EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
riotjune
United States3393 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On December 19 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote: I hope you’re not conflating your legally protected right to defend your home with what’s advisable for yourself, your property, or your family. Just finding more than two people who lean right in this forum rofl. Well, clearly from what I've written that wasn't the case, right? That being said I don't remember who it was, probably some single digit postcount guy who got banned within a couple days but still. | ||
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On December 19 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote: I'm judging them predominantly based on their public statements and actions the organization has taken to influence governance. Meeting instructors and mid-level officials won't change that, as reasonable as most of those folks may be.It does sound like you need some more human interaction with NRA mid-level officials or the kinds of instructors that have been members for years to push you over. I think you'll find yourself mellowing out on your previous opinions on their positions. No joke. I've had very few liberal friends (or leans-left, or votes Democrat, or could never consider voting Republican, or calls himself/herself centrist or moderate) change sides. Almost to the individual, every one harkened back to meeting real people that contrasted against stereotypes. I've seen enough of the rank bullshit about NRA domestic terrorism or blood-on-their-hands-after-shooting or gun nuts itching for a fight to know that composite stereotype is widespread. Yes, I was very smug, perhaps over-smug, and that's my smug smiley terminating the sentence. I have high long-term hopes for anyone willing to let harsh facts challenge their stereotypes or expectations. On December 19 2017 04:49 riotjune wrote: I agree the movies don't portray them accurately, but saying they sound like firecrackers (unilaterally) isn't really right either. Either way, I don't really get how your second sentence relates to the first...I don't get America's obsession with guns. They sound like firecrackers, nothing like in the movies. Unless it was an automatic 50 cal. It doesn't take a 50 cal machine gun to not sound like firecrackers. I'm not trying to take some stance on gun use here... just pointing out that your characterization of what guns sounds like seems off. For perspective, I was at a gun range this weekend with a variety of different types being used. | ||
|
riotjune
United States3393 Posts
You also don't see bullets like in the movies unless it was a red-tipped tracer round, which should only be every fifth round. We usually don't like training with them since they set the grass on fire. I think the only weapons that left an impression on me was firing the M2 Browning, which left your hands buzzing like after you were holding your girlfriend's vibrators in each hand (ugh...>.>), and being near a Claymore mine when it goes off (not recommended, you could feel the shock wave tear through your chest). Still I wouldn't really make guns a hobby, unlike my Southern redneck colleagues, who were usually the best shots because their father gave them a gun when they were 8. I myself don't see the appeal though, had no problems giving up guns and never had the itch to fire one again. I rather just stay home and play video games tbh. I think I had more fun cleaning guns than firing them, despite being a good shot and the company sending me out for turkey shoot competitions (our variant being shooting pop up targets at +500 meters). | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
Just a friendly reminder that shootings are still happening, even if nobody bothers talking about it anymore. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8691 Posts
| ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/school-shooting-parkland-florida-coral-springs-marjory-stoneman-douglas-high-injuries-students-shot-a8211281.html | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
dvzxc
2 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9676 Posts
On February 15 2018 09:37 dvzxc wrote: As a non-American, if guns are banned will the increase in victims unable to defend themselves really outweigh the amount of gun enabled violence? Yeah but I think the argument goes that its not worth it cos some people like going to the range and shooting targets. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On February 15 2018 09:37 dvzxc wrote: As a non-American, if guns are banned will the increase in victims unable to defend themselves really outweigh the amount of gun enabled violence? It's really hard to attempt to answer the question without a little more specificity. What do you mean by if guns are banned? Do you mean if it becomes illegal for non-military people to own or use guns? If so, what do you envision happens to the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation? If we go so far as to assume that the government pushes some magic switch and all guns outside of the military vanish and all manufacturing, including black market manufacturing, stops, then that will likely cut down on suicide somewhat and will nearly eliminate gun-based homicide. The three remaining concerns then are the ability of the homeowner to defend themselves from a dangerous person in their home, the ability of a person to defend himself or herself when out and about, and the ability of the people to defend themselves from the government a la second amendment (without getting into whether this is individual or militia). There is no way to say with any certainty how that would ultimately stack up against the victims that were prevented. Of course, this scenario is completely preposterous due to the assumptions that went into it. In other words, the answer is "there is no right answer and it depends on your values." On February 15 2018 09:39 Jockmcplop wrote: Yeah but I think the argument goes that its not worth it cos some people like going to the range and shooting targets. By misrepresenting the argument and attempting to make one side look like idiots you basically guarantee that the NRA will be successful in blocking all meaningful gun-safety related legislation for the next few years. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote: What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion).Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9676 Posts
I'm not sure I follow you. I'm not taking out TV advertising time in the US, I'm just repeating what I've been told in this very thread, although in a dry, sarcastic kind of way. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote: Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. The 2nd amendment is retarded. States are problem, not the second amendment. My state has perfectly fine gun laws. Florida let’s you buy any gun with no/minimal training at the age of 18. Drum clips too. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On February 15 2018 09:50 Jockmcplop wrote: Wait my sarcastic comment guarantees the success of the NRA? I'm not sure I follow you. I'm not taking out TV advertising time in the US, I'm just repeating what I've been told in this very thread, although in a dry, sarcastic kind of way. You are not fairly representing what you have read (probably, there may be some poorly framed arguments earlier in this thread) and are doing so with an obvious agenda. I expect anyone who is center-right or right on this issue, after reading what you write, are inclined to lean further right, more likely to buy some of the BS that the NRA puts out, and more likely to vote in favor of candidates the NRA endorses. The impact from this thread is small given the population, of course, but it's still not good behavior on your part. I recognize given the timing its likely driven by emotion based on how crazy it is that we still have so many school mass shootings including one just within the past day. @ Plansix: what are the main restrictions your State has that you agree with? | ||
|
dvzxc
2 Posts
On February 15 2018 09:45 micronesia wrote: It's really hard to attempt to answer the question without a little more specificity. What do you mean by if guns are banned? Do you mean if it becomes illegal for non-military people to own or use guns? If so, what do you envision happens to the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation? If we go so far as to assume that the government pushes some magic switch and all guns outside of the military vanish and all manufacturing, including black market manufacturing, stops, then that will likely cut down on suicide somewhat and will nearly eliminate gun-based homicide. The three remaining concerns then are the ability of the homeowner to defend themselves from a dangerous person in their home, the ability of a person to defend himself or herself when out and about, and the ability of the people to defend themselves from the government a la second amendment (without getting into whether this is individual or militia). There is no way to say with any certainty how that would ultimately stack up against the victims that were prevented. Of course, this scenario is completely preposterous due to the assumptions that went into it. In other words, the answer is "there is no right answer and it depends on your values." By misrepresenting the argument and attempting to make one side look like idiots you basically guarantee that the NRA will be successful in blocking all meaningful gun-safety related legislation for the next few years. I would imagine doing something similar to Australia where they issued a mandatory buyback program and offered amnesty to illegal gun owners that turned in theirs. Obviously the logistics would be much harder due to scale but there doesn't seem to be any better option. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9676 Posts
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/637/words-you-cant-say This podcast (the 2nd half of it) is about a US republican, pro gun politician who wanted to try and ban replica guns in schools for fear that carrying them could get the kids shot by cops. It details the bullying she was put through at the hands of the republican establishment at the behest of their NRA masters. So while I get that discussing stuff on the internet is useful in some cases, in the case of gun legislation it is utterly pointless. The legislation is decided already. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On February 15 2018 09:56 dvzxc wrote: I would imagine doing something similar to Australia where they issued a mandatory buyback program and offered amnesty to illegal gun owners that turned in theirs. Obviously the logistics would be much harder due to scale but there doesn't seem to be any better option. That definitely is not an option currently due to, as you said, the scope of the endeavor that would be, as well as the current culture. It is a complex problem and will require a long-term solution. So long as the environment is so toxic that actual common sense reform cannot happen because it could possibly be a sign of less reasonable restrictions to come, no real progress will be made. edit: In other words, both sides of the issue need to be willing to compromise and neither are. Both sides are to blame (although the right, more). | ||
| ||
