Video Games and Violence

[Phil]

This will be fun!!!

1. Your data is 2 years old 2017? Really? Also were talking the larger scale mass shootings not Chicago gang violence and I live in Chicago 20 minutes away so I know.

2. Not a single person on the planet except the gun nuts have claimed taking ALL your guns away, not a single person.... ever.... this is right wing NRA gun toting gibberish used to get your voter base and the gun base fired up, again not a single person even remotely said ALL guns. Most Democrats and Liberals btw me being one own firearms and would never contemplate ALL guns so please more drama!!!

3. This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment needs to be amended its outdated, the terminology is so old it has no bearing today what so ever, we need to revise it so its more current, we don't have slaves etc..... our government would never turn on us as most are Americans and not some dual culture or split cultured country like the middle east. So again the constitution was designed to change the founding fathers foresaw this and that is why we have Amendments so we can adjust to the times.

4. That was a joke but its true, there isn't much you could do against the U.S. army if it did come down to it, we would be wiped off the map, period, its not a question who is right or wrong its simple facts. Again only the fear mongering paranoid people on the right speak this gibberish. Lets go with it though, lets say our government was tyrannical and used its military against us if this is the argument then I can see people wanting bigger firearms, vehicles etc... because if your argument is to defeat a tyrannical government then you would need an army of comparable firepower and a few assault rifles wont cut it, you better start getting the petitions going for jets, tanks and bombs cause that's what your going to need to stop them.

5. This is where I agree, Assault Weapons needs to be redefined, I will be totally honest with you I could care less if you own an AR-15 as long as you don't get 30 round magazines, laser sights, grips etc... if you want to argue its a rifle for sport or hunting then the maximum magazine size needs to be 5 or 7 rounds no more, you don't need anymore for hunting or sports, if your in a firearm sport fine get a special license that says you are and that your capable of handing the firearm with responsibility and not some 20 year old kid who thinks its fucking cool to own a gun like the one in Call of Duty. If you cant agree on magazine sizes and modifications then I say ban them period.

6. First of all over half the Democratic base are gun owners its simple we believe in firearms being owned, where we disagree is what type of firearm the modifications and magazine sizes, background checks and for me more than ever the age limit, you say the left hates guns this is another right wing pro gun NRA talking point, we don't hate guns, we support the right to own a firearm we just don't think 20 year old kids or 60 year olds for that matter (las vegas shooter) should have access to this type of firepower. Yes these are MILITARY grade weapons, period the only people I want to see walking down the street with an AR-15 and body armor is my fucking local police not some stupid kid trying to make a 2nd amendment statement trying to get shot so his point is valid to his side of the argument, jesus where do you people come from, he walks into a wallmart with body armor and an assault rifle 2 days after the shooting and says "im testing my 2nd amendment rights" that's fucking stupid any way you look at it, you put people in danger, you put the police at risk of shooting not only him but innocent bystanders this is nuts.

7. This is not 100% true many of the shooters committed suicide they were not stopped by the police they shot themselves and that is not the same at all. Also on several occasions dating back to Columbine because of the policies of the dept officers were told to wait for swat while people died yes this has changed over time but early on this was the case, even in Parkland the officer sat outside while kids were being shot so please spare me the "good guy with a gun" prevails argument, I am not saying every time but most of the time the damage was already done by the time the police arrived even if it was minutes like Texas due to the sheer firepower he was able to kill 20 and injure dozens more within a single minute and this is the heart of the argument of why these guns shouldn't be in the hands of the public, they were designed to kill as many people as possible with ease, these kids aren't even novice shooters and their able to wipe out 20 people in a single minute because of these types of firearms, give that kid a bolt action rifle and you just saved 15 people, that's how easy this argument is won.

8.Oh boy another Chicago comment.... I live here and you all have it wrong, the city of Chicago doesn't outlaw gun ownership, it simply adds an additional license and background check called the CFP Chicago Firearms Permit, now stores are not allowed to sell guns in the city limits that's it, most of the guns flood into the city from the surrounding states, this is fact. So please don't try and educate me on where I live you got it wrong and I am tired of the Chicago talking point about guns being illegal here, they aren't illegal and that's a fact. The age old statement of criminals don't obey laws..... sigh..... this is about as dumb as it gets, well there are prolly millions of people who drive drunk I guess we should just dump that stupid drunk driving law eh?? Oh what about car insurance I mean tons of people don't get that either lets just dump that law too, lol to say criminals don't obey laws so why have them is about the dumbest fing statement I have ever heard brother, please get another.

9. I agree, people do kill people, but what has changed over the past few decades is the amount of people being killed and the ease and frequency of which its happening, I mean its clear by your arguments here we could come away with why ban anything? Why change anything? I mean people going to do bad things and use tools or equipment to do it so why make access to it harder? I mean if that kid and this is just one example we have dozens btw, if that kid couldn't buy that firearm and body armor and had to resort to 5 round bolt action rifle and maybe thinks twice about it because he doesn't have the body armor on maybe just maybe a dozen or more people wouldn't have died? I mean its safe to say without assault rifles and high capacity magazines (or bump stocks las vegas) the rate at which people were killed or harmed drops drastically don't you agree? This is fact, its a fact that without those weapons, magazines and mods the death rate goes down, period! I know I know but you will say he will find another way, maybe run people over with a car or make a bomb etc... and this is a possibility but if you don't make it harder they will always resort to the assault rifle with high capacity magazines, because its cheap, its easy and its very masculine as well and you cant think these people didn't think it through how going out this way would be..... glamorous in some sort of sadistic way, its human nature.

10. Yes you have rights, but again when it comes to the 2nd Amendment your 100% wrong, in 1934 we passed the National Firearms Act outlawing short barrels, full auto and dangerous devices such as explosives, sawed off shotguns etc... the government not only has the right to ban dangerous weapons and devices it has a responsibility to do so. Yes you have a right to own A firearm, A being single as in a generic sense you don't however get to tell the government what is safe to the public and what is not, that's a determination for the Senate, Congress and the U.S. government who we elected to make those decisions. So again I support your right to own A firearm as well as my right to own A firearm but when it comes to banning dangerous weapons or devices its clear the government has the right to do so, history has proved it in 1934 and 1994 with the federal assault weapons ban along with magazine types and sizes. You can rant and rave all you want about your rights and I am glad you have the right to do that but make no mistake there is nothing stating the government cant pass an assault weapons ban or magazine sizes or mods like the bump stock, its been done and sooner or later it will be done again.

I hope you don't take this stuff personal its nice to have a discussion but this is why the two sides cant come together, you allege I am a left wing anti gun nut when I own a firearm and support the 2nd amendment, but the fact is people have twisted the wording to suit their own views and its wrong, somehow the left has been labeled anti-gun and its not true the majority of us actually do own guns you just don't see us walking into Wallmarts in body armor with an AR-15 on our backs to prove a 2nd amendment point that almost gets people killed, that's your side. We firmly believe in the constitution and support it the way it was written not the way its been twisted over the years by the NRA and Republican party to stoke fear and fire up its base.

Again I will go back to my original post, those two pictures and ask you why does anyone especially a 20 year old kid need access to a firearm like that? Why?

 

[SeungRyul]

Reminder to keep it civil my friends. I know its a challenging issue to discuss and I will not close this thread out of respect to all the participants.

 

[sum1]

1. Your data is 2 years old 2017? Really? Also were talking the larger scale mass shootings not Chicago gang violence and I live in Chicago 20 minutes away so I know.

Feel free to give statistics that counter my points.

2. Not a single person on the planet except the gun nuts have claimed taking ALL your guns away, not a single person.... ever.... this is right wing NRA gun toting gibberish used to get your voter base and the gun base fired up, again not a single person even remotely said ALL guns. Most Democrats and Liberals btw me being one own firearms and would never contemplate ALL guns so please more drama!!!

3. This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment needs to be amended its outdated, the terminology is so old it has no bearing today what so ever, we need to revise it so its more current, we don't have slaves etc..... our government would never turn on us as most are Americans and not some dual culture or split cultured country like the middle east. So again the constitution was designed to change the founding fathers foresaw this and that is why we have Amendments so we can adjust to the times.

I agree, the 1st Amendment is outdated and does not apply to computers or the internet. see how stupid that is? rights are rights, not something that can be changed by anyone.

4. That was a joke but its true, there isn't much you could do against the U.S. army if it did come down to it, we would be wiped off the map, period, its not a question who is right or wrong its simple facts. Again only the fear mongering paranoid people on the right speak this gibberish. Lets go with it though, lets say our government was tyrannical and used its military against us if this is the argument then I can see people wanting bigger firearms, vehicles etc... because if your argument is to defeat a tyrannical government then you would need an army of comparable firepower and a few assault rifles wont cut it, you better start getting the petitions going for jets, tanks and bombs cause that's what your going to need to stop them.

it's not about winning against them, even though a bunch of Vietnamese farmers did a very good job about it, it's about the ability to stand up against evil, its about making the cost of tyranny too high that would cripple any evil tyrannical power.

5. This is where I agree, Assault Weapons needs to be redefined, I will be totally honest with you I could care less if you own an AR-15 as long as you don't get 30 round magazines, laser sights, grips etc... if you want to argue its a rifle for sport or hunting then the maximum magazine size needs to be 5 or 7 rounds no more, you don't need anymore for hunting or sports, if your in a firearm sport fine get a special license that says you are and that your capable of handing the firearm with responsibility and not some 20 year old kid who thinks its fucking cool to own a gun like the one in Call of Duty. If you cant agree on magazine sizes and modifications then I say ban them period.

what do laser sights or grips have to do with anything? this is the thing, people who want to know nothing about how any of this work writing the laws that they don't address the issues. so WHAT IS AN ASSAULT RIFLE?

6. First of all over half the Democratic base are gun owners its simple we believe in firearms being owned, where we disagree is what type of firearm the modifications and magazine sizes, background checks and for me more than ever the age limit, you say the left hates guns this is another right wing pro gun NRA talking point, we don't hate guns, we support the right to own a firearm we just don't think 20 year old kids or 60 year olds for that matter (las vegas shooter) should have access to this type of firepower. Yes these are MILITARY grade weapons, period the only people I want to see walking down the street with an AR-15 and body armor is my fucking local police not some stupid kid trying to make a 2nd amendment statement trying to get shot so his point is valid to his side of the argument, jesus where do you people come from, he walks into a wallmart with body armor and an assault rifle 2 days after the shooting and says "im testing my 2nd amendment rights" that's fucking stupid any way you look at it, you put people in danger, you put the police at risk of shooting not only him but innocent bystanders this is nuts.

let's assume this is true, just for fun, what is the legislation you would want to be passed?

7. This is not 100% true many of the shooters committed suicide they were not stopped by the police they shot themselves and that is not the same at all. Also on several occasions dating back to Columbine because of the policies of the dept officers were told to wait for swat while people died yes this has changed over time but early on this was the case, even in Parkland the officer sat outside while kids were being shot so please spare me the "good guy with a gun" prevails argument, I am not saying every time but most of the time the damage was already done by the time the police arrived even if it was minutes like Texas due to the sheer firepower he was able to kill 20 and injure dozens more within a single minute and this is the heart of the argument of why these guns shouldn't be in the hands of the public, they were designed to kill as many people as possible with ease, these kids aren't even novice shooters and their able to wipe out 20 people in a single minute because of these types of firearms, give that kid a bolt action rifle and you just saved 15 people, that's how easy this argument is won.

they kill themselves when they know they can't cause any more harm. yet again the only people that die are unarmed. its hard to argue the "no good guy with a gun" and then turn around and admit that the shooting only stops when a second gun shows up.... but that is what happens EVERY SINGLE TIME. the shooter usually knows it's over and ends it on his terms but only when that second gun is there.

8.Oh boy another Chicago comment.... I live here and you all have it wrong, the city of Chicago doesn't outlaw gun ownership, it simply adds an additional license and background check called the CFP Chicago Firearms Permit, now stores are not allowed to sell guns in the city limits that's it, most of the guns flood into the city from the surrounding states, this is fact. So please don't try and educate me on where I live you got it wrong and I am tired of the Chicago talking point about guns being illegal here, they aren't illegal and that's a fact. The age old statement of criminals don't obey laws..... sigh..... this is about as dumb as it gets, well there are prolly millions of people who drive drunk I guess we should just dump that stupid drunk driving law eh?? Oh what about car insurance I mean tons of people don't get that either lets just dump that law too, lol to say criminals don't obey laws so why have them is about the dumbest fing statement I have ever heard brother, please get another.

ya, let's do what Chicago is doing, because that is working so well, or London, or well anywhere that has limited their citizens in self-defense. ya criminals by definition don't follow the law, what's dumb about that? it's true... what you are saying is because people drive drunk lets limit or take away other peoples cars/drivers licenses... that stupid.

9. I agree, people do kill people, but what has changed over the past few decades is the amount of people being killed and the ease and frequency of which its happening, I mean its clear by your arguments here we could come away with why ban anything? Why change anything? I mean people going to do bad things and use tools or equipment to do it so why make access to it harder? I mean if that kid and this is just one example we have dozens btw, if that kid couldn't buy that firearm and body armor and had to resort to 5 round bolt action rifle and maybe thinks twice about it because he doesn't have the body armor on maybe just maybe a dozen or more people wouldn't have died? I mean its safe to say without assault rifles and high capacity magazines (or bump stocks las vegas) the rate at which people were killed or harmed drops drastically don't you agree? This is fact, its a fact that without those weapons, magazines and mods the death rate goes down, period! I know I know but you will say he will find another way, maybe run people over with a car or make a bomb etc... and this is a possibility but if you don't make it harder they will always resort to the assault rifle with high capacity magazines, because its cheap, its easy and its very masculine as well and you cant think these people didn't think it through how going out this way would be..... glamorous in some sort of sadistic way, its human nature.

Your future tyrannical leader thanks you for making his job easier. So how do you make it harder to get access to this by evil people? background checks, we have them, and if you think they are lacking, go try to buy a gun, because until you have you have no clue how many hoops you have to jump though.

10. Yes you have rights, but again when it comes to the 2nd Amendment your 100% wrong, in 1934 we passed the National Firearms Act outlawing short barrels, full auto and dangerous devices such as explosives, sawed off shotguns etc... the government not only has the right to ban dangerous weapons and devices it has a responsibility to do so. Yes you have a right to own A firearm, A being single as in a generic sense you don't however get to tell the government what is safe to the public and what is not, that's a determination for the Senate, Congress and the U.S. government who we elected to make those decisions. So again I support your right to own A firearm as well as my right to own A firearm but when it comes to banning dangerous weapons or devices its clear the government has the right to do so, history has proved it in 1934 and 1994 with the federal assault weapons ban along with magazine types and sizes. You can rant and rave all you want about your rights and I am glad you have the right to do that but make no mistake there is nothing stating the government cant pass an assault weapons ban or magazine sizes or mods like the bump stock, its been done and sooner or later it will be done again.

your argument here is "because it's a law it's right!" and that is so so so so so stupid.

Again I will go back to my original post, those two pictures and ask you why does anyone especially a 20 year old kid need access to a firearm like that? Why?

to defend his life against any who would see to harm him or his family, both foreign and domestic.

Honestly, I don't see any reason to keep talking about the above points, this is why "its bait" we will keep going around and around in circles and get nothing done. So lets cut to brass tax. I own some of these "assault weapons" what should the government do to them/me? or if nothing there when I have a few grand I fully plan on buying another one. what than?

 

[Phil]

Its bait to you because you don't agree, for many others its the truth, this is why the two sides will never agree, you will make up any argument to suit your view points.

Your points were as far fetched as Trumps daily twitter remarks, beyond bizarre. That video was ridiculous lmao, seriously you must live a life of fear if you really dislike our government that much and are in constant fear move to Russia or China I don't understand how you can sit here in America and act as if the government is some sort of tyrannical monster if anyone has turned it tyrannical its Trump by the way. You are already registered when you get your FOID card you fill out all your information and it goes to the FBI, the only people who don't use the loop holes are in the private gun sales which is where the criminals go to sidestep the damn registration in the first damn place, if anyone with a criminal record wants a gun all they have to do is go to a gun show. Without a registry how will you ever combat mental illness with their ability to purchase guns?? It cant be done so now I guess universal background checks are off the table to? The only reason people don't want a gun registry is because they are most likely doing something illegal or just paranoid anyways, I always hear the right talk about "law abiding citizens" well if your one of those you shouldn't have to worry about it right? Oh but wait I forgot the governments coming for ALL OUR GUNS!!!!! (plays dramatic music)

Again the 2nd Amendment is 200+ years old and back then they used single fire muskets you didn't see them trying to put cannons or rotary style Gatling guns in every home no they carried muskets mostly for hunting and if need be to fight the British sadly the whole point is lost on people like you.

I guess if owning a few assault rifles makes people feel more manly or secure then hey by all means pad your egos and insecurities, because all I saw in your post was paranoia, the government, home invasion, defend myself..... virtually the odds of you being assaulted in your home is a small % unless you live in a crime ridden neighborhood, the odds the government knocks on your door and takes your gun is 0% unless you've committed a crime or have given them reason (mental illness?) as for home defense most people will tell you there are better choices than an AR-15, odds are if you've been broken into unless you've left your weapon out and that's pretty irresponsible considering the hundreds of children being killed every year because of so called "responsible gun owners" the odds you can get to your AR-15 in those moments are slim, everyone will tell you a quick access handgun safe is the best bet. So I am not sure what you are arguing about a bunch of if, ands or but's that 99.9% in your lifetime will never happen, yet the odds of children being caught in a mass shooting is rising every year, our schools have to have lockdown procedures, police have to retrain constantly because every mass shooting brings another factor to the table and all of your words I saw nothing that helped prevent another mass shooting, nothing, not a single thing, you didn't see any benefit at all to any options presented to help save lives...…. and that's because your paranoid and you let your paranoia control your emotions which is what the NRA and republicans want, every time we have a gun ban debate the sales of AR-15's go right through the roof and they count the $$$ while we sit here and argue.....pretty sad my friend.


Las Vegas October 1st a 64 year old man fired 1100 rounds in 10 minutes killing 64 and injuring 422 others, total of 851 injured after it was over, bump stocks were selling out like hot cakes it took over a year December 2018 to ban those modifications and it went into effect in March 2019. I still to this day cant believe it took over a year to ban those and how many of those were sold and are still being sold behind closed doors right now..... I can only imagine if it were your family that got gunned down by one of these you might feel different.

 

[sum1]

Its bait to you because you don't agree, for many others its the truth, this is why the two sides will never agree, you will make up any argument to suit your view points.

its bait because it goes around and around in circles going nowhere.

Your points were as far fetched as Trumps daily twitter remarks, beyond bizarre. That video was ridiculous lmao, seriously you must live a life of fear if you really dislike our government that much and are in constant fear move to Russia or China I don't understand how you can sit here in America and act as if the government is some sort of tyrannical monster if anyone has turned it tyrannical its Trump by the way.

ah so a tyrant can arise so why would we hand over our guns to Trump if he is so bad?

if anyone with a criminal record wants a gun all they have to do is go to a gun show.

100% fiction, gun shows have to A: run the exact same checks. or B: have it shipped to a dealer that will run the checks.

I always hear the right talk about "law abiding citizens" well if your one of those you shouldn't have to worry about it right? Oh but wait I forgot the governments coming for ALL OUR GUNS!!!!!

Because history teaches us the first step to a tyrannical government is one that disarms its citizens or gets to choose who owns guns or whatever the current military infantry technology is.

Again the 2nd Amendment is 200+ years old and back then they used single fire muskets you didn't see them trying to put cannons or rotary style Gatling guns in every home no they carried muskets mostly for hunting and if need be to fight the British sadly the whole point is lost on people like you.

I think the 1st amendment is 200+ years old and does not apply to your use of the internet. Yes, the foundering fathers after fighting off the British wrote something about hunting, just forgot to talk about hunting all, instead of focusing on militias (a fighting term) and the free state. also good use of an insult to talk down to the person you disagree with.

I guess if owning a few assault rifles makes people feel more manly or secure then hey by all means pad your egos and insecurities,

yet again, anyone who disagrees with you is wrong or has major flaws. classic


I mean I could go on, but the rest is just more ranting at me for accentually not agreeing with him. And this is were I think it is sad, I have tried presenting my issues and worries and going as far as asking for exact measures (that never got answered btw) without being willing to address my issues, really only calling me basically mad for having my worries, this is why don't like having this conversation online, I hope that we can put aside our differences and enjoy playing video games, the reason we are both here, I really hope so. Video games are awesome. I believe Phil's heart is in the right place but I am worried that the action Phil seems to be in favor of would rob people of their right, not issued by any government, but by being human, to defend themselves and lead to a tyrannical government that would openly abuse, kill, and destroy it's own people, as our country, and many around the world have in our own pasts. This being said, I am sad that we could not have a pleasant discussion about this topic. This will be my last post on this topic with Phil. Thank you.

 

[Phil]

Your wrong about gun shows, only a handful of states require background checks at gun shows

Gun Show Background Checks State Laws

View a map showing different state gun show laws.

www.governing.com

A more recent article

What Is the Gun Show Loophole and Why Does it Exist?

Gun sold or transferred by private gun owners are not regulated by law in many states, creating a loophole in gun control.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

...we have this discussion every time and it always ends the same way...

To quote Police Academy 3: "In America, talk is cheap."

Remember my "Guns. Good or bad?" thread?

It was closed in the end because the discussion ran dry but the shootings didn't. Ended up just being me reporting whenever I saw another USA atrocity on my TV evening news.
I live 3000 miles away.

Discussing is a waste of time and energy. Nothing will change. Talking about it is fooling ourselves into thinking we have any kind of control or influence over the status quo, no one does and to think we do is as daft as thinking video games make a person violent. The world will continue to do whats easiest/most profitable and the sun will set orange tonight and raise red tomorrow and we will continue to witness the price a country is happy to pay for access to fire arms. All we can do is stop watching.

The price will continue to be paid, but no one will notice anymore because that's just the way it is. Talk is cheap. In some circumstances so is life.

And this is why I try not to take part in these discussions anymore.

 

[MurderingPsycho]

1. Your data is 2 years old 2017? Really? Also were talking the larger scale mass shootings not Chicago gang violence and I live in Chicago 20 minutes away so I know.

His data is 2 years old because collecting accurate data and compiling it for a detailed report takes time. Getting on CNN and making wild claims with no evidence is fast but not particularly useful. The CDC also tracks this data and has a similar delay in reporting because of this.

2. Not a single person on the planet except the gun nuts have claimed taking ALL your guns away, not a single person.... ever.... this is right wing NRA gun toting gibberish used to get your voter base and the gun base fired up, again not a single person even remotely said ALL guns. Most Democrats and Liberals btw me being one own firearms and would never contemplate ALL guns so please more drama!!!

Colion Noir explains this pretty well but the fact that so many of our politicians want all semiautomatic weapons banned should be enough. This would include most rifles and almost all handguns. And lets not forget that taking ALL guns is exactly what the state and federal government did after Katrina even knowing that violent criminals were attacking people in their homes.

3. This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment needs to be amended its outdated, the terminology is so old it has no bearing today what so ever, we need to revise it so its more current, we don't have slaves etc..... our government would never turn on us as most are Americans and not some dual culture or split cultured country like the middle east. So again the constitution was designed to change the founding fathers foresaw this and that is why we have Amendments so we can adjust to the times.

Correct, the constitution is designed to be changed though amendment, which hasn't been done regarding the 2nd amendment since it was introduced. If people want this done, then it needs to be done through the proper process which is intentionally slow and requires a large majority to prevent people from having their rights stripped based on emotional reaction. As far as the government not turning on us, see comment about Katrina or the endless cases of police abusing their authority. Most are good people but it's not most that you need to worry about. And let's not forget that we recently had a presidential candidate claim that the government had nukes available for use against citizens if they ever rose up.

4. That was a joke but its true, there isn't much you could do against the U.S. army if it did come down to it, we would be wiped off the map, period, its not a question who is right or wrong its simple facts. Again only the fear mongering paranoid people on the right speak this gibberish. Lets go with it though, lets say our government was tyrannical and used its military against us if this is the argument then I can see people wanting bigger firearms, vehicles etc... because if your argument is to defeat a tyrannical government then you would need an army of comparable firepower and a few assault rifles wont cut it, you better start getting the petitions going for jets, tanks and bombs cause that's what your going to need to stop them.

See previous point. Most US soldiers would likely not attack citizens, so you wouldn't be in it alone anyway but that doesn't change the fact that you have a right to give you life to defend you country from tyranny. The idea that if you can't get everything you want then you shouldn't even try is a big problem in this county right now. Doing the right thing is the right thing to do no matter what happens to you. I'm honestly not sure if I would have the guts to stand up against a government the way our founding fathers did but I damn sure want the option. Remember, a lot of them died in the effort too.

5. This is where I agree, Assault Weapons needs to be redefined, I will be totally honest with you I could care less if you own an AR-15 as long as you don't get 30 round magazines, laser sights, grips etc... if you want to argue its a rifle for sport or hunting then the maximum magazine size needs to be 5 or 7 rounds no more, you don't need anymore for hunting or sports, if your in a firearm sport fine get a special license that says you are and that your capable of handing the firearm with responsibility and not some 20 year old kid who thinks its fucking cool to own a gun like the one in Call of Duty. If you cant agree on magazine sizes and modifications then I say ban them period.

With proper training you don't actually need a 30 round mag for a mass shooting. Most people that train with AR-15s can swap the mag and start shooting again in less than 3 seconds. The people that do need them are the ones defending themselves. People have died in home invasions because they ran out of bullets. I've been told that people like standard capacity magazines for hunting boar because they need 30 rounds in case they charge them but maybe they are just bad shots. As far as sporting, there are several shooting competitions that make use of standard capacity magazines. I guess you could modify these events for low cap mags but to say that they aren't currently needed for sporting is just incorrect.

6. First of all over half the Democratic base are gun owners its simple we believe in firearms being owned, where we disagree is what type of firearm the modifications and magazine sizes, background checks and for me more than ever the age limit, you say the left hates guns this is another right wing pro gun NRA talking point, we don't hate guns, we support the right to own a firearm we just don't think 20 year old kids or 60 year olds for that matter (las vegas shooter) should have access to this type of firepower. Yes these are MILITARY grade weapons, period the only people I want to see walking down the street with an AR-15 and body armor is my fucking local police not some stupid kid trying to make a 2nd amendment statement trying to get shot so his point is valid to his side of the argument, jesus where do you people come from, he walks into a wallmart with body armor and an assault rifle 2 days after the shooting and says "im testing my 2nd amendment rights" that's fucking stupid any way you look at it, you put people in danger, you put the police at risk of shooting not only him but innocent bystanders this is nuts.

None of the modifications that they ban have any effect on a bullets ability to exit the barrel and move toward the target. The only time a gun is dangerous is when it's firing a round or when used as a club. NY and California currently have requiremest on AR-15s that make them less controllable and therefore more dangerous just to gain political points. I mean really, how to you even hold this thing?

Yet there is absolutely no reason that that rifle will not send a bullet down range. As far as the age thing, my father bought me my first rifle when I was around 10 or 12 and I never shot anyone, or anything that I didn't intend to for that matter. This may just be a difference in lifestyle but safe gun handling was something I was taught as soon as I could walk. No, AR-15s are not MILITARY grade weapons, not sure why MILITARY is in caps on this one. Almost none of them are milspec compliant. In some ways this makes them worse, in some ways they are actually nicer, but our military will never be buying firearms at Walmart because they don't meet their needs. As far as the police, I'm going to piss a lot of people off with this. Most police departments do not properly train their officers. I know they try but they just don't. Everyone saw the bank robbery in CA where the guys were only a few dozen yards away with their heads exposed and the only ones that could actually stop them were specially trained SWAT officers. Even if you could somehow train every cop to that level, you could not call 911 and get them to your house before an intruder could shoot and kill you. I have a lot of respect for the police but they are superman. There primary role is to ensure justice is done after a crime is committed.

7. This is not 100% true many of the shooters committed suicide they were not stopped by the police they shot themselves and that is not the same at all. Also on several occasions dating back to Columbine because of the policies of the dept officers were told to wait for swat while people died yes this has changed over time but early on this was the case, even in Parkland the officer sat outside while kids were being shot so please spare me the "good guy with a gun" prevails argument, I am not saying every time but most of the time the damage was already done by the time the police arrived even if it was minutes like Texas due to the sheer firepower he was able to kill 20 and injure dozens more within a single minute and this is the heart of the argument of why these guns shouldn't be in the hands of the public, they were designed to kill as many people as possible with ease, these kids aren't even novice shooters and their able to wipe out 20 people in a single minute because of these types of firearms, give that kid a bolt action rifle and you just saved 15 people, that's how easy this argument is won.

Yes, and some are stopped by normal citizens either with or without guns. This doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't be required to die while waiting for help. And please, look at the CDC data yourself, because I know you won't believe anything I post. It clearly shows that more violent crime is stopped by firearms than committed by them. And how would the kid having a bolt action rifle save lives if the cops don't get their quickly. They will have time to load the next round. Most of these shootings are actually lower than they could be just because the shooter is spending time looking for more people. They could easily be reloading while walking.

8.Oh boy another Chicago comment.... I live here and you all have it wrong, the city of Chicago doesn't outlaw gun ownership, it simply adds an additional license and background check called the CFP Chicago Firearms Permit, now stores are not allowed to sell guns in the city limits that's it, most of the guns flood into the city from the surrounding states, this is fact. So please don't try and educate me on where I live you got it wrong and I am tired of the Chicago talking point about guns being illegal here, they aren't illegal and that's a fact. The age old statement of criminals don't obey laws..... sigh..... this is about as dumb as it gets, well there are prolly millions of people who drive drunk I guess we should just dump that stupid drunk driving law eh?? Oh what about car insurance I mean tons of people don't get that either lets just dump that law too, lol to say criminals don't obey laws so why have them is about the dumbest fing statement I have ever heard brother, please get another.

Your statement about the drunk driving law is inaccurate. A proper analogy between banning firearms and alcohol related deaths would be prohibition. We tried that, it didn't work. But it did make a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens criminals. The fact is, criminals will always get firearms, a lot of those gang shootings are done by people who aren't supposed to own them and you can illegally purchase them on the dark web and have them shipped to you if there isn't an easier way. And as much as you may not want to hear it, gang shootings are a huge part of that mass shootings number. Again, don't take my word for it, click the link in Sum1's post and see for yourself.

9. I agree, people do kill people, but what has changed over the past few decades is the amount of people being killed and the ease and frequency of which its happening, I mean its clear by your arguments here we could come away with why ban anything? Why change anything? I mean people going to do bad things and use tools or equipment to do it so why make access to it harder? I mean if that kid and this is just one example we have dozens btw, if that kid couldn't buy that firearm and body armor and had to resort to 5 round bolt action rifle and maybe thinks twice about it because he doesn't have the body armor on maybe just maybe a dozen or more people wouldn't have died? I mean its safe to say without assault rifles and high capacity magazines (or bump stocks las vegas) the rate at which people were killed or harmed drops drastically don't you agree? This is fact, its a fact that without those weapons, magazines and mods the death rate goes down, period! I know I know but you will say he will find another way, maybe run people over with a car or make a bomb etc... and this is a possibility but if you don't make it harder they will always resort to the assault rifle with high capacity magazines, because its cheap, its easy and its very masculine as well and you cant think these people didn't think it through how going out this way would be..... glamorous in some sort of sadistic way, its human nature.

Violent crime has been going down over the past few decades, not up. I already answered the bolt action fallacy, body armor doesn't mean shit if you don't intend to survive which most don't and bump stocks are idiotic because they make you less accurate, I don't understand why anyone would want one. You admit that without guns people would just find other ways but that we should get rid of the guns anyway because killers prefer them for various reasons (although the cheaper one isn't accurate). So then, why focus on the guns? I'm not trying to be a dick but this makes me believe that it's just because they look scary to you. If getting rid of them won't change anything then even it wasn't a violation of people's rights it would still be wrong. We have a lot of kids in this country with a lot of problems and the only solution that anyone seems to want to talk about is taking away a tool from everyone. Why not spend some time and tax dollars on something that might work and research what is going on with the people doing it and getting people like them help.

10. Yes you have rights, but again when it comes to the 2nd Amendment your 100% wrong, in 1934 we passed the National Firearms Act outlawing short barrels, full auto and dangerous devices such as explosives, sawed off shotguns etc... the government not only has the right to ban dangerous weapons and devices it has a responsibility to do so. Yes you have a right to own A firearm, A being single as in a generic sense you don't however get to tell the government what is safe to the public and what is not, that's a determination for the Senate, Congress and the U.S. government who we elected to make those decisions. So again I support your right to own A firearm as well as my right to own A firearm but when it comes to banning dangerous weapons or devices its clear the government has the right to do so, history has proved it in 1934 and 1994 with the federal assault weapons ban along with magazine types and sizes. You can rant and rave all you want about your rights and I am glad you have the right to do that but make no mistake there is nothing stating the government cant pass an assault weapons ban or magazine sizes or mods like the bump stock, its been done and sooner or later it will be done again.

This is wrong in a lot of ways and I suspect that you know it. Just because the government does something doesn't mean that they have the "right" to do it. This is the fear that drove the founding fathers to enact the 2nd amendment in the first place. Our constitution does not guarantee safety but it does guarantee freedom. It also doesn't grant the government the right to force your safety.

I hope you don't take this stuff personal its nice to have a discussion but this is why the two sides cant come together, you allege I am a left wing anti gun nut when I own a firearm and support the 2nd amendment, but the fact is people have twisted the wording to suit their own views and its wrong, somehow the left has been labeled anti-gun and its not true the majority of us actually do own guns you just don't see us walking into Wallmarts in body armor with an AR-15 on our backs to prove a 2nd amendment point that almost gets people killed, that's your side. We firmly believe in the constitution and support it the way it was written not the way its been twisted over the years by the NRA and Republican party to stoke fear and fire up its base.

Again I will go back to my original post, those two pictures and ask you why does anyone especially a 20 year old kid need access to a firearm like that? Why?

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but the left is mostly anti gun because their politicians know that what they want is in violation of the constitution and they can't bring their vision for this county into being as long as people have the ability to fight back. They don't like guns because they are afraid and politicians fearing the populous is never a bad thing. And this is coming from someone who checks the blue box about 95% of the time.

 

[Phil]

So you said the left is anti gun and were afraid....
Hmmm funny because the previous posts from you two were full of fear, lets see...

Home intrusion
Tyrannical government taking all my guns
Defending myself from a boar
Defending myself from flying ponies....oh wait that's not in there but I am sure you feel that way

Everything from reloading, to boar hunting, to home invasion, to the government taking my guns away smells of nothing but fear and paranoia and you have the balls to say were the scared ones?

SOOO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT......the people who DONT want guns are the scared ones and the people who DO want guns are the strong secure tough guys huh?? Is this actually your argument? Really??

You know I guess in a way this could be right.... I mean when I saw that 23ish kid walking around Wallmart a day or two after the Texas shooting ya I guess I was a little scared, I mean I guess I must be stupid or just a coward because two kids days earlier just killed what 29 people combined and injured 40-50 more? Ya what was I thinking, oh ya here is what I was thinking, FUCK THAT KID IS STUPID! And anyone who supports that stupid shit and ya you irresponsible morons with assault rifles and 100 round magazines SCARE THE FUCK OUT OF ME! And with reason I would say.

From one gun toting American to another and yes I am a democrat and a liberal so your theory is completely fucked as most of you are.....

 

[MurderingPsycho]

So you said the left is anti gun and were afraid....
Hmmm funny because the previous posts from you two were full of fear, lets see...

Being prepared for bad things to happen doesn't make you fearful, it makes you responsible. Taking responsibility for yourself can actually help you feel less afraid because you aren't at the mercy of others, for good or bad.

As far as the rest of it, I'm sorry you feel that way, have a good night.

 

[sum1]

@MurderingPsycho do not engage buddy, we don't have to answer to him, we tried having a pleasant conversation about the issue, and he only resorts to name-calling and trying to degrade us for having our own opinions that differ from his. It's not worth it, it is not going to change anything, he does not care about having an honest conversation. It is not worth your time.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Having slept on this and with my new perspective of having accepted that I (and no one) can do shit about it mainly because the world will default to whats easiest/most profitable, I have two questions:

1) I've looked around online and have found a few unofficial archives that have been set up relatively recently collating police and media reports, but for the life of me I have not been able to find any verified national resource for how many people are hurt/killed/inconvenienced every day by gun incidents on any given day? If the second amendment insists on it being a "well run" militia records like this will be collated, retained and able to be interrogated at a moments notice on a national database, and should be up-to-the-second accurate logging intentional, accidental, lethal, non-lethal and even just unlawful discharge even if it is not aimed at a person... Anyone know where the national incident database is? I mean, there is one, isn't there?

2) If people who own guns primary aim is to enjoy firearms for what they are and not to actually kill anyone else, why is lethal metal ammo the default choice and pretty easy to locate like in some supermarket/department stores? Less lethal rubber/plastic bullets which are compatible with standard firearms appear to be a lot less common in their usage? In short, why isn't America pumping rubber instead of pumping lead?

 

[Thalstan]

What does "Gun Control" actually mean?

To one extreme, it's taking away all firearms. To the other, it's being able to hit what you aim at.....I have relatives who are on both sides of this argument.

First off, violence of any kind is abhorrent to me. At the same time, I've practiced martial arts for over 10 years and have studied multiple art forms. I have several bows and have competed in competitions. My wife is the same, but she actually prefers her crossbow. We both also have fun with thrown weapons (axes, knives, etc) The ONLY reason I've never owned a gun is that the smell of the burned powder gives me terrible migraines. No matter how much I wash my hands/arms/face, my clothes, etc. I can smell it and get migraines for up to a week after shooting.

I am a big believer in education when it comes to any weapon. A knife can be just as dangerous as a gun, and can be just as dangerous as a skilled martial artist with their bare hands. Each is capable of killing another living being. The difference between the martial artist, the knife thrower, archer, etc and a punk with a gun is that a gun is much easier to use and be deadly with. It does not require the discipline and training required by other martial arts. It's this training, education, and discipline that also helps temper a person. It helps to instill self control and a sense of self worth. Both are valuable in producing worthwhile human beings.

IN MY OPINION, and based on my own experiences...forbidding something does two things. It makes it desired/craved by some, and it prevents the education that is needed to change something from a toy, to a tool.

Example. My older brother and I were forbidden to drink by my parents when growing up. Most people would consider this a good thing, but that was all it was. Something that was forbidden. What was never discussed was why alcohol could be bad in some situations, or is bad when used in excess. So, when the opportunity came up, my brother drank heavily because he never knew when the opportunity might present itself again. He drank at high school parties, and especially at college. One night, he had to have the college EMS called on him because he gave himself alcohol poisoning and his roommate was a good person and actually reported his concern instead of "letting him sleep it off". That was his turning point and I have never seen him drink to excess again. As for me, I saw and received an education about the dangers of alcohol by seeing what happened to him. That's why I never have more than one drink a night, never drive after drinking any alcohol until I've had 8 hours of sleep, and don't drink more than 1 drink every month or two. Don't get me wrong, I love the complex flavors of a good bourbon or a nice single malt, but I have things I want to do that I can't do when I've had something to drink...so I choose not to drink.

Example 2. When my mother was growing up, firearms were present in her parents' house. The family guns were mounted on the wall and ammunition was close at hand. My maternal grandfather and grandmother were both crack shots. All my aunts and uncles could bring home dinner if they could find the game...except my mother. Once she moved off the farm, she decided she hated guns. My brother and I were forbidden to touch anything related to a firearm...including BB and Pellet guns. That just meant we played around with them when we were at friends houses (we lived in a rural town by today's standards). It also meant I had no education on firearms and I am very lucky I never injured myself or someone else because there was no responsible person teaching us. Parents taught their own kids and figured our parents taught us. I never had the mantra of "always assume the gun is loaded" and "never point a gun at something you don't want to destroy" drilled into me.

Example 3. When I was in boy scouts, you had to have a totin' chip card to use an axe, saw, knife or other woods tool. In so doing, they turn knives, axes, etc from toys that are played with, to tools that are used. It taught you what was and was not proper usage. Mis-use could result in your card being taken away, so most were responsible. Those that were not paid the price and others learned from their example. Not one scout in my troop had their card taken away twice.

Funny thing is...now that my mother lives alone, she insists on owning a firearm. Fortunately, I knew the issues involved and was able to make sure she got her FOID card and took her to a local range to ensure that any other legalities were taken care of. I also made sure she had a firearm should could handle and one that had a good safety. She wanted a .45 and at 75+. could not hit the broadside of a barn because of the kick...after two shots, I told her to put it down and look at something else. Ended up getting her a pump action shotgun.

Finally, taking away guns from law-abiding citizens will not do anything to stop criminals from acquiring them. It may take a little more effort, but they will still get it.

The above is my opinion based on my life experiences. Others have different experiences. I respect your opinions and hope we can have a good conversation. But one thing I've seen over my life is that telling something "I'm right and your opinion is wrong" is just going to end up picking a fight instead of a discussion.

 

[MurderingPsycho]

Having slept on this and with my new perspective of having accepted that I (and no one) can do shit about it mainly because the world will default to whats easiest/most profitable, I have two questions:

1) I've looked around online and have found a few unofficial archives that have been set up relatively recently collating police and media reports, but for the life of me I have not been able to find any verified national resource for how many people are hurt/killed/inconvenienced every day by gun incidents on any given day? If the second amendment insists on it being a "well run" militia records like this will be collated, retained and able to be interrogated at a moments notice on a national database, and should be up-to-the-second accurate logging intentional, accidental, lethal, non-lethal and even just unlawful discharge even if it is not aimed at a person... Anyone know where the national incident database is? I mean, there is one, isn't there?

2) If people who own guns primary aim is to enjoy firearms for what they are and not to actually kill anyone else, why is lethal metal ammo the default choice and pretty easy to locate like in some supermarket/department stores? Less lethal rubber/plastic bullets which are compatible with standard firearms appear to be a lot less common in their usage? In short, why isn't America pumping rubber instead of pumping lead?

1. So, in the US the CDC collects this data at a federal level. Unfortunately, not all local agencies provide full reports and most can't do it in a timely manner (still a lot of isolated communities in the US) so the data on assault and homicide tends to list "unknown cause" a lot in their info. They also don't properly differentiate between violent homicide, police shooting and self defense although they do provide information on the estimated cases of crime stopped by armed people. This is a huge range of around 500,000 to 3 million a year and is hard to nail down because it is typically based on opinions of people involved since no death or assault ended up occurring. This data collection could definitely use an upgrade and seems like a great use of federal grant money so that people can have more timely and detailed data. It is also tacked by the ATF, the bureau of justice statistics, the national institute of justice and, as noted by @sum1, the FBI. Some of these agencies only release reports over long time periods (i.e. the last BJS reports I can find was from 1980 - 2008).

2. Less lethal ammo isn't particularly accurate over distance which makes it unusable for sporting. The shape, material and lighter weight will cause greater air resistance and the ammo isn't really designed to be aerodynamic the way a buttet is. It was also illegal in my state until recently. New York used to ban all forms of defensive weapons like less lethal ammo and stun guns until the courts forced them to change the law because it was unconstitutional. I believe the reasoning was that you shouldn't be fighting back unless your life is on the line and there is not other way. With that logic less lethal wouldn't make sense and therefore was unnecessary. This, of course, is far from the only use of less lethal weapons because you should also be able to protect yourself from assault without having to kill the person assaulting you. Also, a lot of people that target shoot use metal targets and rubber bounces.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

1. So, in the US the CDC collects this data at a federal level. Unfortunately, not all local agencies provide full reports and most can't do it in a timely manner (still a lot of isolated communities in the US) so the data on assault and homicide tends to list "unknown cause" a lot in their info. They also don't properly differentiate between violent homicide, police shooting and self defense although they do provide information on the estimated cases of crime stopped by armed people. This is a huge range of around 500,000 to 3 million a year and is hard to nail down because it is typically based on opinions of people involved since no death or assault ended up occurring. This data collection could definitely use an upgrade and seems like a great use of federal grant money so that people can have more timely and detailed data. It is also tacked by the ATF, the bureau of justice statistics, the national institute of justice and, as noted by @sum1, the FBI. Some of these agencies only release reports over long time periods (i.e. the last BJS reports I can find was from 1980 - 2008).

Good to hear they've not stopped noting it, but definite room for improvement especially given the modern ages wireless comminications making there less and less reason why that kind of info can't be passed over at the speed of light... I work in a job where it seems nothing is fixed unless it can be justified and reinforced with numbers. Recently I found numbers to back up something that had been occurring for about 3 years. Before the numbers it was dismissed as unsubstantiated, after finding the numbers some short terms measures were immediately taken to rectify, with longer terms measures being planned into the next systems builds. No accurate data, no urgency.

2. Less lethal ammo isn't particularly accurate over distance which makes it unusable for sporting. The shape, material and lighter weight will cause greater air resistance and the ammo isn't really designed to be aerodynamic the way a buttet is. It was also illegal in my state until recently. New York used to ban all forms of defensive weapons like less lethal ammo and stun guns until the courts forced them to change the law because it was unconstitutional. I believe the reasoning was that you shouldn't be fighting back unless your life is on the line and there is not other way. With that logic less lethal wouldn't make sense and therefore was unnecessary. This, of course, is far from the only use of less lethal weapons because you should also be able to protect yourself from assault without having to kill the person assaulting you. Also, a lot of people that target shoot use metal targets and rubber bounces.

Thanks for the info. While reading about accuracy part of me was thinking "git gud" but I think I know what you mean, when a round has random accuracy you can't perform long range target sport. Is there any scope for smaller calibers to retain that the size of the round offsetting the material its made from, or is it large calibre that are used for sports?

Also, what is the legal age for purchasing ammo? Is there room for kids to only be allowed less-lethal until they hit drinking age?

As for metal targets and bouncing rubber-plastic rounds, paper and cardboard are wonderful at yealding to something moving at 300 meters a second ;-)

 

[MurderingPsycho]

@MurderingPsycho do not engage buddy, we don't have to answer to him, we tried having a pleasant conversation about the issue, and he only resorts to name-calling and trying to degrade us for having our own opinions that differ from his. It's not worth it, it is not going to change anything, he does not care about having an honest conversation. It is not worth your time.

Don't take it personally, he's just upset. As far as not engaging, just remember, talking is never the problem. Maybe if some of the kids doing this shit had someone to talk to it wouldn't be happening.

 

[sum1]

Don't take it personally, he's just upset. As far as not engaging, just remember, talking is never the problem. Maybe if some of the kids doing this shit had someone to talk to it wouldn't be happening.

good take I would usually agree with you, the issue is this being a gaming form we want everyone to have fun and be here for the games. So when it gets to the point of insults being thrown about political issues it is Test policy to have both sides stop lest Test Squadron become a place that people don't want to hang out and enjoy their time, or Star Citizen no longer becoming fun for a portion of the community because of unrelated politics.

 

[MurderingPsycho]

good take I would usually agree with you, the issue is this being a gaming form we want everyone to have fun and be here for the games. So when it gets to the point of insults being thrown about political issues it is Test policy to have both sides stop lest Test Squadron become a place that people don't want to hang out and enjoy their time, or Star Citizen no longer becoming fun for a portion of the community because of unrelated politics.

Good point, thanks.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I had a look at the constitution in regards to something that was changed a while back - Slavery.

Now I'm no expert so please feel free to correct me, however there were some interesting things in there:

Article I, Section 2 stated slaves were regarded as three fifths of a person. This was in regards to population counts.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the original Constitution stopped Congress from passing laws that banned slavery.

Article IV, Section 2 prohibited free states from protecting slaves, so if one escaped they were still the property of their owner and unable to be released from that condition just because they had escaped captivity.

It was not until the 13th amendment in 1865 that slavery was finally made constitutionally illegal. From what I have read, the previous articles and clauses were compromises with this as the final aim. From end to end including the creation of the constitution, amendment 13, 14 and 15, it looks like it took about 100 years to get in to full effect...

Taking this as a reference point, gun control laws and efforts may have to play the long game with a great many compromises along the way.

 

[sum1]

I had a look at the constitution in regards to something that was changed a while back - Slavery.

Now I'm no expert so please feel free to correct me, however there were some interesting things in there:

Article I, Section 2 stated slaves were regarded as three fifths of a person. This was in regards to population counts.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the original Constitution stopped Congress from passing laws that banned slavery.

Article IV, Section 2 prohibited free states from protecting slaves, so if one escaped they were still the property of their owner and unable to be released from that condition.

It was not until the 13th amendment in 1865 that savery was finally made illigal. From what I have read, the previous articles and clauses were compromises with this as the final aim. From end to end including the creation, amendment 13, 14 and 15 it looks like it took about 100 years to get in to full effect...

Taking this as a reference point, gun control laws and efforts may have to play the long game with a great many compromises along the way.

How to get a Gun-Free America in 5 easy steps!:

I agree that what is right is not always law, America or any other country has yet to be perfect. The video I posted above is to prove a point, The Government had to go door to the door freeing slaves, that was a good thing but started a civil war. If you think gun ownership is as big an issue go for it, but where it currently stands it will end up in a second civil war. that's not a threat btw, just my reading of the current political landscape.