Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc. [Archive] - Page 3

Magtig

01-23-2013, 07:25 PM

I own a gun, and I grew up around gun owners. My grandfather taught me to shoot when I was 10 or 11. For many years I've remained sympathetic to gun owners and gun rights, but I just can't do it anymore. The longer this national "debate" continues, the more I see gun advocates for what they are: paranoid and selfish. Insanely selfish.

Yes, we already have gun control laws, but they've been cowed by people like Todd Tiahrt (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom?xrs=share_copy) (watch both videos, the second one starts automatically), who argues that the ATF (which has had no director for 6 years, and only has 2,500 agents to deal with tobacco, alcohol, 100,000 gun dealers and 300,000,000 guns) is supposed to control guns while simultaneously stripping them of any real power. The notion that this is some sort of knee-jerk reaction by a bunch of liberal hippies is fucking disgusting. The glib and condescending nature of the gun advocates echoes the mental sickness of the NRA itself.

DigitalChaos

01-24-2013, 01:00 PM

Speaking of loopholes... here are two new loopholes in one! (jump to 2:30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dMJQ-CFN4

Corvus T. Cosmonaut

01-24-2013, 08:37 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott

Gun-control advocates have recently been throwing around an impressive new number. President Obama used it last Wednesday, claiming: “as many as 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check.” (...)

Actually, the number reported was a bit lower, 36 percent, and as we will see the true number of guns “sold” without check is closer to 10 percent. More important, the number comes from a 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, early in the Clinton administration. More than three-quarters of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks on February 28, 1994. In addition, guns are not sold in the same way today that they were sold two decades ago.

DigitalChaos

01-24-2013, 09:51 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott
It's funny how doing a background check with missing records from half the states (and many federal agencies) is something that placates the gun control people because they don't know any better. I've come to expect this from people who want the government to do everything for them. Hey, maybe we could get Goldman Sachs to take over the US Treasury for us while we are fixing all your problems!

The only people talking about it seem to be MAIG: www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf)

Corvus T. Cosmonaut

01-25-2013, 04:45 AM

Or they do know better and they prefer it to no checks at all; background checks' effectiveness may be dubious at best, yet this failing is seen as something that can be addressed through careful legislation. These checks are popular among both gun owners and those that would never touch a firearm, each of whom are approaching the issue from different trajectories and philosophical bent, with varying degrees of knowledge (and lack of) on both sides.

Though it may involve concerns about government overreach, it isn't really a 'want[ing] the government to do everything for them' issue.

cahernandez

01-25-2013, 02:50 PM

Gun Violence in U.S. Cities Compared to the Deadliest Nations in the World:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

Check out that article, it shows a map comparing the gun murders in the US compared to cities around the world. Washington DC is twice as dangerous as Mexico (the country as a whole)! And Baltimore is right up there with Colombia. And then we get all those silly travel warnings from the Department of State. You might as well get killed in NOLA.

october_midnight

01-25-2013, 05:46 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26jdJHrQO6w

Jinsai

01-26-2013, 01:41 AM

/\ /\ /\
yes, this is hilarious, but... check out the way this is being touted by the right as a great victory. I mean, of course Piers Morgan is kind of a dipshit, but he owned these morons, but not according to these fools: http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/gun-girls-humiliate-cnn-tool-piers-morgan/

It's astounding

Maybe they're all just fantasizing about fucking the girl on the left (the one who doesn't look like a sociopathic cartoon)

october_midnight

01-26-2013, 12:33 PM

Ugh that's frightening to read. I also will agree, Piers Morgan is a putz, but it's amazing how he'll have people like this or Alex 'A Beautiful Mind' Jones, and will just ask a question...and they freeze or try to change the topic. I love how Morgan always just keeps his cool. The old adage of making a maniac lose their cool even more just by keeping yours lol.

Jinsai

01-26-2013, 02:45 PM

that "interview" with Alex Jones was so bizarre

DigitalChaos

01-27-2013, 11:43 AM

I love how Morgan always just keeps his cool. The old adage of making a maniac lose their cool even more just by keeping yours lol.
sooooo....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avOV6_42xe4

october_midnight

01-27-2013, 12:32 PM

Derr. I already said I think Morgan's a putz.

sooooo....

Jinsai

01-27-2013, 01:41 PM

and even in that interview where Morgan "loses his cool," he still made me laugh with the "you are an unimaginably stupid person, aren't you?"

Alex Jones was just baffling with how insane he seemed. I'm authentically a little freaked out that there's people who take him seriously.

DigitalChaos

01-27-2013, 03:11 PM

That's because you're the polar equivalent of an Alex Jones fan. While you were laughing at Morgan, the rest of us cringed at the horrible journalism.

Jinsai

01-27-2013, 03:29 PM

That's because you're the polar equivalent of an Alex Jones fan.

What the fuck? Do you just type shit without considering whether or not it makes any sense? You can't even insult people properly.

Jinsai

01-27-2013, 03:51 PM

(um, well, since you deleted the preceding post, I guess this is an accidental double post)

You claim I'm the one who is the equivalent of an Alex Jones fan, but you're the one who actually raves about how guns are great because they'll totally protect us from tyrannical government. Meanfuckingwhile, you expand on that claim by pointing out that I love the democrats (which is not something I would agree with, but what the fuck ever), while Alex Jones is a republican.

DigitalChaos

01-27-2013, 04:00 PM

I'll try to keep my terminology at a 4th grade reading level the next time I reply to you. Holy shit dude...

Jinsai

01-27-2013, 04:04 PM

so when you reply minutes after I reply to you, and you say "These are your chosen leaders!" you're not directing the comment towards me. That's not "giving myself too much credit." I'm trying to understand what the fuck you're trying to say, meanwhile you're really bad at explaining anything.

So... give it another shot. Please explain how I'm the equivalent of "an Alex Jones fan."

DigitalChaos

01-27-2013, 04:12 PM

This is pretty much the end-all of current gun control articles: http://www.policymic.com/articles/21525/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-is-political-suicide-for-democrats

The Democrats are trying to push things through that are extremely polarizing and very ineffective instead of things that have massive support and are very effective. These are your chosen leaders!

Example #1 is that of making background checks universal. Private parties do not have to do go through the NICS background system when doing a transaction. It is estimated that 40% of ALL GUN SALES go through private parties. 80% of inmates get their guns through private transactions. Yet, the national rhetoric focuses on the "gunshow loophole" which is just a small subset of private transactions. Great job!

Example #2 is the NICS background system that has been incredibly broken for decades (that I've mentioned a dozen times in this thread). 90% of gun owners support fixing this. Yet, we are focusing on assault weapon bans and magazine capacity which focus on a portion of the problem that is so small that it is insignificant AND highly controversial. Great job!

just look at this! This is a representation of where the NICS system is being broken by states failing to provide records:
http://i.imgur.com/gTtpcLs.jpg

With the above 2 items handled, it become MUCH easier to tighten and enforce anti-trafficking laws. Even 95% of NRA members support this! But hey... you know best... those scary black guns make you feel more scared than anything mentioned above.

...
Please note, this post is for anyone participating in this thread... except Jinsai

Jinsai

01-27-2013, 07:54 PM

Please note, this post is for anyone participating in this thread... except Jinsai

Maybe if you delete it and then repost it again somebody else will participate. In the meantime, you can feel free to explain your "you're like an Alex Jones fan!" comment.

Magtig

01-28-2013, 12:00 PM

Example #1 is that of making background checks universal. Private parties do not have to do go through the NICS background system when doing a transaction. It is estimated that 40% of ALL GUN SALES go through private parties. 80% of inmates get their guns through private transactions. Yet, the national rhetoric focuses on the "gunshow loophole" which is just a small subset of private transactions. Great job!

Example #2 is the NICS background system that has been incredibly broken for decades (that I've mentioned a dozen times in this thread). 90% of gun owners support fixing this. Yet, we are focusing on assault weapon bans and magazine capacity which focus on a portion of the problem that is so small that it is insignificant AND highly controversial. Great job!

This is a more positive and constructive conversation to be having: what do we do? And it's a conversation that must be had with gun owners. I'm a little apprehensive about just accepting what you're saying without doing my own research (haven't had time yet), but again, I do think the nuts and bolts of how we improve the situation is the right direction for the conversation to go in. We also need to be having a conversation about how to improve mental health services including changing the culture of shame and fear surrounding it.

Please note, this post is for anyone participating in this thread... except Jinsai
However, this high school drama shit is just the kind of thing to derail any valid point you might be making. That goes for everyone including Jinsai (and me), but since I'm talking to you, you've really invited a lot of criticism here. After reading your posts I simply do not believe the purpose of scooping up 3,000 rounds at a time, posting pictures of your new assault toys with laser scopes, hollow point bullets and generally bragging about your firearms is for the sake of other people or the liberty of the United States. You don't obsessively collect guns hoping to be in the service of other people; the very notion is absurd. You want guns for you, because you like them. Full stop. The fact that you somehow think it's appropriate to brag about your arsenal in the thread that started off with the Sandy Hook shooting is in poor taste and incredibly glib.

Deepvoid

01-30-2013, 11:26 AM

I caught part of the gun hearing this morning.

There was this woman who was against the proposed ban of AR-15. She was explaining that it brought comfort and piece of mind having this scary looking gun.
She then proceeded to describe a possible scenario in which 4-5 armed attackers would enter her house, with her 3 kids crying, she could then defend and protect her family with her AR-15.

I can only image the scene were 4 gunmen enter a house, kids starts crying in the living room and mommy pulls her AR-15 and a shootout ensue. Bullets flying left and right. There's no way this could end badly.

The mentality surrounding guns is scary.

Satyr

01-30-2013, 12:23 PM

http://www.elvisduran.com/pages/whatwetalkedabout.html?feed=104668&article=10729296

Having an AR15 worked out pretty well for these guys.

Nobody ever wants to be in the situation where they have armed criminal(s) in their home. If I ever find myself in that situation I have the ability to defend myself with deadly force. If you want to put your life and your families life at the mercy of armed criminal(s) that more than likely illegally obtained their firearms regardless....That's your business.

Hopefully the police show up mighty fast.

Deepvoid

01-30-2013, 12:32 PM

If people show up to your house to steal your flat screen, I doubt they will go in with the intention of killing the owners. However, if you jump out of your room with a gun, they might react in a bad way and start shooting as well. You're the one putting your family in arms way by initiating a shooting in your own home.

Satyr

01-30-2013, 12:37 PM

So I'm just supposed to trust the armed criminals to not kill me and rape/murder my wife. You can feel free to trust the people breaking into your house to not harm you. Me...not so much.

Also I'm not sure what the anti-gun crowds goal is? To disarm the millions of law abiding firearm owners at gunpoint? Tell me what exactly your endgame is.

Deepvoid

01-30-2013, 01:03 PM

If you read my posts you will see that ultimately, I don't think there's a solution to your problem. I think you're royally fucked no matter how look at it.
US citizens are killing each others worst than some third world country.

The end game is rather simple. Kids will continue to get shot at school. Friends and family will get shot at the mall, while law abiding firearms owners will sit there powerless but supporting the 2nd amendment in case the government decides to annihilate its own population

Satyr

01-30-2013, 01:19 PM

Eh....I carry concealed. Once one of these shooters starts shooting people with the intent of taking out as many people as possible....The only thing that's going to stop them is a bullet....be it at their own hand, the police, or an armed civilian.

A huge part of the problem and the reason that people do this is the media gives the psychopaths days and days worth of headlines. They know they'll be an antihero. A lot more people know the names of psychopaths than heroes.

There was a school shooting a few years back that was ended by school staff with a firearm. You don't know that psychopaths name or the name of the hero that stopped god knows how many kids from being murdered.

It's our culture. If you did manage to take every gun from every person (not going to happen) then we'd just have people running around killing each other with cars/knives/bombs/etc.

As long as you focus on these people and give them all the attention they want when they go out in a blaze of pure evil....You're encouraging another psychopath.

onthewall2983

01-30-2013, 01:25 PM

Phoenix, AZ (http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-reported-phoenix-workplace-reports-four-shot-182718485.html)

Satyr

01-30-2013, 01:45 PM

I think this is relevant to gun violence.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/chicago-murders-top-afghanistan-death-toll/

Deepvoid

01-30-2013, 01:56 PM

It's funny because I was about to say that you guys finally made it one week without a shooting. They a see on the CNN website that there's a shooting in Phoenix. Timing with my previous post (re: end game) is perfect.

Deepvoid

01-30-2013, 02:00 PM

It's our culture. If you did manage to take every gun from every person (not going to happen) then we'd just have people running around killing each other with cars/knives/bombs/etc.

Are we talking about Iraq or the US? So basically, you have a gun to protect yourself from your fellow citizen because you sure make it sounds like you're just a bunch of wackos.

Amnesiac

01-30-2013, 02:12 PM

Stephen King has a non-fiction essay out called (appropriately) 'Guns'. It's intelligent and to the point. I'd recommend it to anyone on either side of the debate.

Satyr

01-30-2013, 02:23 PM

Are we talking about Iraq or the US? So basically, you have a gun to protect yourself from your fellow citizen because you sure make it sounds like you're just a bunch of wackos.

wackos? I see you went to the Piers Morgan school of debate....I guess being capable of defending your life and the lives of your loved ones makes a person insane by your rational? I'm honestly confused because on one hand you're screaming about how many people are being murdered a year and how we live in the most violent nation in the universe.

THEN you call me crazy for having a gun to protect myself. No offense but your thought process is mind boggling.

You want to know one thing that the vast majority of these massacres have in common? They happen in GUN FREE ZONES. I'll give you a little pearl of wisdom for free! Violent criminals, murderers, psychopaths intend on having the highest body count possible....PREFER THEIR VICTIMS UNARMED.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGaxDUwIkUs - Please watch this video and let me know your thoughts on it.

Deepvoid

01-30-2013, 02:42 PM

Jinsai

01-30-2013, 04:07 PM

http://www.elvisduran.com/pages/whatwetalkedabout.html?feed=104668&article=10729296

Having an AR15 worked out pretty well for these guys.

I've heard this story brought up a couple times as a counter argument by the staunch pro-gun crowd. It's interesting that they usually fail to mention that the gun wasn't fired (and wasn't even loaded), so you could speculate that he could have just as easily scared the intruders off with a plastic toy rifle.

Satyr

01-30-2013, 04:22 PM

You misunderstood me. I didn't call you crazy, but you made it sound like you view your own country as crazy.

You are saying that if you take away all the guns, people will start bombing each others. How is that not crazy?
That's not happening in Canada. We don't have guns and we sure don't compensate with knives/cars/bombs.

See my view in my little part of the world is that if you remove the guns you have less violence.
Your view seems to be that if you take away the guns, then you'll grab a bomb to defend yourself.

I'll let you in on a little secret. It is physically impossible to remove all the guns from our country. Right now there is absolutely no form of gun registration in the vast majority of the country. I'd guess that there are hundreds of millions of guns in the states that are currently owned by private citizens. If we attempted some sort of national gun registry....The wackos would see it as the first step to the government coming and taking their weapons at gunpoint. They simply would not comply or would shoot at whoever came to get their guns.

Are you from Canada? Are you familiar with the huge money pit and utter failure Canada's attempt at registering firearms on a national scale was? Also take into account that Canada has nowhere near the population as the United States.

Also if the number of people killed by firearms is such a huge concern to you....surely you would support banning fast food, alcohol, smoking, motor vehicles, etc. All of which contribute to a lot more deaths in the country than firearms do.

If you can come up with a reasonable way to remove all the firearms from the country (including from the criminals) then I'm all for it. Then we can start hacking each other up with kitchen knives like they do in China and Japan.

Simply saying ban firearms in a certain configuration or ban the number of rounds a magazine can hold isn't going to do anything. We tried it if you remember the last AWB which had absolutely no effect on violent crime and I believe violent crime might even be decreasing since the AWB expired.

I'm in no way expecting to change your mind on the subject. I used to be very anti-gun. Grew up in an anti-gun family. Then got married to a girl and her family is huge into hunting/fishing. Was very nervous the first few times shooting but have always strictly practiced gun safety.

Also....Canada doesn't have guns? Seriously you think that?

Satyr

01-30-2013, 04:25 PM

Having an AR15 aimed at your chest is a lot different than having a plastic toy rifle aimed at your chest.

pakkopaita

01-30-2013, 04:46 PM

I don't own guns, but I do keep myself and my family safe by having 20 armed guards standing watch 24/7 all around my bunker. I also have a missile defense system, which is ready to be fired at the click of a button. Got nukes aimed at Russia and China as well.. just in case, cuz I'm a patriot--not one of those crazy people who thinks their OWN government is out to get them. I recommend you all do the same, it's just your duty if your an American citizen. To have nukes. And other big blower-up thingies. I prefer the neutron bomb myself, not quite the fireworks that a plutonium or uranium retro era type would yield but hey, I like 'em to get diseases in later generations... ya know? That's just the American way.

Satyr

01-30-2013, 04:51 PM

pakkopaita

01-30-2013, 04:57 PM

It's an honor to meet you Mr President.

I didn't say drones. Sheesh. Besides, I thought he favored the less-common but equally as esteemed neptunium types?

Deepvoid

01-30-2013, 05:09 PM

Satyr

01-30-2013, 05:19 PM

No that's not what I think. By no guns I meant can't carry at any time so technically when you got to the mall there are no guns.
Secondly, we actually kept the gun registry in Quebec. Rightfully so.

Finally, I'm not anti-gun per say. I think it has to do with the way you are raised and the values you are given. This where you and me are different. Guns are implanted in American culture. The NRA is the most powerful lobby for a reason.

In any case, people claim sending thoughts & prayers when there's a massacre but I honestly don't think they care that much. When I see on the news that a new shooting occurred, I'm not even shocked or surprised. It's kinda normal coming from the US.

You Canadians have had your fair share of mass shootings. I don't think they got as much publicity though. Oddly enough the guns in the mass shootings remain legal in your country.

Honestly when Columbine happened if those two assholes hadn't become household names. I think some people would still be alive today.

More children are killed by pools every year than firearms. Should we ban pools?

pakkopaita

01-30-2013, 05:29 PM

More children are killed by pools every year than firearms. Should we ban pools?

I don't know about Deepvoid, but you just totally changed my entire outlook on life and my views of guns because of this dazzlingly profound insight. Never before have I seen such a logical and totally called for sense-making equivalency than this. Thank you so much. Truly a brilliant statement that brings a lot of credit to our side of the debate.

Jinsai

01-30-2013, 05:31 PM

Having an AR15 aimed at your chest is a lot different than having a plastic toy rifle aimed at your chest.

Yeah, there's a distinct possibility that you would immediately shoot the person carrying the unarmed AR15 with the loaded gun that you're carrying in your hand.

Satyr

01-30-2013, 05:34 PM

I don't know about Deepvoid, but you just totally changed my entire outlook on life and my views of guns because of this dazzlingly profound insight. Never before have I seen such a logical and totally called for sense-making equivalency than this. Thank you so much. Truly a brilliant statement that brings a lot of credit to our side of the debate.

Thanks. Your sarcastic comments and hyperbole are adding a lot to an intellectual debate on how to prevent further tragedies. Thanks you Mr President.

Satyr

01-30-2013, 05:35 PM

Yeah, there's a distinct possibility that you would immediately shoot the person carrying the unarmed AR15 with the loaded gun that you're carrying in your hand.

You're pretty good at making assumptions that are not grounded in reality. When you find an incident of someone getting shot by an intruder because their AR15 was unloaded. Let me know.

pakkopaita

01-30-2013, 05:36 PM

Thanks you Mr President.

No, no... stuff like this is what truly adds to this intellectual debate.

Satyr

01-30-2013, 05:44 PM

No, no... stuff like this is what truly adds to this intellectual debate.

Do you have anything to add to the debate? I just responded to your hyperbole and sarcasm with what you were bringing to the table.

Have you ever heard of the Columbine Massacre? I'm assuming you have. If you haven't I can google it for you.

Have you ever heard of the Pearl River Massacre? No? Maybe because an armed citizen (the assistant principal) put and end to it (with a .45 pistol) before the psychopath could off 20 kids.

I've just provided a real world example of a firearm saving children. Would you prefer them to be dead? Can you provide me one example of a gun free zone or gun control preventing a psychopath from killing people?

pakkopaita

01-30-2013, 05:56 PM

I've just provided a real world example of a firearm saving children. Would you prefer them to be dead? Can you provide me one example of a gun free zone or gun control preventing a psychopath from killing people?

May I compile your posts into a little reference handbook of logical fallacies?

Satyr

01-30-2013, 06:01 PM

May I compile your posts into a little reference handbook of logical fallacies?

Sure, you have my consent to continue to contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion. Your absolute lack of anything constructive or any point to make is greatly appreciated. I'd be proud to see my logical fallacies listed out one by one.

I'll hold my breath:-)

Deepvoid

01-30-2013, 07:00 PM

Ban pools?

This is the only appropriate response.

http://onion.com/14wez0q

Jinsai

01-30-2013, 07:05 PM

You're pretty good at making assumptions that are not grounded in reality. When you find an incident of someone getting shot by an intruder because their AR15 was unloaded. Let me know.

How about finding me a situation where a homeowner actually fended off attackers with an AR15 that was loaded? Where it was used as more than just a scarecrow? In the wake of these instances where this weapon has been used to kill mass groups of innocent people, to point to an instance where someone scared off intruders with an unloaded weapon isn't a good example of its effectiveness.

I can find tons of cases where home owners defended themselves from intruders with hand guns, with real actual bullets. Conversely, you'll find stories where a homeowner is disarmed and shot with his/her own weapon. I'm not even arguing the case that we need to ban the AR15, I'd just like to hear a better argument.

Pointing to this instance where things worked out well for the people with the unarmed weapon... should the counterpoint be that we should start trying to scare off intruders with replica weapons that would have been just as effective if the trigger had been pulled? The whole discussion would be elevated to another level of ridiculousness.

Deepvoid

01-30-2013, 07:18 PM

Gayle Trotter: Mother of The Year.

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2013/01/30/crazy-mama/

Also voted against the Violence Against Women Act.
She must have a big purse to fit that AR-15.

DigitalChaos

01-30-2013, 09:50 PM

allegro

01-30-2013, 09:53 PM

Seriously? How so? I mean, really, I'm curious.

DigitalChaos

01-30-2013, 09:54 PM

How about finding me a situation where a homeowner actually fended off attackers with an AR15 that was loaded? Where it was used as more than just a scarecrow? In the wake of these instances where this weapon has been used to kill mass groups of innocent people, to point to an instance where someone scared off intruders with an unloaded weapon isn't a good example of its effectiveness.

I can find tons of cases where home owners defended themselves from intruders with hand guns, with real actual bullets. Conversely, you'll find stories where a homeowner is disarmed and shot with his/her own weapon. I'm not even arguing the case that we need to ban the AR15, I'd just like to hear a better argument.

Pointing to this instance where things worked out well for the people with the unarmed weapon... should the counterpoint be that we should start trying to scare off intruders with replica weapons that would have been just as effective if the trigger had been pulled? The whole discussion would be elevated to another level of ridiculousness.

http://www.fishgame.com/webnews.php?p=16038#.UO5Oo2-umaJ

DigitalChaos

01-30-2013, 10:06 PM

Seriously? How so? I mean, really, I'm curious.
the .223 ammo is less than half the weight of even a small 9mm handgun round and less than 25% that of the larger rounds. Google for .223 wall penetration tests. In mosts test they seem to penetrate the first sheet of drywall, lose almost all of it's momentum, start tumbling, and stop at the 2nd sheet of drywall. Almost all handguns will exit that 2nd sheet and keep going.

Its one of the many reason I laugh about people saying that these guns have no function for home defense and that they are somehow superior killing machines (for school shootings, etc) compared to a handgun. I suspect the people shooting up public places choose these weapons for the psychological aspect... and probably not to scare their victims, just to make themselves feel more badass. Ego certainly seems to be a big part of the mass shootings, so it can't be too surprising.

DigitalChaos

01-30-2013, 10:13 PM

http://www.evergreen.edu/policeservices/docs/armingofficerstosucceed.pdf
The North Aurora Police Department currently allows officers to carry their choice of 9mm or .45 caliber pistols; no long guns are available. The Firearms Training Unit has proposed that the department adopt the .223 caliber rifle for patrol officer use. The reasons for this proposal are: (1) pistols are inherently less accurate and have a shorter effective range than long guns such as rifles and shotguns, (2) pistol caliber bullets penetrate more heavily through interior walls than .223 rifle caliber bullets, which causes an increased risk of unintended persons being hit, and (3) pistol caliber bullets will not penetrate body armor and many other obstacles commonly encountered, while most .223 caliber bullets will.

DigitalChaos

01-30-2013, 10:28 PM

Damn... I kinda want a .223 rifle for home defense after reading the rest of that pdf summary.

allegro

01-30-2013, 10:33 PM

Whatever.

I'm Buddhist. I pick up spiders in my house and put them outside.

If I feel I'm living in a dangerous neighborhood, I move.

Satyr

01-30-2013, 10:39 PM

Whatever.

I'm Buddhist. I pick up spiders in my house and put them outside.

If I feel I'm living in a dangerous neighborhood, I move.

I'm not really sure if you're serious.

DigitalChaos

01-30-2013, 10:49 PM

Milwaukee County Sherif on Piers Morgan
This is the sherif who told people that police can't be the ultimate protection and that people should be protecting themselves.
Some things to keep in mind while watching this:
- A sherif has superior constitutional authority over his jurisdiction, higher than every other legal entity.
- Only a small portion of 911 calls are responded to fast enough for police to intervene. I think that number is around 5% (http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp)
- It has been a long standing ruling that police are NOT responsible for your safety or obligated to protect you. (I can cite many Supreme Court cases)
- Piers calls self protection "vigilantism"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwltduVrvuY

allegro

01-30-2013, 10:52 PM

I'm not really sure if you're serious.
I have two revolvers, unloaded, but I don't really plan on using them. I don't "arm" myself for self-defense. I only own guns for sport (target practice). I just don't see myself as part of this violent culture. I don't want to be a part of it. To the point where I'm actually considering leaving this country.

this thread isn't helping. neither are some of the "friends" on Facebook, some of whom are in-laws.

Hearing that guy from the NRA on the news 800 times, today, bitching about background checks is just making it worse.

Look, if you live in the 'hood, I absolutely understand your need to arm yourself to protect yourself from gang bangers. Seriously. But you should still do whatever you can to leave.

Now, I live in the fucking North Shore. Billy Corgan is a neighbor. The biggest thing that happens, here, is recycling bins getting knocked over by wind.

But, I protest. I do anything and everything I can to try to change things, to be a part of the solution, so those kids living in a war zone in Chicago can live to see old age.

I'm from Detroit. I have a t-shirt that says "Detroit, where the weak are killed and eaten." Now, you can hear tumbleweeds rolling down the street. People got sick of it, and they moved.

Arming yourself doesn't help those people in the ghetto getting killed every day. Demanding real change just might.

42 people killed in Chicago this month so far, making it most violent January since 2002 (http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-74213363/).

Satyr

01-31-2013, 05:17 AM

I hear people say demand real change......What change do you think will prevent Chicago people from murdering each other in record numbers?

allegro

01-31-2013, 05:45 AM

Cops. Feds. More cops. More cops. More Feds. Then more cops. Stricter laws that help Feds and cops crack down. Then a shitload of cops and Feds enforce the fucking shit out of laws.

Better education plus hope and opportunity would help, too, Oh, and legalize drugs.

miss k bee

01-31-2013, 05:50 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/father-of-sixyearold-boy-killed-in-sandy-hook-massacre-heckled-by-progun-activists-8471178.html

those activists that heckled are sick in the head!. sick.

allegro

01-31-2013, 05:58 AM

Really really stupid, too.

50 Volt Phantom

01-31-2013, 07:17 AM

Ya except for the fact that this heckling story is a media hit job. The whole video shows the father talking without interruption for 15 minutes before turning to the audience and asking why they need so-called assault weapons, even then no one answers until he says "no one has an answer," a few people speak up then and the father clearly unbothered states that its an issue with a lot of varying opinions. End of story.

cahernandez

01-31-2013, 11:08 AM

I think a big part of the problem is the perception of fear in a significant portion of Americans. After 9/11 you can see how media started selling fear in the news, and as a result you have a somewhat paranoid population.

I used to live in a house in Houston, and I asked one of my (Texan) roommates if we had any guns in the house, and she said there were six of them, all belonging to her and her boyfriend. I thought she was crazy, I asked her: "why do you have all these guns?". And she said: "don't you see THE neighborhood we are living in?" I looked around and it seemed like a really safe area to me (and honestly, we were living in a nice part of Houston, although H-town does have its rough patches). I guess my roommate said that we were living in an "awful" place because there was a relatively run-down house next to ours, inhabited by a black family (this street had mostly newer houses, that's why this other house stood out). But I wouldn't call it a dangerous place. I was born and raised in Mexico (have been living in the US for the past 5 years), I noticed that my perception of fear is a lot different than that of many Americans. For me it takes A LOT to feel scared (to date, I've only felt unsafe in downtown Mexico City, downtown Philly at night and downtown Johannesburg). Growing up in Mexico, and seeing how the drug wars have changed your city can give you perspective and ground you on so many things (economical resources, safety, etc.)

Now, I come from a town (Monterrey) where four years ago things took a turn for the worst, kidnappings became more common, cartels started hanging people from bridges (article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394823/Mexican-war-drugs-reaches-new-low-drug-gangs-hang-rival-members-city-centre-bridges.html)), and there's all other types of crazy stuff happening. And my family has NEVER even talked about getting a gun for protection. My friends have never also considered getting guns for protection. It's not in our culture.

I have so many good friends here in the US, but the one issue I cannot agree with some of them is guns. I don't see them necessary (and again, you'd think that I would feel them necessary, given my background). I don't plan to give you a conclusion with all of this, just something to think about. Some Americans (I didn't say all of them) tend be very self-centered and ignore what's going on in other parts of the world.

cahernandez

01-31-2013, 11:12 AM

Sorry for the double post, the "feeling scared in downtown Philly at night" was after the 2009 NIN show in Camden NJ, during the Wave Goodbye tour...that was an epic show! And I did the Eric de la Cruz fundraiser meet and greet before the concert...so many good memories :)

Deepvoid

01-31-2013, 01:24 PM

It's funny because Gayle Trotter's whole testimony was based on Mckinley's story who DID NOT use an AR15 and would still be able to defend herself if the AR15 was banned.
She is also pretty much saying that us men .. can't understand the meaning of defending ourselves. Therefore, men are not allowed to talk gun control?

She's paid off by the NRA and did a shitty job and the media is calling her out.
So, the NRA is against universal background check?

Frozen Beach

01-31-2013, 01:58 PM

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/20896008/report-possible-school-shooting-in-atlanta
Another school shooting.

allegro

01-31-2013, 02:22 PM

BILL WILL HELP ELIMINATE FLOW OF ILLEGAL GUNS TO DANGEROUS DRUG GANGS LIKE: VICE LORDS, GANGSTER DISCIPLES, LATIN KINGS (http://kirk.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100098983.128711.89&gen=1)

Dear Friends,

Illegal gun trafficking is allowing gangs and violence to flourish around Illinois - in Chicago, Waukegan, Metro East, Quad Cities, Champaign, Peoria, Oak Park, Cicero, Rockford and hundreds of communities in between. With approximately 115,000 gang members in Chicago and its surrounding suburbs, Chicago has the highest concentration of gang members in the nation terrorizing our families. According to Reuters, gangs like the Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples and the Latin Kings are responsible for nearly 80% of the city’s homicides. Last summer alone, gang violence killed 500 men, women and children in Chicago.

We must put a stop to this cycle of violence. According to the Chicago Crime Commission, Chicago Police recover an average of 13,000 illegal weapons each year. Yesterday, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and I introduced a bipartisan anti-gun trafficking bill to ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to crack down on illegal weapons trafficking.

Our bill, the Gillibrand-Kirk Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, will for the first time make gun trafficking a federal crime. Currently, no federal law exists that defines gun trafficking as a crime. The bill will protect the constitutional rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners while giving law enforcement the tools they need to keep our families safe.

I encourage you to watch the video above to learn more about weapons trafficking and our new bill. Please visit my website to read details about the legislation.

Sincerely,

Mark Kirk
U.S. Senator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEpvNPo00mk&feature=player_embedded

Corvus T. Cosmonaut

01-31-2013, 03:11 PM

Showboating.

DigitalChaos

01-31-2013, 03:17 PM

fucking vigilante fire fighters.
http://i.imgur.com/29fFYgj.jpg
(yes, its a strawman but it's funny)

Dra508

01-31-2013, 10:47 PM

About the seriousness of online petitions: here's one asking the US government to build a Death Star (http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/12/13/petition-to-build-a-death-star-by-2016-passes-25000-signatures-white-house-is-required-to-respond/). And since it has passed 25,000 signatures, the White House must respond.

.adminstration's response was pretty funny. 'The cost to build a Death Star would be $850,000,000,000,000,000. Also we don't support blowing up planets. '

So apparently the ban on assault weapons in my state can be circumvented by the ownership of the weapon being put into a trust.

DigitalChaos

01-31-2013, 10:56 PM

This is a more positive and constructive conversation to be having: what do we do? And it's a conversation that must be had with gun owners. I'm a little apprehensive about just accepting what you're saying without doing my own research (haven't had time yet), but again, I do think the nuts and bolts of how we improve the situation is the right direction for the conversation to go in. We also need to be having a conversation about how to improve mental health services including changing the culture of shame and fear surrounding it.
All of the data in that post comes from http://www.policymic.com/articles/21525/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-is-political-suicide-for-democrats and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cory-booker/gun-law-reform_b_2346911.html

My question is WHY are the democrats choosing the extremely polarizing and very ineffective instead of things that have massive support and are very effective? The only options I can come up with are:
- They are incredibly uninformed on the topic
- They actually don't want functional gun control. They just want to placate their supporters.
- They are utilizing the death of children to advance their personal legislation, not mitigate the issues.
- Their goal is to piss off their opponents even more instead of fix the issues.

What am I missing?

Deepvoid

02-01-2013, 07:28 AM

Republicans on Senate Judiciary committee received $700,000 from the NRA, NRA's PAC or organization employees
The NRA received in 2010, $71M in contribution money OUTSIDE of their membership. From 2005-2011, NRA received $38.9M from gun manufacturers (22).
LaPierre testified in 1999, before receiving any money from manufacturer, that ALL loopholes had to be closed. Today's a whole different story.

I would take the Democrats uninformed decisions over the Republicans' agenda to actually have the manufacturers sell MORE guns so they can make MORE money.

DigitalChaos

02-01-2013, 12:49 PM

Trust me, I fucking HATE the GOP. I almost always hate them more than Dems. The GOP being fucktards does not justify whatever the Dems do and it certainly doesn't justify you ignoring their reasoning due to some "least evil" decision.

Nothing that the GOP is doing explains the Dem's justification for policy decisions. Will you not stop and think about why they are making these decisions? At least the logic behind the current GOP action is very transparent (money and retention of gun ownership). There is something very wrong on the Dem side.

Deepvoid

02-01-2013, 01:06 PM

If you're trying to make me say that the Dems are trying to take away the guns in some sort of crackpot theory that they want to control the population or whatnot. Dream on.

DigitalChaos

02-01-2013, 02:02 PM

I'm not trying to make you say anything. I'm trying to discuss the logic behind the decisions. I don't know if it's negligence, evil, or other. Are you so bound to the Dem group that you cannot wield an objective view on that topic? That'd be pretty sad...

Deepvoid

02-01-2013, 02:22 PM

If I was American I would certainly vote for them but I'm not.

"92 percent in Virginia and 95 percent in New Jersey -- favor requiring background checks on people buying firearms at gun shows"
"A CBS/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans favor universal background checks. Other surveys showed support for the proposal hovering somewhere between 80 and 90 percent."
"[National poll] 69 percent of respondents support a ban on the sale of military-style assault rifles, and 68.4 percent support a ban on the sale of large-capacity[...]
"Texans favor a proposed ban on assault weapons, according to a poll by Public Policy Polling, with 49 percent in support compared to 41 percent opposed." (2 days ago)

Isn't it striking that what the Dems are proposing is exactly what the people want? Obviously it's not all rainbows and unicorns and yes there's probably other agendas but it doesn't take away the FACT that the population want universal background check and they want an assault riffle ban.

DigitalChaos

02-01-2013, 04:00 PM

^ You, literally, just confirmed what I said.. but I think you are conflating a few things.
Yes, a shitload of people support universal background checks but what is being proposed is background checks at only gun shows. Universal background checks includes the "gun show loophole" and WAY more. So, why only focus on only the gun shows?!?!

And yes, the support for assault weapon bans and high-cap mag bans is much lower, in comparison.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21525/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-is-political-suicide-for-democrats

DigitalChaos

02-01-2013, 06:02 PM

And to clarify, I am asking this because I really feel like I am missing the reason. I feel like there must be some portion of the "political game" that they are working around/with by making these policy decisions.

Dra508

02-02-2013, 02:04 AM

Fascinating

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/24/145640473/how-the-glock-became-americas-weapon-of-choice

DigitalChaos

02-02-2013, 01:48 PM

Fascinating

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/24/145640473/how-the-glock-became-americas-weapon-of-choice
I took me 8 months of research before I bought a handgun. I chose a Glock for some of the reasons listed in the article: very accurate (for the price), reliable and takes a beating like no other, very easy to use (especially in an emergency), etc. It's pretty much an ideal defense weapon.

DigitalChaos

02-02-2013, 01:51 PM

A father of a child at Sandy Hook provides his views at a public hearing.
Sure seems like a lot of the other Newtown residents agree with him based on the end!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bCA3yqkMUI

Deepvoid

02-02-2013, 03:34 PM

Satyr

02-02-2013, 08:34 PM

In the end, there are no winners in this debate. Just more dead people.

You probably heard about the prosecutor that was shot dead a few days ago? He was carrying becaused he feared for his life. How's that working for you Mr. Assistant DA.

So what now? NRA will say that you have to carry 2 guns?

Or did you hear about the newly hired security guard in a Michigan school who forgot his gun in the bathroom?
More guns!! Higher gun per capita! More gun related deaths! USA #1!!! Yeeeaaahhhh!!

Everyone gets it. You hate guns. You think they should all be voluntarily thrown into a giant volcano. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen. If you have any realistic ideas on how to prevent gun violence....I'm listening.

Deepvoid

02-02-2013, 08:50 PM

Actually, I don't. I'm just venting.

With 300M guns in circulation, I don't think there are solutions. Sorry.

Tiz

02-03-2013, 06:32 PM

Originally, I wasn't going to reply as I have no solution, or perspective that hasn't already been conveyed in this thread by others.

However, the media, and politicians in general seem to think the equation is really simple, and the code-breaker is either more a.) gun control, or b.) more armed teachers, citizens, et al. There doesn't seem to be any other perspectives that deviate from this dynamic. In my opinion, when the solution to a sociological crisis is simple -- it isn't a solution at all. But merely an emotional reaction. Especially when there are ONLY two contradictory options on the table. It's extremely anti-intellectual IMO.

Society in general is extremely complex, and pundits stating "well, country X does this, why doesn't the USA copy that method" is extremely naïve. I think what we really need to do is thoroughly understand why our country have this whacky paranoia conflated with these estranged sociopaths publicly convening nervous breakdowns with live ammo.

We should thoroughly consider the affects the media, the NRA, and Big Pharma have on us as a nation. JMO.

Deepvoid

02-04-2013, 06:01 AM

Most deadliest US sniper was killed at a gun range
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Unfortunately, no good guy with a gun was there to stop the killing...
Or wait .. guns don't kill people.
I can't follow up with all the theories ..

One more ..

Grade too low, dad points AK-47 at daughter.
"A St. Paul man who recently purchased an assault rifle out of fear of an impending gun ban threatened his teenage daughter with it because she was getting two B's in school rather than straight A's, according to a criminal complaint filed Friday."
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/188377421.html?refer=y

Satyr

02-04-2013, 08:55 AM

Everyone in this thread should really click the link below and contemplate why this isn't in national headlines. Killers have been found NOT GUILTY because they were on meds at the time.

http://ssristories.com/index.php (http://ssristories.com/index.php)

Deepvoid

02-04-2013, 09:14 AM

This reminds me of this story here in Quebec, where a father, who happens to be a doctor, stabbed his 2 children 46 times and then drank windscreen washer in an attempt to commit suicide.
However, he didn't drank enough and survived. Obviously, he was fully aware of the quantity his body could absorb, being a doctor.

In any case, the jury found him criminally not responsible due to his psychological state and now a free man like you and me.

You're opening a can of worm though with depression. About 9% of the US population claim to be depressed. Only 3% are medicated. How many more are depressed but have not been diagnosed or simply won't admit.
Depression is form of mental illness.

Would you therefore, ban anyone who has suffered or suffers depression, from buying a gun? That's a lot of people.

Satyr

02-04-2013, 02:17 PM

DigitalChaos

02-04-2013, 03:35 PM

Ban knives and windscreen washer, clearly!

DigitalChaos

02-04-2013, 03:38 PM

Also, you know it's complete bullshit to show how a guy with a gun (even the best in the world) was killed by a gun and somehow imply that guns are useless for self defense.
With that kind of logic you should show one example of a stupid person misusing every single item to ever exist in this world and then justify banning the act of living.

Deepvoid

02-04-2013, 04:28 PM

Ban knives and windscreen washer, clearly!

I don't know how you came up with that conclusion but you're hilarious.

I was simply demonstrating that people with mental illness can get away with murder.

Back to the AK47 guy. The fact that the guy ran to the gun shop to buy an AK-47 because "oh my god, Obama will take away our guns" is exhibit #1 of mental illness.
Exhibit #2 is pointing his machine gun towards his daughter because she had a couple B instead of A.
Exhibit #3 the guy has a previous conviction for disorderly conduct and received a year of probation for that offense.

How this guy was able to purchase a gun is the real problem. Don't look further.
How many people like this dude you think there is? Millions of them.

How can you not worried that this guy could be your neighbor?
You're gonna tell me that why you have guns? You know what, I don't blame you.

But where my logic differs, is that I'd be thinking "Damn, what if we could reduce the number of guns in my neighborhood, maybe I would not need a gun after all".
Whereas yours is "better get myself more guns to protect my family" and your neighbor is watching you and is thinking "if Joe goes ape shit with all the guns he's buying, I better fucking arm myself to the teeth as well". You see where this is going? First thing you know, the whole county is ready for WW3. Don't tell me I'm exaggerating. I've seen videos of people who have some pretty impressive arsenal. How many of them have suffered depression in the last 5 years? Loss their job? You never know when one will wake up and decides it's time to go with a bang. Literally.

And the sniper guy proudly write a book about killing a bunch people. Karma is a bitch.

DigitalChaos

02-04-2013, 05:32 PM

You know one of the big reasons that the field of psychiatry is so behind? Prohibitionary views. The war on drugs brought the process to a crawl. So much red tape and general stigma about testing with psychotropic substances. The current science of psychiatry is borderline pseudo-science and most of the rest is pretty barbaric. It's way out of sync with the rest of medicine.

As for your mention of it being a dangerous path to examine mental health for the gun issue with 3% of the public being medicated, etc... Well, take a look at how large of a percentage of the mass murders take place by someone on medication for mental problems. You don't have to jump right toward stripping their access to guns. There are probably a lot of other options to discuss. but we already have laws that prevent people with mental issues from accessing guns. Those laws are just executed poorly.

Deepvoid

02-04-2013, 06:25 PM

I'm not familiar with the exact language of those laws and if they are mostly federal or state laws but are they really simply poorly executed or a little bit loose?

DigitalChaos

02-04-2013, 11:04 PM

Look to the MAIG study that I posted several times about how our federal background checks (including that of mental problems) is incredibly crippled due to half of the states failing to provide records: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf

DigitalChaos

02-04-2013, 11:06 PM

Interesting perspective on how focusing on mental illness as a root cause has the possibility of making things worse: http://www.cchrint.org/tag/school-shootings-and-psychiatric-drugs/ (warning, this is a scientology site. they are anti-psych-med but it's still a reasonable perspective in this case)

In short, the psychiatric drugs are more of the problem. Focusing on mental illness means more people will be put on the drugs. I'm not sure that an untreated psychiatric problem is going to make things any better but I do not have any stats.

Also (from the topic of the last few posts) in there you'll see the statistic where ~90% of school shootings are done by someone on psychiatric drugs.

Jinsai

02-05-2013, 01:09 AM

warning, this is a scientology site. they are anti-psych-med but it's still a reasonable perspective in this case

ffs...

How about this. I don't care if your issue is treated or not. If you have bipolar depression, no guns for you. If you have ever taken meds for bipolar depression, no guns. Sorry. If you've exhibited schizophrenic behavior, or need medication for schizophrenia, no guns for you. If you're a drug addict or an alcoholic, no guns for you.

That seems like a good start. We could add to it. Hell, how about "if you're a fucking scientologist, no guns for you"

DigitalChaos

02-05-2013, 01:20 AM

NRA is going to have a field day with this one:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/020113-642920-armed-guard-stops-atlanta-school-shooter-gun.htm

Student opens fire at a middle school. Then an armed guard immediately stops the shooter. Only one kid was injured.

Deepvoid

02-05-2013, 08:16 AM

ffs...

How about this. I don't care if your issue is treated or not. If you have bipolar depression, no guns for you. If you have ever taken meds for bipolar depression, no guns. Sorry. If you've exhibited schizophrenic behavior, or need medication for schizophrenia, no guns for you. If you're a drug addict or an alcoholic, no guns for you.

That seems like a good start. We could add to it. Hell, how about "if you're a fucking scientologist, no guns for you"

Aren't war vets more likely to suffer from some form of depression or whatnot?

Also FBI released background check data for January. 2,495,400 background checks were performed in January 2013. This is the second highest month ever.
December was the highest with 2,783,765 background checks performed.

Since people might have bought more than one gun during those checks, it's safe to say that a minimum of 5,279,165 firearms were sold in the last two months.

Satyr

02-05-2013, 10:57 AM

Aren't war vets more likely to suffer from some form of depression or whatnot?

Also FBI released background check data for January. 2,495,400 background checks were performed in January 2013. This is the second highest month ever.
December was the highest with 2,783,765 background checks performed.

Since people might have bought more than one gun during those checks, it's safe to say that a minimum of 5,279,165 firearms were sold in the last two months.

I'd bet money that there are over a billion firearms in circulation....If someone has enough motivation to massacre people. They will find a gun, bullets, and high capacity magazines.
Father of Sandy Hook Student schooling politicians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dhXPlCjr0Vw

Deepvoid

02-05-2013, 11:30 AM

I said it before, there are two school of thoughts regarding gun. One is the need of having guns to protect one family. The other one is living in an environment where there's less and less guns.
I guess there's no right or wrong here. Just a matter on how you wanna live your life.

Yes there are guns in Canada and Quebec but it isn't implanted in our culture so I never, never think about it. It never crosses my mind if a neighbor is a gun owner or not be. I don't have that need to have a gun to protect my family. Hell, I leave my doors unlocked sometimes.

So yes, maybe I will never understand the need for guns because I live in a peaceful community with different culture than the US.

Jinsai

02-05-2013, 03:47 PM

If someone has enough motivation to massacre people. They will find a gun, bullets, and high capacity magazines.

And we say defeatist things like this... and then we look at the guy who shot gabriel giffords, who was turned away from three different Walmarts for acting crazy before he finally found one that would sell him bullets. When it comes to people with the "motivation to massacre people," we're usually talking about people with serious mental issues... who often don't calculate and carefully cover up their tracks. In the wake of these disasters, there's usually a bunch of people saying in hindsight that they should have seen this coming. Maybe if there was simply an organization that just sent out someone to check up on people who stockpile thousands of rounds of high powered ammunition to make sure they're not completely insane.

But as long as the NRA is rigidly opposed to any kind of new laws and now even opposes background checks, and it seems everyone else is buying into this attitude that it's all futile and there's nothing we can do about it...

DigitalChaos

02-05-2013, 04:12 PM

I got my fist I got my plan I got survivalism

Deepvoid

02-05-2013, 05:25 PM

Arkansas' new bill will allow concealed guns in churches.

I'm not a believer but wouldn't Jesus be against that?
Is this further proof that christianity is a religion of violence? Will they start shooting in the air after each prayers?

Elke

02-06-2013, 06:42 AM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-5-2013/exclusive---ray-kelly-extended-interview-pt--1

Deepvoid

02-06-2013, 11:42 AM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-5-2013/exclusive---ray-kelly-extended-interview-pt--1

Content not available in my beautiful country.

In other news the NRA has issued a list of 500 enemies, more specifically people or organizations who are in support of more gun control and whatnot. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this could be perceived as a hit list of some sort.

http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

Some of the names include Oprah, Britney Spears, Bob Barker, Sting, YMCA, National Association of Children`s Hospitals and Related Institutions, Spinal Cord Injury Association etc...

I couln't help myself but laugh when reading the list. It's realistic to think that one anti-gun control psycho is gonna put one in the head of someone on that list in the near future.

DigitalChaos

02-06-2013, 11:52 AM

Content not available in my beautiful country.

Police commissioner from NY says handguns are the issue. Says criminals don't follow NY gun laws, blames it on neighboring areas that he can't control. Neither party mentions the 7500 miles of land-only borders that the US has.

Stewart manages to lose credibility on the topic by talking about getting rid of hollow-points because they are "military"

Satyr

02-06-2013, 05:40 PM

Police commissioner from NY says handguns are the issue. Says criminals don't follow NY gun laws, blames it on neighboring areas that he can't control. Neither party mentions the 7500 miles of land-only borders that the US has.

Stewart manages to lose credibility on the topic by talking about getting rid of hollow-points because they are "military"

I thought the Hague Convention prevented any NATO members from using hollow-point ammunition....What do I know?

I personally carry a Steyr M40A1 with Federal HST everywhere I go.

DigitalChaos

02-06-2013, 05:47 PM

I thought the Hague Convention prevented any NATO members from using hollow-point ammunition....What do I know?

I personally carry a Steyr M40A1 with Federal HST everywhere I go.
lol, exactly. It's used everywhere BUT military. Police (aka not military) and civilians (aka not military) are commonly using hollow-points for protection. It's safer to use in populated areas too. Doesn't penetrate through walls or bodies anywhere near what the standard ammo does.

I've been pretty disappointed in Stewart's coverage of this topic. He usually does a decent amount of research and I usually agree with him... not so on gun control.

aggroculture

02-07-2013, 12:24 AM

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/11/130211fa_fact_keefe
Sad and compelling article: a key catalyst the purchase of a gun, in the wake of a home burglary.

Deepvoid

02-07-2013, 07:28 AM

Sutekh

02-07-2013, 07:43 AM

- They are utilizing the death of children to advance their personal legislation, not mitigate the issues.
-

This is a strange remark... They're just using the deaths of children to pass legislation that they think will reduce future deaths of children?

...well ....yeah?

Sorry, did I misunderstand what you've said?

Are you saying that they know their legislation won't really make any difference, but they're just seizing the opportunity to rally support for it?

I think they genuinely do believe it's an appropriate response

Deepvoid

02-07-2013, 08:47 AM

It's pretty much a certainty that a military-style semi-automatic assault weapons will not make it into law. Neither will a ban of high-capacity magazines.
The only thing that might make it into law will be the universal background check.

Harry Reid, when asked if he would vote for an assault weapon band and high-capacity magazine said he would "look at it".
Remember, there are a lot of conservative Democrats who are being supported by the NRA. So even some Democrats are against any gun form of gun control.

Sutekh

02-07-2013, 08:56 AM

I do believe that more regulation will make your country safer, but I don't think it's the final answer to the problem. Someone I was recently debating with brought up the 1976 DC handgun ban (which pretty much had no effect on firearm homicide), and I think it's a good point (although it is worth pointing out that a handgun ban isn't really going to make much difference if you have porous borders with regions where they aren't banned).

But whatever side of the fence you're on, there is surely no denying there is a problem. So what to do? I'm interested to hear some proposals from the pro gun side, because despite what people say, I refuse to believe the gun crowd is totally blase about all these spree shootings & accepts them as the price of gun rights

allegro

02-07-2013, 09:43 AM

Harry Reid, when asked if he would vote for an assault weapon band and high-capacity magazine said he would "look at it".
Remember, there are a lot of conservative Democrats who are being supported by the NRA. So even some Democrats are against any gun form of gun control.
I wish we could have a special national vote on these matters, where registered voters go to the polls and the decision is based on the people and not these politicians who are worried about their own wallets and campaign funds or on the NRA which is all about $$$.

Deepvoid

02-07-2013, 09:51 AM

The thing is that no ban will actually reduce the number of firearms in circulation. Damage has been done and is irreversible.

Sutekh

02-07-2013, 10:25 AM

On a long enough timeline it will, if you staunch the amount of new firearms entering circulation, there will be less to replace the firearms that eventually break, are lost or simply handed in

DigitalChaos

02-07-2013, 11:20 AM

Question goes for gun owners.

Ever thought how you'd feel after taking a human life? Ever wondered if it would have permanent psychological repercussion on you?
Of course, you're gonna tell yourself that you were protecting your family but you might have killed a young daddy who resorted to stealing to provide for his young son. Who knows?

Just wondering if all gun owners are actually prepared to kill someone and how you feel about that.

Ever thought about how you'd feel after watching your family die and wondering if you could have done more?

Ever thought about how you make some sacrifices for loved ones and your feelings are secondary?

Sutekh

02-07-2013, 11:24 AM

You don't have to defend your position - he's not attacking you. He's asking how you think you might feel

DigitalChaos

02-07-2013, 11:56 AM

I'd feel better than some of the alternatives and my feelings are secondary.

It's impossible to know how you'd feel. It's impossible to know if you could even pull the trigger. I prefer to have all the options/tools available for every situation. It runs deeper than just defense. Heck, I am the goto "MacGuyver" for almost every problem at the office or with friends because I always have a few things up my sleeve.
Jack of all, master of none. I'm not a trained killer, but I could probably fix a problem sitting in front of me.

Deepvoid

02-07-2013, 11:57 AM

Elke

02-07-2013, 12:02 PM

lol, exactly. It's used everywhere BUT military. Police (aka not military) and civilians (aka not military) are commonly using hollow-points for protection.

In all fairness, in the context of the discussion 'military' was used as a catch-all for firearms that were developed for military purposes.

DigitalChaos

02-07-2013, 02:27 PM

You don't know if you could pull the trigger?

I'm honestly confused now.
How can someone, who owns a gun for protection, doesn't know if he'll be able to pull the trigger in a situation where 1 second can make the difference between dead or alive.
How can anyone KNOW how they will act in a situation they have never been in before?
Having confidence is one thing, but it doesn't make you a precog.

DigitalChaos

02-07-2013, 02:30 PM

Another video from this guy. I really enjoy is videos. Pierce Morgan would be left screaming (alex jones style) if he had to debate this guy. I think every one of Pierce's points is nullified in this single video.

Mandatory viewing for everyone talking about the UK having lower murder rates

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

DigitalChaos

02-07-2013, 02:46 PM

- They are utilizing the death of children to advance their personal legislation, not mitigate the issues.
-

Are you saying that they know their legislation won't really make any difference, but they're just seizing the opportunity to rally support for it?

yes. i listed that as one of the potential options. i am trying to identify all potential reasons.

I think they genuinely do believe it's an appropriate response
Well, then that would point toward my first point (they are incredibly uninformed on the topic). Unless you have another explanation for why someone would choose a path that is less effective and has much more resistance against you. (go back to the post you quoted if that doesn't make sense. I detailed the reasoning)

DigitalChaos

02-07-2013, 02:49 PM

Presideo

02-07-2013, 08:19 PM

Stewart has regained my respect after that stupid hollow-point comment with this one (off-topic from the thread):
"Although obviously a Democratic Administration's Whitehouse secret war policy memos are very different from the Bush Administration's secret war policy memos in that I assume that the Democrats have written them on recycled paper." - Jon Stewart
It's good that you commend someone when they corroborate with your ideals, then bash them when they don't. No way anyone can call you insular and biased.

As for the vids of the indie guy with chic glasses you keep using to make points...he criticizes the media for skewing stats to fit their agenda, while doing the exact same in his vids. How does murder rates in the 1930's or 70's have anything to do with today? Stop the vid at the 1:00 mark because that's all that anyone needs to know: 4.8 murder rate for the U.S in 2011 vs. 1.2 murder rate for the U.K in 2011. What's a good way to lower the rate in the U.S? More stringent gun control....or I guess we can muddy the discussion by using murder rates for the past 100 years...whatever... (I also loved his first vid where he used violent crime data to make his point about gun control. Because violent crimes totally are the same as gun deaths, right?)

And Biden never said gun control policies wouldn't work - he just said they're not fail-safe guarantees that mass murders won't happen again, which is common sense.

Presideo

02-07-2013, 08:24 PM

double post

DigitalChaos

02-07-2013, 09:03 PM

Presideo

02-07-2013, 09:56 PM

PS - You seem to have failed Science 101 and cannot distinguish causation from correlation. You seem to lack rudimentary statistical analysis skills too... even when wrapped up in a dumbed down video. It's so bad that it's on par with intentional trolling.
Oh snap, questioning my comprehension skills?! You've really done it this time, mister!

http://i.imgur.com/alrzis6.png

But seriously, enlighten me on how the graph above proves that more stringent gun control won't bring the death rate down. And saying "the rates have dropped over the past few years without stronger gun control" is bullshit. A 4.8 murder rate is still horrendous, and guns are the problem causing that murder rate. Using the U.K's minuscule increases in death rate here and there to prove that gun control is ineffective is laughable. They've never come close to our death rate.

Let me re-post homicide rates of a few countries I gave months ago.

Japan 0.3
Britain 1.2
Switzerland 0.7
Canada 1.6
Isreal 2.1
Sweden 1.0
Germany 0.8
U.S. 4.8
Do we seriously want this to be the norm for our country? A bunch of gun-loving heathens who'd rather trade safety for the blinding adoration of shiny metal?

Presideo

02-07-2013, 10:00 PM

edit: nevermind. If your post is so bad that it requires the conversation to deviate from the thread topic and prompts an explanation of how basic statistical analysis and scientific analysis should work... well.. it's clearly not worth replying.
Don't mind me - go back to flooding the thread with waves of bullshit, and have everybody and their mother call you out on said bullshit. If you haven't noticed, you're not exactly in the majority when it comes to your views on gun control.

Presideo

02-07-2013, 10:27 PM

Yeah, 'facepalm' posts that don't agree with your insular viewpoints instead of replying to them.

Stay classy!

DigitalChaos

02-07-2013, 10:29 PM

But whatever side of the fence you're on, there is surely no denying there is a problem. So what to do? I'm interested to hear some proposals from the pro gun side, because despite what people say, I refuse to believe the gun crowd is totally blase about all these spree shootings & accepts them as the price of gun rights

Firstly, you need to define the problem. Is it indiscriminate school/public shootings? Is it all deaths by gun? Is it all murder? etc. People seem to use statistics from one to "answer" another. The fix for one issue is not going to be the fix for the other. When you try to simplify multiple issues into a single answer (guns) you get this repeated failure that we are seeing.

School/public shootings - These are extremely rare. So rare that you can't really "test" if your fix has an impact. So rare that it is pointless to put effort into fixing. The time and money could have a much higher return on so many other dangers that rank MUCH higher.

Homicide - This is a good thing to target. Not just gun homicide but ALL homicide. There is a heavy correlation between homicide rates and poverty/low education/population density. Heck, crime in general is connected here. Going after poverty and low education will massively fix homicide rates.

Keeping guns out of the hands of bad people - Politicians are going about it completely wrong. I have some suggestions that are more effective than current proposals AND have decent bipartisan support: http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Gun-Talk-News-Laws-etc?p=66409#post66409

Deepvoid

02-08-2013, 07:53 AM

School/public shootings - These are extremely rare. So rare that you can't really "test" if your fix has an impact. So rare that it is pointless to put effort into fixing. The time and money could have a much higher return on so many other dangers that rank MUCH higher.

Extremely rare? There has been 43 mass shootings in 25 states over the past 4 years. Nearly one per month.

DigitalChaos

02-08-2013, 01:01 PM

Extremely rare? There has been 43 mass shootings in 25 states over the past 4 years. Nearly one per month.
That's pretty much the definition of rare. That's on par with the chances of being struck by lightning.

TEN times as many DIE from falling out of bed. More people DIE from falling coconuts, autoerotic asphyxiation, hot water, nuclear radiation leaks, left-handed people using right-handed products, food poisoning, falling off a ladder, drowning in a bath tub, etc. There are much more impacting things we could be focusing our efforts on.

There is a reason the gun control proponents almost always mix mass shootings in with the statistics that include police shooting criminals, criminals shooting criminals, legitimate home defense, etc.

Deepvoid

02-08-2013, 01:25 PM

Well, if a mass shooting per month is considered rare or on par with being struck by lightning, well I guess it's just tough luck for those Newtown kids. They should have called in sick that day.

DigitalChaos

02-08-2013, 01:46 PM

Well, if a mass shooting per month is considered rare or on par with being struck by lightning, well I guess it's just tough luck for those Newtown kids. They should have called in sick that day.
Bad idea. Schools are much safer than homes. Children have a much higher chance of dying at home.

Deepvoid

02-08-2013, 01:48 PM

I figured with all you guns, it'd be safer.

DigitalChaos

02-08-2013, 02:59 PM

holy fuck.... how do you turn into someone like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB7hTuaFvpc

All I have to say is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slOWroJlmbs

Deepvoid

02-08-2013, 04:43 PM

DigitalChaos

02-08-2013, 05:45 PM

Well, at least you can see how much better things have gotten over the last 10-20 years.

Deepvoid

02-08-2013, 06:10 PM

Things are mighty fine now! Haha
The number of murders might be lower but the culture is worst if you ask me.

DigitalChaos

02-08-2013, 06:30 PM

I honestly don't think the culture is worse. It's just more in your face due to the edutainment that is constantly trying to increase the shock factor on everything. I mean, look at much of the pro-control group. The message is that the gun problem is constantly going to get worse and will keep doing so until we do something NOW.

You also see more of it come to the surface anytime you try to take it away.

What makes you think that it's gotten worse?

Satyr

02-08-2013, 11:51 PM

Watching this 1982 documentary called The Killing of America. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157894/?ref_=sr_1)

Gun problem was even bigger then. It supports my point that the gun culture in the US is so strong, it'll never change.
I say, buckle up and enjoy the ride .. and hope not to get shot!

Pretty much. Thats the entire reason I'm a responsible law abiding firearm owner. I'm licensed to carry concealed and do.

We have seen time and time again that the only thing that stops these mass murderers is a bullet. I sincerely hope I'm never in a situation in which I'll need to draw down on someone and start shooting at them....But you've probably heard before I'd rather have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

It's unlikely to ever happen but if I'm ever out at a restaurant or mall or etc with my wife and someone starts shooting at people. With my training I could potentially save dozens of lives. I put myself at great risk of harm/death in doing so but I'd prefer to go down defending myself and my loved ones than to hide under a table and hope I'm not executed by a psychopath that is intent on putting as much metal in people as possible.

DigitalChaos

02-10-2013, 11:20 PM

3 teens break in to a 60 year old man's home. One instantly cracks him in the head with a bat. Old man pulls out a gun and starts shooting, successfully defending himself.

the great equalizer - guns! (not police)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNf8v4m5Vdg

Elke

02-11-2013, 04:10 AM

Isn't it illegal though? In Belgium you can't use a weapon in self-defense that is more destructive than the weapon wielded against you. So the 60 year old would have been brought to trial.

Jinsai

02-11-2013, 04:19 AM

Isn't it illegal though? In Belgium you can't use a weapon in self-defense that is more destructive than the weapon wielded against you. So the 60 year old would have been brought to trial.

We don't have laws like that in the US, and to be honest, I'm glad because that doesn't entirely make sense to me.

Are you honestly saying that if somebody comes at you (in Belgium) with an aluminum baseball bat, and is obviously trying to kill you, and you defend yourself by pulling out your handgun and blowing his head off, you've committed a crime? On some level, having laws regarding the appropriate use of weapons that correspond to what weapon is being used against you is a little silly.

Deepvoid

02-11-2013, 07:35 AM

We have similar laws in Canada as in Belgium. So I guess it's not that silly.

Deepvoid

02-11-2013, 08:37 AM

Your weekly shooting is brought to you by KFC.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/11/justice/delaware-court-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t4 (http://http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/11/justice/delaware-court-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t4)

3 people shot. No deaths reported at this time.

**
Edit: Make that 3 dead (incl. shooter) and 2 officers wounded.

Elke

02-11-2013, 12:47 PM

We don't have laws like that in the US, and to be honest, I'm glad because that doesn't entirely make sense to me.

Are you honestly saying that if somebody comes at you (in Belgium) with an aluminum baseball bat, and is obviously trying to kill you, and you defend yourself by pulling out your handgun and blowing his head off, you've committed a crime? On some level, having laws regarding the appropriate use of weapons that correspond to what weapon is being used against you is a little silly.

Well, if you're blowing his head off, there's definitely going to be an inquiry, whether he's armed or not.

It's not as silly as it seems. It's legislation from 1830 (it has been updated, but not all that much) about what constitutes self-defense, and it's based on the principle that you can not use exaggerated force to defend yourself, or your self-defense ends up becoming assault.
For example: a man breaks into your house using only some burglary tools, but is unarmed. You feel threatened, so you shoot him dead. Yeah... that's not self-defense. If someone comes at you with a chainsaw, I'm sure a shotgun would be allowed - but the weapon used in defense has to be relatively equal to the weapon used to attack.

A couple of years ago we've had a lot of public debate about this when jewellers were robbed (often multiple times) and some of them ended up shooting fleeing burglars in the back. Public consensus seemed to be that if someone stole your stuff, shooting 'em dead in the back was a really just thing to do, but thankfully politicians (for once) didn't bow down to the public's demand to change the law; and the judges in those cases stuck to the self-defense laws and case precedents as well (mostly).

I don't think it's immediately crime, I think if the wound is not mortal it's only a misdemeanour, but still... Yes. And I don't think it's a silly law. I can see how it could have incredibly unfortunate side-effects, but I trust the courts to make the correct decision in each case.

DigitalChaos

02-11-2013, 01:35 PM

Every state is different but most all of them have some level of law requiring appropriate force. We just don't do anything dumb like restrict it to the same weapon of the intruder/attacker.

We have castle doctrine out here in CA but your life has to be threatened. If you shoot someone in the back (probably running away) you go to jail. Even firing a warning shot means you felt that lethal force wasn't needed but since you fired a gun... YOU used potentially lethal force.

Satyr

02-16-2013, 07:57 AM

The whole concept of using the same level of force but not greater than the criminal that has broken into your home is completely mind boggling to me.

Am I supposed to ask the criminal that has broken into my home what they are armed with before I know what I'm allowed to defend myself with?

Deepvoid

02-16-2013, 10:52 AM

DigitalChaos

02-16-2013, 01:34 PM

Well I think the goal is to avoid trigger happy homeowners killing teenagers stealing stuff for dope money.

When someone breaks in your home with the intent of stealing and you pull a gun on him, the intent might change from stealing to killing/defending himself.

Well, if the police were able to protect everyone (in the way that pro-gun control people seem to portray their job) there wouldn't be anyone breaking in!
That said, American citizens have a much lower rate of hitting innocent people than police (2% vs 11%).

50 Volt Phantom

02-16-2013, 09:48 PM

Well I think the goal is to avoid trigger happy homeowners killing teenagers stealing stuff for dope money.

When someone breaks in your home with the intent of stealing and you pull a gun on him, the intent might change from stealing to killing/defending himself.
Don't break into my home to steal my stuff and you won't get shot. Pretty simple concept. I'm not going to take the time to try to figure out what criminal intentions the intruder has.

Jinsai

02-17-2013, 02:30 AM

Don't break into my home to steal my stuff and you won't get shot. Pretty simple concept.

Sweet. I was hoping somebody would reduce the argument into a hypothetical situation we could all understand and identify with.

I'm not saying the point you're responding to was worth responding to, I'm just saying "sweet."

aggroculture

02-17-2013, 05:59 AM

Deepvoid

02-17-2013, 12:38 PM

Sweet. I was hoping somebody would reduce the argument into a hypothetical situation we could all understand and identify with.

I'm not saying the point you're responding to was worth responding to, I'm just saying "sweet."

facepalmed

50 Volt Phantom

02-17-2013, 01:30 PM

Don't walk around my neighborhood with a hoodie on and be black and look like someone who I think might the kind of person who breaks into homes and you won't get shot. Pretty simple concept.

I'm not saying the point you're responding to was worth responding to, I'm just saying.
Unless I can see a clear need for action outside of my residence I would let the police handle it. Even if someone was on my property snooping around I would call 911 first and give the police a chance to respond, but once the act of breaking in starts all bets are off. So your Trayvon comparison doesn't work here.

Deepvoid

02-17-2013, 02:06 PM

All bets are off? Is it still the Far West where you live?

Jinsai

02-17-2013, 03:08 PM

facepalmed

I was being sarcastic.
To clarify: I think the statement "don't break into my home and you won't get shot" is wildly unhelpful and I don't think it helps the conversation much, nor does it address obvious problems with the castle laws. Then again, I don't think the initial point you made about home owners defending themselves with a gun is an entirely practical way to look at the issue.

Deepvoid

02-17-2013, 04:35 PM

allegro

02-17-2013, 06:20 PM

Sorry. I didn't pick up on the sarcasm.

If I was the victime of a robbery, I would most likely pretend to be asleep and wait until they leave. Why confront them? Insurance will replace the stuff that was stolen. It will not get you a new life.

Robbers here tend to have guns and they shoot you (or beat you then shoot you).

Or worse (my biggest fear): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314418/Steven-Hayes-Chilling-confession-Connecticut-massacre-killer.html

Deepvoid

02-17-2013, 08:24 PM

Robbers here tend to have guns and they shoot you (or beat you then shoot you).

Or worse (my biggest fear): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314418/Steven-Hayes-Chilling-confession-Connecticut-massacre-killer.html

We're definitely not confronted with the same reality.

Satyr

02-19-2013, 04:34 AM

We're definitely not confronted with the same reality.

................I honestly don't know what to say about your thought process.

Someone massacres a school and you immediately start chanting "Ban the guns!!! For the children!!! Guns kill everyone everyone!!!" (sorry for the hyperbole)

Then someone points out that they would prefer to be armed if someone starts massacring people around them.

And you say you're not confronted with the same reality? I honestly have no words.

If you place enough value on your life to trust it in the hands of an armed criminal that's in your home....That you're concerned that if you make a wrong move the criminal might have to defend themselves and kill you............

I really wish I understood your thought process but I'm willing to guess that there is just something fundamentally different between the way our brains are wired.

I value my life and the lives of my family members over armed criminals. You seem not to....or seem to be naive enough to believe that you rolling into the fetal position when confronted with an armed intruder would save your life.

Satyr

02-19-2013, 04:39 AM

@double postage

Deepvoid

02-19-2013, 07:48 AM

................I honestly don't know what to say about your thought process.

Someone massacres a school and you immediately start chanting "Ban the guns!!! For the children!!! Guns kill everyone everyone!!!" (sorry for the hyperbole)

Then someone points out that they would prefer to be armed if someone starts massacring people around them.

And you say you're not confronted with the same reality? I honestly have no words.

If you place enough value on your life to trust it in the hands of an armed criminal that's in your home....That you're concerned that if you make a wrong move the criminal might have to defend themselves and kill you............

I really wish I understood your thought process but I'm willing to guess that there is just something fundamentally different between the way our brains are wired.

I value my life and the lives of my family members over armed criminals. You seem not to....or seem to be naive enough to believe that you rolling into the fetal position when confronted with an armed intruder would save your life.

I wish I could facepalm posts. Ah well ...

First of all, you wrongfully assumed that I want to ban all guns. Find my posts where I said that. Please do so...
Second of all, the reality I live in is that, there's a higher probability of me getting struck by a lightning than someone breaking in my home and hurting my family. So not only do I not need a gun but I'm not afraid for my family either.

You live with the constant fear of something bad happening. If you didn't you wouldn't need a gun. The gun brings you piece of mind. I don't have that need.
That my friend, is how my reality is different than yours. The country we live in are so much different. Your post just proved that. You truly don't get it what it's like to live in a place where you simply don't need a gun to feel safe.

I love that you have to resort to insults. My brain is wired differently than yours? The fact that you think you so much better than me is freaking hilarious. I will let you have this one. You truly need it.

Deepvoid

02-19-2013, 08:01 AM

Double post.

The best example I can give you is this one.
Your country was on the receiving end of one of the biggest terrorist attack. Will it happen again? Yes.The only thing is that you don't know when, how and where.
But it will always be in the back your mind. Maybe it won't happen ok. But the likelihood is that it will.

The reality I built for myself is that where I live, there will be never be a terrorist attack. I never think about it. I can't even imagine a scenario in which such a thing happens. As far as I'm concerned, it's more fiction than reality. You're gonna say that I'm an idiot for thinking that way but that's simply because it's part of YOUR world you live in. So you wrongfully assume that if it can happen to you, it can happen to anyone, which cannot be farther from the truth.

Well apply the same logic to guns and the reasons YOU need a gun. Well those reasons are non-existent in my world. I'm not about to remove my pink glasses. I'm in my early thirties, good job, good money, good family and friends. I live pretty great fucking life. Don't need a gun, will never need gun. Owning a gun never even crossed my mind.

Why can't you accept that? Why can't you accept that your reality is different than mine?

Satyr

02-19-2013, 08:48 AM

First of all my post contained a bit of hyperbole. Surely you can tell me your plan to end gun violence and save all the children? (more hyperbole I know:-P)

Secondly, where are you getting your stats on getting stuck by lightning vs being the victim of a home invasion?

Thirdly, I don't need a gun. I'm unlikely to get murdered as a result of being unarmed. I don't live in fear of something terrible but terrible things happen and I'd prefer to have the ability to defend myself. Thanks to the founding fathers I have that right.

I certainly accept and support your decision to remain unarmed and am happy that you live in a world where you are at zero risk of violent crime against yourself or your family. I unfortunately live in Cleveland Ohio where people do get murdered from time to time. Even once in a while someone will even legally euthanizes a criminal with their firearm.

You live in Canada?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada

Deepvoid

02-19-2013, 09:23 AM

I unfortunately live in Cleveland Ohio where people do get murdered from time to time. Even once in a while someone will even legally euthanizes a criminal with their firearm.

Here you go. You personnaly acknowledge that we live in different places, with different culture and different environment.

The last troubled period here in Quebec is in 1970 as per those stats you provided me. I wasn't born then. That's 43 years ago. Political landscape has changed quite a bit since then.

You want stats here you go:
During the past decade, three provinces (Quebec, British Columbia and Manitoba) have driven the overall decline in the rate of police-reported robbery. Between 1999 and 2008, the rate fell 30% in Quebec (best rate of all provinces).
32,000 incidents of robbery were reported in 2008.
A firearm was involved in 14% of all robberies in 2008 (Canada), compared with 20% a decade earlier.
No weapon was involved in 57% of all robberies.

Furthermore, I don't live in Montreal but in a suburban area on the south shore. While I don't have stats from my city (25k pop.), it is drastically lower than in Montreal.
My brain is wired in accordance to those stats. With stats, you get probabilities. In my case, probabilities of my house getting getting robbed by a bunch of lunatic killers cannot justify me getting a gun. Simple as that.

Satyr

02-19-2013, 09:33 AM

Tiz

02-19-2013, 01:18 PM

So for those of you worried about being raped, and set on fire -- buy a gun.

Why stop at one gun? What if the intruder has six arms a la Goro from Mortal Kombat? Sure, the likelihood of being intruded on by a six-armed gentlemen is rare. Much rarer than being raped, and set on fire. But I'm no sucka, I'm stocking my whole family with automatic weapons underneath their pillows to subdue the would be assailants.

*These hypotheticals lead us nowhere. Why not instead of fighting a problem with fantasy; let's fight it with educated conjecture? I like that a lot more than Logical Fallacy Wars Deux.

Satyr

02-19-2013, 01:30 PM

Deepvoid

02-19-2013, 02:01 PM

Thats fair enough. Surely with you pointing out the huge differences between where you live and where I live....You understand that you either judging me for owning a gun or trying to tell me I shouldn't own a gun (that holds as many bullets as I'd like) is ridiculous.

I'm curious on where you actually stand on the issue if you'd like to elaborate.

As I said in the past, I believe the situation in the US has reached a point where it cannot be reversed. I think with 300 million guns in circulation, there's just nothing that can be done to avoid those mass shootings. (4 dead today in CA).
However, I do not believe in the argument that arming citizen to the teeth will prevent or stop mass shootings.
We have to bring the problem to its simplest equation.

Less gun = less violence
More gun = more violence

Unfortunately, I honestly don't know how or don't think you can get to the first equation. Guns are deeply rooted in American culture. There's no way around it.
I believe there will be more guns in the future, with more mass shootings. Those shootings will have more deaths and of course there will be other children involved. People will send their usual thoughts and prayers and simply move on with their daily lives... until the next one. I know it's a grim portrait but I don't think it's far from reality.

aggroculture

02-19-2013, 02:12 PM

Satyr

02-19-2013, 02:32 PM

As I said in the past, I believe the situation in the US has reached a point where it cannot be reversed. I think with 300 million guns in circulation, there's just nothing that can be done to avoid those mass shootings. (4 dead today in CA).
However, I do not believe in the argument that arming citizen to the teeth will prevent or stop mass shootings.
We have to bring the problem to its simplest equation.

Less gun = less violence
More gun = more violence

Unfortunately, I honestly don't know how or don't think you can get to the first equation. Guns are deeply rooted in American culture. There's no way around it.
I believe there will be more guns in the future, with more mass shootings. Those shootings will have more deaths and of course there will be other children involved. People will send their usual thoughts and prayers and simply move on with their daily lives... until the next one. I know it's a grim portrait but I don't think it's far from reality.

I'm not sure if your guns = violence equation is accurate. There are plenty of rural areas in the US that have 10 guns to every person and there is pretty much no gun violence. If you can bother watching the video on firearm violence statistics that was posted in this thread I think you'd gain some insight into where this violence is happening and that isn't limited to the US.

I think if you want to honestly save lives....You'd consider getting rid of gun free zones. I'm assuming you've noticed that most of these people intent on killing as many people as possible have carried out their massacres in areas that law abiding citizens cannot legally defend themselves?

Do you think that could potentially motivate someone to go shoot up a school as opposed to going to shoot up a gun show?

Satyr

02-19-2013, 02:33 PM

Cultures can and must be changed. Slavery was once also deeply rooted in American culture. Slaves were once ubiquitous. That changed. So must gun culture. We need to take the long view on this: not the 4/8 years of the presidential cycle, but 25, 50, 100, more.

What is your solution? How do we change gun culture that would result in a real change in violent crime?

Also I'm assuming you're aware that the country split itself in half and a lot of people died to unroot slavery?

Tiz

02-19-2013, 02:50 PM

What is your solution? How do we change gun culture that would result in a real change in violent crime?

Also I'm assuming you're aware that the country split itself in half and a lot of people died to unroot slavery?

Captain Condescension enters the fray.

allegro

02-19-2013, 02:58 PM

Cultures can and must be changed. Slavery was once also deeply rooted in American culture. Slaves were once ubiquitous. That changed. So must gun culture. We need to take the long view on this: not the 4/8 years of the presidential cycle, but 25, 50, 100, more.
It hasn't changed all THAT much in this country. http://www.kptv.com/story/21231752/man-accused-of-slapping-baby-on-plane-fired-from-job

Maybe if we provided better educations, better opportunities, etc., we'd get rid of a lot of violent crimes. Oh, yeah, and legalize and tax drugs.

Anyway, this is interesting: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-13/guns-dont-kill-people-gun-culture-does

Deepvoid

02-19-2013, 03:00 PM

I'm not sure if your guns = violence equation is accurate. There are plenty of rural areas in the US that have 10 guns to every person and there is pretty much no gun violence. If you can bother watching the video on firearm violence statistics that was posted in this thread I think you'd gain some insight into where this violence is happening and that isn't limited to the US.

How can you truly believe that if you remove all the guns from the equation you will have more violence.
Hypothetically, if there are 0 guns out there OF COURSE there will be less violence. There's no way you can convince me otherwise. It's utopia of course. But you can't tell me that if guns are non-existent it won't decrease violent crimes.

Deepvoid

02-19-2013, 03:02 PM

Tiz

02-19-2013, 03:13 PM

How can you truly believe that if you remove all the guns from the equation you will have more violence.
Hypothetically, if there are 0 guns out there OF COURSE there will be less violence. There's no way you can convince me otherwise. It's utopia of course. But you can't tell me that if guns are non-existent it won't decrease violent crimes.

The best possible solution is to be understand all the variables. And the only arguments I'm seeing are radical.
a.) Stricter gun control
b.) More guns
c.) Stopping bullets with Satyr's bleach-blonde sarcasm.

In reality, the United States, and guns are inseparable at this juncture. Guns have a tendency to benefit a situation, but also a tendency to backfire. I think the question we all need to be asking ourselves is: do we trust one another to responsibly conceal firearms? And how do we go about testing this, and mediating the process? Here's another inevitable scenario. Mediating the process more responsibly, and having more background checks will entail more State taxes.

So, theoretically, if we want to make our country as safe as possible -- we'll all have to pay more. Whilst in a crippling recession no less. I believe the problem is a compound issue involving the media's extreme portrayal of world events, and using negative hyperbole to yield ratings; and my country's obsession with drugging mental illnesses, as opposed to thoroughly treating an illness. That is due to Big Pharma paying out doctors, and psychiatrists to do their bidding.

So on a strictly superficial level that took all of 3 minutes, I believe the problem isn't just guns. And the answer will not boil down to one extreme answer, or another.

Satyr

02-19-2013, 04:03 PM

Satyr

02-19-2013, 04:22 PM

DigitalChaos

02-19-2013, 04:44 PM

If anyone can come up with a solution to the problem that doesn't start a second civil war or accomplish absolutely nothing other than making bureaucrats feel better....Let me know. I'll hold my breath.
It's been mentioned a few times in this thread: Go after poverty and education, mostly in urban areas. This assumes the problem is "gun violence" and not "mass shootings"

I still insist that the mass killings are such a rare occurrence that it is just plain irresponsible to invest time and resources into "fixing" them. Put it towards fixing more common problems.

Deepvoid

02-19-2013, 05:26 PM

It's hypothetically.
How many kids did that guy in China killed? I hear he injured over 20 but I don't recall a lot dead kids.

Are you saying that if you take the same scenario in which one perpetrator has a gun and the other one has a knife the end result will likely be the same?

Look, we could back and forth for days, but there's no doubt in my mind, and you can't convince otherwise that less gun = less violence. Sorry you just can't.

Satyr

02-19-2013, 09:44 PM

Look, we could back and forth for days, but there's no doubt in my mind, and you can't convince otherwise that less gun = less violence. Sorry you just can't.

My point is that people will shoot/hack/stab/slice/chop each other to pieces regardless of the tools they have to use.

Also I've said it once before. Making less guns is logistically impossible. It's the same as saying that less crazy people = less violence. It's the same as saying that less alcohol = less people killed in ETOH related car accidents. Sounds and feels great but has absolutely no grounds in reality.

If you ever have anything realistic and plausible to bring to the table let me know.

Satyr

02-19-2013, 09:55 PM

It's been mentioned a few times in this thread: Go after poverty and education, mostly in urban areas. This assumes the problem is "gun violence" and not "mass shootings"

I still insist that the mass killings are such a rare occurrence that it is just plain irresponsible to invest time and resources into "fixing" them. Put it towards fixing more common problems.

I would love to see someone go after poverty and education....mostly in urban areas. The prohibition of drugs along with the impoverished urban atmosphere seems to be one of the primary motivators in violence to me. The unfortunate truth is that the money is not there.

Jinsai

02-19-2013, 09:58 PM

I guess this sort of news goes in this thread? (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/shooting-spree-in-california.html?hp&_r=1&)

If anyone can come up with a solution to the problem that doesn't start a second civil war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ9wNT21c_s

Satyr

02-19-2013, 10:09 PM

I guess this sort of news goes in this thread? (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/shooting-spree-in-california.html?hp&_r=1&)

Can you direct me to the anti knife thread? I cannot find it. I've got a bunch of articles to post about how knives randomly attack people.

Also can you find me the thread on vehicular assault thread and the screwdriver assault thread? I've got articles about both of those too. Definitely got to ban screwdrivers and vehicles.

PS if you have a link to the hammer assault thread....I'd love a link.

Satyr

02-19-2013, 10:17 PM

I guess this sort of news goes in this thread? (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/shooting-spree-in-california.html?hp&_r=1&)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ9wNT21c_s

I'm contemplating considering your video that the entire internet has seen and raising you an internet cat video that nobody has seen....Because everyone knows that internet videos are a realistic end to gun violence.

Fixer808

02-19-2013, 10:20 PM

Can you direct me to the anti knife thread? I cannot find it. I've got a bunch of articles to post about how knives randomly attack people.

Also can you find me the thread on vehicular assault thread and the screwdriver assault thread? I've got articles about both of those too. Definitely got to ban screwdrivers and vehicles.

PS if you have a link to the hammer assault thread....I'd love a link.
Oh, well said, we haven't been through this debate before. Forgive him for posting a link to shootings in the "Gun Talk" thread. For fuck's sake, how many times does it need to be said? Cars and screwdrivers and (CERTAIN) knives (I'll give you that one) are NOT BUILT EXCLUSIVELY TO KILL.

I THOUGHT we were past that, but you obviously didn't get the fucking memo. Way to go with the obvious punchline.

PS WOAH you totally got us there with that hammer thing! We're on the ropes.
PPS Knives DON'T randomly attack people. People with knives randomly attack people. And likely have less kills than people with guns who randomly attack people.

Jinsai

02-19-2013, 10:21 PM

Can you direct me to the anti knife thread? I cannot find it. I've got a bunch of articles to post about how knives randomly attack people.

Are you for real? This thread was originally about the Sandy Hook school massacre, and it moved on to discuss guns in general, gun violence, and possible gun legislation, especially with regards to mental health. Linking to a story where another person has gone nuts and killed people with guns is obviously on topic, so give me a fucking break. Your "point" is ridiculous.

Satyr

02-19-2013, 10:25 PM

Are you for real? This thread was originally about the Sandy Hook school massacre, and it moved on to discuss guns in general, gun violence, and possible gun legislation, especially with regards to mental health. Linking to a story where another person has gone nuts and killed people with guns is obviously on topic, so give me a fucking break. Your "point" is ridiculous.

Well by all means, continue to post links to every news story in the entire world where someone is killed/injured by a firearm.

Satyr

02-19-2013, 10:28 PM

PS WOAH you totally got us there with that hammer thing! We're on the ropes.
PPS Knives DON'T randomly attack people. People with knives randomly attack people. And likely have less kills than people with guns who randomly attack people.

Edged/blunt weapons have killed more people in the history of man than projectile weapons. Prove otherwise. Also are you saying that knives should remain legal because its harder to kill a person with one?

Fixer808

02-19-2013, 10:31 PM

Oh for fuck's sake...

Jinsai

02-19-2013, 10:32 PM

Well by all means, continue to post links to every news story in the entire world where someone is killed/injured by a firearm.

That would be off topic because we're talking about America here, remember? It's the place that you're intimating is going to have a second civil war if our commie overlords take your guns away.

aggroculture

02-19-2013, 10:53 PM

Why are there still people trotting out the "knife" red herring in this thread? We've been over that fallacy a bunch of times already. Let it go, it's bad thinking, and a distraction.
"A gun...is a coward's weapon. A liar's weapon. We kill...too often...because we've made it easy...too easy...sparing ourselves the mess...and the work." (Frank Miller, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns).

Oh, and: racism=not slavery.

allegro

02-20-2013, 06:39 AM

Oh, and: racism=not slavery.

That's a complicated discussion in this country (it is a major in college) that will certainly drift this thread so lets avoid it, eh?

Well by all means, continue to post links to every news story in the entire world where someone is killed/injured by a firearm.
No that's deepvoid's job.

I don't think that "knife" is totally off-topic relative to the argument that mentally ill people use whatever is handy to do bad things. Not all guns are used or intended to kill people, either. However, knives are not protected by our Constitution. (Ok that was partially sarcastic but, really, there is no "gradual" change to be had re guns in this country. And, whomever said it in here was correct: we didn't emancipate slaves easily, either; that required a very bloody civil war. And then black people didn't get the federal right to vote until the 1960s.)

aggroculture

02-20-2013, 07:02 AM

Knife violence is certainly a problem in some parts - among kids in the UK, for example. We can certainly have a conversation about poverty/social alienation/anomie that underlies these acts of violence.
But making the point that anything can be used as a lethal weapon so let's ban that too creates a false equivalance. It also seems to forget that the use of knives is already heavily regulated by the law: http://pweb.netcom.com/~brlevine/sta-law.htm
It's a way of taking the focus off guns by using the misleading argument that anything can be a lethal weapon to the same degree, which is a falsehood.
It's intellectually dishonest because we all know that knives are not even in the same category when it comes to capacity to cause death.

Worth posting again: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html

Deepvoid

02-20-2013, 08:13 AM

My point is that people will shoot/hack/stab/slice/chop each other to pieces regardless of the tools they have to use.

Also I've said it once before. Making less guns is logistically impossible. It's the same as saying that less crazy people = less violence. It's the same as saying that less alcohol = less people killed in ETOH related car accidents. Sounds and feels great but has absolutely no grounds in reality.

If you ever have anything realistic and plausible to bring to the table let me know.

I said it was utopia and hypothetically. Should I define those words for you?
Doesn't mean that because it's utopia it isn't the truth.

Less guns = less violence.
Canada is a fine example.

I said I don't have solution because I don't think there is one. You don't have one either or at least I haven't seen you articulate one either.
I think you're situation is irreversible and you simply have to live with those shootings as something that is a normal occurrence.
Like IED is normal in Iraq. People get use to it.

Deepvoid

02-20-2013, 08:18 AM

No that's deepvoid's job.

Look, we got some pretty boring news coming out of Canada, so I have to get my entertainment from other countries. For some reason, you seem to be providing me with "la crème de la crème".
I'll go slightly off topic here but you provided the world with financial crash, you got people eating other people's face, weekly mass shootings (aka fascinating obsession with guns), Republicans, etc...
Makes for good discussions and debates. Good for brain stimulation and I can practice my English at the same time.

Satyr

02-20-2013, 09:18 AM

Look, we got some pretty boring news coming out of Canada, so I have to get my entertainment from other countries. For some reason, you seem to be providing me with "la crème de la crème".
I'll go slightly off topic here but you provided the world with financial crash, you got people eating other people's face, weekly mass shootings (aka fascinating obsession with guns), Republicans, etc...
Makes for good discussions and debates. Good for brain stimulation and I can practice my English at the same time.

Considering the population difference between the US and Canada....You guys have a fair amount of mass shootings. Also the guns used in them remain legal in your country.

Deepvoid

02-20-2013, 09:43 AM

To be precise in Quebec we had 4 mass shootings:

In 1984 Nation Assembly of Quebec Shooting: 3 killed, 13 injured
In 1989 the Polytechnique shooting: 15 killed (including shooter), 14 injured
In 1992 the Concordia University shooting: 4 killed, 1 injured
In 2006 Dawson College shooting: 2 killed (including shooter), 19 injured.

I can deal with 4 mass shootings in almost 30 years.

Quebec government will pass a bill that will require every gun owner to register their firearms. We have won our Court battle against the federal gov. (waiting Appeal ruling) to keep Quebec data from the Canadian registry (which has been abolished). There was already 1.6M guns registered in Quebec under the federal system most of them hunting riffles.

Crime with guns, domestic homicides with guns and murders with guns have all gone down in Quebec under the registry system.

On the other hand, Toronto has seen their gun seizure dropped by 40% since the registry was abolished.
When the registry was in place, 250 suicides have been reportedly averted across Canada.
Quebec's police officers were consulting the Canadian registry 700 times per day.

allegro

02-20-2013, 09:46 AM

But making the point that anything can be used as a lethal weapon so let's ban that too creates a false equivalance.
I didn't see anybody make that argument, though, sorry. That's a stupid argument, yes.

We can certainly have a conversation about poverty/social alienation/anomie that underlies these acts of violence.
Pretty much all of that applies to the gun violence in this country, as well. Add lack of adequate education, ghettoization, marginalization, etc.

aggroculture

02-20-2013, 09:56 AM

From the preceding page:

Removing all guns isn't a solution that is even close to being remotely on the table. It's about as likely to happen as removing all knives. I could pretty easily argue that if guns became unavailable that people would massacre people with edged/blunt weapons like the current trend in China.

The underlying thought here is that if you remove the guns, people will find other ways to kill each other: the fallacy is that they will do so in the same numbers.

Deepvoid

02-20-2013, 09:58 AM

allegro

02-20-2013, 10:40 AM

I think it's obvious that gun problem is a lot more complex than simple legislation banning high capacity magazines.
As both Allegro and Aggroculture mentioned, poverty, education marginalization play a roll in gun violence.

My question is simple, do you guys truly believe there can be a change in culture when it comes to guns?
Is the 2nd Amendment the gun's Achilles' heel ?
I believe that if we fix the underlying problems, our culture will become much less violent and with much less crime, yes. I think this will be a long road, but I do think we can get there. I think that a free, equal and educated population contributes to a more peaceful society, and that the 2nd Amendment can quietly co-exist with with a free, equal and educated population. Overall, the world is far less violent than it was, say, in the middle ages or even during Roman times. Civilization is a slow process, yes?

Deepvoid

02-20-2013, 10:48 AM

I completely agree with you. This is something you can't turn on a dime.

Satyr

02-20-2013, 02:26 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/20/columbine-survivor-pens-bold-open-letter-to-obama-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/

Columbine survivor open letter to President Obama.

allegro

02-20-2013, 02:57 PM

Satyr

02-20-2013, 03:55 PM

Meanwhile, here's a minute-by-minute first-hand account of what it was like at the NIU shooting. The instructor, Joe Peterson, is an old friend of one of our very good friends.

http://www.esquire.com/features/steven-kazmierczak-0808-8

Sounds pretty terrifying. Unfortunately nobody in that classroom had a legal right to defend their life.

Really really unfortunate.

Deepvoid

02-20-2013, 04:11 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/20/columbine-survivor-pens-bold-open-letter-to-obama-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/

Columbine survivor open letter to President Obama.

The letter, which speaks directly to the president, covers a number of key facets in the gun control debate. On universal background checks, Todd expresses his fears that “universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation.”

Universal confiscation?
Alex Jones follower?

Is there any significant signs that universal confiscation could happen or is in the work?
POTUS can't even pass an assault riffle ban through Congress and this guy is worried about universal confiscation? This is not serious..

allegro

02-20-2013, 04:35 PM

Sounds pretty terrifying. Unfortunately nobody in that classroom had a legal right to defend their life.
They all had the legal right to defend their lives.

I'm thinking of taking a Krav Maga class up the street.

Satyr

02-20-2013, 05:07 PM

They all had the legal right to defend their lives.

I'm thinking of taking a Krav Maga class up the street.

They didn't have the legal right to defend their lives. People died.

allegro

02-20-2013, 05:27 PM

They didn't have the legal right to defend their lives. People died.
Yes, people died. But they still had the "legal right" to defend their lives.

Are you in law?

Satyr

02-20-2013, 06:45 PM

Yes, people died. But they still had the "legal right" to defend their lives.

Are you in law?

No, I'm not in law....What did the victims in the massacre you posted have a right to defend themselves with....Against a madman with a 12 gauge shotgun and two handguns?

allegro

02-20-2013, 09:54 PM

"LEGALLY" they could have defended themselves in any way they wished. Gun, machete, krav maga, blow dart, whatever.

Many DID defend themselves. They hid; they played dead; they ran. That's why so many of them lived. No, none of them were carrying guns while attending college in the sleepy little town of DeKalb. Why would they?

The students and the professor were in shock and they weren't trained for these things. They didn't choose to, say, tackle the shooter (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=436861), for example.

Fixer808

02-20-2013, 10:29 PM

Exactly. It's a ridiculous statement to say they were legally bound to stand there and be shot. There were options available BUT there are always options available, given that the people in the situation are in the state of mind to employ them. How many people in a lecture hall would have been in the right state of mind to think "Okay, he's reloading his weapon, I'm 3 rows away, I think I have time to run that distance, jump onto the stage and somehow subdue him".

At the same time (I see your argument coming, satyr) how many people in same classroom would be able to pull their 1911 and accurately return fire on the shooter. And maybe 10 people in the room were carrying, and everyone starts firing blind, because they're surprised and panic. So many what ifs. And most of them assume Joe or Jane So And So are competent with a firearm and are able to keep their cool under fire.

Which, by the way, not even professional soldiers are always able to do.

DigitalChaos

02-21-2013, 12:11 AM

They were legally LIMITED in how they could defend themselves. They werent completely blocked, thats just crazy talk

DigitalChaos

02-21-2013, 12:43 AM

Meanwhile, the head of the national Gun Task Force was just on TV advising the negligent discharge of firearms. That's some fucked up shit Biden. In many states his advice will land you in jail.

Nevermind the bullshit about a shotgun being easier to aim. Nevermind the fact that he told his wife to completely empty her gun when trouble comes. Nevermind the fact that shotguns hold nearly the same weight projectiles as the AR-15, hold MORE of them, and dump them WAY faster. At least a shotgun IS a great home defense weapon. Double barrel (two shot) is dumb though, get a pump that holds 5-10 shells (each shell holding 9-15 pellets the size of an AR-15 .223 bullet).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_LEfNFMAys

allegro

02-21-2013, 09:06 AM

Shotgun has always been best defense, you don't have to aim as well, that shit SPRAYS. Biden is right. Still gotta go to the range though.

Also, in situations like the NIU shooting, no law enforcement officer or court would enforce any legal "limitation." Hell, the worst they do when you use an unregistered gun to justifiably shoot an intruder or assailant is confiscate your gun, BFD. That "legal limitation" stuff is crap, really.

DigitalChaos

02-21-2013, 10:00 AM

allegro

02-21-2013, 10:11 AM

No, a shotgun does not spray. No, it doesn't reduce your need to aim. Anyone who says that is full of shit. This is even more true when dealing with the distances most commonly found in home defense. Even if you use the common 1" spread per 1yd rule (that isn't true (http://rifleshooter.com/2013/01/defensive-shotgun-patterning-deconstructing-the-1-per-yard-myth/)) you are going to have a pattern of around 3-6" in most situations. That's a tighter pattern than most people's handgun skill.
It is easier to aim because it is a long barrel, just like an AR-15 would be. Dumping 9 to 15 chunks of .223 sized lead into your target each time you pull the trigger is the best aspect of a shotgun. It makes the whole "high capacity" thing look even more ridiculous.
Look, come on, dude, why are you arguing this with me when you know you are a total NEWB to this compared to me, I've been shooting wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy longer than you.

Ever HUNTED with a shotgun? Ever cleaned something that's been shot WITH a shotgun? Have you SHOT a shotgun?

Anyway ... An AR-15 is NEVER gonna be a US Supreme Court-supported form of home protection. Ever. Period. The Court has already made that perfectly clear.

DigitalChaos

02-21-2013, 12:22 PM

We are talking about hunting now? I thought we were talking about self defense. That's certainly what Biden was talking about.

And yea, I have shot a shotgun (as recent as 3 days ago) but using personal experience for something like this is both douchey and merely anecdotal. The fact that your personal experience contradicts almost every single testable resource demonstrates this. Also, you said yourself that you are in no way interested in using guns for self defense. How the lead spreads within the body is completely unrelated to this.

Minpin

02-21-2013, 12:22 PM

Digitalchaos i think you are being a little naive. No a shotgun doesn't spread like some movie-goers imagine, but it still spreads. I've been hunting and target shooting for 15 odd years (my first job at 12 was with a commonwealth gold medallist) and though I am confident with either handgun/shotgun/rifle, I know which I'd be hoping to hold when sprung unawares in my house in the dark (having never been confronted with the situation).

YES a shotgun does reduce your need to aim as opposed to a handgun. NO I am not full of shit. If only for the longer barrel (as you said??). Should also factor in the lower chance of accidental casualties from shot going through walls (as you've also alluded to??), you're aware of the different bore/gauge presumably?

'Most' peoples handgun skills. See this is what gets me about american gun laws as I understand them. You don't even have to demonstrate competency with the firearm you are purchasing right!? Are 'most' people as competent, even at the range, as you guess you would be under pressure? Regardless of confined space, allegro is right, ditch the range and go hunting and see your perspective change.

Ive steered clear of this thread because im aware the US is a unique case but I am pro-gun reform in at least the sense that you should be able to competently handle the gun you own. Am I right in my understanding that there isn't even a fucking mandatory safety course prior to getting a gun in the US? This alone is beyond retarded in my mind. This is the first "gun reform" you should be looking at.

Theres also the automatic hick response to gun reform - "they gunna take ma guns, and melt 'em down into drones to hunt me"... No you stupid hillbilly, they're going to make it harder to attain the gun. If you're still afraid of Obama, and your inbred genes havent completely fucked you up, you will keep your gun/be able to purchase more guns.

EDIT: posted at the same time, but I'll just say yes, hunting is closer to self defence than shooting targets at the range.

DigitalChaos

02-21-2013, 12:37 PM

Minpin

02-21-2013, 01:08 PM

Allegro's word was "spray." That's hollywood bullshit. A spread of 1" every 1yd is nowhere near a "spray." Do shotguns have a larger spread than I am saying, @Minpin (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=652) ?

Allegro also followed it up with "still gotta go to the range" so it is interesting that we now shift to hunting which is going to be quite a bit different.

edit: for the sake of argument, assume no choke (maximum spread).
Dude I 'spray' my tomatoes down with the hose on the single jet stream cos I'm a lazy fuck and can't be bothered walking down the path. It's semantics really, you know what she's saying.

I didn't disagree with your estimate did I? It's accurate. To be nitpicky there are numerous variables. Every shotguns different, everyone loads their shells differently.

Yes hunting is a fuckload different to going to the range. I'd imagine, if you have to shoot to save your life, hunting would be an essential. Is there any opportunity to hunt wildlife where you live? I'd definitely recommend it. I grew up in the country shooting rabbits, foxes and Roos. All pests. And I love eating rabbit.

Am I wrong that there is no safety courses prior to purchasing guns in America? Please tell me I am.

Deepvoid

02-21-2013, 01:41 PM

Am I wrong that there is no safety courses prior to purchasing guns in America? Please tell me I am.

You have to take a course if you want to be eligible for a concealed carry license.
No course required if you're buying a gun for home protection.

Minpin

02-21-2013, 01:50 PM

You have to take a course if you want to be eligible for a concealed carry license.
No course required if you're buying a gun for home protection.
Yeah as I thought. Fucked up.
id be hard pressed not to turn the gun on myself if I had to live in such a shithole that "concealed carry" was some reality.

DigitalChaos

02-21-2013, 02:16 PM

It depends on the state. Out here in CA you have to take a written test just to be allowed to buy a handgun. They also give you a basic instructional/safety demo with whatever gun you buy. It's a big step in the right direction but I wish they required some hands-on training at least once. That said, it didn't stop me from doing more. I research handguns for 8 months and took a half day intro class (with range time) before buying one.

As for hunting... I really don't enjoy killing. I'm ok with fishing but that's all I've ever cared to do. Maybe if I was living out in the middle of nowhere and actually needed to hunt for food. I'd much rather invest in self defense training. Rabbit and deer aren't going to be mounting surprise attacks on you or trying to break into your home while you aren't expecting them :P

allegro

02-21-2013, 02:59 PM

DigitalChaos: Re shotgun and my "range" comment: you should go the woods or the back 40 on your property or wherever suitable and PRACTICE in SOME way, not at paper targets but to learn how to handle the firearm, how it responds, how to load it, unload it, etc. Fumbling in a stressful situation to figure out how to aim and fire something when you've never done it before is not good idea.

Minpin: Thanks for joining the discussion! My cousin-in-law hunts with a bow and arrow. Now THAT is some serious shit!

No course required if you're buying a gun for home protection.
Not necessarily. As Digitalchaos said, it depends on the state, county, city. We have no Federal requirement. Yes, that's really dumb.

http://www.wbez.org/news/sitting-firearms-safety-class-105415

Deepvoid

02-21-2013, 04:35 PM

Not necessarily. As Digitalchaos said, it depends on the state, county, city. We have no Federal requirement. Yes, that's really dumb.

http://www.wbez.org/news/sitting-firearms-safety-class-105415

So this class is mandatory?

allegro

02-21-2013, 04:43 PM

So this class is mandatory?

Sometimes, yes. Depends on the city, county, state.

In Chicago, for instance, yes, required if you want a Chicago Firearms Permit ("CFP), see this (https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About%20CPD/Firearm%20Registration/Firearms%20News%20Release.pdf).
258

Deepvoid

02-21-2013, 06:01 PM

Wouldn't the first logical step be federal law having a mandatory safety class and shooting range test. You know like a driver's license but for guns?
You could use that test to perform the background check and some psychological test.
Would that go against the 2nd Amendment?

allegro

02-21-2013, 06:11 PM

A psych test would be an invasion of privacy, most likely.
Many gun advocates feel that universal background checks invade privacy, and that safety courses (and testing) hinder the 2nd Amendment.

DigitalChaos

02-21-2013, 06:32 PM

I really like the path CA is going with the prerequisites and think other states should do something similar. That said, it should still happen at the state level. Federal level just means it will probably be all kinds of broken, inefficient, poorly implemented, rapidly outdated/inflexible, etc.

Satyr

02-21-2013, 07:59 PM

Yeah as I thought. Fucked up.
id be hard pressed not to turn the gun on myself if I had to live in such a shithole that "concealed carry" was some reality.

Thats a pretty fucked up thing to say....Especially for someone who claims to be very familiar with firearms.

As far as the whole ideal firearm for home defense....It's purely a matter of opinion. I work in a trauma center and am trauma certified and I've seen a LOT of GSWs. I'm incredibly familiar with the terminal ballistics of different classes of firearms and ammunition. Also there is a huge difference between long guns and handguns. A 12 gauge shotgun is certainly a great choice for a home defense. The FN SLP is on my short list of firearms I'd like to purchase. That being said, the spread you'll get with an 18 inch barrel inside of a home (unless you're in a huge room) will not be much. You also have to consider how you're going to store a shotgun in a way that it will be easy to access as fast as possible.

Due to this my home defense (bedside gun) is a Sig P228R with a light on the rail. I keep this in my bed side drawer.

If I wanted to go with a "long gun", I'd probably buy a Steyr AUG or IMI Tavor (should hopefully become available to US civilians). This would be due to a decreased OAL (overall length) and superior capacity.

DigitalChaos

02-21-2013, 08:24 PM

Thats a pretty fucked up thing to say....Especially for someone who claims to be very familiar with firearms.

As far as the whole ideal firearm for home defense....It's purely a matter of opinion. I work in a trauma center and am trauma certified and I've seen a LOT of GSWs. I'm incredibly familiar with the terminal ballistics of different classes of firearms and ammunition. Also there is a huge difference between long guns and handguns. A 12 gauge shotgun is certainly a great choice for a home defense. The FN SLP is on my short list of firearms I'd like to purchase. That being said, the spread you'll get with an 18 inch barrel inside of a home (unless you're in a huge room) will not be much. You also have to consider how you're going to store a shotgun in a way that it will be easy to access as fast as possible.

Due to this my home defense (bedside gun) is a Sig P228R with a light on the rail. I keep this in my bed side drawer.

If I wanted to go with a "long gun", I'd probably buy a Steyr AUG or IMI Tavor (should hopefully become available to US civilians). This would be due to a decreased OAL (overall length) and superior capacity.

bullpup fan hey? I've always wanted to try one. They seem like a great way to get around the minimum barrel length limitations out here in CA.
Speaking of circumventing barrel length limitations... what do you think of the new MPX?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dMJQ-CFN4

allegro

02-21-2013, 08:25 PM

From the above link (http://www.wbez.org/news/sitting-firearms-safety-class-105415):

“What kind of gun should you buy? It depends on what you want it for,” said Mike Rioux, the owner and operator of Red Dot Arms in Lake Villa, Illinois.

Rioux is the teacher today. He’s a Canadian expatriate who’s been around firearms his whole life. He’s a licensed instructor and a passionate gun owner.

“My grandfather said to me when I was 12, if you can shoot this 12 gauge shotgun, it’s yours,” Rioux recalled.

He handled it well and so began a love affair.

Shotguns are what Rioux suggested for home safety and self-defense.

He said the bullets used for an AR-15, what some people believe is the best choice, will go through the room you’re in, the next room and into your neighbor’s house.

“It can go for miles and miles,” Rioux said.

That’s why Rioux says buckshots used in shotguns are the way to go.

“At this distance, it would make a huge hole in the drywall. You gotta know what’s beyond your target. If you’re in the house, use the smallest bb you’ve got,” Rioux recommended.

He started by explaining how different firearms work because he said it was important to practice regularly. Once a week at least, so it’s important to make sure you’re spending money on the right equipment and the right ammo, especially considering how expensive ammo was at the time of our interview.

On another note, I'd really like a TASER.