LUNATICS WITH GUNS, DOMESTIC TERRORISTS AND HOMOPHOBIA...

Posts

author=Solitayre
Oh no, I've been undone!

Except that that article is in reference to the Christina Grimmie murder, a completely separate event.


Second half of the article refers to the killer Omar Mateen, the guy responsible for the tragedy we've been discussing.

Either way, my point still stands. It's not a coincidence that a great number of mass shootings occur in gun free zones. All gun control does is disarm law abiding citizens.

Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
You may have noticed earlier in the thread that I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people.

Don't really think I want people bringing guns into a bar though.
I think you'd be very disappointed with how little armed patrons would accomplish. It's not a magic bullet where everybody is suddenly brave and knows how to act while under duress--if it were that simple then the military wouldn't need such extensive training. One of the more recent school shootings in my state allowed students to carry firearms on campus. The media interviewed several of the armed students who had the opportunity to, but did not act.

The notion that gun control doesn't work is kind of silly because there's so much evidence of it working in other western nations.

That said, I wouldn't support a firearm ban. I don't think banning Thing saves enough lives to justify taking away someone's ability to have Thing, which is crass and insensitive, but I consider our ability to have Things pretty important--whether it's a video game, a car, or an uzi.

I would, however, be in favor of stricter controls--to what extent, I haven't decided yet because it's difficult to hypothesize effectiveness and also expensive. Some cities with the strictest gun control laws still have the highest gun violence because law is impotent without the strength to enforce it.
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
author=Jude
The notion that gun control doesn't work is kind of silly because there's so much evidence of it working in other western nations.


I'm skeptical of how well it could work in the U.S. though. There's too many out there now. It's not like the government could find them all, and I wouldn't really want them to if they could.
InfectionFiles
the world ends in whatever my makerscore currently is
4622
It really comes down to training and being familiar with a firearm. And also the act and repercussions. Im used to and know very well of those things since I was young and I've used that to defend myself in a gun fight that played out on the property I own, apartments to be concise where I also live. People with guns that don't know or who have never experienced an event whether it be hunting or something more extreme won't know how to handle the situation.

It makes a difference when you know what you're doing and have had used whatver youtr holding to act or defend yourself. And just to clear
author=Solitayre
You may have noticed earlier in the thread that I'm not in favor of taking guns away from people.

Don't really think I want people bringing guns into a bar though.


You said you were for imposing restrictions as far as the type of gun/magazine.

And you may not know this but there are a few states, such as Virginia, that do allow conceal carry in bars. Haven't heard of too many drunken shootings that occurred.

author=Jude
I think you'd be very disappointed with how little armed patrons would accomplish. It's not a magic bullet where everybody is suddenly brave and knows how to act while under duress--if it were that simple then the military wouldn't need such extensive training. One of the more recent school shootings in my state allowed students to carry firearms on campus. The media interviewed several of the armed students who had the opportunity to, but did not act.


Deterrent at best, admittedly, but there are a few cases where a citizen has taken out an armed assailant.

author=Jude
The notion that gun control doesn't work is kind of silly because there's so much evidence of it working in other western nations.


As far as limiting crimes involving guns, sure. As far as stopping violent crime, no, unfortunately. Not to mention, there are other western countries, such as Switzerland, that show responsible gun ownership is a more viable option.



author=Jude
That said, I wouldn't support a firearm ban. I don't think banning Thing saves enough lives to justify taking away someone's ability to have Thing, which is crass and insensitive, but I consider our ability to have Things pretty important--whether it's a video game, a car, or an uzi.


I agree with you entirely on that sentiment.

author=Jude
I would, however, be in favor of stricter controls--to what extent, I haven't decided yet because it's difficult to hypothesize effectiveness and also expensive. Some cities with the strictest gun control laws still have the highest gun violence because law is impotent without the strength to enforce it.


Yeah, the gang element and all. But in non gang related cases the matter is far more simplistic: these shooters target places where they are going to encounter the least resistance. Imagine for a moment you were going to rob someone and you were scoping neighborhoods. Would you choose the neighborhood that has more restrictions on firearms or the neighborhood that has less restrictions on firearms?

As far as the extent of controls, it all depends on what it is and how it is implemented. Solitayre did bring up a good example in regards to placing bans on people that were on the terrorist watch list: that would actually be a sensible gun control measure even I'd agree with; shame it was voted down by Congress.
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
author=InfectionFiles
It really comes down to training and being familiar with a firearm. And also the act and repercussions. Im used to and know very well of those things since I was young and I've used that to defend myself in a gun fight that played out on the property I own, apartments to be concise where I also live. People with guns that don't know or who have never experienced an event whether it be hunting or something more extreme won't know how to handle the situation.

It makes a difference when you know what you're doing and have had used whatver youtr holding to act or defend yourself. And just to clear


If I had my way you wouldn't be able to buy a gun without passing a gun training and safety certification exam. People can rail against that all they want, but if you can't pass that your gun is basically useless anyway.

I'd also make it law that you must store it properly. Some states have requirements similar to this but every state does it differently.

If you can't do those things, you frankly have no business owning a gun in my opinion.

This doesn't mean I'd take guns form people that already legally own them. This would only apply to newly acquired firearms.
author=DarklordKeinor
As far as limiting crimes involving guns, sure. As far as stopping violent crime, no, unfortunately. Not to mention, there are other western countries, such as Switzerland, that show responsible gun ownership is a more viable option.


You should be careful about letting your ideology coloring your ability to interpret data. There is no correlation between guns and violent crime rate, so I don't know why you're using that as evidence of anything. However, there is a correlation between things like poverty and violent crime, social inequality and crime, and wealth inequality and violent crime. The causes of violent crime are much more complicated and difficult to understand and address. Switzerland is a stable western country where everybody is ethnically and culturally similar, income inequality is much lower than most of its European peers, and everybody has a comfortable standard of living. Meanwhile, Honduras is corrupt, poverty and drug-ridden, and the one of the worst in terms of income inequality. Also, your image is wrong on a factual basis: Honduras doesn't ban firearms and Switzerland doesn't require ownership. I would suggest avoiding Facebook *Facts.

But that's irrelevant, because the gun control talk isn't about violent crime: it's about fatal crime. Countries with firearm bans have dramatically lower homicide rates than countries that don't. If you neuter somebody's ability to kill somebody, then fewer people are killed--this is both intuitively understood and also supported by data.
slash
APATHY IS FOR COWARDS
4158
Gun control will be incredibly difficult to enact as long as the NRA continues to pump millions of dollars into government lobbying.

The CDC, which records and studies detailed statistics on deaths caused by anything from cancer to car accidents, is not allowed to research gun violence and related casualties, due to NRA lobbying against it.
ESBY
extreme disappointment
1238
In addition to what Jude said, there's also this Snopes article further explaining why Darklords' little meme is misleading.
As an Australian who grew up during the change-over between allowing guns and removing them from the country, and still remembers the Port Arthur Massacre, I understand that our countries are different in lots of ways but I don't see how removing guns from the equation could ever be a bad thing.

It could only do good for America to do so. Granted, the babby's who are in control wouldn't do it because they're complete fuckwits - they're basically making a lot of money off the sale and distribution of guns - but even harsher penalties and restrictions would help a lot in curbing some of the gun violence that exists.

It's incredibly stupid to even allow stuff like open carry. Like, why does that actually exist? Seriously? For what reason should you be openly carrying a gun around on your person if you're not security/police/army? The only reasons that make any sense are farmers (but don't carry that shit around in town. You ain't shooting rabbits in the middle of town ffs) and hunters (again, why are you carrying a gun in town? You ain't bagging bucks there).

Besides, ya'll should have put away the guns when they weren't needed - you know, when the reason the gun laws were brought in ended... at the end of the Civil War. Just pointing out that it's an out-dated and unnecessary allowance that has grown into making mass shootings a lot more likely to occur. Stupid.
I've always thought it would be a good idea to learn how to use firearms. I just have been weary of owning a gun myself due to how convenient that would make suicide. Mental health can improve though. Personally, I would enjoy hunting, I would love to process a deer into months worth of meat.

May the poor theoretical deer rest in peace.

To start the process I was planning on hunting rabbits with a BB rifle. I wana make rabbit stew.
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
author=Liberty
Besides, ya'll should have put away the guns when they weren't needed - you know, when the reason the gun laws were brought in ended... at the end of the Civil War. Just pointing out that it's an out-dated and unnecessary allowance that has grown into making mass shootings a lot more likely to occur. Stupid.


There is a lot wrapped up in gun politics in the United States. Its part of our national identity, for better or worse, and the right to arm ourselves is one of the core tenants of our constitution. To many people, this is a cherished right, a near religious one for some. But our rates of gun violence are insane compared to the rest of the world and I don't think it's healthy for us as a nation to just brush that aside. But it's what we always do.

United States' Relationship Status with Guns: It's complicated
author=Liberty
I don't see how removing guns from the equation could ever be a bad thing.

Because it's mine and I've done nothing to warrant somebody else taking it from me. This is the basis of property rights in western civilization.
author=Liberty
Besides, ya'll should have put away the guns when they weren't needed - you know, when the reason the gun laws were brought in ended... at the end of the Civil War.

I respect you a lot Lib, so this isn't me picking on you, but that statement is absolutely untrue, and it doesn't make any sense at best. The Civil War has historically jack-dick to do with the right to bear arms in American history. I think you should brush up on your American history before you make a statement like that.
Then please point out where I am wrong in that. I'd have no idea where to look - there's a lot of it, after all. I was taught that that was the reason the amendments for guns were brought in during the Civil War (the whole 'let people own and carry their own guns). Granted, we didn't cover much of American history. >.<;
author=Liberty
Then please point out where I am wrong in that. I'd have no idea where to look - there's a lot of it, after all. I was taught that that was the reason the amendments for guns were brought in during the Civil War (the whole 'let people own and carry their own guns). Granted, we didn't cover much of American history. >.<;

Wow, geez, that's what they teach you guys?

Yeah no that's totally incorrect; the Civil War was mostly fought because of the economic, cultural and legal divide between the North and South, most infamously the issue of slavery, nothing to do with guns. The Civil War was also more the a century after the nations founding.

The right to bear arms goes back much further, and is a founding principle of our country, dating back to the Revolutionary War, built into the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, i.e., the right to bear arms, was never 'brought in', the right to bear arms has never not been the right of American citizens. It's as old as America. We've always had it.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the common citizen from government tyranny and to keep the government in check via the constant reminder of the possibility of rightful revolt, which well, will never be an outdated concept as long as government exists.

Also, the common argument against this is 'what good is citizens with guns against modern arms with drones/tanks/etc' is not really a smart argument, and that argument has mostly been addressed above.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32347
No, Liberty. The right to bear arms came about from the American Revolution. The founders felt that it was every citizen's right to defend him and herself and country, but what a lot of people miss in the right to bear arms is the part about the "well-regulated militia". A lot of people have deliberately twisted this to mean that only the military should have guns (which would entirely negate the whole reason for having the law in the first place). The wording of the right clearly means that the right to bear arms is intended for the citizens. The actual implication is that any citizen who wishes to be properly educated and qualified to handle a weapon has the right to do so. A lot of gun rights enthusiasts willfully ignore the "well-regulated militia". The founders wanted us to be able to resist invasion, not just as an army, or as a whole, but to also keep our system in check (since the system itself was founded upon rebellion).

There was always supposed to be a balance. Anyone could own a gun, but they had to be able to prove that they were responsible. Our government has the right to expect that, but gun rights extremism has prevented that. In most states, you just need show your photo ID and prove you're of age. You don't even need to take a course, unless you want to legally carry it on you.
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
There is some gun history tied up in the end of the Civil War. I'm having trouble finding a lot of sources on this so correct me if I'm wrong, but most southerners fighting for the Confederate Army were required to surrender their arms (I believe only officers were allowed to keep their weapons) and being forced to give up their weapons to the government was a slight many in the south never forgot. When you hear people from the south talk about gun control paranoia they're often thinking back to a moment when what they saw as an oppressive federal government literally disarmed them. Of course, they were committing armed insurrection against the government at the time; Lincoln, eager for reconciliation, was actually letting them off light.

The south continued to have lax gun control in many cases until the present - except when free blacks had guns, when suddenly the south became very interested in gun control. That's one legitimate criticism of gun control laws in that historically they were often used to disproportionately oppress minorities.

Mog and piano are correct that the Civil War has nothing to do with the second amendment.
Adon237
if i had an allowance, i would give it to rmn
1743
I feel it is important to note that at the time the right to everybody having access to and the freedom to carry guns was conceived, assault rifles and the like did not exist. Why on earth does any citizen need an AR-15? What utility does this serve you? It surely cannot be for hunting... the meat would be rendered inedible. I am not aware of a situation in which possession of a gun by citizens has really stopped a major shooting, and such normalized possession of firearms would seem only to serve as catalysts for the violent tendencies of people in the populace.

I personally feel we need to disarm the nation of weapons that are unreasonable for possession, such as those firearms that have no real use besides killing humans.

This discussion is also kinda trapped on the gun control debate but it seems that without the whole violent homophobia thing this individual has, there would have been no shooting in the first place. "Gun-rights" proponents had best work on targeting the issues that lead to another wanting to commit murder on this scale... like fervent dislike of a race, sexuality, religion, or whatever else people hate others for still. The religion connection is true across the abrahamic religions, if these religions maintain that things like homosexuality are disgusting and to be shunned, they're going to create individuals with a tendency towards violence at homosexuals who will snap and do things like what happened at the Pulse bar. Even in non-radical practices of these religions, homosexuality is slandered and abhorred. If religious people want violence not associated with their religion, they're going to have to stop doing things like hating on LGBT people. Sadly, this seems an unlikely change.