Freedom = $1.05
Banned
no we cant because people can still get drunk and drive their cars itll never work
-
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]
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
no we cant because people can still get drunk and drive their cars itll never work
Or perhaps you should take a break and think about what you are saying.
Hardly necessary. The lack of humanity in this post actually belies that of an empathetic person interested in saving lives.
Leatherface
Member
Gun laws should be tightened in the US for sure. It's too easy to get a damn gun in this country and there are not enough security measures in place. However, all out banning them will not stop bad/deranged people from using them. It will prevent the rest of us from protecting ourselves should we want/need to. I'm happy that the gun laws in place in Great Britain have worked out there, but I think the US is a different animal all together culturally.
Fenderputty
Banned
You're an aweful person.
Nialrot
Member
Differing opinions on subject matter is one thing but this is going a little too far.
That would be a huge irony, isn't that kind of a liberal idea, and gun support comes mostly from the conservative side? Maybe there could be an argument that gun ownership will "trickle down" or something.
I'm trying to be creative.
Welp I'm out of ideas.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
This is not good.
Ok this is some disgusting shit. I'm for strict gun control as well, but that statement is gross.
From his vantage and the cameraman vantage, he approached without a weapon. Leveled it at the reporter (which was in side view of the interviewee). Waited for the cameraman to face the reporter, and then started shooting.
It does not appear the handgun was revealed until he had reached the news crew.
That said, I'm surprised that a producer (or third party) was not on scene to secure the shot as the gunman and three victims were the only ones in the immediate area.
I mean, you are talking fantasy. In your fantasy, you want people to die.
You should seriously think about what you are saying.
no argument there, it's just kind of a "why not both" thing for me
Stricter penalties, eh? I mean, it worked for our drug problem, right? Put more folks in jail. That will solve everything.
All for mental exams if that would help. I very much doubt that would move the gun violence needle, though, and it seems like it would be hard to prove.
If people are the problem, then wouldn't it make sense to control the flow of guns? As per your second point, why opt for a single-tiered, round-about solution instead of adopting a more multifaceted approach? Let's recognize and treat mental illness better, AND introduce gun control! It doesn't have to be an either/or thing, but I guess it depends on how you solve the tension between "safety and security" and "civil liberty"....
But even then... why do you feel you have a right to own a gun? "Cause the constitution!" is technically correct, but not any more helpful than "cause the bible!" The constitution ought to reflect living truths, and not dead dogma. Unless there are good reasons, don't you think it might be worth at least looking into a reinterpretation? Organizing militias and protecting ourselves from the Government both strike me as pretty dated ideas. Seems the amendment allows us to kill each other more than protect each other. Do we cling to the second amendment for reasons of self-defense? I suppose, but then again, fewer guns overall would mean fewer guns in the hands of criminals. Sounds like a pretty good collective self-defense to me. I look at countries like Canada and Australia, and it's a fairly self-evident sort of solution.
I guess I'm saying nothing new here.
That has nothing to do with it. How many madmen have committed massacres with a knife? If this psycho had a knife instead of a gun, chances are at least 1 of the 2 victims survive. Maybe both. It takes a lot more willpower to stab someone than to shoot someone which means less people go through with their psycho plans, and it's a lot easier to run away or defend yourself against someone with a knife as opposed to a gunman.
The US is crazy right now. To not start taking small steps towards more gun control is just beyond insanity.
spookyfish
Member
Cool. Not every day someone wishes I were dead.
Dude...
I think you need to take a few deep breaths before responding to people with political views that slightly differ from your own.
The Sarcastic Dude
Banned
keltickennedy
Member
It's eerie as fuck. They are filming and doing the interview and he is just standing behind them waiting. Even points the gun at the interviewer for a second and whispers, "you fucking bitch." Then you can see the camera man panning over slowly filming the scene, then bam. I guess he had a camera phone or something on his chest.
And the best post of the year goes to...
Jacksinthe
Banned
"Why educate? Let's just kill everyone!"
I stopped here, dude. Get lost. Seriously. Go outside, drink some water, get some fresh air, walk it off. Seriously - step away from the keyboard, son. You're lost.
I do see that guns are dangerous, deadly, and far too readily available. But I guess you still want to "swap me out" for someone whose opinion more closely matches your own.
The only fantasy is expecting the grand ole USA to do anything about this.
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
Banning semi-automatics is a reasonable goal. Why do the gun enthusiasts resist this so much?
I mean, even in this situation, there was no time to respond once he started.
I mean, even in this situation, there was no time to respond once he started.
Fenderputty
Banned
Has a person ever killed a bunch of people in a matter of a few seconds with a knife or his/her bare hands?
stufte
Member
So death to all those who you disagree? okie dokie.
You mean two people, yeah it has happened.
I share your disregard on a personal level, but on a pragmatic one, their opinions matter because we live in a democratic republic, in which those people not only vote, but tend to vote disproportionately.
As such, their preferences have to be taken in to account, just as we would have to take a group in to account if they demanded a shrine to the Blue Wizard of Antioch be installed in every Professional Sports Stadium because of reasons. If enough people want it, it must happen. Your alternative is quite literally revolution.
It doesn't mean you have to concede, of course. I think a pragmatic approach will just need to be long term; the first step is convincing enough people that guns suck. If lots of publicized killing sprees like this aren't doing it, find a different way to convince other people that guns suck. To do so, you will likely to have manipulate people.
No, I mean a bunch.
Fenderputty
Banned
I own a semi-automatic shotgun that was made for bird hunting. It's got a long ass barrel to tighten the pattern and a plug in the chamber to prevent more than 3 shells from entering the gun at one time. Why the hell should this gun be banned?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack - 10 people with knives kill 33.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12) - One guy kills 8 kids.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33847070 - Man with knife kills 2 and injures 1
If someone wants to kill, they'll find a way.
Let's just ban ammunition, then.
Doesn't contradict the 2nd amendment!
Problem solved.
edit: I'm joking of course. I agree with baby steps, and over time - and i mean, a lot of time - after this country adopts more socialist practices and universal healthcare etc etc and it becomes the norm, an actual ban might be possible.
Baron_Calamity
Member
Because they live in a fantasy world that having access to these weapons will prevent america from being taken over by a totalitarian government.
oh Sorry, I thought you were just asking why people still do drunk driving.
Anyways, in my opinion, I think people dont get outrage by someone driving drunk is because the consequences are considered accidents and not Intentional.
With gun Homicides and Mass Shooting are different, they are not made by accident, those are in the most part premeditated or out of the heat of the moment, in any case, If you are going to compare Drinking and Driving with Gun killing, IMO it should be compared with how many people have been killed with guns by a drunk person.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
yeah, it's a shame because they could've killed a lot more people if they had guns.
Because it's evil and its only purpose is for murdering people!
Marty Chinn
Member
Man that almost sounds like you're blaming the victim of the car accident for not being fully alert. I'd have to guess by no means are you trying to imply such a thing, but the text sure comes off that way to me. I'd have to think both events should be considered unexpected events. They aren't of the same weight because usually one tends to be intentional, while the other isn't intentional. I'm not trying to suggest that at all. I still think it's interesting that the amount of outrage over alcohol is minuscule by comparison despite the number of deaths it causes per year and I have to think to some degree, it's because a lot of people enjoy alcohol where as it's clear a lot of people who are outraged and wanting to ban guns, have no enjoyment or love for guns. But again, I think this should be a different topic about why the outrage is so drastically different. By no means should it hold back from something being done about guns.
Baron_Calamity
Member
Most gun supporters are against this as well.
cpp_is_king
Member
Right, baby steps. First some sensible regulations. Examine the sociological impact over 10-20 years. Maybe some more sensible regulations after that. This is the kind of thing that requires a cultural shift and a change in core values. It's not going to happen right away, it will take at least 50 years, mabye 100. The only way forward is through baby steps.
I almost wish we could stop talking about a ban because, while I want it, it brings out the extremism in both sides and detracts from finding a real solution.
If someone wants to kill me with a gun and you take away their gun, they're going want to kill me with something else.
Can you see the mafia and gang members and shit talking like this after guns are banned?:
"Well guys, time to turn in our guns. Phooey! Guess we'll have to stop killing people too, you know, since, guns are the only way to do that."
Can you see the mafia and gang members and shit talking like this after guns are banned?:
"Well guys, time to turn in our guns. Phooey! Guess we'll have to stop killing people too, you know, since, guns are the only way to do that."
Zabant
Member
It's truly soul crushing to see these responses, because I know the US isn't some nation full of uneducated tribesmen.
History and fact show that a reduction in guns will reduce mass shootings in all first world counties (no duh). I even get a staunch pro-gun advocate to agree it was the smart thing for britain to do.
With all that evidence and precedent, I just think that if you oppose gun laws in the US you're a cruel, selfish and horrendously unpatriotic person.
Because what's more unpatriotic then condemning thousands of your countrymen to death because you enjoy going down the range?
If you can find me one person that is capable of killing 20+ people in a matter of a few seconds with a knife, then maybe you would have a point.
Yeah, people will find a way to kill, doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder for them to do so.
This is an amazing post. Where are the answers ?
I swear you have to be a psychopath to refuse banning guns when you KNOW it's going to save hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run.
- Status