If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On April 19 2013 02:59 mcc wrote:

America is not some unique snowflake, don't kid yourself.

On April 19 2013 03:14 Kimaker wrote:

It's not the Dems/Reps that are so different, it's the ideological groups they purport to represent that are gulfs apart.

On April 19 2013 07:25 FrankWalls wrote:


haha ok



yeah you're right in that, I guess I just jump to politicians when i hear democrat/republicans, which is silly in this discussion. my bad

On April 19 2013 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:


I actually find that the opposite. It feels like politicians aren't really that different but the people who are heavily divided.

On April 19 2013 05:05 micronesia wrote:

You have demonstrated why that event happening in another country does not necessarily mean it won't happen here. You have not made a strong case that it definitely won't happen here. Thus, people worry. In my state a new law was pushed through in a matter of hours which made it illegal to buy most types of guns sold. After weeks of pushback they finally made some revisions to make it less sweeping, but after seeing something like this happen I definitely believe it is possible for a federal-level bait and switch like the one that happened for all New Yorkers. The only difference which I must admit is that there was a grandfathering clause, but even that had severe limitations including inability to pass firearms on to family members upon death.

I'm not saying we should prepare for the inevitable, just that it's easy to assume there's no risk of civilian gun ownership legally going out the window within the next 20 years when such an eventuality would not affect your personal life.

It would not just be nut-jobs.

You don't seem able to think about these issues objectively. Of course you have a reason to care deeply about the state of the country, but the way you say things about nutjobs, the country being a joke, and people holding each other politically hostage isn't accomplishing anything positive in this thread or elsewhere.

For the record I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who obviously shouldn't have them or aren't willing to take good care of them and be responsible.

On April 19 2013 08:48 Kimaker wrote:

I'll reiterate what I said earlier for the sake of posterity:

Stratos_speAr is right. However, he's only addressing half the story here. If he feels held politically hostage by Conservatives, that's a legitimate feeling. It's frustrating to think of people so completely different from yourself having a say in your life. What he ignores is that Conservatives feel likewise about Progressives and Liberals. We feel the violence of the political conversation in this country as keenly as the other side.

Both sides want out. Neither side will budge. If you guys want a divorce I'll sign the papers

In essence, this thread is nothing if not a demonstration of how divided the nation is on the subject of gun-control. And frighteningly enough, there are MANY other issues which are just as divisive. Had the idea of State sovereignty not been trampled into the dirt, this wouldn't really be an issue. However, in a post-14th Amendment world (and all of the subsequent SCOTUS interpretations) it's no longer a viable option.

On April 19 2013 02:15 Defacer wrote:


I was just responding to the silliness of the argument that a lot of pro-gun advocates make (not just you).

It goes: "Good luck trying to enforce THAT! You can't enforce that 100% of the time so that's pointless anyway!"

It's a weak argument that pro-gun guys should let go of, because a:

a) it's a strawman argument, and not how the law is or ever has been implemented or enforced. It makes you seem like you're disconnected from society and how it actually functions.

b) it's been proven, time and time again, that you don't need to enforce a law or police all people perfectly for a law to impact a majority of people's behaviour.

For example, I don't to speed or drive without a driver's license. It's not because I think there's a cop around every corner watching me, it's because I'm aware of the consequences on the the off-chance that I do get caught, and how much they suck.

But to address your analogy, yes, personally I think there should be a much stronger bureaucratic process that DISTINGUISHES responsible, capable gun owners from irresponsible ones, similar to getting a Driver's license.

Gun owners insist that a grand majority of gun owners are responsible or know what they're doing. Well, for the benefit of public safety, they should prove it. Right now the standards are so low that a feeble, half-blind old lady or a autistic psychopath can get a gun, legally.

It's harder to get a job at McDonald's than to get a gun.

That's my problem with most Pro-gun advocacy (I'm not talking about you specifically). They always seem to approach the argument from an all or nothing position, and equate 'gun freedom' with 'any law-abiding citizen should be able to get any gun they want'. When you step back and think about that position, it's preposterous — there are people, even lovable people with the best intentions in the world, that are just going be shitty with guns, and have no place using them.

For example, my mother can't turn on a computer or kill a spider. I have a hard time imagining her, regardless of training, being qualified to use an AR-15.

Personally, I would support ideas like concealed carry, background check-free private sales, or even legalizing automatic weapons IF there was a strong system that rewarded competent and responsible gun owners.

On April 19 2013 08:52 Wombat_NI wrote:

Aside from the specifics, why don't both sides direct their ire at the media culture which is perpetuating this divisive discourse, rather than bickering about the other side all the time?

Hell in a world where liberal, socialist, conservatives are no longer ideologies, but psuedo-perjorative terms I think it might be constructive to try and rollback this poisonous trend

On April 19 2013 09:02 tokicheese wrote:

Lot's of gun owners are in favour of increased gun control but people want asinine laws (like the one you wanted last night) that are operating under the assumption that more restrictions the better. Gun controls laws are awesome as long as they protect people and are reasonable. The Canadian system is pretty much perfect imo.

The best example I can think of right now of that mentality is the banning of weapons with Bayonet Lugs in NY in the latest "assault weapon" ban. The absurdity of this hurts my brain. So were more worried about the knife on the end of a gun than the actual gun now? Is a knife attached to a gun more deadly than a normal knife lol. The SKS that I own would be an assault weapon while the Mini-14 isn't. Just terrible law making. Shoving laws through the democratic process before they can be properly looked over is just retarded it banned the police having weapons too on top of all that.

About the discussion last night the law you proposed last night isn't actually protecting anyone. If you can find statistics that prove otherwise that show a drastically increased chance of harm coming to people who are unlicensed using a firearm under proper supervision then I would have to agree to the need for the law. But with places like http://www.vancouvergunrange.ca/ operating entirely on unlicensed people coming and shooting the range guns I can't see it being an issue.



Just because you think an old woman shouldn't be able to use a firearm doesn't mean she is unsafe. If she passes the required background checks and training who are you to decide she can't?

On April 19 2013 09:02 tokicheese wrote:
Just because you think an old woman shouldn't be able to use a firearm doesn't mean she is unsafe. If she passes the required background checks and training who are you to decide she can't?

On April 19 2013 09:08 Kimaker wrote:

Truth is, the public should be united in it's vitriol at the Banking institutions (Europeans should be angry as well), but it's VERY complicated and requires a fairly substantive understanding of finance with a sprinkling of abstraction. In a world of lazy thinkers...it's just not feasible.

Also, I'd blame Academia as much as the media. They're both equally culpable in the division. Academic's absolutely despise Rural Middle America for the most part (very often this group is the butt of in-class jokes), and THEY are the source of the "legitimacy" for all other institutions. Pretty frightening.

On April 19 2013 09:08 Kimaker wrote:

Truth is, the public should be united in it's vitriol at the Banking institutions (Europeans should be angry as well), but it's VERY complicated and requires a fairly substantive understanding of finance with a sprinkling of abstraction. In a world of lazy thinkers...it's just not feasible.

Also, I'd blame Academia as much as the media. They're both equally culpable in the division. Academic's absolutely despise Rural Middle America for the most part (very often this group is the butt of in-class jokes), and THEY are the source of the "legitimacy" for all other institutions. Pretty frightening.

On April 19 2013 09:39 Defacer wrote:


Dude, you're arguing with yourself right now. I've already conceded your point that my idea probably wouldn't have a significant impact on reducing crime. Learn to accept the win. Sheesh.

But you do realize there's a big difference between unlicensed people using firearms in a controlled and supervised setting, like the Vancouver Gun Range, and Adam Lanza's mother basically stockpiling guns on his behalf, which is what started this whole argument in the first place? You should stop using VGR that example, it's not very strong. It's like comparing someone teaching their 16 year-old son how to park in a parking lot to handing an unlicensed teenager keys to your collection of motorcycle and saying, "Yeah, feel free to take it for a spin whenever."



You're missing the point of what I wrote. Where did I say that? Anyone that can pass training or background checks should be able to get a gun. My point is that the level of qualifications for guns in America are too low, and if I would bet that there's a plenty of gun owners there that can barely shoot.

We wouldn't want an old lady that couldn't drive in a straight line on public roads — why would we want an old lady who can't shoot straight to handle a gun? If she can't use it properly, it doesn't make her safer. And by not being trained, she's doing herself a disservice.

Canada's system is much better, but I would even like to see Canada's licensing system expanded — I think with proper training and ongoing training we should get concealed carry.

On April 19 2013 09:42 Zealotdriver wrote:

The cultural divide to which you're referring goes both ways. People in Rural Middle America despise and mock Educated Urban Elites.
People like to feel like they're members of a distinct group and that their group is superior to the other group. This results in affectation of cultural affiliation which reinforces political opinions regardless of personal or societal impact.

On April 19 2013 10:31 Kimaker wrote:

Absolutely.

Mencius Moldbug has a wonderful explanation of the division (he does a breakdown of American society into separate castes in order to exhibit political alliances) There is certainly mutual antipathy between the two groups. One groups however has direct access to the means of legitimization. Socially, we consider academics as the metric for what is "true" and subsequently reported by the media.

On paper the Rural Middle class would break even because they win the "vote war" despite the Academic advantage, but the way the alliances pan out, they don't even have that advantage.

http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/

Check out "American Castes" section. Not that I think his theory is 100% correct (I'm actually writing a rebuttal of sorts), but it certainly hits a lot of things on the nose in a very concise way.

On April 19 2013 09:58 tokicheese wrote:

I was talking more about the disdain for gun owners for willy nilly gun laws than about the discussion last night it was just an example of what I was talking about.

I'm speaking mainly about Canadian laws because there are far too many different US laws (1 per state?) for me to keep track of. In Canada you can't have a gun in your possession if you don't have a license and you can't buy ammo unless you produce your license. There are also laws about proper storage of guns being kept separate from ammunition with guns in a locked container like a locking closet or preferably a safe and restricted weapons always have to be kept in a locked container when in transport between the range and your home.

These are incredibly hard to enforce but if your firearms are used in a crime after they are stolen after being improperly stored you are liable iirc. These laws are more to stop suicides though. Apparently the time it takes to go between getting the gun and walking across your house to get the ammunition most people will have second thoughts and not go through with it.


If the old lady is deemed competent by the firearm instructor I don't see why she shouldn't be able to have a license. There is a practical section where if your functionally retarded he can fail you at his discretion. Obviously is she has dementia or other server mental issues she shouldn't but poor eye sight isn't a very good reason. I can't see fuck all at a distance but with proper glasses or contacts I have 20/20 vision.

On April 19 2013 08:48 Kimaker wrote:

I'll reiterate what I said earlier for the sake of posterity:

Stratos_speAr is right. However, he's only addressing half the story here. If he feels held politically hostage by Conservatives, that's a legitimate feeling. It's frustrating to think of people so completely different from yourself having a say in your life. What he ignores is that Conservatives feel likewise about Progressives and Liberals. We feel the violence of the political conversation in this country as keenly as the other side.

Both sides want out. Neither side will budge. If you guys want a divorce I'll sign the papers

In essence, this thread is nothing if not a demonstration of how divided the nation is on the subject of gun-control. And frighteningly enough, there are MANY other issues which are just as divisive. Had the idea of State sovereignty not been trampled into the dirt, this wouldn't really be an issue. However, in a post-14th Amendment world (and all of the subsequent SCOTUS interpretations) it's no longer a viable option.

On April 19 2013 10:44 Defacer wrote:


Honestly, I think firearm instructors/examiners should have liberty to be more subjective. I think they are in the best position to decide whether or not someone is ready to own and operate a gun. It should be more than, you know — technically not being retarded.

Like a driving exam, the main qualification for passing a firearms exam should be the firearm instructor feeling safe. Call it a sniff test. It's not always going to be fair (I failed my driving test twice before passing) but owning a gun is something that I feel is reasonable to err on the side of caution on.

Awww man, that's why we're arguing? You're defending Canadian gun laws while I'm shitting on how shitty the standards are in the US?

In many states, like Alabama, Texas, Alaska, Kansas, Georgia, etc. you don't need a licence or permit to purchase a gun at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Any newb with a clean background check can get a gun, and there is no coordination between the mental health system and criminal record system.

At least in Canada you have to take a safety course.

On April 19 2013 11:21 tokicheese wrote:

The firearms instructor can fail you for pretty much any reason they want I think. They obviously have to make up a reason but if they don't think you are safe they will find a way to fail you. The place I tested at had about 50 deactivated rifles that they had you practice with multiple times doing many different things before they got you into the actual testing bit and they were keeping a pretty sharp eye on how people were acting. One kid was sort of fooling around not taking it seriously and he got kicked out and asked to never return.

The theory was a bit of a joke but most gun safety is just common sense. During the practical part of the test they had us practice handing our rifles over to our "buddy" while we pretending to cross a fence, load and unload the rifle safely with a semi auto/bolt/lever actions, demonstrate the proper methods to hold a gun etc etc and tons of other stuff that I can't think of. The guy who I was doing the theory with failed because when he went to unload the gun he pointed it while it was loaded away from "down range". They want to make sure your not pointing it in the wrong direction, that you keep your finger off the trigger, ensure it's safe properly before you do anything,

They have a ton of leeway on the practical part of the test not so much on the theory but the practical is where it matters most imo.


I don't think people should be able to just by a gun by any means and I really like common sense gun control laws like background checks and licensing.

On April 19 2013 11:38 Defacer wrote:


Hmmm. You make it sound like there's a lot of theoretical busy work but it seems reasonable. What I like about it is that gives an firearm instructor the opportunity just to observe you a bit, gauge your maturity level and make sure you're not some weirdo.

While most gun safety is common sense, there really is no end to the random brain farts that even intelligent, responsible people have. You shouldn't take your 'common sense' knowledge for granted.

It's common sense to not smoke or eat McDonalds five times a week but people do anyway. Humanity never ceases to make dumbass decisions.

On April 19 2013 04:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:


It really burns you to think of America's specialness, doesn't it?