Guns. Good or Bad?

Guns. Good or Bad?

  • Guns Good.

    Votes: 88 71.5%
  • Guns Bad.

    Votes: 35 28.5%

  • Total voters
    123
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 19, 2017
857
3,838
650
RSI Handle
Vavrik
I will read this more in-depth after I wake up a little, however, I can tell my some of your numbers that your stats include suicides, while bad I would argue should not be counted in a murder rate with firearms. Yes the US has a higher violent death rate, those articles I posted last night were about Mass shooting as that was the conversation we were having. I will read the CDC report. however I believe we do not have a gun issue in America, we have a human issue.
I suspect that the suicide shouldn't be included crowd is right, but for a different reason than they think. It's quite simply not defined as homicide. Suicide by whatever means, is mostly about the availability of that means. IMO, overall rates of suicide wouldn't change even if you removed all firearms from the planet and hurled them into the sun.

But that isn't the point I was trying to make here. I was making a point about statistical sources. If you cherry pick statistics, you can find criteria that will fit almost any model you want. The author of the report you linked to, is a guy named John Lott. He is an economist, who is therefore incredibly well versed in the manipulation of statistics. My opinion of him is that he is also a biased reporter, who has a vested interest in the specific statistics he reports, since he has written several books that sell very very well into the Second Amendment crowd. He would lose his income if he didn't spin the numbers the way he does.

But If you're looking to learn the scope of mass shootings, then look at mass shootings, set a simple definition that does not exclude mass shootings. The accepted definition seems to be, "Firearm discharge involving the injury or death of 4 or more individuals". It's not an official definition, it's just that is the most often cited definition and it seems reasonable to me. If you go on to exclude cases where no other crime was committed, you exclude exactly the kind of thing you would want to look at - namely, how big is the problem? Why is that? Because what constitutes a crime varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That makes it very hard to make a fair comparison. This is true even if you just look at the US and ignore the rest of the world. There are 51 Governments in the USA, (counting Federal) and what constitutes a crime in each, is different.
 

sum1

Grand Admiral
Jun 26, 2015
620
1,815
950
RSI Handle
sum1

If you don't look at the graph you might say "well there is now huge drop". But look at the numbers: it goes from 2 to below 1. That means it goes down by more than 50% .. 50%+ less suicide .. nothing to see here.
What are you talking about? the suicide rate with firearms goes down, but the non-firearm rate takes a drastic spike before dropping to comparable levels.


Also looks grade if you don't look at it for real. Nearly no red dots it the US and nearly white background color just like the EU.
But again, if you look at the numbers you will find that the color-graph starts at 5.2 as a low. The US has a rate of 4.88 so is on the lowest end of that color.

What the graph does not show you that the EU with the same color has a way way WAY lower rate with below 1
(Some are above with France and Belgium but it evens out at below 1)
But based on the colors it is the same. And btw look at the Countries surrounding the US in homicide rates.
And what about those red dots? Its just one dot per country so at first glance US looks better than the EU. Even though dots are based on how big they are not based on the color. Very strange since the color does show the exact same thing. Why all the alarming red dots? So everything is red except from the US and some other countries like Russia an China? Why? What for?
He goes on with this one shown by VOX
All he claims (and this is true) is the US is not as bad some people make it out to be.


And complains about why they choose AIDS since that is just a .. gay thing? And that putting drugs there does not make sense because drugs cause gun crimes.. what? And he act like he does not understand what the War-number means since people dying in war are shot by guns .. even though it seems pretty clear to me that Gun deaths are related to gun deaths in america and War is based on death outside of the US in war. Than he goes on to say the old "San Bernardino was Terrorism" thing and that he thinks that they put it in gun death and not Terrorism .. San Bernadino was bad but we are talking about 14 deaths .. the graph wouldn't even change for 14 deaths. So again no point really.
If San Bernadino is not terrorism then what else should be called Terrorism that is not? and how much does that change the numbers? His issue with AIDS is it is not a mass killer, Vox took a few things that are VERY low on modern kill chart to make guns look worse then they are. Firearms do not top death rates in the US, so if your issue is the loss of life there are much bigger fish to fry, (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php).

Next he talks about how big cities are the reason for gun homicide and shows this:

And says "the US has more big cities than many of those shown Countries combined" Countries that were shown were: Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, New Zealand, Ireland, Australia, Denmark
His statistic shows 100k+ cities so lets take that as big cities: Germany has 80 Cities with 100k+ people. with about 80Miopeople in Germany thats about 1 big city per 1 Mio people living in Germany, comparing that to the US Germany has even more big Cities/Person and since we talked about rates earlier we have to take that into account.
Lets take Netherlands: 17Mio people and 25 Cities above 100k so even more
Even Switzerland has 0.75 100k+ Cities per Million people. US has about 0.9.
So again those numbers don't make sense.
You are totally out of scale here, we are talking about cites with million, not 100k+. we have 10 cities with over 1 million people. New York City ALONE has over 8.5 million people! we are not talking 100k towns, we are taking 10x to almost 100x that size.


And is saying that if the US has so many guns, why is it just number 28 on gun homicide in the world. Clearly the graph does not show all countries in the world (there are more than 10) and comparing it to countries like Honduras and Venezuela? Really? And btw its Number 18 not 28 if you sort my homicide rate and all shown countries are way below the US so the graph does make sense.
Yet again this was showing that Vox was cherry picking data, not saying the US does not have an issue, rather than false information being put forward is misleading people and giving out bad data. (the video is almost 2 years old so at the time this was right by his source: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list)

The reason this video is good, and his sources, is because there are a lot of people putting false data out there in an attempt to mislead people for political reason, In America, the "Left" put out data through Vox and other new sites that forward their political agenda, The Left wants to ban all guns, they have tried it many times, it has failed many times. They have also blocked bills that would have had greater penalties for criminals that were caught with guns.
 
Sep 19, 2017
857
3,838
650
RSI Handle
Vavrik
Ezz is right by the way. That Crowder video contains a lot of mis-direction, and it's unfortunate that he does so in an incredibly arrogant style. [EDIT] The Vox video also has a few issues, but it is a media report, and not a statistical report.

I want to make a point about gun ownership in the USA. There is a lot of gun ownership in the US, arguing that it isn't is just silly. But the total number of firearms in the US, or in any particular state is not an indication of how many people own guns in the US or in that state. The US firearms industry is huge, manufacturing firearms is cheap, and they can sell for a lot of profit. The consequence is that there are warehouses full of firearms that have never been sold. These firearms are included in the total count of weapons in the country.
 

sum1

Grand Admiral
Jun 26, 2015
620
1,815
950
RSI Handle
sum1
Ezz is right by the way. That Crowder video contains a lot of mis-direction, and it's unfortunate that he does so in an incredibly arrogant style.
look at his sources, (they are right under the video) yes he can get a caught up in it all, but his sources are strong and based on fact.


The consequence is that there are warehouses full of firearms that have never been sold. These firearms are included in the total count of weapons in the country.
Really? source?

Look, people, there is a LOT issue in America, but it is not a gun issue, (or at least not as the media is reporting it) it is a people issue, our values are totally fucked up here, and it's hurting people, Now I am all for gun laws that would punish criminals (my personal belief is if you take another life, outside of self-defence or defence of another life, you don't deserve yours) but that aside the issue here is we have evil people in the world, doing evil things, This last school shooter was identifed to the FBI, as admiting he was planning shoot up the school, and they did nothing. As such I will use my right to defend myself from these crazies. Now if you can identify and stop the crazies without punishing people that have done nothing wrong, we can talk. But Intel then I will be keeping my 1911 loaded and my M1A on stand-by. Because my life matters, and I will protect it, its the only one I got. And I am all for others protecting their lives when in danger. So let our school staff defend themselves and their charges or hire armed guards. but it is totally retarded our politicians and "elites" with their armed bodyguards are telling us to not defend ourselves. I linked it before, "Columbine Shooting Survivor Introduces Bill To Allow Teachers To Carry Guns In Schools" https://www.dailywire.com/news/27326/columbine-survivor-introduces-bill-expand-allow-ryan-saavedra and "Police Gun Control Survey: Are legally-armed citizens the best solution to gun violence?" https://www.policeone.com/gun-legis...d-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/ Spoiler alert 91% OF FIRST RESPONDERS say the best way is armed citizens. So long story short, I will defend my right to life, I will defend innocents right to life, and fuck the criminals.
 

Ezz

Admiral
Feb 4, 2016
863
4,423
710
RSI Handle
Pfen
The easiest thing first:
You are totally out of scale here, we are talking about cites with million, not 100k+. we have 10 cities with over 1 million people. New York City ALONE has over 8.5 million people! we are not talking 100k towns, we are taking 10x to almost 100x that size.
The picture posted is what Cowder showed in the Video and it is 100k+ cities so how on earth do you come to the conclusion that he means 1 Million+? He does not say it. He says big cities and shows numbers of 100k+.
Btw:
US: 10 Cities, 0.03 Cities / Mio People
Germany: 4 Cities, 0.05 / Mio People (MORE)
Yet again this was showing that Vox was cherry picking data, not saying the US does not have an issue, rather than false information being put forward is misleading people and giving out bad data.
How is this Cherry picking? the second highest rate is at 58% .. in the world! You can't get much higher as what is shown in that graph!

If San Bernadino is not terrorism then what else should be called Terrorism that is not? and how much does that change the numbers? His issue with AIDS is it is not a mass killer, Vox took a few things that are VERY low on modern kill chart to make guns look worse then they are. Firearms do not top death rates in the US, so if your issue is the loss of life there are much bigger fish to fry, (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php).
People think america has a huge drug problem. People think america has a problem with terrorism (Muslim Ban by Trump) [and btw 9/11 is in that graph in Terrorism], America is in war non stop and people want out of the middle east, that is why those number matter.

All he claims (and this is true) is the US is not as bad some people make it out to be.
What he wants to show in the video is the wrong impressions you get from the statistics VOX shows. So it is important to look at the statistics he shows. And that statistic is extremely misleading since it shows EU and US as the same even though US has nearly 5 times higher numbers.

What are you talking about? the suicide rate with firearms goes down, but the non-firearm rate takes a drastic spike before dropping to comparable levels.
Suicide by gun goes down and suicide without gun goes down from 11 to 8 as well.

look at his sources, (they are right under the video) yes he can get a caught up in it all, but his sources are strong and based on fact.
Noone is saying he has no facts backing him up. But VOX's numbers are also correct with facts backing them up. This is all about how those fact are presented and he does present the fact as biased as VOX and does unbunk nothing.
 
Sep 19, 2017
857
3,838
650
RSI Handle
Vavrik
Sure.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/2016-firearms-commerce-united-states/download
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center...tates-annual-statistical-update-2017/download

Go nuts.

But I can't tell which side of the fence you're on anymore.

Look, people, there is a LOT issue in America, but it is not a gun issue, (or at least not as the media is reporting it) it is a people issue, our values are totally fucked up here, and it's hurting people, Now I am all for gun laws that would punish criminals (my personal belief is if you take another life, outside of self-defence or defence of another life, you don't deserve yours)
I already said I consider the "people issue, not a gun issue" thing a red herring, did I not? If not, I'm saying it plainly here. The fact is, you cannot legislate anything that would affect a firearm or a bullet. You can only implement laws that regulate people, that's kind of a fact of nature. Guns are subject to physical laws, and not human laws. When people talk about gun controls, they aren't talking about banning guns - or they'd be talking about gun bans and not gun controls.

I'm also pretty sure I said that I support strict gun controls, but not at the expense of Second Amendment rights. There is no reason gun controls need to impinge on the Second Amendment.

If you think our values are totally fucked up, and it's hurting people, then you're on the same side I am. Stop arguing the other side. [Edit: Explicative removed. This is already hard enough to discuss without getting overheated.]
 
Sep 19, 2017
857
3,838
650
RSI Handle
Vavrik
By "stricter gun controls", I'm saying laws that encourage, support, and mandate responsible gun ownership and handling, and provide a framework for ensuring that these aspects of gun ownership are met, or you don't get a gun. Most jurisdictions in the US do not have these kinds of rules. The military does, and does a pretty darn good job of ensuring that it's members know exactly how to handle a firearm safely, and how to point it at someone and pull the trigger. If your in the army, and fail at either side of that, you're probably lucky if your first sergeant doesn't want to shoot you himself.

I'm also pretty sure I said that gun controls were not the whole answer. If you look at the countries that have a better record than the US, you'll also see that they tend to have implemented other things that also helped, not realted to firearms at all. Not even related to crimes. To a nation, they all have a far stronger social safety net than the US has. Things like universal health care that includes mental health issues. Stronger welfare systems, and unemployment insurance that are separate from social security. Less punitive prison systems. Strangely that works. I'm not sure I'd go the way Norway went, but I'd certainly follow the UK, Austrailian, or Canadian models. You don't do society any favors by having a punitive prison system that does not include strong rehabilitation and reintegration programs. At some point, they either die in prison, or get released. If the latter, you want to make sure you've at least tried to give them coping tools.

There are probably other reasons, and maybe some of that doesn't have much impact at all. It's just the models seem to work better than the US model. Maybe this has something to do with it too: It would be rather difficult to do in the US, compared with other countries. The Second Amendment hard liners aside, you don't have just 1 government involved, there are 51.
 

sum1

Grand Admiral
Jun 26, 2015
620
1,815
950
RSI Handle
sum1
The picture posted is what Cowder showed in the Video and it is 100k+ cities so how on earth do you come to the conclusion that he means 1 Million+? He does not say it. He says big cities and shows numbers of 100k+.
Btw:
US: 10 Cities, 0.03 Cities / Mio People
Germany: 4 Cities, 0.05 / Mio People (MORE)
you are totally missing the point, our largest cities have the strictest gun laws and the most violent deaths. You could fit Germanies top 8 cities in NY and still have room!


How is this Cherry picking? the second highest rate is at 58% .. in the world! You can't get much higher as what is shown in that graph!
because at first, they did not include gang violence other things they excluded at the beginning of the video. then at the end they sneak it into the overall stats without telling you.


People think america has a huge drug problem. People think america has a problem with terrorism (Muslim Ban by Trump) [and btw 9/11 is in that graph in Terrorism], America is in war non stop and people want out of the middle east, that is why those number matter.
America does have a huge drug problem, mainly the war on it. America does have a terrorism problem, people try to keep blowing shit up over here. And I for one think we should vet people before they come in. but the Death rates from other sources are SO much more then from "gun violence" but they don't care about that over here, they just want to take away guns.


Suicide by gun goes down and suicide without gun goes down from 11 to 8 as well.
I don't think you are looking at the same table as me, there is a MASSIVE spike after the gun ban in none gun suicides rate, yes the overall suicide rate has gone down, but it was going down consistently before and the ban as well. you can't say suicide rate is down because of the gun ban when it was already going down. and then it took a massive spike then continued on is the pace at the same rate as before.


But I can't tell which side of the fence you're on anymore.
I am on the side of life, so many people say "common sense gun control" and I say, "like what" and they have no clue. I have answers, I want to let people defend themselves because that will save lives end of story.


When people talk about gun controls, they aren't talking about banning guns - or they'd be talking about gun bans and not gun controls.
yes, they are talking about banning guns, I have seen the left try for it time and time again. they have argued it to the Supreme Court, they have tried to make it imposable to get guns. they call it gun control, but the only bills they push forward would put all the gun under their control.

I'm also pretty sure I said that I support strict gun controls, but not at the expense of Second Amendment rights. There is no reason gun controls need to impinge on the Second Amendment.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." any gun control that takes that away from law-abiding member of society is against the 2A. So what would you like to do?


If you think our values are totally fucked up, and it's hurting people, then you're on the same side I am. Stop arguing the other side. [Edit: Explicative removed. This is already hard enough to discuss without getting overheated.]
What I want are real solutions that will work and ones that do not walk on the rights of the law-abiding.


Maybe part of those "fucked up values" have to do with guns.
really? I am going to be honest, this is about the stupided thing I have heard. how does my right to defend myself, and the ones I love, with guns, from evil people have anything to do with fucked up balues?


By "stricter gun controls", I'm saying laws that encourage, support, and mandate responsible gun ownership and handling, and provide a framework for ensuring that these aspects of gun ownership are met, or you don't get a gun.
lawful gun owners have no issue with their guns. they understand how to use them, the guns don't cause any issue, this would regulate an issue that does not exist. The people that have a gun to hurt people are causing problems and it is not because they don't know how to use a gun. Also, Gun ownership is at an all time high, and violent crime an all-time low, I like that result (https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...n-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#684c2bcf3f7c)


The military does, and does a pretty darn good job of ensuring that it's members know exactly how to handle a firearm safely, and how to point it at someone and pull the trigger. If your in the army, and fail at either side of that, you're probably lucky if your first sergeant doesn't want to shoot you himself.
Yet again the issue is not people not knowing how to use a gun, it is people using a gun to do evil.


I'm also pretty sure I said that gun controls were not the whole answer. If you look at the countries that have a better record than the US, you'll also see that they tend to have implemented other things that also helped, not realted to firearms at all. Not even related to crimes. To a nation, they all have a far stronger social safety net than the US has. Things like universal health care that includes mental health issues. Stronger welfare systems, and unemployment insurance that are separate from social security. Less punitive prison systems. Strangely that works. I'm not sure I'd go the way Norway went, but I'd certainly follow the UK, Austrailian, or Canadian models. You don't do society any favors by having a punitive prison system that does not include strong rehabilitation and reintegration programs.
The UK government just cut 500,000 surgeries last year, People in Canada are coming to America to get healthcare, I think I will not take advice from Europe on this one, thanks but pass.


There are probably other reasons, and maybe some of that doesn't have much impact at all. It's just the models seem to work better than the US model. Maybe this has something to do with it too: It would be rather difficult to do in the US, compared with other countries. The Second Amendment hard liners aside, you don't have just 1 government involved, there are 51.
THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T FIX IT!! they have tried and tried and only made a mess. every time our government steps in things go to shit.
 

Ezz

Admiral
Feb 4, 2016
863
4,423
710
RSI Handle
Pfen
because at first, they did not include gang violence other things they excluded at the beginning of the video. then at the end they sneak it into the overall stats without telling you.
The graph is about amount of guns per person. He is criticizing that graph. I talked about that graph. You mention cherry picking quoting me talking about that graph. That graph is not cherry picking.
They show countries you can compare with the US. You can't compare the US to Venezuela when talking about gun owner ship and homicide. Or is that what you want to compare the US to? I don't know what the switching between gang violence has to to with that. He is mentioning that but not when confronted with that graph.



America does have a huge drug problem, mainly the war on it. America does have a terrorism problem, people try to keep blowing shit up over here. And I for one think we should vet people before they come in. but the Death rates from other sources are SO much more then from "gun violence" but they don't care about that over here, they just want to take away guns.
True, True and True, so those numbers matter. Comparing Death-numbers of non-problems wouldn't make sense. Comparing them with other problems makes sense in my opinion. That's why its AIDS, Drugs and Terrorism. Which sources of death have so much higher rates and need to be shown? There are more people dying because of cancer so chill guys? The problem mentioned with that statistics is that those stuff doesn't make sense, but they do because they are problems you here about on a daily bases, and the graphs puts that into perspective. That what it's about. Not about being the highest number of them all.


I don't think you are looking at the same table as me, there is a MASSIVE spike after the gun ban in none gun suicides rate, yes the overall suicide rate has gone down, but it was going down consistently before and the ban as well.

Maybe we are looking at different things :p
This is what it looks like without the after-ban-time. I don't see a trend of consistently going down of an overall suicide rate.
It did go up for 2 years by 1 overall after the ban but did go down to 9, the lowest point of the chart. So it did get better.

really? I am going to be honest, this is about the stupided thing I have heard. how does my right to defend myself, and the ones I love, with guns, from evil people have anything to do with fucked up balues?
This is a prime example of what I mean. I have never said that I think all guns should be taken away. Noone should be able to own a gun. I never said that protecting you and your family from "evil" is a "fucked up value". I said that values regarding guns are "fucked up". And what I mean by that is, that putting checks into place that not everyone can purchase a gun, like mentally unstable potential mass-murderers, are treated like taking away your right of freedom. Noone talkes about banning all guns but that is what everyone is complaining about.
I talk about gun control, you say you need to protect yourself from evil with a gun. One does not hinder the other. Expect you are a danger to society.
For example the shooting last week. The shooter was known to be dangerous. FBI knew about him, other students knew about him. So why was he allowed to own guns? What about the gun checks for mentally ill that Trump did revoke?


 
Last edited:
Sep 19, 2017
857
3,838
650
RSI Handle
Vavrik
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." any gun control that takes that away from law-abiding member of society is against the 2A. So what would you like to do?
Strangely enough, firearm crime is perpetrated by criminals and not by people who are law-abiding. Even if they weren't criminals before they pulled the trigger, the moment they pulled the trigger they are.

In many cases, the people who are responsible for mass shootings are already known to police, but the police are unable to legally do something about it. It has to be frustrating as hell to be a cop responding to a situation that you know could have been prevented if you had been allowed to intervene. For myself, it would give me nightmares.

I am on the side of life, so many people say "common sense gun control" and I say, "like what" and they have no clue. I have answers, I want to let people defend themselves because that will save lives end of story.
I don't share this opinion. There are no statistics that show this is anything more than an (in my opinion, misguided) opinion. But if it is your opinion, then try it. The US has to do something, so DO SOMETHING. If you think this would work, then pick a jurisdiction and try it. For real. See if it actually works. If it does, then fair enough. If it doesn't then do something else. Just, not near Houston Texas please. We have a pile of people here who think it's OK to shoot someone for walking across your front lawn. It's not, but it's their opinion regardless.

The UK government just cut 500,000 surgeries last year, People in Canada are coming to America to get healthcare, I think I will not take advice from Europe on this one, thanks but pass.
When Canadians come to America to get healthcare, it's because they are electing to come to America to get health care, not because the health care is not available in Canada. American health care is a for profit business, and advertises for customers heavily in Canada. They may or may not, depending if they are line jumping, get medicare coverage for the procedure done in the USA. If they are line jumping (which is a term used to describe people who are paying money to receive medical care faster, *because* they can pay more) then they do not get medicare coverage of the procedure, that is illegal in Canada.

THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T FIX IT!! they have tried and tried and only made a mess. every time our government steps in things go to shit.
You know something. Overall the American Government isn't all that bad. Neither are State Governments in the US. They do make messes, so do Governments elsewhere. They trip, they overstep their bounds, they screw up. It's not a perfect system, but it's the one we're stuck with. Until someone comes up with something better, suck it up, and make due.
 

AntiSqueaker

Space Marshal
Donor
Apr 23, 2014
1,749
3,516
1,670
RSI Handle
AntiSqueaker
I'm 19 pages late but i'll throw my hat into the ring.

Preface: I own a multitude of firearms. Currently an AR-15 (with a new .300 AAC upper thanks to the wifey <3 ), 3 handguns (all 9mm, too wimpy for .45 ACP :kissing_smiling_eyes:), 9mm carbine, and the good ole trusty 12g pump. I have a concealed carry permit, although I rarely bother with actually carrying because it's a hassle. I used to have an old Marlin .357 lever action but I sold it off because I'm trying to consolidate calibers for easier storage.

So obviously I'm on one side of the issue already.

That being said: Fuck the NRA. They are not here to protect your rights, they are here to protect their corporate donors rights to sell guns with as little restrictions as possible. Springfield, Bass Pro Shops, Arsenal, Glock, F&N, Remington, Ruger, and many others pay about 75% of the NRA's total funding.

These corporate donors care about one thing: sales. Sales are good, better even when people are scared that the government is gonna come take your guns. Ammo sales SKYROCKETED after Sandy Hook. They spiked, big time, both times Obama won. The reason you saw all those 500$ AR in late 2016/early 2017? Yeah, gun manufacturers were overproducing because the odds were in Hillary's favor to win in 2016, so they had to sell em off cheap to get rid of inventory.

They do not want to lose their juicy military and police contracts. That's why the NRA had such a lame-ass, and belayed response to the shooting of Philandro Castile. The NRA never, and I mean never criticizes their unjustified police shootings in which the deceased was legally armed, because their corporate backers don't want to lose their juicy and lucrative contracts.

I drive an extra 10 miles out of the way to go to a non-NRA affiliated shooting range because they're the lobbying equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and going LALALALALA. They pay political stooges to just bleat out dumbass lines like "it's not the time to talk about gun control"

Yes, it is. We, as a nation, have not really ever had an actual conversation on gun control and what that means. Both because of a lot of people who are vehemently anti-gun, and the NRA who sees even the most minor restriction as the End of the World.

So, where do we go? Historically all gun control has been aimed at the working/lower class, and doubly so against non-whites. If you wanna see when Ronald Reagan and the NRA teamed up to defend banning the carrying of loaded weapons in public, then look no further than the Mulford Act, passed in response after the Black Panthers had a wholly legal armed march on the capital to protest police brutality.

If you make it so that your average handgun costs an extra 600+ bucks in fees, taxes, stamps, etc etc and 2 months of paperwork to jump through, you've done nothing but make it so only the well off can defend themselves and their families, or people willing to buy guns illegally. Thus adding yet another thing cops can harass poor people about.
 

AntiSqueaker

Space Marshal
Donor
Apr 23, 2014
1,749
3,516
1,670
RSI Handle
AntiSqueaker
Double post but this is a different topic.

I see a lot of people on the pro-gun/conservative side trying to get teachers to carry at work.

a) Where the fuck is that money going to come from? You surely will have to have some sort of certification or training class to ensure that a teacher, now responsible (possibly legally!) for defending their students at gunpoint, is going to be able to shoot effectively. You also need to buy the guns, or reimburse the teachers buying their own, and pay for ammo.

Don't tell me that most public school districts don't have enough to pay their teachers liveable wages or buy new books, but have enough to buy 300 Glock 26's or whatever, plus all the ammo and classes? Not to mention that is a liability nightmare if, god forbid, there's an accident and some kid is accidentally shot or the teacher shoots themselves.

b) A lot of teachers probably won't feel comfortable carrying a gun at a school. This should be a no brainer. I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying a gun at school because it's a school for fucks sake. It's got a bunch of kids, who fight and are generally little pieces of shit. Not to mention a majority of teachers are ladies, who are (by and large, but NO MEANS a blanket statement) going to be less eager to carry a gun on them every work day.

c) now instead of having one gun on campus in the hands of a school resource officer, you have like 40. Simple logic dictates that you will have at least a few more incidents with firearms, whether they are negligent discharge, a student making a grab for a teacher with a gun, a panicked teacher trying to break up a fight and unnecessarily escalating the situation, etc etc etc. I think "as few guns as possible at school" should be a pretty reasonable ideal to push forward.

If you really really really want to have some method of schools being able to defend themselves, why not have a few long guns (12 gauges, ARs, whatever) in a secure location, i.e. principals office, secure storage room, etc. A teacher, coach, administrator, school resource officer, who is comfortable and willing to could be issued a key to unlock the rack on which they are stored, which would also automatically alert 911. 3-4 people who know how to shoot are going to be much better than every teacher having a CCW on them.

But this will all get ignored until the next school shooting in a week, and we'll repeat ad naseum.
 
Sep 25, 2017
1,692
5,603
650
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
ad naseum is true. If there was a way to figure out who would kill another and prevent it by denying them a weapon then in truth we would be able to remove all weapons from society as there would be no more need.

But as much as we would like to regulate the ability of individuals to act independently in their capacity to threaten and take another life all it accomplishes is changing the means and not the end result. And while guns do a great job of balancing the projection of power and put all those who choose to own and weld on even ground they do come at a terrible cost. Like all weapons before them across time the haves will always dictate the terms for the have nots.

So while lacking in precognition the next best solution is to be prepared and that includes having the tools required to defend oneself from those who wish you ill. So ask yourself if you where in the classroom in Florida trapped in a classroom having heard gun fire what would you do? Would you hunker down and hope to be overlooked or would you wish for a gun of your own so that you might have a fighting chance? And while the dream of banning something is desirable the truth has always been that banning never works. Look at the banning of alcohol prohibition, it was done for real valid reasons and yet it solved nothing, but did provided a great revenue stream for the mafia. Then take the banning on drugs and how its purpose is justifiable and yet can we say its been even partially effective? Or can we say that the banning of drugs has torn apart countries like Mexico, El Salvador, Panama & Colombia and empowering the cartels, gangs and Biker Clubs?

And while shootings in general are tragic no matter their location or reason can we say that this time any sort of litigation or outright banning will achieve anything or will the cost be to high? After all history is littered with the tales of atrocities against the powerless, against those who gave up their weapons or never had them to start with.

So perhaps the question is not how can we ban or regulate weapons but how can we as a society reduce the likelihood that someone will act out in a violent way against other individuals, be it strangers, school mates or spouse and children? Or is it easier to not look at the root issue and instead cast blame on a proxy?
 

AntiSqueaker

Space Marshal
Donor
Apr 23, 2014
1,749
3,516
1,670
RSI Handle
AntiSqueaker
A good move by Trump,

"US President Donald Trump has signed an order to ban bump-stock devices, which were used by a gunman who killed 58 Las Vegas concert-goers last year."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43135584
The scapegoat goes "Baaaaaaah!"

Bump stocks are the sacrificial lamb offered up to try and appease public outcry, hopefully to ignore the larger issue.
 
Jan 5, 2016
4,112
16,894
1,100
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
A good move by Trump,

"US President Donald Trump has signed an order to ban bump-stock devices, which were used by a gunman who killed 58 Las Vegas concert-goers last year."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43135584
Well I'll be damned... I never honestly expected to see that.

Trump, if you are secretly a TESTie and are lurking on here, I'd just like to say thank you.

To reach a destination one must take that first step, and by the sounds of it going on to look at school safety in the coming weeks too, the journey may have only just begun. I hope it to be a very worthwhile one that one day helps the first few words of the second amendment ring just as true as the last few, in that the Militia, while keeping its right to keep and bear arms uninfringed, will be well-regulated to the benefit of the security of the state from inside aggressors such as the mass-shooters we have discussed in this thread as well as those perceived outside aggressors the Militia was originally formed for at the time the amendment was ratified.

I couldn't agree more when the President says "We have to do more to protect our children" and hope we all agree, no matter which side of the debate we have taken on this thread.

Again just want to point out banning Bump-Stocks is not banning guns. It's not taking an Americans right to keep and bear arms away, it's reducing the amount of carnage a malicious person such as the Nevada Concert Shooter can cause.


Thank you one and all for taking part in this thread. Obviously to those calling for regulation (like myself), but also to those wishing to retain their second amendment right to not be infringed in any way shape or form. Without all our voices we cannot discuss and if we cannot discuss we cannot learn. I'm sure the debate will continue, however what I have really learned here is that both sides do have some valuable points and I think there is a common ground where with a little compromise from each side the number of atrocities can really fall.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Bambooza

Wolfy

Space Kitty
Apr 27, 2017
1,207
4,936
610
RSI Handle
WolfytheWarlock
I'm perfectly fine with bump stocks being banned. Doesn't change that semi-automatic weapons will remain legal. Hell, im even ok with registering them and having a background check done. Won't be more invasive than the battery of shit I had to do for work and I keep my rifles and handguns.
 
Last edited:
May 18, 2017
40
159
200
RSI Handle
Saint-Grisha
At the end of the day I have resigned myself to the fact that nothing that we do will stop the cycle as there is no way to fix the root problems short of going full on French and breaking out the guillotine. So yeah, I'm kinda jaded. Also like @AntiSqueaker said FUCK THE NRA. Seriously, they are the last organization I want speaking on behalf of me as as a firearm owner.
 

Wolfy

Space Kitty
Apr 27, 2017
1,207
4,936
610
RSI Handle
WolfytheWarlock
At the end of the day I have resigned myself to the fact that nothing that we do will stop the cycle as there is no way to fix the root problems short of going full on French and breaking out the guillotine. So yeah, I'm kinda jaded. Also like @AntiSqueaker said FUCK THE NRA. Seriously, they are the last organization I want speaking on behalf of me as as a firearm owner.
Fuck the NRA, completely agree. They are overblown in the way they attempt to portray things, particularly in ads. I think we can fix this by address the root issue with applying more stringent background systems and updating our reporting metrics. We need a unified database of violent threats and mental issues managed by a federal law agency that feeds into FFL and Police databases.

That way law abiding citizens like me and I assume you can maintain our firearm collections for both defense and recreation. Also, more police and security measures should be adopted in our schools maybe with budgets from DHS or something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.