Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

[Jinsai]

As someone who thinks everyone should be able to make their own choices as long as they don't impact the freedom of others

Guns tend to impact the freedom of others when they're used to kill people.

Comparing gun ownership to civil rights is idiotic.

[DigitalChaos]

Guns tend to impact the freedom of others when they're used to kill people.

Comparing gun ownership to civil rights is idiotic.

Context. The two are comparable in that they both have strong cultural stereotypes. It's those stereotypes that play a huge part in how others frame the situation. That was the whole point of the article.

[DigitalChaos]

Confessions of a Liberal Gun Lover
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...lover-20140714




"...Malcolm X showed up with a gun and the idea that members of an oppressed class needn't ask the establishment for permission."



"...gun ownership is a necessary line of defense against investment bankers, Wall Street lawyers, big business, the corporatized wing of the Democratic Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, ALEC, Nazis, gangbangers, meth fiends, cops and politicos who cut welfare and education programs while refusing to downsize the military or raise taxes on the rich"

[Jinsai]

"...gun ownership is a necessary line of defense against investment bankers, Wall Street lawyers, big business, the corporatized wing of the Democratic Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, ALEC, Nazis, gangbangers, meth fiends, cops and politicos who cut welfare and education programs while refusing to downsize the military or raise taxes on the rich"

This kind of rhetoric freaks me out. When someone starts saying things like "my gun is a necessary line of defense against the US Chamber of Commerce" it sounds like the guy is about to pull a Taxi Driver.

[DigitalChaos]

This kind of rhetoric freaks me out. When someone starts saying things like "my gun is a necessary line of defense against the US Chamber of Commerce" it sounds like the guy is about to pull a Taxi Driver.

You need to think about it from the perspective of individual power and freedom.

It's very similar to the crypto geeks who really like freedom of speech and want to block any attempt to monitor communication. These people were frequently viewed as potential terrorists during the era of "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't care." Then people started to think that one through a bit more. It's similar to how this guy decided guns were a good thing for freedom sometime during the Bush years.

It's just an example, but cryptography and firearms actually have a pretty big overlap.

[Jinsai]

You need to think about it from the perspective of individual power and freedom.

It's very similar to the crypto geeks who really like freedom of speech and want to block any attempt to monitor communication. These people were frequently viewed as potential terrorists during the era of "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't care." Then people started to think that one through a bit more. It's similar to how this guy decided guns were a good thing for freedom sometime during the Bush years.

It's just an example, but cryptography and firearms actually have a pretty big overlap.

Freedom of speech doesn't directly result in public massacres. Talking about how guns are a good response to politicians is insane, even if we're not going to bring up Gabriel Giffords. So you think guns are a good solution to under taxed rich people? That's fucking nuts.

[elevenism]

@Jinsai and @DigitalChaos , i can see you fuckers arguing about this shit till your 80 years old.

Here's some gun talk we can hopefully ALL agree on.

GODAMN i feel 14!

[Deepvoid]

This kind of rhetoric freaks me out. When someone starts saying things like "my gun is a necessary line of defense against the US Chamber of Commerce" it sounds like the guy is about to pull a Taxi Driver.

It's actually the exact same level of paranoia you see in the comments section of infowars.com.
People that have guns but should have meds instead.

[DigitalChaos]

Freedom of speech doesn't directly result in public massacres. Talking about how guns are a good response to politicians is insane, even if we're not going to bring up Gabriel Giffords. So you think guns are a good solution to under taxed rich people? That's fucking nuts.

Well, when your only view of a gun is "it kills people" then you would think this way. There is a lot more power behind a gun. Did the entire article go completely over your head?

I mean, how can you not understand something like this:
"I understand that exercise of the Second Amendment is effective. You don't need to overthrow the government to send a signal that strikes fear into the pants of those seated in power. The political elite of this country didn't take Martin Luther King Jr. seriously until Malcolm X showed up with a gun and the idea that members of an oppressed class needn't ask the establishment for permission."

The mere act of owning guns by a large number of citizens has been enough to dramatically change how politicians decide to approach certain issues. You don't even have to pull them out of storage unless shit gets stupid and the elected officials are really fucking up, like in the days of Malcom X. Even then they didn't have to do anything but carry them to leverage their power.


And yes, freedom of speech CAN result in the deaths of many, from the perspective of those who push for censorship. That's one of the arguments people use to justify censorship. Be it censorship of instructions for building weapons, censorship of "secret" information (think wikileaks), or the belief that enough negative messaging in art/media will cause kids to turn into criminals and killers.

[Deepvoid]

You believe that the current government is legislating or acting in certain ways because of the 2nd amendment?
That if there was no 2nd amendment, elected officials would govern differently?

[DigitalChaos]

@Jinsai and @DigitalChaos , i can see you fuckers arguing about this shit till your 80 years old.

Here's some gun talk we can hopefully ALL agree on.

GODAMN i feel 14!

That song isn't about guns. It's about a bunch of pro-lifers who killed a dude named Gunn.

Although, it reminds me of Lunchbox, which was about using a metal lunchbox as a weapon. Metal lunchboxes were banned in the 70's because of hysterical people (much like the gun control proponents).

It also reminds me of Manson's 1999 essay about the columbine shootings, which included "Right now, everyone is thinking of how they can prevent things like Littleton. How do you prevent AIDS, world war, depression, car crashes? We live in a free country, but with that freedom there is a burden of personal responsibility."

[elevenism]

That song isn't about guns. It's about a bunch of pro-lifers who killed a dude named Gunn.

Although, it reminds me of Lunchbox, which was about using a metal lunchbox as a weapon. Metal lunchboxes were banned in the 70's because of hysterical people (much like the gun control proponents).

It also reminds me of Manson's 1999 essay about the columbine shootings, which included "Right now, everyone is thinking of how they can prevent things like Littleton. How do you prevent AIDS, world war, depression, car crashes? We live in a free country, but with that freedom there is a burden of personal responsibility."

Jesus wept, calm down for a second.

[DigitalChaos]

You believe that the current government is legislating or acting in certain ways because of the 2nd amendment?
That if there was no 2nd amendment, elected officials would govern differently?

This year alone saw hundreds of thousands of people openly disobey laws that were passed in two separate states. Laws that now make them felons. These states are completely screwed because there is no way they are going to go door to door to enforce it being that every person disobeying possesses a gun.

And again: Malcom X was a great example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballot_or_the_Bullet The political environment was absolutely shifted when firearms were brought into the picture. I live in the state where the gun laws were kickstarted by GOP SuperJesus Ronald Reagan all because of the white people who really didn't like this whole "powerful black person" thing.

[Jinsai]

Well, when your only view of a gun is "it kills people" then you would think this way. There is a lot more power behind a gun. Did the entire article go completely over your head?

The article where every other sentence was plagued with grammatical errors? Yeah, that was some real intellectual stuff there. No, that horseshit didn't go over my head.

And yes, freedom of speech CAN result in the deaths of many, from the perspective of those who push for censorship. That's one of the arguments people use to justify censorship. Be it censorship of instructions for building weapons, censorship of "secret" information (think wikileaks), or the belief that enough negative messaging in art/media will cause kids to turn into criminals and killers.

It's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater for a reason, and it's not covered by freedom of speech. Really, conflating restrictions on gun ownership with basic civil rights is lame... but since we're already quoting Marilyn Manson in this thread, why the fuck not.

[Deepvoid]

I understand about specific gun laws but in a broader sense, there wouldn't be a drastic shift in policies if people weren't armed.
The banks and the gov. literally ripped the American people (and the world) and not a single fuck was given by those same people who are allegedly keeping the government in check by exercising their right to bear arms.
I don't believe there will ever be another US revolution. The likelihood of WW3 is higher.

So I gotta side with @Jinsai here and say that the excuse of having guns to protect themselves from the tyrannical government is bull.

[DigitalChaos]

I understand about specific gun laws but in a broader sense, there wouldn't be a drastic shift in policies if people weren't armed.
The banks and the gov. literally ripped the American people (and the world) and not a single fuck was given by those same people who are allegedly keeping the government in check by exercising their right to bear arms.
I don't believe there will ever be another US revolution. The likelihood of WW3 is higher.

So I gotta side with @Jinsai here and say that the excuse of having guns to protect themselves from the tyrannical government is bull.

Why are you ignoring the impact to the civil rights movement with Malcom X? Thats probably the most obvious. There are a lot more nuanced topics, but if you can't address the obvious ones, there isn't much point in progressing.

[DigitalChaos]

It's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater for a reason, and it's not covered by freedom of speech.

wait, you actually agree that people shouldn't be able to share information if that information is deemed potentially dangerous? Or that it could risk the safety of someone else? And that art/media should be censored if it will potentially have a negative impact on children?

I was kind of assuming you didn't agree, but if I've been wrong about that... then your whole gun stance makes complete sense.

[Deepvoid]

Why are you ignoring the impact to the civil rights movement with Malcom X? Thats probably the most obvious. There are a lot more nuanced topics, but if you can't address the obvious ones, there isn't much point in progressing.

Times have changed. Fights are fought differently.

[Jinsai]

wait, you actually agree that people shouldn't be able to share information if that information is deemed potentially dangerous? Or that it could risk the safety of someone else? And that art/media should be censored if it will potentially have a negative impact on children?

No.

I was kind of assuming you didn't agree, but if I've been wrong about that... then your whole gun stance makes complete sense.

You've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no idea what my stance on guns is. I've said it before, but I guess I'll go ahead and say it again. I do not endorse sweeping legislation that would ban guns. I think we need much more strict background checks, I think we should close down the sale of guns at gun shows, I think people with any degree of mental health issues should be prohibited from buying guns, I think we should red flag unstable people who attempt to buy tons of ammo... etc. Actually, I think if someone tries to buy a ton of guns and ammo, they should be investigated. I think if you're going to buy a gun you should have to be psychologically evaluated. I don't think people should be allowed to march into Chili's flaunting their guns. I think "yeee haw" gun culture sucks. I think people saying that their guns are going to protect them from government tyranny are ridiculous. On a side note, I think self-righteous libertarian bullshit is obnoxious as hell, and I think people applauding themselves for being patriots is lame too.

I don't know why I'm bothering to explain again.

[Satyr]

No.



You've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no idea what my stance on guns is. I've said it before, but I guess I'll go ahead and say it again. I do not endorse sweeping legislation that would ban guns. I think we need much more strict background checks, I think we should close down the sale of guns at gun shows, I think people with any degree of mental health issues should be prohibited from buying guns, I think we should red flag unstable people who attempt to buy tons of ammo... etc. Actually, I think if someone tries to buy a ton of guns and ammo, they should be investigated. I think if you're going to buy a gun you should have to be psychologically evaluated. I don't think people should be allowed to march into Chili's flaunting their guns. I think "yeee haw" gun culture sucks. I think people saying that their guns are going to protect them from government tyranny are ridiculous. On a side note, I think self-righteous libertarian bullshit is obnoxious as hell, and I think people applauding themselves for being patriots is lame too.

I don't know why I'm bothering to explain again.

"I think if you're going to buy an Xbox One that you should have to submit to a psychiatric evaluation. If you own an Xbox One and a firearm you should probably be red flagged as a domestic terrorist."

This is completely fabricated hyperbole but I just hope people can see my point...

[Jinsai]

"I think if you're going to buy an Xbox One that you should have to submit to a psychiatric evaluation. If you own an Xbox One and a firearm you should probably be red flagged as a domestic terrorist."

This is completely fabricated hyperbole but I just hope people can see my point...

Yeah, because Xbox Ones are commonly the culprit in mass murders. What the hell are you even trying to say? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this topic.

[DigitalChaos]

Times have changed. Fights are fought differently.

They CAN be because of the additional tools (thank you internet) but it doesn't invalidate prior techniques.

[DigitalChaos]

Yeah, because Xbox Ones are commonly the culprit in mass murders. What the hell are you even trying to say? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this topic.

There is a very large group of people who think that video games are just as much of a culprit in the shootings and they have just as much "factual" support as the gun control crowd. Both are pretty ridiculous.

[Jinsai]

There is a very large group of people who think that video games are just as much of a culprit in the shootings and they have just as much "factual" support as the gun control crowd. Both are pretty ridiculous.

I can't believe you're defending this comparison.

A gun is a weapon. Its primary function is to kill things. When a gun is used to kill a living thing, it has achieved its primary purpose, and has demonstrated that it functions correctly.

If you need to be told why it's fucking asinine to compare a deadly weapon to a video game system... If you think blaming guns for people dying is just as ridiculous as blaming video games for people dying.... I don't know what to tell you.

[DigitalChaos]

I can't believe you're defending this comparison.

A gun is a weapon. Its primary function is to kill things. When a gun is used to kill a living thing, it has achieved its primary purpose, and has demonstrated that it functions correctly.

If you need to be told why it's fucking asinine to compare a deadly weapon to a video game system... If you think blaming guns for people dying is just as ridiculous as blaming video games for people dying.... I don't know what to tell you.

culprit. Definition: the cause of a problem or defect.

Somehow, this spree killings manage to happen with more than just guns. Sometimes it's knives, cars, bombs, etc.

So yes, it's just as stupid as blaming video games as the cause. It's just as stupid as blaming rape on the way victims dress.

If your argument was logically consistent, you'd be advocating restrictions for any sort of dangerous device in the hands of mentally unstable people. But most gun control fans aren't proposing that mentally unstable people be restricted from driving, having access to sharp objects, etc. Nope, instead they want to limit a very specific type of dangerous machine to the entire population. The same population where hundreds of millions own guns without any problem.



As for your "guns are for killing" thing.... way more lives are protected with guns than lost. The numbers differ depending on the data, but in the US, it's around 60-80 lives protected for every 1 person killed. And that is just saving lives... There are many other crimes stopped with guns. Up to 200,000 rapes are stopped each year with a gun.

[Jinsai]

culprit. Definition: the cause of a problem or defect.

Somehow, this spree killings manage to happen with more than just guns. Sometimes it's knives, cars, bombs, etc.

So yes, it's just as stupid as blaming video games as the cause. It's just as stupid as blaming rape on the way victims dress.

If your argument was logically consistent, you'd be advocating restrictions for any sort of dangerous device in the hands of mentally unstable people. But most gun control fans aren't proposing that mentally unstable people be restricted from driving, having access to sharp objects, etc. Nope, instead they want to limit a very specific type of dangerous machine to the entire population. The same population where hundreds of millions own guns without any problem.



As for your "guns are for killing" thing.... way more lives are protected with guns than lost. The numbers differ depending on the data, but in the US, it's around 60-80 lives protected for every 1 person killed. And that is just saving lives... There are many other crimes stopped with guns. Up to 200,000 rapes are stopped each year with a gun.

Jesus christ... a gun "protects a life" by threatening another human with lethal force! Either that, or it KILLS THEM.
This "argument" is too fucking stupid to entertain. You're doing the entire pro-gun lobby a disservice. Anyone who says "video games kill people" is a fucking idiot. Someone saying "a gun was used to kill a lot of people" is reporting the fucking news.

If someone told you "oh yeah, he was killed by an Xbox" or "he killed himself with an Xbox," that merits a healthy "what the fuck?!" response. If someone says "oh he was killed by a gun" or "he killed himself with a gun" the logical conclusion of how the death was accomplished is implied. Nobody is surprised or confused.

Why the fuck am I ever bothering? This goes way beyond a false equivalency to the point where you might as well be playing with your own feces and claiming it's an "argument."

[ambergris]

Woman shoots man, because he didn't ejaculate enough when they had sex - It was proof to her that he had an affair:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/2...te-during-sex/

[DigitalChaos]

Jesus christ... a gun "protects a life" by threatening another human with lethal force! Either that, or it KILLS THEM.
This "argument" is too fucking stupid to entertain. You're doing the entire pro-gun lobby a disservice. Anyone who says "video games kill people" is a fucking idiot. Someone saying "a gun was used to kill a lot of people" is reporting the fucking news.

If someone told you "oh yeah, he was killed by an Xbox" or "he killed himself with an Xbox," that merits a healthy "what the fuck?!" response. If someone says "oh he was killed by a gun" or "he killed himself with a gun" the logical conclusion of how the death was accomplished is implied. Nobody is surprised or confused.

Why the fuck am I ever bothering? This goes way beyond a false equivalency to the point where you might as well be playing with your own feces and claiming it's an "argument."

Now you are just playing semantics and tweaking the phrasing in a way that you think benefits your argument. By your new measurement, we shouldn't look at mental health either because "he killed himself with a mental problem" wouldn't make any sense.

The common cause in spree killing is not guns, it's not video games, but it IS mental health. Why you continue to focus on such a statistically small segment of killing makes me curious, but there you have it.

[Deepvoid]

According to the National Institute of Mental Health "An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.¹ When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people."

Therefore, you guys should start disarming a lot of people right fucking now. None of those 57.7 million people should ever have the right to carry a gun.

[DigitalChaos]

According to the National Institute of Mental Health "An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.¹ When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people."

Therefore, you guys should start disarming a lot of people right fucking now. None of those 57.7 million people should ever have the right to carry a gun.

So there is always a catch. Much like "national background checks" sound like a good idea, you are going to get hung up on implementation. Like it or not, gun ownership is a right that is codified by the constitution. This country has evolved beyond the point of denying constitutional rights to a whole class of citizens. So you first have to come to terms with that reality.

Then let's say you get to the point of implementing it....
- How do you identify all of these people? The only way that seems doable is health records. Are we really ok with opening up that up? Which leads to...
- Are you going to make the mental health problem worse? I think it is pretty obvious that many people would avoid treatment for fear of having their rights stripped. The only way you will identify those people are when something bad happens and they get caught up with the law.
- What about the ones who already own guns? Are you seriously going to send police door to door doing confiscations on mentally unstable people? In the states where confiscations are a reality (for felons), they are having an incredibly hard time keeping up.
- How the hell are you going to match mental health records against future gun purchases? Yup, gonna need that national background check system that is filled with implementation problems.
- How about matching current or future mental health records against existing ownership? Yup, gonna need a national gun registry too. That'll encounter even more issues than the background check.




oooooor... you could treat 1/4 of the population as fucking human beings and improve mental health treatment in the country. The statistical chance of being involved in a spree shooting is incredibly small. How selfish do you have to be to strip the rights of millions and throw billions of dollars at protecting yourself from a very small number of individuals instead of using that money to help 1/4 of the population?