Gun Control

[Rio]

It's like certain people don't respect the law or something.

the "oh people will find a way to get something regardless of legal status" is one of the worst defenses there are against any new proposed law ever. So should we just legalize murder? I mean people will find ways to kill each other so it's whatever, right? All you're going to do is stop GOOD people from killing the BAD people, so then only good people end up getting killed.

See why that logic doesn't work?

 

[Caesare]

See why that logic doesn't work?

That's not my logic though, it's my comment to this:

Yeah you can buy one but you're not legally allowed to use it if you don't have a driver's license.

And what are you talking about here? Murder or gun control?

So should we just legalize murder? I mean people will find ways to kill each other so it's whatever, right?

 

[Rio]

That's not my logic though, it's my comment to this:



And what are you talking about here? Murder or gun control?

I'm aware what it's in response to. I was saying that your comment came across like you were trying to say that making things illegal didn't matter because people break the law anyway in a smarmy way. Was that not what it was meant to convey?

Regarding the legalization of murder thing, I was drawing a parallel to show that the 'oh making things illegal doesn't matter because people will do it anyway' line of thinking is kinda ridiculous.

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

I have always felt safe knowing that theres a gun in my purse.

give all women guns plz.

Have you ever once in your life trained with the firearm you carry?

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

I think I'm going to go to the range today.

the "oh people will find a way to get something regardless of legal status" is one of the worst defenses there are against any new proposed law ever. So should we just legalize murder? I mean people will find ways to kill each other so it's whatever, right? All you're going to do is stop GOOD people from killing the BAD people, so then only good people end up getting killed.

See why that logic doesn't work?

No, you just proved that, by extension, that the defense DOES work, with your own analogy. When guns were softbanned in the UK, knife crime skyrocketed to the point where those Limey socialist faggots thought it necessary to campaign for banning fucking kitchen knives! 130,000 knife attacks a year, and in that cuckolded country, they thought it necessary to actually engage in the slippery slope fallacy. Now, you have to be 18 years of age just to buy a set of silverware. It's illegal to carry multitools if they have one of those tiny half-inch blades in them. All that, and the Sikhs can still carry Kirpan swords in public.

At the end of the day, when someone wants to kill, it doesn't matter what is banned. Fact remains that law-abiding gun owners aren't the Dylan Klebolds and Eric Harrises of this world. I'll dig around for it, but I read a FBI/DoJ document that came out in 2011 that stated somewhere around 98% of all firearm-related crime was carried out with stolen or illegally obtained firearms. In this instance, it really isn't a bad defense.

So, TL;DR, you will NEVER. Never ever ever ever ever ever ever, even put a DENT in gun violence statistics by punishing the everyman in this situation. Inalienable, and shall not be infringed. If you want to infringe, then you'll turn a lot of formerly law-abiding citizens into murderers of politicians overnight, because that's why the second amendment is there. To kill tyrants, make absolutely no mistake.

 

[Caesare]

I'm aware what it's in response to. I was saying that your comment came across like you were trying to say that making things illegal didn't matter because people break the law anyway in a smarmy way. Was that not what it was meant to convey?

I wasn't trying to be smarmy, that is a bad quality for anyone to have. The reason I said it like that was to convey the hopeless nature of these situations. To me, a law doesn't exist to inform evil people what isn't tolerated, it's an agreement by society on how we will punish these people. There are going to be some who snap, leaving a trail of destruction behind. Thank God we have laws and a justice system for times like this, but the feeling up hopelessness is still there when awful things happen and innocent people die.

Have you ever once in your life trained with the firearm you carry?

Obviously they have. You need to take a class to have a conceal carry firearm permit.

 

[The Demon]

I don't know how effective that is going to be. The officers assigned that duty are going to be mostly dealing with theft, slap fights, and smokin' in the boys room. Boring stuff where deadly force is rarely, if ever, used. They would probably get their own office too where students are free to come and go to report problems. What's to stop a shooter from just walking in and shooting them first?

It's kinda like how banks stopped having armed guards on staff. It's more likely to get them killed than stop a robbery.

Response training and allowing CCW for staff guided by trained professionals after a thorough security assessment would be more helpful. In the early moments of an attack make shooters have to deal with dozens of people actively working against them in concert rather than just a couple.

do you think both would work? we can get the national guard or the airforce to do this, i mean it's not like they're doing anything

that no one lives in Alaska and it's only a state in name?

i'm just saying that maybe there's a reason why a this system has seen some success

 

[Maxliam]

I'm aware what it's in response to. I was saying that your comment came across like you were trying to say that making things illegal didn't matter because people break the law anyway in a smarmy way. Was that not what it was meant to convey?

Regarding the legalization of murder thing, I was drawing a parallel to show that the 'oh making things illegal doesn't matter because people will do it anyway' line of thinking is kinda ridiculous.

Except my post that you were replying to was saying "Yeah you can buy it but you can't use it" shows how someone who is determined to break the law can and will. The point was that cars aren't as regulated as you would think in certain regards. I can go buy a car without any sort of background check or proof I can even drive via a private sale. Barring driving like a madman you probably won't get pulled over in a large city.

Counterpoint: Why do cars have the ability to go over 70mph? Why would anyone need to exceed the normal speed limit for the highway? Shouldn't we limit how fast cars can go? Speeding kills a ton of people. In fact, most car accidents are from excessive speeds. Yet you can go buy a 5.7 liter Hemi engine monster that will let you live out a NASCAR fantasy on the road. The same kind I always have when I have to turn left several times during a trip in my little 2001 Saturn. And at stoplights...I like to shift into neutral and pretend I'm a fighter pilot. It's obviously the main reason why manual is superior to automatic transmissions.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

On that same line of thought, really, why does anyone NEED material posessions? We all only require food, water, and shelter, so, why do we even have things like couches,#1 grandpa mugs, computers, phones, a yard, or any other of the opulent excesses that we enjoy from day to day? That stuff only leads to jealousy, greed and violence, and those things make me sad when the news tells me to feel something.

After all, who NEEDS anything? We should all surrender our things and live as minimally as possible because that means fewer people die. By owning goods and paying for services, you are OPPRESSING ME, and I really need to trick myself into thinking that I have even the tiniest scintilla of control over the chaotic universe in which I live.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

do you think both would work? we can get the national guard or the airforce to do this, i mean it's not like they're doing anything

It's not a question of whether or not it would work. It is how many resources do you want to throw at this problem? The threat perception is orders of magnitude larger than the actual danger. Posting cops to schools to stop shootings would have roughly the same results as posting them at ATMs to stop muggings. Sure, it would have an effect but it is largely a waste of police resources that a determined attacker would simply work around. The person would just get followed and mugged down the street. The shooter targeting children would just pick a different place, like school bus stops or the buses themselves.

Vulnerabilities exist everywhere. It is inherent in being present in public places. Training people to act appropriately and lead in crisis situations is going to have a much larger return than just hiring more specialized personnel that cannot be everywhere at once. Programs to do this already exist and are very successful.

Also, the NG and Air Force really aren't the people to be teaching this. The faculty isn't trying to defend the school with sandbagged machine gun nests against MiG attack. Training would ideally be from security specialists like those who guard places like the Trump Tower. Less Army. More Secret Service.

 

[The Demon]

It's not a question of whether or not it would work. It is how many resources do you want to throw at this problem? The threat perception is orders of magnitude larger than the actual danger. Posting cops to schools to stop shootings would have roughly the same results as posting them at ATMs to stop muggings. Sure, it would have an effect but it is largely a waste of police resources that a determined attacker would simply work around. The person would just get followed and mugged down the street. The shooter targeting children would just pick a different place, like school bus stops or the buses themselves.

Vulnerabilities exist everywhere. It is inherent in being present in public places. Training people to act appropriately and lead in crisis situations is going to have a much larger return than just hiring more specialized personnel that cannot be everywhere at once. Programs to do this already exist and are very successful.

Also, the NG and Air Force really aren't the people to be teaching this. The faculty isn't trying to defend the school with sandbagged machine gun nests against MiG attack. Training would ideally be from security specialists like those who guard places like the Trump Tower. Less Army. More Secret Service.

i guess you're right

 

[Maxliam]

It's not a question of whether or not it would work. It is how many resources do you want to throw at this problem? The threat perception is orders of magnitude larger than the actual danger. Posting cops to schools to stop shootings would have roughly the same results as posting them at ATMs to stop muggings. Sure, it would have an effect but it is largely a waste of police resources that a determined attacker would simply work around. The person would just get followed and mugged down the street. The shooter targeting children would just pick a different place, like school bus stops or the buses themselves.

Vulnerabilities exist everywhere. It is inherent in being present in public places. Training people to act appropriately and lead in crisis situations is going to have a much larger return than just hiring more specialized personnel that cannot be everywhere at once. Programs to do this already exist and are very successful.

Also, the NG and Air Force really aren't the people to be teaching this. The faculty isn't trying to defend the school with sandbagged machine gun nests against MiG attack. Training would ideally be from security specialists like those who guard places like the Trump Tower. Less Army. More Secret Service.

How metal would it be to have machine gun nests guarding schools. Answer: Dethklok level.

I see what you're saying but why not have citizens be armed? Even if half the population decided to carry concealed weapons, it would probably deter a lot of crime. If you're a mugger would you really risk it if you have a 50 percent chance of encountering an armed person? Sure there would be that element that doesn't give a fuck but most criminals are like any other predator, they rather pick easy prey. The lion doesn't take the strongest, fastest gazelle. It grabs the weakest one that has no real fight in it.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

I see what you're saying but why not have citizens be armed?

I am not opposed to it. I feel "you are the help until help arrives" applies here as well.

Integrating it into a coherent security action plan for public schools might prove to be a bit difficult though. But I am no expert.

 

[Charmin Bear Extra Soft]

My personal take on the topic is that background checks and psychiatric evaluations should be unquestionably mandatory but guns themselves shouldn't be banned across the nation. The "but criminals who are motivated enough will find a way to kill" mindset seems to be ignoring the issue at hand, in which, yes, creating stricter laws in regards to the access of guns won't solve mass murders entirely, but it certainly is much harder to kill with a knife than it is with a gun. The same logic can be applied to guns- people who are unfit to own guns will find a way to buy them from the black market but it does limit the amount to an extent. It's all about attempting to make a dire situation better, not an outright solution.

Similarly, I personally feel it should be harder to obtain fully automated weapons than it is now. Getting a licence to own one after a more extensive evaluation etc. I don't feel nor understand the appeal in owning such a weapon but I'm against the idea of punishing those who are innocent so I'm hesitant to say to ban them outright but I firmly stand by the belief it should at least be harder to obtain than it is now (certain states allow the ownership of machine guns so long if the weapon was crafted before 1986). It's all about trying to make it harder for tragedies to happen.

That being said I don't believe the banning of guns will solve problems in America. As many others have stated before, the problem lies within American culture so gun control laws that worked in Australia won't work in America. Likewise I understand the importance of the Second Amendment.

TL;DR Logical regulations should be put into place instead of ignoring the existence of an issue, but extremism isn't the answer.

 

[Maxliam]

My personal take on the topic is that background checks and psychiatric evaluations should be unquestionably mandatory but guns themselves shouldn't be banned across the nation. The "but criminals who are motivated enough will find a way to kill" mindset seems to be ignoring the issue at hand, in which, yes, creating stricter laws in regards to the access of guns won't solve mass murders entirely, but it certainly is much harder to kill with a knife than it is with a gun. The same logic can be applied to guns- people who are unfit to own guns will find a way to buy them from the black market but it does limit the amount to an extent. It's all about attempting to make a dire situation better, not an outright solution.

Similarly, I personally feel it should be harder to obtain fully automated weapons than it is now. Getting a licence to own one after a more extensive evaluation etc. I don't feel nor understand the appeal in owning such a weapon but I'm against the idea of punishing those who are innocent so I'm hesitant to say to ban them outright but I firmly stand by the belief it should at least be harder to obtain than it is now (certain states allow the ownership of machine guns so long if the weapon was crafted before 1986). It's all about trying to make it harder for tragedies to happen.

That being said I don't believe the banning of guns will solve problems in America. As many others have stated before, the problem lies within American culture so gun control laws that worked in Australia won't work in America. Likewise I understand the importance of the Second Amendment.

TL;DR Logical regulations should be put into place instead of ignoring the existence of an issue, but extremism isn't the answer.

Fully automatic weapons are incredibly hard to obtain via legal means. You have to file for a $200 tax stamp with the ATF that requires fingerprinting and an extensive background check that takes months. After all that it is registered federally to you.

Not to mention with the 1986 Hughes amendment, you cannot purchase any automatic weapon made after 1986. This is literally a ban that will end with the arms in circulation slowly being kept religiously as collector pieces or worn out from shooting. The ones for sale command easily tens of thousands of dollars and the prices are just going up and up. It's so cost prohibitive it's crazy.

No shooting so far has used automatic weapons. The bumpstocks used in Vegas are dubious in the cause of the number of deaths. A lot of those people died from trampling from the panic that a shooting will produce.

There are laws on the books that would help prevent tragedies. The problem is the mental health system in this country is shit. Someone like Adam Lanza should have been in a mental health facility. Like Chris, his parents were in denial about the extent of his problems. We make jokes about retardation and autism and all that but none of us here honestly think there's anything wrong with people with severe mental illness should be in a facility where they can get help.

The recent shooting had reports that weren't acted upon. That guy was clearly a nutjob. He should have been hospitalized. We need to get people like that the help they need. Otherwise we're going to see more tragedies. You can't ban and remove over 300 million guns in this country. The ATF admits there are over 20 million unregistered (illegal) machine guns out there.

That's not even including the legally made guns people can make in their home completely legal eagle.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

That last point made really drives it all home. You can't keep guns away from people, period. I used to make shotguns for fun with $40 and a trip to the Home Depot plumbing department. I currently own a 3D printer and a roll of Taulman Alloy 910. I could make one mean, bitchin' AR-15 lower receiver with that stuff, and have it fully assembled and ready to fire in under 24 hours' time. Guns are some of the simplest machines on this earth, in basic principle. Any old asshole with some tools can get the job done if shit gets so spicy that they couldn't get one from the store.

The "but criminals who are motivated enough will find a way to kill" mindset seems to be ignoring the issue at hand, in which, yes, creating stricter laws in regards to the access of guns won't solve mass murders entirely, but it certainly is much harder to kill with a knife than it is with a gun.

By saying this you are implying two things. One, that criminals even use the legal means to acquire a gun in the fucking first place, which is just about the most retarded thing I have ever heard, considering that any murder committed with the gun would more or less have a paper trail leading right back to the murderer, aaaaaaaaaaand... Two, that legal gun owners are the ones committing anywhere near the bulk of firearm deaths. It's frankly statistically insignificant (we're talking like >2% here), and I don't think it's worth punishing the law-abiding citizen who actually went through the trouble of doing things the right way. If anything, the fact that someone did all of the work to get their thing should tell you that they're probably not a school shooter. Most school shooters would just be content buying whatever works from their local MS-13 chapter.

Fact is, if they can't get a gun legally, it's easy as piss to get one illegally, and no regulation can fix that aside from having a government security camera in every home. Furthermore, if they can't get one even illegally, they can simply build one. You literally cannot stop it from happening. That's not defeatism, it's just my acknowledging that the world is not a vacuum where things just work if the plan sounds good enough on paper. Unless you have the time, resources, governmental overreach, and manpower to have every square inch of the United States on CCTV, you're never going to stop it.

So at that point in the pattern of logic, you have a choice. Either you lock the country down to the point where everyone's living in fear of the all-seeing government, as seen in the Combloc countries of Eastern Europe, or you leave things alone. Realistically speaking, Gun Control is at a permanent impasse at this point. If any more legislation is made against the Second Amendment, you're either going to see a revolt, or an absolutely ridiculous power-boost for the government. 2A can't be damaged any more than it has been in places like California, without the concept of a constitutional right to bear arms being an unfunny joke.

People cry about "oh well we need criminal background checks for people wanting to buy guns". Well, guess what, you already have that in about 99% of cases. I don't understand why people think we don't have that. Private sale is another matter entirely, and I think that with the private exchange of things like standard rifles, Curio and Relic Firearms, and muzzleloaders, it shouldn't matter at all, anyway. Every state with a handgun registry still requires the government to step in on private sales of those, too. You still have to fill out the ATF form, you still have to get the background check, and you still have to wait a just fucking absurd amount of time before you can own your gun.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

I think when we talk about criminals getting guns, there needs to be a distinction between the type of gun crime people care about and the type they don't.

Nobody really cares that Jamal with the criminal record on the South Side of Chicago got shot. His shooter was demographically similar to him and is probably involved with some sort of semi-organized crime. The gang will find a way to get guns. And really nobody cares about Brantley with the drug addiction in Appalachia getting shot either. The person involved in the drug-deal-gone-wrong may not be in a gang, but they're far more likely to know people with easily stealable guns. I agree: you can't stop that kind of gun crime, not without reforming the societies that produce it. And most people won't care, because the sort of people who get riled up about politics are usually not members of America's permanent underclass that's responsible for most gun violence.

But mass shooters aren't those people. A significant amount of them did legally purchase a gun. And I really don't think most of them, if barred from purchasing a gun, would go running down to MS-13. Why? Because they're wusses. And if they were going to 3D print guns, wouldn't they already be doing so? I see mass shootings as being similar to coal gas suicides in England. Once ovens stopped having coal gas, the suicide rate went down and it never went back up.

They're also okay with having that paper trail because they know they're going to get caught, which again distinguishes them from the gang banger or drug dealer. Gang banger sees violence as the means to an end; mass shooter sees it as the end.

Dan McLaughlin said today in the National Review, in response to Rick Perry wanting to raise the gun-buying age from 18 to 21, that young men should be able to buy guns only if they have a non-related older adult who's willing to vouch for them not being crazy. Thoughts?

 

[Joan Nyan]

Dan McLaughlin said today in the National Review, in response to Rick Perry wanting to raise the gun-buying age from 18 to 21, that young men should be able to buy guns only if they have a non-related older adult who's willing to vouch for them not being crazy. Thoughts?

If the same system were also implemented for voting, thus disenfranchising most SJWs and left wingers in general, I'd consider that a fair compromise.

 

[Ravelord]

But mass shooters aren't those people. A significant amount of them did legally purchase a gun. And I really don't think most of them, if barred from purchasing a gun, would go running down to MS-13. Why? Because they're wusses. And if they were going to 3D print guns, wouldn't they already be doing so? I see mass shootings as being similar to coal gas suicides in England. Once ovens stopped having coal gas, the suicide rate went down and it never went back up.

They're also okay with having that paper trail because they know they're going to get caught, which again distinguishes them from the gang banger or drug dealer. Gang banger sees violence as the means to an end; mass shooter sees it as the end.

But from what the article says, most of those mass shootings happened because they didn't update their databases or informed the necessary authorities. Is then the solution to make stronger laws and trust the security forces that already proved to be utterly incompetent?

 

[HG 400]

Just ban Assault Weapons they're what causes all the mass shootings. How is this even still an issue?