|
JohnClark posted:raw cowardice This is exactly it. Anyone who doesn't feel safe without a gun on them 24/7 has a mental disorder or is a complete and utter coward. Shouldn't be allowed near a gun either way.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
quote:People really need to check their facts when it comes to guns. Firearms related deaths are not even raked in the top ten causes of death in the United States, its raked 15th (https://www.cdc.gov). The US. does not have most gun related deaths than any other county, were ranked 10th (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes). Currently over 250,000 child soldiers are fighting and dying throughout Africa, Middle East and Asia. Their primary weapon of choice is the Russian AK-47 (https://www.child-soldiers. org). The Brady Bill (Federal Gun Control Legislation) went into effect in February of 1994. Several studies revealed that this legislation had little to no effect on gun related violence. Keep in mind that the Columbine Shooting occurred while the Brady Bill was in effect. Idiot coworker. Dear God, help me destroy these useless comparisons. gently caress it, I just unsubscribed, I can't even begin to parse what points he's trying to make. Grem fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Dec 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Someone posted this link on Facebook: They're also utter over the top fundamentalists when it comes to gun rights, and dogmatically oppose any restrictions of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Boondock Saint posted:As a fellow gun owner, you handled that poo poo far better than I would have. Is that guy normally that obtuse about things? Sarion posted:Plus, it seems like arming everyone would lead to escalation. Everybody's got a gun, so body armor becomes more common. And if I want to rob a store, I'm going to make sure there's three or four of us. Two carry out the robbery, and the other to walk the store like a customer and watch for would-be heroes. Grem posted:Idiot coworker. Dear God, help me destroy these useless comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I'm increasingly of the opinion that honest, rational gun owners deserve better representation than the NRA is ever going to provide. It recently came out that the NRA has been doing everything it can to use its lobbying power to defund any government agency that tries to research gun violence, just in case they might come up with findings they don't like. For a group of guys who are so big on "good guys" using guns to be "heroes" when there's a shooting, they sure are sniveling cowards when it comes to the possibility of science saying something they disagree with. As someone who enjoys shooting sports, as well as the mechanical and historical aspects of firearms I agree. The NRA and ostensibly pro-gun legislators chose to act like petulant children and throw a tantrum any time any firearms regulations are suggested. As a result, gun laws are written and passed entirely by people with little to no knowledge of firearms. This hurts both sides. Gun owners end up living under overly broad and restrictive laws. The sort of laws that ban simple comfort and safety features like pistol grips and barrel shrouds, simply because they look scary or have ominous names. Gun control advocates end up with laws riddled with loopholes and ineffective provisions, such as banning the above features. It's not unreasonable to raise the bar for gun ownership. If the pro-gun side could admit that further regulations should, and likely will, be put in to place, they could play a role in their creation and help both sides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Grem posted:Idiot coworker. Dear God, help me destroy these useless comparisons. The best way to respond to this is to point out that those countries with more per-capita gun deaths are developing third-world nations wracked by civil strife. Gun nuts also tend to be the jingoistic American exceptionalism type, throwing back in their face the fact that they imply that the United States should aspire to be no less violent than Honduras or Swaziland usually shuts them up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
Someone sent me this gem of a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0UtMWzCoVE Here's a summarized version: The shooting is a FALSE FLAG. Obama is DEMONIZING the PATRIOT survivalists who see the writing on the wall that Obama is worse than HITLER and is coming to take our guns and then put us in CONCENTRATION CAMPS!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 08:21
|
|
|
Grem posted:
I wish I could take credit for this but the credit goes to a friend of mine who responded to this talking point by saying: I don't want anyone to ever forget that insane murderers name or face, I want everyone to know who he is and what he looks like and to remember it forever, if someone hears his name or sees his face twenty years from now I want them to immediately know that he was the insane murderer of twenty-six people including twenty small defenseless children and I hope they spit on the ground and curse him every time his name or face comes up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:This is exactly it. Anyone who doesn't feel safe without a gun on them 24/7 has a mental disorder or is a complete and utter coward. Shouldn't be allowed near a gun either way. It's not a mental disorder, it's insecure white masculinity. The gun culture in America is heavily tied to the patriarchy. They are a way to feel and display dominance when you don't feel capable of getting the deference you think you "deserve". There's a reason almost all spree killers are white men. e: ^^^ This is stupid. It's nothing more than a desire for vengeance frustrated because the killer is dead. Refusing to give the killer's name is the one god idea that quoted crazy person had. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Dec 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 08:42
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Idiot coworker. Dear God, help me destroy these useless comparisons. I wish I could take credit for this but the credit goes to a friend of mine who responded to this talking point by saying: I don't want anyone to ever forget that insane murderers name or face, I want everyone to know who he is and what he looks like and to remember it forever, if someone hears his name or sees his face twenty years from now I want them to immediately know that he was the insane murderer of twenty-six people including twenty small defenseless children and I hope they spit on the ground and curse him every time his name or face comes up. [/quote] That's what they're after isn't it? Infamy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I wish I could take credit for this but the credit goes to a friend of mine who responded to this talking point by saying: I don't want anyone to ever forget that insane murderers name or face, I want everyone to know who he is and what he looks like and to remember it forever, if someone hears his name or sees his face twenty years from now I want them to immediately know that he was the insane murderer of twenty-six people including twenty small defenseless children and I hope they spit on the ground and curse him every time his name or face comes up. But that's exactly what these killers want?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But that's exactly what these killers want? I don't care what Adam Lanza did or did not want or what he wanted history to think of him. What he wanted is irrelevant to me. Ignoring Adam Lanza's name and his background is exactly what people who support current gun laws and the NRA want. I want people to remember that an insane little worm took the life of 6 brave women and 20 innocent children and I want real change to come from that and ignoring who he was, at least to me, ignores the loss he inflicted on those people and their innocent families. No, I agree with my friend. I want people to remember.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Idiot coworker. Dear God, help me destroy these useless comparisons. I wish I could take credit for this but the credit goes to a friend of mine who responded to this talking point by saying: I don't want anyone to ever forget that insane murderers name or face, I want everyone to know who he is and what he looks like and to remember it forever, if someone hears his name or sees his face twenty years from now I want them to immediately know that he was the insane murderer of twenty-six people including twenty small defenseless children and I hope they spit on the ground and curse him every time his name or face comes up. [/quote] That's a big part of the reason many of them are doing it in the first place, for attention, and negative attention is just a good as positive in their minds. I mean while they are doing this poo poo they are probably hoping for something along the lines of the very post you just typed. I don't have it off hand but there was a video posted just after this happened about how the best media response would be very subdued and mention the killer as little as possible in order to discourage one of the primary motivators. (not that they do at all though)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 09:03
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:That's a big part of the reason many of them are doing it in the first place, for attention, and negative attention is just a good as positive in their minds. I mean while they are doing this poo poo they are probably hoping for something along the lines of the very post you just typed. I don't have it off hand but there was a video posted just after this happened about how the best media response would be very subdued and mention the killer as little as possible in order to discourage one of the primary motivators. (not that they do at all though) What mind? He offed himself. He's not here anymore to feel anything about the attention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I don't care what Adam Lanza did or did not want or what he wanted history to think of him. What he wanted is irrelevant to me. Ignoring Adam Lanza's name and his background is exactly what people who support current gun laws and the NRA want. I want people to remember that an insane little worm took the life of 6 brave women and 20 innocent children and I want real change to come from that and ignoring who he was, at least to me, ignores the loss he inflicted on those people and their innocent families. No, I agree with my friend. I want people to remember. If it was proven that media-fueled notoriety led to more copycat killings, would you change your position?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:What mind? He offed himself. He's not here anymore to feel anything about the attention. Yes but other whackos are around who will see that if they pull a killing spree they too can be immortalized by the media. It's not about whether or not we gratify that impulse for media attention it's just about discouraging the desire for it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 09:08
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I don't care what Adam Lanza did or did not want or what he wanted history to think of him. What he wanted is irrelevant to me. Ignoring Adam Lanza's name and his background is exactly what people who support current gun laws and the NRA want. I want people to remember that an insane little worm took the life of 6 brave women and 20 innocent children and I want real change to come from that and ignoring who he was, at least to me, ignores the loss he inflicted on those people and their innocent families. No, I agree with my friend. I want people to remember. How in the world is demonizing one individual going to lead to any sorry of positive change? That's exactly what the NRA wants: to act like gun violence is due to nothing but intentional personal evil. If you're not interested in understanding him, then how can you ever understand the causes for these events? If you don't understand the causes, how do you find a solution? It feels nice to hate that kid for what he did, but it's not helpful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 09:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If it was proven that media-fueled notoriety led to more copycat killings, would you change your position? Not sure. I don't think any scientific study really needs to be done to establish that Lanza's actions and those of most mass shooters are the product of mental instability. No sane person slaughters twenty 6 and 7 year old children. No sane person dresses in body armor and slaughters innocent people in a movie theatre. So any hypothetical study would be showing a correlation of how mentally unstable people react to mass murders and how useful would that be? All I can say is that sweeping who this boy was and how and why he did what he did plays right into the hands of the people saying that we need armed guards in every school and more people carrying guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 09:17
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:Yes but other whackos are around who will see that if they pull a killing spree they too can be immortalized by the media. It's not about whether or not we gratify that impulse for media attention it's just about discouraging the desire for it in the first place. I agree with not going crazy publicizing them, I just think "But it's what he wanted!" is a terrible justification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 09:25
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:Gun chat ahoy! I'm in blue, my antagonist is in red, and black is a one off comment from someone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I've gotta hand it to someone who has one of their major points completely and utterly disproved and then just seamlessly moves on to ranting about another one with absolutely no acknowledgment, just like it never happened. That's some grade A obtuseness right there. Nah, his mind clearly broke in the last two responses. Good job forum poster JohnClark (unless that guy goes on a killing spree).
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
How can you even argue with this stupidity?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
dalstrs posted:How can you even argue with this stupidity? Shouldn't we deport him based off the fact he is Piers Morgan?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Not sure. I don't think any scientific study really needs to be done to establish that Lanza's actions and those of most mass shooters are the product of mental instability. Would you say that science isn't necessary because you have a gut feeling?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
"  Suppress Piers Morgan's first amendment right to free speech because I don't like his thoughts about the second amendment! "
Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Dec 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Didn't you know? Constitutional rights are only for citizens. When the Constitution says "people" it means "lawful, naturalized residents as defined by a legal framework that will begin to be erected more than 100 years in the future."
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Didn't you know? Constitutional rights are only for citizens. When the Constitution says "people" it means "lawful, naturalized residents as defined by a legal framework that will begin to be erected more than 100 years in the future." Bad news slaves, the Constitution doesn't apply to you! As for the original Facebook comment, I think the other guy already covered it. You can't deport people because they say something you don't like. Even if he isn't an America. Edit: I just realized green probably is you; sorry kinda slow tonight. I think the best response is: "You are right, he makes his money by people watching his show. So if you don't like what he's saying, don't watch him and let the Free Market get rid of him. It's a much better solution for everyone than trying to pick and choose who gets to have Free Speech and who doesn't." Sarion fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Remember, morality should be based on the law, not vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Didn't you know? Constitutional rights are only for citizens. When the Constitution says "people" it means "lawful, naturalized residents as defined by a legal framework that will begin to be erected more than 100 years in the future." You forgot the part where you later trash secularist liberals for thinking that our rights come from a document, not from God.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:As someone who enjoys shooting sports, as well as the mechanical and historical aspects of firearms I agree. I feel the same way. Every time I see "gun nuts" say insane poo poo - like people should be able to own military tech, or that all gun regulation is evil, or anything of the sort - I cry a little inside. I've been a sport shooter since I was a child. I've owned a number of guns of varying categories and calibers. I can't rattle off the names of them, I don't have rails with crazy poo poo on them, blah blah blah. I used to be a very accomplished "child" (under 18) speed shooter. I'm a poster boy for the gun industry is anything - white, male, southern, responsible gun own since I was 4 basically. However, the fact that I'm willing to accept any form of control at all makes me an outcast. I guess they see this as a slippery slope - that's all I can rationalize. Otherwise I just don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
re: the gun chat, I have to say that I saw a facebook image today which I actually liked: I feel like bringing up the UK and their gun laws should (should) help anyone out with gun debates. Gun control is virtually total in the UK, even police don't carry guns, and British statistics easily contradict three major gun control talking points: 1) Gun control won't affect gun violence because criminals will still use guns, only law-abiding citizens won't have them--actually gun crime has vastly decreased since widespread gun control was implemented, for example the firearm homicide rate in the UK is now one one hundredth of the US rate. Of course, the UK started out with a lower rate of gun ownership than the US and, being an island, will have an easier time keeping guns out after they're eliminated. But the point still stands. 2) Gun control doesn't matter because criminals will still use other weapons to commit crimes--actually, overall crime rates including violent crime and homicide have been declining steadily for at least a decade. 3) Gun control is just a stepping stone to full-on government tyranny, Hitler, Stalin, etc.--regardless of what you think of the UK or their politics, it's hard to argue they're not a high-functioning democracy. Also, 4) Gun control doesn't affect mass shootings--hard to say because as far as I know the UK didn't have a really extensive history of mass shootings before large scale gun control, so we don't have a data set to compare to. But I believe the facebook image above is correct and there haven't been any since 1996, which even if not a complete end to them, at least means their rate of mass shootings is far below the US rate which of multiple per year. Of course, these facts are only useful against people who will listen to facts and reason. But really we would all be better served by trying to make the gun control debate one of statistics, facts and evidence rather than gut feelings and ideology. Statistics show that gun control works, and even though it may make many people double down on crazy there's always the chance you'll sway someone undecided.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
dalstrs posted:How can you even argue with this stupidity? Ask him why one amendment trumps another besides "because I say so".
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:
What did they do with the guns people already had? I feel like a total ban now wouldn't help because of the shear amount of guns already out there. tigersklaw posted:Ask him why one amendment trumps another besides "because I say so". I think I'm just going to ignore him, it's pretty much arguing with a brick wall at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Would you say that science isn't necessary because you have a gut feeling? No! Can you point me to even one study that has been done on the association between media coverage and mass murderers? That's what we're talking about right? The number (occurrences not body count) of actual mass murders with guns vs. average everyday gun violence is almost statistically insignificant to start. I can't imagine how anyone could even start to quantify that type of correlation. However, after reflecting on SedanChair's original question I have to say that my answer to that question is just an outright no. Censorship of the press and even censorship of news coverage by the press itself is simply unacceptable. It's foolish to even believe that it would somehow work. If the press refused to report names, background and other information regarding these mentally unstable people, how long do you really think it would take before that information found its way onto Facebook, Twitter and even SA, and how likely is that information to be distorted instead of accurately reported if that's how it gets out? Hell, without the press reporting the facts, everyone reading this thread would be getting crazy poo poo emails in their inboxes containing all sorts of distortions and inaccuracies. The press has a responsibility to report the facts and all of the facts should be reported. So the answer is no. radical meme fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
dalstrs posted:What did they do with the guns people already had? I feel like a total ban now wouldn't help because of the shear amount of guns already out there. If anyone here has information about this question, I would also be very interested to know it. The only thing I can think of is that guns were never anywhere near as prevalent or popular in the UK as they are here. And the laws may have already been strict before the ban. So now, after nearly two decades of a ban the number of working guns relative to the population is fairly small. This is absolutely pure conjecture though, if anyone has some real information, that would be great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
dalstrs posted:What did they do with the guns people already had? I feel like a total ban now wouldn't help because of the shear amount of guns already out there. If I remember right they had a 28 day amnesty where you could take your guns along to the local cop shop and give them over to the police. It was voluntary but if I remember correctly it was very successful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Ultragonk posted:If I remember right they had a 28 day amnesty where you could take your guns along to the local cop shop and give them over to the police. It was voluntary but if I remember correctly it was very successful. It would never work here, though. American gun culture is too crazy for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Ultragonk posted:If I remember right they had a 28 day amnesty where you could take your guns along to the local cop shop and give them over to the police. It was voluntary but if I remember correctly it was very successful. Did they pay for them? Guns aren't cheap and and you can't just say to someone "That thing you bought last week (month/year), you have to give it to the police now" And what about gun store owners? Many deal in used guns so they can't be returned to the manufacture for refunds (if that is even possible) I am a gun owner and wouldn't object to a cartridge pistol ban if it could be done, but I tend to agree with Sarion that it is so ingrained over here and there are so many guns that there isn't an effective way to accomplish it. (Not even speaking of the political ramifications)
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken I believe Australia went as far as a gun buyback program when they instituted their ban. It was expensive as hell, but they felt it was worth the monetary cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
dalstrs posted:Did they pay for them? Guns aren't cheap and and you can't just say to someone "That thing you bought last week (month/year), you have to give it to the police now" And what about gun store owners? Many deal in used guns so they can't be returned to the manufacture for refunds (if that is even possible) No you just handed over your gun and that was that, I'm not 100% sure I was young at the time it happened. I remember my mum handing over her gun and one of my uncles handing over his hand gun but keeping his two rifles. I agree though that the culture in the US is far too different for that to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:33
|
|