|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 04 2015 03:54 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 03:29 ZasZ. wrote:What about this one, which more closely exemplifies the issue he is talking about: http://www.khou.com/story/news/2015/09/27/one-man-injured-after-carjacking-shooting-at-gas-station/72923278/Our gun culture is out of control, and as a result the conservatives are right on this issue, for the most part. Gun control won't work. There are way too many guns, and they are far too accessible for people wanting to do criminal behavior. Tightening restrictions on law-abiding citizens will do nothing to curb that, unfortunately. I wish we didn't have so many guns in circulation, but now that we do the cat is out of the proverbial bag. The reason gun bans work in some other countries is because there weren't a huge amount of them to begin with, meaning that after the ban, the price of a gun on the black market is prohibitively expensive. I doubt that would be the case if the U.S. suddenly banned guns, not regarding how difficult that would be to do in the first place. ^ This moronic argument keeps coming up. Gun control can easily work. It's not like these other countries passed a law and immediately were fucking safe havens. It takes time, it takes money, it takes critical thinking, and it takes persistence to make it happen. Of course there's always a black market. You can make that black market prohibitively expensive by decreasing the supply and increasing the cost of using illegal firearms. You can add layers of bureaucracy which leave a paper trail to say who is responsible for what gun (and no, we don't have that, as it's basically optional at this point). You can buy up all the ammo like government agencies do at the end of their budget cycle. There are literally millions of ways of achieving the end goal, and it's pretty hard to discredit any of them by saying that America is unique, because it isn't.
The argument that people will be unable to protect themselves without access to guns is self-defeating. We wouldn't have this situation if that was actually true since that is our reality now. Clearly that situation is not working, so no the conservatives (in either party) are not only wrong, everytime they evade doing something about this they are partially culpable for the deaths.
|
United States24613 Posts
The harder part than addressing all the guns floating around the US is to address the cultural demand for guns all around the US. I get how you can enact laws with a long term plan of accounting for undocumented guns, tracking distribution of new guns, better preventing the sale of guns to people with emotional illnesses, and the like. What I don't get is how we create a culture where a large percentage of the population isn't worried that their well controlled, well documented guns would soon after be 100% confiscated, or where people don't want to have guns accessible for protection. Until we address concerns like those, more school shootings, movie theater shootings, or other shootings probably won't be a sufficient catalyst for enacting stricter and effective gun laws.
Here and elsewhere I see lots of comments from people who live in countries which don't have these cultural challenges saying how easy it would be to simply enact laws that better prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, even if we still make it a priority to allow responsible gun ownership... but that seems to show ignorance for the real challenge of making a meaningful change.
|
On October 04 2015 05:13 micronesia wrote:
The harder part than addressing all the guns floating around the US is to address the cultural demand for guns all around the US. I get how you can enact laws with a long term plan of accounting for undocumented guns, tracking distribution of new guns, better preventing the sale of guns to people with emotional illnesses, and the like. What I don't get is how we create a culture where a large percentage of the population isn't worried that their well controlled, well documented guns would soon after be 100% confiscated, or where people don't want to have guns accessible for protection. Until we address concerns like those, more school shootings, movie theater shootings, or other shootings probably won't be a sufficient catalyst for enacting stricter and effective gun laws.
Here and elsewhere I see lots of comments from people who live in countries which don't have these cultural challenges saying how easy it would be to simply enact laws that better prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, even if we still make it a priority to allow responsible gun ownership... but that seems to show ignorance for the real challenge of making a meaningful change.
EZ. FCC bans fox news, 50 years later you don't have an organized vocal minority of morons.
But seriously the answer is time and education.
|
United States42180 Posts
On October 04 2015 05:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 05:13 micronesia wrote:
The harder part than addressing all the guns floating around the US is to address the cultural demand for guns all around the US. I get how you can enact laws with a long term plan of accounting for undocumented guns, tracking distribution of new guns, better preventing the sale of guns to people with emotional illnesses, and the like. What I don't get is how we create a culture where a large percentage of the population isn't worried that their well controlled, well documented guns would soon after be 100% confiscated, or where people don't want to have guns accessible for protection. Until we address concerns like those, more school shootings, movie theater shootings, or other shootings probably won't be a sufficient catalyst for enacting stricter and effective gun laws.
Here and elsewhere I see lots of comments from people who live in countries which don't have these cultural challenges saying how easy it would be to simply enact laws that better prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, even if we still make it a priority to allow responsible gun ownership... but that seems to show ignorance for the real challenge of making a meaningful change. EZ. FCC bans fox news, 50 years later you don't have an organized vocal minority of morons. But seriously the answer is time and education.
Er, I'm pretty sure the only reason ISIS and the US government didn't successfully take over Texas and turn it into a US State is because of the diligent work done by Fox News and American gun owners.
|
As a Canadian gun owner, I find that the people who are against gun control are also against paying taxes to finance social programs which might help lower the frequency of those events. I pay taxes and the bros I share my country with have access to mental help and hopefully don't feel as hopeless as some Americans do when they find themselves cornered by their circumstances.
Also if anyone's argument revolves around the notion that any given governmental action won't completely eradicate mass shootings in one fell swoop, good job, you are the pinnacle of human evolution. In the words of the onion: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.
|
On October 04 2015 05:13 micronesia wrote:
The harder part than addressing all the guns floating around the US is to address the cultural demand for guns all around the US. I get how you can enact laws with a long term plan of accounting for undocumented guns, tracking distribution of new guns, better preventing the sale of guns to people with emotional illnesses, and the like. What I don't get is how we create a culture where a large percentage of the population isn't worried that their well controlled, well documented guns would soon after be 100% confiscated, or where people don't want to have guns accessible for protection. Until we address concerns like those, more school shootings, movie theater shootings, or other shootings probably won't be a sufficient catalyst for enacting stricter and effective gun laws.
Here and elsewhere I see lots of comments from people who live in countries which don't have these cultural challenges saying how easy it would be to simply enact laws that better prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, even if we still make it a priority to allow responsible gun ownership... but that seems to show ignorance for the real challenge of making a meaningful change.
Preventing fear mongering about how gun control works would be the first thing to combat if I'm getting what I think you're saying. The way to the society you're talking about is to make legal changes in the first place that put strict limits on guns, gun manufacturing, and gun ownership so that pro-gun arguers can't continue this MAD style argument where everyone needs to have a gun to protect themselves.
|
This article is out of date; check the time stamp. This is the actual event.
http://abc13.com/news/witness-who-fired-on-carjackers-sought-after-nw-houston-attack-/1004386/
It's impressive how someone could find the former article without finding the more recent article. If I were the paranoid type, I'd assume that ZasZ simply ignored the latter article, hoping nobody would notice the omission. But that's just silly.
Edit: After more Google, I see that a lot of Democrat-leaning sources picked up on the former article without citing the newer article. Perhaps that's why this happened.
|
On October 02 2015 23:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 23:13 Korakys wrote:
I have observed that it is almost impossible to shoot people to death without using a gun (aka firearms).
Therefore reduce number of firearms = reduced number of shootings resulting in death.
Sometimes I really wish the US government would try to fight it's own people so that those people could see just how useless having guns to "protect" themselves would be. Do you mean "kill people" instead of "shoot people to death"? Because shooting implies using a gun afaik.
It was my lame attempt at humour. This thread sure needs more humour. Then I couldn't help adding in my own serious thoughts.
|
This whole which just happens regularly now is kind of funny, at least from safely outside the US. Mass shooting happens, solutions are known as used by every other developed country in the world, nothing gets done cause people think the solution is worse than the problem.
I look forward to the day when another angry white kid shoots a dozen people and the president just says "Fuck it, I'm not going to give another pointless speech. I got better things to do."
|
On October 04 2015 07:49 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 05:13 micronesia wrote:
The harder part than addressing all the guns floating around the US is to address the cultural demand for guns all around the US. I get how you can enact laws with a long term plan of accounting for undocumented guns, tracking distribution of new guns, better preventing the sale of guns to people with emotional illnesses, and the like. What I don't get is how we create a culture where a large percentage of the population isn't worried that their well controlled, well documented guns would soon after be 100% confiscated, or where people don't want to have guns accessible for protection. Until we address concerns like those, more school shootings, movie theater shootings, or other shootings probably won't be a sufficient catalyst for enacting stricter and effective gun laws.
Here and elsewhere I see lots of comments from people who live in countries which don't have these cultural challenges saying how easy it would be to simply enact laws that better prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, even if we still make it a priority to allow responsible gun ownership... but that seems to show ignorance for the real challenge of making a meaningful change. Preventing fear mongering about how gun control works would be the first thing to combat if I'm getting what I think you're saying. The way to the society you're talking about is to make legal changes in the first place that put strict limits on guns, gun manufacturing, and gun ownership so that pro-gun arguers can't continue this MAD style argument where everyone needs to have a gun to protect themselves.
Except the problem is in reality if there are these strong cultural feelings politicians won't pass said laws.
|
On October 04 2015 07:49 docvoc wrote:
Preventing fear mongering about how gun control works would be the first thing to combat if I'm getting what I think you're saying. The way to the society you're talking about is to make legal changes in the first place that put strict limits on guns, gun manufacturing, and gun ownership so that pro-gun arguers can't continue this MAD style argument where everyone needs to have a gun to protect themselves.
Let me guess this straight.
You believe that talk about gun control is fear mongering. Then you state that confiscating guns is the best way to prevent fear mongering...which is what the other side is fear mongering about. Then everyone you listen to agrees with you and wants to go further. Why shouldn't the country become like Australia or the UK?
And then people like you complain when nothing gets done and the gun lobby wins.
It's a lot like listening to the abortion debate. People who don't know bump fire stocks from automatic weaponry somehow believe they can build effective gun regulations that save lives...then wonder why political parties don't "get it" and pass opposing bills instead. It's easier to believe the NRA bought out Congress than it is to believe that people with guns might, on average, know a little bit more about guns and vote accordingly.
...well, it'll change eventually. Gun rights activists will overreach, gun control will become predominant, and it'll stay that way until gun control overreaches and so forth.
|
I usually dislike debates as it's usually just a massive fucking waste of time, but let me say this once and for all. All i know is that there are less shootings in general in countries where guns are banned. These types of school shootings are almost entirily exclusive to the U.S
|
i always try to avoid these things cause these arguments are almost always emotional. But people are emotional for good reason.
I think the problem stems from lack of social support / public health options. If someone needs help, they need help. Unfortunately, someone has to pay, or there are awful consequences. The circumstances that lead to psychopaths are the easiest fix. Obviously the easily available guns don't help, for the same reason you don't give a six year old a baseball bat in a china shop.
I feel for my American friends for having to tolerate this mess on a recurring basis. I also feel for my friends in the states who need psychological help and therapy but cannot afford it. I have a close friend who is trying to recover from a disease that keeps her out of work. It's an awful situation and it makes me thankful I live up here.
|
It's a lot like listening to the abortion debate. People who don't know bump fire stocks from automatic weaponry somehow believe they can build effective gun regulations that save lives...then wonder why political parties don't "get it" and pass opposing bills instead.
Cute. Then there's people trying to argue that they're "not technically full automatic weapons", while in reality they are. Yes, the gun mechanic itself is not that of an actual fully automatic weapon. No, that doesn't mean it's "not automatic". It's actually still automatic even by definition. You press the trigger, bullets spray. How exactly is that different from a fully automatic weapon? Ah yes, it's a tiny bit harder to find the "sweet spot" in trigger pressure.
What an argument you have there. Did that come with a gun?
|
On October 04 2015 09:30 m4ini wrote:
Cute. Then there's people trying to argue that they're "not technically full automatic weapons", while in reality they are. Yes, the gun mechanic itself is not that of an actual fully automatic weapon. No, that doesn't mean it's "not automatic". It's actually still automatic even by definition. You press the trigger, bullets spray. How exactly is that different from a fully automatic weapon? Ah yes, it's a tiny bit harder to find the "sweet spot" in trigger pressure.
If you've actually owned a bump fire weapon before, you'd know that everything you wrote is incorrect.
Multiple bullets do not spray out per trigger pull. One bullet fires per trigger pull. This is literally the definition of semiautomatic fire. Since a bump fire weapon uses manual recoil control to fire, it's difficult to do anything other than fire the gun while controlling the recoil "sweet spot"; simple things like walking, turning, and aiming become extremely difficult to do without failing bumpfire or jamming the gun. If you know of a commercial bumpfire weapon that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull, you should contact the ATF immediately.
Finally, any cartridge gun* can be bumpfired, even without special parts. As the principle behind bumpfire relies on recoil control rather than internal gun parts, any idiot can learn how to do it. Deliberately shooting something with bumpfire is another story; you can hit anything with enough ammo, but doing so...pragmatically...is another story. People have considered murder with bumpfire weaponry; almost nobody tries because aiming is too important.
I can think of one shooting that happened with bumpfire weapons. Ironically, this may make bumpfire weapons more dangerous than actual NFA full-automatic weapons, which have a homicide record of two people since 1934. One of which was committed by a police officer.
This is exactly what I meant by ignorance by people who do not own guns. Machine guns are literally safer than vending machines in the United States, handguns kill more people every two months than 9/11, and people seem to believe the opposite.
*Recoil-operated, of course.
|
I live in Oregon so I first thought of my youngest sister who recently graduated from college when I heard about the shooting. She went to a college in a completely different city but these monsters can choose any college for their killing sprees.
|
On October 03 2015 13:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I suggest they force the person who wants to buy a weapon, pay for their own extensive background check. And make the price absurd. Same with licenses and training. A high price deters a lot of people from doing many things.
I like this, but instead of a ridiculous licensing cost, I'd rather see them add some kind of ridiculous bond, like 50 grand when you go for the license. To be forfeited 100% upon the smallest infraction. But should you sell the weapon, you can get the money back. That way it only really costs the irresponsible gun owners.
Also, I kinda chuckled at the new name of this thread (it might have changed ages ago and I never noticed though), and then felt bad about it because of how much this shit happens 
|
On October 04 2015 09:58 Impervious wrote:I like this, but instead of a ridiculous licensing cost, I'd rather see them add some kind of ridiculous bond, like 50 grand when you go for the license. To be forfeited 100% upon the smallest infraction. But should you sell the weapon, you can get the money back. That way it only really costs the irresponsible gun owners. Also, I kinda chuckled at the new name of this thread (it might have changed ages ago and I never noticed though), and then felt bad about it because of how much this shit happens
Mississippi and other states used to have similar requirements, to prevent poor black people from buying guns against the KKK. I'm sorry to see that similar dreams aren't dead yet in the United States. Strangely enough, it's these Democrats who still believe in this...I've never quite understood why.
Defensive gun use in the USA outnumbers gun homicides by a factor of five to ten to eighty to two hundred; it's a very spotty area of study. Murder is, of course, more newsworthy.
|
On October 04 2015 10:09 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 09:58 Impervious wrote:I like this, but instead of a ridiculous licensing cost, I'd rather see them add some kind of ridiculous bond, like 50 grand when you go for the license. To be forfeited 100% upon the smallest infraction. But should you sell the weapon, you can get the money back. That way it only really costs the irresponsible gun owners. Also, I kinda chuckled at the new name of this thread (it might have changed ages ago and I never noticed though), and then felt bad about it because of how much this shit happens Mississippi and other states used to have similar requirements, to prevent poor black people from buying guns against the KKK. I'm sorry to see that similar dreams aren't dead yet in the United States. Defensive gun use in the USA outnumbers gun homicides by a factor of five to ten to eighty to two hundred; it's a spotty area of study. Murder is, of course, more newsworthy.
Actually there are 10 defensive gun scenarios in the US per year max.
|
On October 04 2015 09:38 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 09:30 m4ini wrote:
Cute. Then there's people trying to argue that they're "not technically full automatic weapons", while in reality they are. Yes, the gun mechanic itself is not that of an actual fully automatic weapon. No, that doesn't mean it's "not automatic". It's actually still automatic even by definition. You press the trigger, bullets spray. How exactly is that different from a fully automatic weapon? Ah yes, it's a tiny bit harder to find the "sweet spot" in trigger pressure. If you've actually owned a bump fire weapon before, you'd know that everything you wrote is incorrect. Multiple bullets do not spray out per trigger pull. One bullet fires per trigger pull. This is literally the definition of semiautomatic fire. Since a bump fire weapon uses manual recoil control to fire, it's difficult to do anything other than fire the gun while controlling the recoil "sweet spot"; simple things like walking, turning, and aiming become extremely difficult to do without failing bumpfire or jamming the gun. If you know of a commercial bumpfire weapon that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull, you should contact the ATF immediately. Finally, any cartridge gun* can be bumpfired, even without special parts. As the principle behind bumpfire relies on recoil control rather than internal gun parts, any idiot can learn how to do it. Deliberately shooting something with bumpfire is another story; you can hit anything with enough ammo, but doing so...pragmatically...is another story. People have considered murder with bumpfire weaponry; almost nobody tries because aiming is too important. I can think of one shooting that happened with bumpfire weapons. Ironically, this may make bumpfire weapons more dangerous than actual NFA full-automatic weapons, which have a homicide record of two people since 1934. One of which was committed by a police officer. This is exactly what I meant by ignorance by people who do not own guns. Machine guns are literally safer than vending machines in the United States, handguns kill more people every two months than 9/11, and people seem to believe the opposite. *Recoil-operated, of course.
Not owned, no. I live in a sensible country, where things like that are illegal. Fired, yes (family of my wife partially lives in the bible belt). I didn't have much trouble to be honest, it takes some time to get used to - but after that, you'll manage. Trying to actually defy that is dishonest, especially considering that even in promotion-videos, you see people walking. All you need to do is tense the finger. Hardly rocket science.
And that's exactly what i meant by using a stupid argument: "the weapon isn't fully automatic because you have to trigger every single shot". That's bullshit. The gun triggers itself, it's not YOU triggering it. You just hold your finger in place and let the gun bump into the trigger. That's by definition automation. The "but it's still single fire" argument might work for NRA nutjobs, but any sane person will tell you that if i only have to make sure that my finger stays in place while the gun pretty much by definition fires itself, well.. You get where i'm going.
And it's actually not about specifically targeting bumpfire triggers, or things like MAC10s which are mostly illegally owned - it's about changing (even with force if needed) the perspective of people like you, who apparently think guns solve anything. Because they don't. They cause alot of shit, but they don't solve anything. Starting by banning weapons which are mostly owned by people who think military grade weapons (even if just by looks) is "badass" (feel free to tell me that's not the case for at least 75% of AR15 owners) is a start to sane down the thought process about guns. They're not toys. AR15s etc are not sports weapons. So what exactly is their point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
