Gun control

[drew]

Exactly. To add to that, since 5 year olds can't effectively handle AR15s, there's no argument they could have been better prepared to fight off that assholes. So, by that token, it wasn't even worth debate.

Because, you know, if laws wouldn't have changed anything, why change the laws, or even try?

Fuck them all.

[speedpimp]

US Supreme Court upholds state assault weapons bans. (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/20/supreme-court-assault-weapons/86133190/)

[G'day Mate]

American gun shop sells 30,000 AR15 assault rifles in just one week (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/american-gun-shop-sells-30000-ar15-assault-rifles-in-just-one-week/news-story/f92593e09288758c4141dcf600fed4cf)


JUST when you thought you couldn’t be any more dismayed by America’s gun crisis, comes this depressing nugget of information.

Despite the fight for gun control making waves across the world in the week since a terrorist attack in an Orlando nightclub that left 49 dead and 53 wounded, one online gun shop has sold a whopping 30,000 AR-15 rifles.

Let me repeat that: 30,000 guns sold in ONE WEEK.

Hunter’s Warehouse owner Tom Engle told Fox Business’ Stuart Varney that his online gun shop, with an inventory of 300,000 to 400,000 weapons, has in fact flown off the shelves in the week since the massacre.

“In particular the AR-15 has been selling very, very well,” Mr Engle said from Pennsylvania.

Overnight, the Republican-controlled US Senate rejected four competing gun control measures just days after the Orlando club massacre, highlighting the stalling feud over an issue that refuses to die down during a heated presidential election year.

More in the article ...

Last week my washing machine broke down and I bought a fairly cheap new one. If assault rifles could clean clothes then I would have saved hundreds of dollars.

[Alan P]

You now require more licensing and paperwork to fly a drone than buy an AR-15. Good job America.

[drew]

If only the drones had guns, then you could just pick them up at Walmart with your toilet paper.

Also, bear in mind, that was ONE dealer. They had a small snippet here on the local news of one other gun shop that sold 10-15 an hour the 2-3 days after the shooting.


It's fucking scary.


Honestly, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if ALL mass shootings in the last 10 years, weren't orchestrated by the NRA to promote paranoid gun sales the few days after, and get kickbacks (or reap the rewards of) of manufacturer stocks/pledges.

[LHutton]

If only the drones had guns, then you could just pick them up at Walmart with your toilet paper.

Also, bear in mind, that was ONE dealer. They had a small snippet here on the local news of one other gun shop that sold 10-15 an hour the 2-3 days after the shooting.


It's fucking scary.


Honestly, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if ALL mass shootings in the last 10 years, weren't orchestrated by the NRA to promote paranoid gun sales the few days after, and get kickbacks (or reap the rewards of) of manufacturer stocks/pledges.
Well actually, the threats to ban certain firearms drives a lot of the purchases. People know grandfathering with still be a thing, so if you discuss a ban on ARs, people rush out to buy ARs. It's like saying there might be a gas shortage.

[21Kid]

Remember, we did NOTHING after Sandy Hook.

If they didn't care about kids being murdered en masse, why would they care to do anything after a bunch of 'gays' are killed?
In this context, the stupidity is bi-partisan. They're all fucking idiots in the pocket of the NRA.

To re-state from the other thread, I don't understand this fucking country at all.
:mad: :smh:

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-15554-hundred-dollar-bills-gif-count-KDFk.gif

Since we know that they are all just bought and paid for...
Why don't we just start our own Super PAC to pay senators to vote for gun safety regulations?!? :D

[drew]

If only I'd have won that 1.5B lotto last year....


I'd gladly "donate" it to the "fuck these jackoffs" superpac.

[thesameguy]

Since we know that they are all just bought and paid for...
Why don't we just start our own Super PAC to pay senators to vote for gun safety regulations?!? :D

How is there not a Buy Congress Back kickstarter?

[thesameguy]

If only I'd have won that 1.5B lotto last year....


I'd gladly "donate" it to the "fuck these jackoffs" superpac.

Yeah, but you'd be up against that lotto winner that's backing Trump!

[drew]

Fuck this place.

[Mr Wonder]

How is there not a Buy Congress Back kickstarter?
This...should totally be a thing.

[21Kid]

Start one up!!! :D

[thesameguy]

I don't know much about crowdfunding sites. I'll bet there is a better platform than kickstarter. We need like a one year run and a lot more management brain power than I have. But I do feel there is something there. $1 from each of the 99%ers would buy a LOT of ads, information, and momentum.

[Freude am Fahren]

But we can promise them lucrative post-public service jobs and/or future support for higher office.

[overpowered]

7 things that are harder to get than an assault rifle.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/5-things-that-are-harder-to-get-than-an-assault-rifle-20160614

[Rikadyn]

I say if we are going to ban guns, it needs to apply to both state and citizen.

[Jason]

Exactly. To add to that, since 5 year olds can't effectively handle AR15s, there's no argument they could have been better prepared to fight off that assholes. So, by that token, it wasn't even worth debate.

Because, you know, if laws wouldn't have changed anything, why change the laws, or even try?

Fuck them all.

There was a push to have every teacher armed, and armed security personnel at every school, though. :|

[21Kid]

Yeah, that's the kind of environment that I want to learn in...

Kids already think that they're in jail.

There are already more prisons then schools.
Let's just prepare them for the future.

[21Kid]

7 things that are harder to get than an assault rifle.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/5-things-that-are-harder-to-get-than-an-assault-rifle-20160614

6. A marriage license
If you live in Florida and want to get married, but aren't willing to take the encouraged four-hour premarital course, you'll have to wait at least three days before your marriage license is valid. To review: three day-waiting period to get married, zero-day waiting period to purchase an assault rifle.

wow... :twitch:

[Rikadyn]

Assault Weapon, Assault rifles are covered by the NFA, and it's usually a 7-11 month wait.

[Sad, little man]

John Lewis is a certified old-school badass.

[MR2 Fan]

http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aB1Qv9Q_460s_v1.jpg

[21Kid]

:cool::up: (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/us/hawaii-gun-owner-database/index.html)

While the issue of gun control has made little headway in Congress, Hawaii this week enacted a series of gun laws, one of which the governor says makes it the first state to put firearm owners into a database.

[overpowered]

Outspoken gun advocate kills her daughters in a family dispute:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3660762/Father-pleaded-wife-killed-daughters.html

[Alan P]

Outspoken gun advocate kills her daughters in a family dispute:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3660762/Father-pleaded-wife-killed-daughters.html

What a fucking waste. :mad::(:down::smh:

[21Kid]

The more I see stories like this, the more I am grateful that no one that I live with or any close family members keep firearms. The amount of accidents and split-second bad decisions like this that destroy lives is just too much. If people only used guns for good and they weren't such an immediate danger, I wouldn't mind them... But, the #s are just staggering. :(

[Crazed_Insanity]

Wow. Wonder what the daughters did to piss mom off that much...

Anyway, our gun laws definitely need to be modified to keep up with current technology. Surely our founding fathers didn't anticipate the kind if fire power we have today!

However, keep in mind that asking gun lovers to give up guns is like asking bike riders to give up riding... It'll be very hard to give up something you love...

But anyway, our gun lobbyists are just way out of proportionally more powerful compared to motor bike lobbyists...

Sad to say this, but we probably can only count on gun lovers to kill themselves off before something happens... Those who live by the sword die by the sword...

[Rikadyn]

http://myfox8.com/2016/06/27/oregon-woman-shoots-intruder-discovered-in-her-kids-bedroom/

[G'day Mate]

Is that article deliberately written to sound like the intruder was trying to get to the kid?

[LHutton]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-security-finland-idUKKBN0TZ1L820151216


Finland seeks exception from EU gun ban

[21Kid]

Everything has to have shock value. :smh:

If it were me, I would have run out of the house and called the cops, yelled for neighbors help. Who knows how many there were in the house, or where the others might be.

[speedpimp]

Not sure if this made the national news or not(probably not), but last week a Goshen, In man was stopped by police and found to be wearing a bomb vest. Here (http://www.wndu.com/content/news/Police-and-bomb-squad-investigating-vehicle-in-Goshen-383915541.html).

[21Kid]

Was that the guy headed to California to stop the pride parade?

[overpowered]

This site is having trouble right now due to being posted by IFLS on FB but after the traffic dies down, it should be interesting. IFLS says that knives are the murder weapon of choice in and around London.

http://www.murdermap.co.uk/murder-map.asp

[LHutton]

This site is having trouble right now due to being posted by IFLS on FB but after the traffic dies down, it should be interesting. IFLS says that knives are the murder weapon of choice in and around London.

http://www.murdermap.co.uk/murder-map.asp
:smh: Burn Londoners.














;)

[speedpimp]

Was that the guy headed to California to stop the pride parade?

No, that guy was caught in Cali and he was from the Gary area. This genuis was caught driving down the road at 4 am while wearing his suicide vest.

[speedpimp]

This site is having trouble right now due to being posted by IFLS on FB but after the traffic dies down, it should be interesting. IFLS says that knives are the murder weapon of choice in and around London.

http://www.murdermap.co.uk/murder-map.asp

Isn't that why they call it "Knife Crime Island"?

[overpowered]

Outspoken gun advocate kills her daughters in a family dispute:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3660762/Father-pleaded-wife-killed-daughters.html
Not forgetting her two daughters, if the selfish bitch had just been shot after making threats then no great loss to humanity. The fact she shot and killed her own family makes this into a real tragedy.Believe it or not, there are people defending her:

https://jennifermayers.wordpress.com/2016/06/27/americas-martyr-no-race-mixing/

I read things like this and I get very, very scared.

Police believe that she killed the daughters to make their father suffer:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/us/texas-woman-shoots-daughters/

That blogger above also posted this. She's whacko:

https://www.facebook.com/photo/download/?fbid=10100342122695511

[LHutton]

Isn't that why they call it "Knife Crime Island"?
I feel there may be a moral problem here.... with Londoners.

[novicius]

Believe it or not, there are people defending her:

https://jennifermayers.wordpress.com/2016/06/27/americas-martyr-no-race-mixing/

I read things like this and I get very, very scared.
Reads like satire...

[speedpimp]

I feel there may be a moral problem here.... with Londoners.

Yet your corner of The North is full of morally upright citizens who are all shining examples of Proper Britishness?

[LHutton]

Less stabbing, less crime in general.

[LHutton]

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/30/law-enforcement-sources-gun-used-paris-terrorist-attacks-came-phoenix


One of the guns used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from Phoenix, Arizona where the Obama administration allowed criminals to buy thousands of weapons illegally in a deadly and futile “gun-walking” operation known as “Fast and Furious.”

[Drachen596]

Not sure if this made the national news or not(probably not), but last week a Goshen, In man was stopped by police and found to be wearing a bomb vest. Here (http://www.wndu.com/content/news/Police-and-bomb-squad-investigating-vehicle-in-Goshen-383915541.html).

That didn't even make the news here in Fort Wayne. Then again we're dealing with teens killing each other due to gang violence spilling over from Detroit and Chicago apparently.

[speedpimp]

Yeah but I bet if he had been of a different ethnic group/religion, you can bet your ass it would've been all over the place with stupid headlines like "TERROR PLOT FOILED IN THE HEARTLAND!". Even though he would've just been a dumb ass like the Goshenbilly they stopped with no ties to anything except for his own stupidity.

[FaultyMario]

https://www.facebook.com/photo/download/?fbid=10100342122695511

that gave me the munchies.

[21Kid]

This (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/05/the-gun-didnt-kill-my-boy-i-did-father-accidentally-shoots-son-during-target-practice/) is why I'm opposed to guns. Even in a controlled environment, with a responsible owner, people get killed. :(

It's a tool made to kill things. And it does it really well. Why are people so enamored to own them? :( I'd be scared shitless to have one in my house.

Brumby keeps guns in his home, he said, so it was important that his children learn about gun safety.

“We wanted our kids to be aware of guns,” he told CNN after the fatal accident. “I wanted them to be comfortable around them and understand them.”

Fourteen-year-old Stephen Brumby was quietly waiting for his turn to shoot.

His father, William C. Brumby, was up first, stepping into the last shooting lane at High Noon Gun Range, aiming a Ruger SR22 and squeezing the trigger, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

A hot shell casing hit the range wall and flew into the elder Brumby’s shirt.

He instinctively reached around with his right hand — which was still holding the .22 semiautomatic handgun, police said.

While trying to fish out the shell casing, he fired again, this time accidentally.

“Dad, Stephen’s been shot,” his other son shouted, according to the newspaper.

Brumby later told the Tampa Bay Times that the bullet struck his 14-year-old son’s jugular vein during the family’s target-shooting practice Sunday afternoon.

The teen was taken to Sarasota Memorial Hospital, where he died, authorities said.

[Sad, little man]

If only there was a good guy with a gun there. He could have shot the bullet out of mid-air before it hit that kid.

[drew]

"A hot shell casing hit the range wall and flew into the elder Brumby’s shirt.

He instinctively reached around with his right hand — which was still holding the .22 semiautomatic handgun, police said.

While trying to fish out the shell casing, he fired again, this time accidentally."


The irony. For someone that's "a shooter", that's the biggest fucking brainfart/idiot-asshole thing you do. I've had casings down my shirt before, it fucking hurts, a lot (especially a 30-06 casing (bigger than .22)). I didn't fucking freak out, and spray the place trying to fish it out. You set the weapon down, as fast as you can (safely), then tend to your singing skin.

Sadly, this guy's kid paid the price for his father's lack of respect for firearms.

In any case, yes, some people shouldn't have them, and it's becoming more apparent on a daily basis that most shouldn't.

[overpowered]

Dallas probably has more guns than most places.

Apparently they need more. :|

[Jason]

The shooter was/is mentally ill, duh.

*checks race*

Er, it was terrorism.

[FaultyMario]

Black, gang violence.
Hispanic, drug trade.

[Rikadyn]

1821

http://gtxforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1821&d=1468030768

[Drachen596]

The shooter was/is mentally ill, duh.

*checks race*

Er, it was terrorism.

no it was a racist black man shouting about wanting to kill white people, preferably white police officers.

[overpowered]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fort-myers-nightclub-shooting-1-dead-14-others-reportedly-wounded-n615961

[Drachen596]

http://wane.com/2016/07/26/knife-attack-at-home-for-disabled-in-japan-stuns-neighbors/

[21Kid]

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight

[21Kid]

Sweden may have the answer to America’s gun problem (http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12351824/gun-control-sweden-solution)

In Sweden, only responsible people can have guns
Here’s how the Swedish system works: Only responsible people are trusted with firearms. Sweden licenses guns in much the same way we license cars and drivers. You can have up to six guns but can get more with special permission.

To apply for a firearm permit you must first take a year-long hunter training program and pass a written and shooting test. You can also apply for a gun permit if you’ve been a member of an established shooting club for six months.

In addition to undergoing training, Sweden’s gun owners must store their firearms safely. Guns must be locked away in a vault, not stored beneath your car seat or in the nightstand where your kids can find them.

Responsibility in Sweden goes further yet: Convicted of a felony? No guns for you. Beat your wife? No guns. Under a restraining order? No guns. Drive drunk? No guns.Before I could hunt, there was the trip to the rifle range where my shooting scores were registered. While this is not required by law, I was told that landowners would not let me hunt moose, nor would a hunting team accept me, unless I showed I could hit a target — not just a paper target but a full-size plywood moose at 100 yards, standing and moving.

Being in this new setting that was much like and yet so different from Wisconsin got me thinking about hunting in new ways. I began to think more about the responsibilities of gun owners rather than gun owners' rights. I also learned that it was possible to maintain a lively hunting culture along with mandatory gun registration and required safe storage.

[Kchrpm]

All good ideas. Good luck getting any of it here. Both sarcastic and truthful feelings.

[21Kid]

:(

[Dicknose]

The problem is that hunting is not the only reason for someone in the US to own a gun. For "self defence" means people will need easy access to their guns, so they won't lock them up safely.

[G'day Mate]

I began to think more about the responsibilities of gun owners rather than gun owners' rights

That says a lot

[21Kid]

I don't think that is even a thought in most US gun owners minds. :(

Even when I took a hunter's safety course in high school, I realized how dangerous guns were, and how easily something could go wrong. Just making everyone who wanted a gun take that class and pass a test would go a long way, I think.

[Alan P]

If you drive a car you need to take lessons and pass a test. As shown in Nice, vehicles can be pretty deadly weapons. The same should apply for guns. Take gun safety lessons and have to show you're a responsible owner and you won't leave it in your purse or bedside drawer for your four year old Son to find and shoot your two year old daughter with.

[Drachen596]

I never took drivers ed. It isn't required or at least wasn't at the time. Took a two written tests and a single driving test.(one written for permit, one for actual license)
No one told me it was a bad idea to run into things or hit people with it. Its common sense.

How many people with DUIs still drive their cars? You know... illegally without a license or insurance or even registration.

Most weapons used in crimes are obtained ILLEGALLY. Gang members and such don't tend to just visit the gun store. various studies seem to say that only in 3% of firearms crimes were the weapons obtained via legal means.

[21Kid]

There should still be a test you should have to pass in order to get a license, even without having to take a class. And each gun should be registered to a specific individual.

How many cars are obtained illegally? If you make people register firearms and transfer ownership if they sell it, there's far less chance for someone to get them illegally.

No one is going to buy a gun and give it to their cousin who's in a gang, if it's registered to them.

[Alan P]

There should still be a test you should have to pass in order to get a license, even without having to take a class. And each gun should be registered to a specific individual.

How many cars are obtained illegally? If you make people register firearms and transfer ownership if they sell it, there's far less chance for someone to get them illegally.

No one is going to buy a gun and give it to their cousin who's in a gang, if it's registered to them.

And if the law is changed so that if the gun isn't reported stolen it makes them an accessory.

[G'day Mate]

And make it illegal to possess a gun that isn't registered in your (or your family's) name.

[21Kid]

Honestly, I don't see the problem with this solution. As long as you are a legal gun owning citizen.
And there should be a yearly registration renewal, just like cars.

I know it wouldn't do anything for the current illegal guns out there. But, we have to start somewhere. And hopefully we'd get to a point eventually where there are fewer and fewer illegal guns. From them getting confiscated. And fewer guns in general from people not wanting to pay a yearly fee.

I'm sure there are quite a few people that would change their mind about buying a gun if they had to pay a yearly fee for each one.

[drew]

Considering there's legally one gun for every man, woman and child in the country, do we really need people getting more?

I've always been a fan/lover of guns, I even own a couple (note, couple), but they're locked in a safe in IN, I have no purpose for one here.

But I digress. My point: I personally know 11 people that have at least 10 guns each (a couple (including my father) with 30+). Are they all assault rifles? No. As far as I'm aware, non of my friends/family have one. It's mostly shotguns and handguns (with exception to a few hunting rifles in the mix). Thus, you have to ask, how many is enough? I know there are collectors that buy soley for the purpose of doing so, with no intention of using for any reason (hunting).

But, in all honesty, if they said "fuck it, we're done making any more new ones" and when the existing stock on FFA shelves are gone, that's it, I wouldn't be too upset (cue the barrage).

But, we all know that will never ever happen.

Then there's all the bullshit about X person (Hillary) wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment, and the govment gonna take all your guns (that you lawfully own). Which, is total bullshit.

But, until Congress stops sucking the NRA's dick, absolutely nothing will ever change. As mentioned before, if a dozen GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN getting massacred doesn't do something, nothing will.

[Alan P]

I wonder about the magnitude of event that would be required for some people to wise up. How many? A dozen children? Been done I believe. Didn't do damn shit. 30 people? Been done too. A hundred people? Twenty schools, all attacked by white Christians wielding AR15's across multiple sites, killing a hundred children and two dozen teachers? A whole school lined up in the gym and gunned down with legally bought firearms? That many people die regularly every week across the country and it does fuck all.

Perhaps these Senators and congressmen need to be personally affected? It's easy to not realise the damage gun laws (or lack of them) are causing when you can just turn the page or tap your iPad to read something else. Perhaps if these people's grand children, sons and daughters were mercilessly gunned down by a mentally ill psychopath with legally bought assault rifles and hand guns would they then say 'enough!'?

[Drachen596]

Gabby Giffords shot at her own political rally a few years ago.

no changes.

also people steal cars and sell them all the time but right no one ever gets illegal cars or anything. They also modify them ignoring the laws.

[21Kid]

I just don't understand why people defend the status quo... and don't demand better. :(
How is anyone okay with the magnitude of gun-related deaths we have in the US? :(

I only used cars as an example because others like to compare the # of deaths caused by driving, when trying to make gun arguments.
But, there are also a lot of other comparisons we can draw from that data too.

Car theft has declined dramatically (96% {2000 in 1990 to 88 cars in 2013} in NYC) because of new technology.

Automobiles have added a lot of safety features to keep people safe. Airbags, crumple zones, infant car seats, hell even seat belts weren't mandatory before '68. Yet people drive more miles, on more crowded roads, faster, and with less fatalities(per mile) due to these improvements.

New guns should have smart features to make them safer too, such as RFID or biometrics. Adding smart features to guns would likely deter theft and prevent accidental death.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/mm4818a1f1.gif

People should need to be licensed to buy a gun.
Guns should be registered to the owner.
You should have to be a certain age to purchase a gun, like 21. And they definitely shouldn't be marketed towards kids. :mad:
1880
I'd prefer that everyone take a training course too. But, if you can pass a test and are competent, I can understand why it wouldn't be needed. Just like a driving test.

There are limitations put on other things that cause unintentional harm. There should be a similar minimum bar for an instrument of death.
And they should be nation-wide. Headlines like these make me sick.

It Took Us Just 38 Minutes To Buy An AR-15 In Orlando
Purchasing a killing machine, even after a national tragedy, is just too easy.

The gun laws in Chicago do no good when you can cross the border into IN where a 13 year old can buy a gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIFiJdw0uME
Can't buy beer, cigarettes, adult magazines, lottery tickets, etc... but a gun? Eff yeah!!! :angry:


I'm not saying it'll stop everything. But, it's a start. And it's better than just saying Fuck it, there's nothing we can do.
You'd think that a tool designed to kill things would deserve a lot more respect than they currently do. :smh:

[Drachen596]

a 13 year old can not legally buy a gun in Indiana. much like minimum wage laws if a state doesn't have specifics it defaults to the federal restrictions.

https://www.cabelas.com/assets/product_files/pdf/federal_state_firearms_regs_online.pdf

So the sale in that video is illegal.

You can buy a car without being licensed. you can't register it but you can go buy one.

[G'day Mate]

Hmmm, I could be wrong but this site (http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/consumer-child-safety/minimum-age/) indicates there's no minimum age restriction for an unlicensed seller when selling a long gun to another individual, however possession thereafter (http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/consumer-child-safety/minimum-age/) may have been illegal.

But that's not really the point.

[Godson]

You must be 18 in MO to buy a gun, 21 to buy a handgun. Fwiw

[Random]

You must be 18 in MO to buy a gun, 21 to buy a handgun. Fwiw

OMG, how can you live in such a fascist state?!?!

[Godson]

It's tough at times. But we look at Kansas and laugh. Both from the shear sadness the state is in, and because we aren't Kansas.

[drew]

Same in IN, the last I knew. EXCEPT: you can get a carry permit when you're 18.

So, can legally carry a handgun at 18, but not actually buy one, or ammo for it, til 21.

Bravo.

[Godson]

I *think* it's 23 to concealed carry in MO, which requires a class and a qualification shoot. 8 hours total. Some cities allow open carry, which oddly enough requires no course......

[21Kid]

Sorry, I don't know if that video was from IN. I saw the video the same time I was writing that and put the two together. My bad.

It looks like there is no minimum age limit to purchasing a long gun from a private seller on the federal level and in most states, however.
And there's even fewer restrictions on possessing them.

Looks like you can be of any age to buy them in IN, just not posses them. :erm:
link (http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/consumer-child-safety/minimum-age/)
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/08/min-age.jpg

[21Kid]

Europe gets tougher on gun control (http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/21/news/firearms-rules-europe/index.html)

Europe is proposing new gun control laws in response to recent terror attacks and mass shootings.
The European Union has agreed to ban sales of the most dangerous semi-automatic firearms, and to make it much harder to legally buy other weapons in the EU.
People across the EU will now have to go through medical checks before getting a license to buy firearms. Online sales will also be limited.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the head of the European Commission, called the agreement a "milestone in gun control in the EU."
"We have fought hard for an ambitious deal that reduces the risk of shootings in schools, summer camps or terrorist attacks with legally held firearms," he said.

[dodint]

I wonder what the overlap is here (at GTXF, not at large) that think Voter ID laws are unconstitutional but also want increased barriers to entry for firearm ownership.

It's a cognitive dissonance for a lot of folks, on either end of the liberal and conservative spectrums, when they have to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they think should apply to their neighbors and themselves. If they choose one but not the other they lose their whole argument because they have to invalidate the underlying authority either way.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, interesting point you got there.

Conservatives are supposedly pro-life, but want pro-choice for healthcare/vaccines while risking health/life.

Liberals are pro-choice, but want to deny choices by mandating healthcare/vaccines for all.

Is this really cognitive dissonance?

Perhaps it's once again more about economy. Conservatives tend to want to save now, but may end up spending more later. Whereas liberals just wish to spend now, but of course can't really guarantee that there'll be savings later! :p

Keeping the baby and not paying for healthcare and not taking vaccines are just cheaper now..., but if something goes wrong, these expenses could bankrupt you.

Abortions and healthcare premiums(Including shots) will likely cost more now, but surely they should save more money later on in theory.

So this may not be cognitive dissonance, bottom line may just be about $$$! But of course it's harder to explain why buying gun saves conservatives money now..., but maybe guns let them feel that they help them protect their hard earn money?

[21Kid]

IMO, anyone that holds onto those original parts of the constitution as set in stone are not basing their decisions in reality. Laws need to evolve and grow for the country to grow.

Basing ones right to own a current-day semi-automatic assault rifle based on an amendment from 1791, is awfully misguided. But, feel free to buy any gun from that time period. :lol:

They wouldn't have been able to foresee that most citizens would be able to buy semi-automatic weapons, that could fire a 30 round magazine in a minute. They were still packing gunpowder manually, the idea of a magazine at all wasn't even a concern. Not to mention that you can buy them online (http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/17/482483537/semi-automatic-weapons-without-a-background-check-can-be-just-a-click-away). Had they known that you could obtain such massive firepower so easily, and that they'd become such a problem, I'm fairly confident they would have added a few more provisions from the get go.
Things were much simpler back then. At the time those amendments were written most places didn't have indoor plumbing or electricity. Let alone the most powerful military in the world. In fact it was quite the opposite. Which is why they thought the general population needed to be armed to defend the country.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/06/gun_compare.png&w=500


I think there should be some kind of proof of citizenship to vote. But, it should be easily obtainable and free. Most of the problems being reported on are because Republicans are making it increasingly more difficult to get a legal ID. And some specifically target (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/29/487935700/u-s-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law) certain groups. Not to mention that there has been virtually no voter fraud (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-n637776), no matter how much the right complains about it.

[dodint]

To summarize chat: if you would like the 2A removed or amended, write your representative and propose legislation. That's the only way you can effect change here. The voting v. gun comparison is an illustration that people are happy to have the Constitution stand up for their rights, but not of others if they don't agree with it.

Your anti-traditionalist viewpoint is valid as an opinion. And with Scalia leaving us here in the lurch you'll very likely have more favorable representation on the SCOTUS moving forward. But for now until you get some traction on repealing the 2A the status quo isn't going to change much.

[Crazed_Insanity]

True that laws are not set in stone and should evolve with time, but most important part is that we ought to consider what is the spirit of the law. Why did the founding fathers put such law in place in the 1st place?

If founding fathers intended this for hunting purposes, yeah, we for sure don't need semi-automatic weapons...

If our right to bear arms was intended for us to defend against our very own corrupted government , then we probably should have the right to own nuclear weapons, let alone automatic assault weapons! Of course perhaps nuclear weapons are just too mutually destructive, but we probably should be allowed to own comparable weapons used by the US military if some sort of civil war breaks out. That way we don't have to rely on the KGB or other nations to supply us with weapons to rebel against our own evil corrupt govt.

Electoral college has failed to prevent somebody not very qualified to be in office. Our right to bear arms may be our last line of defense should things go further south. But hopefully things will go north and really great like the stock market... not too much south... fingers crossed.

[novicius]

Heh at this point I view the 2A & gun control as a nice-to-have, akin to legalizing gay marriage in 2004.

Fact is, regardless of if the polls state that the U.S. population is for it, they're not passionate enough about it to show up at the polls for it. So Dems should let it slide.

[21Kid]

Anti-traditionalist? :lol: I think pro-reality is more accurate. Things change. The law should change with it, or they become irrelevant (https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-craziest-laws-still-on-the-books).
Since you now live in PA, don't forget these traditional motoring laws.
If you ever find yourself driving at night through rural parts of Pennsylvania, state law requires that you stop every mile to send up a rocket signal. It's true. And if you see a skittish team of horses coming toward you, be sure to take your car apart, piece by piece, and hide it under the nearest bushes—unless, of course, you want to be in violation of state law.
That was written more recently than the 2nd amendment.


Repealing the 2nd amendment? :erm: who ever said that? I just think there should be more common sense laws, like what you need to drive a car. Registration, tests, fees, etc...

That's the problem with trying to have an honest discussion about this. If anyone tries to bring it up, people start screaming that Obama's going to take their guns away!!!
Over 50% (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/why-so-many-americans-think-the-government-wants-their-guns/?utm_term=.6941dcd639a1) of gun owners believe this. Even though it has been said zero times. Oh wait... nearly every GOP candidate this year has. :smh:

[dodint]

Anti-traditionalist? :lol:

It's not an insult, just a position. I could've easily said 'liberal', but that conjures up a different connotation for some.

Originalist (or textualist) is a better word that Traditionalist. Moving forward, those that oppose Originialist interpretations of the Constitution will have a better time thanks to Scalia passing. He was the template for the Originalist Justice.

No one is taking guns away, like you said, the support isn't there.

You're arguments are fun, and passionate, but we don't seem to be talking about the same things. I agree with you on most of what you're asking for regarding common sense gun control legislation. I'm just pointing out why I can support someone that points to the 2A and urges you to stuff it, and why they're probably entitled to that.

If I were king for a day I would abolish the importation and domestic production of all non-long guns in the United States. Allow for the grandfathering of existing weapons and allow them to be passed down. Over 3-5 generations they would effectively be gone, and I doubt most people would actually care after that first generation passes on. That's pie in the sky stuff, though, and with the reality we face I think a lot of time, money, and handwringing is wasted. In the end it's a Constitutional right and no amount of Facebook memes is going to change that.

I don't care about gun control debates because it's already settled, I have my gun whether Keith likes it or not. A few tidbits why I don't care to get riled up about it: guns don't kill that many people, about 1.3% of all deaths annually are gun related. Or, about 11,000 per year. Automobiles kill three times that. Do you honestly look at those numbers and think that it justifies the debate time spent on it? Murders are scary, and make good news copy. Mass murders are really scary. But, Mass Murders are so rare that the CDC/FBI/BLS have no way of actually tracking them because the numbers are statistically insignificant.

My bottom line: Gun control nuts have very little practical basis for the change they're trying to affect. Guns are not a serious threat to society. They seem that way because the media needs to fill that news cycle, but outside of downtown Chicago and other highly populous locations guns and gun violence is a very remote possibility for most Americans.
What I don't like is people that have no connection to an issue waving their fingers condescendingly trying to take things from people they don't know and can't understand. Keith fears guns and wants them all to go away, at millions of people's expense. Keith fears dog's too, should we get rid of them next? It gives me the same feeling when some nobody in Congress that never served in the military has some bright idea about how troops should conduct war. It's ignorance pushing policy and I'll oppose it on principle when I see it.

[novicius]

Be careful you don't whip that Constitution out during a traffic stop, Nate! :lol: ;)

[dodint]

I have been stopped while carrying. Never once been shot. ;)

[novicius]

Yeah it's not the gun that makes you a threat or not, it's gonna be either your pocket edition Constitution or Bill of Rights. #lol

[Cam]

I have been stopped while carrying. Never once been shot. ;)

Yeah, 'cause you're white. :|

[dodint]

Yeah, 'cause you're white. :|

I also announce where the pistol is, with my hands in plain view. Snark or not that is the practical difference.

Except that guy that got shot while laying face down in the road. You got me there.

[21Kid]

I'm just pointing out why I can support someone that points to the 2A and urges you to stuff it, and why they're probably entitled to that.
Because there's historical context? :erm: Not buying it. Laws can, and should be updated to keep up with the times. That's the whole point of amendments.

Just because an amendment was enacted in 1791, doesn't mean it is set in stone for all of time.

[dodint]

So go get a new amendment. All you need is popular support...

[21Kid]

Okay.

[neanderthal]

Yeah, interesting point you got there.

Conservatives are supposedly pro-life, but want pro-choice for healthcare/vaccines while risking health/life.

Different issues. "Pro life" is a label that's supposed to sound good and wholesome but does nothing except deny women choice and even agency over their own bodies.


Liberals are pro-choice, but want to deny choices by mandating healthcare/vaccines for all. Different issues, but same general area/ related. The "pro choice" camp is very big on the health of the mother, and insisting on vaccines is just fucking common sense.


Is this really cognitive dissonance? Pretending the "pro life" movement is about "pro life" is. Ask them if they have adopted a child. I've only run into one fervently "pro life" person who had adopted children. Just the one. But they insist it's an option that they themselves don't even exercise. Ask them how they feel about capital punishment/death penalty. Then ask them which part of killing another human is pro life? Ask them how they feel about welfare, child nutrition, early education and a whole hist of things that have been scientifically proven to have long term benefits economically, intellectually, in terms of social mobility, etc etc etc. Then ask them how keeping hungry children or sick is possibly "pro life."

I used to delve into these discussions with all sorts on facebook. They'd slink away when you presented them with the contrary nature of their stated position (pro life) and actual ideology.


Perhaps it's once again more about economy. Conservatives tend to want to save now, but may end up spending more later. Whereas liberals just wish to spend now, but of course can't really guarantee that there'll be savings later! :p

"Free spending liberals" is a con invented by Faux News. And bought hook line and sinker by conservaives. Blue states contribute more to the federal budget than red states. Red states take more from the feds than they put in.
As is "fiscal conservative." Most conservatives these days adhere to supply side economics ("trickle down theory") which has been proven to work demostrably opposite to how its touted.


Keeping the baby and not paying for healthcare and not taking vaccines are just cheaper now..., but if something goes wrong, these expenses could bankrupt you.

Abortions and healthcare premiums(Including shots) will likely cost more now, but surely they should save more money later on in theory. This is common sense. But makes for poor sound bites.


So this may not be cognitive dissonance, bottom line may just be about $$$! But of course it's harder to explain why buying gun saves conservatives money now..., but maybe guns let them feel that they help them protect their hard earn money?

I just always ask "when have you ever used your gun to prevent yourself being robbed or to protect yourself?"

[neanderthal]

I also announce where the pistol is, with my hands in plain view. Snark or not that is the practical difference.

Except that guy that got shot while laying face down in the road. You got me there.

I had a cop pull a gun on me after he asked me for my license and registration. I went for my wallet and he pulled out his gun. Black or white IS sometimes a practical difference..

[Crazed_Insanity]

Neanderthal, like I said, everything comes down to money. Killing a convict will be cheaper than putting him in prison.

People owning a gun not only protects self, but you can directly execute a bad guy, so you can even save yourself legal costs in the future!

So in order to sway a conservative, you have to show him how much he can save by switching on certain positions! ;)

[Godson]

I love the philosophical take down on "pro-life" but also "pro-death penalty"


Common rebuttal is "they had their chance".

I'm kinda weird.

Pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-guns. So you think I'm all about the killing right.

I want universalized healthcare. :/

[dodint]

Communist.

[mk]

With pro-choice I think more precise would be politburo communist.

[Godson]

Communist.

:lol:

[KillerB]

I had a cop pull a gun on me after he asked me for my license and registration. I went for my wallet and he pulled out his gun. Black or white IS sometimes a practical difference..

I totally agree that the police don't treat blacks fairly, but did you state "my license is in my wallet and I'm reaching for it in my back pocket"? Because I was always taught to do that if reaching into my pocket at a traffic stop. (What can I say, my family doesn't trust cops.)

FWIW, I don't like sciatica so my wallet stays in my center console while I'm driving.

[Jason]

Where the hell do most people keep their license? If I'm asked for something that's commonly in my pocket, why would it be 'dangerous' to then reach for my pocket without announcing it? Maybe cops should ask where my license and registration are before asking me to get it. He's the one with the gun/power/control. Why is the person with the gun pointed at them expected to show no emotion and think completely clearly and not the cop?

[novicius]

Why does the State have to do your thinking for you, you dirty lib? ;) #jk

(It's the Authoritarian way of giving the masses just enough rope to hang themselves.)

[Phil_SS]

Pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-guns. So you think I'm all about the killing right.

I want universalized healthcare. :/

*High five

Though I do think there needs to be more regulation when owning a gun. Like if I have to have insurance and a license and register my car why don't I if I own a gun?

[Godson]

*High five

Though I do think there needs to be more regulation when owning a gun. Like if I have to have insurance and a license and register my car why don't I if I own a gun?

Because some people own 500+ guns.

It could get redonkulous, and kinda falls into the "illegal search and seizure" aspect.

[Crazed_Insanity]

We're not given the right to own and drive cars by founding fathers.

However criminals and mentally unstable should lose that right.

[dodint]

*High five

Though I do think there needs to be more regulation when owning a gun. Like if I have to have insurance and a license and register my car why don't I if I own a gun?

I'm curious what "gun insurance" looks like to you. Can you please elaborate?

[Godson]

Insurance for when you accidentally shoot someone to cover the medical expenses?

[dodint]

Surely it's more than that. The proportional difference certainly doesn't warrant a whole new insurance sector.

GUN:AUTO (Annual)
Accidental deaths: 600:19,000
Accidental injuries: 200,000:2,300,000

C'mon, man.

Not to mention that regular healthcare coverage covers this kind of trauma. Average accidental gunshot healthcare cost is $14,000 per incident.

It's almost like this new requirement would only be there as an annoyance, a barrier to entry. Kind of like when I say a bicyclist should be licensed and insured to use public roadways. The difference of course is that firearms are Constitutionally protected and bicycles are not. But I digress.

[Freude am Fahren]

Interestingly, I googled the numbers of registered cars vs. the number of guns owned to see how those numbers really compare, and came up with about 260 million of both!

I think the constitutional protection of firearms is stupid. I don't think they should be outlawed completely, but to pretend they're some kind of divine right is stupid. I think it should be much harder to get a gun license than a car license, and that you should have to get it to operate any and all guns, and that all guns should have to be registered, and there should be steep punishments for improper usage/storage, failure to report lost or stolen, etc...

It should be more involving to own a gun than any other possession (not financially). Though I never really thought about insurance, I'd have to think about that more. My first thoughts are no.

[drew]

Some jackass here stole a truck with guns in it a couple nights ago.

Happens all the time, but in this case, two glaring points arose (at least to me, lost on everybody else...) when they mentioned the truck had guns in it, and showed a picture of them:

1: The truck had one AR15 and three pistols (and extra mags for all). My point, whomever this fucktard is that leaves that kind of stash in their vehicle, they should be fined as well. Just because you have the right to own one, doesn't necessarily mean you have the common sense/responsibility to do so, or should. Luckily, in this case, no one was shot. Additional "rule" to owning a gun: if you store them in your car, and they get stolen/used for nefarious reasons, you're an accomplice (to a lesser degree), and thus, should have to face some sort of penalty. People whose kids shoot themselves, because they had their gun sitting on top of the fridge, loaded are (most of the time) charged for negligence/etc. The same should apply in this case.

2: This was my bigger "what the fuck!?". One of the pistols had a silencer on it. While silencers aren't illegal (if you have the ridiculously expensive/laborious federal permit (unless this has changed??)), seeing one in this context seems odd. I would be more inclined to follow up with the owner of the truck, to see if he/she had all their shit in order to own such a thing. It used to be, back in the day, you could have a silencer, but with that, you paid $$$/year for the (federal) permit, and essentially consented to spontaneous/random checks with the ATF/FBI to inspect your "arsenal". At least I hope it's still that way. If it's not, that's fucking terrifying.

[dodint]

Funny thing is that, depending on jurisdiction, whoever stole the truck could be charged with a felony for committing a robbery involving a firearm. I can point to case law where some folks broke into a house and stole a safe. They didn't know what was inside the safe, but there was a loaded pistol in there. They went to jail for a long time because they committed a crime that involved a firearm. I find it funny, mainly because I don't heist things.

[drew]

That I can kinda see (if not a bit stretching it). I'm talking about the fuckwad that leaves 4 guns in their truck. They should have some "Common Sense" policy where you're fined for such fuckwittery.

If this were a case like you stated, and they were all in a safe, I think the owner would be exempt.


They've had multiple instances of guns being stolen out of police cars here. Parked at their home for the night, and they broke in and stole everything out of it. If I were sheriff, that officer would be shit-canned. There are guns stolen from cars (cops/everybody) at least once a week it seems (in Jax). A few times, the stolen gun was used for a robbery. I still stand that the person that the gun belongs to, should at least be partly to blame for the crime.

A car is not a gun safe.

[dodint]

Yeah. I wasn't really responding to you, I just thought the precedent was interesting.

[Jason]

While I support things like training, licensing and registration (and I can see the argument for insurance, though I don't know if its necessary), I just don't think those things will actually make a huge difference. We need more of a culture change, and I'm not sure if that'll ever happen considering that this country largely said 'so what' to events like Sandy Hook. Outside of hunting, I don't think guns are all that useful in a developed country. Sure there's instances of self protection, but do those instances outweigh crimes committed with guns? Doubtful. And even if the crimes outweigh the protections, the individual likely isn't going to care, because Americans put themselves first over society at large.

[dodint]

It won't make a huge difference because it's not a huge problem. It's a fun talking point (Bill), but if you waved a magic wand and all guns instantly disappeared the vast majority of peoples daily lives would be unaffected. Hell, their entire lives would be unaffected.

[drew]

At this point, nothing would surprise me about "guns". The NRA beats it into people that more legislation/logic='TAKE YER GUNS', and it's frightening. Yet, while stated in this thread many times, there are enough registered guns to arm every man, woman, and child in this country, with who knows how many millions of other unregistered/other.

[dodint]

Yeah, I'm not an NRA member or even a huge gun rights supporter. The only time I ever 'talk' about it is on internet forums when it comes around every few months. I find the discussion interesting but it could just as easily be about some other topic. I had a really interesting conversation about legalizing prostitution yesterday on my other forum.

The gun 'issue' is already solved, to me. I have them and I don't care if people want me to not have them because I have the Constitution, lobby, and general will of the American public on my side. I'm not frightened by the vocal minority in any practical way.

[Jason]

Constitution and lobbying doesn't necessarily mean your PoV is correct, nor the 'will of the people'. Hell, for a long time, the above to a certain extent said slavery was cool. Not that I'm comparing the two, I just don't think those things matter that much when determining what policies make sense for society.

I'd rather see better arguments than 'well, the constitution says I can have it' in support of the proliferation of guns (and the resulting gun violence) we have in the US. You say it's not that big of a problem, sure, relative to some other issues, but it is still a problem that's identifiable, and should be addressed.

I do agree that outright gun bans aren't going to solve the problem of gun violence*, because like you said 'the will of the people, constitution, and lobby' are on 'your side', but we can certainly take a look at what compels people to commit acts of violence, and maybe work at it from that direction. Unfortunately that involves things like socialized medicine, increased welfare measures, better access to education, and efforts to reign in income inequality. All of which 'the will of the people' are against as well.

* not unless we ban manufacturing, and somehow convince people to turn in illegal firearms

[dodint]

'My side' is 'right', because it's practical. I enjoy owning guns, and I can. That's the end of it in terms of the practical discussion. Everything else is rhetoric used to pass the time. My opinion is inherently not yours, but only one of us is happy and I'm fortunate it's me. My biggest problem in this whole sphere of issues is the disproportionate amount of hand wringing spent on guns compared to other more prolific problems. I usually try to ignore it but it's so relentless. People are spazzing out today because a Navy ship is being named after Gabrielle Giffords; honestly, who cares if not for the gun control agenda?

Problem solving requires resources. Just because a problem is identifiable doesn't mean it needs a solution. The state of NC 'solved' the transgender bathroom problem, for instance.

I'm not saying gun culture is perfect in the US and that you shouldn't be passionate about whatever you want to be. I'm just saying that if it were possible to objectively rank all the real issues affecting the country private gun ownership would be much farther down than the vocal minority and sensationalist media want you to believe.

It's kind of a microcosm of the general election. A minority of loud angry people pissed they can't control the majority. I just don't understand people that want to take things away from others even though it has nothing to do with them. Guns, abortions, vaping, bicycle lanes, whatever. It's disgusting to me.

[novicius]

Hey Ayn Rand just called, she said you're ice cold Nate. :lol:

[dodint]

Sorry, nothing personal. It's just so tired and boring to me.

[Godson]

Drew, having a suppressor/silencer just requires a tax stamp of 200$ I believe, someone to do the paperwork, a 12 month wait, and then purchase (50-1200+). It opens you up to random searches, but honestly I haven't heard of that happening. Why? Because the BATF has bigger fish to fry than someone who did the correct thing on going through the bullshit for something which doesn't really affect the safety of anyone.

FaF, I think there needs to be safety courses required for gun ownership. However, if you look at everything I am willing to bet that the cluster of guns owned to person is higher per person than cars owned per person. Where am I going with this? We should really work on our drivers training and education much more than a gun license. But I am starting to digress.

[Alan P]

I can't find the link, but some gun nut journalist who was even against mandatory training courses on gun safety was shot with his own handgun after giving it to a teenager. When it was loaded.

Ah! http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/pro-gun-columnist-accidentally-shot-and-killed-when-letting-teen-hold-gun-police-say/

This si why there should be training. You don't let someone drive a car without lessons and a test. I'm not mandating testing, but there should, IMO, at least be a 1-2 hour class for anyone wishing to own a handgun. If the teen hadn't ever handled one before, why on earth would he be given a LOADED handgun? Of course the first instinct is to put your finger on the trigger!?

[Godson]

Well, dude is a dumbshit for handing a loaded firearm to someone who has no experience so.... Darwinism.

I was required by my scouting leaders to take a hunters safety course when I was coming of age. Something like 20+ hours long. I didn't want to do it, but I did learn a lot. So many people want to just bull rush right into things, but this isn't one of them.

[novicius]

Sorry, nothing personal. It's just so tired and boring to me.
Nah I didn't take it personally -- it's the truth.

U.S. population has proven they don't care enough about gun control to vote, ergo it's dead. #shrug

[Crazed_Insanity]

I think government ought to just provide gun education right along sex education. Don't have to make it mandatory, but at least make it accessible to whoever interested.

Gun rights also ought to be revocable if someone has proven to be careless and/or irresponsible with his/her guns.

[21Kid]

While most people agree that there needs to at least have better background checks (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-agree-with-obama-that-more-gun-buyers-should-get-background-checks/). It literally doesn't even matter (http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think).

So, whatever... Nate's right, it doesn't make sense discussing it.

[dodint]

I don't like being put in the position of advocating against discourse. :(

[21Kid]

I don't care about gun control debates because it's already settled, I have my gun whether Keith likes it or not.
Sorry, nothing personal. It's just so tired and boring to me.So, why bother?

[dodint]

One day I might hear a compelling argument or proposed solution.

[thesameguy]

I didn't want to dredge up this topic, but I am hoping someone might be able to help me -

I had a painful discussion with a friend of mine where she unloaded a statistic like: "Five times as many guns are used in the prevention of crime than committing it." I couldn't get her to cite the source, and I couldn't get her to provide details (like, are we including police?). She insisted that private citizens use their guns to stop crime five times more often than criminals use a gun to commit it. I find that impossible to accept - even a 1:1 ratio sounds silly. 5:1 would literally mean you try to stab me, and I pull a gun. I would really like to find the source and specifics of this stat. Anyone ever heard anything like it?

[Crazed_Insanity]

Don't ask me how they got their facts but I think google helped me find a better source for your friend! ;)

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

[21Kid]

There's no way that's correct. Unfortunately, nearly 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

[thesameguy]

I am really intrigued by it, though... like, I want to read more about that Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz paper. I agree, those numbers sound insane... but I can't refute them.

Now I'm even more sad.

[Tom Servo]

I definitely have never heard that, and it kinda sounds like neither had she.

[thesameguy]

Yeah, she was definitely quoting another less insane (but still insane) statistic.

[Kchrpm]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use#Kleck_and_Gertz.2C_and_Cook_and_ Ludwig

Leads to: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262#.VOUaccakQvc


In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.
------------------
In 1997, David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, offered the first of many decisive rebukes of Kleck and Getz’s methodology, citing several overarching biases in their study.

First, there is the social desirability bias. Respondents will falsely claim that their gun has been used for its intended purpose—to ward off a criminal—in order to validate their initial purchase. A respondent may also exaggerate facts to appear heroic to the interviewer.

Second, there’s the problem of gun owners responding strategically. Given that there are around 3 million members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States, ostensibly all aware of the debate surrounding defensive gun use, Hemenway suggested that some gun advocates will lie to help bias estimates upwards by either blatantly fabricating incidents or embellishing situations that should not actually qualify as defensive gun use.

Third is the risk of false positives from “ telescoping,” where respondents may recall an actual self-defense use that is outside the question’s time frame. We know that telescoping problems produce substantial biases in defensive gun use estimates because the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the gold standard of criminal victimization surveys, explicitly catalogs and corrects for it.

Specifically, NCVS asks questions on the household level every 6 months. The first household interview has no time frame. Follow-up interviews are restricted to a six-month time frame and then NCVS corrects for duplicates. Using this strategy, NCVS finds that telescoping alone likely produces at least a 30 percent increase in false positives.

These sorts of biases, which are inherent in reporting self-defense incidents, can lead to nonsensical results. In several crime categories, for example, gun owners would have to protect themselves more than 100 percent of the time for Kleck and Getz’s estimates to make sense. For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible.

The Wiki also says this (I can't access the sources):


Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it. He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.

[thesameguy]

That's good information. Still feels like a lot of supposition, but it's good to know that mathematically the Kleck number doesn't make sense any more than it does contextually. Since crime statistics themselves are a little wonky (not everything is reported, cause is hard to derive from result, etc.) trying to compare against the behavior of private citizens seems like it would yield truly unreliable results.

It doesn't matter, there is nothing that can really be said to refute wackadoo statistics anyway. I just like to know for my edification.

I did learn something on Sunday, something that makes me very sad. My friend is living in fear - she is actually afraid that people are out to get her, specifically men. A few months ago she asked me "When is it okay for a man to approach a woman in a parking lot?" which, fast forward, the answer is never. This time she asserted that banning firearms is anti-woman, because 99% of men are stronger than the average woman and without a gun, women are defenseless. I just cannot imagine living with that much fear, and I am sad that she has to. We're not that close, but I have known her essentially all her life and I don't think anything terrible has happened to her. I'm not sure where her fear comes from. She thinks owning a gun gives her comfort, but I think it's a constant reminder of her worries, and I am not convinced that should she end up a victim of a crime that a gun will do her any good - so many things have to fall into place for a gun to provide a benefit - and then what? I don't know. It just makes me sad.

[Kchrpm]

I can definitely see how having a gun in your purse would become a source of comfort to someone that has been warned and trained, rightfully, to be careful and aware when alone. The same way I was taught to be cautious and careful to not seem threatening to strangers because I'm a black male, and it has proven to be a very useful lesson.

I once asked my parents what the alarm button was for on a keyfob, my mom said it was for situations like when someone followed her out to her car in a parking lot. Just like she would have felt more comfortable had she had a way to draw attention from others and/or distract her follower, others feel more comfortable knowing that they aren't powerless if the person doesn't get scared off by the alarm.

[Crazed_Insanity]

She has never heard of martial arts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0cSyLWfTzw

She also has never heard of pepper spray or stun guns?

There are lots of ways to kick the asses of bad guys. Gun isn't the only possible solution.

I'm pretty sure her 'fear' is as real as her statistics. If it's indeed real, show her the video to help her feel empowered! ;)

[21Kid]

I did learn something on Sunday, something that makes me very sad. My friend is living in fear - she is actually afraid that people are out to get her, specifically men. A few months ago she asked me "When is it okay for a man to approach a woman in a parking lot?" which, fast forward, the answer is never. This time she asserted that banning firearms is anti-woman, because 99% of men are stronger than the average woman and without a gun, women are defenseless. I just cannot imagine living with that much fear, and I am sad that she has to. We're not that close, but I have known her essentially all her life and I don't think anything terrible has happened to her. I'm not sure where her fear comes from. She thinks owning a gun gives her comfort, but I think it's a constant reminder of her worries, and I am not convinced that should she end up a victim of a crime that a gun will do her any good - so many things have to fall into place for a gun to provide a benefit - and then what? I don't know. It just makes me sad.

My half-sister posted an image on Facebook of a lady kneeling on a couch, aiming a gun at the back door, where a knife-wielding robber in a ski mask had broken in. I explained to her how that was the worst possible outcome for that situation.

Either she'd have to have the gun with her in the house the whole time. (She has 2 kids, and there was a toddler in the picture sitting next to the mom). If she had enough time to go get the gun, she should have run away with the kid & called the cops. What if she didn't get back in time and the robber was in-between her and the kids. Etc...
etc...

[Kchrpm]

There are lots of ways to kick the asses of bad guys. Gun isn't the only possible solution.

Yes, there are. I think a gun is a viable one if a person chooses to have it, and it has its own benefits, like intimidation (a follower is more likely to back away immediately upon seeing what is clearly a gun than something smaller, or seeing the person taking a martial arts stance). As someone who will never really feel the way that a woman does, I don't feel comfortable telling them "just go learn martial arts and then you'll feel safe."

[Kchrpm]

Either she'd have to have the gun with her in the house the whole time. (She has 2 kids, and there was a toddler in the picture sitting next to the mom)

If she kept it in her purse with a childproof lock, that's not completely out of the realm of possibility (women keep their purse with them in the house, right? #single).

[thesameguy]

That really was the crux of our discussion - not some fantastical belief that guns never save you, but that guns can hurt you and as often as not are just one of the viable options available to you. If everything unfolds just right, and you're able to get, load, and position it you're going to be really happy you had it, but there are so many scenarios where guns are abused or misused to the detriment of the owner you really have to wonder if the risk was worth the reward. Her argument was the odd "preventing vs. committing" statistic. I suggested that making the conscious decision to confront the crazy B&E perp is subject to scrutiny - that you really have to take a hard look at the nature of crime in general and weigh it appropriately - people coming after you vs. your stuff, etc. For her, she's a teacher which means she isn't carrying her gun around, it stays at home. I didn't ask, but based on our conversation I suspect in her bedroom. It would be a fluke to have access to it when it was needed - that she was at home, proximal, and prepared during a B&E. More likely, she *won't* be home for that B&E, and now it's stolen and being used against someone else.

... that was a shitty rabbit hole, because she then launched into some other statistic about crime in the UK vs the US, and that B&E's of occupied properties in the UK dwarf those of the US. Her argument, of course, was a fear that in the US occupants may be armed. It's a fair argument, I supposed, but possibly oversimplifying things because within the US there isn't correlation between gun ownership and occupied B&Es.... it's pretty scattered.

She's a smart person, she is thoughtful and reflective. I wouldn't dismiss her opinions and I can't dismiss her fear. I'm sad that she has it, and sad (but understanding) that she feels she needs to put her needs above others. Unfortunately, her outlook of "I won't take risks where my safety is concerned" overlooks the risks inherent in assuming full responsibility for your well being. Quite the conundrum, for sure.

[Kchrpm]

I think the bedroom idea is that typically B&Es happen late at night, when you're likely to be in bed. I don't have the statistics to confirm or deny, but it's a justifiable assumption.

At that point you are likely closer to the gun than the criminal, and hopefully you have it stored nearby with a lock of some kind on it. Grab phone, call 911 and put them on speaker, grab gun and key, unlock it with key, decide if you want to locate criminal and confront, or wait for them to come to the bedroom.

That's just my assumption, having gone through zero training for gun ownership/use, and asking a coworker what type of locks are generally on handguns (he said key locks that block the trigger or slide mechanism are typically what come with them when you buy them).

[thesameguy]

It seems about right - I'd certainly buy into that being the assumption. I just also think that the reality of waking up and having the presence of mind to arm yourself is a little murky. I'm a very light sleeper, I wake up to all sorts of things in the middle of the night, and I usually spend a solid few minutes trying to figure out what it was and what it came from. I'm not dialing 911 or looking for a weapon. For me (and only for me) the idea of waking up to the neighbor's sprinklers (yes, they wake me up) and getting the lock off my 9mm and then sitting in bed with it for 10 minutes while I wait for someone to bust into the bedroom sounds exhausting.

I really do understand the fear, and I do understand the approach to remedy - I just can't help but wonder about the practicality of it. Buying a Volvo or $360/yr to a monitored alarm service seems like a statistically more useful approach to personal safety than owning a gun, you know what I mean? Shit, I should have mentioned monitored alarm services as possible explanation to the B&E discrepancies. Are those a thing in the UK? :)

[Kchrpm]

A monitored alarm system's effectiveness depends on where you live. Even if you're in a dense city or suburb, police reaction time could easily be longer than the time it takes for someone to go from the front door to the bedroom where they think your jewelry is being stored.

And again, with proper safety protocols, a gun is not incredibly dangerous, just like how a properly maintained and controlled car is not incredibly dangerous. And almost every person thinks that they are capable of properly controlling their gun and/or car.

[21Kid]

You would both be wrong...

Most burglaries take place between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Contrary to popular belief, the majority of home burglaries take place during daylight hours, not at night. That’s because most people are at work or school—which reduces the chance the burglar will be noticed.

Someone is home during nearly three out of every ten burglaries.
According to a crime victimization survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf), a household member is present during approximately 28% of burglaries, and 7% of these victims experienced some type of violent crime.

This biggest problem is that it's usually someone you know, and would normally be less scared around.
Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.

[thesameguy]

A monitored alarm system's effectiveness depends on where you live. Even if you're in a dense city or suburb, police reaction time could easily be longer than the time it takes for someone to go from the front door to the bedroom where they think your jewelry is being stored.

Police response sucks, for sure, but the sign out front is a proven deterrence and a B&E is typically aborted when an alarm is going off. Certainly to the point nobody is going to engage in an random, physical act of violence against you while that's happening. And you get the added benefit of that protection being in place even when you're not home, or not awake, or otherwise incapacitated (like, post burrito binge).

I didn't and wouldn't argue that a gun can't be used effectively against criminal intent, but I would argue they're the most effective. If you're driving that Volvo, paying for that monitoring service, and still need a gun to feel safe then I feel like you're checking all the boxes and while I still don't agree with owning a gun, it's fair. But when you drive a shitty Toyota and don't have locks on your windows and you go out and buy a gun to defend yourself, you've become myopic and overlooked things that provide a superior risk vs. reward ratio. I can't but think at that point it's a power vs. actual safety equation.


And again, with proper safety protocols, a gun is not incredibly dangerous, just like how a properly maintained and controlled car is not incredibly dangerous. And almost every person thinks that they are capable of properly controlling their gun and/or car.

Your car danger point is on topic. She asked me, as a car enthusiast, how I felt about autonomous cars and I told her I'm in favor, can't wait. She didn't like that answer, she looks at autonomous cars as a loss of freedom and an attack on her sovereignty. To pour fuel on the fire (unknowingly) I mentioned gun control as a thing that is an impingement of freedom that results in improved safety for all. That set her off. ;) After an hour, I had to express my concern that the government outlawed opium and coke and heroin because doing so increased general safety, and no matter how much I like blow I still can't do it. My freedom was impinged in the name of her safety, so why doesn't she have a problem with that? Of course, no answer. Very typical (on all sides) - If I like the thing, you shouldn't be able to take it away, but if I don't like the thing, you should be able to take it away. She didn't like that concept either. :lol:

[thesameguy]

You would both be wrong...

Most burglaries take place between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Contrary to popular belief, the majority of home burglaries take place during daylight hours, not at night. That’s because most people are at work or school—which reduces the chance the burglar will be noticed.

Someone is home during nearly three out of every ten burglaries.
According to a crime victimization survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf), a household member is present during approximately 28% of burglaries, and 7% of these victims experienced some type of violent crime.

No, I think we both acknowledge that statistic. She doesn't care if she's robbed while she isn't home, she's worried about being raped in the event she's part of that 7%. She knows and acknowledges that scenario is not the majority... that was the point on the UK... apparently the stats skew the other way in the UK, and she argues that's true because thieves are less concerned with being shot there.

[21Kid]

Oh, I thought Keith wrote that most occurred at night, to which you agreed. My bad.

[thesameguy]

Oh, I thought Keith wrote that most occurred at night, to which you agreed. My bad.

I thought he was just saying "the assumption is" and I agree with that. I think most people picture that robbery happening at night while they're asleep, and plan accordingly. Definitely aware that's not how things actually go down.

[Kchrpm]

Yeah, I admitted I don't know what the stats are, but when people think of "I'm home and someone breaks in," they're picturing the middle of the night.

I also agree that a gun in the bedroom should be used in addition to a home security system, but considering the ongoing costs involved I can understand if someone would rather just make a one-time purchase. Maybe just bypass it all and just the security sign :D

[thesameguy]

I have a security sign, always have. :D

[21Kid]

Just the sign? :lol:

[thesameguy]

Yep. It's even lit!

[George]

I prefer the ol' shotgun-pointed-at-the-door trick.

It's messy, though. :(

[Alan P]

Personally I'm of the thought that if a Criminal/Burglar were to consider the fact the home they're about to break into might be one of a gun owner they'd just be armed themselves.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, our right to bear arms ought to only be for overthrowing corrupt governments. As for self defense, people really need to also pick up more training..., just by picking up a gun, chances are, you are increasing the odds of unintended deaths and injuries...

Maybe there should some sort of different color gun hoisters as martial art belts... People can perhaps wear these 'badges' around just as homes with security signs to maybe deter crime... This should also encourage owners to take up more proper training to advance to higher/safer levels...

[TheBenior]

Personally I'm of the thought that if a Criminal/Burglar were to consider the fact the home they're about to break into might be one of a gun owner they'd just be armed themselves.

Not unless something in the house is worth risking a gunfight. That 'something' generally being drugs or drug money.

[Godson]

Having had my house broken in to, I wasn't home. The alarm didn't deter the criminal either.

I also have been woken up at night with noises going on outside, I don't need to load my gun, because it stays loaded. I also Conceal Carry, and have taken the course. I also have shot in USPSA competitive matches.

I just wish I was home when that fucker kicked my back door in after 5 kick attempts.

I now have a doberman on top of everything else. He doesn't like strangers either.

[21Kid]

Even with all of that under your belt. It likely wouldn't help in a real situation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s). :( I'm glad you weren't home at the time.

[IMOA]

I've been home when my house was broken into a couple of times. Once it was kids about 10:00am, they fucked off real quick. The other one was at night when they came to get the keys for the car. Came through the house and took the keys from the coffee table next to the couch where I had fallen asleep (watching CART of all things), this was about 1:00am. They then went on to use the car in a series of fairly violent armed holdups. The best defence I had was that thankfully I slept through it. If I had've woken there is nothing I could have done to defend myself even if there was a gun next to me and at best I suspect I would've had the living snot bashed out of me and at worst, well, not worth thinking about really

[G'day Mate]

Now?

[Sad, little man]

Naw, we're good, no gun control needed, thanks.:rolleyes:

[G'day Mate]

Well, keep up the good work :up:

[Sad, little man]

Thanks, I'm pretty sure we got this...

[Sad, little man]

My prediction for how this will go...

If you listen to the videos, it really does sound like actual automatic gunfire, and those types of guns are nearly impossible to legally obtain here... The police will determine that the shooter illegally obtained the guns, the NRA will argue that there's nothing we can do about illegal guns, criminals gonna criminal, etc, they'll argue that there's no need to have any new laws, and the debate will die off... Again.

Just watch...

[Tom Servo]

Vaguely surreal angle - a friend of mine's mom was named as a person of interest in the shooting. Her mom is in the Philippines right now, but from what I gather she was the shooter's roommate and the shooter had her identification on him. Thankfully, in no small part due to the fact that she was out of the country, she's no longer considered a person of interest, but it was a really bizarre few hours for my friend there.

[Crazed_Insanity]

When she returns, surely she'll still be a person of some interest...

Anyway, this is really bizarre.

[Phil_SS]

My prediction for how this will go...

If you listen to the videos, it really does sound like actual automatic gunfire, and those types of guns are nearly impossible to legally obtain here... The police will determine that the shooter illegally obtained the guns, the NRA will argue that there's nothing we can do about illegal guns, criminals gonna criminal, etc, they'll argue that there's no need to have any new laws, and the debate will die off... Again.

Just watch...

So far they are saying he bought them legally. Though it sounds like he modified them to be automatic. Which basically goes back to your point. They will just state that he modified them illegally to make them automatics weapons and that there is already a law for that and criminals gonna criminal.

Except if it wasn't legal for him to buy the guns that he could modify then it would be much much harder for him to do what he did. But whatever, another white dude kills a bunch of people and again nothing will happen. 2nd Amendment!

[thesameguy]

This would not have happened if the concert security had allowed guns in. That's all I'm saying.

[MR2 Fan]

So far they are saying he bought them legally. Though it sounds like he modified them to be automatic. Which basically goes back to your point. They will just state that he modified them illegally to make them automatics weapons and that there is already a law for that and criminals gonna criminal.

Except if it wasn't legal for him to buy the guns that he could modify then it would be much much harder for him to do what he did. But whatever, another white dude kills a bunch of people and again nothing will happen. 2nd Amendment!

You guys forgot the last part....the NRA will tell everyone to BUY MORE GUNS to protect yourself from maniacs shooting from a place you can't even see!

[21Kid]

:down::(

[Fogelhund]

http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/americas-thoughts-and-prayers-approach-to-gun-violence/

Is America’s national Thoughts and Prayers Strategy (TAPS) no longer working? This is a troubling possibility to consider, but it may be time to ask the question.

Politicians, members of the media, and of course the public, quickly responded to the recent horrific shooting of several people during a baseball game in Alexandria, Va., including U.S. Congressman Steve Scalise, with a flurry of “thoughts & prayers”. President Donald Trump himself immediately assisted in TAPS efforts with his own tweet indicating that he too was doing his part by thinking about the victims and mentioning them in any communications he had with God.

Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that TAPS may not be delivering the results we would expect from appealing to an omniscient and all-powerful deity. For example, in spite of the well-executed TAPS implementation following the Alexandria incident, there was almost immediately afterwards another tragic shooting in a San Francisco UPS facility, killing two. Cleary something is amiss.

[Sad, little man]

So far they are saying he bought them legally. Though it sounds like he modified them to be automatic. Which basically goes back to your point. They will just state that he modified them illegally to make them automatics weapons and that there is already a law for that and criminals gonna criminal.

Except if it wasn't legal for him to buy the guns that he could modify then it would be much much harder for him to do what he did. But whatever, another white dude kills a bunch of people and again nothing will happen. 2nd Amendment!
Is it too heartless of me to note the irony in the fact that the people that were attacked, being at a country music concert, were probably the same people that would be defending the right to own guns? I guess I'm just really curious about the motives here, why attack a country music concert in this way?

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yes, clearly God wants us to DO something about it and not just pray our problems away.

Yeah, Trump hotel was probably spared thanks to this large crowd of country music fans....

[Sad, little man]

https://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/

[Leon]

Yes, by all means, thoughts and prayers, rather than starting what will be the work of generations to reduce the massive personal arsenal of weapons.

Platitudes and hollow phrases are easy. Making changes actually takes some work, and thought.

[MR2 Fan]

also, I really do hate it when they kill themselves after.... I'd rather we can study to find out motive/level of crazy, and second, if you were going to do that, why not do that first!

[Crazed_Insanity]

just like suicide bombers..., either they're forced to do it or they just don't give a damn anymore... and wish to go out with a bang.

I think besides gun control laws, we also need to reform some sort of media type laws. Media needs to be regulated to stop publishing names and photos of these mass murderers and giving these stupid or mentally sick folks anymore notoriety. Besides gun control... also some sort of notoriety control too. These folks should just be reported as loser in Vegas or something. No need to encourage any more of these folks to want to break any 'records'. But of course, for those who don't really give a damn, making them nameless probably won't matter much... sigh...

[drew]

This would not have happened if the concert security had allowed guns in. That's all I'm saying.


Or, you get a complimentary Glock with your checkin.



GUNS GUNS GUNS, all the world's evils would be cured if we had more.

I absolutely LOOVE the fact that they're already saying "this is not terrorism", because, you know, white guy.

Please, fuck off.

Aside from 9/11, well, you know the rest...

Again, get fucked twice

[MR2 Fan]

I think they should have two designations...."terrorism" and "organized terrorism"

[drew]

50 Shades of Hate.

1: white: meh
50: HOLY FUCKING SHIT ISLAM WILL KILL US ALL

[G'day Mate]

I think besides gun control laws, we also need to reform some sort of media type laws.

Our media stopped using the term "king hit" and instead use "coward punch" to describe hitting someone from behind. I think the term "lone wolf" could do with similar treatment - change it from something awesome-sounding to something shit.

[MR2 Fan]

dickless wannabe?

[Leon]

dickless wannabe?

That sounds appropriate :)

[Freude am Fahren]

Is it too heartless of me to note the irony in the fact that the people that were attacked, being at a country music concert, were probably the same people that would be defending the right to own guns? I guess I'm just really curious about the motives here, why attack a country music concert in this way?

Apparently a lawyer at CBS did pretty quickly. She made a comment somewhere (facebook, maybe?) and was promptly fired. It was less noting irony though, and more to the point:


If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing, I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are Republican gun toters.

[Yeti]

http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/americas-thoughts-and-prayers-approach-to-gun-violence/

Is America’s national Thoughts and Prayers Strategy (TAPS) no longer working?

Tbh it’s probably no less effective than the PAIOSM (Post about it on Social Media) system the rest of us use in response to national tragedies.

[thesameguy]

I enjoy the terrorism semantics argument. I mean, technically terrorism is an act in pursuit of political goals, and this guy probably didn't have political goals... so, yeah, probably not terrorism in the literal sense.

We need a new word that describes violence against civilians so we can lump all this asshattery into one bucket and then discuss laws to address that bucket holistically. Putting people that hate capitalism into one bucket and mentally disturbed people in another bucket is pointless if the end result is injured or dead innocent bystanders. It's pointless granularity.

[drew]

I get fucked off when this shit happens (way too often), that when it's a white dude it's "An act of evil".


No fucking shit.

But when someone with more more than an Alaskan sun tan does it "TERRORISM!!!!!!!OMFG"

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but goddamn....

[FaultyMario]

We need a new word that describes violence against civilians so we can lump all this asshattery into one bucket and then discuss laws to address that bucket holistically. Putting people that hate capitalism into one bucket and mentally disturbed people in another bucket is pointless if the end result is injured or dead innocent bystanders. It's pointless granularity.

I'm not defending Kaczynski but he was part of a liberation movement, which had a goal and went about achieving that goal thru multiple actions, some of which were of course illegal.
I'm not sure I'd put the respective offences of Kaczynski, James Holmes and the Saudi conspirators of 9/11 all under "terrorism". They are clearly distinct criminal actions.

[G'day Mate]

Calling it "evil" is a defeatist cop-out in my opinion.

[Kchrpm]

Is it too heartless of me to note the irony in the fact that the people that were attacked, being at a country music concert, were probably the same people that would be defending the right to own guns? I guess I'm just really curious about the motives here, why attack a country music concert in this way?

The guitarist for the band playing: https://twitter.com/Calebkeeter/status/914872808110510080

Was a Second Amendment supporter, now against it. Said members of his crew had concealed carry licenses and guns, but were unable or unwilling to use them (worried about being mistaken as one of the attackers).

[Sad, little man]

Well gee wouldn't it be great if it didn't take your entire audience getting blown away to realize what an asshat you're being about the second amendment.

[thesameguy]

Said members of his crew had concealed carry licenses and guns, but were unable or unwilling to use them (worried about being mistaken as one of the attackers).

I had never considered this angle. I'd like to hear the NRA's take on it.

"Victims were shot by police when, as they returned fire, were mistaken for the attackers."

Oopsie doodle.

[Rare White Ape]

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/australia-enjoys-another-peaceful-day-under-oppressive-gun-control-regime/

[Jacee]

also, I really do hate it when they kill themselves after.... I'd rather we can study to find out motive/level of crazy, and second, if you were going to do that, why not do that first! I sooo agree with this statement and attitude!

[SkylineObsession]

In other news, a guy we know who used to be in our car club was staying in the same hotel as sir fvckwit, but is okay. They got moved to another hotel without any of their possessions. And also read an article today that a business owner from our small city here was in the crowd when the shooting happened: https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/97504536/dunedin-group-caught-up-in-las-vegas-shooting-tragedy

And agree with the racist 'act of evil' vs. terrorism based on the colour of their skin/their religion etc. Anything like this is effectively terrorism.

[Tom Servo]

What gets me is the "Now is not the time to talk about gun control" crowd that, if this guy had turned out to be Muslim, would cheer as Trump would have been tweeting incessantly about a travel ban. He was shockingly quiet today.

[Rare White Ape]

And agree with the racist 'act of evil' vs. terrorism based on the colour of their skin/their religion etc. Anything like this is effectively terrorism.

I’m actually of the complete opposite opinion. I know this is an unrelated discussion, but we’re all too quick to pin the terrorism badge on even minor incidents these days (see: Sydney Lindt cafe siege) even though there no proven link to terrorists, while the legal defenition of terrorism has expanded to include incidents of lower magnitude. All that this has led to is more hassle for the everyday traveller who just wants to hop on a plane without having to take their shoes off, or use the internet without their every move being tracked and recorded, and none of these measures have had any real effect in reducing bona-fide old school terrorism.

[drew]

What gets me is the "Now is not the time to talk about gun control" crowd that, if this guy had turned out to be Muslim, would cheer as Trump would have been tweeting incessantly about a travel ban. He was shockingly quiet today.

Exactly.

[Sad, little man]

http://gtxforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2619&d=1507033284

2619

[tigeraid]

These two sum up my feelings on it nicely.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBQcpRE4JS8




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wThcK2HBxcE

[tigeraid]

Of course, I would never dare post these to facebook, lest I be flooded with comments about "DUH LIBERALS", false equivalencies, strawman arguments and sputterings of "BUT I DO SPORT SHOOTING!"

[21Kid]

Don't forget the car death equivalent one of my friends responded with. He also said "the world is scary... get over it." :smh:

[FaultyMario]

Would you guys support sales of guns to someone like me who suffers from dysthymia, where would the line be drawn for mental health issues?

[tigeraid]

The "it's a tool" argument is so fucking maddening. I mean, I probably said it ten times in this thread over the years, but it bears repeating: a gun is definitely a tool--a tool that serves one purpose, to kill a living thing. A car exists to do dozens of things, while having the potential to kill. A knife does a dozen things, while having the potential to kill.

[tigeraid]

Would you guys support sales of guns to someone like me who suffers from dysthymia, where would the line be drawn for mental health issues?


Now that I've googled that... I think that's a question for psychologists to answer. If I'm getting too personal I apologize, but when I hear "severe depression" I think that suicide is distinct possibility, while shooting up others is, while very remote, still a possibility. But I don't know shit about the subject, and won't pretend to.

[FaultyMario]

I think we know enough about us to not take it as a personal attack. It was a rhetorical question. I seriously wouldn't know.

[FaultyMario]

And as it was explained to me, it's not severe but long lasting depression. I think it's official name reflects that.

[tigeraid]

Fair enough. Which means we need to ask a professional. Preferably one not paid off by the NRA.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I think if a patient has a condition that makes one want to consult any mental health professional for permission, it should be an automatic 'no gun for you'!

Unless we can really monitor and take care of the mental health of ALL Americans, continue to allow citizens to bear arms is just asking for more trouble down the road.

Maybe NRA can be modified to become gun custodians or something... they can open up gun safes or ranges or designated hunting areas to allow gun owners to play with their guns and to help keep them safe. The only time can owners take their guns outside of these areas is when the NRA decides to form a militia of their own to overthrow the US government! This way we don't have to interrupt gun sales and our streets should be safer. Plus, if we really need to overthrow Donald Trump, we know where to go get our guns!

If you just absolutely HAVE to carry weapons on the streets, then become a police or secret service or some sort of authorized security personnel.

Anyway, hopefully gun loving Americans will wise up soon...

[FaultyMario]

Which then begs the question, what about officers with mental health conditions?

I think it goes back to John's reasoning that a gun's only purpose is to incapacitate or kill a living thing and as such it's in a realm by its own, different from knives or cars. And it demands attention that is different from other tools.

[MR2 Fan]

while we're discussing that....is racism a mental health condition?

[FaultyMario]

IMHO, if you start off from guns being specialized tools that should be restricted to certain activities, then excluding factors can be mental and physical health (no children at shooting ranges!) as well as other restrictions agreed upon by society.

Prejudice, which racism is an extreme variant of, shouldn't disqualify people from certain activities, I think that can be solved with education.
Like for example a person prejudiced against cyclist should have to take extra steps to have the privilege of driving; kind of like people who want to start a business dealing with food, there is some compulsory orientation on the sanitary handling of food products.

[21Kid]

Which then begs the question, what about officers with mental health conditions? I'm pretty certain they go through psych evals. At least in the beginning. I don't know if it's continued or not. Ross?

[Freude am Fahren]

https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22195652_10156065068169305_9066317034743596720_n.j pg?oh=1785b4408db16018837e9e805042942f&oe=5A3D510E

[TheBenior]

I'm pretty certain they go through psych evals. At least in the beginning. I don't know if it's continued or not. Ross?

No post-hiring psych evaluations unless one gives cause. If you start doing it routinely, and guys don't pass, you open up the duty disability can of worms and potentially make things very expensive. Attorneys will argue that some things that were seen on the job were the reason that they can't pass it, which probably wouldn't be difficult to do.

TBH, dead gang members are easy for me to compartmentalize, as there are good odds that they were shooting at somebody else the week before, and they make up the vast majority of murder victims here. However, the decent people who get killed, whether through murders or traffic crashes, stick with me longer. It was 8 years ago, but I can still picture what I'm pretty sure was this woman's brain matter on the street after getting run over by a bus (http://abc7chicago.com/archive/7063350/). I'll probably never forget the pool of blood left behind by a 6-year old run over by a semi tractor (http://articles.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010-03-20/news/28507893_1_truck-crash-site-18th-place-and-ashland). 2 years ago, in a cruel twist of fate, I got the call for my wife's distant cousin, a high school and college football star who'd never been in trouble, with a pastor/firefighter father, who was murdered after trying to break up a fight (http://homicides.suntimes.com/2015/12/23/second-man-charged-with-shooting-of-lavell-southern-outside-west-loop-nightclub/). 2 EMTs and I were the last people to see him alive. Earlier this year, I watched a shooting victim with no criminal history who was probably shot in either a road rage or mistaken identity incident take his last gasps. I was prepared to use my IFAK, but saw holes in his face and neck with very little blood coming out; realized that he was bleeding internally and that he was going to die very shortly (later, I discovered that he had 2 more gunshot wounds to his torso).

[Cam]

F**k. :(

[novicius]

Ross, thank YOU for your service. :(

[MR2 Fan]

agreed :(

[KillerB]

Everyone seems to go round and round on the gun buyback in Australia, but here's some basic things that need to be considered:

- Australia's gun buyback netted somewhere between 600,000 and 1 million guns (I say between because I've seen both numbers in various sources), while there are over 300 million guns in the United States.
- The current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is the Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs Heller, which holds that an individual has a right to "possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
- It is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution - an amendment must either pass with a 2/3 majority in Congress and ratified by the state legislatures of 3/4 of the states, or a 2/3 majority vote of a Constitutional Convention called by Congress at the request of the state legislatures of 2/3 of the states.

This is why, even though a majority of US citizens would like to see some reform, that it's extremely difficult. Gun control laws WILL be challenged in court, and the current Supreme Court, when it chooses to hear those challenges, will likely stick to the Heller precedent, which was mostly but not entirely concerned with Washington DC's handgun ban.

The easiest path to gun control reform will be to nominate Supreme Court justices that will uphold gun control laws in court. This will take many years. Even then, I don't expect we'll ever have a majority of justices on the court that will read the 2nd Amendment differently enough to completely overturn the Heller precedent. What you may see is regulation of devices like bump stocks that allow poorly-aimed near-automatic-fire rates from semiautomatic rifles, which it's increasingly looking was used in the Vegas shooting. I think that we'll probably see universal background checks in my lifetime; we already have them here in California, and I didn't find it to be particularly onerous. Of course, I've never been convicted of any misdemeanor or felony, and I've never been committed to a mental health institution - I might feel differently if I had.

However, the vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated using handguns. There is very little political will, even on the left, to ban these, and the Heller precedent came down strongly against outright bans of an entire class of guns.

tl;dr version: A gun buyback like that in Australia is not politically feasible in the United States at this time, and likely will not be unless or until gun violence becomes such a problem that it becomes THE primary voting issue in the country. Constitutional amendments are nearly impossible to pass in this country, and turning over the Supreme Court will take a generation.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Anyway, don't know if the shooting is politically motivated or not, but if this latest incident can cause some country conservatives to rethink about their position with regard to gun rights, maybe the tide is starting to change.

I do generally agree it'll be nearly impossible to stuff all the guns back inside the pandora's box... Same with asking all the nations on earth to give up nukular arms!

We are usually too stupid to know what's good for us..., but never say never.

[MR2 Fan]

ironically....the argument about people using cars which can be killing machines...in 10 years or so may be an outdated argument as cars are becoming self-driving, partially because people are idiots when driving.

[Tom Servo]

The thing is, we're going to end up having a similar argument about self driving cars. That whole thing only works if *all* cars are self-driving, and you don't even have the option of taking over. There's no way in hell that'll happen. Even if we could mandate that every car on the road has to either be self-driving or retrofitted to be self-driving, people will demand that there be a way to override the self-driving mode and take over manual control.

[MR2 Fan]

The thing is, we're going to end up having a similar argument about self driving cars. That whole thing only works if *all* cars are self-driving, and you don't even have the option of taking over. There's no way in hell that'll happen. Even if we could mandate that every car on the road has to either be self-driving or retrofitted to be self-driving, people will demand that there be a way to override the self-driving mode and take over manual control.

Not to steer this conversation (pun intended) to another place, but yeah, it's going to be VERY interesting

[tigeraid]

While I would love something like the Australian buyback to happen, I wouldn't for a second believe it's feasible, no. For the reasons stated yes, but also because of Gun Culture(tm.) The "cold, dead hands" thing is taken literally by a frightening number of people.

I just cannot, CANNOT, comprehend any of the arguments against reasonable gun control laws. Not a single fucking one is worth a shit. The list Robert Reich listed in that video--one HUNDRED percent reasonable. Will it get rid of all gun violence? Of course not, especially because of Gun Culture. But 33,000 goddamn lives a year--what if it saves 10,000 of them? How is that not worth the effort?

[Godson]

I think they should have two designations...."terrorism" and "organized terrorism"

Domestic terrorism

[MR2 Fan]

Domestic terrorism

I'm not a huge fan of that term....only because "Domestic Violence" is also used a lot and that refers to family issues specifically.

[tigeraid]

oh boy... And already some bullshit article is making the rounds on facebook from "naturalnews.com" written by some goof who also wrote that the government is putting estrogen in the water to make men more feminine... Full of a bunch of fucking nonsense conspiracy bullshit about how this is all fake because "old men can't shoot AR-15s" and "there's no muzzle flash" and "the guns would overheat" and "how can you carry a bunch of guns in bags" and holy fuck....

I am pleasantly surprised to see plenty of comments debunking the shit, though.

[Tom Servo]

Oh yeah, that site's been garbage for years. I have a friend who, despite normally being smart, is seriously anti-GMO and regularly posts the most idiotic shit from there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

[Tom Servo]

Lulz, someone on Twitter with the answer:

"If every black adult male in the U.S. bought & registered a semi-automatic rifle tomorrow, Congress would Pass gun control laws by Friday."

[TheBenior]

We've had plenty of black and even more Hispanic males shooting at each other left and right with AR-15/AKM pattern rifles for the last couple years in Chicago. It gets about as much coverage as all the other gangland shootings.

[Tom Servo]

True, but one assumes that a) most aren't registered, and b) the percentage of the American black population that are in gangs in Chicago is a pretty minuscule one.

[Leon]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. To unfuck the gun situation in the USA will take generations.

That's not an excuse to not start the process though.

[21Kid]

It's interesting how people says it's not feasible to buy the guns back. :| Why not? Because of the expense?

3000 people died on 9/11. And we have spent TRILLIONS (what are we up to? $6T?) of dollars on a "War" that we are still in!!! to "Combat terrorism".

11 times that many people die every year to gun violence!!! Since 9/11 that's over 175 times as many of deaths as 9/11. Over 500,000 lives!!!

The oath says to protect from enemies foreign and domestic. And this seems like a pretty big domestic threat, IMO.

[TheBenior]

It's not feasible because most people aren't going to sell them back absent some currently-unconstitutional mandate to do so. Even then, the people you really need to worry about would keep them.

[21Kid]

I know...

[KillerB]

The thing is, we're going to end up having a similar argument about self driving cars. That whole thing only works if *all* cars are self-driving, and you don't even have the option of taking over. There's no way in hell that'll happen. Even if we could mandate that every car on the road has to either be self-driving or retrofitted to be self-driving, people will demand that there be a way to override the self-driving mode and take over manual control.

The insurance companies will take care of this. They'll mandate the little device that plugs into your OBD-II port and monitors how often you take manual control. Take manual control too much and your rates will rise - precipitously.

Car doesn't support automated control - or, god forbid, OBD-II - then you'll pay the highest rates. They'll price all but the 1% out of manually driven cars.

[KillerB]

It's not feasible because most people aren't going to sell them back absent some currently-unconstitutional mandate to do so. Even then, the people you really need to worry about would keep them.

I know I won't sell mine back, unless it's mandatory... and the 2nd Amendment & the Heller interpretation prevent that.

[KillerB]

Lulz, someone on Twitter with the answer:

"If every black adult male in the U.S. bought & registered a semi-automatic rifle tomorrow, Congress would Pass gun control laws by Friday."

The store I bought my guns from has a clientele that is over 50% Hispanic, and every time I've visited, there have been blacks and Asians there in large numbers as well.

There's a large contingent of pro-2nd-Amendment folks that are encouraging gun ownership among minorities as a way to protect against violence by police. It's probably ineffective, but it's an interesting dynamic.

[drew]

"encouraging gun ownership among minorities as a way to protect against violence by police"...

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that is a "solution" of any sort when its usually the minorities that take the brunt of things. Arming them could just potentially make it more instantaneous.

I've always been pro-gun. I will likely never own one again. I don't need one. I don't see the need for one. That being said, it confounds me how the instance rebuttal to "new gun legislation" translates into either:

A: "They're going to take all my guns" (total bullshit, everyone knows that will never happen).
B: "no amount of laws would have prevented this" - said after each one of these events. Pure speculation. If (and I mean IF), someone is amassing AR15s/etc, I would think that'd raise a flag. Not in suspicion of them plotting something like this, but just in the general sense of "hmm, wonder why they need all these?" At the very least, maybe the FBI/ATF should be notified so they can just say "what's up?" I do believe in a limit of acquisition. Meaning, you can buy one a month. Not 20.
C: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" This one fucks me off to no end. They will NEVER make guns illegal. Total bullshit argument.

So the answer to A, B, and/or C: Just do fuck all, because you couldn't have changed anything, and, blah blah blah.


The whole "it's too soon/insensitive to talk about this now" (McConnell) things REALLY fucks me off.

In the past, the subject is a hot topic for a few weeks after each mass shooting, resulting in nothing. Now they're not even willing to "discuss" it at all.


If a school full of elementary children getting mowed down doesn't change anything....