Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc. [Archive] - Page 9

Mantra

01-07-2016, 02:09 AM

You are in a high crime area that is created by factors way beyond the guns in the area. Guns aren't magic. They aren't going to suddenly fix a broken political/economic/social system. Freedom of speech is also an important to a "wonderful free society" yet its presence doesn't automatically create such a society.

I completely agree with this point about the larger systemic issues being the root of the problem (i.e: economics, the war on drugs bullshit, etc), but the funny thing is that that's a point I myself make whenever I hear stories about someone who successfully used a gun to defend themselves against a crime. Those stories routinely get passed around and romanticized within the gun community, and gun advocates like to imagine that they prove some dramatic point about the necessity to own a gun. But those kinds of anecdotal stories are ultimately pointless when you're looking at widespread societal problems. Guns will never defeat crime in any satisfying way; they can only stave it off in certain lucky moments. And sure, that's nice if you happen to be that special individual who scares off an intruder. But what has really changed in the community around you? At their very best, guns are nothing more than an unreliable band-aid, one which only applies on an extremely short-term, individualistic level. It does nothing to prevent future crimes from happening to you, let alone to all of society.

So gun ownership is just not a realistic way to contend with the crime in our country, and yet crime/personal defense continues to be one of the standard tropes used in pro-gun arguments. In the grand scheme of things, they contribute almost nothing of value.

ldopa

01-07-2016, 02:45 AM

gun ownership is VERY MUCH in an individual sense, most (not all) don't think of the grand scope of things.

edit: guns are fucking powerful. in every sense of the word. when you don't have the respect or intelligence of that power, shit gets bad. and americans focus on both sides equally. that's why gun control doesn't get resolved.

DigitalChaos

01-07-2016, 01:51 PM

I completely agree with this point about the larger systemic issues being the root of the problem (i.e: economics, the war on drugs bullshit, etc), but the funny thing is that that's a point I myself make whenever I hear stories about someone who successfully used a gun to defend themselves against a crime. Those stories routinely get passed around and romanticized within the gun community, and gun advocates like to imagine that they prove some dramatic point about the necessity to own a gun. But those kinds of anecdotal stories are ultimately pointless when you're looking at widespread societal problems. Guns will never defeat crime in any satisfying way; they can only stave it off in certain lucky moments. And sure, that's nice if you happen to be that special individual who scares off an intruder. But what has really changed in the community around you? At their very best, guns are nothing more than an unreliable band-aid, one which only applies on an extremely short-term, individualistic level. It does nothing to prevent future crimes from happening to you, let alone to all of society.

So gun ownership is just not a realistic way to contend with the crime in our country, and yet crime/personal defense continues to be one of the standard tropes used in pro-gun arguments. In the grand scheme of things, they contribute almost nothing of value.

I too argue that point with the stereotypically scared of everything conservatives. If they are afraid of crime, they should shift their politics to mitigate crime instead of just worrying about the last line of defense: guns. Though, I'm not sure how you take this line of thought and use it to support gun control.... because if you remove a lot of crime, you've also removed nearly all the justification that is used to justify gun control. Also, there are a lot more people who believe in guns as self defense who would also love to have things like the drug war ended. Go over to many of the urban areas and ask around. NPR did a great segment on Oakland a while back. There are extremely law abiding families who feel that it is an absolute necessity to own guns (purely for self defense) due to the crime they are surrounded in. Each person can list dozens of close friends and family who carry, despite it being illegal (thanks to some of the strictest gun control in the country). After all, guns are one of the greatest equalizers in many situations, as I think ldopa is pointing out.

DigitalChaos

01-07-2016, 07:26 PM

this is excellent.

http://defdist.tumblr.com/post/136843375949/gun-control-is-a-feeling

"This demand, for aesthetic reaction instead of political conclusion, is escapist"

this one made me laugh: "we’re telling you the way to fight gun culture is by making more people gun dealers" .. And sadly, that's one of the things Obama is saying.

Mantra

01-07-2016, 07:41 PM

Though, I'm not sure how you take this line of thought and use it to support gun control.... because if you remove a lot of crime, you've also removed nearly all the justification that is used to justify gun control.

Well, first of all, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on gun control at this point. I've generally always agreed with the concept in the abstract, and I guess I still do, but I currently wonder about it's practicality within this country. I haven't really come to any solid conclusions on the issue, at least in terms of what I think is a positive, yet realistic path forward. I'm still kind of processing it all. Stricter gun control should have been passed many years ago, back before the gun lobby had such a tight grip around the government's neck, back before we had saturated the country with so many guns that that there are now more guns that people. There's part of me that feels like it's just too late, we missed the boat, and now the mess is here and we have to figure out how mitigate the damage, deescalate the whole fucking situation, and try to change the culture and mentality around guns.

In an ideal world, I would happily support something like Australia's mandatory buy-back program from the 90s as a way to reduce the overall amount of guns in general circulation, but that's a pipe dream in the current political climate. The gun crowd went into frothing hysteria over the incredibly minor and meaningless executive actions that Obama announced this week. Christ, if they actually tried to institute something major like a mandatory buyback program, they'd probably burn this country to ashes. Especially that idiotic militia/anti-federalist crowd (re: the Oregon bullshit). That whole segment of our society is a fucking loose canon. If they got pissed off enough, who knows what kinda stupid bullshit would happen. Blood would run through the streets and they'd parade through our neighborhoods with baby heads on pikes.

So in the meantime, we have to work with the shitty circumstances we've got, which probably means trying to work around the problem in order to gradually erode the support for guns (hopefully).

Second of all, I don't believe that a reduction in crime would automatically result in a reduced demand for guns. Our crime rate has been steadily dropping ever since the 90s, especially our violent crimes. In particular, the murder rate hasn't been this low since the early 60s (you can see all of this on the FBI crime stats page, btw). And yet, despite this, our gun ownership rate has increased at a fucking astronomical rate. Why should I expect this to change, regardless of how low the crime gets? Most people don't buy guns because of any practical reason, and they don't know or care about the actual crime rates in the country (which, again, have plummeted). Sure, they constantly invoke the hypothetical threat of crime, but it's an incredibly small percentage of gun owners who end actually up using their weapons to fight crime. People buy guns because we've turned this into a big issue. There's a whole fucking culture around guns in this country. It's part of people's identity. It's a hobby, a passion, a crusade. And that's part of why this has become such a big problem. People can't just look at things rationally and objectively.

Also, there are a lot more people who believe in guns as self defense who would also love to have things like the drug war ended.

Really? Do you have some kind of research or support for this? I'm well aware of the libertarian crowd (like yourself) who opposes both gun control and the war on drugs, but my impression (not saying this is correct) has always been that this group is a bit of a smaller faction within the overall pro-gun crowd. Ending the war on drugs is generally a pretty left-wing position, while most conservatives (and pro gun advocates) support the war. Not saying that any of my impression here is based on anything more than my personal observations of things, but still...I'd be really fucking shocked to find out that the majority of pro-gun advocates also support ending the drug wars, so I'm curious to know where you're getting this.

DigitalChaos

01-07-2016, 11:53 PM

buy-back program

"missed the boat" is spot on and what others in this thread have said too.

A mandatory buy-back would be impossible to execute, even if it passed AND it didnt result in a rebellion. NY and CT recently had an experiment with that. They made specific guns illegal and required a surrender of the guns by a certain deadline. A few trickled in, but the deadline passed and hundreds of thousands of gun owners simply refused to let go of their guns. By law, every one of them is now committing a felony. Now both states need to figure out how they want to handle that... Imagine this situation in some of the states that are less friendly to gun control if it were applied nationally, and then to ALL guns.

edit: I think one of these might have been a mandatory registry (or both?) but the result was the same: felony defiance by hundreds of thousands.

Second of all, I don't believe that a reduction in crime would automatically result in a reduced demand for guns.

Oh I never said it would result in lower demand for guns or less presence of guns. I just said that it would result in the justification for gun control to heavily vanish. They won't be able to point to the huge "gun deaths" numbers if crime, one of the primary sources of that number, were to dramatically fall.

And you are right. Crime has been heavily and very steadily dropping for the last 20+ years. Sadly, perception of crime has not followed (I blame the media). http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/17/despite-lower-crime-rates-support-for-gun-rights-increases/ So, the desire for gun control would probably persist with portions of the current gun control supporters... but their justifications would be quite a bit more narrow. Without crime induced deaths, we'd have accidents (statistically small), spree shootings (insanely small risk), and suicides.

Really? Do you have some kind of research or support for this? I'm well aware of the libertarian crowd (like yourself) who opposes both gun control and the war on drugs, but my impression (not saying this is correct) has always been that this group is a bit of a smaller faction within the overall pro-gun crowd. Ending the war on drugs is generally a pretty left-wing position, while most conservatives (and pro gun advocates) support the war. Not saying that any of my impression here is based on anything more than my personal observations of things, but still...I'd be really fucking shocked to find out that the majority of pro-gun advocates also support ending the drug wars, so I'm curious to know where you're getting this.

They aren't as vocal, but there are a lot of democrats and left-leaning independents (that make up a chunk of Dem votes) who support gun rights. Blue Dog Democrats, etc. You can see evidence in it on most of the polls. This is the first thing that popped up on google (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm). It may be shit, but just as an example... While most Dems do support more gun control, 21% actually oppose it. 51% of independents oppose more gun control too. That's a lot of people. It really seems like Dems could destroy Repubs in the elections without even trying if they simply stopped pushing for gun control (and everyone actually believed it).

DigitalChaos

01-08-2016, 12:06 AM

Well, first of all, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on gun control at this point.
Totally. We are just having an interesting discussion based on pragmatic approaches and theoretical futures. :) My personal views on gun rights match my views on speech and privacy rights. I'll find any way possible to resist and undermine the efforts to infringe on those rights. Im very interested in finding solid solutions through mechanisms that don't impede on freedom though.

But that's my view of what SHOULD happen. I'll gladly step outside of the morality approach to discuss a theoretical approach of what COULD happen. Honestly, that's the approach most of our historical political attempts have ignored and/or handled very poorly.

bobbie solo

01-09-2016, 12:19 AM

sadly, until we have publicly financed elections (campaign finance reform....meaning that no one can donate to candidates anymore, which would hopefully destroy or drastically reduce the special interest/lobbyist power influence on our gov't), all of the major problems facing our country will not go away. If you ever want to hope for meaningful gun reform, prison reform, a stop to the military-industrial complex, etc, then we all need to support organizations like Wolf-PAC, Mayday PAC, etc.

It frustrates me to see such intelligent, fair debate from both sides on here. B/c none of it matters until our representatives will vote based on their actual views/what their constituents want. Other than the small groups of honest actors on both sides of the fence in Congress, the VAST majority of both nat'l and state representatives vote completely based on what their donors want. This fraud needs to be stopped, but we are a long ways away.

DigitalChaos

01-09-2016, 02:00 PM

publicly financed elections

I am *so* down for that. I've been ranting about this for ages and looking at various aspects of it. The Sanders situation seems to have given some extra life into the movement. I hope it lasts. Seeing Debbie Wasserman Schultz (head of DNC) get challenged gives me some hope. Meanwhile, watching Lawrence Lessig (of Wolf PAC) get pushed out of the election was bullshit.

But to loop this back to guns and gun control... I honestly believe that gun control would be further halted if we went toward public financing for elections. Meanwhile, the beneficial things would actually get traction (reducing the drug war, mental healthcare, etc). The NRA frequently gets held up as a strawman for "evil big money keeping guns on the streets" but it's not if you actually examine things. The big money is almost primarily in the support for gun control.

DigitalChaos

01-13-2016, 12:03 PM

This video was posted yesterday. This is not a unique situation, but the video is getting some attention.

A lot of people assume gay people are anti-gun because "democrat" but the reality is this: it's easier to hide my guns than my spouse. Luckily, we are moving away from forcing people to make that sacrifice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNvWGIyC46s

elevenism - something for you to think about when your stance on gun control is influenced by your personal comfort

elevenism

01-14-2016, 12:07 PM

@elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475) - something for you to think about when your stance on gun control is influenced by your personal comfort

i don't think i've ever quite articulated my stance on gun control here, other than saying i don't like the open carry law in texas.

Hell, i live out in the country in the house my grandparents built. You can bet that we've got guns. Now that i think about it, we've got a couple that are older than me. (not that i have personally ever fucked with them. my mom and my wife are a different story though)
I'm not "anti-gun."
I'm pro background check and think that the open carry policy here is fucking insane.

Deepvoid

01-14-2016, 01:41 PM

sick among the pure

01-14-2016, 03:42 PM

A lot of people assume gay people are anti-gun because "democrat"

I always thought that association was silly, I'm a gay democrat who is far from anti-gun. There are plenty of democrats who own and enjoy their firearms. We're just safe, responsible gun owners, so we don't get the recognition that bat-shit insane "ammosexuals" do.

ldopa

01-18-2016, 11:03 AM

i don't think i've ever quite articulated my stance on gun control here, other than saying i don't like the open carry law in texas.

Hell, i live out in the country in the house my grandparents built. You can bet that we've got guns. Now that i think about it, we've got a couple that are older than me. (not that i have personally ever fucked with them. my mom and my wife are a different story though)
I'm not "anti-gun."
I'm pro background check and think that the open carry policy here is fucking insane.

nothing wrong with that! but what is the gun related murder rate in your parts and surrounding areas? i'm willing to bet it's pretty low. also are gangs prevalent?

DigitalChaos

01-18-2016, 09:36 PM

I always thought that association was silly, I'm a gay democrat who is far from anti-gun. There are plenty of democrats who own and enjoy their firearms. We're just safe, responsible gun owners, so we don't get the recognition that bat-shit insane "ammosexuals" do.
It's awesome to see this, thank you for that. We (San Francisco area) has quite a lot of stories in this realm. Chris Cheng is a local who is gay but also is heavily into the gun community. He made it to the top of national sport shooting events (including TV shows). His adamant support of the NRA is one of the many reasons I've started rethinking my opposition to the organization.

elevenism

01-19-2016, 05:27 AM

nothing wrong with that! but what is the gun related murder rate in your parts and surrounding areas? i'm willing to bet it's pretty low. also are gangs prevalent?
oh man, not in the tiny town where i live, although violent crimes are strangely prevalent in the mid sized west texas cities like lubbock and amarillo (the number 2 and number 6 most dangerous cities in texas according to the fbi)

BUT...i have spent most of my 35 years in the triple D, dirty dirty dallas. It's pretty fucking rough and tumble. And i could never seem to afford a car, so i rode the trains and buses which causes you to rub shoulders with some pretty unsavory cats. Get on a train in dallas and you find a sea of red and blue-youngsters, mostly. hell, now that i think about it, one of my very closest friends that i've ever had is gangster disciple/folks nation.

But i wouldn't want people carrying guns openly there either, man, if that's where you're going with this.

For one thing, and this may sound silly, but for me it's out of sight, out of mind. I ASSUME people are carrying guns if i'm in east dallas, but i don't worry about it. But if i was walking down the street and saw people with guns, it would scare the shit out of me. Now that's just me-that's about my FEELINGS. The physical reality part of it that bothers me is that i'm afraid that people with guns ready to pull like it's the wild west will be way more apt to use them than someone who has his gun under his clothes.

sick among the pure

01-19-2016, 01:24 PM

oh man, not in the tiny town where i live, although violent crimes are strangely prevalent in the mid sized west texas cities like lubbock and amarillo (the number 2 and number 6 most dangerous cities in texas according to the fbi)

BUT...i have spent most of my 35 years in the triple D, dirty dirty dallas. It's pretty fucking rough and tumble. And i could never seem to afford a car, so i rode the trains and buses which causes you to rub shoulders with some pretty unsavory cats. Get on a train in dallas and you find a sea of red and blue-youngsters, mostly. hell, now that i think about it, one of my very closest friends that i've ever had is gangster disciple/folks nation.

But i wouldn't want people carrying guns openly there either, man, if that's where you're going with this.

For one thing, and this may sound silly, but for me it's out of sight, out of mind. I ASSUME people are carrying guns if i'm in east dallas, but i don't worry about it. But if i was walking down the street and saw people with guns, it would scare the shit out of me. Now that's just me-that's about my FEELINGS. The physical reality part of it that bothers me is that i'm afraid that people with guns ready to pull like it's the wild west will be way more apt to use them than someone who has his gun under his clothes.

See, I have never understood why we need open-carry for everything from pistols to rifles. Carry conceal makes sense. You have your firearm on you in case of emergency, you can pull it out and defend yourself/others from attack. But openly walking around with an AR-15 across your chest with your hand on the grip is literally just a visual version of "come at me, bro!".
I plan on getting my NY carry-conceal once I have a more steady income (mostly because that is the only way you can legally purchase or handle a pistol in NY state, you have to go through the very thorough FBI background check for carry-conceal).
And sure, I would love to have an AR-15, or an AK-47 (if I had the money), to target shoot. Not to walk to the local Chipotle.
If anyone here is for open-carry, can you please explain it to me?

allegro

01-19-2016, 01:39 PM

also are gangs prevalent?
Hey, lookee, here in Chicago, we have an interactive street gang locator map (http://www.wbez.org/node/102612#gangmap).

elevenism

01-19-2016, 03:19 PM

See, I have never understood why we need open-carry for everything from pistols to rifles. Carry conceal makes sense. You have your firearm on you in case of emergency, you can pull it out and defend yourself/others from attack. But openly walking around with an AR-15 across your chest with your hand on the grip is literally just a visual version of "come at me, bro!".
I plan on getting my NY carry-conceal once I have a more steady income (mostly because that is the only way you can legally purchase or handle a pistol in NY state, you have to go through the very thorough FBI background check for carry-conceal).
And sure, I would love to have an AR-15, or an AK-47 (if I had the money), to target shoot. Not to walk to the local Chipotle.
If anyone here is for open-carry, can you please explain it to me?

Amen, sick among the pure . And i was gonna mention you and talk about it in my last post, but it was getting too long.
Open carry is now legal in texas. I immediately had visions of walking into a bar where everybody had 2 guns on their hips, like the wild west.
Establishments can post a "no open carry allowed" sign on the door, thank god, and texas sign makers are overwhelmed with orders. So at least that.

Also, as far as the whole "democrat = anti-gun" thing, my wife and i were JUST talking about that before i read your post.
I'm a yellow dog dem, but we're reaching a point where "the blue pill" is kind of hard to swallow. Now i'm DAMN sure not going to turn republican by any means. But there are things that go along with being left wing that no longer agree with.

The solution to all of this is a topic for another thread, however.

Dr Channard

01-19-2016, 03:58 PM

"He scared me!" the distraught father said in his 911 call. "I thought he was in school. I heard noise, so I went downstairs looking and he jumped out at me. .... Oh, God. Get here quick!"

Ohio man kills 14-year-old son. (http://abc7chicago.com/news/police-man-mistakes-teen-son-for-intruder-kills-him/1155931/)

So that's that ...

That’s awful.

My brother has guns in his house. Once I had gone over to drop-off some stuff in his basement while he was sleeping. Of course he awakens to the sounds of me banging stuff around in his basement, and as I hear the sound of his feet talking across the floorboards above me towards my direction, I quickly call out “it’s me, don’t shoot me!” knowing he likely had a gun in tow and wouldn’t hesitate to fire at an intruder. He said that saved me from probably being shot that night.

DigitalChaos

01-19-2016, 03:59 PM

If anyone here is for open-carry, can you please explain it to me?
I don't have the option to open or conceal carry thanks to the wonders of SF bay area... but the general support behind open carry is:
- visual/psychological deterrent to crime and altercations. It's the same reason almost every security camera is visible instead of hidden.
- Faster draw. And a less awkward/complicated draw.
- more comfortable (and quite a bit cheaper to find a comfortable holster compared to CCW)
- you can carry a larger (and thus more accurate) gun
- people get used to seeing guns and don't have this extreme emotional response
- some police argue that OC allows them more safety since they can quickly detect if the person has a weapon

Negative:
- you lose the element of surprise
- you make yourself a target for bad attention (police, citizens, etc) in areas that are not gun friendly

You also have to check your own preconceived opinions of the two types. Many states only allow one or the other. So, you'll get activists using whatever they have to make a statement. That was the case in California for a while when Open Carry was the only option for most people. Now that is gone too (and probably going to the Supreme Court as you can't ban both without infringing on the 2nd amendment).

elevenism - i'm not sure where you get this idea that suddenly various crime will climb... unless the open carry change allows more people to carry a gun who previously weren't? There is basically no difference in that kind of impact if you were to suddenly switch every CCW person to OC.

ldopa

01-20-2016, 12:13 AM

But openly walking around with an AR-15 across your chest with your hand on the grip is literally just a visual version of "come at me, bro!".

who's really doing that, though?

@elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475) out of sight / mind equals less reaction time for all involved. your head is turned and you hear a loud ass noise, then hysteria.
you see a gun: you can decide whether or not to be in the vicinity.

elevenism

01-20-2016, 08:35 AM

@elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475) out of sight / mind equals less reaction time for all involved. your head is turned and you hear a loud ass noise, then hysteria.
you see a gun: you can decide whether or not to be in the vicinity.

im just talking about the way my mind works.
seeing people with guns just makes me fucking nervous.

sick among the pure

01-20-2016, 07:11 PM

who's really doing that, though?

Since I don't live in an open-carry state, I can only go off what information I can find via internet.
If you google image search "open carry" more than half the images are of rifles. Not to mention the articles when people started literally going to coffee shops and restaurants with rifles across their chest because open carry is legal where they live.
LIke I said, I am 100% for open or concealed carry for handguns for protection. But beyond looking tough and, honestly, looking somewhat like you're trying to start shit, why go grab your morning coffee with a rifle across your chest?

DigitalChaos

01-20-2016, 08:23 PM

If you google image search "open carry" more than half the images are of rifles.
That's almost certainly activists doing it and probably in a state that only allows rifles being for open carry while handguns being banned. That was the case in California. When a state gets this restrictive, it also forces more activists out of the woodwork. So its this perfect storm situation for most of those images.

FWIW, they get TONS of shit from advocates of responsible concealed carry and even open carry. The activists frequently "pose" for pictures with extremely irresponsible things happening... hands on the grip (you don't do this unless you are about to use a gun, its easily "brandishing" in most situations), having the muzzle pointed in unsafe directions, etc etc. There is also the debate over the political reality of any effectivity behind open carry advocacy, even if it is done safely.

Here is probably the most shared image in those circles:
http://i.imgur.com/R3sQbdB.jpg

Another thing I forgot to mention about open carry. There is a common belief that open carry makes it easier for someone to walk up and steal the gun. There are actually lots of holsters that make take-aways very difficult. Lots of different latching mechanisms are built into many holsters now. It's pretty neat.
For the record, I'm not personally advocating open carry over concealed. I'm not even sure which I would prefer. I'm just conveying the info I have.

Deepvoid

01-22-2016, 02:52 PM

elevenism This news made me think of you.

Moviegoer critically wounded after drunk's gun fires during "13 hours" Benghazi film. (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/moviegoer-critically-wounded-after-drunks-gun-fires-during-13-hours-benghazi-film/comments/#disqus)

"Washington woman was critically injured after being shot in the chest when a man fumbled with his gun during a showing of the Benghazi movie “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi,”

2nd Amendment: Unlimited supply of absurd gun-related news.
It will be 2150, we'll all be dead but you know someone will still get accidentally shot by some idiot while doing the groceries.
The next day, a boy will accidentally kill his sister using his dad's gun, which was left unsecured.
I tell you ... unlimited new stories until the end of time.

elevenism

01-22-2016, 05:50 PM

@elevenism (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=2475) This news made me think of you.

Moviegoer critically wounded after drunk's gun fires during "13 hours" Benghazi film. (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/moviegoer-critically-wounded-after-drunks-gun-fires-during-13-hours-benghazi-film/comments/#disqus)

"Washington woman was critically injured after being shot in the chest when a man fumbled with his gun during a showing of the Benghazi movie “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi,”

2nd Amendment: Unlimited supply of absurd gun-related news.
It will be 2150, we'll all be dead but you know someone will still get accidentally shot by some idiot while doing the groceries.
The next day, a boy will accidentally kill his sister using his dad's gun, which was left unsecured.
I tell you ... unlimited new stories until the end of time.Oh, the fucking irony. These kind of stories are funny to me in some twisted way.

also... @ldopa (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=5203) . Shit like that.

also, did you guys already talk about this? http://jezebel.com/university-of-texas-students-protest-open-carry-law-by-1736025107

UT students carried dildos openly (which ISN'T okay) to protest the school's open carry policy back in august.
Fucking brilliant, i tell you.

DigitalChaos

01-22-2016, 05:54 PM

how do the chances of a drunk asshole fiddling around with an unholstered gun change if they are carrying due to open carry allowances vs concealed carry?

elevenism

01-22-2016, 05:58 PM

how do the chances of a drunk asshole fiddling around with an unholstered gun change if they are carrying due to open carry allowances vs concealed carry?
oh hell, i don't know man. i'm not as serious about this shit as you are.
i think that someone is more APT to fuck drunkenly with a gun that's on his hip than one that's under his clothes.

ldopa

01-22-2016, 06:13 PM

because of easier access or reaction time?
if you're drunk, and feel like you need your gun to come out, a layer a fabric makes no difference. they know their gun is there no matter what.

DigitalChaos

01-22-2016, 07:43 PM

allegro

01-22-2016, 10:12 PM

and it's not like he was "oh shit its an emergency i need my gun" it was a "lets fondle it until it drops on the floor" like some Pee Wee Herman in the movie theater shit.

I'm just pointing out that "Oh no, TX allows open carry (on top of the existing concealed carry is going to cause so many problems" doesn't really hold up.

Isn't open carry legal in, like, 28 states? It really hasn't caused any problems in those states. If you're in Walmart and have your shotgun strung across the shopping cart, that sends a message: "Don't fuck with me, criminal asshole." If your gun is hidden, and you're rolled in the parking lot, now nobody knows who has a gun and then there's a fucking shootout by concealed guns. These gangbanger have concealed guns and nobody knows who's "packin'."

I actually like the idea of open carry BETTER than concealed carry (with concealed carry ILLEGAL unless you have a special permit, like if you're secret service or something), e.g. if you have a gun, it must be open and visible and not hidden and if it's hidden, it's illegal.

If you're drunk and fucking with a GUN, it don't matter if it's on your hip or on a counter, you're gonna be just as fucking stupid with a gun. And, really, those aren't the people that these gun laws are concerned about, because that usually ends up with the drunk shooting himself = natural selection.

ldopa

01-23-2016, 12:33 AM

or the drunk shoots at the sky and is nabbed for curfew / noise pollution or disturbing the peace. which if they have no priors, shouldn't be a problem.

social darwinism rules all. if you're not meant to have a gun, someone or something will let you know.

guns are used for celebration, mourning, and revenge all the same. that counts for something.

DigitalChaos

01-23-2016, 01:33 AM

marodi

01-23-2016, 12:35 PM

School shooting in Canada. At least 4 dead and more injured.

Honest question: does Canada immediately start talking about gun control when stuff like this happens or is that primarily a US thing?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/5-dead-2-critically-injured-in-sask-school-shooting-trudeau-says-1.2748447

I laughed at the question. I really really did. Not at the tragedy. But the question.

I don't know if you realize it but the last time stuff like this happened in Canada wasn't 2 days ago; not even 2 weeks ago. Not even last year. The last mass shooting in Canada happened on December 29, 2014.

But in a way yes, we do. The prime minister added that the question now is how to prevent such tragedies from reoccurring. (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/23/la-loche-shooting-casts-shadow-over-trudeau-talks-at-world-economic-forum_n_9058496.html)

We don't do mass shooting on a regular basis in Canada.

The fact that you honestly asked the question in the first place tells me, in a way, that you honestly don't understand that guns (and all things related) are a US thing indeed.

DigitalChaos

01-23-2016, 12:52 PM

Not sure what your point is. Canada has like 10% the population of the US. Even if all other factors were equal (they aren't), you'd expect 1/10th the number of incidents.

I'm just curious about the public response. It seems Canadians are much less prone to turning any shooting into a push for gun restrictions. Maybe it's a collective inability to understand risk or a better understanding. Maybe killings only matter if it's by a gun. Maybe it's a less manipulative and selfish culture that uses incidents for their political motives, or something else.

marodi

01-23-2016, 01:16 PM

Let me try again with less sarcasm.

We already have severe gun control laws so our first instinct is to wonder why this happened, not that it happened with a gun. Yes we will look at the laws again to see if something can be done to make them "better", meaning that if different laws could have prevented it but it's not the first thing that comes to mind. The police will look first for a motive, then they will look at how the shooter came into possession of the gun.

We can own guns but we're not "obsessed" by it. Unless we're hunters or we practice a sport that requires a gun, we just don't see why we should have one. Gun control issue comes into the political arena from time to time but it's not the same as in the US.

Our cultures are completely different from one another on that issue and that's why we'll never see eye to eye on it.

Dr Channard

01-23-2016, 02:18 PM

DigitalChaos

01-23-2016, 07:27 PM

See, now the above 2 replies are valuable. I'm asking for the sake of asking and gathering opinions, not cause I don't already have an opinion. You gotta be nuts to read any page of this thread and think I don't have an opinion on most aspects of gun topics :p

DigitalChaos

01-25-2016, 12:05 PM

or the drunk shoots at the sky and is nabbed for curfew / noise pollution or disturbing the peace. which if they have no priors, shouldn't be a problem.

its a misdemeanor or even felony in some US states. And honestly, it should be. Shooting a gun into the air is incredibly irresponsible and just plain unsafe if you are anywhere close to a populated area.

ldopa

01-25-2016, 12:55 PM

on new year's eve in the fields is fun though. (i didn't mean to imply that i advocate shooting in the 'burbs! though it sorta looked like that.)

even in a low / non populated area it's dangerous. just ask dick cheney and hunter thompson!

DigitalChaos

03-09-2016, 07:38 PM

This video recently came out of Keanu Reeves doing some really impressive training for his role in John Wick. He did lots of martial arts training too, but... gun thread.

FYI - This is considered "3 gun competition" and is one of the many skill based competitions you can find in the firearms community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpr8oqyjKIc

DigitalChaos

03-14-2016, 11:56 AM

For anyone curious what the future of gun control is going to have to think about, this is what it looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQjCzvav5_Q

GulDukat

05-23-2016, 08:20 PM

Great idea.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDb0Dn8OXE

DigitalChaos

06-07-2016, 02:25 AM

So, Cody Wilson (the 3D gun guy) finally is getting to the good stuff with his lawsuit against the State Department. Today he had the oral argument in the 5th Circuit and immediately posted an audio recording.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/15/15-50759_6-6-2016.mp3

I can't believe how entertaining that was to listen to. The judge(?) completely tore into the guy representing the State Department. Based on this recording, it seems like the First Amendment will prevail here. allegro - I feel like this would be of interest to you both due to the entertainment value and the very unique first amendment scenario that supports a very heavy second amendment application.

For people who don't know who this guy is or what I'm talking about, The Guardian recently published this ridiculous but hilarious article about him after meeting him.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/06/cody-wilson-3d-guns-printing-firearms-lower-receivers

Deepvoid

06-15-2016, 10:14 AM

Trump tweeted this morning:

"I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."

Holy shit! Gun control talk from the Republican nominee.
Also, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson came out in favor of reinstating the assault weapon ban. O'Reilly said it was too easy to obtain "high-powered weaponry" in America.

What's happening??

DigitalChaos

06-15-2016, 01:10 PM

The trump tweet is probably better in the election thread. It's not specific and seems to easily come with a truncated "whether or not it's a good idea to" in there, at least until he says otherwise.

As for the Fox talking heads... yup. They got scared. TEH MOOSLIMS. 9/11 type mentality.

allegro

06-15-2016, 01:12 PM

DigitalChaos

06-15-2016, 01:16 PM

Great idea.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDb0Dn8OXE
you may not like the idea, but its something you'll have to figure out how to deal with. welcome to the future.

Jinsai

06-16-2016, 05:20 PM

so now West Hollywood has been plastered with rainbow flag versions of the Gadsden flag, with the words "shoot back" at the bottom (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-weho-shootback-rainbow-20160616-snap-story.html)

I wonder how many of the people involved in this campaign "totally have gay friends."

First of all, it's pretty crass to push back against a call for gun reform by feigning sympathetic solidarity with a community recently devastated by gun violence.

Maybe I'm wrong though, and maybe this really was put together by pink pistols or something.

Either way, it doesn't make sense. Getting a concealed carry permit in California is next to impossible. If we're talking about Florida, even if you have a CCW you cannot conceal-carry into a bar, so this option to "shoot back" is nonsense.

thelastdisciple

06-16-2016, 05:50 PM

Every Gun Control Opponent Should Read This Assault Rifle Owner's Response To The Orlando Shooting (http://perezhilton.com/2016-06-16-orlando-shooting-gun-control-opponent-assault-rifle-owner-response-facebook-post)

"On Wednesday, Army vet Brandyn Wayne took to Facebook to call out gun control critics in the wake of the horrific nightclub shooting in Orlando that claimed the lives of 49 people and injured many others."...(see link for more)

DigitalChaos

06-17-2016, 01:36 AM

so now West Hollywood has been plastered with rainbow flag versions of the Gadsden flag, with the words "shoot back" at the bottom (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-weho-shootback-rainbow-20160616-snap-story.html)

Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting (http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/)

Also, Pink Pistol's membership has more than doubled this week.

Jinsai

06-17-2016, 08:31 AM

Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting (http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/)

Also, Pink Pistol's membership has more than doubled this week.

That's to be expected. What I don't believe is that PP had anything to do with that shitty campaign. I'm not going to bother delving into how stupid that article is... did they start asking people's sexual orientation as a part of the background check? Come on, you generally seem more cynical than this.

You're still not addressing any of the points I was making about how "shooting back" wasn't an option, and how that bullshit was pretty blatantly an appeal from people who are primarily a LOT more interested in guns than they are in gay civil rights.

DigitalChaos

06-17-2016, 10:26 AM

That's to be expected. What I don't believe is that PP had anything to do with that shitty campaign. I'm not going to bother delving into how stupid that article is... did they start asking people's sexual orientation as a part of the background check? Come on, you generally seem more cynical than this.

believe it or not, most sellers learn a lot about the person buying. What they want it for, why, etc. Many buyers are extremely forward about why they are there, especially if it's due to a recent political or emotional urge. Add in the people who are outwardly gay, and its not hard for sellers to notice a variance in their buyer demographics. And if Pink Pistols saw membership double, do you really think it wouldn't translate into gun purchases?

You're still not addressing any of the points I was making about how "shooting back" wasn't an option, and how that bullshit was pretty blatantly an appeal from people who are primarily a LOT more interested in guns than they are in gay civil rights.

It's a hashtag that delivered a specific enough meaning. How I read it: Push for the changes needed that allow you to better defend yourself in these situations. Arm yourself for situations that aren't in gun free zones (even though it's almost always gun free zones). Possibly even disregard the law, because when you are trapped in a club for 3 hours with a shooter would you rather face a felony by pulling out your ankle-carried gun ...or die?

DigitalChaos

06-17-2016, 10:31 AM

Jinsai

06-17-2016, 11:13 AM

believe it or not, most sellers learn a lot about the person buying. What they want it for, why, etc. Many buyers are extremely forward about why they are there, especially if it's due to a recent political or emotional urge. Add in the people who are outwardly gay, and its not hard for sellers to notice a variance in their buyer demographics.

Come on man. Every now and again, I notice that you like to push an argument just for the sake of it. You have to know this isn't how statistics work. I'm down for arguing for arguing sake every now and again, but let's not get ridiculous.

And if Pink Pistols saw membership double, do you really think it wouldn't translate into gun purchases?

Membership doesn't equate to actually purchasing. You have to know there's gay people out there who own guns who weren't previously registered members of Pink Pistols right? You also have to know that there's people signing up now as a gesture but not actually buying in, right? Also, you have to know that there's probably a large push from people who aren't actually gay joining the organization in a gesture of solidarity now (and we don't need to get into whether or not they're being genuine).

DigitalChaos

06-17-2016, 11:16 AM

It's not a statistic. It's a perceived change as noted by sellers.

Yes, there are plenty who are simply signing up as well. It's not like 100% of sign ups are correlating to a purchase.

Jinsai

06-17-2016, 11:24 AM

the statement "sales are up" tends to relate to a statistical observation... if we're going by what Fox News is compiling about what gun owners are telling their intrepid reporters based on anecdotal stuff without statistical data to back it up... well...

Either way, like I said, I expect a lot of gay people to buy guns right now. I bet a lot of "all people" are buying guns right now.

DigitalChaos

06-17-2016, 12:24 PM

I agree on all points.

I would be confident enough to bet money on the LGBT purchase spike to be, comparatively, higher than the average spike in purchases. Sadly, the majority of gun buys in these situations is in direct response to the gun control push. It happens out here in CA all the time even without a mass shooting. The sales of AR-15 related items has been pretty extreme for the last few weeks because of some legislation that is being pushed against them. This happens whenever there is a perceived chance of a resource being constrained or halted. Doesn't matter if it's twinkies, gasoline, guns, etc.

Jinsai

06-17-2016, 12:27 PM

Also, have you seen this newly released video of the Seattle school shooting? A single courageous person stopped the shooter with pepper spray and a tackle. It's a pretty illuminating video, in general, on the topic of shootings like this. Every single person in the video acts in extremely unexpected ways. That alone is disorienting. Add in the insane adrenaline rush of being present in that situation and it gets even worse. That's how these things play out.

It's really unfortunate that a club with over 300 people in it didn't go after the single shooter after being trapped in there with him for 3 hours while police tried to figure out what to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGBiib9qBg

That's crazy... the video I mean. He shot her with a shotgun at that close range and... something about her reaction is really surreal and disturbing. That's not what I guess you expect to see happen when someone is shot at close range with a shotgun.

Regarding your other point... about how a club with 300 people and nobody did anything to stop it... I'm 99.5% sure you don't mean it any way similar to how I overheard someone basically joking about the orlando shooting last night, but it was one of the most insensitive and shitty bigoted things I've ever heard... to be honest, I don't want to repeat it, but I couldn't imagine the terror I'd feel if I was in a packed, loud night club and some insane guy started shooting people, laughing and smiling while he did it. I couldn't dare imply that I would have the courage to try to take him down. Earlier I watched the video clip of the survivors inside the club, hiding in the bathroom, and you can feel the terror and despair. It's fucking horrifying.

DigitalChaos

06-17-2016, 01:01 PM

Yeah, the whole thing is very different than what most people have come to expect from what they visualize in their heads and what they see in movies. She ended up surviving after a very close hit from a fucking 12ga shotgun! That considered to have the largest amount of stopping power. That's like getting hit with 9 rounds from the typical AR-15. Apparently, the shooter said "I don't want to have to hurt you" and she just laughed and kept walking toward him. The two people he shot outside before this video did not survive.

Nobody can know how they will ever respond in any emergency situation unless they intentionally put themselves in an equally stressful situation as part of training. That video, even with the very few people in it, is still a good example of that. Beyond training, every person has an inherent response that triggers in emergencies. Some run, some lock up, and some fight for their life. In a crowd of 300+, its very likely that you will have some fighters. In a crowd of victims, you'll also have people who follow what others are doing, be it running or fighting. Not everyone is going to have the response required to diffuse a shooter situation and even those people might not have the opportunity to properly do so. But at least getting the general idea of "fight back" in peoples heads can change a lot. It's just like "stop drop and roll" is burned into kids heads pertaining to fire emergency... not everyone uses it but it helps a lot.

Frozen Beach

06-18-2016, 04:13 PM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tentative-hed-this-is-the-weapon-used-in-the-orlando-shooting-171610631.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/tentative-hed-this-is-the-weapon-used-in-the-orlando-shooting-171610631.html)

DigitalChaos

06-25-2016, 08:22 PM

DigitalChaos

06-25-2016, 08:26 PM

After Orlando, the Homemade AR-15 Industry Surges (https://www.wired.com/2016/06/orlando-homemade-ar-15-industry-surges/)

Proponents of gun control have no solution to this.

thelastdisciple

08-18-2016, 06:54 PM

Tom Arnold Pens Passionate Essay Arguing for Gun Control After Losing Nephew to Suicide (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-arnold-gun-control-essay-nephew-suicide-919835)

"It should be on the gun test: If you truly believe your metal tool/explosive device is a gift from above, then you should be deemed insane and unfit to legally own a gun."

Loved that.

A shame about his nephew. :(

Dra508

08-23-2016, 01:12 PM

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/ut-campus-carry-protest-to-feature-sex-toys-calls-/nsKSF/

Cocks not Glocks

DigitalChaos

08-23-2016, 03:05 PM

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/ut-campus-carry-protest-to-feature-sex-toys-calls-/nsKSF/

Cocks not Glocks

laaaaaaame. The idea that they are pushing civil disobedience in relation to an "obscene act" is so stupid even those who would supposedly enforce it are saying it doesn't apply.

They need to do this in places where sex toys are actually illegal. And since open carry is allowed in most of those places, they need to do it with AR-15's with bayonet-mounted dildos on them. But for a group using phrases like "toxic masculinity" i don't expect them to grow enough balls to do anything like that. :D

DigitalChaos

08-23-2016, 03:07 PM

If I didn't have a giant pile of responsibilities, this is the kind of stuff I would spend my time on. It would be a great reason to tour the country!

onthewall2983

04-10-2017, 03:12 PM

San Bernardino, CA. (http://ktla.com/2017/04/10/multiple-gunshot-victims-at-elementary-school-in-san-bernardino-amid-report-of-active-shooter-officials-say/)

onthewall2983

06-14-2017, 07:07 AM

Alexandria, VA. (https://twitter.com/mattmurphyshow/status/874955375698739200)

Swykk

06-14-2017, 11:42 AM

It was knee jerk. I deleted it because it was in poor taste (and because more details were released that shed more light on the situation) but at least I got the right's reaction to it correct. Being in the NRA's pocket fucked them directly this time. I'm laughing at their response, not at Scalise, for the record.

I think Giffords might point to the Dems' desire to get gun control on the slate for discussion.

I saw several hot takes by right wing gunnuts about Pulse saying "they just needed good guys with guns." Because that is a GREAT SOLUTION THAT WORKS EVERY TIME.

As for the shooter, it seems that maybe Congress trying to muscle a repeal of healthcare without giving a fuck in the least nor disclosing what's in the repeal might've been a bad strategy?

WorzelG

06-14-2017, 11:57 AM

Yeah. What seems to be a politically motivated shooting is funny because the people who got shot are basically the victims of their own policy. If they supported the other policy carried by the other party maybe they wouldn't have been shot, and it definitely wouldn't be funny then. It's funny because they basically shot themselves!

Quick, someone get Gabby Giffords and ask her what Dem policy proposals ever have a chance of stopping any of the shootings the policies follow in the wake of.

Maybe we can laugh at the victims of the Orlando shooting too because of their stance on self defense. Because these things are funny guys.
I think you're being a bit po-faced here. Ever heard of laughed at the Darwin Awards emails?

Swykk

06-14-2017, 12:37 PM

Okay but in fairness, those guys are trained. That's not a be all end all statement, either because for example, look at all of the inefficient police that have killed unarmed people. They're supposedly trained as well.

Deepvoid

06-14-2017, 01:57 PM

3 dead in shooting at UPS facility in San Francisco. Shooter shot himself afterwards.
Tough day in the US.

Fuck ... I promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread anymore.

theimage13

06-14-2017, 05:48 PM

"Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!" (https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/746022114042478592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailydot.com%2Flayer8%2F senator-rand-pauls-old-second-amendment-tweet-resurfaces%2F)

-Sen. Rand Paul, June 23 2016

theimage13

06-14-2017, 05:59 PM

You don't actually think this goes beyond a shallow quipp, right? I have a funny feeling you do though.... The only thing that draws a parallel here is the phrasing. It's not like one Bernie campaign worker with a gun is an insurrection about to overthrow the government. You'd need a whole lot of people. And that is one of the many things that tempers that process.

You realize that people rally around shallow quips, right? They make for sound bytes, then people buy into them. Hundreds of thousands of people spent last summer screaming "lock her up", dressing in prison jumpsuits, and making an entire line of "Hilary for Prison" merchandise based on a shallow quip.

One - especially a person in a political leadership position - does not get to suggest shooting government agents and then go "haha jk guys don't b so serious".

Wolfkiller

10-02-2017, 06:57 AM

Edit: Didn't see this was already posted in the Random news thread.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/02/554976369/section-of-las-vegas-strip-is-closed-after-music-festival-shooting

A gunman who fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip has killed more than 50 people and wounded more than 200, police say. Two of the dead are believed to be off-duty police officers who were attending the concert. The suspect in the case is also dead.

Sarah K

10-02-2017, 11:33 PM

Oof. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruYeBXudsds&feature=player_embedded

allegro

10-03-2017, 10:54 AM

Moved from the wrong thread:

a lot of our ground pounder enlisted and veteran service men and women develop varying degrees of hearing damage/loss due to the nature of their job. suppressors are another protective measure against permanent hearing damage/loss.

our American Constitution 'safe guards' uprising against tyranny.
having these types of tools available to the public (cause these same tools and worse will always be readily available to the private sector) help to keep the playing field level so-to-speak; the people vs state/gov't

Here is the 2nd AMENDMENT to the Constitution, in its entirety (emphasis mine):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment is often confused with Article VI of the Constitution (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/12/you-promised-to-defend-the-constitution-against-all-enemies-foreign-and-domestic-now-what/?utm_term=.edad2ccee9ce) and the "Oath of Office (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331)."

Any idea about the 2nd Amendment helping against an "uprising" of "tyranny" is not supported by the language of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment LITERALLY related to a MILITIA.

Also note that when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, there was a "free state" and a "slave state." So the 2nd Amendment specifically provides for arms for the highly-regulated STATE Government militias (private citizens fighting for the STATE Government) to fight and keep slaves.

It has since grew to be interpreted by the SCOTUS to protect States' rights regarding gun control, free from the Federal Government and Congress.

There are, literally, HUNDREDS of court cases that challenge the language of the 2nd Amendment. The scope and type of "arms" has been defined and has changed with the times; since our founding fathers drafted the 2nd Amendment as a brief (one singular sentence) declaration, law knows that this was intentional to avoid originalist interpretation and to allow each State to define their own laws.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in Heller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html), grew the language to now include handguns for home protection. But Heller (which cites the former Miller (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174) decision) specifically states:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

This concept has been supported and reinforced this year by a Federal Appeals court, see here (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/21/appeals_court_holds_second_amendment_doesn_t_prote ct_assault_weapons.html).

The most striking part of Tuesday’s decision is a concurrence written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee. Wilkinson joined the majority opinion, but he wrote separately to express his discomfort with the gun lobby’s strategy of using the courts to increase access to dangerous firearms:

As Heller recognized, there is a balance to be struck here. While courts exist to protect individual rights, we are not the instruments of anyone’s political agenda, we are not empowered to court mass consequences we cannot predict, and we are not impaneled to add indefinitely to the growing list of subjects on which the states of our Union and the citizens of our country no longer have any meaningful say.

Wilkinson also criticized the dissenting judges, as well as the plaintiffs in this case, for attempting to take gun regulation out of democratic sphere almost entirely. His panegyric to judicial restraint with regard to Second Amendment interpretation is quite moving:

Disenfranchising the American people on this life and death subject would be the gravest and most serious of steps. It is their community, not ours. It is their safety, not ours. It is their lives, not ours. To say in the wake of so many mass shootings in so many localities across this country that the people themselves are now to be rendered newly powerless, that all they can do is stand by and watch as federal courts design their destiny—this would deliver a body blow to democracy as we have known it since the very founding of this nation.

In urging us to strike this legislation, appellants would impair the ability of government to act prophylactically. More and more under appellants’ view, preventive statutory action is to be judicially forbidden and we must bide our time until another tragedy is inflicted or irretrievable human damage has once more been done. Leaving the question of assault weapons bans to legislative competence preserves the latitude that representative governments enjoy in responding to changes in facts on the ground. Constitutionalizing this critical issue will place it in a freeze frame which only the Supreme Court itself could alter. The choice is ultimately one of flexibility versus rigidity, and beyond that, of whether conduct that has visited such communal bereavement across America will be left to the communal processes of democracy for resolution.

Louie_Cypher

10-03-2017, 11:53 AM

I'll remind people that even amendments have limits, i don't want to take away guns but i do wish we had some form liesensing like we do with autos, which could be revoked for behaviors like we do with D.U.I's, i think that's reasonable, there's really no reason to own 20+ gun unless you are expecting a zombie Apocalypse of some kind. also not to make this sexiest but men tend to like to use their toys. if you buy a Lamborghini you're probably going to get a speeding ticket. I know a lot of gun owners. hell I've even shot full auto weapons in Las Vegas, no less def-con used to have a gun day. I would like to see reasonable legislation. and the NRA to get it's blood money out of our political system, and live in a country where i have a better chance at winning the lottery than being shot to death for being out in public
-Louie

allegro

10-03-2017, 11:58 AM

but i do wish we had some form liesensing like we do with autos, which could be revoked for behaviors like we do with D.U.I's

Many states DO have that. And there is a Federal law preventing people with domestic relations convictions from owning or purchasing guns or ammo.

allegro

10-03-2017, 12:00 PM

Just so people don't read this part as *requiring* that the people be part of a militia (a very popular misunderstanding lately)... it's to allow all the citizens to form a militia as needed.
Well, yes, the Militia isn't required. But a very good (primary) example of a State militia is the Civil War, with the Confederate States of America (a new country which the CSOA formed separate from the U.S.) being supported by a Militia against the Federal Government in the interest of preserving state's rights to own and trade slaves.

Scalia was an originalist and while I greatly respect many of his opinions, I feel that many of his opinions were too strict in originalist interpretation and he often contradicted himself in straying from his own strict originalist views.

But, yes, CONTEXT is the key, and the Revolution toward a free state (Federal) is/was Scalia's view as to "State" (but then he'd turn his views to interpret state as LITERALLY state's rights), and those state's rights, per Scalia, grew to include owning a handgun at home to protect your property and family.

allegro

10-03-2017, 12:33 PM

The other issue that I think is going to be a key issue regarding guns and the 2nd Amendment relates to "terrorism" - both foreign and domestic - and controlling guns in the interest of "National Security."

Our founding fathers weren't up against one guy who could have enough guns and ammo to shoot nearly 600 innocent American citizens in about 20 minutes

allegro

10-03-2017, 12:49 PM

the 2nd amendment is heavily to keep the power in the hands of the states, especially in comparison to the federal govt.

Well, except we kinda don't have a standing Federal army; we have a limited army which has been proven with the draft being instituted many times in the past; Scalia cites the Revolutionary War against King George and his Proclamation of Rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Rebellion).

We have the organized militia and the unorganized militia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)).

See also, for example, Switzerland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#Switzerland):

One of the best known and ancient militias is the Swiss Armed Forces. Switzerland has long maintained, proportionally, the second largest military force in the world, with about half the proportional amount of reserve forces of the Israeli Defense Forces, a militia of some 33% of the total population. Article 58.1 of the April 18, 1999, Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation (official, French version) provides that "Switzerland has an army. It is primarily organised according to the principle of a militia." However, under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel. In 1995, the number of soldiers was reduced to 400,000 (including reservists, amounting to some 5.6% of the population) and again in 2004, to 200,000 (including 80,000 reservists, or 2.5% of the population). However, the Swiss Militia continues to consist of most of the adult male population (with voluntary participation by women) who are required to keep an assault rifle at home and to periodically engage in combat and marksmanship training. The militia clauses of the Swiss Federal Constitution are contained in Art. 59, where it is referred to as "military service"

We can say that our citizens aren't "required" to be in a "militia," but that's not true (https://www.usa.gov/selective-service).

A draft is the mandatory enrollment of individuals into the armed forces. Although the United States military has been an all-volunteer force since 1973, the government maintains the ability to start a draft in case of a national emergency. The Selective Service System is the agency responsible for the draft.

Who Must Register for the Draft

Almost all men 18-25 who are U.S. citizens or are immigrants living in the U.S. are required to register with Selective Service.

Men in the U.S. on student, visitor or diplomatic visas and women are not required to register. For other exemptions, see the Who Must Register chart.

If we entered into another Vietnam, Korea, or World War, the U.S. would most definitely require a draft. If the U.S. was invaded by a foreign government on the ground, the U.S. could institute a draft, but each state could specifically site the 2nd Amendment wherein citizens could defend the U.S. using their own guns. And this is one of the primary arguments of 2nd Amendment proponents.

allegro

10-03-2017, 01:10 PM

^ wait what? How do we NOT have a standing army? We have all the federal armed forces doing their thing without any Congressional declaration of war. If they are doing anything outside of the declaration of war, they are a standing army.
They don't have to be "fighting" to be an army or a militia. There are many stationed in bases across the world solely for protection of allies and our country.

See U.S. Armed Forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces).

But, also, SEE THIS (http://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-u-s-armed-forces).

But it was not until September 29 [1789], the last day of its first session, that Congress passed a bill empowering the president “to call into service, from time to time, such part of the militia of the states, respectively, as he may judge necessary.” Before that, states could refuse to send along their men.

The 2nd Amendment was added in 1791.

Even with our HUGE armed forces, we have still needed to institute the draft in pretty much all wars against foreign countries.

But, when viewing the context of the original text of the 2nd Amendment: It was intended for STATES to have rights over their own militias. Like the National Guard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States), per U.S. Code relating to reservists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_components_of_the_United_States_Armed_Forc es) vs. State Defense forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force).

Unless you also view it from the originalist context of free state vs. slave state, as well as free state from King George.

So, yeah, we contradict shit all the time.

A-M-B-I-G-U-I-T-Y is intentional.

allegro

10-03-2017, 01:42 PM

If we aren't at a time of war (as created by congression declaration), and there is still a military operating, and they still have the ability to operate on US soil, they they are a threat to the states. Things like the Posse Comitatus Act keeps getting messed with and there isn't a 100% exclusion of the military on US soil.

Honestly, I think most proponents of heavy gun control are also the types who would agree to us massively scaling back our military. They just don't see the connection with the 2A because they don't understand it beyond "everyone gets guns and stuff."

Well, yeah and yeah.

One example that comes to mind is the book and now TV Series based on Margaret Atwood's 1985 book, "A Handmaid's Tale." She wrote it during and was inspired by the U.S. religious right during the Reagan administration. But, lots of it is still scary stuff that could be applied to modern times; a theocratic and totalitarian armed military kills everybody in the U.S. government, hacks into the banking system and shuts down every debit card with an "F" for "Female" in it to prevent escape, and the citizens are unarmed and unable to defend themselves against the new ultra-religious totalitarian government that replaced the United States of America. Except, too, that the awful new government consists of a private militia that was armed to the teeth. So, yeah, depends on how you view it.

allegate

10-03-2017, 03:54 PM

Well, yeah and yeah.

One example that comes to mind is the book and now TV Series based on Margaret Atwood's 1985 book, "A Handmaid's Tale." She wrote it during and was inspired by the U.S. religious right during the Reagan administration. But, lots of it is still scary stuff that could be applied to modern times; a theocratic and totalitarian armed military kills everybody in the U.S. government, hacks into the banking system and shuts down every debit card with an "F" for "Female" in it to prevent escape, and the citizens are unarmed and unable to defend themselves against the new ultra-religious totalitarian government that replaced the United States of America. Except, too, that the awful new government consists of a private militia that was armed to the teeth. So, yeah, depends on how you view it.

fuck yesssss
allegro is woke as fuck and actually gets the full implication behind books like Atwood's. So used to seeing the shallow and overly simple feminist interpretations of the new age.

and yeah, militias can go sour, but if we have them decentralized into 50 different states... there can be some added democracy and damage control. IMO, the states of today are way too big, but thats a whole different topic.

I just finished AHT and a lot of what you said came to mind while I was reading it. It all sounds so familiar and is certainly where these old white fucks appear to want to go.

I said it before but it's almost like they look at these things and think, "I could do that better."

Louie_Cypher

10-03-2017, 06:06 PM

NRA gave 3.2 million dollar in campaign donations you think anything will happen to curb gun sales. send me $5 and I'll make sure it does. America were we practice the golden rule "those who have the gold make the rules".
-Louie

allegro

10-03-2017, 06:44 PM

sweeterthan

10-03-2017, 06:53 PM

Paul Ryan shelves silencer bill, it's dead. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/in-wake-of-las-vegas-shootings-no-plans-to-bring-gun-silencer-bill-to-house-floor-ryan-says/2017/10/03/04575ce6-a848-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.2aa78e8b2ca9)

A seriously small victory but I'll take it. It will probably come back tho. I don't understand why it exists in the first place.

sweeterthan

10-03-2017, 06:57 PM

That's bullshit man. I dislike a lot about the NRA but they are funded mostly by small individual donations. I honestly don't know of another political interest org that has a larger percentage of funding coming through individuals.

In contrast, every pro gun control org has been funded by very deep pockets of a very small number of rich people. So if you are skeptical of big money controlling the world around you, I'd start looking at the pro gun control groups waaaaay before looking at the gun rights groups.

This article says the NRA gets millions from the gun makers.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

I believe it too. There's no way they have that much money from memberships.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sweeterthan

10-03-2017, 08:07 PM

The article I shared says that one manufacturer buys you an NRA membership if you buy their gun. Another gives 10% of their sales to the NRA. The influence is definitely there even if it's not counted the same on the pie chart.

The chart also lists advertising as a revenue stream but who buys that advertising space? Gun makers.

ETA that plenty of people care about the hearing of gun owners. The solution for that is wearing ear protection. It's helps the gun owner while not endangering the lives of others. I'm sorry I don't see how the trade off is worth it.

thelastdisciple

10-03-2017, 08:40 PM

915088837017300992

Hear, hear!

allegro

10-03-2017, 08:58 PM

Shit. I figured that would happen. It's not like CA would benefit from it, but it was a good direction. Suppressors aren't the scary Hollywood tech everyone thinks it is. It saves the permanent hearing of you and your family in a self defense situation at home. But the anti's enjoy saying "fuck the hearing of people who have guns." It also keeps the sanity of anyone who lives near a gun range. Other countries with heavy gun control encourage suppressor use.

Give me a fucking break. Wear ear protection. I did when I went to the range. Every fucking time.

I worked the door at a punk club for a year in 1982 and I have tinnitus, I'm playing a little tiny violin, here, about these whiny assholes bitching about their hearing. Wear some ear protection. Fucking TRENT REZNOR probably has permanent ear damage. But, it's his fault for not wearing ear protection. My uncle worked in a Ford factory for 30 years, and my father-in-law worked in a stamping plant forever, and both were fucking deaf. Why? Didn't wear ear protection.

The answer isn't silencers; the answer is fucking ear protection.

Re NRA; they have power in Congress because Congress is afraid of the NRA fucking up the elections and members of Congress losing their jobs. It's like why Congress is afraid of Trump because Trump threatens to use his base to get rid of all who oppose him.

It doesn't take money; it takes power. And the NRA gets all their money from fearmongering, "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE ALL YOUR GUNS." Except they're not. Same thing with pro-choice organizations, "THEY'RE GONNA REVERSE ROE V WADE." No, they're not. States can make gun ownership more restrictive and abortions more difficult to obtain, but the FEAR of guns and abortion going away gets tons of contributions.

And it's about lobbying.

See this: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

It's like the AARP. I am a member. I get emails sometimes 3 times per day about some crazy damned Chicken Little scenario, and then they ask me for more money.

Anyway, the NRA isn't shit when it comes to Congress making decisions.

That's Congress' job. They and we can't blame the NRA. Congress isn't obligated to the NRA. They're only afraid of the NRA due to the fear of the NRA using decisions to hurt elections and re-elections. But, at some point, Congress has to have enough balls to say "fuck the NRA" if they know that they are representing the wishes of their constituency and not special interest groups.

And each State can make laws that represent the wishes of their constituents, regardless of the NRA. And the U.S. Constitution and SCOTUS decisions back this up so long as nobody's rights are violated.

allegro

10-03-2017, 09:14 PM

Yeah let me pull out some ear plugs real quick during a home invasion.
You're NOT going to get ear damage from a fucking home invasion; ear damage is a progressive thing. If you are living somewhere where you are shooting people three times per day during home invasions, then you should probably move, dude.

But, otherwise, the ranges around here are soundproofed per municipal laws, and the outdoor ranges are so fucking far away from anything, it doesn't matter. Maybe birds are deaf, but do we care?

I worked at a LOUD punk club every Friday and Saturday for a YEAR and I don't have "ear damage" that affects my hearing. And I didn't even use any ear protection. And the club had to be soundproofed due to neighbor's complaints. I do have tinnitus, but that was likely also due to a lifetime of too-loud music and working in a printing shop for years.

I see kids driving around here with the music SO FUCKING LOUD in their cars, they're FOR SURE gonna get ear damage; way worse than the perceived risk of any ear damage from protecting yourself from home invasions by shooting guns at home.

Anyway, it's 2017 and we managed to live with it like this for this long (100s of years), stick a fork in it.

From a law enforcement standpoint, I can't imagine that gangbangers with silencers would be a good thing.

It took the cops in Vegas over AN HOUR to find the shooter, and he didn't have silencers.

allegro

10-03-2017, 09:24 PM

Anyway, I had hoped that this would be a constructive discussion in here, rather than the constant bickering without seeing all sides, but evidently I was wrong.

Outa here, I'm staying Zen these days.

Swykk

10-04-2017, 07:13 AM

(Not so) good guy with a gun?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/10/03/what-a-macho-gun-packing-instagram-star-did-when-he-was-caught-in-the-las-vegas-shooting/

It just doesn’t work. Besides the stats not backing up the popular gunnut “good guy with a gun” theory, in a situation like Las Vegas (entertaining the ridiculous idea of an action movie fantasy scenario), theoretical John McClane Balzerian would have had to locate the shooter first, then get to the 32nd floor, circumventing hotel security, law enforcement, and try not to get shot during said heroic mission, and then what? Blow the door to the room open?

Deepvoid

10-04-2017, 07:17 AM

sweeterthan

10-04-2017, 07:59 AM

It's barely been two days and the 2a crowd is already claiming "false flag". His neighbor says so, so it must be true. They can fuck off with that shit. It's not a false flag when real people die.

Also: clinging to your guns after a massacre is equally as gross as claiming this event is a set up to take away your guns.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Louie_Cypher

10-04-2017, 08:02 AM

allegro

10-04-2017, 10:13 AM

there's are all kinds of ear protection available. besides giving the public access to assassin's tools. for people who live near a gun range you have ton of other things to worry about like stray bullets lead contamination, to name a few. for a party that's supposedly anti-abortion they sure are intent on seeing you die after you leave the womb
-louie

Silencers are already legal in many states (https://www.silencershop.com/top-10-questions). The House moved on to other issues because this one just isn't that important, and because it's up to individual states to figure it out. This isn't a guns rights thing, it's just a priorities thing and a state's rights thing. You're right, though, in that nobody lives around the outdoor ranges near here because it ain't like living near a golf course.

My biggest problem with the "argue for ANYTHING that the gun fans want" stance is that there is zero compromise and a lot of times there's just no logical explanation provided for "need" vs. "want." I am not against guns, and DigitalChaos knows this. But, there are certain things for which I will not advocate because (a) I think it's not needed and / or is more detrimental to the good of the country and innocent people than helpful or necessary to anybody, and / or (b) I'm supportive of states rights.

If you're worried about your hearing while hunting, then take up REAL hunting: Bow and Arrow. G's cousin does this.

allegro

10-04-2017, 10:39 AM

Many poor people can't afford GUNS. Guns are expensive. From a legal or Constitutional standpoint, there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that guarantees your ability to buy a gun (it only protects your right to have one), let alone your "right" to protect your hearing from said gun. There's not even Federal legislation requiring safety precautions. If we want to be semi-originalist, then we can't extend the 2nd Amendment to include your right to protect your hearing on a Federal level.

If you want a suppressor and you can't have one in your state, you can move. But, there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment providing for ear protection. Or, frankly, hunting rifles for hunting. Any laws re hunting were via case law that broadened the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment far from an originalist interpretation. Again, I'm not strictly an originalist but I do at least look at the authors' intent. The House was voting on this legislation because lawyers knew that nobody could successfully argue for it in state courts; and the House is probably cognizant that this legislation will be argued almost immediately, which will cost a lot of taxpayer's money, and the SCOTUS won't even bother with any appellate courts that strike it down (deny petitions for writ of certiorari, which the SCOTUS has repeatedly done re assault weapons bans).

The 2nd Amendment is important, but it's woefully ambiguous; right to bear arms; "bear" has been interpreted by the SCOTUS as "carry" which is why there are concealed and open carry laws, and "arms" (per Heller) is whatever arms are "in common use at the time" yet "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" (Scalia).

allegate

10-04-2017, 10:43 AM

allegate

10-04-2017, 10:47 AM

Yeah let me pull out some ear plugs real quick during a home invasion. Then I'll make sure to have my wife and kids put theirs in too. And with the extra awareness I've just gained with my surroundings I may as well wear a blindfold and try to engage the person who is in my house.

And for all the people that live near a range I'll tell them all that they should just wear ear plugs at home.

That addresses absolutely nothing I mentioned. I never said anything about protecting the shooter at a range.

"hold on guys, I know you want to rob me but I need to put my suppressor on real fast. Just give me a minute."

allegro

10-04-2017, 10:58 AM

There may be some interesting cases where there is some constitutional argument around suppressors. Maybe its behind whether the federal govt should be allowed to restrict them? Maybe its about a gun with the suppressor built into it. etc. I don't know. But thats not a statement being made here. Just "removing the $200 fee seems good"

If you spent a lot of money on a gun, already, and you decide that you need a suppressor, it's likely that you can afford it. You already bought the expensive gun. It's a Federal (punitive / restrictive-intended) tax. If a poor person could afford the GUN ... I'm pretty close to being a socialist but this one doesn't seem like discrimination to me; if there was a law that said "you won't get food stamps or health care unless you pay $200," then I'd be all over it. But, a $200 fee on a silencer for an already-expensive gun isn't pulling on my heartstrings, and THAT is what a lot of law is all about. Need vs. want. Individual states could assist poor people with the fee if it was THAT big of a deal.

Again, HUNTERS can wear ear protection. I know a lot of hunters, and I sense a big fat load of bullshit in this: they just don't want the DEER to hear them. Nothing scares off more deer targets more than a big giant boom of a gun. Yeah, so learn how to hunt with a bow and arrow. A fucking snowmobile probably causes more ear damage than a hunting rifle.

Like SEE THIS (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-crossbow-hunting-law-20170917-story,amp.html).

Meanwhile, there are a million issues for Congress to deal with right now that are far more important than this.

allegro

10-04-2017, 11:33 AM

Again, im not saying its a right or that rights are being restricted. I'm simply saying that I agree with the removal of the $200 fee and that it currently is most damaging to poor people.

To give you an example: Poor people usually favor Hi-Points. You can get a new hi-point pistol for $150. Less if used. Cheap suppressors are easy to source for <$50. Bringing us to $200 for a *brand new* setup. There have been situations where someone does this without paying the tax stamp, it then gives an instant felony because they didn't get that $200 tax stamp. It mirrors the fallout of the drug war.

then have each state where silencers are legal provide monetary assistance to poor people to help pay or pay the fee, after whatever other individual state and Federal requirements are met.

Reading through all of the online information, this act isn't REALLY about the poor; it's about hunters and about their wanting to shoot more game without scaring the game with sound. And, yes, it appears that the original intent was to stop "white trash and negroes" from purchasing cheap hunting guns.

Anyway, this is an interesting article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/the-hearing-protection-act-and-silencers/?utm_term=.ac2fdc2a0365

I can certainly see why people who live around hunting areas would want suppressors (my grandparents lived near hunting areas for a while); but there's a reason why there's a process and tax; perhaps LOWERING the Federal tax might help poorer hunters, but - again - perhaps states can help to alleviate that tax.

None of this is a high priority right now, though; we have North Korea and disasters and lowering rich people taxes ahead of us.

allegro

10-04-2017, 11:51 AM

oh man, i'd be down for this.
You KNOW most dems would be 100% opposed to something like this though. Using tax money to help people get gun gear... HAAAAAA. That would be almost as popular as bringing back gun safety classes in public schools.

But there ARE communities where hunting is how they FEED THEMSELVES for pretty much the rest of the year. They store the meat in freezers, smoke it, do all kinds of stuff with it, depending on what they're hunting and the season. I know that a lot of these voters are urban and just don't grok the rural life and how hunting is healthier for the environment and overall than buying tortured-and-killed animal meat full of antibiotics and growth hormones from the supermarket. And the country ain't going vegan or vegetarian any time soon.

edit: Also, per my prior post, bow hunting is also a very good (and economical) hunting option. Also, if the suppressor legislation is already THERE on the state's books, then that state is logically already on board with suppressors for hunting and would, in my mind, already be on board for assistance provided for poor people who can't afford it. Again, let each state legislate based on the wishes of the constituents of that state. It's what states rights is all about. But, yeah, at this point I don't see the $200 fee collected by the Feds changing in this current environment, if ever.

Louie_Cypher

10-04-2017, 03:49 PM

i was thinking so i counted i did not talk to 60 people today and i friken live in sf. I still fell like until we can get get money out of politics. we will just get excuses opiod crisis. pharma money. it's sad
-louie

sick among the pure

10-04-2017, 05:46 PM

HUNTERS can wear ear protection. I know a lot of hunters, and I sense a big fat load of bullshit in this: they just don't want the DEER to hear them. Nothing scares off more deer targets more than a big giant boom of a gun. Yeah, so learn how to hunt with a bow and arrow. A fucking snowmobile probably causes more ear damage than a hunting rifle.

Hunters 100% SHOULD NOT wear ear protection. Not only because you want to be able to hear what you're hunting, but most importantly, you want to be able to hear other people. Wearing ear protection while hunting is a HUGE safety risk. NO.
Beyond that, sound dampeners do not actually "silence" guns. A rifle or shotgun shot in the woods will still be heard on the hill across the way. This isn't about "I don't want the deer to hear someone else firing." This is about how I stood near my sister when she took a deer last year and LOST HEARING MY LEFT EAR FOR OVER 2 WEEKS. Wasn't even MY gun that was fired.

Silencers aren't some big scary "assassin accessory" that makes gunfire silent so it's harder to deal with bad guys using them. They just dampen the sound so that the person firing the gun (or those nearby) don't cause damage to their hearing. It's a safety accessory.

Also, I have taken up archery hunting as well. Have you hunted with both firearms as well as a bow? Before I even continue down that road of discussion with you. No "I have friends who do this or say that" I want to know if you have any person experience with any of this.

And no, a fucking snowmobile doesn't cause more damage. Nor does an atv. You're just being facetious.

allegro

10-04-2017, 06:48 PM

Silencers aren't some big scary "assassin accessory" that makes gunfire silent so it's harder to deal with bad guys using them. They just dampen the sound so that the person firing the gun (or those nearby) don't cause damage to their hearing. It's a safety accessory.

Also, I have taken up archery hunting as well. Have you hunted with both firearms as well as a bow? Before I even continue down that road of discussion with you. No "I have friends who do this or say that" I want to know if you have any person experience with any of this.

And no, a fucking snowmobile doesn't cause more damage. Nor does an atv. You're just being facetious.

Snowmobiles can be pretty fucking loud (https://accuquest.com/importance-ear-protection-snowmobiling/). Ride an old snowmobile all day, and your hearing can get pretty fucked up. (but, yes, I was being facetious with DigitalChaos, he "gets" me. none of my comments had YOU or your propensity for facepalming in mind. Now that I got facepalmed, though, wow, I'm really turned on, thanks!)

Note that my husband, whose hearing abilities are a requirement of his job/career, wears ear plugs TO MOW THE LAWN.

I've been standing next to a .357 Magnum (mine) while it was shot before I was able to grab my ear protection, and not only did i hear that gun but also all of the other guns suddenly going off at the same time at the range. And, yeah, it's loud. But, nothing happened to my hearing. FWIW, most ranges REQUIRE that you wear hearing protection.

At any rate, yes, shotguns are really fucking loud, I've been standing next to them at the range, too. No, I don't hunt, I have a done a lot of fishing in my life (a nice quiet sport). But, I've been shooting handguns at ranges since 1987. However, nothing compares to standing next to an exploding M80.

And ABSOLUTELY this although I've never been there (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/04/12/we-treat-hearing-loss-as-an-inevitable-cost-of-war-it-shouldnt-be/?utm_term=.19a4a78b87f8).

Anyway, a LOT OF HUNTERS wear ear protection (https://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/big-game-hunting/hunters-often-overlook-hearing-protection/). See also (https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=476673). (There are electronic ear plugs that enable you to hear certain sounds while still suppressing loud sounds.)

That being said, I DID indicate (several times) that I'm not against suppressors; they are already legal in most states. I'm not against hunting, either (as indicated by this post (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Gun-Talk-News-Laws-etc?p=379566#post379566)); I'm just saying that suppressors are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, nor does the 2nd Amendment prevent the payment of a Federal tax imposed on "arms" or "safety equipment" related to said arms.

Louie_Cypher

10-04-2017, 07:22 PM

the second amendment state s a well regulated militia, what do you think they wanted well regulated, the uniforms, i think the other thing that is not being talked about health costs of the 500 that were injured, did they have insurance, if they did probably probably didn't cover gunshot wounds most don't, those people are now most likely in debt for the remainder of their lives.
-Louie

sick among the pure

10-04-2017, 08:10 PM

I have never and will never argue that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with suppressors or hunting, either. I'm just saying the reasons against them are, quite frankly, stupid. And the reasons FOR them are literally just for hearing protection.
Yeah, when you go to a range, you use hearing protection. When you do a lot of loud things, you use hearing protection. But there are instances (hunting, home invasion) where they're either impractical or else it's not safe to hinder your senses.

I want firearm regulation. I want a country-wide database. I want mandatory psych evals and safety training courses and background checks. I want reasonable limits on a lot of things from ammo count to attachments.
Thing is, I want gun laws that make sense. All of my liberal friends want massive sweeping bans without understanding the tech or how it's used or how the laws are currently set up. All of my conservative friends want unlimited access to any gun and attachment they can afford to buy without the government putting an fee on everything. There is a middle ground that makes sense, but most of the time people don't want to think about what the other side wants or is concerned about and only cares about what they personally want in order to feel good with the law.
And it gets frustrating being a hippie liberal who advocates for responsible gun ownership and use. Sorry if I kind of took it out on you, but so many people in the last few days (and years, really, talking about this time and again) go straight to "hunters should just use ear protection, silencers make a gun so quiet it's only needed for assassinations!" and when I calmly explain anything, they come back with either "hunters deserve hearing damage then!" or some related tripe about how they should just use ear protection anyway because they said so even though they've never hunted before let alone taken hunting safety classes. The "gun debate" is another one of those super divisive debates where 99/100 people involved are steadfast in their opinion and will not look for a common ground to figure out real change that can happen.

Louie_Cypher

10-04-2017, 09:57 PM

technology will continue to advance the same as it has since it has the 2nd amendment was written, and humans will do what the always done find new and better was to kill each other it's impossible to stop, you cannot stop the human mind, I had a book when I was young "how to kill" which was exactly what the title said it was, OK my neighbor growing up was ex airborne so I went to s lot of gun show where he would get drunk and I would have drive him home. I guess the idea of any kind of gun control is a little hard to achieve. we can dowhat they kind did with driving under the influence. Make it a huge pain in the ass, if you get caught. of maybe require some form of insurance or bond with gun purchase, which could go to victims if used illegally. not great but we do need to find something. the thought of that you might not come home from just wanting to have a fun day out and listen to some music. this is not the price of freedom. an act of evil, or any other bullshit excuse thy are using for their lack of action.
-Louie

allegro

10-04-2017, 10:29 PM

It’s just too difficult or even nearly impossible for us to prevent all gun violence in this country.

Limiting the number of certain types of weapons that one person owns might be a logical start, in an attempt to try to prevent what happened in Vegas (nearly 600 people shot by one guy in 20 minutes).

I saw a security expert on TV this morning talking about the true impact that the Vegas massacre will have and he said the biggest thing right now is event planners are freaking out; e.g. how do you ever hold a music festival near tall buildings ever again? What security will be needed? Who pays for it? Who’s in charge of it? Who’s liable if security fails?

A good example is Lollapalooza here in Chicago. Put that same Vegas shooter guy with his guns and ammo in any of the dozens of tall buildings surrounding Lollapalooza ...

This Vegas shooter passed every background check over the last year; the gun store staff that interacted with him said he appeared to be totally “normal” and they didn’t notice anything wrong with him; the shooter spent days, including all day of the shooting, playing high-stakes poker and wandering around the hotel among other guests, completely unnoticed and unremarkable; he was a self-proclaimed millionaire, a former accountant, a licensed pilot, he’s owned two private planes (NOT cheap), and he gave his girlfriend $100,000 to go on vacation; every piece of equipment he had was legal, obtained legally. HOW the hell do we legislate anything to “avoid” this when everything was legal? Except perhaps limit the number of guns.

Having been in law for nearly 30 years and having studied law, my mindset is always: “what serves the general public, the most amount of people, and protects the most amount of people?”

For example, banning all peanuts because many children are allergic to peanuts penalizes too many (most) people whose livelihood depends on peanuts (in the interest of a small percentage of people).

Cannabis is scientifically proven to be medically helpful to millions of people in many ways and has the potential to help millions more people, nobody has ever died from cannabis, yet politicians and religious people (a relative minority) refuse to allow something that benefits more people than would or could harm people (cannabis) to be Federally legal.

Passing a Federal law that would make silencers legal in all states and without an imposed fee may help a group of specific people, but what does it do, if anything, for the vast majority of those other citizens? What is that side of the story? If it does no harm and poses no significant threat or does not increase any existing threat, then the public could be made aware of that. But, placing it within the “right vs. left” agenda is just furthering the polarization. Also, NOT passing something related to something that either side wants is not necessarily a symbol of anything significant; not a sign that anyone kowtowed to an agenda, etc. sometimes it’s just a matter of prioritizing a number of issues within a certain time frame, or the context or timeline or mood.

TLDR: it doesn’t matter WHAT we legislate when, as DigitalChaos pointed out, we have this:

https://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made-an-untraceable-ar-15-ghost-gun/

So when they figure out that I’m not Handmaid material and they want me as either a cleaning lady or a hooker or somebody shoveling nuclear waste in the Colonies, I’ll be in the basement printing guns for the resistance.

Blessed be the fruit.

allegro

10-04-2017, 11:08 PM

Louie, I had no idea you were local to me. If you ever want to check out the machine in the last half of that video let me know.

I've been making it do other stuff, like key cutting and engraving, but it IS the scariest desktop CNC on the market [emoji14]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171005/58a751aeee682e37825dfb99ce48e214.jpg

Yup that shit is scary, we ain’t in Kansas, anymore, Toto.

thelastdisciple

10-05-2017, 12:55 AM

Deepvoid

10-05-2017, 04:29 AM

Not sure where to post this but I guess here will do just fine. A GREAT read.

America's Mass Delusion - The strategy of praying to God is not stopping mass shootings in the U.S. (http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/americas-thoughts-and-prayers-approach-to-gun-violence/)

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

allegro

10-05-2017, 07:47 AM

I know it'd never fly and I'm sure there would be logistical problems, i also know i haven't thought of everything but a few things could go a long way.

Every state needs to be on the same page, this should be at the federal level.

Mandatory background checks and psych eval, after 5 years if people want to renew their license they'll need to be re-evaluated.
Mandatory gun safety and training course
Limit to 1 PISTOL per household, must be registered (no shotguns, no rifles)
Limit to 1 low capacity magazine
Limit to 1 box of ammunition at a time

If the biggest reason for owning a firearm is for defense well this should all be more than sufficient, you don't need a rocket launcher to blow the guy away. This shouldn't be a fucking fetish.
Too late, it’s been an American Pastime for 200 years. It’s also an integral part of our Constitution. And Federal laws violate the State’s rights of our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. 600,000 people died during our Civil War over State’s rights. People make their own ammo, and now they can make their own guns.

Psych evaluations are a nice thought, but we’ve had several mass shootings done by people who would have passed them. ESPECIALLY if it’s some shitty Government evaluation.

The Vegas shooter planned this thing for at least a YEAR. He did everything legally. He passed many background checks. He was like an angry genius with 17 guns.

There is no solution. There could be an ATTEMPT at a solution via legislation regarding “assault” weapons designed for long range mass killing that were intended for military and not citizens.

Louie_Cypher

10-05-2017, 08:44 AM

Too late, it’s been an American Pastime for 200 years. It’s also an integral part of our Constitution. And Federal laws violate the State’s rights of our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. 600,000 people died during our Civil War over State’s rights. People make their own ammo, and now they can make their own guns.

Psych evaluations are a nice thought, but we’ve had several mass shootings done by people who would have passed them. ESPECIALLY if it’s some shitty Government evaluation.

The Vegas shooter planned this thing for at least a YEAR. He did everything legally. He passed many background checks. He was like an angry genius with 17 guns.

There is no solution. There could be an ATTEMPT at a solution via legislation regarding “assault” weapons designed for long range mass killing that were intended for military and not citizens. these are good common sense solutions. it's kind of like care to hard so the gov. does nothing and tries to hope the population doesn't notice it's all about who's writing checks
-Louie

allegro

10-05-2017, 09:05 AM

these are good common sense solutions. it's kind of like care to hard so the gov. does nothing and tries to hope the population doesn't notice it's all about who's writing checks
-Louie

It's complicated. There truly is a fine line re what we can or cannot do, Federally. This country was deliberately established as a REPUBLIC, with each State acting as its own entity under the broad umbrella of the country. Each state has its own Constitution, its own House and Senate, a Governor, its own laws.

Federally, supported by SCOTUS decisions, we *can* pass "assault" (meaning high-capacity long range guns) legislation; even if it's not an outright ban, there could at least be limits as to how MANY of them you can own. Yes, there will be a segment of smarter people printing their own guns. But, this still attempts to thwart people from stockpiling guns for the Apocalypse.

Right now, we can't tell which one's the Prepper ...

... and which one wants to camp out at the Blackstone to kill thousands of people at Lollapalooza.
(https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20171005/downtown/stephen-paddock-lollapalooza-vegas-shooter-booked-hotel-room)

Louie_Cypher

10-05-2017, 12:10 PM

i find it funny how sales go up every-time there is a mass shooting now bump stocks are selling out, that fear that your going to miss out some how, me in discussion with friend who own three hand-guns and constantly complaining about being broke
me: why do you own three guns that you cant afford
him: protection
me: you just asked me if you borrow money, what are trying to protect?
him: it just makes me fee safer
me: from what?
him: you know there are a lot crazies out there
me: apparently i know one of them
this went on for enough time to bore me never being able to explain why, i was trying to counting of like i did to think about 60 people, between TV news movies, we've seen hundreds thousand of gun battles, but if you talk to a cop or a veteran who's been in an actually gun battle to comprehend how scary it is. but every one thinks their Clint Eastwood or John Wick. you want to be a bad ass join the military and go fight Isis, I hear they need the help.please allow me the freedom of going to see an outdoor music festival or down down to the liquor store for a pack of cigs without getting my head blown off I know smoking is bad for health. but I guess not as bad as not as not being armed with multiple automatic weapons
-Louie

thelastdisciple

10-05-2017, 02:37 PM

Interesting opinion piece re: Second Amendment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html?mtrref=t.co&assetType=opinion

sick among the pure

10-05-2017, 04:04 PM

Every state needs to be on the same page, this should be at the federal level.

Agreed.

Mandatory background checks and psych eval, after 5 years if people want to renew their license they'll need to be re-evaluated.
Mandatory gun safety and training course

Yes x 1,000

Limit to 1 PISTOL per household
I would say per person.

must be registered

Yes.

(no shotguns, no rifles)

On the basis of the second amendment alone, this technically works. But to completely cut out all uses for firearms other than personal protection, I disagree with the idea of banning ALL shotguns and rifles completely.

Limit to 1 low capacity magazine

I agree with low capacity, but disagree with one per person. An argument of exact numbers isn't what's important in all of this, though.

Limit to 1 box of ammunition at a time

Again, that's an extreme limit. While I agree that you shouldn't be able to stockpile enough ammo to go up against a hoard of zombies (or have enough ammo to be able to commit a mass shooting, in all seriousness) lack of availability for certain types leads to having a few boxes at a time. If I'm going to the range, I could easily fire off a full box. Again, a limit should be in place.

If the biggest reason for owning a firearm is for defense well this should all be more than sufficient, you don't need a rocket launcher to blow the guy away. This shouldn't be a fucking fetish.

There is a big gap between "one gun per house, one box of ammo, pistol only" and "rocket launcher" though. Having a few hunting rifles, hunting shotgun, and personal protection pistol would be a much more realistic middle ground. Many people who hunt, hunt different kinds of game. You don't use the same firearm for a rabbit as you do for a turkey as you do for a deer as you do for a bear, for instance.
Also, there are people who collect old firearms, some passed down as family heirlooms as what great great great grandpa used in the war or else historical collectors. These are typically display firearms, sometimes cleaned up and used at a range to get a feel for "this is what they used in the war".

I agree that a lot of people take it so far as it becomes like a fetish, but owning reasonably and responsibly is not that.

Louie_Cypher

10-05-2017, 04:18 PM

you want to see gun legislation get attention, have blacks and minorities, exercise their right to open carry
-Louie

allegate

10-05-2017, 04:24 PM

https://twitter.com/shriekhouse/status/915284893038284800

https://twitter.com/shriekhouse/status/915284893038284800

allegro

10-05-2017, 05:48 PM

you want to see gun legislation get attention, have blacks and minorities, exercise their right to open carry
-Louie

Man, ain’t that the truth.

Louie_Cypher

10-05-2017, 09:41 PM

gonna take a break again but i wanted to share this about race relations imagine there's a game of monopoly and you're i wanna play i wanna play the say no you cant play you're a insert label here_________. but you keep on them finally they let you play but by that time all the properties have been bought up and deals made. and when you say. "that's not fair1." they say we let you play isn't that what you wanted!" OK off to Cuvier City for a bit. stay safe ETS.
-Louie

botley

10-06-2017, 04:58 AM

Why have white North Americans been so historically well-armed (https://www.theroot.com/this-is-only-the-deadliest-shooting-in-u-s-history-bec-1819112938), I wonder?

allegro

10-06-2017, 07:19 AM

no shotguns, no rifles

On the basis of the second amendment alone, this technically works. But to completely cut out all uses for firearms other than personal protection, I disagree with the idea of banning ALL shotguns and rifles completely.

Yes and also, more importantly: A shotgun is arguably THE BEST form of home protection and holds very little ammo. Also, I own two pistols but they’re REVOLVERS with zero magazines.

I think a lot of proposed legislation is without any real knowledge of or experience with firearms, and how target sports or hunting fit into the picture.

allegro

10-06-2017, 07:30 AM

Why have white North Americans been so historically well-armed (https://www.theroot.com/this-is-only-the-deadliest-shooting-in-u-s-history-bec-1819112938), I wonder?

This is a semantics issue; when the Media calls something a “mass shooting,” they mean one singular incident that happens at one time by one person or an organized group of persons (terrorists). Decades of whites killing Native Americans and stealing their land isn’t included in “mass shooting” data because it was over the course of days and years, not minutes or hours; bombs aren’t included in mass “shooting” data, either.

The point is correct: the NRA was totally for gun control when the Black Panthers openly carried arms to protect themselves from police brutality. The NRA didn’t give one shit about Philando Castile (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile).

allegate

10-06-2017, 10:02 AM

twitter embedding fails a lot, so im adding a sublink within your post, just FYI.

and yeah... ive been thinking about what age I should be giving my kids some form of phone. The school explicitly bans them but there are many reason I'd like to be able to contact them. Emergencies are one of them.

Huh, I just thought it was my shitty browser (IE11).

allegate

10-06-2017, 10:03 AM

you want to see gun legislation get attention, have blacks and minorities, exercise their right to open carry
-LouieNo, we'd just have a lot more dead blacks and minorities. :(

allegro

10-10-2017, 10:00 PM

I learned quite a bit about guns... from fucking politifact! wtf is happening?!?!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/04/hillary-clinton/no-gun-silencers-wouldnt-have-worsened-las-vegas-s/

That was a pretty solid read about suppressors. Lots I hadn't considered. Who and where a suppressor actually silences for, the difference between the gun's bang and the crack of the bullet, the fact that the room would have been able to do a superior job of any sort of acoustic stealth, etc.

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) - this also addresses the potential for instant hearing damage.
Whoa, interesting!!!

A shooting weapon produces two sounds. One is the crack of the bullet, which can be heard on most video recordings of the shooting and is produced by the bullet traveling faster than the speed of sound. This is unaffected by suppressors.

allegate

10-17-2017, 06:25 PM

Georgia politician holds bump stock giveaway (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/georgia-gop-candidate-holds-bump-stock-giveaway-contest/ar-AAtE2fE?OCID=ansmsnnews11)http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQCAYAAAA f8/9hAAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAAAlwSFlzAAAOwgAADsIBFShKgAAAAhdJREFUOE lkV9IU1EAxvdUFIGYSPTWUnopCHrrJcMHoWb01EM9aKkEJcPEL XuRHsp0zsKk9YegsQjiunGn4spgsqZtc45K73KtoSjqSq kbLvRtnvP/br3WCNtDw0ffuee893z/TicowGwLfKGhZA3LIR/AkKk4iWbwzFzyzL5c5mvWOWFyufW0Kdh12dWksjerfs3LVRWXO 4uv/YU/NrTiFxuW w2e N1tQwu1TAI OY7t 6ngyzLu8X5ye5MkLUtM/1DalklfL4FrD0MVaDids8M9vqWXtqnVnoJIXtyAnGBMyWuHUKi 6SBSjxpI8Ng5Koi1mvHYEqBl/RUn6vqipLQjiBIFluPv5QSZCac10VSmCFTKMXujjQoWHr4A69g 4geVpCPs6g1AFKk/Gv9pyApJOVgmW2rU/kvUHjfCX68APjcA3Nof6i30wOKK0WNIxjhomyv9Ii1VUIMUH72 TfaIn49jjSA3okDUeQbD2KSMN1pKIxzM1 h3KROHz/Aw7cDeGmx4 KET0pc13AcDxg0oiB6lT2dSk22I/saD0E8xnwPQZkkwkIQgbtzDSqbRxaAlYUDZzFrn4dpdLTnNJIs R5v9pVS/gvRewIZjwmQZeWUgJ2L4KSnGTucOuxUihRlfjv87J36hEVy8st VsvbeuIn1KaPyjzLBc8bRbyHK2O/vx9XpRuUpi klboe8YSHkDf8faH4B5u3kGu4VtQgAAAAASUVORK5CYII=NBC News on MSN.com · 7 hours ago

A GOP senator running for governor in Georgia is giving away a bump stock, the modification apparently used by the Las Vegas shooter.

Well that's not tone deaf.

sweeterthan

10-17-2017, 10:10 PM

Georgia politician holds bump stock giveaway (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/georgia-gop-candidate-holds-bump-stock-giveaway-contest/ar-AAtE2fE?OCID=ansmsnnews11)

http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQCAYAAAA f8/9hAAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAAAlwSFlzAAAOwgAADsIBFShKgAAAAhdJREFUOE lkV9IU1EAxvdUFIGYSPTWUnopCHrrJcMHoWb01EM9aKkEJcPEL XuRHsp0zsKk9YegsQjiunGn4spgsqZtc45K73KtoSjqSq kbLvRtnvP/br3WCNtDw0ffuee893z/TicowGwLfKGhZA3LIR/AkKk4iWbwzFzyzL5c5mvWOWFyufW0Kdh12dWksjerfs3LVRWXO 4uv/YU/NrTiFxuW w2e N1tQwu1TAI OY7t 6ngyzLu8X5ye5MkLUtM/1DalklfL4FrD0MVaDids8M9vqWXtqnVnoJIXtyAnGBMyWuHUKi 6SBSjxpI8Ng5Koi1mvHYEqBl/RUn6vqipLQjiBIFluPv5QSZCac10VSmCFTKMXujjQoWHr4A69g 4geVpCPs6g1AFKk/Gv9pyApJOVgmW2rU/kvUHjfCX68APjcA3Nof6i30wOKK0WNIxjhomyv9Ii1VUIMUH72 TfaIn49jjSA3okDUeQbD2KSMN1pKIxzM1 h3KROHz/Aw7cDeGmx4 KET0pc13AcDxg0oiB6lT2dSk22I/saD0E8xnwPQZkkwkIQgbtzDSqbRxaAlYUDZzFrn4dpdLTnNJIs R5v9pVS/gvRewIZjwmQZeWUgJ2L4KSnGTucOuxUihRlfjv87J36hEVy8st VsvbeuIn1KaPyjzLBc8bRbyHK2O/vx9XpRuUpi klboe8YSHkDf8faH4B5u3kGu4VtQgAAAAASUVORK5CYII=NBC News on MSN.com · 7 hours ago

A GOP senator running for governor in Georgia is giving away a bump stock, the modification apparently used by the Las Vegas shooter.

Well that's not tone deaf.
fuck that guy. this screams "i need attention."

sweeterthan

10-18-2017, 07:40 AM

It's not tone deaf at all if he is trying to attract defiant gun owners. You will commonly see giveaways of a gun product that politicians are trying to ban.

Yeah but it seems to happen a ton in my state and it's fucking disgusting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

allegro

11-07-2017, 11:40 AM

Continued from HERE (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/4361-Trump-2017-Year-Zero?p=384506#post384506) (wrong thread)

If your laws are unenforceable, then FIX THEM! If it takes a president getting shot for anyone to give a shit, that's just another example of your country not caring about anyone but the wealthiest in it.
Again, you're not understanding American culture or American civics. The laws are enforceable, but there are problems with enforcement -- mostly caused by our own freedoms provided by our Constitution as well as logistical problems that are endless and difficult to fix.

I'll give you an example:

The City of Chicago is often touted on TV and by the Cheeto as having the "strictest" gun laws in the country. But that's a total load of bullshit (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-gun-control-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html). However, that being said, even with those strict gun bans that were in place for over 30 years, we still had a ton of shootings. Because criminals don't follow laws. They're criminals. Background checks etc. only work if people abide by the law. If the criminal sends a straw man to Indiana where you only need a driver's license and that gun buyer then sells the gun to a criminal with six felony gun convictions, the system can't stop that. Straw men purchases are illegal, but no straw man is gonna tell a gun dealer that he's a straw man. And each state has its own gun laws, because of states rights built into not only our Tenth Amendment to our national Constitution but also its Second Amendment. Also, criminals get stolen guns, and now it's really believed by many here that the guns are coming in WITH THE DRUGS. Like, TRAIN LOADS of drugs and guns.

So, how do we "fix" that? I don't know if you've noticed, but Chicago is broke. Illinois is broke. I mean, like, so in debt, Chicago is been lowered to "junk bond" status. Mostly due to bad spending but a lot due to municipal pension debts. Which can't be changed due to our STATE Constitution. So we keep raising various taxes, etc., but more police presence means needing a lot more money. Which Chicago doesn't HAVE.

So, the Cheeto and Sessions has indicated that maybe they'll send in the Feds to help Chicago fight this problem, which our Mayor and our Police Superintendent said would be AWESOME because now gun offenders -- who often make bail within HOURS because gang members are connected to a network of wealth that has no problem paying $10,000 or $20,000 bail -- either commit more gun crimes while out on bail, or they are in jail for a short time and then are let out due to OVERCROWDING in the jail. Can't build another jail because of NO MONEY. BUT, if the Feds take over gun charges, the offenders will be sentenced to FEDERAL prison, also known as "Siberia" because these prisons are far away and so controlled that gangs can't run things while in jail or prison.

BUT ... the Cheeto and Sessions now won't help Chicago at all because it's a SANCTUARY CITY to undocumented immigrants and will not change that. Sessions claims that the gang shootings are all related to undocumented immigrants. Except the shootings are primarily black people. *shrug* Oh, wait, but Sessions says it's because the undocumented immigrants are bringing in ALL THE DRUGS. Which is a load of shit, but whatever, so we're stuck with trying to do the best we can to fight what are basically drug gangs selling drugs to people from the suburbs, and it's like the OK Corral. And it's WORSE per capita in many other cities, here. And it's not going to get fixed any time soon because every one of those cities is too busy managing debts and isn't gonna spend money in a ghetto.

See: Chicago Needs a War on Poverty to Stop the Violence. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-poverty-report-glanton-20170315-column.html)

And that's just ONE example of why this isn't an easy problem, why it's hard to enforce laws.

Oh, SUUUUUURE, we can do what NYC did years ago, with random searches and seizures, and cops beating the shit out of people -- all people, innocent people -- in order to "enforce" gun laws and to "clean up the neighborhood." But, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that this was not only a bad idea, it was totally illegal. So, that ain't happening. We have civil liberties, here. We can't "enforce the law" by taking liberties from others.

Regarding Congress enacting new laws after Reagan was shot: That is because many members of Congress, including Democrats, know that gun control is so powerful an issue that they risk not being re-elected if they vote in favor of gun control laws that are perceived as a "slippery slope" to voters. In 1994, after a President had recently been shot, and three Presidents endorsed a gun-control law, it garnered more support in Congress; but it DIDN'T have support among voters, which is why a lot of people lost in the next election.

Gun owners see crime as ANOTHER REASON TO HAVE A GUN. So "giving a shit," to them, means owning a gun. Not the opposite. Now, gun owners are pointing to the fact that two gun-owning citizens in Texas shot at the shooter, shot him twice, and pursued him in a car.

This actually happened in front of me, once, weird story: I was living in a suburb of Detroit that's pretty much surrounded by Detroit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamtramck,_Michigan) and has crime problems because criminals come in, commit crimes, then disappear over the city's border into Detroit. Anyway, I lived on the 2nd floor, was home one summer night and heard SCREAMING out front. I ran to my front balcony and saw a neighbor lady, Lotty, being held up at gunpoint by 3 teenagers. Suddenly, FRONT DOORS STARTED OPENING in other homes around where Lotty was standing, and people started coming out HOLDING RIFLES and shit.

And the culprits jumped into a car and took off. And some of these neighbors JUMPED INTO CARS AND TOOK OFF AFTER THESE ROBBERS. Craziest shit I'd ever seen. The cops showed up (really small police force, no money, "jail" was them handcuffing you to the cigarette machine) and they said Lotty shouldn't have screamed, she coulda been shot. Yeah, fuck that shit, you didn't see what happened!

Ends up the neighbors scared the shit out of these robbers, the robbers crashed the car and started running on foot, and I guess these neighbors CHASED AFTER THEM WITH RIFLES and shit.

Like, yeah, this is another Day in America.

allegro

11-07-2017, 12:10 PM

We are stupid. We keep electing people who do nothing. There are plenty of fixes proposed year after year. Biden tried to get sweeping gun control reform through congress after sandy hook but our paid by the NRA congress didn't do a damn thing.

See, that's also a myth.

You know who makes the NRA so powerful? VOTERS. Not Congress. Congress, contrary to popular beliefs, gets very little money from the NRA. Sure, the NRA contributes to PACs but that's not why so much of Congress is voting against gun laws.

They're voting against gun laws because the voters who PUT THEM THERE expect them to vote against gun laws. And if they do the opposite, they'll be unemployed. DEMOCRATS have voted against gun laws for this reason. BERNIE SANDERS has voted against gun laws (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/26/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-bernie-sanderss-record-on-guns/?utm_term=.7624a2673179).

So, the NRA is there -- and paid for -- by voters who have this idea that Congress is suddenly going to take all the guns. And these voters vote for people who vow to keep their 2nd Amendment rights.

So, you wanna blame somebody? Blame American citizens who vote for this stuff, because they are afraid of slippery slopes or whatever other reason. But, the NRA doesn't control Congress; the VOTERS control Congress when it comes to gun issues.

Edit: but also see my above post about how the root of a lot of shootings isn’t about the gun; it’s about the people who have the gun. Insanity, poverty, drugs, anger and misogyny, crime, etc.

sweeterthan

11-07-2017, 12:15 PM

I absolutely blame the voters. That’s why I said we are stupid. The Republican Party can fire up their base anytime with guns and abortion. It works every time except when they lost to Obama. Then they convince them Obama’s would take their precious guns.

The gun lobby, the nra and the gun manufacturers are the only ones who can help us. I’ll keep saying it because we need their help. We’re fucked until they do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jinsai

11-07-2017, 12:19 PM

The gun lobby, the nra and the gun manufacturers are the only ones who can help us. I’ll keep saying it because we need their help. We’re fucked until they do.

I'm sorry, but the NRA and Gun manufacturers are just as likely to help this situation as Philip Morris vying to ban cigarettes or Exxon arguing for emission taxes.

sweeterthan

11-07-2017, 12:25 PM

I'm sorry, but the NRA and Gun manufacturers are just as likely to help this situation as Philip Morris vying to ban cigarettes or Exxon arguing for emission taxes.

I agree with you but I think pushing ideas for public safety would make them look good. There would be no need for government regulation if they regulated themselves and maybe even saved lives. The safety of the general public should be their top concern. Instead, the entire 2a attitude is there’s nothing we can do. Until the gun industry fixes itself, I will support any and all calls for gun control.

Jinsai

11-07-2017, 12:35 PM

I agree with you but I think pushing ideas for public safety would make them look good. There would be no need for government regulation if they regulated themselves and maybe even saved lives. The safety of the general public should be their top concern. Instead, the entire 2a attitude is there’s nothing we can do. Until the gun industry fixes itself, I will support any and all calls for gun control.

David Cross had a really good (and dark as fuck) comedy bit about this on his last standup album... I can't find the clip, but apparently the video is now on Netflix?

sweeterthan

11-07-2017, 12:42 PM

David Cross had a really good (and dark as fuck) comedy bit about this on his last standup album... I can't find the clip, but apparently the video is now on Netflix?
Was it from last year's tour? I saw him in february 2016 and i don't remember him talking about guns specifically but i remember him saying a bunch of funny stuff that i agreed with.

Jinsai

11-07-2017, 12:49 PM

Was it from last year's tour? I saw him in february 2016 and i don't remember him talking about guns specifically but i remember him saying a bunch of funny stuff that i agreed with.

Yeah... the audio standup was from right before the election... and the bit deals with something along the lines of "so, what if... just what if... whatever senator or whatever who's got a glowing review from the NRA... he's got like five smiling bullets or whatever... and it's 'Take Your Daughter to Work Day' and some crazy lunatic fuck comes in with a bullet proof vest and assault rifles, and he shoots his daughter... and she's bleeding out in his arms, saying 'Daddy, WHY, what's happening?! WHY!?' and that's what she's trying to say, but it's just coming out as a wet gargling whistle because her larynx is crushed... and as the light is fading from her eyes, he gets a call from Wayne LaPierre, and he says 'oh yes sir, I promise, it'll never happen again, she was my only child. Just send the check to the usual. Thanks.'"

"Or maybe, just maybe, he'll say, 'wow, now that this problem has personally impacted me I can understand how it's something that we should do something about!' Y'know, just maybe... Who knows?"

allegro

11-07-2017, 02:56 PM

I'm sorry, but the NRA and Gun manufacturers are just as likely to help this situation as Philip Morris vying to ban cigarettes or Exxon arguing for emission taxes.

The NRA **HAS** supported gun control regulations.

http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

allegro

11-07-2017, 04:29 PM

The problem IS that voters are so adamantly grounded in their love for guns that the very notion of new legislation is immediately met with resistance, and moaning about slippery slopes. I had a few completely insane arguments following the Vegas shooting with people who resisted the idea of banning bumper stocks for that exact reason - it's a slippery slope and it'll accomplish nothing.

No, it's not a slippery slope, it's a reinforcement of a law we passed banning fully automatic weapons; a law we all pretty much agreed was a-OK. So if there's something out there that circumvents the law, you outlaw it.

But no, there's a deep love for high powered guns in this country. People want their AR-15s. OK.... you've got them. I get that we're going to have a hard time taking them from your cold dead hands. So let's just meet halfway and get rid of this bumper thing?

It's called a "Bump Stock" and we had legislation pretty much IMMEDIATELY here in Illinois to ban them, but it failed in Illinois Congress. And you know WHY? For the same reason why most of these other pieces of gun legislation OR ANY OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION fail ... the bill wasn't JUST about bump stocks, the authors loaded other shit in there that was way beyond bump stocks (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-illinois-legislature-bump-stocks-20171026-story.html).

But opponents, including Rep. Jerry Costello, a Democrat from Downstate Smithton, called the bill too far-reaching because it would ban any modification that accelerates the rate of fire — such as changing a spring or replacing a trigger.

“I don’t view this as a bump stock ban, I view this as a ban on 40 to 50 percent of the guns in the state,” Costello said. His district includes the World Shooting Recreational Complex in Sparta.

Costello said the legislation would turn people who modify firearms to compete in shooting competitions into lawbreakers. Most lawmakers agreed with his side of the argument, rejecting the proposal by a 48-54 vote.

Opponents of Moylan’s bill offered an alternative backed by Rep. Barbara Wheeler, R-Crystal Lake. It would ban only bump stocks, not other devices. That bill has the support of the Illinois State Rifle Association.

“The language in the actual bill matters,” said Rep. Mark Batinick, R-Plainfield. “If you want to address the issue, let’s address the issue in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner.”

Following the vote, Moylan said he was willing to consider narrowing his bill to win more support, but he said the bill pushed by Republicans did not go far enough.

"We're not going to dilute it so it's not effective," he said.

OKAY, SO NOTHING GETS DONE, YOU ASSHOLES.

Federal Congress HAS gone in to pass ONE FUCKING THING so we know they CAN do it, that it's possible; but the vast majority of the time, both state and federal congressional politicians get so caught up in this "but what's in it for ME?!?!!" shit that nothing gets done.

Note that the NRA did indicate support of additional regulations regarding bump stocks (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/top-house-republicans-open-to-legislation-regulating-bump-stocks/2017/10/05/4580cb54-a9dc-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.06b5f6ad78c9).

The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations

The talking heads I've seen on TV said this probably means regulations via the ATF, required licensing, etc., so that pretty much only licensed hunters can obtain them and there's a list of people who have them or whatever.

See this (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/05/nra-calls-for-atf-review-bump-stocks-new-regulations-after-las-vegas-shooting.html).

“In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.” -- NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION STATEMENT

Jinsai

11-07-2017, 04:46 PM

The NRA **HAS** supported gun control regulations.

http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

Yes, and they now lean towards banning bump stocks (thank you for the correction), but it's only because THIS CRAZY SHIT has happened. They fought it before when it was on the table four years ago. They capitulate strategically.

allegro

11-07-2017, 05:17 PM

Yes, and they now lean towards banning bump stocks (thank you for the correction), but it's only because THIS CRAZY SHIT has happened. They fought it before when it was on the table four years ago. They capitulate strategically.

They don’t want to ban them, they’re calling on the ATF to investigate further regulations, should be subject to further ATF regulations. They’re blaming Obama’s ATF for approving them twice since 2010. Always both sides throwing blame back and forth. Nothing gets done.

There IS a down side to banning vs. highly regulating, much like what we see now with drugs or what we had during prohibition: a banned item immediately becomes VERY VALUABLE, especially for collectors, so people can demand high prices and will reap rewards from that demand because of the limited supply in the black market; this doesn’t happen as much when something is legal yet highly regulated.

allegro

11-07-2017, 06:41 PM

New Yorker article from last year, “Terror Begins at Home” -

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/terror-begins-at-home

In fact, though, there is a connection between domestic violence and mass shootings, and in acknowledging that connection there is some hope for helping to prevent both. A recent analysis of mass shootings, conducted by the research-and-advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, found the link to domestic violence “noteworthy.” Using the F.B.I.’s definition of mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people are murdered by guns, the Everytown researchers were able to document a hundred and thirty-three such shootings between January, 2009, and July, 2015. They found that “in at least 76 of the cases (57%), the shooter killed a current or former spouse or intimate partner or other family member, and in at least 21 incidents the shooter had a prior domestic violence charge.”

The lethal intersection of firearms and intimate-partner violence is actually one of the few gun-safety matters that Congress has acted on. In 1996, it adopted the Lautenberg Amendment, which bans people who have been convicted of domestic-violence misdemeanors, or who are subject to restraining orders, from owning firearms. This was sound and compassionate legislation. Guns are the most common method, by far, for killing intimate partners. Not surprisingly, the presence of a firearm in the home makes it much more likely that a woman in an abusive relationship will end up dead. And there is evidence that restrictions of the kind the Lautenberg Amendment and some state legislatures have enacted truly help. According to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “laws restricting firearm access for batterers subject to restraining orders are associated with a 19% reduction in rates of intimate homicide.”

Unfortunately, the federal law and similar state laws are spottily enforced. These regulations are only effective if states put in place a screening process for potential gun buyers, to see if they have restraining orders against them—and many states have not. In those cases, there is nothing to stop domestic abusers from buying, say, semiautomatic assault rifles, other than their willingness to self-report. The same applies to turning in guns they already own. Some states have laws that allow police to seize firearms when responding to domestic-violence incidents, but most do not.

sweeterthan

11-07-2017, 06:48 PM

Whatever dude. Are you trying to be condescending? There needs to be consequences for not reporting this information because people are dying not because fucking feelings are hurt. Massive fucking eyeroll.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sweeterthan

11-07-2017, 07:20 PM

Wait wait. So we DONT need to respond to the situation with more gun control now? What changed?

Nothing changed except you being a troll. We absolutely do need gun control. What part of my post led you to believe that’s changed for me? This is a multi faceted problem. Enforcing the current laws and standards is part of it. Creating new guidelines for background checks is another part. There’s a ton of things that could be done right now that would help. I also said I’d support the industry instead of regulation if they lead the way on the matter but you’ve ignored that and reduced it to “because feelings”.

What you said is dismissive and condescending. Keep pretending it’s about my feelings not about public safety and the lack of control we have over completely preventable deaths that are happening daily.

elevenism

11-07-2017, 08:14 PM

you know, i'm a leftist and a liberal.
but i'm of the mind that gun control measures are NOT going to stop gun violence.
if i'm not mistaken, the majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that were illegally obtained.

however, the various agencies involved in information relevant to background checks need to do a better job of communicating with one another.
why was the Texas church shooter able to buy an assault rifle while having a fucking ridiculous number of red flags?
He was court martialed for sneaking guns onto the air force base where he was stationed and threatening officers there, he was convicted of some pretty rough domestic violence, he had ESCAPED from a goddamn MENTAL HOSPITAL.
Shouldn't both the court martial and the domestic violence charges prevent him from buying a gun?

Of course, he could have just bought weapons illegally, but if the background check had worked right, it would have at least made things a little harder for him.

chuckrh

11-19-2017, 02:54 PM

fuck the NRA & the gun nuts in the US. confiscate & melt down everything unless they want to get real about background checks & licenses, etc.

chuckrh

11-20-2017, 05:12 PM

ok. when we come to harvest you for the soylent green. reference test for you.... :confused:

allegro

11-21-2017, 10:32 PM

ok. when we come to harvest you for the soylent green.
I think that's why people want the guns! LOL.

Or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWB6Ufh4O98

Louie_Cypher

11-21-2017, 10:36 PM

bigger concern at the moment repeal of net neutrality 1-888-call- FCC adjitpai@fcc.gov fill the inbox jam the lines
-Louie

allegate

11-22-2017, 10:05 AM

We have a lot of people who telework and this will probably directly affect them. I wish I could tell my boss that we should do something about it but my boss is - eventually - Donald Trump.

allegro

11-23-2017, 09:44 AM

Dudes ...

ALL THIS IS DRIFT IN THIS THREAD

*sobs*

allegro

11-25-2017, 10:19 PM

Now you’re just being mean

bobbie solo

11-26-2017, 04:58 PM

Ugh wish you would just contribute to other parts of the board instead of this fixation here.

allegate

11-27-2017, 09:46 AM

Dudes ...

ALL THIS IS DRIFT IN THIS THREAD

*sobs*

True...I neglected to look at the title of the thread and was just responding to the last post. mea culpa

sick among the pure

11-27-2017, 02:02 PM

Shit. I think I will just buy everything on that list because it's now scary to some people.

As a proud gun owner I have two very precise words for you: fuck off.

Mantra

11-29-2017, 05:42 PM

I don't even like guns, at least in the way you think of them.

What do you mean?

Mantra

11-29-2017, 06:07 PM

They provide a great vehicle for politics. Statements, action, change, etc. Its like incredibly potent art.

Their utility from a rights and politics perspective is similar in nature to cryptography, which I also appreciate a lot. Crypto doesn't carry the same potency as a symbolic tool though.

But the gun as a product, judged the same way you would a washing machine... I don't really care a whole lot.

Hmm, interesting.

But do you own guns? I thought I remembered you talking about going to the shooting ranges and all that shit.

Demogorgon

11-29-2017, 06:08 PM

...so, what you're saying is (and please correct me if I'm wrong because I would love to be wrong), you're into guns for no other reason but because they agitate people on a political level?

Mantra

11-30-2017, 09:23 AM

I have also made AR-15s due to the political aspect

I'm kinda confused by this statement. What specifically does this mean? What is the "political aspect"?

Demogorgon

11-30-2017, 11:59 AM

That is probably one of the most immature and irresponsible reasons to want to own a firearm ever. Of all time.

Demogorgon

11-30-2017, 12:34 PM

I bet you know how important the approval and judgement of others is for me

That is not the point, dude. What you do with your life is obviously your own decision, but you are either unaware or purposefully ignorant of the consequences of a decision like this. "Because I can" is such a shitty reason to own a gun.

Demogorgon

11-30-2017, 12:42 PM

For one, the perception of whether or not gun owners are responsible citizens defending their second amendment rights or a pack of crazed paranoid gun nuts who just like to shoot shit. Do you have any idea what the 2nd Amendment is all about? Do you really? Because owning a firearm "because I can" is not at all in line with the 2nd Amendment.

Demogorgon

11-30-2017, 08:17 PM

So my never-fired weapons contribute to the perception that gun owners like to shoot shit. K lol.

You own them out of the childish sentiment that having them pisses people off. Do you really not get how immature that is?

The perception of the antis is irrelevant. It's been tried and they will just continually take and take. Appealing to them is a waste of time when you can make their opinions irrelevant.

And your solution is to go out of your way to antagonize people by owning weapons you never intend to shoot? Way to contribute, dude.

Demogorgon

11-30-2017, 08:22 PM

"Childish" lmao. It's over your head dude. It's cool. Don't worry about it. You continue to focus on a very very small aspect of what I explained.

I doubt that. Go ahead and explain it for me again. Use small words. I'm sure you're just a misunderstood social justice genius slumming it with the rest of us plebs. Lay it on me, I'm all eyes.

cashpiles (closed)

12-01-2017, 01:38 PM

The United States is fucked. Canadians have just as many guns per capita... but our laws are different..and that could be what makes all the difference......

Sarah K

12-01-2017, 02:26 PM

No they don't.

Swykk

12-01-2017, 03:49 PM

Just let @DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) have his thread and the ridiculous mentality that if big bad gov decides to come get his guns (they won’t), he would get a single shot off. He’s just going to be a condescending prick to any challenge, well thought out or otherwise, and that’s a shame because over the years I had respect for him but that dwindles with every post in this thread. Goddammit, I hate this thread. Somebody tell me to stop reading it. It’s only good for eye rolls and sadness.

So let me be a condescending prick for a couple mean albeit logical thoughts here:

The dumbest gunnut belief of all is that their guns will mean a fucking thing when not only do the govt have more guns and better weapons in general but can also reduce you and your house to a paste via drone.

You want a pistol or two to protect your home from intruders? Cool. Not my thing, but I understand and respect your choice. You need a rifle to hunt? I really don’t like hunting, I think it’s pretty much the weakest and least impressive thing you can do but even for this lame purpose? Sure. Fine.

Which brings us to...

The second dumbest gunnut belief is that they need anything other than a pistol or two and/or rifle. The 2nd amendment was written when guns were musket loaded. The founding fathers didn’t anticipate assclowns walking around Target with AR 15s and small penises. Nobody needs an AR-15 that isn’t in the military, including police.

Because I imagine this might be the last time I post in this thread (never say never), let’s throw a “Fuck the NRA and their shitbag greedy lobbying that’s bought Congress and kept us from having many of the existing gun control laws enforced (also fuck the weak ATF) and from having any kind of sane gun control discussions.”

Flame away. I said my piece.

cashpiles (closed)

12-01-2017, 06:23 PM

No they don't.

Wow you’re right. I guess this was some “common knowledge” thrown around in Canada thst seems to be false. Canada is 11th in the world, right under France..... but Canada is still far more peaceful...like 2/3 less gun murders...per capita

Demogorgon

12-04-2017, 04:01 PM

This seems like it could be a big deal:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/04/exclusive-feds-issue-4-000-orders-seize-guns-people-who-failed-background-checks/901017001/

Demogorgon

12-04-2017, 07:02 PM

Yeah, this situation looks to be one massive fuck up, and trying to seize all of these weapons is going to lead to more fuck ups and a lot of dangerous situations. These are people who aren't suppose to have guns in the first place because of something in their background check, so, it's rock and a hard place: let them keep the weapons knowing they may use them to do criminal acts, or move in and take them while trying not to get shot in the process. No winners here.

Demogorgon

12-09-2017, 11:48 AM

Over the years you'd see that I give equal thought as a reply provides. Nothing about what Demogorgan's replies were "well thought out." They were purposefully myopic, and thus, not worth a deep reply.

1) You apparently don't know what "myopic" means.
2) My thoughts were direct observations of something you yourself said, chiefly that you own guns for the political clout it gives you in arguments rather than for any reasonable desire or need to own them. You've never even fired a shot, again by your own admission, and someone who actually understands and respects firearms on any level will make a point to go to a range and at least know how they operate and what they're capable of.
3) You didn't give a deep reply because your initial reasoning was exactly what I said it was and there isn't anything deeper to it. Someone on the previous thread asked you to clarify before I chimed in, and you essentially repeated yourself with different words. Despite my sarcasm, I still gave you a third opportunity to go in depth about your thoughts, and you've declined using the age old teenage trope "nah, you just don't understand". You aren't a radical of any stripe; you're irresponsible, self-absorbed, and terribly misinformed.

cashpiles (closed)

12-19-2017, 08:15 PM

1) You apparently don't know what "myopic" means.
2) My thoughts were direct observations of something you yourself said, chiefly that you own guns for the political clout it gives you in arguments rather than for any reasonable desire or need to own them. You've never even fired a shot, again by your own admission, and someone who actually understands and respects firearms on any level will make a point to go to a range and at least know how they operate and what they're capable of.
3) You didn't give a deep reply because your initial reasoning was exactly what I said it was and there isn't anything deeper to it. Someone on the previous thread asked you to clarify before I chimed in, and you essentially repeated yourself with different words. Despite my sarcasm, I still gave you a third opportunity to go in depth about your thoughts, and you've declined using the age old teenage trope "nah, you just don't understand". You aren't a radical of any stripe; you're irresponsible, self-absorbed, and terribly misinformed.

gun collectors don’t need to shoot their guns... it’s purely for aesthetics... the look, the feel, the smell... why does he need to learn how to use them if he’s just collecting? What danger do they possibly pose if they aren’t loaded?

and don’t say someone is going to break into his house and steal them or load them....

maybe instead of judging, open your mind. You bloody pissant

sick among the pure

12-19-2017, 10:28 PM

why does he need to learn how to use them if he’s just collecting? What danger do they possibly pose if they aren’t loaded?

Literally rule number one of handling a gun is you always treat it as if it is loaded and could fire. That means knowing how they work.

sick among the pure

12-19-2017, 11:52 PM

Considering I built every gun in this category (of never having fired)... pretty sure I know how they work. Every single pin, spring, etc. This is much more knowledge about the internals than most military members who carry similar guns.

Gun collectors know how their guns work and treat them as loaded. There is never a need for bringing them to the range to achieve those skills.

Good to know, though I never said anything to the contrary. Just explaining to cashphiles why it's important that even collectors know their firearms and treat them with care and respect their capability.

cashpiles (closed)

12-20-2017, 12:13 AM

Literally rule number one of handling a gun is you always treat it as if it is loaded and could fire. That means knowing how they work.

You check to see if the gun is loaded and a bullet is in the chamber... if there are no bullets in the gun you can do whatever the fuck you want with it. I could literally jam the tip of the barrel up my ass.

Demogorgon

12-20-2017, 02:22 AM

it’s purely for aesthetics... the look, the feel, the smell... why does he need to learn how to use them if he’s just collecting?

That isn't why he has them though, as he himself said. He said, multiple times, that he owns guns as a political and societal statement.

and don’t say someone is going to break into his house and steal them or load them....

Why would I say that? People who break into houses generally aren't looking for guns, they're looking for untraceable shit they can resell quickly.

maybe instead of judging, open your mind. You bloody pissant

oh no, please don't, my one weakness... petty insults... I'm so fragile, please stop... my delicate feelings simply can't take it. /sarcasm

It's a new forum, and good ol' cashpiles is still the worst troll in the history of ETS.

Demogorgon

12-20-2017, 02:27 AM

Considering I built every gun in this category (of never having fired)... pretty sure I know how they work. Every single pin, spring, etc. This is much more knowledge about the internals than most military members who carry similar guns.

Knowing how to build a car doesn't teach you how to drive it. Knowing how to build a computer doesn't teach you how to program it. Knowing how to build a firearm doesn't teach you the correct posture, handling, or hand-eye coordination to actually hit a target without popping a shoulder or a wrist out of socket.

There is never a need for bringing them to the range to achieve those skills.

Yes, there absolutely is, as I've just mentioned. Not taking the time to do so, once again, is irresponsible.

allegro

12-20-2017, 09:08 AM

Considering I built every gun in this category (of never having fired)... pretty sure I know how they work. Every single pin, spring, etc. This is much more knowledge about the internals than most military members who carry similar guns.

Gun collectors know how their guns work and treat them as loaded. There is never a need for bringing them to the range to achieve those skills.

Gun owners who fire at ranges learn how to take their guns apart because you have to CLEAN them, and you need to take them apart to a certain degree in certain states while transportating the gun to the range.

You’re serious, you’ve never fired your gun?

You’ve said, in this thread, that you owned a gun to protect your family. Did that change?

Also, the talk in this thread always seems to ignore the revolver. SPRINGS, lol.

allegro

12-29-2017, 10:53 AM

This is a scary article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-rifles-gangs-conflict-20171221-story.html

onthewall2983

02-21-2018, 02:13 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWlappaVwAEo-2M.jpg:large

aggroculture

02-22-2018, 10:38 AM

above all it's a lie

I really want to do shrooms. If there was a shroom store (like there were in the UK for a while before 2005), I'd walk in and buy them, and do them.

and yet it's been years, like 10+ years, since I've come across them.

No shrooms for me.

Louie_Cypher

02-22-2018, 11:09 AM

was kind of watching the chief of the NRA on CNN while on the treadmill. why is thier solution always more guns? when is that logic ever work. cigarettes are bad. we need more cigarettes?there are a few more amendments to the constitution then just the 2nd.
-louie

onthewall2983

02-22-2018, 09:09 PM

First National Bank (https://thinkprogress.org/first-national-bank-ends-nra-visa-card-5809195f1672/) and Enterprise Holdings severed ties with the NRA today (https://thinkprogress.org/alamo-national-enterprise-dump-nra-35d326965744/). The world's largest asset manager has put gunmakers on notice today as well. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-blackrock/blackrock-puts-gunmakers-on-notice-after-florida-school-shooting-idUSKCN1G62PC?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter)

Louie_Cypher

02-23-2018, 07:59 AM

so many holes in the idiots plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfAQmsv3h7E funny how every solution envoles buying and selling more guns. NRA's by it's true name America Association of Arms dealers.
-Louie

Louie_Cypher

02-23-2018, 04:57 PM

Let's talk about the holes in everyone's plan though. Here's a headline from the same day as the FL school shooting.

In California, Convicted Felon Amassed Huge Arsenal Of Self-Built Guns, Ammo
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27487/gun-control-fail-convicted-felon-amassed-huge-ryan-saavedra?amp

Yup. Dozens of guns, about half were self built. Some were full auto. Nearly 70,000 rounds of ammo.

The only reason they found out is because of the 4 guns he had registered and didn't turn into the state. There are many more who didn't make that kind of mistake.

When do we stop focusing on c and start focusing on what's causing people to do the things we don't want them to do? i think you answered your own question but that doesn't mean prohibition should be taken off the table. high capacity magazines
other countries don't have theses issues. when i ask people who i consider smart intelligent responsible people why they own a gun it becomes more about status then anything image i knew a guy who came a large amount of stock money so he bought lambo i asked why he said it would be "cool" a year later he said it was stupid traffic id so bad it can't be opened up properly has to find a specialty shop for service and costs around 2k to change the oil. last i checked we're a top the food chain there is no zombie apocalypse, this ain't clint Eastwood this isn't thr movies most gun owners and up shooting themselves or their family.
-Louie

Mantra

02-24-2018, 08:53 PM

When do we stop focusing on prohibition and start focusing on what's causing people to do the things we don't want them to do?

What I don't want people to do: go on mass shooting sprees.

What's causing this: a culture of violence (e.g: the glorification of deadly weaponry).

thelastdisciple

02-25-2018, 08:44 AM

A culture of violence but do we blame video games and movies? i don't think so, other first world countries have these things as well and they do not suffer anywhere near the same dysfunction.

allegro

02-25-2018, 01:19 PM

when i ask people who i consider smart intelligent responsible people why they own a gun it becomes more about status then anything. i knew a guy who came a large amount of stock money so he bought lambo i asked why he said it would be "cool" a year later he said it was stupid traffic id so bad it can't be opened up properly has to find a specialty shop for service and costs around 2k to change the oil. last i checked we're a top the food chain there is no zombie apocalypse
I shouldn't be laughing in such a serious thread but this post is hilarious and pretty true, thanks Louie! :D

Now it ends up that THREE MORE (total = four) armed Sheriff's deputies stayed outside, didn't go into the school in Parkland. Like, wtf, Opie. Fucking chicken shits.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/three-sheriff-s-deputies-remained-outside-school-during-parkland-shooting-n850946

A note has been passing around online pointing out that President Reagan and James Brady were shot even though they were surrounded by armed Secret Service agents, fwiw.

thevoid99

02-25-2018, 01:20 PM

A culture of violence but do we blame video games and movies? i don't think so, other first world countries have these things as well and they do not suffer anywhere near the same dysfunction.

Didn't we have this argument many years ago and we're back to it again?

allegro

02-25-2018, 01:31 PM

Have you guys seen this kid in Florida's history? Like, 12 years of the neighbors calling the cops and stuff? Like, threatening and killing animals and stuff? Transcripts of warning to the FBI of multiple weapons.

The right is blaming mental illness, but they won't let this kid out of a trial due to mental illness; they'll be going for the death penalty.

theimage13

02-25-2018, 06:16 PM

https://waynelapierre.com

Head of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, has a new website.

Mantra

02-25-2018, 06:59 PM

Now it ends up that THREE MORE (total = four) armed Sheriff's deputies stayed outside, didn't go into the school in Parkland. Like, wtf, Opie. Fucking chicken shits.

Bet the conspiracy theorists are gonna latch onto this.

allegro

02-25-2018, 07:35 PM

Yup. But it's not a reason to ignore it.

The FBI had 2 opportunities to investigate the kid.
The local police were called to his house 39 times.
And 4 cops waited outside while children were shot up and bled to death.
The kid was posting online with his full name making threats that were reported to the Feds, but they couldn't find him.

Yet these are the same people I am supposed to give my guns up to because they are going to protect me? LOLNO That this is an acceptable political response is enough of a conspiracy on its own. As is how ridiculously bad government is at doing their fucking job.

Kinda nitpicking but they were Sheriffs deputies; the Coral Springs PD arrived and saw the SD outside and got pissed, the CSPD ran into the school.

But, to make things worse, the CSPD had been monitoring security cams inside the school which were on a 20 minute delay ... http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-shooting-coral-springs-video-20180222-story.html

Holy shit

The “communication failure” led police to believe they were tracking the shooter in real time, when in fact they were seeing footage from 20 minutes earlier, the chief said.

Cruz had already killed 17 and fled.

allegro

02-25-2018, 08:17 PM

Yes, typo, eating dinner and watching Olympic Closing Ceremony while typing. The quoted article said minutes.

They WERE familiar with the delay to their feed, it was a communication error to the dispatch team.

It’s especially freaking me out since my little brother went to high school at that school; in the 90s, but if our Dad and his Mom were still alive, they’d be pretty freaked out right now.

I just want some fucking Rambo security in place so no other kids can ever die again. I’m sick of this bullshit.

Louie_Cypher

02-25-2018, 09:22 PM

The fact that they were deputies certainly doesn't make me want to transfer more power to the whole system. It's all way too fucked up for the suggestion to even be viable.

It was a 20 MINUTE delay. That is something that makes you facepalm, but it somewhat excusable. They aren't going to be familiar with how everyone's security systems work. Hopefully the impact was truly as minimal as they claim. but teachers with guns will get the job done haha ha ha haha,no one remembers the shop teacher with the missing digets but sells more weapons. makes manufacturers more money do it must be the best solution. are we really that stupid, is anyone?
-Louie

Mantra

02-25-2018, 09:47 PM

Yup. But it's not a reason to ignore it.

The FBI had 2 opportunities to investigate the kid.
The local police were called to his house 39 times.
And 4 cops waited outside while children were shot up and bled to death.
The kid was posting online with his full name making threats that were reported to the Feds, but they couldn't find him.

I know, which is fucking crazy and the authorities deserve all the shit they're getting over not doing enough. Totally agree with all that.

That post of mine was just me thinking about those super fringey types of people, the ones who think that Sandy Hook was all staged, that everything under the sun is a false flag, that pizzagate is real, etc. As soon as they hear that the idiot cops sat around doing nothing while a fucking mass shooting was taking place inside, the wheels in their heads are gonna start spinning and they're gonna see it all as part of a big covert plot.

Yet these are the same people I am supposed to give my guns up to because they are going to protect me? LOLNO

I mean, I could just flip this reasoning around. If a bunch of highly trained law enforcement professionals can't manage to keep from horribly fucking up or from killing innocent people left and right, how's the average untrained American going to deal with it? Most people don't handle themselves well in a crisis at all. I know I certainly don't. People are idiots. Give them a bunch of guns and now they're just extremely DANGEROUS idiots.

Mantra

02-25-2018, 11:10 PM

The average concealed carry person seems to have better accuracy and/or perform better under pressure. I would guess this is because, on average, they train more. I don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head, but it's something like 200% more bystanders get hit by police than private citizens, measured per gun use situation. It makes sense. Cops do their yearly qualification and it's treated as "just do good enough to keep the job" while concealed carry people take it more serious as a life choice.

Ha, if that's true, that's funny. And fucking horrible and depressing as shit. Add this to the long list of reasons why I do not trust the police, categorically.

Still doesn't make me support conceal and carry, btw.

IMO, it's the classic public vs private business incentive pathways.

Seems like a weird application of free market/privatization politics to me. Some dude walking around with his conceal and carry isn't motivated by "business incentives" of any kind, private or otherwise. He's just trying to live out an ideological performance. It's the gun-lover's version of virtue signaling.

theimage13

02-26-2018, 06:37 AM

@Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925) - I'm not exactly arguing for the inverse situation. It's more of an "it's the 3rd/4th/5th option that's isn't in the '2 sides' dichotomy"

That said, your inverse actually goes against the data. The average concealed carry person seems to have better accuracy and/or perform better under pressure. I would guess this is because, on average, they train more. I don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head, but it's something like 200% more bystanders get hit by police than private citizens, measured per gun use situation. It makes sense. Cops do their yearly qualification and it's treated as "just do good enough to keep the job" while concealed carry people take it more serious as a life choice.

Lots of people expect police to be "well trained" but it's really a bar of "don't be so bad you get fired". IMO, it's the classic public vs private business incentive pathways.

Without seeing any data on that at all, I find it all pretty hard to believe. BUT even if you do come up with some concrete data, I still have a problem with the logistics behind it.

Police are in situations in which they're likely to need to discharge a weapon on a regular basis compared to the "average c&c". Put them in a higher number of chaotic situations and you're going to have a higher number of accidents (I'll give you the notion that many officers need to spend more time on the range). But I also don't get how you could possibly collect meaningful data on the "average conceal & carry" user, especially with data points like "performing better under pressure". That, to me, implies that you have an extraordinarily high amount of data about how accurate private citizens are at stopping a situation under an extreme amount of duress. And there's a huge difference between being accurate on the range and being accurate when you're packing a pistol and there's a madman firing at anything that moves.

Louie_Cypher

02-26-2018, 08:40 AM

thelastdisciple

02-26-2018, 09:04 AM

Careful Louie you don't want to bring up veterans or victims of gun violence because they're all emotionally compromised and aren't qualified to have an opinion on the matter.

allegro

02-26-2018, 10:32 AM

Speaking of victims of gun violence: There really should be a law allowing us to go after these abusive stupid useless pieces of shit online who feel the need to harass people who’ve been victims of violence or have been traumatized by violence:

https://thinkprogress.org/parkland-shooting-survivor-forced-off-facebook-6fc397ab2b9f/

allegro

02-26-2018, 10:35 AM

i going to be a little harsh here but needs to be said most people don't need a c&C" license, it's mostly about status and image, we don't live in Syria, yet. you want to play cowboy, go rent a woody costume or I'll send you my barely played copy of red dead redemption. most can barely drive correctly, much less carry a deadly weapon on their hip, to be fair I would say the same thing if it was suddenly started carry around samurai swords. war death shooting some kind macho badge of honor. talk to a veteran or victim of gun violence. this is the 21st century not the 1800's so if you thinking about getting a gun take a minute and ask you self do I really really need a gun.
-Louie

Lots of people in or around urban areas really do feel the need for cc licenses for safety, not status. I’ve considered it. My little brother has a cc license. Cc licenses aren’t the problem.

And we’ve read about accounts here in Chicago where citizens with cc licenses used weapons to protect people. And they aimed and shot just fine. With target practice, you at least shoot better than gang members.

Comparing the U.S. to Syria: it’s funny that you say that, but Syria doesn’t have concealed weapons; they carry weapons around openly now. Because they are at war. But the U.S. has always been wide open territory of Cowboys and Indians and it never really changed. The settlers crossed to the West with guns, the South protected their property and prevented slaves from leaving with guns, the North and East protected themselves against gangland crime with guns, we have always used guns and we always will.

I’ve talked to “anti gun” Americans who went on long road trips across this HUGE country or camped out in the woods and suddenly expressed the desire for a shotgun or handgun. Because crimes of opportunity DO happen in those wide open or wooded spaces all the time in our country, that’s the way it’s always been. They’ve read Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood.”

Re cops and accuracy, the vast majority of cops don’t fire at ranges, they fire in simulators, ammo and ranges are too costly and simulators are far more realistic.

See this: https://www.app.com/story/news/investigations/watchdog/2017/12/04/police-shooting-training-simulator-monmouth-county-sheriff/908919001/

thelastdisciple

02-28-2018, 03:07 PM

That didn't take long, so what was that about the arming teachers in schools?

968903039942881281

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/armed-georgia-teacher-custody-after-report-shots-fired-high-school-n851986

allegate

03-01-2018, 10:59 AM

https://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/status/968995013320499200

allegro

03-01-2018, 12:04 PM

https://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/status/968995013320499200

LOL, not true, you should've seen the Republicans at the table yesterday when Trump was saying "take the guns first, THEN get a warrant" LOL LOL it was hilarious! Looked like they were gonna have a grabber!

Re teachers armed in schools, this was exactly what I was worried about, I said that to my husband, like arming pilots is a bad idea = remember when that pilot who took control of the airplane and crashed it, killing everybody on board (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/germanwings-plane-crash/11880154/Germanwings-pilot-Andreas-Lubitz-kept-diary-that-shows-his-descent-into-depression.html)?

allegate

03-06-2018, 05:39 PM

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/970403519122624512

So we can all be Captain America now? Awesome!

Mantra

03-06-2018, 09:51 PM

^I wouldn't want to rely on that thing to protect me.

eversonpoe

03-15-2018, 08:40 AM

sick among the pure

03-16-2018, 02:40 AM

Right after my local school's walkout, someone threatened making it the next school shooting scene. They have been charged, their house will be searched, and I am 0% surprised that happened.

allegro

03-16-2018, 08:01 PM

got really stressed out yesterday because this happened right near where my wife works. didn't find out it was a hoax until after i had started driving into evanston to drive her to therapy from work so she wouldn't have to walk, because i'm a jewish mother and i get very worried.

Northwestern shooting report ‘a hoax,’ lockdown lifted: Evanston police (https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/person-with-gun-reported-on-northwestern-campus-in-evanston/)

don't understand why anyone would do such a thing.

It's called swatting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting) (like calling the SWAT team) and it happens a LOT more than people realize, people get KILLED by swatting (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-of-man-killed-in-swatting-incident-sues-wichita-kansas/).

there was a swatting (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/highland-park/ct-swatting-false-report-highland-park-tl-20140903-story.html) near where I live.

I was watching that shit going down in Evanston yesterday, because I lived in Evanston for several years; the whole downtown area was on lockdown, nobody was allowed anywhere near downtown Evanston, totally nuts. At first, I thought it was on the main northeast campus area but then I saw it was at Maple and Emerson, wtf, that's not even the Northwestern campus, that's just downtown Evanston! Crazy stuff.

thelastdisciple

03-24-2018, 11:52 AM

https://vimeo.com/261259711

A group of military veterans came together to create an all-veteran PSA about gun control. It stars military veterans of all genders, ages, ethnicities and military backgrounds. Their message is clear, “...we carried the M4/M16, we know its power first hand, and there is no reason it should be for sale in this country.”

telee.kom

03-24-2018, 11:53 PM

https://pitchfork.com/news/killer-mike-defends-gun-ownership-in-new-nra-video/

It's not his stance on gun ownership (which I think it's stupid but whatever), but what he says about his children "I told my kids on the school walkout: ‘I love you—if you walk out that school, walk out my house...’" that just rubs me the wrong fucking way. I can respect different opinions, but basically saying to your own children 'if you don't have the same opinion as me, I'm going to kick you out' that is too much.

telee.kom

03-25-2018, 02:38 AM

His kids own guns.

And that's a problem maybe? I don't really care it's a hyperbole, it's a stupid point to make

versusreality

03-25-2018, 06:15 AM

I was actually quite shocked that Killer Mike was pro-gun. I wouldn't have expected that.

thelastdisciple

03-25-2018, 11:31 AM

The guy routinely points out how much of an enemy the government is to black people. And how that reality does not align well with "so you should give the government your guns". But go ahead and call him stupid.
So in keeping with reality and modern times, when is the last time a black person got off on self defense after wounding or killing a cop?

What fantasy land is Killer Mike living in where he figures he can take on the government in this day and age?

The same fantasy land as all the other doomsday types it seems.

thelastdisciple

03-25-2018, 12:09 PM

That might be the most white supremacist thing to have been uttered on this forum. Let's tell BLM to wrap it up. The govt they are oppressed by is just too strong!

Oh fuck you, that's not what i meant at all.

I'm talking about the need for arms in this conversation, BLM isn't parading the streets with AR-15s are they? I didn't think so.

Louie_Cypher

03-25-2018, 02:12 PM

Killer Mike's stance isn't new and it's certainly not fringe. It became part of the public awareness during the civil rights movement. MLK vs Malcom X.

Shit, modern gun control was born from the desire to suppress the Black Panthers. And here we are decades later and the negative results of modern gun control are disproportionately impacting on people of color. don't think we saw what happened to a law abiding gun owner of color who was reaching for his gun license when he was shot dead in front of his girlfriend and kid, i don't think we know or want to know how deep the racism goes in this country. don't tell me about white privilege I've experienced it first hand, when playing with an all black reggae band. we were loading up after a show the cops showed up had us unload everything to look for pot. not two weeks earlier an all white band with a full bottle of vodka next to the driver seat was sitting said nothing! so kind of hard to argue rights when only one group has them
-Louie

thelastdisciple

03-25-2018, 02:22 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN0ThTlcCGY

The fact that they thought he had a gun got him killed or at least that's what they're using to excuse their racism so please tell me what the victim having a firearm would have achieved in this situation?

Then you have Philando Castile, murdered after TELLING the cop he had a firearm in the vehicle. What did that accomplish?

Louie_Cypher

03-25-2018, 03:15 PM

the fact that your implied conclusion to this is "...and so that's why we should give that group more power and take away power from the weaker group" says everything. curious what this "fact is which conclusion i am implying and which group is giving and giving up the power?
-Louie

allegro

03-25-2018, 03:39 PM

Black people have always been pro gun; it’s the only defense they have; DigitalChaos is absolutely right, look up the Black Panthers. One of my biggest problems with the NRA is that they’re not inclusive, it’s a white organization that is terrified of armed black people; that fear often makes the white NRA members (read: people sending memberships dues to the NRA) buy MORE guns.

(1) The “mental health” argument is often presented, except President Reagan closed all Federal mental institutions in the 80s (they were terrible places) with the hope that private and better organizations would replace them; that never happened; and Medicaid, which pays for a huge portion of mental health care, keeps getting underfunded; also, while the Florida shooter was and is a disturbed young man who needs help, the people blaming mental health want to convict him as sane and go for the death penalty; if he was truly mentally ill, he would not be guilty due to that mental illness and would be institutionalized instead of jailed or executed; can’t have it both ways;

(3) The Baker Act exists in Florida, look it up; the Sheriff’s Deputy stationed at the Parkland school (one has been there for several decades) moved to “Baker Act” the Florida shooter last year, but school authorities rejected it; had he been Baker Acted, it is likely that the kid would not have been able to purchase guns

(8) What we really need, immediately, to help protect kids in school is to SECURE THE FACILITIES. We are talking bulletproof glass, multiple armed security guards (Columbine had four shooters), metal detectors and scanners at all doors, etc., much like what we have at all airports, courthouses, and Federal buildings. Why after so many school shootings we only have the equivalent of tornado drills is ridiculous.

GulDukat

03-25-2018, 03:45 PM

allegro

03-25-2018, 03:55 PM

Mass school murders via shootings could greatly be reduced if only the kids knew how to perform CPR:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/santorum-knocks-marches-kids-should-learn-cpr/vi-BBKG0xT?ocid=sf

Just think, if Yoko Ono had known how to perform CPR John Lennon may have lived.

They performed CPR on Lennon immediately; the giant hole in his head didn’t care. Santorum and Rubio (the latter keeps posting ridiculous Bible verses) are TERRIFIED of these young voters. They’re shitting their pants.

GulDukat

03-25-2018, 03:57 PM

They performed CPR on Lennon immediately; the giant hole in his head didn’t care.Tell that to Rick "frothy" Santorum.

r_z

03-25-2018, 04:07 PM

(8) What we really need, immediately, to help protect kids in school is to SECURE THE FACILITIES. We are talking bulletproof glass, multiple armed security guards (Columbine had four shooters), metal detectors and scanners at all doors, etc., much like what we have at all airports, courthouses, and Federal buildings. Why after so many school shootings we only have the equivalent of tornado drills is ridiculous.
Sure. This would make for an ideal place to study and learn and concentrate on class.

I'm sorry but my takeaway from your describtion is this: your country is truly fucked.

allegro

03-25-2018, 04:16 PM

Sure. This would make for an ideal place to study and learn and concentrate on class.

I'm sorry but my takeaway from your describtion is this: your country is truly fucked.

It’s a huge country (space), that took us nearly 100 years to pioneer (always with guns), we had a civil war which killed 1,264,000 soldiers (!!), and this security is NOTHING like what Israelis live with every day (where bomb shelters are a home necessity). We are lucky, we went 100s of years with barely any security; our luck ran out.

In the 70s, our schools actually had MORE security than we see now; but it got lax due to a combination of many things; more security actually makes us feel safer. It’s a pain in the ass at first, but then we see the benefits.

Because we can’t get our shit together enough to fix underlying causes: social media and anonymous communication leading to isolation, cyberbullying, lack of true connections for developing kids, and the total lack of interconnected resources to deal with issues like poverty, mental illness, crime, etc.

Louie_Cypher

03-25-2018, 04:39 PM

i agree with the above posting, i will say we are looking at the problem incorrectly, therefore we will always arrive at an incorrect solution. here is a very interesting Yale study https://www.shop.com/Lap+Dance+Spiked+Wrist+Restraints+HF1858BK-1544709574-p+.xhtml
-Louie

allegro

03-25-2018, 04:59 PM

Louie_Cypher , I don’t think that’s what you MEANT to link ;-D

Wow, that’s a fascinating article!!

Louie_Cypher

03-25-2018, 05:18 PM

@Louie_Cypher (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=775) , I don’t think that’s what you MEANT to link ;-D year was a study on fear base conservative policies are saw it tried to change but didn't save edit before leaving. so i have bsmd leanings https://www.buzzworthy.com/yale-study-turns-conservatives-into-liberals/ there is the correct article. very least of incriminating things in my browser cache but thanks for the heads up allegro
-louie

chuckrh

03-25-2018, 05:33 PM

i think that folks really want to abide by notions from the 1700s should have indoor plumbing taken away so that can really get in touch with the era. & import a pack of pissed off indigenous people to hassle them once in awhile. ;)

PS: i kid, kid! sort of. at least we are still allowed to have a discussion about this sort of thing. who knows how long that is going to last. the protests yesterday were a good thing but unless these kids get naked & cover themselves in $100 bills, congress isn't going to pay attention. UNLESS they start getting voted out of office. hard to get off the public sugar tit.

allegro

03-25-2018, 10:37 PM

Video update from Killer Mike.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1759659510763648&id=691105580952385&_rdr

Some areas feel like a dishonest backtrack, especially the bit about his kid. But at least it provides clarity for those who were massively misrepresenting him.

I loved it, I think he was really honest all the way through. Two thumbs up.

elevenism

03-26-2018, 04:20 AM

@louie_cypher (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=775) , i don’t think that’s what you meant to link ;-d

wow, that’s a fascinating article!!
hahahahahahahahahaha

Aslo: santorum. hehehehehehe. you guys said santorum.

ltrandazzo

03-26-2018, 08:37 AM

I think Mike's apology is important but I also think analyzing the fact that he played himself is also important. Mike should've known better, and that's why Black Twitter came for his ass Saturday afternoon once that interview started circulating. It wasn't about Mike speaking out against taking guns away - it was because he allowed himself to show up on nratv (I refuse to capitalize that bullshit), thus allowing himself to become their counter-programming for white people not paying attention to the march.

https://www.theroot.com/issa-trap-how-killer-mike-became-the-nras-token-negro-1824068041

allegro

03-26-2018, 11:12 AM

Anywhere where some celebrity chef or whomever appeared at Saturday's march and they posted it on Instagram, they were flooded FOR TWO DAYS with awful comments, akin to "Unfollowing you, you stupid bitch" or "I used to respect you, now I have to unfollow you," etc. so the notion that white NRA members weren't paying attention to the marches on Saturday is false; they were paying attention, and they were visibly ANGRY about it, and blaming George Soros, "liberal commies," and a whole slew of others.

Also, re that article's comment that the NRA only exists to make money for gun manufacturers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/02/27/a-gunmaker-once-tried-to-reform-itself-the-nra-nearly-destroyed-it/?utm_term=.af69053ce4e4

Louie_Cypher

03-26-2018, 03:07 PM

talking to someone about the killer mike thing, and it occurred, to me when ever the right faces or more correctly places a wedge issue its always very black and white issue, so in this case either, we have to take everyone's gun impossible, let's have a war on war, or "no fighting in the war room". so while i could care less about stormy Daniels, i don't care what the idiot does on his free time, or how he values his marriage Clinton was different because, one it was an intern two he totally lied under oath. so that said what i do think is it's horrible the Mr. gay conversion therapy family values guy the VP. does not resign say a word. one of my main issues with the right and x-stains in general. is their level of hypocrisy. same you OK gay marriage doesn't mean you're going to get ass raped using the bathroom pro just because girls don't want to won't fuck you. doesn't mean guys will. now to mistakenly posting embarrassing links.
louie

Louie_Cypher

03-28-2018, 03:00 PM

this is a good genuine interview and points out a lot of the duplicity of race in America here is the NRA'S own websitehttps://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/ and history no mention of the second amendment, i will wager 90% of people don't know how how many amendments there are 27 so you can feel smart. the 2nd amendment. is vague and controversial even back in the day. I highly recommend a podcast call gun show which explores the history of guns in America. some may find it dry. but like my humor and martini's i prefer my info dry and to the point. as stated before. the right always seems to argue i the extremist black and white idiocy. so to be clear regulation, and prohibition are two clear and separate things now one ever screamed their coming for your cigarettes or cars office building or home all of which are regulated in some form or another. so to be extra clear gay marriage wont affect your marriage one way or another same as letting trans folks use public restrooms, or immigration. most of these things are about freedom of choice, which is the basis of democracy. which i thought the republican's were supposed to champion. the sole purpose of the government is the protection of it's citizen's as a collective. that is it. we have a lot more issues that threaten us as a whole such dismantling of the EPA, race inequality of income, opportunity and education. my opinion most of these Trump has made worse. good listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKTaIY_Qbsk
-louie