Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222

that's also a decent read.  I almost posted it last week, but i guess better late than never?
As I've stated repeatedly here, I don't own any guns. I'm simply trying to be realistic. The left uses these opportunities to try to ban guns. The right uses these opportunities to try to expand gun ownership. I simply lean to the right on this issue because the left's solutions aren't effective in any way, or even legal.

Gun ownership is not going to be banned. Guns are not going to be confiscated. When people advocate either I just toss them into my idiot pool mental category alongside those that hold up John Lennon's "Imagine" as the idyllic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6685|United States of America

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Or maybe, in a civilized society, no sane person has a reason to bring a weapon into a school, theater, etc. Hell, they invented table knives so that diners at feasts weren't waving their personal daggers about at a meal.
Well, we don't live in a civilized society anymore now do we? You wanted a solution for the problem, well, this is the only real one. Unless you want to pay to have armed security guards everywhere. Maybe we can have the active duty military guard everything since we're already paying them.

Or, we can stop giving these people the attention they want and muzzle the fucking media. Crime rates are dropping. Mass shootings are NOT happening more often than in the past. They just receive significantly more media attention as time goes on. People WANT to think the world is going to shit and that some sort of apocalypse is going to occur during their lifetime. That's why events like this are ratings gold.
"The only real solution" cannot be putting more guns out there. That is the cause of the problem. It's odd that you make the point that we don't live in a civilized society before saying the media is overblowing the threat of violence.
I am aware that violent crime has been on a decades-long downturn, and mass shootings count for a rather small amount of overall deaths in a year, but do we need it to be a statistically significant amount to do something, literally anything, about it? You don't even need it to be a significant cause of death in this country, but just compare the rates to those of other first-world countries? Do we just have to accept that all the shootings are just the price of our absurdly loose interpretation of what constitutes a "well-regulated militia"?
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6633|949

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

But counter to what gun-rights advocates claim, many of the active shootings in the FBI’s database occurred in areas that were not gun-free zones. Our own analysis of the FBI study, in which we looked at all 160 incidents, examining state and local laws along with the firearms policies of individual businesses, found that of the 65 shootings in open spaces and businesses with pedestrian traffic, at least 25 occurred in areas permitting firearms.

That may amount to less than 50 percent — but we counted only those cases in which the evidence indicating that the open space or business was not a gun-free zone is unmistakably clear. Complicating this analysis are differences in state laws governing whether “no-firearms allowed” policies in businesses are actually enforceable, and the fact that many concealed carriers aren’t aware of (or deliberately ignore) no-firearms policies.
65 shootings, but how many of those qualify as premeditated massacres? I think we can both agree that the gang or drug related shit is irrelevant.
You said that mass shootings happen in areas where guns aren't allowed.  I refuted that with facts and numbers.  Are you moving the goalposts?  What does it matter what the intent is?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


65 shootings, but how many of those qualify as premeditated massacres? I think we can both agree that the gang or drug related shit is irrelevant.
You said that mass shootings happen in areas where guns aren't allowed.  I refuted that with facts and numbers.  Are you moving the goalposts?  What does it matter what the intent is?
Because no one is reacting to the news of someone in the ghetto shooting up a house with five people in it. People expect to not feel safe in those places so no one cares. Not even the local news. They're reacting to the big mass shootings that happen in places where people normally feel safe.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England
That also dovetails nicely with black lives matters complaints. Shootings of all types are largely ignored.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6633|949

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:


65 shootings, but how many of those qualify as premeditated massacres? I think we can both agree that the gang or drug related shit is irrelevant.
You said that mass shootings happen in areas where guns aren't allowed.  I refuted that with facts and numbers.  Are you moving the goalposts?  What does it matter what the intent is?
Because no one is reacting to the news of someone in the ghetto shooting up a house with five people in it. People expect to not feel safe in those places so no one cares. Not even the local news. They're reacting to the big mass shootings that happen in places where people normally feel safe.
your argument was that mass shootings take place where guns aren't allowed.  Like I said, I gave a source that showed what you said isn't true.  What does that have to do with shootings in the ghetto?  Is there some other point you are trying to make?  It seems like you have some sort of narrative you want to get across, and your inference (that mass shootings could be stopped if people were armed) fits nicely into your narrative.  But then you start talking about shootings in the ghetto and #blacklivesmatter and I get lost.  What point are you trying to make here?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England
That when people make the argument they are talking about white-people-world. If you start including every incident with more than two victims it changes the narrative. That's the main disconnect and I think you know that.

The media itself is racist and doesn't give a fuck unless they can use the stats to sell their message. They spend 99% of their effort on the sensational and then lower the bar to include the incidents they don't even report when it's convenient. Hand wringing sells.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6772|PNW

DesertFox- wrote:

"The only real solution" cannot be putting more guns out there. That is the cause of the problem.
Does anyone remember the Forza shooting in Lakewood? Four dead police. Four armed professionals, plus past warning from his own lips that he was fed up and intended go shoot people, didn't seem to make any more difficult for Maurice Clemmons to do his shit. (He didn't even have to do anything special to arm himself. Just steal it out of the car of a law-abiding citizen.) Having Joe or Jill Average with a gun and miscellaneous detrita in their fanny packs doesn't make me feel safer.

There are already "more guns out there." The US is swimming in a veritable sea of the damned things, and has been for a very long time. It isn't the cause of the problem so much as a feature of a self-perpetuating issue to which there is no singular cause or solution. Would staffing vulnerable places like theaters and campuses with armed security help? In some instances, maybe. In others, security might simply decide to stand their ground in a room somewhere and wait for the police to show up. Or, like the four dead Lakewood cops, simply die. And in cases like the guy shooting a fellow moviegoer because he was texting, it wouldn't do shit.

https://i.imgur.com/nMOhAly.png

Blaming the "mentally ill" doesn't really help (stuff it, Coulter). Among other things, it just marginalizes yet another group of people, and helps keep the social taboo against mental illness in place that scares some people away from seeking help. And it's as stupid as blaming gamers for shootings conducted by gamers.

Hate to say it but removing guns from general circulation would be a step in the right direction. Problem is, how? How do you bail out an oil tanker with a sippy cup. But knowing the chances of that ever happening any time soon, I'm somewhat at a loss.
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,053|6623|Little Bentcock
It's hard to have mass shooting without shooties.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+635|3720
1.15 Million Americans Have Been Killed by Guns Since John Lennon's Death
Some 1.15 million people have been killed by firearms in the United States since Lennon was gunned down, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, confirmed by New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. (The figure includes estimates for the two most recent years.)

Since 1968 — the year the Beatles released the White Album — more Americans have been killed by gun violence than in all U.S. wars throughout history, combined.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … h-20151208

Jinkies! A million Americans dead. Think of all the great things they could have contributed. Think of the many hundreds of thousands who were never born due to their parents being killed by someone else.

I don't think this hobby is worth a million lives.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,736|6738|Oxferd Ohire
most were suicides though
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6714|Purplicious Wisconsin

Adams_BJ wrote:

It's hard to have mass shooting without shooties.
It's hard to remove shooties when they are everywhere.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

https://thesocietypages.org/feminist/files/2015/07/Victims-of-Mass-Shootings.png

We're still talking about a statistically microscopic number of incidents...
Looks like an upward trend to me. I shall do a regression analysis if I can find the raw data.

And this statistical argument is baloney. How many people, on average, have been killed due to people taking box-cutters onto airliners over the last 200 years? Ergo we should allow mentally-ill people to carry samurai swords in their hand luggage. QED mothafucka - If you disagree then you hate freedom.

The current NRA argument - preventing people on the no-fly list from buying firearms is an assault on civil-liberties - is pure gold.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-12-08 23:19:10)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6772|PNW

Mass shootings are just the sensational tip of the iceberg when it comes to firearms-related deaths in the United States.

Also (yeah, you're speaking in jest), we shouldn't allow anyone to carry "samurai swords" in their hand luggage. Mental health shouldn't even be a factor in whether or not we should allow people to do asinine things like that.
uziq
Member
+492|3453
why is carrying a samurai sword "asinine" but having an assault rifle isn't? confused.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

un13 wrote:

Mass shootings are just the sensational tip of the iceberg when it comes to firearms-related deaths in the United States.
Shootings seem to account for almost all your excess murders.

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/134DB/production/_85876097_homicides_guns_624_v3.png

So how are the remainder explained? Are Americans just more violent and murderous?

Also (yeah, you're speaking in jest), we shouldn't allow anyone to carry "samurai swords" in their hand luggage. Mental health shouldn't even be a factor in whether or not we should allow people to do asinine things like that.
Mentally ill people were allowed to carry box-cutters onto airliners before 9/11, why shouldn't they be able to carry swords now?
The statistical risk is infinitesimal - do you know anyone killed on an aeroplane by someone with a samurai sword? Exactly - could never happen.

But what about a flame thrower? Who knows when a redcoat might try to carjack you.



If assault rifles are legal then so should flamethrowers.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-12-09 01:37:39)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6772|PNW

uziq wrote:

why is carrying a samurai sword "asinine" but having an assault rifle isn't? confused.
Somehow, mentally-ill people with swords entered the discussion beforehand. It made me wonder when exactly it was ok to carry a sword onto an airplane (never mind that guns shouldn't be allowed). I dunno, I'm just cruising on the dilbert express without a boarding pass, and I hope it's all meant to be ironic.

Dilbert_X wrote:

un13 wrote:

Mass shootings are just the sensational tip of the iceberg when it comes to firearms-related deaths in the United States.
Shootings seem to account for almost all your excess murders.
Distinction spotted.

https://i.imgur.com/DZJy3iM.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
If its OK to take knives on a plane then why not swords?

If its OK to own a gun in case the British invade or the President goes full-Stalin then why not a quad 20mm?

Hint:

Allowing mentally ill people and suspected terrorists to take knives on a plane would be retarded - I think that's agreed.

Allowing people to buy guns with no checks or balances is not a fundamental freedom its also retarded.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6772|PNW

Dilbert_X wrote:

Mentally ill people were allowed to carry box-cutters onto airliners before 9/11, why shouldn't they be able to carry swords now?
The statistical risk is infinitesimal - do you know anyone killed on an aeroplane by someone with a samurai sword? Exactly - could never happen.

But what about a flame thrower? Who knows when a redcoat might try to carjack you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDrzMGdYWZc

If assault rifles are legal then so should flamethrowers.
You're making me unsure where you're going with all this. Is it an attack on or defense for guns? I've already said that gun violence and the sheer number of the things here are both problematic. Please tell me you're being ironic, because there's only so far you can take it in text before it starts to become confusing.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6772|PNW

Dilbert_X wrote:

If its OK to take knives on a plane then why not swords?

If its OK to own a gun in case the British invade or the President goes full-Stalin then why not a quad 20mm?
What exactly are you driving at? How many people do you know who carry swords or keep a 20mm under a tarp in their back yard? What's up with all these anachronisms?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hint:

Allowing mentally ill people and suspected terrorists to take knives on a plane would be retarded - I think that's agreed.

Allowing people to buy guns with no checks or balances is not a fundamental freedom its also retarded.
... and? :confused:
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6772|PNW

Everyone likes lists. Just so it's all in the open:
1. Singular murders, mass murders, and suicides committed with firearms are all problematic.
2. Firearms quantity, ease of firearms acquisition and general lack of public responsibility with them are all problematic.
3. Citizen militarization is problematic and unhealthy.
4. Police militarization is problematic and unhealthy.
5. The prospect of public disarmament is politically problematic. Got a solution? I'm all ears.

I have a CCW and more often than not choose not to carry out of:
1. Risk of theft either when on my person or when expected to leave in vehicle.
2. Not wanting to deal brushing aside friends and family who want to fondle the thing.
3. Discomfort of the thing on my belt even with a counterweight. Revolvers are impractical for prolonged defense and semi-autos are bulky and obnoxious.
4. Rebellion—general revulsion at being pressured to do so just to "feel safe" by assorted political, media and friend/family rhetoric.
5. Lack of hard statistical proof at the efficacy of the whole "good guy with a gun" thing.

Open Carry is legal without a license, but to carry a handgun loaded in a vehicle one needs a concealed pistol license (CPL).[31] Carry of loaded rifles and shotguns in vehicles is also restricted, per RCW 77.15.460[32] (wikipedia). I wouldn't take advantage of this because:
1. I don't even CCW anymore. Why would I open carry?
2. Most people and even a good number of police don't seem to know about it. Would rather avoid confusion/confrontation over something so stupid.
3. I consider it intimidating and rude to display a gun on your person in public unless you have a good reason, e.g. you're a police officer.

When I go to the range, I more often than not leave my guns behind and take my bows because:
1. Guns are loud, smell terrible, and leave a bad taste in your mouth even when fired outdoors.
2. I don't trust the people in neighboring lanes. I've had too many guns inadvertently pointed in my general direction by the clueless.
3. Guns are oily, gross, and irritating to maintain. I've never found my zen point in the activity.
4. I like the challenge and relative silence of bows (though shoot lighter draws due to an old pulled shoulder), and prefer refurbishing arrows to picking brass out of the dirt and gravel.

I don't have an NRA membership because:
1. They're a cynical, manipulative organization that push guns every time there's a mass shooting, and whose high ranking members get their jollies from killing (or simply maiming and leaving to die) animals for pure sport.
2. Wayne LaPierre.

--

I don't hunt, I rarely take guns to the range (and haven't in years), I hardly ever make use of my CCW permit (and haven't in years), and they never see the outside of my safe unless for routine maintenance. I don't pine for housebreakers or civil war to justify bloodshed, and feel uncomfortable around people who do. The only time I've ever felt directly threatened by guns was at the range when zero-etiquette newbies were around, and when one was accidentally discharged once into a futon by a relative whose nerves were so rattled that he did so again after a second or two. He still maintains the "self-defense" doctrine when it comes to them.

Comparing injury/death statistics to automobiles and cancer in defense of guns as I've seen done is stupid and cringe-worthy.

I'd hardly notice the difference if I got rid of them. I've often toyed with the notion of pulling up stakes and moving out of country. Of all the things that'd pain me to leave behind, the guns wouldn't even register.

tl;dr: moved left over the years, but didn't consider myself a gun nut then and am not one now. current state of affairs is a sickness, and i don't need convinced of it.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
^ To pretty well anyone outside America the whole situation is absurd. Everyone is armed to the teeth for .... no reason at all.
The British are not coming back, the Federal government is not going to steal your property - a popgun would not help you if they did.

The inevitable consequence is a very high murder rate and routine mas shootings - how does this make everyone feel safer?

To say people should have the right to carry swords or have anti-aircraft guns to 'protect freedom' is asinine, yet anyone being able to buy a concealable machine gun with no checks or balances at all is a fundamental right of the people.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England
The no-fly list is arbitrary and illegal. There's no due process and it's almost impossible to have your name removed, even if innocent. It violates that whole innocent until proven guilty in a court of law thing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6772|PNW

Dilbert_X wrote:

To say people should have the right to carry swords or have anti-aircraft guns to 'protect freedom' is asinine, yet anyone being able to buy a concealable machine gun with no checks or balances at all is a fundamental right of the people.
Who says the people who actually want to carry concealed automatics don't want to also carry swords or "protect freedom" with AA? I don't see the point of even bringing it up in comparison.

https://i.imgur.com/uSfUaYl.jpg
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6717

Jay wrote:

The no-fly list is arbitrary and illegal. There's no due process and it's almost impossible to have your name removed, even if innocent. It violates that whole innocent until proven guilty in a court of law thing.
go challenge it in court then.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard