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?
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