• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Two Virginia television journalists fatally shot in on-air attack[READ OP]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lonestar

I joined for Erin Brockovich discussion
So Sad, and if he was doing it in some way to "avenge" the Charleston killings, then the national conversation will take a bad turn. I have a bad feeling that maybe someone at the station wasn't as sympathetic to the killings in Charleston and he did this to please his sick mind.

He was long since gone from the station when that happened.
 

Swig_

Member
Literally the same shitty arguing points over and over again about gun control. I swear to god.

How is it any different than drinking?

Millions of people enjoy drinking, but every year some lives (sometimes innocent bystanders) are taken. How is it any different?

If the intent is to save lives of innocent people, outlawing alcohol would do the same thing.
 

Sephzilla

Member
How is it any different than drinking?

Millions of people enjoy drinking, but every year some lives (sometimes innocent bystanders) are taken. How is it any different?

A guy with a bottle of beer can't walk into a theater and murder a bunch of people in a matter of seconds with the bottle. That's how it's different.
 

It's a right that has been there for a long while? Banning guns right now would not change the climate at all. There is already a huge pool of weapons out there that it would be impossible to seize all of them. Yes, you stop the future sale of guns, but there will still be plenty, millions of guns in circulation.

Unless the government could effectively deploy a system to remove every gun in the country, then stopping the sale of guns would only cause more problems with the people who love their guns. So as it is, keep the sale of guns as it is now.
 
It feels tacky to start banging on about gun control every time one of these tragedies happens (and they happen way too often), but christ, Americans, sort your laws out. At any other time no one seems to be listening anyway which is why so many people have already started asking for gun conrol again.

Yeah you can't get rid of guns overnight when there are so many in circulation but you have to start somewhere. No more new gun sales, no more bullets. Buy back programs, background checks, waiting times, psych tests, anything.

The minute our lawmakers were okay with letting 20 kids get killed and didn't want to do anything about gun control because they were so terrified of the NRA is the day they sold us out. Americans didn't hold our own representatives responsible, instead a lot of us engaged in these stupid ideas that if EVERYBODY was armed then this stuff wouldn't happen. And we went along with that stupid shit willingly. If we let 20 kids get killed and didn't do a fucking thing about gun control then it stands to reason we are NEVER going to fix things here. And I say that as a gun owner.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
When lots of people start using skateboards to commit murders we'll talk

Frankly i'm worried about the possible timeline that history remembers as "The Great Skateboard Killings of 2025"
 

Piggus

Member
I admit that this is a controversial opinion, but I don't think this should even require a vote. For the good of the country, they should just be banned, straight up. Emergency legislation.

Don't get me wrong, I think the population should get to vote on pretty much everything. Trouble is, with this problem, there is only one right answer, and a lot of idiots who will defend the wrong answer to the death. The NRA, for example, is just a huge problem at this point.

British people didn't get to vote when handguns were banned in 1996. They were just taken away. The same should happen here. Obviously it's an exponentially bigger job, but it's got to be done.

That's a lovely little fantasy scenario that you just came up with, but do you have a solution that's actually possible? This isn't England. Sorry. You can't just repeal an amendment without people having their say.

Guns have no purpose other than killing.

Wrong.
 

Jetman

Member
This shouldn't be a gun control issue, it should be a mental health issue.
Even recognizing that, I don't know what we could do about it. I mean, it's not like we live in a fictional Minority Report-like world where we can predict when and how a person snaps to properly protect others from it.
 
This is the same shit in every thread after a shooting. People go online and want to ignore the entire political process and just decree that a ban should happen. Completely ignoring the reality that american voters don't want a ban, and would not vote for any politician that made this a big issue. The only way a ban will happen in the US is if we somehow rejoin the British Crown and the King decrees it, because it is not going to happen via voters.

Eh? The article was full of people asking for stricter gun control laws, not an outright ban that passes the political process.
Even if that had been the case, your response still would have been incredibly dumb and childish.
 
RIP, tragic and disturbing. The one thing that always makes me wonder, is what goes on in the mind of someone that has seen this done on the news or read in the newspapers. They know the usual outcome, they'll get caught or either be killed by law enforcement. Or in most cases commit suicide. So at what point do a person after seeing news reports or reading them, the horrific violence, family morning the loss of a loved one, the national out cry. Can then find some way to justify to themselves doing the same, is justified?
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It's a right that has been there for a long while? Banning guns right now would not change the climate at all. There is already a huge pool of weapons out there that it would be impossible to seize all of them. Yes, you stop the future sale of guns, but there will still be plenty of guns in circulation.

Unless the government could effectively deploy a system to remove every gun in the country, then stopping the sale of guns would only cause more problems between the people who love their guns. So as it is, keep the sale of guns as it is now.

It's about supply and demand, as previously posted:
The more guns reclaimed, the higher the price on the black market.
 

Garlador

Member
Should we outlaw everything that could potentially take a life? No more driving. No more drinking. No more extreme sports. Where does it end?

I can't even begin to count the ways that this is the same as driving a car. Cars weren't created for the sole purpose of ending life.

That's a lovely little fantasy scenario that you just came up with, but do you have a solution that's actually possible? This isn't England. Sorry. You can't just repeal an amendment without people having their say.
The people are having their say.

We're sick of it. We want our politicians to stop kissing up to gun-nuts and the NRA and start actually taking strides to regulate an epidemic of gun violence.
 

commedieu

Banned
This shouldn't be a gun control issue, it should be a mental health issue.
Even recognizing that, I don't know what we could do about it. I mean, it's not like we live in a fictional Minority Report-like world where we can predict when and how a person snaps to properly protect others from it.

The best thing about america is that we do absolutely nothing about either.

And we all just debate, pushing shit around, while the lobbied politicians aren't even listening to it.
 

Zabant

Member
How is it any different than drinking?

Millions of people enjoy drinking, but every year some lives (sometimes innocent bystanders) are taken. How is it any different?

If the intent is to save lives of innocent people, outlawing alcohol would do the same thing.

I'm going to walk into a school and kill everyone with my concealed DRINKING, it doesn't matter if they run and try to escape as my DRINKING has a range of up to about 2300 meters.
 

glow

Banned
This shouldn't be a gun control issue, it should be a mental health issue.
Even recognizing that, I don't know what we could do about it. I mean, it's not like we live in a fictional Minority Report-like world where we can predict when and how a person snaps to properly protect others from it.

Where is the evidence this man had a mental illness?
 
This shouldn't be a gun control issue, it should be a mental health issue.
Even recognizing that, I don't know what we could do about it. I mean, it's not like we live in a fictional Minority Report-like world where we can predict when and how a person snaps to properly protect others from it.

A crazy idea I know but you could make it a little harder for people to get their hands on guns.
 

RM8

Member
Just to add some perspective - I think there are more cold blooded drug criminals who belong to cartels in Mexico than there are people with enough hate for some demographic in the US who perpetuate shootings.
It'd be kind of awful if that wasn't the case, wouldn't it? "Oh hey, we don't have that many racist murderers as Mexico has drug criminals during a drug war. Phew!"
 

Swig_

Member
A guy with a bottle of beer can't walk into a theater and murder a bunch of people in a matter of seconds with the bottle. That's how it's different.

That doesn't change the fact that if someone who is intoxicated gets into a car, it turns the car into a lethal weapon. How many people die each year from alcohol related deaths? I'm guessing more than shooting victims.

You can spin it however you want, but it's a valid argument.
 

Hex

Banned
How is it any different than drinking?

Millions of people enjoy drinking, but every year some lives (sometimes innocent bystanders) are taken. How is it any different?

If the intent is to save lives of innocent people, outlawing alcohol would do the same thing.

And I'm out.
 
It's about supply and demand, as previously posted:
The more guns reclaimed, the higher the price on the black market.

That would take many many many years to happen, though. Alot of years. And as it stands, the amount of guns in the USA extremely dwarf the number in Australia.(88.8 per 100 residents for US, compared to 15 per 100 residents in Australia last year).
 

Swig_

Member
I'm going to walk into a school and kill everyone with my concealed DRINKING, it doesn't matter if they run and try to escape as my DRINKING has a range of up to about 2300 meters.

It's like you think that no one has ever been hit and killed by a drunk driver.
 

Piggus

Member
Bingo. That is the entire problem. You should be able to. "People" in this instance literally don't know what's good for them. Sounds dictatorial, but it's true.



What do you use yours for? Turning off the TV?

Oh I'm sorry, so I HAVE to use my guns for killing? I use them for target shooting, particularly paper targets and skeet shooting (which is an Olympic sport if you haven't noticed). I know, I'm a huge danger to society.

Honest question, what other purpose does it serve? Hunting and sports also involves that.

The same purpose a bow and arrow or a sword serves. Their purpose is determined by the person using them.

I'm not going to waste my time with this crap though. So many people here have zero experience with gun ownership and don't understand anything about them. The result is an argument that just goes in circles. I'll always be able to own guns. That isn't changing. So there's no use telling you guys why I think I should be able to own them.
 

cwmartin

Member
That doesn't change the fact that if someone who is intoxicated gets into a car, it turns the car into a lethal weapon. How many people die each year from alcohol related deaths? I'm guessing more than shooting victims.

You can spin it however you want, but it's a valid argument.

I'm not sure ignoring the intent of guns is a valid argument.
 

Caja 117

Member
That's a lovely little fantasy scenario that you just came up with, but do you have a solution that's actually possible? This isn't England. Sorry. You can't just repeal an amendment without people having their say.

I know, right? We cant go to planet x, that is not the USA, different planet, different people, Different everything and compare it to the real world with real people....
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
That would take many many many years to happen, though. Alot of years. And as it stands, the amount of guns in the USA extremely dwarf the number in Australia.

Oh no doubt. I'd be perfectly ok with starting with some basic gun regulation at the federal level to clear up the mess of patchwork laws we have right now. When you can cross state lines to buy a bunch of guns at a gun show, local laws won't work very well.

Going from 100 to 0 is considerably more difficult then going from 100 to 50 so to speak.
 
That would take many many many years to happen, though. Alot of years. And as it stands, the amount of guns in the USA extremely dwarf the number in Australia.(88.8 per 100 residents for US, compared to 15 per 100 residents in Australia last year).

Ok. Start now.

Just because it would take a very long time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

We'd be fucked for space travel.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
Bingo. That is the entire problem. You should be able to. "People" in this instance literally don't know what's good for them. Sounds dictatorial, but it's true.

So basically what you are saying is that the US should implement the Roman system of electing a dictator for 1 year? This didn't work out too well for Rome.
 

xbhaskarx

Member

It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.

Later in the manifesto, the writer quotes the Virginia Tech mass killer, Seung Hui Cho, calls him “his boy,” and expresses admiration for the Columbine High School killers. “Also, I was influenced by Seung–Hui Cho. That’s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got…just sayin.'"

So he appears to hate one mass shooter but appears to admire three other mass shooters... okay then.
 
The minute our lawmakers were okay with letting 20 kids get killed and didn't want to do anything about gun control because they were so terrified of the NRA is the day they sold us out. Americans didn't hold our own representatives responsible, instead a lot of us engaged in these stupid ideas that if EVERYBODY was armed then this stuff wouldn't happen. And we went along with that stupid shit willingly. If we let 20 kids get killed and didn't do a fucking thing about gun control then it stands to reason we are NEVER going to fix things here. And I say that as a gun owner.

I feel like a huge part of the problem with respect to any conversation on gun control is that you end up with both extremes dominating the conversation- people that want to ban all guns and those that want to arm every man, woman and child. All that kind of talk from either side does is just polarize the entire conversation such that any kind of reforms get shouted down from either side until the impetus to do something (whether that's new laws or more enforcement of existing laws) just peters out.

This whole conversation shouldn't be about just banning guns or giving guns to everyone, it should be about keeping guns out of the hands of people that are seeking them for purely evil intentions.
 
That doesn't change the fact that if someone who is intoxicated gets into a car, it turns the car into a lethal weapon. How many people die each year from alcohol related deaths? I'm guessing more than shooting victims.

You can spin it however you want, but it's a valid argument.

someone who gets into a car drunk isn't seeking to murder someone. That they might accidentally do so is a possibility but it sure as shit isn't the reason the average person would do such a thing

someone who uses a gun on a person is seeking to kill them or cause them great harm. There's no other way around it. they're not accidentally pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger like the drunk driver is hypothetically doing.

cmon now
 
Oh no doubt. I'd be perfectly ok with starting with some basic gun regulation at the federal level to clear up the mess of patchwork laws we have right now. When you can cross state lines to buy a bunch of guns at a gun show, local laws won't work very well.

Going from 100 to 0 is considerably more difficult then going from 100 to 50 so to speak.

Ok. Start now.

Just because it would take a very long time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

We'd be fucked for space travel.

I'm all for heavier restrictions on buying weapons. A year wait is extremely reasonable. If you really need a gun a week from now, then wait a year and see if you need it then.
 

WillyFive

Member
Oh I'm sorry, so I HAVE to use my guns for killing? I use them for target shooting, particularly paper targets and skeet shooting (which is an Olympic sport if you haven't noticed). I know, I'm a huge danger to society.

No one is talking about you, they are talking about the device in your hand invented for killing. I'm glad you like to point it away from people, but that doesn't change what it does.
 

Sianos

Member
I think people have entertained conversation and non moving/dropped legislation and regulation would imply that people just dont think it is as important as no gun campaigners make it out to be. Its just hard to imagine people choosing gun control as the no1 thing in a candidate they are aiming for locally or nationally.

What number of preventable tragedies to we have to endure before this becomes an important issue?

The status quo is clearly unacceptable, yet every measure to prevent these tragedies is met by either "what about the bad guys/illegals/criminals with guns?" (and when you explain one solution they bring up an even more niche way guns could be acquired illegally, and then when you explain a solution for that way they come up with another, not comprehending that as the loophole to acquire guns becomes more and more convoluted there will be less and less illegal guns) or a slippery-slope argument that "if you do this to restrict the mentally ill from having guns, then the government will have to momentum to come for my guns too" (perhaps these people are worried they wouldn't pass the psych the eval?).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom