no need to introduce a fact that confuses the issue. Now, if a murder is carried out by gang bangers warring over turf, do we really care? Yes and no. It's bad that it happened at all, but that statistic really isn't relevant to the discussion being that the people involved went into the situation knowing they might die. What we're looking at is the people that drop their kids off at school or go shopping at the mall. The expectation is that nothing like this would EVER happen. So, the 0.01% of killings that occur this way are SO MUCH MORE significant than the 99.99% that are generally perpetrated with malicious intent between two people (or groups of people) that have it out for each other and know it might be coming.



1) there is no such thing as a fact that confuses an issue. when examining an issue it is paramount to know all the facts surrounding it in order to make an informed decision. so to disregard one in a discussion that is as broad as firearms hurts the discussion itself. if bringing in more facts weakens the argument than the fault lies within the structure of the argument not the fact. this comment in addition to other comments you have made in the thread leads me to believe you are struggling with projection bias (awesome thread about this in the off-topic btw) rather than issues "being confused." in this case it is important to note that what is deemed as a "functional" or "purpose fulfilling civilian firearm" (also as aesthetically traditional firearms) are also used in addition to "military style" which is a misnomer to begin with. 

2) "Reasonable expectation" to not be harmed is valid, but the fact that it is violated everyday in a variety of ways. For example the victims of hate crimes have a reasonable expectation to not be victimized over race or orientation, yet despite the amount of hate crime legislation does not prevent it. same with rape, burglary, arson, identity theft and several other crimes i won't mention for the sake of time. each has the legal definition of reasonable expectation being violated. law enforcement exists because of this idea. However you can never police intent, and this expectation as i said before will statistically be violated in some way. 

We are both in agreement about not wanting to be shot while we are out in public enjoying our lives, however i would wish that people out in public be given a fighting chance. The mother who just shot that guy in her home had the reasonable expectation of the security of her home violated, yet she was prepared to defend her family. 
Im sure its been said in this thread already, but all mass shootings within recent years have been in a gun-free zone. this of course brings up the argument that if everyone was carrying that it would devolve into a cluster-fuck of bullets and death. I find this funny as most shootings take place within a distance of 10 feet, so it would be fairly obvious who is the aggressor is and who the bystanders are. 




Watty said:


> So we offer to buy them back. I'd be okay with increasing my taxes a slight bit more in order to pay into a system that got guns out of the hand of Alex Jones and his ilk. And you call it an investment, which I find interesting. There are investments liable to make you a lot more money without endangering your family (back to the self inflicted harm stats by gun owning folks) or introducing a point of contention between other people who disagree.



Australia did that, it cost them 500 million dollars for the whole buy-back. We have waaaaaay more firearms in America, so figure this would cost several billion. Now anytime money and government is involved my motto is the increases in taxes is only worth it if the result is successful. That being said Australia did the exact thing you are prescribing and here are the results: Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics 

for those who dont want to click the link: 

"It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:

Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.

From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent." 

So here already i can say the cost will not be worth it, now consider that the US population is quite large and as the video that i quoted earlier states that because of our 132 major population centers, expect the violent increase to be more extreme. 

Now you have frequently referenced accidental domestic harm with a firearm. I'm assuming you are referencing Keller and Reay which asserted that guns are more likely to hurt someone in the house than defend it. However these numbers are not exactly accurate as the CDC includes suicides in their numbers. 
Now onto self-defense: "it may indeed be true that a gun is more likely to kill a person in the home than an outside invader, especially considering that more than half of all lethal gunshots are self-inflicted. But that doesn&#8217;t mean guns are more likely to harm their owner than protect them. In fact, guns are used to defend their owners more than a million times each year, according to Criminologist Gary Kleck. Unlike Kellerman&#8217;s study, Kleck examined all reported incidents involving guns instead of just those resulting in fatalities. What he found was that when guns are used defensively, the overwhelming majority of the time they are never fired. Because no one is killed, these incidents generally were never considered by researchers such as Kellerman. If they were, he would have found that a gun kept in the home is twenty-seven times more likely to stop an attacker than it is to harm anyone&#8212;including the attacker." 
read the rest here, i like this article as he actually cites his studies Gun Statistics Are Not Simple


----------



## narad

Ibanezsam4 said:


> in this case you're telling somebody who knows more than you about guns that they dont need them based off of your own uninformed interpretation. not good. this advice is applicable to other topics of course..



Like statistics. In this case, you're haphazardly using Australian statistics to support your case to me, a statistician who lives Australia. The actual gun crime rates are exceptionally low compared to American standards, and most of your cited fluctuations are not statistically significant. They're actually based on this really old email that got sent around in the year following the ban, i.e., someone changed what was originally "12 months" to "10 years" to make it seem relevant to the current refocusing of the issue in America. In reality, most of these rates declined following the ban. If you have to twist my arm to dig out the stats I will [when not on a train] but in short, if you're not convinced, go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and look at their violent crime and armed robbery stats over the last 15 years.

I wish there was some waiver you had to sign or a crash course to take before you could post statistics on the internet. They can almost never be used responsibly to make a clear case for just one side of a political issue. This stands for both pro-gun and pro-gun-control. It's a bit of a moot point since the US population is so much larger and we cannot realistically afford a similar buy-back, but if I was against gun-control, I would never mention Australia. You're just shooting yourself in the foot [heeey-oooo].



Ibanezsam4 said:


> Australia did that, it cost them 500 million dollars for the whole buy-back. We have waaaaaay more firearms in America, so figure this would cost several billion. Now anytime money and government is involved my motto is the increases in taxes is only worth it if the result is successful. That being said Australia did the exact thing you are prescribing and here are the results: Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
> 
> for those who dont want to click the link:
> 
> "It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
> 
> The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:
> 
> Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
> 
> The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
> 
> Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
> 
> From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
> 
> In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent."


----------



## Watty

Ibanezsam4 said:


> Considering however that the process for getting automatic weapons is 8 months long, registers the owner into an ATF database and will cost the future owner over $16,000. Automatics are not an issue and very few people can afford them, the only private citizens who do own them are collection enthusiasts and weapons masters on movie production companies. Automatics are an already heavily regulated firearm and as such are passed over by politicians in their legislation. The most recent Feinstein bill does nothing about automatics because nothing more need be done.



This is what happens when you don't read all the way up until the last post. Someone else brought this up, and I clarified. Frankly, the difference between automatic and assault is moot as neither one of them should be accessible regardless of the process by which one does come to own them.



Ibanezsam4 said:


> my advice is to start. ignorance is never a good thing, specifically when debating someone who is knowledgeable on any given topic. in this case you're telling somebody who knows more than you about guns that they dont need them based off of your own uninformed interpretation. not good. this advice is applicable to other topics of course..



What part of becoming more informed on the topic would provide me a reason to own or defend the rights of others to own a weapon not designed for killing large amounts of people efficiently? I'd agree that knowing more is always best, but given that I've never even held a gun, let alone fired one, I don't think I should have to go out and buy one to justify my having an opinion on the matter. Would you say the same to the family of a shooting victim? I doubt it. Is that a harsh and unfair comparison? Perhaps.



Ibanezsam4 said:


> Case and point, you make the assertion that if a shooter has small capacity magazines (not clips, they are not one and the same), would be less likely to kill everyone because of the time it takes to reload. recent mass shooters have anticipated this inconvenience of reloading and simply carry more guns. Aurora shooter is a perfect example. All his magazines were low capacity after he discarded his jammed 100 round drum mag (which they do frequently). His intention was once he expended his AR15 drum he would use his shotgun, then proceed to small arms. Sandy Hook guy also brought extra guns for the same purpose.
> this guy uses self-defense as an example of why larger capacity mags are valuable to the law-abiding citizen



You can dance around my ignorance on noun disparity all day, it won't change the content of the idea. Whether you call it a clip or magazine, the point is still the same. The smaller the capacity of one "ammunition holder," the more chance there is of someone stepping in to attempt to stop the shooter. Is it a fix? No. Is it a step in the right direction given the purpose of a larger "ammunition holder?" Yes. And your video doesn't hold a ton of credence with me given he jokes about hipsters and their skinny jeans, not to mention women and their purses. He also seemed to indicate that a 12 round capacity "ammunition holder" would not be enough for a man to defend himself from three aggressors. If you can't injure a person with four bullets, I don't think you should be able to own a gun in the first place.



Ibanezsam4 said:


> 1) there is no such thing as a fact that confuses an issue. when examining an issue it is paramount to know all the facts surrounding it in order to make an informed decision. so to disregard one in a discussion that is as broad as firearms hurts the discussion itself. if bringing in more facts weakens the argument than the fault lies within the structure of the argument not the fact. this comment in addition to other comments you have made in the thread leads me to believe you are struggling with projection bias (awesome thread about this in the off-topic btw) rather than issues "being confused." in this case it is important to note that what is deemed as a "functional" or "purpose fulfilling civilian firearm" (also as aesthetically traditional firearms) are also used in addition to "military style" which is a misnomer to begin with.



Again, please excuse my choice of words. I believe in that instance I meant to say that the fact he cited didn't necessarily have any direct bearing on what I was trying to insinuate. And you might want to clean up your grammar and punctuation along with the structure of the paragraph, made it hard to read.



Ibanezsam4 said:


> 2) "Reasonable expectation" to not be harmed is valid, but the fact that it is violated everyday in a variety of ways. For example the victims of hate crimes have a reasonable expectation to not be victimized over race or orientation, yet despite the amount of hate crime legislation does not prevent it. same with rape, burglary, arson, identity theft and several other crimes i won't mention for the sake of time. each has the legal definition of reasonable expectation being violated. law enforcement exists because of this idea. However you can never police intent, and this expectation as i said before will statistically be violated in some way.



Are you really going to compare the slinging of words to that of bullets? Feelings aren't equitable to the ability to live, so I surprised you even bothered to bring it up. And I'd never walk out into a mall wearing a shirt sporting a message of hate because I know that I'd catch a ton of flak for it. I realize this is different than being a member of a persecuted minority, but it demonstrates the fact that the expectation surrounding not being shot and that of not being discriminated against are completely different, regardless of what laws may or may not exist regarding it.



Ibanezsam4 said:


> We are both in agreement about not wanting to be shot while we are out in public enjoying our lives, however i would wish that people out in public be given a fighting chance. The mother who just shot that guy in her home had the reasonable expectation of the security of her home violated, yet she was prepared to defend her family.
> Im sure its been said in this thread already, but all mass shootings within recent years have been in a gun-free zone. this of course brings up the argument that if everyone was carrying that it would devolve into a cluster-fuck of bullets and death. I find this funny as most shootings take place within a distance of 10 feet, so it would be fairly obvious who is the aggressor is and who the bystanders are.



For every case of home defense you cite, I could find an instance where a child killed a sibling with a legally owned handgun. Most everyone in this thread hasn't bothered to bring up either point in detail for this very reason. And how does knowing who the aggressor is matter at all. If someone pulled a gun to steal a purse and 10 civilians pulled out their handguns, how would the situation play out? Are we all of the sudden going to be REQUIRED to take multiple competency tests regarding the owning of said weapon? I can imagine that being a shit storm as it's not mentioned in the BoR. That said, what if an older lady fired or her gun accidentally went off? What are the odds she'd hit the aggressor and not another innocent bystander? I see your point, but the chances of it going all to plan are slimmer than I think folks would like to admit. And, I suppose you'd bring up the counterpoint that would cite the abundance of guns being an inherent crime deterrent. Sure, but there's always someone that will get spooked or some such and pull a gun, which will be seen as an act of aggression that could very easily snow ball out of control. Why risk that happening in the first place?

As to the rest of your post, I'll pass on commenting on the statistics or the psychology. I've spent enough time on this one post already and Narad addressed that bit most decisively and eloquently.


----------



## flint757

As for the more guns thing, Guy pulls out gun and shoots someone and 20 other people pull a gun to retaliate. Which one gets shot? They are all holding guns and all could have done it if there were no direct witnesses (potential bystander crossfire). If official authority shows up it would significantly muck things up for finding the assailant and past that would make the trial less likely to succeed overall. Recipe for disaster IMO.


----------



## tacotiklah

flint757 said:


> As for the more guns thing, Guy pulls out gun and shoots someone and 20 other people pull a gun to retaliate. Which one gets shot? They are all holding guns and all could have done it if there were no direct witnesses (potential bystander crossfire). If official authority shows up it would significantly muck things up for finding the assailant and past that would make the trial less likely to succeed overall. Recipe for disaster IMO.


(note that all use of the pronoun you is generalized and not aimed at any one person)

This. And also just because you've been trained to shoot straight doesn't mean you know how to avoid things like tunnel vision and you may injure others near you when shit starts happening. You don't have the training to deal with being shot at (because paper targets don't fire back), and you definitely do not have the training to keep from hitting fellow bystanders. Only thing the average person has ever learned to do is fire at stationary paper targets that don't fire back. 

The fact of the matter is that this boils down to people having an over-inflated sense of self-importance thinking they are so badass that they can stop the bad guys and be the hero. Meanwhile those missed shots keep on flying and hit other people. How would you be able to live with yourself if you shot and killed a fellow bystander instead of the guy trying to kill you all? Would you be any better than the guy that started the whole mess?

No, carrying a gun everywhere is not the solution, and having armed teachers is DEFINITELY not the solution. It would create a clusterfuck of problems, and would likely get you in as much trouble with the law, if not more. Hire more trained security if it makes you sleep better at night, but having MORE guns is just a bandaid on a much bigger problem.


----------



## ghostred7

Watty said:


> For every case of home defense you cite, I could find an instance where a child killed a sibling with a legally owned handgun. Most everyone in this thread hasn't bothered to bring up either point in detail for this very reason. And how does knowing who the aggressor is matter at all. If someone pulled a gun to steal a purse and 10 civilians pulled out their handguns, how would the situation play out? Are we all of the sudden going to be REQUIRED to take multiple competency tests regarding the owning of said weapon? I can imagine that being a shit storm as it's not mentioned in the BoR. That said, what if an older lady fired or her gun accidentally went off? What are the odds she'd hit the aggressor and not another innocent bystander? I see your point, but the chances of it going all to plan are slimmer than I think folks would like to admit. And, I suppose you'd bring up the counterpoint that would cite the abundance of guns being an inherent crime deterrent. Sure, but there's always someone that will get spooked or some such and pull a gun, which will be seen as an act of aggression that could very easily snow ball out of control. Why risk that happening in the first place?


Doubtful 10 civilians would pull out a firearm to protect someone else...especially just material belongings (i.e. purse). I know I wouldn't. Now if that same person attempted to pull on me and I didn't have to draw against the drop, then ya, he/she would go down....safely.

Lemme ask this....are you comfortable with the police having firearms?



ghstofperdition said:


> This. And also just because you've been trained to shoot straight doesn't mean you know how to avoid things like tunnel vision and you may injure others near you when shit starts happening. You don't have the training to deal with being shot at (because paper targets don't fire back), and you definitely do not have the training to keep from hitting fellow bystanders. Only thing the average person has ever learned to do is fire at stationary paper targets that don't fire back.


This I can agree with. I have been shot at by an AK-47, its not fun. Ironically, it was the "paper target" and laser-tag (MILES gear) training that kept me from said tunnel vision....moreso the survival instinct kept it away. There are ways the average person can train to keep their mind sharp enough to prevent this exact "oops" scenario...just sadly most don't go beyond the paper target extra training to do so. I think all firearm owners should have to go through mandatory training beyond the paper-target thing (urban drills, IPDA, etc...anything). The more responsible ones do it willingly.


----------



## Randy

right_to_rage said:


>




Ah, this video again.

"THEIR VIOLENT CRIME RATE IS HIGHER!_sureourmurderrateishigher_ BUT THEIR VIOLENT CRIME RATE!"

All from a guy who supposedly made this video to protest statistical cherrypicking.


----------



## tacotiklah

ghostred7 said:


> This I can agree with. I have been shot at by an AK-47, its not fun. Ironically, it was the "paper target" and laser-tag (MILES gear) training that kept me from said tunnel vision....moreso the survival instinct kept it away. There are ways the average person can train to keep their mind sharp enough to prevent this exact "oops" scenario...just sadly most don't go beyond the paper target extra training to do so. I think all firearm owners should have to go through mandatory training beyond the paper-target thing (urban drills, IPDA, etc...anything). The more responsible ones do it willingly.



Well part of that gun licensing program I proposed would have all this stuff as a part of it. Mental health screenings, proper training, and more. Then after people pass it, they can have all the guns they want. The untrained, crazy as hell people can rot when it comes to owning a gun.


----------



## Randy

ghstofperdition said:


> Then after people pass it, they can have all the guns they want.



A lot you've said that I agree with, but you keep mentioning that and I think this is worth pointing out:






http://www.atf.gov/statistics/ffl-t...-theft-loss-statistics-01122012-update-ii.pdf

75% of reported lost guns (to the tune of ~20,000 a year) are just "not located in inventory" AKA missing. If a licensing program makes sure that gun owners have to jump through hoops and train to make sure they know how to handle their guns responsibly, right on. But "buy as many of whatever kind of gun you want" without notice makes straw purchase or at least "irresponsibly misplacing" your guns easy. Considering most of the cases we're talking about lately are referring to are cases where people WERE DENIED the ability to buy a gun but instead acquired them through straw purchase/stealing, I believe the volume of guns a person owns has some significance. Not saying that I have an absolute answer but I just don't think saying licensing/screening should be carte blanche for any kind of gun at any volume.


----------



## wlfers

Watty said:


> Frankly, the difference between automatic and assault is moot as neither one of them should be accessible regardless of the process by which one does come to own them.



No, not at all is it moot. This is where your ignorance and lack of willingness to learn the topic is really not doing your argument any good, and it's already been explained in this thread multiple times.

"Assault Rifle" doesn't mean anything. It's legally defined in an extremely arbitrary way that makes it so that people like you who don't know anything about firearms begin making a list of assumptions including that it's referring to an automatic firearm.

I've been using California gun law as an example throughout this thread since I'm familiar with it and also because Senator Feinstein (from my state) is authoring the current AW ban. But a perfectly legal semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine will be considered an Assault rifle if it has any one of these features:



A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
A thumbhole stock.
A folding or telescoping stock.
A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
A flash suppressor.
A forward pistol grip.
 Out of those six I only see two reasonable functional features that are being limited. So one of my rifles with a detachable magazine instantly becomes an Assault Rifle if there is a hole in the stock where my thumb can wrap around to grip. 3 of these features are just dealing with ways you hold the firearm. Now some may argue that #3: a folding or telescoping stock would be good to limit because the firearm can now become more concealable, but we already have law about the minimum length of a rifle here so this is extremely redundant and is just picking on "cool features".

Also Assault Rifle is defined by a list of rifle makes, which is also excruciatingly useless because another manufacture can just make the same rifle and since they're not on the list it is ok to purchase (given it has no evil features). As an example, you cannot buy a Kalashnikov AK47 here. But you can buy a Romanian make of the same style, or a Russian make from the same factory renamed as Saiga Sporter which arrives with a hunting style stock.



Watty said:


> What part of becoming more informed on the topic would provide me a reason to own or defend the rights of others to own a weapon not designed for killing large amounts of people efficiently? I'd agree that knowing more is always best, but given that I've never even held a gun, let alone fired one, I don't think I should have to go out and buy one to justify my having an opinion on the matter. Would you say the same to the family of a shooting victim? I doubt it. Is that a harsh and unfair comparison? Perhaps.



You don't have to own one, touch one, or want to to become educated about them. Do I need personal experience with welfare, social security, state healthcare before I can get educated and vote about it?


Back again to my general point. Strengthen the criminal background check system, close any loophole that would allow a firearm purchase to go through without the check. Prosecute extremely those who attempt to bypass or allow a bypass of it and implement required health and safety education. Just do something that actually will have results, Feinstein is so intent on convoluting the language and picking on arbitrary features that she's setting herself up for failure against the money and power of gun advocates. She is cutting too deep and cutting in arbitrary places that it's just not going to happen for meaningful gun control 

"It was drying up supply and driving up prices." - Feinstein on the expiration of the 94 AW ban during a discussion about how gun crime did not increase after it expired. Notice how it's not "we reduced gun murder" but it was simply we made guns harder to get and a pain in the ass for the industry.

Some points already brought up that the bulk of gun violence takes place in densely populated areas. Feinstein claims she's picking on guns that gangs are prone to enjoy using, which isn't the case. They're using cheap concealable handguns that are easily stolen, easily brandished, and easily discarded. As you've hopefully noticed I'm not against meaningful firearm reform, just how about something that will work? Cut the feature BS out of the AW Ban and lets talk about criminal accessibility.


----------



## wlfers

Randy said:


> 75% of reported lost guns (to the tune of ~20,000 a year) are just "not located in inventory" AKA missing.



Ouch. It will be interesting to see if there is a correlation between election years and amounts "not located in inventory". 2008 looks bad; nothing like a bit of scare campaigning to get people to buy guns but have it backfire and have inventory go "missing"


----------



## Randy

Werd.

Likewise, in that same document, you've got 85% percent of "reported lost/stolen" firearms disappearing from dealer (including pawnshops). Yeah, that's not shady as fuck.


----------



## habicore_5150

Not like anyone is gonna pay attention to this: The NRA's New Shooting Game Is For Ages Four And Up


----------



## Chickenhawk

habicore_5150 said:


> Not like anyone is gonna pay attention to this: The NRA's New Shooting Game Is For Ages Four And Up



What's wrong with that? I regularly take my 9 and 4 year old daughters with me to go shooting. Responsible gun ownership starts early.


----------



## Randy

Well, it's certainly hypocritical considering they called out the video game industry for being the root cause of mass shootings.

From the perspective of teaching your kids to respect and responsibly operate a firearm, I don't disagree with you. However, we're talking about mental disease or tweenage hormones (angst, depression, etc.) being behind these attacks. At a certain point, all kids start acting out and it's a matter of how it's dealt with that determines how far they "take it". For some kids, that ends in shooting bullies. No amount of training to respect a firearm will stop them from using it as a tool if that's where they choose to take it.

Not critiquing how you raise your children. I'm just saying, in the context of the discussion at large, teaching your kids how to use a gun expands their knowledge of how to use a gun (which could be a net positive/negative, depending on how you view it) and I'd imagine reduces the chance they'll accidentally hurt themselves with one (obviously a positive).


----------



## Chickenhawk

Randy said:


> Well, it's certainly hypocritical considering they called out the video game industry for being the root cause of mass shootings.



Ah, I see. They bashed on games that glorify killing humans, though. Not targets, which even a lot of anti-gun politicians have said they're fine with (sport shooting, hunting, etc).


----------



## Danukenator

Randy said:


> Ah, this video again.
> 
> "THEIR VIOLENT CRIME RATE IS HIGHER!_sureourmurderrateishigher_ BUT THEIR VIOLENT CRIME RATE!"
> 
> All from a guy who supposedly made this video to protest statistical cherrypicking.



To be fair, he wasn't sweeping it under the rug. His point was that, despite our murder rate being higher, their overall violent crime rate was higher. This, he believed, should be considered in the overall discussion about the issue.

Is that a valid point? You can decide that .


----------



## Randy

Chickenhawk said:


> Ah, I see. They bashed on games that glorify killing humans, though. Not targets, which even a lot of anti-gun politicians have said they're fine with (sport shooting, hunting, etc).



That's true, although trying to associate any game that depicts violence against humans with real people committing murder is a stretch. Not much more of a stretch to say having kids playing games where they shoot targets or animals without having context for licenses to hunt or gun handling safety is irresponsible.

Both arguments being stupid.  My point being, a well minded adult can obviously see the difference between what happens in a game and real life. If the NRA is going to blame the inability of kids to seperate fact from fiction, the safe move would be to just keep their branding off any games that involve weapons period.


----------



## Watty

athawulf said:


> everything said



It seems you're still going back and attacking my ignorance of what a given term means in context of it being jargon for the social institution about which we find ourselves arguing. Thus, I'll say it more succinctly here.

Aside from what "A" word is used to describe them, in my opinion, there is no need to own a gun that is not:

A) A hunting rifle with a clip of approximately 6; because if you can't hit it in 6 shots, probably won't with any more.
B) A shotgun used for trap shooting (or other sports like it).
C) A handgun with a clip of 6; because if you can't intimidate your way out of a possible mugging/break-in/etc with a gun loaded with that many bullets, more probably isn't going to help.

If you want to fire something larger, we can set up a range for you where government owned firearms can be used for recreational (silly adjective in this case, eh?) purposes. Now, as to the more stringent requirements on acquisition, sure...I'm all for them with the above provisions in place. And being that most of the publicized killing have been perpetrated by folks that wouldn't have necessarily been considered criminals prior to the act, seems like the argument regarding criminals having all the guns wouldn't matter a whole lot in terms of situations like the one that prompted this whole debate...

Over the course of the last 22 pages, we've isolated the reasons that people want to own more powerful and efficient guns, which have been (ranked in order of presumed "importance"):

1) Because I can
2) Because I want to
3) Because I need to defend myself
4) Because the government is out to get us

Only 3 provides any real recourse to the position being peddled by the majority here, and I doubt many (if any) of us have had a personal experience where 3 would have even come into play.

If I can't make my ignorant and arrogant position any more clear than that (excepting any mistakes I made with regards to the jargon I cited earlier), I don't know what will.


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY

^you forgot number 5) Zombies


----------



## Jakke

This man helped save six children and is now getting harassed for it


----------



## Watty

That is the definition of pathetic. Nuts and their conspiracy theories are fine until they act on them...


----------



## 1000 Eyes

This video has gone viral...nearly 6 million views.

The guy who saved 6 kids is in it quite a bit...


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Watty said:


> It seems you're still going back and attacking my ignorance of what a given term means in context of it being jargon for the social institution about which we find ourselves arguing. Thus, I'll say it more succinctly here.
> 
> Aside from what "A" word is used to describe them, in my opinion, there is no need to own a gun that is not:
> 
> A) A hunting rifle with a clip of approximately 6; because if you can't hit it in 6 shots, probably won't with any more.
> B) A shotgun used for trap shooting (or other sports like it).
> C) A handgun with a clip of 6; because if you can't intimidate your way out of a possible mugging/break-in/etc with a gun loaded with that many bullets, more probably isn't going to help.



because what you dont seem to realize is: 
A) the majority of hunting rifles are ballistically superior to what you consider to be "assault rifles". the reason for this is that deer, elk and other big games animals are a lot heavier than people and thus need more "umph" to bring them down. all this to say what you would keep legal is far more lethal in one shot than the AR15 is. that being said the only advantage that the AR15 is that you can have a large capacity magazine, however i seem to remember the whole stop and reload thing didn't exactly slow down killings before in America, especially in the years leading up to 1929. so essentially with just a little practice (something a mass killer would do in his preparation) someone can shoot up a school or mall with a massive deer bullet and the time it would take to reload would not even make a difference. 

an "assault rifle" is merely a folding stock, pistol grip and a rail mount system. none of which makes it any more deadly than grandpa's old hunting rifle

B) shotguns used for hunting and sport are the exact same has shotguns with a pistol grip. they fire the same rounds and everything. the only difference is that it is easier to fire off the hip with a pistol grip. what does this mean in the real world? that when using a "sporting" shotgun the killer is merely has to bring the stock to his shoulder and point in the general area... yeah that makes a difference in body count. 

C) in the event that it is an armed burglary, and the burglar has 12 shots (he dont give a fuck about the law) and i have 6 and no time to carry extra mags (because i dont anticipate my house being burglarized) i want 12 too. why? i want a level playing field. also, in the case that i need to pull and defend myself, do you think im going to be military calm? fuck no! im going to have adrenaline pumping like mad, my shots will not be 100% accurate, no amount of range practice will fix this as i am not trained to shoot under duress like in the military. take for example the lady who defended her kids in Georgia, she had 6 shots and fired 5 within five feet of her target. she hit him in the face and neck.. but none of her shots were kill shots. he managed to still drive his car a few hundred feet up the road before crashing it. Moral of the story? she was practiced in using that six-shooter and had less than five feet to work with and she managed to miss every vital part of his neck and head. i can't promise that i would be "good enough" to put someone down with 6 shots either... especially if they're armed too and have enough strength to pull a piece on me as well. 



Watty said:


> If you want to fire something larger, we can set up a range for you where government owned firearms can be used for recreational (silly adjective in this case, eh?) purposes. Now, as to the more stringent requirements on acquisition, sure...I'm all for them with the above provisions in place. And being that most of the publicized killing have been perpetrated by folks that wouldn't have necessarily been considered criminals prior to the act, seems like the argument regarding criminals having all the guns wouldn't matter a whole lot in terms of situations like the one that prompted this whole debate...
> 
> Over the course of the last 22 pages, we've isolated the reasons that people want to own more powerful and efficient guns, which have been (ranked in order of presumed "importance"):
> 
> 1) Because I can
> 2) Because I want to
> 3) Because I need to defend myself
> 4) Because the government is out to get us
> 
> Only 3 provides any real recourse to the position being peddled by the majority here, and I doubt many (if any) of us have had a personal experience where 3 would have even come into play.



Again, AR15's are not bigger than "average guns." it fires a .223 round which is smaller than a 30 ought 6 which would still be legal by your definitions. 
but in a free society why should we have to explain to one another why we want what we want? its my personal possessions purchased with my own funds, i am a law abiding citizen i shouldn't have to explain my rationale to a stranger... specifically a couple hundred strangers on capitol hill. if it doesn't break your leg or pick your pocket, why should it bother you? 

1 and 2 shouldn't even come into play... yet you wish to make this a needs based conversation, which is ironic considering the amount of custom guitars that are debuted here daily which the majority of surpass the "needs" of any guitar player. your guitar for example is beautiful, yet did you really need the figured top? tone wise could you have settled for a less "showy" top? and features-wise was it really necessary to go full custom when your needs could have been easily satisfied with a higher-end production model? 

apples and oranges i know, but its the same concept; you have every right to do whatever the hell you want with your money in whatever way you see fit. so does anyone on this board who owns a firearm, you may not see the "need" but they have a reason and it works for them... and idealistically that should be enough... however we're here. 

for you further education, you seem just fine with banning certain aspects of firearms. however you should research history and see what happens when prohibitions are enacted. 18th amendment? the mafia rises to power. war on drugs? latin american drug cartels make money hand over fist and are now practically private armies. anytime something congress deems dangerous to the public (alcohol, drugs and now firearms) their actions end up making criminals richer. and i'll be honest, i long for the day when we can make drugs legal here so we have less addicts and gangs willing to kill human beings over their product. you do the same to firearms that we've done to cocaine, and you will see something far worse and more violent than what you see today. i promise you that... think Chicago but everywhere.


----------



## narad

Ibanezsam4 said:


> your guitar for example is beautiful, yet did you really need the figured top? tone wise could you have settled for a less "showy" top? and features-wise was it really necessary to go full custom when your needs could have been easily satisfied with a higher-end production model?



If you want an AAAAA flamed maple pistol grip, you get that pistol grip dude. Be sure to post a NPGD.


----------



## Khaerruhl

Ibanezsam4 said:


> C) in the event that it is an armed burglary, and the burglar has 12 shots (he dont give a fuck about the law) and i have 6 and no time to carry extra mags (because i dont anticipate my house being burglarized) i want 12 too. why? i want a level playing field. also, in the case that i need to pull and defend myself, do you think im going to be military calm? fuck no! im going to have adrenaline pumping like mad, my shots will not be 100% accurate, no amount of range practice will fix this as i am not trained to shoot under duress like in the military. take for example the lady who defended her kids in Georgia, she had 6 shots and fired 5 within five feet of her target. she hit him in the face and neck.. but none of her shots were kill shots. he managed to still drive his car a few hundred feet up the road before crashing it. Moral of the story? she was practiced in using that six-shooter and had less than five feet to work with and she managed to miss every vital part of his neck and head. i can't promise that i would be "good enough" to put someone down with 6 shots either... especially if they're armed too and have enough strength to pull a piece on me as well.



I generally stay away from this part of the forum, but I just wanna peek in with a thought that this raised.

Why kill? Sure, the other guy might be aiming to kill me, but why would I lower myself to that persons level because of that if there are options? Im aware that you might not be able to go through non-lethal options, especially if you carry a firearm of some sort and you're in a stressful situations, but that's not the point I want to try and point out. When I was training bujinkan a couple of years ago I did so to get to learn my body and not self-defence, but we learned a couple of things still regarding self-defence. The major point that we were taught was that you only do what's necessary. Why smash my knee into his face and break both his arms when I only have to shout and kick his shin just to slow him down enough for me to run? I know for one that I would never want another persons life on my conscience even if he tried to kill me.

Not trying to start a shitstorm or anything, I just got curious...


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Khaerruhl said:


> I generally stay away from this part of the forum, but I just wanna peek in with a thought that this raised.
> 
> Why kill? Sure, the other guy might be aiming to kill me, but why would I lower myself to that persons level because of that if there are options? Im aware that you might not be able to go through non-lethal options, especially if you carry a firearm of some sort and you're in a stressful situations, but that's not the point I want to try and point out. When I was training bujinkan a couple of years ago I did so to get to learn my body and not self-defence, but we learned a couple of things still regarding self-defence. The major point that we were taught was that you only do what's necessary. Why smash my knee into his face and break both his arms when I only have to shout and kick his shin just to slow him down enough for me to run? I know for one that I would never want another persons life on my conscience even if he tried to kill me.
> 
> Not trying to start a shitstorm or anything, I just got curious...



perhaps i should've specified with the term "violent incursion" or something to that effect.. i will make my specific case here: if when i pull my firearm, and i am put in the position to use it (my previous post mentioned a study that says simply showing you have a gun is enough to stop most aggressors) i would rather have the advantage of 12 not 6. do i need to put 12 in someone to stop them? no, could i miss 9 times? possibly, but not likely. But how does anyone truly know which is the "correct" capacity of magazines. 
in keeping with the example of aggressive home invasion (the burglar not caring whether he hurts someone or not) there is no rule of criminality that states only one man can rob at house or intimidate an a person at a time. i would rather not limit my magazine capacity based off of someone's arbitrary number of 6 when i dont know if i'll ever need to protect myself or my family and property against multiple assailants (mugging, gang violence, the event that im in an internet cafe in florida that is getting robbed, etc.) 



narad said:


> If you want an AAAAA flamed maple pistol grip, you get that pistol grip dude. Be sure to post a NPGD.



hahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## synrgy

Here's all 23 Executive Orders the President just signed, so far as I know:

1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."

9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

11. "Nominate an ATF director."

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."

20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."

21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."

23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."

I have zero issues with any of the above. Further, there's nothing in there that gives any credence what-so-ever to the 'they're gonna take our guns away' mentality that still seems to be so prevalent.


----------



## Randy

Ibanezsam4 said:


> the event that im in an internet cafe in florida that is getting robbed, etc.)



Didn't seem to take him more than 6 shots to get the job done.


----------



## Watty

Based on an article I recently read, I'm very happy to see #14 on that list.


----------



## Danukenator

Oh NO! 'Bama's commin' fer the gunz! Dun't tread on me!


I actually really like those suggestions. As noted, 14# seems to be especially relevant to the recent shootings (and, likely, most of these shootings). There is a good emphasis on the need to address mental health issues as well as increasing the background check system.

Considering these orders avoided anything like shoehorning a ban, I'm curious to see the reactions. (Though I can probably guess what will be said...)


----------



## wlfers

The bulk suggestions are great  the exceptions in my opinion would be ones that rely on the ATF. Can't seem to trust those guys after Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF agent saying "with minimal work [airsoft guns] could be converted into a machine gun", + any other controversy of theirs.

In 2011 the whistle blower on Fast and Furious was fired even after the House sent the ATF a letter warning them against retaliating against whistle blowers while three supervisors of F&F were transferred to other management positions within the ATF. Let's fire the one honest guy huh


----------



## Randy

The Obama administration has been terrible with regard to whistleblower protection. I'm in full agreement there.


----------



## Chickenhawk

athawulf said:


> The bulk suggestions are great  the exceptions in my opinion would be ones that rely on the ATF. Can't seem to trust those guys after Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF agent saying "with minimal work [airsoft guns] could be converted into a machine gun", + any other controversy of theirs.
> 
> In 2011 the whistle blower on Fast and Furious was fired even after the House sent the ATF a letter warning them against retaliating against whistle blowers while three supervisors of F&F were transferred to other management positions within the ATF. Let's fire the one honest guy huh



Oliver North took the fall for Ronald Reagan and Robert McFarlane. I figured something similar would happen with F&F, and with Benghazi. Those genuinely at fault never take the fall.


----------



## Rev2010

synrgy said:


> I have zero issues with any of the above. Further, there's nothing in there that gives any credence what-so-ever to the 'they're gonna take our guns away' mentality that still seems to be so prevalent.



I have no issues with any of those points either accept for two things that are bugging me:

1. Why is this going to cost us a half a billion dollars when we are already at such a high deficit? I don't see how those actions can cost that much, I really can't.

2. I honestly believe it won't make a shred of difference to prevent any kids from getting killed by some nutbag hell bent on attacking a school. Maybe point #18 "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers." though the line is vague. I hope they are referring to armed officers. Considering that though, if one of these officers was a fat old man, a typical "guard" you'd find in a school, and was shot and killed by a gunman then that gunman has another pistol with up to 9 more possible rounds in it. Plus it has nothing to do with explosives which are another possible future threat.

Not saying we shouldn't do anything, of course we should. But all these politician measures are always the least effective and cost the most. Not surprising....


Rev.


----------



## Randy

Chickenhawk said:


> Oliver North took the fall for Ronald Reagan and Robert McFarlane. I figured something similar would happen with F&F, and with Benghazi. Those genuinely at fault never take the fall.



I don't think these things reach all the way to the top, anyway. I'm a Democrat, I voted for Obama both times but I spend most of my time listening to people with descenting opinions on his administration. In most or all cases, the cabinet is so deep that the stuff is handled by somebody beneath a guy, beneath another guy, beneath another guy, etc. The president or even his main cabinet officials (DOJ, DOS, etc.) don't directly handle this stuff and they're usually only vaguely aware anything's going on at all.


----------



## flint757

Rev2010 said:


> I have no issues with any of those points either accept for two things that are bugging me:
> 
> 1. Why is this going to cost us a half a billion dollars when we are already at such a high deficit? I don't see how those actions can cost that much, I really can't.
> 
> 2. I honestly believe it won't make a shred of difference to prevent any kids from getting killed by some nutbag hell bent on attacking a school. Maybe point #18 "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers." though the line is vague. I hope they are referring to armed officers. Considering that though, if one of these officers was a fat old man, a typical "guard" you'd find in a school, and was shot and killed by a gunman then that gunman has another pistol with up to 9 more possible rounds in it. Plus it has nothing to do with explosives which are another possible future threat.
> 
> Not saying we shouldn't do anything, of course we should. But all these politician measures are always the least effective and cost the most. Not surprising....
> 
> 
> Rev.



Well it will require money to do what they are considering and more than current otherwise people would already be doing it. Quite a few points involve improving the network of information between millions of people and offering services we have never offered before at least to this scale. In reality half a billion is probably not enough, not too much. That being said I don't have their balance sheet or an econ degree so...

It very well may not make a difference (I doubt that though since some are in consideration to finding illegal weapons and their source as well as offering better screenings and mental health services), but these are the rules, IMO, that should have been in place in the first place. Whether they work or not, as for myself, doesn't make much of a difference. That being said, I do think it will make a difference. The only factor that determines the degree of difference is the amount of cooperation.


----------



## synrgy

We've covered a veritable shit-ton of ground here - and I have to commend the forum here for carrying this conversation extremely well - yet I'm not certain this particular angle has come up, yet..

What role - if any - do we think Pharmaceuticals have to play in this conversation?

The giant, gaping hole in Sandy Hook reporting



> Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox  like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves.Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox  thats 1 in 25  developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.
> Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif., in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban semiautomatic assault weapons in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.
> Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.
> In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill., killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.
> In Paducah, Ky., in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the schools lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.
> In 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesotas Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.
> In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Ky., killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.
> Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danyshs description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: I didnt realize I did it until after it was done, Danysh said. This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.
> John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.
> Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children  aged 7 years down to 6 months  in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession. And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: What she described was feeling a presence  Satan  telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah, Ringholz said, adding that Yates delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor.In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added homicidal ideation to the drugs list of rare adverse events. The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexors homicidal ideation risk wasnt well-publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.



I can't help but feel like "Big Pharm" is breathing a huge sigh of relief as it watches the NRA take the lion's share of the heat on this one.. Considering that on either side of that coin, we're talking about 2 of the biggest lobbies in DC, I feel like it's an area of discussion worth broaching. We do so much medicating without any significant long-term studies of how said medication can effect people's behavior.

Mind, I'm not trying to 'shift' blame, or scapegoat any one/thing. I'm just saying that there does appear to be something of a pattern, and I think pharmaceuticals may actually cause as many (and in some cases, more) problems as they solve.

Same topic; completely different context, to help give color and preface to my feelings on the subject: When she was ill before she died, my Mom was on a regimen of all kinds of medications I couldn't even begin to break down for everyone, here. It started as one or two, but those caused side effects, so they gave her more meds to counteract the side effects. Those caused more side effects, so they gave her even more meds to counteract those. She just got worse and worse until she died, with the list of meds growing consistently through the end. I was pretty thoroughly convinced - by the end - that her meds did more harm than good. That's only one example of many I've experienced, but the end result is that I think we do a lot of fiddling around with pharmaceutical engineering/prescribing that we don't fully understand, and I think that one of the side-effects this has on our culture is that a large part of the populous ends up more mentally unstable than they would be naturally.. Food for thought, anyway?


----------



## tacotiklah

I've been on Prozac for roughly 5 years. I haven't shot up a school yet, I assure you. Granted I've thought about it once or twice, but that pesky thing called self-control got the better of me. 

No, it isn't the medication. It's the fact that these kids wanted to steal some guns and go shoot up a school, and are now trying to use any and everything as a scapegoat so as not to take the full brunt of responsibility for their actions.


----------



## synrgy

I respect your opinion, and it's a fair one.

At the same time, you can't take your medical experience and use it as a litmus for the rest of the population. We don't all react to the same medications in the same ways. One kid on Ritalin is calmer; the next is off the walls. That's kind of the point I'm getting at: Our medical culture tries really hard to treat everyone the same, which is an extremely flawed approach, in my estimation.


----------



## Randy

ghstofperdition said:


> No, it isn't the medication. It's the fact that these kids wanted to steal some guns and go shoot up a school, and are now trying to use any and everything as a scapegoat so as not to take the full brunt of responsibility for their actions.



I doubt "escaping responsibility" is huge on their list of concerns considering, you know, pretty much all of the subjects in question are dead. I also think that's a cop out because in the same breath you're mentioning you take Prozac, you're condemning people for their inability to self-psychiatrically fix themselves. Maybe the desire to steal guns and shoot up a school is, in and of itself, an affliction. Seems a little hypocritical to stare down your nose at people in that situation and think they have the capacity to "take responsibility". 

Claiming "personal responsibility" is fine and well when you're talking about people of sufficient mental stability. 

Somebody on here and I were talking about this at length yesterday and one of the things that a lot of 'mood altering', anti-depression type drugs do (as part of the way they work) is they sometime make people more prone to take immediate action. The urge to do that, mixed with somebody who's depressed or already experiencing suicidal/homicidal thoughts, presents a person who experiences those same thoughts but feels "at peace" (as strange a usage as that is) enough to take action before their rational thoughts have had time to mull it over.

You also have to take into account... these people are on the meds for _some reason_ in the first place. It's not like prescription pills are turning people into zombie murderers (as Alex Jones would imply). There's the very real chance that the correlation between these people being on meds and committing these acts is simply that they tried to get help for a suicidal/homicidal emotional problem and the pills just didn't work. 

Where I'll agree with the anti-"dope 'em up" argument is that drugs alone will not fix somebody who's mentally unstable. A responsible friend, guardian or the prescribing doctor should be responsible to make sure the patient is making progress and not getting worse. Another place where I applaud Obama's executive order is extending the responsibility of health practitioners of looking after their patient from A to Z.


----------



## flint757

synrgy said:


> I respect your opinion, and it's a fair one.
> 
> At the same time, you can't take your medical experience and use it as a litmus for the rest of the population. We don't all react to the same medications in the same ways. One kid on Ritalin is calmer; the next is off the walls. That's kind of the point I'm getting at: Our medical culture tries really hard to treat everyone the same, which is an extremely flawed approach, in my estimation.



Yeah, I have to agree with you as I know plenty of people on medication who became quite impulsive whereas they weren't previously and then in some cases (when the med's work) the opposite will occur.

My sister is a fairly aggressive person mentally and she tried to kill me on 3 occasions when quitting anti-anxiety medication cold turkey. It is sometimes a cop out, but it isn't always. These drugs mess with your head (if they didn't there'd be no point in taking them) so it isn't infeasible to say someone might do something they normally wouldn't. 

Ghst, you should be grateful that your depression is more under control on its own so that it doesn't have that affect on you. Not everyone is so lucky.


----------



## tacotiklah

Well here's where I became a bit dismissive; I run into the "all drugs, even prescription drugs, are evil" very often. I have a problem with this because prior to medication my behavior was not under control. Two 5150s in two months is nowhere near under control. After being on the meds for several years, I've had maybe a few suicidal thoughts, and those were at times when shit was really going rough for me. 

But here's the thing; medication alone doesn't work. It takes therapy and retraining the way you think about things. This is where Randy and I agree. People do fall into the pitfall that taking a pill will magically fix all of their problems, and this is bogus. But dismissing the value that medication has in helping treat mental illness is something that bothers me, and I feel is done (usually unintentionally) in ignorance. I'll state that I have a bias in that since I owe a great many things to the fact that I'm nowhere near as bad as I used to be because I actually got help.

Instead of trying to pin shootings on medication or guns, why are we not looking to the people that should have been watching their kids? That would have been an ideal start imho.


----------



## Randy

Because people slip through the cracks and, often, children with shitty parents don't know what "normal" is well enough to seek help.

If that happens, what's protecting the rest of us in society from their wrath? I don't see how you can legislate responsible parenting.


----------



## Watty

Randy said:


> I don't see how you can legislate responsible parenting.



If we could, I think we should; but then again that would be the biggest gimme the right could ever want. I really think we could start down the right path by:

A) Requiring people to get a license to procreate; we do it for adoptions, why not couples who want to have "their own" kids?

B) Making abortions and birth control more accessible in addition to family planning resources. _INB4 Planned Parenthood is an abortion factory (3% of what they do)._

At least it'd be a start. When kids see a stable home and aren't exposed to the crap that a lot of kids are today, I think the culture of violence would tend to phase out. However, this is NOT to say that we should keep any guns around while we do it.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Watty said:


> A) Requiring people to get a license to procreate; we do it for adoptions, why not couples who want to have "their own" kids?



We can't even convince everyone to stop _driving_ without a license. Good luck getting them to stop fucking .


----------



## narad

Watty said:


> A) Requiring people to get a license to procreate; we do it for adoptions, why not couples who want to have "their own" kids?



Having kids changes you (and makes you boring!). Seriously though, while I have yet to experience being a father, I've had slutty friends with deadbeat, cheating boyfriends and then you hear they're pregnant and you know it's going to be a complete train wreck for everyone involved. Then suddenly everyone's totally manned up. Now I have to stare at happy family portraits and babies for Facebook profile pics. So I'd hate to have people judged just because they're lower income, less educated, and even have some psychotic issues to deal with, because in the end I think they came out as more fit parents than I'll be!



Grand Moff Tim said:


> We can't even convince everyone to stop _driving_ without a license. Good luck getting them to stop fucking .



Dart them with sterilizing injections!


----------



## flint757

So apparently they are trying to make the esrb rating a legally enforced system and are trying to increase penalties for violators. They are also apparently going to use tax dollars for video game violence research. The research can't hurt I suppose, but it all seems rather silly given the esrb and mpaa rating are 3rd party and not mandatory across the board.


----------



## Randy

PMRC, here we go again!


----------



## Treeunit212

flint757 said:


> So apparently they are trying to make the esrb rating a legally enforced system and are trying to increase penalties for violators. They are also apparently going to use tax dollars for video game violence research. The research can't hurt I suppose, but it all seems rather silly given the esrb and mpaa rating are 3rd party and not mandatory across the board.



...I thought it already was legally enforced? Like I remember way back in the days of Crash Bandicoot, the rule was your parental unit better be there buying the game for you completely aware of the ESRB rating or they were going to get a huge fine.

I even remember being refused the sale of games days before I turned 17.

Perhaps they're getting rid of what I will now call the parental unit loophole? 

It's hard to imagine a generation of young adults growing up without the privilege of hyper-violence induced ADHD and sleep deprivation.


----------



## possumkiller

Ok so I came in here a bit late. I try to stay out of this area as I don't like to get in pissing matches with people but, I decided this time I will bite.

I am from the most back-woods redneck part of Florida. People here come out of the woods from hunting in the morning and go straight into class. Hell, when I was in high school in 2001, the senior parking lot had pickup trucks with filled rifle racks in the rear window. Actually, I do not know anyone who does not own a gun here. 

I was born and raised in this life style. I had a bb gun when I was 5 and my first rifle when I was 9. I was taught to hunt at a young age (hunting is another argument completely. I can go along with killing if you eat it and use the resource but, trophy hunting to make yourself feel more manly is just wrong). 

I served seven years in the Army and was giving classes on the use of our weapons when my platoon sergeant had noticed I knew far more about weapons than my squad leader did. I actually got a guy out of trouble who had an ND (negligent discharge [there is no more accidental discharge]) because I proved to our commander that the current policy of handling the M249 did not fit how the weapon operated, leaving people carrying a weapon they thought was on safe when it really was not. 

After the Army I went to Europe. I lived in England and Poland for a year. Not once did I ever hear of anyone getting shot. The ONLY time I even heard about a murder was a guy that got knifed. It seemed to me that people seemed to settle their differences on the weekend in the middle of the street outside the pub late at night with their fists. 

I was always a super duper anti-gun control person. However, when I came back to Florida, I could see how anybody ANYBODY can get a gun here. There has not been a single week gone by when I have not heard about someone getting shot. 

My own father scares the shit out of me when he is shooting in the back yard because of his unsafe practices. 

All of these things have led me to change my views. 

I believe that American should be able to own guns. 
I believe that to own a gun people need to be trained, tested, and pass a RIGOROUS background check before being allowed access to ANY firearm.
The more "dangerous" (capable of mowing down a crowded mall before having to reload) a weapon is, the more hoops a person should have to jump through to prove they are capable of responibly owning and operating such a weapon.
Weapon related crimes should be more harshly punished.
Bootlegging (selling a gun to your neighbor without any legal transfer or registration) should be for more strictly regulated, investigated, and punished.

I believe the most important things to be proper training and licensing. When I was in the army, there was a shooting range off base that was free to the public. Some guy went up there to teach his pre-teen daughter how to shoot and wound up shooting and killing her because he didn't know wtf he was doing.

EDIT: My whole deal is I don't feel safe in this country anymore. Especially with a wife and a baby and us living in a not-so-great neighborhood. I feel like I need to have a gun in case I have to defend myself from all the dumbasses here who have free access to guns.


----------



## Randy

Shooting on Texas college campus, school official says | The Lookout - Yahoo! News


----------



## gunshow86de

Randy said:


> Shooting on Texas college campus, school official says | The Lookout - Yahoo! News



This is very different from other school shootings. Not saying it isn't serious, but this was a confrontation amongst a small group and (knowing that area of town) likely an attempted robbery.


----------



## Randy

Waiting for the rest of the details and I agree, but from what I've heard so far, there were people not involved in the altercation that were injured in the crossfire. To that end, it was in the public, people who were uninvolved were hit and it happened on a campus. In that context, I figured this was the place to put it.

I don't advocate passing judgement on any incident before all the details are known, regardless.


----------



## lurgar

It's not a pleasant part of the Houston area to say the least. I never do like going to that area.


----------



## flint757

Indeed, it seems all of the colleges in or near Houston are located in quite literally the worst parts of Houston. 

People are mugged and robbed far more frequent than I wish at the UH campus. We've also had a few rape attempts as well. That has a lot to do with the criminal life in the area assuming us college kids have money (we don't ) and there being 1 cop to roughly 700 students. We can blame poor school funding for that hiccup. Once they increased the patrols and added a few more officers the crime basically stopped as a regular occurrence and now I only get the occasional notice.


----------



## gunshow86de

^

Yes, I still get my bi-weekly attempted armed robbery alerts from UHPD. I only had one "incident" when I was at UH. It was a liquor store near campus. I was getting in my truck and some dude on crutches started yelling at me, wedged himself between my door and me, and starts reaching in his pants for something. I thought, "No way I'm about to get robbed by a crackhead on crutches." So I kicked him to the ground and drove off real fast.


----------



## flint757

Yeah it's just a bad part of town, but it got a lot worse after the construction and influx of new students to pay for said construction.

I minimize my risks as much as possible and nothing has happened to me as of yet. They'd be pretty disappointed if they tried though.


----------



## Randy

Yikes to the last few posts.


----------



## Randy

> ALBANY  Gun-loving New Yorkers have turned on Gov. Cuomo in the wake of his sweeping new gun law, giving him his first major drop in poll numbers.
> Cuomo has enjoyed sky-high approval ratings since taking office two years ago but opposition to the controversial gun crackdown helped drive his numbers down 15 points since last month.
> RELATED: CUOMO LEAVES THE LEFT BEHIND
> A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday showed Cuomos popularity went from a stratospheric 74% on Dec. 12 to a more earthly 59% this week.
> The new law expands the states assault weapons ban, limits gun magazines and requires owners of guns now deemed illegal to register them with the state.
> 
> 
> Read more: Gov. Cuomo's approval rating drops 15 points after new gun law - NY Daily News



Gov. Cuomo's approval rating drops 15 points after new gun law - NY Daily News


----------



## Randy

Close to home:

Officials: Police action 'nothing short of heroic' - Utica, NY - The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York



> State police Superintendent Joseph D'Amico today said the actions taken by a state police tactical unit that shot and killed shooting suspect Kurt Myer this morning were "nothing short of heroic."
> 
> D'Amico made the remarks at a news conference shortly after 10 a.m. He said law enforcement will continue to have a noticable presence in Herkimer today as they continue to process active crime scenes from Wednesday's shootings as well as the scene where Myers was shot shortly after 8 a.m.
> 
> Police say they located Myers in a first-floor room of the vacant building at 248 N. Main St. after they entered the building Thursday morning following a 19-hour standoff. Myers reportedly opened fire, killing an FBI police dog, and was himself shot and killed when police returned fire.
> 
> The officers who entered the building were from the FBI and state police, D'Amico said.
> 
> Myers, 64, of Mohawk, was the suspect in the Wednesday morning shooting deaths of four people at two businesses in Herkimer and Mohawk. Two others were injured at one of the scenes. State police Thursday said those men remained in critical and serious condition; however, St. Elizabeth Medical center said one was in fair condition and information on the other wasn't available.
> 
> The last contact police had with Myers prior to his death Thursday was when he shot at officers from the North Main Street building at about 1:30 p.m. Wednesday. Law enforcement from multiple agencies maintained a perimeter around the building throughout the night.
> 
> "They did very good work from the initial response to multiple incident yesterday to the vigil overnight and finally to the entry this morning," D'Amico said.
> 
> Police said they have no information to indicate Myers had a history of mental illness, and no known motive at this time.
> 
> "We don&#8217;t know the reason for his actions. We would hope that somewhere in the course of the investigation we learn more about him or what motivated him," D'Amico said.
> 
> Herkimer Police Chief Joseph Malone also used the news release to express gratitude for the community's support during the standoff.
> 
> "I also want to thank the businesses and residents that provided food and assistance to what seemed like a small army here in the village," he sasid. "Again, thank you for all that you&#8217;ve done for us."


----------



## Furtive Glance

Poor dog


----------



## axxessdenied

Crime Index by Country 2013
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you take a look at those numbers... you can see the United States fairs pretty poorly compared to other first world countries in terms of death rates related to guns / crime in general.


Guns should be illegal. The gov't should employ some kind of program for people to bring in and melt down all weapons.


----------



## TheManWhoWalksAlone

Is it just me, or is the United States just going around in fucking circles?


----------



## Randy

Furtive Glance said:


> Poor dog



My thoughts as well. As an avid animal lover, I was hoping the initial reports of "injured" stayed that way but they didn't. 

It's at least a little uplifting to know that they're going to have a memorial for him and whatnot. 



axxessdenied said:


> If you take a look at those numbers... you can see the United States fairs pretty poorly compared to other first world countries in terms of death rates related to guns / crime in general.
> 
> 
> Guns should be illegal. The gov't should employ some kind of program for people to bring in and melt down all weapons.



Can't tell if sarcastic...?


----------



## axxessdenied

Randy said:


> My thoughts as well. As an avid animal lover, I was hoping the initial reports of "injured" stayed that way but they didn't.
> 
> It's at least a little uplifting to know that they're going to have a memorial for him and whatnot.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't tell if sarcastic...?



Something like this: Firearm Recycling Program | Collaborace.org


----------



## Randy

I work in Schenectady, which has been very bad with regard to drugs and violence over the past few decades. They started a gun buyback program in some of the really bad neighborhoods in the area and they've been having great results (reductions in gun violence, etc).

I was just asking if you were serious because I haven't heard a lot of people make the "melt it down" argument so, forgive me if it came as a surprise. 

I don't think I have a magical answer to any of this... the problem is pretty clear, though. There are a lot of people who should not have access to weapons (of any kind), that do. As has been floated, mental health is part of it but a dysfunctional prison system and having a lot of "loose weapons" floating around don't help matters.


----------



## ghostred7

Randy said:


> I work in Schenectady, which has been very bad with regard to drugs and violence over the past few decades. They started a gun buyback program in some of the really bad neighborhoods in the area and they've been having great results (reductions in gun violence, etc).
> 
> I was just asking if you were serious because I haven't heard a lot of people make the "melt it down" argument so, forgive me if it came as a surprise.
> 
> I don't think I have a magical answer to any of this... the problem is pretty clear, though. There are a lot of people who should not have access to weapons (of any kind), that do. As has been floated, mental health is part of it but a dysfunctional prison system and having a lot of "loose weapons" floating around don't help matters.


I'm ok w/ buy-back programs too. There are several people that thought they needed one that realize they don't, have life-changing events changing their mind, etc...and the buy-back programs are awesome for that and will take the unwanted firearms out of "excess circulation."

Here in Georgia, there is a new law either up for vote or on the books stating you have to sign an affidavit stating you've not been diagnosed for mental illness within the last 10yrs. If you have, then its required to have a signed affidavit from a Psychiatrist/Psychologist stating you're fit to own one.

Problem is...you can lie on the form, but the law is written exactly as if you were lying to the probate judge him/herself. I feel its at least a step in the right direction. No secret I'm pro-firearms, but do feel there should be some mental health requirement. People attempting to register legally are more likely to be truthful on the affidavit IMO.

Definitely a lot of people that shouldn't have firearms, but I will never support the statement that it should be blanketed as illegal.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell

Santa Monica shootings leave multiple victims, gunman killed - CBS News

 That is all I have to say...


----------



## the_heretic_divine

It's all over the world,and honestly,no more frequent than it ever was. 24 hour media just makes us more conscious of it. Still,very sad.


----------



## erotophonophilia

the_heretic_divine said:


> It's all over the world,and honestly,no more frequent than it ever was. 24 hour media just makes us more conscious of it. Still,very sad.



I think there's been exponentially more shootings, since the CO shooting.


----------



## capoeiraesp

the_heretic_divine said:


> It's all over the world,and honestly,no more frequent than it ever was. 24 hour media just makes us more conscious of it. Still,very sad.



Source?
Sorry mate, but playing this stuff down as if it's just a simple commonality is ridiculous.


----------



## estabon37

the_heretic_divine said:


> It's all over the world,and honestly,no more frequent than it ever was. *24 hour media just makes us more conscious of it*. Still,very sad.



To an extent this is true, but mostly because the numbers of murders by firearm in the US are extremely high:

In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported (stat found on Wikipedia, originally published by the FBI).

Yes, 24 hour news media and the proliferation of extremely powerful and portable media technology means that any story can be covered by any quasi-journalist anywhere in the world, and so we're seeing an increase in the amount of cases that are deemed 'newsworthy'. Thankfully for news organisations, there's no shortage of material in the US. Still, the stats on that FBI page show a year-by-year decrease in murders from 2006-2010, with 2000 less people murdered at the end of that period than in the beginning. So, if it seems like gun crime is increasing, media coverage has a lot to do with that.

For example, this is I think the third or fourth case I've seen this year of a child in the US accidentally killing a family member because a gun wasn't secured properly. These stories are 'click-bait': when a headline says that a four year old child accidentally killed his father, people read that shit, and then have a huge argument about it in the comments section (yeah, I spend more time reading Huffington Post than I should). The same happens when there is a murder or massacre, and websites want lots of traffic so that people see the other 'click-bait' embedded throughout their stories and the ads all over every page. We'll see most of these stories now because, being the vicarious types of people that we are, we think a big, dramatic, violent story is more interesting than anything else the news can produce.

I could go on a larger rant about how this is kind of democratising the news, giving readers more power over content than they've had in modern media history. Unfortunately, this just means that cute puppies, boobs, celebrities and shitty knock-off memes wind up passing for news, because this is the internet, and apparently this is the shit we want to see. 

In terms of gun violence being all over the world, here's the link I usually post, with my usual suggestion to sort that list by rate of murders per 100,000 people (because I think it paints a more accurate picture than sorting by murder count, which places the US #8, between South Africa and Colombia, and China #13 with one of the world's lowest murder rates per 100,000 people). So yes, it's all over the world. It's just not really all over the First World, of which the US is apparently a part.


----------



## the_heretic_divine

capoeiraesp said:


> Source?
> Sorry mate, but playing this stuff down as if it's just a simple commonality is ridiculous.


I apologize. I wasn't trying to downplay it at all. I think it's incredibly sad,and happens FAR too often. My main point was,it isn't just in the U.S. It's everywhere.


----------



## SpaceDock

Since our government, police, and media only know how to solve problems with violence; how can they expect anything different from us.

Every movie, game, international conflict, story we tell our kids, interaction with news outlets, and dealings with authority figures revolves around violence. We have been this way for a long time, but in the modern era there doesn't seem to be any social cohesion, unless you count Facebook lol, so people just don't give a .... about how others feel. 

This is just who we have become. Violence will always exist, it's just harder to kill when you have a conscience. We have been desensitizing ourselves with media and isolating ourselves from physical community. 

Solution: go talk to your neighbors, take your kids to the park, get the teenagers off the computer and Xbox. In others words, be a part of your community.


----------



## estabon37

SpaceDock said:


> Since our government, police, and media only know how to solve problems with violence; how can they expect anything different from us.
> 
> Every movie, game, international conflict, story we tell our kids, interaction with news outlets, and dealings with authority figures revolves around violence. We have been this way for a long time, but in the modern era there doesn't seem to be any social cohesion, unless you count Facebook lol, so people just don't give a .... about how others feel.
> 
> This is just who we have become. Violence will always exist, it's just harder to kill when you have a conscience. We have been desensitizing ourselves with media and isolating ourselves from physical community.
> 
> Solution: go talk to your neighbors, take your kids to the park, get the teenagers off the computer and Xbox. In others words, be a part of your community.



Unfortunately, your avatar is The Shredder, so I can't help feeling like you'd appendix your post with a comment like "Be a part of the community: Join the Foot Clan!" 

I think you're right to an extent, and I'd like to see social integration go beyond the home. I recently went to a local high school as part of my university teaching placement, and they have a program where their year 7 students regularly visit a nearby retirement home and spend some school time chilling with the seniors. Social policies and social interaction are becoming important aspects of secondary schooling in Australia, and I'd like to see it continue. And if schools aren't keen, I think the best way is for parents to lead by example, not just kick their kids out of the house for a bit. My mother used to volunteer with the Red Cross as a first aid officer at public events, and my siblings and I would sometimes go along out of interest. I think the best way to be a part of the community is to give something to it - that way if you hit a tough spot in life the community will usually be happy to give something back.


----------



## DoubleAA

It's unfortunate to see another tragedy like this... However, violence actually IS on the decline in the US and has been for years, so there is something to the notion that we just hear about it more often because everything is reported immediately. 


FBI &mdash; Table 1


----------



## flint757

It doesn't account for the last 2 years though. I'm sure it is declining still, but we can't definitively say so based on past statistics alone.


----------



## viesczy

You know the problem with mass shootings in America isn't the guns, but actually the lack of guns. If you are w/o a gun, you're a victim/corpse. If you have a gun, you at least have the chance to fight back. 

Look at Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, places specifically chosen so there'd be as little resistance as possible (the theater in Aurora had a no firearms policy and was farther away from the shooters home than other theaters). 

You're never in so dire a need as the moment you need a gun to save your life, or even worse you've run your gun dry.

Derek


----------



## flint757

Oh geez. *sigh*


----------



## ilyti

You know how there's a rule against posting any threads about the Westboro Baptists? That's awesome, and I wish we could have the same rule for American shooting massacres.


----------



## anunnaki

viesczy said:


> You're never in so dire a need as the moment you need a gun to save your life, or even worse you've run your gun dry.



Not trying to cause offence or anything, but that sounds like something a cowboy in the old wild west would say.

But yeah you probably need a gun to protect you from other nuts with guns. 
I don't think you'll ever be able to take the guns away from America..
Which is why I'll probably live my life in countries that don't have lots of guns.

Peace and love y'all


----------



## pink freud

viesczy said:


> You know the problem with mass shootings in America isn't the guns, but actually the lack of guns.



Except that is antithetical to the truth in just about every way imaginable. The potential for gun violence goes up with a higher firearm density, not down. Your post is just another in a long line of cowboy fantasists who secretly yearn for a fight. In reality, carrying or not carrying a gun has very little impact on the state of your livelihood, ignoring any changes in mannerisms due to a changed psychological state of carrying a firearm. You are NOT likely to ever be mugged, have to fight off home invaders or defend your own life. In the rare situations where these do happen it is often questionable in whether using a firearm to protect yourself is even an intelligent idea.

Mugging/robbery? The safest action is almost always to give up your property. Money is replaceable. If they have a gun pulled on you it is pure fantasy to think that you can quick-draw them and come out on top. It may happen, but the odds are against it.

Home invasion/robbery? Again, items are replaceable. It is statistically more likely that a gun will injure a family member than it will a robber, and a gun used for home protection is only doing that when you are actually home, while most robberies will take place when you aren't leaving your gun as just another thing to be stolen.

Defending your life? Sure, guns are useful. But if you are in a situation where you are actually likely to need a gun to protect yourself you would do far better to move/work in a better area.

Too often gun-advocates ignore the reality of statistics, and most never learned the first rules of self-defense: The best fight is one that never took place, and when faced with conflict know when it is worth lives on the line.


----------



## Randy

viesczy said:


> words



Totally what I'd consider trolling. 

Not that I don't believe what this guy is saying are his genuine feelings but it's so tone deaf, not just of the debate in general, but especially in the context of the discussions we've had on this forum. Considering the intelligent "pro-gun" points that have been floated in previous threads, this one is totally "I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and repeat something I read on a conservative website verbatim" obnoxious.


----------



## Randy

ilyti said:


> You know how there's a rule against posting any threads about the Westboro Baptists? That's awesome, and I wish we could have the same rule for American shooting massacres.



Well, it's not EXACTLY against the rules... just that the only thing that happens in those threads is "pitchforks and torches! YAR!" and they go nowhere.

Gun discussion is probably a little moot at this point but some interesting points come up from time-to-time and I prefer leaving the discussion open. HOWEVER, I don't think we need a million different threads on the matter, so this one is getting merged.


----------



## viesczy

pink freud said:


> Except that is antithetical to the truth in just about every way imaginable. The potential for gun violence goes up with a higher firearm density, not down. Your post is just another in a long line of cowboy fantasists who secretly yearn for a fight. In reality, carrying or not carrying a gun has very little impact on the state of your livelihood, ignoring any changes in mannerisms due to a changed psychological state of carrying a firearm. You are NOT likely to ever be mugged, have to fight off home invaders or defend your own life. In the rare situations where these do happen it is often questionable in whether using a firearm to protect yourself is even an intelligent idea.
> 
> Mugging/robbery? The safest action is almost always to give up your property. Money is replaceable. If they have a gun pulled on you it is pure fantasy to think that you can quick-draw them and come out on top. It may happen, but the odds are against it.
> 
> Home invasion/robbery? Again, items are replaceable. It is statistically more likely that a gun will injure a family member than it will a robber, and a gun used for home protection is only doing that when you are actually home, while most robberies will take place when you aren't leaving your gun as just another thing to be stolen.
> 
> Defending your life? Sure, guns are useful. But if you are in a situation where you are actually likely to need a gun to protect yourself you would do far better to move/work in a better area.
> 
> Too often gun-advocates ignore the reality of statistics, and most never learned the first rules of self-defense: The best fight is one that never took place, and when faced with conflict know when it is worth lives on the line.



You are unlikely to have a home fire, but you have a fire extinguisher & smoke detector right? 

How likely are you to fall off your bike, do you wear a helmet when riding?

What are your chances of a car accident, do you use your seat belt?

You all prolly said yes to those questions, right? Why is it smart to do those things, protecting yourself from injury and harm but dumb to own/carry/use a firearm? 

Having a lifetime of firearms use - from small arms on up (another conversation), I know full well the best fight is the fight avoided. 

From a verbal to a fist to a knife to a gun fight, none are something that a sane person seeks out. Anyone who has ever deal with incoming fire will happily attest to that fact of a gun fight, but your ability to avoid the fight isn't always the case. Risk avoidance is great, but if you're unable to move or you're suddenly _that_ victim, the "just move" doesn't work. 

Home invasions hurting family members? Uhm there's that chance, but who does have a call/response progam known to make sure that doesn't happen? Unsure of the person, use the call/response. An interloper won't know that correct response and a family member will. Crisis avoided. 

Aurora and Sandy Hook involved long arms used, and an armed civilian will typically have a sidearm on them if they have a CCW. That is some tough sledding, using a sidearm to fight a longarm. The only time you "use" your sidearm is when it is the only option you have and you only use it to fight with until you get back to your long arm or you get ammo for your long arm. Trust me on that, want to be on the wrong end of a fight face any rifle caliber at a distance beyond 8 yd with only sidearm. 

The personal attacks, your community college psych 101 diagnosis w/o knowing the extent of my firearms experience/use & another calling me a troll because the truth I stated doesn't change despite the passage of time, does sort take the steel out of any arguments. 

Is believing that the bill of rights guarantees our liberty, conservative or liberal? Not sure about you all, but we all have the right to run our yaps, to own our guns, to not have the military quarter with us, to have the pigs need a warrant to search us, not testify against ourselves... you know the entire bill of rights is important. 

Thinking someone is conservative because they value the 2nd amendment and liberal because they value the 1st/4th/5th amendment isn't very enlightened. Oddly each party has put their stake in the ground in parts of the bill of rights and not all the bill of rights.

It is unfortunate that the real problem is avoided. Anthropomorphizing never solves the real problem. 

Derek


----------



## Señor Voorhees

The fire extinguisher, bike helmet, seatbelt thing is such a poor argument, I can't even believe it was made. I'd type up something longer but I'm on my phone at work. Just know that they're silly arguments.

Edit: let me just say that if the way people drive, the fact that they're willing to cut you off and put so many people in danger to shave a second or two off their commute, the same people who are 90% about personal gain, the majority of the people who shop where I work/live is any indication of how they'd act with a gun, I'm glad as few people have guns as their is. My friend got beat the .... up for wearing a hat of an opposing baseball team. I mean hospitalized beaten. If everyone had guns, scuffles, bar fights, random beatings and certainly the random whim decisions would end much more poorly.


----------



## pink freud

viesczy said:


> You are unlikely to have a home fire, but you have a fire extinguisher & smoke detector right?
> 
> How likely are you to fall off your bike, do you wear a helmet when riding?
> 
> What are your chances of a car accident, do you use your seat belt?
> 
> You all prolly said yes to those questions, right? Why is it smart to do those things, protecting yourself from injury and harm but dumb to own/carry/use a firearm?



There is an indirect proportionality between the % of fire detectors used and the number of deaths caused by fire.

There is an indirect proportionality between the % of people wearing helmets and people getting head injuries in bike accidents.

There is an indirect proportionality between the % of people wearing seatbelts and the severity of injuries sustained in a car accident.

There is a DIRECT proportionality in the number of guns and the amount of gun violence.

I don't care about your hypotheticals, I don't care about your anecdotals. The facts speak for themselves. While YOU may feel safer by having firearms the math shows that YOUR method of safety is detrimental to SOCIETAL safety.

The argument that "Everybody is safer if everybody has guns" is outright debunked by the fact that gang violence exists.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

A seatbelt won't accidentally kill someone in the next car over when you get in an accident .


----------



## AxeHappy

And I don't know about the US but in Canada it's the law that I have a fire detector (I don't own a fire extinguisher, despite having been trained in how to properly use them multiple times), wear a bike helmet (until your 18 anyways, and then you see lots of people not wearing them) and wear your seat belt. 

And not doing that carries a rather hefty fine. 

To compare people doing those things to gun ownership, on a safety thing, is ludicrous in every possible way.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

AxeHappy, those are all pretty much laws in the states to. The thing about guns and those things though is that guns are very accident prone. Just one example out of that list, you may not be likely to fall off a bike, but having the helmet prevents head damage if you do. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. You either don't fall and not hurt your head, or you fall and lessen the risk of damage. There aren't really any other factors. With guns you have to account for a ton of unforeseen factors like, what if it accidentally goes off, or what if the person who has it snaps or the opportunity for a gun crime pops up. I'm willing to bet, and this has no factual numbers behind it as far as I know, that if guns were more readily available and let's say that 90% of everyone in the country had them, that more people would be using them opportunistically. In my ten years of retail all across the country, I would not put it above what I'd guess is at least 50% of these people to shoot you over taking their parking spot, or rushing ahead of someone in line, or hell just to rob people.

The point I tried to make in my last post was that I had a friend who got beaten to the point of needing to go to the hospital. For wearing a baseball hat representing a rival baseball team. If people are willing to harm each other over something so trivial, guns are a no go for the general public.

It's really just a case of you're only as safe as the least sane person out there. Sure good guys might have guns, but so do more of the bad guys, and when you have the drop on people, you can kill people before any of the good guys realize what happened. And if guns are readily available, and most people have them, then judging by my experience with the general public, you're going to have a lot more people just willy nilly doing what they feel. You may not have a SINGLE shooting with THIRTY people dead, but you might have THIRTY shootings with ONE or more people dead.

A lot of anecdotal and "what if" here, but if you honestly look around at the people around you, can you honestly say it's unlikely?


----------



## Labrie

viesczy said:


> You know the problem with mass shootings in America isn't the guns, but actually the lack of guns.
> Derek



This gun toting, cowboy attitude is exactly the problem in America, imo. How does having more guns = less shootings?...I'll never understand that type of thinking. Your arguments about fire exstiguishers and bike helmets is ludicrous at best. I think what you meant to use as an example in your analogy was "bullet proof vest". At least that makes sense. 

What you are saying is fight fire with fire, quite literally...and I don't have to be a firefighter, even though I am, to know that is absurd.  I don't carry a brick in my pocket when I go for a bike ride to threaten the road lol


----------



## estabon37

I was going to start up a new thread, but I realised that the resulting conversation would probably have been almost identical to what's being said here, so I hope nobody minds this somewhat relevant news artcile from an Australian newspaper:

Boy praised for self defence killing

This happened back in 2010 in a Melbourne suburb. A man connected to a local gang, for reasons not articulated in the article, bashed his way into the home of a woman and her son and started kicking the shit out of the woman. The son tried to stop him and failed. The attacker then dropped a gun, which the boy picked up and shot the man assaulting his mum. The shithead died on the scene, and the world is a better place for it. The judge (rightly in my opinion) told the boy that he did the right thing.

This does not make me think at all that we should have guns in every home. This is an incredibly rare thing in this country. Yes, this plays right in to the "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" argument. If the assaulter was less uncoordinated, the story we'd be reading might well have been "Man shoots mother and son in their home". Then again, it might have been "Man who assaulted woman in her home is arrested for assault and owning an illegal firearm". Then again it might have been "Man connected with gang accidentally shoots self in home" because judging from his spacial awareness as far as his gun was concerned, he didn't have a ....ing clue. 

The woman was still assaulted. The home was still invaded. That the arsehole is dead is nice, but ultimately he wasn't STOPPED so much as interrupted violently. Increasing the amount of guns in this country wouldn't decrease the amount of arseholes - it hasn't in the US.


----------



## Vostre Roy

There you go again:

Police: Four killed in St. Louis - CNN.com


----------



## Danukenator

estabon37 said:


> This does not make me think at all that we should have guns in every home. This is an incredibly rare thing in this country. Yes, this plays right in to the "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" argument. If the assaulter was less uncoordinated, the story we'd be reading might well have been "Man shoots mother and son in their home". Then again, it might have been "Man who assaulted woman in her home is arrested for assault and owning an illegal firearm". Then again it might have been "Man connected with gang accidentally shoots self in home" because judging from his spacial awareness as far as his gun was concerned, he didn't have a ....ing clue.
> .




It's that type of picking and choosing that I hate. People love to point out things like the Waco Siege as a justification for "the government is evil and we need to arm ourselves to out arm them."


----------



## viesczy

pink freud said:


> The argument that "Everybody is safer if everybody has guns" is outright debunked by the fact that gang violence exists.



Direct and to the point, so everyone in America owns a firearm and it is on them at all times? You have one on your hip right? You packing a Glock? Sig? S&W? What? 

Gang violence exists because of the nature of gangs themselves, illegal organizations involved in illegal activities doing all they can to have as much of that illegal activity as possible as it is a profitable activity for them. The violence generated is a product of our Puritanical war on drugs, not the guns used as the legalization of drugs would dramatically the gang violence. 

Remember how WELL the ending of Prohibition ended the gang wars? Direct evidence. 

You realize that the 2nd amendment was written to ensure the freedom a free state, that the armed populace is the greatest deterrent of a despot? That's the purpose of it. A quick read of all the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers clearly indicates that. 

It is unfortunate that a few have victimized many, but you don't criminalize the many over the actions of a few. 

I value all our liberties, I exercise them all. You should too, liberty is one of the things that make America unique. 

Derek


----------



## Spike Spiegel

viesczy said:


> You should too, liberty is one of the things that make America unique.


It makes America an above average place to live or good/great place to live, but liberty is not unique to America. This type of pride in 'murrica is part of the problem. We see ourselves as unique and unable to learn from the rest of the world because we are "the best".


----------



## pink freud

viesczy said:


> Direct and to the point, so everyone in America owns a firearm and it is on them at all times? You have one on your hip right? You packing a Glock? Sig? S&W? What?
> 
> Gang violence exists because of the nature of gangs themselves, illegal organizations involved in illegal activities doing all they can to have as much of that illegal activity as possible as it is a profitable activity for them. The violence generated is a product of our Puritanical war on drugs, not the guns used as the legalization of drugs would dramatically the gang violence.



Completely irrelevant. The motive for violence is not connected to the propensity (or lack thereof) of violence in relation to gun availability.

Gang members kill gun-carrying gang member all the time, therefor the notion that people won't shoot armed people is proven false.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Making huge break throughs in my sax tonguing...


----------



## estabon37

viesczy said:


> You realize that the 2nd amendment was written to ensure the freedom a free state, that the armed populace is the greatest deterrent of a despot? That's the purpose of it. A quick read of all the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers clearly indicates that. Derek



It's also not the only law that was written in an attempt to ensure freedom and deter despots. The long term invention of democratic liberal minimalism (otherwise known as protective democracy, because it aims to protect people over politicians) by several theorists across many points on the globe based on the histories of several nations means that these things that you fear are deterred through things like regular elections by popular vote: it's not as common as you'd think, and was far more effective and influential in shaping the politics of the US than allowing regular folks to have lots of guns. Hell, these days US doesn't allow a president to stick around for more than two terms, and removing that law would take a lot more effort than any change to the gun laws. Say what you will about any of the last four or five presidents, none of them are comparable to Putin, and that's a good thing. 

Realistically, a quick read of the Constitution and Federalist papers shows that gun possession is a very very very small part of what keeps the US free. France as we know it is a nation born of revolution, just like the US, enjoys the same overall level of freedom as the US, but doesn't have the right to bear arms or the insane level of gun violence as the US. This is not a coincidence. 

What percentage of adults in the US votes? Every citizen has the right to select their leader, but how many do it? Every citizen has the right to political participation, through joining parties, through donating, through active involvement in the political scene on any level. Is it really possible that so many people believe that active political participation is LESS effective than buying a gun and saying "If the people who are in power through no means that I care to involve myself in don't do the job right, I'll shoot them.". Because those same people in power have WAY better weapons than ... well, the rest of the planet. Your guns do not protect you from despots, your laws do. And if you don't like the politicians (or the police, or the fire brigade, or the military, or the local librarian) then you need to get in there and change it from within, because they won't change just because you're brandishing a weapon at them. Civilians severely outnumber politicians, but civilians can not outgun them, not really. 

Political revolution is possible. Create a party, or join a party. Win popular elections by giving the populace what it wants. And then sit back, and wait for all of the accusations of unfairness and corruption that are being hurled at the current bunch of unfair, corrupt jerks.

Yay! Politics!


----------



## narad

viesczy said:


> You realize that the 2nd amendment was written to ensure the freedom a free state, that the armed populace is the greatest deterrent of a despot? That's the purpose of it. A quick read of all the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers clearly indicates that.



So...you're interpreting the 2nd amendment as ensuring freedom from domestic threat? I see a serious logical hole in that:

1. If the actual military is in the control of said despot, and if an armed populace can hinder it any way at all, then that half-trillion annual military budget has been severely misplaced. That's what happens when you dump an absolutely awesome (by textbook definitions) amount of money into defense spending -- it's unstoppable.

2. If the actual military is acting against said despot, then there's no force of arms that would compare, and our liberties are "protected".

i.e., our military's power is only tempered by ethical concerns, not by comparable firepower. If you assume that the military would be used against us, then you also remove those ethical considerations that the military otherwise operates under. And when you have the biggest economy in the world and you prioritize military might above all else, that's what you get. Compared to a freestanding militia?



The Swiss are actually much better at implementing the 2nd amendment than we are. A standing militia isn't a bunch of overweight and over-the-hill gun collectors shooting cans and deer -- it's people who are repeatedly required to formally maintain skill with their weapons and in coordinated military maneuvers.


----------



## possumkiller

estabon37 said:


> Unfortunately, this just means that cute puppies, boobs, celebrities and shitty knock-off memes wind up passing for news, because this is the internet, and apparently this is the shit we want to see.


 
I clicked on those boobs. They were censored


----------



## estabon37

possumkiller said:


> I clicked on those boobs. They were censored



Sorry about that. News sites tend to think nipples are offensive, so they don't get a pass, unlike the footage of the recent murder of the British soldier in London, where for days we saw the bloodied weapons and hands of the murderers splashed all over the news with the poor man's body still on the ground behind the jerkwads. Similar leniency has been shown by media organisations for basically every terrorist attack, and a lot of footage of allied nations blowing up 'strategic targets' in the Middle East, resulting in the deaths of both combatants and civilians.

So remember: footage of people dying or being killed is fine, just don't let any of the 51% of the world's population who have breasts get them out in front of a camera. That's why you'll never be able to find tits on the internet. Anywhere. Ever.


----------



## flint757

That is really sad isn't it. Not because I care about tits being in the news, but the fact that they care less about gore/violence and have a shit fit if their is a curse word or nudity on a public broadcast tv station is just bizarre to me.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Maybe if America glorified tits instead of guns, we'd have mass flashings instead of mass shootings.

Think about it.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

The right to bare tits.












I need a vacation.


----------



## AxeHappy

If you actually look up the picture she is wearing niplpe covers and underwear and the photo is merely censored for sensationalist purposes.


----------



## estabon37

AxeHappy said:


> If you actually look up the picture she is wearing niplpe covers and underwear and the photo is merely censored for sensationalist purposes.



You're killing the dream, man. WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LET US BE HAPPY?!


----------



## Cloudy

estabon37 said:


> You're killing the dream, man. WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LET US BE HAPPY?!



No one is allowed to be happy on the internet.


----------

