|
I feel like if guns were banned, then the people who go into dark crazy places in their brains and instead of coming out of that thinking "wow, I was in a crazy headspace, glad I feel better now," instead of that they come out thinking, "yeah, gently caress these assholes, and i'm going to martyr myself to prove a point to the world because for some reason i feel like have nothing left to lose," those people, even if they couldn't for the life of them get it together to get their hands on a firearm, they would just figure out how to make a homemade bomb (it's not hard) and kill a bunch of people that way. Or they would go on a stabbing rampage.Or they would just kamikaze an automobile into a big group of people. My point is, the problem isn't guns, it's people running amok. But since we can't figure out how to stop people from running amok, we figure we need to keep them from getting weapons. But since everything can be a weapon then that's kind of a dumb superficial solution to say that suppressing one specific weapon in a sea of potential weapons is going to be some kind of solution. People run amok in America because they are disenfranchised and completely hosed.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
clammy posted:My point is, the problem isn't guns, it's people running amok. But since we can't figure out how to stop people from running amok, we figure we need to keep them from getting weapons. But since everything can be a weapon then that's kind of a dumb superficial solution to say that suppressing one specific weapon in a sea of potential weapons is going to be some kind of solution. Everything can be a weapon, sure, but few things have the deadly combination of killing capacity and ease of acquisition as guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
The idea of gun disarmament in America is crazy, it would be logistically impossible we just have to many guns in the US. The people who you would want to disarm already have like 3 caches of AR-15's buried in their backyard anyways.
Sword and Sceptre fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
OK then, ban ammunition for personal use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
A non-zero amount of those would-be bomb makers would blow themselves up, a net gain for our society. Also, it's a lot harder to kill people with a blade. Remember after Sandy Hook that Chinese dude who stabbed something like 33 people and they all lived?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:OK then, ban ammunition for personal use. I think you just solved the gun issue in America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Sword and Sceptre posted:The idea of gun disarmament in America is crazy, it would be logistically impossible we just have to many guns in the US. The people who you would want to disarm to already have like 3 caches of AR-15's buried in their backyard anyways. We should use this to our advantage. Ban new gun sales. Sorry Syeed, we won't let you order semiautomatics online anymore, if you want to do a mass shooting you've got to drive your rear end to West Texas, break into Bubba's race-war bunker, and wrestle them from his cold dead chubby fingers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
I think it would solve everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
Yeah, nah, OP you're most likely so, so very wrong. I have a lot of experience with guns having served in my national defence force previously, and although I am not a US citizen and do not understand your situation to its entirety, I believe you seem to be scary, scared, and cowardly defeatist. The one thing I do know is that taking the access of weapons, especially those of high calibre or high firing capacity away from those who would never likely need them, is the right move. I live in Australia, and never once in my life have I awoken with the fear of being gunned down by my fellow humans in my own country, USA; You scare the loving hell out of me, and I often encounter large spiders on/inside my helmet when riding my motorcycle, and that is fine, because I am not about to be gunned down at any moment.. How can you bloody change, because your very society is starting to reflect the barbaric approaches your governance takes towards all matters, change starts with ALL of us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
gun control = taking away all guns forever
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Sure, people would still kill other people. Domestic disputes, crimes of passion, gang violence, and terrorism would all still exist as well. But regardless of why one guy is trying to kill the other, it's a lot easier to run from a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun. There have been dozens of stabbing attacks and car ramming attacks in Israel over the past few months, for instance, and most of them had a pretty low body count - except when the attacker killed a soldier first in order to steal their gun and then used it to fire into the surrounding crowd! Taking away guns won't end all violence forever, but it will do more to reduce casualties than the utterly impossible goal of making no one want to commit violence ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
This is a really stupid thread in a week where 14 people were killed when someone went crazy in a country with guns and 0 people were killed when someone went crazy in a country without guns where they had to use a knife. e: It's amazing how guns transform instantly from far and away the most efficient way to kill things and therefore necessary tools of freedom to not actually that great at killing things I mean knives are pretty dangerous, right, the moment someone uses them to kill people XMNN fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
The way some people talk about gun control you'd think guns were totally illegal and very rare in the US until about a week or so before the Columbine shootings, and since then we've been manufacturing the things on a wartime footing and leaving them in piles outside of mental health clinics and elementary schools. There have not been any big changes to gun control in a long while, have there? And in the meantime we have seen the incidence of mass shootings increase. Normally, that would be taken as evidence against availability of guns being a causative factor of violence like this, thus making stricter gun control at best a palliative measure. Yet for some reason the left seizes on the topic of gun control. I'll grant that maybe we could use a palliative measure, but usually when you decide to treat the symptom and not the disease it's because treating the symptom is easier. Yet compare realizing the sort of gun control you're discussing with:
Basically Americans hate each other for a lot of reasons, and this is a problem that runs really, really deep. None of what I've outlined above will fix it, but each of them would certainly do a lot more for it than gun control, where if the left got a good portion of what it wanted, the result would be even more people pissed off and convinced, perhaps rightfully convinced, that half the country is out to get them. And each of those is also a lot more achievable than e.g. Japan-style gun control, in addition to better addressing the root cause of violence in America which is that, strangely enough, an awful lot of Americans want to see an awful lot of other Americans dead. But I suspect there are just too many people on the left who would rather spend the meager amount of political clout they have finally accumulated after fifty years in the wilderness, to institute a mostly symbolic measure the main result of which would be another fifty years in the political wilderness. Would rather give up all the other gains they can make while this country starts a tentative shift to the left for the first time in too drat a long a time, because when you get down to it they simply do not like people who own guns. People who owns guns in the US tend to be on the political right, because the right-wing party in the United States has chosen to pander to gun owners to secure votes. And rather than recognizing that strategy and trying to defeat it, the left has instead chosen to play right into it, because they are absolutely the loving worst at doing politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:But I suspect there are just too many people on the left who would rather spend the meager amount of political clout they have finally accumulated after fifty years in the wilderness, to institute a mostly symbolic measure the main result of which would be another fifty years in the political wilderness. Would rather give up all the other gains they can make while this country starts a tentative shift to the left for the first time in too drat a long a time, because when you get down to it they simply do not like people who own guns. People who owns guns in the US tend to be on the political right, because the right-wing party in the United States has chosen to pander to gun owners to secure votes. And rather than recognizing that strategy and trying to defeat it, the left has instead chosen to play right into it, because they are absolutely the loving worst at doing politics. This is exactly what I see also. Gun control is, was, and always will be a loser of an issue in this country, and it's a loser of an issue that will motivate the gently caress out of a lot of, well, losers, to come out and vote against whoever is proposing it. When I see Hillary et. al. proposing gun control as a big campaign plank I see President Cruz or President Trump taking the oath of office in January 2017. Hey, good thing you tried to "do something!" Now you can watch the country burn smug in the knowledge that you were morally superior to all those Cro-Magnon gunhavers. We couldn't get the most milquetoast, unobtrusive gun control poo poo passed in the wake of a man murdering a kindergarten classroom with an assault rifle. This particular self-destructive political play should be in language arts textbooks as a concrete example of "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" and "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Note this doesn't mean I personally am not in favor of it, but I'm in favor of a lot of things that are political losers and would cost my candidate the election. I hope I'm wrong, but I think if gun control is a major issue this election that is a huge, HUGE boon to the Republicans and something that might actually hand them the White House in a year they should lose by 100+ EVs. I'd expect this kind of stupidity from a politically tone-deaf dipshit like John Kerry, it's baffling to me that someone as astute and experienced as Hillary Clinton would choose to die on this dumb and unwinnable of a hill. Maybe they have access to some top-secret data I don't or something and this really makes sense if you just know about it. Right? Right?  They're not just going to fumble the election away to the Republicans on this kind of a dumbass unforced error, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Redcordial posted:Yeah, nah, OP you're most likely so, so very wrong. The thing is that we have such a silly number of guns here, over 300 million, that banning the sale of new guns would just piss off legal gun owners while not doing too much to stop criminals because you still have a metric fuckton of guns around. You would need to implement a buyback program on an unprecedented and massive scale to really put a dent in gun access. Kilroy posted:But I suspect there are just too many people on the left who would rather spend the meager amount of political clout they have finally accumulated after fifty years in the wilderness, to institute a mostly symbolic measure the main result of which would be another fifty years in the political wilderness. Would rather give up all the other gains they can make while this country starts a tentative shift to the left for the first time in too drat a long a time, because when you get down to it they simply do not like people who own guns. People who owns guns in the US tend to be on the political right, because the right-wing party in the United States has chosen to pander to gun owners to secure votes. And rather than recognizing that strategy and trying to defeat it, the left has instead chosen to play right into it, because they are absolutely the loving worst at doing politics. There are a number of people here who will freely admit this when the topic comes up, guns are the one "culture war" issue for the left. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:This is exactly what I see also. Gun control is, was, and always will be a loser of an issue in this country, and it's a loser of an issue that will motivate the gently caress out of a lot of, well, losers, to come out and vote against whoever is proposing it. the Clintons and their political circle are a large part of why Democratic party flacks' sole answer for literally anything that's within seven degrees of a gun is the 1995 Assault Weapons Ban, results be damned, any semblance of efficacy be damned. They're very influential within the upper echelons of the party and very fixated on the notion that their policies were always right all along, results be damned, and this is pretty much representative of Hillary's campaign as a whole. "Astute and experienced political machine elite" and "actually in touch with the world outside Beltway fundraiser dinners" are two very different things. She'll make an amazing lobbyist under President Trump, and always know just the right kind of hay and oats to bring his favored Senators. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
It would mitigate a hell of a lot of suicides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Pohl posted:It would mitigate a hell of a lot of suicides. I'm with popular thug drink: that's not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The way some people talk about gun control you'd think guns were totally illegal and very rare in the US until about a week or so before the Columbine shootings, and since then we've been manufacturing the things on a wartime footing and leaving them in piles outside of mental health clinics and elementary schools. Cultures change and evolve over time, and the cause of mass shootings in the USA clearly has as much to do with changes in the culture and media as it does with the availability of guns. But that doesn't mean that the widespread availability of guns is irrelevant in explaining why mass shootings are now such a common occurrence. People respond to social alienation or mental illness in ways that are culturally conditioned, and in the USA it would seem that hording guns and then going out in a blaze of glory by shooting up a public place has become, thanks to repeated media attention, a culturally acceptable way of killing yourself. This probably isn't as surprising as it seems: it's pretty well documented that when the media publishes news of a suicide, the numbers of suicides in the area will go up as others emulate the suicidal behavior they've heard about on the media. Obviously the availability of guns is not the only factor at play here but I don't think it makes any sense for you to claim that the availability of guns is not a causative factor. I would say it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. Now that the other necessary conditions (i.e. now that mass killings are a widely known way for expressing anger and discontent) the widespread availability of guns becomes a problem, even though it wasn't in the past (when the cultural precedent for going out in a blaze of glory wasn't established). I live in a country with a high rate of fire arm ownership per capita - nowhere near American levels, but quite high by global standards - and I know gun owners who use their weapons responsibly either for hunting or for farm related stuff like killing pests. But America's gun control policies are both astounding and terrifying, and so does the way that so many Americans keep insisting that mass shooting are basically unavoidable despite the fact that no other country seems to have the kind of regular mass killings that America experiences. Pohl posted:It would mitigate a hell of a lot of suicides. Sometimes I wonder whether the availability of guns in America is the only thing holding back that permanent Republican majority  
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Weird, any idea why poisonings have increased dramatically?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Weird, any idea why poisonings have increased dramatically? Senile old people mixing medications probably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Weird, any idea why poisonings have increased dramatically? Actually, the "poisoning" category includes deaths due to drug overdose and chronic alcohol abuse. It's also important to note that the chart covers a very specific demographic. Paul Krugman commented on it a few weeks ago, painting it as a symptom of despair among middle-aged white guys facing economic marginalization. You can find the original paper here (PDF) (abstract). GulMadred fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Reality check: ending sales of new semiautos and/or ammo would automatically trigger the civil war you're trying to avoid by not confiscating guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:00
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
MaxxBot posted:Weird, any idea why poisonings have increased dramatically? Basically it's much easier for older white people to get their hands on guns and powerful prescription drugs, plus outside of the professional classes it's older white's who have lost the most status and security of any major demographic in the last couple decades. Put it together and you get a lot of white people killing themselves, either slowly with drugs or fast with guns. What's weird is that if you break down the numbers of gender then the morbidity rate for white men leveled off a decade ago but continues to rise for older white women.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Reality check: ending sales of new semiautos and/or ammo would automatically trigger the civil war you're trying to avoid by not confiscating guns. And here we have someone who is and has in the past said 'If you try and take my guns, I will start killing people' 
E-Tank fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Helsing posted:But America's gun control policies are both astounding and terrifying, and so does the way that so many Americans keep insisting that mass shooting are basically unavoidable despite the fact that no other country seems to have the kind of regular mass killings that America experiences. We're also a country that will work you to death in poverty while "promising" you'll become rich, arrest and jail people for stupid poo poo and let it effect them for the rest of their lives, have no real decent level of healthcare for the common man, have a poor educational system, little to no government support for those that actually need it, etc. The system in the US puts a lot of strain and stress on everyone. You need to pay for everything you need and you need to preform close to perfection or be shitcanned and left to die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:You're probably thinking of something like "people have suddenly begun drinking gallons of Dran-O in the belief that it will improve their sexual stamina" or "Wal*Mart has completely stopped giving a poo poo and is selling botulism-flavored deli meats." ha I wonder what percentage of that is research chemical poo poo now
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:A non-zero amount of those would-be bomb makers would blow themselves up, a net gain for our society. yeah but far more people commit suicide with firearms, especially middle aged rural white men and veterans, which is the #1 reason why gun control is a losing proposition for democrats MaxxBot posted:Weird, any idea why poisonings have increased dramatically? poisoning is just the polite epidemiological term for 'opiate overdose'
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Don't ban guns, but also remove the 2nd amendment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Reality check: ending sales of new semiautos and/or ammo would automatically trigger the civil war you're trying to avoid by not confiscating guns. Lol there is no civil war that happens because guns are banned. Because it's not gonna happen without an overwhelming consent of the american people. An overwhelming consent of the american people do support tougher, but reasonable gun control laws though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:And here we have someone who is and has in the past said 'If you try and take my guns, I will start killing people' uh no he said PEOPLE would start killing people, because hunting rifles and sniper rifles are basically identical not him though
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Lol there is no civil war that happens because guns are banned. Because it's not gonna happen without an overwhelming consent of the american people. There is no reasonable gun control for those folks, if you haven't already noticed. The machinegun list thing is brought up like it was a slave rebellion, and they dared to trick the gun masters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Reality check: ending sales of new semiautos and/or ammo would automatically trigger the civil war you're trying to avoid by not confiscating guns. Fuds with 30/30s vs apaches and hellfire missiles is a civil war I think we can win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
So I wAs thinking of a holster, http://www.amazon.com/Galco-Matrix-...lock+19+holster is what I saw as far as auto locking holsters, anyone else have a recommendation
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:So I wAs thinking of a holster, Go back to TFR with this poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:So I wAs thinking of a holster, points directly at the testicles, i approve
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Go back to TFR with this poo poo.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
B looks straight off the short bus but dunno about "scary looking".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
If two Muslims, one a non-citizen, purchasing thousands of rounds of ammunition and assault weapons legally in the wake of similar terror attacks in Paris isn't enough to motivate conservatives to maybe, kinda, possibly consider gun control nothing will. The arms industry and the NRA have over half of our politicians by the balls and nothing will change for the foreseeable future. In terms of the empirical evidence linking gun control and deaths by firearms, yeah it is pretty irrefutable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Reality check: ending sales of new semiautos and/or ammo would automatically trigger the civil war you're trying to avoid by not confiscating guns. I sincerely doubt that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:12
|
|
