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.

Deroth

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 28, 2017
1,833
6,149
2,850
RSI Handle
Deroth1
It's a very good question, and another good question is given his history why was he allowed access to firearms?

It has been repeated time and time again "It is the few who ruin it for the rest of us."

Need I mention American banned Kinder Eggs (hollow chocolate eggs with a toy surprise inside) because there is a law that says no food can contain non-food items, because people could choke on them. It's a sensible law, it stops people who wouldn't be able to ascertain a Kinder Egg had a toy inside it like little children from choking on stuff - yet guns are allowed in casual ownership and accessible to people who would not otherwise be able to ascertain guns kill like little children who then shoot their siblings in the head or their mothers in the back - Mothers who then defend gun ownership rights after their children shoot them in the back.

If you are allowed guns in the US, why ban Kinder Eggs?
Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), someone that has been dishonorably discharged via a Court Martial is the same as a felony conviction, which means that cannot legally purchase or own a firearm.

So how he got one, posted online about it, and no alarms went off for anyone is also quite concerning. (This means he likely broke multiple laws before the shooting.)
 

TheBlackadder

Grand Admiral
Oct 15, 2017
12
48
1,200
RSI Handle
Y_Ddraig_Goch
Obligatory I'm a Brit so not exposed to the personal firearms culture of the USA.

Guns aren't a tool, tools are used to build and fix things. Guns are meant to cause harm, they are a weapon but the crux of the matter as those before me have stated is the personal balancing act of sanity that everyone goes through on a day to day basis. I think stricter laws on who can purchase a firearm should happen but I don't think wholesale banning will be the answer as there are so many guns in circulation already.

That being said I have fired a variety of guns when I was in the Air Cadets and they are fun as shit if used in a safe manner.

I would fully enjoy being able to go down the local range and fire my own weapons but again I don't think we need weapons to keep the government in check, I mean ours couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery at the moment so as far as I can see we're good for at least another 5 years.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,248
45,043
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), someone that has been dishonorably discharged via a Court Martial is the same as a felony conviction, which means that cannot legally purchase or own a firearm.

So how he got one, posted online about it, and no alarms went off for anyone is also quite concerning. (This means he likely broke multiple laws before the shooting.)
Extremely concerning.

One would almost think there were not enough regulations in owning a gun in the US, yet you can't have a Kinder Egg in case you choke on it.

You know what the fine is for smuggling a Kinder Egg in to the US is? $2,500 PER EGG. They can come in 3 packs. thats $7,500 fine per box.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Talonsbane

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,248
45,043
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Whenever I hear people calling for more regulation this is what I think of:

View: https://youtu.be/SqJ_4YhYMhE
"Fully Semi-Automatic"

As said in the civil part of this thread when that video was posted, there is no practical difference between semi-auto and fully-auto.

Fully-auto fires 10 rounds a second but you as a gun firer can only aim at one person a second. Semi-auto fires three shots a second but you can only aim at one person a second.

What is the practical difference? Apart from seven additional holes?

And again I turn to my Kinder Egg example. Where is the uproar that the US government continues its senseless and unnecessary Common Sense Chocolate Controls? Please show me the video where people walk up to a table of candy and point out the scary looking one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Talonsbane

Bambooza

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 25, 2017
5,782
18,311
2,875
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
Extremely concerning.

One would almost think there were not enough regulations in owning a gun in the US, yet you can't have a Kinder Egg in case you choke on it.

You know what the fine is for smuggling a Kinder Egg in to the US is? $2,500 PER EGG. They can come in 3 packs. thats $7,500 fine per box.
A person is considered a felon if they have been convicted of a crime, either violent or non-violent, that is punishable by a prison term of more than one year.

Possession means more than just physically having a gun on your person. In addition to physical possession, the law prohibits felons from having constructive possession of guns. Constructive possession means, for example, a felon cannot have a gun in his house or car, even if he is not present at either location.

18 USC § 922(g) & (n). Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. May receive minimum sentence of 15 years without parole if offender has three or more prior convictions for a felony crime of violence (e.g. burglary, robbery, assault, possession of offensive weapons) and/or drug trafficking felony.


So as you can see the laws do exist and in this case you can see that the law does nothing to stop individuals from doing what ever they want. Until we have the capability similar to Minority Report with precognitive abilities, laws and police will always be an reactive force and often times with such a long delay as to be there only for the cleanup. So the question is while it is not possible to remove every weapon from this planet would you rather be able to be on equal footing with an individual or be subjugated to the individuals will.

Can you give a number on how many more people the killer would have killed with their gun if they had not been disarmed?
No clue it seems that Kelley was leaving the church prior to being shot by an armed resident. So in fact shooting Kelley if true did nothing to stop the initial shooting but might have prevented him from going to other targets.

however repeating the same arguments for every single different event of mass murder is not justifying gun ownership. If gun ownership is justified, justify it in this context, and the next context, and the next, and the next, and the next. Don't repeat what won the last discussion, win this one.
Shouldn't this be applied to both sides of the discussion, not just one, or not used at all?

Are you suggesting a guy could have driven a truck through the wall of the church and crushed 26 to death and injured 20? Because they'd have had to have bought the roof down.
I am saying that indeed a truck driven through the church could have killed and injured more, a bomb at the church could have done huge amounts of damage and death. While there seems to be more frequent use of guns for killing the largest cause of death at a single insistent has been bombs and airplanes.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,248
45,043
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
So as you can see the laws do exist and in this case you can see that the law does nothing to stop individuals from doing what ever they want. Until we have the capability similar to Minority Report with precognitive abilities, laws and police will always be an reactive force and often times with such a long delay as to be there only for the cleanup. So the question is while it is not possible to remove every weapon from this planet would you rather be able to be on equal footing with an individual or be subjugated to the individuals will.
Or, perhaps a register of owners where you are not allowed to sell your gun to another person until they'd been vetted. That'd work really well. Especially if the penalty for selling a gun to someone who then commits an atrocity with it is the death sentence for aiding an act of atrocity. Suddenly the mentally unhealthy will find it very hard to buy a gun in a private sale as no one will be willing to be put to death by the state for helping such an event to happen. The last victim of the killer would be the person they bought the gun off.

But then again, how about a mandatory carry law instead. If, as has been stated many times in this thread, guns in the presence of gun crime are a good idea for defense, should it not be law for absolutely everyone to carry a firearm?

No clue it seems that Kelley was leaving the church prior to being shot by an armed resident. So in fact shooting Kelley if true did nothing to stop the initial shooting but might have prevented him from going to other targets.
And that is my point. If easy access to guns is a good thing because they stopped him from killing more people, would having no access to any guns have stopped him from killing anyone in the first place?

{however repeating the same arguments for every single different event of mass murder is not justifying gun ownership. If gun ownership is justified, justify it in this context, and the next context, and the next, and the next, and the next. Don't repeat what won the last discussion, win this one.} Shouldn't this be applied to both sides of the discussion, not just one, or not used at all?
Then kindly entertain my Kinder question - I have repeated it enough times and it really is the key to my queries. Why are the American People trusted with guns when they cannot even be trusted with candy? Where are the Pro Candy videos telling people they are stupid if they can't recognise a hollow chocolate egg and one with a toy inside it?

I am saying that indeed a truck driven through the church could have killed and injured more...
Then why did he not use a truck?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ezz and Talonsbane

Toihva

Captain
Aug 13, 2017
106
384
200
RSI Handle
Dagnimaer
Considering I had a crackhead trying to break in to my apartment at 2am and he was ignoring 2 large dogs barking at the glass door, I am damn glad I had my gun that night or I am 100% sure I'd be 6' under. ONLY reason the guy ran was because I was getting ready to put 3 shots of 220 gr +P in .45 ACP center mass.
 
Last edited:

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,248
45,043
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Considering I had a crackhead trying to break in to my apartment at 2am and he was ignoring 2 large dogs barking at the glass door and ignoring him, I am damn glad I had my gun that night or I am 100% sure I'd be 6' under. ONLY reason the guy ran was because I was getting ready to put 3 shots of 220 gr +P in .45 ACP center mass.
You can own a gun and have to make the choice of wounding or shooting to kill, at which point the law would probably recognise and back up your choice no matter which you chose even if that choice was to bury 3 slugs in him when one would have done - and still you cannot own a Kinder Egg without breaking the law.
 
Last edited:

Deroth

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 28, 2017
1,833
6,149
2,850
RSI Handle
Deroth1
Or, perhaps a register of owners where you are not allowed to sell your gun to another person until they'd been vetted. That'd work really well. Especially if the penalty for selling a gun to someone who then commits an atrocity with it is the death sentence for aiding an act of atrocity. Suddenly the mentally unhealthy will find it very hard to buy a gun in a private sale as no one will be willing to be put to death by the state for helping such an event to happen. The last victim of the killer would be the person they bought the gun off.

But then again, how about a mandatory carry law instead. If, as has been stated many times in this thread, guns in the presence of gun crime are a good idea for defense, should it not be law for absolutely everyone to carry a firearm?

And that is my point. If easy access to guns is a good thing because they stopped him from killing more people, would having no access to any guns have stopped him from killing anyone in the first place?

Then kindly entertain my Kinder question - I have repeated it enough times and it really is the key to my queries. Why are the American People trusted with guns when they cannot even be trusted with candy? Where are the Pro Candy videos telling people they are stupid if they can't recognise a hollow chocolate egg and one with a toy inside it?


Then why did he not use a truck?
Despite what much of the media and Democrat Politicians claim, what you suggested are already laws. So whenever Law Enforcement determines who he got the firearm from, that person will also be investigated then most likely brought up on multiple chargers.


You can own a gun and have to make the choice of wounding or shooting to kill, at which point the law would probably recognise and back up your choice no matter which you chose - and still you cannot own a Kinder Egg without breaking the law.
The Kinder Egg is one of those things that many in the States find quite baffling, but since the FDA is a part of the non-elected government there isn't much we can do about it.

Additionally, many studies have been done that consistently prove that 'shooting to wound' only increases the risk of collateral damage (injuring someone else or destroying property) while reducing the odds of effectively stopping the criminal. Aiming for center mass (the middle of the chest) is the best option.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,248
45,043
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Despite what much of the media and Democrat Politicians claim, what you suggested are already laws. So whenever Law Enforcement determines who he got the firearm from, that person will also be investigated then most likely brought up on multiple chargers.
Good to know, and a register of owners who won't be able to sell without having the sale vetted by the authorities first? Or is it shoot first ask questions later?

The Kinder Egg is one of those things that many in the States find quite baffling, but since the FDA is a part of the non-elected government there isn't much we can do about it.
"...there isn't much we can do about it." Isn't that what everyone has been telling me the Second Amendment is for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ezz and Talonsbane

Talonsbane

Space Marshal
Donor
Jul 29, 2017
5,923
20,325
3,025
RSI Handle
Talonsbane
In my personal opinion, the problem is not with the lack of gun control laws, but with the lack of ability for the police to be able to enforce those laws which we already have, not because they are incompetent, but because we are lacking the manpower to fully supervise them as well as most of the laws are so vague that they have massive loopholes.

If all weapons are taken away from legally abiding citizens, then the only people with weapons would be the criminals because as soon as it happened, all law enforcement would be exterminated by criminals. Thus creating a society of victims of violent crimes where nobody can effectively defend themselves.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,248
45,043
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
True, true, thank you everyone for clearing that up for me.

My good lady fiancee is comparing my behavior to that of a three year old and in her words i need to "calm the fuck down" so will bow out.

Thank you for the good conversation, sad it comes from such horrendous acts and the original part of the thread was astounding in our calm and kind demeanor to each other (and the second half, minus my own responses) and we came to an excellent conclusion there which I don't think i'll be able to improve upon by being an anus.

Many thanks once again.
 

Toihva

Captain
Aug 13, 2017
106
384
200
RSI Handle
Dagnimaer
You can own a gun and have to make the choice of wounding or shooting to kill, at which point the law would probably recognise and back up your choice no matter which you chose even if that choice was to bury 3 slugs in him when one would have done - and still you cannot own a Kinder Egg without breaking the law.
I don't shoot to wound, I shoot to stop the threat. There is no such thing as 'shoot to wound' because the you aim for largest part of the body, center mass, which also has a lot of critical organs. If you shoot to wound you are trying to pick out a non-vital thing like hand or shoulder. That shit only works in the movies, RL odds are you are going to miss and hit something/someone behind them.

Also, as a Licensed CCW holder in FL, I am responsible for EVERY round that leaves my gun in a defensive scenario and if I hit innocent bystanders with missed shots, odds are I'm gonna be charged.

What it comes down to is people. In the 50's and 60's they brought guns into US schools. Schools had shooting teams etc.

What changed? Society. Hate to say it but you look at majority of mass shooters in US History, most are pretty much Socialist/Communist and most likely Atheist. And before you point out at this shooter in Texas, he is an ardant Atheist who very much hated Christians.
 

Bambooza

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 25, 2017
5,782
18,311
2,875
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
But then again, how about a mandatory carry law instead. If, as has been stated many times in this thread, guns in the presence of gun crime are a good idea for defense, should it not be law for absolutely everyone to carry a firearm?
Carrying a gun takes with a great deal of responsibility and while this could help reduce the number of casualties inflected in these cases it can also lead as @Ezz pointed out to higher body counts for fatal mistakes in the heat of the moment. For me it also goes against the concept of personal choice and responsibility.

And that is my point. If easy access to guns is a good thing because they stopped him from killing more people, would having no access to any guns have stopped him from killing anyone in the first place?
Its hard to say, it could have caused him to find another instrument to care out his plans or it could have prevented the killing in the first place. But for the most part these events have the perpetrator planning out the attack days if not weeks in advance which shows they simply settled on the most readily available weapon for them. It also points out to the fact that those in their life would have been the best way to prevent this from happening. And while I agree that having no access to any guns world wild would have prevented mass shootings I do not see any way to guarantee that all guns are destroyed. The final question is what purpose would it serve? Would it prevent people from killing each other and would it prevent mass casualties? In all frankness taking away guns does nothing to stop the tragic events from happening all it does is close one vector when in truth we as a society should be looking into why they feel so much pain and disconnection that they feel the only way forward is to cause so much pain and what can we as a society do to help them. For the best place to prevent this from happening is not with banning guns or trying to litigate it with laws and procedures that never work but with involvement with in his circle of family, friends, neighbors and acquaintances.

Then kindly entertain my Kinder question - I have repeated it enough times and it really is the key to my queries. Why are the American People trusted with guns when they cannot even be trusted with candy? Where are the Pro Candy videos telling people they are stupid if they can't recognise a hollow chocolate egg and one with a toy inside it?
Honestly from my knowledge few people know what an Kinder egg is let alone that its banned. The second part is it really delicious or just novel regional item that has cultural relevance? As baffling as it is the kinder egg is not the only wacky law on the books there are many a website dedicated to laws that seemed like a good idea at the time but need to be struck out.
 

Bambooza

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 25, 2017
5,782
18,311
2,875
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
True, true, thank you everyone for clearing that up for me.

My good lady fiancee is comparing my behavior to that of a three year old and in her words i need to "calm the fuck down" so will bow out.

Thank you for the good conversation, sad it comes from such horrendous acts and the original part of the thread was astounding in our calm and kind demeanor to each other (and the second half, minus my own responses) and we came to an excellent conclusion there which I don't think i'll be able to improve upon by being an anus.

Many thanks once again.

It has been a great conversation and I thank you @NaffNaffBobFace for your point of view. And i agree it sad that these conversations always follow such horrendous acts as we should be asking these questions more often as well as what is the root cause.
 

Deroth

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 28, 2017
1,833
6,149
2,850
RSI Handle
Deroth1
If the problem is with the person and not with the gun .. make it harder for people like that to get guns. Not more easy:
http://time.com/5011519/texas-church-shooting-mental-health-donald-trump/
This is one of those things that is far more complicated than the media and politicians across the spectrum would have us believe.

First and foremost, in the USA and across the globe the most heavily victimized portion of the population is those with mental health issues, second and third place are not even close.
A significant quantity of people with mental health issues only have them because they were already a victim of a violent act.
Now that they have a mental health issue from being a victim there is a huge stigma on them, as well as a lot of unfair legislation, taking their rights away despite them being the victim, which leads to many choosing to forego the help they so desperately need.

Scenario:
College girl gets violently raped.
She reports it and develops some mental health issues (such as Post Traumatic Stress and Depression, but potentially others as well) that she, hopefully, gets treated for.
While getting treated the risk of her being a victim of additional violent crimes dramatically increases for various reasons. Meanwhile, since many cities, counties, municipalities, and States have laws on the books that block those being treated for mental health issues from owner a firearm, and in some cases even a Taser or mace, she has to make the choice of does she protect herself from future assaults or get the treatment she needs to be mentally healthy again.

True, true, thank you everyone for clearing that up for me.

My good lady fiancee is comparing my behavior to that of a three year old and in her words i need to "calm the fuck down" so will bow out.

Thank you for the good conversation, sad it comes from such horrendous acts and the original part of the thread was astounding in our calm and kind demeanor to each other (and the second half, minus my own responses) and we came to an excellent conclusion there which I don't think i'll be able to improve upon by being an anus.

Many thanks once again.
It is completely understandable and normal to be upset when things like this happen, everybody SHOULD be incensed whenever anything like this happens anywhere in the world.

Unfortunately, that only happens when it is in a 'First World' Country. Things like this, and worse, still happen all over the world in impoverished countries but rarely gets reported on (because it does not generate the desired fear in the target market.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Talonsbane and Ezz
Status
Not open for further replies.
Forgot your password?