taken a gun safety course along with the background checks before being allowed to buy. Those safety classes should cover a certain minimum number of items and be of a length of 3 or 4 hrs and including actual handling of a weapon. (Too many gun shows have 45 minute classes that barely teaching the 4 basics to safe handling.)
I am for requiring that weapons be properly locked up at all times except when in use or in the possession of the owner. (Doesn't do the homeowner any good to have a self defense weapon locked up overnight.)
FWIW, when it took my concealed carry class the police officer teaching said the average response time in our counties is over 12 minutes, so he believed it a good idea to be armed.
I think southern and midwestern law enforcement, because of long response times is in favor of armed citizens.
I believe because the North East and West Coast already have pretty strict limitations on gun ownership, those BBers living in those areas are more in favor of stricter gun laws.
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
we hang on to every word in a document that was written close to 300 years ago by men who shit by tress and wiped their asses with leaves because they didn't have indoor plumbing grew to 5'5 elected a guy President because he was half a foot taller and wore a uniform and they died around the age of 38 on average
I think that you think that the Constitution is like the Pope's speech (abortion versus climate change). You adopt and cheer the things that fit you and that you like and ignore and discard what you don't like. I wonder if there is such a thing as a Cafeteria Constitutionalist?
but come on they didn't even have black & white TV and no one drove cars. This " what are forefathers intended" bullshit is the best, like they saw this down the road
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
I am.
I fear it cumbersomeness, it's excesses, it's inability to accomplish anything positive and it's propensity to fuck up the things that work.
Do you think that the whole splatter/torture genre (movies such as Saw, Human Centipede) do more to desensitize people to torture, gore, and violence, than video games? They're far more graphic and realistic than most video games, and while I understand the obvious inherent difference of controlling the player on the screen vs being a passive observer, I'd still imagine that torture films have a greater affect.
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
I can easily see people becoming inured to blood.
Do you think that the whole splatter/torture genre (movies such as Saw, Human Centipede) do more to desensitize people to torture, gore, and violence, than video games? They're far more graphic and realistic than most video games, and while I understand the obvious inherent difference of controlling the player on the screen vs being a passive observer, I'd still imagine that torture films have a greater affect.
Regardless though, it's kind of a moot point because neither of them have anywhere close to as much as influence as some of the other factors already discussed in this thread, if they even have any impact at all.
I wasn't really trying to separate them; I think they're all part of the same thing. And I also don't think that there is any evidence to support whether it would help or not. Just like with the gun control measures. It's whatever anybody feels would help (or not) and what is the right (or wrong) thing to do.
I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I was asking for your actual opinion. Wasn't sure if you thought one was worse than the other. Was interested, as I feel the films are WAY worse.
And I'm not talking about war movies. i'm talking about movies where the entire point is for people to be killed and tortured on camera.
As for the second part of your post, I do think you're right in theory, but I think it's important to discern that taking measures against the media (whether its reporting or games/movies) isn't as direct of a measure as actually controlling the tool used for the killing.
You're better than that. You're talking about enacting new, stricter gun laws, something that right now only pulls in 47%. I didn't that there is wide approval for relaxing restrictions, only that there isn't overwhelming popularity for new ones.
but the very folks that want a solution to guns, use them to protect themselves and control others. Kind of interesting that individuals are equal (2nd amendment) but some are more equal than others:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
[Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951) "
Did anyone every think that maybe it is not about the shooting events, but more about police state? In this quote implementing gun control to control Jews, and conquered sovereign states.
If you want to reduce gun violence, then pursue an end to the disasterously destructive drug war, which is the primary driver of homicide in this country.
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
Exactly. After all, it was a loose collection of states that didn't have a true identity with the central government. That doesn't apply at all anymore.
Not to mention the difference in technology between the government and the militias/people was way smaller back then compared to now. A handgun isn't going to save anyone from a tyrannical US military.
You're better than that. You're talking about enacting new, stricter gun laws, something that right now only pulls in 47%. I didn't that there is wide approval for relaxing restrictions, only that there isn't overwhelming popularity for new ones.
DO you know how many times in the past month or so someone has written "You're better than that" in a response? Is this a new thing?
and in statistical terms, that 47% is a majority and a significant increase over the other choices.
I don't necessarily favor stricter laws. I would be in favor of more reasonable ones. Or at least reasonable measures taken that aren't labeled as being an infringement on rights by the NRA who is deathly afraid of any measures taken.
and in statistical terms, that 47% is a majority and a significant increase over the other choices.
I don't necessarily favor stricter laws. I would be in favor of more reasonable ones. Or at least reasonable measures taken that aren't labeled as being an infringement on rights by the NRA who is deathly afraid of any measures taken.
It's not a majority at all.. Sure, it's the most popular sentiment of the three, but the other two combined make up the majority (and combining the other two is a necessary function for the claim you were making, FatMan).
I can remember watching Red Dawn over and over and over when I was a kid. When you're 8-9-10 years old, nothing beats imagining yourself as a guerilla warrior fighting off the Russkies.
And as people age, that fantasy is replaced by one of channeling Dirty Harry and thwarting a home invasion with a gun.
Is it presumptuous mind reading? Fine, fuck it, maybe, but I'm not wrong.
Let's also touch on something else - while some of you like to indulge your fantasy that the NRA succeeds only because of money, you ignore the fact that they have millions of members who are a reliable voting bloc. THAT'S the root of their power - they deliver votes. A big chunk of that 47% might say yes to a pollster's question but take no positive action in pursuit of that goal.
Do you think that the whole splatter/torture genre (movies such as Saw, Human Centipede) do more to desensitize people to torture, gore, and violence, than video games? They're far more graphic and realistic than most video games, and while I understand the obvious inherent difference of controlling the player on the screen vs being a passive observer, I'd still imagine that torture films have a greater affect.
Waste your time talking about violence in video games and movies all you want But when are we going to do something about the violence in our dreams? - ( New Window )
Nah, I'm with you. I don't think either has an impact. I just think that out of the two, if one WAS to spur someone to go postal and start murdering people, it'd be one of those faux snuff films, not a video game.
Although it probably wouldn't influence a mass shooter but rather a serial killer/torturer, so you're 100% right - it's a pointless convo.
but the very folks that want a solution to guns, use them to protect themselves and control others. Kind of interesting that individuals are equal (2nd amendment) but some are more equal than others:
Is it presumptuous mind reading? Fine, fuck it, maybe, but I'm not wrong.
Presume away! You certainly are wrong, but I won't hold it against you.
Anyone in your family ever been a victim of a violent crime?
No, but would my position on the matter change if one had? I don't know, probably not, unless it happened in such a way that would clearly be prevented by them not only owning a gun, but actually possessing it at the time.
So I'm lead to believe that you agree stop and frisk is a good tool in the box to prevent gun crime in our urban settings.
Your response about muskets really didn't make any sense.
I'm not a fan of stop and frisk at all. I don't think it is applied equally. But it is a difficult question, because it does make an impact.
I mean to an extent, it makes sense that profiling works. It's all about how much "collateral damage" of profiling you're willing to accept. On a personal level, I don't have a high tolerance for collateral damage, as I've actually been in that position before.
One thing I do somewhat agree with is that "criminals will get guns regardless of laws" - to an extent, that is. Some gang members will get guns, and gang members will kill other gang members.
But the focus of this thread seems to be mass/spree shootings, and I don't think stop and frisk will have an affect on this.
As for my comment about muskets, I don't see what's difficult to understand about it, but maybe I wasn't being clear. The guns of the late 1700s were not close to the efficient, lethal killing machines that we have today. They weren't conducive to mowing people down in a crowded setting. The framers probably couldn't even fathom the types of guns we have today when framing the second amendment, let alone intending for the 2nd amendment to protect these kinds of weapons within the context of our modern day society.
To me personally, it doesn't make to blindly accept the 2nd Amendment without considering the context, rationale, and reasons for the right to bear arms in the 1770s, juxtaposing it with modern day society, and seeing how many of those reasons hold up.
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
Exactly. After all, it was a loose collection of states that didn't have a true identity with the central government. That doesn't apply at all anymore.
Not to mention the difference in technology between the government and the militias/people was way smaller back then compared to now. A handgun isn't going to save anyone from a tyrannical US military.
Yeah, ask soldiers that fought in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia what they thought about encountering citizens in those wars and attacks. lol
then you might want to reconsider your presumptions Â
but the very folks that want a solution to guns, use them to protect themselves and control others. Kind of interesting that individuals are equal (2nd amendment) but some are more equal than others:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
[Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951) "
Did anyone every think that maybe it is not about the shooting events, but more about police state? In this quote implementing gun control to control Jews, and conquered sovereign states.
God damnit. Did it ever occur to YOU that some people are targets and obviously would need an armed security detail? Yes, you may be a victim of a crime, but trust me, I doubt there's as many people out there that would actually try and murder you when compared to a politician, the Secretary of State, or the President.
You're implying that the same level of security should be fine for everyone. That's simply not the case.
Also, I don't think guns in the hands of the populace would stop the US government from absolutely curbstomping a rebellion.
Is it presumptuous mind reading? Fine, fuck it, maybe, but I'm not wrong.
Presume away! You certainly are wrong, but I won't hold it against you.
You don't think a good many people harbor a sort of, "Oh just you try invading my home buster... I've got a nice little surprise for you!" fantasy? If such people didn't exist, neither would a market for things like these:
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
Exactly. After all, it was a loose collection of states that didn't have a true identity with the central government. That doesn't apply at all anymore.
Not to mention the difference in technology between the government and the militias/people was way smaller back then compared to now. A handgun isn't going to save anyone from a tyrannical US military.
Yeah, ask soldiers that fought in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia what they thought about encountering citizens in those wars and attacks. lol
I'm not going to sit here and act like I'm an expert, because we have many serviceman on this board. But based on articles and news reports I've seen and read, plus pictures, it seems that the arms that our soldiers encountered in Afghanistan, Vietnam, or Somalia, were VERY different from the handguns and rifles we have available in our country.
Again, I'm not suggesting I know I'm 100% right here, but didn't the belligerents in those battles have assault rifles and other weapons that were a step up from the handguns that are floating around in our population?
Also, if you're implying that the citizens of this country could take on our own military, I'm going to have to disagree there. Drones, helicopters, air strikes, well trained military with far superior weapons, tanks... and commercially available guns are going to save us from a tyrannical government?
So I take it that's a no from you as well on that question?
You can take it however you want. For the most part, my family has not been a victim of violent crime. But some have. And some are law enforcement who deal with both sides of violent crime pretty regularly.
The point I'm trying to make is that we seem to want to own guns to make us feel safe when the evidence points to the opposite being true. That's an emotional argument that you're making. Not a logical one.
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
Exactly. After all, it was a loose collection of states that didn't have a true identity with the central government. That doesn't apply at all anymore.
Not to mention the difference in technology between the government and the militias/people was way smaller back then compared to now. A handgun isn't going to save anyone from a tyrannical US military.
Yeah, ask soldiers that fought in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia what they thought about encountering citizens in those wars and attacks. lol
Also, pulling out a link to The Blaze is equivalent to pulling out a link to Gawker... maybe even farther to the fringe.
The comments under articles from the Blaze are consistently some of the most ignorant, disgusting, despicable things I've read on the internet.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I know your argument is about where to draw the line. Â
But to repeat it, my point isn't about the exact line but to point out even if the line were that restrictive people would still have the right to own guns, shoot them, hunt with the, and defend their homes with them. Nobody would have lost that right.
You can kind of separate anti-gun positions into three categories:
1. Opposing the citizen's basic right to own a gun that enables that person to defend himself from reasonable, credible threats that actually happen, such as home invasions. Very few people hold this opposition.
2. Opposing the citizen's unfettered right to own the type of gun required to defend himself from unreasonable, extreme, unlikely threats, like 10 armed people invading your house simultaneously. More people hold this opposition.
3. Opposing the citizen's unfettered right to own a gun based purely on it being Fucking Awesome, especially while the citizen falsely presents this desire as being based on the first two needs instead. Even more people hold this opposition.
The NRA will argue that the 2nd and 3rd oppositions are just as unreasonable and unconstitutional as the 1st.
Why do all of your posts on this topic descend into nonsensical attempts at divining what 300 million other people are thinking?
I have this futile determination to find a few hardcore gun advocates who are honest enough to admit that ultimately, they just really like guns.
You may find some, but it won't make your preening any less nonsensical. Try dealing in facts.
That is a small part of the gun violence in America Â
and I paraphrase, If the Jews had guns the Holocaust would have been diminished. My poor unequiped relatives that perished weren't smart enough to figure that out Bennie, I guess if the slaves had guns you wouldn't be such a success story, you would be just another run of the mill neurosurgeon. Us stupid Jews, you stupid slaves, do I have that right Bennie?
and I paraphrase, If the Jews had guns the Holocaust would have been diminished. My poor unequiped relatives that perished weren't smart enough to figure that out Bennie, I guess if the slaves had guns you wouldn't be such a success story, you would be just another run of the mill neurosurgeon. Us stupid Jews, you stupid slaves, do I have that right Bennie?
That Carson let Blitzer interview him proves he may be a good neurosurgeon, not much else. I think he takes lessons from Biden for stupid things to say. We just need to bring out the old shotgun out on the porch and fire a few shots in the air. That'll scare them away.
Wow, I can see some of the point of gun control advocates Â
You think this is a little Joe Biden type slip? It ducking cuts to the heart of every Jew that lost family in the Holocaust. It is simplistic, condescending and hurtful to those that lost. This guy is a fucking moron and anyone that supports him is a fucking moron. All of a sudden pissing on the Holocaust and using Nazi comparisons have become par for the course from the far right. Hey fuck faces, find something else to make your stupid inane senseless points. Leave the Holocaust alone
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised
nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police
more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
- Adolf Hitler
“Germans
who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary
citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the state.”
- Heinrich Himmler.
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised
nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police
more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
- Adolf Hitler
“Germans
who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary
citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the state.”
- Heinrich Himmler.
I have seen various discussions of the first quotation. There does not seem to be any solid evidence that Hitler said that.
I do not know about the Himmler quote.
Generally we should be skeptical about quotations that are attributed to Hitler, Stalin, etc., unless we can have a date and place.
I am for requiring that weapons be properly locked up at all times except when in use or in the possession of the owner. (Doesn't do the homeowner any good to have a self defense weapon locked up overnight.)
FWIW, when it took my concealed carry class the police officer teaching said the average response time in our counties is over 12 minutes, so he believed it a good idea to be armed.
I think southern and midwestern law enforcement, because of long response times is in favor of armed citizens.
I believe because the North East and West Coast already have pretty strict limitations on gun ownership, those BBers living in those areas are more in favor of stricter gun laws.
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
Aren't you sort of proving my point?
Quote:
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
I fear it cumbersomeness, it's excesses, it's inability to accomplish anything positive and it's propensity to fuck up the things that work.
Waste your time talking about violence in video games and movies all you want
But when are we going to do something about the violence in our dreams? - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12536970 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12536959 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I wonder when the last study was done? It seems like it was years ago when we heard that there was no link between gun violence and games and lets face it wasn't long ago that most video games were cartoonish compared to the realism and violence afforded in many of todays game.
I seriously doubt any games or amount played would cause any normal child to want to go out and kill, but I do wonder some children with some types of mental disorders couldn't fixate on killing as a result of having spent hours doing so with some games.
I can easily see people becoming inured to blood.
Do you think that the whole splatter/torture genre (movies such as Saw, Human Centipede) do more to desensitize people to torture, gore, and violence, than video games? They're far more graphic and realistic than most video games, and while I understand the obvious inherent difference of controlling the player on the screen vs being a passive observer, I'd still imagine that torture films have a greater affect.
Regardless though, it's kind of a moot point because neither of them have anywhere close to as much as influence as some of the other factors already discussed in this thread, if they even have any impact at all.
I wasn't really trying to separate them; I think they're all part of the same thing. And I also don't think that there is any evidence to support whether it would help or not. Just like with the gun control measures. It's whatever anybody feels would help (or not) and what is the right (or wrong) thing to do.
I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I was asking for your actual opinion. Wasn't sure if you thought one was worse than the other. Was interested, as I feel the films are WAY worse.
And I'm not talking about war movies. i'm talking about movies where the entire point is for people to be killed and tortured on camera.
As for the second part of your post, I do think you're right in theory, but I think it's important to discern that taking measures against the media (whether its reporting or games/movies) isn't as direct of a measure as actually controlling the tool used for the killing.
Aren't you sort of proving my point?
You're better than that. You're talking about enacting new, stricter gun laws, something that right now only pulls in 47%. I didn't that there is wide approval for relaxing restrictions, only that there isn't overwhelming popularity for new ones.
Aren't you sort of proving my point?
FatMan, I think Greg's point is that only 47% of the population favor any stricter gun laws.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/8/armed-guards-protect-senate-democrats-they-demand-/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/06/in-rare-interview-matt-drudge-issues-major-challenge-to-obama-and-hillary-i-dare-you/
and leave you with this interesting quote:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
[Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951) "
Did anyone every think that maybe it is not about the shooting events, but more about police state? In this quote implementing gun control to control Jews, and conquered sovereign states.
Quote:
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
Exactly. After all, it was a loose collection of states that didn't have a true identity with the central government. That doesn't apply at all anymore.
Not to mention the difference in technology between the government and the militias/people was way smaller back then compared to now. A handgun isn't going to save anyone from a tyrannical US military.
Quote:
only 14% of people would like less strict laws.
Aren't you sort of proving my point?
You're better than that. You're talking about enacting new, stricter gun laws, something that right now only pulls in 47%. I didn't that there is wide approval for relaxing restrictions, only that there isn't overwhelming popularity for new ones.
I don't necessarily favor stricter laws. I would be in favor of more reasonable ones. Or at least reasonable measures taken that aren't labeled as being an infringement on rights by the NRA who is deathly afraid of any measures taken.
Your response about muskets really didn't make any sense.
I don't necessarily favor stricter laws. I would be in favor of more reasonable ones. Or at least reasonable measures taken that aren't labeled as being an infringement on rights by the NRA who is deathly afraid of any measures taken.
It's not a majority at all.. Sure, it's the most popular sentiment of the three, but the other two combined make up the majority (and combining the other two is a necessary function for the claim you were making, FatMan).
And as people age, that fantasy is replaced by one of channeling Dirty Harry and thwarting a home invasion with a gun.
Is it presumptuous mind reading? Fine, fuck it, maybe, but I'm not wrong.
Quote:
Do you think that the whole splatter/torture genre (movies such as Saw, Human Centipede) do more to desensitize people to torture, gore, and violence, than video games? They're far more graphic and realistic than most video games, and while I understand the obvious inherent difference of controlling the player on the screen vs being a passive observer, I'd still imagine that torture films have a greater affect.
Waste your time talking about violence in video games and movies all you want But when are we going to do something about the violence in our dreams? - ( New Window )
Nah, I'm with you. I don't think either has an impact. I just think that out of the two, if one WAS to spur someone to go postal and start murdering people, it'd be one of those faux snuff films, not a video game.
Although it probably wouldn't influence a mass shooter but rather a serial killer/torturer, so you're 100% right - it's a pointless convo.
Presume away! You certainly are wrong, but I won't hold it against you.
Anyone in your family ever been a victim of a violent crime?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/8/armed-guards-protect-senate-democrats-they-demand-/
Oh brother.
Quote:
Is it presumptuous mind reading? Fine, fuck it, maybe, but I'm not wrong.
Presume away! You certainly are wrong, but I won't hold it against you.
Anyone in your family ever been a victim of a violent crime?
No, but would my position on the matter change if one had? I don't know, probably not, unless it happened in such a way that would clearly be prevented by them not only owning a gun, but actually possessing it at the time.
Your response about muskets really didn't make any sense.
I mean to an extent, it makes sense that profiling works. It's all about how much "collateral damage" of profiling you're willing to accept. On a personal level, I don't have a high tolerance for collateral damage, as I've actually been in that position before.
One thing I do somewhat agree with is that "criminals will get guns regardless of laws" - to an extent, that is. Some gang members will get guns, and gang members will kill other gang members.
But the focus of this thread seems to be mass/spree shootings, and I don't think stop and frisk will have an affect on this.
As for my comment about muskets, I don't see what's difficult to understand about it, but maybe I wasn't being clear. The guns of the late 1700s were not close to the efficient, lethal killing machines that we have today. They weren't conducive to mowing people down in a crowded setting. The framers probably couldn't even fathom the types of guns we have today when framing the second amendment, let alone intending for the 2nd amendment to protect these kinds of weapons within the context of our modern day society.
To me personally, it doesn't make to blindly accept the 2nd Amendment without considering the context, rationale, and reasons for the right to bear arms in the 1770s, juxtaposing it with modern day society, and seeing how many of those reasons hold up.
Quote:
Is it presumptuous mind reading? Fine, fuck it, maybe, but I'm not wrong.
Presume away! You certainly are wrong, but I won't hold it against you.
Anyone in your family ever been a victim of a violent crime?
And people say that anti-gun folks are afraid...
Quote:
In comment 12536962 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
Exactly. After all, it was a loose collection of states that didn't have a true identity with the central government. That doesn't apply at all anymore.
Not to mention the difference in technology between the government and the militias/people was way smaller back then compared to now. A handgun isn't going to save anyone from a tyrannical US military.
Yeah, ask soldiers that fought in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia what they thought about encountering citizens in those wars and attacks. lol
So I take it that's a no from you as well on that question?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/8/armed-guards-protect-senate-democrats-they-demand-/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/06/in-rare-interview-matt-drudge-issues-major-challenge-to-obama-and-hillary-i-dare-you/
and leave you with this interesting quote:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
[Translation: Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951) "
Did anyone every think that maybe it is not about the shooting events, but more about police state? In this quote implementing gun control to control Jews, and conquered sovereign states.
God damnit. Did it ever occur to YOU that some people are targets and obviously would need an armed security detail? Yes, you may be a victim of a crime, but trust me, I doubt there's as many people out there that would actually try and murder you when compared to a politician, the Secretary of State, or the President.
You're implying that the same level of security should be fine for everyone. That's simply not the case.
Also, I don't think guns in the hands of the populace would stop the US government from absolutely curbstomping a rebellion.
Quote:
Is it presumptuous mind reading? Fine, fuck it, maybe, but I'm not wrong.
Presume away! You certainly are wrong, but I won't hold it against you.
You don't think a good many people harbor a sort of, "Oh just you try invading my home buster... I've got a nice little surprise for you!" fantasy? If such people didn't exist, neither would a market for things like these:
Quote:
In comment 12537002 santacruzom said:
Quote:
In comment 12536962 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
Exactly. After all, it was a loose collection of states that didn't have a true identity with the central government. That doesn't apply at all anymore.
Not to mention the difference in technology between the government and the militias/people was way smaller back then compared to now. A handgun isn't going to save anyone from a tyrannical US military.
Yeah, ask soldiers that fought in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia what they thought about encountering citizens in those wars and attacks. lol
I'm not going to sit here and act like I'm an expert, because we have many serviceman on this board. But based on articles and news reports I've seen and read, plus pictures, it seems that the arms that our soldiers encountered in Afghanistan, Vietnam, or Somalia, were VERY different from the handguns and rifles we have available in our country.
Again, I'm not suggesting I know I'm 100% right here, but didn't the belligerents in those battles have assault rifles and other weapons that were a step up from the handguns that are floating around in our population?
Also, if you're implying that the citizens of this country could take on our own military, I'm going to have to disagree there. Drones, helicopters, air strikes, well trained military with far superior weapons, tanks... and commercially available guns are going to save us from a tyrannical government?
Quote:
And people say that anti-gun folks are afraid...
So I take it that's a no from you as well on that question?
You can take it however you want. For the most part, my family has not been a victim of violent crime. But some have. And some are law enforcement who deal with both sides of violent crime pretty regularly.
The point I'm trying to make is that we seem to want to own guns to make us feel safe when the evidence points to the opposite being true. That's an emotional argument that you're making. Not a logical one.
Quote:
In comment 12537002 santacruzom said:
Quote:
In comment 12536962 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
And... there was a "The Militia" back then! They were certainly seen as preferable to a standing army, or at least a check against the standing army should it try to oppress the people.
The technological difference between arms of that day and arms of the modern era isn't the only disparity to consider when talking about the 2nd Amendment. I doubt that even the most anti-government people these days are as afraid of "the government" (which itself had a whole different set of implications back then than it does now) as they were in revolutionary times.
Exactly. After all, it was a loose collection of states that didn't have a true identity with the central government. That doesn't apply at all anymore.
Not to mention the difference in technology between the government and the militias/people was way smaller back then compared to now. A handgun isn't going to save anyone from a tyrannical US military.
Yeah, ask soldiers that fought in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia what they thought about encountering citizens in those wars and attacks. lol
Also, pulling out a link to The Blaze is equivalent to pulling out a link to Gawker... maybe even farther to the fringe.
The comments under articles from the Blaze are consistently some of the most ignorant, disgusting, despicable things I've read on the internet.
Quote:
In comment 12536619 santacruzom said:
Quote:
In comment 12536595 steve in ky said:
Quote:
But to repeat it, my point isn't about the exact line but to point out even if the line were that restrictive people would still have the right to own guns, shoot them, hunt with the, and defend their homes with them. Nobody would have lost that right.
You can kind of separate anti-gun positions into three categories:
1. Opposing the citizen's basic right to own a gun that enables that person to defend himself from reasonable, credible threats that actually happen, such as home invasions. Very few people hold this opposition.
2. Opposing the citizen's unfettered right to own the type of gun required to defend himself from unreasonable, extreme, unlikely threats, like 10 armed people invading your house simultaneously. More people hold this opposition.
3. Opposing the citizen's unfettered right to own a gun based purely on it being Fucking Awesome, especially while the citizen falsely presents this desire as being based on the first two needs instead. Even more people hold this opposition.
The NRA will argue that the 2nd and 3rd oppositions are just as unreasonable and unconstitutional as the 1st.
Why do all of your posts on this topic descend into nonsensical attempts at divining what 300 million other people are thinking?
I have this futile determination to find a few hardcore gun advocates who are honest enough to admit that ultimately, they just really like guns.
You may find some, but it won't make your preening any less nonsensical. Try dealing in facts.
So your OK with 50 being shot and killed in Chicago in September. Now add up the rest of the cities.
That is where the bulk of the "mass shootings" occur as defined by Bloomberg.
That Carson let Blitzer interview him proves he may be a good neurosurgeon, not much else. I think he takes lessons from Biden for stupid things to say. We just need to bring out the old shotgun out on the porch and fire a few shots in the air. That'll scare them away.
I also think anyone has the right to be outraged at what ever they want for whatever reason.
Seem as society deems that acceptable.
nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police
more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
- Adolf Hitler
“Germans
who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary
citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the state.”
- Heinrich Himmler.
Jesus Christ, gun people are weird.
Jesus Christ, gun people are weird.
The point? Did you miss the posts just above it?
nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police
more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
- Adolf Hitler
“Germans
who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary
citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the state.”
- Heinrich Himmler.
I have seen various discussions of the first quotation. There does not seem to be any solid evidence that Hitler said that.
I do not know about the Himmler quote.
Generally we should be skeptical about quotations that are attributed to Hitler, Stalin, etc., unless we can have a date and place.