The Oregon shooting
- Thread starter Josh123914
- Start date
and those that are kept in the open around other people run the risk of being stolen or destroyed, even those guarded by guns and guards, banks and armored cars get robbed, and the armed guards are usually the first ones shot. Valuables get stolen or destroyed all the time.LegendaryGamer0 said:
A lot of shit under armed guard has been stolen in the past, including gold, fort knox hasn't been robbed because the sheer level of security would necessitate more force than any small group of civilians could muster, that and it's completely exclusionary nature makes it easy to watch, I don't want to get involved in the actual gun debate going on here, but that picture is ridiculous. It's shallow emotional manipulation on the level of those anti-gun picture that make guns look like the leading cause of child death.
No guns means no gun crimes. That will never happen, but striving for that ideal is how things will get better
And if someone thinks they need a gun to protect themselves from an extremely rare break in (a robbery), you should not own a gun because that is some high class paranoia.
And if someone thinks they need a gun to protect themselves from an extremely rare break in (a robbery), you should not own a gun because that is some high class paranoia.
One thing that never seems to come up in discussions about fighting against the government is the opposing militias. Sure, people are quick to point out that not all of the military will remain loyal to the government, yet it seems to be automatically assumed that "the citizens", as one giant hivemind, will all stand together against the tyranny. That's not how civil wars work. Sure, the anti-government forces are better armed as a result of the second amendment, but you'd better hope you still outnumber the pro-government militias, otherwise there's really no point getting into this dick measuring contest with the military.
Considering the fact that tyrannical governments tend to excel at propaganda and population control, and considering the fact that Americans already seem to despise anyone who gets labelled a "terrorist" or "traitor", it looks like you'll be fighting quite a few of your fellow gun owners when the time comes, so if you want someone to be paranoid about, your gun loving neighbour is probably just as likely to put a bullet in your skull during this hypothetical war as the guy behind the badge.
Hell, there's always been this strange duality with the conservative-right in America. On one hand, they seem to view the government as this corrupt tyranny that's ready to take their freedom at any moment, prompting them to stock pile guns and ammo to fight back. But, on the other hand, they seem to side with the police whenever there's a shooting; worship the military and its actions; worship the flag; support the pledge of allegiance (seriously, what the fuck. What's next, the two minute hate?); and often label people "un-American" for criticising the government, with this bullshit "love it or leave it" mentality. Don't they realise that nationalism and patriotism are extremely potent ways to exploit the masses into becoming unthinking, unquestioning, loyal drones for a tyranny? In fact, obsessive nationalism and patriotism is pretty much the first thing any tyranny needs to implement before they can begin operating with impunity; in America, they don't even need to bother. There's so much flag-waving jingoism in American culture already that all they need to do is point it in the right direction.
Honestly, I really do wonder which side the right will fight for if the time comes. Considering the right is far more obsessed with guns than the left (oh, don't give me that look. I know it's a generalisation, and you know it's true), I really have to wonder whether all these guns are simply handing the government a convenient militia to supplement their military.
All the guns in the world won't save you from tyranny if the people holding them still side with their government.
Considering the fact that tyrannical governments tend to excel at propaganda and population control, and considering the fact that Americans already seem to despise anyone who gets labelled a "terrorist" or "traitor", it looks like you'll be fighting quite a few of your fellow gun owners when the time comes, so if you want someone to be paranoid about, your gun loving neighbour is probably just as likely to put a bullet in your skull during this hypothetical war as the guy behind the badge.
Hell, there's always been this strange duality with the conservative-right in America. On one hand, they seem to view the government as this corrupt tyranny that's ready to take their freedom at any moment, prompting them to stock pile guns and ammo to fight back. But, on the other hand, they seem to side with the police whenever there's a shooting; worship the military and its actions; worship the flag; support the pledge of allegiance (seriously, what the fuck. What's next, the two minute hate?); and often label people "un-American" for criticising the government, with this bullshit "love it or leave it" mentality. Don't they realise that nationalism and patriotism are extremely potent ways to exploit the masses into becoming unthinking, unquestioning, loyal drones for a tyranny? In fact, obsessive nationalism and patriotism is pretty much the first thing any tyranny needs to implement before they can begin operating with impunity; in America, they don't even need to bother. There's so much flag-waving jingoism in American culture already that all they need to do is point it in the right direction.
Honestly, I really do wonder which side the right will fight for if the time comes. Considering the right is far more obsessed with guns than the left (oh, don't give me that look. I know it's a generalisation, and you know it's true), I really have to wonder whether all these guns are simply handing the government a convenient militia to supplement their military.
All the guns in the world won't save you from tyranny if the people holding them still side with their government.
Also, to add to my above post, why is it automatically assumed that an armed revolution would be a good thing, or that it will produce a better society with more freedom? Do you realise that this armed revolution is just as likely to produce a worse society afterward, as many revolutions do. The tyranny could very likely come from the uprising, in fact, they could very likely be the "bad guys" from the beginning.
In my above post I talked about people siding with the government in this situation as if it were an inevitable evil, but thinking on it, I realise that this revolution could just be some crazy terrorist group, and the government could well be justified in bombing them into dust.
Of course, one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary, so which side you fall on depends on personal ideals.
In my above post I talked about people siding with the government in this situation as if it were an inevitable evil, but thinking on it, I realise that this revolution could just be some crazy terrorist group, and the government could well be justified in bombing them into dust.
Of course, one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary, so which side you fall on depends on personal ideals.
Looked at the laws, and you're right. Campus carry was legal in this case, with someone on the other side of campus holding a classroom during this shooting. If nothing else, I admit when I am wrong. I however maintain that campus carry is overall a positive for colleges because it barely costs the school anything and there is simply little reason to not allow it.Revnak said:
I will say a few things, and take it as you will...
The problem I have with doing away with the 2nd amendment is that it would set a dangerous precident of the Government being able to alter the document that tells American citizens not what they cannot do but what the government cannot do to them... by that reasoning they could take changing or outright getting rid of one of the fundamental rights the government isn't supposed to be able to take away. What would stop them from altering freedom of the press? Or the right of reasonable privacy... I just don't like the idea of giving the government the ability to remove restrictions placed on them by the framework of the Constitution.
If we ever propose the alteration of the Bill of Rights, then the People should ultimately be the ones to decide by way of the power of voting, and not Congress or the Senate, nor the Executive Branch.
And I don't personally fear the government using the military against the People because the oath taken by soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and women is not an oath to the government, but an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which is a document of the People, not the Fed. I'd daresay soldiers are the least likely to blindly follow unlawful orders against citizens. If it ever came down to that there'd be a huge schism in the ranks and it would probably send us into a highly chaotic state rather than a tyrannical facist state... Either way it wouldn't be pretty.
The problem I have with doing away with the 2nd amendment is that it would set a dangerous precident of the Government being able to alter the document that tells American citizens not what they cannot do but what the government cannot do to them... by that reasoning they could take changing or outright getting rid of one of the fundamental rights the government isn't supposed to be able to take away. What would stop them from altering freedom of the press? Or the right of reasonable privacy... I just don't like the idea of giving the government the ability to remove restrictions placed on them by the framework of the Constitution.
If we ever propose the alteration of the Bill of Rights, then the People should ultimately be the ones to decide by way of the power of voting, and not Congress or the Senate, nor the Executive Branch.
And I don't personally fear the government using the military against the People because the oath taken by soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and women is not an oath to the government, but an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which is a document of the People, not the Fed. I'd daresay soldiers are the least likely to blindly follow unlawful orders against citizens. If it ever came down to that there'd be a huge schism in the ranks and it would probably send us into a highly chaotic state rather than a tyrannical facist state... Either way it wouldn't be pretty.
Fun fact, I agree. My desires in terms of gun control have nothing to do with banning concealed carry. I just want registration, licensing, and mandatory background checks on all sales and exchanges. In my mind, using a gun in any circumstances is a public act like driving a car on a road, and is something that ought to be restricted similarly.Shock and Awe said:
I live in Southern Oregon, and honestly, I refuse to get into the gun argument. How about we approach this from a fresh prospective:
We, as a people, don't know how to talk to each other.
Oh, sure, we can sit behind a computer screen and troll with the best of them if the topic arises. We go to dating sites and expect to find 'true love'; as in, another emotionally stunted individual who can't connect with a living, breathing person on a face-to-face personal level.
All shooters have the same MO; they can't connect with anyone or anyone outside of their very narrow viewpoints of life. They are emotionally shut-in to the point of being agoraphobic, and have no real life friends to interact with on a personal level. The problem isn't the guns. If it wasn't a gun, it would be a knife, a bomb, a car, etc. The problem is in the mirror, every single day, when we refuse to talk to someone just a little bit different than us or our perception of 'normal'. You can't tell me no one knew this guy wasn't all right. The signs were there, people just chose to ignore them and hoped he'd quietly go away. Well, he went away all right, but he didn't go quietly.
If you see someone who is a little shy, maybe a little strange, try to strike up a conversation. Most of these people just need a real person to give a damn once in a while.
We, as a people, don't know how to talk to each other.
Oh, sure, we can sit behind a computer screen and troll with the best of them if the topic arises. We go to dating sites and expect to find 'true love'; as in, another emotionally stunted individual who can't connect with a living, breathing person on a face-to-face personal level.
All shooters have the same MO; they can't connect with anyone or anyone outside of their very narrow viewpoints of life. They are emotionally shut-in to the point of being agoraphobic, and have no real life friends to interact with on a personal level. The problem isn't the guns. If it wasn't a gun, it would be a knife, a bomb, a car, etc. The problem is in the mirror, every single day, when we refuse to talk to someone just a little bit different than us or our perception of 'normal'. You can't tell me no one knew this guy wasn't all right. The signs were there, people just chose to ignore them and hoped he'd quietly go away. Well, he went away all right, but he didn't go quietly.
If you see someone who is a little shy, maybe a little strange, try to strike up a conversation. Most of these people just need a real person to give a damn once in a while.
I'm split on this. People dying (in general is a tragedy), but until something real is done to curtail these events, I have no sad feelings to spare.
Not this again....I am surprised how effective that piece of NRA propaganda still is.LegendaryGamer0 said:
Firearm manufacturers created the terms 'assault weapon', 'assault rifle' and 'assault pistol' in the 1970s - 1980s.
The firearm manufacturers used these terms to refer to military pattern semi-automatic firearms (semi-auto copies of selective fire firearms).
When the US government enacted the AWB in the early 1990s the NRA redefined these terms in a (mostly successful) attempt to portray legislators as uneducated in firearms.
Here are a some examples of firearm enthusiast publications from the 1970s-1980s referring to semi-autos firearms as 'assault' rifles / weapons / pistols;
[Note how the AR-180 is referred to as an assault rifle, despite it being a semi-auto copy of the AR-18]
Overview;
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm
Wiki on AWB, including legal definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Californian 'AWB'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989
Webster dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20weapon
The firearm manufacturers used these terms to refer to military pattern semi-automatic firearms (semi-auto copies of selective fire firearms).
When the US government enacted the AWB in the early 1990s the NRA redefined these terms in a (mostly successful) attempt to portray legislators as uneducated in firearms.
Here are a some examples of firearm enthusiast publications from the 1970s-1980s referring to semi-autos firearms as 'assault' rifles / weapons / pistols;
[Note how the AR-180 is referred to as an assault rifle, despite it being a semi-auto copy of the AR-18]
Overview;
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm
Wiki on AWB, including legal definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Californian 'AWB'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989
Webster dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20weapon
Sorry but think this is false.TechNoFear said:
Most actually attribute the term to Adolf Hitler, who coined it for the StG 44, or the "Sturmgewehr 44" ('sturmgewehr' literally translates to 'assault rifle'). It was considered to be the first select-fire rifle.
The actual Merriam-Webster dictionary term is a little wonkier, as it defines it as "a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military"
The key phrase here to note would be "designed for use by the Military", because 'can shoot many bullets quickly" is ludicrously vague (you can shoot 15 bullets from a standard semi-auto pistol in no time at all) but generally designed for Military use implies some type of automatic function (even if only 3 round burst).
A standard civilian purchased AR-15 does not have select-fire, as it only has a semi-auto mode, thus it is not, by strict definition, an "assault rifle".
The fact that Guns and Ammo talked about Assault Rifles is irrelevant, Guns and Ammo frequently talks about weapons that are not available to the vast majority of civilian purchasers.
The problem I've found is that most people who decry "assault weapons" don't even know what the actual legal definition is, and thus it basically turns into "anything that looks scary".
An AR-15 is an 'assault rifle' if we use the strict legal definition in either the AWB or AWCA.Ihateregistering1 said:
Like it or not, because of 'incorrect' use in both politics and the media the term 'assault' now legally and colloquially includes military pattern semi-automatic firearms (as well as firearms capable of selective fire).
Mostly yes, but there are outliers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shootingCaramel Frappe said:
This happened two miles from where I was living at the time, the dumbest most depressing part was that he was motivated by the belief that there was an upcoming holy war and mistook Sikhs for Muslims.
So do other countries and they don't have a run on child coffins every month. Our society is deadlySarge034 said:
Actually I absolutely love that someone brings this up because this was the case when we initially fought for independence. It wasn't everyone siding against the crown and many people actively sided with the brits and many others just didn't give a fuck really.FirstNameLastName said:
As for the political right, it's why I laugh at both sides. When the time comes you'll find many people fighting for freedom, for the government, and even for just not getting involved with either side. Everyone will be fighting for what they believe in, whatever that may be.
As for your second, again, totally valid point. The only thing I have to say is, that it is a natural reality of having the right to arms, and for this purpose.
What will happen when the time comes, no one knows.
Basically, what you just said.Illesdan said:
That would be an example of a badly written law, written by people who know nothing about firearms.TechNoFear said:
An assault rifle is a very different thing to an "assault weapon" and "assault weapon" features in law, are prime fodder for jokes because how visual features on a weapon can totally change its classification while not changing the core function of the weapon itself. See: California. Also see how easy it is to remain compliant to stupid regulations while inconveniencing/totally shitting on law abiding gun owners because this state is run by absolute idiots. And the occasional politician who while pushing for video game and firearm legislation was selling actual military weapons to Triads(among other things), but we won't get into that.
Also, I should throw in there that an AR-15 is not defined as an "assault weapon" but I'm too tired to explain why it isn't and something about class 3s and dammit it's too late at night for this.
Using the strict legal definition of of the Assault Weapons Ban, then a civilian purchased AR-15 is NOT an 'assault rifle'. In fact, on the very link you provided, the legal definition doesn't even mention "assault rifle".TechNoFear said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
The issue is not the term "assault", it's noting that there is a difference between an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle", and that the term 'assault rifle' was not invented by the NRA or politicians, but in fact has been around since the 1940's and is generally attributed to the Nazis.
What is the AWCA? I googled it and the first results I got were the Asian Woman Christian's association and the American Working Collie Association.
Since this is now what this thread is about...
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/08/09/calgary-man-accidentally-shot-in-woodbine-home-recovering-at-home
A couple months back a man in my community accidentally discharged a firearm. It went through his house, into someone else's house, and went straight through a 60 year old man. As unlucky as he was to be shot, he was even luckier that it missed all his vital organs.
Police officers regularly come under fire for misuse of their weapons. Whenever they discharge a firearm they need to report it, and they are put under strict scrutiny over what they used it for. These are people who are trained stringently in how to use their weapons, and when to use their weapons. Here's a scenario where a pair of police officers shot 16 bullets at a single target, and managed to injure 9 innocent bystanders at the scene, 3 of which were directly hit by bullets. Here's another example of an occasion where a police shoot out hit a bystander in her house.
On top of this, there's the fact that you're four times more likely to shoot someone with a gun by accident, seven times more likely to use it in a criminal assault, and eleven times more likely to kill yourself with it than use it in the act of protecting your home[footnote]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182[/footnote].
Now given how easy it is to accidentally injure bystanders (they don't even need to be visible), how easy it is to misuse your weapon even with the proper training, the fact that there is absolutely no training required, and the far greater likelihood that your weapon will kill someone in your family as opposed to a criminal trying to hurt you, I find it hard to connect more guns with more safety.
Honestly, I'd be more worried about a criminal with a gun if an untrained bystander decided to engage them in a shootout than I would waiting for police.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/08/09/calgary-man-accidentally-shot-in-woodbine-home-recovering-at-home
A couple months back a man in my community accidentally discharged a firearm. It went through his house, into someone else's house, and went straight through a 60 year old man. As unlucky as he was to be shot, he was even luckier that it missed all his vital organs.
Police officers regularly come under fire for misuse of their weapons. Whenever they discharge a firearm they need to report it, and they are put under strict scrutiny over what they used it for. These are people who are trained stringently in how to use their weapons, and when to use their weapons. Here's a scenario where a pair of police officers shot 16 bullets at a single target, and managed to injure 9 innocent bystanders at the scene, 3 of which were directly hit by bullets. Here's another example of an occasion where a police shoot out hit a bystander in her house.
On top of this, there's the fact that you're four times more likely to shoot someone with a gun by accident, seven times more likely to use it in a criminal assault, and eleven times more likely to kill yourself with it than use it in the act of protecting your home[footnote]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182[/footnote].
Now given how easy it is to accidentally injure bystanders (they don't even need to be visible), how easy it is to misuse your weapon even with the proper training, the fact that there is absolutely no training required, and the far greater likelihood that your weapon will kill someone in your family as opposed to a criminal trying to hurt you, I find it hard to connect more guns with more safety.
Honestly, I'd be more worried about a criminal with a gun if an untrained bystander decided to engage them in a shootout than I would waiting for police.