August 2019 Current Events Thread: It's Hot and Everything Sucks

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > August 2019 Current Events Thread: It's Hot and Everything Sucks

«‹›91 »

bird cooch: Jan 19, 2007

Bored As gently caress posted:

Here's the problem - it's not going to work. Banning so called assault weapons is not going to work because ...........

What do you call that joke?

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM!!

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 19:37

Cugel the Clever: Apr 5, 2009; I LOVE AMERICA AND CAPITALISM DESPITE BEING POOR AS FUCK. I WILL NEVER RETIRE BUT HERE'S ANOTHER 200$ FOR UKRAINE, SLAVA

Everything old is new again. Anything to keep from addressing either America's gun problem or the wave of right-wing terrorism we're experiencing.
https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1158018462125572102?s=19

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:25

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

"assault weapons" are an aesthetic category, true.

Fascist thinking is motivated by aesthetics though

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:26

Proud Christian Mom: Dec 20, 2006; READING COMPREHENSION IS HARD

hey guys this isnt a gun problem, this is a right wing/white supremacist terrorism problem and ill catch a sixer for it but I just want to remind you that the military and law enforcement are packed to the loving gills with dudes just like Patrick Crusius. the only question is are we going to do anything about it before they start renting U-Hauls again(the answer is no)

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:26

pantslesswithwolves: Oct 28, 2008

Here�s a loving spicy hot take

https://twitter.com/RepCohen/status/1158034560891928576

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:28

The Iron Rose: May 12, 2012; Cat Army

Proud Christian Mom posted:

hey guys this isnt a gun problem, this is a right wing/white supremacist terrorism problem and ill catch a sixer for it but I just want to remind you that the military and law enforcement are packed to the loving gills with dudes just like Patrick Crusius. the only question is are we going to do anything about it before they start renting U-Hauls again(the answer is no)

It can be a both problem

My preferred take would be a constitutional amendment banning personsal gun ownership. Failing that I'll take a federal assault weapons ban with a 50 year buyback period. If you get caught with a weapon you'll catch charges, but by allowing buybacks over an extended period of time you reduce the amount of guns in circulation.

Limit sales, encourage buybacks, ban them in cities and make the whole process as inconvenient and expensive as possible for everyone involved.

Most other countries do just fine without rampant gun ownership and America drat well should too. There's been three mass shootings in twenty four hours! Like five in the past week! It's a goddamn catastrophe.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:31

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

We did fine for 300 years beforehand. And the last 75 years or so before Columbine repeaters, semi-automatics, and other higher-capacity weapons were common.

Something changed, but it wasn't the introduction of guns.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:33

Chichevache: Feb 17, 2010; One of the funniest posters in GIP.

Just not intentionally.

Proud Christian Mom posted:

hey guys this isnt a gun problem, this is a right wing/white supremacist terrorism problem and ill catch a sixer for it but I just want to remind you that the military and law enforcement are packed to the loving gills with dudes just like Patrick Crusius. the only question is are we going to do anything about it before they start renting U-Hauls again(the answer is no)

Get more leftists into law enforcement, the military, and politics or you just cede all power over to them and are left kindly requesting that the boot not stomp you.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:34

Eej: Jun 17, 2007; HEAVYARMS

Right wing nationalism is on the rise throughout the globe but mass shootings are only on the rise in America.

quote:

caused so many lone wolf terrorist attacks.

lol have you not been paying attention

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:38

bird cooch: Jan 19, 2007

Chichevache posted:

Get more leftists into law enforcement, the military, and politics or you just cede all power over to them and are left kindly requesting that the boot not stomp you.

Gonna have to change the system first. It's all built to be what it's become.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:38

Tiny Timbs: Sep 6, 2008

Bored As gently caress posted:

Here's the problem - it's not going to work. Banning so called assault weapons is not going to work because "assault weapons" are really just semi automatic rifles with certain scart features like a pistol grip, or a collapsible stock, or a barrel shroud, or a muzzle brake, or a flash suppressor, or a super scary bayonet lug. Look at California's increasingly restrictive gun laws and you'll see that simple assault weapon bans aren't enough, and that when they fail to work, every single law after that gets more and more restrictive, yet still fails to do what the legislators want them to do. First they grandfathered in preban magazines. Then they got rid of that. The when people followed the letter of the law with the bullet button, they banned that, too.

The generous interpretation is to say that the legislators want to end gun violence. The more cynical interpretation is that the legislators want to pass a bill that looks like they are being tough on the NRA and looks like they're tough on gun violence, while also doing nothing to end the root causes of gun violence in general because that is etremely expensive, complicated, multi-faceted, and requires a reworking of our health care system, our mental health care system, our education system, and our criminal justice system. So passing a bill that further restricts what guns people can have is just a hell of a lot easier for them to do.

I honestly can't really blame them, because people, like voters, like simple answers. They don't like complicated solutions because you can't put that in a sound bite. That's the same exact reason why people love what Trump says about immigrants. "The immigrants are taking your jobs, the immigrants are dangerous, it's the immigrants fault why you aren't rich. Building the wall will solve this!" It's a really simple answer, and it's completely wrong. But people love being told what they already think is true, and if you have a simple solution to a problem that reinforces what people already think is true, then you're gonna get votes.

The 1st problem with passing more gun laws Is that fascists, right wing militias, and white supremacists aren't going to turn theirs in, and I'll be dammed if it's only the Rpublicans that have firearms after a ban. The 2nd problem is that of implementation. The 1994 AWB only passed the house and senate because of the sunset clause. A bill without the sunset clause will have a much harder time of being passed. Then there's the issue of grandfathering the firearms that exist now. If you don't grandfather the so called assault weapons that are legally owned now, and instead go the route of a mandatory buy-up, you've just made felons of millions of Americans instantly, because even non racist otherwise law abiding citizens aren't going to hand them in. Then, how are you going to pay for all of the ones that are turned in? That'll be spending tens of billions of dollars taking previously legally owned firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, when those billions would've been better spent on improving access to healthcare, universal pre-K, or expanding the free school lunch problem.

The other problem with passing more restrictive gun laws is that it's not going to address any root causes for gun violence in general, or the rise of mass shootings in particular. Trump's rise to power and his racist rhetoric emboldens other racists. Hate crimes have gone up significantly since hes been president. Racists love him. White supremacists love him. The anti immigrant, Anti-Muslim narrative has caused so many lone wolf terrorist attacks. El Paso was a terrorist attack. Full stop. Yet the DOJ and FBI aren't going hard after right-wing white supremacist terrorista groups, at least publicly. Why would they when their boss is a racist himself?

The FBI has purview over those types of assholes, and I'm sure they've got undercover guys working on infiltrating white supremacist groups, but here you run into the same problems that they run into with violent Islamist extremist groups - most of these terrorists are self-radicalized. Most of them have few outside social contacts or friends, or if they do, they hide their extremist views (or at least their intensions to commit an attack) from everyone except their online friends (whether it be Stormfront or 8chan, or jihadist websites) or a small group of people who they're going to commit the act with. There's not a lot of chances for law enforcement to intervene because these fucks largely fly under the radar. You can't just arrest people in a white supremacist group just because the views they espouse are abhorrent, just like you can't lock up Muslims who post jihadi videos online and say that it's great when Americans get blown up overseas. It's free speech, and thank gently caress we still have that right somewhat intact.

So these people fly under the radar either because 1) they self radicalize completely, or 2) they incubate in these echo chambers of hate until they are ready to commit the act. Unless a family member or friend alerts the FBI or local police, no one's gonna know until they commit the act.

And even when the person is known and has an interaction with FBI or police, we don't have Minority Report style pre-cogs who can know what they're doing in a week, so unless they've already done something illegal, it's not easy to charge them with anything. And it's not like we have unlimited resources in equipment, man-hours, and manpower to watch every possible bad guy, or even every guy that's on a watchlist - nor should we.* If we did, we'd live in a no-poo poo dystopian dictatorship. *(There have been so many terror attacks committed by home grown terrorists in Europe where the attackers have been known to police or intelligence agencies, But they were never charged with anything because they didn't commit crimes yet. Some people think that if someone is known to police or intelligence as a potential terrorist (for instance, if they fought for ISIS in Syria and then came back to France or Belgium), that the authorities have 24 hour surveillance on a guy with a 12 man team of agents and surveillance specialists with multiple cars and phone taps. That poo poo isn't reality. There's far too many potential bad guys, and not nearly enough resources to watch them all).

In short, gun laws aren't going to solve the issue. What we need to do is to look at the problem holistically, and come up with science and fact based solutions that doesn't give the government more power and doesn't further infringe on people's rights to adequate self defense.

In summary, ban and confiscate all weapons after a buy-back grace period. That is the science and fact-based solution practiced worldwide. Right wing extremism should also be dealt with but what's going on right now is that people have both motive and means, and taking away their means is part of fixing the problem.

Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Aug 4, 2019

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:41

Stravag: Jun 7, 2009

Godholio posted:

Something changed, but it wasn't the introduction of guns.

The internets easy access to porn has glorified the big dick and thus anyone worried about their dick size started lashing out. If we adjust thr formula for what is a big dick we can fix this overnight

Edit: i know this is a south park bit but gently caress its not like the us is going to do anything related to weapons on a federal level for a while again.

Stravag fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Aug 4, 2019

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:42

Casimir Radon: Aug 2, 2008

Infiltrate and charge/throw out everyone in those lovely mil/cop Facebook groups.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:43

bird cooch: Jan 19, 2007

Casimir Radon posted:

Infiltrate and charge/throw out everyone in those lovely mil/cop Facebook groups.

Uh, thin blue line there hoss.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:44

pmchem: Jan 22, 2010

remember when a 5-4 partisan decision written by an "originalist" decided that a "well-regulated militia" was something we can just entirely ignore in the constitution?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

the Court is a joke and place no hope there

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:45

Stravag: Jun 7, 2009

Some one tried to tell me that the commas in the 2nd amendment were used in place of ands or ors. This is the type of dumb we have to overcome.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:52

not caring here: Feb 22, 2012; blazemastah 2 dry 4 u

Won't have to worry about gun violence when these loving chuds learn it's safer for them to lay out EFPs and set buildings on fire and poison water supplies or taint food sources.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:52

bulletsponge13: Apr 28, 2010

Or maybe focus enforcement on Domestic, Right Wing groups. We have an intelligebce apparatus that can track down the single individuals who shot down Extortion 17. We can track down and kill two nameless Taliban fighters, but can't track Right Wing Domestic poo poo?

We don't want to.

The idea of banning/gun control seems to be falling out of favor, particularly since the Left has felt the need to increasingly arm and train themselves since 16. I don't see a Ban/Buyback working at all. Besides the hardcore Right and Left wing, you are going to have people who are generally law abiding, but aren't going to give up poo poo for fear it might be needed later.

Besides that, I don't see them ever banning Handguns even though they are used in most crimes. They couldn't get them banned in 36 with the NFA, now that carry is common and legal in most places, I don't see that happening.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:53

Tiny Timbs: Sep 6, 2008

not caring here posted:

Won't have to worry about gun violence when these loving chuds learn it's safer for them to lay out EFPs and set buildings on fire and poison water supplies or taint food sources.

They want it to be personal.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:54

bird cooch: Jan 19, 2007

bulletsponge13 posted:

Or maybe focus enforcement on Domestic, Right Wing groups. We have an intelligebce apparatus that can track down the single individuals who shot down Extortion 17. We can track down and kill two nameless Taliban fighters, but can't track Right Wing Domestic poo poo?

We don't want to.

The idea of banning/gun control seems to be falling out of favor, particularly since the Left has felt the need to increasingly arm and train themselves since 16. I don't see a Ban/Buyback working at all. Besides the hardcore Right and Left wing, you are going to have people who are generally law abiding, but aren't going to give up poo poo for fear it might be needed later.

Besides that, I don't see them ever banning Handguns even though they are used in most crimes. They couldn't get them banned in 36 with the NFA, now that carry is common and legal in most places, I don't see that happening.

The republican-controlled House and Senate saw it as partisan and cancelled the funding.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:54

UP THE BUM NO BABY: Sep 1, 2011; by Hand Knit

Bored As gently caress posted:

Here's the problem - it's not going to work. Banning so called assault weapons is not going to work because "assault weapons" are really just semi automatic rifles with certain scart features like a pistol grip, or a collapsible stock, or a barrel shroud, or a muzzle brake, or a flash suppressor, or a super scary bayonet lug. Look at California's increasingly restrictive gun laws and you'll see that simple assault weapon bans aren't enough, and that when they fail to work, every single law after that gets more and more restrictive, yet still fails to do what the legislators want them to do. First they grandfathered in preban magazines. Then they got rid of that. The when people followed the letter of the law with the bullet button, they banned that, too.

The generous interpretation is to say that the legislators want to end gun violence. The more cynical interpretation is that the legislators want to pass a bill that looks like they are being tough on the NRA and looks like they're tough on gun violence, while also doing nothing to end the root causes of gun violence in general because that is etremely expensive, complicated, multi-faceted, and requires a reworking of our health care system, our mental health care system, our education system, and our criminal justice system. So passing a bill that further restricts what guns people can have is just a hell of a lot easier for them to do.

I honestly can't really blame them, because people, like voters, like simple answers. They don't like complicated solutions because you can't put that in a sound bite. That's the same exact reason why people love what Trump says about immigrants. "The immigrants are taking your jobs, the immigrants are dangerous, it's the immigrants fault why you aren't rich. Building the wall will solve this!" It's a really simple answer, and it's completely wrong. But people love being told what they already think is true, and if you have a simple solution to a problem that reinforces what people already think is true, then you're gonna get votes.

The 1st problem with passing more gun laws Is that fascists, right wing militias, and white supremacists aren't going to turn theirs in, and I'll be dammed if it's only the Rpublicans that have firearms after a ban. The 2nd problem is that of implementation. The 1994 AWB only passed the house and senate because of the sunset clause. A bill without the sunset clause will have a much harder time of being passed. Then there's the issue of grandfathering the firearms that exist now. If you don't grandfather the so called assault weapons that are legally owned now, and instead go the route of a mandatory buy-up, you've just made felons of millions of Americans instantly, because even non racist otherwise law abiding citizens aren't going to hand them in. Then, how are you going to pay for all of the ones that are turned in? That'll be spending tens of billions of dollars taking previously legally owned firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, when those billions would've been better spent on improving access to healthcare, universal pre-K, or expanding the free school lunch problem.

The other problem with passing more restrictive gun laws is that it's not going to address any root causes for gun violence in general, or the rise of mass shootings in particular. Trump's rise to power and his racist rhetoric emboldens other racists. Hate crimes have gone up significantly since hes been president. Racists love him. White supremacists love him. The anti immigrant, Anti-Muslim narrative has caused so many lone wolf terrorist attacks. El Paso was a terrorist attack. Full stop. Yet the DOJ and FBI aren't going hard after right-wing white supremacist terrorista groups, at least publicly. Why would they when their boss is a racist himself?

The FBI has purview over those types of assholes, and I'm sure they've got undercover guys working on infiltrating white supremacist groups, but here you run into the same problems that they run into with violent Islamist extremist groups - most of these terrorists are self-radicalized. Most of them have few outside social contacts or friends, or if they do, they hide their extremist views (or at least their intensions to commit an attack) from everyone except their online friends (whether it be Stormfront or 8chan, or jihadist websites) or a small group of people who they're going to commit the act with. There's not a lot of chances for law enforcement to intervene because these fucks largely fly under the radar. You can't just arrest people in a white supremacist group just because the views they espouse are abhorrent, just like you can't lock up Muslims who post jihadi videos online and say that it's great when Americans get blown up overseas. It's free speech, and thank gently caress we still have that right somewhat intact.

So these people fly under the radar either because 1) they self radicalize completely, or 2) they incubate in these echo chambers of hate until they are ready to commit the act. Unless a family member or friend alerts the FBI or local police, no one's gonna know until they commit the act.

And even when the person is known and has an interaction with FBI or police, we don't have Minority Report style pre-cogs who can know what they're doing in a week, so unless they've already done something illegal, it's not easy to charge them with anything. And it's not like we have unlimited resources in equipment, man-hours, and manpower to watch every possible bad guy, or even every guy that's on a watchlist - nor should we.* If we did, we'd live in a no-poo poo dystopian dictatorship. *(There have been so many terror attacks committed by home grown terrorists in Europe where the attackers have been known to police or intelligence agencies, But they were never charged with anything because they didn't commit crimes yet. Some people think that if someone is known to police or intelligence as a potential terrorist (for instance, if they fought for ISIS in Syria and then came back to France or Belgium), that the authorities have 24 hour surveillance on a guy with a 12 man team of agents and surveillance specialists with multiple cars and phone taps. That poo poo isn't reality. There's far too many potential bad guys, and not nearly enough resources to watch them all).

In short, gun laws aren't going to solve the issue. What we need to do is to look at the problem holistically, and come up with science and fact based solutions that doesn't give the government more power and doesn't further infringe on people's rights to adequate self defense.

Idk, but I think we really, really need to do something about the proliferation of small arms in this country. Saying we can't do anything about the guns themselves is loving stupid.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:56

Bored As Fuck: Jan 1, 2006; Fun Shoe

Eej posted:

Right wing nationalism is on the rise throughout the globe but mass shootings are only on the rise in America.

lol have you not been paying attention

"Lone wolf" means a single attacker PER ACT. Not "lol its just one or two guys." There's a definition.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 17:59

BigDave: Jul 14, 2009; Taste the High Country

Getting rid of the personal sale background check exemption would be a good first start.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:01

Bored As Fuck: Jan 1, 2006; Fun Shoe

bulletsponge13 posted:

Or maybe focus enforcement on Domestic, Right Wing groups. We have an intelligebce apparatus that can track down the single individuals who shot down Extortion 17. We can track down and kill two nameless Taliban fighters, but can't track Right Wing Domestic poo poo?

We don't want to.

We have a very good reason - we do not want the entire intel community spying on Americans. Don't you remember the outcry when the NSA was scooping up people's meta data for phone calls? Do you really want the NSA and CIA to be spying on Americans? I sure as gently caress don't. The sorry state of our civil liberties is hosed enough without tearing down that pretty decent sized wall between domestic LEO / intel and foreign focused and mil intel.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:09

Chichevache: Feb 17, 2010; One of the funniest posters in GIP.

Just not intentionally.

I'd say at the very least we could stop selling new guns. It doesn't do anything about the 300 million we have now, but it sets the stage for taking then away in the future.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:10

bird cooch: Jan 19, 2007

Bored As gently caress posted:

We have a very good reason - we do not want the entire intel community spying on Americans. Don't you remember the outcry when the NSA was scooping up people's meta data for phone calls? Do you really want the NSA and CIA to be spying on Americans? I sure as gently caress don't. The sorry state of our civil liberties is hosed enough without tearing down that pretty decent sized wall between domestic LEO / intel and foreign focused and mil intel.

This is at odds with the reality of the modern day.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:10

Tiny Timbs: Sep 6, 2008

Law enforcement is already collecting information on right wing terrorists and refusing to do anything with it so addressing that does seem like a good step

Throwing your hands up and saying the concept of preventing domestic terrorism is inherently intolerable does not seem like a good step

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:13

bulletsponge13: Apr 28, 2010

UBC would be a great start.

My issue is that I'm not saying that Ban/Buyback won't have an effect. I'm saying that the horse is already out of that barn, and a more effective damage control and prevention would be a different path. Better healthcare, better access to mental health, a targetted approach by LE- I think all these would be more effective than an attempted buyback/ban.

I'll admit, I have a mental block to bans, because it is incredibly easy to build a gun with poo poo from ACE hardware without raising an eye brow. It's not 100% logically, and I get that, it's just I know what I would do as a bad guy, and I have issues getting past that mental hurdle.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:14

Tiny Timbs: Sep 6, 2008

bulletsponge13 posted:

I'll admit, I have a mental block to bans, because it is incredibly easy to build a gun with poo poo from ACE hardware without raising an eye brow. It's not 100% logically, and I get that, it's just I know what I would do as a bad guy, and I have issues getting past that mental hurdle.

For one, your pvc zip gun would barely be capable of getting one shot off much less mow down 30+ people.

3D printers and home metal fabrication seem like the greater threat and I don�t know how you�d begin dealing with that without just banning the concept of workshops. In ten years we probably will get to the point where you can make your own reliable automatics.

Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Aug 4, 2019

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:16

MRC48B: Apr 2, 2012

Bored As gently caress posted:

We have a very good reason - we do not want the entire intel community spying on Americans. Don't you remember the outcry when the NSA was scooping up people's meta data for phone calls? Do you really want the NSA and CIA to be spying on Americans? I sure as gently caress don't. The sorry state of our civil liberties is hosed enough without tearing down that pretty decent sized wall between domestic LEO / intel and foreign focused and mil intel.

They already do, have done since the 1970s. That separation was always paper thin, and was removed completely after :911:

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:18

M_Gargantua: Oct 16, 2006; STOMP'N ON INTO THE POWERLINES; Exciting Lemon

Bored As gently caress posted:

We have a very good reason - we do not want the entire intel community spying on Americans. Don't you remember the outcry when the NSA was scooping up people's meta data for phone calls? Do you really want the NSA and CIA to be spying on Americans? I sure as gently caress don't. The sorry state of our civil liberties is hosed enough without tearing down that pretty decent sized wall between domestic LEO / intel and foreign focused and mil intel.

You don�t even need the CIA/NSA scooping up metadata. You can do it yourself by joining Facebook groups and following discord invite links. There is no hidden conspiracy you just look at what is in plain sight.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:18

EBB: Feb 15, 2005

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:18

pmchem: Jan 22, 2010

bulletsponge13 posted:

I'll admit, I have a mental block to bans, because it is incredibly easy to build a gun with poo poo from ACE hardware without raising an eye brow. It's not 100% logically, and I get that, it's just I know what I would do as a bad guy, and I have issues getting past that mental hurdle.

�ah, well, it is impossible to have a perfect solution to this problem therefore we should do nothing to improve the situation�

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:19

bulletsponge13: Apr 28, 2010

Bored As gently caress posted:

We have a very good reason - we do not want the entire intel community spying on Americans. Don't you remember the outcry when the NSA was scooping up people's meta data for phone calls? Do you really want the NSA and CIA to be spying on Americans? I sure as gently caress don't. The sorry state of our civil liberties is hosed enough without tearing down that pretty decent sized wall between domestic LEO / intel and foreign focused and mil intel.

They are already doing that poo poo.
I'm not saying suspend Posse Commitatus, or allow the CIA free reign in America. There is a huge step between Sheriff Podunk ignoring the warning signs and full on Big Brother.
I was using the Extortion 17 thing as an example. We can hunt down those dudes on the otherside of the world, but we can't stop these dudes in the US?
LE and the people involved don't want to stop it, because they either implicitly or tacitly approve of the actions. Some of them that work forces...

The history of LE in this country is also a history of racism and ideological enforcement of White Supremacy.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:20

BigDave: Jul 14, 2009; Taste the High Country

pmchem posted:

“ah, well, it is impossible to have a perfect solution to this problem therefore we should do nothing to improve the situation”

- Paid for by the Democratic National Committee

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:21

bulletsponge13: Apr 28, 2010

Like I said, it's a mental block in working on.

Also, with no gunsmithing skill, you can build a full auto tube gun like a Sten. Or a Luty. It's not difficult- poo poo, I knew people that built them as teenagers.

I didn't say we shouldn't do anything. I actually put forth my opinion on what I think would be more effective.

I didn't say we shouldn't do anything, but thanks anyway.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:23

Nuclear War: Nov 7, 2012; You're a pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty girl

obligatory: https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1836949580

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:24

Bored As Fuck: Jan 1, 2006; Fun Shoe

Chichevache posted:

I'd say at the very least we could stop selling new guns. It doesn't do anything about the 300 million we have now, but it sets the stage for taking then away in the future.

One thing I don't get is how people like you (and others in this thead) that want to see the end of gun ownership, is how do you support something that is going to take away or extremely restrict the ability of people to defend themselves. The elderly, ill or infirm, people with disabilities, the weaker/shorter people, and most women are more easily able to defend themselves from attackers with firearms. Mace/pepper spray is only so effective - it's not even close to 100% effective. Knives take some skill to defend yourself with, and you get too close to an attacker to safely use it anyway. A firearm is an equalizer. Whereas before firearms, a bigger, stronger attacker would easily victimize you, a disabled or smaller or weaker person could easily defend themselves against a much larger attacker. Will they be able to in every circumstance? No. But they'll have a hell of a better chance with a firearm than without. If my ex girlfriend who had muscular dystrophy in her legs had a firearm on her or in her purse, it's quite possible she would've been able to shoot her attacker, and then she never would've been brutally attacked and raped, then she never would've had a TBI and PTSD, and never would've self medicated with drugs, never would've become a junkie thief, and never would've eventually overdosed and died.

I think it's blind priviledge for males living in areas where police are less than 10 minutes away (or where there is low crime) to say "let's get rid of guns / lets make efforts to restrict access to guns for everyone."

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:25

colachute: Mar 15, 2015

Bored As gently caress posted:

One thing I don't get is how people like you (and others in this thead) that want to see the end of gun ownership, is how do you support something that is going to take away or extremely restrict the ability of people to defend themselves. The elderly, ill or infirm, people with disabilities, the weaker/shorter people, and most women are more easily able to defend themselves from attackers with firearms. Mace/pepper spray is only so effective - it's not even close to 100% effective. Knives take some skill to defend yourself with, and you get too close to an attacker to safely use it anyway. A firearm is an equalizer. Whereas before firearms, a bigger, stronger attacker would easily victimize you, a disabled or smaller or weaker person could easily defend themselves against a much larger attacker. Will they be able to in every circumstance? No. But they'll have a hell of a better chance with a firearm than without. If my ex girlfriend who had muscular dystrophy in her legs had a firearm on her or in her purse, it's quite possible she would've been able to shoot her attacker, and then she never would've been brutally attacked and raped, then she never would've had a TBI and PTSD, and never would've self medicated with drugs, never would've become a junkie thief, and never would've eventually overdosed and died.

I think it's blind priviledge for males living in areas where police are less than 10 minutes away (or where there is low crime) to say "let's get rid of guns / lets make efforts to restrict access to guns for everyone."

put money into not having lovely cops and improving police infrastructure in rural towns and, get this, they could be the good guys with the guns. like, as a job, or something. possibly even a career.

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 19:37

colachute: Mar 15, 2015

or how about this: everyone gets a firearm for self defense, but we abolish police since they seem to be so incredibly useless (an unsolvable problem!) that we need to be armed to the loving teeth

# ? Aug 4, 2019 18:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > August 2019 Current Events Thread: It's Hot and Everything Sucks

«‹›91 »