The last few riots showed the conservatives strongly against the rioters, though. IMHO, conservative US rising up against Obama or whatever is much less likely than the next Ferguson turning really ugly.Shock and Awe said:
The Oregon shooting
- Thread starter Josh123914
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You kind of answered your own question. I don't know how to explain that having ''hundreds of millions of guns floating around'' that pretty much everyone in the U.S. has access to is a really bad idea. I really don't.LegendaryGamer0 said:
There's also quite s significant number who would see armed resistance against the government as high treason, conservative or not.Shock and Awe said:
Hell, there's quite a few members of the military who consider Bowe Bergdahl a dirty traitor who should be shot and all he did was go awol and get himself captured. Not to mention the intense hatred Manning and Snowden get for activities which could be considered whistle-blowing.
Bolding is mine ...Qizx said:
Yes we have many laws to prevent people from driving drunk and yet how many people are still killed everyday by drunk drivers? How many repeat offenders do we have arrested every year?
And background checks, well that worthless piece Human waste [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0] got all fourteen of his firearms legally. He passed the background check, since he had no criminal history or that of a mentally unstable person.
Not saying it will prevent all shootings, but as it's been said if we can't stop all, why even try? There are a number of shootings in which it WOULD have stopped if properly performed. (The shooting at the black church for example). Yes drunk driving still occurs, but those checks we put in place help to stop them, and I'm certain have reduced the deaths by an exponential amount. Your argument is "because drunk driving still happens even with regulation, we shouldn't regulate guns, as shootings will still happen." I put forth the opposite, counter measures to drunk driving, while not preventing all auto fatalities relating to it, have put a MAJOR dent in the damage it would cause. So yeah we can't prevent all tragedies, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.Mik Sunrider said:
Also by saying he was able to get all these guns legally you're kind of hurting your point... If it had been illegal he wouldn't have had as many, and wouldn't have been as effective.
TLDR: Gun control won't stop all gun crime, but it would stop enough to be worth it.
EDIT: Just read this an article http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34450062 that mentions he CLEARLY did have some mental instability so he probably shouldn't have gotten all those guns.
Dunno about America but in the UK trying to buy anything with a blade means you have to be 18+LegendaryGamer0 said:
Why do people want to score home runs? To win the ... match? Game? ... Session?
Still doesn't explain why you give reasonable doubt to Twitchy and Fine Citizen but you don't give it to "Rob your tv" when he breaks in. He breaks in after your tv, doesn't want anything to do with you but you pull a gun and escalated the situation, now he has a choice, shoot you or get shot ... this has gone from "well I can't watch game of thrones now" all the way to "I sure do miss him".
Sorry but what does anything you just said have anything to do with FPSRussia? I asked what is the difference between you and FPSRussia and you talk about degrees of gun control.
That link to everytown was just the first one I found, I saw the number in a few places.
Death is a terrible thing? Really? You're willing to kill over a TV and I say that's wrong. Secondly, 2 -3 people die per second, every day of the year. People drop like fucking flies, I don't see you (or anybody else) mourning each one ... you'd be suicidal in a week. Death is something that has to be accepted, I've had 3 family members die ... I cried for about a minute over my grandad (the first) then after that it was like telling me they had new carpet installed. We live for a very short time and we are tiny specs, walking on a tiny spec in massive space ... we are literally nothing in the grand scheme. I just think peoples lives shouldn't be cut short 'cos some people like guns.
Well the government is there to look out for the best interests of the country, which means it's citizens. You don't take care of the land, you take care of the people ... go to war to protect them, set up trade with other countries to make your's richer, make your civilians as happy as possible and keep them healthy, like Simcity or city skylines. So, they enforce policies to take care of you, in most cases ... it's not perfect 'cos people aren't.
People can be bought and they make compromises, allowing fast food chains to make very unhealthy food, that is almost like a drug. Allowing tobacco and alcohol to be sold etc Alcohol is a good example, tried to ban it 'cos of the effect it has and look what happened.
Like I've said before, gun restrictions are just part of it, you can't just restrict guns and hope it fixes it'self. I think the hole country needs a redesign, from what I've heard from various places.
Which now applies to teaspoons apparently. For the record, needing an ID to buy anything with a sharp edge sounds insane to us as well.omega 616 said:
Same for target shooting.
Which one of these three has just forcefully entered my fucking house?
So, you're saying an unidentified individual who has forced his way into my home for unknown purposes to me, is armed? In what universe is the reasonable thought process "oh, he's totally just wanting my TV."?
The only answer is, that is your thought process, not mine, nor the thought process of the vast majority of Americans. IF you want to play victim just because you feel it safer, be my guest. There is an armed intruder in my home, I'm protecting my loved ones.
Well, I'm pretty sure he's a nice guy and I'm not sure why you brought him up at all. Something about weapon definitions or something.
Well, I suggest you check your sources next time because quite a few of those were suicides on campus or shootings that were not school targeted.
Well, maybe not terrible if it is natural in the sense that it is a natural part of life, but it is certainly a sad thing and terrible if their life was cut short. But now we're getting mildly religious.
Intruder in my house with a gun.
Believe it or not I do mourn many people in different ways. Though, yes. Like above. Death is Life.
I hold high value for life, the life of my family and loved ones above all others. You still see this as a problem of guns flying about killing people when it is people who do not value life. Unless you're meaning justified cases of self defense, in which case, we have nothing more to go on about because our opinions clearly differ. What exactly needs to happen for you to take action? At best I can understand "letting" someone steal your things if you're an insane pacifist(by insane I mean extreme). When do you take action? Destruction to your house? Threats to your loved ones? Serious question, would you not step in to defend a loved one against attempted rape? Where do you stop and say "no, I will not allow this to happen, I must take action"? Put yourself in your above described situation and imagine how you'd play it out. Family members in the house along with your most prized belongings.
...
I nearly just said to forget my above statement.
So, that's why your government spies on you with our government and vice versa, along with mine in general spying on my people? This is a key difference of philosophy here. US citizens typically recognize that government is, in fact, not there to look out for you. To think such is some degree of actual insanity.
YEah, no. That often doesn't occur like you think it does.
Or for financial gain
Or, just the government or pockets of politicians
I was about to say. You're using utopian vidya logic, and applying it to the real world, where it sadly falls flat on its ass because the world sucks
Or, it doesn't work that way at all so...
A shining example of how government does not in fact care about the people. Hell, the cops actively poisoned alcohol during prohibition and actively killed people. But it's alright, it was illegal booze, right? Totally got the best intentions at heart for Mr. Fine Citizenson.
Certainly not using the UK as a model I hope.
All seriousness, many do agree the US needs overhauls, but it varies on what kinds. Some want a peaceful purge of corrupt politicians, some want Armstrong levels of changes. This is a different matter from gun control.
Hell, such a change would require arms.
The former is off a fair bit but the latter is about spot on. The NRA in my opinion are gun salesmen, not champions for the Second Amendment.Lense-Thirring said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
I have a question for the need-guns-to-fight-the-gubmint folks. Directing it at you two since you seem to the the main advocates of that view in this thread.Shock and Awe said:
Do you think widespread private gun ownership would be a serious obstacle for a theoretical tyrannical US government?
Yes, your government gets up to some shady shit. All governments seem to at some point, yours just has the greatest potential capacity for it.
However, you'll notice that they tend to do it on the sly. Exactly how does your personal bullet hose stashed in your bedroom or a handgun in your pants prevent violations that you don't even know about?
Secondly, it seems to me that whenever government violations do occur, nobody is in any hurry to take up arms. But hey, maybe I just missed the bulletin about the South Carolina Rifle Club storming Guantanamo Bay.
Thirdly, do you think the US military would maintain discipline and remain cohesive if it were ordered to attack the general population? Seems to me a much more likely scenario would be a limited deployment against a specific part of the population, in which case you can bet that a large part of the general population would be cheering them on. (Imagine something like Ferguson gone bad. Half the country would be giggling with glee.)
Lastly, let's imagine that through some incredible circumstances the US military does end up waging war on its own population. Do you think an untrained, disorganized pack of idiots with rifles would provide any meaningful opposition to the most powerful army on the planet? Ask the Afghans what it's like fighting against organised, well equipped troops backed up by an obscenely expensive airforce when all you have are amateurs with small arms. Then remember that the Afghans are stubborn, hardy motherfuckers well accustomed to privation and hardship who have been kicking invaders in the shins for all of recorded history, while most of the theoretical Glorious American Resistance would be made up of folks too fat to get off the couch, half of whom would surrender the second the they couldn't log into Facebook while the other half would reach for the white flag when the corn syrup supplies ran out.
USAUSAUSAUSAZhukov said:
My thoughts on people thinking they need guns to protect itself from the government is that there is some deep-seated desire for the government to attack them just so they can justify it. Not necessarily overt or concious, but it may be hanging around the back of their head.
Not necessarily the US government, but society or authority in general, yeah, seemingly for a fair few. I believe that's because they feel powerless and not getting what they feel they are owed. You can't fight gay marriage or not having a girlfriend, but you can fight Black Helicopters.CandideWolf said:
Basically this.Lense-Thirring said:
My thoughts on people thinking the government will protect them is that they want no personal responsibility or requirement to do anything and want all of their needs attended to by the government and to be coddled because they cannot think for themselves. Or at least those would be my thoughts if I didn't realize that is an incredibly ignorant and offensive line of reasoning, grouping of people, oversimplification of human beings and the issue at hand.CandideWolf said:
You're suggesting people want a justification to murder because they desire to have the means to effectively protect themselves.
Sure.Zhukov said:
Totally.
All the more reason we need the means to protect ourselves.
A good point. This is why we must be ever vigilant and why I thank people like Edward Snowden.
People selectively accepting rights violations for people they do not like. This is wrong when it happens.
Nope.
On US soil? Military deployment on US soil? That would not go over well, at all. Also, they came for the jews/communists/ect.
You mean it didn't go bad?
Eh, the country didn't exactly giggle to begin with in the original incident.
Your bias is showing.
In short, yes.
Looks like they're doing pretty good actually. Then again, a war we shouldn't be in in the first place.
Afghanistan: Where Empires Go To Die
Nice stereotyping. Now for reality.
US soldiers being deployed against their own people on their own soil and having the oh so wonderful track record our forces have had for the past decade and killing unintended persons. No amount of propaganda can fight against that, especially in this age.
Now imagine there being more guns than people and these being in possession of the general population, and no way to know where they are(sans a small idea from registration but, again, that's one of my points). Your image of overweight people on mobility scooters(bit extra because why not?) even if it was largely true(which it isn't and is an offensive depiction), you still have armed citizens in urban and rural areas with access to hardware that any of the places the US military has been dicking about for the past decade wish they did, and admittedly wishing they had some stuff said other locations did but that is a discussion for another day.
Then again, I don't know why I'm even responding considering your view of the US is obese people having drinking contests with corn syrup. Seriously, we can shit talk people all day. It does nothing for the conversation. Show some respect, please.
I just suggested people want an excuse to use their guns, however subconscious it may be. Your the one that is saying guns are only for murder.LegendaryGamer0 said:
I kid but this is how you are trying to argue with people and it ain't working
EDIT:Just saw the end of your post. Peace and we prefer to drink Molasses here in Georgia
Still a bit of an offensive suggestion. Most people who own guns want no reason to have to use them. Better to have and not need and all that.CandideWolf said:
Nope. I'm saying in general that guns are used for various reasons and a very specific reason is defense of our rights need it come to that.
I'm a bit of a nut.
Peace and we prefer to drink ice cold lemonade from stands of little girls that the cops crack down on because they have no permit.
I kid, well, about the preference. Cops are dicks.
Been away, didn't have the time, but wish I knew this thread blew up. I would have tagged-in again.
So we have a roughly 20 year old problem and a roughly 230 year old constitution. We do not have a 230 year old problem.
It was scary when many of us were saying after 9/11 that we have to do what it takes to go after terrorists. Here we are with the modern domestic terrorist, which is really just some mentally-ill people that (disturbingly) can seem normal on the outside, and we're right back to infringing on civil rights, assuming we have to do what it takes. There are stupid ideas and then there are just stupid people, and it's really sad that we continue to be manipulated like this.
As for Obama, he went out to talk before he knew anything, as usual, because everything he had to say he's said before. Once again he talks as if every gunman has an arsenal of illegal weapons; in this case they were all legally purchased, acquired over several years, according to the ATF. He also implies that every tragedy is a pattern of simple cases that simple laws like a background check would have uncovered, which has been a demonstrable lie since forever. I don't know how anyone can still be charged with hope and inspiration from his empty rhetoric and hollow points; literally all he cares about is scoring a political victory by ramming laws over opposition that keeps rejecting his slam dunks.
IIRC, you're Australian and you have seen laws work there, but the reality is that new laws proved that guns weren't the problem. The fact that laws worked in Australia and gun control doesn't work in the US (yes, we do have it), says everything. The many facts about American society and violence says everything.
Debate me on any relevant point or make your own, if you can. Sounds like you were content assuming superior understanding of the issue when you demonstrated that you understood little, and then just copped-out of a reply. It's not rocket science, right?Lense-Thirring said:
The first and fourth amendments were written at a time when there were no phones or internet, yet when our technology evolved our rights did not. Look at it this way: firearms have been around since the 16th century, and even modern designs haven't changed much in roughly a century. These active shootings going on in the US? It's more like 20 years (I put it at Columbine, 1996).DizzyChuggernaut said:
So we have a roughly 20 year old problem and a roughly 230 year old constitution. We do not have a 230 year old problem.
There was one security guard at this school in Oregon and he was unarmed. The school not only has a strong anti-weapon/anti-gun policy but recently voted down a proposal to have armed security guards. The school clearly takes a very negative view of armed conflict, like the vast majority of the US.
I like how when it comes to the second amendment people are like "Yeah, this is such an old document, it doesn't apply to anything going on today, we need to rewrite this", but then when the US government starts spying on the public, harvesting data and molesting people at airports over national security concerns or, you know, gay people want to marry, suddenly we have a real use for this dustbin document, and hey, it's totally relevant to modern America!Battenberg said:
It was scary when many of us were saying after 9/11 that we have to do what it takes to go after terrorists. Here we are with the modern domestic terrorist, which is really just some mentally-ill people that (disturbingly) can seem normal on the outside, and we're right back to infringing on civil rights, assuming we have to do what it takes. There are stupid ideas and then there are just stupid people, and it's really sad that we continue to be manipulated like this.
As for Obama, he went out to talk before he knew anything, as usual, because everything he had to say he's said before. Once again he talks as if every gunman has an arsenal of illegal weapons; in this case they were all legally purchased, acquired over several years, according to the ATF. He also implies that every tragedy is a pattern of simple cases that simple laws like a background check would have uncovered, which has been a demonstrable lie since forever. I don't know how anyone can still be charged with hope and inspiration from his empty rhetoric and hollow points; literally all he cares about is scoring a political victory by ramming laws over opposition that keeps rejecting his slam dunks.
You just proved his point that it's the people who project their influence, not the firearms. Millions of people and millions of guns neither cause nor are involved in problems. Very few people, clearly mentally ill, misuse them, and very few guns are involved in crimes. You have neither logic nor statistics supporting gun bans.TechNoFear said:
IIRC, you're Australian and you have seen laws work there, but the reality is that new laws proved that guns weren't the problem. The fact that laws worked in Australia and gun control doesn't work in the US (yes, we do have it), says everything. The many facts about American society and violence says everything.
That's nice. This is the US, where there are many times more guns than Australia has people and it's a civil right to bear arms. What is the point of comparing two completely different countries? What would be your plan for the US, other than assuming that disarm and repeal would work? Do you have a workable solution? Australia is not a workable model for the US and never has been.
I really don't get why people keep comparing the US to Australia. You are an island nation with the ability to control who enters and exits very closely. So close you didnt allow Johnny Depp to enter the country with his dog for a vacation. The US on the other hand shares a border with one of the most violent and crime addled nations in the Americas. And also Mexico (Seriously guys, whats up with your thing with hockey, makes you go all nutso, Disclaimer - Canada is very nice, it is a joke).
Mexico's drug problem bleeds over easily to the US through smugglers, and drug runners, and they bring guns with them. Banning guns will not get rid of this problem, it would be another war on drugs. And it would be just as disastrous and costly. And would get just as little results until Mexico solves its problems.
Mexico's drug problem bleeds over easily to the US through smugglers, and drug runners, and they bring guns with them. Banning guns will not get rid of this problem, it would be another war on drugs. And it would be just as disastrous and costly. And would get just as little results until Mexico solves its problems.
It is not, however, unreasonable to justify having a gun to protect oneself from home invaders or other sorts of criminals who may themselves have guns or any kind of weapon. If we could magically also remove guns from criminals' hands then I would be a lot more in favor of this but instead it comes across more as taking guns away from legal law abiding customers without doing shit to criminals who obtain theirs illegally. Also, I own a six acre piece of property just outside of town and there are fairly dangerous wild animals from bears to wolves to coyotes in my area. I know something like an AK sounds unreasonable to hunt deer with but a bear in close proximity endangering my family or animals? You need something reliable, high caliber, and hopefully rapid firing. All that in addition to a clean backup pair of pants and underwear would be nice.CandideWolf said:
Please also remember that the majority of gun related crimes committed in the US are done with illegally obtained firearms. In fact, the current statistic is that 93% of the guns used in crimes aren't obtained legally. 93% is a lot. The vast majority in fact. Also, only 10-15% of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns, so the common belief that criminals most commonly steal guns just doesn't match up with the actual numbers. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html] Instead, the vast majority use straw purchase sales. Straw purchases are already illegal yet gun stores still allow them to happen and many guns reported stolen that are used in crimes can also be the result of straw sales rather than legitimate theft to crime events. The second largest source is from legal but corrupt gun vendors. Also illegal and a HUGE source of gun crime at like 30%.
Likewise, in countries where guns are banned we still see regular rises in gun related crimes and even sometimes a spike in gun-related fatalities in the years following the bans. America does have a bigger problem than others but we also have dynamically different regional difficulties to overcome than smaller countries (land and population sizes) do. Our environment even allows for lucrative crime organizations that can afford higher quality weapons than gangs in other nations may be able to. Even so, look at the impact of gun bans in places like England that are praised right now for having gun control laws in place:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england-full.PNG
If that chart is correct, the bans did what?
The most reasonably minded individuals could make the argument that stricter rules on legal acquisition of guns isn't going to do shit to the problem of criminals acquiring guns illegally. It's better policing of illegal sale of guns that would impact the vast majority of gun related crimes. Stopping legal owners from obtaining them is just needless domineering by enforcement of political belief on others. Little different from a religious nut demanding that you adhere to the tenets of their faith just because something you're doing or own makes them feel icky. In other countries, the criminals still obtain weapons. Do you really believe a country with as massive a drug problem as ours can somehow also keep out guns? You're just talking about making the already illegal dark market for guns even more lucrative for large criminal organizations. Yet another revenue stream. Hell, it may even encourage gun manufacturing plants which take up a lot less space than drug fields. All we need is creating a market that encourages criminals to start making armor piercing rounds and high powered guns.
What's also silly is that the vast majority of these calls to ban guns is only on the scary looking assault rifles. What these naive people don't realize is that assault rifles are big and easy to detect and so are responsible for far less deaths each year than knives are. There is legitimately more rationale to ban knives than rifles of almost any kind. Instead, handguns are significantly more likely to be the culprit. Out of 10,000 homicides caused by guns, 75% are likely to be handguns.
If people really wanted to make a difference in crime, then they wouldn't give a shit about rifles and would focus on handguns. Instead we see people reacting with terrified imaginations that just don't coalesce in reality like they think they do. That is not the way to legislate. Public outrage over the rarest events of gun violence isn't a sound reason to make nation-wide laws. Public outrage over a clear and pervasive existence of gun violence in general is.
So what do I propose given this knowledge?
1. Stricter enforcement of existing laws that are not being honored by licensed arms dealers. The laws being on the books don't mean crap if they aren't being followed.
2. A greater attempt to sniff out the bad arms dealers.
3. A greater attempt to find and prosecute the buyer of guns in a straw sale. These people frequently walk into a gun store with the criminal who points to a gun that they then buy under their own license. Gun vendors are supposed to reject these kinds of customers.
These things would impact actual gun violence trends rather than less than 5% of gun violence like current lines of thought are trying to attack just because assault rifles look scary. But assault rifles are not only hard to conceal but are often only obtainable by the affluent (aka the people who aren't likely to commit crimes) unlike handguns which are easily concealable and relatively cheap.
If stricter laws are put in place regarding guns, they should be regarding handguns to at least be consistent with the stated intention of such laws. I would be in favor of handgun storage requirements but those would be very difficult to enforce and would likely only end up affecting families where a tragedy has just occurred and the storage failure has come to light. Many states have trigger lock laws in place though. Again though, stolen guns are used in a very small amount of crimes because it takes too long for a stolen gun to make its way to a criminal.
You forget a few things. First off, the only things that could really motivate Americans to fight are the same things that would already cause mass unrest in the military itself. I am talking about things related to basic civil rights such as speech, religion, arms, etc. These are the issues that concern military members as much as the rest of American conservatives. In addition to the things that would motivate such resistance, the actions that would have to be taken against such resistance would only increase anti-government sentiment and discontent within the ranks of the military and police forces. To fight a resistance with just cause is to only fuel the flames and in turn demoralize your own soldiers who already would be sympathetic to the people they're fighting.Zhukov said:
And no, in a war that would cause a true rebellion the military would not be able to maintain discipline against them. Partially because it would have to be national guardsman going against the rebels, not national military units. This would mean that the guardsman would be fighting their own people. Even if the federal military did fight, it would be an even greater burden as such an action is blatantly illegal. And it wouldn't be open conflict, it would be unconventional. It would be bombings, ambushes, sabotage, etc. All of it against people who already don't want to fight. Imagine if one in a hundred gun owners would be willing and able to actually fight, thats a force of a million people. Now what about two in a hundred? Three?
This is of course in a highly unlikely scenario that I'd be flabbergasted if it actually occurred, however I'd say the same about my house burning down. So, I don't get rid of my insurance.
Theres a big difference between a riot against a correct court decision and a revolution against mass breach of civil liberties.thaluikhain said: