|
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 February 15 2018 18:20 Silvanel wrote: I dont really comment on US poltics since its kinda pointless. But You know what i found retarted? That the Florida shoter was old enough to legally own a gun but not old enough to drink a beer.
PS.I assume its 21 across the states for alcohol, not 100% sure though.
"retarded" isn't really pc but I don't think TL cares if it's not directed at a person.
Yes and no. The law (in order to get federal money for interstate highways) on paper is 21 to be able to legally drink. In practice it depends on where you're buying. The states where they had to tie it to highway funding or they wouldn't agree, in small towns with owner operated small businesses, are the least likely to strictly enforce this rule.
As an aside you can legally own a long gun long before 18 it's just comparably hard to alcohol to "buy" one as a kid.
|
United States24440 Posts
On February 15 2018 13:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 10:21 micronesia wrote:I agree with the problems with limiting government study of the current problems. On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote: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. 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). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283] Ah ok, that was helpful, thanks. Personally, I don't agree with having a system for getting a gun permit where it's intentionally designed to be infuriatingly difficult to get through with lots of hoops you have to jump through for the sake of it. Requiring multiple reasonable measures to prove you aren't some moron who is about to go abuse your gun is fine, though (and many places certainly don't have that). It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. ... And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Why do you assume this? I agree, it's less likely an armed population is going to accomplish what the framers were thinking, but it's far from impossible. If you are envisioning a conflict with the population of US city X against the US Army, and the Army begins the conflict by carpet bombing the entirety of US city X, then yes, in that extreme example, gun ownership bought the people little in beating back the oppressive government. But if, at the other extreme, the government starts rounding up all the people in an area to send to concentration camps, it becomes much harder to deal with all the resistance if everyone is armed. It is hard to predict what form the government could take that would motivate the people to bear arms. You may think you have more insight into this than others, but I still wouldn't throw the word 'retarded' around. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. What do you mean its moot? A competent person with a bat or a knife or something can easily take out an equally armed homeowner or dweller. I'm not necessarily defending gun ownership for home defense, but I also don't accept your absolute argument here. its evident here that the entire perception of "self defense" by americans is another factor in gun control regulations. you clearly didnt understand that by wielding a gun against an attacker without a gun, you are no longer just "defending" yourself. you have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to you. strictly speaking defense is just putting yourself out of harms way; it doesnt necessarily require you to maim your opponent to do so. the fact that americans think that its perfectly fine to injure/kill an opponent under the cover of "self defense" shows why gun control is not just an issue of regulations, but a problem with the mentality of american people in general If a person I don't know, with a machete, is running at me, in my bedroom, with the intent to chop my head off, is it really fair to say that I, carrying a handgun, have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to me? I would totally agree that folks who think they have the 'right' to gun down someone trying to sneak a tv out their backdoor have this really bad perception you are referring to, but I don't agree with your overly narrow definition of defense.
edit: I find it interesting that 'when the second amendment became "retarded"' has a completely different answer depending on who you ask.
edit2 to below: I stopped reading after "Except it actually is retarded, who gives a shit if it's PC or not."
|
Except it actually is retarded, who gives a shit if it's PC or not.
It's factually retarded to be able to buy a military style AR-15 at age 18, but beer and hand guns at age 21 in florida.
To comment on the "duh, the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle because it's semi automatic", it's missing a very important piece of information there. It's not an assault rifle under the US army definition of assault rifle. It certainly is in other places including the original definition used to describe the role of the automatic pistol in world war one. It also is legally an assault weapon in some states.
For all intents and purposes, there's no difference to a wielder between an AR-15 and a M4. A soldier doesn't use automatic fire on the assault rifle. The only time i used automatic fire on the G36 in years of service was to see why we don't use it. In fact, a soldier might actually be better off with a fully kitted AR-15 than with an M4, there's no situation where you would rather have an M4 over the colt - except if you're a LM gunner. The entire discussion about it is just fucking smoke and mirror, the AR-15 is pretty much the same weapon US commandos use. Except maybe a little bit more reliable and more options for modifications.
There's no reason a private household needs an AR-15. Zero, nada. It's not a sporting rifle, it's not a hunting rifle, it's not a home defense weapon. Anyone who argues for any of these cases has never ever even thought about using it for that reason. People want an AR-15 because it looks bad ass. For actual sporting, the weapon isn't accurate enough at ranges above 200y. For hunting, 5.45 - really? And a "long" rifle for home defense is the dumbest thing i've ever heard as someone who has actually seen urban combat.
TLDR: as a soldier who had and never fired an assault rifle full auto in combat, the AR-15 is as horrifying to give to a 18 year old as it gets. I just don't understand how many people have to die until the usual suspects learn.
Even the "good guy with a gun" argument is just a marketing ruse. Look at what happens if weapons are not under threat by legislation: manufacturers go bust, like who was it now, remington? So you have to make up bullshit to get sales going again.
edit: sidenote, apparently a granny prevented another shooting tuesday by calling the police on her grandson in washington. German media reports of "a rifle" and selfmade explosive devices.
18 years old. Just let that fucking sink in for a second.
http://q13fox.com/2018/02/14/court-docs-everett-student-flipped-coin-to-choose-school-for-thwarted-shooting/
Another AR-15.
|
On February 15 2018 20:39 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 13:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 15 2018 10:21 micronesia wrote:I agree with the problems with limiting government study of the current problems. On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote: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. 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). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283] Ah ok, that was helpful, thanks. Personally, I don't agree with having a system for getting a gun permit where it's intentionally designed to be infuriatingly difficult to get through with lots of hoops you have to jump through for the sake of it. Requiring multiple reasonable measures to prove you aren't some moron who is about to go abuse your gun is fine, though (and many places certainly don't have that). It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. ... And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Why do you assume this? I agree, it's less likely an armed population is going to accomplish what the framers were thinking, but it's far from impossible. If you are envisioning a conflict with the population of US city X against the US Army, and the Army begins the conflict by carpet bombing the entirety of US city X, then yes, in that extreme example, gun ownership bought the people little in beating back the oppressive government. But if, at the other extreme, the government starts rounding up all the people in an area to send to concentration camps, it becomes much harder to deal with all the resistance if everyone is armed. It is hard to predict what form the government could take that would motivate the people to bear arms. You may think you have more insight into this than others, but I still wouldn't throw the word 'retarded' around. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. What do you mean its moot? A competent person with a bat or a knife or something can easily take out an equally armed homeowner or dweller. I'm not necessarily defending gun ownership for home defense, but I also don't accept your absolute argument here. its evident here that the entire perception of "self defense" by americans is another factor in gun control regulations. you clearly didnt understand that by wielding a gun against an attacker without a gun, you are no longer just "defending" yourself. you have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to you. strictly speaking defense is just putting yourself out of harms way; it doesnt necessarily require you to maim your opponent to do so. the fact that americans think that its perfectly fine to injure/kill an opponent under the cover of "self defense" shows why gun control is not just an issue of regulations, but a problem with the mentality of american people in general If a person I don't know, with a machete, is running at me, in my bedroom, with the intent to chop my head off, is it really fair to say that I, carrying a handgun, have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to me? I would totally agree that folks who think they have the 'right' to gun down someone trying to sneak a tv out their backdoor have this really bad perception you are referring to, but I don't agree with your overly narrow definition of defense. edit: I find it interesting that 'when the second amendment became "retarded"' has a completely different answer depending on who you ask. edit2 to below: I stopped reading after "Except it actually is retarded, who gives a shit if it's PC or not." actually its not just my narrow definition of defense. australia's self defense laws are like so and i dont believe people in australia heavily disagree with that. also even in your machete scenario, yes you do have the means to inflict more damage. if you are using the word "means" synonymously with "intent" and are arguing that because you lack intent you do not have the means then the question would be, why bother having a gun at all?
|
While I do think we should stop addressing the dumbass arguments of the very few people who actually disagree with some form of gun control in the US, because it stops us from talking about the actual problem, I'm always amused by the idea that it's a mental health issue rather than a gun issue. America has to be number one in everything I guess, even in crazy people. It's weird that we've managed to eliminate most of our mentally ill population with no policy directed at doing that and the US hasn't, not sure how that came to be.
|
On February 15 2018 21:14 Nebuchad wrote: While I do think we should stop addressing the dumbass arguments of the very few people who actually disagree with some form of gun control in the US, because it stops us from talking about the actual problem, I'm always amused by the idea that it's a mental health issue rather than a gun issue. America has to be number one in everything I guess, even in crazy people. It's weird that we've managed to eliminate most of our mentally ill population with no policy directed at doing that and the US hasn't, not sure how that came to be.
Not living in constant fear of soul-crushing poverty while being surrounded with a consumerism that assesses your social worth by your possessions has remarkable effects on one's mental health.
It's a both and in my view. An overwhelming number of mass shooters are veterans and or white males and the rate of prescription mood altering substance (usually prescribed before their brain has finished developing) among shooters is off the charts.
Guns, mental health, 'radicalization', are all critical components to our problems, each with their own particulars. I feel more hopeless about doing anything functional about guns than I do about reforming the Democratic party. That should tell most people all they need to know about that.
|
On February 15 2018 21:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 21:14 Nebuchad wrote: While I do think we should stop addressing the dumbass arguments of the very few people who actually disagree with some form of gun control in the US, because it stops us from talking about the actual problem, I'm always amused by the idea that it's a mental health issue rather than a gun issue. America has to be number one in everything I guess, even in crazy people. It's weird that we've managed to eliminate most of our mentally ill population with no policy directed at doing that and the US hasn't, not sure how that came to be. Not living in constant fear of soul-crushing poverty while being surrounded with a consumerism that assesses your social worth by your possessions has remarkable effects on one's mental health. It's a both and in my view. An overwhelming number of mass shooters are veterans and or white males and the rate of prescription mood altering substance (usually prescribed before their brain has finished developing) among shooters is off the charts. Guns, mental health, 'radicalization', are all critical components to our problems, each with their own particulars. I feel more hopeless about doing anything functional about guns than I do about reforming the Democratic party. That should tell most people all they need to know about that.
For mass shooting incidents specifically I'd look at antisocial traits rather than antisystem discomfort when I look at mental health. I'd be surprised if you can really connect the way the capitalist system affects mental health and shootings in that fashion.
I did overlook prescription substances though, that's a good point.
|
On February 15 2018 22:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 21:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 21:14 Nebuchad wrote: While I do think we should stop addressing the dumbass arguments of the very few people who actually disagree with some form of gun control in the US, because it stops us from talking about the actual problem, I'm always amused by the idea that it's a mental health issue rather than a gun issue. America has to be number one in everything I guess, even in crazy people. It's weird that we've managed to eliminate most of our mentally ill population with no policy directed at doing that and the US hasn't, not sure how that came to be. Not living in constant fear of soul-crushing poverty while being surrounded with a consumerism that assesses your social worth by your possessions has remarkable effects on one's mental health. It's a both and in my view. An overwhelming number of mass shooters are veterans and or white males and the rate of prescription mood altering substance (usually prescribed before their brain has finished developing) among shooters is off the charts. Guns, mental health, 'radicalization', are all critical components to our problems, each with their own particulars. I feel more hopeless about doing anything functional about guns than I do about reforming the Democratic party. That should tell most people all they need to know about that. For mass shooting incidents specifically I'd look at antisocial traits rather than antisystem discomfort when I look at mental health. I'd be surprised if you can really connect the way the capitalist system affects mental health and shootings in that fashion. I did overlook prescription substances though, that's a good point.
that was just a little social net envy poking through, it's hard for me to engage with this stuff when pretty much the only emotion it triggers any more for me is rage.
Fucking 17 people at school and they aren't going to do anything.
|
Some real sane people on TL. I hope you're all registered voters (if you're 'Murican).
|
On February 15 2018 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 22:18 Nebuchad wrote:On February 15 2018 21:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 21:14 Nebuchad wrote: While I do think we should stop addressing the dumbass arguments of the very few people who actually disagree with some form of gun control in the US, because it stops us from talking about the actual problem, I'm always amused by the idea that it's a mental health issue rather than a gun issue. America has to be number one in everything I guess, even in crazy people. It's weird that we've managed to eliminate most of our mentally ill population with no policy directed at doing that and the US hasn't, not sure how that came to be. Not living in constant fear of soul-crushing poverty while being surrounded with a consumerism that assesses your social worth by your possessions has remarkable effects on one's mental health. It's a both and in my view. An overwhelming number of mass shooters are veterans and or white males and the rate of prescription mood altering substance (usually prescribed before their brain has finished developing) among shooters is off the charts. Guns, mental health, 'radicalization', are all critical components to our problems, each with their own particulars. I feel more hopeless about doing anything functional about guns than I do about reforming the Democratic party. That should tell most people all they need to know about that. For mass shooting incidents specifically I'd look at antisocial traits rather than antisystem discomfort when I look at mental health. I'd be surprised if you can really connect the way the capitalist system affects mental health and shootings in that fashion. I did overlook prescription substances though, that's a good point. that was just a little social net envy poking through, it's hard for me to engage with this stuff when pretty much the only emotion it triggers any more for me is rage. Fucking 17 people at school and they aren't going to do anything.
i’m with you. every day 535 people go to work with the power to fix it. i get that they have other day to day shit to quibble about, but you’d like to imagine at some point they could find the time to get to it. Every other day at a minimum (it’s been more than that on average so far this year) they have a mass shooting on their backs to walk into the capitol to do something about. and every day instead we quibble about which sort of compromise is palatable to gun owners and what number of dead children exactly is justification for restricting their freedoms, and at the end of the day it’s hollow pandering because they’ll continue to not actually do anything.
they never even outlawed the bump stock. that was a bridge too far. lol. they’re content to sit and do nothing. they go to work today with the power to let the lives of 17 children utterly wasted not be in vain, but at the end of the day we’ll pander and do nothing instead.
and totally unrelated, we could probably afford to stop saying retarded so often. expand our vocabulary a bit.
On February 15 2018 20:39 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 13:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 15 2018 10:21 micronesia wrote:I agree with the problems with limiting government study of the current problems. On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote: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. 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). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283] Ah ok, that was helpful, thanks. Personally, I don't agree with having a system for getting a gun permit where it's intentionally designed to be infuriatingly difficult to get through with lots of hoops you have to jump through for the sake of it. Requiring multiple reasonable measures to prove you aren't some moron who is about to go abuse your gun is fine, though (and many places certainly don't have that). It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. ... And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Why do you assume this? I agree, it's less likely an armed population is going to accomplish what the framers were thinking, but it's far from impossible. If you are envisioning a conflict with the population of US city X against the US Army, and the Army begins the conflict by carpet bombing the entirety of US city X, then yes, in that extreme example, gun ownership bought the people little in beating back the oppressive government. But if, at the other extreme, the government starts rounding up all the people in an area to send to concentration camps, it becomes much harder to deal with all the resistance if everyone is armed. It is hard to predict what form the government could take that would motivate the people to bear arms. You may think you have more insight into this than others, but I still wouldn't throw the word 'retarded' around. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. What do you mean its moot? A competent person with a bat or a knife or something can easily take out an equally armed homeowner or dweller. I'm not necessarily defending gun ownership for home defense, but I also don't accept your absolute argument here. its evident here that the entire perception of "self defense" by americans is another factor in gun control regulations. you clearly didnt understand that by wielding a gun against an attacker without a gun, you are no longer just "defending" yourself. you have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to you. strictly speaking defense is just putting yourself out of harms way; it doesnt necessarily require you to maim your opponent to do so. the fact that americans think that its perfectly fine to injure/kill an opponent under the cover of "self defense" shows why gun control is not just an issue of regulations, but a problem with the mentality of american people in general If a person I don't know, with a machete, is running at me, in my bedroom, with the intent to chop my head off, is it really fair to say that I, carrying a handgun, have the means to inflict much more damage to the attacker than he does to me? I would totally agree that folks who think they have the 'right' to gun down someone trying to sneak a tv out their backdoor have this really bad perception you are referring to, but I don't agree with your overly narrow definition of defense. edit: I find it interesting that 'when the second amendment became "retarded"' has a completely different answer depending on who you ask. edit2 to below: I stopped reading after "Except it actually is retarded, who gives a shit if it's PC or not." what if you found yourself on the top of a building and this man, wielding 200 lbs of body mass, was charging at you with the intent to take you off the ledge?
there are a lot of hypotheticals that serve as a beautiful distraction, meanwhile those 17 kids weren’t fighting off a hypothetical machete wielding psycho. they should’ve been so lucky. to bring that particular hypothetical to life, do you imagine the people in his school would’ve preferred Cruz brought a machete to bear or a gun?
i for one am more than happy to sacrifice as much of my hypothetical safety as possible to affect real world safety. my thoughts and prayers are for all the others that have yet to make this bold decision.
it makes me giddy to consider a world where guns are illegal for civilians.
|
ugh hit quote instead of edit. sorry.
|
|
On February 16 2018 00:14 Doodsmack wrote: Thoughts and prayers.
Not sure if serious. Pic from US Politics Megathread. Very apt.
|
This was posted back in October but they've updated it with new results. Give it a look.
It was the deadliest school shooting since a gunman took 26 lives at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Conn. On Wednesday, a shooter killed at least 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
The Florida shooting is the latest reminder of the persistent gun violence in the United States. Rates of gun deaths in the U.S. are far greater than in much of the rest of the world.
Take countries with the top indicators of socioeconomic success — income per person and average education level, for instance. The United States ranks ninth in the world among them, bested only by the likes of Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland, Andorra, Canada and Finland.
Those countries all also enjoy low rates of gun violence, but the U.S. has the 31st highest rate in the world: 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people in 2016. That was eight times higher than the rate in Canada, which had .48 deaths per 100,000 people — and 27 times higher than the one in Denmark, which had .14 deaths per 100,000.
The numbers comes from a massive database maintained by the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which tracks lives lost in every country, in every year, by every possible cause of death. The 2016 figures, released last fall, paint a fairly rosy picture for much of the world, with deaths due to gun violence rare even in many countries that are extremely poor — such as Bangladesh and Laos, which saw .16 deaths and .13 deaths respectively per 100,000 people.
Prosperous Asian countries such as Singapore and Japan boast the absolute lowest rates, though the United Kingdom and Germany are in almost as good shape.
"It is a little surprising that a country like ours should have this level of gun violence," says Ali Mokdad, a professor of global health and epidemiology at the IHME. "If you compare us to other well-off countries, we really stand out." Source
|
On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote: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. 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). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting
Okay, you want the easiest way to kill someone to rob you with a knife. Might i suggest a proximity mine? Just put one at every window and door and wait for the knifeholder to make your day. What about orbital guided artillery, missile strikes on anyone stepping on your lawn might be a good solution as well or maybe some deadly gas? Because your right to take someones life shall not be infringed upon by common sense or proportionate responses.
If you need weapons to protect yourself from the government, you either are a criminal or it's too late. There is no scenario were you are morally allowed to shoot government agents and have a chance to actually achieve anything by shooting government agents. Either your government is not oppressing you enough to warrant you murdering it's officials or it is oppressing you so much that you need to shoot back and will fail. I would love to know the scenario where a handgun is needed to defend from the government.
Sportshooting and hunting. Okay, i allow you that, i am in a good mood, you are just not allowed to buy the weapon for sportshooting, you get it at the range and you give it back when you are done. For SPorts you are allowed hunting rifles. Actual hunting rifles. No Scopes, no semi automatic capabilities. You need a hunting permit, have to go to seminars every x years and pass a test. You can't buy unlimited bullets.
So, nobody needs a gun anymore, right?
|
On February 16 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote: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. 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). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting Okay, you want the easiest way to kill someone to rob you with a knife. Might i suggest a proximity mine? Just put one at every window and door and wait for the knifeholder to make your day. What about orbital guided artillery, missile strikes on anyone stepping on your lawn might be a good solution as well or maybe some deadly gas? Because your right to take someones life shall not be infringed upon by common sense or proportionate responses. If you need weapons to protect yourself from the government, you either are a criminal or it's too late. There is no scenario were you are morally allowed to shoot government agents and have a chance to actually achieve anything by shooting government agents. Either your government is not oppressing you enough to warrant you murdering it's officials or it is oppressing you so much that you need to shoot back and will fail. I would love to know the scenario where a handgun is needed to defend from the government. Sportshooting and hunting. Okay, i allow you that, i am in a good mood, you are just not allowed to buy the weapon for sportshooting, you get it at the range and you give it back when you are done. For SPorts you are allowed hunting rifles. Actual hunting rifles. No Scopes, no semi automatic capabilities. You need a hunting permit, have to go to seminars every x years and pass a test. You can't buy unlimited bullets. So, nobody needs a gun anymore, right?
Basically all the same common sense shit I've been saying. Americans are not the best critical thinkers these days.
|
My God.
*snip*
User was warned for this post - if you want to find graphic videos of dead children, i'm sure there are other places - mod
|
nsfw warning literal dead high school children.
|
So Trump and the GOP's predictable response is finding other problems, mainly "mental health". Very nice to hear Trump speak on the subjects of kindness and mental-health in response to gun-violence. I'm sure we're all more sane now.
More gun-deaths in America than any other country by far. But I'm a "gun guy". Guns are great. NRA is great. So the problem must be.... Americans.
The GOP hates Americans, I think is the most obvious explanation for their view. They think we're more mentally ill-equipped than other countries' citizens -- because this is how they explain the gun-violence problem we're facing. But at the same time, they're very concerned that we be able to protect ourselves from all the heavily-armed mentally-ill people. Or maybe they just want to see a lot of us dead. Otherwise the logic in making these "mental health" excuses just doesn't really add up. We have a mental-health problem, and obviously the answer is more assault-rifles.
I really think the halfway-point on gun-control might be to take away the gun from anyone who ever argued about their right to have one. If you care that much about your weapon, I don't trust you to have it at this point. The rest of us do get guns, to protect ourselves from the deplorable idiots and monsters that continue to talk bullshit while children die, and won't let a Republic change its laws unless it's over their "cold dead hands". I'm so sick of these dumb fascists.
|
Ok, I know there are a ton of videos out there of the shooting. Can folks please put those in the spoiler and put a warning in their post? I don’t mind that folks are posting them, but I we should give everyone a heads up to what they are signing up to watch. Even the still images on some of these are really troubling.
|
|
|
|