Gangbangers in Chicago Baltimore Detroit and other major cities use illegal guns that are easy to get easy to skirt any law on the books that are written or will be written. Bad guys will find a way to get their hands on some of the 350 million guns out there. And go
we need to reduce the number of colleges, schools and other points of gathering. But, like always, politicians refuse to do anything to help. Sad really.
we need to reduce the number of colleges, schools and other points of gathering. But, like always, politicians refuse to do anything to help. Sad really.
I think it's a conspiracy driven by proponents of the "on line" degrees.
I'll start a team and will open up membership to certain individuals I deem worthy. The benefit of joining my team is that you'll be with a winning team...and guns...lots of guns. Any one of these factors may help you to gain membership:
1) Being a hot female
2) Being extremely rich
3) Knowing how to cook well (I get to determine if you do)
4) Not minding if you are part of a dictatorship ran by me
Applications will be accepted following the Columbus Day weekend.
we need to reduce the number of colleges, schools and other points of gathering. But, like always, politicians refuse to do anything to help. Sad really.
No, lets up the anti and let teachers have guns, or better yet, lets get security guards with guns in every school across the country.
we need to reduce the number of colleges, schools and other points of gathering. But, like always, politicians refuse to do anything to help. Sad really.
No, lets up the anti and let teachers have guns, or better yet, lets get security guards with guns in every school across the country.
might be too late , give all the kids guns, nothing heavy like Glocks or AK47's, derringers and 22's would work. Start them in preK without bullets. When they hit first grade they should be able to handle their piece responsibly and then you give them ammo
I'm starting to wonder if people thought I was joking
Your statement that bad guys will always find guns is too categorical. Other countries have stricter guns laws and fewer gun deaths. It's clearly a complicated issue with illegal guns on the street but the ability to get an illegal gun is often dictated by circumstance, geography, and resourcefulness. The fact is, it's much easier to get a legal gun for these mass shootings. That is the common thread. You should read this info graphic
Your statement that bad guys will always find guns is too categorical. Other countries have stricter guns laws and fewer gun deaths. It's clearly a complicated issue with illegal guns on the street but the ability to get an illegal gun is often dictated by circumstance, geography, and resourcefulness. The fact is, it's much easier to get a legal gun for these mass shootings. That is the common thread. You should read this info graphic
Link - ( New Window )
I'll start a team and will open up membership to certain individuals I deem worthy. The benefit of joining my team is that you'll be with a winning team...and guns...lots of guns. Any one of these factors may help you to gain membership:
1) Being a hot female
2) Being extremely rich
3) Knowing how to cook well (I get to determine if you do)
4) Not minding if you are part of a dictatorship ran by me
Applications will be accepted following the Columbus Day weekend.
I'm applying early.
1.) Not a hot female - tough
2.) Not rich, but self sufficient
3.) Can cook well and for a large group - did AFJROTC week as chief cook for 120+; bonus - all survived without diarrhea.
4.) School background indicates I can be part of a dictatorship (but don't turn your back)
5.) Can bring my own tools
Gangbangers in Chicago Baltimore Detroit and other major cities use illegal guns that are easy to get easy to skirt any law on the books that are written or will be written. Bad guys will find a way to get their hands on some of the 350 million guns out there. And go
Agreed.
RE: RE: Ok...with the idea of starting a Purge holiday...
1.) Not a hot female - tough
2.) Not rich, but self sufficient
3.) Can cook well and for a large group - did AFJROTC week as chief cook for 120+; bonus - all survived without diarrhea.
4.) School background indicates I can be part of a dictatorship (but don't turn your back)
5.) Can bring my own tools
Your application is under consideration. However, to be honest with you, I'm not liking your chances. Now if you were an Air Force Academy grad, I might reconsider...bahahaha...who am I kidding? You're in! Just having "Marine" in your alma matre is good enough for me even if it has totally a different meaning. Having said that, two of the best Marine officers I've worked with were both Merchant Marine Academy grads. One was a tanker and the other was an infantry officer.
1.) Not a hot female - tough
2.) Not rich, but self sufficient
3.) Can cook well and for a large group - did AFJROTC week as chief cook for 120+; bonus - all survived without diarrhea.
4.) School background indicates I can be part of a dictatorship (but don't turn your back)
5.) Can bring my own tools
Your application is under consideration. However, to be honest with you, I'm not liking your chances. Now if you were an Air Force Academy grad, I might reconsider...bahahaha...who am I kidding? You're in! Just having "Marine" in your alma matre is good enough for me even if it has totally a different meaning. Having said that, two of the best Marine officers I've worked with were both Merchant Marine Academy grads. One was a tanker and the other was an infantry officer.
If you consider AFA a better choice, maybe I'll withdraw my application. They're not called "chair force" for nothing. Besides, on top, you'd have a built in logistics officer (notice I've promoted myself).. my app just got stronger.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok...with the idea of starting a Purge holiday...
If you consider AFA a better choice, maybe I'll withdraw my application. They're not called "chair force" for nothing. Besides, on top, you'd have a built in logistics officer (notice I've promoted myself).. my app just got stronger.
Ha! I like your drive to move up in ranks! Now for these guns...where can we get some more before they're outlawed?
We get the government we deserve. As Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Addresss, it's a government of the people, by the people, for the people. If you don't like where things are going, take a look in the mirror and then get off you ass and do something about it. Just don't accept the status quo. In clued myself in this rant.
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
every wears a holster with 2 six shooters. If someone disses you, you go onto the street and have a shootout like the beginning of Gunsmoke.just make murder legal. Problem solved and we can all move on
what purge movie did you guys like better for me the second one was way better it had a 1980s survival horror movie feeling to it which I liked. RCO2XX I can picture you as the guy with shades in the back of the Trailer with the mini gun.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Ok...with the idea of starting a Purge holiday...
Quote:
Ha! I like your drive to move up in ranks! Now for these guns...where can we get some more before they're outlawed?
I suggest BYOG - that way we know the applicant has at least seen one out of a box. That way we can be part of a "Well Regulated Militia." We then fulfill our oath to the Constitution.
to mental patients in institutions and let them thin out the herd. Just arm them, send them into a common room, close the lights, come back in 2 hours, turn on the lights, cart out the dead and repeat the next day
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
Yes, because the kids that are shooting classmates that they hate would surely not get them all at school if they knew it wasn't a "gun free zone".
Such fantastic fucking logic.
Gun free zone has little to nothing to do with why these crazy fucks target their own schools in the vast majority of cases.
I don't necessarily think getting rid of guns is the answer. "More guns!" certainly isn't the answer, either.
if we selected two people from every state, using a lottery system, and brought them all together in one place. Then we could arm them; in fact give them a choice of weapons. Over the course of a few days they could then attempt to kill each other until only one was left who would be declared the victor and win tons of valuable prizes. The losers, of course, would receive departing gifts. We could do this every year and turn it into a big gala event.
That might sate our appetites for violence and lead to tranquility over the rest of the year.
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
Yes, because the kids that are shooting classmates that they hate would surely not get them all at school if they knew it wasn't a "gun free zone".
Such fantastic fucking logic.
Gun free zone has little to nothing to do with why these crazy fucks target their own schools in the vast majority of cases.
I don't necessarily think getting rid of guns is the answer. "More guns!" certainly isn't the answer, either.
need to be punished in a way that will make the next sicko think twice about attempting to carry out the same type of crime. Unfortunately we are too civilized for that.
We shoot and kill first graders and shrug if off and you think we are too civilized? We are fucking animals that thank God 99.99 percent of us keep keep our muderous instincts under control.
If you stopped selling guns completely the problem wouldn't....
be solved. The guns are already out there and there is no way to get the genie back in the bottle. It's a perfect shitstorm right now. Millions of guns, soft targets, a sick population who don't get the mental help they need, and a media environment that feeds the delusions of these sick individuals. I have no idea how we will ever stop this.
I know it's big news these days, but how many people a year die from
mass shootings? It's absolutely horrible, but what is the perspective? Really curious. Like is it the same amount of kids that drown each year in pools?
Guns are just the best tool, so it's used most often. I get the idea that with a knife it's harder to take out many people, but if guns didn't exist these people would build pipe bombs and set some off in crowded places, etc. There are many creative ways to cause more destruction. People are going to destroy if they want to.
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
That argument, "banning cars, banning knives" the major difference between a car or a knife and a gun is.....GUNS HAVE ONE USE, and one use only....THEY SHOOT BULLETS.....
You see with a car you can drive around in them and go places, and with knives you can cut butter and meat or filet a fish......with a gun you can........you can......errr....shoot bullets.
and to preempt the responses like "what about a gun without bullets?", I maintain that guns have a sole purpose.
guns only shoot bullets. Those of us old enough to remember the original Superman TV show recall the episode where the bad guy is shooting Superman and Superman just stands there with his hands on his hips and a smile on his face as the guy empties his gun. When they guy runs out of bullets he throws his gun at Superman who ducks and has a holy shit that could hurt look on his face.
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
That argument, "banning cars, banning knives" the major difference between a car or a knife and a gun is.....GUNS HAVE ONE USE, and one use only....THEY SHOOT BULLETS.....
You see with a car you can drive around in them and go places, and with knives you can cut butter and meat or filet a fish......with a gun you can........you can......errr....shoot bullets.
and to preempt the responses like "what about a gun without bullets?", I maintain that guns have a sole purpose.
What about nerf guns, Mr. Smarty Pants?
How about paint guns? Spray guns? Refractory guns? Hmmm?
RE: I know it's big news these days, but how many people a year die from
mass shootings? It's absolutely horrible, but what is the perspective? Really curious. Like is it the same amount of kids that drown each year in pools?
Guns are just the best tool, so it's used most often. I get the idea that with a knife it's harder to take out many people, but if guns didn't exist these people would build pipe bombs and set some off in crowded places, etc. There are many creative ways to cause more destruction. People are going to destroy if they want to.
yeah, building a pipe bomb is just as easy as shooting a gun.
RE: I know it's big news these days, but how many people a year die from
mass shootings? It's absolutely horrible, but what is the perspective? Really curious. Like is it the same amount of kids that drown each year in pools?
Guns are just the best tool, so it's used most often. I get the idea that with a knife it's harder to take out many people, but if guns didn't exist these people would build pipe bombs and set some off in crowded places, etc. There are many creative ways to cause more destruction. People are going to destroy if they want to.
Yes they will, if they want to. But guns make it incredibly easy.
900 mass shooting deaths in the last 7 years (reported 2013). Dunno if that includes gang-bangers.
About 390 kids die each year in pools.
Perspective. I know it's scary, but you are more likely to drown in a pool next year than get caught in a mass shooting.
I know, we do things that are fun and stuff. Just saying it's not the epidemic it seems at times.
We need to quit making the shooters infamous in the media. Report the shooting. Leave out the picture and name of the shooters. Maybe prevent some of the copycats.
RE: I wonder if we could get it all out of our system
if we selected two people from every state, using a lottery system, and brought them all together in one place. Then we could arm them; in fact give them a choice of weapons. Over the course of a few days they could then attempt to kill each other until only one was left who would be declared the victor and win tons of valuable prizes. The losers, of course, would receive departing gifts. We could do this every year and turn it into a big gala event.
That might sate our appetites for violence and lead to tranquility over the rest of the year.
Dude...the lawyers for Hunger Games author will be contacting you soon.
mass shootings? It's absolutely horrible, but what is the perspective? Really curious. Like is it the same amount of kids that drown each year in pools?
Guns are just the best tool, so it's used most often. I get the idea that with a knife it's harder to take out many people, but if guns didn't exist these people would build pipe bombs and set some off in crowded places, etc. There are many creative ways to cause more destruction. People are going to destroy if they want to.
yeah, building a pipe bomb is just as easy as shooting a gun.
Just an example. When school let's out drive over kids in a big truck. Certainly that is just as easy.
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
Yes, because the kids that are shooting classmates that they hate would surely not get them all at school if they knew it wasn't a "gun free zone".
Such fantastic fucking logic.
Gun free zone has little to nothing to do with why these crazy fucks target their own schools in the vast majority of cases.
I don't necessarily think getting rid of guns is the answer. "More guns!" certainly isn't the answer, either.
Idiot logic. If we protect the schools with armed security they wouldn't be safer. Brilliant.
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
Yes, because the kids that are shooting classmates that they hate would surely not get them all at school if they knew it wasn't a "gun free zone".
Such fantastic fucking logic.
Gun free zone has little to nothing to do with why these crazy fucks target their own schools in the vast majority of cases.
I don't necessarily think getting rid of guns is the answer. "More guns!" certainly isn't the answer, either.
But fewer schools just might be.
But wouldn't fewer schools just have more targets in one place?
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
That argument, "banning cars, banning knives" the major difference between a car or a knife and a gun is.....GUNS HAVE ONE USE, and one use only....THEY SHOOT BULLETS.....
You see with a car you can drive around in them and go places, and with knives you can cut butter and meat or filet a fish......with a gun you can........you can......errr....shoot bullets.
and to preempt the responses like "what about a gun without bullets?", I maintain that guns have a sole purpose.
Hunting, sport shooting, and protection. Those are the intended uses for guns. Fertilizer has one main use too but apparently it can be used to blow things up.
900 mass shooting deaths in the last 7 years (reported 2013). Dunno if that includes gang-bangers.
About 390 kids die each year in pools.
Perspective. I know it's scary, but you are more likely to drown in a pool next year than get caught in a mass shooting.
I know, we do things that are fun and stuff. Just saying it's not the epidemic it seems at times.
We need to quit making the shooters infamous in the media. Report the shooting. Leave out the picture and name of the shooters. Maybe prevent some of the copycats.
Or have these mass shootings just become a soapbox?
Judging by the comedy hour in this thread I think most people don't care much about this particular one. Either that or everyone is probably numb to it at this point which is really sad.
Not on this forum, but I've already read and heard lots of comments similar to "well, it was only one person killed and three others wounded so it wasn't so bad. Not as bad as usual." How sad is it that this is the state of our country? People at school trying to set themselves up for their future are killed all the time here, completely robbed of that future, and it just seems like no big deal to people half the time.
But like plenty of others have said, if a bunch of children being massacred didn't change anything, nothing will.
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
The root of the problem is the Citizens United decision
that allows corporations to control congressmen. Gun legislation is popular, but a majority of congressmen and senators are so beholden to the gun lobby and their NRA that nothing can get passed.
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Columbine didn't happen at one in the morning when school wasn't in session if you recall.
Hunting, sport shooting, and protection. Those are the intended uses for guns. Fertilizer has one main use too but apparently it can be used to blow things up.
Yup, they shoot bullets. That's what I said.
Lets pretend we have TIME MACHINE -
FREEZE FRAME - Your kid is in a classroom, and a lunatic with a loaded AK-47 gun walks in with some crazy motive - UN-FREEZE FRAME
What's your stance on gun control now?
Ask yourself this - Would you rather be in a classroom with a guy with an AK-47 pointed at everybody, or would you rather be in the path of a guy with a car intent on running people down?
Classroom with a guy with an AK, or a knife?
Classroom with a guy with an AK, or a bag of fertilizer?
Point is, it's too easy to kill somebody with a gun. You can conceal it, walk in a public area and take out a lot of people at once with little to no effort.
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Columbine didn't happen at one in the morning when school wasn't in session if you recall.
Yes, it happened in the middle of the day with an armed security officer present.
Hunting, sport shooting, and protection. Those are the intended uses for guns. Fertilizer has one main use too but apparently it can be used to blow things up.
Yup, they shoot bullets. That's what I said.
Lets pretend we have TIME MACHINE -
FREEZE FRAME - Your kid is in a classroom, and a lunatic with a loaded AK-47 gun walks in with some crazy motive - UN-FREEZE FRAME
What's your stance on gun control now?
Ask yourself this - Would you rather be in a classroom with a guy with an AK-47 pointed at everybody, or would you rather be in the path of a guy with a car intent on running people down?
Classroom with a guy with an AK, or a knife?
Classroom with a guy with an AK, or a bag of fertilizer?
Point is, it's too easy to kill somebody with a gun. You can conceal it, walk in a public area and take out a lot of people at once with little to no effort.
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
reason why gun control laws havn't worked in places like Baltimore and Chicago is because of the extremely lax gun control laws in neighboring states. You can have the toughest local gun control laws in the world but if there's easy access to firearms right nearby, guns are still going to be gotten by those that want them.
If you really want to decrease murders by guns then you'll need a strong federal bill and a strong gun buy-back program. Australia had a serious gun violence program and passed strong anti-gun laws in 1996 and had an almost immediate dramatic decrease in gun violence. It's a shame certain politicians are too fat with gun lobby money to try and prevent that constant gun deaths from occurring.
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
For the most part, knives are designed to cut things for utility.
What are guns designed to do?
1) I don't think knives were designed for utility use. In all likelihood, they were designed to kill prey.
2) Who cares what guns were designed for? They exist today, to the tune of 360 million in the United Sates. If you are proposing a full scale recall, it will never happen and it will never work.
3) Both sides need to stop digging into their trenches and need to come to the table to enact stricter gun ownership laws. Both sides are afraid to come to the table, as they feel they will not get everything they want. I don't understand why both sides see this as an all or nothing topic.
My point was just directed towards the people that say...
several things keep popping up, SSRIs, pussified beta males in skinny jeans worrying about why the cannot secure dates relationships with females, violent video games, etc..Seems like a great place to start to investigate as peoples actions are largely defined "by their environment" as science keeping telling us as a mantra.
I think it is convenient for politicians to use these events to attempt to thwart our rights without considering the root cause of these actions..We also have the world government types that do not want us to have guns either. .
What would be interesting is go back many years and catalog all of the data statistically to determine if this is really something new or just sensationalized and framed by the media for an intended effect. That is their business to frame something to sway your thoughts and emotions. Anyone that has studied communications theory in a university can see right through this shit.
As an example, Chicago has consistently the same or more murders every week than one of these events and is a gunfree environment, except for the individual committing the murders. Why isn't that discussed?
Seems to me that when you look at the stats, everything is worse when the guns are taken away. What is more amusing is a POTUS that seems he can bypass laws and constitutional rights.
RE: RE: Wait, an AK can *potentially* do more damage than rope?
Man, I've been using rope the wrong fucking way all these years.
yah well apparently these "you gonna ban cars, knives?" people need it spelled out.
The statistics clearly show that you or a loved one is more likely to die by stabbing as opposed to a rifle, or more specifically, an "assault" rifle. Although I am sure you are already aware of the statistics, so please feel free to continue to be sarcastic if it is a means to help you cope.
Not sure why I am getting sucked into this pointless discussion. I assume we all want the same thing -- for this shit to stop.
And predictable. We have a problem in this nation and we need to do something about it. But I fear we won't.
It's a real shame the left did nothing when it had control of the White House, Congress, and Senate.
They can't. This is just Kabuki theatre that benefits politicians at the expense of the individuals lives because we a civilization in decline because of our leaders. Good luck taking away that 2nd ammendment. Best comment of the week, Matt Drudge asked Obama and Hillary to disarm themselves like they want everyone to do. Priceless and exposes this whole situation. Its not the guns, its the fucking people.
Bill L playbook. Let's see, talking about gun control is ghoulish. Knee slappers are a-ok. Got it. Just checking.
I'm...evolving (the term of the day, I suppose). Seeing as I was quickly disabused of the notion that exploitation was in bad form. So, just joining in with everyone else and their ideas of what's wrong and what should be done.
900 mass shooting deaths in the last 7 years (reported 2013). Dunno if that includes gang-bangers.
About 390 kids die each year in pools.
Perspective. I know it's scary, but you are more likely to drown in a pool next year than get caught in a mass shooting.
I know, we do things that are fun and stuff. Just saying it's not the epidemic it seems at times.
We need to quit making the shooters infamous in the media. Report the shooting. Leave out the picture and name of the shooters. Maybe prevent some of the copycats.
I don't think anyone thinks its likely. The outrage comes from it being so senseless and the victims so innocent. At least with drowning's while a horrible accident for sure there is some personal responsibly involved. Sending your child off to school shouldn't be in the same classification.
I do agree however that the time has come to not publicize anything about these killers. Don't give them the one thing some of them may crave, notoriety.
What is more amusing is a POTUS that seems he can bypass laws
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
RE: RE: RE: Wait, an AK can *potentially* do more damage than rope?
Man, I've been using rope the wrong fucking way all these years.
yah well apparently these "you gonna ban cars, knives?" people need it spelled out.
The statistics clearly show that you or a loved one is more likely to die by stabbing as opposed to a rifle, or more specifically, an "assault" rifle. Although I am sure you are already aware of the statistics, so please feel free to continue to be sarcastic if it is a means to help you cope.
Not sure why I am getting sucked into this pointless discussion. I assume we all want the same thing -- for this shit to stop.
Thats true is you single out "rifles" from all firearms, but you are much more likely to be killed with a gun than a knife Link - ( New Window )
And predictable. We have a problem in this nation and we need to do something about it. But I fear we won't.
It's a real shame the left did nothing when it had control of the White House, Congress, and Senate.
They can't. This is just Kabuki theatre that benefits politicians at the expense of the individuals lives because we a civilization in decline because of our leaders. Good luck taking away that 2nd ammendment. Best comment of the week, Matt Drudge asked Obama and Hillary to disarm themselves like they want everyone to do. Priceless and exposes this whole situation. Its not the guns, its the fucking people.
Obama and Clinton are the god damn President and Secretary of State. We've had Presidents and politicians assassinated and shot. They're public figures and targets.
It's completely different from your average joe schmo. This proves absolutely nothing and is such a false dichotomy.
900 mass shooting deaths in the last 7 years (reported 2013). Dunno if that includes gang-bangers.
About 390 kids die each year in pools.
Perspective. I know it's scary, but you are more likely to drown in a pool next year than get caught in a mass shooting.
I know, we do things that are fun and stuff. Just saying it's not the epidemic it seems at times.
We need to quit making the shooters infamous in the media. Report the shooting. Leave out the picture and name of the shooters. Maybe prevent some of the copycats.
I don't think anyone thinks its likely. The outrage comes from it being so senseless and the victims so innocent. At least with drowning's while a horrible accident for sure there is some personal responsibly involved. Sending your child off to school shouldn't be in the same classification.
I do agree however that the time has come to not publicize anything about these killers. Don't give them the one thing some of them may crave, notoriety.
I agree. It's horrific. There is so much senseless death in this country everyday. I don't believe that making guns disappear would stop it. Would it stop certain types of killings and certain conveniences, sure, but people will find a way with the next best killing tool. That kid wanted to kill that girl, the gun was the best tool, but if it didn't exist he just stabs her to death. God forbid we ever start having mass bombings like in the middle east.
Nothing will make murder disappear. The point is that reducing access to gun will make them less likely and less frequent.
Being against increased gun regulation due to the fear that we might have "mass explosions like the middle east" is one of the most absurd fucking things I've ever heard.
"We gotta keep the gun guys! It's better than bombs, and everyone knows that building a bomb is easy as getting a gun and pulling a trigger! You don't want the US to look like Dresden or turn into a bomb haven like the middle east, amirite?!!!"
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
I'm saying it could be worse and the next best item to kill will be used if gun don't exist and they may be worse in mass situations. That shit I mentioned is a hell of a lot easier than you think.
900 mass shooting deaths in the last 7 years (reported 2013). Dunno if that includes gang-bangers.
About 390 kids die each year in pools.
Perspective. I know it's scary, but you are more likely to drown in a pool next year than get caught in a mass shooting.
I know, we do things that are fun and stuff. Just saying it's not the epidemic it seems at times.
We need to quit making the shooters infamous in the media. Report the shooting. Leave out the picture and name of the shooters. Maybe prevent some of the copycats.
I don't think anyone thinks its likely. The outrage comes from it being so senseless and the victims so innocent. At least with drowning's while a horrible accident for sure there is some personal responsibly involved. Sending your child off to school shouldn't be in the same classification.
I do agree however that the time has come to not publicize anything about these killers. Don't give them the one thing some of them may crave, notoriety.
I agree. It's horrific. There is so much senseless death in this country everyday. I don't believe that making guns disappear would stop it. Would it stop certain types of killings and certain conveniences, sure, but people will find a way with the next best killing tool. That kid wanted to kill that girl, the gun was the best tool, but if it didn't exist he just stabs her to death. God forbid we ever start having mass bombings like in the middle east.
Maybe he gets a knife and is able to kill her, maybe just a rock over the heard but we don't know that. We do know pulling a trigger is far simpler and more deadly requiring less effort and with less time for reconsideration.
As far as bombs in the middle east I don't see it. Those are organized and done by terrorist for a "cause" while these types of mass killings are done by isolated nutcases. Apples and oranges.
fucking stupid, and essentially about half the country thinks alongside Ben Carson when he said "no bullet holes in any body" would be as sad as the day our right to bear arms is taken away. Awesome stuff, Ben. Seriously, this is how our country thinks. Just the way it is.
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
I'm saying it could be worse and the next best item to kill will be used if gun don't exist and they may be worse in mass situations. That shit I mentioned is a hell of a lot easier than you think.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
And please stop trying to act like building a bomb and planning how to detonate it is anywhere as easy of a way to kill people are shooting them.
I can't wrap my head around asinine that train of thought is. That's probably the worst argument against gun control I've ever heard.
I almost had to close and open my eyes up again just to check and see if I was dreaming or actually reading it. After a mass shooting. After multiple mass shootings, including children as low as 4 years old....that is the language he chooses to use. An utter disgrace of a thought if you ask me.
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
I'm saying it could be worse and the next best item to kill will be used if gun don't exist and they may be worse in mass situations. That shit I mentioned is a hell of a lot easier than you think.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
And please stop trying to act like building a bomb and planning how to detonate it is anywhere as easy of a way to kill people are shooting them.
I can't wrap my head around asinine that train of thought is. That's probably the worst argument against gun control I've ever heard.
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
.
I don't think that there is much of any data that any proposed solution actually accomplishes much of anything. Nearly all arguments are emotionally based and as valid as any other.
I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms.
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms.
wanting to keep their right to bear arms. But to not understand the consequence and what is happening in our society is completely and utterly ridiculous.
RE: RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms.
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter, it's still not anywhere near as easy as getting a gun and shooting people.
Making any kind of explosive is not easier than obtaining a gun and pulling the trigger.
And stating that these mass shooters would switch over to pipe bombs without a problem is ridiculous and just isn't reality. Even if something was done that could deter 50% of the mass shootings, it'd still be worth it. Also, bombs made by amateurs don't always explode... not that I should even go down the rabbit hole far enough to have to arrive at that point.
The homemade napalm also is laughably ridiculous.
RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
Not trying to attack but actually curious on this question - what "freedoms" do you mean? Is it just the basic right to do whatever you want being taken away that you'd be so pissed about? Or do you actually just like guns? Again, just curious to hear.
RE: RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
This simplistic approach to this plague doesn't cut it anymore. At this point, they should change the Constitution to say "We come to the conclusion that Americans cannot handle the right to bare arms anymore. We have to take them away. BTW, you have a militia already you fucking dopes"
I think that Amendment would be cool.
RE: RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms.
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
100% agreed. And the other side should come out and say they feel powerless to mass shooting events (even though minuscule) and it frightens the shit out of them. Guns are a tool being used in these situations, not the root cause.
Once both sides can honestly admit that, maybe we can finally try and get to the true societal cause for our violent culture.
the bombs at Columbine didn't explode as they were intended.
You are correct, they did not explode. IIRC, their initial plan was actually to have the bombs go off during the times when the most people would be in the hallways, and then they were going to stand outside the school and pick off people as they ran away.
When the bombs didn't go off, they went into the school and started shooting.
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter, it's still not anywhere near as easy as getting a gun and shooting people.
Making any kind of explosive is not easier than obtaining a gun and pulling the trigger.
And stating that these mass shooters would switch over to pipe bombs without a problem is ridiculous and just isn't reality. Even if something was done that could deter 50% of the mass shootings, it'd still be worth it. Also, bombs made by amateurs don't always explode... not that I should even go down the rabbit hole far enough to have to arrive at that point.
The homemade napalm also is laughably ridiculous.
Drop your smart-ass attitude. I've just been trying to have a real discussion whether you agree or not and stop putting words in my mouth.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
I'm done. Been fun. I agree with a lot that was said on both sides.
"Americans" that can't stand the thought of Obama doing something that will "impede upon their freedom"/ better the country or god for bid, kill less people. Honestly, that's all it is. Can we just agree on that?
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
Not trying to attack but actually curious on this question - what "freedoms" do you mean? Is it just the basic right to do whatever you want being taken away that you'd be so pissed about? Or do you actually just like guns? Again, just curious to hear.
It's obviously very complex and not as simple as guns are cool. I got to get to work though. I'll try to chime in more in tomorrows death thread.
"Americans" that can't stand the thought of Obama doing something that will "impede upon their freedom"/ better the country or god for bid, kill less people. Honestly, that's all it is. Can we just agree on that?
Sure?
RE: RE: RE: So democrats are on the steps of the capital
Drop your smart-ass attitude. I've just been trying to have a real discussion whether you agree or not and stop putting words in my mouth.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
I'm done. Been fun. I agree with a lot that was said on both sides.
What words am I putting in your mouth? You said homemade napalm and pipe bombs were things you could make at 14 without the internet, and that people would start using bombs instead of guns.
If you're trying to have a real discussion, then I guess give something to support your position.
You may be trying to have a "real discussion" (as opposed to a fake discussion?), but it's coming off as trying to come up with scenarios to support a position that you're already invested in.
And to be clear, I'm not calling you stupid... I don't know you. I'm just saying your comment about guns and bombs was stupid, and I stand by that.
RE: RE: I'm just a stupid American that wants to keep his right to bear arms.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
I pray that you're never on the wrong end of a gun, as I pray that none of us are. If one is ever pointed at me and I'm about to meet my maker, at least I'll know I was on the right side of the issue.
RE: RE: RE: RE: So democrats are on the steps of the capital
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check loopholes, such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the illegal gun pipeline by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
Yeah, I own several guns, and I am not sure why people are that opposed to more stringent background checks.
I'd support all of that. People are just scared it will go a lot further so they don't want to give in on any of it.
But we need a compromise. We have to come to a middle ground. People are digging their heels in based on ideology, and as they do so, others are being murdered.
from doing an executive order based on this. General political comment but - what Repubs are going to have the balls to come out and say they agree? I think it would actually look good for them/help guys like Rubio or Bush for the final push if they came out in support of stricter gun laws.
for the people who grew up in a "normal" gun culture environment. Guys who hunt, shoot for fun, good ole country folk, who aren't a part of the problem (well maybe they are part of the "accident problem"). Guns are probably like football to those people. I didn't grow up that way, but I get it on some level. Doesn't mean we shouldn't ban legal ownership.
"Americans" that can't stand the thought of Obama doing something that will "impede upon their freedom"/ better the country or god for bid, kill less people. Honestly, that's all it is. Can we just agree on that?
Do you really believe that this discussion began in 2008?
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Right. I mean, wouldn't the shooters just go where the armed guards aren't, on the other side of campus? Or shoot the armed guards first? I imagine the affordable armed guards we are talking about wouldn't be terribly skilled, trained, or constantly vigilant.
RE: It's overwhelmingly disappointing that there cant even be a discussion
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
Man, I've been using rope the wrong fucking way all these years.
yah well apparently these "you gonna ban cars, knives?" people need it spelled out.
The statistics clearly show that you or a loved one is more likely to die by stabbing as opposed to a rifle, or more specifically, an "assault" rifle.
The statistics also show that more knives are owned and used by more people more frequently than are guns. Why, it's not even 9 am here yet and I've already used a knife 3 times. I have used a gun twice in 43 years.
It's hard enough to get enough competent teachers at most schools
capably trained people to staff up armed guards, not to mention the money to pay them. Yeah if there were 1 million bored secret service guys out there, sure. But the far more likely scenario is that we would be arming people who are incredibly undertrained and putting them in an extremely difficult situation that's basically asking for accidents.
RE: RE: It's overwhelmingly disappointing that there cant even be a discussion
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
See link below the NICS. Link - ( New Window )
Mike is there a national law requiring use of this system? The link says it provides services to 30 states so I'd be curious as to whether or not there's been any difference state to state. I'd guess CA is one of the states that uses it and we know the Oregon nut was able to get through the background checks.
That were it not for the availability of guns, these individuals would make napalm, or run over people with a car, head butt them to death of the mutitude of other Final Destination of scenerios on can think of to kill someone.
And yet, we aren't hearing about any of those happening, because of the availability of guns.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
And... that would be a pretty significant downgrade, would it not be?
Let's put it this way: if that argument of yours were turned against your by the anti gun folks, you'd feel quite different about it. "Don't worry, you can just use something else instead of a gun now!"
Wouldn't make the Top 20 of public health issues/epidemics this country has faced.
Which isn't to say there are acceptable and reasonable changes to be made, but not a single person has suggested an incremental regulation that would have prevented Oregon or Sandy Hook.
RE: RE: RE: It's overwhelmingly disappointing that there cant even be a discussion
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
See link below the NICS. Link - ( New Window )
Mike is there a national law requiring use of this system? The link says it provides services to 30 states so I'd be curious as to whether or not there's been any difference state to state. I'd guess CA is one of the states that uses it and we know the Oregon nut was able to get through the background checks.
It needs to be a requirement for all states. It's absurd that something this simple isn't a requirement.
in these type of debates tend to get hung up on either gross exaggeration or strawmen arguments.
If you talk about gun reform, it is inevitable that people scream about losing rights. And I've never gotten that stance. I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns - but to limit the type of weapon or to put restrictions on weapons seems to be a highly logical avenue. How does that lead to "We will lose rights!"?
debates like this because I really support the NRA as an organization who is an advocate for gun ownership, but they just make everything a black and white issue.
Sometimes, the best answers are just logical or rational ones, but it is almost like the NRA thinks any restriction equals infringement to rights.
It isn't just them - it is a mindset many people have. How many times have you heard somebody argue, "If we give in on X, then they will take Y and soo we will have nothing left"?
That isn't a logical argument, but it is one often used.
I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns !"?
The Washington Post just ran an editorial saying exactly this.
This is exactly what I wish were possible. Huge logistical challenges would make it incredibly difficult if the second amendment didn't make it impossible.
That were it not for the availability of guns, these individuals would make napalm, or run over people with a car, head butt them to death of the mutitude of other Final Destination of scenerios on can think of to kill someone.
And yet, we aren't hearing about any of those happening, because of the availability of guns.
debates like this because I really support the NRA as an organization who is an advocate for gun ownership, but they just make everything a black and white issue.
Sometimes, the best answers are just logical or rational ones, but it is almost like the NRA thinks any restriction equals infringement to rights.
It isn't just them - it is a mindset many people have. How many times have you heard somebody argue, "If we give in on X, then they will take Y and soo we will have nothing left"?
That isn't a logical argument, but it is one often used.
The NRA is not an advocate for fun ownership. They are an advocate for gun manufacturers. Lapierre is a fucking disgraceful human being...
in these type of debates tend to get hung up on either gross exaggeration or strawmen arguments.
If you talk about gun reform, it is inevitable that people scream about losing rights. And I've never gotten that stance. I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns - but to limit the type of weapon or to put restrictions on weapons seems to be a highly logical avenue. How does that lead to "We will lose rights!"?
That's the question I always have. The fact is we already limit weapons and people still have their rights. So how if we simply tighten those limits on some types of weapons does it change that? Other than fringe advocates very few people are for the total elimination of all guns.
in these type of debates tend to get hung up on either gross exaggeration or strawmen arguments.
If you talk about gun reform, it is inevitable that people scream about losing rights. And I've never gotten that stance. I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns - but to limit the type of weapon or to put restrictions on weapons seems to be a highly logical avenue. How does that lead to "We will lose rights!"?
That's the question I always have. The fact is we already limit weapons and people still have their rights. So how if we simply tighten those limits on some types of weapons does it change that? Other than fringe advocates very few people are for the total elimination of all guns.
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Right. I mean, wouldn't the shooters just go where the armed guards aren't, on the other side of campus? Or shoot the armed guards first? I imagine the affordable armed guards we are talking about wouldn't be terribly skilled, trained, or constantly vigilant.
Again at 1 in the morning? Good luck finding anyone on campus never mind armed guards.
I'm talking about the op. It happened on school grounds but doesn't seem to have a thing to do with a "school" shooting
in these type of debates tend to get hung up on either gross exaggeration or strawmen arguments.
If you talk about gun reform, it is inevitable that people scream about losing rights. And I've never gotten that stance. I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns - but to limit the type of weapon or to put restrictions on weapons seems to be a highly logical avenue. How does that lead to "We will lose rights!"?
That's the question I always have. The fact is we already limit weapons and people still have their rights. So how if we simply tighten those limits on some types of weapons does it change that? Other than fringe advocates very few people are for the total elimination of all guns.
Exactly what limits on what types do you propose?
I'm sure we won't agree but my point is even if we eliminated all semi-auto weapons people would still have the right to own guns. That wouldn't be taken from them any more than not being allow to own fully auto weapons does now.
RE: RE: So democrats are on the steps of the capital
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check loopholes, such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the illegal gun pipeline by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
This. Just because those things would not have prevented these specific mass killings, does not mean they should not be done. It does not mean they might not stop another one.
The flippant dismissiveness that gets tossed off by gun people is fucking maddening.
"Well you're never going to get them all, so why bother?"
"It wouldn't stop this particular scenario, so why bother?"
"People will just run them down in a car (no they won't), so why bother?"
Fuck this attitude. Seriously. You people line up behind a fucking ghoul like Lapierre and he doesn't give half a shit about you. I pray that none of us ever have to bury a small coffin because nobody feels like doing anything, or feels like doing the bare fucking minimum is more trouble than its worth, or feels like being inconvenienced in buying their 10th fucking gun is too much trouble because you want a gun and goddammit you need it RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Man, fuck this and the smug attitudes.
a President that is willing to step in and do something about pretty much the worst epidemic this country has ever seen.
You are an intensely stupid person.
See this is the whole issue, right here. People all over this country, whether adults, young people, or children, are being murdered at an alarming rate due to gun violence. Do you not see this? Can you not grasp the one basic idea that increasing regulation and having stricter gun control is a good fucking idea that will probably lead to less people killed? Tell your kids (if you have any) that you'll accept a mass murderer coming to their school and killing them, all because hey, your freedoms are still protected. But I'm the "stupid person" because I can see as clear as day that the issue is actually not complicated at all, it's pretty much black and white. And the sooner than gun owners, "constitutionalists" and "americans" realize this the fucking better.
It's OK to have a discussion on right vs wrong, idealogy, etc. What is not OK in my book is to sit on the sidelines, waving your freedom flag and act so out of touch with reality that you actually start to believe your own BS. These children being killed by guns aren't dying by accident. It's not cars, planes, disease, what have you. It's death by gun ownership, in the hands of people who shouldn't have access to them, period.
RE: RE: RE: So democrats are on the steps of the capital
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check loopholes, such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the illegal gun pipeline by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
This. Just because those things would not have prevented these specific mass killings, does not mean they should not be done. It does not mean they might not stop another one.
The flippant dismissiveness that gets tossed off by gun people is fucking maddening.
"Well you're never going to get them all, so why bother?"
"It wouldn't stop this particular scenario, so why bother?"
"People will just run them down in a car (no they won't), so why bother?"
Fuck this attitude. Seriously. You people line up behind a fucking ghoul like Lapierre and he doesn't give half a shit about you. I pray that none of us ever have to bury a small coffin because nobody feels like doing anything, or feels like doing the bare fucking minimum is more trouble than its worth, or feels like being inconvenienced in buying their 10th fucking gun is too much trouble because you want a gun and goddammit you need it RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Man, fuck this and the smug attitudes.
by saying it's a flawed analogy and not terribly logical, thereby making it a perfect fit in a debate about guns:
Do you know anyone who has a pilot's license and flies purely for fun? Maybe someone who even owns their own plane? Chances are, unless that person you know is John Travolta or Larry Ellis, the plane they own is a fairly Spartan, unassuming, just-get-the-job-done model. Most people who have a pilots license and fly just for their own personal use or enjoyment aren't qualified for and/or can't afford a retired fighter jet, a Learjet, or Christ, even a measly Eclipse 500. Would they want one of those three options? Of course! Anyone who's into flying planes for personal enjoyment would love the opportunity to get behind an old Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet like the one owned by the Google execs. But they accept the fact that due to their station in life they probably won't have such an opportunity, don't feel entitled to that kind of access, and are aware that any claim that they *need* such a plane wouldn't fly because their current Cessna is getting the job done just fine, thanks.
As long as we're discussing a topic that invites ridiculous parallels, doesn't this one have equal merit? What if we just set ridiculously high prices on firearms that are on a different level than your average revolver?
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
Yes, because the kids that are shooting classmates that they hate would surely not get them all at school if they knew it wasn't a "gun free zone".
Such fantastic fucking logic.
Gun free zone has little to nothing to do with why these crazy fucks target their own schools in the vast majority of cases.
I don't necessarily think getting rid of guns is the answer. "More guns!" certainly isn't the answer, either.
Idiot logic. If we protect the schools with armed security they wouldn't be safer. Brilliant.
Sure they would be "safer".
I'm not willing to have my kids go to school in fort knox because folks are scared that a shooter may show up, however.
They'd also be safer if we just got rid of schools altogether! Yay logic.
I'm sure we won't agree but my point is even if we eliminated all semi-auto weapons people would still have the right to own guns. That wouldn't be taken from them any more than not being allow to own fully auto weapons does now.
People today can own fully automatic weapons. They need special permits and registrations, but I digress.
Eliminate all semi-automatic weapons? Does that include any weapon that is not "single shot"? Anything with a clip or a magazine?
That's all handguns in use today. All shotguns and all rifles. In other words, all modern guns.
by saying it's a flawed analogy and not terribly logical, thereby making it a perfect fit in a debate about guns:
Do you know anyone who has a pilot's license and flies purely for fun? Maybe someone who even owns their own plane? Chances are, unless that person you know is John Travolta or Larry Ellis, the plane they own is a fairly Spartan, unassuming, just-get-the-job-done model. Most people who have a pilots license and fly just for their own personal use or enjoyment aren't qualified for and/or can't afford a retired fighter jet, a Learjet, or Christ, even a measly Eclipse 500. Would they want one of those three options? Of course! Anyone who's into flying planes for personal enjoyment would love the opportunity to get behind an old Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet like the one owned by the Google execs. But they accept the fact that due to their station in life they probably won't have such an opportunity, don't feel entitled to that kind of access, and are aware that any claim that they *need* such a plane wouldn't fly because their current Cessna is getting the job done just fine, thanks.
As long as we're discussing a topic that invites ridiculous parallels, doesn't this one have equal merit? What if we just set ridiculously high prices on firearms that are on a different level than your average revolver?
I don't mind the use of the market, on the margin, to limit to some extent the sale of guns and perhaps ammunition, but you do realize that at its core you are limiting the exercise of a constitutional right based on income level?
Putting aside all arguments about the legal interpertation of the 2nd amendment, which I know is a lot to ask, do gun owners really think their weapons would be in any way effective in overcoming or even holding at bay the force of today's American government?
Where I live, the local police department is armed with Bushmaster assault rifles, 9mm automatic sidearms, shotguns, tasers, tear-gas, bullet-proof body armor, armored personnel vehicles, armored military transports, encrypted two-way radio communication, on demand coordination with county law enforcement that has air support assets on stand-by and further coordination with NY state law enforcement resources and New York National Guard forces. I'm not even going to mention the truly extraordinary and completely overwhelming array of force resources and materials available to the federal forces of our modern national security / military state apparatus.
Its a real stretch for me to imagine that owning a gun, or even an armory of weapons, is going to be any match for the absolutely overwhelming force of my local police department. But its just utterly and completely ridiculous fantasy to imagine there's any practical way for even very well armed militia of citizens to oppose the military forces of the US governement.
None of this is to say that I hate freedom or that I'm not extremely concerned with the tyranny of government. I just wonder how much, indeed, if at all the 2nd amendment protects us from the very real and very legitimate concern of government tyranny.
I'm sure we won't agree but my point is even if we eliminated all semi-auto weapons people would still have the right to own guns. That wouldn't be taken from them any more than not being allow to own fully auto weapons does now.
People today can own fully automatic weapons. They need special permits and registrations, but I digress.
Eliminate all semi-automatic weapons? Does that include any weapon that is not "single shot"? Anything with a clip or a magazine?
That's all handguns in use today. All shotguns and all rifles. In other words, all modern guns.
My point isn't to debate the specific. I mean really what point would that serve here? My point is they would still have the right to own guns. There are plenty of bolt and lever action rifles that aren't semi-auto. Plenty of shotguns that aren't. They all hunt equally well as semi-auto's. But again my point isn't about selecting where you do draw the line if you tighten the limits but instead to point out people would still have the rights to own guns to hunt, shoot and protect their home. You may not agree with the restrictions but you can't say they no longer had the right to own a gun.
Putting aside all arguments about the legal interpertation of the 2nd amendment, which I know is a lot to ask, do gun owners really think their weapons would be in any way effective in overcoming or even holding at bay the force of today's American government?
None of this is to say that I hate freedom or that I'm not extremely concerned with the tyranny of government. I just wonder how much, indeed, if at all the 2nd amendment protects us from the very real and very legitimate concern of government tyranny.
Well said.
There's also something to be said for the fact that the framers of the constitution were neither infallible nor able to predict the future. Things that were applicable in the late 18th century may not still be, hard as that may be for some to fathom.
I know your argument is about where to draw the line.
I don't mind the use of the market, on the margin, to limit to some extent the sale of guns and perhaps ammunition, but you do realize that at its core you are limiting the exercise of a constitutional right based on income level?
Not really, unless you argue that the constitutional right is meant to bestow access to whatever the citizen wants.
If all the amendment is saying is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, isn't that amendment being met by access to an affordable gun?
If we're going to argue that making an exotic weapon expensive "infringes" upon a person's right to own a gun then fuck, you may as well say that merely charging money for a gun in the first place also infringes upon the same right.
RE: I know your argument is about where to draw the line.
That's what I was trying to get at. Where is that line? How do you define "semi-automatic"?
Maybe I'm wrong but I consider a semi-auto any gun where all you have to do it keep re-squeezing the trigger and it will fire until clip was empty. Basically as fast as you can pull the trigger it fires a round. Whether that is correct definition or not, IMO while your average citizen may enjoy that weapon he doesn't need it for anything that a gun which required him to manually slide another cartridge into the chamber with a bolt or lever and would be limited to say 5 rounds wouldn't do for him.
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.
RE: RE: I know your argument is about where to draw the line.
That's what I was trying to get at. Where is that line? How do you define "semi-automatic"?
Maybe I'm wrong but I consider a semi-auto any gun where all you have to do it keep re-squeezing the trigger and it will fire until clip was empty. Basically as fast as you can pull the trigger it fires a round. Whether that is correct definition or not, IMO while your average citizen may enjoy that weapon he doesn't need it for anything that a gun which required him to manually slide another cartridge into the chamber with a bolt or lever and would be limited to say 5 rounds wouldn't do for him.
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.
I follow what you are saying. I was just clarifying what all of that entails. It's all non single action handguns and most other weapons that you want to eliminate.
RE: RE: I know your argument is about where to draw the line.
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.
about guns , it's over, the gun guys won, there are no solutions, there is only hoping you and yours don't get shot. I don't walk around worrying about it, but if it happens, I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time? I'm shit out of luck. Welcome to America in 2015 where the gun rules and it will never change, never
about guns , it's over, the gun guys won, there are no solutions, there is only hoping you and yours don't get shot. I don't walk around worrying about it, but if it happens, I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time? I'm shit out of luck. Welcome to America in 2015 where the gun rules and it will never change, never
Just read this today, it's hard to disagree.
"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over." - Dan Hodges
about guns , it's over, the gun guys won, there are no solutions, there is only hoping you and yours don't get shot. I don't walk around worrying about it, but if it happens, I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time? I'm shit out of luck. Welcome to America in 2015 where the gun rules and it will never change, never
Just read this today, it's hard to disagree.
"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over." - Dan Hodges
While that line is emotional why wouldn't that have been true of Columbine, those Amish school children being killed or any of the many other cases of school shooting?
it is over, the bell has rung you can't I ring it. The genies is out of the bottle. 300 million pieces of white rice would boggle my mind, but that many guns? I can't comprehend that number in my little head. 300 million, I should give a gun to everyone I place or send them out as gifts for the holidays. 300 million guns! Am I the only one flabbergasted by that number?
Putting aside all arguments about the legal interpertation of the 2nd amendment, which I know is a lot to ask, do gun owners really think their weapons would be in any way effective in overcoming or even holding at bay the force of today's American government?
Where I live, the local police department is armed with Bushmaster assault rifles, 9mm automatic sidearms, shotguns, tasers, tear-gas, bullet-proof body armor, armored personnel vehicles, armored military transports, encrypted two-way radio communication, on demand coordination with county law enforcement that has air support assets on stand-by and further coordination with NY state law enforcement resources and New York National Guard forces. I'm not even going to mention the truly extraordinary and completely overwhelming array of force resources and materials available to the federal forces of our modern national security / military state apparatus.
Its a real stretch for me to imagine that owning a gun, or even an armory of weapons, is going to be any match for the absolutely overwhelming force of my local police department. But its just utterly and completely ridiculous fantasy to imagine there's any practical way for even very well armed militia of citizens to oppose the military forces of the US governement.
None of this is to say that I hate freedom or that I'm not extremely concerned with the tyranny of government. I just wonder how much, indeed, if at all the 2nd amendment protects us from the very real and very legitimate concern of government tyranny.
I think most reasonable people get that we've passed the point of a citizens militia fighting off a tyrannical government event. But some people choose to live in a fantasy, especially when theyre the swashbuckling hero.
I think an interesting point is the continued militarization of police forces, which have traditionally been supported the right. Think we would need SWAT teams armed with military grade hardware if there weren't yokels out there with automatic weapon? Gangs with Uzis?
it is over, the bell has rung you can't I ring it. The genies is out of the bottle. 300 million pieces of white rice would boggle my mind, but that many guns? I can't comprehend that number in my little head. 300 million, I should give a gun to everyone I place or send them out as gifts for the holidays. 300 million guns! Am I the only one flabbergasted by that number?
It is pretty insane. There are more guns than cars! Think of all the cars you see in your average day. Imagine if you saw that many guns on average instead.
RE: RE: RE: I know your argument is about where to draw the line.
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?
it is over, the bell has rung you can't I ring it. The genies is out of the bottle. 300 million pieces of white rice would boggle my mind, but that many guns? I can't comprehend that number in my little head. 300 million, I should give a gun to everyone I place or send them out as gifts for the holidays. 300 million guns! Am I the only one flabbergasted by that number?
It is pretty insane. There are more guns than cars! Think of all the cars you see in your average day. Imagine if you saw that many guns on average instead.
This is the root of the problem. We've let our society become replete with firearms. There's no amount of 'control' or restrictions at this point that will fix it. We won't be able to stop crazy folks from getting them even if it were easy to determine who is and is not crazy. They're just too common.
The only way to fix this, especially since you can't just ban them is to create economic incentives to get folks to get rid of guns. Buy backs for guns that folks turn in, big, big taxes for those who don't. The right to bear arms in the US has a cost on society that is not borne by the owners of guns appropriately. Let's tax the shit out of them.
The fight is over. They must laugh their asses off at us at the NRA. They are sitting with pocket Aces and a pair of Aces showing. They don't have to spend a nickel, there are 300 million reasons not to. Just let guys like us ramble on while they collect donations. It's a beautiful thing if you think about it. Kudos to Wayne LaPierre and company.
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
there won't be any house to house searches anytime soon, but what shouldn't be lost here is that we've created a culture where too many people have guns which they truly don't need, many of whom don't know how to use them properly and some of which intended to use them for malevolent purposes.
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
there won't be any house to house searches anytime soon, but what shouldn't be lost here is that we've created a culture where too many people have guns which they truly don't need, many of whom don't know how to use them properly and some of which intended to use them for malevolent purposes.
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
Yes. Guns are engrained in the fabric of our society and are now part of our culture. When this is coupled with the amount of guns out there, it seems that there really isn't much we can do to make the problem better. All we can do is try to ensure that it doesn't get much worse.
there won't be any house to house searches anytime soon, but what shouldn't be lost here is that we've created a culture where too many people have guns which they truly don't need, many of whom don't know how to use them properly and some of which intended to use them for malevolent purposes.
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
Yes. Guns are engrained in the fabric of our society and are now part of our culture. When this is coupled with the amount of guns out there, it seems that there really isn't much we can do to make the problem better. All we can do is try to ensure that it doesn't get much worse.
We already do, which makes the click your heels and wish them all away positions of some posters that much more laughable.
Yet the "we have so many so why even bother to consider trying something" is the flip side of the same coin.
You're right you couldn't simply eliminate them but you could over time improve the situation. It would take a lifetime but if we had the desire to, maybe we could leave the place better off for the next generation.
For example I'll use the hypothetical that there was a consensus that we should do away with all semi-auto weapons.
You have a target date to where they were no longer be legal to manufacture or sold in this country. Sure there would be millions out there and more people would rush to buy more and hoard them. You obviously can't confiscate them so anyone who owns one can keep it but he can't sell it. Then you add a small tax on all ammo to where their would be a fund created that would offer to buy and destroy any of those weapons for a premium from anyone who wants to sell one. Allow individuals and corporations the ability to make a tax deductible contribution to the fund. Any gun of that category involved in a crime would of course be confiscated and destroyed. People who owned them would guard and secure them more rigidly over time because they would become more valuable and irreplaceable as time passed and more were taken out of the circulation. I'm also sure smarter people than me could even offer more ideas that would work. These ideas are just throwing things out as examples.
Would this get rid of them all? Of course not but would it make a difference between now and fifty or seventy five years from now? I have to believe it would. Not only would there be a decrease in those guns the gun culture itself would likely to have been altered as new enthusiast who bought single action guns and who's skill sets and the sports and hobbies that go along with them would be altered in that direction.
You're right we can't wish them away but because of that to throw up our hands and say nothing can be done moving forward which might improve safety in any degree is just as simplistic a view.
If they are ingrained and removal wouldn't solve the issue anyway
I still think it's more or equally (in)effective to go after things that may influence people's usage of guns: ban reportings of shootings/shooter identities; ban or severely age restrict violent video games and movies, monitor more closely and restrict people diagnosed with mental disabilities; re-structure schools and malls to provide more cohesive social groupings, etc. Look for the reasons people use guns to commit violent acts and work on resolving those and then guns or no, shootings may (or may not) decrease.
1)Individual people have too many guns. How many guns are too many? Who determines that? Also, since the overwhelming majority of gun owners, to include people who own quite a few guns, don't commit any crimes, how much of a driver of violence is this?
2)Safe weapons handling training is fine by me. The Marines drilled the 4 rules of weapon safety into my head permanently. However, accidental discharges caused by negligent weapons handling is a tiny, tiny slice of firearm deaths. It's not going to accomplish what you're purporting.
3)Of course people with malevolent intentions shouldn't have access to firearms. How do we identify those people? While anyone who commits mass murder can be said to have some kind of mental health problem, because a human being doesn't massacre other human beings without one, the causes are not so easily identifiable. So far, in the case of the Oregon asshole, I've seen specific mention of depression and Aspergers, yet millions and millions of people suffering those conditions would never hurt a fly. People who have been adjudicated mentally defective or who have been committed to a mental hospital are already forbidden from purchasing firearms. So do you ban anyone who takes anti-depressants? Anyone seeing a shrink? How do you draw the line?
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
While there is a constitutional right to bear arms, there is not a constitutional right to manufacture and sell arms.
Somehow make it unprofitable or even illegal (probably not possible) to manufacture and sell arms, most likely by repealing liability protection they currently enjoy. And then wait a long long time.
They exist in large numbers in the United States and are a right. People should deal in facts, not hyperbole.
I would start with your idea about buy backs, particularly targeting handguns in urban areas - you know, the what and where of most of the deaths related to guns. Quite frankly, it's more than a little unseemly that people made this an issue when white kids in schools (college or elementary) started getting killed, but I digress.
1. Federal funding for buy backs.
2. Marginal increases in tax rates on both guns and ammunition
3. Close the gun show "loophole" - it won't do anything, but will shut some people up
4. Expand the scope of items in the background check that can prevent a purchase - they did this with domestic violence - perhaps to includes being charged with a felony (though lifted after some period).
5. Legalize marijuana on a nationwide basis
6. Criminal liability for the improper storage of a weapon used in the commission of a crime
I would also strip away the useless laws related to the cosmetic appearance of guns - most of the state bans on assault weapons are horseshit appeals to ignorance.
I would probably keep the magazine limitations in place - useless, but will shut people up, which has some utility.
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.
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
And there you have it.
Gun advocates poke holes in any idea that comes along and when asked for one of their own?
If you do believe that mass killings are more common now than ever before, why is there little interest in why we seem to have more and more people who enthusiastically murder as many strangers as possible? Again, a gun is only a tool. To quote Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann, it is a hard heart that kills. Why is this happening? On that note, I thought the piece below musing on the similarities between American mass killers and ISIS volunteers was interesting. Link - ( New Window )
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
And there you have it.
Gun advocates poke holes in any idea that comes along and when asked for one of their own?
\_(ツ)_/
Well, you asked for an answer from someone "who thinks guns are a great idea." I don't think anyone here qualifies as such a person. Apparently, no one simply "thinks guns are a great idea." Everyone who has them wishes they didn't need them, but alas, they do, and so they reluctantly own them.
I have a deer rifle, a shotgun and a .22 rifle. I think it is great to be able to get outdoors and enjoy nature when occasionally hunting. I like to be able to provide some healthy tasty venison for my family which they all enjoy. I like to be able to take my son or daughter along for a walk through the woods and occasionally sitting in spots patiently when hunting. You can have some terrific conversations with a child when slowing down and siting outdoors.
I keep them put away and the ammo locked separately in a secure box. While I guess I could defend our home with one to tell the truth it would take me too long to find the box in the closet and even get to it to do anything. While I don't judge anyone who does I personally don't own a gun to be able to shoot another person so I don't have any prepared for the possibility.
some say disarm completely, you imply arming everyone (who pass some initial tests/checks) is a better idea. One of the ideas doesn't put guns in the hands of MANY people who are incredibly dim-witted/make poor decisions/have anger issues/are mentally unstable--even though never before diagnosed.
if my answers frighten you, then cease asking scary questions
But they are already age restricted. This will also be more and more difficult to enforce as people are now moving towards downloading games instead of physically purchasing them.
It's a red herring though as violent video games really aren't a cause of these mass shootings IMO.
I don't know how much of a dent restricting the media's ability to identify reporters would make in these shootings, and that comes with its own litany of constitutional questions, but I do feel it would have an impact to some extent.
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
Well, I guess that would turn up the folks that are up to no good with illegal firearms. But if they had them legally, that wouldn't do much. And a lot of the tragedies we see come from legally purchased guns that perhaps arent even carried until someone snaps. I'm not sure how effective it would be.
And does that plan scale to 300 million americans? Am I gonna get stopped and frisked? Or will that law of the land perhaps not get applied evenly? How effective would it be at preventing an event like the one that started this thread?
Does the second amendment really trump the 4th, too? Valid question. Why should 100% of us give up our rights to not be subject to random searches to protect the rights of 30% of folks who own guns? Seems to me like a big cost with a questionable return.
But, if I were in congress, I might agree to this if folks agreed to taxes/buy back.
If there were a way to stop glamorizing these assholes, I think that would help. Many of them write in their notes or journals or whatever of admiration for prior mass killers and a desire to be remembered and famous as they are. How do you do that with a free press and the internet, though? I think the idea of avoiding using the names of killers in news covering such events is smart. I've seen a fair bit of it in blogs, actually - referring to such incidents by the location they occurred in rather than by the monsters who commit them. That's not going to keep the name from being out there, though.
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
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.
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
IOW, you don't want to violate the Constitution?
I don't think gun restrictions violates the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give carte blanche to have loose restrictions on guns.
Personally, I also think that the Constitution should be amended and updated with the times. I don't think that many of the original reasons the framers included the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution are valid today, and the amendment did not take into account the technological advances that have made guns even more deadly than they were in the late 1700s.
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
RE: if my answers frighten you, then cease asking scary questions
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.
It seems that most of these mass killers are males who are mad at society due to being friendless, lonely, and rejected by women.
Graphics have improved considerably, but the leap in graphics from 2005-2015 is not as big as the leap from 1995-2005. It's kind of immaterial though, as I don't see much evidence, if any, that video games have anything to do with these mass shootings.
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.
the gun freaks and 2nd Amendment Patriots have won and they will keep on laughing at you because they know they win this argument
I don't think they've won. We are 13 months away from a very important election, and I'm not referring to the Presidential one.
I think what Headhunter is saying is that the amount of guns already in our country and the extent to which they are part of the fabric of our society means that "gun supporters" have won. Everything else past this point is merely damage control.
Maybe long term they haven't "won", but this is a tangled web that could potentially take generations to unravel.
The last I hear it ever seriously mentioned was back when Tipper Gore was pushing the idea. But I agree I don't think it turns any average child into a killer but I do wonder about a child with emotional and mental problems playing some newer games over and over if it may not have some affect.
it's interesting how you guys delude yourselves into believing
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.
RE: it's interesting how you guys delude yourselves into believing
that your position is overwhelmingly popular. It really isn't.
Popular opinion one way or the other seems to be very regional. I will say that I've seen MANY more 2nd amendment supporters in my area, which is NYC/Central NJ, than I recall growing up. Or maybe people are just far more vocal about it...
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 haven't ever read where some boys watch a movie over and over for hours at a time for long period of times like some do with gaming.
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.
it's interesting how you guys delude yourselves into believing
Greg from LI : 4:20 pm : link : reply
that your position is overwhelmingly popular. It really isn't.
In sheer number of people it is overwhelmingly popular. Less than half the population owns guns and even Fox News showed a poll last month that showed 77% wanted some form of gun control.
You can argue constitutional rights, the joys of owning a gun or whatever, but to act as if that stance is popular is the true delusion.
RE: it's interesting how you guys delude yourselves into believing
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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 dont need guns, as their having guns doesnt 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 dont need guns, as their having guns doesnt 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 think it's a conspiracy driven by proponents of the "on line" degrees.
1) Being a hot female
2) Being extremely rich
3) Knowing how to cook well (I get to determine if you do)
4) Not minding if you are part of a dictatorship ran by me
Applications will be accepted following the Columbus Day weekend.
Why is this an epidemic in the USA and not Canada for example?
No, lets up the anti and let teachers have guns, or better yet, lets get security guards with guns in every school across the country.
Quote:
we need to reduce the number of colleges, schools and other points of gathering. But, like always, politicians refuse to do anything to help. Sad really.
No, lets up the anti and let teachers have guns, or better yet, lets get security guards with guns in every school across the country.
Maybe that's what's needed...
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
He's joking
I knew you were, I was as well.
1) Being a hot female
2) Being extremely rich
3) Knowing how to cook well (I get to determine if you do)
4) Not minding if you are part of a dictatorship ran by me
Applications will be accepted following the Columbus Day weekend.
I'm applying early.
1.) Not a hot female - tough
2.) Not rich, but self sufficient
3.) Can cook well and for a large group - did AFJROTC week as chief cook for 120+; bonus - all survived without diarrhea.
4.) School background indicates I can be part of a dictatorship (but don't turn your back)
5.) Can bring my own tools
1.) Not a hot female - tough
2.) Not rich, but self sufficient
3.) Can cook well and for a large group - did AFJROTC week as chief cook for 120+; bonus - all survived without diarrhea.
4.) School background indicates I can be part of a dictatorship (but don't turn your back)
5.) Can bring my own tools
Your application is under consideration. However, to be honest with you, I'm not liking your chances. Now if you were an Air Force Academy grad, I might reconsider...bahahaha...who am I kidding? You're in! Just having "Marine" in your alma matre is good enough for me even if it has totally a different meaning. Having said that, two of the best Marine officers I've worked with were both Merchant Marine Academy grads. One was a tanker and the other was an infantry officer.
Quote:
I'm applying early.
1.) Not a hot female - tough
2.) Not rich, but self sufficient
3.) Can cook well and for a large group - did AFJROTC week as chief cook for 120+; bonus - all survived without diarrhea.
4.) School background indicates I can be part of a dictatorship (but don't turn your back)
5.) Can bring my own tools
Your application is under consideration. However, to be honest with you, I'm not liking your chances. Now if you were an Air Force Academy grad, I might reconsider...bahahaha...who am I kidding? You're in! Just having "Marine" in your alma matre is good enough for me even if it has totally a different meaning. Having said that, two of the best Marine officers I've worked with were both Merchant Marine Academy grads. One was a tanker and the other was an infantry officer.
If you consider AFA a better choice, maybe I'll withdraw my application. They're not called "chair force" for nothing. Besides, on top, you'd have a built in logistics officer (notice I've promoted myself).. my app just got stronger.
Ha! I like your drive to move up in ranks! Now for these guns...where can we get some more before they're outlawed?
Quote:
Ha! I like your drive to move up in ranks! Now for these guns...where can we get some more before they're outlawed?
I suggest BYOG - that way we know the applicant has at least seen one out of a box. That way we can be part of a "Well Regulated Militia." We then fulfill our oath to the Constitution.
Yes, because the kids that are shooting classmates that they hate would surely not get them all at school if they knew it wasn't a "gun free zone".
Such fantastic fucking logic.
Gun free zone has little to nothing to do with why these crazy fucks target their own schools in the vast majority of cases.
I don't necessarily think getting rid of guns is the answer. "More guns!" certainly isn't the answer, either.
That might sate our appetites for violence and lead to tranquility over the rest of the year.
Quote:
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
Yes, because the kids that are shooting classmates that they hate would surely not get them all at school if they knew it wasn't a "gun free zone".
Such fantastic fucking logic.
Gun free zone has little to nothing to do with why these crazy fucks target their own schools in the vast majority of cases.
I don't necessarily think getting rid of guns is the answer. "More guns!" certainly isn't the answer, either.
Guns are just the best tool, so it's used most often. I get the idea that with a knife it's harder to take out many people, but if guns didn't exist these people would build pipe bombs and set some off in crowded places, etc. There are many creative ways to cause more destruction. People are going to destroy if they want to.
That argument, "banning cars, banning knives" the major difference between a car or a knife and a gun is.....GUNS HAVE ONE USE, and one use only....THEY SHOOT BULLETS.....
You see with a car you can drive around in them and go places, and with knives you can cut butter and meat or filet a fish......with a gun you can........you can......errr....shoot bullets.
and to preempt the responses like "what about a gun without bullets?", I maintain that guns have a sole purpose.
Quote:
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
That argument, "banning cars, banning knives" the major difference between a car or a knife and a gun is.....GUNS HAVE ONE USE, and one use only....THEY SHOOT BULLETS.....
You see with a car you can drive around in them and go places, and with knives you can cut butter and meat or filet a fish......with a gun you can........you can......errr....shoot bullets.
and to preempt the responses like "what about a gun without bullets?", I maintain that guns have a sole purpose.
What about nerf guns, Mr. Smarty Pants?
How about paint guns? Spray guns? Refractory guns? Hmmm?
Guns are just the best tool, so it's used most often. I get the idea that with a knife it's harder to take out many people, but if guns didn't exist these people would build pipe bombs and set some off in crowded places, etc. There are many creative ways to cause more destruction. People are going to destroy if they want to.
Guns are just the best tool, so it's used most often. I get the idea that with a knife it's harder to take out many people, but if guns didn't exist these people would build pipe bombs and set some off in crowded places, etc. There are many creative ways to cause more destruction. People are going to destroy if they want to.
Yes they will, if they want to. But guns make it incredibly easy.
About 390 kids die each year in pools.
Perspective. I know it's scary, but you are more likely to drown in a pool next year than get caught in a mass shooting.
I know, we do things that are fun and stuff. Just saying it's not the epidemic it seems at times.
We need to quit making the shooters infamous in the media. Report the shooting. Leave out the picture and name of the shooters. Maybe prevent some of the copycats.
That might sate our appetites for violence and lead to tranquility over the rest of the year.
Dude...the lawyers for Hunger Games author will be contacting you soon.
What about nerf guns, Mr. Smarty Pants?
How about paint guns? Spray guns? Refractory guns? Hmmm?
Ahhhhh-Haaaaa, YOU You...I see what you did there, you
Quote:
mass shootings? It's absolutely horrible, but what is the perspective? Really curious. Like is it the same amount of kids that drown each year in pools?
Guns are just the best tool, so it's used most often. I get the idea that with a knife it's harder to take out many people, but if guns didn't exist these people would build pipe bombs and set some off in crowded places, etc. There are many creative ways to cause more destruction. People are going to destroy if they want to.
yeah, building a pipe bomb is just as easy as shooting a gun.
Just an example. When school let's out drive over kids in a big truck. Certainly that is just as easy.
It's a real shame the left did nothing when it had control of the White House, Congress, and Senate.
Quote:
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
Yes, because the kids that are shooting classmates that they hate would surely not get them all at school if they knew it wasn't a "gun free zone".
Such fantastic fucking logic.
Gun free zone has little to nothing to do with why these crazy fucks target their own schools in the vast majority of cases.
I don't necessarily think getting rid of guns is the answer. "More guns!" certainly isn't the answer, either.
Quote:
In comment 12535933 LS said:
Quote:
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
Yes, because the kids that are shooting classmates that they hate would surely not get them all at school if they knew it wasn't a "gun free zone".
Such fantastic fucking logic.
Gun free zone has little to nothing to do with why these crazy fucks target their own schools in the vast majority of cases.
I don't necessarily think getting rid of guns is the answer. "More guns!" certainly isn't the answer, either.
But fewer schools just might be.
But wouldn't fewer schools just have more targets in one place?
Quote:
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
That argument, "banning cars, banning knives" the major difference between a car or a knife and a gun is.....GUNS HAVE ONE USE, and one use only....THEY SHOOT BULLETS.....
You see with a car you can drive around in them and go places, and with knives you can cut butter and meat or filet a fish......with a gun you can........you can......errr....shoot bullets.
and to preempt the responses like "what about a gun without bullets?", I maintain that guns have a sole purpose.
Hunting, sport shooting, and protection. Those are the intended uses for guns. Fertilizer has one main use too but apparently it can be used to blow things up.
About 390 kids die each year in pools.
Perspective. I know it's scary, but you are more likely to drown in a pool next year than get caught in a mass shooting.
I know, we do things that are fun and stuff. Just saying it's not the epidemic it seems at times.
We need to quit making the shooters infamous in the media. Report the shooting. Leave out the picture and name of the shooters. Maybe prevent some of the copycats.
I wondered why this wasn't on the news this morning.
Link - ( New Window )
Judging by the comedy hour in this thread I think most people don't care much about this particular one. Either that or everyone is probably numb to it at this point which is really sad.
Not on this forum, but I've already read and heard lots of comments similar to "well, it was only one person killed and three others wounded so it wasn't so bad. Not as bad as usual." How sad is it that this is the state of our country? People at school trying to set themselves up for their future are killed all the time here, completely robbed of that future, and it just seems like no big deal to people half the time.
But like plenty of others have said, if a bunch of children being massacred didn't change anything, nothing will.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Quote:
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Quote:
In comment 12536063 RobCrossRiver56 said:
Quote:
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Columbine didn't happen at one in the morning when school wasn't in session if you recall.
Hunting, sport shooting, and protection. Those are the intended uses for guns. Fertilizer has one main use too but apparently it can be used to blow things up.
Yup, they shoot bullets. That's what I said.
Lets pretend we have TIME MACHINE -
FREEZE FRAME - Your kid is in a classroom, and a lunatic with a loaded AK-47 gun walks in with some crazy motive - UN-FREEZE FRAME
What's your stance on gun control now?
Ask yourself this - Would you rather be in a classroom with a guy with an AK-47 pointed at everybody, or would you rather be in the path of a guy with a car intent on running people down?
Classroom with a guy with an AK, or a knife?
Classroom with a guy with an AK, or a bag of fertilizer?
Point is, it's too easy to kill somebody with a gun. You can conceal it, walk in a public area and take out a lot of people at once with little to no effort.
Quote:
In comment 12536068 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
In comment 12536063 RobCrossRiver56 said:
Quote:
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Columbine didn't happen at one in the morning when school wasn't in session if you recall.
Yes, it happened in the middle of the day with an armed security officer present.
Quote:
Hunting, sport shooting, and protection. Those are the intended uses for guns. Fertilizer has one main use too but apparently it can be used to blow things up.
Yup, they shoot bullets. That's what I said.
Lets pretend we have TIME MACHINE -
FREEZE FRAME - Your kid is in a classroom, and a lunatic with a loaded AK-47 gun walks in with some crazy motive - UN-FREEZE FRAME
What's your stance on gun control now?
Ask yourself this - Would you rather be in a classroom with a guy with an AK-47 pointed at everybody, or would you rather be in the path of a guy with a car intent on running people down?
Classroom with a guy with an AK, or a knife?
Classroom with a guy with an AK, or a bag of fertilizer?
Point is, it's too easy to kill somebody with a gun. You can conceal it, walk in a public area and take out a lot of people at once with little to no effort.
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
If you really want to decrease murders by guns then you'll need a strong federal bill and a strong gun buy-back program. Australia had a serious gun violence program and passed strong anti-gun laws in 1996 and had an almost immediate dramatic decrease in gun violence. It's a shame certain politicians are too fat with gun lobby money to try and prevent that constant gun deaths from occurring.
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
For the most part, knives are designed to cut things for utility.
What are guns designed to do?
This incident happened at one in the morning.
Doesn't appear to be anyone making a statement or shooting up children in classrooms.
Are you comparing this to Columbine?
For the most part, knives are designed to cut things for utility.
What are guns designed to do?
1) I don't think knives were designed for utility use. In all likelihood, they were designed to kill prey.
2) Who cares what guns were designed for? They exist today, to the tune of 360 million in the United Sates. If you are proposing a full scale recall, it will never happen and it will never work.
3) Both sides need to stop digging into their trenches and need to come to the table to enact stricter gun ownership laws. Both sides are afraid to come to the table, as they feel they will not get everything they want. I don't understand why both sides see this as an all or nothing topic.
This incident happened at one in the morning.
Doesn't appear to be anyone making a statement or shooting up children in classrooms.
Are you comparing this to Columbine?
No, I'm only saying that armed security guards at schools are not the answer
Quote:
Understand that.
This incident happened at one in the morning.
Doesn't appear to be anyone making a statement or shooting up children in classrooms.
Are you comparing this to Columbine?
No, I'm only saying that armed security guards at schools are not the answer
And I'm just saying especially at 1 in the morning when the school is basically shut down.
yah well apparently these "you gonna ban cars, knives?" people need it spelled out.
I think it is convenient for politicians to use these events to attempt to thwart our rights without considering the root cause of these actions..We also have the world government types that do not want us to have guns either. .
What would be interesting is go back many years and catalog all of the data statistically to determine if this is really something new or just sensationalized and framed by the media for an intended effect. That is their business to frame something to sway your thoughts and emotions. Anyone that has studied communications theory in a university can see right through this shit.
As an example, Chicago has consistently the same or more murders every week than one of these events and is a gunfree environment, except for the individual committing the murders. Why isn't that discussed?
Seems to me that when you look at the stats, everything is worse when the guns are taken away. What is more amusing is a POTUS that seems he can bypass laws and constitutional rights.
Quote:
Man, I've been using rope the wrong fucking way all these years.
yah well apparently these "you gonna ban cars, knives?" people need it spelled out.
The statistics clearly show that you or a loved one is more likely to die by stabbing as opposed to a rifle, or more specifically, an "assault" rifle. Although I am sure you are already aware of the statistics, so please feel free to continue to be sarcastic if it is a means to help you cope.
Not sure why I am getting sucked into this pointless discussion. I assume we all want the same thing -- for this shit to stop.
For the most part, knives are designed to cut things for utility.
What are guns designed to do?
+10000. We may disagree on many things but Britt, you are spot on here. The "well are you gonna ban cars???" people are entirely missing the point.
They're apples and oranges.
Quote:
And predictable. We have a problem in this nation and we need to do something about it. But I fear we won't.
It's a real shame the left did nothing when it had control of the White House, Congress, and Senate.
They can't. This is just Kabuki theatre that benefits politicians at the expense of the individuals lives because we a civilization in decline because of our leaders. Good luck taking away that 2nd ammendment. Best comment of the week, Matt Drudge asked Obama and Hillary to disarm themselves like they want everyone to do. Priceless and exposes this whole situation. Its not the guns, its the fucking people.
I'm...evolving (the term of the day, I suppose). Seeing as I was quickly disabused of the notion that exploitation was in bad form. So, just joining in with everyone else and their ideas of what's wrong and what should be done.
About 390 kids die each year in pools.
Perspective. I know it's scary, but you are more likely to drown in a pool next year than get caught in a mass shooting.
I know, we do things that are fun and stuff. Just saying it's not the epidemic it seems at times.
We need to quit making the shooters infamous in the media. Report the shooting. Leave out the picture and name of the shooters. Maybe prevent some of the copycats.
I don't think anyone thinks its likely. The outrage comes from it being so senseless and the victims so innocent. At least with drowning's while a horrible accident for sure there is some personal responsibly involved. Sending your child off to school shouldn't be in the same classification.
I do agree however that the time has come to not publicize anything about these killers. Don't give them the one thing some of them may crave, notoriety.
everything political you stupid fuck
Quote:
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
Quote:
In comment 12536139 SoDev said:
Quote:
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
Quote:
In comment 12536158 jcn56 said:
Quote:
Man, I've been using rope the wrong fucking way all these years.
yah well apparently these "you gonna ban cars, knives?" people need it spelled out.
The statistics clearly show that you or a loved one is more likely to die by stabbing as opposed to a rifle, or more specifically, an "assault" rifle. Although I am sure you are already aware of the statistics, so please feel free to continue to be sarcastic if it is a means to help you cope.
Not sure why I am getting sucked into this pointless discussion. I assume we all want the same thing -- for this shit to stop.
Thats true is you single out "rifles" from all firearms, but you are much more likely to be killed with a gun than a knife
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12535868 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
And predictable. We have a problem in this nation and we need to do something about it. But I fear we won't.
It's a real shame the left did nothing when it had control of the White House, Congress, and Senate.
They can't. This is just Kabuki theatre that benefits politicians at the expense of the individuals lives because we a civilization in decline because of our leaders. Good luck taking away that 2nd ammendment. Best comment of the week, Matt Drudge asked Obama and Hillary to disarm themselves like they want everyone to do. Priceless and exposes this whole situation. Its not the guns, its the fucking people.
Obama and Clinton are the god damn President and Secretary of State. We've had Presidents and politicians assassinated and shot. They're public figures and targets.
It's completely different from your average joe schmo. This proves absolutely nothing and is such a false dichotomy.
Quote:
900 mass shooting deaths in the last 7 years (reported 2013). Dunno if that includes gang-bangers.
About 390 kids die each year in pools.
Perspective. I know it's scary, but you are more likely to drown in a pool next year than get caught in a mass shooting.
I know, we do things that are fun and stuff. Just saying it's not the epidemic it seems at times.
We need to quit making the shooters infamous in the media. Report the shooting. Leave out the picture and name of the shooters. Maybe prevent some of the copycats.
I don't think anyone thinks its likely. The outrage comes from it being so senseless and the victims so innocent. At least with drowning's while a horrible accident for sure there is some personal responsibly involved. Sending your child off to school shouldn't be in the same classification.
I do agree however that the time has come to not publicize anything about these killers. Don't give them the one thing some of them may crave, notoriety.
I agree. It's horrific. There is so much senseless death in this country everyday. I don't believe that making guns disappear would stop it. Would it stop certain types of killings and certain conveniences, sure, but people will find a way with the next best killing tool. That kid wanted to kill that girl, the gun was the best tool, but if it didn't exist he just stabs her to death. God forbid we ever start having mass bombings like in the middle east.
Being against increased gun regulation due to the fear that we might have "mass explosions like the middle east" is one of the most absurd fucking things I've ever heard.
"We gotta keep the gun guys! It's better than bombs, and everyone knows that building a bomb is easy as getting a gun and pulling a trigger! You don't want the US to look like Dresden or turn into a bomb haven like the middle east, amirite?!!!"
Makes absolutely no sense at all.
Quote:
In comment 12536153 I Love Clams Casino said:
Quote:
In comment 12536139 SoDev said:
Quote:
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
I'm saying it could be worse and the next best item to kill will be used if gun don't exist and they may be worse in mass situations. That shit I mentioned is a hell of a lot easier than you think.
Quote:
In comment 12536009 SoDev said:
Quote:
900 mass shooting deaths in the last 7 years (reported 2013). Dunno if that includes gang-bangers.
About 390 kids die each year in pools.
Perspective. I know it's scary, but you are more likely to drown in a pool next year than get caught in a mass shooting.
I know, we do things that are fun and stuff. Just saying it's not the epidemic it seems at times.
We need to quit making the shooters infamous in the media. Report the shooting. Leave out the picture and name of the shooters. Maybe prevent some of the copycats.
I don't think anyone thinks its likely. The outrage comes from it being so senseless and the victims so innocent. At least with drowning's while a horrible accident for sure there is some personal responsibly involved. Sending your child off to school shouldn't be in the same classification.
I do agree however that the time has come to not publicize anything about these killers. Don't give them the one thing some of them may crave, notoriety.
I agree. It's horrific. There is so much senseless death in this country everyday. I don't believe that making guns disappear would stop it. Would it stop certain types of killings and certain conveniences, sure, but people will find a way with the next best killing tool. That kid wanted to kill that girl, the gun was the best tool, but if it didn't exist he just stabs her to death. God forbid we ever start having mass bombings like in the middle east.
Maybe he gets a knife and is able to kill her, maybe just a rock over the heard but we don't know that. We do know pulling a trigger is far simpler and more deadly requiring less effort and with less time for reconsideration.
As far as bombs in the middle east I don't see it. Those are organized and done by terrorist for a "cause" while these types of mass killings are done by isolated nutcases. Apples and oranges.
Quote:
In comment 12536258 SoDev said:
Quote:
In comment 12536153 I Love Clams Casino said:
Quote:
In comment 12536139 SoDev said:
Quote:
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
I'm saying it could be worse and the next best item to kill will be used if gun don't exist and they may be worse in mass situations. That shit I mentioned is a hell of a lot easier than you think.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
And please stop trying to act like building a bomb and planning how to detonate it is anywhere as easy of a way to kill people are shooting them.
I can't wrap my head around asinine that train of thought is. That's probably the worst argument against gun control I've ever heard.
Quote:
In comment 12536265 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12536258 SoDev said:
Quote:
In comment 12536153 I Love Clams Casino said:
Quote:
In comment 12536139 SoDev said:
Quote:
I have an 8yo boy in the third grade. I don't think you post has the impact that you think it does. So your saying some random crazy fuck wants to take my kid out at school. What does it matter if it's a rope or AK or a truck. He kills my kid I'm devastated. The gun doesn't change anything in this scenario to me. Sure the AK can do more damage, potentially, but if a grown man comes in and stabs 5 kids or runs over 20 and 1 is mine what is the diff.?
You selectively freeze framed at the wrong point....you said
Quote:
He kills my kid I'm devastated.
I am saying which situation would you want your kid to be in at THAT POINT in time? Nobody has been killed yet...A guy with an AK who could potentially mow down the entire class? OR a guy with a knife who starts lunging at people trying to stab them to death?
I'll take the AK over a couple pipe bombs, few Molotov cocktails or homemade napalm that I could make when I was 14, before the internet was even available. How about that.
You could design pipe bombs or molotov cocktails and homemade napalm also? Are you Peter Parker, could you make webshooters at 15 as well?
You're acting like making homemade fucking napalm is like preparing a bowl of cereal.
Are you implying that the difficulty of cooking up homemade explosives would not be a deterrent to these people? Are you implying that these people would be making pipe bombs instead if they didn't have guns at the same clip?
How many people have gone into their school and set it ablaze with homemade napalm?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it.
I'm saying it could be worse and the next best item to kill will be used if gun don't exist and they may be worse in mass situations. That shit I mentioned is a hell of a lot easier than you think.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
And please stop trying to act like building a bomb and planning how to detonate it is anywhere as easy of a way to kill people are shooting them.
I can't wrap my head around asinine that train of thought is. That's probably the worst argument against gun control I've ever heard.
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Do you have any data to support the opinion that people will start building bombs if they can't get guns?
.
I don't think that there is much of any data that any proposed solution actually accomplishes much of anything. Nearly all arguments are emotionally based and as valid as any other.
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
Yes, you are a stupid American if you value your pride over the slaughter of children.
Quote:
Apparently.
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
Exactly.
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter, it's still not anywhere near as easy as getting a gun and shooting people.
Making any kind of explosive is not easier than obtaining a gun and pulling the trigger.
And stating that these mass shooters would switch over to pipe bombs without a problem is ridiculous and just isn't reality. Even if something was done that could deter 50% of the mass shootings, it'd still be worth it. Also, bombs made by amateurs don't always explode... not that I should even go down the rabbit hole far enough to have to arrive at that point.
The homemade napalm also is laughably ridiculous.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
Quote:
Apparently.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
Not trying to attack but actually curious on this question - what "freedoms" do you mean? Is it just the basic right to do whatever you want being taken away that you'd be so pissed about? Or do you actually just like guns? Again, just curious to hear.
Quote:
Apparently.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
I think that Amendment would be cool.
Quote:
Apparently.
Although i disagree with your position, it's your rationale, not your stance.
Why don't you just come clean and say "guns are cool and make me feel safe" instead of peddling bullshit about people using homemade fucking napalm instead?
100% agreed. And the other side should come out and say they feel powerless to mass shooting events (even though minuscule) and it frightens the shit out of them. Guns are a tool being used in these situations, not the root cause.
Once both sides can honestly admit that, maybe we can finally try and get to the true societal cause for our violent culture.
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check loopholes, such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the illegal gun pipeline by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
When the bombs didn't go off, they went into the school and started shooting.
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check loopholes, such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the illegal gun pipeline by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
Quote:
In comment 12536290 Sonic Youth said:
I'm talking about a simple pipe bomb with a fuse, like dynamite, not some elaborate car bomb to be detonated with a cell phone or some shit.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter, it's still not anywhere near as easy as getting a gun and shooting people.
Making any kind of explosive is not easier than obtaining a gun and pulling the trigger.
And stating that these mass shooters would switch over to pipe bombs without a problem is ridiculous and just isn't reality. Even if something was done that could deter 50% of the mass shootings, it'd still be worth it. Also, bombs made by amateurs don't always explode... not that I should even go down the rabbit hole far enough to have to arrive at that point.
The homemade napalm also is laughably ridiculous.
Drop your smart-ass attitude. I've just been trying to have a real discussion whether you agree or not and stop putting words in my mouth.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
I'm done. Been fun. I agree with a lot that was said on both sides.
Der?
Quote:
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check loopholes, such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the illegal gun pipeline by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
Yeah, I own several guns, and I am not sure why people are that opposed to more stringent background checks.
Yes
Why in the hell would you have armed guards at a school that is shut down?
Didn't make any sense to me.
Quote:
In comment 12536304 SoDev said:
Quote:
Apparently.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
Not trying to attack but actually curious on this question - what "freedoms" do you mean? Is it just the basic right to do whatever you want being taken away that you'd be so pissed about? Or do you actually just like guns? Again, just curious to hear.
It's obviously very complex and not as simple as guns are cool. I got to get to work though. I'll try to chime in more in tomorrows death thread.
Sure?
Quote:
In comment 12536334 giant24 said:
Quote:
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check loopholes, such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the illegal gun pipeline by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
Yeah, I own several guns, and I am not sure why people are that opposed to more stringent background checks.
I'd support all of that. People are just scared it will go a lot further so they don't want to give in on any of it.
Drop your smart-ass attitude. I've just been trying to have a real discussion whether you agree or not and stop putting words in my mouth.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
I'm done. Been fun. I agree with a lot that was said on both sides.
What words am I putting in your mouth? You said homemade napalm and pipe bombs were things you could make at 14 without the internet, and that people would start using bombs instead of guns.
If you're trying to have a real discussion, then I guess give something to support your position.
You may be trying to have a "real discussion" (as opposed to a fake discussion?), but it's coming off as trying to come up with scenarios to support a position that you're already invested in.
And to be clear, I'm not calling you stupid... I don't know you. I'm just saying your comment about guns and bombs was stupid, and I stand by that.
Quote:
Apparently.
People die in all kinds of horrific ways everyday. Yes, at the rate people die in this country by gunfire I am willing to accept it to keep my "freedoms". It's that simple I guess.
I pray that you're never on the wrong end of a gun, as I pray that none of us are. If one is ever pointed at me and I'm about to meet my maker, at least I'll know I was on the right side of the issue.
Quote:
In comment 12536338 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
In comment 12536334 giant24 said:
Quote:
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check loopholes, such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the illegal gun pipeline by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
Yeah, I own several guns, and I am not sure why people are that opposed to more stringent background checks.
I'd support all of that. People are just scared it will go a lot further so they don't want to give in on any of it.
But we need a compromise. We have to come to a middle ground. People are digging their heels in based on ideology, and as they do so, others are being murdered.
You are an intensely stupid person.
Quote:
a President that is willing to step in and do something about pretty much the worst epidemic this country has ever seen.
You are an intensely stupid person.
Well, I always say, if you're gonna do something, do it all the way.
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
Quote:
In comment 12536063 RobCrossRiver56 said:
Quote:
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Right. I mean, wouldn't the shooters just go where the armed guards aren't, on the other side of campus? Or shoot the armed guards first? I imagine the affordable armed guards we are talking about wouldn't be terribly skilled, trained, or constantly vigilant.
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
See link below the NICS.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12536158 jcn56 said:
Quote:
Man, I've been using rope the wrong fucking way all these years.
yah well apparently these "you gonna ban cars, knives?" people need it spelled out.
The statistics clearly show that you or a loved one is more likely to die by stabbing as opposed to a rifle, or more specifically, an "assault" rifle.
The statistics also show that more knives are owned and used by more people more frequently than are guns. Why, it's not even 9 am here yet and I've already used a knife 3 times. I have used a gun twice in 43 years.
Quote:
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
See link below the NICS. Link - ( New Window )
Mike is there a national law requiring use of this system? The link says it provides services to 30 states so I'd be curious as to whether or not there's been any difference state to state. I'd guess CA is one of the states that uses it and we know the Oregon nut was able to get through the background checks.
And yet, we aren't hearing about any of those happening, because of the availability of guns.
Fucking ponderous.
I said guns were the best tool multiple times. I said if they didn't exist people would look for the next best tool.
And... that would be a pretty significant downgrade, would it not be?
Let's put it this way: if that argument of yours were turned against your by the anti gun folks, you'd feel quite different about it. "Don't worry, you can just use something else instead of a gun now!"
Which isn't to say there are acceptable and reasonable changes to be made, but not a single person has suggested an incremental regulation that would have prevented Oregon or Sandy Hook.
Quote:
In comment 12536397 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
in this political climate. Has getting tougher on gun laws (and getting strict about some other liberties) not been effective in NYC over the last few decades? Is there not some possibility Manhattan could have gone the way of Chicago or Baltimore if leadership wasn't so strong (Guiliani & Bloomberg) for the previous 2 decades?
Better background checks would be great and that should be a no-brainer step. The logistics around them are i'm sure difficult, so if they need a longer waiting period or a national database created it should be done. We have a national database and testing process for driving cars because they are dangerous, why should guns be any different? I don't know how anyone can make a case that extended magazines, gun show purchasing loopholes, and hollow points serve any positive purpose for a non-law enforcement/military law abiding citizen.
See link below the NICS. Link - ( New Window )
Mike is there a national law requiring use of this system? The link says it provides services to 30 states so I'd be curious as to whether or not there's been any difference state to state. I'd guess CA is one of the states that uses it and we know the Oregon nut was able to get through the background checks.
It needs to be a requirement for all states. It's absurd that something this simple isn't a requirement.
If you talk about gun reform, it is inevitable that people scream about losing rights. And I've never gotten that stance. I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns - but to limit the type of weapon or to put restrictions on weapons seems to be a highly logical avenue. How does that lead to "We will lose rights!"?
The Washington Post just ran an editorial saying exactly this.
Sometimes, the best answers are just logical or rational ones, but it is almost like the NRA thinks any restriction equals infringement to rights.
It isn't just them - it is a mindset many people have. How many times have you heard somebody argue, "If we give in on X, then they will take Y and soo we will have nothing left"?
That isn't a logical argument, but it is one often used.
Quote:
I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns !"?
The Washington Post just ran an editorial saying exactly this.
This is exactly what I wish were possible. Huge logistical challenges would make it incredibly difficult if the second amendment didn't make it impossible.
And yet, we aren't hearing about any of those happening, because of the availability of guns.
Fucking ponderous.
The Onion argues that people would just launch knives at each other if they couldn't launch bullets at each other.
You Take Away Guns, And Someones Just Gonna... - ( New Window )
Sometimes, the best answers are just logical or rational ones, but it is almost like the NRA thinks any restriction equals infringement to rights.
It isn't just them - it is a mindset many people have. How many times have you heard somebody argue, "If we give in on X, then they will take Y and soo we will have nothing left"?
That isn't a logical argument, but it is one often used.
The NRA is not an advocate for fun ownership. They are an advocate for gun manufacturers. Lapierre is a fucking disgraceful human being...
If you talk about gun reform, it is inevitable that people scream about losing rights. And I've never gotten that stance. I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns - but to limit the type of weapon or to put restrictions on weapons seems to be a highly logical avenue. How does that lead to "We will lose rights!"?
That's the question I always have. The fact is we already limit weapons and people still have their rights. So how if we simply tighten those limits on some types of weapons does it change that? Other than fringe advocates very few people are for the total elimination of all guns.
Quote:
in these type of debates tend to get hung up on either gross exaggeration or strawmen arguments.
If you talk about gun reform, it is inevitable that people scream about losing rights. And I've never gotten that stance. I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns - but to limit the type of weapon or to put restrictions on weapons seems to be a highly logical avenue. How does that lead to "We will lose rights!"?
That's the question I always have. The fact is we already limit weapons and people still have their rights. So how if we simply tighten those limits on some types of weapons does it change that? Other than fringe advocates very few people are for the total elimination of all guns.
Exactly what limits on what types do you propose?
Quote:
In comment 12536068 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
In comment 12536063 RobCrossRiver56 said:
Quote:
What we need to do is place armed guards at the schools not making them soft targets anymore. We have thousands of ex military and law enforcement who are capable and available to watch our schools.
The people who do the mass shootings are cowards and target places where there is no or little challenge to them. They might find other soft targets but our schools would be safe.
At 1 in the morning?
Also, didn't work at Columbine.
Right. I mean, wouldn't the shooters just go where the armed guards aren't, on the other side of campus? Or shoot the armed guards first? I imagine the affordable armed guards we are talking about wouldn't be terribly skilled, trained, or constantly vigilant.
Again at 1 in the morning? Good luck finding anyone on campus never mind armed guards.
I'm talking about the op. It happened on school grounds but doesn't seem to have a thing to do with a "school" shooting
Quote:
In comment 12536455 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
in these type of debates tend to get hung up on either gross exaggeration or strawmen arguments.
If you talk about gun reform, it is inevitable that people scream about losing rights. And I've never gotten that stance. I don't think anyone has ever truly intended to abolish guns - but to limit the type of weapon or to put restrictions on weapons seems to be a highly logical avenue. How does that lead to "We will lose rights!"?
That's the question I always have. The fact is we already limit weapons and people still have their rights. So how if we simply tighten those limits on some types of weapons does it change that? Other than fringe advocates very few people are for the total elimination of all guns.
Exactly what limits on what types do you propose?
I'm sure we won't agree but my point is even if we eliminated all semi-auto weapons people would still have the right to own guns. That wouldn't be taken from them any more than not being allow to own fully auto weapons does now.
Quote:
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check loopholes, such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the illegal gun pipeline by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
This. Just because those things would not have prevented these specific mass killings, does not mean they should not be done. It does not mean they might not stop another one.
The flippant dismissiveness that gets tossed off by gun people is fucking maddening.
"Well you're never going to get them all, so why bother?"
"It wouldn't stop this particular scenario, so why bother?"
"People will just run them down in a car (no they won't), so why bother?"
Fuck this attitude. Seriously. You people line up behind a fucking ghoul like Lapierre and he doesn't give half a shit about you. I pray that none of us ever have to bury a small coffin because nobody feels like doing anything, or feels like doing the bare fucking minimum is more trouble than its worth, or feels like being inconvenienced in buying their 10th fucking gun is too much trouble because you want a gun and goddammit you need it RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Man, fuck this and the smug attitudes.
Quote:
a President that is willing to step in and do something about pretty much the worst epidemic this country has ever seen.
You are an intensely stupid person.
See this is the whole issue, right here. People all over this country, whether adults, young people, or children, are being murdered at an alarming rate due to gun violence. Do you not see this? Can you not grasp the one basic idea that increasing regulation and having stricter gun control is a good fucking idea that will probably lead to less people killed? Tell your kids (if you have any) that you'll accept a mass murderer coming to their school and killing them, all because hey, your freedoms are still protected. But I'm the "stupid person" because I can see as clear as day that the issue is actually not complicated at all, it's pretty much black and white. And the sooner than gun owners, "constitutionalists" and "americans" realize this the fucking better.
It's OK to have a discussion on right vs wrong, idealogy, etc. What is not OK in my book is to sit on the sidelines, waving your freedom flag and act so out of touch with reality that you actually start to believe your own BS. These children being killed by guns aren't dying by accident. It's not cars, planes, disease, what have you. It's death by gun ownership, in the hands of people who shouldn't have access to them, period.
Quote:
In comment 12536334 giant24 said:
Quote:
demanding new gun laws (ironically protected by armed guards
which they refuse to do for schools).
*Closing background check loopholes, such as stopping criminals from buying firearms at gun shows or online;
*Improving background checks to include barring domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns;
*And shutting down the illegal gun pipeline by making straw purchasing of guns and gun trafficking a federal crime.
How would any of these have stopped these school shootings where guns were purchased legally and the shooter passed background checks?
They may not have.
But what the fuck is the logic in NOT doing those things? Seriously
This. Just because those things would not have prevented these specific mass killings, does not mean they should not be done. It does not mean they might not stop another one.
The flippant dismissiveness that gets tossed off by gun people is fucking maddening.
"Well you're never going to get them all, so why bother?"
"It wouldn't stop this particular scenario, so why bother?"
"People will just run them down in a car (no they won't), so why bother?"
Fuck this attitude. Seriously. You people line up behind a fucking ghoul like Lapierre and he doesn't give half a shit about you. I pray that none of us ever have to bury a small coffin because nobody feels like doing anything, or feels like doing the bare fucking minimum is more trouble than its worth, or feels like being inconvenienced in buying their 10th fucking gun is too much trouble because you want a gun and goddammit you need it RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Man, fuck this and the smug attitudes.
Amen.
Do you know anyone who has a pilot's license and flies purely for fun? Maybe someone who even owns their own plane? Chances are, unless that person you know is John Travolta or Larry Ellis, the plane they own is a fairly Spartan, unassuming, just-get-the-job-done model. Most people who have a pilots license and fly just for their own personal use or enjoyment aren't qualified for and/or can't afford a retired fighter jet, a Learjet, or Christ, even a measly Eclipse 500. Would they want one of those three options? Of course! Anyone who's into flying planes for personal enjoyment would love the opportunity to get behind an old Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet like the one owned by the Google execs. But they accept the fact that due to their station in life they probably won't have such an opportunity, don't feel entitled to that kind of access, and are aware that any claim that they *need* such a plane wouldn't fly because their current Cessna is getting the job done just fine, thanks.
As long as we're discussing a topic that invites ridiculous parallels, doesn't this one have equal merit? What if we just set ridiculously high prices on firearms that are on a different level than your average revolver?
Quote:
In comment 12535933 LS said:
Quote:
I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted when I was a kid. All my friends could have too. There were no locks on the gun cabinets back then. We were all taught to handle a gun safely and with respect. And if we went into the cabinet without my dad being there we would get our asses kicked. So we didn't do it. Mass killings is what we are talking about. They were extremely rare when I was a kid, yet guns were everywhere. Homicides per year with a gun have been dropping in the US. It is these high profile events that have everyone outraged. "Gun free zones" have a huge target on their backs. That's a big problem. Copycat killers that are mentally ill. They are the biggest problem. If there were no guns how would these people create mayhem? How about racing down the street and driving a car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk? Or kids waiting for the bus? Then others might start copying it. Would there be outrage? Would anyone suggest banning cars? These sick people will find a way to bring attention to themselves. If you think it would just stop you're kidding yourself.
Yes, because the kids that are shooting classmates that they hate would surely not get them all at school if they knew it wasn't a "gun free zone".
Such fantastic fucking logic.
Gun free zone has little to nothing to do with why these crazy fucks target their own schools in the vast majority of cases.
I don't necessarily think getting rid of guns is the answer. "More guns!" certainly isn't the answer, either.
Idiot logic. If we protect the schools with armed security they wouldn't be safer. Brilliant.
Sure they would be "safer".
I'm not willing to have my kids go to school in fort knox because folks are scared that a shooter may show up, however.
They'd also be safer if we just got rid of schools altogether! Yay logic.
I'm sure we won't agree but my point is even if we eliminated all semi-auto weapons people would still have the right to own guns. That wouldn't be taken from them any more than not being allow to own fully auto weapons does now.
People today can own fully automatic weapons. They need special permits and registrations, but I digress.
Eliminate all semi-automatic weapons? Does that include any weapon that is not "single shot"? Anything with a clip or a magazine?
That's all handguns in use today. All shotguns and all rifles. In other words, all modern guns.
Do you know anyone who has a pilot's license and flies purely for fun? Maybe someone who even owns their own plane? Chances are, unless that person you know is John Travolta or Larry Ellis, the plane they own is a fairly Spartan, unassuming, just-get-the-job-done model. Most people who have a pilots license and fly just for their own personal use or enjoyment aren't qualified for and/or can't afford a retired fighter jet, a Learjet, or Christ, even a measly Eclipse 500. Would they want one of those three options? Of course! Anyone who's into flying planes for personal enjoyment would love the opportunity to get behind an old Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet like the one owned by the Google execs. But they accept the fact that due to their station in life they probably won't have such an opportunity, don't feel entitled to that kind of access, and are aware that any claim that they *need* such a plane wouldn't fly because their current Cessna is getting the job done just fine, thanks.
As long as we're discussing a topic that invites ridiculous parallels, doesn't this one have equal merit? What if we just set ridiculously high prices on firearms that are on a different level than your average revolver?
I don't mind the use of the market, on the margin, to limit to some extent the sale of guns and perhaps ammunition, but you do realize that at its core you are limiting the exercise of a constitutional right based on income level?
Where I live, the local police department is armed with Bushmaster assault rifles, 9mm automatic sidearms, shotguns, tasers, tear-gas, bullet-proof body armor, armored personnel vehicles, armored military transports, encrypted two-way radio communication, on demand coordination with county law enforcement that has air support assets on stand-by and further coordination with NY state law enforcement resources and New York National Guard forces. I'm not even going to mention the truly extraordinary and completely overwhelming array of force resources and materials available to the federal forces of our modern national security / military state apparatus.
Its a real stretch for me to imagine that owning a gun, or even an armory of weapons, is going to be any match for the absolutely overwhelming force of my local police department. But its just utterly and completely ridiculous fantasy to imagine there's any practical way for even very well armed militia of citizens to oppose the military forces of the US governement.
None of this is to say that I hate freedom or that I'm not extremely concerned with the tyranny of government. I just wonder how much, indeed, if at all the 2nd amendment protects us from the very real and very legitimate concern of government tyranny.
Quote:
I'm sure we won't agree but my point is even if we eliminated all semi-auto weapons people would still have the right to own guns. That wouldn't be taken from them any more than not being allow to own fully auto weapons does now.
People today can own fully automatic weapons. They need special permits and registrations, but I digress.
Eliminate all semi-automatic weapons? Does that include any weapon that is not "single shot"? Anything with a clip or a magazine?
That's all handguns in use today. All shotguns and all rifles. In other words, all modern guns.
My point isn't to debate the specific. I mean really what point would that serve here? My point is they would still have the right to own guns. There are plenty of bolt and lever action rifles that aren't semi-auto. Plenty of shotguns that aren't. They all hunt equally well as semi-auto's. But again my point isn't about selecting where you do draw the line if you tighten the limits but instead to point out people would still have the rights to own guns to hunt, shoot and protect their home. You may not agree with the restrictions but you can't say they no longer had the right to own a gun.
None of this is to say that I hate freedom or that I'm not extremely concerned with the tyranny of government. I just wonder how much, indeed, if at all the 2nd amendment protects us from the very real and very legitimate concern of government tyranny.
Well said.
There's also something to be said for the fact that the framers of the constitution were neither infallible nor able to predict the future. Things that were applicable in the late 18th century may not still be, hard as that may be for some to fathom.
I don't mind the use of the market, on the margin, to limit to some extent the sale of guns and perhaps ammunition, but you do realize that at its core you are limiting the exercise of a constitutional right based on income level?
Not really, unless you argue that the constitutional right is meant to bestow access to whatever the citizen wants.
If all the amendment is saying is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, isn't that amendment being met by access to an affordable gun?
If we're going to argue that making an exotic weapon expensive "infringes" upon a person's right to own a gun then fuck, you may as well say that merely charging money for a gun in the first place also infringes upon the same right.
Maybe I'm wrong but I consider a semi-auto any gun where all you have to do it keep re-squeezing the trigger and it will fire until clip was empty. Basically as fast as you can pull the trigger it fires a round. Whether that is correct definition or not, IMO while your average citizen may enjoy that weapon he doesn't need it for anything that a gun which required him to manually slide another cartridge into the chamber with a bolt or lever and would be limited to say 5 rounds wouldn't do for him.
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.
Quote:
That's what I was trying to get at. Where is that line? How do you define "semi-automatic"?
Maybe I'm wrong but I consider a semi-auto any gun where all you have to do it keep re-squeezing the trigger and it will fire until clip was empty. Basically as fast as you can pull the trigger it fires a round. Whether that is correct definition or not, IMO while your average citizen may enjoy that weapon he doesn't need it for anything that a gun which required him to manually slide another cartridge into the chamber with a bolt or lever and would be limited to say 5 rounds wouldn't do for him.
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.
I follow what you are saying. I was just clarifying what all of that entails. It's all non single action handguns and most other weapons that you want to eliminate.
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.
Just read this today, it's hard to disagree.
"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over." - Dan Hodges
Quote:
about guns , it's over, the gun guys won, there are no solutions, there is only hoping you and yours don't get shot. I don't walk around worrying about it, but if it happens, I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time? I'm shit out of luck. Welcome to America in 2015 where the gun rules and it will never change, never
Just read this today, it's hard to disagree.
"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over." - Dan Hodges
While that line is emotional why wouldn't that have been true of Columbine, those Amish school children being killed or any of the many other cases of school shooting?
Where I live, the local police department is armed with Bushmaster assault rifles, 9mm automatic sidearms, shotguns, tasers, tear-gas, bullet-proof body armor, armored personnel vehicles, armored military transports, encrypted two-way radio communication, on demand coordination with county law enforcement that has air support assets on stand-by and further coordination with NY state law enforcement resources and New York National Guard forces. I'm not even going to mention the truly extraordinary and completely overwhelming array of force resources and materials available to the federal forces of our modern national security / military state apparatus.
Its a real stretch for me to imagine that owning a gun, or even an armory of weapons, is going to be any match for the absolutely overwhelming force of my local police department. But its just utterly and completely ridiculous fantasy to imagine there's any practical way for even very well armed militia of citizens to oppose the military forces of the US governement.
None of this is to say that I hate freedom or that I'm not extremely concerned with the tyranny of government. I just wonder how much, indeed, if at all the 2nd amendment protects us from the very real and very legitimate concern of government tyranny.
I think most reasonable people get that we've passed the point of a citizens militia fighting off a tyrannical government event. But some people choose to live in a fantasy, especially when theyre the swashbuckling hero.
I think an interesting point is the continued militarization of police forces, which have traditionally been supported the right. Think we would need SWAT teams armed with military grade hardware if there weren't yokels out there with automatic weapon? Gangs with Uzis?
It is pretty insane. There are more guns than cars! Think of all the cars you see in your average day. Imagine if you saw that many guns on average instead.
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?
Why do all of your posts on this topic descend into nonsensical attempts at divining what 300 million other people are thinking?
At least we'll have a gun for all of them!
Quote:
it is over, the bell has rung you can't I ring it. The genies is out of the bottle. 300 million pieces of white rice would boggle my mind, but that many guns? I can't comprehend that number in my little head. 300 million, I should give a gun to everyone I place or send them out as gifts for the holidays. 300 million guns! Am I the only one flabbergasted by that number?
It is pretty insane. There are more guns than cars! Think of all the cars you see in your average day. Imagine if you saw that many guns on average instead.
This is the root of the problem. We've let our society become replete with firearms. There's no amount of 'control' or restrictions at this point that will fix it. We won't be able to stop crazy folks from getting them even if it were easy to determine who is and is not crazy. They're just too common.
The only way to fix this, especially since you can't just ban them is to create economic incentives to get folks to get rid of guns. Buy backs for guns that folks turn in, big, big taxes for those who don't. The right to bear arms in the US has a cost on society that is not borne by the owners of guns appropriately. Let's tax the shit out of them.
UPDATE: 1 dead, 1 wounded in shooting at Texas Southern University http://nbcnews.to/1Ml5AX6
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
Yes. Guns are engrained in the fabric of our society and are now part of our culture. When this is coupled with the amount of guns out there, it seems that there really isn't much we can do to make the problem better. All we can do is try to ensure that it doesn't get much worse.
This situation is getting worse and worse and I can't imagine in getting better. This sucks.
Yes. Guns are engrained in the fabric of our society and are now part of our culture. When this is coupled with the amount of guns out there, it seems that there really isn't much we can do to make the problem better. All we can do is try to ensure that it doesn't get much worse.
Yet the "we have so many so why even bother to consider trying something" is the flip side of the same coin.
You're right you couldn't simply eliminate them but you could over time improve the situation. It would take a lifetime but if we had the desire to, maybe we could leave the place better off for the next generation.
For example I'll use the hypothetical that there was a consensus that we should do away with all semi-auto weapons.
You have a target date to where they were no longer be legal to manufacture or sold in this country. Sure there would be millions out there and more people would rush to buy more and hoard them. You obviously can't confiscate them so anyone who owns one can keep it but he can't sell it. Then you add a small tax on all ammo to where their would be a fund created that would offer to buy and destroy any of those weapons for a premium from anyone who wants to sell one. Allow individuals and corporations the ability to make a tax deductible contribution to the fund. Any gun of that category involved in a crime would of course be confiscated and destroyed. People who owned them would guard and secure them more rigidly over time because they would become more valuable and irreplaceable as time passed and more were taken out of the circulation. I'm also sure smarter people than me could even offer more ideas that would work. These ideas are just throwing things out as examples.
Would this get rid of them all? Of course not but would it make a difference between now and fifty or seventy five years from now? I have to believe it would. Not only would there be a decrease in those guns the gun culture itself would likely to have been altered as new enthusiast who bought single action guns and who's skill sets and the sports and hobbies that go along with them would be altered in that direction.
You're right we can't wish them away but because of that to throw up our hands and say nothing can be done moving forward which might improve safety in any degree is just as simplistic a view.
2)Safe weapons handling training is fine by me. The Marines drilled the 4 rules of weapon safety into my head permanently. However, accidental discharges caused by negligent weapons handling is a tiny, tiny slice of firearm deaths. It's not going to accomplish what you're purporting.
3)Of course people with malevolent intentions shouldn't have access to firearms. How do we identify those people? While anyone who commits mass murder can be said to have some kind of mental health problem, because a human being doesn't massacre other human beings without one, the causes are not so easily identifiable. So far, in the case of the Oregon asshole, I've seen specific mention of depression and Aspergers, yet millions and millions of people suffering those conditions would never hurt a fly. People who have been adjudicated mentally defective or who have been committed to a mental hospital are already forbidden from purchasing firearms. So do you ban anyone who takes anti-depressants? Anyone seeing a shrink? How do you draw the line?
Quote:
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
I think the only possible solution lies here.
While there is a constitutional right to bear arms, there is not a constitutional right to manufacture and sell arms.
Somehow make it unprofitable or even illegal (probably not possible) to manufacture and sell arms, most likely by repealing liability protection they currently enjoy. And then wait a long long time.
Admittedly a very long shot.
I would start with your idea about buy backs, particularly targeting handguns in urban areas - you know, the what and where of most of the deaths related to guns. Quite frankly, it's more than a little unseemly that people made this an issue when white kids in schools (college or elementary) started getting killed, but I digress.
1. Federal funding for buy backs.
2. Marginal increases in tax rates on both guns and ammunition
3. Close the gun show "loophole" - it won't do anything, but will shut some people up
4. Expand the scope of items in the background check that can prevent a purchase - they did this with domestic violence - perhaps to includes being charged with a felony (though lifted after some period).
5. Legalize marijuana on a nationwide basis
6. Criminal liability for the improper storage of a weapon used in the commission of a crime
I would also strip away the useless laws related to the cosmetic appearance of guns - most of the state bans on assault weapons are horseshit appeals to ignorance.
I would probably keep the magazine limitations in place - useless, but will shut people up, which has some utility.
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.
Quote:
In comment 12536778 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
Well, certainly a special tax on new gun sales would work. And if people choose to not register guns to avoid tax? That kinda pokes a whole in the responsible gun owner idea. They're breaking the law and then should anything happen they would be subject to the gun laws that we have for such folks.
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
And there you have it.
Gun advocates poke holes in any idea that comes along and when asked for one of their own?
\_(ツ)_/
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12536797 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
In comment 12536778 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
NY and CT couldn't even get people to register their guns. Noncompliance for some kind of onerous gun tax will be rampant. And what do you do then? Start house to house searches?
But there are no perfect plans to fix this situation. I'd love to hear an idea from someone who thinks guns are a great idea. Got anything?
I'm not a utopian, so I don't pretend that there are solutions to every problem.
And there you have it.
Gun advocates poke holes in any idea that comes along and when asked for one of their own?
\_(ツ)_/
Well, you asked for an answer from someone "who thinks guns are a great idea." I don't think anyone here qualifies as such a person. Apparently, no one simply "thinks guns are a great idea." Everyone who has them wishes they didn't need them, but alas, they do, and so they reluctantly own them.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I keep them put away and the ammo locked separately in a secure box. While I guess I could defend our home with one to tell the truth it would take me too long to find the box in the closet and even get to it to do anything. While I don't judge anyone who does I personally don't own a gun to be able to shoot another person so I don't have any prepared for the possibility.
Once that utility became a secondary reason for using them, they ceased to be even a good idea.
It's a red herring though as violent video games really aren't a cause of these mass shootings IMO.
I don't know how much of a dent restricting the media's ability to identify reporters would make in these shootings, and that comes with its own litany of constitutional questions, but I do feel it would have an impact to some extent.
Quote:
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
Quote:
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
Well, I guess that would turn up the folks that are up to no good with illegal firearms. But if they had them legally, that wouldn't do much. And a lot of the tragedies we see come from legally purchased guns that perhaps arent even carried until someone snaps. I'm not sure how effective it would be.
And does that plan scale to 300 million americans? Am I gonna get stopped and frisked? Or will that law of the land perhaps not get applied evenly? How effective would it be at preventing an event like the one that started this thread?
Does the second amendment really trump the 4th, too? Valid question. Why should 100% of us give up our rights to not be subject to random searches to protect the rights of 30% of folks who own guns? Seems to me like a big cost with a questionable return.
But, if I were in congress, I might agree to this if folks agreed to taxes/buy back.
Quote:
In comment 12536885 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
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.
Quote:
In comment 12536916 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12536885 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
How about making stop and frisk the law of the land.
Certainly the 4th amendment shouldn't get in the way of stopping the carnage in our urban centers
I actually think that's a legitimate and fine idea which could make a substantive contribution to resolving the issue.
I know this is a hypothetical, but making stop and frisk the law of the land is the antithesis to the principles the country was founded on. It's a massive infringement of rights and applied unequally to certain groups of people across the board. Oftentimes, stop and frisk can simply be punishing people for how they look. Not to mention it would only drive the divide between law enforcements and the communities they reside in even deeper.
IOW, you don't want to violate the Constitution?
I don't think gun restrictions violates the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give carte blanche to have loose restrictions on guns.
Personally, I also think that the Constitution should be amended and updated with the times. I don't think that many of the original reasons the framers included the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution are valid today, and the amendment did not take into account the technological advances that have made guns even more deadly than they were in the late 1700s.
After all, they were still dealing with muskets back then, and the country was rural where people hunted for their own food.
I'm gonna take a shit.
I don't think they've won. We are 13 months away from a very important election, and I'm not referring to the Presidential one.
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.
It seems that most of these mass killers are males who are mad at society due to being friendless, lonely, and rejected by women.
Graphics have improved considerably, but the leap in graphics from 2005-2015 is not as big as the leap from 1995-2005. It's kind of immaterial though, as I don't see much evidence, if any, that video games have anything to do with these mass shootings.
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.
Quote:
the gun freaks and 2nd Amendment Patriots have won and they will keep on laughing at you because they know they win this argument
I don't think they've won. We are 13 months away from a very important election, and I'm not referring to the Presidential one.
I think what Headhunter is saying is that the amount of guns already in our country and the extent to which they are part of the fabric of our society means that "gun supporters" have won. Everything else past this point is merely damage control.
Maybe long term they haven't "won", but this is a tangled web that could potentially take generations to unravel.
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.
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.
Popular opinion one way or the other seems to be very regional. I will say that I've seen MANY more 2nd amendment supporters in my area, which is NYC/Central NJ, than I recall growing up. Or maybe people are just far more vocal about it...
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 haven't ever read where some boys watch a movie over and over for hours at a time for long period of times like some do with gaming.
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.
Greg from LI : 4:20 pm : link : reply
that your position is overwhelmingly popular. It really isn't.
In sheer number of people it is overwhelmingly popular. Less than half the population owns guns and even Fox News showed a poll last month that showed 77% wanted some form of gun control.
You can argue constitutional rights, the joys of owning a gun or whatever, but to act as if that stance is popular is the true delusion.
That's one argument I (unfortunately) can not make. I agree with you.
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 dont need guns, as their having guns doesnt 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 dont need guns, as their having guns doesnt 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.