The Oregon shooting

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
omega 616 said:
Really? I care more for life and I think the world would be a lot better with less people in it.
...I don't even.
What has been done about gun crime in America? Fuck all, not even talking about gun restrictions, nothing has been done. So you can't care that much.
Well, we care about crime. We don't particularly focus on extremely specific kinds of crimes, like crimes that have some relation to firearms being used, because it'd translate to the UK with knives being used, or even guns still because you guys still have guns floating about, just not as often used.
The constitution needs to be modernised, it's not like it can't be changed. Though, you guys need to realize, the constitution isn't a big deal ... as a guy from the UK, I know yours better than mine!
Actually it is a big deal. Plus, sure, it can be "modernized"(whatever that means), and we as a people have amended and added to it, and we still have left the majority of it unchanged, because we see no reason to change it.
It basically is free, you can get all kinds of medical treatment that costs WAY more then you'd pay in America for nothing.
So, it's health insurance. That's basically what you're saying. That you pay for in a different way.
It is the world we live in, it's not the world YOU live in. There is a big difference, Nobody I know owns a gun, of any kind and not one of them has had anything bad happen to them ... but no, it is the worlds problem.
No, with all due respect, it's the literal island you live on and you're quite lucky knowing nobody who has not had anything happen to them, because many more are not that lucky, in your own country. You quite possibly live on an island, on an island.
Again with harming you or your family. If somebody came to your home to kill you, you need to be a nicer person 'cos it takes a fair bit of provoking for somebody to want to kill you!
So we're just totally ignoring this shooting then?
Secondly, if they come to your house to rob you, the last thing they want to do is increase there potential prison time by harming you or anybody.
Or the inverse, they don't want to be caught so they use force to prevent being caught.
Think about it, they want money for drugs or whatever, what do they get for hurting or killing you?
Not being caught if they do it fast enough? I don't know the logic of someone who disrespects my own rights just so they can get a fix so I wouldn't be able to tell you. But if they want help, they can knock on my door in the daytime and I can help them when I don't have bags in my eyes.
Not really an opinion, you own and support guns for Joe Public, Joe public is the one doing all the school shootings and gun crime. By arguing against gun control, you're letting this happen. You're an accomplice to it all.
Because Joe Public is everybody so that would of course overlap. People die, that's because individual Joe Public decided to kill people, not the piece of metal/wood/plastic he used to do it. Personal responsibility is a big thing here, and I do not believe you actually believe in it, contrary to what you have said.
I'd love for American's to realize how they look to outside world.
And I do mean it respectfully to every EU country
The difference is, we as a country, really do not care what the rest of the world thinks of us. If anything it is flattering that the US seems to be the center of attention of the world whenever something happens, that so many other countries put so much effort into discussing us for any reason. We're just us. We don't look down upon other countries for their choices in managing their patches of dirt, don't look down on us for how we manage ours. Because in the end, you're bringing so much focus on to us, when you should be worrying about yourselves and your own issues, which is what I thought came first in every country.


Revnak said:
Just use a numbered list if you're not going to put in line breaks. I'm on my fucking phone. I have no time to hunt down where your comments end.

1. I'm including cleaning, moving, securing... any time where you even move them. And a lot of people are just collectors, hunts, or shoot for fun. The vast majority of the time a gun is fired, it is not to kill another human being.

2. And you're still handling those guns in a space where you could accidentally shoot someone while you are packing them up. A huge number of gun deaths are accidents or suicides. Far more than spree shootings like these.

3. Stop being so damn technical. They're accidents that could have been prevented were it not for the negligence of the individual handling the gun. Your dull semantics are meaningless.

4. It's not like it's one single chain or anything. I remember a study a while back that found that the vast majority of crimes had come from some small fraction of stores or distributors.

5. Still trivial compared to actual lives and actual crimes. Your paranoia means nothing to me. I don't care.
0. Alrighty then.

1. And people that clean, move and secure them tend to follow the basic safety rules of firearms when doing so. If someone is a collector or hunts, they are insanely likely to know these rules and follow them religiously. As for fun, well, most know them but there are... thoooosssee people, that are the source of most of the "accidents".

2. Yes, and that is the fault of the person using the firearm. In one case someone is being stupid, the other someone is using a firearm to end their life. Both are choices of the person. Again, very rarely are unwilling discharges of a firearm actually the fault of the firearm.

3. ...Didn't I just say this? Isn't this my argument?

4. Well then deal with those stores and distributors as most of the time, they know what is going on but want dat phat green.

5. You may not care but the people have spoken. No registration, no touching of our rights by the government. Freedom is not trivial.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
Lense-Thirring said:
He's just wrong anyway, women commit loads of violent crimes. It used to be that attitude led to criminologists ignoring female serial offenders. Now we all know better. The motives and means might be different, but humans are violent animals.
That's why I said in combination with a disturbed personality. There is never just one reason as otherwise every man between 18 to 30 would be a violent criminal. However given that the dominant demographic for violent crime is post-puberty men till about hormone levels start to drop(or atleast stabilize) indicates there is quite clearly an undeniable link.
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,979
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Revnak said:
Just use a numbered list if you're not going to put in line breaks. I'm on my fucking phone. I have no time to hunt down where your comments end.

1. I'm including cleaning, moving, securing... any time where you even move them. And a lot of people are just collectors, hunts, or shoot for fun. The vast majority of the time a gun is fired, it is not to kill another human being.

2. And you're still handling those guns in a space where you could accidentally shoot someone while you are packing them up. A huge number of gun deaths are accidents or suicides. Far more than spree shootings like these.

3. Stop being so damn technical. They're accidents that could have been prevented were it not for the negligence of the individual handling the gun. Your dull semantics are meaningless.

4. It's not like it's one single chain or anything. I remember a study a while back that found that the vast majority of crimes had come from some small fraction of stores or distributors.

5. Still trivial compared to actual lives and actual crimes. Your paranoia means nothing to me. I don't care.
0. Alrighty then.

1. And people that clean, move and secure them tend to follow the basic safety rules of firearms when doing so. If someone is a collector or hunts, they are insanely likely to know these rules and follow them religiously. As for fun, well, most know them but there are... thoooosssee people, that are the source of most of the "accidents".

2. Yes, and that is the fault of the person using the firearm. In one case someone is being stupid, the other someone is using a firearm to end their life. Both are choices of the person. Again, very rarely are unwilling discharges of a firearm actually the fault of the firearm.

3. ...Didn't I just say this? Isn't this my argument?

4. Well then deal with those stores and distributors as most of the time, they know what is going on but want dat phat green.

5. You may not care but the people have spoken. No registration, no touching of our rights by the government. Freedom is not trivial.
1. And yet so many die while this occurs, these people may not even be on the gun owner's property, so the use of a gun in any way is a public act, like driving. And like driving, we should ensure that the only people who carry out this public and dangerous act are verified to be responsible. So require licenses and some form of registration, like we do with cars.

2. So we should make sure that anyone who owns a firearm is knowledgable about gun safety.

3. No it's mine, and I think you missed it.

4. Requiring registration for all guns would make this easier. All transactions would document the weapons registration, etc. To a degree this is already done, but a more robust system would simplify the process

5. Then they're fucking wrong.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,576
3,532
118
Reasonable Atheist said:
Recently there was a church shot up with many many deaths if im up to date on my current events, and somehow nobody blames this on guns, it must be that piece of cloth blowing in the wind. My mouth was literally agape when i read about that, i pinched myself.
Not true. While a lot of people continued to oppose a racist symbol being used on official state buildings, that's not to say that all of them, and others, blamed the shooting solely on it. Lots of people call for gun control in the US after each shooting.

stroopwafel said:
That's why I said in combination with a disturbed personality. There is never just one reason as otherwise every man between 18 to 30 would be a violent criminal. However given that the dominant demographic for violent crime is post-puberty men till about hormone levels start to drop(or atleast stabilize) indicates there is quite clearly an undeniable link.
Clearly an undeniable correlation. That's not necessarily the same thing. There could be any number of reasons why the 18-30 year old demographic is different to older ones.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Revnak said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Revnak said:
Just use a numbered list if you're not going to put in line breaks. I'm on my fucking phone. I have no time to hunt down where your comments end.

1. I'm including cleaning, moving, securing... any time where you even move them. And a lot of people are just collectors, hunts, or shoot for fun. The vast majority of the time a gun is fired, it is not to kill another human being.

2. And you're still handling those guns in a space where you could accidentally shoot someone while you are packing them up. A huge number of gun deaths are accidents or suicides. Far more than spree shootings like these.

3. Stop being so damn technical. They're accidents that could have been prevented were it not for the negligence of the individual handling the gun. Your dull semantics are meaningless.

4. It's not like it's one single chain or anything. I remember a study a while back that found that the vast majority of crimes had come from some small fraction of stores or distributors.

5. Still trivial compared to actual lives and actual crimes. Your paranoia means nothing to me. I don't care.
0. Alrighty then.

1. And people that clean, move and secure them tend to follow the basic safety rules of firearms when doing so. If someone is a collector or hunts, they are insanely likely to know these rules and follow them religiously. As for fun, well, most know them but there are... thoooosssee people, that are the source of most of the "accidents".

2. Yes, and that is the fault of the person using the firearm. In one case someone is being stupid, the other someone is using a firearm to end their life. Both are choices of the person. Again, very rarely are unwilling discharges of a firearm actually the fault of the firearm.

3. ...Didn't I just say this? Isn't this my argument?

4. Well then deal with those stores and distributors as most of the time, they know what is going on but want dat phat green.

5. You may not care but the people have spoken. No registration, no touching of our rights by the government. Freedom is not trivial.
1. And yet so many die while this occurs, these people may not even be on the gun owner's property, so the use of a gun in any way is a public act, like driving. And like driving, we should ensure that the only people who carry out this public and dangerous act are verified to be responsible. So require licenses and some form of registration, like we do with cars.

2. So we should make sure that anyone who owns a firearm is knowledgable about gun safety.

3. No it's mine, and I think you missed it.

4. Requiring registration for all guns would make this easier. All transactions would document the weapons registration, etc. To a degree this is already done, but a more robust system would simplify the process

5. Then they're fucking wrong.
1. Driving itself is not actually a public act. The act of driving on public roads, makes it so. You can buy a car and not need shit to use it on your property.
Quite a few things can effect people when moved be it just on private property or private to public, but we do not declare it a public act.

2. I would hope someone would be generally care enough to know the basic safety rules and many if not most gun shops have posters plastered everywhere about the rules. Plus, many shops actually won't sell to someone who seems particularly ignorant of the safety rules and clearly has no desire to follow them.

3. Maybe we both have the same argument in that regard.

4. It would also not affect arms currently floating around and make confiscation of any sort easier by several orders of magnitude. California is a shining example where none of this actually stops people from using firearms for illegal purposes.

5.
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,979
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Revnak said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Revnak said:
Just use a numbered list if you're not going to put in line breaks. I'm on my fucking phone. I have no time to hunt down where your comments end.

1. I'm including cleaning, moving, securing... any time where you even move them. And a lot of people are just collectors, hunts, or shoot for fun. The vast majority of the time a gun is fired, it is not to kill another human being.

2. And you're still handling those guns in a space where you could accidentally shoot someone while you are packing them up. A huge number of gun deaths are accidents or suicides. Far more than spree shootings like these.

3. Stop being so damn technical. They're accidents that could have been prevented were it not for the negligence of the individual handling the gun. Your dull semantics are meaningless.

4. It's not like it's one single chain or anything. I remember a study a while back that found that the vast majority of crimes had come from some small fraction of stores or distributors.

5. Still trivial compared to actual lives and actual crimes. Your paranoia means nothing to me. I don't care.
0. Alrighty then.

1. And people that clean, move and secure them tend to follow the basic safety rules of firearms when doing so. If someone is a collector or hunts, they are insanely likely to know these rules and follow them religiously. As for fun, well, most know them but there are... thoooosssee people, that are the source of most of the "accidents".

2. Yes, and that is the fault of the person using the firearm. In one case someone is being stupid, the other someone is using a firearm to end their life. Both are choices of the person. Again, very rarely are unwilling discharges of a firearm actually the fault of the firearm.

3. ...Didn't I just say this? Isn't this my argument?

4. Well then deal with those stores and distributors as most of the time, they know what is going on but want dat phat green.

5. You may not care but the people have spoken. No registration, no touching of our rights by the government. Freedom is not trivial.
1. And yet so many die while this occurs, these people may not even be on the gun owner's property, so the use of a gun in any way is a public act, like driving. And like driving, we should ensure that the only people who carry out this public and dangerous act are verified to be responsible. So require licenses and some form of registration, like we do with cars.

2. So we should make sure that anyone who owns a firearm is knowledgable about gun safety.

3. No it's mine, and I think you missed it.

4. Requiring registration for all guns would make this easier. All transactions would document the weapons registration, etc. To a degree this is already done, but a more robust system would simplify the process

5. Then they're fucking wrong.
1. Driving itself is not actually a public act. The act of driving on public roads, makes it so. You can buy a car and not need shit to use it on your property.
Quite a few things can effect people when moved be it just on private property or private to public, but we do not declare it a public act.

2. I would hope someone would be generally care enough to know the basic safety rules and many if not most gun shops have posters plastered everywhere about the rules. Plus, many shops actually won't sell to someone who seems particularly ignorant of the safety rules and clearly has no desire to follow them.

3. Maybe we both have the same argument in that regard.

4. It would also not affect arms currently floating around and make confiscation of any sort easier by several orders of magnitude. California is a shining example where none of this actually stops people from using firearms for illegal purposes.

5.
1. If I drive on my private track, I cannot run over my neighbor on his property. If I shoot on my private range, I can still shoot my neighbor on his property. Any use of a gun is a public act.

2. I would say the same for cars, but I would never expect it.

4. So we should not make an effort at all? Bullshit. Guns used in crimes will be confiscated, and new guns will have to go through registration. This will put a dent in the supply of illegal guns.

5. The concession of a man with no argument to make. The people are wrong. They have no more "right" to endanger their fellow man than 19th century plantation owners had to own their fellow man. I would say the same thing in both times. The people are fucking wrong.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,576
3,532
118
Revnak said:
5. The concession of a man with no argument to make. The people are wrong. They have no more "right" to endanger their fellow man than 19th century plantation owners had to own their fellow man. I would say the same thing in both times. The people are fucking wrong.
As an aside, I'm not sure how well we can tell that "the people" have spoken on issues such as this in the US. Gun owners are the minority of the population, but they are politically very powerful, and so is the NRA and arms industry.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
omega 616 said:
To be perfectly honest, I just googled if an assault weapon has ever been used in a shooting and it said sandy hook had a bushmaster.

Wasn't obfuscating anything, it's not like I was listening to American news, heard it was never removed from the trunk but thought I would lie to try and make a point, that wont actually mean shit in the grand scheme of things.
Look at your continued verbiage and tell me you didn't want to believe it was true because it supported your bias. I live in "crazy land", I own guns, I own an "assault weapon" (not an AK or AR so good luck guessing what it is), and somehow I have no intentions of shooting up a school. How about you take your holier art thou attitude and stow it. Europe has plenty of gun violence too ya know. Why do we want them? They're fun to shoot. Why do you need anything more than food and water? Perhaps because you enjoy it?

Lense-Thirring said:
Fun fact: Gold can be kept in a vault, without air, without food, without being let out to play, without schooling or museums or malls or parks. You can keep all of the gold that's ever been mined in human history in one place if you wanted to.

Now, tell me how that is in any way similar to humans.
They're both high value targets for unscrupulous folks. Except we care enough about the gold to provide armed security, and we tell kids to hide under desks. If deasks are so safe why not just leave gold lying under them, cut a lot of manpower costs. I mean, desks are an amazing thing, they protect from gunmen AND nuclear explosion.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,647
0
0
Revnak said:
Shock and Awe said:
Revnak said:
Shock and Awe said:
Revnak said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Revnak said:
He could have had one. Oregon has concealed carry and colleges are not allowed to be gun free zones.
Take this with a grain of salt as I heard it in the insane aftermath but apparently, a professor stated that guns are verboten on campus and not even the campus rent-a-cops have guns.
I went to the school. I'm aware that the security guards did not carry guns. I am aware that most people don't carry them there. That's mostly because most people don't carry in the area, I've never seen someone with a gun here outside of when they are going on a hunting trip or something like that and I've lived here for fifteen years. Legally, he could have owned a gun and brought it to the campus, provided he had a permit.
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.
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.
I disagree with gun use being a public act. Its only public when used in public such as with concealed carry which I think should come with a required amount of training and licensing. The purchase of harms however, I believe is a private matter. It is not the business of the government or society what I am doing that does not effect them. I am in favor of the NICS checks on gun sales, but honestly it doesn't stop much considering the inability to control private sales whether or not they're legal.

I particularly have an issue with Registration because quite honestly, thats the step before confiscating them, such as in the UK after the Dunblane massacre.
For the vast majority of gun users, any time they are using their guns at all, there is a chance they harm someone else. Most people do not live in the middle of nowhere. Most people live in towns, suburbs, or cities. And any accidental discharge of a weapon (which can easily occur at any time especially if you are not careful) could easily harm some else. Registration should absolutely be done because of how often crimes are committed with guns that come from the same small number of outlets. Registration would also help us to track illegal transactions like those you mentioned, and punish those who commit them. The only harm comes from paranoia like that which you express here, and that is nowhere near as important as the lives that could be saved or the crimes that could be prevented.
Its not paranoia, its literally what has happened repeatedly in other countries and almost in this one a few times. We've had people like Dianne Feinstein go on national media and openly state that they'd confiscate "assault weapons" if they could get the votes in Congress.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Revnak said:
1. If I drive on my private track, I cannot run over my neighbor on his property. If I shoot on my private range, I can still shoot my neighbor on his property. Any use of a gun is a public act.

2. I would say the same for cars, but I would never expect it.

4. So we should not make an effort at all? Bullshit. Guns used in crimes will be confiscated, and new guns will have to go through registration. This will put a dent in the supply of illegal guns.

5. The concession of a man with no argument to make. The people are wrong. They have no more "right" to endanger their fellow man than 19th century plantation owners had to own their fellow man. I would say the same thing in both times. The people are fucking wrong.
1. You seriously underestimate the stupidity/ability of people. The odds would actually be the same of running over your neighbor and shooting him provided in both situations the person operating the device follows safety procedure.

2. I would expect it.

4. Guns used in crimes are already confiscated if the person is caught. You can't confiscate a straw purchase and virtually no one uses firearms they personally bought legally, for crimes, because it is an incredibly stupid idea.

5. Nope. You're right now stating someone is wrong, which is subjective. It is an opinion. Opinions vary, and right or wrong(which is still opinion) The People have spoken.
You're comparing firearms ownership to slavery. Funny enough, gun control initially started to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. Funny how that works.
If we're talking about the endangerment argument, a mother who is drinking or using drugs during pregnancy and might cause birth defects to the child is still legally allowed to do so and is far more a danger to someone that someone using a firearm on their property, responsibly. In both cases, it is the woman's right to do what she wishes with her body and it is the right of that person to keep and bear arms. You look down upon the firearm owner in a sense, I look down upon the woman. Neither I would take rights from.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Shock and Awe said:
Its not paranoia, its literally what has happened repeatedly in other countries and almost in this one a few times. We've had people like Dianne Feinstein go on national media and openly state that they'd confiscate "assault weapons" if they could get the votes in Congress.
Not even going into her stances on the First Amendment, including limiting who can be a Journalist and having the first only apply to them. And then being totally fine with NSA surveillance until she found out they were monitoring her as well.

What a fun combination.
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,979
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Revnak said:
1. If I drive on my private track, I cannot run over my neighbor on his property. If I shoot on my private range, I can still shoot my neighbor on his property. Any use of a gun is a public act.

2. I would say the same for cars, but I would never expect it.

4. So we should not make an effort at all? Bullshit. Guns used in crimes will be confiscated, and new guns will have to go through registration. This will put a dent in the supply of illegal guns.

5. The concession of a man with no argument to make. The people are wrong. They have no more "right" to endanger their fellow man than 19th century plantation owners had to own their fellow man. I would say the same thing in both times. The people are fucking wrong.
1. You seriously underestimate the stupidity/ability of people. The odds would actually be the same of running over your neighbor and shooting him provided in both situations the person operating the device follows safety procedure.

2. I would expect it.

4. Guns used in crimes are already confiscated if the person is caught. You can't confiscate a straw purchase and virtually no one uses firearms they personally bought legally, for crimes, because it is an incredibly stupid idea.

5. Nope. You're right now stating someone is wrong, which is subjective. It is an opinion. Opinions vary, and right or wrong(which is still opinion) The People have spoken.
You're comparing firearms ownership to slavery. Funny enough, gun control initially started to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. Funny how that works.
If we're talking about the endangerment argument, a mother who is drinking or using drugs during pregnancy and might cause birth defects to the child is still legally allowed to do so and is far more a danger to someone that someone using a firearm on their property, responsibly. In both cases, it is the woman's right to do what she wishes with her body and it is the right of that person to keep and bear arms. You look down upon the firearm owner in a sense, I look down upon the woman. Neither I would take rights from.
1. I doubt that they could do so without leaving their property at some point, without some local breakdown of reality.

2. And you say I'm the one who is underestimating people's stupidity. I do not expect people to be competent drivers or to only want to drive if they are competent, so I am for requiring driver's licenses. I do not expect people to be competent gun owners or to only want to use guns if they are competent, so I am for requiring gun licenses.

4. You could arrest the person who performed the straw purchase, provided they were required to register the gun when they purchased it. Which is why I am for registering guns.

5. Either all arguments about right and wrong are "just opinions" and therefore arbitrary, or none are. I am in the latter camp. If you're in the former, consider this conversation over. I have no interest in arguing with a 3 edgy 5 me nihilist. It's a waste of all effort.

Whoopidy doo. The Greeks who invented Democracy loved slavery, real politic, and rape. Doesn't make me anti-democracy. I don't fucking care.

Endangering her own child, not her neighbor's, and I believe that once that child is born protective services definitely ought to take it away from her. Perhaps they should force her to pay for some of the healthcare costs related to the child's upbringing if it was caused by her irresponsible actions. Just like if someone was routinely firing their gun at a pole in front of their neighbor's window they ought to have their gun taken away from them and their license to own or carry guns revoked. I am quite fine with being consistent here.
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,979
0
0
Shock and Awe said:
Revnak said:
Shock and Awe said:
Revnak said:
Shock and Awe said:
Revnak said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Revnak said:
He could have had one. Oregon has concealed carry and colleges are not allowed to be gun free zones.
Take this with a grain of salt as I heard it in the insane aftermath but apparently, a professor stated that guns are verboten on campus and not even the campus rent-a-cops have guns.
I went to the school. I'm aware that the security guards did not carry guns. I am aware that most people don't carry them there. That's mostly because most people don't carry in the area, I've never seen someone with a gun here outside of when they are going on a hunting trip or something like that and I've lived here for fifteen years. Legally, he could have owned a gun and brought it to the campus, provided he had a permit.
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.
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.
I disagree with gun use being a public act. Its only public when used in public such as with concealed carry which I think should come with a required amount of training and licensing. The purchase of harms however, I believe is a private matter. It is not the business of the government or society what I am doing that does not effect them. I am in favor of the NICS checks on gun sales, but honestly it doesn't stop much considering the inability to control private sales whether or not they're legal.

I particularly have an issue with Registration because quite honestly, thats the step before confiscating them, such as in the UK after the Dunblane massacre.
For the vast majority of gun users, any time they are using their guns at all, there is a chance they harm someone else. Most people do not live in the middle of nowhere. Most people live in towns, suburbs, or cities. And any accidental discharge of a weapon (which can easily occur at any time especially if you are not careful) could easily harm some else. Registration should absolutely be done because of how often crimes are committed with guns that come from the same small number of outlets. Registration would also help us to track illegal transactions like those you mentioned, and punish those who commit them. The only harm comes from paranoia like that which you express here, and that is nowhere near as important as the lives that could be saved or the crimes that could be prevented.
Its not paranoia, its literally what has happened repeatedly in other countries and almost in this one a few times. We've had people like Dianne Feinstein go on national media and openly state that they'd confiscate "assault weapons" if they could get the votes in Congress.
Which is less relevant to me than adequate safety measures to preserve human life and property. I don't care about slippery slope arguments, I don't care about your paranoia, I don't care about what happened in Australia. I care about dealing with problems right in my damn face rather than shrugging my shoulders and saying "well, there's nothing we could have done." I refuse to let myself or anyone else off on this. It is our collective responsibility to construct a better society.

I'm sorry if that went off on a tangent. My point is that arguing about how these evil people might take away your guns should not get in the way of legislation that is not meant to take away your guns at all. Some representatives may wish to do so, but that has nothing to do with the argument I am making now about what we ought to do unless I am actually agreeing with that person, which I am not. I see no issue with wanting to own and use a gun. I just want this to all be carried out responsibly.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Revnak said:
1. I doubt that they could do so without leaving their property at some point, without some local breakdown of reality.

2. And you say I'm the one who is underestimating people's stupidity. I do not expect people to be competent drivers or to only want to drive if they are competent, so I am for requiring driver's licenses. I do not expect people to be competent gun owners or to only want to use guns if they are competent, so I am for requiring gun licenses.

4. You could arrest the person who performed the straw purchase, provided they were required to register the gun when they purchased it. Which is why I am for registering guns.

5. Either all arguments about right and wrong are "just opinions" and therefore arbitrary, or none are. I am in the latter camp. If you're in the former, consider this conversation over. I have no interest in arguing with a 3 edgy 5 me nihilist. It's a waste of all effort.

Whoopidy doo. The Greeks who invented Democracy loved slavery, real politic, and rape. Doesn't make me anti-democracy. I don't fucking care.

Endangering her own child, not her neighbor's, and I believe that once that child is born protective services definitely ought to take it away from her. Perhaps they should force her to pay for some of the healthcare costs related to the child's upbringing if it was caused by her irresponsible actions. Just like if someone was routinely firing their gun at a pole in front of their neighbor's window they ought to have their gun taken away from them and their license to own or carry guns revoked. I am quite fine with being consistent here.
1. Or really hazardous driving in a small area.
Realistically however, a area big enough for driving on private land would be similar to land one would shoot on, both of which would be highly unlikely to have any injuries off property.

2. I expect them to learn how to operate the device responsibly and if they cause mayhem because they did not, they be held responsible for being a dumbass.
And I expect them to be and not require a license. Plus, it has more to do with public road use than needing a license to operate the car.

4. You don't need registration to track firearms.

5. Well, it's not quite that simple but sure, let's just call it that.

I don't see how that applies to this conversation.

What is an unborn child but a very close neighbor?
You're talking about this like it guarantees the child will live to childbirth, or survive it.

I'd much rather someone doing that be arrested for unlawful discharge of a firearm and damage to property along with compensation if the pole was the property of the neighbor on top of manslaughter if someone was killed as a result.

I am in no way a nihilist, I just believe that a view is unique to a person and what I may see as wrong might not be to another person. Kind of like how you equated firearms ownership to owning slaves. That's an insane comparison to me but to you it's reasonable so I accept that. I don't agree with it, but I accept it as your view.


Revnak said:
Which is less relevant to me than adequate safety measures to preserve human life and property. I don't care about slippery slope arguments, I don't care about your paranoia, I don't care about what happened in Australia. I care about dealing with problems right in my damn face rather than shrugging my shoulders and saying "well, there's nothing we could have done." I refuse to let myself or anyone else off on this. It is our collective responsibility to construct a better society.

I'm sorry if that went off on a tangent. My point is that arguing about how these evil people might take away your guns should not get in the way of legislation that is not meant to take away your guns at all. Some representatives may wish to do so, but that has nothing to do with the argument I am making now about what we ought to do unless I am actually agreeing with that person, which I am not. I see no issue with wanting to own and use a gun. I just want this to all be carried out responsibly.
We care about dealing with a problem that is ever present. A "might" that is actually a will. An everlasting guarantee. There are many things we can do, as a society. I certainly don't see anyone caring to change the issue that many of these mass shooters, the ones doing it out of being shit on by society, are still being shit on by society and we as a society seem not to care at all about people other than ourselves, and very loudly ostracize those we see as any different from our collective. How about we properly fix our society first before we think regulating things is going to fix what we as a society are very much causing?

The road to hell is most certainly paved with good intentions and gun control tries to be that "good intention" in the eyes of many people(an an outright hostile intention in others) but it is nothing more than a feel good bandage akin to a nicotine patch and a means to strip rights from the people.
 

BytByte

New member
Nov 26, 2009
425
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Revnak said:
1. I doubt that they could do so without leaving their property at some point, without some local breakdown of reality.

2. And you say I'm the one who is underestimating people's stupidity. I do not expect people to be competent drivers or to only want to drive if they are competent, so I am for requiring driver's licenses. I do not expect people to be competent gun owners or to only want to use guns if they are competent, so I am for requiring gun licenses.

4. You could arrest the person who performed the straw purchase, provided they were required to register the gun when they purchased it. Which is why I am for registering guns.

5. Either all arguments about right and wrong are "just opinions" and therefore arbitrary, or none are. I am in the latter camp. If you're in the former, consider this conversation over. I have no interest in arguing with a 3 edgy 5 me nihilist. It's a waste of all effort.

Whoopidy doo. The Greeks who invented Democracy loved slavery, real politic, and rape. Doesn't make me anti-democracy. I don't fucking care.

Endangering her own child, not her neighbor's, and I believe that once that child is born protective services definitely ought to take it away from her. Perhaps they should force her to pay for some of the healthcare costs related to the child's upbringing if it was caused by her irresponsible actions. Just like if someone was routinely firing their gun at a pole in front of their neighbor's window they ought to have their gun taken away from them and their license to own or carry guns revoked. I am quite fine with being consistent here.
1. Or really hazardous driving in a small area.
Realistically however, a area big enough for driving on private land would be similar to land one would shoot on, both of which would be highly unlikely to have any injuries off property.

2. I expect them to learn how to operate the device responsibly and if they cause mayhem because they did not, they be held responsible for being a dumbass.
And I expect them to be and not require a license. Plus, it has more to do with public road use than needing a license to operate the car.

4. You don't need registration to track firearms.

5. Well, it's not quite that simple but sure, let's just call it that.

I don't see how that applies to this conversation.

What is an unborn child but a very close neighbor?
You're talking about this like it guarantees the child will live to childbirth, or survive it.

I'd much rather someone doing that be arrested for unlawful discharge of a firearm and damage to property along with compensation if the pole was the property of the neighbor on top of manslaughter if someone was killed as a result.

I am in no way a nihilist, I just believe that a view is unique to a person and what I may see as wrong might not be to another person. Kind of like how you equated firearms ownership to owning slaves. That's an insane comparison to me but to you it's reasonable so I accept that. I don't agree with it, but I accept it as your view.


Revnak said:
Which is less relevant to me than adequate safety measures to preserve human life and property. I don't care about slippery slope arguments, I don't care about your paranoia, I don't care about what happened in Australia. I care about dealing with problems right in my damn face rather than shrugging my shoulders and saying "well, there's nothing we could have done." I refuse to let myself or anyone else off on this. It is our collective responsibility to construct a better society.

I'm sorry if that went off on a tangent. My point is that arguing about how these evil people might take away your guns should not get in the way of legislation that is not meant to take away your guns at all. Some representatives may wish to do so, but that has nothing to do with the argument I am making now about what we ought to do unless I am actually agreeing with that person, which I am not. I see no issue with wanting to own and use a gun. I just want this to all be carried out responsibly.
We care about dealing with a problem that is ever present. A "might" that is actually a will. An everlasting guarantee. There are many things we can do, as a society. I certainly don't see anyone caring to change the issue that many of these mass shooters, the ones doing it out of being shit on by society, are still being shit on by society and we as a society seem not to care at all about people other than ourselves, and very loudly ostracize those we see as any different from our collective. How about we properly fix our society first before we think regulating things is going to fix what we as a society are very much causing?

The road to hell is most certainly paved with good intentions and gun control tries to be that "good intention" in the eyes of many people(an an outright hostile intention in others) but it is nothing more than a feel good bandage akin to a nicotine patch and a means to strip rights from the people.
So what if I don't mind that particular right not existing? I'm also okay with there not being a right to kill people. I even still would have my right to protect myself and others.

We get that you like guns, but don't paint yourself like some martyr defending our noble past. Times change and paradigms shift. If you think protecting more lives with more rigorous standards is just too much a hassle for you, you are too far gone.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,647
0
0
Revnak said:
Shock and Awe said:
Revnak said:
Shock and Awe said:
Revnak said:
Shock and Awe said:
Revnak said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Revnak said:
He could have had one. Oregon has concealed carry and colleges are not allowed to be gun free zones.
Take this with a grain of salt as I heard it in the insane aftermath but apparently, a professor stated that guns are verboten on campus and not even the campus rent-a-cops have guns.
I went to the school. I'm aware that the security guards did not carry guns. I am aware that most people don't carry them there. That's mostly because most people don't carry in the area, I've never seen someone with a gun here outside of when they are going on a hunting trip or something like that and I've lived here for fifteen years. Legally, he could have owned a gun and brought it to the campus, provided he had a permit.
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.
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.
I disagree with gun use being a public act. Its only public when used in public such as with concealed carry which I think should come with a required amount of training and licensing. The purchase of harms however, I believe is a private matter. It is not the business of the government or society what I am doing that does not effect them. I am in favor of the NICS checks on gun sales, but honestly it doesn't stop much considering the inability to control private sales whether or not they're legal.

I particularly have an issue with Registration because quite honestly, thats the step before confiscating them, such as in the UK after the Dunblane massacre.
For the vast majority of gun users, any time they are using their guns at all, there is a chance they harm someone else. Most people do not live in the middle of nowhere. Most people live in towns, suburbs, or cities. And any accidental discharge of a weapon (which can easily occur at any time especially if you are not careful) could easily harm some else. Registration should absolutely be done because of how often crimes are committed with guns that come from the same small number of outlets. Registration would also help us to track illegal transactions like those you mentioned, and punish those who commit them. The only harm comes from paranoia like that which you express here, and that is nowhere near as important as the lives that could be saved or the crimes that could be prevented.
Its not paranoia, its literally what has happened repeatedly in other countries and almost in this one a few times. We've had people like Dianne Feinstein go on national media and openly state that they'd confiscate "assault weapons" if they could get the votes in Congress.
Which is less relevant to me than adequate safety measures to preserve human life and property. I don't care about slippery slope arguments, I don't care about your paranoia, I don't care about what happened in Australia. I care about dealing with problems right in my damn face rather than shrugging my shoulders and saying "well, there's nothing we could have done." I refuse to let myself or anyone else off on this. It is our collective responsibility to construct a better society.

I'm sorry if that went off on a tangent. My point is that arguing about how these evil people might take away your guns should not get in the way of legislation that is not meant to take away your guns at all. Some representatives may wish to do so, but that has nothing to do with the argument I am making now about what we ought to do unless I am actually agreeing with that person, which I am not. I see no issue with wanting to own and use a gun. I just want this to all be carried out responsibly.
My issue with your argument is that it presupposes that arms are not an integral aspect of American civil liberties and the security of both the individual and the nation as a whole. It has been proven time and time again that a government that isn't checked will endlessly expand and will tread upon individual rights. We see crimes countless times in history, and in countless places today that are committed by governments upon unarmed and vulnerable people. Why should we sell out liberty for a temporary false sense of security? Thats exactly what a consent to register is. It allows arms to be taken quite quickly by state action. Whether by act of law or due to emergency situations like Katrina that saw countless confiscations.

It is not question of if they might try, its a question of when they will try again, because people in Congress have tried before and will try again, unless Americans make it quite clear we won't have any of it. Furthermore, you assume that those who carry out the vast majority of gun violence will really be affected by these laws, they wont. Just like illegal drugs, criminal gangs will begin to smuggle and sell them to the last people who should have them, while law abiding citizens are forced to jump through hoops and be subject to confiscation should the state decide that its time to take them away. We already as a society agree that alcohol prohibition was foolish. We are beginning to understand marijuana prohibition is foolish. Why try the same failed policy again? It makes no sense.

I understand you are not arguing confiscation, but registration is simply the first step confiscation. It has happened again and again. Our own government has tried before to take guns from everyone, and has before disarmed segments of society that were deemed subversive (Japanese, Blacks, etc). Its not paranoia, its an acknowledgement of history. I am not anti-government, hell I plan on working for the government. I just don't blindly trust it.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
CandideWolf said:
So what if I don't mind that particular right not existing?
The right to bear arms? That's alright. There are people alright with that as well. I'm not. A lot of people aren't either. That's your opinion, it's cool to have one!
I'm also okay with there not being a right to kill people.
... When did that come into the discussion? There is no "right to kill people".
I even still would have my right to protect myself and others.
This being mixed in with the second amendment or?
We get that you like guns, but don't paint yourself like some martyr defending our noble past. Times change and paradigms shift. If you think protecting more lives with more rigorous standards is just too much a hassle for you, you are too far gone.
My rigorous standards differ from your rigorous standards.
The US continues to have firearms in the hands of The People and we want to keep it that way. Nothing has changed in that regard.
 

mojoismydog77

New member
Jun 30, 2013
51
0
0
Lense-Thirring said:
Lets just be real for a minute. Republicans took apart mental healthcare in the US after Reagan's attempted assassin was seen to have "gotten off" on an insanity plea. Now the money is in long-term pharmaceutical treatments for people with money. You think the companies that can't be bothered with antibiotics are going to care about people with no possible earning future to pay them back?

So now we shove the mentally ill in prisons, toss them onto the streets, or if you have money you can possibly get something like real care (though not necessarily). The solution isn't rocket science.

End the drug war, divert those trillions over decades to mental health.
Put price controls (like every other fucking country with half a brain) on healthcare matters.
Enforce gun laws on the books.
Stop trying to destroy the ATF, stop trying to empower crazies and militia movements with political wrangling.
Background checks for your guns. Any gun. No loopholes.
Penalties for criminal acts with firearms need to be greater, and need to be enforced.
Firearm manufacturers and sellers need to be liable like every other business on the planet.

The reason that none of that will happen isn't rocket science either, it's money, stasis, and stupid.

I agree and disagree with you. I am all for everything including the enforcing of gun laws but persecuting gun manufactures and strengthening the atf I believe are counter productive. Most if not all gun purchases go through a dealer with a federal firearms licence so there is a background check through the FBI. The gunman had many firearms that he passed this background check. Gun manufacturers can only sell to those with a ffl they do not sell directly to individuals so they really have no control over who buys them. I'm not an extremest by any means but the atf is really incompetent and they tend to make laws without congressional approval over items that are no more dangerous than what is legal. (for example supposedly armor piercing ammo that pierced as much armor as normal rounds). but you have many valid points... have a good one
 

mojoismydog77

New member
Jun 30, 2013
51
0
0
Politrukk said:
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
The debate will continue to rage on because of this horrible event.

But when people say how "easy" it is to get firearms in the US, I would swear those people are ridiculously underinformed of how much a person has to go through to legally own a firearm, let alone carry one in public (depending on the state things may even be harder). Now registered, lawful firearm owners are the least likely people to carry out violent crimes involving firearms. There are incidents of people being harmed with legally owned firearms, sometimes children. Those incidents are varied from accidental discharges to incompetence, and sometimes yes crimes are committed.

However the people most likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm, involving a discharge and injury or death are people who do not own them legally. How is more regulation of legally owned firearms going to stop criminals from being criminals?

And yeah you could just take everyone's right to firearms away, punish folks who have done and more than likely will never do a thing wrong/unlawful with those firearms. It won't stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns. Not in a country this size, with as many unsecured access points. It will only harm the folks who follow the laws as is.

Education is the best way of preventing crimes, and a better mental health system that doesn't stigmatize the people who need the help and actively seek it. I'm one to readily admit to being bipolar, and having other unresolved mental health issues but dammit if I don't get a lot of fucked up looks from people like I'm going to go on a shooting spree.

I wouldn't. I'm a diplomat and pacifist up to a point, until all other avenues of conflict resolution have failed and I'm backed up against a wall or in a corner. I'd never resort to violence as an answer or solution, only a last ditch effort to prevent the loss of life.

There's no clear answer on how to prevent mass killings, but I could guarantee it wouldn't be taking everyone's right to bear arms away.
You know I've been talked into agreeing with this sort of stance by people online but I am completely abandoning it, there is no place like the U.S for people suddenly deciding to shoot their neighbourhood up.

Either the gun laws are at fault or the people, and the population simply doesn't compare to the rate of violent crime that's being dealt out.

That would mean there's something fundamentally wrong with American society, especially within the school system.


Trust me the school system is all different types of messed up.