The Oregon shooting

omega 616

New member
May 1, 2009
5,883
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Dunno about America but in the UK trying to buy anything with a blade means you have to be 18+

Why do people want to score home runs? To win the ... match? Game? ... Session?

Still doesn't explain why you give reasonable doubt to Twitchy and Fine Citizen but you don't give it to "Rob your tv" when he breaks in. He breaks in after your tv, doesn't want anything to do with you but you pull a gun and escalated the situation, now he has a choice, shoot you or get shot ... this has gone from "well I can't watch game of thrones now" all the way to "I sure do miss him".

Sorry but what does anything you just said have anything to do with FPSRussia? I asked what is the difference between you and FPSRussia and you talk about degrees of gun control.

That link to everytown was just the first one I found, I saw the number in a few places.

Death is a terrible thing? Really? You're willing to kill over a TV and I say that's wrong. Secondly, 2 -3 people die per second, every day of the year. People drop like fucking flies, I don't see you (or anybody else) mourning each one ... you'd be suicidal in a week. Death is something that has to be accepted, I've had 3 family members die ... I cried for about a minute over my grandad (the first) then after that it was like telling me they had new carpet installed. We live for a very short time and we are tiny specs, walking on a tiny spec in massive space ... we are literally nothing in the grand scheme. I just think peoples lives shouldn't be cut short 'cos some people like guns.

Well the government is there to look out for the best interests of the country, which means it's citizens. You don't take care of the land, you take care of the people ... go to war to protect them, set up trade with other countries to make your's richer, make your civilians as happy as possible and keep them healthy, like Simcity or city skylines. So, they enforce policies to take care of you, in most cases ... it's not perfect 'cos people aren't.

People can be bought and they make compromises, allowing fast food chains to make very unhealthy food, that is almost like a drug. Allowing tobacco and alcohol to be sold etc Alcohol is a good example, tried to ban it 'cos of the effect it has and look what happened.

Like I've said before, gun restrictions are just part of it, you can't just restrict guns and hope it fixes it'self. I think the hole country needs a redesign, from what I've heard from various places.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
May 2, 2020
2,882
3
43
Country
United States
Qizx said:
TLDR: Gun control won't stop all gun crime, but it would stop enough to be worth it.
How about we try and stop crime in general? If you want a specific focus, violent crime.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,885
733
118
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Qizx said:
TLDR: Gun control won't stop all gun crime, but it would stop enough to be worth it.
How about we try and stop crime in general? If you want a specific focus, violent crime.
The two tasks are not mutually exclusive.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
May 2, 2020
2,882
3
43
Country
United States
omega 616 said:
Dunno about America but in the UK trying to buy anything with a blade means you have to be 18+
Which now applies to teaspoons apparently. For the record, needing an ID to buy anything with a sharp edge sounds insane to us as well.
Why do people want to score home runs? To win the ... match? Game? ... Session?
Same for target shooting.
Still doesn't explain why you give reasonable doubt to Twitchy and Fine Citizen but you don't give it to "Rob your tv" when he breaks in. He breaks in
Which one of these three has just forcefully entered my fucking house?
after your tv, doesn't want anything to do with you but you pull a gun and escalated the situation, now he has a choice, shoot you or get shot ... this has gone from "well I can't watch game of thrones now" all the way to "I sure do miss him".
So, you're saying an unidentified individual who has forced his way into my home for unknown purposes to me, is armed? In what universe is the reasonable thought process "oh, he's totally just wanting my TV."?
The only answer is, that is your thought process, not mine, nor the thought process of the vast majority of Americans. IF you want to play victim just because you feel it safer, be my guest. There is an armed intruder in my home, I'm protecting my loved ones.
Sorry but what does anything you just said have anything to do with FPSRussia? I asked what is the difference between you and FPSRussia and you talk about degrees of gun control.
Well, I'm pretty sure he's a nice guy and I'm not sure why you brought him up at all. Something about weapon definitions or something.
That link to everytown was just the first one I found, I saw the number in a few places.
Well, I suggest you check your sources next time because quite a few of those were suicides on campus or shootings that were not school targeted.
Death is a terrible thing? Really?
Well, maybe not terrible if it is natural in the sense that it is a natural part of life, but it is certainly a sad thing and terrible if their life was cut short. But now we're getting mildly religious.
You're willing to kill over a TV and I say that's wrong.
Intruder in my house with a gun.
Secondly, 2 -3 people die per second, every day of the year. People drop like fucking flies, I don't see you (or anybody else) mourning each one ... you'd be suicidal in a week. Death is something that has to be accepted, I've had 3 family members die ... I cried for about a minute over my grandad (the first) then after that it was like telling me they had new carpet installed.
Believe it or not I do mourn many people in different ways. Though, yes. Like above. Death is Life.
We live for a very short time and we are tiny specs, walking on a tiny spec in massive space ... we are literally nothing in the grand scheme. I just think peoples lives shouldn't be cut short 'cos some people like guns.
I hold high value for life, the life of my family and loved ones above all others. You still see this as a problem of guns flying about killing people when it is people who do not value life. Unless you're meaning justified cases of self defense, in which case, we have nothing more to go on about because our opinions clearly differ. What exactly needs to happen for you to take action? At best I can understand "letting" someone steal your things if you're an insane pacifist(by insane I mean extreme). When do you take action? Destruction to your house? Threats to your loved ones? Serious question, would you not step in to defend a loved one against attempted rape? Where do you stop and say "no, I will not allow this to happen, I must take action"? Put yourself in your above described situation and imagine how you'd play it out. Family members in the house along with your most prized belongings.
Well the government is there to look out for the best interests of the country, which means it's citizens.
...
I nearly just said to forget my above statement.
So, that's why your government spies on you with our government and vice versa, along with mine in general spying on my people? This is a key difference of philosophy here. US citizens typically recognize that government is, in fact, not there to look out for you. To think such is some degree of actual insanity.
You don't take care of the land, you take care of the people
YEah, no. That often doesn't occur like you think it does.
... go to war to protect them
Or for financial gain
set up trade with other countries to make your's richer
Or, just the government or pockets of politicians
, make your civilians as happy as possible and keep them healthy, like Simcity or city skylines.
I was about to say. You're using utopian vidya logic, and applying it to the real world, where it sadly falls flat on its ass because the world sucks
So, they enforce policies to take care of you, in most cases ... it's not perfect 'cos people aren't.
Or, it doesn't work that way at all so...
People can be bought and they make compromises, allowing fast food chains to make very unhealthy food, that is almost like a drug. Allowing tobacco and alcohol to be sold etc Alcohol is a good example, tried to ban it 'cos of the effect it has and look what happened.
A shining example of how government does not in fact care about the people. Hell, the cops actively poisoned alcohol during prohibition and actively killed people. But it's alright, it was illegal booze, right? Totally got the best intentions at heart for Mr. Fine Citizenson.
Like I've said before, gun restrictions are just part of it, you can't just restrict guns and hope it fixes it'self. I think the hole country needs a redesign, from what I've heard from various places.
Certainly not using the UK as a model I hope.

All seriousness, many do agree the US needs overhauls, but it varies on what kinds. Some want a peaceful purge of corrupt politicians, some want Armstrong levels of changes. This is a different matter from gun control.
Hell, such a change would require arms.

Lense-Thirring said:
"No, stop, just feel hopeless and helpless and buy more guns." -NRA
The former is off a fair bit but the latter is about spot on. The NRA in my opinion are gun salesmen, not champions for the Second Amendment.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Shock and Awe said:
I have a question for the need-guns-to-fight-the-gubmint folks. Directing it at you two since you seem to the the main advocates of that view in this thread.

Do you think widespread private gun ownership would be a serious obstacle for a theoretical tyrannical US government?

Yes, your government gets up to some shady shit. All governments seem to at some point, yours just has the greatest potential capacity for it.

However, you'll notice that they tend to do it on the sly. Exactly how does your personal bullet hose stashed in your bedroom or a handgun in your pants prevent violations that you don't even know about?

Secondly, it seems to me that whenever government violations do occur, nobody is in any hurry to take up arms. But hey, maybe I just missed the bulletin about the South Carolina Rifle Club storming Guantanamo Bay.

Thirdly, do you think the US military would maintain discipline and remain cohesive if it were ordered to attack the general population? Seems to me a much more likely scenario would be a limited deployment against a specific part of the population, in which case you can bet that a large part of the general population would be cheering them on. (Imagine something like Ferguson gone bad. Half the country would be giggling with glee.)

Lastly, let's imagine that through some incredible circumstances the US military does end up waging war on its own population. Do you think an untrained, disorganized pack of idiots with rifles would provide any meaningful opposition to the most powerful army on the planet? Ask the Afghans what it's like fighting against organised, well equipped troops backed up by an obscenely expensive airforce when all you have are amateurs with small arms. Then remember that the Afghans are stubborn, hardy motherfuckers well accustomed to privation and hardship who have been kicking invaders in the shins for all of recorded history, while most of the theoretical Glorious American Resistance would be made up of folks too fat to get off the couch, half of whom would surrender the second the they couldn't log into Facebook while the other half would reach for the white flag when the corn syrup supplies ran out.
 

BytByte

New member
Nov 26, 2009
425
0
0
Zhukov said:
Yes, your government gets up to some shady shit. All governments seem to at some point, yours just has the greatest potential capacity for it.
USAUSAUSAUSA

My thoughts on people thinking they need guns to protect itself from the government is that there is some deep-seated desire for the government to attack them just so they can justify it. Not necessarily overt or concious, but it may be hanging around the back of their head.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,885
733
118
CandideWolf said:
Zhukov said:
Yes, your government gets up to some shady shit. All governments seem to at some point, yours just has the greatest potential capacity for it.
USAUSAUSAUSA

My thoughts on people thinking they need guns to protect itself from the government is that there is some deep-seated desire for the government to attack them just so they can justify it. Not necessarily overt or concious, but it may be hanging around the back of their head.
Not necessarily the US government, but society or authority in general, yeah, seemingly for a fair few. I believe that's because they feel powerless and not getting what they feel they are owed. You can't fight gay marriage or not having a girlfriend, but you can fight Black Helicopters.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
May 2, 2020
2,882
3
43
Country
United States
Lense-Thirring said:
It's frustrating, because so many NRA members are not like that. The only hope I can see is a real competing organization for gun owners, and I can't see that happening with the kind of money and clout the NRA has today. Without the NRA, there would be no magic solution and it would take years for the debate to calm down, but I think it would be a start. The NRA though, is only going to lose power when its members make that choice, and for now they're mostly too scared... by the NRA.
Basically this.

CandideWolf said:
USAUSAUSAUSA

My thoughts on people thinking they need guns to protect itself from the government is that there is some deep-seated desire for the government to attack them just so they can justify it. Not necessarily overt or concious, but it may be hanging around the back of their head.
My thoughts on people thinking the government will protect them is that they want no personal responsibility or requirement to do anything and want all of their needs attended to by the government and to be coddled because they cannot think for themselves. Or at least those would be my thoughts if I didn't realize that is an incredibly ignorant and offensive line of reasoning, grouping of people, oversimplification of human beings and the issue at hand.

You're suggesting people want a justification to murder because they desire to have the means to effectively protect themselves.

Zhukov said:
I have a question for the need-guns-to-fight-the-gubmint folks. Directing it at you two since you seem to the the main advocates of that view in this thread.
Sure.
Do you think widespread private gun ownership would be a serious obstacle for a theoretical tyrannical US government?
Totally.
Yes, your government gets up to some shady shit. All governments seem to at some point, yours just has the greatest potential capacity for it.
All the more reason we need the means to protect ourselves.
However, you'll notice that they tend to do it on the sly. Exactly how does your personal bullet hose stashed in your bedroom or a handgun in your pants prevent violations that you don't even know about?
A good point. This is why we must be ever vigilant and why I thank people like Edward Snowden.
Secondly, it seems to me that whenever government violations do occur, nobody is in any hurry to take up arms. But hey, maybe I just missed the bulletin about the South Carolina Rifle Club storming Guantanamo Bay.
People selectively accepting rights violations for people they do not like. This is wrong when it happens.
Thirdly, do you think the US military would maintain discipline and remain cohesive if it were ordered to attack the general population?
Nope.
Seems to me a much more likely scenario would be a limited deployment against a specific part of the population, in which case you can bet that a large part of the general population would be cheering them on.
On US soil? Military deployment on US soil? That would not go over well, at all. Also, they came for the jews/communists/ect.
(Imagine something like Ferguson gone bad.
You mean it didn't go bad?
Half the country would be giggling with glee.)
Eh, the country didn't exactly giggle to begin with in the original incident.
Lastly, let's imagine that through some incredible circumstances the US military does end up waging war on its own population. Do you think an untrained, disorganized pack of idiots
Your bias is showing.
with rifles would provide any meaningful opposition to the most powerful army on the planet?
In short, yes.
Ask the Afghans what it's like fighting against organised, well equipped troops backed up by an obscenely expensive airforce when all you have are amateurs with small arms.
Looks like they're doing pretty good actually. Then again, a war we shouldn't be in in the first place.
Then remember that the Afghans are stubborn, hardy motherfuckers well accustomed to privation and hardship who have been kicking invaders in the shins for all of recorded history
Afghanistan: Where Empires Go To Die
while most of the theoretical Glorious American Resistance would be made up of folks too fat to get off the couch, half of whom would surrender the second the they couldn't log into Facebook while the other half would reach for the white flag when the corn syrup supplies ran out.
Nice stereotyping. Now for reality.

US soldiers being deployed against their own people on their own soil and having the oh so wonderful track record our forces have had for the past decade and killing unintended persons. No amount of propaganda can fight against that, especially in this age.
Now imagine there being more guns than people and these being in possession of the general population, and no way to know where they are(sans a small idea from registration but, again, that's one of my points). Your image of overweight people on mobility scooters(bit extra because why not?) even if it was largely true(which it isn't and is an offensive depiction), you still have armed citizens in urban and rural areas with access to hardware that any of the places the US military has been dicking about for the past decade wish they did, and admittedly wishing they had some stuff said other locations did but that is a discussion for another day.

Then again, I don't know why I'm even responding considering your view of the US is obese people having drinking contests with corn syrup. Seriously, we can shit talk people all day. It does nothing for the conversation. Show some respect, please.
 

BytByte

New member
Nov 26, 2009
425
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
I just suggested people want an excuse to use their guns, however subconscious it may be. Your the one that is saying guns are only for murder.

I kid but this is how you are trying to argue with people and it ain't working

EDIT:Just saw the end of your post. Peace and we prefer to drink Molasses here in Georgia
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
May 2, 2020
2,882
3
43
Country
United States
CandideWolf said:
I just suggested people want an excuse to use their guns, however subconscious it may be.
Still a bit of an offensive suggestion. Most people who own guns want no reason to have to use them. Better to have and not need and all that.
Your the one that is saying guns are only for murder.
Nope. I'm saying in general that guns are used for various reasons and a very specific reason is defense of our rights need it come to that.
I kid but this is how you are trying to argue with people and it ain't working
I'm a bit of a nut.
EDIT:Just saw the end of your post. Peace and we prefer to drink Molasses here in Georgia
Peace and we prefer to drink ice cold lemonade from stands of little girls that the cops crack down on because they have no permit.

I kid, well, about the preference. Cops are dicks.
 

AgedGrunt

New member
Dec 7, 2011
363
0
0
Been away, didn't have the time, but wish I knew this thread blew up. I would have tagged-in again.

Lense-Thirring said:
Down with the UN! Obama is a lizard! Give me a break.
Debate me on any relevant point or make your own, if you can. Sounds like you were content assuming superior understanding of the issue when you demonstrated that you understood little, and then just copped-out of a reply. It's not rocket science, right?

DizzyChuggernaut said:
Well the second amendment was written in a time where muskets were the primary firearm, for one thing.
The first and fourth amendments were written at a time when there were no phones or internet, yet when our technology evolved our rights did not. Look at it this way: firearms have been around since the 16th century, and even modern designs haven't changed much in roughly a century. These active shootings going on in the US? It's more like 20 years (I put it at Columbine, 1996).

So we have a roughly 20 year old problem and a roughly 230 year old constitution. We do not have a 230 year old problem.

Other developed nations have a very negative view of armed conflict in comparison, many of them not even having firearms available for the police.
There was one security guard at this school in Oregon and he was unarmed. The school not only has a strong anti-weapon/anti-gun policy but recently voted down a proposal to have armed security guards. The school clearly takes a very negative view of armed conflict, like the vast majority of the US.

Battenberg said:
Seriously though there are people responding this way spouting gibberish about the constitution as though a 200+ year old document is relevant to modern America/ modern firearms. It's just ridiculous at his point. Nearly 1000 mass shootings in 3 years in one country. It's tragic. Obama sums it up pretty well, honestly I think he conveys the message as well as it is possible to do, hopefully it triggers some kind of change.
I like how when it comes to the second amendment people are like "Yeah, this is such an old document, it doesn't apply to anything going on today, we need to rewrite this", but then when the US government starts spying on the public, harvesting data and molesting people at airports over national security concerns or, you know, gay people want to marry, suddenly we have a real use for this dustbin document, and hey, it's totally relevant to modern America!

It was scary when many of us were saying after 9/11 that we have to do what it takes to go after terrorists. Here we are with the modern domestic terrorist, which is really just some mentally-ill people that (disturbingly) can seem normal on the outside, and we're right back to infringing on civil rights, assuming we have to do what it takes. There are stupid ideas and then there are just stupid people, and it's really sad that we continue to be manipulated like this.

As for Obama, he went out to talk before he knew anything, as usual, because everything he had to say he's said before. Once again he talks as if every gunman has an arsenal of illegal weapons; in this case they were all legally purchased, acquired over several years, according to the ATF. He also implies that every tragedy is a pattern of simple cases that simple laws like a background check would have uncovered, which has been a demonstrable lie since forever. I don't know how anyone can still be charged with hope and inspiration from his empty rhetoric and hollow points; literally all he cares about is scoring a political victory by ramming laws over opposition that keeps rejecting his slam dunks.

TechNoFear said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
No, my argument is that the issue does not lie with the tool, it lies with who uses the tool.
Then you are wrong, because firearms allow / empower people to project their influence to the range of the firearm, with a level of effectiveness and efficency that no other handheld weapon does.
You just proved his point that it's the people who project their influence, not the firearms. Millions of people and millions of guns neither cause nor are involved in problems. Very few people, clearly mentally ill, misuse them, and very few guns are involved in crimes. You have neither logic nor statistics supporting gun bans.

IIRC, you're Australian and you have seen laws work there, but the reality is that new laws proved that guns weren't the problem. The fact that laws worked in Australia and gun control doesn't work in the US (yes, we do have it), says everything. The many facts about American society and violence says everything.

The Oregon shooter had 13 legal firearms, six of which he carried during the shooting. He would not have been able to obtain those firearms in Australia (unless he was a very rich, well connected criminal).
That's nice. This is the US, where there are many times more guns than Australia has people and it's a civil right to bear arms. What is the point of comparing two completely different countries? What would be your plan for the US, other than assuming that disarm and repeal would work? Do you have a workable solution? Australia is not a workable model for the US and never has been.
 

Cecilo

New member
Nov 18, 2011
330
0
0
I really don't get why people keep comparing the US to Australia. You are an island nation with the ability to control who enters and exits very closely. So close you didnt allow Johnny Depp to enter the country with his dog for a vacation. The US on the other hand shares a border with one of the most violent and crime addled nations in the Americas. And also Mexico (Seriously guys, whats up with your thing with hockey, makes you go all nutso, Disclaimer - Canada is very nice, it is a joke).

Mexico's drug problem bleeds over easily to the US through smugglers, and drug runners, and they bring guns with them. Banning guns will not get rid of this problem, it would be another war on drugs. And it would be just as disastrous and costly. And would get just as little results until Mexico solves its problems.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
CandideWolf said:
Zhukov said:
Yes, your government gets up to some shady shit. All governments seem to at some point, yours just has the greatest potential capacity for it.
USAUSAUSAUSA

My thoughts on people thinking they need guns to protect itself from the government is that there is some deep-seated desire for the government to attack them just so they can justify it. Not necessarily overt or concious, but it may be hanging around the back of their head.
It is not, however, unreasonable to justify having a gun to protect oneself from home invaders or other sorts of criminals who may themselves have guns or any kind of weapon. If we could magically also remove guns from criminals' hands then I would be a lot more in favor of this but instead it comes across more as taking guns away from legal law abiding customers without doing shit to criminals who obtain theirs illegally. Also, I own a six acre piece of property just outside of town and there are fairly dangerous wild animals from bears to wolves to coyotes in my area. I know something like an AK sounds unreasonable to hunt deer with but a bear in close proximity endangering my family or animals? You need something reliable, high caliber, and hopefully rapid firing. All that in addition to a clean backup pair of pants and underwear would be nice.

Please also remember that the majority of gun related crimes committed in the US are done with illegally obtained firearms. In fact, the current statistic is that 93% of the guns used in crimes aren't obtained legally. 93% is a lot. The vast majority in fact. Also, only 10-15% of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns, so the common belief that criminals most commonly steal guns just doesn't match up with the actual numbers. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html] Instead, the vast majority use straw purchase sales. Straw purchases are already illegal yet gun stores still allow them to happen and many guns reported stolen that are used in crimes can also be the result of straw sales rather than legitimate theft to crime events. The second largest source is from legal but corrupt gun vendors. Also illegal and a HUGE source of gun crime at like 30%.

Likewise, in countries where guns are banned we still see regular rises in gun related crimes and even sometimes a spike in gun-related fatalities in the years following the bans. America does have a bigger problem than others but we also have dynamically different regional difficulties to overcome than smaller countries (land and population sizes) do. Our environment even allows for lucrative crime organizations that can afford higher quality weapons than gangs in other nations may be able to. Even so, look at the impact of gun bans in places like England that are praised right now for having gun control laws in place:

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england-full.PNG

If that chart is correct, the bans did what?

The most reasonably minded individuals could make the argument that stricter rules on legal acquisition of guns isn't going to do shit to the problem of criminals acquiring guns illegally. It's better policing of illegal sale of guns that would impact the vast majority of gun related crimes. Stopping legal owners from obtaining them is just needless domineering by enforcement of political belief on others. Little different from a religious nut demanding that you adhere to the tenets of their faith just because something you're doing or own makes them feel icky. In other countries, the criminals still obtain weapons. Do you really believe a country with as massive a drug problem as ours can somehow also keep out guns? You're just talking about making the already illegal dark market for guns even more lucrative for large criminal organizations. Yet another revenue stream. Hell, it may even encourage gun manufacturing plants which take up a lot less space than drug fields. All we need is creating a market that encourages criminals to start making armor piercing rounds and high powered guns.

What's also silly is that the vast majority of these calls to ban guns is only on the scary looking assault rifles. What these naive people don't realize is that assault rifles are big and easy to detect and so are responsible for far less deaths each year than knives are. There is legitimately more rationale to ban knives than rifles of almost any kind. Instead, handguns are significantly more likely to be the culprit. Out of 10,000 homicides caused by guns, 75% are likely to be handguns.

If people really wanted to make a difference in crime, then they wouldn't give a shit about rifles and would focus on handguns. Instead we see people reacting with terrified imaginations that just don't coalesce in reality like they think they do. That is not the way to legislate. Public outrage over the rarest events of gun violence isn't a sound reason to make nation-wide laws. Public outrage over a clear and pervasive existence of gun violence in general is.

So what do I propose given this knowledge?

1. Stricter enforcement of existing laws that are not being honored by licensed arms dealers. The laws being on the books don't mean crap if they aren't being followed.

2. A greater attempt to sniff out the bad arms dealers.

3. A greater attempt to find and prosecute the buyer of guns in a straw sale. These people frequently walk into a gun store with the criminal who points to a gun that they then buy under their own license. Gun vendors are supposed to reject these kinds of customers.

These things would impact actual gun violence trends rather than less than 5% of gun violence like current lines of thought are trying to attack just because assault rifles look scary. But assault rifles are not only hard to conceal but are often only obtainable by the affluent (aka the people who aren't likely to commit crimes) unlike handguns which are easily concealable and relatively cheap.

If stricter laws are put in place regarding guns, they should be regarding handguns to at least be consistent with the stated intention of such laws. I would be in favor of handgun storage requirements but those would be very difficult to enforce and would likely only end up affecting families where a tragedy has just occurred and the storage failure has come to light. Many states have trigger lock laws in place though. Again though, stolen guns are used in a very small amount of crimes because it takes too long for a stolen gun to make its way to a criminal.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,647
0
0
Zhukov said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Shock and Awe said:
I have a question for the need-guns-to-fight-the-gubmint folks. Directing it at you two since you seem to the the main advocates of that view in this thread.

Do you think widespread private gun ownership would be a serious obstacle for a theoretical tyrannical US government?

Yes, your government gets up to some shady shit. All governments seem to at some point, yours just has the greatest potential capacity for it.

However, you'll notice that they tend to do it on the sly. Exactly how does your personal bullet hose stashed in your bedroom or a handgun in your pants prevent violations that you don't even know about?

Secondly, it seems to me that whenever government violations do occur, nobody is in any hurry to take up arms. But hey, maybe I just missed the bulletin about the South Carolina Rifle Club storming Guantanamo Bay.

Thirdly, do you think the US military would maintain discipline and remain cohesive if it were ordered to attack the general population? Seems to me a much more likely scenario would be a limited deployment against a specific part of the population, in which case you can bet that a large part of the general population would be cheering them on. (Imagine something like Ferguson gone bad. Half the country would be giggling with glee.)

Lastly, let's imagine that through some incredible circumstances the US military does end up waging war on its own population. Do you think an untrained, disorganized pack of idiots with rifles would provide any meaningful opposition to the most powerful army on the planet? Ask the Afghans what it's like fighting against organised, well equipped troops backed up by an obscenely expensive airforce when all you have are amateurs with small arms. Then remember that the Afghans are stubborn, hardy motherfuckers well accustomed to privation and hardship who have been kicking invaders in the shins for all of recorded history, while most of the theoretical Glorious American Resistance would be made up of folks too fat to get off the couch, half of whom would surrender the second the they couldn't log into Facebook while the other half would reach for the white flag when the corn syrup supplies ran out.
You forget a few things. First off, the only things that could really motivate Americans to fight are the same things that would already cause mass unrest in the military itself. I am talking about things related to basic civil rights such as speech, religion, arms, etc. These are the issues that concern military members as much as the rest of American conservatives. In addition to the things that would motivate such resistance, the actions that would have to be taken against such resistance would only increase anti-government sentiment and discontent within the ranks of the military and police forces. To fight a resistance with just cause is to only fuel the flames and in turn demoralize your own soldiers who already would be sympathetic to the people they're fighting.

And no, in a war that would cause a true rebellion the military would not be able to maintain discipline against them. Partially because it would have to be national guardsman going against the rebels, not national military units. This would mean that the guardsman would be fighting their own people. Even if the federal military did fight, it would be an even greater burden as such an action is blatantly illegal. And it wouldn't be open conflict, it would be unconventional. It would be bombings, ambushes, sabotage, etc. All of it against people who already don't want to fight. Imagine if one in a hundred gun owners would be willing and able to actually fight, thats a force of a million people. Now what about two in a hundred? Three?

This is of course in a highly unlikely scenario that I'd be flabbergasted if it actually occurred, however I'd say the same about my house burning down. So, I don't get rid of my insurance.

thaluikhain said:
The last few riots showed the conservatives strongly against the rioters, though. IMHO, conservative US rising up against Obama or whatever is much less likely than the next Ferguson turning really ugly.
Theres a big difference between a riot against a correct court decision and a revolution against mass breach of civil liberties.
 

AgedGrunt

New member
Dec 7, 2011
363
0
0
Cecilo said:
I really don't get why people keep comparing the US to Australia....
We also don't live thousands of miles away from the rest of civilization; we also have immigration unlike any other country on the planet.

The problem is people cannot get over their convictions about guns, mental illness and violence itself. Arrogant ideologues like Obama who politicize the issue and have the gall to come out right after a shooting and tell the people (as he politicizes it) that massacres should be politicized maintain the problem as people keep accepting that pill and won't analyze the problem.

Lightknight said:
So here's what I would propose if someone actually wanted to impact actual crime and not legal consumers:
I genuinely appreciate your proposals (pretty much nobody calling for more gun control actually does this) but not only will criminals work to successfully dodge the measures you would make, many currently law-abiding gun owners would as well. There is a hugely negative response to draconian solutions such as trackers, key chips or a mechanism in a gun that would stamp every round with a number that could be traced to the gun.

Specifically your first item, which is something many believe is the issue, actually isn't the problem. Looking at mass shootings in the US there are no shortage of cases where the psychopaths didn't raise any red flags because they weren't criminals, and didn't raise any alarm bells to anyone because they were not suspicious. So how can we a fight the problem with "common sense safety laws", as Obama put it, when not even friends and family members of mass shooters are aware that anything is wrong with the person?
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
AgedGrunt said:
The first and fourth amendments were written at a time when there were no phones or internet, yet when our technology evolved our rights did not. Look at it this way: firearms have been around since the 16th century, and even modern designs haven't changed much in roughly a century. These active shootings going on in the US? It's more like 20 years (I put it at Columbine, 1996).

So we have a roughly 20 year old problem and a roughly 230 year old constitution. We do not have a 230 year old problem.
The first and fourth amendments are pretty much universal values in developed countries. Under what circumstances do you think that they can be challenged? Free speech is a human right and the prevention of unreasonable searches and seizures of property is a widespread part of police procedure across many, many countries.

Modern designs haven't changed much? Compare the musket to the quite frankly obscene amount of firepower that the US government possesses these days. The second amendment was written in a time where this disparity wasn't as huge, where otherthrowing a tyrannical government wasn't an impossibility.

I'd have more respect for people who defend the second amendment if they just admitted they have a raging hard-on for guns. Guns are cool, I get it.

As for your assertion that Columbine (which happened in 1999) was the first instance of the classic "school shooting" template? School shootings have been going on for centuries. Actually look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

There was one security guard at this school in Oregon and he was unarmed. The school not only has a strong anti-weapon/anti-gun policy but recently voted down a proposal to have armed security guards. The school clearly takes a very negative view of armed conflict, like the vast majority of the US.
"Like the vast majority of the US". You have to be kidding. Have you seen how many people in the USA want to "bomb those terrorists back into the stone age"? Have you seen the uproar about Sandy Hook being a "conspiracy to make guns look bad"? Have you seen the NRA?

The USA has an almost sexual obsession with guns. To the rest of the developed world, it's absolutely creepy. When cannabis is considered a bigger threat to the nation than guns I really have to wonder what the country's problem is.

AgedGrunt said:
We also don't live thousands of miles away from the rest of civilization; we also have immigration unlike any other country on the planet.

The problem is people cannot get over their convictions about guns, mental illness and violence itself. Arrogant ideologues like Obama who politicize the issue and have the gall to come out right after a shooting and tell the people (as he politicizes it) that massacres should be politicized maintain the problem as people keep accepting that pill and won't analyze the problem.
Because all of these mass shooters were illegal immigrants, am I right?

It is a political issue, how is it not? I disagree with Obama on many things, but this was one of the few times I was actually in full support of something he said. He didn't say "let's confiscate everyone's guns and ban them".

This isn't like Anita Sarkeesian bitching about "toxic masculinity" while the bodies of the victims are still warm. Guns kill people. They are designed to kill people. Don't be surprised when they get used to kill people.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
I want to preface this by saying that I'm a gun owner who has been shooting guns since I was 11, and I have taught gun safety courses in the past. I am also not what you would call a conservative, right-winger, libertarian, or "gun nut". I can be considered an enthusiast, but I have great respect for the danger of guns. I'll try to be concise with my thoughts but that may not be possible. I didn't want to comment right away on the issue.

Unlike many debates, in this debate the "straw men" on both sides are all too often flesh-and-blood and loud. On one side you have people who sincerely believe that the US would be great if half the population was carrying, and the other side who cannot fathom why anyone would want a gun, and sincerely want to ban/confiscate as many as possible.

The problem with the debate is that there's a incredulity on both sides that the other side is acting in good faith. It's the reason why gun rights activists (hereby referred to as GRAs) are so rock solid in their opposition to most new proposed gun laws, and sees it as a slippery slope.

This is because we've been down the slope before. In the 90s there was a movement to institute a nation background check system (the Brady bill), which was pretty reasonable and accepted by most today. What happened after? Gun bans, gun bans, gun bans. Not just the Assault Weapons Ban, but many new state and municipal movements to ban entire classes of guns. The AWB was, well, really dumb. Even from a gun control advocate's (GCAs) perspective, it only banned guns based on cosmetic features, for the most part. Then there was more than one city trying to ban handguns outright.

Read: this is why GRAs don't believe you when you say "we just want background checks. We just want X. No one's taking away your guns!" This only seems like a trap, to many. If expanded background checks/licenses/etc. do actually lower crime rates (which I think they might), then it'll be proof gun control "works" and then we'll get GCAs clamoring to overturn the 2nd Amendment and DC v. Heller. If it does nothing, it will just means we need more gun control! The fact is, most GCAs have a target goal of reducing the number of guns already in the US, and when you talk about that, you're talking about bans and confiscations. Non-starters to GRAs. Make it clear over a long period that you have no interest in banning guns, confiscating them, and maybe, just maybe, GRAs will start softening their stance.

I think the other frustrating thing about the whole debate is that GCAs only want to talk about that one factor, even though they know expanded background checks would not have stopped Sandy Hook or many of these shootings. Some, maybe. It's frustrating because there ARE legitimate factors which have nothing to do with gun regulations. Gun-free zones, disallowing people the concealed carry permits to carry in places like schools and other places are just making them soft targets. The killers went there specifically because they knew no one would have a gun and would not be able to defend themselves. I have not heard a single GCA who has been able to address this fundamental issue without trying to shift the topic back to gun sensationalism.

Now, I'm not some kind of couch commando. The tactical situation of a spree shooting is usually not something that can be easily repelled by a "good guy with a gun". However, there is outright HOSTILITY at the idea of allowing more security guards and security checks in schools. Having armed security at entrances so someone can't just walk through the front doors with an AR-15 without being noticed very quickly. The answer probably is not to arm teachers, but the plain facts are, no matter what your views on gun control, our schools are not properly secured, whether they be colleges or inner-city high schools. No spree shooter I have ever heard of has been a concealed carrier, usually they are not eager to register their names with the government.

Look, our monkey brains are hardwired to be shocked whenever they see one human killing another human intentionally. It's a visceral, almost involuntary reaction. We want to do something about it, but whatever we do should be evidence-based solutions, not just passing as many laws as possible in the hopes of doing something. Automobile accidents are a problem in the US as well and kill more than guns, something often pointed out, and they are usually preventable in some way, if more people took public transport. We have become numb to automobile deaths. When there's a 10-car pileup that kills 15 people, we don't consider it a national tragedy. Perhaps we should, deaths are deaths after all, if a family of four gets their brains smashed out on the highway because someone didn't signal, they don't get the same amount of attention drawn to them, their stories aren't sensationalized in the media. I would say "all lives matter", but you know.

If we really want to conserve as many lives as possible from being needlessly taken away, we have to think rationally about solutions that are practical to implement and are based on evidence. On the other hand, it would be nice if GRAs would stop rambling about conspiracy theories and having fantasies about thwarting attacks with their awesome gun skillz. I do think there is an over-fetishization of guns by some. I think more understanding on both sides and approaching the debates honestly would come a long way in actually coming together to fix the problem. As foolish as the political wing of the NRA seems at times, I think the GCAs have done more to hurt their own cause than any outside force.