|
Laranzu posted:Ok one more. I think we're arguing past each other. You're on massacres specifically. I'm on cause of people wanting to do it. Maybe? The bolded question is the one I'm seeking an answer to. So far the only statistically significant difference I've been able to find is the number of guns in the country. It moves in almost direct proportion where controlling for any other factor changes nothing. If other countries had the same ready access to weapons, they'd see similar massacre rates from their Stephen Paddocks. Australia had their last one in 1996 and haven't really since (because they took proactive steps and massively limited their private gun ownership). Pretty much when any country in the world has gone to lengths to restrict the access to firearms it's caused a precipitous decline in massacres, violent crime, and homicide rates. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Feb 19, 2018 |
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The bolded question is the one I'm seeking an answer to. So far the only statistically significant difference I've been able to find is the number of guns in the country. It moves in almost direct proportion where controlling for any other factor changes nothing. Not trying to be a dick, actually interested, have any lit or studies with these factors controlled for?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:Not trying to be a dick, actually interested, have any lit or studies with these factors controlled for? I've actually thought about setting up and running some regressions just to see what I could come up with, but I've got studying to do so I haven't bothered. Here's a pretty good article that breaks down a lot of the stuff I've said: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html There have been a few more I'll just start linking them when I stumble across them again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
And godholio I don't want to chase anyone off with being lovely. I want to figure out how to change your mind because changing your mind is the only way we do something about this. People like you are the hurdle to change, so if I can figure out a way to convince you then I can convince others as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:The US imported a huge mixture of cultures and races in a very short time frame while it's own domestic society was in it's beginnings. We didn't have thousands of years of history to draw from. We also didn't put in place any of the things to let a functioning collective society form because of the same reasons. gently caress that different guy is easier to say than gently caress that guy who resembles me. https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-population.htm Note the lack of of any correlation to violent death rates. e:  https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=19015 AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
the one good thing about guns in the US is you don't have uk eurotrash kids mobbing people for cellphones because they would get loving blasted in the US.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And godholio I don't want to chase anyone off with being lovely. I want to figure out how to change your mind because changing your mind is the only way we do something about this. People like you are the hurdle to change, so if I can figure out a way to convince you then I can convince others as well. I just want to say I'm glad you're doing this because I'm flipping my poo poo just reading the conversation and therefore don't think joining in would be constructive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
ZombieApostate posted:I just want to say I'm glad you're doing this because I'm flipping my poo poo just reading the conversation and therefore don't think joining in would be constructive. This one is actually pretty tame. I advise you to avoid some of the other ones because they are full of both sides who are so entrenched and pulling the no comprise bit that it's nothing but a mess. And Mr. Nice, the US Culture is vastly different and pretty toxic. Yes you share a fair amount of the same media/information culture, but the way Americans actually behave is pretty abhorrent to a lot of the rest of the world. Don't discount the effect your culture has on how this plays out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
kupachek posted:This one is actually pretty tame. I advise you to avoid some of the other ones because they are full of both sides who are so entrenched and pulling the no comprise bit that it's nothing but a mess. I've met plenty of Aussies, Brits, and Germans that are basically bog standard Americans and I've met plenty of Americans that are bog standard Europeans. Yes there is some cultural differences, but the American Way doesn't explain mass shootings every 3 days. Like I'm not going to say we're identical. Far from it. Our cultural differences probably does make some amount of impact on the total number of violent crimes. For example, Germany bucks the trend of being on an exact ratio with the US like Canada despite the same gun ownership there is significantly less in Germany. Likewise Japan has some of the lowest homicide and violent crime rates in the world. Culture does absolutely play a part, but the part is generally minor in comparison to other factors. The biggest difference, though, is the number of guns. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And godholio I don't want to chase anyone off with being lovely. I want to figure out how to change your mind because changing your mind is the only way we do something about this. People like you are the hurdle to change, so if I can figure out a way to convince you then I can convince others as well. You can start by electing Democrats to the national stage who don't take positions about wanting to ban guns. I do not trust such people with a literal list of gun owners and addresses. This situation is not something I am interested in repeating. It's wrong with DACA, it would be wrong for guns. If anything, the DACA registration should serve as a warning to everyone: your government might be ok right now, but what happens in 4/8/20/40 years? This government was never intended to hold the monopoly on violence, there was intentionally room for the people (through their states, an idea that developed along a very different path) to challenge it. No, I don't expect there to be an armed insurrection, nor is that the point. I look at it almost as a form of MAD; knowing that there are people out there with the means to resist will deter any attempt for the gov't to press the issue at barrel point and wreak havoc on the chain of command in any kind of CONUS event. Depending on who pulls the trigger, this forum bounces between "gently caress cops most of them should probably be dead" and "no guns allowed." It's an emotional rollercoaster in here, and I can't roll my eyes hard enough. Then in the thread for actually discussing those issues, you have Laranzo posting a reasonable (at least discussable) point about how different cultures often clash, something that has literally been true for the entirety of human existence and the actual reason why America as a "melting pot" was so special, you literally twist his statement into "minorities are the problem." That's disingenuous or moronic, take your pick. Mr. Nice! posted:
Except that difference has existed since the first British ship landed in Australia (1788). If a glut of guns had suddenly become available and we saw a corresponding increase, this would be clear. But the guns have always been here. The violence is new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
Edited in the response to your first part of the post.Godholio posted:You can start by electing Democrats to the national stage who don't take positions about wanting to ban guns. I do not trust such people with a literal list of gun owners and addresses. This situation is not something I am interested in repeating. It's wrong with DACA, it would be wrong for guns. If anything, the DACA registration should serve as a warning to everyone: your government might be ok right now, but what happens in 4/8/20/40 years? DACA was an EO. The 2nd amendment is a part of the constitution. Can you see the difference? In 50 years if the will actually exists again to amend the constitution, then yes, your weapons might at some nebulous point in the future become outlawed. I think proactive steps to regulate would reduce the possibility of that ever happening. As it stands now, this argument is fallacious because the constitution isn't getting changed anytime soon. Until 3/4 of America decide to get rid of the 2nd (which isn't likely to happen as long as America is America) this is nothing more than a phobia and isn't reasonable. Godholio posted:This government was never intended to hold the monopoly on violence, there was intentionally room for the people (through their states, an idea that developed along a very different path) to challenge it. No, I don't expect there to be an armed insurrection, nor is that the point. I look at it almost as a form of MAD; knowing that there are people out there with the means to resist will deter any attempt for the gov't to press the issue at barrel point and wreak havoc on the chain of command in any kind of CONUS event. The government absolutely has and retains the monopoly on violence. The idea that the 2nd was ever intended as any kind of check on the federal system is ludicrous. The states check the power of the federal government all the drat time, and its via the designed system not through violence or force. Godholio posted:Depending on who pulls the trigger, this forum bounces between "gently caress cops most of them should probably be dead" and "no guns allowed." It's an emotional rollercoaster in here, and I can't roll my eyes hard enough. Unless you mean something awful as whole I don't think this is really representative. I'm not even arguing that no guns should be allowed. Sure D&D may be looney, but that attitude is not the majority here outside of dumb trolling. Godholio posted:Then in the thread for actually discussing those issues, you have Laranzo posting a reasonable (at least discussable) point about how different cultures often clash, something that has literally been true for the entirety of human existence and the actual reason why America as a "melting pot" was so special, you literally twist his statement into "minorities are the problem." That's disingenuous or moronic, take your pick. This is the quarantine thread for the issue because it's typically an intractable morass. Also, laranzu's point was that socioeconomic divides in society can create violent tension. He originally framed it as the more immigrant populations the more strife, but that isn't the case. Socioeconomic division is a major cause of the tension and it has nothing to do with culture, race, or immigration status. It has to do entirely with the haves and have nots and that has no racial or cultural indicator. Godholio posted:Except that difference has existed since the first British ship landed in Australia (1788). If a glut of guns had suddenly become available and we saw a corresponding increase, this would be clear. But the guns have always been here. The violence is new. there has never been a cheaper time to buy weapons nor has ammunition ever been so plentiful. There is a constant stream of new cheap weapons flooding into the market. Overall ownership numbers have remained relatively static, but the availability and access today completely dwarfs anything from 50 years ago. And the violence isn't new. It's just getting reported now. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
look until you admit that the wide availability of firearms to just about everyone with basically zero restrictions short of "actually a convicted felon or involuntarily committed for being mentally ill" just might possibly have something to do with all the massacres you're basically jumping through hoops to explain why the body count associated with our hobby can't actually be blamed on our hobby.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
Ah yes, American culture, that is a thing that both exists and explains mass shootings
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Unless you mean something awful as whole I don't think this is really representative. I'm not even arguing that no guns should be allowed. Sure D&D may be looney, but that attitude is not the majority here outside of dumb trolling. What are you arguing then? quote:there has never been a cheaper time to buy weapons nor has ammunition ever been so plentiful. There is a constant stream of new cheap weapons flooding into the market. Overall ownership numbers have remained relatively static, but the availability and access today completely dwarfs anything from 50 years ago. And I'm fine with restricting access to very narrow groups of people, where there's a clear case to be made. The constant stream and low prices are irrelevant if they're not increasing ownership numbers. quote:And the violence isn't new. It's just getting reported now. Right, I remember all the school shootings when I was a kid in the 80s. Oh, and my dad talked about all the gun violence at his school as a kid too. Wait no. Back then kids used to show off their new hunting rifles and shotguns AT school.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:look until you admit that the wide availability of firearms to just about everyone with basically zero restrictions short of "actually a convicted felon or involuntarily committed for being mentally ill" just might possibly have something to do with all the massacres you're basically jumping through hoops to explain why the body count associated with our hobby can't actually be blamed on our hobby. I don't have to jump through hoops. The guns were there before. The school shootings weren't. Something changed. When you have to solve for a variable you don't pick one of the numbers, you go for X.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:Ah yes, American culture, that is a thing that both exists and explains mass shootings It's not something that can be entirely dismissed. Why do we have an obsession with guns, more guns than any other nation, and people defending the guns that are used in massacres to the point of saying the guns are more important? Why have any attempt at controls in the United States failed so miserably? Why do our outsiders go and do these things? That's culture right there. And again I'm not arguing that the guns aren't the problem. They are. They are the actual solvable part of this issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Godholio posted:What are you arguing then? That weapons should be regulated and controlled. That we should use a voluntary buyback to get guns off the street. That we need actual licensing and registration when it comes to firearm ownership and purchases. Godholio posted:And I'm fine with restricting access to very narrow groups of people, where there's a clear case to be made. The constant stream and low prices are irrelevant if they're not increasing ownership numbers. The constant stream and low prices allow Stephen Paddock to easily buy 55 rifles and thousands of rounds of magazines in a very short span of time. quote:Right, I remember all the school shootings when I was a kid in the 80s. Oh, and my dad talked about all the gun violence at his school as a kid too. Wait no. Back then kids used to show off their new hunting rifles and shotguns AT school. Your dad grew up in a rural area and there are still people with gun racks in their trucks in rural areas today. Kids have been getting shot in schools in the cities for decades. That's actually been a discussion earlier in this thread. Also the weapons and accessories of today were not just readily available things to anyone let alone kids back then. Godholio posted:I don't have to jump through hoops. The guns were there before. The school shootings weren't. Something changed. When you have to solve for a variable you don't pick one of the numbers, you go for X. That's not what is going on. Mass shootings have been happening here for quite a long time. This isn't something new outside of kids having ready and unfettered access to cheap weapons and ammunition. Also when you're doing actual statistical analysis of a situation there's a lot more to it than a simple algebraic formula. That's why the comparison to contemporary countries is so useful. The only explanation that has a quantifiable statistical significance is the number of weapons per person (we're 3x more armed than Canada who coincidentally has 1/3rd the violent crime and homicide rates for example) or that there is some non-quantifiable american cultural exceptionalism that makes us more likely to go on killing sprees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That weapons should be regulated and controlled. That we should use a voluntary buyback to get guns off the street. That we need actual licensing and registration when it comes to firearm ownership and purchases. I'm fine with most of this. quote:The constant stream and low prices allow Stephen Paddock to easily buy 55 rifles and thousands of rounds of magazines in a very short span of time. He was wealthy enough that it wouldn't have been an issue anyway. quote:Your dad grew up in a rural area and there are still people with gun racks in their trucks in rural areas today. Kids have been getting shot in schools in the cities for decades. That's actually been a discussion earlier in this thread. Also the weapons and accessories of today were not just readily available things to anyone let alone kids back then. quote:That's not what is going on. Mass shootings have been happening here for quite a long time. This isn't something new outside of kids having ready and unfettered access to cheap weapons and ammunition. Not like we're seeing today. Something has changed. As far as kids having access, yeah that's obviously a problem. Maybe we need to start holding parents accountable for their children's actions, particularly if the kids have access to dad's guns stacked in the closet without a safe. quote:Also when you're doing actual statistical analysis of a situation there's a lot more to it than a simple algebraic formula. That's why the comparison to contemporary countries is so useful. The only explanation that has a quantifiable statistical significance is the number of weapons per person (we're 3x more armed than Canada who coincidentally has 1/3rd the violent crime and homicide rates for example) or that there is some non-quantifiable american cultural exceptionalism that makes us more likely to go on killing sprees. So...the guns have decided to become used against other people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
These incidents don't happen with anything close to the frequency expected in any other contemporary place in the world. That's what we're trying to figure out. So you compare and contrast and remove/add factors to see how much they change the expected outcome. The only thing significantly different between us and the rest of them is weapon ownership rate. The other places had mass attacks with similar frequency to us until they put in proactive weapons regulations. And yes Whitman showed that you don't need much to kill a lot of people as far as technology goes, but that was also in the 60s just going to show that these types of mass shootings have been going on for a long long time. He wasn't unique except the total number of people killed. The fact that whiteman did with just a bolt action doesn't negate the fact that easier to fire rifles with a hell of a lot larger capacity can be had for dirt cheap today compared to 1966. With regards to the total number of gun ownership remaining static despite massive amounts of gun sales, this is because people get rid of a sell old guns all the time. Static ownership just means that a large number of old weapons are leaving the market to accommodate the new ones. It doesn't mean that guns have been in the same hands this whole time or that newer weapons are the exact same as the ones from years ago. Also to your comment about Paddock being wealthy enough to buy, there's no need for anyone to buy as many weapons as he did unless you're running a shooting school or something, and even then he would have documentation or proof. That's what I'm meaning about regulation. No one needs to buy 50+ guns in a year. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:there's no need for anyone to buy as many weapons as he did I really don't understand why you're focusing on this. Just because you have 50 guns doesn't mean they're all going to be useful to a single active shooter (barring them running around with a wheelbarrow?), it's sort of irrelevant beyond the first few firearms. Now if some nuts are outfitting their crazy right wing militias by buying 50 guns a year, then yeah that's a more realistic problem. quote:The fact that whiteman did with just a bolt action doesn't negate the fact that easier to fire rifles with a hell of a lot larger capacity can be had for dirt cheap today compared to 1966. You could buy semi-automatic firearms through the mail in 1966. Actual machine guns could be had for a few hundred dollars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
A few hundred in the 60s is a lot more than today, and there was delays in receiving things. There was nothing like the direct access people have today, and yet there were still plenty of mass shootings. I’m focusing on Paddock buying 55 rifles in a year because it shows the absurdity of the current system. There is no reason he should have been able to do so. There are few reasons anyone would ever need to buy 55 rifles in a year, and there’s no good reason anyone should have that many without some sort of license or something that justifies it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
So you're saying nobody collects firearms and that it isn't a valid reason?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The government absolutely has and retains the monopoly on violence. The idea that the 2nd was ever intended as any kind of check on the federal system is ludicrous. The states check the power of the federal government all the drat time, and its via the designed system not through violence or force. Part of the states being a check on that and a check on states governments is the populace being armed and capable of revolt. This part of your argument ignores nearly everything ever written by the people who wrote the constitution or bill of rights, as well as most supreme court decisions regarding the second. A group of people who just fought a bloody revolution against an oppressor that wanted a monopoly on violence sure as hell didn't want any new government to become what they just fought. The bill of rights is basically a list of reasons for revolt and they were very careful to include "Shall Not Be Infringed" not "Congress Shall Make No Law" on the second amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I've met plenty of Aussies, Brits, and Germans that are basically bog standard Americans and I've met plenty of Americans that are bog standard Europeans. Yes there is some cultural differences, but the American Way doesn't explain mass shootings every 3 days. I should have taken a couple more minutes to word things a little better, but I'm starting to suffer from the same flu that has already killed off over 40,414 Americans so far this season (That number was from the 10th, so I don't doubt it's jumped. 22 kids alone died from it in the last week) so I'm not putting in the effort as much as I should. I'm kind of tempted to just request you disregard what I said, because I'm clearly not up to discussing it even though I would like to, and not for combative purposes. I wanted to discus some crimerate data with you as well, but now is not the time. There are plenty of kind hearted individuals, honest and hardworking, and those are the ones who are for the most part interchangeable. And then plenty of people like I'm talking about. And you know them when you meet them, because gun or no gun you want some space between you. Mr. Nice! posted:
There are plenty of people who own 50+ Mosin Nagant rifles. An outdated bolt action. Any big collector of anything will have specimens that range over a products production run and encompasses design changes and variations. Gun collectors are no different. Locked in my safe I have several .22lr rifles from the 1950's that are the same base model, and each one has various design changes as production continued. The bolts changed, the lifters were simplified. These kind of things make it interesting to collect them. Boring to everyone else who just sees a couple "identical" rifles, but interesting to a collector. The thing about guns, particularly long arms, is you, the user, still only have two hands. Doesn't matter if you own sixty rifles and fourteen handguns, you sure as hell can't use them all at once. Even with new york reloads it's a ridiculous concept and a non-issue. One of the things about Paddock's rifles is that they were essentially five thousand dollar varmint guns. This is GiP damnit, everyone here should be well aware that the 5.56x45/.223 cartridge is a speedy varmint round that is useful primarily because the higher ammunition load a soldier can carry fits the infantry doctrine. It's not particularly effective against larger (than varmint) game when hunting either. If you can safely store 50+ guns, then fill your boots. If you live in a ramshackle hut and can't secure them, it's not such a good idea. Legislation for storage isn't bad, as long as you find a balance between "unlocked guns everywhere" and Australia's "Needs to be in a expensive safe rated at xx, and bolted to such and such." Trigger locks are a joke, but they are all you need for compliance in some jurisdictions. I have a whack of them. I store my guns in a safe in a locked room, and if they are out of the safe but still in the locked room they get a lock on them. Even airguns get locked up in there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Between my dad and I we own four different shotguns, .22 rifle, three pistols, two deer rifles, a mini 14, plus some other stuff I'm forgetting. My grandfather owns a similar collection including lever actions, bolt action .410 shotgun, old revolver etc. if I was to inherit my dad and grandfathers collection I would probably have at least 20 guns. Only four of those guns were bought this century. I'm for gun control but forcing me to sell off guns that have been in my family for over 50 years is retarded. There are ways to tackle the problem of gun violence without infringing on rights. Tax the sale of all (possibly only just semi auto) firearms, waive some/all of the tax for people that have completed a gun safety course. Require proof of gun safe and restrict gun sales to 21 and over. All gun sales must go through a dealer. If an adult just keeps their guns under the bed and their piece of poo poo kid uses them to commit domestic terror, prosecute the parent as well. Have very rigorous courses for concealed carry that are reciprocal in all states and have them meet a national standard. Make sure people that want to concealed carry are aware of applicable laws and prosecute them when they break them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:So you're saying nobody collects firearms and that it isn't a valid reason? If stamps were frequently used to kill large numbers of children at once, I'd demand a better justification for buying them than "I like looking at them laid out neatly in a row," and I definitely wouldn't include it on a list of "valid reasons" for buying stamps that is supposed to counterbalance mass murder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
It's already been said though, you can only shoot one gun at a time. What are you going to do with 50 guns? To make it even close to useful they'd all have to be chambered in the same caliber and take the same magazines. I suppose you could make the argument that someone could purchase 50 pistols and have a bunch of "New York" reloads, that is, dropping the empty gun for one that's loaded, but that only makes sense if you're talking about muzzle loaders or revolvers. So, limiting the amount of weapons purchased at once really doesn't have any utility, outside of making people feel better, which is a horrible reason to pass a law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 23:50
|
|
SimonCat posted:It's already been said though, you can only shoot one gun at a time. What are you going to do with 50 guns? To make it even close to useful they'd all have to be chambered in the same caliber and take the same magazines. I suppose you could make the argument that someone could purchase 50 pistols and have a bunch of "New York" reloads, that is, dropping the empty gun for one that's loaded, but that only makes sense if you're talking about muzzle loaders or revolvers. Well you could take them all to the same hotel room and use them to murder over fifty innocent people
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:If stamps were frequently used to kill large numbers of children at once, I'd demand a better justification for buying them than "I like looking at them laid out neatly in a row," and I definitely wouldn't include it on a list of "valid reasons" for buying stamps that is supposed to counterbalance mass murder.  Can you be any more smug? It's a constant in your posts, I've never ignored anyone in GiP but the urge gets stronger and stronger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Well you could take them all to the same hotel room and use them to murder over fifty innocent people That would truly be a dick move. But if you start banning some things that "could" be misused, you're going to have a mess pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
kupachek posted:That would truly be a dick move. Not really, we have more substantial controls around most things that effectively kill groups of people and are not guns. Go start buying bomb ingredients or chemical weapon precursors or anything remotely radiological in large quantities without a commercial license and see how long it is before you have a conversation with law enforcement. And the license requires proving you can handle the stuff safely, makes you liable for any diversion you should have reasonably protected against, usually will force you to carry sufficient insurance, etc. And by golly, some random schmuck using those things to kill people happens to be extraordinarily rare. Just a coincidence?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:
I'm just reminding you of the other side of the argument and why the value of guns as redneck beanie babies doesn't tend to appear in any serious discussion of gun control. e: and, btw, you calling me smug when on this very page you posted this— DoktorLoken posted:So you're saying nobody collects firearms and that it isn't a valid reason? is mindblowing Eugene V. Dubstep fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:I'm just reminding you of the other side of the argument and why the value of guns as redneck beanie babies doesn't tend to appear in any serious discussion of gun control. The freedom of people to collect difluorides manages to not be an aspect of any conversation around the rather severe regulations around acquiring them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Double post? In 2018? Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 00:27
|
|
kupachek posted:That would truly be a dick move. jfc this actually happened did you forget
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:jfc this actually happened did you forget No. AreWeDrunkYet posted:Not really, we have more substantial controls around most things that effectively kill groups of people and are not guns. Go start buying bomb ingredients or chemical weapon precursors or anything remotely radiological in large quantities without a commercial license and see how long it is before you have a conversation with law enforcement. And the license requires proving you can handle the stuff safely, makes you liable for any diversion you should have reasonably protected against, usually will force you to carry sufficient insurance, etc. And by golly, some random schmuck using those things to kill people happens to be extraordinarily rare. Just a coincidence? I'm not against licenses. I have one. The point is there is a poo poo ton of unregulated things that can kill, and if you ban them, not just slap restrictions on them, it's going to cause a mess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Well you could take them all to the same hotel room and use them to murder over fifty innocent people He had 23 in his hotel room, and how many of those did he actually shoot? You only need one and a stack of magazines. Also, he apparently had ammonium nitrate stocked up in his car. Why wasn't he arrested by the FBI for that? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-04/las-vegas-shooting-what-do-we-know-about-the-guns-that-were-used/9013764
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:He had 23 in his hotel room, and how many of those did he actually shoot? You only need one and a stack of magazines. Probably several of the .223's, those large magazines he was using are notorious for jamming and feeding incorrectly. Plus with the volume of fire the gun would be heating up quite a bit. It doesn't take long to heat the handguards doing a normal magdump, let alone extended ones of high volume inaccurate fire. I believe the authorities stated that a .308 was used in the attempt to shoot the avgas tanks. So, you have at least one .308 (but probably only one), his suicide handgun, and then in all likelihood several of the high-end .223's. You can buy ammonium nitrate without much trouble, or you can buy a poo poo load of binary targets, since they aren't regulated until they've been mixed. (whether or not they should be is an ongoing debate) It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was binary mixed in bulk in his trunk. If you stack enough binary together you can get some pretty impressive results, it'll blow up a vehicles, a barn, fridges or a lawnmower (not gonna link that one, it doesn't end well.). People do some pretty dumb things when they aren't explicitly prohibited from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
Also if you're into guns and want to keep them, you should probably be for some forms of gun control. Eventually someone is going to really up the ante and its going to involve multiple people and bombs, while democrats have control, and you're not going to like the results of it. Its not going to happen though. I don't see Republicans in this climate doing anything that could be labeled gun control even if its just a campaign for gun safety and encouraging gun safes. PookBear fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
the lawnmower video guy loses a leg fyi
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 04:53
|
|