Why wasn't the gun in a safe?!The gunman who killed two people and himself in a shooting rampage at an Oregon mall was 22 years old and used a stolen rifle from someone he knew, authorities said yesterday.
You mean the EE thread titled "Own a gun? Post your arsenal"? If so, I gladly would have posted in had I OWNED the said item.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There's a casual gun thread in EE.
However I felt this thread was the better place to do so as I was curious as to "firearm ownership" with regards to NFA rules and regulations. Looking at the title of the this thread and the verbage "FIREARM OWNERSHIP" contained within, I felt this the proper area to do so especially as this is hardly a "casual gun" topic.
But what ever, you're right. We should carry on with more "Debate and Serious Talk" then... here....
Extra Medium wrote:
If you don't own at least 5 guns you're a faggot.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Safes aren't free bro.Macbeth wrote:
Why wasn't the gun in a safe?!The gunman who killed two people and himself in a shooting rampage at an Oregon mall was 22 years old and used a stolen rifle from someone he knew, authorities said yesterday.
This thread got me a undeserved AWM. Not to mention i am also a confirmed liberal faggot who can't remember the last time i saw gun never mind own one.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
What is the point owning all of these weapons? Some ones gonna poke an eye out! Dad whats this you yell at him when you go to bed he takes you're weapon points it at you and plays GI Joe on you're brains.
No one should be allowed to own a gun the only people who should be able to carry weapons are Police and the Military and when you're not in the Military doesnt mean you get to keep any weapons at home either.
What there should be is just shooting ranges where you can go pick out some weapons you want and pay for the ammo and just shoot at paper targets then when you're done return the weapons and thats that.
No need to hide a small army under you're pillow at night.
Baba Booey
1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
Jezus Christ, no wonder that America has over the 10.000 homecides a year, you guys buy guns like they are candy. In the Netherlands only cops and people who are connected in some sort of way have guns. My grandpa had one to protect his huge farm, but don't think that anyone sleeps with a revolver under their pillow. I saw the movie "Bowling for Columbine" ...omfg, Michael Moore could just buy a gun in a bank!! This shows how stupid sometimes the Americans can be....
Baba Booey
There we go.
Baba Booey
Much of it was a hatchet job. I particularly liked the bit with the kid who pulls a couple dozen firearms out from his pants...including a shotgun. Sure, you can conceal that many...but you won't be able to walk without sounding like a bag of hammers being thrown down a staircase and looking like you have a 2x4 for a leg!Dilbert_X wrote:
All he did was highlight simple statistics, and compare the attitudes to gun ownership of various countries - which in the US is paranoid and childish.RAIMIUS wrote:
Which is about as accurate as watching Doctor Who for a science education...
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2012-12-13 12:36:00)
this one time at gun camp...
This is a response to the most recent shooting in Connecticut, I thought it would be better for here than in the "Mass Shooting" thread.
I've abandoned my traditional argument that gun legislation in the US is going to make any difference because I don't think the US is willing to pass the legislation that might make a difference. I mean Jay has just argued that gun racks are too expensive, (which is not true at all,) as a reason why people shouldn't have the responsibility to store their weapons safely. Or that a safe or rack is too inconvenient on the very unlikely chance you would need a gun in a hurry, (which is also bullshit and I'll explain why in a PM if you want Jay.)
I'd be nice to see a slow down in the passing of nutty pro-gun legislation though. Did you know that this year in Texas you can finally use a silencer when you hunt deer? And thank God for that, I didn't think the man with the high powered assault rifle had enough of an advantage over the quadrupedal herbivore - some of them have horns after all.
But the whole gun thing is a societal matter. It's like us and binge drinking. Legislation to make alcohol harder to obtain or messing with the drinking age, it's not going to do much - and it hasn't. But at least we know enough not to legislate for liquor stores to be able to sell funnels and hosepipe.
If there is a willingness to try and change the gun culture in the US, and I imagine for many there isn't, then it's just not smart to keep passing legislation that's going to make firearms more common and easier to get hold of while cutting any shred of responsibility to the firearm's owner.
America has an unhealthy and selfish attitude towards guns. I don't think anyone can deny that, even those who defend gun culture. But added to that is the unwillingness to do anything about it. I don't see anything coming along and changing that - if a school full of young children getting slaughtered doesn't invoke a willingness to even try to address the situation then what can? And I'm not sure if it's selfish indifference or exasperated acceptance but the outcome is just going to be more of the same.
I'm getting past caring now though. And not just because of the idiotic arguments I keep getting from the pro gun side but because the gun control side are a bunch of limp-dicked ineffective cowards who couldn't formulate an effective argument if they were given it with instructions and a picture on the box.
I've abandoned my traditional argument that gun legislation in the US is going to make any difference because I don't think the US is willing to pass the legislation that might make a difference. I mean Jay has just argued that gun racks are too expensive, (which is not true at all,) as a reason why people shouldn't have the responsibility to store their weapons safely. Or that a safe or rack is too inconvenient on the very unlikely chance you would need a gun in a hurry, (which is also bullshit and I'll explain why in a PM if you want Jay.)
I'd be nice to see a slow down in the passing of nutty pro-gun legislation though. Did you know that this year in Texas you can finally use a silencer when you hunt deer? And thank God for that, I didn't think the man with the high powered assault rifle had enough of an advantage over the quadrupedal herbivore - some of them have horns after all.
But the whole gun thing is a societal matter. It's like us and binge drinking. Legislation to make alcohol harder to obtain or messing with the drinking age, it's not going to do much - and it hasn't. But at least we know enough not to legislate for liquor stores to be able to sell funnels and hosepipe.
If there is a willingness to try and change the gun culture in the US, and I imagine for many there isn't, then it's just not smart to keep passing legislation that's going to make firearms more common and easier to get hold of while cutting any shred of responsibility to the firearm's owner.
America has an unhealthy and selfish attitude towards guns. I don't think anyone can deny that, even those who defend gun culture. But added to that is the unwillingness to do anything about it. I don't see anything coming along and changing that - if a school full of young children getting slaughtered doesn't invoke a willingness to even try to address the situation then what can? And I'm not sure if it's selfish indifference or exasperated acceptance but the outcome is just going to be more of the same.
I'm getting past caring now though. And not just because of the idiotic arguments I keep getting from the pro gun side but because the gun control side are a bunch of limp-dicked ineffective cowards who couldn't formulate an effective argument if they were given it with instructions and a picture on the box.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Ty - i am a gun owner. That is a pretty valid assessment, especially, or maybe because you don't live here. One of our biggest lobbies is the NRA. As a lobby, they will announce ahead of any gun legislation that they are going to "grade" lawmakers votes. These "grades", or ratings, are used every campaign season to prove/disprove fidelity to the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Yesterday, the social media outlet of the lobby was shut down (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 … 03933.html). As far as extremism goes, this country has both. The "liberal gang of less than 5 gun owning faggots" is just as extreme in their stance as the people who forget the first amendment on their way to championing the second.
The major advantage that the lobby has is that they are organized, and funded through monetary contributions. With both sides so entrenched, there may never be rational discourse on firearms. This country is polarized like never before, despite what some may say. In this particular case, one side is heavily armed and militant, and the other is unwilling to act as a united, collective, organized whole.
Yesterday, the social media outlet of the lobby was shut down (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 … 03933.html). As far as extremism goes, this country has both. The "liberal gang of less than 5 gun owning faggots" is just as extreme in their stance as the people who forget the first amendment on their way to championing the second.
The major advantage that the lobby has is that they are organized, and funded through monetary contributions. With both sides so entrenched, there may never be rational discourse on firearms. This country is polarized like never before, despite what some may say. In this particular case, one side is heavily armed and militant, and the other is unwilling to act as a united, collective, organized whole.
Well, yeah, it mostly stems from the fact that their position is based on personal fears. How do you articulate fear without coming across as a limp-dicked ineffective coward? I mean just look at the arguments for banning 'assault rifles'. They're all based on an emotional reaction to the fact that the weapons look scary because the military carries them. It doesn't matter that there are more effective weapons to these people, they just have a visceral negative reaction based on fear and lash out. It makes it very easy to swat down their arguments as nonsense. The same goes for any call to ban guns. All you would be doing is criminalizing a large section of the population, people who really aren't the problem in the first place. It's rare that legally purchased and registered weapons are used in a crime. Do you really think you have to worry about the guy that is carrying a registered concealed firearm under his coat? I don't.Ty wrote:
This is a response to the most recent shooting in Connecticut, I thought it would be better for here than in the "Mass Shooting" thread.
I've abandoned my traditional argument that gun legislation in the US is going to make any difference because I don't think the US is willing to pass the legislation that might make a difference. I mean Jay has just argued that gun racks are too expensive, (which is not true at all,) as a reason why people shouldn't have the responsibility to store their weapons safely. Or that a safe or rack is too inconvenient on the very unlikely chance you would need a gun in a hurry, (which is also bullshit and I'll explain why in a PM if you want Jay.)
I'd be nice to see a slow down in the passing of nutty pro-gun legislation though. Did you know that this year in Texas you can finally use a silencer when you hunt deer? And thank God for that, I didn't think the man with the high powered assault rifle had enough of an advantage over the quadrupedal herbivore - some of them have horns after all.
But the whole gun thing is a societal matter. It's like us and binge drinking. Legislation to make alcohol harder to obtain or messing with the drinking age, it's not going to do much - and it hasn't. But at least we know enough not to legislate for liquor stores to be able to sell funnels and hosepipe.
If there is a willingness to try and change the gun culture in the US, and I imagine for many there isn't, then it's just not smart to keep passing legislation that's going to make firearms more common and easier to get hold of while cutting any shred of responsibility to the firearm's owner.
America has an unhealthy and selfish attitude towards guns. I don't think anyone can deny that, even those who defend gun culture. But added to that is the unwillingness to do anything about it. I don't see anything coming along and changing that - if a school full of young children getting slaughtered doesn't invoke a willingness to even try to address the situation then what can? And I'm not sure if it's selfish indifference or exasperated acceptance but the outcome is just going to be more of the same.
I'm getting past caring now though. And not just because of the idiotic arguments I keep getting from the pro gun side but because the gun control side are a bunch of limp-dicked ineffective cowards who couldn't formulate an effective argument if they were given it with instructions and a picture on the box.
I mean, I lived in Texas for 3 years and I never heard of any shootouts or any crime really. In this regard, I think the gun advocates do have a point, if you know that the people around you have guns you're much less likely to whip one out and chance a hail of bullets. Cops serve the same purpose and represent the same idea, but you can't have a cop on every street corner. Too expensive.
I do agree that gun fetishism is stupid, but I don't worry about the fetishists, they aren't the problem. They can have their arsenals and finger fuck the barrels of their rifles all they want. They aren't doing anything but scaring limp-dicked ineffective cowards, which puts a smile on my face.
That said, why are these massacres so shocking? Sure, there's a large body count, but I think it has more to do with who is performing the acts and where. People move to the suburbs to raise their kids in a safe environment away from the potential dangers of the city, they don't expect these rampages to happen where they feel safe. These are middle class white kid suburbanites targeting other middle class white suburbanites. Think about that. And here's the kicker: if gun control legislation was ever enacted, these are the people you would expect to sail through the registration and training and whatever other roadblock you put up. Gun control legislation is almost universally targeted at poor people, we expect people of our own class to be able to handle the responsibility due to education, wealth, manners etc. Guns really aren't the problem, it's the fact that we keep generating these psychopaths in our midst who then have access to weapons. The psychos are the problem, not the guns. Now, why are they all coming out of the white suburbs? That's where you should begin your quest for answers.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
When black people get shot, nobody gives a fuck lawl
People are shocked by the unexpected. Black people shooting each other is kind of expected. People just assume gangs and shrug their shoulders.Cybargs wrote:
When black people get shot, nobody gives a fuck lawl
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Ah but this didn't happen in Texas. This happened in a state with some of the most restrictive gun control law in the USA. The biggest anti gun lobby group rate this state (CONNECTICUT not TEXAS) as #5 for gun control. Texas probably came in last. Apparently in Connecticut (which is about 1,800 MILES from Texas) one has to have the local police chief sign off on the firearm to be purchased, 14 day wait, and an "assault weapon ban". All of which didn't do shit to stop this.Ty wrote:
This is a response to the most recent shooting in Connecticut, I thought it would be better for here than in the "Mass Shooting" thread.
I've abandoned my traditional argument that gun legislation in the US is going to make any difference because I don't think the US is willing to pass the legislation that might make a difference. I mean Jay has just argued that gun racks are too expensive, (which is not true at all,) as a reason why people shouldn't have the responsibility to store their weapons safely. Or that a safe or rack is too inconvenient on the very unlikely chance you would need a gun in a hurry, (which is also bullshit and I'll explain why in a PM if you want Jay.)
I'd be nice to see a slow down in the passing of nutty pro-gun legislation though. Did you know that this year in Texas you can finally use a silencer when you hunt deer? And thank God for that, I didn't think the man with the high powered assault rifle had enough of an advantage over the quadrupedal herbivore - some of them have horns after all.
How about the eurofag who killed the 76 people? He had to jump through countless hoops to obtain guns. All of those eurolaws I'm sure you would agree with are common sense laws that would prevent... blah blah...... Guess what? Common sense laws apply to people that all ready use common sense. The nutters don't use common sense. All of those common sense laws didn't do shit to prevent that tragic massacre.
Since you wanted to write of "silencers" (ha), do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to get a suppressor here in the US? You want to talk about some restrictive shit there. And who the fuck cares (besides you) if a hunter wants to puts a can on rifle? If it helps him put food on his plate whatever.
So you argue that legislation doesn't do shit prior to preaching that the US needs more gun laws? hahaha. OK, whatever.But the whole gun thing is a societal matter. It's like us and binge drinking. Legislation to make alcohol harder to obtain or messing with the drinking age, it's not going to do much - and it hasn't. But at least we know enough not to legislate for liquor stores to be able to sell funnels and hosepipe.
Really though... You NZ has a law that restricts funnel sale in liquor stores? Rich. I'm sure if someone wants to funnel beer, they will do so.
There was a willingness to try and change the gun culture in the US. It started in the 1930's with the machine gun ban and then later in the 70's it went full steam ahead. However, it failed as only the bad guys seem to have the guns. Just take a look at NY, Chicago or DC. Look at where these mass shooting take place. Just about every one of them occurred in places where guns are banned. When gun regulations were fixed to make it so that the law abiding citizen could protect/defend himself the scales tipped back and rated started decreasing.If there is a willingness to try and change the gun culture in the US, and I imagine for many there isn't, then it's just not smart to keep passing legislation that's going to make firearms more common and easier to get hold of while cutting any shred of responsibility to the firearm's owner.
America has an unhealthy and selfish attitude towards guns. I don't think anyone can deny that, even those who defend gun culture. But added to that is the unwillingness to do anything about it. I don't see anything coming along and changing that - if a school full of young children getting slaughtered doesn't invoke a willingness to even try to address the situation then what can? And I'm not sure if it's selfish indifference or exasperated acceptance but the outcome is just going to be more of the same.
Good, get past caring internet tough guy.I'm getting past caring now though. And not just because of the idiotic arguments I keep getting from the pro gun side but because the gun control side are a bunch of limp-dicked ineffective cowards who couldn't formulate an effective argument if they were given it with instructions and a picture on the box.
Oh just renewed my CWP
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
In regards to the statement that there isn't a willingness to pass gun legislation, I present https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … s/2tgcXzQC which had 75,060 signatures at the time of this post. There are plenty of people who are sick of all these shootings, they are just somewhat less organized than the pro-gun lobby.
In regards to some of what Jay's saying, at the very minimum something needs to be done to reduce the ability of people who are predisposed to going on one of these rampages from acquiring guns. These people will not "sail through the registration and training and whatever other roadblock you put up." because these "roadblocks" will be meant to prevent them specifically from getting their hands on guns. If we wish to maintain that it takes a very special kind of person to do these sort of disgusting things, then there must be something different about them that can be picked up upon to limit the availability of guns. I anticipate you are going to argue that either gun legislation can't prevent these people from getting guns or the minimal benefit will be outweighed by all the people who have their constitutional rights limited. Yes there are other, less legal ways of acquiring a gun, and maybe gun legislation will reduce the number of guns available from the under ground economy by helping to increase the use of measures to reduce gun theft, but the point is that by increasing the cost to someone who isn't entirely right in the head of getting a gun (opportunity cost and monetary cost) you decrease their demand for guns. Also, are you really going to argue that saving lives is more important that insuring that you have the most liberal interpretation of the constitution as possible? There are numerous supreme court cases that support the superiority of human life and national security over constitutional rights.
But, I know I can't change anyone's mind, so why am I even trying.
In regards to some of what Jay's saying, at the very minimum something needs to be done to reduce the ability of people who are predisposed to going on one of these rampages from acquiring guns. These people will not "sail through the registration and training and whatever other roadblock you put up." because these "roadblocks" will be meant to prevent them specifically from getting their hands on guns. If we wish to maintain that it takes a very special kind of person to do these sort of disgusting things, then there must be something different about them that can be picked up upon to limit the availability of guns. I anticipate you are going to argue that either gun legislation can't prevent these people from getting guns or the minimal benefit will be outweighed by all the people who have their constitutional rights limited. Yes there are other, less legal ways of acquiring a gun, and maybe gun legislation will reduce the number of guns available from the under ground economy by helping to increase the use of measures to reduce gun theft, but the point is that by increasing the cost to someone who isn't entirely right in the head of getting a gun (opportunity cost and monetary cost) you decrease their demand for guns. Also, are you really going to argue that saving lives is more important that insuring that you have the most liberal interpretation of the constitution as possible? There are numerous supreme court cases that support the superiority of human life and national security over constitutional rights.
But, I know I can't change anyone's mind, so why am I even trying.
Do you have a Trump style toupee?13rin wrote:
Ah but this didn't happen in Texas. This happened in a state with some of the most restrictive gun control law in the USA. The biggest anti gun lobby group rate this state (CONNECTICUT not TEXAS) as #5 for gun control. Texas probably came in last. Apparently in Connecticut (which is about 1,800 MILES from Texas) one has to have the local police chief sign off on the firearm to be purchased, 14 day wait, and an "assault weapon ban". All of which didn't do shit to stop this.Ty wrote:
This is a response to the most recent shooting in Connecticut, I thought it would be better for here than in the "Mass Shooting" thread.
I've abandoned my traditional argument that gun legislation in the US is going to make any difference because I don't think the US is willing to pass the legislation that might make a difference. I mean Jay has just argued that gun racks are too expensive, (which is not true at all,) as a reason why people shouldn't have the responsibility to store their weapons safely. Or that a safe or rack is too inconvenient on the very unlikely chance you would need a gun in a hurry, (which is also bullshit and I'll explain why in a PM if you want Jay.)
I'd be nice to see a slow down in the passing of nutty pro-gun legislation though. Did you know that this year in Texas you can finally use a silencer when you hunt deer? And thank God for that, I didn't think the man with the high powered assault rifle had enough of an advantage over the quadrupedal herbivore - some of them have horns after all.
How about the eurofag who killed the 76 people? He had to jump through countless hoops to obtain guns. All of those eurolaws I'm sure you would agree with are common sense laws that would prevent... blah blah...... Guess what? Common sense laws apply to people that all ready use common sense. The nutters don't use common sense. All of those common sense laws didn't do shit to prevent that tragic massacre.
Since you wanted to write of "silencers" (ha), do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to get a suppressor here in the US? You want to talk about some restrictive shit there. And who the fuck cares (besides you) if a hunter wants to puts a can on rifle? If it helps him put food on his plate whatever.So you argue that legislation doesn't do shit prior to preaching that the US needs more gun laws? hahaha. OK, whatever.But the whole gun thing is a societal matter. It's like us and binge drinking. Legislation to make alcohol harder to obtain or messing with the drinking age, it's not going to do much - and it hasn't. But at least we know enough not to legislate for liquor stores to be able to sell funnels and hosepipe.
Really though... You NZ has a law that restricts funnel sale in liquor stores? Rich. I'm sure if someone wants to funnel beer, they will do so.There was a willingness to try and change the gun culture in the US. It started in the 1930's with the machine gun ban and then later in the 70's it went full steam ahead. However, it failed as only the bad guys seem to have the guns. Just take a look at NY, Chicago or DC. Look at where these mass shooting take place. Just about every one of them occurred in places where guns are banned. When gun regulations were fixed to make it so that the law abiding citizen could protect/defend himself the scales tipped back and rated started decreasing.If there is a willingness to try and change the gun culture in the US, and I imagine for many there isn't, then it's just not smart to keep passing legislation that's going to make firearms more common and easier to get hold of while cutting any shred of responsibility to the firearm's owner.
America has an unhealthy and selfish attitude towards guns. I don't think anyone can deny that, even those who defend gun culture. But added to that is the unwillingness to do anything about it. I don't see anything coming along and changing that - if a school full of young children getting slaughtered doesn't invoke a willingness to even try to address the situation then what can? And I'm not sure if it's selfish indifference or exasperated acceptance but the outcome is just going to be more of the same.Good, get past caring internet tough guy.I'm getting past caring now though. And not just because of the idiotic arguments I keep getting from the pro gun side but because the gun control side are a bunch of limp-dicked ineffective cowards who couldn't formulate an effective argument if they were given it with instructions and a picture on the box.
Oh just renewed my CWP
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
So you want what? A psych evaluation on everyone before they purchase a weapon legally? Ok, now what about the 200,000,000 guns already in the system? Personally, I wouldn't want to give any power to psychiatrists, but maybe that's just me. We're only a generation removed from when they were recommending and signing off on forced sterilization for 'undesirables'. Most of their craft is a crock of shit imo.Narupug wrote:
In regards to the statement that there isn't a willingness to pass gun legislation, I present https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … s/2tgcXzQC which had 75,060 signatures at the time of this post. There are plenty of people who are sick of all these shootings, they are just somewhat less organized than the pro-gun lobby.
In regards to some of what Jay's saying, at the very minimum something needs to be done to reduce the ability of people who are predisposed to going on one of these rampages from acquiring guns. These people will not "sail through the registration and training and whatever other roadblock you put up." because these "roadblocks" will be meant to prevent them specifically from getting their hands on guns. If we wish to maintain that it takes a very special kind of person to do these sort of disgusting things, then there must be something different about them that can be picked up upon to limit the availability of guns. I anticipate you are going to argue that either gun legislation can't prevent these people from getting guns or the minimal benefit will be outweighed by all the people who have their constitutional rights limited. Yes there are other, less legal ways of acquiring a gun, and maybe gun legislation will reduce the number of guns available from the under ground economy by helping to increase the use of measures to reduce gun theft, but the point is that by increasing the cost to someone who isn't entirely right in the head of getting a gun (opportunity cost and monetary cost) you decrease their demand for guns. Also, are you really going to argue that saving lives is more important that insuring that you have the most liberal interpretation of the constitution as possible? There are numerous supreme court cases that support the superiority of human life and national security over constitutional rights.
But, I know I can't change anyone's mind, so why am I even trying.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Apparently the shooter had Aspberger's. Guess we should prevent all Aspies from owning guns now.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't want guns in the hands of people who are at a high risk of going on a murderous rampage, let alone guns that proficient at killing a lot of people at once. I realize that you can't completely prevent this from happening, but I find it very hard to believe that there is nothing we can do to limit it.Jay wrote:
So you want what? A psych evaluation on everyone before they purchase a weapon legally? Ok, now what about the 200,000,000 guns already in the system? Personally, I wouldn't want to give any power to psychiatrists, but maybe that's just me. We're only a generation removed from when they were recommending and signing off on forced sterilization for 'undesirables'. Most of their craft is a crock of shit imo.Narupug wrote:
In regards to the statement that there isn't a willingness to pass gun legislation, I present https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … s/2tgcXzQC which had 75,060 signatures at the time of this post. There are plenty of people who are sick of all these shootings, they are just somewhat less organized than the pro-gun lobby.
In regards to some of what Jay's saying, at the very minimum something needs to be done to reduce the ability of people who are predisposed to going on one of these rampages from acquiring guns. These people will not "sail through the registration and training and whatever other roadblock you put up." because these "roadblocks" will be meant to prevent them specifically from getting their hands on guns. If we wish to maintain that it takes a very special kind of person to do these sort of disgusting things, then there must be something different about them that can be picked up upon to limit the availability of guns. I anticipate you are going to argue that either gun legislation can't prevent these people from getting guns or the minimal benefit will be outweighed by all the people who have their constitutional rights limited. Yes there are other, less legal ways of acquiring a gun, and maybe gun legislation will reduce the number of guns available from the under ground economy by helping to increase the use of measures to reduce gun theft, but the point is that by increasing the cost to someone who isn't entirely right in the head of getting a gun (opportunity cost and monetary cost) you decrease their demand for guns. Also, are you really going to argue that saving lives is more important that insuring that you have the most liberal interpretation of the constitution as possible? There are numerous supreme court cases that support the superiority of human life and national security over constitutional rights.
But, I know I can't change anyone's mind, so why am I even trying.
In my opinion psychiatry has moved on from that. Regardless, I am merely suggesting that if you don't pass a psychiatric evaluation (no I don't want everyone in the US to be forced to get a psych evaluation), you can't buy a gun. At the very least the system would be set up so that only the most at risk would be prevented from buying guns.
You present an interesting problem of implementation. In order to buy any gun you would have to be certified. I would hope that the NRA would support whatever law was passed and would encourage it's members to go get certified. I can think of numerous ways to account for guns already owned, but I will forgo talking about any of them to just say that I don't think that that will be too much of a problem as long as law abiding gun owners go along with the plan to reduce the number of these incidents.
Sterilization = not having a gun, that's a new one
And the statistics say that you are the most likely person to go on a murderous rampage. Do you trust yourself?Narupug wrote:
I don't want guns in the hands of people who are at a high risk of going on a murderous rampage, let alone guns that proficient at killing a lot of people at once. I realize that you can't completely prevent this from happening, but I find it very hard to believe that there is nothing we can do to limit it.Jay wrote:
So you want what? A psych evaluation on everyone before they purchase a weapon legally? Ok, now what about the 200,000,000 guns already in the system? Personally, I wouldn't want to give any power to psychiatrists, but maybe that's just me. We're only a generation removed from when they were recommending and signing off on forced sterilization for 'undesirables'. Most of their craft is a crock of shit imo.Narupug wrote:
In regards to the statement that there isn't a willingness to pass gun legislation, I present https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … s/2tgcXzQC which had 75,060 signatures at the time of this post. There are plenty of people who are sick of all these shootings, they are just somewhat less organized than the pro-gun lobby.
In regards to some of what Jay's saying, at the very minimum something needs to be done to reduce the ability of people who are predisposed to going on one of these rampages from acquiring guns. These people will not "sail through the registration and training and whatever other roadblock you put up." because these "roadblocks" will be meant to prevent them specifically from getting their hands on guns. If we wish to maintain that it takes a very special kind of person to do these sort of disgusting things, then there must be something different about them that can be picked up upon to limit the availability of guns. I anticipate you are going to argue that either gun legislation can't prevent these people from getting guns or the minimal benefit will be outweighed by all the people who have their constitutional rights limited. Yes there are other, less legal ways of acquiring a gun, and maybe gun legislation will reduce the number of guns available from the under ground economy by helping to increase the use of measures to reduce gun theft, but the point is that by increasing the cost to someone who isn't entirely right in the head of getting a gun (opportunity cost and monetary cost) you decrease their demand for guns. Also, are you really going to argue that saving lives is more important that insuring that you have the most liberal interpretation of the constitution as possible? There are numerous supreme court cases that support the superiority of human life and national security over constitutional rights.
But, I know I can't change anyone's mind, so why am I even trying.
In my opinion psychiatry has moved on from that. Regardless, I am merely suggesting that if you don't pass a psychiatric evaluation (no I don't want everyone in the US to be forced to get a psych evaluation), you can't buy a gun. At the very least the system would be set up so that only the most at risk would be prevented from buying guns.
You present an interesting problem of implementation. In order to buy any gun you would have to be certified. I would hope that the NRA would support whatever law was passed and would encourage it's members to go get certified. I can think of numerous ways to account for guns already owned, but I will forgo talking about any of them to just say that I don't think that that will be too much of a problem as long as law abiding gun owners go along with the plan to reduce the number of these incidents.
Sterilization = not having a gun, that's a new one
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
I think acquiring a gun licence should be the same as that of a car. You go to classes, you're shown how to use it etc. The vast majority who carry guns, which others say should be allowed because if something goes down they can Superman it back to normal, are likely to be shit, panicky shots rather than Jason Bourne. I don't have any huge problem with guns, but I still don't really get why people need to keep an AR in their house really. Use it for home defence and you're likely to kill or wound someone else on the other side of a wall or two. Would it not be better, if you have something beyond a handgun or shotgun, to keep it at a range or club for hunting or competition where it was actually intended for use, and kept secure by people who can, if need be, deny someone access if they look high, drunk, unhinged etc?
I mean, this right to bear arms was written at a time when peeps carried one-shot muskets and flintlocks. I do wonder how they would have altered it had they know anyone could have picked up a weapon of equivalent firepower to several dozen soldiers in their time.
I mean, this right to bear arms was written at a time when peeps carried one-shot muskets and flintlocks. I do wonder how they would have altered it had they know anyone could have picked up a weapon of equivalent firepower to several dozen soldiers in their time.
Nope. I can apply the same principle to other things too. If the statistics said I am the most likely to kill someone else if I drive a car, I wouldn't drive.Jay wrote:
And the statistics say that you are the most likely person to go on a murderous rampage. Do you trust yourself?Narupug wrote:
I don't want guns in the hands of people who are at a high risk of going on a murderous rampage, let alone guns that proficient at killing a lot of people at once. I realize that you can't completely prevent this from happening, but I find it very hard to believe that there is nothing we can do to limit it.Jay wrote:
So you want what? A psych evaluation on everyone before they purchase a weapon legally? Ok, now what about the 200,000,000 guns already in the system? Personally, I wouldn't want to give any power to psychiatrists, but maybe that's just me. We're only a generation removed from when they were recommending and signing off on forced sterilization for 'undesirables'. Most of their craft is a crock of shit imo.
In my opinion psychiatry has moved on from that. Regardless, I am merely suggesting that if you don't pass a psychiatric evaluation (no I don't want everyone in the US to be forced to get a psych evaluation), you can't buy a gun. At the very least the system would be set up so that only the most at risk would be prevented from buying guns.
You present an interesting problem of implementation. In order to buy any gun you would have to be certified. I would hope that the NRA would support whatever law was passed and would encourage it's members to go get certified. I can think of numerous ways to account for guns already owned, but I will forgo talking about any of them to just say that I don't think that that will be too much of a problem as long as law abiding gun owners go along with the plan to reduce the number of these incidents.
Sterilization = not having a gun, that's a new one
I find it funny that that you call Ty and "internet tough guy" and then follow it up with a 'fuck you' picture with your CWP like the testo-macho manly man you are.13rin wrote:
Ah but this didn't happen in Texas. This happened in a state with some of the most restrictive gun control law in the USA. The biggest anti gun lobby group rate this state (CONNECTICUT not TEXAS) as #5 for gun control. Texas probably came in last. Apparently in Connecticut (which is about 1,800 MILES from Texas) one has to have the local police chief sign off on the firearm to be purchased, 14 day wait, and an "assault weapon ban". All of which didn't do shit to stop this.Ty wrote:
This is a response to the most recent shooting in Connecticut, I thought it would be better for here than in the "Mass Shooting" thread.
I've abandoned my traditional argument that gun legislation in the US is going to make any difference because I don't think the US is willing to pass the legislation that might make a difference. I mean Jay has just argued that gun racks are too expensive, (which is not true at all,) as a reason why people shouldn't have the responsibility to store their weapons safely. Or that a safe or rack is too inconvenient on the very unlikely chance you would need a gun in a hurry, (which is also bullshit and I'll explain why in a PM if you want Jay.)
I'd be nice to see a slow down in the passing of nutty pro-gun legislation though. Did you know that this year in Texas you can finally use a silencer when you hunt deer? And thank God for that, I didn't think the man with the high powered assault rifle had enough of an advantage over the quadrupedal herbivore - some of them have horns after all.
How about the eurofag who killed the 76 people? He had to jump through countless hoops to obtain guns. All of those eurolaws I'm sure you would agree with are common sense laws that would prevent... blah blah...... Guess what? Common sense laws apply to people that all ready use common sense. The nutters don't use common sense. All of those common sense laws didn't do shit to prevent that tragic massacre.
Since you wanted to write of "silencers" (ha), do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to get a suppressor here in the US? You want to talk about some restrictive shit there. And who the fuck cares (besides you) if a hunter wants to puts a can on rifle? If it helps him put food on his plate whatever.So you argue that legislation doesn't do shit prior to preaching that the US needs more gun laws? hahaha. OK, whatever.But the whole gun thing is a societal matter. It's like us and binge drinking. Legislation to make alcohol harder to obtain or messing with the drinking age, it's not going to do much - and it hasn't. But at least we know enough not to legislate for liquor stores to be able to sell funnels and hosepipe.
Really though... You NZ has a law that restricts funnel sale in liquor stores? Rich. I'm sure if someone wants to funnel beer, they will do so.There was a willingness to try and change the gun culture in the US. It started in the 1930's with the machine gun ban and then later in the 70's it went full steam ahead. However, it failed as only the bad guys seem to have the guns. Just take a look at NY, Chicago or DC. Look at where these mass shooting take place. Just about every one of them occurred in places where guns are banned. When gun regulations were fixed to make it so that the law abiding citizen could protect/defend himself the scales tipped back and rated started decreasing.If there is a willingness to try and change the gun culture in the US, and I imagine for many there isn't, then it's just not smart to keep passing legislation that's going to make firearms more common and easier to get hold of while cutting any shred of responsibility to the firearm's owner.
America has an unhealthy and selfish attitude towards guns. I don't think anyone can deny that, even those who defend gun culture. But added to that is the unwillingness to do anything about it. I don't see anything coming along and changing that - if a school full of young children getting slaughtered doesn't invoke a willingness to even try to address the situation then what can? And I'm not sure if it's selfish indifference or exasperated acceptance but the outcome is just going to be more of the same.Good, get past caring internet tough guy.I'm getting past caring now though. And not just because of the idiotic arguments I keep getting from the pro gun side but because the gun control side are a bunch of limp-dicked ineffective cowards who couldn't formulate an effective argument if they were given it with instructions and a picture on the box.
Oh just renewed my CWP
I also like that you use the fact that it happened in a state with the fifth most restrictive gun laws as some sort of proof that gun laws don't work, without considering the fact that this is the fifth most restrictive state in a country of fifty that happens to have by far the biggest proliferation of fire arms amongst the civilian population in the world.
And then you, like several others, use the fact that it happened ONCE in Norway as further proof, ignoring the fact that it was the only incident of its kind since the Second World War. I'd say that's a far better track record than the US (not that that is proof of my stance, either).
Anyways.
As I argued in the other thread, I understand that you cannot simply take guns away from your citizens if they don't feel you can protect them well enough. I think some people are paranoid on that front (I had a neighbour in texas who slept with a gun under his pillow every night in one of the safest neighborhoods in the state), but I guess that's a side-effect of the gun culture that's been created.
I understand that as long as the baddies have guns and your people don't feel secure, you can't remove the guns they want to use for self-defence. But as I said in the other thread, what kind of situation do you expect to be in where you need a gun like this for self-defence?
Last edited by Jenspm (2012-12-15 10:54:04)
Jens, what makes that weapon special in your eyes?
"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
-Frederick Bastiat