# Where Do You Stand On Gun Control/Second Amendment?



## BenjaminW

In the wake of the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the topic of gun control has re-emerged into the political limelight. 

We have people who are either for or against gun control. 

I personally find myself to be "traditionally" pro Second Amendment. What I mean by that is that where I stand on Second Amendment and gun control to be more in line in with what the Founding Fathers believed. 

Again, that's my own personal opinion and if you can respect my opinion on this topic, I'll be glad to respect yours. 

Anyways, feel free to share your thoughts on the Second Amendment and gun control. (Excuse the bad writing if that honestly matters.)


----------



## Hollowway

Well, I don't really know. Generally, I feel like government gets very few things right. So in that sense, I'm kind of libertarian. On the other hand, I also believe that we should follow statistics and evidence. Like, I think it's clear that, however great an idea it might be, communism doesn't work as well as capitalism at this point in history. And organizes religion has caused more death than prevented it - and therefore I think organized religion isn't valuable. And based on this sort of thinking, countries with gun control have simply fewer deaths than those with little or no gun control. Obviously, we cannot control for all variables, but it's at least worth trying it for a couple of decades, and seeing what happens. 

With respect to the intent of the 2nd amendment, it is important to consider the actual text: "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."

It is not clear from the text whether the well regulated militia is the people who have the right to bear arms - i.e. whether only those in the militia have that right. In other words, there are those that feel that this is basically saying that the government has to allow militias, such that they may be necessary to protect the freedom of the "state." In reality, the idea of the 2nd amendment guaranteeing regular citizens the right to own a gun is a very recent development.

It is also interesting that the amendment doesn't specify what "arms" are being referred to. In the interpretation of the militia, one could assume it means pretty much all weapons. Like the military. The idea that it's specifically referring to guns (as opposed to anything else, like knives, flame throwers, or nuclear bombs) is also a very real development. I mean, we never hear anyone complaining about all the bans on knives (switchblades, long blades, butterfly knives, etc.) or the fact that no one is allowed to maintain their own nukes. 

And the part I have a hard time wrapping my head around is the huge amount of overlap in the Venn circles of "pro 2nd amendment" and "fully supporting the cops and military." I say that because most 2nd amendment people, when asked what the purpose of the amendment was in the first place, say that it was to allow the citizens to rise up against the government, if necessary. Yet, these same groups are the ones in favor of allowing more and more police militarization, and less and less "policing" of police. The reality is that anyone who thinks their stash of guns is going to stop a tryannical US government is deluded. In fact, the best way to prevent tyranny of the government is to limit its power. While I will grant that libertarians believe in that, the fact is that most 2nd amendment proponents are republicans, whose party wants to award the government more and more control of its citizens. 

So, given that we've tried the "no gun control" thing for a couple of decades, with no results, I'd be for mimicking what Australia did in the 90s to get guns off the streets. And it has to be a federal thing. You can't ban gun sales in a city (Chicago) and expect that gun deaths will go down, if surrounding areas still have easy gun sales.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I'm a gun owner, but also a responsible and, I like to think, reasonable one. 

I'm 100% for more, better gun control in this country. 

It's absolutely insane how lax we are over here.


----------



## narad

BenjaminW said:


> I personally find myself to be "traditionally" pro Second Amendment. What I mean by that is that where I stand on Second Amendment and gun control to be more in line in with what the Founding Fathers believed.



How can you have any confidence in what the founding fathers believed relative to the technologies of the modern age? It made a lot of sense then...it doesn't make any now (for its stated purpose).

I would argue you can only be a traditionalist with respect to the situation of their time, i.e., I'm a traditionalist, because I think it was a sensible line of thinking given what early Americans were striving to overcome.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> How can you have any confidence in what the founding fathers believed relative to the technologies of the modern age? It made a lot of sense then...it doesn't make any now (for its stated purpose).



Yeah, I tend to find that's just a reason for sake of a reason.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, I tend to find that's just a reason for sake of a reason.



Strikes me a lot like guitar world. People would think I'm crazy if I ceaselessly defended my ownership of like 15 guitar because I was confident I was going to at some point start a band and make it big. Deep down we all know it's just fun to have cool gear (at least around these parts of the internet).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Strikes me a lot like guitar world. People would think I'm crazy if I ceaselessly defended my ownership of like 15 guitar because I was confident I was going to at some point start a band and make it big. Deep down we all know it's just fun to have cool gear (at least around these parts of the internet).



Yeah, after a certain point the whole "defense" angle gets pretty silly.

Folks just need to admit that they just find guns cool because of movies and video games and wild west lore, not to mention gun culture in the US as a whole.


----------



## _MonSTeR_

I stand in the UK, we have strict gun control here, so I stand in the pro control camp.

If I was living in the US I think I’d still be pro control, but I’d want to own everything I could get my hands on in case the “bad guys” have them and I ever needed one. I don’t know what they actually accomplishor what have you but they would probably make me feel safer, even if it’s wholly a placebo effect!


----------



## narad

_MonSTeR_ said:


> I stand in the UK, we have strict gun control here, so I stand in the pro control camp.
> 
> If I was living in the US I think I’d still be pro control, but I’d want to own everything I could get my hands on in case the “bad guys” have them and I ever needed one. I don’t know what they actually accomplishor what have you but they would probably make me feel safer, even if it’s wholly a placebo effect!



It's worse than a placebo effect because you're statistically less safe for owning it, especially if you have a family.

I'm in Baltimore now and I get a campus alert about once a week, sometimes a few times, about an armed robbery occurring within a 3-mile radius from where I live. It's new to me that I can't go out past dark and walk around with my headphones in and whatnot, and even though I've changed my habits (grocery shop during the day, always Uber home past dark), you can't totally demonize the muggers either. They're out for money, for phones, etc. They might be cold, maybe some have killed people, but the last thing you want to do is pull a gun out and make what is 99.9% a survivable event a 50/50 one. So people just go with it -- you get mugged, you surrender your stuff, don't talk back. And that's just the smart thing to do. Having a gun on you in that situation ...it's not great.


----------



## CrazyDean

I think this discussion would be much more productive if everyone gave their own definition of what they think is reasonable "gun control".


----------



## thraxil

Grew up on a farm in rural Maine with guns all around (varmint control). Guns are a lot of fun.

I see no reason that there shouldn't be restrictions and background checks on purchase (violent criminal history (including domestic abuse), mental illness, waiting periods). There should be licenses and mandatory safety training.

When I was growing up in Maine (maybe still now; I haven't checked) fireworks more advanced than sparklers were illegal. We would all drive down to New Hampshire to stock up before July 4th. Guns were significantly easier to purchase. This is really hilarious to me now, living in the UK where guns are highly regulated, but fireworks are legal and easy to get.

(aside on hunting: I wouldn't try to ban it; I respect hunting for food (despite being a vegetarian) and I know first-hand that there are benefits in terms of deer population management. It annoys me when people call it a "sport" though. Shooting an animal with a high powered rifle doesn't seem very sporting. Chase it down and kill it with your bare hands if you want me to respect your "sport".)


----------



## Explorer

BenjaminW said:


> I personally find myself to be "traditionally" pro Second Amendment. What I mean by that is that where I stand on Second Amendment and gun control to be more in line in with what the Founding Fathers believed.


Interesting. I am not aware of a definitive articulation of what they meant by...


Hollowway said:


> With respect to the intent of the 2nd amendment, it is important to consider the actual text: "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."


...but, if you have one to offer, @BenjaminW, I'm interested in hearing how you determined how the text is unambiguous. As @Hollowway points out...


Hollowway said:


> It is not clear from the text whether the well regulated militia is the people who have the right to bear arms - i.e. whether only those in the militia have that right. In other words, there are those that feel that this is basically saying that the government has to allow militias, such that they may be necessary to protect the freedom of the "state." In reality, the idea of the 2nd amendment guaranteeing regular citizens the right to own a gun is a very recent development.


...it's not a done deal.


Hollowway said:


> It is also interesting that the amendment doesn't specify what "arms" are being referred to. In the interpretation of the militia, one could assume it means pretty much all weapons. Like the military. The idea that it's specifically referring to guns (as opposed to anything else, like knives, flame throwers, or nuclear bombs) is also a very real development. I mean, we never hear anyone complaining about all the bans on knives (switchblades, long blades, butterfly knives, etc.) or the fact that no one is allowed to maintain their own nukes.


I once got on WJLA Channel 7 news in DC when a friend asked if I wanted to accompany him to a rally in defense of the Second Amendment. I made a placard arguing for home ownership of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and several of the other rally people started arguing that the government, representing the citizens, had the right and responsibility to limit access to weapons which were a danger to public safety at large. "You sound like those liberals who want to prevent me from buying big firearms!" I shouted. *laugh* I considered it to be epic trolling to have those guys arguing against themselves and their own placards, even though "trolling" wasn't really the term in those years.


narad said:


> How can you have any confidence in what the founding fathers believed relative to the technologies of the modern age? It made a lot of sense then...it doesn't make any now (for its stated purpose). I would argue you can only be a traditionalist with respect to the situation of their time, i.e., I'm a traditionalist, because I think it was a sensible line of thinking given what early Americans were striving to overcome.





MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, I tend to find that's just a reason for sake of a reason.


That's why BenjaminW's explanation of how he has reliably eliminated all ambiguity in the intentions of the Founding Fathers will be interesting. I'm hoping it will be more factually grounded than a statement of opinion.


----------



## Explorer

Oh! One more thing!

I like that @BenjaminW proposed "gun control" as a binary, yes/no issue, instead of being a large field of possible choices.

Weapons for everyone but those with domestic violence histories, and/or histories of assaulting strangers? Weapons for no one but those who register their guns? Weapons only for those who pass a safety course? Weapons for no one at all? Who knows?

Also, for those who vote against *any* control on guns... is it a hard "absolutely no restrictions!", or "yes, some!"?


----------



## Edika

Can your country at least do something? Call it gun ban, gun control, gun regulation, background checks, waiting periods, mental health screening, better mental healthcare so people receive treatment instead of solving issues with a gun. Or is it again "too soon and disrespectful to the people that lost loved ones" to talk about the issue? I find it a lot more disrespectful having a condescending callous attitude like that because the families of the victims would welcome a discussion and some actions to ensure this never happens again. I'm sure they would have preferred this happened after the last shooting a few months ago so their children would still be alive.

I remember hearing about a mass shooting in the US every one or two years in the past. Lately it seems to have devolved to one every couple of months. If banging your head on the wall to stop a head ache is not working, maybe see about another solution than keep on banging it repeatedly hoping it will go away.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

No one actually thinks it's disrespectful or too soon. 

It's like when you get into an argument with your significant other and instead of fixing things you just yell and walk away for awhile. 

Unfortunately, nothing is going to happen as long as millions of dollars in NRA money is funneled into politicians' pockets.


----------



## Dcm81

Should the views of one of the men who wrote the constitution not have more weight in discussions regarding said constitution?

Thomas Jefferson:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

EDIT: I just read that this most recent school shooting is the EIGHTEENTH this year?!?!? Can someone confirm/refute that? If that number is correct then that is......well practically unbelievable. And once again, if correct, then I really can't understand ANY opposition to at least some changes to gun laws in the US.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dcm81 said:


> Should the views of one of the men who wrote the constitution not have more weight in discussions regarding said constitution?
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
> 
> EDIT: I just read that this most recent school shooting is the EIGHTEENTH this year?!?!? Can someone confirm/refute that? If that number is correct then that is......well practically unbelievable. And once again, if correct, then I really can't understand ANY opposition to at least some changes to gun laws in the US.



The figure isn't entirely accurate, but the truth is still terribly grim. 

https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/


----------



## Dcm81

MaxOfMetal said:


> The figure isn't entirely accurate, but the truth is still terribly grim.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/



Yeah, suicides don't really fall under the term school-shooting..."accidental firing" and my favourite, "unintentional shooting" I find kinda hard to categorize...and even harder to understand 
While those numbers are truly grim, as you so aptly put it, those are only the numbers for school related incidents. I wonder where that number would be if you included all nutjobs that ran amok with firearms regardless of location i.e. Las Vegas last October.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dcm81 said:


> Yeah, suicides don't really fall under the term school-shooting..."accidental firing" and my favourite, "unintentional shooting" I find kinda hard to categorize...and even harder to understand
> While those numbers are truly grim, as you so aptly put it, those are only the numbers for school related incidents. I wonder where that number would be if you included all nutjobs that ran amok with firearms regardless of location i.e. Las Vegas last October.



So far, 30 mass shootings in the United States in 2018. 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

There have been four since Stoneman Douglas.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

I'm pro guns, not necessarily pro gun control. Nearly all of the proposed gun control ideas I've heard don't seem very realistic. Buyback programs won't work since people who spent thousands of dollars on firearms aren't going to engage in buyback programs where they get pennies on the dollar for them, and they're sure as hell not going to give up things they've bought for nothing. More rigorous background checks only makes things more difficult for the firsthand consumer, and does nothing to control the secondhand market. We could try and limit access to any semi-auto rifles/handguns but that's pretty unrealistic, given how frequently they show up on secondhand markets, where there's no background checks, and no way to guarantee the buyer isn't mentally unstable. 
Anytime people advocate more laws and more restrictions it doesn't really get to the core of the problem, which is the secondhand market/street availability of certain weapons. More laws and more restrictions merely makes it more difficult for the average gun buyer, who's not going out and shooting other people. California passed laws last year where AR owners could only own 5 round mags and non-collapsible stocks, which didn't prevent the more recent shootings there, and merely inconveniences most users. The magazine law is asinine, since any mildly motivated person could drive to nevada or utah and buy 30 round magazines (provided they couldn't find them used in CA). If by chance they couldn't find any in CA or surrounding states, they wouldn't be hard to make out of sheet metal and a spring. 
That's not even addressing the other issue of CNC milling/3D printing of parts, which is becoming more and more of a reality for average consumers. The ability to mill your own lower receiver or bolt/bolt carrier, etc is a big deal since you can essentially make a weapon without serial numbers or if you have some gunsmithing skill could make full auto weaponry. 

Basically the only ways to effectively enact gun control would be to:
1. control who can buy on 1st and secondhand markets (good luck with that)
2. control consumer level manufacturing (ie CNC milling/machining/3D printing)

Outright banning firearms won't stop people since CNC/3D printing would allow them to build weapons, and even if we somehow regulated CNC/3D printing, *motivated individuals will always find a way to hurt people or build things they shouldn't*. Look at the UK where they don't have easy access to most firearms, and people get stabbed/have vehicle attacks and acid attacks. Look at France and the truck attacks.
Videos showcasing homebuilt firearms (some were made in the UK with rudimentary machining/tools):


----------



## MaxOfMetal

A lot of the seemingly useless laws trying to regulate firearm sales would work if they were at the federal level.

As it is now, whenever one state or county enacts restrictions the state or county next door sees dollar signs and becomes more lenient and happily sells the stuff that's banned or regulated the town over.

This argument is like socialized medicine. It works wonderfully just about everywhere else, yet American Exceptionalism keeps the naysayers going.

Nowhere is ever going to be tragedy proof, but how about we make it a little harder to kill multiple people at long range with a finger pull? 

The idea that "oh people will find a way" and "well knives kill people too" are a viable defense for no/limited gun control is either an insult to my intelligence or an indicator of your own. Cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Dcm81 said:


> Should the views of one of the men who wrote the constitution not have more weight in discussions regarding said constitution?
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
> 
> EDIT: I just read that this most recent school shooting is the EIGHTEENTH this year?!?!? Can someone confirm/refute that? If that number is correct then that is......well practically unbelievable. And once again, if correct, then I really can't understand ANY opposition to at least some changes to gun laws in the US.


A number of those supposed 18 shootings were accidental/negligent discharges, and not actual shootings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.55438c7fcca4
According to Everytown (a gun control advocacy group), "any time a firearm discharges a live round inside a school building or on a school campus or grounds," it counts as a school shooting, regardless of whether or not the shooting results in injury or death." - This is why there's a big dispute over the last couple of days as to what entails a shooting.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/her...eport-of-18-school-shootings-breaks-down.html
CNN at least sets up their criteria for a school shooting (unlike everytown) and claims 8 shootings (though some are accidental discharges). 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/us/school-shootings-in-2018/index.html


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Thank goodness only eight school shootings! I was getting worried.


----------



## iamaom

KnightBrolaire said:


> Outright banning firearms won't stop people since CNC/3D printing would allow them to build weapons, and even if we somehow regulated CNC/3D printing, *motivated individuals will always find a way to hurt people or build things they shouldn't*. Look at the UK where they don't have easy access to most firearms, and people get stabbed/have vehicle attacks and acid attacks. Look at France and the truck attacks.


I agree to an extent but I don't think those are completely comparable. Guns can do a lot of damage in a short time at a long distance, I don't think the recent school shooting or the las vegas shooting could have happened with knives or acid. Even with a car/truck I'd argue the las vegas shooter couldn't have killed as many people because the panic of not knowing where bullets are coming from vs knowing exactly where a multi-ton vehicle is will make a lot of difference in evasive maneuvers. There are also other uses for knives, acid, and vehicles other than being killing tools. I come from a moderate gun family, they have a few and like to hunt or go to the range a few times a year, so I understand the hobby and community aspect but I'm not sure if that fun is worth the amount of lives we've lost. I think it'd be near impossible to get rid of guns completely, and I wouldn't be comfortable with something that extreme, but the US has a huge problem. No, it's certainly not just guns and banning guns wouldn't magically solve everything, but better gun regulation should be a part of a grander solution.


----------



## Dcm81

This is so funny and at the same time just sad;


----------



## KnightBrolaire

iamaom said:


> I agree to an extent but I don't think those are completely comparable. Guns can do a lot of damage in a short time at a long distance, I don't think the recent school shooting or the las vegas shooting could have happened with knives or acid. Even with a car/truck I'd argue the las vegas shooter couldn't have killed as many people because the panic of not knowing where bullets are coming from vs knowing exactly where a multi-ton vehicle is will make a lot of difference in evasive maneuvers. There are also other uses for knives, acid, and vehicles other than being killing tools. I come from a moderate gun family, they have a few and like to hunt or go to the range a few times a year, so I understand the hobby and community aspect but I'm not sure if that fun is worth the amount of lives we've lost. I think it'd be near impossible to get rid of guns completely, and I wouldn't be comfortable with something that extreme, but the US has a huge problem. No, it's certainly not just guns and banning guns wouldn't magically solve everything, but better gun regulation should be a part of a grander solution.


I don't see how this is a point of contention. Highly motivated people are going to do whatever it takes to enact their plans, whether with knives, guns, bombs or trucks. I wasn't implying that we should regulate trucks, knives or acid more, merely that people will find a way to kill each other no matter what they have at their disposal. I'm not completely opposed to gun regulation, but I'd prefer that it was actually effective instead of just being a placebo until the next shooting. There's no magic cure all for this particular problem. It's easy to say MORE REGULATION, but it's far harder to implement effective regulation when everybody has a knee jerk reaction to either ban all the guns or go deeper into their Murica-Rambo mentality.


----------



## Lorcan Ward

Trying to control guns in the US is like trying to control alcohol consumption in Ireland. We have so many strict laws, penalties, constant prices increases, health warnings campaigns, strict buying hours etc yet it does absolutely f**k all. Once something is embedded in your culture it could take decades before you see any change and thats only if the correct measures are taken.


----------



## iamaom

KnightBrolaire said:


> I don't see how this is a point of contention. Highly motivated people are going to do whatever it takes to enact their plans


My argument is that guns are a uniquely effective method of doing so. I could go on a plastic spoon stabbing spree and maybe kill a few people but it wouldn't as effective as a tool made for killing. So saying you could do anything with anything isn't really a valid argument against gun control.



KnightBrolaire said:


> There's no magic cure all for this particular problem.


I've thought about it since my last post and I think there is, we can just shoot everyone who owns a gun.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

iamaom said:


> My argument is that guns are a uniquely effective method of doing so. I could go on a plastic spoon stabbing spree and maybe kill a few people but it wouldn't as effective as a tool made for killing. So saying you could do anything with anything isn't really a valid argument against gun control.
> 
> 
> I've thought about it since my last post and I think there is, we can just shoot everyone who owns a gun.


I never made it as an argument against gun control, it was more in support of the fact that regulating things to death doesn't stop people from doing things they're not supposed to. Motivated individuals are still going to find ways to circumvent laws and regulations and these issues will still pop up from time to time. 
Look at drunk driving/ texting while driving laws, it's the same kind of idea where we try and enforce the rules, but barring catching someone swerving in and out of their lane or doing something else that's obvious, it's kind of hard to enforce other than with sobriety checkpoints. People have come up with ideas like cell jammers that are activated while the car is in motion and other equally idealistic concepts, which have been met with more realistic proposals like hands-free headsets. Same idea with guns. Some people have proposed RFID tags or biometric tags to lock firearms to one owner (both concepts have been hacked pretty quickly), some have proposed mandatory registration of secondhand firearms (difficult to enforce barring an audit), etc. 
Guns are only as effective as the user makes them, same as any other tool/weapon. Granted, the skill barrier for shooting clustered up civilians at close range isn't exactly high, but neither is hopping behind the wheel of a delivery van and running people over  Perhaps if we find a way to control all handguns and semi-automatic rifles the number of shootings will decrease, but let's not forget about the 1966 University of Texas-Austin shooting, where the shooter (an ex-USMC sharpshooter) used a bolt action rifle and killed 14 people/injured 31 others. I'll admit though, that between that shooting and the DC sniper shootings, they're outliers as far as user skill goes, but still something to think about nonetheless.


----------



## bostjan

I think that the second amendment is possibly the least understood piece of the US Constitution by both sides of this debate. Does it say that I, as an American, have a protected right to buy weapons; or does it say that I have the right to use a musket if I join one of the militias?

I think anyone who looks into it knows that the wording and passage of the Second Amendment by the founders was heavily debated back in the 18th century. But whatever the case, and no matter of how insane you may think it is, the Second Amendment is worded in such a way to lead the reader to believe that an individual has the right to own ("keep") weapons ("arms") and carry ("and bear") them around. The model at the time was that people would be encouraged to have weapons to defend their property and themselves, and to have some civic duty to protect their neighbours as well. The idea, at the time, was based off of the model that won the Revolutionary War, in which the individual right to self defense was expanded to a collective duty to defend the municipality and even the nation, and that a standing army was really only necessary in times of war, because the people would be ready and willing to band together quickly and respond as minutemen in the case of a surprise attack. But really, that model fell apart in a matter of a decade or two. What's interesting is that even though the model fell apart, the law remained the same, and since the 1990's, the argument has gone off the deep end. 

People here in the USA are crazy, collectively. Mental health resources here are pretty close to nil, unless you are quite a bit wealthier than average, and guns are incredibly cheap and still very easy to obtain. The culture here is that everyone should own a gun, and also that your mental health is your own responsibility. Gun safety education is prevalent, but also not difficult to avoid. Popular culture elevates vigilantism and self defense against "bad guys" without putting any stress on educating people about what any of that means. The USA used to have a public education system that was up there with the best in the world, but now high school graduates might not even know how to read or find the nation's capital on a map. Education here has very quickly gone right down the toilet, mental health is out of control, and guns are ubiquitous - what the hell should we expect to happen?

So, to the people on the right, who say that the issue is mental health, you are correct, and to the people on the left who say that the issue is lax gun control, you are also right. Both arguments make valid points, but the crazy thing is that these problems are not mutually exclusive.

Seeing how the government has dropped the ball on education, pulled the rug out from under mental health services, and refused to take difficult actions to keep guns out of the hands of uneducated and highly unstable people, we might be onto something if we are hesitant to trust the government here to pull off any action currently that won't screw everyone over later...

So, right now, in most places in the USA, it *is* considered a human right to be able to own a firearm. But here's an honest question: would you give a firearm to a child? If you answered yes, then I guess just stop reading there, because I've got no logical response to that. But if you said "no," then would you give a firearm to an adult with the mental and emotional capacities of a child? If you answered yes that time, then you have to at least acknowledge that there is a real cognitive dissonance happening there, and it puts your logic into question, but, on the other hand, if you answered no, that opens up a can of worms where you now need to assess something about a person before allowing that person to handle a powerful weapon. I think we can agree that the NRA would not support an IQ test related to gun ownership. Certainly we don't want to limit the rights of people who are disadvantaged, but we can't be so irresponsible as to encourage people to possess a deadly weapon unless they have the cognizance to recognize what that weapon is capable of doing.

I think that trying to repeal or replace the second amendment would potentially cause another civil war, so that's why some states are just flat out ignoring it.

So, mental health problems in the USA really haven't changed since the early 1980's, largely due to partisan politics causing friction and people being stubborn about their political viewpoints and ignoring logic. But gun violence has gotten much worse more recently.

Education in the USA is steadily declining, but how long has it been since public education really addressed gun safety?

The second amendment has existed for ~250 years, and this gun violence epidemic has only been as bad as this for a few years.

And that leads me to my conclusion that the gun violence in the USA is primarily attributable to bipartisan conflict. Bipartisan conflict is worse now than it has ever been in my lifetime, gun violence is worse now than it's ever been in my lifetime. Who are these shooters? Generally, they are folks with crazy political views. But crazy political views are actually the new normal. Maybe political extremism is itself rooted in faulty education, but one could argue that faulty education is a symptom of political extremism taking over the nation. I think this whole mess, either way, would largely diminish if we could all just learn how to fucking compromise with each other instead of this "my way or the highway" culture that itself is strongest in congress.


----------



## vilk

No one is suggesting that we ban all guns or take away all guns. And whenever you hear someone bring up either notion in their anti-gun-control rhetoric it is a red herring, or a straw man.

"If there's a will there's a way" is also a red herring. No one is debating that point. We're talking about curbing overarching trends in gun-related death. No one is suggesting that if we pass some law that all gun deaths will absolutely go away.


----------



## n4t

Same old shit different day. Anyone involved in a 'Gun Control' debate is a moron and part of the problem. Just what the government wants. A diversion from the facts - the True American Way.

Let's not look at;
- Failed healthcare
- Failed school systems
- Failed American culture.

No no no no. Lets make gun laws! Cuz that'll fix it! (It worked so well for drugs!!!)

Idiots.

If you aren't going to look closely at what is actually producing these broken people and doing something about it, you are just wasting everyone's time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

n4t said:


> Same old shit different day. Anyone involved in a 'Gun Control' debate is a moron and part of the problem. Just what the government wants. A diversion from the facts - the True American Way.
> 
> Let's not look at;
> - Failed healthcare
> - Failed school systems
> - Failed American culture.
> 
> No no no no. Lets make gun laws! Cuz that'll fix it! (It worked so well for drugs!!!)
> 
> Idiots.
> 
> If you aren't going to look closely at what is actually producing these broken people and doing something about it, you are just wasting everyone's time.



Them some big words for a post that is in itself a logical fallacy.

We need to work on multiple problems. We have the capability, we just don't seem to want to do anything about anything.


----------



## narad

KnightBrolaire said:


> even if we somehow regulated CNC/3D printing, *motivated individuals will always find a way to hurt people or build things they shouldn't*.



Yea, exactly. People are just going to find a way to do what they want any way, which is why we don't have laws that prohibit the purchase or use of drugs, etc.



KnightBrolaire said:


> Look at the UK where they don't have easy access to most firearms, and people get stabbed/have vehicle attacks and acid attacks. Look at France and the truck attacks.



Oh man, this is the shittiest of arguments. What if I told you knife violence in the UK outpaced US per capita by a factor of 2. I am far more worried of being stabbed in Baltimore than I was in London. I'll cut some slack since you're not in the UK, but there's knife violence and it sucks, but it's not an epidemic. It's crumbs compared to gun violence in the US.

And way to pick a single instance of terrorism as an argument against policy. This is like wondering if we should have stricter knife control in the UK and saying, well, they're just going to find a way to kill people anyway -- look at 9/11.


----------



## narad

n4t said:


> Same old shit different day. Anyone involved in a 'Gun Control' debate is a moron and part of the problem. Just what the government wants. A diversion from the facts - the True American Way.
> 
> Let's not look at;
> - Failed healthcare
> - Failed school systems
> - Failed American culture.
> 
> No no no no. Lets make gun laws! Cuz that'll fix it! (It worked so well for drugs!!!)
> 
> Idiots.
> 
> If you aren't going to look closely at what is actually producing these broken people and doing something about it, you are just wasting everyone's time.



Ah yes, let's just pass a bill to change American culture. On the other hand, republicans would probably accept that faster than they would healthcare reform.


----------



## BenjaminW

narad said:


> How can you have any confidence in what the founding fathers believed relative to the technologies of the modern age? It made a lot of sense then...it doesn't make any now (for its stated purpose).
> 
> I would argue you can only be a traditionalist with respect to the situation of their time, i.e., I'm a traditionalist, because I think it was a sensible line of thinking given what early Americans were striving to overcome.


 When I look back on it now, I do find it to be dull reason and I can happily offer to backtrack on what I said. 



Explorer said:


> Interesting. I am not aware of a definitive articulation of what they meant by...
> 
> ...but, if you have one to offer, @BenjaminW, I'm interested in hearing how you determined how the text is unambiguous. As @Hollowway points out...
> 
> ...it's not a done deal.
> 
> I once got on WJLA Channel 7 news in DC when a friend asked if I wanted to accompany him to a rally in defense of the Second Amendment. I made a placard arguing for home ownership of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and several of the other rally people started arguing that the government, representing the citizens, had the right and responsibility to limit access to weapons which were a danger to public safety at large. "You sound like those liberals who want to prevent me from buying big firearms!" I shouted. *laugh* I considered it to be epic trolling to have those guys arguing against themselves and their own placards, even though "trolling" wasn't really the term in those years.
> 
> 
> That's why BenjaminW's explanation of how he has reliably eliminated all ambiguity in the intentions of the Founding Fathers will be interesting. I'm hoping it will be more factually grounded than a statement of opinion.


 Here's where I can explain myself. First I'll start off with the Second Amendment. The way it's written can be left to the reader's interperation. Such as if the amendment only protects militias or people as a whole to keep and bear arms? How I see it, it's written to protect both parties. When it comes to this right being one that "shall not be infringed upon", Does it mean that gun control laws are unconstitutional? No. The Supreme Court has previously prohibited the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Such as machine guns or assault rifles. The Court also has this to say about the Second Amendment: 


> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions … possessions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing condition and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.


 In addition, if the "freedom" argument sounds familiar to you @Explorer, you and I could agree on that argument in itself is ridiculous. If you aren't aware of it, I'll explain it. The "freedom" argument pretty much entails that people should be able to use their possessions without government interference. Does that sound good on paper? Depends on how you look at it but some or most could say yes. Does it work in practice? Not really. This section from an article The Hill posted can further explain the "freedom" argument:


> Another prized possession that people have is their automobile. Let us suppose that the AAA took the "absolutely no regulation" stance that the NRA uses. No speed limits, no inspections, no driver's licenses, no traffic lights, and no parking restrictions. Drivers would be free to go as fast as their car could go. There might be some very serious crashes, but so what?
> 
> Without periodic inspections (which most states require), your car or another driver's car could have poor brakes, or be unseen at night when lights were out — unsafe conditions. With no tests to get driver's licenses, one would be driving among untrained drivers, ignorant of the good driving practices. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we didn't have to wait for red lights — what an annoyance. Without traffic lights, there may be crashes at intersections all the time. And why restrict parking? The handicapped and trucks needing loading zones would just have to get along somehow.
> 
> We have restrictions on driving to provide for safety and to have orderly, free flowing traffic. We have had these restrictions on cars for a long time, yet the government has not come and confiscated our cars. There is this ridiculous notion, propounded by the NRA, that any regulation of guns will lead to confiscation.


I find it to somewhat backtrack on what I said about having a "Founding Father" like view on the Second Amendment and gun control. I originally said that with the intention of stating that I believe the way America is like how the Fathers envisioned it. Such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hopefully that should clear things up for you.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Mental health is the issue, but yes, please, let's go after guns.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Mental health is the issue, but yes, please, let's go after guns.



Last I checked people weren't being blasted with telekinetic waves.


----------



## vilk

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Mental health is the issue, but yes, please, let's go after guns.



*semi-automatic/assault rifles and huge ammo mags


----------



## bostjan

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Mental health is the issue, but yes, please, let's go after guns.



It is legal for a mentally ill person to buy a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in seconds.

The shooter involved in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting had a history of mental illness, had, on record, made several threats to other students there, was expelled from the school, and had even been reported to the FBI for threatening to do exactly what he ended up doing.

It makes me feel ill to say it, but this is routine now. Columbine has been playing on repeat every couple of years and nothing congress has done has been at all effective in stopping it. So what do we do to stop it? What can we do? More importantly, what can we do to stop this problem from getting worse - either in frequency or in scale?

The Republican Party's answer: Nothing. Do nothing. ...and that's what they've been doing for decades now, and it *is *getting worse.

So @Spaced Out Ace , what do you propose?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Going after mental health, which clearly needs funding and research.


----------



## cwhitey2

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Mental health is the issue, but yes, please, let's go after guns.


I came here to say this.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Are all murderers mentally ill?


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Are all murderers mentally ill?



If you conveniently define mentally ill as having the urge to shoot up a school.


----------



## bostjan

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Going after mental health, which clearly needs funding and research.



?!

Alright. So, say we add 20% more funding to mental health research. Maybe that's a start, but what, specifically, would that have done to make this most recent tragedy less likely? This dude *was* offered mental help, but he refused. It was his right to refuse care. It was also his right to purchase an AR15, in spite of his known mental illness, in order to protect himself, right? So seriously, name *one* aspect of what you just said that could have resulted in prevention of this most recent shooting.

On the other hand, this fellow was known to be mentally ill, violent, and unstable. He should not have been allowed to have owned an AR15. Had he been institutionalized, he would have been less likely to have shot up the school, but if he did not have access to a gun, then that likelihood would have been even less. "Going after mental health" is rather vaguely worded.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

bostjan said:


> ?!
> 
> Alright. So, say we add 20% more funding to mental health research. Maybe that's a start, but what, specifically, would that have done to make this most recent tragedy less likely? This dude *was* offered mental help, but he refused. It was his right to refuse care. It was also his right to purchase an AR15, in spite of his known mental illness, in order to protect himself, right? So seriously, name *one* aspect of what you just said that could have resulted in prevention of this most recent shooting.
> 
> On the other hand, this fellow was known to be mentally ill, violent, and unstable. He should not have been allowed to have owned an AR15. Had he been institutionalized, he would have been less likely to have shot up the school, but if he did not have access to a gun, then that likelihood would have been even less. "Going after mental health" is rather vaguely worded.


I'm not repeating myself to you. Move on.


----------



## vilk

Translation: "You're right, Bostjan"


----------



## lurè

bostjan said:


> He should not have been allowed to have owned an AR15


Who should be allowed then?

The argument "knives and trucks also kill people" is total nonsense to me.
You buy a knife to cut your steak or a truck to carry stuff from point A to point B, not to kill people.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

vilk said:


> Translation: "You're right, Bostjan"


No. I'm not having a back and forth with someone wanting to pick a battle. I said my piece and I'm not going on and on about it. If you or bosty would like to have a back and forth, might I suggest you two discuss the matter?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

lurè said:


> Who should be allowed then?
> 
> The argument "knives and trucks also kill people" is total nonsense to me.
> You buy a knife to cut your steak or a truck to carry stuff from point A to point B, not to kill people.


How do you know what they bought the knife or truck for, though? Maybe they saw a shitty 80s horror movie and decided to go stab people because they were high on PCP and couldn't differentiate between a movie and real life?


----------



## bostjan

lurè said:


> Who should be allowed then?
> 
> The argument "knives and trucks also kill people" is total nonsense to me.
> You buy a knife to cut your steak or a truck to carry stuff from point A to point B, not to kill people.



From a legal standpoint, anyone can, essentially, unless they are convicted felons, basically.

From a common sense standpoint, ...

Owning an AR15 means being equipped to take down multiple targets (people). IF you are a trained soldier/commando, then you should have one of those weapons. A collector might want to own one, but if it's merely for the sake of collection, I'd hint that it doesn't need to function.

If I want to protect my home from enemy commandos or soldiers or a swarm of agents, the AR15 would be a suitable choice. Since I only wear a tinfoil hat part time, I'm fine with not owning anything like that. 



Spaced Out Ace said:


> How do you know what they bought the knife or truck for, though? Maybe they saw a shitty 80s horror movie and decided to go stab people because they were high on PCP and couldn't differentiate between a movie and real life?



Maybe someone buys a truck in order to run people over, or buys a hacksaw for chopping up the bodies in their basement, but something like an AR15 serves one practical purpose, really. I suppose someone might try to be absurd and say that they want one to use as a canopener or for hunting snipe, but there are much more effective tools for those sorts of things. The AR15 is a combat rifle, which really shines when it's used in combat or for slaughtering a bunch of unarmed people. I mean, the argument toward intended purpose is a little silly for something like that.

But that's just speaking from practicality. From a legal standpoint, you know, the law isn't concerned with who buys what for which purpose, so it's perfectly legal to buy an AR15 or whichever modern combat rifle one chooses, really.


----------



## StevenC

In Northern Ireland we convinced actual terrorist militias to hand in there guns. Gun control in America isn't about feasibility it's about motivation.


----------



## bostjan

Spaced Out Ace said:


> No. I'm not having a back and forth with someone wanting to pick a battle. I said my piece and I'm not going on and on about it. If you or bosty would like to have a back and forth, might I suggest you two discuss the matter?



That's cool. I can respect that you don't want to get into it. You made your opinion clear, and I think that's cool that you stated your opinion.

If you jet out of this discussion, that might leave me as the most pro-gun person in the thread, relatively speaking.

Personally, I think politicizing either the gun side or the mental health side is probably going to do more damage than good in the long run. I don't know of any immediate solution to the mass shooting problem in the USA. I just know that the entire thing has reached a level of frustration for both sides of the debate that there is probably no way to enact any change short of someone else getting shot. 



StevenC said:


> In Northern Ireland we convinced actual terrorist militias to hand in there guns. Gun control in America isn't about feasibility it's about motivation.



The militias and republican armies, though, are at least some semblance of organized. Gun culture enthusiasts in the USA are just a demographic. What would motivate them to change their principles? I don't think there is anything at this point. You're talking about a very wide spectrum of people from the ones sitting all night staring at the door with a loaded rifle, waiting for the agents to break down the door to the guy who just happens to like going to the shooting range on Sundays to practice target shooting for sport, to the poor Vermonter who makes $3700/year and has to shoot deer in order to feed himself. The problem is that you never know which is which, and the two latter examples almost never go and shoot up a crowd of people, except when they do and no one say it coming. At least the first group you know are trouble, but then there's the fact that even when you know someone is paranoid, delusional, and deeply schizophrenic, there is no law in place to prevent them from obtaining a weapons arsenal, posting threats online, and then committing a mass shooting.


----------



## narad

Funny story, the AR-15 was originally invented when astronauts discovered it was difficult to write with traditional pens in zero G. It was later misappropriated by people with mental health issues as the de facto weapon for school slaughter.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

bostjan said:


> Maybe someone buys a truck in order to run people over, or *buys a hacksaw for chopping up the bodies in their basement*, but something like an AR15 serves one practical purpose, really.


Interesting idea... 



bostjan said:


> That's cool. I can respect that you don't want to get into it. You made your opinion clear, and I think that's cool that you stated your opinion.
> 
> If you jet out of this discussion, that might leave me as the most pro-gun person in the thread, relatively speaking.
> 
> Personally, I think politicizing either the gun side or the mental health side is probably going to do more damage than good in the long run. I don't know of any immediate solution to the mass shooting problem in the USA. I just know that the entire thing has reached a level of frustration for both sides of the debate that there is probably no way to enact any change short of someone else getting shot.


Fair enough. I seriously do feel that we need to help the mentally ill, and advance mental health services. I see guns as tools; most people use them to protect themselves, to hunt, etc. Some are fucked in the head, and need help. Putting a gun in their hands, when they have issues with telling the difference between reality and make believe [Rambo, FPS games], and/or have issues with conflict resolution, then shit like this is more likely to happen. 

Anyways, there is my piece, and that's where I'm leaving it quite frankly. As far as I was aware, however, aren't people with mental health issues barred from getting guns just like felons? Then again, tons of weird shit happens in Florida, so who knows.


----------



## fps

Just so you know, everyone outside the US is staring in shaking their heads wondering how a country which is meant to be so great has so many backwards knuckle-heads with no brains.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> As far as I was aware, however, aren't people with mental health issues barred from getting guns just like felons?



Sort of.

You can be added to a database if you've ever been involuntarily committed to a certain type of institution or a court has already declared you mentally ill.

So even if you're actively seeking help for a mental illness as long as you haven't been committed or adjudicated you can purchase a firearm.

That said, many mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, aren't typically diagnosed until the person has a significant episode.

As of right now, there is very little stopping anyone from buying a gun, whether you're a felon, have mental problems or are just pissed off and want to ruin lives. Anyone can pull up ArmsList, find a private seller and grab a gun.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> As of right now, there is very little stopping anyone from buying a gun, whether you're a felon, have mental problems or are just pissed off and want to ruin lives. Anyone can pull up ArmsList, find a private seller and grab a gun.





https://www.criminalwatchdog.com/faq/background-checks-for-guns said:


> Background checks are only required if you purchase a gun through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), which includes retailers (anyone from Walmart to mom and pop shops) and some individuals. You do not need to undergo a background check if you buy a gun online, through a gun show, or through some private sales. You can check the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to see FFLs in your state.


Yeah, so anyone can purchase a gun, really.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Not to mention with the popularity and availability of 80% lowers and frames you don't have to go through an FLL even on new guns. 

Gun control? There is no gun control.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

If you need a specialized license to drive a Semi truck you should have to go through a similarly rigorous licensing process to own assault weapons.
Anyone opposed to this I see as projecting their fear that they won't meet the requirements.

Mental illness is not unique to America, there exists no disparity in mental illness here vs other countries compared to the disparity in mass shooting occurrences. 

And to those saying treat mental health problems as the solution. We can both treat mental illness more effectively and make it more difficult for guns to get into the hands of the mentally ill. They are in no way mutually exclusive.


----------



## lurè

So, is mental health a reliable "ruler" to measure if someone can own a gun or not?
This happened a couple of weeks ago very close to where I live:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/italy-...gets-black-foreigners-shooting-live-updating/
This guy had a regular gun license.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

lurè said:


> So, is mental health a reliable "ruler" to measure if someone can own a gun or not?
> This happened a couple of weeks ago very close to where I live:
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/italy-...gets-black-foreigners-shooting-live-updating/
> This guy had a regular gun license.


I think it's safe to say that anyone who goes around shooting migrants for losing a political race is probably unhinged and mentally deranged. If migrants are causing a problem in someone's country, then do something about it, but I don't think drive-by shootings are a logical means of doing so.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Again, are all of those who shoot people mentally ill?


----------



## Explorer

BenjaminW said:


> We have people who are either for or against gun control.
> 
> I personally find myself to be "traditionally" pro Second Amendment. What I mean by that is that where I stand on Second Amendment and gun control to be more in line in with what the Founding Fathers believed.





BenjaminW said:


> Here's where I can explain myself. First I'll start off with the Second Amendment. The way it's written can be left to the reader's interperation. Such as if the amendment only protects militias or people as a whole to keep and bear arms? How I see it, it's written to protect both parties. When it comes to this right being one that "shall not be infringed upon", Does it mean that gun control laws are unconstitutional? No. The Supreme Court has previously prohibited the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Such as machine guns or assault rifles.


Some people do argue that such weapons should *not* be regulated, and that restrictions should be re-examined, usually with the foundational belief that the Second Amendment, in their particular interpretation, put no restrictions. In fact, those people were the ones I was targeting when I joined that rally, in order to force them to argue their own point to absurdity. 


BenjaminW said:


> I find it to somewhat backtrack on what I said about having a "Founding Father" like view on the Second Amendment and gun control. I originally said that with the intention of stating that I believe the way America is like how the Fathers envisioned it. Such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hopefully that should clear things up for you.


Out of curiosity, since high capacity weapons ended so many American lives this year, does this mean your embrace of the values of the Founding Fathers also means you embrace restrictions on such weapons? 

Or, does the Second Amendment trump the Founding Fathers' value of life?

If the latter, why does a modern weapon, unanticipated by the Founding Fathers, trump that stated value of theirs?


----------



## StevenC

BenjaminW said:


> I find it to somewhat backtrack on what I said about having a "Founding Father" like view on the Second Amendment and gun control. I originally said that with the intention of stating that I believe the way America is like how the Fathers envisioned it. Such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hopefully that should clear things up for you.


What about when your pursuit of happiness is having guns and mine is not getting shot? Then we throw a third guy into the mix whose pursuit of happiness is shooting people?

Which is more important out of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And is two happy people better than 1 dead person, or should we restrict your liberties to preserve my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, are all of those who shoot people mentally ill?


If not, is this your basis for an outright ban of guns? Just trying to understand what you're getting at


----------



## mongey

when the second amendment was written guns were a very different proposition. 

I'm not so sure your founding fathers wanted people running around schools with military grade weapons capable of mass killing in seconds .

mental health is a factor in everything in society and no matter what you do its not going anywhere .I'm all for any country stepping up mental health care ,but to believe that it will have any substantial effect on gun violence is lunacy itself


----------



## Vyn

fps said:


> Just so you know, everyone outside the US is staring in shaking their heads wondering how a country which is meant to be so great has so many backwards knuckle-heads with no brains.



Cannot smash the like button enough on this. We used to have a pro-gun culture here in the 50s and 60s - Post WWII, everyone was encouraged to own guns. We then had one of the worst mass shootings in history and turned the whole thing around on a dime, initiated a buy-back program, implemented tougher gun control measures and also educated people about responsible gun ownership. 

However I can understand why similar measures may not work in the States - the psyche seems to not like having the government tell the people what to do. "Freedom" is a word that's thrown around a lot, this attitude of "I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want." Law makers could come up with an amazing, multi-point plan that addressed supply, education, mental health and access to guns but the people won't listen because if someone tells them something they don't like, well they just shoot them :/


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, are all of those who shoot people mentally ill?


That or they have terrible conflict resolution skills, possibly due to repeated blows to the head such as Chris Benoit.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Vyn said:


> However I can understand why similar measures may not work in the States - the psyche seems to not like having the government tell the people what to do. "Freedom" is a word that's thrown around a lot, this attitude of "I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want." Law makers could come up with an amazing, multi-point plan that addressed supply, education, mental health and access to guns but the people won't listen because if someone tells them something they don't like, *well they just shoot them* :/


You may have watched way too much Yosemite Sam as a child.


----------



## Vyn

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You may have watched way too much Yosemite Sam as a child.



I've never watched Yosemite Sam. I have watched this in full however:


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Vyn said:


> I've never watched Yosemite Sam. I have watched this in full however:



Trey and the other one should stick to South Park. Their outside endeavors are not that funny or interesting.


----------



## Vyn

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Trey and the other one should stick to South Park. Their outside endeavors are not that funny or interesting.



It's not funny at all, completely agreed. However it's how the rest of the world views America - FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM and guns first, questions/logical thinking second (especially since you now have The Twitter President).

If gun ownership wasn't so embedded in US culture (which has a lot to do with the NRA), dealing with issues like this wouldn't be anywhere near as much as a problem. 

If the NRA put as much money, time and effort into lobbying for gun databases, registering of weapons, gun licences and education programs, encouraging responsible gun ownership this whole thing would be cleaned up in less than a year. Call me cynical though but there's too many people in the NRA who are comfortable with the stupid amount of money they earn through gun sales generated after a massacre has happened that I doubt they are going to do or say anything other than "S'all good, nothing to see here."


----------



## Sephiroth952

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Trey and the other one should stick to South Park. Their outside endeavors are not that funny or interesting.


I mean I'm just privy to this conversation, however this statement is just blatantly incorrect. Team America World Police is hysterical.


----------



## Sephiroth952

Vyn said:


> If the NRA put as much money, time and effort into lobbying for gun databases, registering of weapons, gun licences and education programs, encouraging responsible gun ownership this whole thing would be cleaned up in less than a year.



As someone who does believe in the right to own guns, but on the other hands absolutely despises the NRA I can't quite agree with your year estimate. There are 323 million Americans as of right now. While I think that all those things you said the NRA should be doing is correct, I don't believe with that many people that this sort of thing wouldn't happen again. Especially not with the number of black market guns there are on the market.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Sephiroth952 said:


> I mean I'm just privy to this conversation, however this statement is just blatantly incorrect. Team America World Police is hysterical.


I find Hillary and her lame attempt at appealing to the youth with "Pokémon Go... to the polls" to be funnier than Team America.


----------



## BenjaminW

Explorer said:


> Some people do argue that such weapons should *not* be regulated, and that restrictions should be re-examined, usually with the foundational belief that the Second Amendment, in their particular interpretation, put no restrictions. In fact, those people were the ones I was targeting when I joined that rally, in order to force them to argue their own point to absurdity.
> 
> Out of curiosity, since high capacity weapons ended so many American lives this year, does this mean your embrace of the values of the Founding Fathers also means you embrace restrictions on such weapons?


Well, here's where my seemingly hypocritical view on this comes into play. I generally believe that a person's right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is an individual right. Do I think it should be an unlimited right? No. This is where what I said me being a hypocrite comes in. I can support some gun control such as the more damage a gun can do, the higher the background check that comes in for it or having to register for a gun license.


----------



## Sephiroth952

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I find Hillary and her lame attempt at appealing to the youth with "Pokémon Go... to the polls" to be funnier than Team America.


Well that frankly is quite lame. But when is old people trying to be trendy ever not?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Vyn said:


> It's not funny at all, completely agreed. However it's how the rest of the world views America - FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM and guns first, questions/logical thinking second (especially since you now have The Twitter President).
> 
> If gun ownership wasn't so embedded in US culture (which has a lot to do with the NRA), dealing with issues like this wouldn't be anywhere near as much as a problem.
> 
> If the NRA put as much money, time and effort into lobbying for gun databases, registering of weapons, gun licences and education programs, encouraging responsible gun ownership this whole thing would be cleaned up in less than a year. Call me cynical though but there's too many people in the NRA who are comfortable with the stupid amount of money they earn through gun sales generated after a massacre has happened that I doubt they are going to do or say anything other than "S'all good, nothing to see here."


It's not the NRA's responsibility that some jack off went and shot up a school. I've heard the asshole was reported to various groups that should be interested in the situation and did fuck all to put a stop to it if what I heard is in fact true. 

Frankly, I'd like to see the guy beat and tortured to death on live television a la George Carlin's suggestion on one of his comedy specials. I think it'd make for great television and would have excellent ratings. It would also set an example for the next imbecile who does something, whom I'd also like to see waterboarded until they either adapt and grow gills, or drown. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't really have much sympathy for lunatics of this caliber. There are some scenarios where I feel it is somewhat justified, but this is not one of them.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

BenjaminW said:


> Well, here's where my seemingly hypocritical view on this comes into play. I generally believe that a person's right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is an individual right. Do I think it should be an unlimited right? No. This is where what I said me being a hypocrite comes in. I can support some gun control such as the more damage a gun can do, the higher the background check that comes in for it or having to register for a gun license.


I can support that. Though the Feds are morons and don't do shit to stop anything as it is, so what good would it do. And it'd probably cost Joe Taxpayer more as well.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Sephiroth952 said:


> Well that frankly is quite lame. But when is old people trying to be trendy ever not?


Yeah it was pretty lame, but I laughed my ass off when I saw it. Then I believe Alex Jones had a freak out over, "WHAT IS THAT? What is that? What is the joke!?" Which I found to be even more hysterical.


----------



## Vyn

Sephiroth952 said:


> As someone who does believe in the right to own guns, but on the other hands absolutely despises the NRA I can't quite agree with your year estimate. There are 323 million Americans as of right now. While I think that all those things you said the NRA should be doing is correct, I don't believe with that many people that this sort of thing wouldn't happen again. Especially not with the number of black market guns there are on the market.



I'm not saying this won't happen again - even if you had the best system and people who abide by it, you still will get a wack-job who will try hard enough to go on the rampage. HOWEVER: The things I mentioned that the NRA should be doing (and yes, the NRA has some responsibility here) would help to firstly reduce the frequency and secondly the severity of these incidents. It may go from having 8-18 or whatever the number was of mass shootings in 2 months down to 1 every two years or something like that. It's going to be a progressive change that get gets better over time, and it may not wipe out the problem completely. But it's a start for sure.



Spaced Out Ace said:


> It's not the NRA's responsibility that some jack off went and shot up a school. I've heard the asshole was reported to various groups that should be interested in the situation and did fuck all to put a stop to it if what I heard is in fact true.
> 
> Frankly, I'd like to see the guy beat and tortured to death on live television a la George Carlin's suggestion on one of his comedy specials. I think it'd make for great television and would have excellent ratings. It would also set an example for the next imbecile who does something, whom I'd also like to see waterboarded until they either adapt and grow gills, or drown. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't really have much sympathy for lunatics of this caliber. There are some scenarios where I feel it is somewhat justified, but this is not one of them.



The individual at the end of the day is indeed responsible for his/her own actions. However I do believe part responsibility for helping to attempt to prevent things like this occurring again does indeed fall on the NRA. They have huge political clout and financial resources behind them that could be used to kick off a cultural change. But they aren't going to. Of course there's the responsibly of Government to provide adequate care and resources to identify potential headcases before things like this happen, and to legislate changes in the system. But the cultural change which IMO is pivotal to anything working in the first place I think needs to come from the NRA.

I don't have any sympathy for the gunman - I'm not an advocate for capital punishment however being locked in a straight jacket for about 300 years would be a good option -EDIT: After the crime has been committed of course.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Frankly, I'd like to see the guy beat and tortured to death on live television a la George Carlin's suggestion on one of his comedy specials. I think it'd make for great television and would have excellent ratings. It would also set an example for the next imbecile who does something, whom I'd also like to see waterboarded until they either adapt and grow gills, or drown. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't really have much sympathy for lunatics of this caliber. There are some scenarios where I feel it is somewhat justified, but this is not one of them.


Gun violence is due to mentally ill people, so let's torture them to teach them a lesson?

Let's not given this guy a gun.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Gun violence is due to mentally ill people, so let's torture them to teach them a lesson?
> 
> Let's not given this guy a gun.



"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. Nah, fuck it, let's torture him to death on Pay-Per-View."


----------



## xzacx

Vyn said:


> If the NRA put as much money, time and effort into lobbying for gun databases, registering of weapons, gun licences and education programs, encouraging responsible gun ownership this whole thing would be cleaned up in less than a year. Call me cynical though but there's too many people in the NRA who are comfortable with the stupid amount of money they earn through gun sales generated after a massacre has happened that I doubt they are going to do or say anything other than "S'all good, nothing to see here."



The NRA would have to care about those things, but since they're counterproductive to their sole purpose of maximizing profits for the gun industry, that will never happen.


----------



## Vyn

xzacx said:


> The NRA would have to care about those things, but since they're counterproductive to their sole purpose of maximizing profits for the gun industry, that will never happen.



And in the end it all comes down to money. Mass shootings are good business if you're a gun manufacturer. It's fucking disgusting.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Vyn said:


> The individual at the end of the day is indeed responsible for his/her own actions. However I do believe part responsibility for helping to attempt to prevent things like this occurring again does indeed fall on the NRA. They have huge political clout and financial resources behind them that could be used to kick off a cultural change. But they aren't going to. Of course there's the responsibly of Government to provide adequate care and resources to identify potential headcases before things like this happen, and to legislate changes in the system. But the cultural change which IMO is pivotal to anything working in the first place I think needs to come from the NRA.
> 
> I don't have any sympathy for the gunman - I'm not an advocate for capital punishment however being locked in a straight jacket for about 300 years would be a good option -EDIT: After the crime has been committed of course.


Am I responsible for the poor music someone does because I also play guitar? No? Then how is the NRA responsible? If he were an NRA member, then maybe I'd see your point.



StevenC said:


> Gun violence is due to mentally ill people, so let's torture them to teach them a lesson?
> 
> Let's not given this guy a gun.


Referencing Carlin didn't clue you in to the fact I was only being partially serious? Fucking Christ.


----------



## Vyn

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Am I responsible for the poor music someone does because I also play guitar? No? Then how is the NRA responsible? If he were an NRA member, then maybe I'd see your point.
> 
> 
> Referencing Carlin didn't clue you in to the fact I was only being partially serious? Fucking Christ.



There are multiple ways to deconstruct that statement as a poor argument but I'll go for the obvious one -Poor guitar playing does not equal shooting people. Only one of those actually results in harm, not a valid point at all.

The NRA exists to maximize the profits of the gun manufacturing industry and as a result of this has done nothing, if anything it has hindered every bloody attempt at trying to clean up the mess that is gun crime in the United States (THEY'RE GUNNA TAKE UR GUNS, 2ND AMENDMENT MURICA). It's definitely responsible to a degree - I might have a bit of a naive world view-here but private companies and bodies representing those companies should have a responsibility to society to make sure they aren't contributing to harm. "But they don't have to" you might argue. Correct, they don't but they are usually the best positioned to implement change whether it be due to political or financial influence.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Vyn said:


> There are multiple ways to deconstruct that statement as a poor argument but I'll go for the obvious one -Poor guitar playing does not equal shooting people. Only one of those actually results in harm, not a valid point at all.
> 
> The NRA exists to maximize the profits of the gun manufacturing industry and as a result of this has done nothing, if anything it has hindered every bloody attempt at trying to clean up the mess that is gun crime in the United States (THEY'RE GUNNA TAKE UR GUNS, 2ND AMENDMENT MURICA). It's definitely responsible to a degree - I might have a bit of a naive world view-here but private companies and bodies representing those companies should have a responsibility to society to make sure they aren't contributing to harm. "But they don't have to" you might argue. Correct, they don't but they are usually the best positioned to implement change whether it be due to political or financial influence.


Let's take guns from legal gun owners because people abuse a system that is supposed to be doing background checks to stop people who shouldn't have guns from getting them, while gang bangers who get them illegally still have them. 

Except in that scenario, gun crime still exists because criminals still have guns.


----------



## Vyn

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Let's take guns from legal gun owners because people abuse a system that is supposed to be doing background checks to stop people who shouldn't have guns from getting them, while gang bangers who get them illegally still have them.
> 
> Except in that scenario, gun crime still exists because criminals still have guns.



You're missing the point - I'm not saying take guns from legal owners. Register them with a serial number that can go into a national database, yes. Create different levels of licencing for different classes of guns, yes. You can still have your AR15 if you are willing to jump through the new hoops, and if you don't want to, a buyback program means you can be compensated for that. On top of that, have harsh penalties implemented after an amnesty period for those who fail to comply to the new rules - anyone caught with a gun not registered in their name or that doesn't have a vail serial number period, gets the book thrown at them.

At an even higher level than that, currently they are legal guns and gun owners. Change the law and suddenly they aren't legal anymore, so point moot.

Gun crime will ALWAYS exsist, period because we live in a real world society with fuckwits that have an agenda at all costs. New laws and appropriate measures will remove those who will throw the idea of going on a massacre in the too hard basket. A lot of people if you through enough obstacles in front of them simply won't bother.


----------



## MFB

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Am I responsible for the poor music someone does because I also play guitar? No? Then how is the NRA responsible? If he were an NRA member, then maybe I'd see your point.



I think the point he was trying to make was that the NRA should speak out against those who would use the tool they're a a National Association of (rifle) to do harm to others; and have those who DO use them properly to try and be the face of their organizations, vs. the current crop of people who we think of when we think "rifle owners" which the rest of the world tends to assume is school shooters; EU/other world members, correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I'd say it's a safe bet.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

The NRA used to support gun control and education. True story.

Now they just lobby the government on behalf of gun makers. They don't care about education or proper use, they just care about keeping thier big donors happy, which means arming as many people as possible. They have a financial incentive to arm those that shouldn't be. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1


----------



## bostjan

Some legislator (Steve West), the other day, was saying that schools should have more guns.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Some legislator (Steve West), the other day, was saying that schools should have more guns.



And folks wonder why the world is laughing at us.


----------



## TedEH

fps said:


> Just so you know, everyone outside the US is staring in shaking their heads wondering how a country which is meant to be so great has so many backwards knuckle-heads with no brains.


Can confirm, as a Canadian, it's not uncommon to hear that people say that they are afraid to go anywhere near the US.

My : There's this common thread that the "real issue(tm)" is mental health, and that we should be targeting mental illness instead of doing anything that effects the average person - as if those are entirely separate groups of people. Who are we kidding though? Every second person you run into has some kind of anxiety or depression, or is (pun partially intended) triggered by all kinds of nonsense. The average person, at this rate, IS the mentally ill. Mental illness is not something like cancer or the flu - it's not a you-have-it-or-you-don't situation -> the average level of mental health right now is not great, from what I can tell. And besides that you can't "cure" mental illness in that sense. There's no concrete way (that I'm aware of) to eliminate a significant about of mental illness. Gun control, however can do something concrete, which is what I think needs to happen-> Something/anything concrete instead of just doing nothing and coming up with excuses.

I mean, go back and look at the list/breakdown of those 18 shootings from a few pages back - the majority of those cases fall under what I would call pretty average people. Gun control isn't about "the bad guys" it's about opportunity, because a lot of times the difference between a good guy and a bad guy is just the opportunity. I don't buy the idea that only some kind of special "ill" or "bad guy" make poor decisions when presented with an opportunity to do something terrible. Average people + opportunity = bad things happen. Take the opportunity away (be it by eliminating access to guns, or whatever else), and less bad things happen.


----------



## bostjan

...and the statistic that I have a 1 in 315 chance of being murdered with a gun in the USA certainly doesn't have a positive effect on my mental health.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> Can confirm, as a Canadian, it's not uncommon to hear that people say that they are afraid to go anywhere near the US.
> 
> My : There's this common thread that the "real issue(tm)" is mental health, and that we should be targeting mental illness instead of doing anything that effects the average person - as if those are entirely separate groups of people. Who are we kidding though? Every second person you run into has some kind of anxiety or depression, or is (pun partially intended) triggered by all kinds of nonsense. The average person, at this rate, IS the mentally ill. Mental illness is not something like cancer or the flu - it's not a you-have-it-or-you-don't situation -> the average level of mental health right now is not great, from what I can tell. And besides that you can't "cure" mental illness in that sense. There's no concrete way (that I'm aware of) to eliminate a significant about of mental illness. Gun control, however can do something concrete, which is what I think needs to happen-> Something/anything concrete instead of just doing nothing and coming up with excuses.
> 
> I mean, go back and look at the list/breakdown of those 18 shootings from a few pages back - the majority of those cases fall under what I would call pretty average people. Gun control isn't about "the bad guys" it's about opportunity, because a lot of times the difference between a good guy and a bad guy is just the opportunity. I don't buy the idea that only some kind of special "ill" or "bad guy" make poor decisions when presented with an opportunity to do something terrible. Average people + opportunity = bad things happen. Take the opportunity away (be it by eliminating access to guns, or whatever else), and less bad things happen.


----------



## Mr Violence

Hey guys. Haven't been here in a while, but I just wanted to dish this hot take observation that implying that criminals will follow new guns laws is just clumsy, willful dodging of the whole debate.

No one in this thread or anywhere on earth is saying, "Well if we make guns illegal, criminals and people with malicious intent won't use them because they'll definitely obey the law!"

Proposed gun control measures do not imply that's what will happen. It's just a way to dodge further discourse because of an incensed, emotional response that people hate the idea of gun control on any level. I am so, so, so sick of that talking point.



I like guns. Grew up with them. I will have my family's shotgun in my house until I pass it along. I have no problem with a shotgun, rifle, or even handguns when people are responsible. 

That said, I'm for gun control. I see no reason for a semi-automatic or automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine to be available for anyone. I'm for reasonable debate and speculation of outcomes. I'm for doing anything at this point. Americans have handed over their balls and are spoon fed opinions and talking points in return for feeling like a hero cowboy and the illusion of freedom.

I'm not saying everyone needs to turn in their guns if they already have them. I'm saying what everyone else has been saying. Registration of firearms, background checks, safety courses, limitations on what people are allowed to sell when it comes to functionality, magazine size, etc.


Outside of reasonable debate, here are some entertaining things that go through my head as an American that I don't put forward as actual points, because I know they're a little wild. It's just how I feel:


The Constitution isn't respected by anyone. Just used as a tool for whatever dumb fuck talking point people need at the moment.
The Constitution is flawed and should be entirely overhauled, or at the very least translated for the 21st century.
People seem to forget how many times we've amended the Constitution because it had some real dumb fuck ideas in it. When 2 amendments exist, one revoking the other, you should infer that we rarely know what the fuck we're doing as a country.
People need grow the fuck up and let the idea of owning every gun on earth go. You're statstically NEVER going to use it for home defense or defense on the street. You just want another bang-bang toy.
"This could easily crack an engine block with one shot." Wow, who fucking cares?

In defensive situations, an assault rifle is the least practical option almost every single time. Unless you think your property is going to be stormed by a SWAT team. And in that scenario, there are probably other factors to why that's happening. But let's not think of nuance, let's just think of the fact that you get to be Scarface.

The NRA's sole purpose is to sell people on the need for a gun. And America buys it wholesale.
People have been programmed with canned responses to this debate to the point where I got to page 5 and the only talking points against gun control were ones I've read for the past 10 years.
Only a coward would think of guns as a means for conflict resolution first.

None of these are to be taken to heart, but holy fuck I am exhausted of this debate and the the whole past year and where the country's at right now.


----------



## bostjan

Mr Violence said:


> The Constitution isn't respected by anyone. Just used as a tool for whatever dumb fuck talking point people need at the moment.


I've made that point before in another thread. There are pretty solid examples of every one of the first ten amendments being completely ignored by the courts.


Mr Violence said:


> The Constitution is flawed and should be entirely overhauled, or at the very least translated for the 21st century.


I've said this before as well. A lot of folks here get really uncomfortable with the idea, but there are too many examples of the Constitution not being clear enough.


Mr Violence said:


> People seem to forget how many times we've amended the Constitution because it had some real dumb fuck ideas in it. When 2 amendments exist, one revoking the other, you should infer that we rarely know what the fuck we're doing as a country.


Prohibition was a huge mistake. Other than that, though, the amendments are almost all appended onto the law rather than taking it out.


Mr Violence said:


> People need grow the fuck up and let the idea of owning every gun on earth go. You're statstically NEVER going to use it for home defense or defense on the street. You just want another bang-bang toy.
> "This could easily crack an engine block with one shot." Wow, who fucking cares?


As a hobbyist, I am sometimes frustrated by the fact that there are certain electronics I cannot use or own in my home that have specific hobby purposes, just because they might be dangerous if used improperly, yet I could go down to Rick's Gun Store and it'd take me about 3-5 minutes to purchase a weapon that has the sole design purpose for killing large quantities of people. But whatever, that's the law...


Mr Violence said:


> In defensive situations, an assault rifle is the least practical option almost every single time. Unless you think your property is going to be stormed by a SWAT team. And in that scenario, there are probably other factors to why that's happening. But let's not think of nuance, let's just think of the fact that you get to be Scarface.


Which is exactly the point I've been making in this thread.


Mr Violence said:


> The NRA's sole purpose is to sell people on the need for a gun. And America buys it wholesale.


I don't have a problem with the NRA. I think the organization has a necessary purpose. I just think that they are, by and large, too defensive and paranoid to really do any good at the moment.


Mr Violence said:


> People have been programmed with canned responses to this debate to the point where I got to page 5 and the only talking points against gun control were ones I've read for the past 10 years.


That was kind of what I was getting at back on page 2.


Mr Violence said:


> Only a coward would think of guns as a means for conflict resolution first.


Yet we live in a time and a place where cops, robbers, and crazy people always reach for the gun the moment anything gets the least bit sketchy in a heated situation.


----------



## narad

A sensible post on gun control from .... Mr. Violence.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> I don't have a problem with the NRA. I think the organization has a necessary purpose. I just think that they are, by and large, too defensive and paranoid to really do any good at the moment.



The NRA is little more than the advertising and lobbying arm for the large firearms manufacturers. See the link I provided above. 

They've been funneling money away from safety classes and information workshops, as well as individual protections. 

The safety conscious, corporate and politically independent NRA is gone and has been dead for at least two decades now.


----------



## Mr Violence

bostjan said:


> I've made that point before in another thread....



I just veiled all those points under the guise of them being radical because I don't have the energy to actually defend them for the millionth time to the people that haven't listened to a single word I've said in my entire life, ya know?

We are in complete agreement.


----------



## Sephiroth952

bostjan said:


> ...and the statistic that I have a 1 in 315 chance of being murdered with a gun in the USA certainly doesn't have a positive effect on my mental health.


That statistic seems a bit decieving. While its true that of those murdered in the US the majority were done with firearms, if we go back to the latest BJS report, 11000 were killed via firearms. If we go back to the population at the time of 311 million your chances of being murdered via firearm would be 1/28000. So yes if you were to be murdered its highly likely it would be done via firearm, but your actual chances of being murdered by someone with a gun are much lower that 1/315.


----------



## zappatton2

TedEH said:


> Can confirm, as a Canadian, it's not uncommon to hear that people say that they are afraid to go anywhere near the US.
> 
> My : There's this common thread that the "real issue(tm)" is mental health, and that we should be targeting mental illness instead of doing anything that effects the average person - as if those are entirely separate groups of people. Who are we kidding though? Every second person you run into has some kind of anxiety or depression, or is (pun partially intended) triggered by all kinds of nonsense. The average person, at this rate, IS the mentally ill. Mental illness is not something like cancer or the flu - it's not a you-have-it-or-you-don't situation -> the average level of mental health right now is not great, from what I can tell. And besides that you can't "cure" mental illness in that sense. There's no concrete way (that I'm aware of) to eliminate a significant about of mental illness. Gun control, however can do something concrete, which is what I think needs to happen-> Something/anything concrete instead of just doing nothing and coming up with excuses.
> 
> I mean, go back and look at the list/breakdown of those 18 shootings from a few pages back - the majority of those cases fall under what I would call pretty average people. Gun control isn't about "the bad guys" it's about opportunity, because a lot of times the difference between a good guy and a bad guy is just the opportunity. I don't buy the idea that only some kind of special "ill" or "bad guy" make poor decisions when presented with an opportunity to do something terrible. Average people + opportunity = bad things happen. Take the opportunity away (be it by eliminating access to guns, or whatever else), and less bad things happen.


I have to post a message literally to type "like" rather than merely click it.


----------



## auxioluck

I learned how to shoot when I was 5, and I've collected guns my entire life. I've owned or fired probably 200 guns or so in my life.

I'll say what I've always said: There is absolutely no _practical_ reason any civilian needs an assault rifle or high capacity magazines.

I count practical firearms uses as:
1. Hunting/Varmint control
2. Home defense

For both of those, a civilian does not need a semi-automatic firearm, or any full-auto mods. I've used an AR one time while I was hunting, and that was because we had to thin out herds at our farm. We had multiple herds of 200+ deer, and it was not a pretty sight. That weekend, my SKS did its job as an assault rifle: it put as many rounds downrange as possible to kill as many deer as possible in a short amount of time. That is the purpose of assault rifles, and it does not have a practical application in a civilian's life.

I don't want complete gun control - I want the ability to protect my home and put food on the table when needed. I just want middle ground and compromise. Better background checks (I don't want to think I'm running the risk of some crazy fuck being at the range next to me, waiting to go off), mandatory waiting periods, proper training (even a 30 minute course is better than nothing). I think former military should get to keep their weapons too, as long as they pass a psych evaluation. But assault rifles and certain semi-auto pistols, namely ones with no safety, and high capacity mags...those don't need to be getting into the hands of everyone.

All this being said, gun control lobbyists will always be fighting the street market. The last several decades have given civilians ample opportunity to stock up on high capacity mags and bulk ammunition. But at the end of the day, it really sickens and saddens me that we as a country have decided that ARs are more important than kids' lives.


----------



## Explorer

auxioluck said:


> All this being said, gun control lobbyists will always be fighting the street market. The last several decades have given civilians ample opportunity to stock up on high capacity mags and bulk ammunition. But at the end of the day, it really sickens and saddens me that *we as a country have decided that ARs are more important than kids' lives.*


Not true, fortunately.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521 

"American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50 - 44 percent support among gun owners and 62 - 35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58 - 38 percent support among white men. Today's result is up from a negative 47 - 50 percent measure of support in a December 23, 2015, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll. 

"Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre: 67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons; 83 - 14 percent for a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. It is too easy to buy a gun in the U.S. today, American voters say 67 - 3 percent. If more people carried guns, the U.S. would be less safe, voters say 59 - 33 percent. Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence, voters say 75 - 17 percent. Stricter gun control would do more to reduce gun violence in schools, 40 percent of voters say, while 34 percent say metal detectors would do more and 20 percent say armed teachers are the answer."

97% of Americans support universal background checks, even among gun owners. 
67% of Americans are in favor of a nationwide ban on assault weapons.
83% support a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases.

Keep in mind the recent Pennsylvania gerrymandered map decision, where the map giving Republicans a 13-5 advantage (when the 50-50 mix of voters should result in a 9-9 spread on average) has been replaced due to it being ruled an illegal gerrymander. If all the electoral maps currently being challenged in court are found to be illegal gerrymanders, then we'll see the Republican over-representation in political office rolled back. 

As it is, all the votes in Florida against even debating gun control legislation were from Republicans. If 97% of Americans favor background checks, then clearly there is some factor which limits their ability to get representatives who represent their views.


----------



## bostjan

Sephiroth952 said:


> That statistic seems a bit decieving. While its true that of those murdered in the US the majority were done with firearms, if we go back to the latest BJS report, 11000 were killed via firearms. If we go back to the population at the time of 311 million your chances of being murdered via firearm would be 1/28000. So yes if you were to be murdered its highly likely it would be done via firearm, but your actual chances of being murdered by someone with a gun are much lower that 1/315.


Per year, not per lifetime. It's comparing apples to forests.


Explorer said:


> Keep in mind the recent Pennsylvania gerrymandered map decision, where the map giving Republicans a 13-5 advantage (when the 50-50 mix of voters should result in a 9-9 spread on average) has been replaced due to it being ruled an illegal gerrymander. If all the electoral maps currently being challenged in court are found to be illegal gerrymanders, then we'll see the Republican over-representation in political office rolled back.
> 
> As it is, all the votes in Florida against even debating gun control legislation were from Republicans. If 97% of Americans favor background checks, then clearly there is some factor which limits their ability to get representatives who represent their views.


But @Explorer , if we take away gerrymandering, how will the GOP ever stand a chance at electing another president?

Trump won the election, but lost the popular vote by a large margin.
GW Bush won the 2000 election, but lost the popular vote. He won reelection by popular vote, but Kerry was unelectable and his running mate was rife with scandals, not to mention the nation was still in über-patriotic mode in 2004 due to the lingering widespread political insanity in the wake of 911.
GHWB won the popular vote but lost reelection...

Without gerrymandering, the GOP would have to actually promote a candidate who would have some level of general appeal to the masses, and they just can't have that.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Explorer said:


> Not true, fortunately.
> 
> https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521
> 
> "American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50 - 44 percent support among gun owners and 62 - 35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58 - 38 percent support among white men. Today's result is up from a negative 47 - 50 percent measure of support in a December 23, 2015, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.
> 
> "Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre: 67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons; 83 - 14 percent for a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. It is too easy to buy a gun in the U.S. today, American voters say 67 - 3 percent. If more people carried guns, the U.S. would be less safe, voters say 59 - 33 percent. Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence, voters say 75 - 17 percent. Stricter gun control would do more to reduce gun violence in schools, 40 percent of voters say, while 34 percent say metal detectors would do more and 20 percent say armed teachers are the answer."
> 
> 97% of Americans support universal background checks, even among gun owners.
> 67% of Americans are in favor of a nationwide ban on assault weapons.
> 83% support a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases.
> 
> Keep in mind the recent Pennsylvania gerrymandered map decision, where the map giving Republicans a 13-5 advantage (when the 50-50 mix of voters should result in a 9-9 spread on average) has been replaced due to it being ruled an illegal gerrymander. If all the electoral maps currently being challenged in court are found to be illegal gerrymanders, then we'll see the Republican over-representation in political office rolled back.
> 
> As it is, all the votes in Florida against even debating gun control legislation were from Republicans. If 97% of Americans favor background checks, then clearly there is some factor which limits their ability to get representatives who represent their views.


http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...sional-districts-2018-elections-20180219.html
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...mocrats-but-its-not-a-democratic-gerrymander/
The difference between the maps is pretty significant but the overall number of democrat seats isn't a huge difference.
fivethirtyeight predicts about 2 more democrat seats with the non-gerrymandered map.


----------



## Sephiroth952

bostjan said:


> Per year, not per lifetime. It's comparing apples to forests.



What is the source of your original claim?


----------



## Rosal76

I'm pro-gun, have a firearms collection myself and I'm all for gun control but votes/banned firearms won't fix a individuals want to kill. Same reason in trying to fix a teenagers want to have sex in high school and getting someone pregnant; trying to prevent someone from smoking and getting lung cancer and someone from drinking and driving. Laws and prevention speeches can only do so much and if they have a strong desire to do something, they're gonna find a way to do it.

If a all firearms ban does happen, sure, you got rid of all the firearms, but the will of the individual to kill is still there. He may have to resort to something else like a homemade bomb or something because he doesn't have access to gun.


----------



## Hollowway

Sephiroth952 said:


> What is the source of your original claim?



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2


----------



## vilk

Rosal76 said:


> I'm pro-gun, have a firearms collection myself and I'm all for gun control but votes/banned firearms won't fix a individuals want to kill. Same reason in trying to fix a teenagers want to have sex in high school and getting someone pregnant; trying to prevent someone from smoking and getting lung cancer and someone from drinking and driving. Laws and prevention speeches can only do so much and if they have a strong desire to do something, they're gonna find a way to do it.
> 
> If a all firearms ban does happen, sure, you got rid of all the firearms, but the will of the individual to kill is still there. He may have to resort to something else like a homemade bomb or something because he doesn't have access to gun.



Red herring. No one is arguing that gun control or AK/high-capacity mag bans will "fix a [sic] individuals want to kill". Also no one is debating that "if there's a will, there's a way".

Outwardly it kinda seems like far too many people don't even understand the debate at hand here. This is about reducing gun deaths, reducing the probability of mass shootings. You know, catching up with every single other developed nation on Earth.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Rosal76 said:


> I'm pro-gun, have a firearms collection myself and I'm all for gun control but votes/banned firearms won't fix a individuals want to kill. Same reason in trying to fix a teenagers want to have sex in high school and getting someone pregnant; trying to prevent someone from smoking and getting lung cancer and someone from drinking and driving. Laws and prevention speeches can only do so much and if they have a strong desire to do something, they're gonna find a way to do it.
> 
> If a all firearms ban does happen, sure, you got rid of all the firearms, but the will of the individual to kill is still there. He may have to resort to something else like a homemade bomb or something because he doesn't have access to gun.



That's the thing though. Every single bit of real world data we have says that reducing the amount and access to firearms will stop tragedies like Stoneman Douglas from happening.

Nikolas Cruz wasn't some super connected mob boss, he was a 19 year old kid. Adam Lanza was the same way. These kids aren't going to have access to this stuff without it being legal. 

You're just falling for the bullshit that firearms manufacturers have been spoon feeding you for decades. They want you to think that you're helpless. They feed on that apathy. They want you to think we can't change. 

We can change though. It might take a generation, maybe two, but we need to.


----------



## TedEH

Rosal76 said:


> banned firearms won't fix a individuals want to kill


Like I mentioned before -> It's not about fixing the want, it's about fixing the opportunity. Wanting to do something, but no opportunity to do it easily = it doesn't happen (or happens less).

Lots of people like to say "taking guns away won't prevent any gun violence" and I completely disagree. See my last post for the long-winded version, but it's the same argument.


----------



## Rosal76

MaxOfMetal said:


> They want you to think we can't change.
> 
> We can change though. It might take a generation, maybe two, but we need to.



I completely agree. 100%. Drastic situations require drastic changes. And we are in a drastic situation as far as shootings go. If drastic changes requires the government to make changes in gun laws, whether I like it or not, I'm with it. People's live are more important than my gun hobby.

What am I doing to prevent shootings you ask?

1. Prevent/stop bullying. A friend once asked me, "why are you so tough on bullying? Were you bullied in high school or something?" I said no. I told him there's a chance that bullied kid is going to grow up and do something really stupid with a gun. If you stop a kid from being bullied now, there's a chance you're saving lives in the future. And if we're lucky, he will take your teachings and stop bullying when he sees it himself. Good teachings can go a long, long way.

2. Identify depressed and/or people with social problems and try as much as I can to help them so they don't do something stupid with a gun later on. As above, you have to catch it when it's early. Talk to them, tell them life is tough but there is good at the end of the tunnel but they sometimes have to find it.

Has my solutions worked you asked? It has and I thank Dr. Phil for that.

Going back to what we were talking about, IMHO, you gotta catch individuals when they're at their lowest point and/or a point in their lives when it seems that they might do something stupid..., like pick up a gun and shoot up a school. Obviously, my solutions won't prevent more school shootings if the shooter hasn't been identified, had already made up his mind and has already geared up and is locked and loaded and/or the individual already swallowed a overdose of drugs to kill himself. Aside from the actual gun thing, ya gotta remove the thoughts of wanting to kill people from individuals and fill them with positive things. Now, this might not be the change you expected, Max but it's what I thought is the right thing to do in this violent world we live in.


----------



## StevenC

Rosal76 said:


> What am I doing to prevent shootings you ask?
> 
> 1. Prevent/stop bullying. A friend once asked me, "why are you so tough on bullying? Were you bullied in high school or something?" I said no. I told him there's a chance that bullied kid is going to grow up and do something really stupid with a gun. If you stop a kid from being bullied now, there's chance you're saving lives in the future.
> 
> 2. Identify depressed and/or people with social problems and try as much as I can to help them so they don't do something stupid with a gun later on. As above, you have to catch it when it's early. Talk to them, tell them life is tough but there is good at the end of the tunnel but they sometimes have to find it.


Yeah, that's great and all, but in the rest of the world we just recognise bullying and depression as problems that need to be fixed on their own merit.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's the thing though. Every single bit of real world data we have says that reducing the amount and access to firearms will stop tragedies like Stoneman Douglas from happening.
> 
> Nikolas Cruz wasn't some super connected mob boss, he was a 19 year old kid. Adam Lanza was the same way. These kids aren't going to have access to this stuff without it being legal.
> 
> You're just falling for the bullshit that firearms manufacturers have been spoon feeding you for decades. They want you to think that you're helpless. They feed on that apathy. They want you to think we can't change.
> 
> We can change though. It might take a generation, maybe two, but we need to.


Well thanks for the inspirational diatribe there. Do you have talks at middle schools about bullying and the need for holding hands across America to stop hurt feelings?


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Well thanks for the inspirational diatribe there. Do you have talks at middle schools about bullying and the need for holding hands across America to stop hurt feelings?



You missed calling him a snowflake and a cuck. 2/10


----------



## Rosal76

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Well thanks for the inspirational diatribe there. Do you have talks at middle schools about bullying and the need for holding hands across America to stop hurt feelings?



Why would you criticize someone if you think that person is trying to help other people?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> You missed calling him a snowflake and a cuck. 2/10


I'm not your typical bargain basement Twit-servative, Randy.



Rosal76 said:


> Why would you criticize someone if you think that person is trying to help other people?


Came off a little too "Let's all hold hands and talk about peace, kids" for my taste.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Well thanks for the inspirational diatribe there. Do you have talks at middle schools about bullying and the need for holding hands across America to stop hurt feelings?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


>



Neil Young, cool. My advocate, Paul Heyman (played by Randy) has informed me to let you know that I was just ribbing you.


----------



## mongey

Did trump really endorse teachers carrying guns in class ? That’s the answer ? More people with guns. Shit is outrageous.


----------



## Dcm81

Rosal76 said:


> Why would you criticize someone if you think that person is trying to help other people?



I'm baffled that you've been here so long and that this kinda shit coming from Space still surprises anybody.....



mongey said:


> Did trump really endorse teachers carrying guns in class ? That’s the answer ? More people with guns. Shit is outrageous.



Similar bewilderment here......does any of the outrageous shit that spunk trumpet does surprise you any more?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mongey said:


> Did trump really endorse teachers carrying guns in class ? That’s the answer ? More people with guns. Shit is outrageous.



That's been a point for a lot of conservative politicians for some years now. 

The NRA, in a bid to sell more guns for thier financiers, has been pushing the "armed good guy" narrative hard. It's thier dream to get it mandated. Imagine how profitable those school board contracts will be. 

It's also hilarious to think they'd actually pay for teachers to get real training, as well as a financial incentive to now be an armed guard. They're just going to give Carol the 68 year old social studies teacher, who's never fired a gun in her life, a Glock and consider it misson accomplished.



Rosal76 said:


> I completely agree. 100%. Drastic situations require drastic changes. And we are in a drastic situation as far as shootings go. If drastic changes requires the government to make changes in gun laws, whether I like it or not, I'm with it. People's live are more important than my gun hobby.
> 
> What am I doing to prevent shootings you ask?
> 
> 1. Prevent/stop bullying. A friend once asked me, "why are you so tough on bullying? Were you bullied in high school or something?" I said no. I told him there's a chance that bullied kid is going to grow up and do something really stupid with a gun. If you stop a kid from being bullied now, there's a chance you're saving lives in the future. And if we're lucky, he will take your teachings and stop bullying when he sees it himself. Good teachings can go a long, long way.
> 
> 2. Identify depressed and/or people with social problems and try as much as I can to help them so they don't do something stupid with a gun later on. As above, you have to catch it when it's early. Talk to them, tell them life is tough but there is good at the end of the tunnel but they sometimes have to find it.
> 
> Has my solutions worked you asked? It has and I thank Dr. Phil for that.
> 
> Going back to what we were talking about, IMHO, you gotta catch individuals when they're at their lowest point and/or a point in their lives when it seems that they might do something stupid..., like pick up a gun and shoot up a school. Obviously, my solutions won't prevent more school shootings if the shooter hasn't been identified, had already made up his mind and has already geared up and is locked and loaded and/or the individual already swallowed a overdose of drugs to kill himself. Aside from the actual gun thing, ya gotta remove the thoughts of wanting to kill people from individuals and fill them with positive things. Now, this might not be the change you expected, Max but it's what I thought is the right thing to do in this violent world we live in.



While I can't say we agree on everything, I can get behind what you're saying. 

Thank you.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace




----------



## Vyn

Spaced Out Ace said:


>




Whilst I've disagreed with you a lot in this thread @Spaced Out Ace, I fully respect you references, fucking gold haha!


----------



## Lemonbaby

MaxOfMetal said:


> [...] They're just going to give Carol the 68 year old social studies teacher, who's never fired a gun in her life, a Glock and consider it misson accomplished.


Solving problems the American way...


----------



## TedEH

StevenC said:


> in the rest of the world we just recognise bullying and depression as problems that need to be fixed on their own merit.


How does that contradict what was said though?

"When I see someone depressed I try to help them out so that bad stuff doesn't happen."
"Yeah, but that doesn't address the depression!"

....what?


----------



## StevenC

TedEH said:


> How does that contradict what was said though?
> 
> "When I see someone depressed I try to help them out so that bad stuff doesn't happen."
> "Yeah, but that doesn't address the depression!"
> 
> ....what?


He said:
"When I see a depressed person I think they're going to shoot up a school."
Which is lunacy.

Depression and bullying should be dealt with because they're awful things for people to go through.


----------



## TedEH

StevenC said:


> "When I see a depressed person I think they're going to shoot up a school."


We're both putting our own spin on what he said, but I very much doubt that's the message he meant to get across


----------



## StevenC

TedEH said:


> We're both putting our own spin on what he said, but I very much doubt that's the message he meant to get across


Maybe, but he was pretty explicit.



Rosal76 said:


> A friend once asked me, "why are you so tough on bullying? Were you bullied in high school or something?" I said no. I told him there's a chance that bullied kid is going to grow up and do something really stupid with a gun.


----------



## TedEH

There's a chance that depressed people will do something stupid does not mean "I assume depressed people are going to shoot up a school". Very much a stretch compared to how I interpreted that.  Either way. I don't really care what weird assumptions or stretches needed to be made to get there, if it means that a depressed person is being addressed/helped, I'm cool with it. Reasons aside, I can't fault someone for trying to do some good, given how little action actually gets taken towards addressing either depression or gun violence.


----------



## bostjan

Bullying is bad and I'm all for preventing bullying. However, bullies shoot people, too, so I'm not sure how that narrative of <<if bullying = 0 then shootings.school := 0>> has any traction in the real world. Maybe some statistics? All I have right now are anecdotes where a lot of these school shooters were bullies. Obviously not every bully becomes a mass shooter and not every mass shooter was a bully, but that's essentially the point I see, that there is not a strong correlation between the two. However, every mass shooter since 1700 AD has used a gun, so the gun user to mass shooter correlation is 100%.


----------



## possumkiller

While Trump is headed in the right direction, arming the teachers and staff just isn't enough.

Every morning when entering the school doors all the students should sign out their assigned M4 from the school arms room and carry it at the ready all day long. There should be hall monitors manning machine gun nests at the end of every corridor. The boundary of the school grounds should be fenced and mined. There should be guard towers with snipers and shoulder fired AT4 missile launchers.


----------



## TedEH

I've actually not really seen any connections being drawn (other than here) between bullying and school shootings. (Edit: To be fair, I don't spend much time reading very far into it though.) It wouldn't surprise me to see some kind of correlation there, but I don't know how useful a comparison it is. "Look! They were a bully!" seems about as meaningful as "Look! They played GTA!" or "Look! They listened to heavy metal! This is the fault of the devils music!"


----------



## possumkiller

possumkiller said:


> While Trump is headed in the right direction, arming the teachers and staff just isn't enough.
> 
> Every morning when entering the school doors all the students should sign out their assigned M4 from the school arms room and carry it at the ready all day long. There should be hall monitors manning machine gun nests at the end of every corridor. The boundary of the school grounds should be fenced and mined. There should be guard towers with snipers and shoulder fired AT4 missile launchers.


As a matter of fact it shouldn't end there. The second amendment shouldn't be a right at all. It should be a requirement. Every American citizen should be required by law to carry an assault weapon, proof of citizenship, and a bible on their person at all times.


----------



## MFB

possumkiller said:


> As a matter of fact it shouldn't end there. The second amendment shouldn't be a right at all. It should be a requirement. Every American citizen should be required by law to carry an assault weapon, proof of citizenship, and a bible on their person at all times.



Can I engrave the Bible onto my rifle in tiny font so I can carry it more conveniently?


----------



## bostjan

possumkiller said:


> While Trump is headed in the right direction, arming the teachers and staff just isn't enough.
> 
> Every morning when entering the school doors all the students should sign out their assigned M4 from the school arms room and carry it at the ready all day long. There should be hall monitors manning machine gun nests at the end of every corridor. The boundary of the school grounds should be fenced and mined. There should be guard towers with snipers and shoulder fired AT4 missile launchers.


^SNL should hire this guy. 



possumkiller said:


> As a matter of fact it shouldn't end there. The second amendment shouldn't be a right at all. It should be a requirement. Every American citizen should be required by law to carry an assault weapon, proof of citizenship, and a bible on their person at all times.



I recall reading in a history book once that such was an actual discussion by the framers of the Constituion. Some of them wanted it to be a requirement for American citizens to be armed with muskets at the ready in case they were attacked by 'bloodthirsty redcoats' or 'savage natives.' The sad/ironic thing was, IIRC, that the common sense argument wasn't what won the debate, but rather the religious argument was, since some of the early US towns and villiages were dominated by religious sects who were pacifist, and they objected that being forced to carry a weapon at all times infringed upon their freedom of religion.

The thought of arming every person in times of peace shouldn't give anyone a warm fuzzy feeling. It takes zero physical effort to shoot someone who doesn't suspect being shot, so it just means that murders would get their first murder basically for free. And then imagine forensics trying to match the bullet with, potentially, one hundred million possible suspects, rather than just a half dozen.

Take that argument that we need *more* guns in schools to it's reductive maximum and it's so fantastically absurd that the argument itself can't be taken seriously anymore, even by the fringes.


----------



## BenjaminW

By now, I’m sure you’ve all heard of President Trump’s proposal to ban bump stocks. Thoughts on this proposal?


----------



## narad

MFB said:


> Can I engrave the Bible onto my rifle in tiny font so I can carry it more conveniently?



Damn liberals.


----------



## Randy

BenjaminW said:


> By now, I’m sure you’ve all heard of President Trump’s proposal to ban bump stocks. Thoughts on this proposal?



I can dislike the guy and I can question his motives, and I can question the effectiveness of his moves but he's at least acting like he's doing something. If there's any substance to the idea the president can instruct the DOJ on something like bump stocks or other clarifications of existing laws, it's a wonder that Obama didn't use any of those tools. That's a very big "if" though.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

true gun control


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

KnightBrolaire said:


> true gun control


----------



## KnightBrolaire

chris cuomo (who works for CNN) retweeted a post from a guy who claimed to have bought an ar15 without doing the prerequisite paperwork/background check from a gun store. The guy later goes on to say that he never bought it and didn't do the paperwork, but still tweeted that he bought it in 5 minutes.  
It always takes me a few weeks to get the background check/paperwork checked. I mean barring buying from a private seller there's no way in hell you're getting a weapon from a legit gun store without the background check/paperwork.


----------



## narad

Is this relevant though? I feel like these sorts of things are brought up to cumulative pitch gun control pushes as somehow misguided. The kid was an idiot young person doing something for Twitter attention... Has no bearing on the discussion


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

KnightBrolaire said:


> chris cuomo (who works for CNN) retweeted a post from a guy who claimed to have bought an ar15 without doing the prerequisite paperwork/background check from a gun store. The guy later goes on to say that he never bought it and didn't do the paperwork, but still tweeted that he bought it in 5 minutes.
> It always takes me a few weeks to get the background check/paperwork checked. I mean barring buying from a private seller there's no way in hell you're getting a weapon from a legit gun store without the background check/paperwork.


sadtrombone.wav

Is CNN just not trying anymore, or what? That or they think very lowly of their viewers.


----------



## Explorer

Just regarding bullying in general, In a SCotUS hearing on laws which deny guns to domestic abusers, Thomas challenged why such abuse would warrant suspending someone's right to firearms.

The answer was, "individuals who have previously … battered their spouses, pose up to a six-fold greater risk of killing, by a gun, their family member."

Clarence Thomas went on to write a scathing dissent, supporting the right of such abusers to firearms.

----

As this form of bullying has been observed to be a good predictor of future firearm violence, bullying in general is worth considering in general not just because it's bad, but also as a potential red flag.


----------



## possumkiller

In all honesty, my personal experience tells me the problem lies with home life, education system, and American culture in general. 

I went to middle and high school in the 90s. From the time I was 11 until around 14 (6th to 9th grade) I used to fantasize quite often about shooting up my school. 

I was born to poor teenage parents in rural Florida. They divorced when I was 3. My father is the youngest son of a Pentecostal preacher WW2 vet. My mother is an awkward introvert with the same type of mother herself. Warm loving relationships were never a thing growing up with my family. 

I was always a "nerd". Not a bookworm straight A student nerd just not a popular kid. I'm awkward, introverted and probably what is now on the autism spectrum. I never knew what was socially proper and my family never taught me. I made the honor roll all through elementary school. I never found any academics in that time challenging. I also made it through elementary school without being self conscious and having great self esteem. I looked up to adults. I always took everything adults said both literally and very seriously. I didn't comprehend a lot of sarcasm and hidden jokes that I can look back and see clearly now (this is the reason I am extremely careful about what I say and how I word things to my children).

I changed schools a lot. I'd stay a year with mom then a year with dad and grandparents (my father lived out on his own for a whole 5 years of his 52 years on earth). 

Middle school started to change. I went to a bigger school. Kids were a lot meaner in general. I was bullied on the bus. At school. After school. My bus was the most notorious in the district so the police chief assistant was assigned driver. He was a limp noodle incompetent. He actually tried to get me into trouble because he had me confused with one of the bus bullies. 

My father bullied us at home. He was the youngest of 4 and always trying to prove how much of a macho badass he is. Any time I showed an interest in playing a sport it was his duty to teach me by playing one on one hitting me with the ball, yelling at me for being a pansy. He always played with us and insulted us as if we were all his adult contemporaries. Then gloat about being a manly badass because he beat us children at sport. Needless to say I never signed up for any sport and lost all interest in sports. So I lost out on the bonding friendship, popularity and preferential treatment that playing a sport brings.

I mentioned my grandfather. He was a WW2 vet, retired from civil service as a mathematician at Eglin AFB Florida, Pentecostal preacher for 40 years, had his own farm. He grew up in the depression and his father was killed before his eyes by a shattered blade at the sawmill they worked at. He made a deal with god that if he survived WW2 he would be a preacher. 

So my father's side are hardcore christian fundamentalists. Although I do remember as a young child not being shielded from any graphic violence and nudity on family movie nights. I've been deathly afraid of terminators since I was 5. When I stayed at dad's I had to go to church every time there was church. Sunday morning. Sunday night. Wednesday night. Revival meant church every night all week. My dad did janitorial and landscaping work for the church (well he was paid for it, my sister and I actually did it) so even when church wasn't in session I was at church. I always had questions about contradictions in our religion and the answer was always "that's just how it is". I was deathly afraid of going to hell. 

My family is also Republican but my dad's side is hardcore. During the Clinton years my dad was always spouting off about some government conspiracy about the liberals (with republicans in office somehow there aren't any conspiracies). My bedroom was next to the living room so it was quite easy to hear them chatting after I went to bed. I was deathly afraid of the government. 

When I was 11 years old we had a communion at church. All the kids had to go to the back room. I stayed because I didn't like the church kids and I was at the transition age where I could stay with the adults if I wanted. I did the communion thing with them and drank Jesus's grape juice blood and ate his tasty Nabisco saltine white cracker body. Then they said if someone took communion without being saved they were condemned to hell. So naturally I was like oh fuck was I saved or not?! So I was asking dad and grandparents all about being saved and condemnation and all that. I guess they never wondered why the sudden interest. I never heard god talk to me. I never felt god feeling me up inside. I never had any kind of spiritual experience so I assumed I was not saved. 

I was 11 years old. Deathly afraid of terminators. Deathly afraid of the government. Deathly afraid of burning in hell. Dreading every day at school. Dreading coming home from school. Dreading the uncertainty of my father's wild, unstable, sometimes violent mood swings. To top it all off I was now condemned to hell with the only chance of getting to heaven being death as a martyr. 

I had stomach ulcers. I had acid reflux. I was underweight, malnourished, weak, sickly. I was beaten up at school and called a pansy at home.

My only hope for salvation was to die as a martyr. If enough people prayed for you it was theoretically possible to get you out of hell but getting killed for Jesus was the only sure ticket. Since I was always listening at night to dad and granddad going on about the rapture and us living in the end times I decided I should prepare. Schoolwork was useless bullshit. Friends and girlfriends were useless distractions. I needed to study weapons and tactics. If I could get killed defending Jesus from the evil liberals in some kind of end times holy war maybe he would owe me one for saving his ass.

My family were never really gun nuts. My stepfather took me hunting and was actually more of a real father (too bad I didn't just stay with mom but he wound up getting very ill and dying anyway). My grandfather had a few guns in the cabinet. Typical farmer stuff. A shotgun, a 22 rifle, an air rifle and his WW2 M1 carbine (you could take your military weapons home after discharge back then). I became a true gun nut. I soaked it up like a sponge. Weapon types, uses, operating systems, ammunition types, ballistics and everything I could learn. I studied books about hand to hand combat techniques and guerrilla warfare. I learned so much that by the time I did join the army, basic training couldn't teach me anything new apart from teamwork and a few social skills. Seriously I've forgotten more about weapons in the last 10 years than most of you will ever learn. 

I hated school. I hated people and they didn't particularly care for me either. Other kids parents didn't want their kids playing with me because I was a bad influence. 

It started to change around the end of 9th grade. My cousin introduced me to Satan's music AC/DC and Metallica. It was a turning point and probably saved my life and a lot of others. Up to that point I was force fed contemporary christian (though DC Talk's Jesus Freak is a badass rock album regardless of religious beliefs) and 80s-90s country. I had always been musically inclined but that was nothing of value to my family. I felt strange listening to this new music. It made me feel guilty that this music made me feel good inside. At that point in my life I rarely ever felt good inside. I was either worried about getting beat up at school, worried about going to hell, worried about surviving skynet's nuclear holocaust, or worrying about my dad beating the shit out of me on report card day because I spent all my time preparing to die in a hail of bullets instead of doing my schoolwork. I had to go to summer school every year from 6th grade to 10th grade (after that it didn't matter, I just didn't graduate).


----------



## possumkiller

I noticed as I got deeper into this metal music and buying a guitar that people started to notice me in a nonthreatening way. They didn't want to punch me or say something hurtful, they wanted to talk about guitars and music. This led to talking about life in general and led further to making friends, spending the night at friends places, meeting new people, talking to girls. By the time I was 16 I had good friends, I was in a shitty band and was getting more ass than any of the adult males in my family. And I was still the same skinny, socially awkward, weirdo that I always was. I developed a sense of humor and ability to laugh at myself. I started to realize most of these guys I thought were bullying me didn't mean any real harm and it was more like some kind of social rites of passage thing. I actually became good friends with some of my bullies. 

Of course getting into metal meant wearing black, skulls, chains. So after the trench coat shooting I was called into the principal's office for interrogation. Word had got around my rural, all white, bible belt high school that I was an anti religion, free thinking metalhead that looked all grim and liked to call bullshit when the teachers would spew bullshit. So he asked me if I listened to metallica and if I were a devil worshipper and if I was planning to shoot everyone. I thought to myself really? Where the hell were you two years ago when I was really thinking about it? Now that I feel good about myself, have friends and am semi popular you think I'm a mortal threat? His solution was to have me talk to the marine corps recruiter and send the army recruiters out to my house (well half house half trailer. We had a singlewide from the late 60s that they had built a house around and not finished. Did I mention we were poor as dirt at mom's living on food stamps?)

Apart from a temporary brainwashed backslide during the early years of my military career, I've been getting better and better ever since. The more I educate myself the more "unwashed" my brain gets.

I'm no longer religious at all. I don't feel that I ever was. I tried but never felt anything. I was just afraid that it might be true. The concept is laughable to me. Some people say they need it. I say these people use religion as a crutch and a way to get away from responsibility. Oh well it's not my fault that wasn't in God's plan. It's like blaming Hitler for the holocaust or Stalin for the massive amounts of dead Soviets. Hitler never killed a single person. All the normal sane human beings did it. Hitler just signed an order. Religion and it's followers are the exact same potential danger and it has happened many times through history. 

I haven't owned a firearm in 10 years. Being a felon since 2010 legally has something to do with it but nothing to do with my personal decision. I lived in Europe for a year after I left the army. I never once felt a firearm was needed to possibly defend myself. Ten months in England and three in Poland. It taught me that America is one of the the most backward countries on the planet. Socially backward. Intellectually backward. It really amazes me how we became the number one nation. 

Until we get the die hard religious, gun toting, closed minded bible thumping three quarters of our population into the 21st century (hell even 18th century enlightenment would do), things are only going to get worse. The leadership doesn't give a shit. Democrats, republicans are all the same. They only care about themselves and their money. 

It's the Us vs Them mentality that is drilled into America from the cradle. It's in everything. Sports, classes, business, race, religion, sex, everything. It's applauded as good spirited competition. It's not. It's getting you used to "taking a side and standing up for what you believe in" so that we are all ready to fight each other over every little difference that separates us into these little groups instead of banding together to progress onward and upward to the future. 


Anyway, sorry for the long rant. Just thought maybe you guys would like some insight into someone who could've done something like this. I honestly think it's more common than anybody wants to admit out loud.

Why did I ultimately not shoot up my school? I knew it was a suicide mission. My life sucked deep inside a donkeys asshole but there was always this tiny splinter in my mind saying all that religious shit was wrong, life is hard, just stick it out till you turn 18 and gtfo. Also, fantasy is a great stress reliever. Like video games, playing guitar, etc. Once I got into playing guitar and making friends I started experiencing a somewhat normal adolescence. I even got to experience what a normal family is like through my friends and their families. I was always another son to my friend's mothers. 

TL;DR every school has it's dork/punching bag/loathed by all, kids. Cut them some slack and don't gang up on them because they might go over the edge.


----------



## Explorer

BenjaminW said:


> By now, I’m sure you’ve all heard of President Trump’s proposal to ban bump stocks. Thoughts on this proposal?



My thoughts? It's an attempt to throw a bone to those who hold Trump responsible for his signing off on removing mentally ill individuals from the firearm ban list.

I also think Trump was fed this suggestion by the NRA, because Trump himself had no deep opinions on the matter when he did his informal polling at Mar-a-Lago about what should be done about gun violence. 

I do like that the NRA is now attacking the FBI, which is investigating the NRA regarding the NRA funneling Russian money to pro-Trump ads during the election.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

KnightBrolaire said:


> It always takes me a few weeks to get the background check/paperwork checked.



What? Where do you live? 

I've purchased firearms in Florida, Arizona and Wisconsin and the longest it ever took was about six hours, and that was on a weekend just before hunting season up here. 

Hundguns I've had to pick up next day, obviously, but I've picked up all but two long guns same day. 

That's going through big, national FFLs like Cabela's and Bass Pro Shop. 

I was 17 when I bought my first rifle at Walmart in South Florida, got to take it home right then and there. That was some years ago though. 

But that doesn't mean anything because I can jump on ArmsList or Gunbroker and get a firearm in minutes. The most I've ever had to do is show a photo ID in private sales. No one really cares. 

Heck, I had my P80 shipped right to my door with all needed components. No checks of any kind, just credit/debit and away we go.


----------



## Roadsterjosh

I am a gun owner, and have been all of my adult life. I was introduced to firearms as a child, taught proper gun safety and to respect the firearm as a dangerous tool. I grew up in a family that hunted and harvested game animals as a means of adding food to our tables. 
As an adult I have sought out extensive training with both handguns and rifles. In 2015 I had over 200 hours of personally paid for training on the AR15, not including hours with handguns. I take firearms safety extremely seriously. 
I am not specifically for nor against some measure of gun control. But I that is not the all out right answer. If you seek out the full story about the statistics, not what is fed to us by either extreme of the political system you will find that gun violence is certainly responsible for loss of human life, it is no where near the top of the causes. Statistically speaking you are absolutely more likely to die in an automobile accident that to be shot. 
I like that I have the "freedom" in this country to enjoy things such as the AR15 rifle system. I hunt with one, obviously not kitted up like a Ninja Navy Seal Ranger, but I do commonly utilize one. I carry a pistol everyday, and have for 10 years. I have never used my firearm in anger, fear, or any other time. I understand that my "right" to defend myself does not end and begin with that firearm, but it does allow a measure of faith that I can trust in my training if I were to get into a situation that violence was needed. Not because someone cut me off in traffic, or called me a name. But in the event that I could either defend myself or family from eminent danger, an attacker or some other form of violent criminal action. 
It is a huge responsibility, and if you chose to carry and own firearms you should treat it as such.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

narad said:


> Is this relevant though? I feel like these sorts of things are brought up to cumulative pitch gun control pushes as somehow misguided. The kid was an idiot young person doing something for Twitter attention... Has no bearing on the discussion


It does kind of have a bearing on the discussion, since Cuomo works as a journalist for CNN and caused a whole shitstorm related to that post. People were getting pretty mad that he'd retweet that post as though it was even slightly plausible at most gun stores. 






MaxOfMetal said:


> What? Where do you live?
> 
> I've purchased firearms in Florida, Arizona and Wisconsin and the longest it ever took was about six hours, and that was on a weekend just before hunting season up here.
> 
> Hundguns I've had to pick up next day, obviously, but I've picked up all but two long guns same day.
> 
> That's going through big, national FFLs like Cabela's and Bass Pro Shop.
> 
> I was 17 when I bought my first rifle at Walmart in South Florida, got to take it home right then and there. That was some years ago though.
> 
> But that doesn't mean anything because I can jump on ArmsList or Gunbroker and get a firearm in minutes. The most I've ever had to do is show a photo ID in private sales. No one really cares.
> 
> Heck, I had my P80 shipped right to my door with all needed components. No checks of any kind, just credit/debit and away we go.


I bought a few guns through Mills Fleet Farm and it took about 2 weeks for the paperwork to go through for them.  Most of the time I buy from private sellers just because it's cheaper/faster than buying the stuff I want through a dealer. I got a sig p226 for next to nothing that way.


----------



## narad

KnightBrolaire said:


> It does kind of have a bearing on the discussion, since Cuomo works as a journalist for CNN and caused a whole shitstorm related to that post. People were getting pretty mad that he'd retweet that post as though it was even slightly plausible at most gun stores.



You're trying to tie this to CNN, and spin it like some media bias. The guy is a morning anchor. Tweeting in his personal account, in his time off of work. It's not an example of investigative journalism gone wrong. It is a *retweet*

Like wow, the kid wasn't able to buy a gun in 5 minutes? I guess the system works!


----------



## bostjan

possumkiller said:


> I honestly think it's more common than anybody wants to admit out loud.
> ...
> TL;DR every school has it's dork/punching bag/loathed by all, kids. Cut them some slack and don't gang up on them because they might go over the edge.


I think you are really onto something. I felt kind of the same way, except my parents were actually pretty normal even though the school they sent me to was bonkers religious. I was picked on a lot, punched in the face (had my nose broken for a kid not liking my first name), stabbed in the abdomen with a piece of broken glass, punched in the kidneys until I pissed blood, on and on until I dislocated an older kid's arm in a fight one day. After that, almost everybody more or less left me alone, and life got a hundred times quieter. It's not really like we had bullies (maybe one or two) there, but just, I don't know, kids are mean, and kids are stupid, and there is nothing more dangerous than someone who is really stupid and really mean. 

I never shot up my school or planned any sort of "attack." I just wanted to be able to be a kid without worrying about getting stabbed again or shot or stomped to death by the clique of kids who most closely resembled characters from a Rob Zombie movie that hadn't come out yet at the time.

I grew up with a healthy respect for guns and thinking it was essential to own a gun, but also to keep it safe, never point it at anyone, fire it regularly at the range and keep it clean and in good working order.

But what does this mean about stopping violence? I was at the university by the time Columbine happened, bullying has been controlled a little better each year, but shootings get worse. What does that mean?


----------



## KnightBrolaire

narad said:


> You're trying to tie this to CNN, and spin it like some media bias. The guy is a morning anchor. Tweeting in his personal account, in his time off of work. It's not an example of investigative journalism gone wrong. It is a *retweet*
> 
> Like wow, the kid wasn't able to buy a gun in 5 minutes? I guess the system works!


I'm not saying this is tied to CNN, I just thought it was interesting that he'd retweet such an asinine post, especially since he claims to have bought a shotgun and should have some understanding of the ffl system. If he'd actually read the entirety of the original post he'd have seen how asinine it was. Anyways, can we all agree that twitter is 99% of the time a cesspit of stupidity?


----------



## narad

KnightBrolaire said:


> I'm not saying this is tied to CNN,



Well you did mention it twice in two short posts, so I'm kind of reading between the lines there.


----------



## Randy

KnightBrolaire said:


> Anyways, can we all agree that twitter is 99% of the time a cesspit of stupidity?



You're being generous.


----------



## possumkiller

As far as actual gun control in the US, I don't think it will ever work. There are just too many guns out there for them to ever confiscate. You can regulate manufacturing and sales of new firearms all day long. People will still be able to buy second-hand privately. I'm a felon and I know a lot of sources for firearms if I want one. 

In a perfect world we would start again from zero and regulate from there. My personal opinion is regardless of the second amendment, common sense dictates firearms should be regulated for public safety. There is nothing wrong with target shooting and hunting. I like both. You need a license to drive a car because it's dangerous. You have to prove yourself competent and trustworthy enough to operate a vehicle (another thing America is far too lax on). It should be the same with firearms.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

KnightBrolaire said:


> I bought a few guns through Mills Fleet Farm and it took about 2 weeks for the paperwork to go through for them.  Most of the time I buy from private sellers just because it's cheaper/faster than buying the stuff I want through a dealer. I got a sig p226 for next to nothing that way.



I had no idea Fleet Farm sold firearms. Must be a regional thing. None of them around here do. 

The point still stands. You [well, I guess not you exactly ] can easily get guns regardless of the super lax, easy to get around laws. Same day. Cheap. Zero real checks. 

The myth isn't that guns are easy to get, it's that they're difficult to get. 

The bar for getting a gun these days is a few hundred bucks and maybe an ID. That's not good.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

narad said:


> Well you did mention it twice in two short posts, so I'm kind of reading between the lines there.


Well it was kind of relevant information, otherwise it'd just be "rando retweets other rando's misleading tweet" instead of "cnn journalist retweets misleading tweet" and we wouldn't be talking about it


----------



## KnightBrolaire

MaxOfMetal said:


> I had no idea Fleet Farm sold firearms. Must be a regional thing. None of them around here do.
> 
> The point still stands. You [well, I guess not you exactly ] can easily get guns regardless of the super lax, easy to get around laws. Same day. Cheap. Zero real checks.
> 
> The myth isn't that guns are easy to get, it's that they're difficult to get.
> 
> The bar for getting a gun these days is a few hundred bucks and maybe an ID. That's not good.


Yeah it depends on where the fleet farm is located. There are other ones in the area that don't carry guns. I know it's super easy to get guns, I mentioned how I got my p226 from a private seller for next to nothing in one of my other posts. Seriously, I paid 150$ cash for it and the dude threw in 2 extra mags and a couple boxes of ammo.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> As far as actual gun control in the US, I don't think it will ever work. There are just too many guns out there for them to ever confiscate. You can regulate manufacturing and sales of new firearms all day long. People will still be able to buy second-hand privately. I'm a felon and I know a lot of sources for firearms if I want one.
> 
> In a perfect world we would start again from zero and regulate from there. My personal opinion is regardless of the second amendment, common sense dictates firearms should be regulated for public safety. There is nothing wrong with target shooting and hunting. I like both. You need a license to drive a car because it's dangerous. You have to prove yourself competent and trustworthy enough to operate a vehicle (another thing America is far too lax on). It should be the same with firearms.



No one thinks that this is an instant "light switch" kind of change. 

I said earlier that it's going to take at least a generation to see a real impact. 

Even closing the bigger loopholes will remove many of the gray and illegal firearms in due time.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> it's going to take at least a generation to see a real impact.



People won't wait that long. They started with the 1990s bans. GW let it expire. It won him a lot of voters in 2004. 

They can try something now. Later it will get repealed or overturned or expire.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> People won't wait that long. They started with the 1990s bans. GW let it expire. It won him a lot of voters in 2004.
> 
> They can try something now. Later it will get repealed or overturned or expire.



While I agree with parts of that argument, tell that to all the not-illegally modified, fully automatic machine guns that you can't buy at Dick's Sporting Goods.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> People won't wait that long. They started with the 1990s bans. GW let it expire. It won him a lot of voters in 2004.
> 
> They can try something now. Later it will get repealed or overturned or expire.



The biggest hurdle is folks saying it won't work. 

If it works it's going to be a tough sell to stop.


----------



## vilk

Real Question From a Guy Who's Never Operated a Firearm:

How long do guns stay "good"? Like, when I first started driving, it was pretty easy to grab a car made in the 80s. They were still running, if only barely. But these days? You don't see too many. Maybe if someone babied it and swaddled it in their garage and scheduled check-ups over the years... but in general, you're not really gonna find many, and even if you really, really wanted a certain one, the only ones you might find are probably in disrepair. You might be taking a real risk going out on the road in one.

If we translate this over to guns, how many years do you think that might be? Can you still pretty easily find working guns manufactured in the 80s? Do they develop an increasing probability of blowing up in your hand or anything?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> Real Question From a Guy Who's Never Operated a Firearm:
> 
> How long do guns stay "good"? Like, when I first started driving, it was pretty easy to grab a car made in the 80s. They were still running, if only barely. But these days? You don't see too many. Maybe if someone babied it and swaddled it in their garage and scheduled check-ups over the years... but in general, you're not really gonna find many, and even if you really, really wanted a certain one, the only ones you might find are probably in disrepair. You might be taking a real risk going out on the road in one.
> 
> If we translate this over to guns, how many years do you think that might be? Can you still pretty easily find working guns manufactured in the 80s? Do they develop an increasing probability of blowing up in your hand or anything?



It's a lot like guitars. If you preform regular maintenance the lifetime is almost indefinite. 

Unless you're shooting thousands of rounds a year, but even then maintenance and a replacement part here and there will make it so it can last decades.


----------



## cwhitey2

vilk said:


> Real Question From a Guy Who's Never Operated a Firearm:
> 
> How long do guns stay "good"? Like, when I first started driving, it was pretty easy to grab a car made in the 80s. They were still running, if only barely. But these days? You don't see too many. Maybe if someone babied it and swaddled it in their garage and scheduled check-ups over the years... but in general, you're not really gonna find many, and even if you really, really wanted a certain one, the only ones you might find are probably in disrepair. You might be taking a real risk going out on the road in one.
> 
> If we translate this over to guns, how many years do you think that might be? Can you still pretty easily find working guns manufactured in the 80s? Do they develop an increasing probability of blowing up in your hand or anything?



With proper maintenance...forever.

Most legal gun owners (at least the ones I know) take great care of their firearms.


----------



## possumkiller

vilk said:


> Real Question From a Guy Who's Never Operated a Firearm:
> 
> How long do guns stay "good"? Like, when I first started driving, it was pretty easy to grab a car made in the 80s. They were still running, if only barely. But these days? You don't see too many. Maybe if someone babied it and swaddled it in their garage and scheduled check-ups over the years... but in general, you're not really gonna find many, and even if you really, really wanted a certain one, the only ones you might find are probably in disrepair. You might be taking a real risk going out on the road in one.
> 
> If we translate this over to guns, how many years do you think that might be? Can you still pretty easily find working guns manufactured in the 80s? Do they develop an increasing probability of blowing up in your hand or anything?


I was using a WW2 mauser rifle. Still just as accurate and functional as it was in 1944. People still fire old revolvers and rifles from the 1800s. I'm sure there are firearms from the 1700s still quite capable of firing. Regular cleaning can keep a firearm in working order for a very long time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

cwhitey2 said:


> Most legal gun owners (at least the ones I know) take great care of their firearms.



Not at all.


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> While I agree with parts of that argument, tell that to all the not-illegally modified, fully automatic machine guns that you can't buy at Dick's Sporting Goods.


Ok. If I want an illegally modified fully automatic machine gun I wouldn't look at dicks to begin with. You don't look at walmarts pharmacy for heroin.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> You're being generous.


More like 100.0%.


----------



## cwhitey2

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not at all.


That's why I said the ones I know 

As a whole, I'm sure most don't, but that's just my experience.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not at all.


Do you know the gun owners he knows or something?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

cwhitey2 said:


> That's why I said the ones I know
> 
> As a whole, I'm sure most don't, but that's just my experience.



In my experience people take care of thier guns about as well as thier cars and guitars. 

Which is to say there's a reason there's a whole industry devoted to fixing them for people. 



possumkiller said:


> Ok. If I want an illegally modified fully automatic machine gun I wouldn't look at dicks to begin with. You don't look at walmarts pharmacy for heroin.



I think the point he was making is that things like banning of fully automatic weapons from regular sale has been fairly successful.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

vilk said:


> Real Question From a Guy Who's Never Operated a Firearm:
> 
> How long do guns stay "good"? Like, when I first started driving, it was pretty easy to grab a car made in the 80s. They were still running, if only barely. But these days? You don't see too many. Maybe if someone babied it and swaddled it in their garage and scheduled check-ups over the years... but in general, you're not really gonna find many, and even if you really, really wanted a certain one, the only ones you might find are probably in disrepair. You might be taking a real risk going out on the road in one.
> 
> If we translate this over to guns, how many years do you think that might be? Can you still pretty easily find working guns manufactured in the 80s? Do they develop an increasing probability of blowing up in your hand or anything?


depends on the gun and how well the previous owner maintained it. I used to have an M1 garand that my grandpa owned. It was 70 years old and still worked perfectly with some regular upkeep like cleaning/oiling. A lot of guns are relatively easy to operate/maintain. Catastrophic failures (like a gun blowing up in your hands) are nearly impossible for most common civilian guns without doing something stupid like deliberately jamming the barrel with debris/using incorrect ammo/utter neglect


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think the point he was making is that things like banning of fully automatic weapons from regular sale has been fairly successful.



Ah that makes more sense. Yes I always wondered if such a fuss was raised back in the 60s (I think?) when full autos were regulated. They aren't banned at all btw you just need a class 3 license to buy one and the ones still around cost a fortune.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> Ah that makes more sense. Yes I always wondered if such a fuss was raised back in the 60s (I think?) when full autos were regulated. They aren't banned at all btw you just need a class 3 license to buy one and the ones still around cost a fortune.



The culture was much different back then. There wasn't the gun industry lobby like it is today.

I think the framework of Class 3 would be a great starting point to apply to stuff like larger magazines and most semi-auto firearms. It's fairly proven, and as you said, it isn't itself an outright ban.


----------



## vilk

I do understand that if you perform regular maintenance on a gun it can last a long, long time. Just like a car. But here's a question: Do you suppose most gun owners do actually perform this regular gun maintenance? 

Do you suppose most gun owners are actually hobbiests who take their gun out and fire it from time to time? My assumption is that these people are a minority of gun owners. 

I mean, you can still see some pretty old cars driving at certain auto shows, but most people buy a car and then let it "rot", so to speak. People who drive their car all the time obviously _have_ to do a certain amount of up-keep, but people who own cars that they never drive, it's my understanding that when they go to start'er up after years without touching it that they will encounter problems.

Does this all still not transfer over to guns? (not a rhetorical question)


----------



## Explorer

narad said:


> You're trying to tie this to CNN, and spin it like some media bias. The guy is a morning anchor. Tweeting in his personal account, in his time off of work. It's not an example of investigative journalism gone wrong. It is a *retweet*.





KnightBrolaire said:


> I'm not saying this is tied to CNN.





narad said:


> Well you did mention it twice in two short posts, so I'm kind of reading between the lines there.





KnightBrolaire said:


> Well it was kind of relevant information, otherwise it'd just be "rando retweets other rando's misleading tweet" instead of "cnn journalist retweets misleading tweet" and we wouldn't be talking about it


I can't wait for KB to start a topic where he points out the asinine things the current president tweets about. 

Given how much more often Trump does so, @KnightBrolaire , when is that likely to happen?


----------



## narad

KnightBrolaire said:


> Well it was kind of relevant information, otherwise it'd just be "rando retweets other rando's misleading tweet" instead of "cnn journalist retweets misleading tweet" and we wouldn't be talking about it





Spaced Out Ace said:


> sadtrombone.wav
> 
> Is CNN just not trying anymore, or what? That or they think very lowly of their viewers.



See, just like that it went from a guy retweeting something in his off time, to an opinion about CNN news as an organization, even though they were not involved in any way. So you say it's not a comment about CNN news, but there's the result. Echo chamber at work.


----------



## possumkiller

vilk said:


> I do understand that if you perform regular maintenance on a gun it can last a long, long time. Just like a car. But here's a question: Do you suppose most gun owners do actually perform this regular gun maintenance?
> 
> Do you suppose most gun owners are actually hobbiests who take their gun out and fire it from time to time? My assumption is that these people are a minority of gun owners.
> 
> I mean, you can still see some pretty old cars driving at certain auto shows, but most people buy a car and then let it "rot", so to speak. People who drive their car all the time obviously _have_ to do a certain amount of up-keep, but people who own cars that they never drive, it's my understanding that when they go to start'er up after years without touching it that they will encounter problems.
> 
> Does this all still not transfer over to guns? (not a rhetorical question)


Well my dad actually claims to be a huge gun nut. He's been a benefactor member of the NRA for years now. He failed miserably at Amway three times so now he's found a way to buy some sense of accomplishment and respect by giving tons of money to the NRA. 

Anyway, like him the average joe blow gun owner really doesn't know jack about guns. Their guns sit in a cabinet 99.9999% of the time and are rarely fired or cleaned. 

Some people actually hunt during the season and those weapons are used then cleaned and put away until next season. 

Some people target shoot and competition shoot. I imagine competition shooters know more about weapons and perform more maintenance.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> I do understand that if you perform regular maintenance on a gun it can last a long, long time. Just like a car. But here's a question: Do you suppose most gun owners do actually perform this regular gun maintenance?
> 
> Do you suppose most gun owners are actually hobbiests who take their gun out and fire it from time to time? My assumption is that these people are a minority of gun owners.
> 
> I mean, you can still see some pretty old cars driving at certain auto shows, but most people buy a car and then let it "rot", so to speak. People who drive their car all the time obviously _have_ to do a certain amount of up-keep, but people who own cars that they never drive, it's my understanding that when they go to start'er up after years without touching it that they will encounter problems.
> 
> Does this all still not transfer over to guns? (not a rhetorical question)



Like most things, most people do not preform proper, regular maintenance.

That said, depending on the make, style and model some firearms need very little upkeep outside of an occasional cleaning and lubing, even with moderate use.

It's important to note that legally, a gun is just the serialized (or supposed to be serialized as the case may be) frame. Stuff like moving parts and barrels can be easily and legally swapped out with no form of registration or checks.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Like most things, most people do not preform proper, regular maintenance.
> 
> That said, depending on the make, style and model some firearms need very little upkeep outside of an occasional cleaning and lubing, even with moderate use.
> 
> It's important to note that legally, a gun is just the serialized (or supposed to be serialized as the case may be) frame. Stuff like moving parts and barrels can be easily and legally swapped out with no form of registration or checks.


Right so if you do happen to shoot someone. Swap out barrels and drill the old one out before grinding it into steel dust and melting it down into a paperweight.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Explorer said:


> I can't wait for KB to start a topic where he points out the asinine things the current president tweets about.
> 
> Given how much more often Trump does so, @KnightBrolaire , when is that likely to happen?


If you want a play by play commentary on the stupid shit he tweets then just cruise some left leaning meme page 


vilk said:


> I do understand that if you perform regular maintenance on a gun it can last a long, long time. Just like a car. But here's a question: Do you suppose most gun owners do actually perform this regular gun maintenance?
> 
> Do you suppose most gun owners are actually hobbiests who take their gun out and fire it from time to time? My assumption is that these people are a minority of gun owners.
> 
> I mean, you can still see some pretty old cars driving at certain auto shows, but most people buy a car and then let it "rot", so to speak. People who drive their car all the time obviously _have_ to do a certain amount of up-keep, but people who own cars that they never drive, it's my understanding that when they go to start'er up after years without touching it that they will encounter problems.
> 
> Does this all still not transfer over to guns? (not a rhetorical question)


It really depends on the owner and the weapon. I've seen some weapons that haven't been cleaned in years and they still shoot fine (but the owners also put less than 100 rounds a year through them) and others that jam even when pretty clean (ie keltec rfb, m4s when using shit ammo). Personally i'm OCD about my weapons and like to clean them after every trip to the range. M4s and most AR styled weapons are kind of finicky about sand/mud/dirt/carbon buildup so they need more upkeep.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> Right so if you do happen to shoot someone. Swap out barrels and drill the old one out before grinding it into steel dust and melting it down into a paperweight.



I was more or less referring to how hassle free it is to replace practically the whole firearm, bar one piece. 

Even then, 80% lowers and frames are becoming cheaper, more plentiful and easier to work.


----------



## possumkiller

Yes I'll never understand why the US government went along with a direct injection gas blowback system. For like almost 60 years now. Every other military rifle in the world uses a piston. Even our previous rifles used pistons.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> I was more or less referring to how hassle free it is to replace practically the whole firearm, bar one piece.
> 
> Even then, 80% lowers and frames are becoming cheaper, more plentiful and easier to work.


Yeah I was just giving some free advice to any would be murderers lol.


----------



## Explorer

Explorer said:


> I can't wait for KB to start a topic where he points out the asinine things the current president tweets about.
> 
> Given how much more often Trump does so, @KnightBrolaire , when is that likely to happen?





KnightBrolaire said:


> If you want a play by play commentary on the stupid shit he tweets then just cruise some left leaning meme page


I don't necessarily need it. I just thought it was noteworthy that you were trying repeatedly to make a case as to how someone's tweets in their off time reflected on their job, and I was pretty sure any response you gave, regarding why a much more powerful person tweeting as part of his chosen official communications, would show your inconsistent standards for getting your faux outrage up.

And. I was right!


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Explorer said:


> I don't necessarily need it. I just thought it was noteworthy that you were trying repeatedly to make a case as to how someone's tweets in their off time reflected on their job, and I was pretty sure any response you gave, regarding why a much more powerful person tweeting as part of his chosen official communications, would show your inconsistent standards for getting your faux outrage up.
> 
> And. I was right!


oh no you got me there :eyeroll: I wasn't outraged about the cnn journalist, I just thought given the fact that he's a journalist he might actually read the shit he retweets. Guess not. Trump has consistently talked out of his ass/tweeted dumb stuff for years so I'm not in any way surprised by it. Besides the tweets were related to the overall discussion, unlike this tangent.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

So just to add insult to injury regarding the debate over bringing more guns into schools:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/florida-school-shooting/index.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...who-never-went-in-during-shooting-report.html

[Two sources provided so we can stop talking about CNN.]

I get that it's a hard tactical call to make, and I actually think I'd side with the deputy as far as not just running in blind shooting. But it stresses the point that the "good guy with a gun" scenario isn't very effective in the real world. If this trained LEO can't/won't engage, how can a teacher?


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> So just to add insult to injury regarding the debate over bringing more guns into schools:
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/florida-school-shooting/index.htm
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...who-never-went-in-during-shooting-report.html
> 
> [Two sources provided so we can stop talking about CNN.]
> 
> I get that it's a hard tactical call to make, and I actually think I'd side with the deputy as far as not just running in blind shooting. But it stresses the point that the "good guy with a gun" scenario isn't very effective in the real world. If this trained LEO can't/won't engage, how can a teacher?


Seriously, though, how is arming teachers to prevent school shootings not literally a bad joke? Does any of the logic pass anyone's smell test for real?! To me, it's such a stupid proposition that I just can't take it seriously at all.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Seriously, though, how is arming teachers to prevent school shootings not literally a bad joke? Does any of the logic pass anyone's smell test for real?! To me, it's such a stupid proposition that I just can't take it seriously at all.



I look at it this way:

1) It would push the narrative of "good guy with a gun."

2) Would make it look like the right is doing something.

3) Open up more contracts for gun manufacturers.

4) Further normalize guns around kids, start them young. 

Plus it's likely going to lead to further escalation in the future.


----------



## possumkiller

Yeah I was imagining Family Guy doing a cutaway for kids outside at recess playing Chinese Bullet Tag running, hiding, jumping, laughing and blowing each other to pieces similar to when Joe brought his guns from work to play in Peter's living room.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> I look at it this way:
> 
> 1) It would push the narrative of "good guy with a gun."
> 
> 2) Would make it look like the right is doing something.
> 
> 3) Open up more contracts for gun manufacturers.
> 
> 4) Further normalize guns around kids, start them young.
> 
> Plus it's likely going to lead to further escalation in the future.



1) Or... 60-year old kindergarten teacher with a gun, which, for me, really goes against what the NRA is trying to do here.
2) Or... Make it look like "the right" (which I would be more careful to say "proponents of this idiotic plan") have absolutely no idea whatsoever how to brainstorm anything that doesn't sound completely idiotic.
3) Yeah, maybe, but really, for only me, I guess, the mental picture of a school full of children with faculty wearing holsters with guns is just too much. I mean, have these people not thought this through at all? Yeah, there are some swell teachers out there, but in general, they are not saints. Some teachers have no business being around kids anyway, and you want to hand them all guns and mandate that they carry them?! Has no one else ever had a bad teacher?! Most of my teachers were awesome teachers, but probably most of them had some mental issues. My high school history/economics teacher thought the apocalypse was coming New Year's Day Y2k, and took every opportunity to warn us all to stockpile everything before then. When we showed him that we could change the date on the computer to 2001 and nothing happened, he got really angry with us. My ninth grade English teacher thought two students were possessed by demons. My geometry teacher heard voices and even tried to record them and play them for the principle. My gym high school teacher was just weird and creepy, and was later convicted of sexual assault against a child. I had a physic teacher with narcolepsy - how would that work out if he had a gun on him? Most of these teachers didn't last more than a year, but honestly, they usually would just fire them and replace them with someone else with equally serious issues. We want to require these sorts of people to carry a firearm in a school?! Jesus Christ! To me, it's honestly a joke. I can't think it through seriously, because, for me, the idea makes zero logical sense. Yeah, sell more guns...okay, maybe that's a good short term plan for NRA lobbyists, but, in the long run, a plan like that is only going to place the USA a hell of a lot closer to just banning guns across the board.
4) There are a million and one better ways. In the face of this shooting in FL, though, where the shooter was such a gun hobbyist, I think that point really resonates more like brassy wet fart during a moment of silence than like anything the people advocating the idea might want.

I think we're mostly on the same page in hating this idea, but in my eyes, the idea is just the definition of ludicrous. I don't see any possible way of this *not *backfiring. Am I blowing something out of proportion here, or what?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Oh, this is totally a stupid idea that's going to either not do a damn thing at best and lead to more death at worst. 

I just see why it fits thier agenda. Pro tip: it's not saving kids.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Oh, this is totally a stupid idea that's going to either not do a damn thing at best and lead to more death at worst.
> 
> I just see why it fits thier agenda. Pro tip: it's not saving kids.


Aren't the people at the top of most industries this way though? 
Tobacco and food companies don't care about killing people either. 
This is just the kind of stuff that goes on when super wealthy industrialists and their buddies are allowed to rule the country.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> Aren't the people at the top of most industries this way though?
> Tobacco and food companies don't care about killing people either.
> This is just the kind of stuff that goes on when super wealthy industrialists and their buddies are allowed to rule the country.



Doesn't make it right.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

MaxOfMetal said:


> So just to add insult to injury regarding the debate over bringing more guns into schools:
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/florida-school-shooting/index.htm
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...who-never-went-in-during-shooting-report.html
> 
> [Two sources provided so we can stop talking about CNN.]
> 
> I get that it's a hard tactical call to make, and I actually think I'd side with the deputy as far as not just running in blind shooting. But it stresses the point that the "good guy with a gun" scenario isn't very effective in the real world. If this trained LEO can't/won't engage, how can a teacher?


I don't know what the SOP they have at that sheriff dept. but a lot of PDs won't allow a single officer to engage and tell them to wait for backup. Doesn't help that a lot of deputies (depends on the county) aren't consistently training kill houses/reactive firing situations, which would probably make them a liability in that type of situation anyways.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Doesn't make it right.


Well no but right doesn't really matter. They face no real consequences for doing wrong. They are all in politics for decades and have the system set up to protect them. 

How many wealthy politicians that come from wealthy families ever were held responsible, served prison time, lost every penny? 

Everywhere we go there are cameras watching us, people monitoring our commutations. We are assumed to be criminals in waiting. We are required to submit, be transparent and honest. Who is watching them? Who is monitoring them and holding them accountable?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

KnightBrolaire said:


> I don't know what the SOP they have at that sheriff dept. but a lot of PDs won't allow a single officer to engage and tell them to wait for backup. Doesn't help that a lot of deputies (depends on the county) aren't consistently training kill houses/reactive firing situations, which would probably make them a liability in that type of situation anyways.



Which is why I said that I agree with what he did. Running in half-cocked (no pun) just because he's armed wouldn't have helped anyone. 

But his job involves some level of firearm competency and even he knew not engage. I can't say an armed teacher would be any better. 



possumkiller said:


> Who is watching them? Who is monitoring them and holding them accountable?



We are. It's our job. We've just done absolutely awful job of it. We've been absent and apathetic. Misguided and blissfully ignorant.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> We are. It's our job. We've just done absolutely awful job of it. We've been absent and apathetic. Misguided and blissfully ignorant.



Dun dun dun DUNNNN!!!!!!!!!

Yes. How do we change this and get the common folk (especially the 75%) to actually hurt their brains long enough to learn something and care enough to get off bookface and do something?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> Dun dun dun DUNNNN!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Yes. How do we change this and get the common folk (especially the 75%) to actually hurt their brains long enough to learn something and care enough to get off bookface and do something?



Things typically get worse before they get better, and the powers at be are making things awfully bad. 

I really believe we're at something of a turning point politically in this country. 

Whether that means that we're going to turn this ship around and right the course or sink the whole damn thing remains to be seen.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Things typically get worse before they get better, and the powers at be are making things awfully bad.
> 
> I really believe we're at something of a turning point politically in this country.
> 
> Whether that means that we're going to turn this ship around and right the course or sink the whole damn thing remains to be seen.


I agree.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I can't say an armed teacher would be any better.



Right? So if the policy isn't to engage unless you have backup, that means the teachers won't shoot back until they're in some kind of SWAT team formation? What the actual fuck is going on?


----------



## Explorer

I think the strategy is, even if this is a stupid idea, having people arguing over this is better than them looking at Russia's interference in US elections and connections to the Trump administration and the NRA.


----------



## Rosal76

vilk said:


> Does this all still not transfer over to guns? (not a rhetorical question)



Depending on the owner and how well he takes care of his firearms, yes, it can (damage/problems) happen. Firearms like cars have their weak spots when left alone for long periods of time when not looked after. Rust will affect metal parts, weathering will affect certain finishes like stainless steel, rifles with wooden stocks can warp, springs will lose their springiness, barrel fouling will be harder to clean if not cleaned thoroughly, etc, etc, etc. Obviously, a firearm is far more easier to take care of over a car because of the larger amount of parts on a car. It just depends on the owner.


----------



## narad

"Florida shooting survivor: We should call AR-15s ‘Marco Rubio’ because they’re both easy to buy"

Daaamn, where's the medic? Waiting behind the building for 4 minutes?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Welp, there goes the "waiting for backup" theory. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

What's the conversion of armed teachers to deputies? Is it like one armed teacher is worth two deputies? Would it be the other way around?


----------



## pwsusi

I voted No. This poll is way too vague. It depends on what the definition of "gun control" is. "Gun control" is like the war on drugs, it's something that will never be completely solved no matter how much money we throw at it or laws we throw on the books. We can have law after law but at the end of the day laws only apply to law abiding citizens; those that deliberately go out of their way to commit an atrocity such as this don't care what the laws are. They will find a way cause mass destruction. I'm not saying we don't need gun laws and I'm open to create more if sensible, but the problem is it seems a lot of the gun control rhetoric is feel good type of stuff that really won't do anything to fix the problem except infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens. It doesn't matter how many hoops we make people jump through to get a gun...a bad guy will get their hands on one. Even if we confiscated every single one of the 300+ million guns (which i know gun control advocates aren't necessarily proposing) they will always be available on the black market, coming in over our borders or resorting to other weapons of mass destruction like what we saw in the Boston marathon. 

Here are a few things that I think make more sense then "gun control"

First and foremost while we figure this out make the schools more safe. Have some kind of marshal or other trained person on the premesis at least until we get a handle on things. Don't arm teachers, they're there to teach...get someone trained. it's foolish to think an armed person isn't going to help a situation where a bad guy has a gun. Think about it, what usually always ends a situation like this.... law enforcement showing up WITH GUNS. It's a matter of having someone trained and there as opposed to showing up after the carnage has happened. 

Second is security -- When I go to work i swipe a badge and walk through a turnstile that lets one person in at a time. At a minimum schools need similar security. The buzzer thing is a joke. Receptionists let everyone in and it's not like a bad guy is going to be out there waving a gun at the buzzer. We should be hiring security experts to look at this. Other things like biometrics, better lock systems that secure people in that aren't a problem in terms of letting people out in the case of a fire, etc. I'd leave it to the experts.

Third is improving gun technology as opposed limiting access to guns. Limited access to guns and infriging on the the rights of for law abiding citizens does not thing for people who don't care about laws. A kid may steal their parents gun, get one on the black market, use a pressure cooker like the boston marathon etc. My kid can't access my phone because he he can't unlock it. If it's simple enough for a smart phone why can't we have this for guns. Perhaps fingerprint technology that will not let a gun be fired by anyone but it's owner. Perhaps something that doesn't allow ti to fire if you're under the influence, etc. Just like having a car that won't start if you have to breathe into a breathalizer would be more effective than another another drunk driving law...same concept. Limiting how many guns or what type of gun a good law abiding person can have does very little. Better to make the guns smarter so they cannot be abused by someone who chooses to abuse them. 

Last and most importantly is our culture -- None of the above completely solve the problem. The real problem is some people are nuts...always has and always will be the case. Seems we have more of them now for various reasons. It's laughable that gun control advocates complain so much about the NRA but say nothing about all the violence in movies and video games that glorify guns. These things have more of an impact on the thoughts and actions of crazy person than the NRA does. Instead of being so quick to jump on responsible gun owners as if they're the problem maybe we should be looking at how we glorify violence and the impact on impressionable minds. How about also help for problem kids who may not be getting proper parenting and other mentally ill people. I'm open to restricting access to guns for these people but the problem defining who fits that criteria and remembering that a first time offender who hasn't been deemed mentally ill yet can do just as much harm.


----------



## narad

It's like a broken record.



pwsusi said:


> it's foolish to think an armed person isn't going to help a situation where a bad guy has a gun.



You literally just saw this happen, both with the guard and with deputies who showed up.



pwsusi said:


> Second is security -- When I go to work i swipe a badge and walk through a turnstile that lets one person in at a time.



So they're already cutting funding to tons of school programs, and you basically want a TSA at every one. Not accounting for the fact that schools have many entrances/exits



pwsusi said:


> Perhaps fingerprint technology that will not let a gun be fired by anyone but it's owner. Perhaps something that doesn't allow ti to fire if you're under the influence, etc. Just like having a car that won't start if you have to breathe into a breathalizer would be more effective than another another drunk driving law...same concept. Limiting how many guns or what type of gun a good law abiding person can have does very little. Better to make the guns smarter so they cannot be abused by someone who chooses to abuse them.



This is universally hated. Gun owners don't want their guns refusing to fire in a clutch situation. And the gun owners ARE the ones committing the crimes. They're legally obtained.



pwsusi said:


> Last and most importantly is our culture -- None of the above completely solve the problem. The real problem is some people are nuts...always has and always will be the case. Seems we have more of them now for various reasons. It's laughable that gun control advocates complain so much about the NRA but say nothing about all the violence in movies and video games that glorify guns. These things have more of an impact on the thoughts and actions of crazy person than the NRA does. Instead of being so quick to jump on responsible gun owners as if they're the problem maybe we should be looking at how we glorify violence and the impact on impressionable minds. How about also help for problem kids who may not be getting proper parenting and other mentally ill people. I'm open to restricting access to guns for these people but the problem defining who fits that criteria and remembering that a first time offender who hasn't been deemed mentally ill yet can do just as much harm.



Why are so many young impressionable minds calling for increased gun control? The groups advocating for arming teachers and putting guns everywhere are the same ones that make fun of kids sitting around playing video games. This is besides scientific studies that do not support this story at all. And besides spending my youth playing mortal kombat and the like, only to freak the fuck out when I wound up in front of an actual cadaver (and immediately abandoned my intentions of being a doctor). Real life is not video games. Weirdly the people who have the hardest time grasping that are the people that don't play them.

And like, jeez, we could make it harder for mentally ill or troubled young people to legally purchase guns, or we could just ..*remove violence from life*??

Have you even seen the NRA TV channel? Those are the people glorifying guns.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

pwsusi said:


> I voted No. This poll is way too vague. It depends on what the definition of "gun control" is. "Gun control" is like the war on drugs, it's something that will never be completely solved no matter how much money we throw at it or laws we throw on the books. We can have law after law but at the end of the day laws only apply to law abiding citizens; those that deliberately go out of their way to commit an atrocity such as this don't care what the laws are. They will find a way cause mass destruction. I'm not saying we don't need gun laws and I'm open to create more if sensible, but the problem is it seems a lot of the gun control rhetoric is feel good type of stuff that really won't do anything to fix the problem except infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens. It doesn't matter how many hoops we make people jump through to get a gun...a bad guy will get their hands on one. Even if we confiscated every single one of the 300+ million guns (which i know gun control advocates aren't necessarily proposing) they will always be available on the black market, coming in over our borders or resorting to other weapons of mass destruction like what we saw in the Boston marathon.



You took the time to write that all out, but didn't even skim the thread?

Obviously nothing is going to stop everything. That's not the point. 

Gun Control has worked well in every single modern society. Why wouldn't it at least curb the problem here? We have tons of data from all over the world. The burden is on the "no" folks to come up with a compelling argument besides "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."



> Here are a few things that I think make more sense then "gun control"
> 
> First and foremost while we figure this out make the schools more safe. Have some kind of marshal or other trained person on the premesis at least until we get a handle on things. Don't arm teachers, they're there to teach...get someone trained. it's foolish to think an armed person isn't going to help a situation where a bad guy has a gun. Think about it, what usually always ends a situation like this.... law enforcement showing up WITH GUNS. It's a matter of having someone trained and there as opposed to showing up after the carnage has happened.



Are you even trying? There was an armed officer at the school at all times. 

I grew up in the Broward Country School System and there was always an armed Resource Officer even going back to elementary school. 



> Second is security -- When I go to work i swipe a badge and walk through a turnstile that lets one person in at a time. At a minimum schools need similar security. The buzzer thing is a joke. Receptionists let everyone in and it's not like a bad guy is going to be out there waving a gun at the buzzer. We should be hiring security experts to look at this. Other things like biometrics, better lock systems that secure people in that aren't a problem in terms of letting people out in the case of a fire, etc. I'd leave it to the experts.



All of the schools I attended (two public, three college) since my early teens has had some form of magnetic/RFID system in place. Not to mention tons of cameras and exterior fencing. 

We can't fortify the schools. Remember the Ft. Hood shooting? If folks can get onto a base, they can get into a school. 



> Third is improving gun technology as opposed limiting access to guns. Limited access to guns and infriging on the the rights of for law abiding citizens does not thing for people who don't care about laws. A kid may steal their parents gun, get one on the black market, use a pressure cooker like the boston marathon etc. My kid can't access my phone because he he can't unlock it. If it's simple enough for a smart phone why can't we have this for guns. Perhaps fingerprint technology that will not let a gun be fired by anyone but it's owner. Perhaps something that doesn't allow ti to fire if you're under the influence, etc. Just like having a car that won't start if you have to breathe into a breathalizer would be more effective than another another drunk driving law...same concept. Limiting how many guns or what type of gun a good law abiding person can have does very little. Better to make the guns smarter so they cannot be abused by someone who chooses to abuse them.



Reducing the amount of legal firearms will reduce the number of instances of theft of firearms, as well as accidental shooting, and illegal guns.

They're developing "Smart Guns", have been for years. The thing is biometric technology is garbage. It's always been easy to defeat and unless there is a breakthrough, it always will be. The biometric locks on cell phones are constantly being hacked. 



> Last and most importantly is our culture -- None of the above completely solve the problem. The real problem is some people are nuts...always has and always will be the case. Seems we have more of them now for various reasons. It's laughable that gun control advocates complain so much about the NRA but say nothing about all the violence in movies and video games that glorify guns. These things have more of an impact on the thoughts and actions of crazy person than the NRA does. Instead of being so quick to jump on responsible gun owners as if they're the problem maybe we should be looking at how we glorify violence and the impact on impressionable minds. How about also help for problem kids who may not be getting proper parenting and other mentally ill people. I'm open to restricting access to guns for these people but the problem defining who fits that criteria and remembering that a first time offender who hasn't been deemed mentally ill yet can do just as much harm.



Every nation has it's "nuts" or angry people who just want to do terrible things. We're just the only place that it happens this much, we also happen to be the only place to have this many guns. 

The United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Australia, France, Canada, etc. all have violent movies and video games. This argument has been used since the 80's and has been disproven again and again.


----------



## StevenC

Not to stereotype too much, but I feel like telling American gun nuts that gun control works in "the rest of the world" is like telling a christian how great Buddha is.


----------



## pwsusi

MaxOfMetal said:


> Gun Control has worked well in every single modern society. Why wouldn't it at least curb the problem here? We have tons of data from all over the world. The burden is on the "no" folks to come up with a compelling argument besides "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."


Data about guns from all over the world does not take into account the culture and society. Guns are only part of the problem. The burden isn't on the No folks, it's on the Yes folks when right here in the US Detroit has some of the strictest gun laws yet we see the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make. As for your comment "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."... you must have responded before you read the rest of the post because there are other suggestions made. No one is throwing their hands up in the air. The point was, let's focus on other things that may have a greater impact.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Are you even trying? There was an armed officer at the school at all times.


Patronizing doesn't help your argument or help change anyone's mind. It actually does the exact opposite which is a part of the problem with many on both sides of this debate.


MaxOfMetal said:


> There was an armed officer at the school at all times.


Right, and in this case the officer was a disgrace and stood outside instead of going in and doing what was necessary so you can't really use that to make the argument against this. Had he done his job it would have helped the situation, no? It's not a solution, but certainly one measure to help secure the premises. Just about every one of these situations ends with a good guy and a gun.


MaxOfMetal said:


> I grew up in the Broward Country School System and there was always an armed Resource Officer even going back to elementary school.
> 
> All of the schools I attended (two public, three college) since my early teens has had some form of magnetic/RFID system in place. Not to mention tons of cameras and exterior fencing.
> 
> We can't fortify the schools. Remember the Ft. Hood shooting? If folks can get onto a base, they can get into a school.


Any how many school shootings were you when you were there? Is it because of the armed guard...maybe, maybe not. Would there have been shootings if they weren't there...who knows. Nothing is fool proof for sure, but they are measures taken for a reason, no? Would you feel safer if they were removed? As you said earlier. (and i think appropriate here) .. "Obviously nothing is going to stop everything. That's not the point. Why wouldn't it at least curb the problem here? The burden is on the "no" (armed guards/magnetic/RFID) folks to come up with a compelling argument besides "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."


MaxOfMetal said:


> Reducing the amount of legal firearms will reduce the number of instances of theft of firearms, as well as accidental shooting, and illegal guns.


Says who? Will reducing the number of prescriptions written by doctors reduce the number of drug overdoses, and use of illegal drugs? And if so at what cost? I realize denying people prescription meds isn't the same as denying someone from legally obtaining a gun...but limiting access to law abiding people because of what law breaking people may do is not the solution. Remember the Boston Marathon?


MaxOfMetal said:


> They're developing "Smart Guns", have been for years. The thing is biometric technology is garbage. It's always been easy to defeat and unless there is a breakthrough, it always will be. The biometric locks on cell phones are constantly being hacked.


You're making my point. Someone with ill intent who is determined and knows what they're doing will navigate their way around just about everything to get what they want. That doesn't mean people should stop locking their phones, their houses or start shopping on websites with unsigned certificates and not using 128 bit encryption.


MaxOfMetal said:


> Every nation has it's "nuts" or angry people who just want to do terrible things. We're just the only place that it happens this much, we also happen to be the only place to have this many guns.
> 
> The United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Australia, France, Canada, etc. all have violent movies and video games. This argument has been used since the 80's and has been disproven again and again.


My point wasn't really about the movies or video games. It's more about our society, broken homes, kids that are abused, poverty, etc, etc. These all play into it but just counting the number of guns does not tell the whole story. My point on the movies and video games is that gun control advocates are often asking those on the other side to give up something and viewed as not giving up anything in return. That makes it difficult to compromise if one side doesn't have skin in the game. What are non gun owners willing to give up to fix this problem?

In summary, I think you missed the point. You spent a lot of time shooting down each point as to why it's not a solution however none of these were intended to be a single solution, but instead measures we can look at which in aggregate can help the situation. I'd be willing to include additional gun laws in there too, as well as stricter enforcement of laws we have on the books. The problem is though you spent a lot of time shooting down ideas (no pun intended) but offered nothing except a vague statement about limiting the number of legal guns ... which i could use all your same arguments to refute. LIke my suggestions it may help some, but unlike some of the other measures has some issues with respect to the bill of rights and quite frankly (and we disagree) may be less effective. If we can start by proposing specifics on how we're going to limit guns then that would be a good debate to have, but I see this is opening a can of worms in terms of all the problems, and really disagree as I see the the people being the real the problem here and not the guns themselves.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

pwsusi said:


> Data about guns from all over the world does not take into account the culture and society.



I never said it did. But, it certainly combats the argument that there's something "different" about the movies, TV and video games.



> Guns are only part of the problem.



So we can agree that guns are a problem. Progress.



> The burden isn't on the No folks, it's on the Yes folks when right here in the US Detroit has some of the strictest gun laws yet we see the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make. As for your comment "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."... you must have responded before you read the rest of the post because there are other suggestions made. No one is throwing their hands up in the air. The point was, let's focus on other things that may have a greater impact.



Once again, if you had bothered to read even a little bit of what was already posted, places with strict gun laws like Detroit and Chicago still have problems because the areas around them have some of the most lax gun laws. Over 60% of guns involved in crimes in Chicago come from Indiana.



> Patronizing doesn't help your argument or help change anyone's mind. It actually does the exact opposite which is a part of the problem with many on both sides of this debate.



Disregarding all the constructive conversation we've already had in here just to rehash the same lame points is just as disrespectful.

I'm sorry if me being real with you is getting in the way of you thinking logically to help stop kids dying.



> Right, and in this case the officer was a disgrace and stood outside instead of going in and doing what was necessary so you can't really use that to make the argument against this. Had he done his job it would have helped the situation, no? It's not a solution, but certainly one measure to help secure the premises. Just about every one of these situations ends with a good guy and a gun.



Officers. Once again, please put a little effort in. There were four officers total at the scene. Would a fifth have helped?

That's also incorrect. In most school shootings the perpetrator either surrenders or turns the guns on themselves.



> Any how many school shootings were you when you were there?



While I was a student in the BCSS, there were two incidents, no deaths if I remember correctly. Not at my school, thankfully, but I lived in a somewhat affluent area.



> Is it because of the armed guard...maybe, maybe not. Would there have been shootings if they weren't there...who knows. Nothing is fool proof for sure, but they are measures taken for a reason, no? Would you feel safer if they were removed?



Considering one of the Resource Officers for one of my schools was later found out to be touching kids inappropriately, I think I would have been fine not having one.

These guys are human. They're not perfect. They can be amazing or terrible, just like the rest of society.



> As you said earlier. (and i think appropriate here) .. "Obviously nothing is going to stop everything. That's not the point. Why wouldn't it at least curb the problem here? The burden is on the "no" (armed guards/magnetic/RFID) folks to come up with a compelling argument besides "it's not going to fix everything instantly, so why bother."



Can you please show me where folks are saying to remove all protections?



> Says who? Will reducing the number of prescriptions written by doctors reduce the number of drug overdoses, and use of illegal drugs? And if so at what cost? I realize denying people prescription meds isn't the same as denying someone from legally obtaining a gun...but limiting access to law abiding people because of what law breaking people may do is not the solution. Remember the Boston Marathon?



Have you been reading the news lately? Have you heard of the opiate epidemic this country is facing? It's rooted in doctors overprescribing. It's well documented.

But, we're already talking about stopping law abiding citizens from obtaining guns, unless mental illness has been completely criminalized.



> You're making my point. Someone with ill intent who is determined and knows what they're doing will navigate their way around just about everything to get what they want. That doesn't mean people should stop locking their phones, their houses or start shopping on websites with unsigned certificates and not using 128 bit encryption.



So we should make it as easy as possible?

The statistics show that the more roadblocks you put in the way, the more you stop. Whether we're talking about violence or suicide.



> My point wasn't really about the movies or video games.



You're the one who brought it up. 



> It's more about our society, broken homes, kids that are abused, poverty, etc, etc. These all play into it but just counting the number of guns does not tell the whole story. My point on the movies and video games is that gun control advocates are often asking those on the other side to give up something and viewed as not giving up anything on their own. That makes it difficult to compromise if one side doesn't have skin in the game. What are non gun owners willing to give up to fix this problem?



I'm a gun owner, and would HAPPILY surrender them if it meant that kids wouldn't die.

But, if someone doesn't own a gun, what should they give? This makes no sense.



> In summary, I think you missed the point. You spent a lot of time shooting down each point as to why it's not a solution however none of these were intended to be a single solution, but instead measures we can look at which in aggregate can help the situation. I'd be willing to include additional gun laws in there too, as well as stricter enforcement of laws we have on the books. The problem is though you spent a lot of time shooting down ideas (no pun intended) but offered nothing except a vague statement about limiting the number of legal guns ... which i could use all your same arguments to refute. LIke my suggestions it may help some, but unlike some of the other measures has some issues with respect to the bill of rights and quite frankly (and we disagree) may be less effective. If we can start by proposing specifics on how we're going to limit guns then that would be a good debate to have, but I see this is opening a can of worms when you take into account the fact that the people are really the problem here and not the guns themselves.



In summary, read the thread before commenting. Everything has been discussed, from disproving your red herrings and straw men, to proposing what a "good" law or set of laws might look like.


----------



## narad

pwsusi said:


> Says who? Will reducing the number of prescriptions written by doctors reduce the number of drug overdoses, and use of illegal drugs? And if so at what cost? I realize denying people prescription meds isn't the same as denying someone from legally obtaining a gun...but limiting access to law abiding people because of what law breaking people may do is not the solution.











pwsusi said:


> My point wasn't really about the movies or video games. It's more about our society, broken homes, kids that are abused, poverty, etc, etc. These all play into it but just counting the number of guns does not tell the whole story. My point on the movies and video games is that gun control advocates are often asking those on the other side to give up something and viewed as not giving up anything in return. That makes it difficult to compromise if one side doesn't have skin in the game. What are non gun owners willing to give up to fix this problem?



Ownership of guns is conclusively linked to school shootings, video games are not. That's why people want policy changes that affect guns, and not those that affect video games. I want to be an open-minded person but when points like these are made it really makes me feel like there's just an intellectual gap across the divides of this debate. You might as well be asking for non-gun-owners to give up red meat so that we can have stricter gun control [not an exaggeration].


----------



## pwsusi

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm a gun owner, and would HAPPILY surrender them if it meant that kids wouldn't die.


So why haven't you? If you haven't one can only conclude from this statement that you don't think it will have this result otherwise you would have already done so. Your whole argument is centered around reducing the number of guns out there, why don't you lead by example and start with the one(s) you have control over, or is this more about restricting guns to other people that you or some government agency should think should have them? It's a slippery slope. Your gun is one more gun that could be doing harm, no? How about leading by example. Ironically I'm not a gun owner, and don't think your gun is contributing to the problem at all nor do i think it matters what kind you have or how many you should have. It's not of my business. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> In summary, read the thread before commenting. Everything has been discussed, from disproving your red herrings and straw men, to proposing what a "good" law or set of laws might look like.


You're completely missing my points. Either it's because of the method in which we're communicating or perhaps because you're not interested in hearing any opposing views (or both). You seem to have it all figured out. If only the rest of the world were as smart. You should run for office, you'd fit in well...this is EXACTLY why nothing gets done. Nice chatting.


----------



## pwsusi

narad said:


>


This isn't a very persuasive counter argument


----------



## MaxOfMetal

pwsusi said:


> So why haven't you? If you haven't one can only conclude from this statement that you don't think it will have this result otherwise you would have already done so. Your whole argument is centered around reducing the number of guns out there, why don't you lead by example and start with the one(s) you have control over, or is this more about restricting guns to other people that you or some government agency should think should have them? It's a slippery slope. Your gun is one more gun that could be doing harm, no? How about leading by example. Ironically I'm not a gun owner, and don't think your gun is contributing to the problem at all nor do i think it matters what kind you have or how many you should have. It's not of my business.
> 
> 
> You're completely missing my points. Either it's because of the method in which we're communicating or perhaps because you're not interested in hearing any opposing views (or both). You seem to have it all figured out. If only the rest of the world were as smart. You should run for office, you'd fit in well...this is EXACTLY why nothing gets done. Nice chatting.



I'm not for zero guns. Which I've said numerous times. I'm for reasonable policy to reduce the amount of guns that are used for crime.

I don't leave guns out. I keep them locked in a permanently mounted safe. They're unloaded until I go to the range. I keep ammo locked in a separate cabinet in a room removed from where the gunsafe is. I don't let people handle them outside of a small circle of close friends at the range. My will states that they are to be destroyed when I die. All my stuff is legal and registered, including my home builds. Who else do you know who registers thier 80% builds? I don't talk about them to most people. In fact I've probably discussed them more in this thread than I have in a long while.

If all gun owners were as responsible, we wouldn't be having this discussion because everyone would properly self regulate.

The fact of the matter is many gun owners treat them as toys. They wear them in public, leave them in cars, sell them on the internet. I don't do any of that.

I'd be more than happy to surrender them fully if reasonable reforms are made, as I said.

I'm not missing your points. I read them loud and clear. They're just terrible.


----------



## narad

pwsusi said:


> This isn't a very persuasive counter argument



There are no counter arguments for bad analogies, as bad analogies do not present a coherent argument.


----------



## Explorer

pwsusi said:


> "Gun control" is like the war on drugs, it's something that will never be completely solved no matter how much money we throw at it or laws we throw on the books. We can have law after law but at the end of the day laws only apply to law abiding citizens; those that deliberately go out of their way to commit an atrocity such as this don't care what the laws are. They will find a way cause mass destruction.





pwsusi said:


> Someone with ill intent who is determined and knows what they're doing will navigate their way around just about everything to get what they want. That doesn't mean people should stop locking their phones, their houses or start shopping on websites with unsigned certificates and not using 128 bit encryption.


Does this also not mean that a society should stop gun sales to domestic abusers, who are significantly statistically more likely to kill someone with a firearm?

Does this also not mean that society should disallow gun sales to the mentally ill?

I'm just curious as to how far you will allow your common-sense viewpoint, regarding society being prudent, to be taken. That's why I'm giving you two limited and concrete examples which are often shot down by hard-core gun rights advocates.

Those two groups are definitely more deadly with a firearm than with a knife or a vehicle, as evidenced by the school shooting. Using your own criteria for prudence, shouldn't society ban immediate sales to such individuals?

Given that those groups are such outliers in terms of potential for killing others compared to other gun owners, and are therefore low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing a great portion of unnecessary killing of innocent members of society, I'm looking forward to a yes... but won't be surprised by an attempt to argue that such groups need their access to firearms protected.


----------



## StevenC

pwsusi said:


> We can have law after law but at the end of the day laws only apply to law abiding citizens; those that deliberately go out of their way to commit an atrocity such as this don't care what the laws are. They will find a way cause mass destruction.


Your options here are to make it harder for such people to do a massacre or be the guy who stands up proudly and says "I sold that lunatic a gun legally and will fight for his right to purchase guns legally with the intention of slaughtering people."

Making something a hassle is a surprisingly effective deterrent. At 19 I sure didn't know many black market arms dealers.


----------



## Steinmetzify

I voted against; mostly because I don’t think policy will change. I honestly don’t think it’ll work unless people WANT it to work, and I don’t think that they do, despite public outcries to the contrary. 

I want to own a few handguns and a shotgun for home defense, and that’s it. I couldn’t give two fucks about something high capacity or ‘ooo new shiny’ or whatever. 

I don’t mean to keep bringing it up and comparing it simply because I know it’s different, and I’m not trying to argue it in the same manner at all, but there are similarities in the dope world. 

We made drugs illegal, none of them are at all legal. We have a shit ton of controlled substances that you’re not even supposed to be able to buy, let alone consume. Still happens on a daily basis. Even though they’re illegal. 

I just see the same thing happening here. 

I’m all for policy change and hope it gets done and depending on exactly how it’s worded, I’ll vote for that shit no question. 

I don’t see anything changing for literally decades afterwards though, and I sure as fuck don’t see anything changing if the world is run by special snowflakes that think it’s ok to shoot people because 10th grade is hard and no one likes them. Jesus.


----------



## Explorer

I have one more thought: regulate ammo.

Mark each cartridge with a unique identifier on both case and bullet. Require a secure transaction when transferring it from one party to another. If a cartridge is used in a crime, then the last legal owner of record is charged with aiding and abetting, absent a documented theft of the ammo. (Of course, if it's suspected that the alleged theft was fabricated to cover an illegal transfer of ammo, that can be adjudicated in court.)

As older cartridges get used up, this system will discourage illegal selling of cartridges for crimnal purposes. And, of course, this solution avoids stepping on the Second Amendment. Even those people who normally claim they are strict constitutionalists will suddenly open the doors to interpretation of the Second Amendment, thus allowing examination of the intentions of the Founding Fathers towards what kinds of firearms they would have allowed (muskets or assault rifles) to the citizens, as well as whether they intended the amendment to apply only to members of a well organized militia.


----------



## narad

steinmetzify said:


> I don’t mean to keep bringing it up and comparing it simply because I know it’s different, and I’m not trying to argue it in the same manner at all, but there are similarities in the dope world.
> 
> We made drugs illegal, none of them are at all legal. We have a shit ton of controlled substances that you’re not even supposed to be able to buy, let alone consume. Still happens on a daily basis. Even though they’re illegal.
> 
> I just see the same thing happening here.



These are not similar things. AT ALL. If you look at any aspect of drug trades vs. guns, it's entirely different. The only thing that is the same is that there are laws and people break them. 

I guess it's a lot like speeding. It's super close to jay-walking. There's a lot of similarities between illegally obtaining guns and under-age drinking. Torrenting music is literally identical to going out and getting a weapon on the black market.


----------



## Explorer

steinmetzify said:


> I don’t mean to keep bringing it up and comparing it simply because I know it’s different, and I’m not trying to argue it in the same manner at all, but there are similarities in the dope world.
> 
> We made drugs illegal, none of them are at all legal. We have a shit ton of controlled substances that you’re not even supposed to be able to buy, let alone consume. Still happens on a daily basis. Even though they’re illegal.
> 
> I’m all for policy change and hope it gets done and depending on exactly how it’s worded, I’ll vote for that shit no question.





narad said:


> These are not similar things. AT ALL. If you look at any aspect of drug trades vs. guns, it's entirely different. The only thing that is the same is that there are laws and people break them.
> 
> I guess it's a lot like speeding. It's super close to jay-walking. There's a lot of similarities between illegally obtaining guns and under-age drinking. Torrenting music is literally identical to going out and getting a weapon on the black market.


There is one good parallel in the world of illegal drugs: Rohypnol, which is often used to harm people other than the person controlling it.

It's only a three-year sentence for possessing it, but attempting to use or using it to drug another person has a twenty-year minimum sentence.

It doesn't happen on a regular basis. 

On the plus side, a 20-year minimum sentence for even attempting a crime with a gun will only target criminals.


----------



## Steinmetzify

narad said:


> These are not similar things. AT ALL. If you look at any aspect of drug trades vs. guns, it's entirely different. The only thing that is the same is that there are laws and people break them.



Drugs are illegal and we have a drug problem that's never been worse in this country; making guns illegal is going to do the exact same thing, cause people to ignore the laws. I'm not talking about drug trade vs gun trade, I'm talking about the END RESULT of making these things supposedly harder to get by enacting laws that don't and can't fucking work.

That was my point. I never said they were the same, I said similarities. I never compared misdemeanors to felonies; don't put words in my mouth, man.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Opiates are such a problem in this country because of massive over prescribing, and how cheap and easy the prescriptions are to fill. Most illegal users started legally.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Explorer said:


> I have one more thought: regulate ammo.
> 
> Mark each cartridge with a unique identifier on both case and bullet. Require a secure transaction when transferring it from one party to another. If a cartridge is used in a crime, then the last legal owner of record is charged with aiding and abetting, absent a documented theft of the ammo. (Of course, if it's suspected that the alleged theft was fabricated to cover an illegal transfer of ammo, that can be adjudicated in court.)
> 
> As older cartridges get used up, this system will discourage illegal selling of cartridges for crimnal purposes. And, of course, this solution avoids stepping on the Second Amendment. Even those people who normally claim they are strict constitutionalists will suddenly open the doors to interpretation of the Second Amendment, thus allowing examination of the intentions of the Founding Fathers towards what kinds of firearms they would have allowed (muskets or assault rifles) to the citizens, as well as whether they intended the amendment to apply only to members of a well organized militia.


all that will do is drive people towards handloading ammo (for people that don't already do that). People would just continually recycle/handload their spent rounds. Plus the amount of ammo floating around in the wild is pretty substantial. Even if the manufacturers decided that they were going to implant rfid or something onto each round from this moment forward, there's so much surplus ammo hanging around that it'd be a complete waste of time.


----------



## StevenC

On the self defense side, does owning a gun lower your insurance rates? I feel like actuaries probably know best what decreases your risk of dying.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Explorer said:


> I have one more thought: regulate ammo.
> 
> Mark each cartridge with a unique identifier on both case and bullet. Require a secure transaction when transferring it from one party to another. If a cartridge is used in a crime, then the last legal owner of record is charged with aiding and abetting, absent a documented theft of the ammo. (Of course, if it's suspected that the alleged theft was fabricated to cover an illegal transfer of ammo, that can be adjudicated in court.)
> 
> As older cartridges get used up, this system will discourage illegal selling of cartridges for crimnal purposes. And, of course, this solution avoids stepping on the Second Amendment. Even those people who normally claim they are strict constitutionalists will suddenly open the doors to interpretation of the Second Amendment, thus allowing examination of the intentions of the Founding Fathers towards what kinds of firearms they would have allowed (muskets or assault rifles) to the citizens, as well as whether they intended the amendment to apply only to members of a well organized militia.


I don't think doing that will work. People are forgetful, so they won't know, "Damn, did I take 25 last time me and Dave went for some target practice? Or did someone rob me?" For a system that already sucks both in properly trying cases as well as cops who refuse to uphold the law in regards to robberies, this not only wouldn't work, but would put innocents -- not the criminals -- at risk, which is the whole reason people that are pro-gun for protection reasons think that gun control is poor in the first place.


----------



## narad

steinmetzify said:


> Drugs are illegal and we have a drug problem that's never been worse in this country; making guns illegal is going to do the exact same thing, cause people to ignore the laws. I'm not talking about drug trade vs gun trade, I'm talking about the END RESULT of making these things supposedly harder to get by enacting laws that don't and can't fucking work.
> 
> That was my point. I never said they were the same, I said similarities. I never compared misdemeanors to felonies; don't put words in my mouth, man.



The end result is pure speculation, and is probably wrong because the two issues are not at all related. You've basically said they're similar because policy change would yield a similar outcome - that's the opposite of a sensible argument, that predicts a similar outcome BECAUSE the two behaviors were similar to begin with.

Make guns illegal and make illegal gun ownership carry significant penalties, and you'll see less guns. The same sort of policy on drugs is difficult because it's often not punishing the right people. People don't do drugs because they're wishing to harm other people -- they're caught in a system of dependency. Some are involved in drugs by virtue of being unwilling participants in the sex industry. 

Obviously the list of ways in which these things are so fundamentally different as to completely undermine your point is so outrageously long that it's hard to know where to begin, but I would say that just these fundamental differences are enough to generally discredit any comparison.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> On the self defense side, does owning a gun lower your insurance rates? I feel like actuaries probably know best what decreases your risk of dying.



Nope. 

If anything you're at a greater risk owning a gun, statistically. 

You're more likely to shoot a loved one or yourself, which is why I stopped keeping things loaded/unlocked years ago.


----------



## Steinmetzify

narad said:


> I would say that just these fundamental differences are enough to generally discredit any comparison.



Really?



narad said:


> The end result is pure speculation



No it isn't, and I can prove it. Name me one law in any single country ever that no one has broken. You can't because it's never happened. 

Certain guns ARE illegal and illegal gun ownership DOES carry significant penalties, including a 3 strike law, but PUNISHMENT doesn't equal PREVENTION...it never has and never will. 

Stricter punishment doesn't bother people because they're desperate enough or willing enough to take the risk, which in the end isn't even that big. Look at Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but just outside city limits doesn't. Those people don't give a fuck what the city says, and every summer proves it. It's completely illegal to carry a gun in Chicago but people do it anyway, just like people do drugs against the law, and murder against the law, and rob and rape and steal and speed and any number of other things that are ALL AGAINST THE LAW, and they get away with it all the time. I speed all day long and I've only gotten 2 tickets in 20+ years of driving.

Threatening people with things that are statistically never going to happen isn't frightening.


----------



## possumkiller

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I don't think doing that will work. People are forgetful, so they won't know, "Damn, did I take 25 last time me and Dave went for some target practice? Or did someone rob me?" For a system that already sucks both in properly trying cases as well as cops who refuse to uphold the law in regards to robberies, this not only wouldn't work, but would put innocents -- not the criminals -- at risk, which is the whole reason people that are pro-gun for protection reasons think that gun control is poor in the first place.


Not to mention there is still a huge surplus of military ammo from the cold war all the way back to ww2. The. 50bmg ammo I used in Iraq was from 1944.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

StevenC said:


> On the self defense side, does owning a gun lower your insurance rates? I feel like actuaries probably know best what decreases your risk of dying.


definitely not. If owning a red car and being under 25 raises your rates then so would owning firearms.

most crimes of passion (killing a family member/lover) and murders in general are committed with either knives or guns. stats kind of vary but guns seem to the most commonly used for robbery/murder/aggravated assault besides knives.
600,000 domestic violence disputes involving family members/intimate partners) in 2016. nearly all of them involved intimate partners
stranger violence = 8.2 per 1000 people , intimate partner violence= 2.2 per 1000
480,940 *nonfatal *firearm victimizations occurred in 2016
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16.pdf
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl15.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls


----------



## narad

steinmetzify said:


> Threatening people with things that are statistically never going to happen isn't frightening.



Then why do gun owners own guns with the thought of protecting their family from an intruder, or heroically stopping an armed robbery? ::micdrop::



steinmetzify said:


> No it isn't, and I can prove it. Name me one law in any single country ever that no one has broken. You can't because it's never happened.



Oh shit, call CNN. Gun control debate solved. All laws are worthless. No one knew until this one irrefutable argument was posted on a guitar forum.


----------



## StevenC

KnightBrolaire said:


> definitely not. If owning a red car and being under 25 raises your rates then so would owning firearms.
> 
> most crimes of passion (killing a family member/lover) and murders in general are committed with either knives or guns. stats kind of vary but guns seem to the most commonly used for robbery/murder/aggravated assault besides knives.
> 600,000 domestic violence disputes involving family members/intimate partners) in 2016. nearly all of them involved intimate partners
> stranger violence = 8.2 per 1000 people , intimate partner violence= 2.2 per 1000
> 480,940 *nonfatal *firearm victimizations occurred in 2016
> https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16.pdf
> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl15.xls
> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls


And you know why owning a red car and being under 25 rais s your insurance, right?


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> And you know why owning a red car and being under 25 rais s your insurance, right?



Jealous actuaries?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> And you know why owning a red car and being under 25 rais s your insurance, right?



The gubment?


----------



## KnightBrolaire

StevenC said:


> And you know why owning a red car and being under 25 rais s your insurance, right?


statistically it's because people under 25 are considered less responsible and get into more accidents/get more tickets. people with red cars tend to get more speeding tickets/have more accidents as well. Men also have higher insurance rates than women because statistically we get into fewer crashes, but deadlier ones. women tend to have more small accidents.
source: my uncle is an insurance agent.


----------



## Steinmetzify

narad said:


> Then why do gun owners own guns with the thought of protecting their family from an intruder, or heroically stopping an armed robbery? ::micdrop::
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shit, call CNN. Gun control debate solved. All laws are worthless. No one knew until this one irrefutable argument was posted on a guitar forum.



All right man. Respectfully because we’ve always had decent interactions in the past, but we seem to be at complete opposite ends of the spectrum in this debate. It’s Sunday and I honestly don’t care that much about it so I’m out lol

Carry on good people.


----------



## narad

steinmetzify said:


> All right man. Respectfully because we’ve always had decent interactions in the past, but we seem to be at complete opposite ends of the spectrum in this debate. It’s Sunday and I honestly don’t care that much about it so I’m out lol
> 
> Carry on good people.



Maybe snootier than necessary — I kind of zone out as far as usernames go in the off-topic vs. gear, so apologize if it came across as too rude, but in this case I think there’s an objective truth. Not on the larger issue of gun control, but on the issue of valid comparisons to existing issues and policies.

As succinctly as possible: you speed. I speed. The takeaway there shouldn’t be that people will always break the law. If I have an expectation that I’m probably not going to get pulled over for speeding 10mph over, and if I did I’d get charged a couple hundred. Over the course of many trips, I find this an acceptable risk — one ticket in ten years.

However, if a ticket was $10k, I wouldn’t speed. Some people still would. $10k + 6 months in prison, and that number dwindles further. Or $200, but they catch you 1/10 times, instead of 1/1000 times, and a similar effect — I don’t think I need to present evidence of this, only to say that there’s are not-so-drastic policy changes that could quickly diminish the rates of speeding on the thruway.

The takeaway lesson there is not that there will always be someone that breaks the law. That’s not important. It’s how greatly human behavior en masse can be controlled through policy changes. It’s how many will break the law as policy scales towards more extreme punishment, and the stricter enforcement. There’s also sorts of studies on this in the micro case, but on the macro level, any time some product at a major retailer goes on sale, they have estimates of the how buyer behavior is going to change as prices fluctuate. The same is true in policies against crime. If the minimum sentence for being caught illegally in possession of a firearm was lethal injection, there would be an almost absolute cut in the number of people illegally carrying firearms. I’m not suggesting that — just establishing some bounds that should jive with anyone’s intuitions.


----------



## Explorer

StevenC said:


> And you know why owning a red car and being under 25 rais s your insurance, right?





KnightBrolaire said:


> statistically it's because people under 25 are considered less responsible and get into more accidents/get more tickets. people with red cars tend to get more speeding tickets/have more accidents as well. Men also have higher insurance rates than women because statistically we get into fewer crashes, but deadlier ones. women tend to have more small accidents.
> source: my uncle is an insurance agent.


Which brings us back, based on increased statistical likelihood, to banning gun sales to domestic abusers and the mentally ill.

Given that those groups are such outliers in terms of potential for killing others compared to other gun owners, and are therefore low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing a great portion of unnecessary killing of innocent members of society, I'm still looking forward to a yes in support from gun rights advocates in this topic... but won't be surprised by an attempt to argue that such groups need their access to firearms protected, or even themignoring addressing this small measure.

Thanks for bringing that statistical likelihood factor into the discussion as a consideration, @KnightBrolaire, and for acknowledging it as valid.


----------



## Explorer

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I don't think doing that will work. People are forgetful, so they won't know, "Damn, did I take 25 last time me and Dave went for some target practice? Or did someone rob me?" For a system that already sucks both in properly trying cases as well as cops who refuse to uphold the law in regards to robberies, this not only wouldn't work, but would put innocents -- not the criminals -- at risk, which is the whole reason people that are pro-gun for protection reasons think that gun control is poor in the first place.


When someone is robbed, they can get a police report.

Claiming you forgot to put your loaded firearms into a gun safe before letting your toddler access to the table where it is doesn't cut it as a defense. 

Someone being forgetful and then being on the hook for the consequences isn't a compelling reason against a measure, but it is pretty hilarious that you went there.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Explorer said:


> When someone is robbed, they can get a police report.
> 
> Claiming you forgot to put your loaded firearms into a gun safe before letting your toddler access to the table where it is doesn't cut it as a defense.
> 
> Someone being forgetful and then being on the hook for the consequences isn't a compelling reason against a measure, but it is pretty hilarious that you went there.


Have you ever been on meds and go, "Damn, did I take my meds today or not?"


----------



## Explorer

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I don't think doing that will work. People are forgetful, so they won't know, "Damn, did I take 25 last time me and Dave went for some target practice? Or did someone rob me?" For a system that already sucks both in properly trying cases as well as cops who refuse to uphold the law in regards to robberies, this not only wouldn't work, but would put innocents -- not the criminals -- at risk, which is the whole reason people that are pro-gun for protection reasons think that gun control is poor in the first place.





Explorer said:


> When someone is robbed, they can get a police report.
> 
> Claiming you forgot to put your loaded firearms into a gun safe before letting your toddler access to the table where it is doesn't cut it as a defense.
> 
> Someone being forgetful and then being on the hook for the consequences isn't a compelling reason against a measure, but it is pretty hilarious that you went there.





Spaced Out Ace said:


> Have you ever been on meds and go, "Damn, did I take my meds today or not?"


Ah, so you're also arguing that one shouldn't be eligible to have firearms if one is on meds, because such a person might be unreliable in terms of following good gun safety practices. Good point!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Explorer said:


> Ah, so you're also arguing that one shouldn't be eligible to have firearms if one is on meds, because such a person might be unreliable in terms of following good gun safety practices. Good point!


Yes, and I'm also arguing that people are forgetful. So in order to be able to report a stolen/lost bullet(s), they would have to count them and keep count of them probably on a weekly, or at least monthly basis. For people that have a stockpile of bullets [because they hunt, because the bullet is difficult to get ahold of so they have a supply of them, because they are "preppers for when SHTF", etc.] I don't feel it's quite a realistic solution. Interesting take, for sure, but not sure how beneficial it would be.


----------



## bostjan

Unique identifiers on bullets is a cool idea on the back of a napkin, but I don't really see that being the sub-subtopic where this thread needs to bog down into minutiae. In cases like mass shootings where the shooter plans to himself die in the process or even not bother to hide his identity, the best things to put into place are the things that a) keep powerful weapons out of the wrong people's hands and b) better mental health and community support. Any ideas tangential to that are certainly worth bringing up, but I don't know if we really want to waste time arguing about those things when we can't even get anywhere with the main pillars of the problem. 

I think it's been brought up in many other threads, but I don't know if anyone brought it up here: there is a model out there that pins mass shootings to meme thinking. In other words, mass shootings beget more mass shootings, and the more media attention they get, the more often they happen. Say some percentage of the population has some sort of aptitude to perform a mass shooting, but the overwhelming majority of those people don't do it, because they fear the consequences and don't have the environmental triggers to do it. 

Think of a frog trapped in a well - as long as the frog feels safe and isn't too hungry, he might not waste too much energy trying to jump out. He might get bored, but as long as the well is too deep, he can't make it out. As he gets more and more desperate, he will jump higher and higher. The more it rains on him, the higher he can float up to the top, and the easier it is for him to jump out. If he sees his froggy friends jumping out, he will incorporate new methods that he sees them doing, and feel social pressure to jump higher and will be more likely to make it.

That frog is your shooter. The more he sees people like him shooting other people, the more likely he will be to do it himself. The more pressure you put on him, the more desperate he will get, so the more likely he will be to do it, and, just like the potential barrier of the inside walls of the well, there are potential barriers to obtaining weapons - the higher you make those barriers, the less likely your frog will be to make the jump.

Of course, you have another approach as well. You could put a heron at the edge of the well, and if the frog sees the heron, he'll be less likely to jump, and if he jumps anyway, he'll still likely be eaten before he can make it out in one piece. Think of the heron as the SWAT team who can show up and stop the shooting.

Anyway, personally, I think it's a multifaceted problem that needs a multifaceted approach to properly address it, but I don't think it's really that complicated as long as we can sit down and have a rational discussion about it.


----------



## TedEH

Spaced Out Ace said:


> they would have to count them and keep count of them probably on a weekly, or at least monthly basis.


IMO if you have a store of bullets for hunting, they shouldn't be in a location that someone can steal them that easily in the first place. Max has the right idea:



MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't leave guns out. I keep them locked in a permanently mounted safe. They're unloaded until I go to the range. I keep ammo locked in a separate cabinet in a room removed from where the gunsafe is.


This IMO is what responsible gun ownership looks like. Anything less than this, and you're not being responsible with a gun. Ammo locked in the same case as the gun? Not responsible. Leaving it out "just in case"? Not responsible. Keeping it under a pillow or in a side table or in your glove box for "self defense"? Not responsible. Carrying it around with you? Not even close to responsible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what the law looks like in Canada right now. You're not allowed to keep guns unlocked, or locked in the same location as ammo, and when in transportation they need to have trigger locks on them, etc.

I recognize that there's a culture-of-guns issue involved that (IMO) is separate from the ownership/laws issues -> but it's my opinion that the two situations play into eachother. If gun laws were more strict, if there were fewer guns around, the cultural relationship with them would change. Canada doesn't have this "gun nut" culture because they're not around us. Nobody spends their day thinking about guns since they're just not around us. We don't assume that anyone is armed outside of cops, and even then, not all officers are armed. I don't think of security guards as being armed (most of them here aren't, but my picture of the US is that the average security guard is probably armed). I'm sure I'm not the only one- having an armed officer around at all makes me uncomfortable. I'd rather they not have guns either unless absolutely needed as well. In the odd case where I've had to speak with a cop in order to report some petty crime, the fact that they were armed the whole time made me pretty uncomfortable. You don't need a gun to address teenagers stealing things from eachother and things like that.

IMO, the self defense argument is a terrible one. The only people I know who have ever kept self defense weapons (guns or otherwise) have ended up drawing them on family members in 100% of the cases the weapon was used. Zero break ins were prevented. Zero "bad guys" defeated. You know what does happen instead? Coming home to a family member pointing a shotgun at you because you came home later than expected, while they're on edge for whatever reason.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> there is a model out there that pins mass shootings to meme thinking. In other words, mass shootings beget more mass shootings, and the more media attention they get, the more often they happen.


I've come across conversation about this recently, and I do think there's something valid to it. There was a youtube video about similar trends having to do with those tide pod challenge videos - about the idea that there wasn't actually a big spike in people doing it until it started being reported on, which in itself caused the spike to happen, I guess because it put the idea on people's radar.


----------



## bostjan

It's the power of social suggestion. Remember those old ads for jeans in which the ad simply showed a bunch of stuff happening, and the people just happened to be wearing the same brand of jeans? At the time, I had no idea what was going on or what the ads were even trying to get people to buy. Evidently, the company thought that just entertaining people while simultaneously bombarding them with the subtle suggestion that people are wearing their products was enough to justify a multi-million dollar campaign.

It happens to me all of the time. If my coworkers are always eating carrots every day, guess what I buy at the grocery store for a snack? The key is that people get bombarded with something so often that it starts to sound like a normal part of life, then they'll be way more likely to give it a try. When I was younger, before Columbine was ever in the news, I had assumed that if someone showed up to shoot up the school, someone would have showed up relatively quickly to stop it. Probably a lot of people thought the same way, so they didn't develop any thoughts. Then everyone around the world heard about those Columbine kids, and it was all these news stories about the perpetrators, not really that much about the victims. In reporting it that way, I think, putting focus on the perpetrators rather than on the victims, it gave more opportunity for audiences to relate to the perpetrators, rather than the victims.

Where a violent video game tells the player: hey, you are this violent guy - do these violent things in this violent fantasy world, the news is saying: hey, put yourselves in the shoes of this violent guy - who did these violent things in the real world, and to me, the news has much more potential to resonate with the wrong sort of people than the games do. I think that if they'd put these people in the shoes of the victims and tell the stories more from the victim's perspectives, they might not sell as many copies, but we'd have a lot more public empathy.

But yeah, that's just one perspective on this whole thing. Making law enforcement better equipped to deal with these shooters, making the weapons these shooters prefer more difficult to obtain, and making the potential barriers for these folks to get the proper mental help are also important points for me.


----------



## JSanta

I served in the Army as an Infantryman, and have handled some very impressive weapons. I say that because I don't believe any individual has a need or a right to own an AR-15 type weapon. None. Because it's fun or any other number of reasons are not valid to me. I am for stronger gun control - and I am strongly for significantly harsher penalties for what are today more trivial weapons (all weapons) offenses. I understand people stating where there's a will there's a way sentiments, but I'd very much favor limiting the way(s).

With respects to people saying that they need weapons to protect themselves from the Government - that may have been true when citizens and military alike were armed with similar weapons. If it was really an "us against them" scenario of citizens versus the Government (and military), I don't see a good outcome.


----------



## bostjan

Rebellion against bad government has always been more about numbers than equipment. Does anyone really think the Ayatollah or Castro or Lenin or Gandhi were equipped with better guns than the governments they repelled? The most likely military attack right now would be a long range missile from Korea, so does that mean that the Second Amendment encourages us to all buy surface-to-air missiles?! Moreover, we face paramilitary attacks from improvised explosives in public transit or at sporting events/concerts. How does an AR-15 do any good against that sort of thing? If we were smart, we'd be spending more time developing counter-terrorism skills for our citizenry - stuff that can be used in a pinch.

Or...much more effectively, we could develop political skills for our politicians to not piss everyone around the world off so much that they develop hatred toward us to the point of blowing themselves up just to hurt us. Trying to stop the spread of Islamic extremism with the same approach we used to stop the spread of communism in the 60's and 70's doesn't give me high hopes of working.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

bostjan said:


> Rebellion against bad government has always been more about numbers than equipment. Does anyone really think the Ayatollah or Castro or Lenin or Gandhi were equipped with better guns than the governments they repelled? The most likely military attack right now would be a long range missile from Korea, so does that mean that the Second Amendment encourages us to all buy surface-to-air missiles?! Moreover, we face paramilitary attacks from improvised explosives in public transit or at sporting events/concerts. How does an AR-15 do any good against that sort of thing? If we were smart, we'd be spending more time developing counter-terrorism skills for our citizenry - stuff that can be used in a pinch.
> 
> Or...much more effectively, we could develop political skills for our politicians to not piss everyone around the world off so much that they develop hatred toward us to the point of blowing themselves up just to hurt us. Trying to stop the spread of Islamic extremism with the same approach we used to stop the spread of communism in the 60's and 70's doesn't give me high hopes of working.


I have the right to own SAM missiles!! MURICA






Ehh you're underestimating how effective guerilla warfare can be. Look at what the finnish did against the russians in the winter war, what the afghans have done against the british, russians and americans, what the polish jews/french resistance/russian peasants did against the germans, what the vietcong did to us. Also, don't forget that portions of the US revolutionary war were basically guerilla warfare (washington's raid across the delaware, ambushing from the swamps of the south,etc). Americans were the insurgency in the revolutionary war to an extent. The more you read about insurgency/guerilla warfare, the more you realize that even with a semi-auto rifle and basic tactical knowledge people can wreak havoc. The finnish were stopping russian t-34s with logs and molotov cocktails until they got access to panzerfausts.

I think people really underestimate how much of our society is a soft target. If people think a kid shooting up a school is bad, just wait til someone blows one up. Everybody is worried about sporting events/concerts, when schools and malls are woefully underprotected in comparison.
it's pretty sad when a satire like Team America: World Police is still relevant years later. That being said, there's no great option as far as trying to prevent the spread of islamic extremism. The fact that there are people who are growing up in the US and are willingly going over to fight alongside ISIS or Al Shabab really worries me. I get the recruiting tactics, since they're similar to what the us army uses (minus the whole anti-american spin). 
What I find hilarious is how americans have no taste for being world police anymore, and other countries have criticized us for continuing the policy to an extent, but the second we start pulling out of those conflict areas they want us to go in and stabilize them to prevent a repeat of what happened in vietnam/iraq. I wish we'd keep moving towards a more isolationist policy so we could actually try and fix some of the problems that have persisted for generations here.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I think you're giving the average American gun owner way too much credit. 

Most can barely keep thier firearms functional, let alone overthrow the US government with them. 

The conflicts you're talking about were at least forty years ago. Well before night vision, thermal imaging and drones were as developed as they are now.

I'm not worried about terrorism. I have a better chance getting killed by driving. Heck, an American police officer is more likely to kill me than an Islamic extremist.


----------



## MFB

MaxOfMetal said:


> Heck, an American police officer is more likely to kill me than an Islamic extremist.



I don't remember you being black?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MFB said:


> I don't remember you being black?



I have enough tattoos and my skin is dark enough that they'd probably think I'm MS13.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think you're giving the average American gun owner way too much credit.
> 
> Most can barely keep thier firearms functional, let alone overthrow the US government with them.
> 
> The conflicts you're talking about were at least forty years ago. Well before night vision, thermal imaging and drones were as developed as they are now.
> 
> I'm not worried about terrorism. I have a better chance getting killed by driving. Heck, an American police officer is more likely to kill me than an Islamic extremist.


I don't think you're giving gun nuts enough credit. There's a lot of people with military experience that also happen to be on the fringe of hillbilly/survivalist/prepper territory and they'd actually be a credible threat, just like the afghans (arguably the closest thing to middle eastern hillbillies) have managed to be for last 100+ years. I take it you haven't read up much about how the taliban/insurgents have managed to hide from surveillance drones/hellfire missiles , or how thermal imaging is relatively easy to fool. Rooting out an insurgency in their homeland is next to impossible if you look at it in a historical context. I'm not saying it's a big threat at the moment, but god forbid it ever does happen, because it'll be an absolute nightmare. 
I'm not super worried about terrorism, especially in comparison to other pressing issues in america (like education reform, nebulous immigration laws, obesity, drunk driving,etc) but it's definitely something to think about. Just because there hasn't been that many attacks on us soil lately doesn't mean they couldn't happen in the future or that we should become complacent. I think we can agree that the last thing we need is some sick fuck blowing up a school or a daycare, or some crazy radicals gunning down a bunch of people in a mall (like what happened in Nigeria).


----------



## JSanta

KnightBrolaire said:


> I don't think you're giving gun nuts enough credit. There's a lot of people with military experience that also happen to be on the fringe of hillbilly/survivalist/prepper territory and they'd actually be a credible threat, just like the afghans (arguably the closest thing to middle eastern hillbillies) have managed to be for last 100+ years. I take it you haven't read up much about how the taliban/insurgents have managed to hide from surveillance drones/hellfire missiles , or how thermal imaging is relatively easy to fool. Rooting out an insurgency in their homeland is next to impossible if you look at it in a historical context. I'm not saying it's a big threat at the moment, but god forbid it ever does happen, because it'll be an absolute nightmare.
> I'm not super worried about terrorism, especially in comparison to other pressing issues in america (like education reform, nebulous immigration laws, obesity, drunk driving,etc) but it's definitely something to think about. Just because there hasn't been that many attacks on us soil lately doesn't mean they couldn't happen in the future or that we should become complacent. I think we can agree that the last thing we need is some sick fuck blowing up a school or a daycare, or some crazy radicals gunning down a bunch of people in a mall (like what happened in Nigeria).



I'm not sure if it's an appropriate comparison - "hillbillies" and Afghans, whom have been at war for most of the past several decades. Knowing how to evade capture or whatever does not equate to being prepared for an actual war time assault.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JSanta said:


> I'm not sure if it's an appropriate comparison - "hillbillies" and Afghans, whom have been at war for most of the past several decades. Knowing how to evade capture or whatever does not equate to being prepared for an actual war time assault.



For real.

Bubba and BillyJo may own a lot of guns and shoot'em real nice, but if they ever tried to legitimately "rise up" they would be crushed hilariously quickly. 

Who are they going to pick off? Civilians? Small, nearly abandoned reserve centers? The occasional National Guard post? 

They shoot up a soft target and thier ass is grass.

All these prepers, threepers etc. think they're so tough because they can buy big guns and plate carriers to wear over thier 5.11 tactical polos and practice "night raids" while hog hunting and throwing tourniquets over themselves while full of ketchup when if they were really faced with a bad situation they'd be the first ones down or crying for the mother. 

Sure, thier are probably some ex-soliders and contractors that are the real deal, but they're certainly the exception and not the rule when it comes to American gun owners.


----------



## bostjan

KnightBrolaire said:


> I have the right to own SAM missiles!! MURICA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ehh you're underestimating how effective guerilla warfare can be. Look at what the finnish did against the russians in the winter war, what the afghans have done against the british, russians and americans, what the polish jews/french resistance/russian peasants did against the germans, what the vietcong did to us. Also, don't forget that portions of the US revolutionary war were basically guerilla warfare (washington's raid across the delaware, ambushing from the swamps of the south,etc). Americans were the insurgency in the revolutionary war to an extent. The more you read about insurgency/guerilla warfare, the more you realize that even with a semi-auto rifle and basic tactical knowledge people can wreak havoc. The finnish were stopping russian t-34s with logs and molotov cocktails until they got access to panzerfausts.
> 
> I think people really underestimate how much of our society is a soft target. If people think a kid shooting up a school is bad, just wait til someone blows one up. Everybody is worried about sporting events/concerts, when schools and malls are woefully underprotected in comparison.
> it's pretty sad when a satire like Team America: World Police is still relevant years later. That being said, there's no great option as far as trying to prevent the spread of islamic extremism. The fact that there are people who are growing up in the US and are willingly going over to fight alongside ISIS or Al Shabab really worries me. I get the recruiting tactics, since they're similar to what the us army uses (minus the whole anti-american spin).
> What I find hilarious is how americans have no taste for being world police anymore, and other countries have criticized us for continuing the policy to an extent, but the second we start pulling out of those conflict areas they want us to go in and stabilize them to prevent a repeat of what happened in vietnam/iraq. I wish we'd keep moving towards a more isolationist policy so we could actually try and fix some of the problems that have persisted for generations here.



I think we made exactly the same point, just took it totally different directions.

The Finns putting petrol in a bottle and lobbing it at a tank says nothing to support the idea that we need AR-15s, for me.

In the 1950's and 60's and even into the 80's, we were given basic training on how to respond to a nuclear attack. I think we could be doing the same for terrorist attack with IEDs or mass shootings or whatever. Get people prepared to act in the best way to save their own lives. Train a fast-scramble SWAT team to handle these situations as well, and set the infrastructure in place to get them where they need to be as quickly as possible. Get these shooters the mental help they need before they snap. And make it more difficult to get a weapon that can be used to wreak this sort of havoc. Or...ignore all of that and just give teachers 9mm barettas and call it good, then become the laughing stock of the planet and have the next school shooting in the news be a teacher who snapped.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

JSanta said:


> I'm not sure if it's an appropriate comparison - "hillbillies" and Afghans, whom have been at war for most of the past several decades. Knowing how to evade capture or whatever does not equate to being prepared for an actual war time assault.


I've got some westernized iraqi and lebanese buddies who basically called afghanistan the west virginia/kentucky of the middle east. Rough nasty terrain breeds tough people and that holds true for both areas. It was kind of a backhanded compliment. Taking guys like that and giving them some military experience can lead to some big headaches (we did train the mujahideen after all). They obviously wouldn't be a traditional fighting force, but that's kind of the whole point of guerilla warfare. They'd probably suck at mass assaults or mass defenses just due to lack of discipline, but discounting them would be a poor idea.



bostjan said:


> I think we made exactly the same point, just took it totally different directions.
> 
> The Finns putting petrol in a bottle and lobbing it at a tank says nothing to support the idea that we need AR-15s, for me.
> 
> In the 1950's and 60's and even into the 80's, we were given basic training on how to respond to a nuclear attack. I think we could be doing the same for terrorist attack with IEDs or mass shootings or whatever. Get people prepared to act in the best way to save their own lives. Train a fast-scramble SWAT team to handle these situations as well, and set the infrastructure in place to get them where they need to be as quickly as possible. Get these shooters the mental help they need before they snap. And make it more difficult to get a weapon that can be used to wreak this sort of havoc. Or...ignore all of that and just give teachers 9mm barettas and call it good, then become the laughing stock of the planet and have the next school shooting in the news be a teacher who snapped.


If you can call hiding under your desk waiting to be obliterated "training" then yes, they were trained. I know some schools (and the military) train for active shooter scenarios, but they only work to a point. I know bigger areas tend to have SWAT teams on-call, but for more rural areas that lack the funding, that's not really a realistic proposition. It'd probably mitigate active shooter situations but the funding is a pretty big hurdle. 
I'm all for making it more difficult for people with mental health issues to get proper treatment and to limit their access to firearms. It's going to be damn near impossible to prevent them from getting firearms on the secondhand market/ CNCing them or making them but I guess we can try and implement some sort of system to regulate those avenues more thoroughly. I don't know how effective it would be, but hey at least it's something.


----------



## JSanta

KnightBrolaire said:


> I've got some westernized iraqi and lebanese buddies who basically called afghanistan the west virginia/kentucky of the middle east. Rough nasty terrain breeds tough people and that holds true for both areas. It was kind of a backhanded compliment. Taking guys like that and giving them some military experience can lead to some big headaches (we did train the mujahideen after all). They obviously wouldn't be a traditional fighting force, but that's kind of the whole point of guerilla warfare. They'd probably suck at mass assaults or mass defenses just due to lack of discipline, but discounting them would be a poor idea.
> 
> 
> If you can call hiding under your desk waiting to be obliterated "training" then yes, they were trained. I know some schools (and the military) train for active shooter scenarios, but they only work to a point. I know bigger areas tend to have SWAT teams on-call, but for more rural areas that lack the funding, that's not really a realistic proposition. It'd probably mitigate active shooter situations but the funding is a pretty big hurdle.
> I'm all for making it more difficult for people with mental health issues to get proper treatment and to limit their access to firearms. It's going to be damn near impossible to prevent them from getting firearms on the secondhand market/ CNCing them or making them but I guess we can try and implement some sort of system to regulate those avenues more thoroughly. I don't know how effective it would be, but hey at least it's something.



Again, the Afghans fighting in SWA do not equate to people that are anti-government or whatever in Appalachia. I'm generalizing of course, but they are a people that have been at war for generations. War is not just weapons and tactics, it's a mindset, it's a hardened state of mind. 

I'm not saying the hypothetical "hillbilly fighting force" wouldn't be an issue, but they are no where near the kind of people that have been at war in Afghanistan .


----------



## possumkiller

JSanta said:


> I served in the Army as an Infantryman, and have handled some very impressive weapons. I say that because I don't believe any individual has a need or a right to own an AR-15 type weapon. None. Because it's fun or any other number of reasons are not valid to me. I am for stronger gun control - and I am strongly for significantly harsher penalties for what are today more trivial weapons (all weapons) offenses. I understand people stating where there's a will there's a way sentiments, but I'd very much favor limiting the way(s).
> 
> With respects to people saying that they need weapons to protect themselves from the Government - that may have been true when citizens and military alike were armed with similar weapons. If it was really an "us against them" scenario of citizens versus the Government (and military), I don't see a good outcome.


This is true. I spent 7 years in. 3 in Iraq. I drove fuel trucks and got shot at/rpg'd/ied'd, was a gunner sitting on top of a hummer or mrap most of the time, and blew shit up with the engineers. I've played with all kinds of fun weapons in my unit and got to play with some fancy ones thanks to some cool SF guys. 

3 shots is more than enough for civilian purposes. One shot is all you really need. A second shot just in case and a third for if you really suck. That goes for deer, birds, self defense or anything. 

If somebody is in your house only feet away and you can't neutralize them with 3 rounds, I doubt 12 more would help. 

Honestly even when I was still a gun nut the whole "extreme tactical black guns made of rails with 25lbs of bullshit mounted all over it" craze drove me to old school weapons. I loved my SxS 20ga and .45acp on half moon clips S&W wheelgun. Nice polished blued metal with wood furniture... Mmm.....


----------



## KnightBrolaire




----------



## Spaced Out Ace

KnightBrolaire said:


>


Just because "Philip Clarke" is a fucking moron, doesn't mean everyone else is. Kinda sums up the problem with today's education system, and more importantly, the "qualifications" required to become an instructor.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Just because "Philip Clarke" is a fucking moron, doesn't mean everyone else is. Kinda sums up the problem with today's education system, and more importantly, the "qualifications" required to become an instructor.


i just thought it was kind of funny. I agree that the barrier to entry for teaching is far too low, and that teachers in the USA are kind of shit compared to other countries. I also think tenure shouldn't even exist. Teaching should be like any other job where it's more about your performance rather than perpetuating a system that allows terrible teachers to keep a job. 
I think giving guns to teachers is a completely asinine idea, especially considering some of the worthless teachers I've had in the past. No way in hell do I want most of them handling firearms in a stressful situation. That's about as good of an idea as allowing newly commissioned officers with no firearms experience to clear their own weapons (ie a terrible fucking idea).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

KnightBrolaire said:


> I agree that the barrier to entry for teaching is far too low, and that teachers in the USA are kind of shit compared to other countries.



You get what you pay for.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

MaxOfMetal said:


> You get what you pay for.


that depends on the school district. I know in Allentown PA the teachers make 80K+ . My old middle school math teacher was making 100k somehow :huh: Personally I think the american education system could be far better, starting with funneling people towards tech/vocational school earlier on (if they want to go that route) and better support of art/STEM classes since america sucks at STEM compared to the rest of the world. Also, there should be more standardized curriculum. That way we can quit having shitshows like what's been happening in the bible belt (they want to peddle creationist slanted books as legitimate science textbooks and not teach sex ed).


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> You get what you pay for.


They're overpaid. Especially when you consider how effective they are. Then again, the methods are garbage to begin with, so I can't totally place the blame solely on the teacher. I think montessori is a better option.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

KnightBrolaire said:


> that depends on the school district. I know in Allentown PA the teachers make 80K+ . My old middle school math teacher was making 100k somehow :huh: Personally I think the american education system could be far better, starting with funneling people towards tech/vocational school earlier on (if they want to go that route) and better support of art/STEM classes since america sucks at STEM compared to the rest of the world. Also, there should be more standardized curriculum. That way we can quit having shitshows like what's been happening in the bible belt (they want to peddle creationist slanted books as legitimate science textbooks and not teach sex ed).



Gonna need a citation on that $80k. 

You can make a large salary teaching, but it requires years and tens of thousands of dollars in certification and schooling. It's kind of a wash for the first decade. 

Here's the spread overall:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-paid-state-by-state/?utm_term=.cee06d540a92



Spaced Out Ace said:


> They're overpaid. Especially when you consider how effective they are. Then again, the methods are garbage to begin with, so I can't totally place the blame solely on the teacher. I think montessori is a better option.



Cart before the horse. 

You're not going to attract and retain talent with such little pay.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Cart before the horse.
> 
> You're not going to attract and retain talent with such little pay.


And considering how piss poor they do, they shouldn't get paid more.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> And considering how piss poor they do, they shouldn't get paid more.



So how do you get people to do better? 

You need to get better people to begin with. A smart, talented person isn't going to go through the BS, the extra schooling, certificate process, poor pay for years. On average. They'll go for good jobs in the private sector.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

MaxOfMetal said:


> Gonna need a citation on that $80k.
> 
> You can make a large salary teaching, but it requires years and tens of thousands of dollars in certification and schooling. It's kind of a wash for the first decade.
> 
> Here's the spread overall:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-paid-state-by-state/?utm_term=.cee06d540a92
> 
> 
> 
> Cart before the horse.
> 
> You're not going to attract and retain talent with such little pay.


Parkland school district is where the fancier houses are/higher cost of living so people make more. the more urban parts of allentown pay far less.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bre...8X0U4ZKO8BJP6610436VZ2DCLAR6B6M3W7TL98L59257N


----------



## MaxOfMetal

KnightBrolaire said:


> Parkland school district is where the fancier houses are/higher cost of living so people make more. the more urban parts of allentown pay far less.
> http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bre...8X0U4ZKO8BJP6610436VZ2DCLAR6B6M3W7TL98L59257N



Thank you for the citation, I genuinely appreciate it.

So what's the course for going from $30k to $75k?

In Arizona and Florida it meant getting your masters. Usually some other certificates were required. 

If I had to guess, I'd say the teaching pool in that area is older. I'll try to find some info.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

MaxOfMetal said:


> Thank you for the citation, I genuinely appreciate it.
> 
> So what's the course for going from $30k to $75k?
> 
> In Arizona and Florida it meant getting your masters. Usually some other certificates were required.
> 
> If I had to guess, I'd say the teaching pool in that area is older. I'll try to find some info.


One of the graphs I looked at showed teachers with masters or higher usually making >60k in lehigh county/parkland district. Bachelors only was usually around 50k for parkland. 
Median salary for the whole county is 60K.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

A gross of $60k isn't a lot. Especially when you factor in the cost of a masters degree, which can be as little as $30k and as much as $120k. 

Teachers have a very important job. I think the salary should represent that. It'll lead to better teachers and that's going to mean a better society overall. 

To put things in perspective, a garbage collector will make almost $90k after five years. Another important job of course.


----------



## bostjan

According to Salary.com, the base pay plus benefits for teachers in Allentown, PA is $80k ( https://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard...e&isshowcompanyfct=false&isshowaboutyou=false ) The biggest hunk of the benefits package is paid time off.

But, also, that same site says I should be making about three times what I actually make, so I don't put it as the gospel.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> But, also, that same site says I should be making about three times what I actually make, so I don't put it as the gospel.



I honestly assume that most reporting on salaries online is inflated. I also should be making 2-3x or more what I make if sites like that are to be believed. I find it really hard to get a good picture of what people really make - in part because people don't talk about it, and also the inflated reports online, the weirdly inconsistent surveys I find, etc. Sometimes it looks like I'm rich compared to everyone around me, sometimes it looks like I'm vastly underpaid for the kind of work I do, sometimes I feel like I should be able to afford certain things by now that I can't. It's incredibly nebulous. And I'm in a pretty transparent field - I can just imagine that it's that much harder to judge the income level for teachers in a given area.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

bostjan said:


> According to Salary.com, the base pay plus benefits for teachers in Allentown, PA is $80k ( https://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard...e&isshowcompanyfct=false&isshowaboutyou=false ) The biggest hunk of the benefits package is paid time off.
> 
> But, also, that same site says I should be making about three times what I actually make, so I don't put it as the gospel.


the link/img I posted is info direct from the PA dept. of education's spreadsheet for 2012/2013. It's pretty accurate.


----------



## bostjan

KnightBrolaire said:


> the link/img I posted is info direct from the PA dept. of education's spreadsheet for 2012/2013. It's pretty accurate.


The website I posted cites Jan 2018. Either way, I think the general point you made should be sufficiently documented to be accurate between the two. 



TedEH said:


> I honestly assume that most reporting on salaries online is inflated. I also should be making 2-3x or more what I make if sites like that are to be believed. I find it really hard to get a good picture of what people really make - in part because people don't talk about it, and also the inflated reports online, the weirdly inconsistent surveys I find, etc. Sometimes it looks like I'm rich compared to everyone around me, sometimes it looks like I'm vastly underpaid for the kind of work I do, sometimes I feel like I should be able to afford certain things by now that I can't. It's incredibly nebulous. And I'm in a pretty transparent field - I can just imagine that it's that much harder to judge the income level for teachers in a given area.



I'm not really sure how salary.com or whichever site you use gets this data. There might be a ton of bias.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> And considering how piss poor they do, they shouldn't get paid more.



I know, and have had, some pretty amazing teachers. I've also had a few who were shockingly terrible. I what you see comes down to two pretty simple observations - starting salary for a teacher varies a lot state to state, and for some people in some states can be a reasonably good option out of school when you also factor in things like having summers off. However, for a top performer, especially in the STEM fields, a starting salary of $50k to teach 8th grade chem pales compared to triple that to do chemical analysis for an oil firm, for example. Second, for an "easy" profession (lots of vacation, summers off, etc), teaching is surprisingly grueling - it eases up after the first couple years once you've built up lesson plans and activities for your curriculum and can get it own to a routine, but my sister (an elementary teacher) has said that if she ever moves again, she's finding a different job, because the hours for those first two and three years are brutal while you're simultaneously teaching and putting lesson plans together. So, especially in districts with a lot of challenging students, burnout is pretty high, and over time increasingly you see the "motivated" teachers flame out and change careers, and the ones more interested in getting tenure and then collecting a 2.5% COLA adjustment year after year and then retiring at 62 with a generous pension start to become a larger proportion of the teaching pool. 

Here's another thing we might actually see eye to eye on - I'm actually not a big fan of unionization for teachers, precisely because it does treat them as interchangeable and differentiated only by length of tenure, and doesn't reward performance directly, only length of service. 

Anyway, I've only read the last few pages of this, but it looks like this has been an unexpectedly civil debate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Here's another thing we might actually see eye to eye on - I'm actually not a big fan of unionization for teachers, precisely because it does treat them as interchangeable and differentiated only by length of tenure, and doesn't reward performance directly, only length of service.



Unions highlight poor management. 

The biggest misconception about unions is that it makes poorly performing employees "untouchable". That's simply not the case. 

All it does is set a bar to which the company [employer] is held to as far as corrective actions, as well as uniform compensation and the freedom to have an honest, open (if sometimes critical) dialog.

I've worked at a number of union shops and discharges (firing) happens quite frequently. Even in establishments with what would be considered a strong union. 

The truth is, most management types are terrible at thier jobs. Some will get better as they mature, but having the ability to manage people and resources well is a damn rare skill, which is why good managers can become very wealthy, thier talent is recognized. 

It doesn't matter how much seniority an employee has if they break company rules and regulations and it's _properly documented_. It's really not difficult. No arbitrator will side with an employee who breaks rules in bad faith, if it even gets that far as most unions are wise enough not to pay for the arbitration in such a slam dunk case.

Strong unions regulate thier members. Since they've been heavily attacked for the last four decades and powers significantly reduced, you don't have strong unions. Weak unions just don't have the participation and resources to make things better, it just becomes going through the motions. That doesn't help anyone.


----------



## bostjan

I taught 8th grade music in the Detroit area for one year, after I had taught at the university level for about 3 years, and it was not a dream job. It's a very time consuming job, even if you don't have a ton of grading to do, because there is just so much administrative stuff that goes along with the job - mostly stuff the students never see or hear about, like meetings with administration to make sure you are on track with lesson plans and meeting with administration to make sure you are on track with professional development, and like meetings with administration about how much time you are spending meeting with administration. What I got paid there and then was dismal - I could have made more money working nights at a Tim Horton's, and the benefits, although better than average, were not really that enticing.

As Drew said, this is a poor opportunity financial, for someone who had just finished an MS in physics. I chose that because my main income was coming from jobs I had at night and on weekends, and I needed something to do during the day that I thought would be an adventure. After a year, though, I felt like my best option was not to renew my contract, and to move away into a town with more employment opportunities anyway.

If, at 24 or 25 years old, administration had given me a gun, I would have expected there to be twice as much administrative headache.


----------



## possumkiller

My 7th grade math teacher actually stood up in front of us and said a billion is a million millions and a trillion is a billion billions...


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> My 7th grade math teacher actually stood up in front of us and said a billion is a million millions and a trillion is a billion billions...


I almost failed 7th grade math because, on the first day of class, I corrected the teacher when she got stuck doing a proof in front of the class. I nochalantly told her how to solve it, she glared at me... and ten minutes later ended up doing what I suggested. It ended in a parent teacher conference where after refusing to call on me for the rest of that semester she failed me for the (very significant) class participation portion of the class, leaving me with a C+ that semester. I forgot exactly what the resolution was (my proposal was just to give me the book and let me finish the class self-study and take the same tests, as I was sure I could teach myself as well as she could, but my parents were opposed to that, to their credit because they thought the experience managing conflict would be good for them), but eventually I passed and was referred on to continue in the honors program. Today, I'm the "quant" in my office, where if any numbers crunching or data analysis has to be done, it ends up on my desk. 

All I'll have to say is, if a teacher finds herself in a battle of wills with a 14 year old, she's already lost.  Even worse when god forbid, I DID get the better of it.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> According to Salary.com, the base pay plus benefits for teachers in Allentown, PA is $80k ( https://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard...e&isshowcompanyfct=false&isshowaboutyou=false ) The biggest hunk of the benefits package is paid time off.
> 
> But, also, that same site says I should be making about three times what I actually make, so I don't put it as the gospel.



As government employees, shouldn't their salaries be public record? I know that is how it was at my last uni - got to check out what the profs were making.

EDIT: ah, I see now it looks like a site aggregating that data is what led us down this road.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

narad said:


> As government employees, shouldn't their salaries be public record? I know that is how it was at my last uni - got to check out what the profs were making.


it is public record, the link I posted earlier is from the PA dept. of education and shows district and county level wages.


----------



## broj15

The most valid point t I've seen anyone use recently (and forgive me if it's already been discussed in this thread) is that an outright ban on guns would likely go the same way as the war on drugs: alot of POC/minorities and lower class people getting incarcerated and people are still gonna find a way to kill other people. Guns, just like drugs, are so ingrained in American culture that any legislation to ban either has/will result in more loss of life and further oppression carried out against POC and the lower class.


----------



## vilk

broj15 said:


> The most valid point t I've seen anyone use recently (and forgive me if it's already been discussed in this thread) is that an outright ban on guns would likely go the same way as the war on drugs: alot of POC/minorities and lower class people getting incarcerated and people are still gonna find a way to kill other people. Guns, just like drugs, are so ingrained in American culture that any legislation to ban either has/will result in more loss of life and further oppression carried out against POC and the lower class.


The way that argument is generally addressed is by pointing out that no one is suggesting an outright ban on guns.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

broj15 said:


> The most valid point t I've seen anyone use recently (and forgive me if it's already been discussed in this thread) is that an outright ban on guns would likely go the same way as the war on drugs: alot of POC/minorities and lower class people getting incarcerated and people are still gonna find a way to kill other people. Guns, just like drugs, are so ingrained in American culture that any legislation to ban either has/will result in more loss of life and further oppression carried out against POC and the lower class.



That's probably why very few, and no one in this thread, is asking for a complete ban. That would be going a little too far. 

The idea that "gun control" means "full gun ban" is a straw man that's been pushed by the gun lobby since the 90's. 

Are there people on the far left asking for a full ban? Sure. Just like there are folks on the far right saying we should deregulate fully automatic weapons. 

The fact is, as already stated, well over 90% of gun owners polled want some form of gun control.


----------



## narad

vilk said:


> The way that argument is generally addressed is by pointing out that no one is suggesting an outright ban on guns.



I would say the argument is both irrelevant, as you would say few are talking about outright bans, but further a poor one for anyone to make: as stated in a long post I made talking about the inherent differences, I just think it's ludicrous people bring this up as an argument as if they have a crystal ball and can foresee the social impact of making all guns illegal. We're guitar people, not policy people that have tons of statistics and models predicting these outcomes.

That said, consider that there are massive forces pushing against each other in the drug trade -- cartels that make billions of dollars, that want to keep these substances coming into the US, where they are big business. None of this holds true for guns. You don't need more guns each week -- your current guns don't disappear once you've used them. GUNS ARE NOT DRUGS. GUN USERS ARE NOT DRUG USERS. I would say it's like comparing apples and oranges, but at least these are both fruit -- maybe we should start saying drugs and guns instead to emphasis how unrelated two things in the comparison really are.

Further still, as it pertains to illegal drugs, people need to sort out policy from implementation of policy. There are many ways in which we could have a war on drugs that many of us would view as more successful than the current one. To say well, any effort to control guns would wind up just the same as our super poor implementation of controlling illegal substances, is glomming together too many unrelated things.

And btw, I have it on good authority that, in comparison to a bag of cocaine, it's a lot harder to sneak through border checks with an AK-47 shoved up your ***


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> I know, and have had, some pretty amazing teachers. I've also had a few who were shockingly terrible. I what you see comes down to two pretty simple observations - starting salary for a teacher varies a lot state to state, and for some people in some states can be a reasonably good option out of school when you also factor in things like having summers off. However, for a top performer, especially in the STEM fields, a starting salary of $50k to teach 8th grade chem pales compared to triple that to do chemical analysis for an oil firm, for example. Second, for an "easy" profession (lots of vacation, summers off, etc), teaching is surprisingly grueling - it eases up after the first couple years once you've built up lesson plans and activities for your curriculum and can get it own to a routine, but my sister (an elementary teacher) has said that if she ever moves again, she's finding a different job, because the hours for those first two and three years are brutal while you're simultaneously teaching and putting lesson plans together. So, especially in districts with a lot of challenging students, burnout is pretty high, and over time increasingly you see the "motivated" teachers flame out and change careers, and the ones more interested in getting tenure and then collecting a 2.5% COLA adjustment year after year and then retiring at 62 with a generous pension start to become a larger proportion of the teaching pool.


I've had some pretty awesome teachers as well, but the general ratio for good teachers and bad teachers is about 25-33% decent, good, or great teachers, and 66-75% bad teachers. I think part of it has to deal with the methods they have to use, as well as not being judged, it would seem, but how well or poorly the students in class do. In some instances, it seems like they are retained regardless of their performance. For instance, my teachers in my college courses, for the most part, have all been stellar, especially the main teacher and advisor I've for my IT courses. He's incredibly gifted, working towards getting tenure, and I think he is the backbone of the department. He makes time for students when they need it, never allows people to fall behind, and his enthusiasm, abilities, and talent makes the classes easier to understand and a joy to attend. I'm probably going to keep in touch after I graduate in a year or so because he's that cool. In fact, I've never wanted to teach before, but I think after 10-20 years in the field, I might want to teach at a college in IT, because he's that awesome, and I'd like to be able to inspire the next generation of IT professionals like he has. And by the way, I do NOT envision that happening to the teacher I am talking about.



Drew said:


> Here's another thing we might actually see eye to eye on - I'm actually not a big fan of unionization for teachers, precisely because it does treat them as interchangeable and differentiated only by length of tenure, and doesn't reward performance directly, only length of service.
> 
> Anyway, I've only read the last few pages of this, but it looks like this has been an unexpectedly civil debate.


Yes, it has been pretty civil. And I do agree with you that unionization has turned teachers into cogs that want tenure, benefits, and don't give a shit about performance. The teacher I described above deserves it, and I see no way in hell he wants it to get lazy and just collect a check. He'll be working on shit in his office, and he'll take the time for students to discuss things [quite enthusiastically, I might add], explain things that a student if having issues with, advise a student what to do regarding their direction in the field, employment suggestions, and on and on. If any student had anything bad to say about him, the other students would more than likely call the student out for being a dick or something along those lines, rather than the teacher, because the teacher is amazing. Well tempered, enthusiastic, and able to tell a good story to backup an idea, or enforce a lesson. Doing that really helps, because it enables you to go, "Oh yeah, I remember this or that, because of that one story."

In fact, I've offered to write a letter to the committee to get him tenured (I think he's on year 2 of a 3 year process), and I'm going to ask him about it tonight when I go to class.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> In fact, I've offered to write a letter to the committee to get him tenured (I think he's on year 2 of a 3 year process), and I'm going to ask him about it tonight when I go to class.



Just going to throw it out there that you probably want to wait until after the course to pitch this idea to him, as it's otherwise ethically dubious prior to you receiving your final grade, and he'd probably not be able to use it.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

narad said:


> Just going to throw it out there that you probably want to wait until after the course to pitch this idea to him, as it's otherwise ethically dubious with you still in the course, and he'd probably not be able to use it.


That's a possibility, but that won't be for a year or so, as he teaches the majority of my IT classes. He'll be tenured by then, I do believe.


----------



## Drew

broj15 said:


> The most valid point t I've seen anyone use recently (and forgive me if it's already been discussed in this thread) is that an outright ban on guns would likely go the same way as the war on drugs: alot of POC/minorities and lower class people getting incarcerated and people are still gonna find a way to kill other people. Guns, just like drugs, are so ingrained in American culture that any legislation to ban either has/will result in more loss of life and further oppression carried out against POC and the lower class.


The other thing I'll point out, over and above vilk's observation, is that despite all the NRA's talk about gang violence and guns and whatnot, gun ownership is predominantly the realm of white, rural, men. As Chris Rock, I think, joked, if black Americans started lining up to buy guns in the same sort of numbers, we'd have the NRA signing on for gun control in a hurry.  

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/


----------



## kevdes93

Pretty late to the party in this thread.
I have 47 guns including an AR15 with a binary trigger (2 shots fired per trigger pull) and i see them as a hobby like guitars, theyre just fun to have and to shoot in my backyard. Ive been shooting since i was 5 years old, its just a fun time.

That said i have no problems making them tougher to get.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...georgia-respond-to-shots-fired-at-high-school

So, still want to get more guns to teachers?!

Also, Dick's Sporting Goods has announced that they will stop selling "assault-style" rifles and high capacity magazines, and is increasing the minimum age to purchase a firearm at their stores to 21.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...georgia-respond-to-shots-fired-at-high-school
> 
> So, still want to get more guns to teachers?!
> 
> Also, Dick's Sporting Goods has announced that they will stop selling "assault-style" rifles and high capacity magazines, and is increasing the minimum age to purchase a firearm at their stores to 21.



I'm minding my own business at work and my Facebook/Instagram blows up and all I see is my gun-friends yelling about "FUCK DICKS." 

It was funny without context. 

I applaud them for doing something, especially the age limit, but I'd be interested to see just what they're not selling. Semi-auto handguns cause far more deaths.


----------



## possumkiller

I think all modern firearms should be confiscated and destroyed. Civilian, police, military, everybody's. Everyone should be equipped with 18th century flintlock muzzleloaders.

Having just one shot that may or may not go off before taking a full minute to reload for the next shot would make everyone more careful about what they shoot at.


----------



## Ernesto

All governments are inherently corrupt. They have no true authority and no business telling anyone what to do about anything. People that rely upon government are weak, devolved, subhumans, and they're leading our species to a cliff that we just can't survive falling off of. I don't own a gun but if humanity's going to stay on the path it's on, which it looks like it is, I'm getting one, and anyone that tries to take it away is in for a very loud surprise. 

The second amendment was put in place to protect the people from the government. The people pushing gun control are the same ones calling Trump(a huge idiot too) "literally Hitler", but they think that the government having all of the firepower is a good idea. Idiocracy, here we come!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Ernesto said:


> All governments are inherently corrupt. They have no true authority and no business telling anyone what to do about anything. People that rely upon government are weak, devolved, subhumans, and they're leading our species to a cliff that we just can't survive falling off of. I don't own a gun but if humanity's going to stay on the path it's on, which it looks like it is, I'm getting one, and anyone that tries to take it away is in for a very loud surprise.
> 
> The second amendment was put in place to protect the people from the government. The people pushing gun control are the same ones calling Trump(a huge idiot too) "literally Hitler", but they think that the government having all of the firepower is a good idea. Idiocracy, here we come!


Idiocracy, referring to the film, is a great way to put it.


----------



## tacotiklah

I'm usually pretty far left leaning on political issues, but the topic of guns is where I'm centrist. I grew up around them and have gone hunting and all that. I come from a military family where the vast majority of my older male relatives are certified sharpshooters on various weapon systems, especially the M-16. Point being that I grew up around guns and responsible gun owners that instilled those values into me.

As such, I'm very much for gun ownership and would instantly vote against any actual, credible attempt to remove guns from owners. That said, there is imo, no good reason for a civilian to own any firearm that fires .223, 5.56, or 7.62 caliber ammunition. The most typical guns that fire these calibers are designed as weapons of war, for the sole purpose of eliminating as many human beings in as short of time as possible. If you're a soldier trying to liberate hostages/an area/etc., these guns are an ideal choice. They're easy to clean, easy to maintain, fast firing, and in the case of the M4, its modular abilities make it nearly infinitely customizable to neutralize targets based on objective parameters. 

Pray tell, what actual, justifiable use does a civilian have to own such a weapon (or variant of it)? None. There is no scenario that I can think of where a civilian needs to breach and takedown a building and neutralize targets that is within the bounds of legal justification. Oh sure, some vigilante Bill Hickok wannabe may think they can do a better job of this than a trained SWAT/Counterterrorism team because they played a lot of Call of Duty games, but they're more likely to get themselves and innocent people killed.

As for other types of firearms, by all means own them. Self-defense, hunting, and plinking targets are legit reasons to own firearms imo. All I ever ask is for people to keep them away from kids that haven't been taught proper gun safety/responsibility, and make sure you're licensed and have proper up-to-date registration for each one you own.

Will it solve all gun related deaths and injuries by mandating a licensing program for firearms? No. Unfortunately people are people, and sometimes even the most trustworthy people do stupid things. But it makes it easier to keep tabs on who is stockpiling weapons and allows authorities to better monitor at risk persons.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Idiocracy, referring to the film, is a great way to put it.



I don't know, I just find it weird that in "Idiocracy" the protagonist winds up in a future where people act in ways that, according to our current world's values, would appear as uneducated. But then the conspiracy theory / gun crazy people in this world rage against the currently educated people. 

Like you don't find many people that find success and a generally enjoyable upper-middle class lifestyle and then still go on about how the government and the sheeple are leading the people off of a cliff that humanity can't survive. It's always the people that can't hack it in modern society that seem to be vocal about it being systematically rigged against them or on the brink of collapse. And these people rage against the educated as actually being uneducated, when you know, being educated takes several years (or more) of difficult coursework, and being #woke requires browsing a bunch of like-minded internet forums in your free time. Reminds me of this false dichotomy between book smarts and street smarts.

So I sort of think, why is that?


----------



## StevenC

Ernesto said:


> All governments are inherently corrupt. They have no true authority and no business telling anyone what to do about anything. People that rely upon government are weak, devolved, subhumans, and they're leading our species to a cliff that we just can't survive falling off of. I don't own a gun but if humanity's going to stay on the path it's on, which it looks like it is, I'm getting one, and anyone that tries to take it away is in for a very loud surprise.
> 
> The second amendment was put in place to protect the people from the government. The people pushing gun control are the same ones calling Trump(a huge idiot too) "literally Hitler", but they think that the government having all of the firepower is a good idea. Idiocracy, here we come!


Maybe all governments are inherently corruptible, but to say they're all inherently corrupt is incorrect. That only works if you assume everyone is evil and out to get you, otherwise it's perfectly plausible that a group of people could get together with the intentions of improving things for the masses.

It's not like governments arise because some moistened bint lobbed at scimitar at them. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses.

Furthermore, calling people who rely on government "weak, devolved, subhumans" seems at odds with your claim in another thread of relying on a gift economy. Sounds the same as "mooching of the government" to me. And I'm glad they're just going to donate a gun to you, but you shouldn't need a government to know that shooting people is a bad thing to do.

Finally, a lot of the people asking for control are the people whose schools are getting shot up.


----------



## possumkiller

tacotiklah said:


> That said, there is imo, no good reason for a civilian to own any firearm that fires .223, 5.56, or 7.62 caliber ammunition.



I wouldn't really say that. There are tons of bolt action and single shot rifles chambered for 5.56mm NATO (which is .223 Remington in the civilian world) and 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester in the civilian world). Not to mention 7.62/.308 and 5.56/.223 is just the bullet and bore diameter. There are a lot of other cartridges that use .22 and .30 caliber bullets. The 5.56 is great for long range varmint hunting popular with farmers in wide open range. The 7.62 is great for large game like deer and elk. The 7.62 which was adopted in 1957 to replace the .30-06 (modern powder allowed the same performance in a shorter cartridge) is actually overpowered for killing man sized targets. The bigger is better mentality behind it stems from the 1898 Spanish American war. The military rifle issued at that time was the Krag Jorgensen bolt action in 30-40 Krag (.30 caliber bullet on top of 40 grains of black powder). The Spanish were armed with German Mauser rifles chambered in 7x57mm with modern smokeless powder. The American forces said the Krag was so weak they wanted a better performing weapon like the Spanish were using. So the US developed the 1903 Springfield rifle chambered in .30-03 later rechambered for .30-06. The .30-06 was so popular that all later US military rifle cartridges were based on it. The .50 BMG was a result of the government in WW1 requesting the .30-06 be enlarged to an anti tank capable (by WW1 standards) cartridge. The 5.56 was a scaled down version for the M-16. They found out that you don't need that large bullet to kill a person. A small bullet at high velocity has good penetration and also pulls a large shockwave behind it causing extensive internal trauma. With added benefits of less recoil and ability to carry more ammunition at the same weight.


----------



## possumkiller

narad said:


> I don't know, I just find it weird that in "Idiocracy" the protagonist winds up in a future where people act in ways that, according to our current world's values, would appear as uneducated. But then the conspiracy theory / gun crazy people in this world rage against the currently educated people.
> 
> Like you don't find many people that find success and a generally enjoyable upper-middle class lifestyle and then still go on about how the government and the sheeple are leading the people off of a cliff that humanity can't survive. It's always the people that can't hack it in modern society that seem to be vocal about it being systematically rigged against them or on the brink of collapse. And these people rage against the educated as actually being uneducated, when you know, being educated takes several years (or more) of difficult coursework, and being #woke requires browsing a bunch of like-minded internet forums in your free time. Reminds me of this false dichotomy between book smarts and street smarts.
> 
> So I sort of think, why is that?



Eh...
I'm college educated and I find the system to be quite very well rigged against certain people. When I was younger it was quite easy for me to pass judgement on ex offenders. Then getting hit with a felony record over some seriously stupid shit changed all of that. I have definitely not been able to be successful or hack it in modern society. In most modern societies (I thought America as well but apparently not) after someone completes a sentence and pays their debt to society they are good again. Not here. It follows you everywhere the rest of your life. In modern society it doesn't even matter if it's sealed and expunged. Third party background check companies just Google your name and it's all over the internet. I can't tell you how many times I've applied for good jobs and been ecstatic because there was no mention of criminal record in the qualifications and requirements just to be told over the phone no felonies. 

Florida just had a law overturned by the supreme court because it's unconstitutional to disallow felons the right to vote after they've completed reintegration. I was charged in Florida and haven't been able to vote for nine years. The criminal justice system in America is very good at keeping people down and holding them back. I can see why people become repeat offenders and turn to lives of crime. It's hard as fuck to find a job with a criminal record.


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> Eh...
> I'm college educated and I find the system to be quite very well rigged against certain people. When I was younger it was quite easy for me to pass judgement on ex offenders. Then getting hit with a felony record over some seriously stupid shit changed all of that. I have definitely not been able to be successful or hack it in modern society. In most modern societies (I thought America as well but apparently not) after someone completes a sentence and pays their debt to society they are good again. Not here. It follows you everywhere the rest of your life. In modern society it doesn't even matter if it's sealed and expunged. Third party background check companies just Google your name and it's all over the internet. I can't tell you how many times I've applied for good jobs and been ecstatic because there was no mention of criminal record in the qualifications and requirements just to be told over the phone no felonies.
> 
> Florida just had a law overturned by the supreme court because it's unconstitutional to disallow felons the right to vote after they've completed reintegration. I was charged in Florida and haven't been able to vote for nine years. The criminal justice system in America is very good at keeping people down and holding them back. I can see why people become repeat offenders and turn to lives of crime. It's hard as fuck to find a job with a criminal record.



I think that's a bit off the target of what I'm talking about. I agree that life as a felon seems intentionally hard, in the same way a lot of incarceration charges seem severe or exploitive of people's socio-economic status.

What I'm referring to is more the people that are all into new world order / the government enslaving its citizens via firepower in some sort of dystopian novel sort of manner / the rest of the world being unaware of this system of exploitation, etc..


----------



## TedEH

Ernesto said:


> People that rely upon government are weak, devolved, subhumans


Wow.

You never go half way, do you? 

Arguably, everyone who isn't self sufficient, living off the land, entirely outside and separate from society and/or law, is relying (at least in part) on government. You may see it as evil, and that's fine, but it's a necessary one in order to get any significant number of people to be able to function as a group.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Idiocracy, referring to the film, is a great way to put it.


...although on the flip side, implying that people are too stupid to think for themselves and instead will parrot whatever opinions are handed to them by their corporate overlords by citing a firm that was sold by Hollywood for profit is a little contradictory. 

Excuse me. Did I say "contradictory?" I meant "edgy." Ernesto, you're _so_ edgy. People must really want to be just like you.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> ...although on the flip side, implying that people are too stupid to think for themselves and instead will parrot whatever opinions are handed to them by their corporate overlords by citing a firm that was sold by Hollywood for profit is a little contradictory.
> 
> Excuse me. Did I say "contradictory?" I meant "edgy." Ernesto, you're _so_ edgy. People must really want to be just like you.


Except people are too stupid to think for themselves.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Except people are too stupid to think for themselves.


Some of them, probably. Like our dear friend the anarchist here, who's convinced himself he's smarter than the rest of the world by convincing himself the rest of the world is just brainwashed. I should try that sometime. It's probably easier than doing it the hard way.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Except people are too stupid to think for themselves.



The problem with #woke people that look down on others for being "too stupid to think for themselves" is that it's basically an unfalsifiable claim. How convenient it is to call out everyone for being wrong, and yet not make any real prediction -- the systems just rigged, it's going to turn out badly, new world order is coming, we need guns, but not ..right now... just soon-ish. No specific instances. Just hand-waviness about being better than some group of people in some unprovable way. Seems more a reflection of the person holding that opinion than the people they're calling out.


----------



## Lemonbaby

possumkiller said:


> Florida just had a law overturned by the supreme court because it's unconstitutional to disallow felons the right to vote after they've completed reintegration. I was charged in Florida and haven't been able to vote for nine years. The criminal justice system in America is very good at keeping people down and holding them back. I can see why people become repeat offenders and turn to lives of crime. It's hard as fuck to find a job with a criminal record.


Never knew about some US states taking away the right to vote from felons. Also, the background checks when applying for a job are simply illegal in most European countries. I think that's unnecessarily causing frustration when a person anyway might be closer to the wrong track already and pushing him to do things he probably wouldn't have done if re-integration was easier...


----------



## possumkiller

narad said:


> The problem with #woke people that look down on others for being "too stupid to think for themselves" is that it's basically an unfalsifiable claim. How convenient it is to call out everyone for being wrong, and yet not make any real prediction -- the systems just rigged, it's going to turn out badly, new world order is coming, we need guns, but not ..right now... just soon-ish. No specific instances. Just hand-waviness about being better than some group of people in some unprovable way. Seems more a reflection of the person holding that opinion than the people they're calling out.


REPENT! Jesus is coming! We're living in the end times!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Lemonbaby said:


> Never knew about some US states taking away the right to vote from felons. Also, the background checks when applying for a job are simply illegal in most European countries. I think that's unnecessarily causing frustration when a person anyway might be closer to the wrong track already and pushing him to do things he probably wouldn't have done if re-integration was easier...



You're 100% correct. 

Not only do we incarcerate people longer and for pettier offenses in terrible prisons, but we don't make it easy to go back to society, which also gives us a huge re-incarceration rate.


----------



## possumkiller

https://mobile.reuters.com/news/picture/blessing-the-ar-15-idUSRTX4ZCOJ

Interesting.


----------



## Dcm81

possumkiller said:


> https://mobile.reuters.com/news/picture/blessing-the-ar-15-idUSRTX4ZCOJ
> 
> Interesting.



.......that's one way of putting it


----------



## bostjan

Lemonbaby said:


> Never knew about some US states taking away the right to vote from felons. Also, the background checks when applying for a job are simply illegal in most European countries. I think that's unnecessarily causing frustration when a person anyway might be closer to the wrong track already and pushing him to do things he probably wouldn't have done if re-integration was easier...



I'd say it's a significant number of states. Here in VT, we are one of, IIRC, two states in the nation that doesn't take away the right to vote for felons. Everywhere else I've lived long-term has had some process or other to get suffrage rights back after incarceration is over, but some places, like Florida, I think, you basically never get your voting right back.

I mean, it'd be one thing if "felonies" were some sort of horrible crime, like murder, for example, but it's way more broadly defined than that, especially in places like Florida, where a man was once charged with a felony for letting go of some helium balloons he bought to impress a woman. A felony. Meaning that he would have lost his right to vote for the rest of his life and would have made it nearly impossible for him to find employment. For balloons.

I find it so interesting that we Americans brag nonstop about being the land of the free and how much freedom we have and how bald eagles with AR-15s in their talons and the Bill of Rights tattooed on their backs freely shoot out of our asses daily, yet any time someone farts in a church or makes a silly face at a police officer, it's off with their heads. At least places like Saudi Arabia don't lead you to believe that you can do whatever you want.

And the fact that many of the people who are most vehemently opposed to banning automatic weapons and high capacity magazines also happen to be holy rollers...it just highlights the hypocrisy inherent in American culture so well, that there's nothing else left to say.

If Jesus owned a gun, what would he have?
a) An AR-15
b) An Uzi
c) A Desert Eagle
d) All of them
e) What are you talking about?! He's Jesus; "turn the other cheek" means non-violence. The question is insane.

Frankly, I know more than a few Christians who take every opportunity to talk about how Christian they are, who would answer the above question with "d". Not all, probably not most, but a significant portion. And, like I said, it's just indicative of how much hypocrisy there is in mainstream American culture. Even if these folks are in the minority, they make sure that the vocalizations of their opinions are the most noticeable out of all of the noise you see and hear out there.


----------



## Explorer

Since Trump is now suggesting taking guns from the mentally ill, will the anti-gun-control members in this topic now state that this group is indeed low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing gun violence?

If not, what's the argument against?

Also, what would be the argument against a background check... especially since onlu criminals will be barred from buying at the end?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Explorer said:


> Also, what would be the argument against a background check... especially since onlu criminals will be barred from buying at the end?



The canned response tends to be "criminals would just find a way to get them anyway."


----------



## Randy

Explorer said:


> Since Trump is now suggesting taking guns from the mentally ill, will the anti-gun-control members in this topic now state that this group is indeed low-hanging fruit in terms of reducing gun violence?
> 
> If not, what's the argument against?
> 
> Also, what would be the argument against a background check... especially since onlu criminals will be barred from buying at the end?



I've been curious to see how this would pan out since you have a group of people who both cited Trump's judgement as infallible and also the second amendment as being unimpeachable. Unstoppable force meets immoveable object. 

So far all the people I know that fit into those categories have been silent, I'm assuming they're either waiting for his reversal or they don't like the taste of crow.


----------



## Hollowway

possumkiller said:


> https://mobile.reuters.com/news/picture/blessing-the-ar-15-idUSRTX4ZCOJ
> 
> Interesting.



“Marriage blessed with a ‘rod of iron’”? Sounds like my wedding vows.

Da dum tishhh. I’ll be here all week.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Hollowway said:


> “Marriage blessed with a ‘rod of iron’”? Sounds like my wedding vows.
> 
> Da dum tishhh. I’ll be here all week.


So that's why your wife was walking funny for about a month a few years back...


----------



## 1b4n3z

Curious: why do you think school (and workplace etc) shooters opt for those AR bean shooters instead of real military grade guns and/or related gadgetry? This is mainly for the 'if there is will there is a way' crowd. Those AR's seem like toys compared to full auto weapons.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

1b4n3z said:


> Curious: why do you think school (and workplace etc) shooters opt for those AR bean shooters instead of real military grade guns and/or related gadgetry? This is mainly for the 'if there is will there is a way' crowd. Those AR's seem like toys compared to full auto weapons.



Cost and ease of access.

Consumer AR15 derivatives have the potential to be objectively better than actual military hardware. The enthusiast market has driven a ton of innovation and market for "boutique" rifles.


----------



## Drew

1b4n3z said:


> Curious: why do you think school (and workplace etc) shooters opt for those AR bean shooters instead of real military grade guns and/or related gadgetry? This is mainly for the 'if there is will there is a way' crowd. Those AR's seem like toys compared to full auto weapons.


I mean, I think pretty clearly because it is extremely difficult, and extremely expensive, for a private citizen to get their hands on a M-16, but in certain states it takes little more than a pulse and a couple hundred bucks to get an AR-15. 

So, yeah, it seems fairly obvious that gun control _helps_, I'd think.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, I think pretty clearly because it is extremely difficult, and extremely expensive, for a private citizen to get their hands on a M-16, but in certain states it takes little more than a pulse and a couple hundred bucks to get an AR-15.
> 
> So, yeah, it seems fairly obvious that gun control _helps_, I'd think.


I mean, the AR-15 modified to fire full auto is _essentially the same_ as the M-16. 
But if you are planning to hunker down in one spot and shoot at people until doomsday, why stop at an M-16? Why not get an M134D and a tripod or a bazooka or an M142 HIMARS with a few neutron bombs and a flamethrower?! Or, just go for broke and order a couple of Tsar Bombs off of AliExpress and mount them on an LGM-30 ballistic missile?!?!
It all boils down to availability.
Sadly, as time goes on, the chances of the wrong people getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction get higher and higher. With a nation like North Korea holding onto large scale nuclear weapons, it's basically already happened, arguably, but, realistically speaking, some day, NK will fall apart under its own weight, and then the weapons in the hands of the Kim family might "disappear." I can joke around about a private citizen arming himself with an ICBM as if it's an absurd idea, but in practice, we are not far off from that becoming a potentially real situation.
Yeah, some angsty teens who think the world is out to hurt them can grab a semi-automatic weapon or a few, and shoot up the school, and it's really bad, but, hell, when I was in school, I had a classmate who scared the crap out of me. This guy was a full-blown anarchist, and I didn't know until I went to his house and saw him lighting up home-made thermite and napalm and stuff. How do you stop someone from blowing up the school like that?
Well, it hasn't happened in a long time, because most kids who are smart enough to figure out how to build their own weapons of mass destruction by applying what they are learning in 11th grade Chemisty also know the cause and effect of blowing up their friends and having to live with themselves afterward, but if these sorts of kids get indoctrinated enough, it'll for sure become a problem again. While Mr. Anarchist guy was playing around with science for the sake of developing anarchy tools, most of us other geeks were playing around with some dangerous things for the sake of science. I built plenty of things that went "boom" myself, but I never ever threatened to hurt anyone with them, and I always did everything I could to avoid irresponsibly putting any people or animals in any sort of danger. Looking back, of course, nothing about a teenager building his own firecrackers and setting them off in the woods is the least bit safe nor responsible, but anyway, my point is that the perfect combination of determination, know-how, and hatred for humanity rarely manifest all at once. But we have come very close in recent years. The knucklehead who shot up the movie theater in Colorado seemed like he was just a few bytes of know-how away from making things much much worse than he did, for example.
So, keeping weapons out of people's hands is not the answer, but it has to be *part* of the answer, whether the NRA likes it or not. But the world won't be safe with a single pronged approach to curbing homespun terrorism. Just like a single-pronged approach has been doing bupkis in terms of addressing Islamic extremism, globally.

And, in general, this is what happens when we culturally marginalize our clever people, instead of setting them on an important task and trusting smart people to be smarter than the idiots leading policy in our country.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Or, just go for broke and order a couple of Tsar Bombs off of AliExpress



Pfft, despite the listings, those knock-offs use Chinese-processed Uranium and are only like 5 megaton yields in reality.


----------



## ArtDecade

I don't have an issue with law abiding Americans having access to (some) guns, but I think there should be more extensive background checks, wait periods, tests and certifications, and limits on caliber and rate of fire. That common sense stuff, ya know?


----------



## bostjan

ArtDecade said:


> I don't have an issue with law abiding Americans having access to (some) guns, but I think there should be more extensive background checks, wait periods, tests and certifications, and limits on caliber and rate of fire. That common sense stuff, ya know?


I guess the discussion is where to draw the line.
Guns basically have the following purposes, by my reckoning:
1. Waging war
2. Defending one's home
3. Hunting
4. Shooting targets for sport
5. Crime
I think the first and last purposes really don't benefit from limits in weapon power. But, I don't see why full auto is really going to help you hunt for food or deter the lowlife trying to steal your silverware. I'm not sure about caliber, though. Obviously, there are vast differences between the power in the casing of a round that goes beyond the bore of the barrel.
Looking at the Second Amendment, I don't think we can say that waging war was not in the framer's minds, but the context in 2018 is not at all what it was in the 18th Century, you know?
Even as someone who is a huge fan of personal liberties, I think that education in firearm safety and making sure that we are not arming people who will simply gio shoot up our children while they are in school need to be highest priorities.


----------



## ArtDecade

The reason I brought up caliber had to do with the most recent shooting in Florida. Trained police officers were reluctant to engage with the gunman because their body armor would be effectively useless. When the average citizen has enough fire power to force a police officer to second guess taking action, I think we should probably take a harder look at what we are making readily available. I suppose we could treat guns the same way you treat driving restrictions. Everyone that passes a basic test can have access to _gun x_, but if you want a higher caliber weapon (_gun y_), you would need to pass a more difficult test. The idea of a driver license (x) versus a CDC license (y).


----------



## 1b4n3z

MaxOfMetal said:


> Cost and ease of access.



Yes I should think cost (price, risk, effort) is a huge factor in this case, as with everything else. Price of a gun comes up surprisingly sparsely in these discussions, which is rather strange as it is a very real constraint for especially impulsive people. It's one thing to go buy the most lethal legal weapon available, if only for vague reasons, but getting something more powerful requires quite a bit more dedication and skill. If a lot of these school shootings, for example, are carried out with the most powerful legal weapon, but not with a 'next level' illegal weapon - well there's your gun control demarcation


----------



## ArtDecade

1b4n3z said:


> Yes I should think cost (price, risk, effort) is a huge factor in this case, as with everything else. Price of a gun comes up surprisingly sparsely in these discussions, which is rather strange as it is a very real constraint for especially impulsive people. It's one thing to go buy the most lethal legal weapon available, if only for vague reasons, but getting something more powerful requires quite a bit more dedication and skill. If a lot of these school shootings, for example, are carried out with the most powerful legal weapon, but not with a 'next level' illegal weapon - well there's your gun control demarcation



Guns and credit are pretty easy to get in the States. Banks love lending money to people who can't afford things. It wouldn't take long for someone wanting to do some evil to get lines of credit, max them out, and proceed. Most of them don't worry about having to make payments, because they are probably expecting to die in the process.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

1b4n3z said:


> Yes I should think cost (price, risk, effort) is a huge factor in this case, as with everything else. Price of a gun comes up surprisingly sparsely in these discussions, which is rather strange as it is a very real constraint for especially impulsive people. It's one thing to go buy the most lethal legal weapon available, if only for vague reasons, but getting something more powerful requires quite a bit more dedication and skill. If a lot of these school shootings, for example, are carried out with the most powerful legal weapon, but not with a 'next level' illegal weapon - well there's your gun control demarcation



We already have restrictions on anything "above" what you can get at your average gun store. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act



ArtDecade said:


> Guns and credit are pretty easy to get in the States. Banks love lending money to people who can't afford things. It wouldn't take long for someone wanting to do some evil to get lines of credit, max them out, and proceed. Most of them don't worry about having to make payments, because they are probably expecting to die in the process.



You'd need a mountain of credit and go through a lot of paperwork to get a legal NFA firearm.

The "cheapest" automatic weapons are tens of thousands of dollars.

Those that are cheaper, and illegal, aren't going to take credit cards. 

The fact we see so few full automatic weapons involved in these tragedies is proof that legislation can work. Heck, you don't even see too many modified-to-auto weapons used. That's what makes stuff like bump stocks, cranked trigger actuators, and newer glove style devices so dangerous.


----------



## ArtDecade

MaxOfMetal said:


> You'd need a mountain of credit and go through a lot of paperwork to get a legal NFA firearm.The "cheapest" automatic weapons are tens of thousands of dollars.



Understood. I wasn't talking about specifics in any regards. Simply, I was stating that it is easy to get a line of credit and purchase weapons.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ArtDecade said:


> Understood. I wasn't talking about specifics in any regards. Simply, I was stating that it is easy to get a line of credit and purchase weapons.



Guns are absolutely stupid cheap right now. 

You can get a new handgun for under $200. Granted, it's not going to function too great, but it'll still be deadly. 

But new ones aren't the problem. The $300 AR15 on ArmsList being sold by the melvin who isn't even going to look at an ID is the problem.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> So, keeping weapons out of people's hands is not the answer, but it has to be *part* of the answer, whether the NRA likes it or not. But the world won't be safe with a single pronged approach to curbing homespun terrorism. Just like a single-pronged approach has been doing bupkis in terms of addressing Islamic extremism, globally.



I agree. Restricting firearms will help, but it can only do so much. We'll need to do a lot more in order to get things under control.




ArtDecade said:


> The reason I brought up caliber had to do with the most recent shooting in Florida. Trained police officers were reluctant to engage with the gunman because their body armor would be effectively useless. When the average citizen has enough fire power to force a police officer to second guess taking action, I think we should probably take a harder look at what we are making readily available.



The thing is, most rifles are powerful enough to penetrate most body armor. Military grade body armor prides a little more protection against some rifle rounds, but not most.

And the AR15/M16 rifle often used in these mass shootings fires a 5.56mm NATO (.223 Rem) round that isn't particularly powerful. (To put it in perspective, it is illegal in most jurisdictions to hunt deer with a 5.56/.223 because it is not considered powerful enough to make a clean kill on deer sized animals).


----------



## ArtDecade

tedtan said:


> The thing is, most rifles are powerful enough to penetrate most body armor. Military grade body armor prides a little more protection against some rifle rounds, but not most.



That is why I was thinking that different types of calibers should only be available with different types of certifications. A driver's license means you can drive most vehicles, but we still have CDL certifications as things get more powerful. Just a thought.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

tedtan said:


> And the AR15/M16 rifle often used in these mass shootings fires a 5.56mm NATO (.223 Rem) round that isn't particularly powerful. (To put it in perspective, it is illegal in most jurisdictions to hunt deer with a 5.56/.223 because it is not considered powerful enough to make a clean kill on deer sized animals).



Wat.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/...know-how-much-damage-rifle-bullets-1823503094

You use larger caliber, faster rounds on game because you're trying to preserve the meat (so nothing that explodes/tumbles). You want a .338 or 7mm to punch through the super dense coat and flesh while not ricocheting all inside. 

The .223/5.56 is plenty powerful in the civilian market. But it's just as easy to get an AR in .308/7.62. The Blackout and Wylde round are popular too. You can even get monster .458 SOCOM kits for reasonable prices. 

The whole "this round isn't powerful enough" thing is bullshit cooked up by gun manufacturers to sell more guns in all kinds of calibers.


----------



## bostjan

I guess there is still some confusion about caliber. Caliber is the diameter of the bullet. You could have a tiny caliber round in a huge casing with tons of powder and it could be deadly as hell, or you could have a round the size of a boxing glove with just enough powder to get it out of the barrel, and it could be virtually harmless.

As @MaxOfMetal said, the 5.56mm rounds used in AR-15/M-16 rifles are particularly good at wounding and killing people. It's not a huge round, and they are not particularly penetrating in comparison with hunting rifle ammo. It's a manageable amount of knockback for a fully automatic weapon held by hand with enough killing power to be highly effective in battle.

That's why I'm a bit confused about the idea of trying to limit caliber. Maybe hunting moose/elk is something you want to have regulated but legal, then you will need a large and powerful round. Anyway, if it can kill anything bigger than a gopher, chances are that it could potentially kill a person if aimed properly.

And if Trump said today that all of the hunters would have to turn over their weapons tomorrow, I really don't think it would go well. There are still families who survive off of hunting part of the year. It might not be common, but there are people who live that way, and I doubt that they'd be happy about having to switch to using a bow and arrow or a spear to hunt.


----------



## tedtan

MaxOfMetal said:


> Wat.
> 
> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/...know-how-much-damage-rifle-bullets-1823503094
> 
> You use larger caliber, faster rounds on game because you're trying to preserve the meat (so nothing that explodes/tumbles). You want a .338 or 7mm to punch through the super dense coat and flesh while not ricocheting all inside.
> 
> The .223/5.56 is plenty powerful in the civilian market. But it's just as easy to get an AR in .308/7.62. The Blackout and Wylde round are popular too. You can even get monster .458 SOCOM kits for reasonable prices.
> 
> The whole "this round isn't powerful enough" thing is bullshit cooked up by gun manufacturers to sell more guns in all kinds of calibers.



Perhaps things have changed recently, but the .223 was not legal in most jurisdictions even in the past 5-10 years, the reasons given by the states being a concern over the power (e.g., energy transfer) of the smaller diameter, lighter weight bullet. Not against people, but animals. A .223 bullet shouldn't tumble, but expand like any other hunting bullet (the military 5.56 NATO round will tumble because it is designed to do so, but the civilian bullet shouldn't). Any of these rounds should pass cleanly through an animal, the question is how much energy is transferred into the target before the bullet exits. I haven't looked into this regarding the .223, just commenting on various laws, but a while back, the .243 was the minimum legal for deer and antelope in many jurisdictions.

And you can keep the .338 - I don't want that unless I'm hunting brown bear, and even then I'd probably pass it over for a .378 mag.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> I guess there is still some confusion about caliber. Caliber is the diameter of the bullet. You could have a tiny caliber round in a huge casing with tons of powder and it could be deadly as hell, or you could have a round the size of a boxing glove with just enough powder to get it out of the barrel, and it could be virtually harmless.



Keep in mind that it is a combination of the weight of the bullet, the diameter of the bullet (or how large it expands after impact), the speed at which it is launched, and how well it holds up under impact that determine how effective it will be against a given target. You could add in ballistic coefficient, as well, as it will contribute to the trajectory, and, as a result, how flat the round shoots. 



bostjan said:


> As @MaxOfMetal said, the 5.56mm rounds used in AR-15/M-16 rifles are particularly good at wounding and killing people. It's not a huge round, and they are not particularly penetrating in comparison with hunting rifle ammo. It's a manageable amount of knockback for a fully automatic weapon held by hand with enough killing power to be highly effective in battle.



Yeah, people are softer targets than animals, so we are more easily killed with smaller, slower, lighter more frangible bullets than animals. If you want to take larger animals, they have much tougher hide, bones, etc. and require more energy transfer to kill cleanly.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

.223 is fine for taking deer, especially if you're using heavier weight soft tip/expanding rounds. Heavier wt round with an expanding tip= way more energy transferred to the target. 
Full metal jacket rounds on the other hand, tend to overpenetrate or tumble/ricochet (depending on what the round encounters). I had a patient that was shot with 5.56 fmj rounds and one bounced off his left scapula and exited out his right glute. The other rounds were stopped by his body armor.

Class iii body armor is good for stopping maybe one or two 5.56 or 7.62mm rounds. The kevlar weave helps more with handgun calibers like 9mm, while 5.56 or 7.62 tend to blow right through it and crack the ceramic plate on the first shot.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> Keep in mind that it is a combination of the weight of the bullet, the diameter of the bullet (or how large it expands after impact), the speed at which it is launched, and how well it holds up under impact that determine how effective it will be against a given target. You could add in ballistic coefficient, as well, as it will contribute to the trajectory, and, as a result, how flat the round shoots.



Right. That's just my point, though, that having a cutoff caliber seems like am ineffective approach to me.



tedtan said:


> Yeah, people are softer targets than animals, so we are more easily killed with smaller, slower, lighter more frangible bullets than animals. If you want to take larger animals, they have much tougher hide, bones, etc. and require more energy transfer to kill cleanly.



I used to work with this skinny guy in a restaurant. One day he was walking along the sidewalk and somebody mistook him for someone else and emptied a 9mm clip into him. The bullets all went in and out, most through various parts of his torso, with two in the right arm. After some considerable time in the hospital, the guy was okay and came back to work. I was ~19 at the time and was in total disbelief that someone could get shot so many times and survive, let along not having to poop in a bag. But that was the thing, had the bullets fragmented or mushroomed on impact or bounced around inside of his body, he very likely wouldn't have lived.


----------



## Winspear

I feel that a complete gun ban would be beneficial - the type of gun does not matter in my mind. Just like other countries. 
You'll notice I said "I think it would be beneficial" - not "I think there should be a gun ban". This is because I am not naive and I know it can never be that simple. It's an incredible difficult situation to find a solution for. I am however confident that if the USA woke up tomorrow and all legal guns were gone, that there would be a reduction in deaths. Yes, some people who would have been able to defend themselves with a gun will now be dead instead - that makes it difficult. But I am sure the number of deaths would go down overall. But indeed, I'm not saying this is necessarily the solution. 

One thing I am sure of: I don't understand how any pro-gun person can go around saying "Guns aren't the problem". Guns being the problem doesn't automatically mean that a ban is the perfect solution. It's possible to acknowledge that guns are a the problem and still be against a ban. I just can't fathom how anyone can say "Guns aren't the problem" and expect to be taken seriously in their discussion.


----------



## possumkiller

Winspear said:


> I feel that a complete gun ban would be beneficial - the type of gun does not matter in my mind. Just like other countries.
> You'll notice I said "I think it would be beneficial" - not "I think there should be a gun ban". This is because I am not naive and I know it can never be that simple. It's an incredible difficult situation to find a solution for. I am however confident that if the USA woke up tomorrow and all legal guns were gone, that there would be a reduction in deaths. Yes, some people who would have been able to defend themselves with a gun will now be dead instead - that makes it difficult. But I am sure the number of deaths would go down overall. But indeed, I'm not saying this is necessarily the solution.
> 
> One thing I am sure of: I don't understand how any pro-gun person can go around saying "Guns aren't the problem". Guns being the problem doesn't automatically mean that a ban is the perfect solution. It's possible to acknowledge that guns are a the problem and still be against a ban. I just can't fathom how anyone can say "Guns aren't the problem" and expect to be taken seriously in their discussion.


Because guns don't kill people brah...










Fracking does...


----------



## bostjan

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/20-...mart-over-new-age-restrictions-on-rifles.html

20 year old man suing Dick's Sporting Goods for age discrimination, because he cannot purchase a rifle there.
What are your thoughts?


----------



## auxioluck

bostjan said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/20-...mart-over-new-age-restrictions-on-rifles.html
> 
> 20 year old man suing Dick's Sporting Goods for age discrimination, because he cannot purchase a rifle there.
> What are your thoughts?



I attribute a lot of his attitude to being young and not having a lot of work experience. It's not unusual for employers to have restrictions outside state laws. For example, there are a lot of employers in California who drug test for marijuana, even though it's 100% legal in the state's eyes. I also think we live in an overly sue-happy society, and there are lots of other legal ways to get firearms than Dick's or Walmart. Seems like someone trying a money grab to me.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/06/20-...mart-over-new-age-restrictions-on-rifles.html
> 
> 20 year old man suing Dick's Sporting Goods for age discrimination, because he cannot purchase a rifle there.
> What are your thoughts?



Apparently conservatives think it's okay for private company to discriminate against a couple trying to buy cake because they're gay but discriminate against a guy trying to buy a gun because he's under 21 and OH SHIT!


----------



## bostjan

Funny thing is that I find it highly unlikely for this lawsuit to be settled before this Oregon man turns 21 anyway.

Also, if he wins, then I want to sue every rental car company ever for not renting to 16-year-old kids.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Right. That's just my point, though, that having a cutoff caliber seems like am ineffective approach to me.



I was elaborating on what you said, rather than addressing that comment to you. But I was posting as I was about to run off to a meeting (as I often do when I have down time between meetings), so that probably wasn't as evident as it should have been. Mea culpa.


----------



## tedtan

Winspear said:


> I feel that a complete gun ban would be beneficial - the type of gun does not matter in my mind. Just like other countries.



Other countries don't necessarily have a complete ban, though. My main interest in shooting is side-by-side and over-under shotguns, which are perfectly legal in the UK, Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.

Granted, they aren't high capacity (they only hold two shots - one in each barrel), but if you get hit by a 12 gauge, you're hamburger meat. (Fun fact: Germany tried, unsuccessfully, to have shotguns outlawed for use in war during World War I as they were so inhumane and destructive in trench warfare, even though Germany was using tanks, machine guns, mustard gas, flamethrowers, etc. ).


----------



## StevenC

possumkiller said:


> Because guns don't kill people brah...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fracking does...


Uhh...


----------



## 1b4n3z

Yeah it looks like we could buy assault rifles and shotguns here, just not full automatic guns. Quite a large selection to choose from too. Of course you'd need a license and no criminal record. There are a lot of guns in circulation too, about 30 for every 100 people. You'd think the countryside is a shooting gallery from the amount of guns available and booze consumed but not (quite) so. Maybe the mandatory military training men undergo removes much of gun enthusiasm. I certainly lost all fascination to guns having to drag those damn things around for a year


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's become a "lifestyle" thing in the US. There's a whole industry devoted to supporting it. 

It wasn't always like this though. I remember when I first started shooting the idea of people basing thier entire life and image on firearms was ridiculous.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's become a "lifestyle" thing in the US. There's a whole industry devoted to supporting it.
> 
> It wasn't always like this though. I remember when I first started shooting the idea of people basing thier entire life and image on firearms was ridiculous.



And now we've come so far that online dating services are having to ban users because of the prevalent amount of dudes posing with their guns.


----------



## Drew

Winspear said:


> It's possible to acknowledge that guns are a the problem and still be against a ban. I just can't fathom how anyone can say "Guns aren't the problem" and expect to be taken seriously in their discussion.


And yet, this is precisely the attitude that the most powerful lobbying group in this country has taken and continues to take. 

Broken record here, but the main reason I want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed is not because I want to ban private ownership of guns - I don't - but because I don't think we can have a sensible, adult, and productive conversation about even limited and targeted gun control policies like universal background checks to close the private seller loophole, when gun advocates are going to continue to bury their head in the sand and say "but, my rights!" whenever any new proposals are made, however modest.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> And yet, this is precisely the attitude that the most powerful lobbying group in this country has taken and continues to take.
> 
> Broken record here, but the main reason I want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed is not because I want to ban private ownership of guns - I don't - but because I don't think we can have a sensible, adult, and productive conversation about even limited and targeted gun control policies like universal background checks to close the private seller loophole, when gun advocates are going to continue to bury their head in the sand and say "but, my rights!" whenever any new proposals are made, however modest.



But @Drew , before you can repeal the Second Amendment, you have to get two thirds of congress to agree to do it, which will only happen if you can have a sensible productive conversation about it. It's a chicken-egg problem, really.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> And now we've come so far that online dating services are having to ban users because of the prevalent amount of dudes posing with their guns.



Don't worry, people will still see the threeper shirts, 5.11 pants and giant holster print-over-gut to know to stay away.

Reminds me of this: https://www.washingtonian.com/2018/03/05/why-its-hard-for-conservatives-to-date-in-dc-right-now/

It's almost like being a shitgoblin makes people not want to be around you.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> And yet, this is precisely the attitude that the most powerful lobbying group in this country has taken and continues to take.
> 
> Broken record here, but the main reason I want to see the 2nd Amendment repealed is not because I want to ban private ownership of guns - I don't - but because I don't think we can have a sensible, adult, and productive conversation about even limited and targeted gun control policies like universal background checks to close the private seller loophole, when gun advocates are going to continue to bury their head in the sand and say "but, my rights!" whenever any new proposals are made, however modest.


There goes that baby when all you had to do was drain the bathtub...


----------



## mongey

what I don't get about 2nd amendment is it references a well organized miltia doesn't it ? 

it me that is implying some controls on it


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mongey said:


> what I don't get about 2nd amendment is it references a well organized miltia doesn't it ?
> 
> it me that is implying some controls on it



Get out of here with that logic.

Update: There has now been 11 mass shootings since MSD. Ten deaths, 37 injured. So 41 incidents so far this year. It's only March.


----------



## Drew

mongey said:


> what I don't get about 2nd amendment is it references a well organized miltia doesn't it ?
> 
> it me that is implying some controls on it



Not if you ask the NRA, who emblazons in their headquarters lobby:





Odd, that... if it's such an important amendment, why display only part of it?



Spaced Out Ace said:


> There goes that baby when all you had to do was drain the bathtub...


I think my point here is when you have the most powerful lobbying group in this country telling you under no condition may you drain the bathtub, maybe it's time we start talking more desperate measures.



bostjan said:


> But @Drew , before you can repeal the Second Amendment, you have to get two thirds of congress to agree to do it, which will only happen if you can have a sensible productive conversation about it. It's a chicken-egg problem, really.


...and if you get anywhere _close_ to a 2/3 majority, suddenly gun advocates will start shitting themselves and come to the negotiating table in a hurry. Either way, I like the outcome.


----------



## possumkiller

Drew said:


> Not if you ask the NRA, who emblazons in their headquarters lobby:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, that... if it's such an important amendment, why display only part of it?



Probably because they are mostly religious as well. If there's anything Christians love as much as murder and child molestation, it's taking little snippets of bible verses out of context and using them as proof that Jesus is on their side of an argument.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Catholics aren't Christian. They're more like a twisted, weird, fucked up cult parading as a legitimate religion.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I think my point here is when you have the most powerful lobbying group in this country telling you under no condition may you drain the bathtub, maybe it's time we start talking more desperate measures.



We'll see how long they have power. Membership is flat and bad enough they won't publish real numbers and their biggest patrons are failing with S&W, Ruger and Remington in financial turmoil.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Catholics aren't Christian. They're more like a twisted, weird, fucked up cult parading as a legitimate religion.


That sounds pretty Christian to me.


----------



## possumkiller

Spaced Out Ace said:


> __________ aren't Christian. They're more like a twisted, weird, fucked up cult parading as a legitimate religion.


You could insert any denomination and it would be true. Organized religion in general is what blocks forward progress of humanity.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Catholics aren't Christian. They're more like a twisted, weird, fucked up cult parading as a legitimate religion.


Easy there, I was raised Roman Catholic.  


possumkiller said:


> You could insert any denomination and it would be true. Organized religion in general is what blocks forward progress of humanity.


I don't _categorically_ agree with your second sentence, but your first, yeah. All faith systems look pretty cult-y from the outside. And I say that living in Red Sox territory!  

PS - wait until next year!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Easy there, I was raised Roman Catholic.


My apologies, Drew.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> My apologies, Drew.


No worries man, like I said, I was _raised_ roman catholic.  I appreciate your saying that, but especially since you had no way of knowing that at the time, I wasn't offended.


----------



## possumkiller

I was raised Pentecostal and that shit never looked normal lol.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> No worries man, like I said, I was _raised_ roman catholic.  I appreciate your saying that, but especially since you had no way of knowing that at the time, I wasn't offended.


Oh okay, that's good then.


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> I was raised Pentecostal and that shit never looked normal lol.


I once dated a girl who described it as a lot of rolling around on the ground and speaking in tongues. To her credit, she laughed when I said I would have thought rolling on the floor and yelling "oh my god" was exactly her sort of thing.  


Spaced Out Ace said:


> Oh okay, that's good then.


Hey, while I appreciate this new, nicer you, good natured ball-busting is still totally cool provided the intent is not to be an asshole, man. I share a name with a serial killer, I've gotten worse.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> Easy there, I was raised Roman Catholic.
> 
> I don't _categorically_ agree with your second sentence, but your first, yeah. All faith systems look pretty cult-y from the outside. And I say that living in Red Sox territory!
> 
> PS - wait until next year!



I was pretty sure that the semantic difference between a cult and a religion is simply the number of adherents. Like, when speaking of Christianity before it _made it big_, I'm pretty sure it's referred to as a cult. At least academically.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I was pretty sure that the semantic difference between a cult and a religion is simply the number of adherents. Like, when speaking of Christianity before it _made it big_, I'm pretty sure it's referred to as a cult. At least academically.


I thought you were cool as long as they didn't break out the kool-aid?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Hey, while I appreciate this new, nicer you, good natured ball-busting is still totally cool provided the intent is not to be an asshole, man. I share a name with a serial killer, I've gotten worse.




For some reason, your comment reminded me of this hilarious Tales from the Crypt episode. This chick, who can't seem to get a modelling job to save her life, tries to get some gig as the "Ballbuster Girl," which is like some perfume or some shit in the episode. Her hotter, younger roommate gets the gig, and she kills her, taking some modelling gig of hers at some other place. Anyways, she finds out that her friend wasn't even going to win -- it's some competition of sorts -- and it turns out the winner gets killed because the people running the thing are a bunch of psychopaths and want dead girls to... I dunno, gawk over or some shit. 



Here's the episode. Call me sick and twisted, but I love some good irony and gallows humor.


----------



## Drew

Big fan of gallows humor myself. I'll check that out later if I've got the time.


----------



## bostjan

Nice episode. Was that the punk rock girl from Nightmare on Elmstreet?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

bostjan said:


> Nice episode. Was that the punk rock girl from Nightmare on Elmstreet?


Wow, it is. Good catch.


----------



## Randy

I read none of your post but I saw Mimi Rogers in the credits and that's an instant like.


----------



## bostjan

They still want to arm teachers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...as-trained-in-gun-use/?utm_term=.085637b3c040


----------



## RND

My thoughts can be simplified into this basic idea. 

A society in which the populous is armed has citizens to the government of the nation.

A society in which the populous is unarmed has little more than subjects to the government of the nation.


----------



## bostjan

A society in which the populous is armed and 10% of them have unchecked violent tendencies has a pile of bodybags.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## bostjan

Simple thought experiment. We take you and 19 strangers pulled off of the street, and lock everyone in a room together for 48 hours. Then I give you two options:

A) None of the people are allowed to have any weapons whatsoever during the test period.
B) All of the people are given an AR-15 with three 30 round mags.

Which of those two options would you prefer?


----------



## KnightBrolaire

tedtan said:


> Other countries don't necessarily have a complete ban, though. My main interest in shooting is side-by-side and over-under shotguns, which are perfectly legal in the UK, Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.
> 
> Granted, they aren't high capacity (they only hold two shots - one in each barrel), but if you get hit by a 12 gauge, you're hamburger meat. (Fun fact: Germany tried, unsuccessfully, to have shotguns outlawed for use in war during World War I as they were so inhumane and destructive in trench warfare, even though Germany was using tanks, machine guns, mustard gas, flamethrowers, etc. ).


in 1898 Germany also complained about the usage of soft-tip ammo in warfare as being cruel and unusual 
Funny how it's fine to use high explosives/artillery and mangle people but expanding bullets were the problem


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Simple thought experiment. We take you and 19 strangers pulled off of the street, and lock everyone in a room together for 48 hours. Then I give you two options:
> 
> A) None of the people are allowed to have any weapons whatsoever during the test period.
> B) All of the people are given an AR-15 with three 30 round mags.
> 
> Which of those two options would you prefer?



That depends on who's in the room and whether or not I am also in that room.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

RND said:


> My thoughts can be simplified into this basic idea.
> 
> A society in which the populous is armed has citizens to the government of the nation.
> 
> A society in which the populous is unarmed has little more than subjects to the government of the nation.



So what's the logic here? That "the government" is afraid of the people because they're armed? 

Maybe in ye olde times that was a legitimate concept. But it's 2018. Our military and police, even local law enforcement, is so overwhelmingly well armed and armored that what are some good old boys with some rifles going to really do?

Our representatives in government have been fucking us so hard even our grandkids won't walk right for generations. I doubt they're afraid of our guns. 

If anything I think this notion pacifies people who feel that if they're armed maybe they're not as powerless as they really are.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> So what's the logic here? That "the government" is afraid of the people because they're armed?
> 
> Maybe in ye olde times that was a legitimate concept. But it's 2018. Our military and police, even local law enforcement, is so overwhelmingly well armed and armored that what are some good old boys with some rifles going to really do?



Yeah, seriously.  






My Reaper tells your AR-15 to go get fucked.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Yeah, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Reaper tells your AR-15 to go get fucked.



Nah dude. Everyone is Luke fucking Skywalker just going to blow up the Deathstar with one shot.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> That depends on who's in the room and whether or not I am also in that room.



Who's in the room is kind of my point; you don't know. It could be the next Mother Theresa or it could be the next Charles Manson. If the subject isn't locked in the room with the other 19 strangers, it kind defeats the purpose of the thought experiment. 

And to @MaxOfMetal 's point, we could add in a disinterested group of security watchdogs with every weapon imaginable, if it adds to the realism of the experiment.

My point is that no peaceful rational person would choose a room full of heavily armed strangers to a room filled with unarmed people. The psychology at work here is one dimensional. You want your gun to protect yourself. If someone wants to limit general access to guns, you see it as a threat, because someone is trying to take away your access to your gun (even though, they're really not, except in extreme cases like I haven't even really seen discussed in this thread), but it's not seen as limited the crazy person's access to a weapon that could be used to hurt you.


----------



## TedEH

If we keep building walls, eventually it won't be an analogy anymore.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> If we keep building walls, eventually it won't be an analogy anymore.


 


Well said.


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Once again, if you had bothered to read even a little bit of what was already posted, places with strict gun laws like Detroit and Chicago still have problems because the areas around them have some of the most lax gun laws. Over 60% of guns involved in crimes in Chicago come from Indiana.....
> 
> I'm a gun owner, and would HAPPILY surrender them if it meant that kids wouldn't die.


You are right. The majority of the guns in Chicago are coming from a state where guns ARE legal and yey have significantly less gun violence than Chicago.....glad we can make some progress here.

On your second point, why would giving up your gun have anything to do with saving another childs life? Is your conscience that guilty?

Also, i go to the range regularly and I can tell you that it is the police who are bad shots. Seriously, they dont practice nearly as much as they should.

And every gun owner I know takes very good care of them, and are very good shots. The gun owners who dont clean them regularly or practice regularly, dont carry that often if at all...


----------



## vilk

Unslaved said:


> You are right. The majority of the guns in Chicago are coming from a state where guns ARE legal and yey have significantly less gun violence than Chicago.....glad we can make some progress here.
> 
> On your second point, why would giving up your gun have anything to do with saving another childs life? Is your conscience that guilty?



Actually Indianapolis has a _higher _gun crime rate than Chicago. The total numbers are probably lower since the population is only a small fraction of Chicago's, but Indiana is definitely not experiencing "significantly less" gun violence. Have you never heard of Gary, IN?


----------



## Unslaved

vilk said:


> Actually Indianapolis has a _higher _gun crime rate than Chicago. The total numbers are probably lower since the population is only a small fraction of Chicago's, but Indiana is definitely not experiencing "significantly less" gun violence. Have you never heard of Gary, IN?


The same Gary, IN thats smack dab right next to Chicago?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> You are right. The majority of the guns in Chicago are coming from a state where guns ARE legal and yey have significantly less gun violence than Chicago.....glad we can make some progress here.
> 
> On your second point, why would giving up your gun have anything to do with saving another childs life? Is your conscience that guilty?



Guns aren't illegal in Chicago. 

Are you sure Indiana is safer than Illinois? Because everything I'm seeing is saying you're almost twice as likely to be killed by a gun in Indiana vs. Illinois. 

I'd be open to rolling back what all I'm legally allowed to own if it means better laws are in place to curtail the amount of firearms floating around. Not sure where you see guilt there. I could give them up now for no reason if I felt "guilty".


----------



## vilk

Unslaved said:


> The same Gary, IN thats smack dab right next to Chicago?


Yeah dude. What's your point? After all, it's Indiana, and they don't have strict gun control at all.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> Actually Indianapolis has a _higher _gun crime rate than Chicago. The total numbers are probably lower since the population is only a small fraction of Chicago's, but Indiana is definitely not experiencing "significantly less" gun violence. Have you never heard of Gary, IN?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Violent crime in Indianapolis is 1288 per 100k, versus Chicago at 903.6 per 100k, so Indy is 43% more violent.

Having lived in Indy, and having spent a lot of time in Chicago, there is really no comparison. The first day I lived in Indy, a guy got stabbed to death not 15 feet away from me. Every time I went to the grocery store, someone was either pulling out a gun over a parking space, fighting with security guards over shoplifting, or brawling a random stranger in the aisles. It's almost as bad as Detroit (I lived there, too).

What gun laws in Detroit, BTW? At least when I lived there, there were virtually none.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> What gun laws in Detroit, BTW? At least when I lived there, there were virtually none.



Confirmed.


----------



## Unslaved

I checked that link. I didnt see any stats citing specifically gun violence, only violence. Im in a bit of a rush so i may have missed it sorry!


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Guns aren't illegal in Chicago.
> 
> Are you sure Indiana is safer than Illinois? Because everything I'm seeing is saying you're almost twice as likely to be killed by a gun in Indiana vs. Illinois.
> 
> I'd be open to rolling back what all I'm legally allowed to own if it means better laws are in place to curtail the amount of firearms floating around. Not sure where you see guilt there. I could give them up now for no reason if I felt "guilty".


So if guns arent illegal in Chicago, why are the majority of them coming from another state?


----------



## vilk

Unslaved said:


> So if guns arent illegal in Chicago, why are the majority of them coming from another state?


Because Chicago has stricter gun control laws.

Come on dude, you have to realize that_ gun control laws _=/= _guns are illegal_


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> So if guns arent illegal in Chicago, why are the majority of them coming from another state?



Because they're more difficult to get and you can only purchase specific models in Chicago.

Like NFA items. Machine guns aren't "illegal" nationally, you just have to go through certain procedures to procure specifically designated firearms.

More difficult to get doesn't mean illegal. Another example is a CDL. You can't just go get your CDL, you need to go through the process.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far your points have been:

- Guns are illegal in Chicago.
- Indiana has lower gun murder/crime rates than Illinois.
- Indiana has so much gun crime because it's close to Chicago.
- Only people who feel guilty want to change things.

All four of those things are wrong.

You can purchase and own a gun in Chicago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

Indiana actually has a higher instance of murder by gun per 100k residents.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

Most guns used in crime in Chicago actually come from outside the zone covered by restrictions, so that point is wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/

I'm not really going to discuss the last one further. I think that goes without saying.


----------



## Unslaved

Im waiting on the stats that say Gary IN has more gun violence related crimes than Chicago. If im wrong then im wrong. But these two cities are a hop skip and a jump away from each other so in essence in sort of like comparing apples to apples.


----------



## Unslaved

vilk said:


> Because Chicago has stricter gun control laws.
> 
> Come on dude, you have to realize that_ gun control laws _=/= _guns are illegal_


Who are you calling a dude? I can identify as a transgender duck who's happily married to a fitbit. Lol


----------



## vilk

Unslaved said:


> Who are you calling a dude? I can identify as a transgender duck who's happily married to a fitbit. Lol


I know you only joined yesterday *wink wink* but this website has several trans users, so you should probably watch it with that sort of shitposting


----------



## Unslaved

vilk said:


> I know you only joined yesterday *wink wink* but this website has several trans users, so you should probably watch it with that sort of shitposting


Define shitposting?
Do you not recognize a joke or can you not take a joke, sir gatekeeper?

Ive been lurking for a while here ill admit as i admire the wealth of info about guitars... However i noticed a trend of at least several members vanishing from this forum, or at least this thread. Members who held opposite viewpoints as the majority here. Either vanished or banished.


----------



## vilk

I think they just get tired of getting schooled over and over and over again by people smarter and better able to debate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> Im waiting on the stats that say Gary IN has more gun violence related crimes than Chicago. If im wrong then im wrong. But these two cities are a hop skip and a jump away from each other so in essence in sort of like comparing apples to apples.



Gary likely has less gun crime than Chicago, as it has significantly fewer people living there, 75,000 vs 2,700,000.

As an aside, I wouldn't have brought Gary into this. While in the 90's it earned it's title as "The Murder Capitol of US" over the last couple decades so many people have left that crime overall has been on the decline. It's hard to murder people who aren't there. As already alluded to in the articles posted a lot of the crime in Chicago is actually coming from Gary. As you said, the cities are close together. 

The per capita rates Illinois vs. Indiana have already been posted, as far as gun deaths. Including the rest of the state actually skews the numbers per capita lower for Chicago and Gary. 

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? How is comparing two cities with vastly different demographics with different laws "apples to apples?"


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Gary likely has less gun crime than Chicago, as it has significantly fewer people living there, 75,000 vs 2,700,000.
> 
> As an aside, I wouldn't have brought Gary into this. While in the 90's it earned it's title as "The Murder Capitol of US" over the last couple decades so many people have left that crime overall has been on the decline. It's hard to murder people who aren't there. As already alluded to in the articles posted a lot of the crime in Chicago is actually coming from Gary. As you said, the cities are close together.
> 
> The per capita rates Illinois vs. Indiana have already been posted, as far as gun deaths. Including the rest of the state actually skews the numbers per capita lower for Chicago and Gary.
> 
> What exactly is the point you're trying to make? How is comparing two cities with vastly different demographics with different laws "apples to apples?"


I dont have a point really... Like you said I didnt bring up Gary either


----------



## Unslaved

vilk said:


> I think they just get tired of getting schooled over and over and over again by people smarter and better able to debate.


.... So thats why they banish them?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> .... So thats why they banish them?



Only two people in this thread have been banned. One wasn't even banned for this thread. Other decided name calling was a better strategy than having a concise argument. 

Either way, bans are up to the Admin. 

Neither myself, Randy or any other mods in here have actually banned anyone in here.


----------



## Drew

Unslaved said:


> I checked that link. I didnt see any stats citing specifically gun violence, only violence. Im in a bit of a rush so i may have missed it sorry!


This list is alphabetical by state, but as it happens Illinois and Indiana are alphabetically next to each other, so it's an easy comparison. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

Illinois 8.67
Indiana 13.04

Indiana, for all its lax gun laws allowing easy access to guns to law abiding citizens to protect themselves, actually has more than 50% more gun violence per hundred thousand residents. Meanwhile, noted granny state Massachusetts, where I live and where I believe we do have the strictest gun control in the nation, leaving us woefully unequipped to defend ourselves, has 3.18 firearm deaths per hundred thousand people, the lowest in the country, 63% less than noted hotbed of crime Illinois and a whopping 76% less than god-fearing, gun--toting Indiana. 

Either a whole lot of people in Massachusetts are dying in fistfights instead, or maybe gun control, you know, _works._


----------



## Explorer

Unslaved said:


> It looks like I've stumbled upon the dark corner of the web in this forum.
> 
> Judging by the title of this thread, and by the very fact its still ongoing, that some of you folks are still in disbelief and/or denial that Trump did in fact really did "get there".



Ah! Now I get it! 



Unslaved said:


> Who are you calling a dude? I can identify as a transgender duck who's happily married to a fitbit. Lol





vilk said:


> I know you only joined yesterday *wink wink* but this website has several trans users, so you should probably watch it with that sort of shitposting





Unslaved said:


> Define shitposting? Do you not recognize a joke or can you not take a joke, sir gatekeeper?



I take it the joke is that you are claiming to be both transgendered (to insulate yourself from criticism, perhaps) and a supporter of Trump. 

You could, of course, attempt to argue against the slowly growing body of facts leading to Trump's early removal from office, as well as any prison time for members of his family, campaign, administration, or any combination thereof. As you clearly have a better perspective on this than others, I'm sure it will be edifying.


----------



## Unslaved

Explorer said:


> Ah! Now I get it!
> 
> I take it the joke is that you are claiming to be both transgendered (to insulate yourself from criticism, perhaps) and a supporter of Trump.
> 
> You could, of course, attempt to argue against the slowly growing body of facts leading to Trump's early removal from office, as well as any prison time for members of his family, campaign, administration, or any combination thereof. As you clearly have a better perspective on this than others, I'm sure it will be edifying.


Well nice to meet you too! So what you are doing is combining my posts from two seperate threads to formulate a basis for your talking points that supposedly is a rebuttal of where you think I stand politically? Cute!


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Define shitposting?
> Do you not recognize a joke or can you not take a joke, sir gatekeeper?
> 
> Ive been lurking for a while here ill admit as i admire the wealth of info about guitars... However i noticed a trend of at least several members vanishing from this forum, or at least this thread. Members who held opposite viewpoints as the majority here. Either vanished or banished.



"Noticed". Like when it happened to you.


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Guns aren't illegal in Chicago.
> 
> Are you sure Indiana is safer than Illinois? Because everything I'm seeing is saying you're almost twice as likely to be killed by a gun in Indiana vs. Illinois.
> 
> I'd be open to rolling back what all I'm legally allowed to own if it means better laws are in place to curtail the amount of firearms floating around. Not sure where you see guilt there. I could give them up now for no reason if I felt "guilty".



I thought about your last statement, and it makes no sense to me. The guns that you own are not "floating" around. Are your guns floating around the streets? Id be willing to be that they are not.

It's like that one guy who was in the news a couple weeks ago that recorded himself saying that he sawwed his AR15 in half to try and prove a point; what point i'm not sure............just makes no sense. Was he worried that someone might break in his house and break through his safe and steal the gun, then in that way that gun would end up on the street? Or was it more symbolic that he is sick of seeing people murdered by people using AR15's sp he simply just sawwed it in half.

The first reason I suppose I can see....but the latter is retarted logic. That would be like cutting your own D**k off because your sick of kids getting STD's.

Also, if thats what you TRULY believe, then why do you feel the need to broadcast it? (I am refering to that guy in the news). Just saw it in half and be done with it, no need to make it a story


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> I thought about your last statement, and it makes no sense to me. The guns that you own are not "floating" around. Are your guns floating around the streets? Id be willing to be that they are not.



I've described by setup earlier in the thread, so no need to repeat it. My stock is certainly not in peril. I'm not worried about that. 

What I'm saying is if tomorrow they came up with legislation that would outlaw one or more of my firearms I wouldn't be bothered surrendering it_ if it meant that meaningful reform was taking place_. 

For example, if they made semi-automatic rifles illegal, I'd turn mine in. While mine aren't anywhere near "at risk" for theft or improper transfer I'd still do it in good faith. Or if they brought them under the NFA umbrella I'd probably surrender them instead of purchasing a pricy tax stamp. 

I don't view my guns as essential to my safety. They are a hobby. I don't have an emotional attachment. They don't define me as a person.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Unslaved said:


> retarted


"retarted"

"retarted"

"retarted"


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> What I'm saying is if tomorrow they came up with legislation that would outlaw one or more of my firearms I wouldn't be bothered surrendering it_ if it meant that meaningful reform was taking place_.


I'm sure this would make criminals very happy, Max. Keep fighting the good fight.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I'm sure this would make criminals very happy, Max. Keep fighting the good fight.



Why?

Criminals aren't lurking around every corner waiting for people to be unarmed, and who in thier right mind carries a semi-auto rifle for protection? From whom?

Here's the thing, even with all the guns we have now, we're still having mass shootings. Every bit of data from all corners of the modern, developed world is telling us that the fewer weapons in circulation the fewer wind up in the wrong hands.

Most mass shooters don't plan on making it out alive. They don't care if there is potential for a "good guy with a gun."


----------



## Unslaved

"Criminals aren't lurking around every corner waiting for people to be unarmed, and who in thier right mind carries a semi-auto rifle for protection? From whom?"

Yes, they do. People get mugged and robbed at gunpoint all the time. Criminals are getting more and more clever too. People get shot, stabbed, raped and murdered all the time, and alot of it is premeditated. Predators choose their prey wisely. Sure, there are stupid criminals who maybe don't think things through thoroughly; And yes there are just plain apeshit crazy people that fly off the rockers. 

I think when people say that theres a "mental illness" problem, i agree with them. But maybe not in a sense that most people think of. One doesn't have to be diagnosed with a mental illness by some doctor to be temporary insane. When someone "snaps" they have gone temporarily insane.....and when they return to "normal", they are normal again. If a doctor ran some tests on that person, he would see that the person is fine or normal......but for those 30 seconds when that person snapped, something was not right in their head. For 30 seconds, they were crazy. 

True its not practical to walk around with an AR15 for protection to most people. But its not even (or shouldnt even) be up for debate as to if anyone needs one or not. Whos to say that a gang of 30 people wont try to break into your house and murder your family? You would be most thankful for having an AR15 with a 30 round magazine then. (The likelyhood of that happening or not is besides the point). Where do the restrictions stop? Would you be fine with an outright confiscation of all guns then? Because that can easily happen through legislature with the twisting and turning of legalese. Illionois just passed a bill that forces people under 21 to surrender "assault weapons". Even a semi-automatic handgun with 10 rounds is now on that list in that bill if ive read it correctly. So that pretty much is confiscation right there. But what does it matter if you will happily turn yours in anyway? So thats that.

The biggest question that trumps the gun debate is why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the gigantic and many red flags that the FBI ignored that could have prevented this had they actually done their job in the first place?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> "Criminals aren't lurking around every corner *waiting for people to be unarmed*, and who in thier right mind carries a semi-auto rifle for protection? From whom?"



Read that again, I don't think you got it the first time. 

Put some emphasis to make it more clear.



> Yes, they do. People get mugged and robbed at gunpoint all the time. Criminals are getting more and more clever too. People get shot, stabbed, raped and murdered all the time, and alot of it is premeditated. Predators choose their prey wisely. Sure, there are stupid criminals who maybe don't think things through thoroughly; And yes there are just plain apeshit crazy people that fly off the rockers.



Yes, the world can be a dangerous place, but shouldn't we be trying to make it safer, not fortify every aspect of our lives?

Should every step of our day be like going through TSA? How is that freedom? 

Countries that have limited the access to firearms have seen remarkable results in the drop of violent crime and murder. 



> I think when people say that theres a "mental illness" problem, i agree with them. But maybe not in a sense that most people think of. One doesn't have to be diagnosed with a mental illness by some doctor to be temporary insane. When someone "snaps" they have gone temporarily insane.....and when they return to "normal", they are normal again. If a doctor ran some tests on that person, he would see that the person is fine or normal......but for those 30 seconds when that person snapped, something was not right in their head. For 30 seconds, they were crazy.



That's actually the premise for one of the cornerstones of modern gun control: a waiting period, or cooldown period. 



> True its not practical to walk around with an AR15 for protection to most people. But its not even (or shouldnt even) be up for debate as to if anyone needs one or not. Whos to say that a gang of 30 people wont try to break into your house and murder your family? You would be most thankful for having an AR15 with a 30 round magazine then. (The likelyhood of that happening or not is besides the point).



Stop living in the movies. If 30 people try attacking you at once, unless you're John Rambo, you're fucked. 



> Where do the restrictions stop?



I think the NFA model works very well. 



> Would you be fine with an outright confiscation of all guns then? Because that can easily happen through legislature with the twisting and turning of legalese.



Personally? Not really. I like my guns. Like I said, it's a fun hobby. 

But, can you show me some data, like real numbers and analysis, that says that removal of all firearms, and all that implies, is a net negative?



> Illionois just passed a bill that forces people under 21 to surrender "assault weapons". Even a semi-automatic handgun with 10 rounds is now on that list in that bill if ive read it correctly. So that pretty much is confiscation right there.



I received my first gun at 14. But it was little plinker. 

You're leaving out the 90 days to transfer to an eligible party. They've also left in language that allows for an extension. 

That said, I don't know how comfortable I am with random teenagers, hormones and impulses and all, having certain weapons. Didn't work out so great in Parkland. 



> But what does it matter if you will happily turn yours in anyway? So thats that.



As long as you're not hurting anyone I don't care what you do with your guns. I'd appreciate the same. I bought them. I can do what I wish with them as long as it's legal. 



> The biggest question that trumps the gun debate is why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the gigantic and many red flags that the FBI ignored that could have prevented this had they actually done their job in the first place?



It's almost like the system is imperfect and we need to have protections in place to stop tragedies.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> But its not even (or shouldnt even) be up for debate as to if anyone needs one or not. Whos to say that a gang of 30 people wont try to break into your house and murder your family? You would be most thankful for having an AR15 with a 30 round magazine then. (*The likelyhood of that happening or not is besides the point*).



That's *entirely* the point. We have real incidents happening, and you're concerned about hypothetical imaginary events that have next to no precedent in modern times. I know you're troll_-ish_, but for real I can't tell if this is supposed to be a serious post.


----------



## Mr Violence

Unslaved said:


> True its not practical to walk around with an AR15 for protection to most people. But its not even (or shouldnt even) be up for debate as to if anyone needs one or not. Whos to say that a gang of 30 people wont try to break into your house and murder your family? You would be most thankful for having an AR15 with a 30 round magazine then. (The likelyhood of that happening or not is besides the point).



Oh, come on.

Say that extremely unlikely situation happens but there's a heavy gun ban. Let's say you can have a shotgun with a 5 round capacity. You take out 1 or 2 of them. Are they going to press on to their objective? How about if you have an AR15 and you pop a couple of them, will they persist? Say THEY all have ARs, shotguns and handguns, they crush you right?

Let's step back. Say that DOES happen and you cannot get an AR so your family gets murdered. Is it worth dramatically decreasing gun deaths by the tens of thousands via regulation if a family gets gang murdered once in a while? Can you fight them off because THEY couldn't get firearms either? Or is your deadbolt and police response enough to save you?

This argument is a typical pro gun angle. No forward thought. No nuance. No details. No step 2. Just one ridiculous scenario that, at face value, sounds poignant but when put to even the most basic scrutiny, falls apart like a wet toilet paper.

Comments like this are why nothing ever gets done. OF COURSE the likelyhood matters. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Regulation and legislation is about minimizing negative outcomes. 

It's not black and white. It's not yes or no. It's not ban guns or not. It's a nuanced conversation and until we can get away from these kinds of talking points, and the same 5 people in this thread having to deconstruct the most elementary logical fallacies in every pro gun rhetoric post, we're not going to get anywhere.


So yes Max and all the others here, keep fighting the good fight. Sincerely.


----------



## Unslaved

Surrendering your arms is fighting the good fight?

I was going to counter your typical "you'll be outnumbered, outpowered, just give up" argument.. but that has been exhausted umpteen times.

So...Mr. Violence ( gee lovely name). you want to talk about it and make progress? The world is your stage. What do you propose then?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> Surrendering your arms is fighting the good fight?



I don't know why you keep latching onto the concept of surrendering guns. 

No one is advocating for an outright ban in this thread. 

I even only used the example in passing. 

What he's referring to is trying to have a nuanced discussion and not some black vs white, up vs down battle of absolutes. 



> I was going to counter your typical "you'll be outnumbered, outpowered, just give up" argument.. but that has been exhausted umpteen times.



If you've got time I'd love to hear (well, read) what you have to say. No one has really put forth a logical counter argument yet. Maybe you'll be the one.


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know why you keep latching onto the concept of surrendering guns.
> 
> No one is advocating for an outright ban in this thread.
> 
> I even only used the example in passing.
> 
> What he's referring to is trying to have a nuanced discussion and not some black vs white, up vs down battle of absolutes.
> 
> 
> 
> If you've got time I'd love to hear (well, read) what you have to say. No one has really put forth a logical counter argument yet. Maybe you'll be the one.


Counter argument to what though? Are we talking about regulation all accross the board? In public? In your private home? Few people that are screaming for more gun control ever specify what they want to be done. Thats why I am asking him what he wants done specifically, and why.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> Counter argument to what though?





Unslaved said:


> I was going to counter your typical "you'll be outnumbered, outpowered, just give up" argument.. but that has been exhausted umpteen times.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Counter argument to what though? Are we talking about regulation all accross the board? In public? In your private home? Few people that are screaming for more gun control ever specify what they want to be done. Thats why I am asking him what he wants done specifically, and why.



Yea, we're sort of all different people with different opinions on the degree of gun control we'd like enacted. I'd like to see:
1.) no gun sales to those with diagnosed mental health issues.
2.) better screening for mental health issues in public schools.
3.) extreme sentences to those caught in possession of illegal firearms. This includes 3D printed and similar weapons.
4.) extreme sentences to those caught illegally selling firearms.
5.) a special permit required for any easily modifiable rife to general military use spec that requires additional training / mental evaluation.

Generally I'd like to see most AR15s and similar weapons replaced by more hunter's rife things, and rein in the loose second hand gun sales stuff by severe criminalization of people caught in the act.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I think, in the short term, a tiered system would be the easiest to implement and would avoid language such as "ban" which tends to send folks into a spasm.

Each tier would represent a class of firearms and would require the person trying to purchase from that tier to go through further steps to verify that they are less likely to use the weapon improperly and illegally and show that they have the knowledge and tools to safely maintain.

As I've said prior, I think the National Firearms Act should be expanded to include more types of firearms and associated regulations on purchasing, storing and using them. 

It's actually worked pretty well on machineguns. 

This all in addition to what @narad has said above.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think, in the short term, a tiered system would be the easiest to implement and would avoid language such as "ban" which tends to send folks into a spasm.
> 
> Each tier would represent a class of firearms and would require the person trying to purchase from that tier to go through further steps to verify that they are less likely to use the weapon improperly and illegally and show that they have the knowledge and tools to safely maintain.
> 
> As I've said prior, I think the National Firearms Act should be expanded to include more types of firearms and associated regulations on purchasing, storing and using them.


I don't have an issue with that. A simple six shooter should have lower and different requirements than something like an AR-15 or a shotgun. etc.


----------



## Mr Violence

I mean, you can say that no one is putting forward any solutions, or you can go back and read the fucking 22 page thread full of them because everyone responding to you has laid out their opinions and ideas in detail, including me.

My argument wasn't "you'll be outnumbered, outpowered, just give up." I took YOUR scenario and just went into detail about the nuances of it.

Or you could act like my Mr. Violence handle should count against me. Whatever blows your skirt up, Sally.


----------



## possumkiller

So they've confiscated some nut's guns in Florida. I wonder if I could report my psychotic-ass dad...


----------



## Randy

Kinda ironic. A sometimes 'extreme right' administration in the White House and a southern red state being at the helm of the first gun confiscation I can recall in this country in recent history.


----------



## possumkiller

This is the SMS my dad sent me yesterday when he found out. I'm pretty sure it's just copy/paste from some facebook page he spams his contact list with. I get some shit like this from him at least once a month. No actual conversation though. 




BREAKING NEWS- Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Massachusetts.


National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.


Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.


Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.


The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.


Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.


One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”


Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.


During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.


Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.


Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.


Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.


Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.


And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.


History. Study it, or repeat it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> This is the SMS my dad sent me yesterday when he found out. I'm pretty sure it's just copy/paste from some facebook page he spams his contact list with. I get some shit like this from him at least once a month. No actual conversation though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING NEWS- Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Massachusetts.
> 
> 
> National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
> 
> 
> Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.
> 
> 
> Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.
> 
> 
> The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
> 
> 
> Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
> 
> 
> One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
> 
> 
> Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.
> 
> 
> During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.
> 
> 
> Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
> 
> 
> Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
> 
> 
> Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
> 
> 
> Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.
> 
> 
> And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.
> 
> 
> History. Study it, or repeat it.



Think about how better a world we'd live in if these folks cared as much about _all_ the amendments.


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.
> 
> History. Study it, or repeat it.



Real M. Night Shayamalan stuff. My dad's line of thinking is sort of along this path too.

Please reply with like:

BREAKING NEWS- Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Massachusetts.

National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. The right-wing weaponry, consisting primarily of modified AR rifles, was far outmatched by the guard units’ Apache Longbow advanced attack helicopters, each armed with a 30 mm (1.18 in) M230 chain gun carried between the main landing gear, and four hardpoints mounted on stub-wing pylons for carrying armament and stores, typically a mixture of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and Hydra 70 rocket pods. All contraband weaponry has reportedly been turned over or destroyed in the assault.

And this fellow Americans, is why we should stop applying 300-year-old scenarios to modern life.


----------



## BenjaminW

Randy said:


> Kinda ironic. A sometimes 'extreme right' administration in the White House and a southern red state being at the helm of the first gun confiscation I can recall in this country in recent history.


I think I'm gonna agree with you on this one.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

_The man told officers he “was being targeted and burglarized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a neighbor who lives in [his] building,” the judge wrote in his order. “[He] could not describe the neighbor but stated that the neighbor [can] ‘shape shift, he can change heights and I’m not sure where he comes from’ and ‘to be honest, he looks like Osama Bin Laden.’”_

Yeah, I'm going to say removing the cache of guns and ammo was probably a good idea.


----------



## Unslaved

narad said:


> Real M. Night Shayamalan stuff. My dad's line of thinking is sort of along this path too.
> 
> Please reply with like:
> 
> BREAKING NEWS- Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Massachusetts.
> 
> National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. The right-wing weaponry, consisting primarily of modified AR rifles, was far outmatched by the guard units’ Apache Longbow advanced attack helicopters, each armed with a 30 mm (1.18 in) M230 chain gun carried between the main landing gear, and four hardpoints mounted on stub-wing pylons for carrying armament and stores, typically a mixture of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and Hydra 70 rocket pods. All contraband weaponry has reportedly been turned over or destroyed in the assault.
> 
> And this fellow Americans, is why we should stop applying 300-year-old scenarios to modern life.



There it is. There is the "you'll be outnumbered, outpowered, surrender your arms" argument. I knew someone was going chime in with this backward thinking.

"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."

So besides the regulated militia/standing army to a free state (this doesn't even include the US military as a whole, because that would be the federal army), it's also the right of the people (lowercase "p" denoting individual citizens) to keep and bear arms. And it shall not be infringed upon. The meaning of the 2nd amendment was re-affirmed via Scalia in 2008.

That should mean that its not up for interpretation; not only the natural right itself (to keep and bear arms which is just obvious), but the very writing of the amendment itself should not be edited. It should not be edited because if you give an inch, they take a mile (the federal government); because where would it end? If we leave the books open for editing, you can just watch all of your rights wither away as boa constrictor squeezes your final breath out.

Are you going to say that freedom of speech shouldn't be applied to today too? How about all the other amendments?


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> There it is. There is the "you'll be outnumbered, outpowered, surrender your arms" argument. I knew someone was going chime in with this backward thinking.



I knew someone was going to object. It really doesn't change the fact that if you want the idea of a standing militia to serve any purpose against the government, maybe don't fund the government's military by hundreds of billions of dollars each year. You _are_ outpowered.

Guns for sane people: sure.
Guns for people that live in fantasy militia world: no thank you.


----------



## Unslaved

narad said:


> I knew someone was going to object. It really doesn't change the fact that if you want the idea of a standing militia to serve any purpose against the government, maybe don't fund the government's military by hundreds of billions of dollars each year. You _are_ outpowered.
> 
> Guns for sane people: sure.
> Guns for people that live in fantasy militia world: no thank you.


Are you implying that the only way to fight a tyrannical government is to start a militia, take it to the streets, go toe to toe with them with every single weapon that everyone has, all at once? Of course said militia would lose. You clearly haven't thought of everything. And thats besides the point anyways that doesnt mean we get rid of the 2nd amendment.

And hey, I agree that "we" shouldn't be funding the military by hundreds of billions every year. Absolutley

Ia that what you mean by fantasy militia?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> Are you implying that the only way to fight a tyrannical government is to start a militia, take it to the streets, go toe to toe with them with every single weapon that everyone has, all at once? Of course said militia would lose. You clearly haven't thought of everything. And thats besides the point anyways that doesnt mean we get rid of the 2nd amendment.



Folks have brought up the guerilla warfare angle. You're late to the party.

Do you really think that would work? In modern times with modern technology? Unless you're implying they would choose civilian targets, which at that point who's the real monster?

Also, no one is saying to ban firearms outright. No one in here anyway. Can you quote someone in here who has explicitly stated that either the 2nd amendment needs to be removed or that all guns regardless of other factors need to be banned from sale, use and ownership?

You still haven't replied to the previous question I asked. 



Unslaved said:


> Counter argument to what though?





Unslaved said:


> I was going to counter your typical "you'll be outnumbered, outpowered, just give up" argument.. but that has been exhausted umpteen times.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Are you implying that the only way to fight a tyrannical government is to start a militia, take it to the streets, go toe to toe with them with every single weapon that everyone has, all at once? Of course said militia would lose. You clearly haven't thought of everything. And thats besides the point anyways that doesnt mean we get rid of the 2nd amendment.



No, I don't really spend a lot of time thinking about tyrannical governments. I guess I didn't think of everything. I think now that we'd use the guns to storm the capital, and then hold the president hostage and demand the military cease its purge of civilian weaponry. Then the main guy (maybe Kurt Russell, but I'm not sure -- maybe like Arnold if they CGI his body to be like Mr. Olympia era like in Terminator), the president would tell him, "We repealed the 2nd! You don't have the right to have those weapons!" and he'd be all, "then I'm ratifying you with the right to die!" blam! blam! blam! wicked. Also, he gets with the hot girl from earlier on in the story.

...No. Obviously on the previous page I discussed the actual policy changes I'd like to see enacted. I didn't mention repealing the 2nd. It's false equivalences like "any restrictions" <-> "all restrictions" <-> "shitting on the constitution" that halt any intelligent conversation. And if gun activists continue this no quarter attitude the outcome is only going to get worse for them, because they are a minority that is becoming hard to sympathize with. 

People want to keep guns, fine, I don't care if you do something sensible like hunt, or even something dumb like stockpiling your basement with weapons because you fear the government _provided_ there's not currently a massive shooting death epidemic in the country where there's a school shooting every week. But if you're going to pretend there's no problem with the way guns are dispensed in the country now, then just get your head out of wherever you shoved it. 

Gun owners who really love owning guns should be at the forefront of pushing legislation to limit the power and availability of weapons into the hands of those who abuse them. But that is rarely the case.


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Folks have brought up the guerilla warfare angle. You're late to the party.
> 
> Do you really think that would work? In modern times with modern technology? Unless you're implying they would choose civilian targets, which at that point who's the real monster?
> 
> Also, no one is saying to ban firearms outright. No one in here anyway. Can you quote someone in here who has explicitly stated that either the 2nd amendment needs to be removed or that all guns regardless of other factors need to be banned from sale, use and ownership?
> 
> You still haven't replied to the previous question I asked.


No thats not what im talking about, to your first response. And actually im not going to discuss on the internet my thoughts on that, because of the obvious. (AI-based Tordella super-computer esque text scanning technology may stick their nose where it doesn't belong and sniff out a few buzz words that may be lined up in a row...) 

I was hoping to go downstairs to the computer to respond to your previous statement, because its easier to respond to each point at the desktop. I may do that later. 

But I've read your guys' points and while I believe you/we are all well meaning people, I dont think the 2nd should be repealed, or changed. (I dont think anyone here actually said that it should be, but I think some people vaguely implied that as I get that gut feeling. (Its rather time consuming to track/quote/tackle individual posts from my smart phone). But basically I'm for the most part not willing to meet you halfway on what "we" can "do". The main reason being that all these type of guns have existed for decades and we've never had this problem with them before......the guns certainly havent changed.......so what has chaged? 

I believe its many different things in society that has changed; all of it ultimately being based on Freudian/Jung/Heidegger psycological breakdown. The man who seeks control over others, is empty inside, and seeks to fill that void. He is disconnected from his true self. And it shows because it manifests itself in our society. A socoety that seeks to destroy the super-ego and give in to the ID which seeks instant pleasure without considering the consequences. Constant social media connection and the need for instant gratification. Rewarding mediocrity. Material goals. The constant push for disgusting smut in the media. Glorifying these degenerate role models in hollywood and in the entertainment industry. Cultural marxism. Sexualizing kids younger and younger. Single-parent families. Coming up with a new tax every other day. Constant surveillance on every platform which is not only an invasion of your privacy but of your psyche. Young people not knowing how to deal with stress and being bullied. Massive drugging from big pharma and also illegal drugs more rampant than ever. Playing shoot'em up video games round the clock (divorced from nature). While I dont believe video games "makes" kids do these shootings (though it very-well could), they certainly de-sensitize kids to violence, murder, blood and guts, the realistic graphics, sound effects and human-dying sounds that go along with it. All of these things is a recipe for the decay of society here in the west that lead to this type of behaviour. Again, the guns haven't changed. Society has, and for the worse. We have developed technologically yes, but spiritually and pscyologically we have devolved. 

Now we have teachers and social media weaponizing kids to shame gun-owners....thats enough for now.


----------



## bostjan

How many people mentioned they were in favour of repealing the Second Amendment?!

It's the broken record these days. If you are the least bit moderate, you get accused by both extremes of being too extreme.


----------



## Unslaved

Someone didnt read my post carefully....


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> The main reason being that all these type of guns have existed for decades and we've never had this problem with them before......the guns certainly havent changed.......so what has chaged?



I don't know if you're expecting no one here to have much experience with firearms or if you're too young to remember how it used to be.

You couldn't even get an AR15 until the late 60's and even then they were crazy expensive, had small mags and you couldn't put different sights or scopes on them. They were shit for hunting and too heavy and awkward for defense. You had to special order them too, and it took forever to take delivery. My uncle was, supposedly, the first to take delivery on a Colt Sporter in all of South Florida.

It wasn't until the 90's that you started seeing them more, but you still had to pay at least $1200 in 1995 money, which would get you a flat top that you could put a decent set of sights or a scope on. You still only had maybe five or six manufacturers.

Fast forward to the early 00's that they started getting really cheap. That's also when they really started pushing the modularity. It started becoming common to see more parts kits.

The price overall for firearms has shot down rapidly even in the last 10 years. You don't even need $200 to get a functional handgun. When I first started getting into firearms, and was old enough to purchase them you had to pay at least $500 (would be closer to $700 in today's money) to get something that would go bang more than 50% of the time. The lower price of new stuff has pushed the price of used stuff to stupid cheap levels. My first Glock 17 was a used and abused police issue I bought for $350. You can find almost new for that now.

Sites like GunBroker and ArmsList, the eBay and Craigslist of firearms respectively, weren't always around. Even gun shows have morphed significantly over the last ten or fifteen years. They've gone from large quarterly affairs with age limits to enter put on by established local shops and bigger specialty and regional shops to weekly free-for-alls.

Then you have the marketing which has slowly aimed lower and lower.

Guns are cheaper, better and infinitely easier to get a hold of than they were even a decade ago.


----------



## possumkiller

Idk I really couldn't care less about the second amendment. It's outdated like religion. Get rid of it. Nobody should have the "right" to bear arms. People should have to apply for the privilege of safely keeping and operating a reasonable number of approved civilian firearms.


----------



## Unslaved

You dont get to decided what rights people can and can't have. You dont like guns? Fine......dont have one then. After all, its your right. And i wont infringe upon that right. I wont even argue it. But dont call for more government authority to make more laws that take away peoples rights. 

You must be one of these people who think healthcare is a right too. 

Let me ask you, have you ever owned a gun? Shot one? Hell, id bet you never even touched a gun before. I bet your terrified of them. People are scared of what they don't know.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Let me ask you, have you ever owned a gun? Shot one? Hell, id bet you never even touched a gun before. I bet your terrified of them. People are scared of what they don't know.



I guess you must be terrified of a nuanced, rational discussion then.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Holy frijole, it's going to get ugly here tonight! /roddypipervoice


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know if you're expecting no one here to have much experience with firearms or if you're too young to remember how it used to be.
> 
> You couldn't even get an AR15 until the late 60's and even then they were crazy expensive, had small mags and you couldn't put different sights or scopes on them. They were shit for hunting and too heavy and awkward for defense. You had to special order them too, and it took forever to take delivery. My uncle was, supposedly, the first to take delivery on a Colt Sporter in all of South Florida.
> 
> It wasn't until the 90's that you started seeing them more, but you still had to pay at least $1200 in 1995 money, which would get you a flat top that you could put a decent set of sights or a scope on. You still only had maybe five or six manufacturers.
> 
> Fast forward to the early 00's that they started getting really cheap. That's also when they really started pushing the modularity. It started becoming common to see more parts kits.
> 
> The price overall for firearms has shot down rapidly even in the last 10 years. You don't even need $200 to get a functional handgun. When I first started getting into firearms, and was old enough to purchase them you had to pay at least $500 (would be closer to $700 in today's money) to get something that would go bang more than 50% of the time. The lower price of new stuff has pushed the price of used stuff to stupid cheap levels. My first Glock 17 was a used and abused police issue I bought for $350. You can find almost new for that now.
> 
> Sites like GunBroker and ArmsList, the eBay and Craigslist of firearms respectively, weren't always around. Even gun shows have morphed significantly over the last ten or fifteen years. They've gone from large quarterly affairs with age limits to enter put on by established local shops and bigger specialty and regional shops to weekly free-for-alls.
> 
> Then you have the marketing which has slowly aimed lower and lower.
> 
> Guns are cheaper, better and infinitely easier to get a hold of than they were even a decade ago.


All of that may be true. But while the AR15 was "not easy to get" fully automatics were still around at that time. (Not to be confused with the "full, semi-automatic mode" gun propaganda that CNN tried to peddle and concince everyone was a real thing).

Those are the REAL assault rifles. (So many uninformed people think AR stands for assault rifle). And actually, there are many faully automatic rifles still in existence, but for some reason people are not concerned with those.

Like I said, im not in the business of talking about gun reform. What I will reiterate however is the fact the the FBI know this kod was off his rockers and didnt do a damn thing about it.

People seem to conveniently forget about the Virginia Tech mass murder that happened 10 years. He killed 30 people using.........wait for it.......handguns.


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> You dont get to decided what rights people can and can't have. You dont like guns? Fine......dont have one then. After all, its your right. And i wont infringe upon that right. I wont even argue it. But dont call for more government authority to make more laws that take away peoples rights.
> 
> You must be one of these people who think healthcare is a right too.
> 
> Let me ask you, have you ever owned a gun? Shot one? Hell, id bet you never even touched a gun before. I bet your terrified of them. People are scared of what they don't know.


You're absolutely right. I've never even seen a gun in real life. I'd probably shit myself...

Doesn't change my opinion. Owning a firearm should not be a "god given right" that everyone has to tiptoe around for fear of offending some right wing snowflakes. It should be a privilege earned by people that can prove they are capable and trustworthy.


----------



## Unslaved

possumkiller said:


> You're absolutely right. I've never even seen a gun in real life. I'd probably shit myself...
> 
> Doesn't change my opinion. Owning a firearm should not be a "god given right" that everyone has to tiptoe around for fear of offending some right wing snowflakes. It should be a privilege earned by people that can prove they are capable and trustworthy.


Prove howso? Based on what merits of trust? And to whom? And who says they get to set the standard?

I was scared of guns at one point too. I did eventually get used to holding and firing and carrying them. You do get used to it. Im not a gun nut by any means, but I am totally behind the 2nd.

I dont think anyone is trying to not offend pro 2nd people...I see the opposite. I see constant, never ending gun shaming by soccer moms and teachers and the majority-left-ridden media. And now kids.


----------



## Randy

Unslaved said:


> I was scared of guns at one point too. I did eventually get used to holding and firing and carrying them. You do get used to it. Im not a gun nut by any means, but I am totally behind the 2nd.



AFAIK, possumkiller is a combat veteran. Nice assumptions you've made tho


----------



## possumkiller

Based on applying for a firearm license or endorsements for certain types of weapons to be added to said license. The applicant has to pass background checks and be deemed not a complete nut job. When the application gets approved they must attend and pass a course on proper handling, storage, maintenance and marksmanship. Then they must show they have the proper facilities or equipment for safe storage. 

There would be different license endorsements for handguns, rifles, shotguns, muzzle loaders/black powder, high capacity and full auto class 3 weapons. 

Your standard civilian long guns would have a 3 round capacity limit. Handguns would go back to 10 round capacity. If you want more you have to apply for the endorsement. 

I really have no problem with guns or reasonable people having guns. If all these gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens like they say they are, I'm sure they would have no problem being approved to have guns. I'm pretty sure the majority would pass. I just don't think it's a good idea to let any moron have the "right" to own the portable means of mass murdering people.


----------



## Unslaved

Ill say it again for the third time; the FBI could have prevented this mass murder had they acted on the many red flags that were abound. 

We wouldn't be having this discussion if they did


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Ill say it again for the third time; the FBI could have prevented this mass murder had they acted on the many red flags that were abound.
> 
> We wouldn't be having this discussion if they did



There aren't red flags involved with every school shooting. There are guns involved in every school shooting. Yet you want to focus on changing society and other completely vague and impossible strategies to rein in such events...

This conversation isn't about preventing one particular school shooting. It's larger than that.


----------



## Unslaved

narad said:


> There aren't red flags involved with every school shooting. There are guns involved in every school shooting. Yet you want to focus on changing society and other completely vague and impossible strategies to rein in such events...
> 
> This conversation isn't about preventing one particular school shooting. It's larger than that.


....You are joking right? 

Ok. Since you want to live in la la land, lets hypothetically go to la la land. lets say hypothetically they banned all AR15s; a full on ban. Cant sell them no more, cant buy them no more. They dont make them anymore. Everyone who owned one legally and had registered turned theirs in....

...the very next day, another mass school shooting happens with an AR15. What do you suppose we do then?


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> ....You are joking right?
> 
> Ok. Since you want to live in la la land, lets hypothetically go to la la land. lets say hypothetically they banned all AR15s; a full on ban. Cant sell them no more, cant buy them no more. They dont make them anymore. Everyone who owned one legally and had registered turned theirs in....
> 
> ...the very next day, another mass school shooting happens with an AR15. What do you suppose we do then?



Policy changes behavior in aggregate. I care about reducing the amount of school shootings in aggregate, which would likely be accomplished through stricter gun control, while simultaneously hurting no one's ability to hunt or protect their families. 

So your hypothetical is just not an interesting or thought-provoking scenario. If restricting access to such weapons lead to a similar or increased number of school shootings, then it would be worth re-evaluating such a policy, but we can't assess its effectiveness without enacting it. We can however look at other first world countries, and see the strong correlation between lack of availability of guns and lower gun crime (and typically lower violent crime in general) as an indication that things in the US might be a bit backwards.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> All of that may be true. But while the AR15 was "not easy to get" fully automatics were still around at that time. (Not to be confused with the "full, semi-automatic mode" gun propaganda that CNN tried to peddle and concince everyone was a real thing).
> 
> Those are the REAL assault rifles. (So many uninformed people think AR stands for assault rifle). And actually, there are many faully automatic rifles still in existence, but for some reason people are not concerned with those.
> 
> Like I said, im not in the business of talking about gun reform. What I will reiterate however is the fact the the FBI know this kod was off his rockers and didnt do a damn thing about it.
> 
> People seem to conveniently forget about the Virginia Tech mass murder that happened 10 years. He killed 30 people using.........wait for it.......handguns.



Do you, a gun enthusiast, really not know about the National Firearms Act and it's later iterations? 

The NFA was enacted in 1934, and was later modified and expanded in 1968. 

So yes, you used to be able to easily and legally buy a machine gun....in the 1920's and 30's. After the NFA it became significantly harder due to enforcement of registration and cost to get your tax stamp, the equivalent of almost $4k at the time. They also closed the loophole on parts and modifications in 1981. 

You can still buy machine guns, yes. But it's a very difficult, expensive process. In general it takes months and costs upwards of five figures. 

That's why so little crime is committed with legal, fully automatic weapons. 

You make a valid point, handguns need better regulation as well. 



Unslaved said:


> Prove howso?



By submitting to some basic evaluation, similar to learning to drive or fly or operate commercial vehicles. 



> Based on what merits of trust?



By passing a background check.



> And to whom?



State and local governments which they live. Federal would be nice as well in order to keep things streamlined.



> And who says they get to set the standard?



We, the people. With significant input from professionals in given, associated field. 



> I was scared of guns at one point too. I did eventually get used to holding and firing and carrying them. You do get used to it. Im not a gun nut by any means, but I am totally behind the 2nd.



If you think that's scary, try being on the other end. 



> I dont think anyone is trying to not offend pro 2nd people...I see the opposite. I see constant, never ending gun shaming by soccer moms and teachers and the majority-left-ridden media. And now kids.



Not anymore they're not. The thing is, society as a whole had had it up to here with ammosexuals. 

It's sad that we've reached the point where a large portion of gun owners care more about being shammed by thier fellow citizens then dead children. 

Also, it isn't just soccer moms, teachers or the media. Or even kids. The people in this very thread are none of those. We're fellow gun owners, military veterans, blue collar workers, computer scientists, and so on.


----------



## 1b4n3z

Unslaved said:


> Ill say it again for the third time; the FBI could have prevented this mass murder had they acted on the many red flags that were abound.
> 
> We wouldn't be having this discussion if they did



How about exchanging individual privacy for guns? Might be a bit of a challenge to fight the government then but it's worth it I'm sure


----------



## Lemonbaby

Unslaved said:


> You dont get to decided what rights people can and can't have. You dont like guns? Fine......dont have one then. After all, its your right. And i wont infringe upon that right. I wont even argue it. But dont call for more government authority to make more laws that take away peoples rights.
> 
> You must be one of these people who think healthcare is a right too.


Do you really compare the right to get access to healthcare to the right of owning weapons? I hope this is some kind of sarcasm (gone wrong)...


----------



## MFB

Unslaved said:


> I see constant, never ending gun shaming by soccer moms and teachers and the majority-left-ridden media. *And now kids.*



Yeah, it's almost like they're getting shot more frequently and want to stop it?


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> Ill say it again for the third time; the FBI could have prevented this mass murder had they acted on the many red flags that were abound.
> 
> We wouldn't be having this discussion if they did


I think maybe you keep having to repeat this because A.) you can't come up with any real sensible reason to not have stricter gun control. 2.) nobody cares about that. It's beyond what the FBI could've done to possibly prevent a single incident. The topic title isn't Why Didn't the FBI Prevent a School Shooting it's Where Do You Stand on Gun Control/Second Amendment. 

I get it. Some people love their guns and their shooting lifestyle more than anything else. I've been there. I was that person for about 21 years. I never had any real reason not to have gun control either and it really pissed me off. I couldn't stand sniveling leftists whining about guns when they didn't have a clue how to use one. 

On my last deployment it really hit me. Some people should not be allowed near firearms. Some people are seriously too stupid, immature, irresponsible, and dangerous to be allowed to play with weapons. I'm not talking about Iraqis or insurgents I'm talking about American soldiers that went through basic combat training. I was like omg wtf am I really thinking we need gun control? I didn't think much more about it until I went to live in England and Poland a couple of years later. Even the cops don't have guns in England. People do a lot more fist fighting. Especially on the weekend outside the pub. It drove me to the conclusion that there is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have a firearm apart from hunting other than personal recreation and enjoyment. 

And that's where qualification comes in. Pilots have the power to mass murder people but for some reason we think they need to be qualified. They have to go through application, training, schools, and tests to become licensed and qualified to operate specific types of aircraft. If someone in my neighborhood is going to be given the means to kill masses of people they had better be qualified. Honestly people could have hand grenades and claymores for "target practice" for all I care as long as they have a proper license for it. 

There is a gun shop and range a few miles east of Fort Carson called Dragon Man. He is a class 3 dealer. This guy has M60s and miniguns. He is better armed than my army unit. He has a shop where he sells guns. He has a firing range. He has a deal where you can pay to shoot full auto weapons on his range. I have no problem with any of it and more power to him. He is qualified and responsible. His shop and range are out in the middle of nowhere in the plains on a compound more secure than the compounds I lived on in Iraq. People aren't going to try stealing any of his weapons. He operates his machine guns with competence in a safe controlled environment. 

There is another civilian shooting range open to the public called Rampart Range near Fort Carson. This is the most popular one because it's just out in the open on the side of a mountain. Just drive up, get out and shoot. The majority of people shooting there are military stationed at Fort Carson or the many air force bases around Colorado Springs. I've spent many afternoons up there with friends plinking targets and shooting clays. All of these responsible gun owners have turned the place into a trash dump. You can barely walk around without slipping and falling on the carpet of empty brass. People bring TVs, refrigerators and all kinds of huge shit up there to shoot at and then leave it. Every once in a while you'll get the odd incident of some idiot thinking because he somehow managed to pass basic training he's a weapons expert accidentally shooting someone. Some guy actually shot his four year old daughter. Got to get them used to guns young right?

People honestly don't mind people having guns. People are just fed up with people who should never have guns having guns "cuz muh 2nd amendment god givun rights" and going on shooting sprees.


----------



## Mr Violence

Unslaved said:


> Let me ask you, have you ever owned a gun? Shot one? Hell, id bet you never even touched a gun before. I bet your terrified of them. People are scared of what they don't know.





Unslaved said:


> People seem to conveniently forget about the Virginia Tech mass murder that happened 10 years. He killed 30 people using.........wait for it.......handguns.



This is the point I'm making about 1 step thinking. Making dismissals based on assumptions (that are not accurate) and citing anecdotal evidence of one time a certain law didn't apply as reason to dismiss the entire discussion.

Again, it's nuanced, it's about stats, it's about overarching conversation and slow change. You keep returning to the same talking points that everyone in this thread have thoroughly deconstructed numerous times.


Also, again, read the thread.


----------



## possumkiller

Also I don't think the vast majority of pro or anti gun people know what an assault rifle is.

The German Stg44 was the original "assault" rifle. It was the first attempt at a weapon smaller and lighter than the typical battle rifle yet more powerful than the submachine guns or machine pistols. At the time Hitler had to approve of everything so the name "assault rifle" was created specifically for selling the idea to him. The Stg44 heavily influenced Kalashnikov in the AK design. It was a new era in combat rifles and naturally the west took 20 years to catch up. The initial American response was the M14 which was supposed to be turning the loved M1 Garand into an "assault" rifle that failed miserably. Better powder allowed the same performance of the .30-06 with a shorter cartridge creating the 7.62x51mm NATO aka .308 Winchester. However, the M14 wound up actually bigger than the M1 and was uncontrollable on full auto. 

Eugene Stoner's Armalite design was initially chambered in. 30-06 (you thought an AR10 was big and bulky?) then 7.62x51mm and later the 5.56x45mm NATO aka .223 Remington when the civilian designation AR15 was accepted into the military as the M16. I think they did some experimenting with other chamberings as well. 

Gun people like to say that an AR15 is a civilian legal version of the M16. No not really. See before the military adopts a design (guns, planes, helicopters etc) it's put through testing. The M16 wasn't the M16 straight away. Just like the F16 wasn't the F16 straight away. During the bidding competition planes are given Y (YF23). During testing of the winner X (X22 Raptor). 

Just like the M9 is a Beretta 92, the M16 is an AR15. Just because of NFA civilian market AR15s are not full auto or burst capable from the factory.


----------



## Unslaved

Wow theres a lot of muck and mud to wade through. Its clearly 10:1 here I suppose im wasting my time.

Do you really think people who dont want gun control want to see kids get shot? This is absurd. You sound like the women on The View.

Kids dont even know what the current gun laws are, yet they want to change them. All kids do is stare at their cell phone all day long, they lift their head up for a mass murder, now all of the sudden they're lobbyists and professional law makers and protest-organizers. These are the same kids that are eating Tide pods. I predict that mothers will resort next to a tactic of catapulting baby dolls smeared in red paint at the Capital Building doorstep.

Alot of the "new" laws that you guys are advocating are already in place.....they just need to be enforced. Background checks already exist. Waiting times are long enough. The gunshow loophole theory has been dismantled over and over. Look I dont want true nutcases running around with guns either, (though, even people with mental illnesses should have a right to defend their life just as well), but I'll say it again for the FOURTH time, this florida shooting could have been prevented!

Ive already said the reason why comparing this country to other countries based on guns laws is absurd as well.

Japan? Their society isnt the same melting pot as ours. But peoples heads are getting chopped of by the sword. (I suppose thats less humane then getting shot right?) They're also a tiny postage stamp size island.

Switzerland? They have some of the lowest gun related crime stats in the world. And their number of armed citizens are growing everyday. The teenagers over there are not committing mass murders. The teenagers over there are responsible and probably are better shots than anyone on this forum, due to their regular competitions. Again, they are not a nation of many cultures like we are. They are a near perfect society imo. In a perfect society, everyone shares and upholds the same morals. Its like everyone in their colony works as a whole and works for the good of each other; with common bonds, traditions, and heritage. All members come from a similar place and move as a cohesive group toward a similar destination. The people look alike, think alike and act in unison, constantly moving forward advancing as one.

However in this country morals and values are not universal. They differ greatly from one cultural grouo to the next. As the values and morals that are passes on differ between cultural groups, these seperate groups develop their own traditionsa. In effect they develop their own distinct culture which is not only different from but often conflicts with the cultures of other groups. And thats what happens. How can you move forward and make any kind of progress in a nation of many cultures? It can't happen. It stagnates and is reduced to the lowest common denominator as to not offend anyone.

So basically it is the breakdown of our melting pot, incohesive society that is the root problem cause that leads to these type of mass shootings.

As we speak im hearing on the news about the florida shooting where the guy used an "assault rifle",.....again. I just hope it was in "fully semi automatic mode ala CNN)

Oh by the way has anyone seen this bombshell? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/28317/bombshell-obamas-doj-forced-deletion-500000-ryan-saavedra?amp


----------



## vilk

Unslaved said:


> im wasting my time.


Yep. Especially when 100% of your talking points have already been toppled at least once already in this same thread.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> Do you really think people who dont want gun control want to see kids get shot? This is absurd. You sound like the women on The View.



Ad hominen. How cute.

Cause and effect. But you know that. You're just in it to push your point. Logic means nothing to some folks.

Call me a women. I don't care. It says far more about yourself.



> Kids dont even know what the current gun laws are, yet they want to change them. All kids do is stare at their cell phone all day long, they lift their head up for a mass murder, now all of the sudden they're lobbyists and professional law makers and protest-organizers. These are the same kids that are eating Tide pods. Alot of the "new" laws that you guys are advocating are already in place.....they just need to be enforced. Background checks already exist. Waiting times are long enough. Look I dont want true nutcases running around with guns either, (though, even people with mental illnesses should have a right to defend their life just as well), but I'll say it again for the FOURTH time, this florida shooting could have been prevented!



That's some tough talk for someone I've had to walk through slowly about gun law and history. You keep talking about CNN, is that where _you_ get your gun info from?

Background checks are woefully terrible and not all states have them.

Waiting times only apply to certain firearms in certain states as well.

Are you this clueless for real or just expecting us to be?


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> I suppose im wasting my time.



Not really. You are doing an outstanding job of making yourself look like an idiot. 

Give one reason unrelated to "muh 2nd amendment rights" why there should be no gun control. If there was no second amendment at all, what would be your argument for arming an unarmed population? Why do people need guns?


----------



## bostjan

You make a few good points, so I'll try to respond, not just for the sake of arguing, but because I think there is some actual discussion going on here. 



Unslaved said:


> Wow theres a lot of muck and mud to wade through. Its clearly 10:1 here I suppose im wasting my time.
> 
> Do you really think people who dont want gun control want to see kids get shot? This is absurd. You sound like the women on The View.



It's easy these days for a discussion to get extreme, as I mentioned in a previous post, by both sides. I think that sticking to direct responses to direct logical points mitigates this some, but it's unavoidable, it seems.



Unslaved said:


> Kids dont even know what the current gun laws are, yet they want to change them.



Same is to be said about adults, in general. 



Unslaved said:


> All kids do is stare at their cell phone all day long, they lift their head up for a mass murder, now all of the sudden they're lobbyists and professional law makers and protest-organizers.



Yes. Also the same could be said for basically anyone who got into politics at a young enough age; just change staring at cell phones to whatever was the biggest time-waster of the particular era. It's simply how change occurs.



Unslaved said:


> These are the same kids that are eating Tide pods. I predict that mothers will resort next to a tactic of catapulting baby dolls smeared in red paint at the Capital Building doorstep.



There are idiots born in every generation. Shaking your fist at a teenager and shouting some rhetoric about Tide Pods just makes you sound cranky and illogical, it really doesn't add anything to your previous points. If mothers of the victims resort to the visual image you described, I wouldn't be too shocked. But I'm not sure how that would be related to the legitimacy of their message. 



Unslaved said:


> Alot of the "new" laws that you guys are advocating are already in place.....they just need to be enforced. Background checks already exist. Waiting times are long enough. The gunshow loophole theory has been dismantled over and over. Look I dont want true nutcases running around with guns either, (though, even people with mental illnesses should have a right to defend their life just as well), but I'll say it again for the FOURTH time, this florida shooting could have been prevented!



Ok, this is the paragraph I like. It seems like we can have an intelligent conversation from here.

1. There are a lot of gun control laws in place. But there are a lot of loopholes and a lot of inconsistencies and so forth, and that seems to be where most of the contention lies in this debate. Not every state has the same gun control laws, in fact, it seems that every state has some variation.
2. Background checks, I agree, should have stopped the shooting in FL. I think that there have been a few incidents where half-assed background checks were to blame for guns getting into the wrong hands. You are 100% correct that there is a major enforcement problem that has been uncovered in these incidents. But if a law is in place, and that law is not being enforced, we ought to try to ascertain the reason why and then fix it, rather than do nothing related to the problem. 
3. Wait times do seem to help in the case of revenge shootings or whatever, but not so much for mass shootings. Increasing wait times, I agree, will probably not do much to curb mass shootings.
4. Do you have a source for the gun show loophole debunking?
5. I think that no one here is arguing that the FL shooting could have been prevented. I don't know why you feel the need to repeat yourself. I think where people in the thread differ is how it could have been prevented or more accurately, how future incidents like this could be prevented.



Unslaved said:


> Ive already said the reason why comparing this country to other countries based on guns laws is absurd as well.
> 
> Japan? Their society isnt the same melting pot as ours. But peoples heads are getting chopped of by the sword. (I suppose thats less humane then getting shot right?) They're also a tiny postage stamp size island.
> 
> Switzerland? They have some of the lowest gun related crime stats in the world. And their number of armed citizens are growing everyday. The teenagers over there are not committing mass murders. The teenagers over there are responsible and probably are better shots than anyone on this forum, due to their regular competitions. Again, they are not a nation of many cultures like we are. They are a near perfect society imo. In a perfect society, everyone shares and upholds the same morals. Its like everyone in their colony works as a whole and works for the good of each other; with common bonds, traditions, and heritage. All members come from a similar place and move as a cohesive group toward a similar destination. The people look alike, think alike and act in unison, constantly moving forward advancing as one.



I don't really care to debate what you say here, not because I agree, but because I don't think it'd go anywhere productive. I actually have no idea what you are talking about, but you seem to be referencing specific things rather vaguely, perhaps. Whatever the case, pass.



Unslaved said:


> However in this country morals and values are not universal. They differ greatly from one cultural grouo to the next. As the values and morals that are passes on differ between cultural groups, these seperate groups develop their own traditionsa. In effect they develop their own distinct culture which is not only different from but often conflicts with the cultures of other groups. And thats what happens. How can you move forward and make any kind of progress in a nation of many cultures? It can't happen. It stagnates and is reduced to the lowest common denominator as to not offend anyone.
> 
> So basically it is the breakdown of our melting pot, incohesive society that is the root problem cause that leads to these type of mass shootings.



Yeah, in the USA, we have a lot of regional cultures and countercultures. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. We have different values, too, true. That's where this debate comes into play. If I am from Vermont, where we have really lax gun laws, but very little violence, and I want to go to a concert in Nevada, does that mean that I should be subject to being shot by a crazed gunman? What if a kid from Massachusetts goes on a student exchange program to FL, does that mean that if he's shot by a lunatic, then, oh well?! That'd be crazy. There is some universal moral code here, and it goes without saying whenever you bring up murder. I really think that the weapons that enable people to commit mass murder needs to be a part of the national conversation about how we hold our values. Why? Because, as pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, people can buy a gun easily where guns can be bought easily, then transport that gun to a place where guns cannot be bought easily, and then the gun can be used there to commit mass murder. So, gun control needs a better national standard. It's almost like you are winning your own argument against yourself here.


----------



## Unslaved

Where did Cruz get the smoke grenades?! Im pretty sure those are illegal too


----------



## Unslaved

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows

http://www.factandmyth.com/gun-laws-restrictions/yes-the-gun-show-loophole-is-real-nra-lies-exposed

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=gun show loophole debunked&sm=1


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> Where did Cruz get the smoke grenades?! Im pretty sure those are illegal too



Depends on the model and how it makes smoke, what the smoke is made of, and how it ignites. There are plenty of legal ones.


----------



## Unslaved

bostjan said:


> You make a few good points, so I'll try to respond, not just for the sake of arguing, but because I think there is some actual discussion going on here.
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy these days for a discussion to get extreme, as I mentioned in a previous post, by both sides. I think that sticking to direct responses to direct logical points mitigates this some, but it's unavoidable, it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> Same is to be said about adults, in general.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Also the same could be said for basically anyone who got into politics at a young enough age; just change staring at cell phones to whatever was the biggest time-waster of the particular era. It's simply how change occurs.
> 
> 
> 
> There are idiots born in every generation. Shaking your fist at a teenager and shouting some rhetoric about Tide Pods just makes you sound cranky and illogical, it really doesn't add anything to your previous points. If mothers of the victims resort to the visual image you described, I wouldn't be too shocked. But I'm not sure how that would be related to the legitimacy of their message.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, this is the paragraph I like. It seems like we can have an intelligent conversation from here.
> 
> 1. There are a lot of gun control laws in place. But there are a lot of loopholes and a lot of inconsistencies and so forth, and that seems to be where most of the contention lies in this debate. Not every state has the same gun control laws, in fact, it seems that every state has some variation.
> 2. Background checks, I agree, should have stopped the shooting in FL. I think that there have been a few incidents where half-assed background checks were to blame for guns getting into the wrong hands. You are 100% correct that there is a major enforcement problem that has been uncovered in these incidents. But if a law is in place, and that law is not being enforced, we ought to try to ascertain the reason why and then fix it, rather than do nothing related to the problem.
> 3. Wait times do seem to help in the case of revenge shootings or whatever, but not so much for mass shootings. Increasing wait times, I agree, will probably not do much to curb mass shootings.
> 4. Do you have a source for the gun show loophole debunking?
> 5. I think that no one here is arguing that the FL shooting could have been prevented. I don't know why you feel the need to repeat yourself. I think where people in the thread differ is how it could have been prevented or more accurately, how future incidents like this could be prevented.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care to debate what you say here, not because I agree, but because I don't think it'd go anywhere productive. I actually have no idea what you are talking about, but you seem to be referencing specific things rather vaguely, perhaps. Whatever the case, pass.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, in the USA, we have a lot of regional cultures and countercultures. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. We have different values, too, true. That's where this debate comes into play. If I am from Vermont, where we have really lax gun laws, but very little violence, and I want to go to a concert in Nevada, does that mean that I should be subject to being shot by a crazed gunman? What if a kid from Massachusetts goes on a student exchange program to FL, does that mean that if he's shot by a lunatic, then, oh well?! That'd be crazy. There is some universal moral code here, and it goes without saying whenever you bring up murder. I really think that the weapons that enable people to commit mass murder needs to be a part of the national conversation about how we hold our values. Why? Because, as pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, people can buy a gun easily where guns can be bought easily, then transport that gun to a place where guns cannot be bought easily, and then the gun can be used there to commit mass murder. So, gun control needs a better national standard. It's almost like you are winning your own argument against yourself here.


Ok. Your last point is rational. And is a good point. You're right, if someone can buy a gun in one state then travel to another state where guns are not allowed, then obviously those people are unprotected. But what is the solution then, when there arw more guns then there are people in this country? That leaves a boatload of guns still out there..

In your Las Vegas case....people tend to always bring uo the extreme exceptions....understandably. But I dont know if any laws could have stopped that....even the most strict gun laws. I cant remember if they said that shooter lived in Nevada or not. I do know that Nevada has a pretty high crime rate though


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Depends on the model and how it makes smoke, what the smoke is made of, and how it ignites. There are plenty of legal ones.


Source please? I didnt know that. Where can someone buy those because I have never seen or even heard of anyone buying them legally


----------



## Unslaved

bostjan said:


> There are idiots born in every generation. Shaking your fist at a teenager and shouting some rhetoric about Tide Pods just makes you sound cranky and illogical, it really doesn't add anything to your previous points. If mothers of the victims resort to the visual image you described, I wouldn't be too shocked. But I'm not sure how that would be related to the legitimacy of their message.



https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/c...share&utm_content=news&utm_campaign=dailywire

Really now kindergartners are walking out? Now even you would have to admit this is quite extreme. And that they did not out themselves up to it


----------



## bostjan

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/ said:


> What does exist, however, is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state, regardless of whether that transaction happens at a gun show or not.



Hmm, sounds like a loophole to me. 



Unslaved said:


> Ok. Your last point is rational. And is a good point. You're right, if someone can buy a gun in one state then travel to another state where guns are not allowed, then obviously those people are unprotected. But what is the solution then, when there arw more guns then there are people in this country? That leaves a boatload of guns still out there..
> 
> In your Las Vegas case....people tend to always bring uo the extreme exceptions....understandably. But I dont know if any laws could have stopped that....even the most strict gun laws. I cant remember if they said that shooter lived in Nevada or not. I do know that Nevada has a pretty high crime rate though



The solution is to get more universal gun control among the states or maybe federalize the laws. I prefer the former, but I'll take the latter, the moment Oklahoma and Texas try pulling something stupid.


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> Where did Cruz get the smoke grenades?! Im pretty sure those are illegal too


I get it. You want to steer the conversation away from answering any questions and you want to sidestep the main issue. The NRA has trained you well. Or whatever religion you subscribe to. They use the same BS to get around the actual debate as well. Just like spineless politicians. If you can't come up with a decent argument, throw something else out there to draw attention away from yourself...

I would think you'd have figured out by now that without some sort of convincing argument you aren't going to convert anyone. Regurgitating the NRA stance and statements isn't convincing anybody. It's like listening to tobacco companies and smokers trying to tell people cigarettes don't kill people.


----------



## Unslaved

possumkiller said:


> I get it. You want to steer the conversation away from answering any questions and you want to sidestep the main issue. The NRA has trained you well. Or whatever religion you subscribe to. They use the same BS to get around the actual debate as well. Just like spineless politicians. If you can't come up with a decent argument, throw something else out there to draw attention away from yourself...
> 
> I would think you'd have figured out by now that without some sort of convincing argument you aren't going to convert anyone. Regurgitating the NRA stance and statements isn't convincing anybody. It's like listening to tobacco companies and smokers trying to tell people cigarettes don't kill people.


You out


possumkiller said:


> I get it. You want to steer the conversation away from answering any questions and you want to sidestep the main issue. The NRA has trained you well. Or whatever religion you subscribe to. They use the same BS to get around the actual debate as well. Just like spineless politicians. If you can't come up with a decent argument, throw something else out there to draw attention away from yourself...
> 
> I would think you'd have figured out by now that without some sort of convincing argument you aren't going to convert anyone. Regurgitating the NRA stance and statements isn't convincing anybody. It's like listening to tobacco companies and smokers trying to tell people cigarettes don't kill people.


Its difficult to tackle everybodys rebuttal via cell phone. As im writing responses, new ones are popping up simultaneously. Its rather difficult


----------



## bostjan

Unslaved said:


> Where did Cruz get the smoke grenades?! Im pretty sure those are illegal too



I did a google search and there are plenty of places to buy them online. I see no legislation banning them, only a memo from the ATF discouraging the sale of certain fuses.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Its clearly 10:1 here I suppose im wasting my time.



Well you did get banned, and then created a whole new account for the sole purpose of arguing upstream in this particular thread so...

Still, even completely opposed parties can argue out to the point where either one changes an opinion, or they both form a more nuanced position, or they identify core/atomic points on which they disagree and there's nothing more to be said about it. The way you participate in the thread is unhelpful, because you're not being precise about what you would do to curb violence, and the finest level of granularity to which you assign blame is "american society". 

You're not even precise about how you would accomplish changes in society. Your argument basically boils down to, well, if people didn't want to shoot each other, we'd have less mass shootings. I'd like to suggest that altering access to firearms is probably easier than rewiring human nature.

It's just like when ultra conservatives propose abstinence as a way of reducing teen pregnancy, and chastise all safe sex education / free condom distribution. The more effective strategy has to concede that you have a better chance at building a rocketship to mars than you do to persuade teenagers from having sex.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Japan? Their society isnt the same melting pot as ours. But peoples heads are getting chopped of by the sword. (I suppose thats less humane then getting shot right?) They're also a tiny postage stamp size island.
> 
> Switzerland? They have some of the lowest gun related crime stats in the world. And their number of armed citizens are growing everyday. The teenagers over there are not committing mass murders. The teenagers over there are responsible and probably are better shots than anyone on this forum, due to their regular competitions. Again, they are not a nation of many cultures like we are. They are a near perfect society imo. In a perfect society, everyone shares and upholds the same morals. Its like everyone in their colony works as a whole and works for the good of each other; with common bonds, traditions, and heritage. All members come from a similar place and move as a cohesive group toward a similar destination. The people look alike, think alike and act in unison, constantly moving forward advancing as one.



My Swiss labmate says to fuck off.

And as for Japan, they don't exactly have a heads-getting-chopped-off-by-swords epidemic. Are we comparing modern day US to Edo period Japan?

Like now I see why you don't think we can look to other countries for applicable lessons: you don't know what life is like in other countries.


----------



## vilk

narad said:


> My Swiss labmate says to fuck off.
> 
> And as for Japan, they don't exactly have a heads-getting-chopped-off-by-swords epidemic. Are we comparing modern day US to Edo period Japan?
> 
> Like now I see why you don't think we can look to other countries for applicable lessons: you don't know what life is like in other countries.


Also, despite being a "tiny postage stamp size" island (it actually has more land area than the UK) Japan actually has much higher _population density _than most places, which actually means that it's low crime statistics are that much _more_ impressive. Ordinarily crime statistics get worse as population density increases.


----------



## Drew

Unslaved said:


> In your Las Vegas case....people tend to always bring uo the extreme exceptions....understandably. But I dont know if any laws could have stopped that....even the most strict gun laws. I cant remember if they said that shooter lived in Nevada or not. I do know that Nevada has a pretty high crime rate though


I mean, literally, a prohibition on private ownership of semi-automatic weapons would have at a minimum made it a hell of a lot _harder_ for one man to legally aquire, what, seven suitcases worth of AR-15s? 

I think one of the things that gun advocates have _never _been able to successfully address, in my experience, is the answer to one fundamental question. Why is it that mass shooting events happen fairly frequently in America, but _extremely_ rarely in every other country in the world? It's not that they _never_ happen... And, I doubt far stricter gun laws would _entirely_ stop the country, but, there are about 180 countries in this world, and while the US is a unusually large one, our population is about 4% of the world total. Even if we only looked at the truly high profile shootings - this Florida school shooting, Vegas, the Pulse shooting, the Texas church shooting, etc... Say that it's about three high profile shootings a year, on average (which is very conservative), then proportionally you'd expect somewhere in the ballpark of 70 similar shootings a year, globally. Instead, the US represents the vast majority of all global mass civilian shootings. Why is that? Violent video games? They play them everywhere. Mental illness? The US doesn't have a lock on that. Terrorism? Most mass shooters in the States are secular white men. Not enough good guys with guns? As you yourself say, the guns per person ratio in the states is approaching 1:1. 

So, honestly, why ARE Americans far more likely to be shot to death than residents of any other first-world nation? If it's _not_ "because we own so many more guns and make it so easy to get them," then I'd think a pretty clear, unique-to-this-country reason should be pretty readily apparent, no?


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> So, honestly, why ARE Americans far more likely to be shot to death than residents of any other first-world nation? If it's _not_ "because we own so many more guns and make it so easy to get them," then I'd think a pretty clear, unique-to-this-country reason should be pretty readily apparent, no?



High fructose corn syrup?


----------



## Necris

Unslaved said:


> ... they are not a nation of many cultures like we are. They are a near perfect society imo. In a perfect society, everyone shares and upholds the same morals. Its like everyone in their colony works as a whole and works for the good of each other; with common bonds, traditions, and heritage. All members come from a similar place and move as a cohesive group toward a similar destination. The people look alike, think alike and act in unison, constantly moving forward advancing as one.
> 
> However in this country morals and values are not universal. They differ greatly from one cultural grouo to the next. As the values and morals that are passes on differ between cultural groups, these seperate groups develop their own traditionsa. In effect they develop their own distinct culture which is not only different from but often conflicts with the cultures of other groups. And thats what happens. How can you move forward and make any kind of progress in a nation of many cultures? It can't happen. It stagnates and is reduced to the lowest common denominator as to not offend anyone.


Quoted without context.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> High fructose corn syrup?




Personally, I think it's a nuanced answer, though, seriously. The obvious part of it is the guns, but it's not where the answer stops. Our culture stigmatizes any mental health concerns, such that people who need mental help are culturally pressured not to reach out. Furthermore, there really is little help for them out there anyway, unless they are rather wealthy. We have a violent culture. We have a young culture. Our young, violent culture hasn't matured too much since the subjugation of other races. This puts violence into people's heads. So, we are more armed, more unstable, and more prone to violent behaviour. Add in the fact that our good police officers are mired in bureaucracy and our bad police officers are scary as shit, and then throw in a heaping helping of political friction between half of the country and the other half, and you might as well douse us all in gasoline and then randomly give 2/3rd of the people matches.

So, my plan, if I were the president (vote for me!) would be to clean up the police force and get them on task actually protecting people, offer mental health service again and propose an ad campaign to humanize the conditions to try to relieve some of the stigma, and, most of all, reform gun control such that we don't take away people's guns, but we do educate people better in gun safety, particularly people prone to be around guns, and also make controls universal from state to state. We need to get guns out of the hands of violent people, period. I don't care what you think your rights are, your rights are moot if you're dead, and we don't want you dead.

There is the issue of mentally unstable people being unable to defend themselves, but that's just a compromise that needs to be made. We certainly don't want people arbitrarily calling other people "crazy" just to make them helpless, but we absolutely can't have a bunch of crazy people running around shooting other people. There just has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere on the "sane" side of the issue.


----------



## mongey

Drew said:


> I mean, literally, a prohibition on private ownership of semi-automatic weapons would have at a minimum made it a hell of a lot _harder_ for one man to legally aquire, what, seven suitcases worth of AR-15s?
> 
> I think one of the things that gun advocates have _never _been able to successfully address, in my experience, is the answer to one fundamental question. Why is it that mass shooting events happen fairly frequently in America, but _extremely_ rarely in every other country in the world? It's not that they _never_ happen... And, I doubt far stricter gun laws would _entirely_ stop the country, but, there are about 180 countries in this world, and while the US is a unusually large one, our population is about 4% of the world total. Even if we only looked at the truly high profile shootings - this Florida school shooting, Vegas, the Pulse shooting, the Texas church shooting, etc... Say that it's about three high profile shootings a year, on average (which is very conservative), then proportionally you'd expect somewhere in the ballpark of 70 similar shootings a year, globally. Instead, the US represents the vast majority of all global mass civilian shootings. Why is that? Violent video games? They play them everywhere. Mental illness? The US doesn't have a lock on that. Terrorism? Most mass shooters in the States are secular white men. Not enough good guys with guns? As you yourself say, the guns per person ratio in the states is approaching 1:1.
> 
> So, honestly, why ARE Americans far more likely to be shot to death than residents of any other first-world nation? If it's _not_ "because we own so many more guns and make it so easy to get them," then I'd think a pretty clear, unique-to-this-country reason should be pretty readily apparent, no?




this is the krux of it from what I see. Gun advocates say gun control wont stop all the shootings, but I don't think any person believes it will . speeding fines and drink driving laws don't stop everyone from speeding or driving drunk , and people still die from both , but if you got rid of the laws restricting it tomorrow the road toll would skyrocket

it is about minimizing the risk . and there's no way to look at it other then if guns are harder to get then less people will have them. its the approach every other country in the world has taken. All countries are multi cultural ,all have problems with terrorism .all pretty much have a violent history where a native people where fucked over

and your not just talking hand guns ,hunting rifles or shot guns as you are in most countries . you are talking military grade hardware that has no purpose other than to kill as quickly and effortlessly as possible. There is absolutely no reason a AR15 should be out there in someones home

it doesn't matter what country it is. all countries have problems with mental heath and violence. I know most gun owners aren't going out and shooting kids. but damn, the consequences of those guns being out there are just so terrible that surley a little debate about what a citizens rights really are is overdue . don't kids have the right to go to school where teachers arnt armed


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

I too wish the US was more like Switzerland, where healthcare is universal and students have to study two foreign languages in grade school.


----------



## StevenC

Unslaved said:


> Switzerland? They have some of the lowest gun related crime stats in the world. And their number of armed citizens are growing everyday. The teenagers over there are not committing mass murders. The teenagers over there are responsible and probably are better shots than anyone on this forum, due to their regular competitions. Again, they are not a nation of many cultures like we are. They are a near perfect society imo. In a perfect society, everyone shares and upholds the same morals. Its like everyone in their colony works as a whole and works for the good of each other; with common bonds, traditions, and heritage. All members come from a similar place and move as a cohesive group toward a similar destination. The people look alike, think alike and act in unison, constantly moving forward advancing as one.


I mean, the Swiss have so many guns because of the mandatory training and military service. They have so few shooting because they don't give guns or military training to people with mental health issues, criminal records or others likely to shoot at people. Did I mention Switzerland has universal healthcare?

Also, you're starting to sound just a little xenophobic, and you also seem to be deciding for yourself what is and isn't a natural right while excluding others from doing so.


----------



## Unslaved

mongey said:


> this is the krux of it from what I see. Gun advocates say gun control wont stop all the shootings, but I don't think any person believes it will . speeding fines and drink driving laws don't stop everyone from speeding or driving drunk , and people still die from both , but if you got rid of the laws restricting it tomorrow the road toll would skyrocket
> 
> it is about minimizing the risk . and there's no way to look at it other then if guns are harder to get then less people will have them. its the approach every other country in the world has taken. All countries are multi cultural ,all have problems with terrorism .all pretty much have a violent history where a native people where fucked over
> 
> and your not just talking hand guns ,hunting rifles or shot guns as you are in most countries . you are talking military grade hardware that has no purpose other than to kill as quickly and effortlessly as possible. There is absolutely no reason a AR15 should be out there in someones home
> 
> it doesn't matter what country it is. all countries have problems with mental heath and violence. I know most gun owners aren't going out and shooting kids. but damn, the consequences of those guns being out there are just so terrible that surley a little debate about what a citizens rights really are is overdue . don't kids have the right to go to school where teachers arnt armed


You do realize that a semi auto-matic handgun and an AR15 are the same damn thing......only one is more accurate at longer distances, don't you? Unless your thinking of the CNN version. Full-semi-automatic?


----------



## Unslaved

StevenC said:


> I mean, the Swiss have so many guns because of the mandatory training and military service. They have so few shooting because they don't give guns or military training to people with mental health issues, criminal records or others likely to shoot at people. Did I mention Switzerland has universal healthcare?
> 
> Also, you're starting to sound just a little xenophobic, and you also seem to be deciding for yourself what is and isn't a natural right while excluding others from doing so.


Is that todays buzzword? You are totally wrong


----------



## StevenC

Unslaved said:


> Is that todays buzzword? You are totally wrong


Wrong about what? You basing Switzerland's gun success on their genetic purity, or do they not have conscription, universal healthcare and background checks?


----------



## Unslaved

But.....but....but...."only the military should have these guns!!"

This is a bloody Colonel OF the military for Pete's sake! And everybody gobbled it up


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> But.....but....but...."only the military should have these guns!!"
> 
> This is a bloody Colonel OF the military for Pete's sake! And everybody gobbled it up




I think it was pretty clear he was referring to single shots with a pause, and then wanted to show the high _rate_ of fire when going full/all-out/as-fast-as-he-can semi-automatic. Unfortunate choice of words but it didn't undermine his point in the least. 

On the other hand, the guy holding a potato and walking away from the camera makes a good counterargument.


----------



## Vyn

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-19/us-boy-shoots-sister-over-video-game-controller/9564702

How the hell does something like this hap- Oh wait you don't have any legislation or requirements about proper gun storage, or a minimum age for handling firearms, or a requirement for education on how to use firearms responsibly. Never mind.

I love you guys in the States but fuck me. What the actual fuck guys.


----------



## Unslaved

narad said:


> I think it was pretty clear he was referring to single shots with a pause, and then wanted to show the high _rate_ of fire when going full/all-out/as-fast-as-he-can semi-automatic. Unfortunate choice of words but it didn't undermine his point in the least.
> 
> On the other hand, the guy holding a potato and walking away from the camera makes a good counterargument.



...Then the way its being portrayed here is extremely misleading to say the least. Only I doubt that it was an accident that they showed that clip the way it is after it was recorded....its not like it was live.

Not only is that misleading but its confirming naive peoples biases about how certain guns work.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> You do realize that a semi auto-matic handgun and an AR15 are the same damn thing......only one is more accurate at longer distances, don't you? Unless your thinking of the CNN version. Full-semi-automatic?





Yeah, it's pretty much confirmed you don't know shit about firearms and ballistics.

Implying that a rifle cartridge isn't objectively more deadly.  

Yeah, I'm sure Stephen Paddock really appreciated the longer range capabilities.


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> You do realize that a semi auto-matic handgun and an AR15 are the same damn thing......only one is more accurate at longer distances, don't you? Unless your thinking of the CNN version. Full-semi-automatic?


Wow. You really don't know jack shit about guns. I've been waiting patiently since yesterday for you to answer my question. You said you were taking a long time to answer everyone on your phone.

Did you come up with a reason why people have to have guns or why there should be no gun control? Or do you need some more time?


----------



## bostjan

Unslaved said:


> You do realize that a semi auto-matic handgun and an AR15 are the same damn thing......only one is more accurate at longer distances, don't you? Unless your thinking of the CNN version. Full-semi-automatic?





Unslaved said:


> Is that todays buzzword? You are totally wrong





Unslaved said:


> ...Then the way its being portrayed here is extremely misleading to say the least. Only I doubt that it was an accident that they showed that clip the way it is after it was recorded....its not like it was live.
> 
> Not only is that misleading but its confirming naive peoples biases about how certain guns work.


Quite a trifecta of posts.
Have you ever fired a rifle before? Ever been to Switzerland? Ever studied psychology?
You're speaking as if these are all a no, or else maybe just a liberal pretending to be conservative in order to troll.


----------



## possumkiller

I mean, I get your point. That "colonel of the military" (lol) looks like he knows about as much as you do about firearms. And that is a problem I've talked about before. 90% of military people know jack shit about guns. They know only the bare minimum to operate their personal weapon (sometimes not even that) to qualify (sometimes it's done for them) at the range. 

Anybody that's ever been in the military knows that they just tell you what to do in a one size fits all way and you do it. They don't tell you why or give you reasons. They really don't care if you actually learn to shoot or not. I've seen drill sergeants shooting for hopeless trainees in basic to qualify and I've seen NCOs shooting for hopeless privates at regular units. If we shoot paper targets instead of pop ups there is always some hopeless private getting a target hole punched by hand with a 5.56 round. Why? So we can all go home! Everyone has to sit there at the range until everybody qualifies. If you don't qualify you go through over and over until you do. There's always at least one that will never ever qualify no matter what. So as the sun goes down and everyone is fed up and pissed off and hungry, some sergeant does some sneaky shit to get those people "qualified" so we can get on with our lives.

In El Paso county Colorado (Fort Carson, Colorado Springs), they are so patriotic and respectful of the military that if you show your military ID or DD214 you don't have to take the training course to get a concealed carry permit. It really amazes me. Half these military people don't understand what an open bolt weapon means or even how to get the freaking bolt out of their own weapon yet people assume since they are military they are weapon experts.


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, it's pretty much confirmed you don't know shit about firearms and ballistics.
> 
> Implying that a rifle cartridge isn't objectively more deadly.
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure Stephen Paddock really appreciated the longer range capabilities.


What I was refering to is that the functionality is basically the same. Yes I know the .223 round tumbles. But I'm talking about the gun itself.

And you are right, I dont know a ton about guns, I never said I did, but that doesn't make my stance any less valid than someone who is against guns who really doesn't know anything about them.

But when comapring the twos guns main functionality, at the end of the day, they are both semi-automatic; one just looks scarier than the other. I know your just being a jerk now


----------



## Unslaved

bostjan said:


> Quite a trifecta of posts.
> Have you ever fired a rifle before? Ever been to Switzerland? Ever studied psychology?
> You're speaking as if these are all a no, or else maybe just a liberal pretending to be conservative in order to troll.


1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes

Whats your point?


----------



## KnightBrolaire

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...dium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=dvf
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...163/shooting-reported-at-maryland-high-school
2 students injured during school shooting in maryland (60 miles outside DC). school resource officer shot and killed the school shooter, who shot the other students with a handgun.


----------



## Unslaved

possumkiller said:


> Wow. You really don't know jack shit about guns. I've been waiting patiently since yesterday for you to answer my question. You said you were taking a long time to answer everyone on your phone.
> 
> Did you come up with a reason why people have to have guns or why there should be no gun control? Or do you need some more time?



I wasn't looking for an answer as to why people "have" to have guns, because I am not concerned with what they have nor is it any of my business.

I'vee already addressed that the florida shootinf could have been prevented and I believe Bostjan was the only one to recognize it.

Breaking news, today there has been a shooting at a Maryland school. He used a handgun. I think 3 dead or injured.

Perhaps schools should have better security. Why and how are people getting into school with guns nowadays. We all know society is more crazy than ever (which is the root cause of the problem). I know "kids" shouldn't have to go to school that feels like a prison". What about in the 50's and 60's when students had drills where they we're taught to hide under desks to protect them from fuckin bomb blasts. Certainly they shouldn't have had to do that, but they did.

And heres the thing about statistics. Alot of them are bullshit. There is alot more crime going on in certain places than whats being reported. I hear 2nd hand of types of crime happening in friend's neighborhood and it doesnt get reported. The police are told by officials to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. I know it's the truth because of what I hear from people I know who live in these neighborhoods. The governor of said state is claiming that his laws he put in place are reducing crime and gun crime but its obviously bullshit. It's all politics. So that's why I dont necessarily believe in all these google stats. People worship the gods at snopes.com and take their stats like their drinking from the cup of life.


----------



## Unslaved

possumkiller said:


> I mean, I get your point. That "colonel of the military" (lol) looks like he knows about as much as you do about firearms. And that is a problem I've talked about before. 90% of military people know jack shit about guns. They know only the bare minimum to operate their personal weapon (sometimes not even that) to qualify (sometimes it's done for them) at the range.
> 
> Anybody that's ever been in the military knows that they just tell you what to do in a one size fits all way and you do it. They don't tell you why or give you reasons. They really don't care if you actually learn to shoot or not. I've seen drill sergeants shooting for hopeless trainees in basic to qualify and I've seen NCOs shooting for hopeless privates at regular units. If we shoot paper targets instead of pop ups there is always some hopeless private getting a target hole punched by hand with a 5.56 round. Why? So we can all go home! Everyone has to sit there at the range until everybody qualifies. If you don't qualify you go through over and over until you do. There's always at least one that will never ever qualify no matter what. So as the sun goes down and everyone is fed up and pissed off and hungry, some sergeant does some sneaky shit to get those people "qualified" so we can get on with our lives.
> 
> In El Paso county Colorado (Fort Carson, Colorado Springs), they are so patriotic and respectful of the military that if you show your military ID or DD214 you don't have to take the training course to get a concealed carry permit. It really amazes me. Half these military people don't understand what an open bolt weapon means or even how to get the freaking bolt out of their own weapon yet people assume since they are military they are weapon experts.


Why didn't CNN, the top source for news and information, explain that?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> What I was refering to is that the functionality is basically the same. Yes I know the .223 round tumbles. But I'm talking about the gun itself.
> 
> And you are right, I dont know a ton about guns, I never said I did, but that doesn't make my stance any less valid than someone who is against guns who really doesn't know anything about them.
> 
> But when comapring the twos guns main functionality, at the end of the day, they are both semi-automatic; one just looks scarier than the other. I know your just being a jerk now



You bitch and moan about folks that don't know what they're talking about when you probably know just as much if not less.

Semi-automatic simple means one shot per trigger pull.

The mechanics of firing a rifle make it far more conducive for faster successive shots that hit thier target in comparison to a handgun.

Did your instructor never explain the concept of reset?


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Semi-automatic simple means one shot per trigger pull.



And that is how they are basically the same. Some people just assume the that a semi-automatic rifle IS actually fully automatic. Neither are fully automatic


----------



## bostjan

Unslaved said:


> 1. Yes
> 2. No
> 3. Yes
> 
> Whats your point?



My point is that it looks increasingly ignorant when you:

A. Claim a forum member who served a long time in combat knows nothing about guns, yet you seem to think smoke bombs are illegal and that an AR-15 is "the same damn thing" as a handgun, only with a longer range.
B. Make several claims about Swiss culture, when you display no knowledge whatever of actual Swiss culture.
C. When someone calls you out for your rant about how everyone should look and act the same as sounding "just a little bit xenophobic," you say the person is just dropping a buzzword.

I started to think we could have some interesting debate when you started getting some of your points together several posts back, but then you followed it up with several posts that really didn't make any sense to me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> And that is how they are basically the same. Some people just assume the that a semi-automatic rifle IS actually fully automatic. Neither are fully automatic



But who is more wrong? 

The person who thinks that the firing rate of handguns and rifles is the same because they are both considered semi-automatic, or the person who thinks that the firing rate of semi-automatic rifles is greater than that of handguns?

Trick question. You're both wrong, just about different things. 

I can't see how we can have a nuanced argument when you just don't know what you're talking about. 

From the advantages of stocked/gripped guns over handguns, local laws, federal laws, the history and use of certain firearms, you've been consistently wrong while bemoaning how little others know about firearms. 

Just stop. You're making yourself look silly. The rhetoric is even more transparent when it's coming from a position of ignorance.


----------



## Randy

Unslaved said:


> And that is how they are basically the same. Some people just assume the that a semi-automatic rifle IS actually fully automatic. Neither are fully automatic



Ah, the "people have no right to complain about firearms because they don't know anything about them" angle. I was wondering when you'd show up.


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> But who is more wrong?
> 
> The person who thinks that the firing rate of handguns and rifles is the same because they are both considered semi-automatic, or the person who thinks that the firing rate of semi-automatic rifles is greater than that of handguns?
> 
> Trick question. You're both wrong, just about different things.
> 
> I can't see how we can have a nuanced argument when you just don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> From the advantages of stocked/gripped guns over handguns, local laws, federal laws, the history and use of certain firearms, you've been consistently wrong while bemoaning how little others know about firearms.
> 
> Just stop. You're making yourself look silly. The rhetoric is even more transparent when it's coming from a position of ignorance.



That has nothing to do with the fact that on both guns, a round isn't fired until you pull the trigger. And only one round per pull. It doesnt get any more clear cut and dry than that when definining what a semi automatic gun is.

Lets have a nuanced argument about the breakdown of society, since that is the true cause of the problem. Since the invention of the handgun, most people had at least on in their home. Most boys of those fathers knew how to use them properly, they knew where the guns were in the house. But you didnt see them grabbing those guns and shooting up their school. The availability was always there, but that didnt equal more gun crime. 

So again, what has changed? Why weren't kids shooting up schools then? I'll wait for someone to answer.


----------



## Unslaved

Randy said:


> Ah, the "people have no right to complain about firearms because they don't know anything about them" angle. I was wondering when you'd show up.


Um no. Why is CNN intentional misleading people about guns. Im still waiting for that answer too


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Ah, the "people have no right to complain about firearms because they don't know anything about them" angle. I was wondering when you'd show up.



It's quite a weird one. Also the slant of like, "Most people don't even understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons, and now they're just blindly trying to legislate things they don't understand!!" -- like, if there are many school shootings that involve gun X, maybe gun X should be harder to obtain. I don't care if it's an assault rifle, a handgun, has a 5 round clip or a 50 round clip, etc. -- the need to control it is obvious from its role as the gun of choice in mass shootings.

Surprisingly I can't identify different types of opioids either or list them by name, but by simply looking at the near-exponential growth in the rate of opioid-related deaths to say, hey, we probably need some additional restrictions here.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> That has nothing to do with the fact that on both guns, a round isn't fired until you pull the trigger. And only one round per pull. It doesnt get any more clear cut and dry than that when definining what a semi automatic gun is.
> 
> Lets have a nuanced argument about the breakdown of society, since that is the true cause of the problem. Since the invention of the handgun, most people had at least on in their home. Most boys of those fathers knew how to use them properly, they knew where the guns were in the house. But you didnt see them grabbing those guns and shooting up their school. The availability was always there, but that didnt equal more gun crime.
> 
> So again, what has changed? Why weren't kids shooting up schools then? I'll wait for someone to answer.



The first documented school shooting by a student took place in Virginia in 1840. 

Does your phone only get Sevenstring.org and nra.org? You can't even do a quick search before you post something wrong?


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Lets have a nuanced argument about the breakdown of society, since that is the true cause of the problem.



How about your idea of what realistic policy change would create a society where there less frequent mass shootings?


----------



## Randy

Unslaved said:


> Um no. Why is CNN intentional misleading people about guns. Im still waiting for that answer too



Because CNN are gaslighters that only care about ratings. See, I solved your riddle Rumplestiltskin, now you can move on to something else.


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> Yes I know the .223 round tumbles.


I'm glad you brought this up. I made a really long edit about this in a previous post but I didn't make it before the time limit. 

The .223 will tumble as much as any other. There is a myth that keeps being spread by ignorant drill sergeants about the "super special magic 5.56 tumbling" bullet that was specially designed by the government to go in your toe and bounce around inside your body and come out your ear shredding your insides into a fleshy milkshake. It is 1000% laughable horseshit. 

When the XM-15 and 16 were first being field tested in Vietnam by special forces units, they reported cases of the 5.56 taking off arms. This extreme damage was caused by the bullet tumbling. The weapon had a 1 in 15 inch twist rifling and a 55 grain bullet. The bullet was not stable in the air causing the tumbling, larger wounds, poor long range accuracy, poor penetration. The rifling was changed to a 1 in 7 inch twist and the bullet to a heavier 62 grain. This increased long range accuracy and penetration. It did away with the tumbling and tearing off limbs. 

The whole point of the 5.56 was based on the idea of a smaller projectile with a much higher velocity. The smaller projectile itself doesn't cause much damage. The idea is that the smaller projectile will penetrate deep because of the higher velocity. Also because of the high velocity it will be dragging behind it a large shockwave of air. This comes into the wound channel behind the bullet and temporarily opens a massive wound channel through the body that causes shock and trauma. It's the same idea behind the M1 Abram's sabot rounds. The actual projectile is tiny and drills through the armored hull and the massive shockwave pulled in behind it is what destroys the enemy tank. This is a concept that has been taken farther along since the 1880s. It started with the Europeans using smaller caliber Spitzer shaped bullets on top of bottleneck cases like the classic 7x57/8x57 Mauser, 6.5x55 Swedish, .303 British, 7.62x54R and so on. America was last to catch up with that one as well. The idea was brought along further with the 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39 Soviet rounds. It has been taken even further now with the FN series of pistols and submachine guns firing the 5.7x28 armor piercing rounds. 

With that in mind, there is absolutely no reason anyone apart from a big game hunter needs these high powered rifles of any kind. A rifle is the worst choice for home defense. For home defense you want something that will go inside the body of the intruder and stay there instead of going through him and the wall potentially causing harm to someone you want to protect. 

And honestly big game hunters got on fine for years with the .45-70 and similar calibers in single shot and lever action rifles.


----------



## Unslaved

bostjan said:


> My point is that it looks increasingly ignorant when you:
> 
> A. Claim a forum member who served a long time in combat knows nothing about guns, yet you seem to think smoke bombs are illegal and that an AR-15 is "the same damn thing" as a handgun, only with a longer range.
> B. Make several claims about Swiss culture, when you display no knowledge whatever of actual Swiss culture.
> C. When someone calls you out for your rant about how everyone should look and act the same as sounding "just a little bit xenophobic," you say the person is just dropping a buzzword.
> 
> I started to think we could have some interesting debate when you started getting some of your points together several posts back, but then you followed it up with several posts that really didn't make any sense to me.


Im literally responding to everyones post i can this has already taken uo the better part of an hour. So even though im just wastinf my time because at the end of the day people are just going to believe what they want, ill take a little more time yet to address your misunderstanding.

A. Where did I saybthat said member knew nothing about guns? How can we have a productive discussion when your putting words in my mouth.

B. I dont have to live in Switzerland to know anything about their culture. And I dont need to relay to you what I've read about it either. Go do some of your own reading

C. Mentioning the fact that people look and act the same in said country doesnt = I dont like or am fearful of people from other countries. Not sure how you put those 2 and 2 together


----------



## Unslaved

narad said:


> It's quite a weird one. Also the slant of like, "Most people don't even understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons, and now they're just blindly trying to legislate things they don't understand!!" -- like, if there are many school shootings that involve gun X, maybe gun X should be harder to obtain. I don't care if it's an assault rifle, a handgun, has a 5 round clip or a 50 round clip, etc. -- the need to control it is obvious from its role as the gun of choice in mass shootings.
> 
> Surprisingly I can't identify different types of opioids either or list them by name, but by simply looking at the near-exponential growth in the rate of opioid-related deaths to say, hey, we probably need some additional restrictions here.


According to Randy, unless you've taken opiods, you dont know anything about them and cannot speak about them


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> The first documented school shooting by a student took place in Virginia in 1840.
> 
> Does your phone only get Sevenstring.org and nra.org? You can't even do a quick search before you post something wrong?


Stop being silly please you know damn well what I mean.


----------



## Unslaved

Randy said:


> Because CNN are gaslighters that only care about ratings. See, I solved your riddle Rumplestiltskin, now you can move on to something else.


That was tough for you to say that wasn't it


----------



## Unslaved

possumkiller said:


> I'm glad you brought this up. I made a really long edit about this in a previous post but I didn't make it before the time limit.
> 
> The .223 will tumble as much as any other. There is a myth that keeps being spread by ignorant drill sergeants about the "super special magic 5.56 tumbling" bullet that was specially designed by the government to go in your toe and bounce around inside your body and come out your ear shredding your insides into a fleshy milkshake. It is 1000% laughable horseshit.
> 
> When the XM-15 and 16 were first being field tested in Vietnam by special forces units, they reported cases of the 5.56 taking off arms. This extreme damage was caused by the bullet tumbling. The weapon had a 1 in 15 inch twist rifling and a 55 grain bullet. The bullet was not stable in the air causing the tumbling, larger wounds, poor long range accuracy, poor penetration. The rifling was changed to a 1 in 7 inch twist and the bullet to a heavier 62 grain. This increased long range accuracy and penetration. It did away with the tumbling and tearing off limbs.
> 
> The whole point of the 5.56 was based on the idea of a smaller projectile with a much higher velocity. The smaller projectile itself doesn't cause much damage. The idea is that the smaller projectile will penetrate deep because of the higher velocity. Also because of the high velocity it will be dragging behind it a large shockwave of air. This comes into the wound channel behind the bullet and temporarily opens a massive wound channel through the body that causes shock and trauma. It's the same idea behind the M1 Abram's sabot rounds. The actual projectile is tiny and drills through the armored hull and the massive shockwave pulled in behind it is what destroys the enemy tank. This is a concept that has been taken farther along since the 1880s. It started with the Europeans using smaller caliber Spitzer shaped bullets on top of bottleneck cases like the classic 7x57/8x57 Mauser, 6.5x55 Swedish, .303 British, 7.62x54R and so on. America was last to catch up with that one as well. The idea was brought along further with the 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39 Soviet rounds. It has been taken even further now with the FN series of pistols and submachine guns firing the 5.7x28 armor piercing rounds.
> 
> With that in mind, there is absolutely no reason anyone apart from a big game hunter needs these high powered rifles of any kind. A rifle is the worst choice for home defense. For home defense you want something that will go inside the body of the intruder and stay there instead of going through him and the wall potentially causing harm to someone you want to protect.
> 
> And honestly big game hunters got on fine for years with the .45-70 and similar calibers in single shot and lever action rifles.


Very interesting, what is your take on shotguns for home defense?


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> And that is how they are basically the same. Some people just assume the that a semi-automatic rifle IS actually fully automatic. Neither are fully automatic


And what does it have to do with anything at all? 

The one and only use for the full automatic setting is to spray in a general direction without actually aiming for anything to keep the enemy down so someone else can move. Or making a cool looking scene when the news camera is filming you spraying rounds out of your AK at nothing in particular just so they can say they are filming in a "hot" war zone. It's a waste of ammo. If you ever fired a rifle on full auto or even burst you would know it's so uncontrollable to the point where it's just not accurate. Using "full semi automatic mode" is the best way to take down multiple targets quickly and efficiently.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> B. I dont have to live in Switzerland to know anything about their culture. And I dont need to relay to you what I've read about it either. Go do some of your own reading



Again, actual Swiss person next to me, saying you don't know anything about Swiss culture.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> Stop being silly please you know damn well what I mean.



Yeah society is crumbling yadda yadda yadda, and one of your key examples is the rise of school shootings...which is wrong, factually. 

You and facts don't seem to have a healthy relationship.


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> Very interesting, thank you. What is your take on shotguns for home defense?


A shotgun can be good for anything. If you are prepping for the end of the world and you can only have one gun take a shotgun. With different types of shells it can be used for anything. Smaller pellets for birds and rabbit types. Larger pellets for deer. Slugs or sabot rounds for large game. Perfect for home defense. In the close quarters inside rooms the pellets won't spread far so it will devastate an intruder without passing through him/her or walls (as long as you aren't using penetration rounds like slugs or sabots).


----------



## Unslaved

narad said:


> Again, actual Swiss person next to me, saying you don't know anything about Swiss culture.


Is that swiss person actual in Switzerland? If i have a Turkish person right next to me, here in america, does that necessarily mean they know anything about turkey? I dont see your point


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> *Let me ask you, have you ever owned a gun? Shot one? Hell, id bet you never even touched a gun before. I bet your terrified of them. People are scared of what they don't know.*





Unslaved said:


> A. Where did I saybthat said member knew nothing about guns? How can we have a productive discussion when your putting words in my mouth.



Right there.


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Right there.


Touche. But it was rhetorical.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> Obviously it was rhetorical



Let me ask you, have you ever said something accurate before? Hell, I bet you never even touched a fact before. I bet your [sic] terrified of them. People are scared of what they don't know.


----------



## Drew

Unslaved said:


> And heres the thing about statistics. Alot of them are bullshit. There is alot more crime going on in certain places than whats being reported. I hear 2nd hand of types of crime happening in friend's neighborhood and it doesnt get reported. The police are told by officials to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. I know it's the truth because of what I hear from people I know who live in these neighborhoods. The governor of said state is claiming that his laws he put in place are reducing crime and gun crime but its obviously bullshit. It's all politics. So that's why I dont necessarily believe in all these google stats. People worship the gods at snopes.com and take their stats like their drinking from the cup of life.



I was wondering how long it would take to get you here. "All of the statistical evidence we have runs counter to what you're saying." "Oh, stats are just bullshit." 

I'm sorry, but #fakenews is sort of the last desperate grasping at straws when you've run out of all other arguments.


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> That was tough for you to say that wasn't it


CNN is just as BS as Fox News. The left and right are both moving to batshit crazy extremes and I side with neither. I am left in the middle with the other reasonable people wondering WTF is the matter with all of these idiots on both sides.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Is that swiss person actual in Switzerland? If i have a Turkish person right next to me, here in america, does that necessarily mean they know anything about turkey? I dont see your point



I was under the impression that a person born, raised, schooled (undergrad) in Switzerland would typically have a better idea of Swiss culture than an American who read about it online, regardless of where they currently reside... If you can't concede to that point then you might be the most close-minded person I've ever talked to.


----------



## Unslaved

narad said:


> I was under the impression that a person born, raised, schooled (undergrad) in Switzerland would typically have a better idea of Swiss culture than an American who read about it online, regardless of where they currently reside... If you can't concede to that point then you might be the most close-minded person I've ever talked to.


For all i know that person doesn't know shit about Switzerland. Plenty of Americans dont know shit about America


----------



## bostjan

Unslaved said:


> Im literally responding to everyones post i can this has already taken uo the better part of an hour. So even though im just wastinf my time because at the end of the day people are just going to believe what they want, ill take a little more time yet to address your misunderstanding.
> 
> A. Where did I saybthat said member knew nothing about guns? How can we have a productive discussion when your putting words in my mouth.
> 
> B. I dont have to live in Switzerland to know anything about their culture. And I dont need to relay to you what I've read about it either. Go do some of your own reading
> 
> C. Mentioning the fact that people look and act the same in said country doesnt = I dont like or am fearful of people from other countries. Not sure how you put those 2 and 2 together



Don't bother, really, if you don't think it's worth it. I mean, honestly and frankly, you've been demonstrably wrong more than half of the time you've said something in this thread, so why should anyone listen to you anymore?



Unslaved said:


> For all i know that person doesn't know shit about Switzerland. Plenty of Americans dont know shit about America



I'd be willing to bet that it's much more likely that a person who has never been to Switzerland, and thinks that there culture is completely homogeneous, is going to know a lot less about Swiss culture than a person born and raised in Switzerland, but I don't even know why I feel it prudent to point that out, because A) you don't care, and B) everyone else already knows this.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> For all i know that person doesn't know shit about Switzerland. Plenty of Americans dont know shit about America



There's a joke in there somewhere.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

possumkiller said:


> I'm glad you brought this up. I made a really long edit about this in a previous post but I didn't make it before the time limit.
> 
> The .223 will tumble as much as any other. There is a myth that keeps being spread by ignorant drill sergeants about the "super special magic 5.56 tumbling" bullet that was specially designed by the government to go in your toe and bounce around inside your body and come out your ear shredding your insides into a fleshy milkshake. It is 1000% laughable horseshit.
> 
> When the XM-15 and 16 were first being field tested in Vietnam by special forces units, they reported cases of the 5.56 taking off arms. This extreme damage was caused by the bullet tumbling. The weapon had a 1 in 15 inch twist rifling and a 55 grain bullet. The bullet was not stable in the air causing the tumbling, larger wounds, poor long range accuracy, poor penetration. The rifling was changed to a 1 in 7 inch twist and the bullet to a heavier 62 grain. This increased long range accuracy and penetration. It did away with the tumbling and tearing off limbs.
> 
> The whole point of the 5.56 was based on the idea of a smaller projectile with a much higher velocity. The smaller projectile itself doesn't cause much damage. The idea is that the smaller projectile will penetrate deep because of the higher velocity. Also because of the high velocity it will be dragging behind it a large shockwave of air. This comes into the wound channel behind the bullet and temporarily opens a massive wound channel through the body that causes shock and trauma. It's the same idea behind the M1 Abram's sabot rounds. The actual projectile is tiny and drills through the armored hull and the massive shockwave pulled in behind it is what destroys the enemy tank. This is a concept that has been taken farther along since the 1880s. It started with the Europeans using smaller caliber Spitzer shaped bullets on top of bottleneck cases like the classic 7x57/8x57 Mauser, 6.5x55 Swedish, .303 British, 7.62x54R and so on. America was last to catch up with that one as well. The idea was brought along further with the 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39 Soviet rounds. It has been taken even further now with the FN series of pistols and submachine guns firing the 5.7x28 armor piercing rounds.
> 
> With that in mind, there is absolutely no reason anyone apart from a big game hunter needs these high powered rifles of any kind. A rifle is the worst choice for home defense. For home defense you want something that will go inside the body of the intruder and stay there instead of going through him and the wall potentially causing harm to someone you want to protect.
> 
> And honestly big game hunters got on fine for years with the .45-70 and similar calibers in single shot and lever action rifles.



kind of on topic but technically temporary cavitation has more to do with efficient transfer of kinetic energy from the round. It's why 7.62x51mm rounds (and bigger) 
have more "stopping power". They're a bigger bullet, with more mass and they're moving at relatively fast speeds which means more of it will transfer to the target upon deformation. Obviously for fmj rounds it doesn't work exactly the same (since you get minimal if any deformation on contact with tissue) but in general you get deformation of the round- which causes a shockwave in the tissue (almost like a mushroom cloud shape) that smashes organs around. This is super pronounced when using hollow tip/partial holllowpoints as the round deforms/mushrooms significantly and allows way more of the kinetic energy to transfer to the target. The guys I've seen hit with FMJs usually have through and throughs since FMJs tend to overpenetrate.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> For all i know that person doesn't know shit about Switzerland. Plenty of Americans dont know shit about America



And there you have it, most close-minded person I've ever talked to. An American who hasn't been to Switzerland knows more about what it's like being Swiss than a Swiss person.


----------



## Unslaved

possumkiller said:


> CNN is just as BS as Fox News. The left and right are both moving to batshit crazy extremes and I side with neither. I am left in the middle with the other reasonable people wondering WTF is the matter with all of these idiots on both sides.


I agree


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> For all i know that person doesn't know shit about Switzerland. Plenty of Americans dont know shit about America



I am willing to bet the guy from Switzerland knows more about America than you or I do.


----------



## vilk

Unslaved said:


> I know for sure that data is bullshit when it doesn't ratify my preexisting bias



For real. Sometimes I read something that I almost think is true until I notice the web address says neither Breitbart nor Fox News


----------



## Unslaved

vilk said:


> For real. Sometimes I read something that I almost think is true until I notice the web address says neither Breitbart nor Fox News


Damn your trying hard! Lol

So I cant assume that some people dont know shit about other countries but you can assume I am a fan of Foxnews and Brietbart. 

And judging by the amount of likes your post recieved, I can see the hypocrisy much clearer now


----------



## possumkiller

Unslaved said:


> Damn your trying hard! Lol
> 
> So I cant assume that some people dont know shit about other countries but you can assume I am a fan of Foxnews and Brietbart.
> 
> And judging by the amount of likes your post recieved, I can see the hypocrisy much clearer now


All of your comments in this thread give us plenty of information to base our assumptions on. You are making assumptions about a person with the only known information being they are from Switzerland and live in America.


----------



## Unslaved

possumkiller said:


> All of your comments in this thread give us plenty of information to base our assumptions on. You are making assumptions about a person with the only known information being they are from Switzerland and live in America.


Whos "us"? You guys on a team that I dont know about or something? Lol

Well you"re wrong im not a fan of foxnews or brietbart. So, nice try


----------



## bostjan

Unslaved said:


> Damn your trying hard! Lol
> 
> So I cant assume that some people dont know shit about other countries but you can assume I am a fan of Foxnews and Brietbart.
> 
> And judging by the amount of likes your post recieved, I can see the hypocrisy much clearer now



Assuming you know more than everyone else is totally not the same thing as assuming "some people" don't know anything. It's a really simple concept, really. 

More generally, striking up an argument on the internet with a bunch of people over something of which you clearly have little knowledge - is just going to lead down this exact path.

Anyway, the point all along was that your assessment of Swiss culture being homogenized is wrong. Your assertions about pistols being the same things as rifles is also wrong. Your understanding of US laws regarding weapons seems to be generally wrong as well. Lastly, since you brought up another user's use of "buzzwords," I'll point out that your use of the English language is far from impressive, which doesn't lend anything to your credibility on what words are being used as buzzwords and which words are being used because they are appropriate.


----------



## possumkiller

"Us" as in the people you have been arguing unsuccessfully against the last few pages. "Team Gun Control" you could call it.

So far we haven't heard any legitimate argument at all about why there should not be stricter gun control. All we get from you is classic misdirection.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> Wow theres a lot of muck and mud to wade through. Its clearly 10:1 here I suppose im wasting my time.





Unslaved said:


> Whos "us"? You guys on a team that I dont know about or something? Lol



Keep up with your own posts dude. 



possumkiller said:


> "Us" as in the people you have been arguing unsuccessfully against the last few pages. "Team Gun Control" you could call it.



I like to call us People Responding to Idiotic Comments of Knuckleheads. PRICK.


----------



## Unslaved

Im still waiting for someone to address my question woth a proper answer. Because I do actually agree that if there were less guns there should be less shootings.

But what happens if we ban all guns, to even the most severe degree, if the very next day there is another mass shooting. What do you suggest then?

Herein lies the, if theres a will theres a way.....because if not a gun, it'll be something else. In our sick society, someone who wants to murder mass amounts of people, will.


----------



## Mr Violence

Unslaved said:


> Im still waiting for someone to address my question woth a proper answer. Because I do actually agree that if there were less guns there should be less shootings.
> 
> But what happens if we ban all guns, to even the most severe degree, if the very next day there is another mass shooting. What do you suggest then?
> 
> Herein lies the, if theres a will theres a way.....because if not a gun, it'll be something else. In our sick society, someone who wants to murder mass amounts of people, will.





Unslaved said:


> And you are right, I dont know a ton about guns, I never said I did, but that doesn't make my stance any less valid than someone who is against guns who really doesn't know anything about them.



Everyone here is being super kind. We've all answered that question a billion fucking times. It's about minimizing, not completely eradicating gun violence with one law. It's nuanced. And we now have 28 pages of nuance and solutions. Yeah, most likely, even with the strictest gun laws, a mass shooting could happen. But there's a big difference between once a week and once a year.

Also, it's been said before, but semi-automatic rifles that have high capacity magazines make it arguably easier than ANY other method available in the USA to take the maximum amount of lives.

Your canned response for anything that opposes your view is "yeah, but that's probably not the truth and I refuse to try to find out on my own." And then you go one to assert that no one is actively refuting you, which more than 10 people have over and over.

It's absolutely impossible to talk to you. You have zero intention of seeing it any other way or even entertaining the thought that you could have some flaws in your logic. You admitted that you don't know much about guns, while half of your arguments are that people that don't know about guns shouldn't have opinions on them. You contradict yourself page to page.


You are not only shooting yourself in the foot, you're shooting yourself in both feet several times, over and over again.

If only there were better legislation to prevent that...


----------



## TedEH

Unslaved said:


> In our sick society, someone who wants to murder mass amounts of people, will, _*given the opportunity*_.


Fixed that for you.
Motive + opportunity = bad stuff happens.
Motive + no opportunity = bad things prevented.

The point of gun control isn't to reduce motive, it's to reduce opportunity.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Im still waiting for someone to address my question woth a proper answer. Because I do actually agree that if there were less guns there should be less shootings.
> 
> But what happens if we ban all guns, to even the most severe degree, if the very next day there is another mass shooting. What do you suggest then?
> 
> Herein lies the, if theres a will theres a way.....because if not a gun, it'll be something else. In our sick society, someone who wants to murder mass amounts of people, will.



I already talked about this point. It doesn't matter if one person still finds a way. It matters if in aggregate there is a decline in mass shootings. Maybe some people still are so determined to find a way, but maybe some aren't. Maybe tighter control provides greater opportunity to discover these plans before they happen, etc. And if (not that ANYONE IS SUGGESTING IT) all guns were banned, and the amount of school shootings did not decrease, then we'd have to admit we were wrong and we need to look elsewhere to combat the problem.

That's a huge IF.


----------



## Unslaved

narad said:


> I already talked about this point. It doesn't matter if one person still finds a way. It matters if in aggregate there is a decline in mass shootings. Maybe some people still are so determined to find a way, but maybe some aren't. Maybe tighter control provides greater opportunity to discover these plans before they happen, etc. And if (not that ANYONE IS SUGGESTING IT) all guns were banned, and the amount of school shootings did not decrease, then we'd have to admit we were wrong and we need to look elsewhere to combat the problem.
> 
> That's a huge IF.


Ok, you didnt actually answer the question directly the first time, rather you wanted to address a more "broad" situation if I remember correctly.

But thanks for answering my question...and if you read a couple posts back I did admit to say that if there were less guns in existence, then, obviously there would be less shootings


----------



## Unslaved

TedEH said:


> Fixed that for you.
> Motive + opportunity = bad stuff happens.
> Motive + no opportunity = bad things prevented.
> 
> The point of gun control isn't to reduce motive, it's to reduce opportunity.


What are you basing that on....That if there is a motive, but no opportunity that equals bad things prevented?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> But what happens if we ban all guns, to even the most severe degree, if the very next day there is another mass shooting. What do you suggest then?



Then we'll evaluate where the loophole is that allowed that to happen, either from a societal/mental health perspective or from a firearm law perspective.

As of now, when a mass shooting happens we do practically fuck all.



> Herein lies the, if theres a will theres a way.....because if not a gun, it'll be something else. In our sick society, someone who wants to murder mass amounts of people, will.



What way? Explosives? Thanks to proper legislation it's incredibly difficult and expensive to make "good" bombs while going unnoticed by authorities. That's why almost all the ones you've heard about the last two decades have been very small and inefficient.

Knives? There's actually a good amount of laws governing those as well, but since they are also pretty easy to get a hold of, there are attacks, but they are several orders of magnitude less terrible than mass shootings.


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Then we'll evaluate where the loophole is that allowed that to happen, either from a societal/mental health perspective or from a firearm law perspective.
> 
> As of now, when a mass shooting happens we do practically fuck all.
> 
> 
> 
> What way? Explosives? Thanks to proper legislation it's incredibly difficult and expensive to make "good" bombs while going unnoticed by authorities. That's why almost all the ones you've heard about the last two decades have been very small and inefficient.
> 
> Knives? There's actually a good amount of laws governing those as well, but since they are also pretty easy to get a hold of, there are attacks, but they are several orders of magnitude less terrible than mass shootings.


I didn't say bombs but since you brought it up. What about the string of recent package bombings in Texas? The latest one being a guy triggering a trip wire, that led to a bomb and blew the guy up.

People are getting creative...

Theres a myriad of chemicals one can make a deadly concoction from. Then there are trucks and stuff like that for starters...

Wheres the proof showing that if Cruz, specifically didnt have access to guns, he wouldnt have found a way to kill 20 people?


----------



## TedEH

Unslaved said:


> What are you basing that on....That if there is a motive, but no opportunity that equals bad things prevented?


Common sense? If there's no opportunity for something to happen, it doesn't happen.


----------



## Unslaved

That dumb kid David Hogg just came out and said "I have to use my white privilege to talk to black people about gun control". Thats insulting to both blacks and whites


----------



## Unslaved

TedEH said:


> Common sense? If there's no opportunity for something to happen, it doesn't happen.


If you believe that then I have some of Saddams nuclear weapons to sell you. Lol


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> Wheres the proof showing that if Cruz, specifically didnt have access to guns, he wouldnt have found a way to kill 20 people?



There isn't. But ask yourself why there aren't really any school bombings / truck incidents. We already know what the modus operandi of these mass killings is.


----------



## narad

Unslaved said:


> That dumb kid David Hogg just came out and said "I have to use my white privilege to talk to black people about gun control". Thats insulting to both blacks and whites



Is that the actual quote? I think you've got it wrong.


----------



## Drew

Unslaved said:


> Im still waiting for someone to address my question woth a proper answer. Because I do actually agree that if there were less guns there should be less shootings.
> 
> But what happens if we ban all guns, to even the most severe degree, if the very next day there is another mass shooting. What do you suggest then?
> 
> Herein lies the, if theres a will theres a way.....because if not a gun, it'll be something else. In our sick society, someone who wants to murder mass amounts of people, will.


What do we suggest? That we cross that bridge when we get there. You're assuming it's going to happen. What if it doesn't? We ban all guns, and then... nothing? What happens then? 

Or, we ban AR-15s, and then the very next day there's a mass school shooting... where a gunman armed with a handgun kills four people in a crowded hallway, but someone tackles him while he's trying to reload and no further injuries occur. I mean, yeah, it'd be tragic... But four to six people is a whole heck of a lot less than 17, you know? 

And, here's the thing with the question you keep posing. We honestly _don't_ know what's going to happen, because we have seen so few instances in the last 20-30 years in this country where gun control actually _was_ meaningfully increased, because the NRA has done such an effective job stonewalling all efforts and gutting or rendering ineffective the handful of times we've seen _some_ marginal improvement, that we really don't have a large enough sample of experiences to draw on to say with any degree of statistical certainty what would happen if we did increase the barriers between someone with a tendency for violence and a high-powered firearm. 

In fact, about the only thing we CAN say, is over the last 30-40 years consistently _weakened_ the barriers to obtaining a firearm in this country, and today, the likelihood of american dying as the result of a firearm is higher by an order of magnitude than in any other first world, and a majority of second world, nations. So, seeing as we've tried it your way for a couple decades, and it hasn't worked, maybe it's time to try something different. We _don't_ know what happens the day after we ban ownership of guns, or of "assault rifles,"' or enact far stricter gun control... But, I have an awfully hard time picturing it any worse than what we've got today.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> I didn't say bombs but since you brought it up. What about the string of recent package bombings in Texas? The latest one being a guy triggering a trip wire, that led to a bomb and blew the guy up.
> 
> People are getting creative...
> 
> Theres a myriad of chemicals one can make a deadly concoction from. Then there are trucks and stuff like that for starters...
> 
> Wheres the proof showing that if Cruz, specifically didnt have access to guns, he wouldnt have found a way to kill 20 people?



Of the five confirmed bombs, there are only two fatalities. As I said, making incredibly deadly, powerful bombs is very very difficult these days.

Not that these bombings aren't terrible. Though I don't think more or less guns would have any influence on the bombings. Have any data to counter that?

It doesn't work like that. Without a gun he sure wouldn't have shot those people. That's a fact. Can you prove that he would have been able to kill 20 people by other means? Anything less than 20 is still a net positive, so hypothetically he could have used a knife to kill a couple students, but I doubt that the cops would have been as nervous to engage and many could have simply out ran him.

The gun he used, a S&W AR15, only went for $600 new, not on sale. You it's difficult to make a destructive bomb with that kind of cash, or buy a running truck to plow into people.


----------



## Unslaved

Drew said:


> What do we suggest? That we cross that bridge when we get there. You're assuming it's going to happen. What if it doesn't? We ban all guns, and then... nothing? What happens then?
> 
> Or, we ban AR-15s, and then the very next day there's a mass school shooting... where a gunman armed with a handgun kills four people in a crowded hallway, but someone tackles him while he's trying to reload and no further injuries occur. I mean, yeah, it'd be tragic... But four to six people is a whole heck of a lot less than 17, you know?
> 
> And, here's the thing with the question you keep posing. We honestly _don't_ know what's going to happen, because we have seen so few instances in the last 20-30 years in this country where gun control actually _was_ meaningfully increased, because the NRA has done such an effective job stonewalling all efforts and gutting or rendering ineffective the handful of times we've seen _some_ marginal improvement, that we really don't have a large enough sample of experiences to draw on to say with any degree of statistical certainty what would happen if we did increase the barriers between someone with a tendency for violence and a high-powered firearm.
> 
> In fact, about the only thing we CAN say, is over the last 30-40 years consistently _weakened_ the barriers to obtaining a firearm in this country, and today, the likelihood of american dying as the result of a firearm is higher by an order of magnitude than in any other first world, and a majority of second world, nations. So, seeing as we've tried it your way for a couple decades, and it hasn't worked, maybe it's time to try something different. We _don't_ know what happens the day after we ban ownership of guns, or of "assault rifles,"' or enact far stricter gun control... But, I have an awfully hard time picturing it any worse than what we've got today.


Yes I see what you are saying but then again you have to look at the virginia tech case where he killed 30 with multiple handguns.


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Of the five confirmed bombs, there are only two fatalities. As I said, making incredibly deadly, powerful bombs is very very difficult these days.
> 
> Not that these bombings aren't terrible. Though I don't think more or less guns would have any influence on the bombings. Have any data to counter that?
> 
> It doesn't work like that. Without a gun he sure wouldn't have shot those people. That's a fact. Can you prove that he would have been able to kill 20 people by other means? Anything less than 20 is still a net positive, so hypothetically he could have used a knife to kill a couple students, but I doubt that the cops would have been as nervous to engage and many could have simply out ran him.
> 
> The gun he used, a S&W AR15, only went for $600 new, not on sale. You it's difficult to make a destructive bomb with that kind of cash, or buy a running truck to plow into people.


Thats true. And i also dont know if he was actually trying to kill people. He could have just been trying to hurt them. So I dont think he was trying to kill a large amount of people. Not yet anyway...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's a joke in there somewhere.


At this point, the entire thread is a joke.


----------



## Unslaved

We had a list of 500,000 criminals that can not buy a gun and Obamas gang deleted those people from that list. 

Can anyone else chime in and say, well that cant be good.

Lets look at two other things that dont add up. In florida and sandy hook.

Why did Lanza destroy the hard drive on his computer if he was just going to kill himself anyway? Seems like a lot of trouble to go through for something that wouldnt matter at the outcome

It was reported that Cruz admitted that he heard a voice in his head telling him to do what he did. Why is there no one talking about that? These huge tidbits of information seem to get overlooked by just about everybody.

After the florida shooting on The Talk (talk show) it was" its a gun problem, why...gun this? Why....gun that? Ban....guns.

Today on The Talk involving the Maryland shooting, everything was mental health this, mental health that....little to no mention of gun problem/control. So what gives?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

narad said:


> Is that the actual quote? I think you've got it wrong.


Of course he got it wrong:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...to_make_sure_black_gun_victims_are_heard.html


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Talk shows... white privilege... the only thing missing is someone in a KKK hood and Jerry Springer.


----------



## narad

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Of course he got it wrong:
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...to_make_sure_black_gun_victims_are_heard.html



Yep, that sounds a lot more believable. There he was getting offended for whites and blacks when there was nothing to be offended about in the first place.


----------



## Unslaved

Ok so it was for and not to. I admit my mistake


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> We had a list of 500,000 criminals that can not buy a gun and Obamas gang deleted those people from that list.
> 
> Can anyone else chime in and say, well that cant be good.
> 
> Lets look at two other things that dont add up. In florida and sandy hook.
> 
> Why did Lanza destroy the hard drive on his computer if he was just going to kill himself anyway? Seems like a lot of trouble to go through for something that wouldnt matter at the outcome
> 
> It was reported that Cruz admitted that he heard a voice in his head telling him to do what he did. Why is there no one talking about that? These huge tidbits of information seem to get overlooked by just about everybody.
> 
> After the florida shooting on The Talk (talk show) it was" its a gun problem, why...gun this? Why....gun that? Ban....guns.
> 
> Today on The Talk involving the Maryland shooting, everything was mental health this, mental health that....little to no mention of gun problem/control. So what gives?



Can you get one damn thing right?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-force-fbi-delete-500000-fugitives/


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can you get one damn thing right?
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-force-fbi-delete-500000-fugitives/


https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dail.../doj-fbi-fugitives-background-check-database/
I did. Thanks

And actually that Hogg comment is still offensive to whites because hes saying we all have privelage which is far from true, and hes basically saying that blacks cant speak up for themselves. I work with a black guy whos pissed as hell for him saying that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> I did. Thanks.
> 
> And actually that Hogg comment is still offensive to whites because hes saying we all have privelage which is far from true, and hes basically saying that blacks cant speak up for themselves. I work with a black guy whos pissed as hell for him saying that.



What have you gotten right? 

Did you even read the link I posted, including the sources listed? 
_
Approximately 430,000 of the deleted entries are actually still in the database, just under a different heading. _
_
That leaves a much smaller total of 70,000 people formerly classified as fugitives whose names were actually removed from the database (though some of those will be added back in if and when the FBI determines that subjects crossed state lines or qualify under other prohibitors).

Despite the politicized reporting of the Justice Department’s reinterpretation of “fugitive from justice,” which was undertaken in good faith to conform to federal statutes and resolve a longstanding conflict between agencies, there’s no evidence that it was a partisan determination. The matter was first referred to the DOJ for adjudication under Bush, finally resolved under Obama, and implemented under Trump. Its consequences have been questioned by Democrats and Republicans alike._


----------



## Unslaved

So your source is more right than mine? Is snopes said there was a god would you believe it? Yep


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> So your source is more right than mine? Is snopes said there was a god would you believe it? Yep



My source has independently verifiable sources, so yes. My source is more accurate than yours.

You're more than welcome to check directly with the FBI and DOJ, who are sourced in the link I posted.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Unslaved said:


> And actually that Hogg comment is still offensive to whites because hes saying we all have privelage which is far from true, and hes basically saying that blacks cant speak up for themselves. I work with a black guy whos pissed as hell for him saying that.


I mean, I guess anything is offensive when you're looking for something to be outraged about that's simply not there. White privilege is an inadequate (imo) term that describes a real thing, the kid is aware that white people are more often taken seriously when these uncomfortable topics come up. There's a reason why MLK had to work with LBJ to get support from the majority of the white moderate, he wouldn't have been successful at all if he hadn't.

As for your friend, I think he should listen to the kid's words more carefully because that's not at all that he said.


----------



## Unslaved

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I mean, I guess anything is offensive when you're looking for something to be outraged about that's simply not there. White privilege is an inadequate (imo) term that describes a real thing, the kid is aware that white people are more often taken seriously when these uncomfortable topics come up. There's a reason why MLK had to work with LBJ to get support from the majority of the white moderate, he wouldn't have been successful at all if he hadn't.
> 
> As for your friend, I think he should listen to the kid's words more carefully because that's not at all that he said.


The same LBJ that said he'll have blacks voting Democrat for 200 years? Oh wait, its not true, Snopes said so


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> So your source is more right than mine? Is snopes said there was a god would you believe it? Yep





Unslaved said:


> The same LBJ that said he'll have blacks voting Democrat for 200 years? Oh wait, its not true, Snopes said so



Maybe you've never taken any high school or college level classes, but when you do, you'll have to write papers. Now, you can't just say whatever you want, you have to source your material. 

That means you provide footers and list your sources for the reader (grader) to verify your claims. 

Journalists, at least any worth taking seriously, do similar. They cite where they got thier information. 

Snopes is famous for sourcing thier articles. Not just by name dropping another poorly sourced article but actually giving a list of multiple places where the reader can confirm they're not just making stuff up on the spot.

Yeah, it's a little bit more reading, but it's worth it. Don't want to look like a fucking idiot in front of everybody.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Unslaved said:


> The same LBJ that said he'll have blacks voting Democrat for 200 years? Oh wait, its not true, Snopes said so


Not sure how any of this works as a valid response to anything I wrote, but I'll bite. There's no proof that he actually said that, if you think snopes is untrustworthy then go ahead and find a legit source. Ironically, snopes does list some verifiable disparaging quotes from LBJ in the article about your quote above. Then again, I never said the guy was a perfect paragon of civil rights.....


----------



## Unslaved

MaxOfMetal said:


> Maybe you've never taken any high school or college level classes, but when you do, you'll have to write papers. Now, you can't just say whatever you want, you have to source your material.
> 
> That means you provide footers and list your sources for the reader (grader) to verify your claims.
> 
> Journalists, at least any worth taking seriously, do similar. They cite where they got thier information.
> 
> Snopes is famous for sourcing thier articles. Not just by name dropping another poorly sourced article but actually giving a list of multiple places where the reader can confirm they're not just making stuff up on the spot.
> 
> Yeah, it's a little bit more reading, but it's worth it. Don't want to look like a fucking idiot in front of everybody.



Judging by this clip, it doesnt seem far fetched that he would have said what I claimed


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Snopes marks it as "Unproven" and not "False", so I don't really see the problem. They're not claiming that he absolutely never said it or anything.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Fucking hell.


----------



## possumkiller

Come on guys, nothing on this page has anything to do with gun control, the second amendment, guns or shootings. I think it's pretty clear all this troll wants to do is screw around.


----------



## Unslaved

As of right now 71.8% of voters voted for gun control. I think everyone has exhausted their points. 

Look I certainly dont want legitimately psycopathic people to have guns.....and I certainly dont want to see innocent people get shot, but I dont think we need to apply more restrictions on everyone including non-psychopaths because of that. The rules that are already in place just need to be enforced, theres no doubt about that. As it is right now, if you are a criminal, you cannot buy a gun. If you have a gun and commit a crime, your gun will be taken away.

Oh and we need an FBI that will actually do their job. We need to somehow teach our youth to be more responsible, so they breed a generation of responsible people. I would like more security at schools at the very least. Armed security, metal detectors possibly, checking of bags of students. 

If we hypothetically banned all guns, would there still be a need for tighter security? Absolutely


----------



## narad

I think we could have got to this place sooner, but I'm glad we did manage to get here.


----------



## TedEH

Unslaved said:


> If you believe that then I have some of Saddams nuclear weapons to sell you. Lol


I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Common sense says you can't shoot someone without a gun.

Imageine I wake up one day and decide that I'd like to murder a large group of people, and I have no immediate means to do so (because of reasonable gun laws or whatever have you), then it's more likely I'd come to my senses by the time I found and acted on the longer and less effective way around. Therefore lives are saved. As opposed to the other scenario, where I wake up, decide a bunch of people need to be dead because I'm angry right now and OH LOOK A LOADED GUN. Is it that difficult a concept to understand?

I mean, that's the whole point of things like waiting periods - to take immediate opportunity from people who would otherwise act on spontaneous urges to misuse a weapon.


----------



## Unslaved

TedEH said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to say.
> Common sense says you can't shoot someone without a gun.
> 
> Imageine I wake up one day and decide that I'd like to murder a large group of people, and I have no immediate means to do so (because of reasonable gun laws or whatever have you), then it's more likely I'd come to my senses by the time I found and acted on the longer and less effective way around. Therefore lives are saved. As opposed to the other scenario, where I wake up, decide a bunch of people need to be dead because I'm angry right now and OH LOOK A LOADED GUN. Is it that difficult a concept to understand?
> 
> I mean, that's the whole point of things like waiting periods - to take immediate opportunity from people who would otherwise act on spontaneous urges to misuse a weapon.



I follow what your saying but that doesn't apply to the recent florida shooting, the orlando night club shooting, or sandy hook, or virginia tech, or the oklahoma city bombing. Hell, it doesn't apply to any mass or murder at all; maybe only to smaller single instances. And thats a huge maybe.

By your logic, all of these mass shooters should have "cooled down" by the time they were done strategically planning what they were going to do. Let alone when they finished the plan, they packed up everything and got in their car (they still weren't "cooled down"yet). Then when the finally arrived at their destination and they had to begin their next phase of acting out their plan, thats where reality would have struck them the most, but they still didnt cool down. 

Obviously that logic didnt apply in the case that happened yesterday where the kid shot his sister over a video game. Im sure he didn't have the gun sitting next to him in the bedroom, im sure it was in his parents bedroom and he knew how to get to it. So if he was angry with her why didnt he just hit her over the head with the controller? What made him......what kind of angry, murderously-maddening rage, did this kid have for him to walk to his parents bedroom, grab the gun, possibly load it by hand, possibly turn the safety off, walk all the way back to the bedroom, point the gun at his own sister and pull the trigger? (I dont know all the details but im assuming it happened like that)

Who in their right mind would shoot and kill his own sister?! No one. Because they're obviously NOT in their right mind. People who are not in their right mind don't care if a gun is not readily available, they only want to satiafy their rage. 

The Sandy Hook shooter went to the lengths of killing his own mother, and destroying his computer of evidence, only to kill others and finally take his own life. Mind you its known he was on or coming off of anti-depressants, (another thing people like to glaze over) which have a myriad of side-effects including suicide.

The las vegas shooter? Obviously another pre-meditated murder from a man who was seemingly normal...alot of things dont2 add up. in this case either theres usually witnesses of multiple shooters in alot of these cases too.

Batman movie shooting in colorado.....witnesses saw multiple shooters. I think that kid was on meds too.

If these people are going to all these lengths to do what they're doing, they would have found another tool to complete their destruction.

You dont just "wake up one day and decide to murder a large group of people", without something being very very fucked in your head. Nobody does that for no reason. And if they're that fucked up, theres no stopping them unless you put them in a straight jacket.

Therefore it is a mental problem. Not a gun problem. The fact that Cruz said he had voices in his head telling him to do that reinforces that. I dont buy your cool down period theory one bit. That only works for sane people who dont plan on doing mass shootings anyway.


----------



## TedEH

Unslaved said:


> Obviously that logic didnt apply in the case that happened yesterday where the kid shot his sister over a video game. Im sure he didn't have the gun sitting next to him in the bedroom, im sure it was in his parents bedroom and he knew how to get to it.


It absolutely applies to that case. Proper gun laws would have made it illegal for the weapon to be in a place that the kid could get to it. Anything less is irresponsible. Like what Max described earlier on -> responsible gun ownership means cases and locks and ammo being separated, and not letting people know where these things are, and not leaving the keys within reach of children, etc. Anyone who doesn't do these things but calls themselves a responsible gun owner is wrong. They are not responsible at all. Unfortunately not every sees it that way -> Therefor the law needs to be in place to MAKE people be responsible with what they have.



Unslaved said:


> it doesn't apply to any mass or murder at all


I disagree with this as well. If tight enough controls are in place, and availability to weapons is reduced, it may not prevent the attacks from happening at all, but could reduce the number of people who have to die when it happens, which is equally worth doing. If the only thing available for mass shootings were weapons that don't have features that make mass killings easy, then less people die. That means smaller magazines, that means no auto- or semi- auto guns (I honestly see no need for those even in cases where people claim they need guns for whatever reason), it means limitations of the types of ammo that are better suited to killing people, things like that.

But again, I'm just repeating things that have already been spelled out in both very plain and more eloquent terms in this thread.

I don't understand this line of thinking that goes "well, we can't prevent 100% of it, so we shouldn't bother trying to prevent any of it". I mean, you've even had some posts yourself where it sounded like you agreed with this idea of gun control making a positive difference, but then immediately dive back into trying to poke holes in it.


----------



## possumkiller

TedEH said:


> I don't understand this line of thinking that goes "well, we can't prevent 100% of it, so we shouldn't bother trying to prevent any of it". I mean, you've even had some posts yourself where it sounded like you agreed with this idea of gun control making a positive difference, but then immediately dive back into trying to poke holes in it.


It's the inner torment of every gun enthusiast. When you know that gun control will work but you _really really_ don't want to give up your hobby and you _really really really_ don't want to give any ground to the bleeding heart gay liberal agenda pansy snowflake tree hugging eco feminazis.


Just as an example. My dad is a benefactor NRA member. He is a complete moron when it comes to guns. He has a few but they just sit in the cabinet for years at a time getting rusty and compressing the magazine springs. For him it is purely political. He likes to put on this image of macho gun guy rugged outdoor hunter type. He doesn't hunt at all. Hasn't been hunting in over 20 years and even then it was just sitting in the back yard shooting squirrels out of the trees with a .22lr. He has developed such a hatred for anything left of the extreme right that he would rather see world burn than admit gun control would work. Unfortunately that is the attitude the majority of these people have. Even if they do care in the slightest about kids getting massacred at school, they would rather deal with that than admitting people that aren't conservative republicans are right about anything.

You have to remember that these are people that believe in angels and creationism. They think shooters are just demon possessed and that jesus and better morals are the answer. If everybody would just quit being evil and pray over this it would all go away and we wouldn't need gun control.



EDIT: On the topic of pissing off conservatives and preventing mass murder. I am a truck driver so I see tons of religious and anti-abortion billboards everywhere (especially the Midwest). I was thinking about an ad campaign like "Should've had a V8" but for abortion. You know have a big billboard with a picture of Hitler saying "Should've had an abortion" or a picture of Charles Manson or these school shooters. It all could've been prevented with abortion lol.


----------



## TedEH

Kind of off topic, but maaaan I hate the way people use the word Liberal. The way people seem to use it lately it just means "person I don't like who disagrees with me" rather than referring to someone's political leanings. I'm pretty centrist when it comes to a lot of things (I think? What do these words even mean?!) but pretty sure I get lumped in with "those damned Liberals" or "lefty"-types on a lot of topics, despite the fact that I pretty strongly disagree with a fair amount of more liberal ways of thinking. The whole setup of "sides" and "parties" I think completely throws out any nuance to political beliefs.

Coffee got cold before I had a chance to drink it? It's those friggin snowflake liberals at it again! Can't handle making coffee hot like a real man!

I made the mistake of starting to listen to the talk radio stations in the area to try to just keep in tune with what goes on in the city, and maaaaaaaaaan do they ever have a hate-boner for anything they can throw the word Liberal at.


----------



## Drew

Unslaved said:


> Yes I see what you are saying but then again you have to look at the virginia tech case where he killed 30 with multiple handguns.


Great! So, clearly, we need to expand background checks and make handguns harder to get, as well!


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> Kind of off topic, but maaaan I hate the way people use the word Liberal. The way people seem to use it lately it just means "person I don't like who disagrees with me" rather than referring to someone's political leanings. I'm pretty centrist when it comes to a lot of things (I think? What do these words even mean?!) but pretty sure I get lumped in with "those damned Liberals" or "lefty"-types on a lot of topics, despite the fact that I pretty strongly disagree with a fair amount of more liberal ways of thinking. The whole setup of "sides" and "parties" I think completely throws out any nuance to political beliefs.


I mean, the literal derivation of "liberal" is someone in favor of a written code of law, vs executive rule by whim and decree. Since when is that a bad thing?


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> I mean, the literal derivation of "liberal" is someone in favor of a written code of law, vs executive rule by whim and decree. Since when is that a bad thing?



Reaching back into my bag of largely forgotten latin vocab, I'm still pretty sure that's not the right derivation.


----------



## Mr Violence

Drew said:


> I mean, the literal derivation of "liberal" is someone in favor of a written code of law, vs executive rule by whim and decree. Since when is that a bad thing?



I was having this discussion with a coworker today. It's comical to me when people use words like liberal and progressive as insults.

Fighting the good fight against progress, I suppose!


----------



## Lemonbaby

After I saw figures on the "gun violence archive" for 2017 today, I'm surprised on where this debate is going. Even if intentional killings can't be stopped by stricter gun control, saving over 700 children from death or injuries and avoiding over 2000 unintentional deaths or injuries should be a good enough reason to take initiative. Feel free to call me "liberal". Besides that: the number of people killed in mass shootings is only 2.2% of the total number. No idea why that is regarded such a likely scenario...

Number of deaths in 2017 total: 15,586
Mass shooting (people killed): 346
Number of children killed (0-11 years): 733
Unintentional shooting: 2,026


----------



## Drew

I mean, I kinda get it... In the 1200s, expecting a monarch to codify and obey written laws and have clearly deliminated limits to royal power _was_ a revolutionary and progressive viewpoint, and the fact that the Magna Carta even became law is really kind of remarkable. But, to hear conservatives espousing constitutional originalism in one breath, _and_ condemning "liberals" in the other, is pretty rich.


----------



## possumkiller

Drew said:


> I mean, I kinda get it... In the 1200s, expecting a monarch to codify and obey written laws and have clearly deliminated limits to royal power _was_ a revolutionary and progressive viewpoint, and the fact that the Magna Carta even became law is really kind of remarkable. But, to hear conservatives espousing constitutional originalism in one breath, _and_ condemning "liberals" in the other, is pretty rich.


Way off topic but...
A few months ago I was talking to my dad. I was talking about how modern capitalist society and medieval monarchy are becoming very similar. That the super wealthy control the majority of wealth and money and make the laws that govern us poor people while themselves being above the law (I mean come on even if these people DO get caught they never get any real punishment). He actually told me that it's the natural way and that is how it's going to be in heaven. That there will be a hierarchy with better and lesser rewards and better and lesser "seats" for better and lesser people. All of them sitting in a big circle jerk around "the throne" worshipping god for all eternity. 

It just scares the shit out of me that people in the 21st century can still believe this bullshit and still think this way. People with this kind of mentality are what allows all of these atrocities against humanity to take place.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Great! So, clearly, we need to expand background checks and make handguns harder to get, as well!


Agreed, and lets make forks harder to come by as well. Why, you may ask? Well, it's real simple. That piece of shit Abdullah the Butcher guy refused to get checked for ages. He was apparently giving people Hep C in hardcore matches where both/multiple participants in the match were bleeding, which will obviously spread disease. So where do the forks come in? Because that prick would stab people with them during these bloody brawls of his.

#Banforks #Sporksmasterrace #GetAbdullahChecked


----------



## TedEH

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Agreed, and lets make forks harder to come by as well.


Forks are obviously the extreme case, but even knives are restricted where I live, and I'm ok with that. Certain types of foldable knives, or knives of certain lengths are not allowed. And good luck getting into any public event with even the tiniest utility knife. I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed into a lot venues with forks or knives. I mean, you're clearly kidding, but lots of mostly-trivial-but-easily-weaponized things have at least some degree of preventative control in place.

And you can't immediately and easily murder someone from a distance in a split second (or accidentally) with a fork in any way that's comparable to a gun. Yes, you can kill someone with just about anything if you try hard enough, but the premise that a fork is as deadly and dangerous as a gun is ridiculous. Until you can provide a comparable stat for "Unintentional Forkings" to compare with this, of course:


Lemonbaby said:


> Unintentional shooting: 2,026


----------



## Vyn

possumkiller said:


> It's the inner torment of every gun enthusiast. When you know that gun control will work but you _really really_ don't want to give up your hobby and you _really really really_ don't want to give any ground to the bleeding heart gay liberal agenda pansy snowflake tree hugging eco feminazis.



SO. MUCH. THIS.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> Forks are obviously the extreme case, but even knives are restricted where I live, and I'm ok with that. Certain types of foldable knives, or knives of certain lengths are not allowed. And good luck getting into any public event with even the tiniest utility knife. I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed into a lot venues with forks or knives. I mean, you're clearly kidding, but lots of mostly-trivial-but-easily-weaponized things have at least some degree of preventative control in place.
> 
> And you can't immediately and easily murder someone from a distance in a split second (or accidentally) with a fork in any way that's comparable to a gun. Yes, you can kill someone with just about anything if you try hard enough, but the premise that a fork is as deadly and dangerous as a gun is ridiculous. Until you can provide a comparable stat for "Unintentional Forkings" to compare with this, of course:



Don't engage, Ted.

He's just deflecting with old wrestling references.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Don't engage, Ted.
> 
> He's just deflecting with old wrestling references.


I'm not deflecting. Forks can be pretty dangerous. And besides, there is nothing wrong with a good wrestling reference. 



TedEH said:


> Forks are obviously the extreme case, but even knives are restricted where I live, and I'm ok with that. Certain types of foldable knives, or knives of certain lengths are not allowed. And good luck getting into any public event with even the tiniest utility knife. I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed into a lot venues with forks or knives. I mean, you're clearly kidding, but lots of mostly-trivial-but-easily-weaponized things have at least some degree of preventative control in place.
> 
> And you can't immediately and easily murder someone from a distance in a split second (or accidentally) with a fork in any way that's comparable to a gun. Yes, you can kill someone with just about anything if you try hard enough, but the premise that a fork is as deadly and dangerous as a gun is ridiculous. Until you can provide a comparable stat for "Unintentional Forkings" to compare with this, of course:


Unintentional Forkings sounds like a lovely song/album title. You know, if you're an artist with a kabuki mask and wear a chicken bucket on your head.

And I also was not implying that a fork is as dangerous as a gun. Though, if you were stabbing people with a fork and someone happened to have a bloodborne disease, the disease could certainly cause some issues.


----------



## narad

Google has banned a bunch of gun demo videos from youtube. This will lower the degree to which guns are perceived to be cool, because it will associate gun use with watching videos on Vimeo.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I'm not deflecting. Forks can be pretty dangerous. And besides, there is nothing wrong with a good wrestling reference.


When's the last time someone stabbed 500 people with a fork from a quarter mile away, though? 

I mean, you're (I assume) clearly not 100% serious here, but I think your joking speaks to a misunderstanding of _why_ guns are concerning in the wrong hands. They're not concerning because they're dangerous - as you correctly point out, damned near anything, even the lowly fork, can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Rather, they're concerning because they're a force multiplier; a stack of AR-15s means one person can kill or severely injure tens to hundreds of people from basically line of sight distance, while a stack of forks means one person can do mild to moderate harm to one to a handful of people withing reach, but not much more than that. They're concerning because they exponentially increase the ability to do serious harm in ways that very few other things can.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> When's the last time someone stabbed 500 people with a fork from a quarter mile away, though?
> 
> I mean, you're (I assume) clearly not 100% serious here, but I think your joking speaks to a misunderstanding of _why_ guns are concerning in the wrong hands. They're not concerning because they're dangerous - as you correctly point out, damned near anything, even the lowly fork, can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Rather, they're concerning because they're a force multiplier; a stack of AR-15s means one person can kill or severely injure tens to hundreds of people from basically line of sight distance, while a stack of forks means one person can do mild to moderate harm to one to a handful of people withing reach, but not much more than that. They're concerning because they exponentially increase the ability to do serious harm in ways that very few other things can.


"But not much more than that." Yeah, if they aren't spreading disease.


----------



## possumkiller

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "But not much more than that." Yeah, if they aren't spreading disease.


True. A single diseased forking could potentially kill millions or even billions or even wipe out the human race. 
However, you can't transmit your gunshot wounds to someone else so a shooter can only potentially kill as many people as they can hit.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "But not much more than that." Yeah, if they aren't spreading disease.


Additionally, it usually takes more than 20-30 seconds for AIDS or typhoid fever to kill you. Also, considering there's no reason we couldn't be talking about diseased bullets here, I think in your scenario it's pretty clearly the disease and not the fork that is lethal - in the case of the diseased bullet, of course, the delivery mechanism is going to kill you weeks to years before the disease does, while in the case of the fork, the delivery mechanism itself is almost certainly not going to be fatal. 

I'm giving you serious answers to hypotheticals you KNOW are ridiculous.


----------



## Unslaved

Imagine if you combine the two and make an AR15 that shoots disease ridden forks? Youtube just removed an instructional video on how to make a 30 - fork magazine. Rats! But dont worry Negan has Eugene working on that right now.

SpacedoutAce, you do have the coolest avatar on the forum, right behind the Auryn!


----------



## narad

Well you did turn the thread into a swamp of sadness.


----------



## Unslaved

The way I see it, I was being chased into a dumpster


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

possumkiller said:


> True. A single diseased forking could potentially kill millions or even billions or even wipe out the human race.
> However, you can't transmit your gunshot wounds to someone else so a shooter can only potentially kill as many people as they can hit.


Muahahaha. Thank you, Brother Nero. You shall not be... DELETED!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unslaved said:


> The way I see it, I was being chased back into a dumpster



FTFY


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Additionally, it usually takes more than 20-30 seconds for AIDS or typhoid fever to kill you. Also, considering there's no reason we couldn't be talking about diseased bullets here, I think in your scenario it's pretty clearly the disease and not the fork that is lethal - in the case of the diseased bullet, of course, the delivery mechanism is going to kill you weeks to years before the disease does, while in the case of the fork, the delivery mechanism itself is almost certainly not going to be fatal.
> 
> I'm giving you serious answers to hypotheticals you KNOW are ridiculous.


Fuuuuck that noise. Give me the 20 second death; much less stressful. 10-20 years with HIV/AIDS? Yeah, I'll pass. And diseased bullets? You really are a sick, repugnant son of a bitch Drew. I like that. And neither the fork, nor the gun are lethal if used correctly; only the mentally unstable dickhead wielding them. I mean would you trust someone by the name of Abdullah the Butcher with anything?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Unslaved said:


> Imagine if you combine the two and make an AR15 that shoots disease ridden forks? Youtube just removed an instructional video on how to make a 30 - fork magazine. Rats! But dont worry Negan has Eugene working on that right now.
> 
> SpacedoutAce, you do have the coolest avatar on the forum, right behind the Auryn!


That is demented. And screw Lucille. I'd rather have Janice. What kind of sick fuck covers a post in nails!?


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> And neither the fork, nor the gun are lethal if used correctly



Wait, a gun isn't lethal if it's used correctly?


----------

