Fair, I suppose. I meant in the sense of ease of use. A gun is a simple machine.
Those same human error hypothetical situations can be applied to explosives and chemicals with potentially more disastrous results.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NRA's solution to Sandy Hook massacre: "armed guards" in every school
- Thread starter Josh7289
- Start date
- Status
Fair, I suppose. I meant in the sense of ease of use. A gun is a simple machine.
Those same human error hypothetical situations can be applied to explosives and chemicals with potentially more disastrous results.
Oh give me a break. Are you telling me those things don't happen? That people don't shoot the wrong person?
http://www.peherald.com/news/article/6228
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57536870/pa-girl-in-costume-mistaken-for-skunk-shot/
These things happen all the time, not because people are irresponsible gun owners, but because they are people, and people can make mistakes, even when they are acting responsibly.
In the two links, one man was trying to shoot a skunk, and the other was trying to defend his home from intruders.
I'm saying they're not the norm. You know this.
The overwhelming majority of car drivers are responsible drivers. Yet we treat cars are a privilege one must earn, not a right.
Edit: Moreover, there's an obvious problem with treating every person as a responsible gun owner "until they prove otherwise" -- the consequences of when the prove otherwise are serious. Instead, they should prove themselves to be responsible, first.
Liberty4all
Banned
That's a good point.
Mammoth Jones
Member
So then say that up front. Say you'd rather the second amendment be changed to make owning a firearm a privilege and not a right.
Good luck in court.
Jeff Albertson
Member
I like the idea of outlawing ammo, the gun guys can keep their guns and everyone's happy.
We have to be aware of the gun clubbing epidemic though
We have to be aware of the gun clubbing epidemic though
Mammoth Jones
Member
I never said that. Not once. Feel free to browse my post history in an attempt to prove otherwise.
We need to deal with poverty and mental health and I believe things will get much better. Also we should probably sit down and talk with gun owners about what they believe would be reasonable legislation rather than making bad laws out of ignorance and fear.
Right, because I said they made mistakes. They wouldn't be mistakes if they were the norm. But that's not to mean they aren't expected, or acceptable collateral damage.
I waited until this year to get my license (I'm 24, turning 25 in March). I practiced probably about 50 hours with professional, behind the wheel training. I'm an extremely defensive driver. Yet, in my first month of owning a car, I made a mistake, and hit a car while parallel parking, causing $2000 in damage. That doesn't mean I'm an irresponsible driver though, and I'm glad to say I haven't had any citations or anywhere near a close-call in moving traffic. I just made a mistake.
I got a car because I found it impossible to have any social life without one (I still don't have one, but at least I have the option to get in touch with old friends now), and I would not be able to get to work anymore, because the new building location would not be on the bus line (I'm not walking a quarter of a mile in the snow from the nearest bus stop every day). In our society, you need a car in most areas to get around. You don't need a gun. The benefits of owning a gun do not compare, in my opinion, to the downsides of their misuse.
Liberty4all
Banned
Mammoth Jones
Member
Agreed. It's also sad to see those that want to destroy the second yet covet the first.
This is something I could get behind entirely. You can even put in a psychological element into it so that you "fail" if the instructor or on staff psychologist feels you're mentally unfit to own a firearm. This would even allow most AWB-style restrictions to loosen, short limiting magazine sizes (I think 20 rounds max would be fair for rifles)
I don't know, shoot the possums in her back yard? The M4 is just a varmit rifle in the end. Besides, they're fun for target plinking at the range. Ever shoot beer cans for shits and giggles? It's fun.
Well, the Roman Republic lasted 500 years before Julius crossed the Rubicon, and we haven't been around for half of that. We have time, but in the meantime, I'd like not to villainize firearms just because real villains use them. This is something that the NRA isn't actually helping with, as they cater to exactly the kind of people who might become those villains, a sad minority.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
the Blame the Media tactic
it took em a week to come up with THAT?
it took em a week to come up with THAT?
Liberty4all
Banned
Even as a Canadian even I can understand that to Americans ALL parts of the constitution are sacrosanct.
With that said, there are parts of the Second that need to be fixed. Can you not at least agree with this in principle? America is the only Western country that has this sort of gun problem. Surely some sort of gun control has been proven necessary by the events of the last few years?
I'm not saying that hunters can't go hunting. But the large scale sale of handguns, and high powered rifles with pathetic oversight/registries?
Today's law abiding citizen is tomorrow's mass murderer. That''s the whole point of my "self restraint" post, btw. If I committed a mass shooting, society would go "Why? How could this happen? Why couldn't anyone stop this?"
It's because you provided me all the tools and left it up to me to determine how to use them, you stupid fucks. Don't make it easy and convenient to commiit mass murder and you won't find it happens so often. Your Anders Breiviks will still exist, but your George Zimmermans, your Adam Lanzas, and your random neighborhood burglars won't be able to kill, if you don't make guns so easily accessible (legally or otherwise). That is more than worth it.
It's because you provided me all the tools and left it up to me to determine how to use them, you stupid fucks. Don't make it easy and convenient to commiit mass murder and you won't find it happens so often. Your Anders Breiviks will still exist, but your George Zimmermans, your Adam Lanzas, and your random neighborhood burglars won't be able to kill, if you don't make guns so easily accessible (legally or otherwise). That is more than worth it.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Not at all. And I believe I've been completely clear on that point in this thread and many many others. ^.^ But I would agree with legislation attempted to deal with the core cause of violent crime period. You know...
-Poverty.
-Mental Illness.
-Ending the Drug War.
Also I'd be more than happy to agree that firearms in the home should be secure:
-Tax credit for buying a safe.
-National law requiring the reporting of lost/stolen firearms.
And to fund it, let's get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, cut military funding by 15-20% and use that money to fund the tax credit for safes, dealing with poverty and such.
I'd also ask that the media stop pasting the killers face on TV every 20 minutes when something like this happens. Same with websites. Damn shame we know the criminal's faces more than we know the victim's.
It boggles my mind that some here think that's unrealistic but taking gun away from law abiding citizens is. Or that taking semi-assault rifles from law abiding citizens is somehow going to stop the bad guys. Last I checked, there was already a law against murder. Some madmen don't give a fuck.
Pretty much this.
Hey, let's talk about everything BUT how guns make it easier to do more damage, because guns are sacrosanct and cannot possibly be the root problem.
Guns are weapons, their purpose is to inflict harm, and the reason they exist is to carry out that purpose. Sometimes this can be a necessary evil in the support of good, but there comes a point when a necessary evil becomes entirely unnecessary.
Guns are weapons, their purpose is to inflict harm, and the reason they exist is to carry out that purpose. Sometimes this can be a necessary evil in the support of good, but there comes a point when a necessary evil becomes entirely unnecessary.
Liberty4all
Banned
I honestly don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. Handguns are made to kill. Not hunting or anything else ... I don't understand why you think handguns are a basic right? =(
Hot Coldman
Banned
Probably been posted to hell and back but Helen O'Hara's tweet about this is fucking hilarious. Wish I'd seen that.
So I just came across this -
How to Make Your Gun Shoot Like It's Fully Automatic—in One Easy Step.
Basically what they're doing there is a custom stock that uses the recoil to rock the trigger, effectively making you tap it much faster than humanly possible.
This is effectively automatic fire for all intents but legal purposes.
Now, I'm not one to freak over automatic fire and I'm not really sure why this was the line that was drawn, but that really goes to show how broken is our current legal framework, this is not working as intended.
p.s.
I wouldn't lie, on some level I admire the ingenuity.
How to Make Your Gun Shoot Like It's Fully Automatic—in One Easy Step.
Basically what they're doing there is a custom stock that uses the recoil to rock the trigger, effectively making you tap it much faster than humanly possible.
This is effectively automatic fire for all intents but legal purposes.
Now, I'm not one to freak over automatic fire and I'm not really sure why this was the line that was drawn, but that really goes to show how broken is our current legal framework, this is not working as intended.
p.s.
I wouldn't lie, on some level I admire the ingenuity.
lmao
MorisUkunRasik
Member
This has been shown to be an incredibly bad reason for gun ownership. You put those in your home and nearby in greater risk than an intruder poses.
"Overall, the limited data on self-defense
gun use suggest that (a) genuine selfdefense gun use is rare, (b) there are
many ways that people defend themselves
without a gun, and (c) many of these
other methods may be as effective as selfdefense gun use in preventing injury.
Perhaps surprisingly, the evidence does
not indicate that having a gun reduces the
risk of being a victim of a crime or that
having a gun reduces the risk of injury
during the commission of a crime."
Lots of other interesting information is at the link.
There is plenty of Purple territory that both sides could come together on and institute solid good changes that does not infringe on any law abiding citizens while making everything safer.
The fact people have to get stupid and start going beyond the purple is why shit never gets done.
The fact people have to get stupid and start going beyond the purple is why shit never gets done.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
The interesting thing to me is that each of the protections built within the other amendments in the Bill of Rights has a case for it as inalienable that can be argued outside of the realm of "because it's in the Bill of Rights." All of the defense of the second comes from it just being there. Essentially one giant appeal to authority.
They aren't the root of the problem. They are an amplifier of the problem.
Stop categorizing it as a "law abiding citizens" vs "criminals" thing.
That's exactly what it is. There are 70+ million gun owners who will never break the law with their weapon let alone kill someone.
I don't think anything you suggested is unrealistic. But you need to stop with the "law abiding citizens" and "bad guys" rhetoric.
Exactly. It's not black and white.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I wish a politician would come out and say that. Really shows the respect and trust one has for a free people.
That's completely unnecessary and does very little to further an actual discussion/healthy debate. Besides, I'm the firearm owner here. Shouldn't I be the one prone to aggressive outbursts?
It's nonesense to even present it as ONLY a choice between giving up the Second Amendment and stopping crime. There are plenty of solutions that don't involve taking away the rights of citizens that have broken no laws. Some believe a crazed madman hellbent on murder is going to murder regardless of if he does it with a gun, gas and a match, fertilizer or a plane ticket and a box cutter and that it's not worth giving up the right to self defense due to some crazies that are in the distinct minority. We have a system and it'll just have to play itself out. But you named three evil people. Can you name the one hundred million gun owning Americans that didn't go out and mass-murder anyone today? I'll wait....
It's a distinction I purposefully make because unless a citizen in the US has been found guilty in a court of law they are to be assumed to be a law abiding citizen. Period. And there is a serious attempt to demonize firearm owners and paint them as potential murderous maniacs since they own a firearm. I refuse to assume a citizen in the US that owns a firearm legally is somehow a less "moral" person than one that doesn't carry.
Question for the gun owners/pro-gun crowd. Why is only the second part of the Second Amendment the only part ever paid attention to?
All I ever hear quoted is "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." but it seems that no gun owner really cares about the first part. Why is that?
All I ever hear quoted is "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." but it seems that no gun owner really cares about the first part. Why is that?
Yeah, I'm also afraid of Hispanics.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
We can't outlaw earthquakes, but we can require buildings to follow regulations to minimize their impact.
Liberty4all
Banned
And yet America is the only country with the type of gun massacres we see on the news on a month to month basis. It's not about the one's who never break the law. It's about the one's that do and cause devastation in their wake.
It's the reason why Canada, UK, Europe and most Western nations have strict Gun Control ... because the crazy few can cause devastation disproportionate to the many that would use guns "legally".
If that kid went around punching people he would just get a slot on the local news.
That's BS and you know it. The reason shit never gets done is because we have a giant lobby with a vested interest in getting more and more people to own guns, not less. They have pushed the conversation so far the other direction out of the 'purple' it isn't even funny. No one in congress, really, would put forth a bill to absolutely ban all guns. It'd be political suicide. The truth is that even NRA members seem to support some common sense gun control, and the things usually put forth (well, nothing at all really in the last few years) don't even go there.
And that's why there are common sense reforms that can be done that both sides of the aisle will agree upon. The issue is instead of going for those common sense reforms people decide to try and push beyond and then stalemate the whole thing.
1.Mental Health checks to be undertaken when deciding to purchase with the ability to get a 2nd opinion.
2. Policy regarding gun storage in the home with incentives for households to install gun safes or something similar.
3. Gunshow loopholes closed.
4. Classes to teach responsible gun ownership
5. Make Gun licenses like Drivers License and require recertification every 5-10 years including new mental health checks upon recertifying.
6. Strict policies for ownership of a weapon if you live with others who are in fact mentally unstable to even potential blockage of ownership
Mammoth Jones
Member
Before I got concerned about it I would first ask is how many gun crimes are there that utilized semi-automatics that have been converted to full-auto in this manner?
Mammoth Jones
Member
Look deeper.
If that kid got the mental health care he needed and was committed earlier he would just be getting the help he needed.
Thanks to one of your favorite organizations, that's not really possible if they want to keep their jobs.
Antonz: Very few republicans actually support thsoe policies. Or if they do, they're not the ones who are politically active, or draft legislation.
The republicans are completely opposed to any form of health care regulation as a matter of "socialism"
They would argue that #2 is a matter of personal responsibility, not something the government should be involved in
#3 is "big government" getting involved in private citizens' property rights
#4 is, again, a matter of personal responsibility, not somethign the government should regulate/manate
#5 infringes upon your second amendment rights.
The republicans are completely opposed to any form of health care regulation as a matter of "socialism"
They would argue that #2 is a matter of personal responsibility, not something the government should be involved in
#3 is "big government" getting involved in private citizens' property rights
#4 is, again, a matter of personal responsibility, not somethign the government should regulate/manate
#5 infringes upon your second amendment rights.
The only thing that's evident to me is that gun regulation and mental healthcare are the problems.
We should also open up a department of precrime to make sure that nobody has the chance to even think about doing wrong, then we can let everyone have all the guns they want.
Because we shouldn't even think about reducing guns.
David Frum's twitter feed is a perfect rebuttal to anyone who thinks armed guards in schools will solve anything.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum
https://twitter.com/davidfrum
Who? Who pushes past? Seriously, we're all just forum goers. This is a pretty liberal forum, too, and even here there really isn't a ton of people that would outright ban guns. Policy makers and America as a whole aren't pushing the issue beyond and then stalemating it. The stalemate is coming from one side not wanting to move at all. Not one inch. Nada. The big gun lobby just had a conference, and didn't have a single thing to say about common sense gun control measures that both sides could agree on. Not one. They don't want it, thus the conversation is at a stalemate before it begins.
- Status