The Oregon shooting

[Revnak_v1legacy]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Wolf Hagen]

By this point I just see a discussion going in circles, so let's take a diffrent stance:

What would the people, who are NOT in Favor of Changing the gun laws, do to reduce shootings (and no, not just school shootings, since the shootings are by the time on plazas, cinemas and such as well).

 

[BytByte]

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.[/quote]

Lots has changed and your inability to recognize that does not mean the change hasn't happened. And you are not "we", so don't paint it in that way. It is disingenuous and misleading.

 

[Leg End]

By this point I just see a discussion going in circles, so let's take a diffrent stance:

What would the people, who are NOT in Favor of Changing the gun laws, do to reduce shootings (and no, not just school shootings, since the shootings are by the time on plazas, cinemas and such as well).

Depends. Better mental health care can work and not using the term "the mentally ill" would be a good start because in the cases where the shooters weren't in the best mental health, that kind of language doesn't help things at all. All sides of the debate are guilty of it and it makes people feel like second class citizens.

Lots has changed and your inability to recognize that does not mean the change hasn't happened. And you are not "we", so don't paint it in that way. It is disingenuous and misleading.

A lot has changed. A lot has gotten far worse.

I'll rephrase. The People have uttered a collective "fuck no" to getting rid of guns and restrictions.

 

[TechNoFear]

Using the strict legal definition of of the Assault Weapons Ban, then a civilian purchased AR-15 is NOT an 'assault rifle'.

The AR-15 is a 'rifle' listed by name as an 'assault weapon' in the AWB and AWCB, so it can be referred to legally as an 'assault rifle' (just as a pistol banned under the AWB can be referred to as an 'assault pistol').

See the 2 studies into the AWB by Koper.

What is the AWCA?

The Californian equivalent of the federal AWB. (Why is it that an Australian knows more about US firearm regulation than you do?)

I linked to it in my previous posts, the one with all the Guns & Ammo covers calling semi-auto military pattern rifles 'assault rifles' (ie calling an AR-180 an 'assault rifles')

 

[Leg End]

The AR-15 is a 'rifle' listed by name as an 'assault weapon' in the AWB and AWCB, so it can be referred to legally as an 'assault rifle' (just as a pistol banned under the AWB can be referred to as an 'assault pistol').

Closest you'd get would be calling it an "assault weapon" because assault rifle has a bit more of a specific definition. The AWB expired in 2004 so the terms and classifications do as well.
As for the AWCA, the less it is mentioned, the better.

The Californian equivalent of the federal AWB. (Why is it that an Australian knows more about US firearm regulation than you do?)

Because the US is quite a big place and what applies in California likely does not apply and may even be unheard of in other states(particularly considering how batshit stupid the AWCA actually is)? He's still got one up on you so I'd say it's about even. Actually, considering you didn't even know the AWB expired, I'd say you do not know more than him.

I linked to it in my previous posts, the one with all the Guns & Ammo covers calling semi-auto military pattern rifles 'assault rifles' (ie calling an AR-180 an 'assault rifles')

That's called marketing and using the stupid term to catch the eyes of people who don't really know guns too well and want the money of people wishing to live out their mall-ninja fantasies. Like how TVs and Cars are sold, only with more pew-pew.

 

[TechNoFear]

I'll rephrase. The People have uttered a collective "fuck no" to getting rid of guns and restrictions.

I suggest you read the detail of the latest firearm survey results.

About 50% of Americans want to preserve the right to own a firearm but even they are are overwhelmingly in favor of increased firearm regulations;

Currently, 85% of Americans ? including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) ? favor expanded background checks

70% back the creation of a federal database to track all gun sales, while a smaller majority (57%) supports a ban on assault-style weapons.

Pew
http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

 

[TechNoFear]

He's still got one up on you so I'd say it's about even. Actually, considering you didn't even know the AWB expired, I'd say you do not know more than him.

Where did I say the AWB was still in effect?

That's called marketing and using the stupid term to catch the eyes of people who don't really know guns too well

Sure, but you missed the point again..

It clearly shows that 'assault' was not a term created by the government for the AWB.

'Assault' was a a term already in use by firearm manufactures, advertisers and publications to refer to semi-auto firearms.

So the NRA / posters here criticizing people for using 'assault' to refer to non selective fire capable firearms is disingenuous at best.

 

[Leg End]

I suggest you read the detail of the latest firearm survey results.

About 50% of Americans want to preserve the right to own a firearm but even they are are overwhelmingly in favor of increased firearm regulations;

Currently, 85% of Americans ? including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) ? favor expanded background checks

70% back the creation of a federal database to track all gun sales, while a smaller majority (57%) supports a ban on assault-style weapons.

Pew
http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

I amend my statement. No confiscation, split to favor checks encompassing all sales.
No comment on tracking, "assault-style" brought up in a moment.

Where did I say the AWB was still in effect?

You stated it is defined under the AWB as an "assault weapon" but the AWB is no longer in place, so it is not defined as an "assault weapon". So, lead me to assume you did not know it expired.

Sure, but you missed the point again..

It clearly shows that 'assault' was not a term created by the government for the AWB.

'Assault' was a a term already in use by firearm manufactures, advertisers and publications to refer to semi-auto firearms.

So the NRA / posters here criticizing people for using 'assault' to refer to non selective fire capable firearms is disingenuous at best.

We're attacking the term being used because there is no proper definition to it other than apparently something looking "military". It's a buzzword for idiots who thinks it looks cool, and now it's a buzzword for people who think things look scary. It's mildly like calling a magazine a clip, though people tend not to go as nuts about it but it usually exposes the person immediately as someone who is either ignorant, picked up a bad verbal habit or has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, usually a combination of the three.

Spoiler: I take someone's idea of an assault weapon basically like this for that very reason.

And consider the whole thing to be similar to people wanting to ban Dihydrogen monoxide because of how spooky you can make it sound.

Or that time The Man Show got people to sign a petition to end women's suffrage.

 

[TechNoFear]

We're attacking the term being used because there is no proper definition to it other than apparently something looking "military".

No proper definition?

You mean apart from all those comprehensive definitions in various US state and federal acts?

It's a buzzword for idiots who thinks it looks cool, and now it's a buzzword for people who think things look scary.

So you are saying the features banned under the AWB do not in any way improve the 'performance' of the firearm?

If these features were not of benefit why are those features common on military firearms?

Are the armed forces just a bunch of 'idiots who thinks it looks cool' to put those features on their firearms?

 

[Thaluikhain]

So you are saying the features banned under the AWB do not in any way improve the 'performance' of the firearm?

If these features were not of benefit why are those features common on military firearms?

Are the armed forces just a bunch of 'idiots who thinks it looks cool' to put those features on their firearms?

Some of them do not substantially improve their performance as tools of murder, no. I can't remember any mass shootings in which bayonet lugs were a factor.

 

[stroopwafel]

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.

That always sounds like a bogus excuse to me. How the hell are you going to defend against tanks/jets/drones/attack choppers/weapons from outer space with a pistol and a shotgun? That whole Waco incident from years back kind of dispels that whole myth that small arms serve as a deterrent against the government. Those fruitbags were armed to the teeth and they didn't stand a chance against a chopper and a tank.

Sure, it might have made some sense centuries ago when it was civilians against musqueteers on horses but nowadays such logic is more than a little ridiculous. In modern society guns in the hands of civilians are just accidents waiting to happen again and again and again.

 

[Politrukk]

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.

Well that reiterates my point then I suppose!

You're the second person to second that opinion and I can't say I've personally experienced it only what it all looks like to an outsider so to speak.

 

[Erttheking]

I'm just going to throw something out here. Apparently only 4% of violence in America is committed by the mentally ill, and the mentally ill are actually more likely to be the victims of violent crime than perpetrators. So I don't think this is really a mentally ill thing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/