Support NeoGAF

[Mammoth Jones]

Gun legislation can be passed in a few months. Solving poverty is a pie in the sky pipe dream that will never happen - it's pointless to discuss in this context. Not to mention that gun safes have little to do with prior shootings and the drug war has fuck all to do with anything. I understand that gun lovers want to talk about anything and everything that doesn't involve actually restricting guns.but I don't have to fall for it.

The violence going on in the drug war in the US and Mexico has fuck all to do with anything?

Asking firearm owners to at the least install a safe in the home has little to do with anything?

You could repeal the second amendment tomorrow. Criminals don't follow laws. They prove that when they murder people.

I guess you see the object as the problem and I see people that misuse the object as the problem.

 

[The Technomancer]

Oh fuck it.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Some would, yes.

Others would still be criminals, just with less devastating results.

I'm sorry, Mammoth, I mostly agree with some of the proposals you put forth, but the "criminals will still be criminals" reasoning is kind of BS. People, in fits of depression, break down, panic, whatever the hell is going on, a lot of times reach for the easiest avenue of lashing out. If you take that option off the table, or make that option definitely not the easiest avenue and not as tempting, yes some criminals will just go do something else. A portion of gun deaths aren't criminals being criminals. They're humans being human, and guns being guns and amplifying the effects.

Hence my push for gun safes in the home. Some believe it to be unrealistic but I completely disagree. You're never going to make a dent until we deal with healthcare for the mentally ill. Banning semi-automatics when pistols are far more used in crime and crimes of "passion" is useless.

Once again, (and I"m saying this in general...not specifically at you) deal with the core problem instead of vilifying law-abiding people for the tools they own.

The answer unfortunately is more complicated than "All guns are bad, bad the bad things!"

 

[Prologue]

I don't see the problem with having an officer at every school. The guy in connecticut actually took sometime to break down the front door. By that time the official could have put him down or called for back up. Could the guy have taken down the cop? Of course, but that doesn't mean we don't try and put those layers of protection.


That being said, its no one's fault. We just don't expect something like this to happen and thats perfectly reasonable. But now we have to acknowledge this is not going to be the last time a shooting at a school happens. Each school needs to take precautions. Add some bulet proof windows and strengthen those doors. I think someone suggested a few government actions like having a required safe, thats perfectly reasonable.


I'm sure there are parents here that don't like having a person with a gun at their kid's school. At the same time, you can't live in the dark. The possibility is real and its there. When all the proper precautions are taken at the school, you can either trust an officer at the school, or trust in the city's reaction time when it comes to getting police on scene.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

The violence going on in the drug war in the US and Mexico has fuck all to do with anything?

Asking firearm owners to at the least install a safe in the home has little to do with anything?

You could repeal the second amendment tomorrow. Criminals don't follow laws. They prove that when they murder people.

I guess you see the object as the problem and I see people that misuse the object as the problem.

Isn't this circular reasoning? All gun owners are just "law abiding citizens" until they decide to shoot someone.

 

[Dude Abides]

The violence going on in the drug war in the US and Mexico has fuck all to do with anything?

Asking firearm owners to at the least install a safe in the home has little to do with anything?

You could repeal the second amendment tomorrow. Criminals don't follow laws. They prove that when they murder people.

I guess you see the object as the problem and I see people that misuse the object as the problem.

Why are you asking me to repeat myself?

People have been patiently explaining the fallacy of the "criminals don't follow laws" argument to you for months and you continue to blather the same nonsense. At this point you're just arguing in bad faith.

Here's an article about your buddies that explains it once more, though I suspect you'll continue to avoid addressing the point in favor of emoting.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._of_newtown_when_gun_nuts_write_gun_laws.html

This is not unknowable wickedness. It's banal teenage rage and stupidity, amplified by a gun. That's what everyday gun crime is—fleeting moments of thoughtless viciousness, made permanent with the wiggle of a finger. The Jovan Belcher murder-suicide was an ugly domestic argument; Belcher's gun collection turned it lethal. Maybe, as the gun enthusiasts argue, he might have resorted to using a knife or a club. But that's a less likely result. And even if it did happen, it would be less likely to be fatal.

In Australia, gun violence decreased markedly after the implementation of strict gun control measures. In Bogota, the number of deaths by firearm is reportedly down 58 percent, after the mayor banned public possession of guns. Take away instant, easy death-dealing, and the death rate drops.
LaPierre does not live in the realm of probabilities and harm reduction. He lives in a sick, paranoid universe where guns substitute for law, custom, and morality. Here he is, describing the country as he sees it, a place that teeters on the brink of collapse because of our national softness on crime: "Add another hurricane, terrorist attack, or some other natural or manmade disaster, and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization."

Violence and victimization. Now is a good time to remember what really happened after Hurricane Katrina: brutal cops and bands of racist civilians went around shooting and killing unarmed people. Why? Because they believed in the NRA message, that predators were waiting to attack law-abiding citizens. And they were right about that. They were just confused as to who the predators were.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Isn't this circular reasoning? All gun owners are just "law abiding citizens" until they decide to shoot someone.

Every citizen is presumed to be law abiding until convicted. Regardless of if they own a firearm or not. Sorry if you find that unappealing but that's how our system works.

 

[speculawyer]

Every citizen is presumed to be law abiding until convicted. Regardless of if they own a firearm or not. Sorry if you find that unappealing but that's how our system works.

Wow you completely missed the point. Again.


We all make fun of the USA but the UK has the same rate of crime & violence between its citizens. The difference is that allow people to own whatever gun they want such that our crime & violence ends up with far more dead people.

 

[Stinkles]

Hence my push for gun safes in the home. Some believe it to be unrealistic but I completely disagree. You're never going to make a dent until we deal with healthcare for the mentally ill. Banning semi-automatics when pistols are far more used in crime and crimes of "passion" is useless.

Once again, (and I"m saying this in general...not specifically at you) deal with the core problem instead of vilifying law-abiding people for the tools they own.

The answer unfortunately is more complicated than "All guns are bad, bad the bad things!"

Unless you live off the land it is not a tool. stats for home safety are laughable. You are five times more likely to be shot if you keep a gun in your house than the "unprotected" people who are too dumb to buy guns. The sooner people admit it is a fun toy that they are really emotionally attached to, the sooner we will be able to have a sensible dialog about them. I am pro gun, pro gun safety and absolutely pro gun regulation. I don't want to take anybody's fucking toys away, I want them to be responsible.

and the worst argument I have EVER heard from NRA people, is "enforce the existing laws!' MEANWHILE THE NRA HAS ELIMINATED OR NEUTERED MOST OF THE EXISTING LAWS AND SPENDS TENS OF MILLIONS A YEAR TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE REMIANINING ONES.

 

[kinoki]

If it's good enough for Batman it's good enough for me. No to guns.

Seriously though. How anyone can feel safe in a gun culture like the USA has is beyond me. I still get uneasy at the sight of a gun, even when it's a police officer who is carrying it.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Why are you asking me to repeat myself?

People have been patiently explaining the fallacy of the "criminals don't follow laws" argument to you for months and you continue to blather the same nonsense. At this point you're just arguing in bad faith.

Here's an article about your buddies that explains it once more, though I suspect you'll continue to avoid addressing the point in favor of emoting.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._of_newtown_when_gun_nuts_write_gun_laws.html

I'm supposed to expect a reasonable unbiased article with "gun nut" right in the URL and the title? Seriously?

Don't assume I'm arguing in bad faith because I simply don't agree with the notion that me being unarmed makes me safer when criminals aren't showing any signs of disarming. It's an attempt to shift the discussion away from the issues and onto me as a poster here and it's simply an underhanded debate tactic that's doesn't do anything for the discussion. C'mon.

I read the article. It's a standard anti-gun, anti-NRA piece. That wasn't an article that explains anything. It was an article that you plucked out because it reflects how you feel. As if civilians being armed are the reason the police are now militarized when people have been armed for 200+ years...

I also love how it mentioned George Zimmerman. You know my stance from that thread and not once did I blame a firearm on it. I put FULL responsibility on him for misusing it. I suppose we're just at an impasse in how we view rights and responsibility, I dunno. I blame the person for abusing the firearm. I don't blame the firearm.

I'm simply not willing to surrender my rights because others may abuse theirs. I'd rather the NRA win this mess against semi-automatics. Especially since pistols and knives are used in more murders.

 

[Carnby]

Since NRA's suggestion to put armed officers in schools I put some thought into it, and I agree. There are armed officers on my college campus, and at my local mall. I don't see why there shouldn't be officers on the premise of elementary and high schools. Especially after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

 

[RDreamer]

Since NRA's suggestion to put armed officers in schools I put some thought into it, and I agree. There are armed officers on my college campus, and at my local mall. I don't see why there shouldn't be officers on the premise of elementary and high schools. Especially after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Sure, let's tax guns to fund it.

 

[Anticitizen One]

The violence going on in the drug war in the US and Mexico has fuck all to do with anything?

Asking firearm owners to at the least install a safe in the home has little to do with anything?

You could repeal the second amendment tomorrow. Criminals don't follow laws. They prove that when they murder people.

I guess you see the object as the problem and I see people that misuse the object as the problem.

The people who commit mass murder would not have been able to if it wasn't so easy to acquire guns. If they couldn't have obtained the gun legally it would have been significantly more difficult/dangerous/riskier to obtain a gun from the black market/local dealer assuming they could find one.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm supposed to expect a reasonable unbiased article with "gun nut" right in the URL and the title? Seriously?

This is a convenient way to dismiss something without an actual argument. I understand - thinking things through is hard, pretending to take offense and dismissing them is much much easier.

Don't assume I'm arguing in bad faith because I simply don't agree with the notion that me being unarmed makes me safer when criminals aren't showing any signs of disarming. It's an attempt to shift the discussion away from the issues and onto me as a poster here and it's simply an underhanded debate tactic that's doesn't do anything for the discussion.

That's not the notion. That you persist in miscomprehension is the evidence you're arguing in bad faith.

I read the article. It's a standard anti-gun, anti-NRA piece. That wasn't an article that explains anything. It was an article that you plucked out because it reflects how you feel. As if civilians being armed are the reason the police are now militarized when people have been armed for 200+ years...

You may have read it but you didn't understand it, or, more likely don't want to address the arguments made because you have no rebuttal.

I also love how it mentioned George Zimmerman. You know my stance from that thread and not once did I blame a firearm on it. I put FULL responsibility on him for misusing it.

You and LaPierre want a society of Zimmemans. Where people carry guns so they can shoot those they perceive as menacing them. He was a law abiding citizen carrying a firearm legally - he should be your hero.

 

[_machine]

Don't assume I'm arguing in bad faith because I simply don't agree with the notion that me being unarmed makes me safer when criminals aren't showing any signs of disarming. It's an attempt to shift the discussion away from the issues and onto me as a poster here and it's simply an underhanded debate tactic that's doesn't do anything for the discussion.

"In Australia, gun violence decreased markedly after the implementation of strict gun control measures. In Bogota, the number of deaths by firearm is reportedly down 58 percent, after the mayor banned public possession of guns. Take away instant, easy death-dealing, and the death rate drops.

Whether you agree with it or not, doesn't make it any less a fact. Numerous studies point out the same thing even in the US. Less guns and stricter laws equal less deaths in both different countries and different states in the US.

 

[RDreamer]

I'm supposed to expect a reasonable unbiased article with "gun nut" right in the URL and the title? Seriously?

Oh come on, the NRA are gun nuts no matter what side you're on. They represent gun manufacturers whose goal is nothing more than putting more guns out in the world no matter the cost. They're gun nuts. (the actual lobby itself, not necessarily every member)

Don't assume I'm arguing in bad faith because I simply don't agree with the notion that me being unarmed makes me safer when criminals aren't showing any signs of disarming.

They don't show signs of disarming now, because no one is forced to disarm. The notion is that everyone being unarmed makes you safer, because, statistically, criminals will also be disarmed. Thus, any violence that happens will have less potential to be lethal.

I also love how it mentioned George Zimmerman. You know my stance from that thread and not once did I blame a firearm on it. I put FULL responsibility on him for misusing it. I suppose we're just at an impasse in how we view rights and responsibility, I dunno. I blame the person for abusing the firearm. I don't blame the firearm.

Sure, but you are staunchly defending Zimmerman's right to have a gun up until he killed someone. In which case it's too late to take that right away from him.

And as a society we do have a responsibility to craft legislation that will affect these sorts of things. Part of the blame is indeed on a society that would allow so many people to have guns with almost no real checks that people like Zimmerman end up existing. Without that gun Zimmerman may still be irresponsible, but Martin very well may not have lost his right to life.

 

[speculawyer]

I also love how it mentioned George Zimmerman. You know my stance from that thread and not once did I blame a firearm on it. I put FULL responsibility on him for misusing it. I suppose we're just at an impasse in how we view rights and responsibility, I dunno. I blame the person for abusing the firearm. I don't blame the firearm.

Well blaming the person abusing the firearm doesn't bring dead people back to life does it? That's the problem!

THERE IS NO FULL JUSTICE THAT CAN EVER BE OBTAINED FOR A MURDER.

Let us say that a miracle happened and that we were unable to catch & prosecute every single person that kills someone with a gun. Even in that completely impossible situation, there would still be no full justice. Executing a murderer does not resurrect a victim.


Gun control regulations requires balancing of rights between the thousands of innocent victims and the rights of people to own guns. But it is a is statistical policy prescription. And when you have a statistical issue like climate change, helmet laws, seat belt laws, etc. there are always difficulties in getting past the 'gut feelings' of some people.

Edit: A standard law school saying is "An aggrieve victim came to me asking for justice . . . but all I could offer him was the law."

 

[speculawyer]

Sure, let's tax guns to fund it.

Not a tax, a 'license fee' that internalizes the cost to the industry.

 

[neorej]

Since NRA's suggestion to put armed officers in schools I put some thought into it, and I agree. There are armed officers on my college campus, and at my local mall. I don't see why there shouldn't be officers on the premise of elementary and high schools. Especially after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Why stop there? Put armed guards at playgrounds too. Because who protects our children there? Fuck it, put armed guards at every McDonald's and have ex-SEALS patrol the local Toys-R-Us.
Nothing saves a child's innocence like 300 pounds of muscle with a MP5 around his torso, a Beretta 9mm in his holster and a taser-gun and 3 cannisters of mace next to the "Little People"-section.

Let's confront the kids who survived a horrile shooting with more guns on a daily basis, let's get kids across the US used to the idea of carrying pistols, guns and assaultrifles.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

This is a convenient way to dismiss something without an actual argument. I understand - thinking things through is hard, pretending to take offense and dismissing them is much much easier.

I've laid out my position in this thread numerous time. You want to now casually dismiss it and claim I haven't been thinking things through in a snide manner doesn't change that.

That's not the notion. That you persist in miscomprehension is the evidence you're arguing in bad faith.

Prove it. Feel free to comb through my posts and point this out. I'll wait.

You may have read it but you didn't understand it, or, more likely don't want to address the arguments made because you have no rebuttal.

Once again, feel free to look through the thread if you believe I haven't addressed those types of arguments. Now, you may not LIKE how I addressed them or agree with what was said but don't pretend I've been in this thread with no rebuttals for pages. That's simply not true.

You and LaPierre want a society of Zimmemans. Where people carry guns so they can shoot those they perceive as menacing them. He was a law abiding citizen carrying a firearm legally - he should be your hero.

Now who's arguing in bad faith?

If that's what you believe about me I'd argue you're allowing your anger and self-righteous indignation to cloud your view of the discussion we're having. That's not what I've said. Every alternative that I believe would have more of a direct tangible benefit on crime (rather than an "assault weapons ban" where we just ban scary looking firearms in ignorance) has been casually dismissed because it doesn't further your view that disarming citizenry is the only viable goal. If your view is an AWB is a start, then it's a poor one as I've continue to advocate starting at the problem. But you ignore the facts that pistol crime is the problem. You think there's a realistic chance you're going to remove firearms from criminals? Even after disarming guys like me who'll follow the law?

You believe the problem is the intimate firearm. I understand that view. I respectfully disagree. I believe the problem are those that misuse them.

 

[Dude Abides]

I've laid out my position in this thread numerous time. You want to now casually dismiss it and claim I haven't been thinking things through in a snide manner doesn't change that.

Your position is not responsive to the arguments people are making. That's why everyone is rolling their eyes at you.

Prove it. Feel free to comb through my posts and point this out. I'll wait

No need. Everyone gets it but you. Thats why you're getting piled on. Thoughtful people are saying "Of course we cannot prevent every shooting, but statistics and experience in other countries suggests that restrictions, including the prohibition of the most dangerous types of weapons, will reduce the aggregate amount of gun violence." Your response is just "mah rights lawabiding lawabiding lawabiding crimalz will get gunz anyway!" It's not germane, it's just a dumb talking point that you seem to think somehow becomes persuasive via repetition.

Once again, feel free to look through the thread if you believe I haven't addressed those types of arguments. Now, you may not LIKE how I addressed them or agree with what was said but don't pretend I've been in this thread with no rebuttals for pages. That's simply not true

Just because you quote something and type words after it doesn't make it a rebuttal.

Now who's arguing in bad faith?

You. Zimmerman is the poster child for your movement.

If that's what you believe about me I'd argue you're allowing your anger and self-righteous indignation to cloud your view of the discussion we're having. That's not what I've said. Every alternative that I believe would have more of a direct tangible benefit on crime (rather than an "assault weapons ban" where we just ban scary looking firearms in ignorance) has been casually dismissed because it doesn't further your view that disarming citizenry is the only viable goal.

I dismiss them because they're stupid and unserious. You offer "solve poverty." Of course you have no actual ideas as to how to do that. You may as well suggest a moon base as the solution.

 

[speculawyer]

No need. Everyone gets it but you. Thats why you're getting piled on. Thoughtful people are saying "Of course we cannot prevent every shooting, but statistics and experience in other countries suggests that restrictions, including the prohibition of the most dangerous types of weapons, will reduce the aggregate amount of gun violence." Your response is just "mah rights lawabiding lawabiding lawabiding crimalz will get gunz anyway!" It's not germane, it's just a dumb talking point that you seem to think somehow becomes persuasive via repetition.

This. Most of pro-gun arguments are strawman arguments. The only good argument they really have is the existence of the 2nd amendment but we know that is not a barrier to a few more regulations. We know machine guns and nuclear weapons are not protected by it. Adding some more common sense rules such as requiring tests (like we have for cars), insurance, etc. is fine as well.

 

[Simplet]

I'm supposed to expect a reasonable unbiased article with "gun nut" right in the URL and the title? Seriously?

Don't assume I'm arguing in bad faith becauseI simply don't agree with the notion that me being unarmed makes me safer when criminals aren't showing any signs of disarming. It's an attempt to shift the discussion away from the issues and onto me as a poster here and it's simply an underhanded debate tactic that's doesn't do anything for the discussion. C'mon

You might find this link interesting : http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full. Even right now, with the state of gun legislation as it is, you and your family are safer without guns in your house than you are with them. Nevermind after a ban.

 

[Xeke]

Since NRA's suggestion to put armed officers in schools I put some thought into it, and I agree. There are armed officers on my college campus, and at my local mall. I don't see why there shouldn't be officers on the premise of elementary and high schools. Especially after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Yeah those armed campus officers were really helpful in stopping VA Tech, the deadliest mass shooting in our countries history.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Your position is not responsive to the arguments people are making. That's why everyone is rolling their eyes at you.

Or some people don't like guns and would prefer they be banned/more restricted. Hence the eye rolling when someone offers a viewpoint that's different.

No need. Everyone gets it but you. Thats why you're getting piled on. Thoughtful people are saying "Of course we cannot prevent every shooting, but statistics and experience in other countries suggests that restrictions, including the prohibition of the most dangerous types of weapons, will reduce the aggregate amount of gun violence." Your response is just "mah rights lawabiding lawabiding lawabiding crimalz will get gunz anyway!" It's not germane, it's just a dumb talking point that you seem to think somehow becomes persuasive via repetition.

I don't mind people disagreeing. But "Dumb", "Stupid" I expect a better argument from you than "No, that's dumb and stupid". I've made many posts in this thread and others and if you believe none of them are reasonable but posts that advocate more gun restrictions are then you're not paying attention.

Sorry dude, I live in the world that exists today. Not an idealistic fantasy land.

I dismiss them because they're stupid and unserious. You offer "solve poverty." Of course you have no actual ideas as to how to do that. You may as well suggest a moon base as the solution.

You dismiss them because you disagree and I completely respect that. But the way you attempt to demean my point is simply rude. We can have a civil discourse without attempting to get personal. But back to your fair point:

Here's my ideas for at least starting to deal with poverty:
-Bring the drug war to a close. How many impoverished families are destroyed because someone is locked up because they had some weed?
-Make cheaper community colleges a viable focus for education.
-Bring back trade schools. Let people earn a decent living via a trade.

I know, ridicule my ideas as being nonsense while at the same time assuming that "Just without guns everyone would get along and bad things wouldn't happen".

Seems complicated, right? That's because the problems in America -are- complicated and they're not as easy to solve as "EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A GUN NOW!" or "BAN ALL THE SCARY THINGS". This shit took decades to get this bad, you think it's gonna magically be fixed with the signing of another AWB? C'mon...

I'll make you a deal: I'll gladly turn my firearms in when the criminals, police and politicians do the same.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You might find this link interesting : http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full. Even right now, with the state of gun legislation as it is, you and your family are safer without guns in your house than you are with them. Nevermind after a ban.

Good link. Seems to be a great deal of suicide committed with them. Thankfully I nor my fiancee are really a suicide risk.

Now I have to compare that risk on a national level with the crime statistics in my town:

"The crime rate is considerably higher than the national average across all communities in America from the largest to the smallest, although at 37 crimes per one thousand residents, it is not among the communities with the very highest crime rate. The chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime in XXXXXX is 1 in 27. Based on FBI crime data, it is not one of the safest communities in America. Relative to New York, it has a crime rate that is higher than 91% of the state's cities and towns of all sizes.

Importantly, when you compare XXXXXX to other communities of similar population, then the crime rate (violent and property crimes combined) is quite a bit higher than average. Regardless of how XXXXX does relative to all communities in America of all sizes, when NeighborhoodScout compared it to communities of similar population size, its crime rate per thousand residents stands out as higher than most.


Now let us turn to take a look at how XXXXX does for violent crimes specifically, and then how it does for property crimes. This is important because the overall crime rate can be further illuminated by understanding if violent crime or property crimes (or both) are the major contributors to the general rate of crime in XXXXX.

From our analysis, we discovered that violent crime in XXXXX occurs at a rate higher than in most communities of all population sizes in America. The chance that a person will become a victim of a violent crime in XXXXXX; such as armed robbery, aggravated assault, rape or murder; is 1 in 261. This equates to a rate of 4 per one thousand inhabitants.

NeighborhoodScout's analysis also reveals that XXXXXXX's rate for property crime is 33 per one thousand population. This makes XXXXXX a place where there is an above average chance of becoming a victim of a property crime, when compared to all other communities in America of all population sizes. Property crimes are motor vehicle theft, arson, larceny, and burglary. Your chance of becoming a victim of any of these crimes in XXXXXX is one in 30.

Importantly, we found that XXXXXXX has one of the highest rates of motor vehicle theft in the nation according to our analysis of FBI crime data. This is compared to communities of all sizes, from the smallest to the largest. In fact, your chance of getting your car stolen if you live in XXXXXX is one in 310."

So after careful consideration I still chose to be armed. I knew the risks and made them in good faith to the best of my ability. With 70-120 million estimated firearm owners in the US we can definitely do better in terms of safety but we're not all going on a rampage every day the way some would like to portray.

 

[Clay Davis]

Since NRA's suggestion to put armed officers in schools I put some thought into it, and I agree. There are armed officers on my college campus, and at my local mall. I don't see why there shouldn't be officers on the premise of elementary and high schools. Especially after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

genuine question, but would you also be for a tsa style system where students, teachers, anyone visiting the school is forced to go through a scanner to make sure they aren't concealing any weapons?

because that would be the inevitable outcome of this. allowing police / armed individuals might work in stopping a massive rampage like this, but some people would ultimately lose their lives. maybe not through someone walking in from the street, although that would still be a possibility, but perhaps from a unstable student gunning people down in his /her clasroom.

the argument then would shift a system where everyone needs to be treated as a suspect because we can't have armed guards / police in every class room.

would you be in favour of those scanners in schools if armed guards were to fail?

 

[Stinkles]

Gun owners want to protect their freedom by absolutely fucking ours. Amazing.

 

[Dude Abides]

Or some people don't like guns and would prefer they be banned/more restricted. Hence the eye rolling when someone offers a viewpoint that's different.

There you go. Can't rebut an argument? Feign clairvoyance. Sadly this appears to be the best you can do.

I don't mind people disagreeing. But "Dumb", "Stupid" I expect a better argument from you than "No, that's dumb and stupid". I've made many posts in this thread and others and if you believe none of them are reasonable but posts that advocate more gun restrictions are then you're not paying attention.

Your talking points are dumb because they have nothing to do with the arguments your interlocutors are making. They may not be dumb in a vacuum, but they're exceedingly stupid when posted in response to the argument I posted above. You don't even try to address it - you just pump out the talking points by rote.

Sorry dude, I live in the world that exists today. Not an idealistic fantasy land.

Lol. You live in a world where you and George Zimmerman are the last bulwark against a police state.

-Bring the drug war to a close. How many impoverished families are destroyed because someone is locked up because they had some weed?

Who knows? Probably not many, considering punishments for simple possession are relatively minor in most jurisdictions. Do you have some reason to think otherwise or is this just something you grabbed on to rather than consider restrictions on your precious firearms?

-Make cheaper community colleges a viable focus for education.

What is is even supposed to mean? A viable focus to do what?

-Bring back trade schools. Let people earn a decent living via a trade.

Who isn't letting them? These "solutions" are so poorly thought out that it just confirms my suspicion that you'll suggest any nonsense to take the focus off guns.

I know, ridicule my ideas as being nonsense while at the same time assuming that "Just without guns everyone would get along and bad things wouldn't happen"..

See, that is not what anyone asserted. In fact, I explicitly said that was not the argument in the vain hope that you'd actually address an argument instead of flailing about like a baby afraid his bottle is about to be taken away.

See, right here:

Thoughtful people are saying "Of course we cannot prevent every shooting, but statistics and experience in other countries suggests that restrictions, including the prohibition of the most dangerous types of weapons, will reduce the aggregate amount of gun violence."

I won't make the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt again.

 

[Days like these...]

I think having an armed guard in schools is a great idea. Just one concern and I'm sorry I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if this idea has already been proposed. I think we should arm the principal in case the guard guess rogue/crazy and starts killing everyone
that way the principal can take out the guard.
But what if the principal kills the guard and goes on a rampage? You know being a principal is stressful and he/she could snap. So, I think we should also arm the vice principal as a fail safe measure to stop a crazy principal. Which leads me to my next problem and I'm sure you guys have guessed it already. We should maybe arm a teacher in case the vice principal snaps and kills the guard and vice principal. You know on second thought maybe this isn't such a good idea?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Gun owners want to protect their freedom by absolutely fucking ours. Amazing.

How is your freedom "fucked" by a firearm in someones home or on their person (if legal) being used correctly? (i.e. Range Shooting, Plinking, Self-Defense)

I can't agree that gun owners are the problem in this country.

 

[speculawyer]

No need. Everyone gets it but you. Thats why you're getting piled on. Thoughtful people are saying "Of course we cannot prevent every shooting, but statistics and experience in other countries suggests that restrictions, including the prohibition of the most dangerous types of weapons, will reduce the aggregate amount of gun violence." Your response is just "mah rights lawabiding lawabiding lawabiding crimalz will get gunz anyway!" It's not germane, it's just a dumb talking point that you seem to think somehow becomes persuasive via repetition.

And then he goes on to repeat it.

I know, ridicule my ideas as being nonsense while at the same time assuming that "Just without guns everyone would get along and bad things wouldn't happen".

Amazing.

 

[Piano]

I think having an armed guard in schools is a great idea. Just one concern and I'm sorry I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if this idea has already been proposed. I think we should arm the principal in case the guard guess rogue/crazy and starts killing everyone
that way the principal can take out the guard.
But what if the principal kills the guard and goes on a rampage? You know being a principal is stressful and he/she could snap. So, I think we should also arm the vice principal as a fail safe measure to stop a crazy principal. Which leads me to my next problem and I'm sure you guys have guessed it already. We should maybe arm a teacher in case the vice principal snaps and kills the guard and vice principal. You know on second thought maybe this isn't such a good idea?

No, no, that's a great idea. Can never be too sure. Have to make sure the playing field is even. Like a mexican stand off.

 

[TacticalFox88]

WTF? Community colleges? What the fuck did that have to do with guns?

You're all over the place dude. hahahaha

 

[Xeke]

How is your freedom "fucked" by a firearm in someones home or on their person (if legal) being used correctly? (i.e. Range Shooting, Plinking, Self-Defense)

I can't agree that gun owners are the problem in this country.

Because they get stolen and we get shot. Because I believe most gun owners are irresponsible and not qualified to posses a gun.

 

[Hitokage]

Any argument or system that rests on changing human nature is doomed to fail. Furthermore, nobody is wholly good or wholly bad. People are a mix. The best we can do is to exploit the good parts while mitigating the bad parts. Giving people easy access to lethal force in moments of weakness accomplishes the opposite.

 

[MIMIC]

OK, everyone needs to take a deep breath. In....out.....in....out.

 

[commedieu]

Mammoth, we've but heads on this issue in the past...

You do have sense.

The sense you have isn't illustrated by the NRA. Its like being a republican at the moment, and trying to desperately defend the party. Your party, your NRA, your fellow gun owners that agree with this nonsense, are the problem.

Its a problem, and we need to start with healthcare.

When we tried, the NRA & The republican party told us all to fuck off, and that no one wants to take care of any freeloaders.

That is the solution to this issue, and removing efficient weapons from the equation.

Thats literally it, its not going to solve everything, but its going to reduce.

Its not as if there are models of worlds without guns...

 

[Link]

The Republican Party in a nutshell:

More government like public healthcare? NO! BAD! STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES!

More government like armed guards at every school? BRILLIANT! PROBLEM SOLVED!

 

[RDreamer]

I know, ridicule my ideas as being nonsense while at the same time assuming that "Just without guns everyone would get along and bad things wouldn't happen".

Geeze, dude. Again, some of your actual proposals and things you'd be fine with implementing are good, but you seem to go into bizzarro world when actually trying to argue your position against someone. Who in hell said that everyone would get along and bad things wouldn't happen without guns? No one said that. If you're hearing that, then you're hearing voices in your head (or hallucinating sentences on a screen). We are saying without guns those bad things that do indeed happen won't be as devastating and lead to as much death. Guns amplify things. They make what anger, depression, rage, or whatever else we humans experience and can turn it deadly. Their removal obviously doesn't remove those human conditions. That's ridiculous.

 

[Stinkles]

How is your freedom "fucked" by a firearm in someones home or on their person (if legal) being used correctly? (i.e. Range Shooting, Plinking, Self-Defense)

I can't agree that gun owners are the problem in this country.

How about armed guards in every kid's school? Learn a book man.

 

[speculawyer]

The Republican Party in a nutshell:

More government like public healthcare? NO! BAD! STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES!

More government like armed guards at every school? BRILLIANT! PROBLEM SOLVED!

In quasi-defense of the NRA, they suggested armed volunteers. And clearly untrained unpaid volunteer vigilantes is a brilliant idea.

 

[Freshmaker]

How is your freedom "fucked" by a firearm in someones home or on their person (if legal) being used correctly? (i.e. Range Shooting, Plinking, Self-Defense)

I can't agree that gun owners are the problem in this country.

Guy shoots another guy at Little Caesar's because Guy #1 was being too loud complaining about his pizza.

Guy #1 had his 1st amendment rights violated at the very least.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Mammoth, we've but heads on this issue in the past...

You do have sense.

The sense you have isn't illustrated by the NRA. Its like being a republican at the moment, and trying to desperately defend the party. Your party, your NRA, your fellow gun owners that agree with this nonsense, are the problem.

Thanks. Just a clarification. I'm not a Republican. I'm a pro-Gun Democrat and I'm not a single issue voter so I'm not going to magically vote Republican if an Assault Weapons Ban goes through.

Its a problem, and we need to start with healthcare.

I completely agree.

When we tried, the NRA & The republican party told us all to fuck off, and that no one wants to take care of any freeloaders.

I've already commented on the NRA in this thread and how I completely disagree with their approach. I get they don't want more anti-gun legislation and I agree. I'd be more open to sensible gun legislation (And I've agreed with many ideas in the other gun thread related to this incident) if it were being written by people that have some idea about guns and where the problems with guns is. People can get emotional about it all they want the stats proves pistol crime is the overwhelming majority. Not lest I get bitched about repeating myself I'll just say I feel very strongly about starting there.

That is the solution to this issue, and removing efficient weapons from the equation.

Thats literally it, its not going to solve everything, but its going to reduce.

Its not as if there are models of worlds without guns...

Problem is all guns are efficient. A single example would be Virginia Tech. That guy used 2 Pistols to cause a ton of mayham.

I'm hesitant to keep the comparison to other countries up because it puts firearms in a vacuum and ignores everything else different about them. But if we're going to do that I'd mention Mexico.

In terms of laws that deal with the circumstances of this case I look at the fact that he tried to go to a gun shop and buy a gun and he was denied. The system worked. The failure was in the home. Hence why the mother isn't included in many of the fatality counts, in the media, in the memorial services..etc. She was supposed to be a responsible gun owner and she fucked up completely. To me that's the issue in that specific case. So if we're going to draft legislation as a response to this specific case then let's start there.

If I were the head of the NRA and I wouldn't rush out to "defend freedom" as so many on the anti-gun side were so quick to use this tragedy to further their agenda of getting rid of guns. But I'd *have* to wonder if there are some laws citizens would need to accept in order to hopefully help. I'll get shat on but here it goes:

(If Mammoth Jones were head of the NRA)
-I would not agree nor concede to a Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Period. Those firearms have legitimate uses. States are free to implement it just like NY does if they so chose.

-Agree to a magazine limit of 15 rounds. That's half of what's currently in there. If they insisted on 10rds I'd concede to that. I'm from NY. I already have a 10rd cap on my Magazines so it's not the end of the world for me. I don't agree that it'd really make a difference but at the WORST it's an inconvenience for hunters/shooters that they have to carry/buy/change more magazines. It sucks but it's better than ban on firearms that "Look scary."

-Publicly call on all NRA members to install a safe in their homes. Publicly. Rights have responsibilities. I can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded room. I can't leave my semi-auto out for the little ones.

-Agree to a federal plan to give breaks for gun-owners that purchase safes.

-Agree to reform to the NICS background check system. Many time people don't get listed that should.

-Agree to a NRA backed/funded National Program to add not just child-safety firearm instruction but domestic storage firearm instructions for free to any gun owner that wants to take them. Drill in the notion that if you believe you have someone that's mentally unstable in the home either ensure your firearms are stored extremely securely or trade them in.

-Agree to institute a 100% voluntary federal gun buy back program. No questions asked.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

How about armed guards in every kid's school? Learn a book man.

Speaking of learning about reading, check out earlier in the thread where I already stated that's not a good idea.

Don't let your anger at the NRA be imposed on anyone that doesn't tote the anti-gun line.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Speaking of learning about reading, check out earlier in the thread where I already stated that's not a good idea.

Don't let your anger at the NRA be imposed on anyone that doesn't tote the anti-gun line.

Well guess what? Since that's the NRA's line, that's what the gun proponents in power are pushing for now.

Lucky us

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Dude, Mexico is a failed state run by the cartels. Comparing it tho the US is disingenuous at best.

American gangs are a joke compared to the cartels. You don't have entire police departments in the US run by infiltrated gang members. Just putting one small example there.

Oh and by the way although technically illegal civilians can easily buy guns in Mexico and well, you can judge by yourself how useful it is to them. Mexicans know bringing guns to the table against the cartels is suicide... All that John Wayne frontier bullshit is a Hollywood myth

At least be honest and admit you enjoy guns and don't care for the consequences.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Dude, Mexico is a failed state run by the cartels. Comparing it tho the US is disingenuous at best.

American gangs are a joke compared to the cartels. You don't have entire police departments in the US run by infiltrated gang members. Just putting one small example there.

Oh and by the way although technically illegal civilians can easily buy guns in Mexico and well, you can judge by yourself how useful it is to them. Mexicans know bringing guns to the table against the cartels is suicide... All that John Wayne frontier bullshit is a Hollywood myth

At least be honest and admit you enjoy guns and don't care for the consequences.

that's because they have completely unrestricted flow of guns into the country from the US and south america (mostly Brazil)

 

[Hitokage]

Dude, Mexico is a failed state run by the cartels.

A society where everyone needs guns to have a semblance of security pretty much is a failed state.

It's always sunny in Somalia!