Support NeoGAF

[hellclerk]

I don't care who you are and what you think about guns, but this cements it: there needs to be a better gun owner's lobbying group in the US. It's painfully obvious that the NRA isn't interested in protecting the rights of US gun owners, but rather protecting the pockets of US gun manufacturers. This sort of bullshit response is a clear indication that instead of thoughtful, reasonable gun control focused on personal responsibility and keeping legal guns out of the hands of those who would abuse them, the NRA is only interested in seeing as many gun purchases to as many people who will pay.

The NRA doesn't even represent half of America's gun owners anyway. Not even close. They have a membership of 4 million. Meanwhile, almost 14 million people went hunting last year. That's ten million gun owners right there that have nothing to do with the NRA. Fuck the NRA, and fuck its regressive hard line. Lets get a gun lobby that will represent the PEOPLE, as the NRA so falsely claims to do.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You claimed that you have a right to a method of killing a large number of people quickly. You claimed this. You said that to assume you couldn't handle it would be patronizing your personal responsibility. All I am asking is why you have a right to one form of that, but not others.

And that's where you dun goofed. "Oh you have a right to own a gun?! Why not a right to own a nuclear weapon!!?!!11!1one!!!!"

Nonsense.

 

[Blasty]

Stuffing more straw in the strawman doesn't make your analogy valid.

I'm curious about your answer to his question.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I don't care who you are and what you think about guns, but this cements it: there needs to be a better gun owner's lobbying group in the US. It's painfully obvious that the NRA isn't interested in protecting the rights of US gun owners, but rather protecting the pockets of US gun manufacturers. This sort of bullshit response is a clear indication that instead of thoughtful, reasonable gun control focused on personal responsibility and keeping legal guns out of the hands of those who would abuse them, the NRA is only interested in seeing as many gun purchases to as many people who will pay.

The NRA doesn't even represent half of America's gun owners anyway. Not even close. They have a membership of 4 million. Meanwhile, almost 14 million people went hunting last year. That's ten million gun owners right there that have nothing to do with the NRA. Fuck the NRA, and fuck its regressive hard line. Lets get a gun lobby that will represent the PEOPLE, as the NRA so falsely claims to do.

http://www.saf.org/

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm curious about your answer to his question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_States

I know, I know. "Muskets".

 

[Chichikov]

I don't care who you are and what you think about guns, but this cements it: there needs to be a better gun owner's lobbying group in the US. It's painfully obvious that the NRA isn't interested in protecting the rights of US gun owners, but rather protecting the pockets of US gun manufacturers. This sort of bullshit response is a clear indication that instead of thoughtful, reasonable gun control focused on personal responsibility and keeping legal guns out of the hands of those who would abuse them, the NRA is only interested in seeing as many gun purchases to as many people who will pay.

The NRA doesn't even represent half of America's gun owners anyway. Not even close. They have a membership of 4 million. Meanwhile, almost 14 million people went hunting last year. That's ten million gun owners right there that have nothing to do with the NRA. Fuck the NRA, and fuck its regressive hard line. Lets get a gun lobby that will represent the PEOPLE, as the NRA so falsely claims to do.

Agreed.
The NRA is an arm dealers lobbying outfit masquerading as a gun owners advocacy group.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Here's what should bother every person out there:

I have no criminal record to speak of, and I don't deal in any criminal matters. I don't know how to access any black market, and I wouldn't even know where to go to find weed if I wanted it.


At this very moment, I can go out, drive to the nearest gun store, and purchase as much body armor, as many shotguns, rifles, and firearms as I desire. I can then go on a shooting rampage until I run out of ammo or drop dead.

The only thing preventing me from doing this? Self-restraint. That's it. There are no barriers to entry for me, no channels I need to unearth, no connections I need to make, to carry out a shooting spree. Society has graciously set up all the infrastructure to provide me easy access to the tools I need, and does so in the name of "freedom."

Self-restraint should not be the only thing preventing masscares like this. And every time someone talks about arming school teachers, or providing guards to schools, or donig more to keep the "bad guys" from having access to firearms without infringing the rights of the "good guys" / "law-abiding citizens" (whatever the hell that means), they completely miss the point. The only thing that prevents a massacre is self-restraint in our society. There are so few barriers in place to acquiring guns, and they are so ingrained culturally, that background checks or psychological assessments do nothing to impede an individual, well-meaning or otherwise.

We think of guns as toys. That goes for most "responsible" gun owners, too. Anyone who thinks it is "cool" to own a certain rifle, or "fun" to use them at the target range, is treating it with the mindset of a toy. And until we get rid of the mindset that guns are toys, we'll never be able to seriously discuss how to prevent massacres like this.

 

[Kazerei]

It would be a strawman fallacy if he was twisting your argument to make it look like you support legalizing chemical weapons, explosives, etc. He's just asking why you draw the line between different things.

 

[Liberty4all]

Then let those nations make their own laws and enjoy them accordingly.

We do. And have 0 percent of the tragedies we read about in the US seemingly at least once a month.

The majority of all Americans now support a completely repeal of the Second Amendment? Source plz?

None. Anecdotal. I'm sure though that some other Americans will back me up here. It's just a general feeling I've been getting. That Americans attitudes towards guns are changing. Maybe I'm wrong though ... I'm willing to admit that.

The writing is on the wall because less than a week after this shooting many have used it to push their pre-existing beliefs.

And I say this as a person who is:
-Not a Boomer.
-Not a Republican.
-Not a Conservative.

I'm generalizing. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that the majority of Republicans are

-boomers
-love their guns
-are anti tax of any sort
-conservative

Conservatism btw is not nessecarily a bad thing. I'm somewhat a conservative when it comes to fiscal policies, but socially liberal. Unfortunately in the US, voting republican means voting both conservative on fiscal and social policy.

The sad reality is some will user any tragedy as a springboard for their political agenda.

As a Canadian what happens in the US has no effect on me (gun control wise), aside from my personal disgust.

You have to understand for most Canadians. Brits, and Europeans, the answer is SO obvious, on how to solve the American "gun dilemma". People mowed down in a movie theater watching Batman, 18 +, 6 year old kids get killed in a shooting spree all in the space of 6 months, and Americans are still having this debate regarding gun control?

But hey, let's keep fucking that chicken about repealing the Second Amendment instead of discussing reasonable things our government could do in order to reduce gun crime. Now.

Nobody is talking about repealing the Second Amendment. We ARE however talking about far stricter gun control laws.

 

[Blasty]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_States

I know, I know. "Muskets".

...?

That was a serious question.

 

[Hieberrr]

Question: Do Americans really think that they own a gun to prevent a tyrant leader from rising up and taking over?

C'mon son.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Agreed.
The NRA is an arm dealers lobbying outfit masquerading as a gun owners advocacy group.

Sad thing is all this knee-jerk reaction is a fucking goldmine for gun store owners. Prices are up and manufacturers are churning out more semi-automatic rifles in response.

I picked up a few boxes of .22lr rounds last night since I plan to go plinking this weekend. And they were even running out of that. Was a madhouse in there.

 

[CrankyJay]

Here's what should bother every person out there:

I have no criminal record to speak of, and I don't deal in any criminal matters. I don't know how to access any black market, and I wouldn't even know where to go to find weed if I wanted it.


At this very moment, I can go out, drive to the nearest gun store, and purchase as much body armor, as many shotguns, rifles, and firearms as I desire. I can then go on a shooting rampage until I run out of ammo or drop dead.

The only thing preventing me from doing this? Self-restraint. That's it. There are no barriers to entry for me, no channels I need to unearth, no connections I need to make, to carry out a shooting spree. Society has graciously set up all the infrastructure to provide me easy access to the tools I need, and does so in the name of "freedom."

Self-restraint should not be the only thing preventing masscares like this. And every time someone talks about arming school teachers, or providing guards to schools, or donig more to keep the "bad guys" from having access to firearms without infringing the rights of the "good guys" / "law-abiding citizens" (whatever the hell that means), they completely miss the point. The only thing that prevents a massacre is self-restraint in our society. There are so few barriers in place to acquiring guns, and they are so ingrained culturally, that background checks or psychological assessments do nothing to impede an individual, well-meaning or otherwise.

We think of guns as toys. That goes for most "responsible" gun owners, too. Anyone who thinks it is "cool" to own a certain rifle, or "fun" to use them at the target range, is treating it with the mindset of a toy. And until we get rid of the mindset that guns are toys, we'll never be able to seriously discuss how to prevent massacres like this.

Nothing is stopping you from driving a car through a crowd of people either. We also think of cars as toys.

 

[RDreamer]

And that's where you dun goofed. "Oh you have a right to own a gun?! Why not a right to own a nuclear weapon!!?!!11!1one!!!!"

Nonsense.

That's not nonsense. Where exactly is the line for you, and why? I'm assuming you don't think any arm at all should be legal and free for anyone to use. Why is that?

 

[Liberty4all]

I'm a hunter, that's what I do. I feed my family and people here on gaf want to take that away from me. I find a lot of comments in here absolutely disgusting. Get some perspective people.

My older brother lived in rural Alberta for 5 years. It's the closest equivalent Canada has in terms of citizens that would fall in line with Republican/Conservative/rural Americans.

Stricter gun control wouldn't necessarily mean you can't hunt anymore if you have the proper license/part of your job/etc. I think most of us are talking about bans on handgun sales, bans on high powered rifle sales, basically reforming gun ownership to something that makes sense?

 

[f0rk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_States

I know, I know. "Muskets".

If European countries were so obsessed with the laws they were founded on the world would be a very different place.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Question: Do Americans really think that they own a gun to prevent a tyrant leader from rising up and taking over?

C'mon son.

Prevent? No.

Give at least a basic level of ability to organize and resist? Yes.

Guarantee of victory? Absolutely not.

I know, I know: "Tanks and nukes and shit!" Yet that didn't help in Afghanistan and Vietnam.

At any rate, I hate this rabbit hole because honestly I don't think about revolt against the American Government that often, LMAO. I do think about being a law abiding citizen and not getting punished for the actions of a madman and the compromises that I believe responsible firearm owners should and could easily make to attempt to make the nation a bit safer. But it's hard when you have hardliners on both sides. Just leads to a circle-jerk-standoff.

If European countries were so obsessed with the laws they were founded on the world would be a very different place.

Good for Europe! I wish them all the best.

 

[Ramblin]

Sad thing is all this knee-jerk reaction is a fucking goldmine for gun store owners. Prices are up and manufacturers are churning out more semi-automatic rifles in response.

I picked up a few boxes of .22lr rounds last night since I plan to go plinking this weekend. And they were even running out of that. Was a madhouse in there.

You're masterful.

 

[Hieberrr]

Prevent? No.

Give at least a basic level of ability to organize and resist? Yes.

Guarantee of victory? Absolutely not.

I know, I know: "Tanks and nukes and shit!" Yet that didn't help in Afghanistan and Vietnam.

At any rate, I hate this rabbit hole because honestly I don't think about revolt against the American Government that often, LMAO. I do think about being a law abiding citizen and not getting punished for the actions of a madman and the compromises that I believe responsible firearm owners should and could easily make to attempt to make the nation a bit safer. But it's hard when you have hardliners on both sides. Just leads to a circle-jerk-standoff.



Good for Europe! I wish them all the best.

Iono, I'm just wondering if people really believed that the U.S. will someday (potentially) get a leader that becomes a tyrant.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

My older brother lived in rural Alberta for 5 years. It's the closest equivalent Canada has in terms of citizens that would fall in line with Republican/Conservative/rural Americans.

Stricter gun control wouldn't necessarily mean you can't hunt anymore if you have the proper license/part of your job/etc. I think most of us are talking about bans on handgun sales, bans on high powered rifle sales, basically reforming gun ownership to something that makes sense?

Stop it. He needs to be a victim from mean internet bullies so leave him alone. Please, won't someone think about the crops and how he shouldn't be responsible for his own guns and what they do to people even though he's a responsible gun owner. Haha Just don't ask him to take responsibility, it's just not fair guys.

 

[Angry Fork]

The writing is on the wall because less than a week after this shooting many have used it to push their pre-existing beliefs.

And I say this as a person who is:
-Not a Boomer.
-Not a Republican.
-Not a Conservative.


The sad reality is some will user any tragedy as a springboard for their political agenda. But hey, let's keep fucking that chicken about repealing the Second Amendment instead of discussing reasonable things our government could do in order to reduce gun crime. Now.

The reason the repealing talk comes about is because guns cause much more problems than they do good. They are not made to do good things. They are unnecessary for a free and prosperous society to exist. They are dangerous and made specifically for the main purpose of killing other animals/human beings.

It has nothing to do with liberals wanting to point and laugh at conservatives it's common sense. Being able to have fun at a shooting range does not justify their existence if it means there will be 10,000 murders next year because they're all over the place.

As for the issue of 'what about the guns already here': Repeal 2nd amendment. Check the list of legal gun owners and order them to give up their weapons to some local place the government sets up in every state/city like a red cross (and pay them whatever they spent on the weapon, if people can't prove they bought the weapon they get nothing), melt everything, stop production on all civilian weaponry, ban the ownership of a gun with a mandatory prison sentence (not a fine, nothing that can be paid off or negotiated), ban imports of them with a prison sentence and so on. Obviously this is never going to happen but it can be done if people were serious about it.

Nothing is stopping you from driving a car through a crowd of people either. We also think of cars as toys.

Cars aren't made to kill people.

 

[Blasty]

Nothing is stopping you from driving a car through a crowd of people either. We also think of cars as toys.

I don't understand your point.

This is a serious question.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

That's not nonsense. Where exactly is the line for you, and why? I'm assuming you don't think any arm at all should be legal and free for anyone to use. Why is that?

I think the line for me is not is when people try to initiate legislation that doesn't actually address the problem with gun crime. That's my line.

Yet all I hear as a response is: "But we have to start somewhere". No. Start where the problem is. We do not have an epidemic of semi-automatic gun crime. The overall majority by FAR is pistol gun crime. Cheap pistols. Stolen guns (hence why I've been screaming that legislation should be focused on safes in the home.) Is that a guarantee that a gun can't be stolen? Of course not. But at least it'd be an attempt to start...at the problem.

Same with national reporting of lost/stolen firearms. Same with addressing poverty. Healthcare (mental).

My line is drawn at "ban the scary bad things!"

 

[Liberty4all]

I think the line for me is not is when people try to initiate legislation that doesn't actually address the problem with gun crime. That's my line.

Yet all I hear as a response is: "But we have to start somewhere". No. Start where the problem is. We do not have an epidemic of semi-automatic gun crime. The overall majority by FAR is pistol gun crime. Cheap pistols. Stolen guns (hence why I've been screaming that legislation should be focused on safes in the home.) Is that a guarantee that a gun can't be stolen? Of course not. But at least it'd be an attempt to start...at the problem.

Same with national reporting of lost/stolen firearms. Same with addressing poverty. Healthcare (mental).

My line is drawn at "ban the scary bad things!"

So you would agree with an outright ban on pistol ownership?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Nothing is stopping you from driving a car through a crowd of people either. We also think of cars as toys.

And how many people consider car ownership a "right" that can't have restrictions on it?

We can't discuss gun control because people can't get past the idea that this HAS to be a right. we HAVE to give people the right to bear arms. Whether or not they use them to slaughter children is a completely unrelated matter that we can only mourn over and deter from, but not prevent.


Also, cars are actually registered with the state and tied to specific owners, and even have identification tags, plates, titles, and insurance registrations. Guns? Unregulated and untracked, for the most part.

 

[CrankyJay]

Cars aren't made to kill people.

So what? They are responsible for more deaths per year than guns.

Why not regulate guns like we do cars? The US could make bank off of this while providing an avenue to keep updated registries on guns. They could even make mandatory safety classes every year or few years.

 

[speculawyer]

The NRA doesn't even represent half of America's gun owners anyway. Not even close. They have a membership of 4 million. Meanwhile, almost 14 million people went hunting last year. That's ten million gun owners right there that have nothing to do with the NRA. Fuck the NRA, and fuck its regressive hard line. Lets get a gun lobby that will represent the PEOPLE, as the NRA so falsely claims to do.

Yeah, I think they fucked up big time and they should get hammered for it.

This whole armed guards plan is absolutely ridiculous. It just makes no logical, practical, or economic sense whatsoever.


And then to aim at videogames and movies. So the second amendment is sacrosanct but they shit all over the First Amendment? Brilliant! And they alienated a lot of young people by blaming videogames and movies. That's right . . . keep the conservative party as the party of old-people only . . . a dying party. Literally.

 

[CrankyJay]

And how many people consider car ownership a "right" that can't have restrictions on it?

We can't discuss gun control because people can't get past the idea that this HAS to be a right. we HAVE to give people the right to bear arms. Whether or not they use them to slaughter children is a completely unrelated matter that we can only mourn over and deter from, but not prevent.


Also, cars are actually registered with the state and tied to specific owners, and even have identification tags, plates, titles, and insurance registrations. Guns? Unregulated and untracked, for the most part.

Haha, we converged at the same point at the same time. I doth my cap to you.

 

[speculawyer]

So what? They are responsible for more deaths per year than guns.

Why not regulate guns like we do cars? The US could make bank off of this while providing an avenue to keep updated registries on guns. They could even make mandatory safety classes every year or few years.

That is a very legit avenue of exploration. We require people to take driving courses. We require them to pass a driving test. And we require them to carry insurance. Why not do the same for guns? This does not ban guns at all but will improve gun safety.

 

[Kinyou]

So what? They are responsible for more deaths per year than guns.

Why not regulate guns like we do cars? The US could make bank off of this while providing an avenue to keep updated registries on guns. They could even make mandatory safety classes every year or few years.

I assume the NRA doesn't want to

 

[CrankyJay]

That is a very legit avenue of exploration. We require people to take driving courses. We require them to pass a driving test. And we require them to carry insurance. Why not do the same for guns? This does not ban guns at all but will improve gun safety.

I'm more than happy with this. And to further this point, regarding insurance, I'd like to see proof of gun safe or something along those lines.

 

[The Technomancer]

And that's where you dun goofed. "Oh you have a right to own a gun?! Why not a right to own a nuclear weapon!!?!!11!1one!!!!"

Nonsense.

I dun goofed by asking why things with similar functions are treated differently? You are responsible enough to own one method of causing mass death, why not others?

 

[GremlinFool]

So what? They are responsible for more deaths per year than guns.

Why not regulate guns like we do cars? The US could make bank off of this while providing an avenue to keep updated registries on guns. They could even make mandatory safety classes every year or few years.

A modern society can't function without automobiles. A modern society can easily do without guns (see: Europe and the rest of liberal democratic world).

 

[CrankyJay]

A modern society can't function without automobiles. A modern society can easily do without guns (see: Europe and the rest of liberal democratic world).

We are a special case where there are probably too many guns circulated to emulate these other places. People will inevitably stash guns, and claim they lost them or were stolen. Not to mention the overhead in enforcing people to relinquish control of them. Robberies could rise because armed criminals illegally holding will steal without fear of retaliation from home and business owners.

 

[Angry Fork]

So what? They are responsible for more deaths per year than guns.

Why not regulate guns like we do cars? The US could make bank off of this while providing an avenue to keep updated registries on guns. They could even make mandatory safety classes every year or few years.

Because gun ownership would be unnecessary if the government melted every one it came across and began a process to create a clean slate. Car ownership is still necessary in places where there are large stretches of land.

I do think cars should be banned in densely populated cities though and public transportation for all would be the main source of travel.

 

[GaimeGuy]

You want to know why we don't regulate guns? Because it is seen as an affront to "freedom" and an infringement of an individual's rights. That's the whole fucking problem. Anyone can do whatever they want because it's their "right." Society can say "HEY! THAT'S NOT NICE!" in reaction to gun crime but can't do anything upfront to stop it.

That's the whole fucking problem. The 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean "GUNS! GUNS! GUNS!" rather than "Big, tyrannical empires can be held in check and overthrown by a popular uprising by an armed population," which is really what it was originally about. The anti-federalists viewed a central US government as no different than the british empire, and the 2nd amendment was put in to provide a feel-good sentiment that it's okay for you to rise up against tyranny even if you're told its illegal (Not that it would prevent you from being prosecuted or branded a criminal).

 

[ShogunX]

Nothing is stopping you from driving a car through a crowd of people either. We also think of cars as toys.

Cars actually have a use in a civilised society. I know people go hunting for food and I dont see anything wrong with that but what the fuck does an everyday middle aged woman (example) want with an M4 assault rifle?

 

[GaimeGuy]

We are a special case where there are probably too many guns circulated to emulate these other places. People will inevitably stash guns, and claim they lost them or were stolen. Not to mention the overhead in enforcing people to relinquish control of them. Robberies could rise because armed criminals illegally holding will steal without fear of retaliation from home and business owners.

Usually gun-related crime does rise in the short term, but then falls over the long term as enforcement cracks down.

 

[CrankyJay]

Cars actually have a use in a civilised society. I know people go hunting for food and I dont see anything wrong with that but what the fuck does an everyday middle aged woman (example) want with an M4 assault rifle?

Protection?

 

[King_Moc]

So instead of treating every adult person in a society as a responsible citizen until they prove otherwise we should just assume they're all maniacs waiting to happen and give them as little freedom as possible lest they do something terrible?

Fuck. Yeah, lets just sell guns to maniacs. How's that been working out so far?

 

[ShogunX]

Protection?

From who? King Kong?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Protection?

You know what's good for protection? Civilization. Society.

We're not in a Hobbesian State of Nature where everyone is out to get you. Furthermore, you can put laws in place where individuals who have a reasonable fear that they are in danger can request a firearm from law enforcement. People who get restraining orders against an abusive spouse, or a celebrity with a crazed stalker that is issuing threats. Other countries (like the UK) allow this.

 

[MThanded]

I think some of the remarks made today by the NRA were more than disrespectful to the victims at Sandy Hook.

 

[Liberty4all]

Robberies could rise because armed criminals illegally holding will steal without fear of retaliation from home and business owners.

That's not true. See: Canada

With gun control in place, guns become prohibitively expensive for criminals. Which means less criminals have them.

 

[Kazerei]

So instead of treating every adult person in a society as a responsible citizen until they prove otherwise we should just assume they're all maniacs waiting to happen and give them as little freedom as possible lest they do something terrible?

With guns, I don't think it's a good idea to wait for them to prove otherwise...

Gun ownership should be seen as a privilege, not a right.

 

[Trey]

I dun goofed by asking why things with similar functions are treated differently? You are responsible enough to own one method of causing mass death, why not others?

They are treated differently because guns are much more predictable than explosives or chemicals, must be actively used to be effective (must shoot targets yourself as opposed to booby trapping or planting explosives), are more accessible/harder to misuse, are used for sport and hunting.

I do not think explosives and chemicals are in the same ball park as consumer guns for the above, concrete reasons. There is also the real factor of each item's place in society's consciousness to consider.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Iono, I'm just wondering if people really believed that the U.S. will someday (potentially) get a leader that becomes a tyrant.

I find the people that think the US is in the process of active tyranny right now just as silly as those that think it could never happen ever in the US under no circumstance.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

With guns, I don't think it's a good idea to wait for them to prove otherwise...

Gun ownership should be seen as a privilege, not a right.

The overwhelming majority of legal gun owners don't "prove otherwise". I think that's a poor way to deal with crime.

Thankfully you're not in charge of the Second Amendment.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I think guns are rather easy to misuse. Pull a gun out in an adrenaline rush and use it. Think someone broke into your home when it was just your daughter returning after sneaking out for a party. Forget that a gun was loaded, or leave it out for a relative to snatch when you're not looking.

These are all relatively easy mistakes to make, and they all happen, time and time again.

 

[CrankyJay]

I think guns are rather easy to misuse. Pull a gun out in an adrenaline rush and use it. Think someone broke into your home when it was just your daughter returning after sneaking out for a party. Forget that a gun was loaded, or leave it out for a relative to snatch when you're not looking.

These are all relatively easy mistakes to make, and they all happen, time and time again.

You don't own a gun, this is easy to tell.

Not everyone opens a can of beer with their gun.