|
I grew up in Australia. The first big news even I recall is the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. I also remember the response of the very conservative prime minister at the time, John Howard. Otherwise a terrible guy, he instituted sweeping gun reform: "Under federal government co-ordination, all states and territories of Australia heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and heavily tightened controls on their legal use by recreational shooters." Recently a video went viral asking kids at an Aussie university if they could recall the last mass shooting in Australia (maybe 1 of them could, they all were late teens/early 20s. Similar questions were asked of American kids - "yesterday" and "last week" were the answers. I have held/shot a gun once, in Vietnam on holiday, an M16. I had never heard gun shots up close in person - until last night. San Bernardino was not the first mass shooting in the US, although this was much smaller - only 4 victims: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-other-mass-shooting-that-happened-today-in-the-united-states/?tid=pm_pop_b Savannah is where I live today. Shotspotter technology has detected nearly 5000 shots fired this year. I can't find stats on deaths this year by shooting but one was a 9 year old girl, in a drive by shooting, while she was doing her homework. It's a high number. Other than the 4 people shot in the article, another guy was shot at 3am. I was awake and heard the shot. I didn't know what it was, although I highly guessed gunshot. I saw what was either the shooter or, as it turns out, may have been the victim as he turned up at a bar around the corner seeking assistance. Cops came at 320 having had the shotspotter pinpoint the exact location of the shot. I gave a statement - never done that before. Police reports today focused mainly on the 4 people shot but according to the police, the other one was an armed robbery (having seen this kids I would think drug deal gone bad is more likely). My point is. I don't loving understand this country. I don't understand the obsession with the 2nd amendment or why people are opposed to gun control. Why do you NEED guns?! There are countless accidents involving them, I've taken care of a brain dead 11 year old who'd been shot by his 9 year old friend accidentally, with his dad's gun, which had been left loaded on the coffee table. It feels like everyone has given up, is apathetic, that we can't DO anything to change it so why try? Savannah did manage to elect a new mayor, although how much an old white guy can do in a predominantly black city I don't know. Why do republicans offer thoughts and prayers but no solutions!? If not gun control then what!? Why is the status quo ok?! Note: if this appears to give too much info on my possible location, please don't be weird and Internet detective me goons. If people suggest I will delete this thread.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
gently caress you. That's why. We don't NEED guns. We also don't NEED free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to worship how we choose, or any of a number of other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The murder rate is roughly half what it was in the mid-1990's. Violent crime is down across the board. You just hear about these things more because blood gets eyes on screens, and it's white people this time. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:gently caress you. That's why. We don't NEED guns. We also don't NEED free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to worship how we choose, or any of a number of other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Ok no need to swear at me mate I'm truly trying to understand! I feel like there's a bit of a difference between the right for guns (and ok, in the bill of rights, the founding fathers intended the guns to be for having a "well regulated militia" correct? Not sure what bearing that has today.) And as many people says, the FF didn't foresee the kind of technology we have today like automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. I understand the impact the media has, and that the trend may well be declining but I feel like my questions still stand. And maybe I should have not restricted my questions to mass shootings. Please understand it's not my intention to be judgemental. I am trying to understand something that I've never really had to deal with and now am faced with the reality of right in my face. Miranda fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
You see, we need guns because the solution to mass shootings is a bunch of untrained people with minimal range time and dreams of heroism engaging in unaimed panic fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Khizan posted:You see, we need guns because the solution to mass shootings is a bunch of untrained people with minimal range time and dreams of heroism engaging in unaimed panic fire. Am I the only one who thinks this would be really interesting to see, even once? It would sure break up the loathsome monotony of "Guy walks into place and point-blank executes a whole bunch of people in comically unhurried manner."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:gently caress you. That's why. "But can't we just discuss some tweaks? Surely there is a way to approach it so we can talk about some control," you might say. Problem is, you're still trying to get people to compromise on personal belief. Even many people that might otherwise be open to discussion have listened to years of talk from other gun owners and organizations hammering away that any control is an incremental step to total removal. They hear you go "well, maybe we could just restrict a few things..." and hear the sound of a chipping noise at their personal freedoms. That's it. Gun control is not political, it is personal and emotional. Those that do not want gun control are devoted; those that do not are fighting an uphill battle as a result.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:This is your answer. Liquid might just be loving around with with you, he might not, but the sentiment is why we can't even manage a discourse about guns in this country. Gun control is not a political issue. It is a personal, emotional one. When you bring up control, a lot of people get incredibly defensive. It looks crazy and illogical to much of the world, but you're the crazy and illogical one to them - they're being perfectly rational. You're not trying to solve a violence problem - you're trying to gently caress with their dearly held personal rights, including the right to protect their family, their belongings, or themselves. You're trying to tweak a protected Constitutional Right, something enshrined as something all Americans are entitled to - including our (all too frequently real) gun owner. When you debate with them, you're debating with their personal beliefs and their personal rights, which goes as well as you might expect. Thanks, I appreciate your input. So when we have all these shootings, what do these people say is the answer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Miranda posted:Thanks, I appreciate your input. So when we have all these shootings, what do these people say is the answer? More guns. If everybody was armed they could have shot the perpetrator before he had time to kill so many people. No, I'm not joking; that is literally what their answer is. They think that the solution to mass shootings is a bunch of people with minimal qualifications and range time returning fire with deadly weapons in public areas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Khizan posted:More guns. If everybody was armed they could have shot the perpetrator before he had time to kill so many people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
The key to understanding American political discourse / emotional life is that Americans are hopelessly enchanted with the idea of a domineering father. Conservatives in particular are powerless against any rhetoric that references strong daddy. Strong daddy has a gun and he knows how to use it, he always fires true, even at a full gallop on his horsie, he beat up my teacher when my teacher made me feel bad, he runs his own business, so strong, he has a few kids that he is fond of in relation to their achievements, so much a dad. What do you do when society takes a poo poo on you? Well, what would strong daddy do? He'd rise up and kick rear end and sort out the mess later, strong daddy doesn't care. How can we stop the hurt? Strong daddy doesn't get hurt, he hurts back. Come at me gun bitches! I have a gun, and I'm very strong. How can we have universal health care? Pssh. Daddy doesn't get sick. If he did he would fix it with willpower or judicious self surgery. What about those who can't keep up with strong daddy? gently caress em, that's what my dad said. And he was very strong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:This, or that the violent and reprehensible actions of a few are not justification for curtailing the rights of law-abiding, gun owning citizens. Frequently, the shootings are also pointed to as examples of how gun control does not, in fact, work. Is it really a few any more though? I mean, more than one a day is getting out of the "a few" zone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Miranda posted:Thanks, I appreciate your input. So when we have all these shootings, what do these people say is the answer? There are primarily two schools of thought on this as far as I've seen: On one hand, you have the people who want to go ham with a weaponry-based approach -- put firearms in the hands of more people, abolish gun-free zones, and cultivate a kind of social self-defense mindset. The idea is that the kinds of people who carry out mass shootings tend to be looking for large groups of helpless people who are unable to retaliate. So, by putting guns in the hands of the intended victims, it's supposed to ward off those who are just looking for an easy power fantasy, or at least mitigate their ability to do harm. On the other hand, you have the people who want to focus down with a people-based approach. Not necessarily neutering the availability of weapons or their capabilities, but introducing a system that tracks at-risk individuals and (this is a point of contention for many) potentially stops them from buying firearms in the first place. Basically Minority Report but for gun owners. There are also suggestions of mandatory mental health screenings and that kind of thing but, as you can imagine, it's hard to get people to all completely agree on something like that!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
SealHammer posted:Am I the only one who thinks this would be really interesting to see, even once? It would sure break up the loathsome monotony of "Guy walks into place and point-blank executes a whole bunch of people in comically unhurried manner." A 10+ victim mass shooting where most of the victims were killed by bystanders with good intentions, poor aim, and worse judgment is one of the very few situations I can think of that might get some form of effective gun control legislation passed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
I'm sure the original drafters of the second amendment, worldly 1790s chaps, would have wanted every citizen to have access to an assault rifle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
I live in a very conservative town. First day of buck season is considered a holiday and kids are excused from school. I have fairly liberal views compared to most of the town, but I identify as a moderate as a whole. I have never heard anyone legitimately recommend more civilians with guns is a deterrent to these shootings. You occassionally get that one crazy guy from the sticks that comes into town and mentions X murder was stopped by a passerby with a gun, or that schools need more armed officers - but that is it. This seems like something liberals like to peg as the conservative arguement because it sounds dumb and silly, just like those wacky conservatives am I right? Here is what it boils down to in as low bias as I can get: Conservatives dislike the concepts of more government intervention in anything (as hypocritical as that gets in the case of recieving welfare, it is is the general belief). They believe the constitution is not a "living" document and should not change with the times - this is why the arguement of forefather's intent will do nothing to sway them and only incite them more. They are a paranoid bunch who are very quick to point out sketchy numbers or statistics, which unfortunately democrats are fond of in this arguement - see hillary's 90 deaths a day comment (while this is true, only 1/3rd of those are from gun violence, most of the rest are suicides). They are very resistant to the concept of the US being like Europe - which they view as some sort of liberal hellhole. The common talking points of liberals w/r/t statistics, european comparisons in murders, and an antiquated constitution only serves to rile them up. Conservatives mostly do believe in tougher restrictions such as mental or psychological tests (I hear this one often but never get any real examples) or a larger police force. The latter is in regards to urban crime - i.e. black on black. Most folks I talk these issues over with imply that the murder statistic is artificially raised due to the amount of homicides and drive-bys commited in urban areas. Areas like chicago, while having high crime conservatives contest, have already strict gun laws. Meaning gun restrictions only hurt lawful citizens and not those perpetrators who would have an illegeal gun regardless. You do occassionally get complaints of movies/TV/games warping the children's minds from older conservatives, but that still ties into it being a belief that the issue is primarily psycological Ultimately, conservatives see the attacks on gun ownership by liberals as an actual affront to their belief of what makes america america (and on personal liberties). They believe the liberal method will only hurt law abiding citizens while the real killers will have the guns regardless. This is more-or-less how your average conservative will think. The issue, of course is they don't really pose actual methods to stop the problem. People will say they are for some sort of psychological test - but give no specefics. Occassionally someone will mention that drum mags should be completely banned - or guns easily modifiable to be fully auto should require a special permit, but that is it and even then that sentiment is very rare. Liberals on the other hand very much view the guns themselves as the root of the problem. Which doesn't entirely jive with all moderates. Don't get me wrong, they will drop mental health and screening in their talking points but pose nothing meatier than conservatives - and then jump right into an attack the NRA establishment. Most moderates I think do want something in place as gun control. There is no need for a 100 round magazine. Ever. There is no need to a suppressor. Ever. I don't care if it's semi-auto, why do you need an RPK? However liberals seem to gloss over the mental health issue aspect of it more - which to me is the primary issue. Why are most of the mass shootings done by young white men who obviously have a distrubed past? If there is a pattern there must be a reason. Liberals want to fight the NRA (a joke organization pretty much) and take us out of the dark ages but I see little legislation proposed to deal with the root of the issue. My father, growing up in this same town, told me of how all the boys would bring their rifles to school during hunting season and keep them in their lockers. A lot of them either just got out of the woods before class or were going back out after. It was normal and no one thought anything of it. At that same school now, you are not permitted to take your bookbag with you to class. You can not wear a long coat during class. Something changed, and it can't all be blamed on the guns themselves. That said, this will likely stay a state issue. Until one side buckles and is willing to gradually tackle both problems, each side will be completely opposed to the other and consider them crazy. Each side wants to pander to their base and frame the other guys as crazy while leaving everyone else hopeless for compromise. e: I spell like a poo poo That Jerk Steve fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
Khizan posted:You see, we need guns because the solution to mass shootings is a bunch of untrained people with minimal range time and dreams of heroism engaging in unaimed panic fire. The police usually get their man heyooooooo
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
OP I've never been spree killed and I don't know anybody who has, for largely the same reason I don't know anyone who's been eaten by a shark even though shark week is demonstrably a thing on TV, but when an angry guy broke into my house at the crack of dawn and proceeded to start strangling my roommate in his bed a shotgun was really helpful in persuading him to sit down and discuss his problems civilly and wait for the police to arrive, which they did after a delay that I'm pretty sure was longer than two humans in sequence can last without air. In Australia I guess my roommate and possibly I would be dead, sucks to be us, but at least the TV wouldn't be so upsetting for you and after a couple seconds of showing pictures of my house they could get back to rerunning the best missing white women of the 2010s or whatever. Violent crime has been dropping steadily at about the same rate everywhere in the developed world since about the same time in the early 90s, its statistical likelihood from place to place is almost perfectly lockstep a function of poverty and density and nothing else, and in the US the number of incidents that end in the (typically nonlethal) defensive use of a firearm by the victim is many times the number of homicides total, let alone by guns, let alone by spree killers. None of this makes for interesting news or matters to the kinds of people who want to start a moral panic, so hope remains that maybe gun violence will get to be this decade's Satanic ritual abuse. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:None of this makes for interesting news or matters to the kinds of people who want to start a moral panic, so hope remains that maybe gun violence will get to be this decade's Satanic ritual abuse. Except that so far this year there has been at least 354 mass shootings (in this case four or more dead per instance) in the US. That's absolutely insane, and you can't pretend like gun violence is just something the media has hyped up because of ratings. From every other remotely comparable country the rate of mass shootings in the US and the attitude of the Republicans in particular towards it, is completely bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
This is about as succinct as it gets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgneY-jBWes
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
That Jerk Steve posted:There is no need for a 100 round magazine. Ever. That Jerk Steve posted:There is no need to a suppressor. Ever. That Jerk Steve posted:I don't care if it's semi-auto, why do you need an RPK? That Jerk Steve posted:However liberals seem to gloss over the mental health issue aspect of it more - which to me is the primary issue. Why are most of the mass shootings done by young white men who obviously have a distrubed past? Anyways, I'm going to finish this off by saying gun control is certainly not completely effective, and that not only do I not know how effective it actually is, but that I suspect it is wholly ineffective. Here are some photographs of firearms manufactured illicitly in Australia. There's many of them, so I've left links for the galleries.  https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/zip-guns-improvised-firearms-australia/ https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/homemade-submachine-guns-part-2-australia/ https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/p-a-luty-expedient-submachine-gun-examples/ https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/homemade-pistol-part-1/ Obviously there are more examples, but these are all Australian. There's no fundamental difference between guns made there and elsewhere, but I included just the Australian ones because that debate will be long and technical and I won't subject any poster who doesn't explicitly want to have it to it. Just please assume for the purpose of this discussion that all firearm designs are roughly equivalent. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
adamarama posted:I'm sure the original drafters of the second amendment, worldly 1790s chaps, would have wanted every citizen to have access to an assault rifle. I've heard an American Conservative (Originally French Canadain oddly enough) who cited the Puckle Gun as George Washington knowing where firearm technology was going. The Puckle Gun, for those who don't know, is more or less a gigantic revolver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Thanks for all your replies. I definitely agree mental illness is a huge factor and definitely needs to be addressed (not just for this matter but in general). It's also always bothered me that conservatives are all for limited government - except for the most personal of things! Women's rights, marriage, healthcare, welfare. I've never understood that and would love to have that cognitive dissonance explained to me. I certainly don't think the kind of reforms Australia implemented are realistic for this country. It was more background on why what I'm experiencing here is so foreign to me. And I understand the stats say crime is going down, I realise it's more in our faces with the media. And as sockmuppet says - there have been more shootings than days in the year this year. Even if the overall trend is down, this is insane! One thing I can't find a reason for - why can the CDC not perform research on gun violence? That seems like It should be in the purview. As I've said though - I don't think gun control in the form Aus implement is realistic here. I've said repeatedly though, how is the status quo ok? Why are we not doing ANYTHING? Another shooting today. Local high school on lockdown because a dude in the area shot his gf, she's dead. It obviously seems like here at least, most of the time these are targeted events. But bystanders/innocent victims have been killed also.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:I've heard an American Conservative (Originally French Canadain oddly enough) who cited the Puckle Gun as George Washington knowing where firearm technology was going. The Puckle Gun, for those who don't know, is more or less a gigantic revolver. that guy is dumb, afaik the US never even used Puckle guns during the revolutionary era, they tried out Belton flintlocks and, shortly afterwards, Girandoni and Nock rifles
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Miranda posted:One thing I can't find a reason for - why can the CDC not perform research on gun violence? That seems like It should be in the purview. Here's a short explanation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-two-years-ago/
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
I had a situation that is literally a gun control argument happen to me about a week ago. A crazy rear end in a top hat followed me home, right up to the driveway, and yelled at me to get out of the car because my brights were on too close to his car (I wasn't even riding his rear end, it was about 10 car lengths away  ). This guy, I found out later, had a gun. I ducked in my car and called for the help of a neighbor. The neighbor ran outside, with HIS gun, and got into his own car. The rear end in a top hat got back in his car and drove off after seeing the neighbor exit the home and the garage lights of a second house come on. rear end in a top hat, who is a neighbor, stood in the street with the gun in his pocket as my neighbor drove up and down his street slowly. rear end in a top hat apparently then decided to gently caress off and there were no further incidents after that. I happen to be in the process of moving anyway and will be out of this neighborhood in 2 days, so that should be the end of it.I bring this up because, depending on who you ask, you could get a pro or anti gun argument out of this: -Pro gun: I am a small woman with weak noodle arms. He was a male who could easily overpower me physically. If I had a gun, I could have protected myself without getting saved by the neighbor. -Pro gun: rear end in a top hat saw that neighbor was packing heat and turned tail, an example of "an armed society is a polite society" in practice. But: -Anti gun: By ducking and calling for help, I did not escalate the situation further. If I was all SECOND AMENDMENT BITCH and hopped out of the car with my gun, one or both of us could be dead right now. -Anti gun: If this hotheaded psycho had mental screening and was denied a license, maybe a gun would not have ended up in his hands in the first place. Based on my experience I think that stricter gun control laws involving rigorous mental health and criminal history screenings would be the answer, in states that just have to have them. It's true that criminals would get their hands on them anyway but incidents like the one above, where the guy was a raging dick with a bad temper but probably not an actual criminal, would not be able to solve a minor annoyance with a shootout like something out of an old western. Mr. Creakle fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
What kind of mental screening do you envision that would filter for road rage like we can ID paranoid schizophrenics with a passable degree of accuracy but it seems pretty unfair to put random assholes' damage on them
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:What kind of mental screening do you envision that would filter for road rage Generic anger management issues, maybe? If someone gets so road-raged that they're going to bust out their gun over it, I'm sure there would be some kind of record of being a nut before in their history like domestic abuse or something. Mental screening good enough to prevent psychos from getting guns would never happen with the way the US currently handles mental health anyway, so it's a moot point because that would be a pipedream. We can't even handle the people we know are mentally ill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Cuckoo posted:Generic anger management issues, maybe? If someone gets so road-raged that they're going to bust out their gun over it, I'm sure there would be some kind of record of being a nut before in their history like domestic abuse or something. Conviction of domestic violence is already a dis-qualifier for firearm ownership at the Federal level. quote:Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/ "Generic anger management issues" is pretty goddamn broad. I scream and yell at drivers from the confines of my own vehicle all the time, but never once has it crossed my mind to draw my legally owned and carried handgun and open fire on them. charliebravo77 fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:Conviction of domestic violence is already a dis-qualifier for firearm ownership at the Federal level. I wasn't suggesting that I had the perfect magical answer for everything. In fact, I said that really rooting out the true psychos would be extremely difficult if not impossible to implement nationwide. If I could wave a magic wand, or had billions of dollars, to do it myself I would but we all know the world just doesn't work that way. Even if it did, there would always be people flying under the radar. I posted my anecdotal but true story to point out that even in real-life situations outside of the typical mass-shooting events, there can be pro and against arguments made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:"Generic anger management issues" is pretty goddamn broad. I scream and yell at drivers from the confines of my own vehicle all the time, but never once has it crossed my mind to draw my legally owned and carried handgun and open fire on them. you should probably chill out a bit dude, smoke a blunt or something
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:you should probably chill out a bit dude, smoke a blunt or something I see what you're trying to do there  (3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:"Generic anger management issues" is pretty goddamn broad. I scream and yell at drivers from the confines of my own vehicle all the time, but never once has it crossed my mind to draw my legally owned and carried handgun and open fire on them. charliebravo77 posted:I see what you're trying to do there lol if someone would rather have guns than weed "oh man i'm gonna have so much fun sober at the firing range! I can't wait to spend 5 minutes reloading this clip! that's almost two whole minutes of firing if i take time to aim! POW!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Cuckoo posted:-Pro gun: I am a small woman with weak noodle arms. He was a male who could easily overpower me physically. If I had a gun, I could have protected myself without getting saved by the neighbor. Not sure if you're presenting these two points as the same scenario, but it's entirely possible (and typically preferable) to use the gun defensively, attempting to retreat, barricade yourself, or otherwise disengage, rather than just drawing on the dude. Also, totally unrelated: Cuckoo posted:because my brights were on too close to his car (I wasn't even riding his rear end, it was about 10 car lengths away That is way too close to have your brights on. Usually it's like 200-300ft minimum, if not more. Hell I usually dim them if I see a car ahead of me within like, a quarter mile or something just because I know how goddamn annoying it is to have brights in your mirrors for an extended period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:I usually dim them if I see a car ahead of me within like, a quarter mile or something just because I know how goddamn annoying it is to have brights in your mirrors for an extended period. Same. Stinky_Pete posted:"oh man i'm gonna have so much fun sober at the firing range! I can't wait to spend 5 minutes reloading this clip! that's almost two whole minutes of firing if i take time to aim! POW!" Speak for yourself dude  , some of us are nerds and really do find fiddling with detailed, finely-machined mechanisms more enjoyable than smoking the devil's lettuce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Honestly we've got it somewhat right. It should take a judge and legal proceedings to revoke someone's rights. It's the same argument held against Guantanamo Bay and terror watchlists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Miranda posted:Another shooting today. Local high school on lockdown because a dude in the area shot his gf, she's dead. It obviously seems like here at least, most of the time these are targeted events. But bystanders/innocent victims have been killed also. This same incident could just as easily happened without a gun. Could have been a knife, a bat, or any weapon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
I suppose I'm pro guns, but really I'm anti dumb gun control politics. This is mostly because I find gun control advocates and politicians to be shamefully intellectually dishonest. Every time I hear someone with a talking point about 'gun deaths' who knows full well how that two thirds of gun deaths are suicides, I think they're full of poo poo. Every time I hear about 'assault weapons' which is meaningless or how high capacity magazines are some kind of newfangled thing that hasn't been around for forty years, full of poo poo. Every time I hear about 'common sense gun control' without describing one example of what that would be, full of poo poo. Every time I hear about gun buybacks or other horrible policy, full of poo poo. I'm anti gun control because I've yet to see solid evidence (or even solid logic really) that economically viable gun control policy would be effective in preventing non law abiding persons from carrying out gun crimes. (The closest I've heard of is dramatically increased penalties for having a gun merely present during any felony, which again would be primarily effective in locking up lots of people, not preventing mass murders.) In my experience, when traditional taking points are challenged your average armchair expert says 'surely we should not let people who are mentally ill own guns, who could disagree with that'. Forgetting about the adverse consequences for getting people treated, there's zero thought about how you'd even begin to implement such a policy. No one seemed to know that Adam Lanza or Dylan Klebold or Va Tech guy were as dangerous as they were. All of that being said, Republicans are always going to look like assholes after something like San Bernardino happens. Most of them are assholes. I think Democrats look just as bad by using tragedy to get retweets but that's surely up for debate. antiga fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I open fire on them all the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlzoL-wQwio if it takes you five minutes to reload you need to smoke a little less first. Time and place for everything, dude, seek the middle path antiga posted:I suppose I'm pro guns, but really I'm anti dumb gun control politics. This is mostly because I find gun control advocates and politicians to be shamefully intellectually dishonest. Every time I hear someone with a talking point about 'gun deaths' who knows full well how that two thirds of gun deaths are suicides, I think they're full of poo poo. Every time I hear about 'assault weapons' which is meaningless or how high capacity magazines are some kind of newfangled thing that hasn't been around for forty years, full of poo poo. Every time I hear about 'common sense gun control' without describing one example of what that would be, full of poo poo. Every time I hear about gun buybacks or other horrible policy, full of poo poo. I'm anti gun control because I've yet to see solid evidence (or even solid logic really) that economically viable gun control policy would be effective in preventing non law abiding persons from carrying out gun crimes. (The closest I've heard of is dramatically increased penalties for having a gun merely present during any felony, which again would be primarily effective in locking up lots of people, not preventing mass murders.) american gun politics have had everything to do with signaling to the base and nothing to do with actual crime since the 1934 NFA banned people chopping down rifles to make them into semi-concealable ghetto pistols, but not actual pistols being used by criminals to sneak around with firearms and bushwhack each other in populated areas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
I don't even bother trying to say what the law should be anymore, and just look down from my high horse on all the denizens of a culture that values violence and the ability to produce violence over all else. Guns are a dull uncreative hobby and people who fetishize guns can't take a jab at their precious token of personal agency. This is Exceptional America, full of Strange ways Can't reform 'em
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
Grimshak posted:This same incident could just as easily happened without a gun. Could have been a knife, a bat, or any weapon. Okay but in the case of mass shootings, it's a lot harder to stab/beat to death 14 people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:52
|
|