The Oregon shooting

[Leg End]

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.

PATRIOT Act.

Modern designs haven't changed much?

Eh... if we're talking about the base function, firearms haven't really changed at all. Squeeze trigger, pew pew. Though, yes they have generally advanced in their ability to pewpew.

Compare the musket to the quite frankly obscene amount of firepower that the US government possesses these days.

Do you mean small arms or the shining examples of a defense budget on steroids?

The second amendment was written in a time where this disparity wasn't as huge, where otherthrowing a tyrannical government wasn't an impossibility.

Was seen as impossible then too. The disparity is not as big as you think, one side just has better access to the big toys.

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.

Well, I'll say it. I fucking loooovvveee firearms for many reasons, one of those being fine craftsmanship.

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

Yeah, he was a tad off on that.

"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"?

"Acceptable targets of violence". Happens in every country. Not saying it is right for people to call for genocide but the US is not the only country to do this.

Have you seen the uproar about Sandy Hook being a "conspiracy to make guns look bad"?

For the sanity of this argument I suggest not touching that thread.

Have you seen the NRA?

Enough for one lifetime, yes.

The USA has an almost sexual obsession with guns.

Some people, not all. Unfair to say the US in general.

To the rest of the developed world, it's absolutely creepy.

We think things are creepy about other countries as well.

When cannabis is considered a bigger threat to the nation than guns I really have to wonder what the country's problem is.

Hypocritical application of personal rights? Seems to be a trend.

Because all of these mass shooters were illegal immigrants, am I right?

Wait, what?

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".

He actually might as well have. When you say our country should look at the examples of the UK and Aussieland, two countries that had confiscations and turn ins and large scale bans, and say we should be like them, you might as well just spit it out and say it because that is in fact what you are saying. He didn't, because that would have started an uprising then and there.

This isn't like Anita Sarkeesian bitching about "toxic masculinity" while the bodies of the victims are still warm.

I reiterate. What? Otherwise, something something Anita against free speech and rights stop where feelings begin.

Guns kill people.

You probably know what I'd say to this so I'm not going to say it. I was saddened when The Iron Giant said it and I'm sad here.

They are designed to kill people.

This is a bit of a trickier definition. They are designed to fire a projectile at stupidly fast speeds to hit a target. For a use against human targets, they are designed to incapacitate them, which the damage inflicted upon a human target is typically lethal(in most cases, or always depending if you use the term "less lethal" or "non lethal", which I think the latter term is stupid)

Don't be surprised when they get used to kill people.

I never am. I get sad.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

According to whom? The people who are rioting are going to think they are justified, the people opposed to them will think they aren't.

In any case, Ferguson wasn't about a court case, it was just sparked by one. It was about civil liberties and massive breaches thereof.

 

[Dizchu]

PATRIOT Act.

The PATRIOT Act is extremely controversial and in addition to the PRISM program has garnered international outrage. It relates to the debate about where the line is drawn between national security and individual privacy, which is a whole different discussion.

Generally though, the you won't get arrested in any developed nations for saying the wrong thing (unless it incites violence). This is considered a pillar of modern civilisation.

Eh... if we're talking about the base function, firearms haven't really changed at all. Squeeze trigger, pew pew. Though, yes they have generally advanced in their ability to pewpew.

That is quite a big change. You can't exactly charge into school with a musket and kill dozens of people.[

quote]Well, I'll say it. I fucking loooovvveee firearms for many reasons, one of those being fine craftsmanship.[/quote]

Excellent, I'm glad you don't sugarcoat it. There's nothing wrong with liking guns, or owning them if you're a responsible and qualified owner.

"Acceptable targets of violence". Happens in every country. Not saying it is right for people to call for genocide but the US is not the only country to do this.

Sure but the main difference is that the USA genuinely has enough firepower to "send them back to the stone age". When some idiot nationalists in the UK say that sort of thing it doesn't hold the same weight at all.

Because all of these mass shooters were illegal immigrants, am I right?

Wait, what?

I was responding to the assertion that Australia was able to enforce strict gun laws because "it is an island nation that doesn't have as many immigrants as the USA". But most of these mass shooters in the USA are legal citizens, they're not people that came in from other countries seeking to cause trouble. You can discuss the damage the cartels in Mexico cause as much as you want but I think that discussion relates more to the "War on Drugs" than it does gun control.

He actually might as well have. When you say our country should look at the examples of the UK and Aussieland, two countries that had confiscations and turn ins and large scale bans, and say we should be like them, you might as well just spit it out and say it because that is in fact what you are saying. He didn't, because that would have started an uprising then and there.

The main difference between the USA and the UK and Australia is that guns are firmly rooted in modern American culture. The dam's already burst, there's a mass shooting every day (literally). It's fascinating how any other developed nation responds to mass shootings as a call to reduce the amount of guns, while in America there's a strong push to get even more guns. It's like nuclear deterrence but on a smaller scale, it's so.. weird.

I reiterate. What? Otherwise, something something Anita against free speech and rights stop where feelings begin.

Anita/Feminist Frequency's intention was to push their feminism. Obama's just suggesting something similar to what the governments in other countries have responded with when they experienced mass shootings (and with success). It's completely different, there's evidence to back up what he said. Whether or not the solution would work in the USA is a different story, but it's not an unreasonable idea in the slightest.

 

[Leg End]

The PATRIOT Act is extremely controversial

Controversial, but still an example of selective rights for "people we deem acceptable to have them" because dem fahkeen terrrrrists..

and in addition to the PRISM program has garnered international outrage.

And the US government responded by not caring, citizens or foreign allies.

It relates to the debate about where the line is drawn between national security and individual privacy, which is a whole different discussion.

Quite true, but still applies when talking about what rights are considered universal rights in the modern era and how much we truly value them.

Generally though, the you won't get arrested in any developed nations for saying the wrong thing

Yeeaahhh... no. Regular event here. I reiterate, cops suck.

This is considered a pillar of modern civilisation.

Many would argue speech must be regulated but, different discussion.(I am not one of these people)

That is quite a big change. You can't exactly charge into school with a musket and kill dozens of people.

I... won't seriously answer that question.

Excellent, I'm glad you don't sugarcoat it. There's nothing wrong with liking guns, or owning them if you're a responsible and qualified owner.

No reason to sugarcoat it.

Sure but the main difference is that the USA genuinely has enough firepower to "send them back to the stone age". When some idiot nationalists in the UK say that sort of thing it doesn't hold the same weight at all.

Are we talking armed citizens or the military waving our defense budget around like a giant inflatable dick? Feels like we're talking both. Key thing here is, sans only two-ish examples I can think of in probably the past 15 years, I can't think of an instance where a private citizen decided to try and commit a small genocide against people of faiths/races of the usual "DEM FAHKEEN TERRRISTS" branding.

Because all of these mass shooters were illegal immigrants, am I right?

Wait, what?

I was responding to the assertion that Australia was able to enforce strict gun laws because "it is an island nation that doesn't have as many immigrants as the USA". But most of these mass shooters in the USA are legal citizens, they're not people that came in from other countries seeking to cause trouble. You can discuss the damage the cartels in Mexico cause as much as you want but I think that discussion relates more to the "War on Drugs" than it does gun control.

I... think he was meaning more the fact that Australia being an island has a far easier time controlling incoming illegal firearms. Also, relates to gun control if we mention Operation Fast and Furious though that's another discussion.

He actually might as well have. When you say our country should look at the examples of the UK and Aussieland, two countries that had confiscations and turn ins and large scale bans, and say we should be like them, you might as well just spit it out and say it because that is in fact what you are saying. He didn't, because that would have started an uprising then and there.

The main difference between the USA and the UK and Australia is that guns are firmly rooted in modern American culture. The dam's already burst, there's a mass shooting every day (literally). It's fascinating how any other developed nation responds to mass shootings as a call to reduce the amount of guns, while in America there's a strong push to get even more guns. It's like nuclear deterrence but on a smaller scale, it's so.. weird.

The main difference is that in general, it is a very different culture. Australia and the UK do not have arms recognized as a right. We prefer as minimal government involvement in everything as possible. Americans typically understand guns as a great equalizer. The idea that "an armed society is a polite society" is very much in effect and to an extent, it actually works. Well, in my opinion.
Firearms allow for those who otherwise could not defend themselves against an assailant who far outclasses them, to do so. Even if the assailant has a firearm, so do you. It is equal footing as partially I described it before with the whole fat americans on mobility scooters scenario.

Pretend someone is wheelchair bound, against someone who has just broken into their home, and this person has shown clear intent to harm this person with the means to do so.
A firearm in this instance, can at minimum put this person back on equal footing. In Australia and the UK, times where someone has used a firearm to protect themselves has often resulted in arrest and prosecution. Hell, in the UK you can barely fight back against someone in your house without them suing you, winning, and getting off the hook while you rot in a cell because you had the audacity to defend yourself. That very scenario would make any, and I do mean any American shudder, and makes many citizens of the UK do the same.

I reiterate. What? Otherwise, something something Anita against free speech and rights stop where feelings begin.

Anita/Feminist Frequency's intention was to push their feminism.

The intention was to shit on free speech.

Obama's just suggesting something similar to what the governments in other countries have responded with when they experienced mass shootings (and with success).

When they have anywhere near the same circumstances and have arms recognized as a right, then I'll begin to take his intended "idea" seriously.

It's completely different, there's evidence to back up what he said. Whether or not the solution would work in the USA is a different story, but it's not an unreasonable idea in the slightest.

Maybe not unreasonable to suggest, but incredibly unreasonable to even consider applying it. Firearms are a right here. As you'd imagine, people take fiddling with their rights very seriously, particularly when the document enforcing it is not granting us rights, it is a reminder to the government they cannot touch them. This is the people reminding the government of who is in fact in charge. You can surely see why we're quite hesitant to alter our rights, moreso when many proponents for taking away this right desire the government to do a full scale, door to door armed confiscation, which is basically why we have it clarified in our "contract" to begin with.

Crossing my fingers all of this quoting isn't screwed up.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Anita/Feminist Frequency's intention was to push their feminism.

In the (not particularly unreasonable) belief that it would result in less murders, though. The shooter went on about how girls won't fuck him and how cruel it was. Similar to Rogers and any number of other murderers, with manifestos about beta males and feminists taking their god given pussy away.

Now, Obama has examples in the form of nations doing better with the problem and a somewhat concrete plan of how to deal with it, but Sarkeesian's basic idea seems reasonable.

 

[Dizchu]

In the (not particularly unreasonable) belief that it would result in less murders, though. The shooter went on about how girls won't fuck him and how cruel it was. Similar to Rogers and any number of other murderers, with manifestos about beta males and feminists taking their god given pussy away.

Now, Obama has examples in the form of nations doing better with the problem and a somewhat concrete plan of how to deal with it, but Sarkeesian's basic idea seems reasonable.

Sure a discussion can be had, but her approach was "look, I told you so, now do you believe me?" It comes off as cold and unnecessary. It's the sort of discussion that doesn't result in any short-term solutions, changing attitudes about gender (something that is extremely personal for many people) is not something that can be done with legislation. Making gun laws more strict is something that can be done. Well, if the opposition doesn't continue their "America doesn't have a problem with guns" nonsense (looking at you, Jeb Bush).

Forgive me if it seems a tad self-indulgent to me. It may serve as an interesting pub discussion but publishing it online so recently after the fact essentially pours salt onto all of the open wounds. I agree that pressures on masculine identity does a lot to inspire massacres like these, but I don't think the first response should be "wow I think that guy's dad should have told him it's okay to cry sometimes".

Maybe not unreasonable to suggest, but incredibly unreasonable to even consider applying it. Firearms are a right here. As you'd imagine, people take fiddling with their rights very seriously, particularly when the document enforcing it is not granting us rights, it is a reminder to the government they cannot touch them. This is the people reminding the government of who is in fact in charge. You can surely see why we're quite hesitant to alter our rights, moreso when many proponents for taking away this right desire the government to do a full scale, door to door armed confiscation, which is basically why we have it clarified in our "contract" to begin with.

In an attempt to not clutter up the thread, I'll just respond to your last point.

Sometimes people have to weigh which rights are more important than others. Laws have changed in the past, some (like the abolition of slavery) have done tremendous good. Others (like alcohol prohibition) have been an absolute disaster. I don't necessarily think that firearms should be banned in the USA seeing as they clearly mean a lot to people. But their accessibility is a problem, the ease in which someone can cheat the system is a problem.

Personally I think that the reduction of certain rights for the improvement of society as a whole should be encouraged. The awkward part is proving if the action would improve society. There are plenty of instances in the past of people not being allowed to do a certain thing any more, be it for health and safety reasons or for equality. There have been oppositions every time, but that's the nature of the beast. In order for a society to progress it has to let go of some of the baggage, which can be extremely sentimental for some. We've done it in the past many times, sometimes the wounds heal pretty quickly and sometimes they don't.

 

[andago]

The main difference is that in general, it is a very different culture. Australia and the UK do not have arms recognized as a right. We prefer as minimal government involvement in everything as possible. Americans typically understand guns as a great equalizer. The idea that "an armed society is a polite society" is very much in effect and to an extent, it actually works. Well, in my opinion.
Firearms allow for those who otherwise could not defend themselves against an assailant who far outclasses them, to do so. Even if the assailant has a firearm, so do you. It is equal footing as partially I described it before with the whole fat americans on mobility scooters scenario.

Pretend someone is wheelchair bound, against someone who has just broken into their home, and this person has shown clear intent to harm this person with the means to do so.
A firearm in this instance, can at minimum put this person back on equal footing. In Australia and the UK, times where someone has used a firearm to protect themselves has often resulted in arrest and prosecution. Hell, in the UK you can barely fight back against someone in your house without them suing you, winning, and getting off the hook while you rot in a cell because you had the audacity to defend yourself. That very scenario would make any, and I do mean any American shudder, and makes many citizens of the UK do the same.

I'm not sure you really understand the law in the UK. Self defense is allowable even up to the death of the assailant, people are only prosecuted for continuing an assault on someone that no longer poses a threat (i.e. is unconscious or has made an escape). Notably a couple 3 years ago fired their legally owned shotgun at intruders, and had no charges pressed against them. When the intruders asked for a diminished sentence based on the fact, the judge said "If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take."

The law states that a person can defend themselves to such an extent as they believed necessary at the time, with whatever legally owned object they have to hand at the time. Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. The law very clearly says that a householder is not expected to weigh up the arguments for and against in the heat of the moment. The Crown Prosecution states that "fine judgements" over necessary force are not expected.

In fact the law also allows for citizen's arrests to be performed on fleeing assailants, although in that case the amount of force used would then be more harshly judged, most likely limited to a tackle or an incapacitating blow.

EDIT x 2: I think there were only around 11 prosecutions in 15 years over the turn of the millienium, one most notably apparently being someone who caught an assailant, bound him, and set him on fire.

In any case, a better comparison to the USA would be Switzerland, a land locked european country, that has or at least had the 3rd highest ratio of gun ownership to population, but also has a fraction of the ratio of "gun homicides" as the United States has, with their focus on gun registration and currently stricter background checks required when purchasing a firearm. They key difference in my opinion being that in response to the somewhat rare shootings in Switzerland, they then do go onto examine and adjust their gun ownership laws

 

[Lightknight]

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.

I accidentally posted that early. After significant editing I thought I was posting it for the first time this morning but I was only editing it. I did some more specific research so I think I'll post it again here at the bottom if that's ok. You didn't quote mine from yesterday but it is a drastically different post.

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?

Mass shooting aren't common enough to direct how the entire nation operates. Less than 100 people from 1982 to now have decided to go on a shooting spree. You're telling me that this warrants restricting the rights of 300 million people? You do realize that in nearly every instance these sprees are stopped by trained individuals with guns, right? Cops aren't walking in and hugging them until they stop. Also, these public sprees are incredibly rare. People try to talk about the overall mass killing numbers as though they're all Newtowns but those incidents account for around 15% of the overall numbers. So statistically 15 people since 1982? Again, more people are murdered by knives than rifles each year. In 2013 twice as many people were killed by knives than rifles. Would you advocate a banning of sharp objects to maintain consistent philosophy here?

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.

 

[Leg End]

In an attempt to not clutter up the thread, I'll just respond to your last point.

Sometimes people have to weigh which rights are more important than others.

All. Trading rights for "protection" is how we have half of what is wrong in the country.

Laws have changed in the past, some (like the abolition of slavery) have done tremendous good.

Totally.

Others (like alcohol prohibition) have been an absolute disaster.

Double totally.

I don't necessarily think that firearms should be banned in the USA seeing as they clearly mean a lot to people. But their accessibility is a problem, the ease in which someone can cheat the system is a problem.

Accessibility is not as easy as you'd think, particularly in some of the nanny states. Cheating the system however, has nothing to do with laws because the system will always be stupidly easy to cheat, or bypass entirely.

Personally I think that the reduction of certain rights for the improvement of society as a whole should be encouraged.

The world has a long history on how that just, does not work.

The awkward part is proving if the action would improve society.

Of course.

There are plenty of instances in the past of people not being allowed to do a certain thing any more, be it for health and safety reasons or for equality.

And a great overlap on how those instances have been used to control people.

There have been oppositions every time, but that's the nature of the beast. In order for a society to progress it has to let go of some of the baggage, which can be extremely sentimental for some. We've done it in the past many times, sometimes the wounds heal pretty quickly and sometimes they don't.

The thing here is trying to prove that the right to bear arms for the common man with no government infringement is a bad thing. We have the history to back up how that is not a bad thing and rightfully paranoid of any government regulation of our rights. Kinda defeats the purpose if the government can control the means to defend ourselves against itself.

snipping most of your post

I'll concede to your point of self defense being recognized in the UK, as using the bad apple cases would be incredibly stupid.

In any case, a better comparison to the USA would be Switzerland, a land locked european country, that has or at least had the 3rd highest ratio of gun ownership to population, but also has a fraction of the ratio of "gun homicides" as the United States has, with their focus on gun registration and currently stricter background checks required when purchasing a firearm. They key difference in my opinion being that in response to the somewhat rare shootings in Switzerland, they then do go onto examine and adjust their gun ownership laws

I can say nothing more on this forum than "cultural differences" and "the swiss are made of magic".

 

[CaitSeith]

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?

I'll be curious: how many dangerous animals have you had to shoot in your life?

 

[boag]

Going on a stabbing spree ends in a lot less bodies than a shooting spree.

Who said anything about stabbing?

Your argument amounts to a Nirvana logical fallacy (if we can't stop 100% of the violence we should not do anything)

If you compare similar shootings in countries with strict firearm control to the shootings in the US you see a clear difference; the number of victims.

Since Australia restricted access to semi-autos and handguns almost 20 years ago there has not been a mass shooting.

For example the 2014 Sydney (Australia) siege gunman used a pump action shotgun that was over 50 years old and ammo that was 15-20 years old. An expert demonstrated that the shotgun could only fire up to 4 shots in 20 seconds.

Why did the shooter use an antique shotgun instead of multiple semi-auto firearms and body armor?

Because he could NOT get them in Australia due to the strict firearm laws.

In the US this gunman would have had access to multiple semi-auto firearms, with large capacity magazines and body armor (which probably would have allowed the shooter to kill more than the 2 people he did).

Mexico has a strict no guns policy in the entire country, you cannot own a gun unless you are military, law enforcement or have payed for a special disposition right given by the military.

It therefore stands to reason that Mexico is the safest country in the world and has no deaths related to gun violence whatsoever.

Please ignore the following links

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/113/number_of_privately_owned_firearms/10,31,194
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/113/total_number_of_gun_deaths/10,31,194

 

[Megalodon]

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

If that chart is correct, the bans did what?

Where did you find this graph?

Even if this data is accurate (some of it seems to be, I can't find anything later than the 2000s atm), it a ridiculously narrow conclusion to draw that gun regulation causes an increase in murder rate. Not only do we have any number of confounding factors, changes in population dynamics, economic/social circumstance enforcement/sentencing laws over the last 50 years. Then, if you look at that data it really doesn't tell us anything useful. The significant spike in murder after 1968 doesn't kick until until the mid 70s, whereas the jump following 1997 has been for all intents and purposes wiped out after a comparable length of time. If it's as simple as gun regulation = more murder, why is there this difference in rate change after these two pieces of legislature? Why does the rate fall in the 2000s when it didn't in the 70s? You see how 'what causes a change in the murder rate?' is massively more convoluted than 'it's gun regulation's fault'. Plus, 1968 wasn't even the start of UK gun regulation, I'm afraid I'm not fluent enough in legalese to fully decipher the documents, but that bill was built off of and consolidated other bills from 1937, 1962 and 1965.

Whatever your stance on guns and all that, can we at least agree there's a fucking problem here? The simple fact these events have become routine should be a concern. Instead we see the same old dick waving contest, political bluster and agenda pushing. Gun control, mental health, whatever, shouldn't America pull its finger out and do something to address this apparently uniquely American affliction?

 

[AgedGrunt]

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.

The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. 1st, 4th and 5th amendments are treated as sacred, but actually they all are (that's why they are in the same section). Anyone that would argue some rights are less important than others not only doesn't understand rights but it says they will not fight for everyone's rights equally.

Spoiler

Modern designs haven't changed much? Compare the musket...

Revolvers and semi-automatic weapons have been around far longer than the current mass shooting crisis. You missed the point that something so old that has never been a problem couldn't have created today's problems.

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

Indeed it was 1999, more recent than I gave credit, which means that it's been even less time since what I was actually saying was the start of the modern crisis. Columbine was a defining moment in American history unlike any mass shooting, and I argue that it's the point where the landscape changed.

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.

As an American I find it creepy how much of the world self-righteously judges us in horrible and ignorant ways and obsesses over us and our politics. I know there are things happening in everyone's home country, it can't always be a slow news day with nothing happening at all in open deserts. Ok, maybe Australia. I could see that.

It is a political issue, how is it not?

This isn't like Anita Sarkeesian bitching about "toxic masculinity" while the bodies of the victims are still warm.

1) Obama didn't say it was a political issue, he made up a strawman that he's accused of "politicizing" the issue and then said the issue should be politicized. He nagged and moaned to our shocked and grieving public to get people on his side. He also took a shot at the NRA, suggesting gun owners drop their support. That's what politicizing an issue is.

2) The president said these things the day of the shooting. It's possible the bodies were literally still warm, if not it's apparently as close to it as a president can get on short notice.

/snip

I'm not sure what's going on here, maybe you did make a drastic edit to your post, because there's a big misunderstanding now; you're talking more like me now. I was just responding to the suggestions about tightening up gun control. Generally I'm against any new gun laws.

Obama proved why new laws should be opposed. He started off in his first remarks about this shooting at Umpqua correctly, talking about the killer as a sick, mentally-ill person. But he immediately went away from that to blaming gun laws and the NRA, and lectured gun owners to wise up and abandon their asses. Somehow this is digested as truth, despite the obvious shell game.

 

[Lightknight]

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?

I'll be curious: how many dangerous animals have you had to shoot in your life?

I'm not a big fan of killing anything, I'll relocate more benign animals if possible, but I have had to kill a few. Most of them water moccasins around my pond. I don't kill every snake I see, many are great for pest control but these highly aggressive and dangerous snakes I have to get rid of and don't want to risk my life to relocate somewhere else that they may end up killing someone else or their pet instead. For those, though, my trusty shotgun was the obvious choice. Now, I have had a bear on my property that saw but was just passing through and we have had wolves that I've heard but haven't seen yet. Even if a bear just came up to the house I wouldn't shoot unless it was threatening us so let me be clear that I'm talking about defensive use against real dangers here and not just all guns a blazing anytime some unfortunate animal crosses my fence.

I've only been there for one year, though. I don't have a high caliber rifle but I am considering it. The best I can do at the moment is have a few slugs for my shotgun in case I do need to take on a bear or wolf but that thing has four shots maximum and you can't really aim a shotgun like you do a rifle and you can't rapid fire. Back when I owned a house in the suburbs I didn't really have a need for these. There was no pressing desire to be able to protect myself. But now that I'm away from people the need has really made itself apparent. The first time I saw a moccasin I didn't own any weapon and it behaved aggressively (usually they're not really as aggressive as people say but sometimes they'll actively try to get to you). That and seeing a bear that could have come and taken anything he so damn well desired made me decide to level the playing field since I don't have the venom of a snake or the sheer strength of a bear. But I suspect this is why a lot of people supporting access to guns are so commonly rural people. I mean, I make it sound like I own a farm and legally it is (three farms, technically), but I own a nice piece of property with a nice home just on the outskirts of the city to where I'm 9 minutes away from my white collar job. But now I'm in a position where I can understand why my neighbors are so gun-friendly. It is a form of home protection and not necessarily from other people. It's easy to sit, as I did, in a suburban neighborhood and not understand why people need guns sometimes. But when you start to live somewhere else and realize that it's a protective tool against all manner of things then you start to reconsider that position.

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

If that chart is correct, the bans did what?

Where did you find this graph?

When you quote an image you'll see the link it's from in the html. You can also directly right-click images and select "properties". Just in case you ever need to find it in the future.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Seems to be a pretty legitimate source with data from all sides. Let me know if you know something I don't about the site but it links to the data sources which are also legitimate.

Even if this data is accurate (some of it seems to be, I can't find anything later than the 2000s atm),

I don't just link from sites. Usually I also go to the source they cited. This one is just the numbers and pretty straight forward.

it a ridiculously narrow conclusion to draw that gun regulation causes an increase in murder rate. Not only do we have any number of confounding factors, changes in population dynamics, economic/social circumstance enforcement/sentencing laws over the last 50 years. Then, if you look at that data it really doesn't tell us anything useful. The significant spike in murder after 1968 doesn't kick until until the mid 70s, whereas the jump following 1997 has been for all intents and purposes wiped out after a comparable length of time. If it's as simple as gun regulation = more murder, why is there this difference in rate change after these two pieces of legislature? Why does the rate fall in the 2000s when it didn't in the 70s? You see how 'what causes a change in the murder rate?' is massively more convoluted than 'it's gun regulation's fault'. Plus, 1968 wasn't even the start of UK gun regulation, I'm afraid I'm not fluent enough in legalese to fully decipher the documents, but that bill was built off of and consolidated other bills from 1937, 1962 and 1965.

I didn't say it caused an increase in gun related murders. I said it had no apparent or long standing impact. For example, here's Chicago's overall murder rate compared to the national average:

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago.png

While it appears to kick off a trend you'll note that the overall US murder rate was also following the same trend and if you look at the handgun specific data you'll see there was already a downward trend of handgun murders:

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago_handguns.png

Since the ban there was a brief period of fewer handgun related murders than before but you can see the stable dip was already in place before that law. My guess is they put some gun-related policies in place leading up to the eventual ban that may have done something but even then the murder by handgun percentage of overall murders averaged 40% higher than before the ban and was only going up until 2010 when the Supreme court struck down their ban as unconstitutional. What good does a ban do if they're still responsible for just as many murders as before and a higher percentage of overall murders?

Whatever your stance on guns and all that, can we at least agree there's a fucking problem here? The simple fact these events have become routine should be a concern. Instead we see the same old dick waving contest, political bluster and agenda pushing. Gun control, mental health, whatever, shouldn't America pull its finger out and do something to address this apparently uniquely American affliction?

The nature of the internet and 24 hour news organizations means that we hear about EVERYTHING. But we are one of the three largest nations in the world to the point where we're almost a full continent all by ourselves in both land size and especially population size. Countries with VERY large populations do tend to have higher murder rates than comparable economic countries with smaller populations. In other countries we see significantly more fatal bombings taking place all the time. Frankly, if these nutters go nuts it's oftentimes signifantly safer that they're using a gun than an explosive. That Boston bombing injured 264 people. I know it only killed 3 people but it could have been far worse had the bombs not been placed on the ground. That's why there were so many amputees and so few fatalities. Finland, Switzerland and Norway all have restrictive gun policies in place an all have a higher rate of gun rampage death per 100,000. People forget how big the US is. They don't even recognize that we can swallow many of these nations whole in population and land size. We are going to have higher numbers but not necessarily higher percentages. We actually appear to have less of a rampage problem than several countries with restrictive policies overall.

http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screenshot-6_18_2015-9_43_12-PM.jpg

Now, I'll grant you that there is a problem with gun violence in general in the US, but the shit people are currently calling for is aimed at the people obtaining guns legally because of some lie in the back of their head that these are the ones doing the crimes. That's simply not true given the data I've presented. The policies have to be aimed at the places I stated. People allowing or participating in straw sales, licensed vendors that just go ahead and decide to sell guns to people they know are criminals, and we need to crack down on enforcing gun removal from all the people who have guns and shouldn't have guns.

The appropriation of these devastating events to abuse the rights of upstanding citizens cannot continue. It will actively hurt us. The abuse of this issue as a means to progress a political career is simply atrocious on both sides of the aisle. Republicans who don't address the real issue for fear of it letting it touch legal ownership and Democrats pushing for legal ownership to be damaged just because the ignorant population is hard to educate and so that's what will make them popular? This shit is costing real lives and they should be ashamed of themselves for not stepping outside their politi-self and being a human again for once.

Heck, here's a Washington post article on examples of civilians who can be credited as having stopped mass murderers thanks to them having guns themselves:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

Consider the fact that most mass murderers actually target gun-free zones. If people are trying to mitigate these shootings then they're going the wrong way. If they're trying to mitigate overall gun violence then they're going the wrong way.

It is depressing to see mass hysteria causing us such harm when there are actual and appropriate steps that can be taken. At our core we're still just one big lynch mob. Hanging first and getting the truth later when it's already too late.

 

[AgedGrunt]

It is depressing to see mass hysteria causing us such harm when there are actual and appropriate steps that can be taken. At our core we're still just one big lynch mob. Hanging first and getting the truth later when it's already too late.

We don't get the truth, though; it's not reported. Politicians make sure the only thing people hear is their propaganda.

Sandy Hook (school): before the massacre, the killer was denied a firearm purchase. His mother, a good, lawful human being who owned her own weapons, was the first one the maniac murdered after he stole her guns.

1) The system worked; a person that could have been prevented a firearm purchase was denied.
2) Someone who is motivated and determined found a way around gun laws.
3) No one, not even the killer's own mother, who was caring and supportive with him, saw dangerous signs and so didn't see him as a violent threat to anyone.

Charleston (church shooting): the killer legally acquired his weapons because he was not a criminal or a visible threat, and not even his family noticed he had developed serious issues.

Virginia (news crew shooting): same story as Charleston, only he was an adult, living on his own and thus lived a private life where no one could suspect he was (to quote him) a powder keg about to go off.

Oregon (college): same story as Charleston and Virginia; killer acquired his weapons over several years and was involved in a lot of normal activities. Once again, his family was taken by complete surprise as he was not a criminal and showed no signs of mental issues.

Yet the "routine" we hear about is fictional reality, that every mass shooting is the same for different reasons. False reasons. It's a big lie that every shooting is about illegal guns and purchases through "loopholes", and the hate and raging that the NRA is trying to stick a gun into every baby crib in America makes people sound crazier than Republicans.

The depressing thing is that people do not get the truth and believe in total bullshit, and many of the people are otherwise intelligent and should be smarter than this.

 

[mad825]

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

If that chart is correct, the bans did what?

/facepalm

It's very inconsiderate of you for not taking into account of the deaths caused by the IRA - a highly organised political militia. They imported the guns after the ban and we are still discovering large caches throughout England.

If you ever did do your history, England encountered terrorism long before your Al-Qaeda.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In Idaho, a 15 year old boy threatened a school shooting because none of the girls (specifically cheerleaderS) would send him nude pics:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/10/08/4025794/police-teenager-15-charged-after.html
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/idaho-teen-threatened-to-kill-all-the-girls-because-cheerleaders-wouldnt-send-him-any-freaking-nudes/

 

[Leg End]

In Idaho, a 15 year old boy threatened a school shooting because none of the girls (specifically cheerleaderS) would send him nude pics:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/10/08/4025794/police-teenager-15-charged-after.html
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/idaho-teen-threatened-to-kill-all-the-girls-because-cheerleaders-wouldnt-send-him-any-freaking-nudes/

I'm looking for the link back to The Onion but I'm not finding it.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

In Idaho, a 15 year old boy threatened a school shooting because none of the girls (specifically cheerleaderS) would send him nude pics:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/10/08/4025794/police-teenager-15-charged-after.html
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/idaho-teen-threatened-to-kill-all-the-girls-because-cheerleaders-wouldnt-send-him-any-freaking-nudes/

I find it weird that a lot of these shooters do this because a woman won't fuck them. it's like they think women only exist to be a fuck toy to them. I kind of wondered why they think that.

ps. This question is coming from a 20 year old virgin, attention whore.