10/01/2017 Las Vegas Strip Shooting

1235789

Comments

  • FemtoFemto Joined: Posts: 4,933
    edited October 3
    I "like" that I brought up stricter gun controls and loophole closings after reading about this yesterday and a co-worker tried to stop me with "You can't just ban all guns" to which I replied "I didn't say that or even come close to alluding to that."

    He just stuttered then tried to talk about "if someone wants a gun they can get one". Dude sounds like a post from @Wasted , lol. I told him that doesn't mean anyone shouldn't be able to buy it without strict background checks and waiting periods. He just dropped it after that.

    People having to go to the black market to get this type of weaponry make it more obvious than any Joe Schmoe walking in and buying one.

    Republican senator for South Carolina was trying to pass a bill allowing suppressors on AR "for hunting reasons " before this. GOP being watched like a hawk now.

    In b4 "both sides"....
    "Racism died in the 80's and 90's. Period." - ParryAll 11/10/2016
    http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/146396/the-current-state-of-the-world-and-us-updated-first-post/p237

    "I was walking home and decided to not get shot at by a Muslim by not interfering and if people want to keep enriching the US with diversity then that's their decision. Also, she was already getting raped. Me interfering would have most likely resulted in the Muslim dude getting killed and then the media picking it up as a hate crime. I just kept walking and I think I made the right choice." - ElderGod http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/208447/the-american-government-thread-youre-fired-no-really-gtfo/p424
  • dab00gdab00g Joined: Posts: 21,183
    Everyone wants a stricter background check except gun nuts and nra members

    Congress could have closed loopholes on bump stocks, silencers, assault rifle mods, crazy people, background checks but the nra paid of 58 congressmen

    This was after orlando
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,399
    Femto wrote: »
    I "like" that I brought up stricter gun controls and loophole closings after reading about this yesterday and a co-worker tried to stop me with "You can't just ban all guns" to which I replied "I didn't say that or even come close to alluding to that."

    He just stuttered then tried to talk about "if someone wants a gun they can get one". Dude sounds like a post from @Wasted , lol. I told him that doesn't mean anyone shouldn't be able to buy it without strict background checks and waiting periods. He just dropped it after that.

    ARs and fully autos currently require both background checks and waiting periods, which I support entirely.

    You've again not made any real proposal on these stricter controls.
    People having to go to the black market to get this type of weaponry make it more obvious than any Joe Schmoe walking in and buying one.

    Republican senator for South Carolina was trying to pass a bill allowing suppressors on AR "for hunting reasons " before this. GOP being watched like a hawk now.

    In b4 "both sides"....

    Both sides of what?

    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,399
    edited October 4
    Bumpfire stocks. Not surprised.

    Get rid of them. Seems like a place to start with reform.

    Sure, there are other ways to mod a semi to simulate full auto, those can go too.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • coNcoN Joined: Posts: 876 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited October 4
    dab00g wrote: »
    Congress could have closed loopholes on bump stocks, silencers, assault rifle mods, crazy people, background checks but the nra paid of 58 congressmen
    What are these loopholes do you speak of?

    Do you have any examples to help clarify?

    Tee-Fucking-Hee...
  • DoctaMarioDoctaMario Sometimes It Snows In April... Joined: Posts: 3,513
    Reticently wrote: »
    DoctaMario wrote: »
    angelpalm wrote: »
    It wasn't a mental issue until the dude with the vast stockpile of weapons murdered a crowd of defenseless people.

    Like what is easier to institute and less intrusive?

    A constant monitering of peoples mental health, making sure they don't show the signs of commiting mass murder or keeping track of existing weapons and weapons that will manufactered in the future?

    It's about removing the stigma of going to a shrink so folks don't get to the point of wanting to shoot people.

    I was right across the street at work in a connected hospital back in 2012 when a psychiatric patient shot up the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of Pittsburgh. Guy wouldn't even have had to step outside to get to me. Eight people shot, two killed. Guy had seen 17 different doctors in the months before he shot the place up, can't say he didn't have access.

    Obviously a lot of people really don't have access to the help they need, but that's actually kind of a red herring in the gun debate. The fact is that America has enshrined the right of its citizens to not have to improvise weapons in the event that they snap and want to maximize the number of other people they harm or kill, and nothing is going to change. We're exactly one cynical dose of reality away from replacing the "gun control" conversation with the "what's it going to take to break this guy's record" conversation.

    How was a guy that fucked up in the head able to get a gun? Someone dropped the ball there and should be held accountable. Still, the fact remains, when people feel disconnected from society, life, institutions, and have nowhere and no one to turn to (in their own minds anyway) that pushes them towards stuff like this. Can we at least agree on that? Sure, there will be crazy people that get guns here and there, but the more sound of mind people are, the less you'll have folks considering these types of actions.

    The fact that we're just kind of like *kanyeshrug* "Another mass shooting..." is a serious problem. Like, we're desensitized to the point of it almost being a normal everyday thing.
    "Money matches are against the law in Japan. They can never be good at Marvel." -4r5
  • dab00gdab00g Joined: Posts: 21,183
    Javid wrote: »
    Reticently wrote: »
    DoctaMario wrote: »
    angelpalm wrote: »
    It wasn't a mental issue until the dude with the vast stockpile of weapons murdered a crowd of defenseless people.

    Like what is easier to institute and less intrusive?

    A constant monitering of peoples mental health, making sure they don't show the signs of commiting mass murder or keeping track of existing weapons and weapons that will manufactered in the future?

    It's about removing the stigma of going to a shrink so folks don't get to the point of wanting to shoot people.

    I was right across the street at work in a connected hospital back in 2012 when a psychiatric patient shot up the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of Pittsburgh. Guy wouldn't even have had to step outside to get to me. Eight people shot, two killed. Guy had seen 17 different doctors in the months before he shot the place up, can't say he didn't have access.

    Obviously a lot of people really don't have access to the help they need, but that's actually kind of a red herring in the gun debate. The fact is that America has enshrined the right of its citizens to not have to improvise weapons in the event that they snap and want to maximize the number of other people they harm or kill, and nothing is going to change. We're exactly one cynical dose of reality away from replacing the "gun control" conversation with the "what's it going to take to break this guy's record" conversation.

    This is a very important point here. When a society decides to label these kind of events as a way of life or "things happen" there is a lot to reflect upon about said society...

    Guns seem to be a forbiden subject for republicans thinking it is a slippery slope

    This should not be normal or unstoppable

    coN wrote: »
    dab00g wrote: »
    Congress could have closed loopholes on bump stocks, silencers, assault rifle mods, crazy people, background checks but the nra paid of 58 congressmen
    What are these loopholes do you speak of?

    Do you have any examples to help clarify?

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/20/senate-gun-vote-after-orlando-shooting/86143418/

    Trump rescinded the executive order of stopping those with mental illness prevented from getting a gun
  • DoctaMarioDoctaMario Sometimes It Snows In April... Joined: Posts: 3,513
    Wasted wrote: »
    Femto wrote: »
    I "like" that I brought up stricter gun controls and loophole closings after reading about this yesterday and a co-worker tried to stop me with "You can't just ban all guns" to which I replied "I didn't say that or even come close to alluding to that."

    He just stuttered then tried to talk about "if someone wants a gun they can get one". Dude sounds like a post from @Wasted , lol. I told him that doesn't mean anyone shouldn't be able to buy it without strict background checks and waiting periods. He just dropped it after that.

    ARs and fully autos currently require both background checks and waiting periods, which I support entirely.

    You've again not made any real proposal on these stricter controls.
    People having to go to the black market to get this type of weaponry make it more obvious than any Joe Schmoe walking in and buying one.

    Republican senator for South Carolina was trying to pass a bill allowing suppressors on AR "for hunting reasons " before this. GOP being watched like a hawk now.

    In b4 "both sides"....

    Both sides of what?

    What is the purpose of a civilian having a fully automatic weapon?
    "Money matches are against the law in Japan. They can never be good at Marvel." -4r5
  • coNcoN Joined: Posts: 876 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited October 4
    dab00g wrote: »
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/20/senate-gun-vote-after-orlando-shooting/86143418/

    Trump rescinded the executive order of stopping those with mental illness prevented from getting a gun
    Thats not what I asked. I asked about the loopholes (not just the single "gun show loophole") concerning the various products you mentioned and some examples.

    Especially when 2 of the 4 things you mentioned are insanely regulated up the ass. Example, "What loophole exists to get ahold of a suppressor without the government knowing?"
    Tee-Fucking-Hee...
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,399
    edited October 4
    DoctaMario wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Femto wrote: »
    I "like" that I brought up stricter gun controls and loophole closings after reading about this yesterday and a co-worker tried to stop me with "You can't just ban all guns" to which I replied "I didn't say that or even come close to alluding to that."

    He just stuttered then tried to talk about "if someone wants a gun they can get one". Dude sounds like a post from @Wasted , lol. I told him that doesn't mean anyone shouldn't be able to buy it without strict background checks and waiting periods. He just dropped it after that.

    ARs and fully autos currently require both background checks and waiting periods, which I support entirely.

    You've again not made any real proposal on these stricter controls.
    People having to go to the black market to get this type of weaponry make it more obvious than any Joe Schmoe walking in and buying one.

    Republican senator for South Carolina was trying to pass a bill allowing suppressors on AR "for hunting reasons " before this. GOP being watched like a hawk now.

    In b4 "both sides"....

    Both sides of what?

    What is the purpose of a civilian having a fully automatic weapon?

    None. I am opposed to it, not sure why you would think otherwise.

    I literally just called for all means of full auto conversion to be banned.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,399
    DoctaMario wrote: »
    Reticently wrote: »
    DoctaMario wrote: »
    angelpalm wrote: »
    It wasn't a mental issue until the dude with the vast stockpile of weapons murdered a crowd of defenseless people.

    Like what is easier to institute and less intrusive?

    A constant monitering of peoples mental health, making sure they don't show the signs of commiting mass murder or keeping track of existing weapons and weapons that will manufactered in the future?

    It's about removing the stigma of going to a shrink so folks don't get to the point of wanting to shoot people.

    I was right across the street at work in a connected hospital back in 2012 when a psychiatric patient shot up the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of Pittsburgh. Guy wouldn't even have had to step outside to get to me. Eight people shot, two killed. Guy had seen 17 different doctors in the months before he shot the place up, can't say he didn't have access.

    Obviously a lot of people really don't have access to the help they need, but that's actually kind of a red herring in the gun debate. The fact is that America has enshrined the right of its citizens to not have to improvise weapons in the event that they snap and want to maximize the number of other people they harm or kill, and nothing is going to change. We're exactly one cynical dose of reality away from replacing the "gun control" conversation with the "what's it going to take to break this guy's record" conversation.

    How was a guy that fucked up in the head able to get a gun?

    No criminal history or documented mental health issues. Seems pretty simple to understand.
    Someone dropped the ball there and should be held accountable.

    Such as? Far as we can tell, he followed all the rules, just like Anders Brevik did.
    Still, the fact remains, when people feel disconnected from society, life, institutions, and have nowhere and no one to turn to (in their own minds anyway) that pushes them towards stuff like this. Can we at least agree on that?

    We can agree on that, but we have no evidence he fell into any of those categories you just listed. We don't know his motive yet.
    Sure, there will be crazy people that get guns here and there, but the more sound of mind people are, the less you'll have folks considering these types of actions.

    No argument here.
    The fact that we're just kind of like *kanyeshrug* "Another mass shooting..." is a serious problem. Like, we're desensitized to the point of it almost being a normal everyday thing.

    Pretty much. Depressing, but the same thing can be said about other terror attacks too (this was a terrorist act under Nevada state law).
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • DoctaMarioDoctaMario Sometimes It Snows In April... Joined: Posts: 3,513
    Wasted wrote: »
    DoctaMario wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Femto wrote: »
    I "like" that I brought up stricter gun controls and loophole closings after reading about this yesterday and a co-worker tried to stop me with "You can't just ban all guns" to which I replied "I didn't say that or even come close to alluding to that."

    He just stuttered then tried to talk about "if someone wants a gun they can get one". Dude sounds like a post from @Wasted , lol. I told him that doesn't mean anyone shouldn't be able to buy it without strict background checks and waiting periods. He just dropped it after that.

    ARs and fully autos currently require both background checks and waiting periods, which I support entirely.

    You've again not made any real proposal on these stricter controls.
    People having to go to the black market to get this type of weaponry make it more obvious than any Joe Schmoe walking in and buying one.

    Republican senator for South Carolina was trying to pass a bill allowing suppressors on AR "for hunting reasons " before this. GOP being watched like a hawk now.

    In b4 "both sides"....

    Both sides of what?

    What is the purpose of a civilian having a fully automatic weapon?

    None. I am opposed to it, not sure why you would think otherwise.

    I literally just called for all means of full auto conversion to be banned.

    Fair enough, I was just asking a question.
    "Money matches are against the law in Japan. They can never be good at Marvel." -4r5
  • DoctaMarioDoctaMario Sometimes It Snows In April... Joined: Posts: 3,513
    Wasted wrote: »
    DoctaMario wrote: »
    Reticently wrote: »
    DoctaMario wrote: »
    angelpalm wrote: »
    It wasn't a mental issue until the dude with the vast stockpile of weapons murdered a crowd of defenseless people.

    Like what is easier to institute and less intrusive?

    A constant monitering of peoples mental health, making sure they don't show the signs of commiting mass murder or keeping track of existing weapons and weapons that will manufactered in the future?

    It's about removing the stigma of going to a shrink so folks don't get to the point of wanting to shoot people.

    I was right across the street at work in a connected hospital back in 2012 when a psychiatric patient shot up the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of Pittsburgh. Guy wouldn't even have had to step outside to get to me. Eight people shot, two killed. Guy had seen 17 different doctors in the months before he shot the place up, can't say he didn't have access.

    Obviously a lot of people really don't have access to the help they need, but that's actually kind of a red herring in the gun debate. The fact is that America has enshrined the right of its citizens to not have to improvise weapons in the event that they snap and want to maximize the number of other people they harm or kill, and nothing is going to change. We're exactly one cynical dose of reality away from replacing the "gun control" conversation with the "what's it going to take to break this guy's record" conversation.

    How was a guy that fucked up in the head able to get a gun?

    No criminal history or documented mental health issues. Seems pretty simple to understand.
    Someone dropped the ball there and should be held accountable.

    Such as? Far as we can tell, he followed all the rules, just like Anders Brevik did.
    Still, the fact remains, when people feel disconnected from society, life, institutions, and have nowhere and no one to turn to (in their own minds anyway) that pushes them towards stuff like this. Can we at least agree on that?

    We can agree on that, but we have no evidence he fell into any of those categories you just listed. We don't know his motive yet.
    Sure, there will be crazy people that get guns here and there, but the more sound of mind people are, the less you'll have folks considering these types of actions.

    No argument here.
    The fact that we're just kind of like *kanyeshrug* "Another mass shooting..." is a serious problem. Like, we're desensitized to the point of it almost being a normal everyday thing.

    Pretty much. Depressing, but the same thing can be said about other terror attacks too (this was a terrorist act under Nevada state law).

    This wasn't about Paddock, this was about another guy Reticently had brought up that apparently had been to see SEVENTEEN doctors :wtf: That's the guy I'm wondering how he got ahold of a gun.
    "Money matches are against the law in Japan. They can never be good at Marvel." -4r5
  • FemtoFemto Joined: Posts: 4,933


    Crazy video with a slow escalation. Shows everything calm when she was right under the shooter yet hearing guns fire.

    @ Wasted the both sides comment came from my ending lunch break and having to type fast. Seemed like you were calling @ White Shadow's post about the country singer star.
    "Racism died in the 80's and 90's. Period." - ParryAll 11/10/2016
    http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/146396/the-current-state-of-the-world-and-us-updated-first-post/p237

    "I was walking home and decided to not get shot at by a Muslim by not interfering and if people want to keep enriching the US with diversity then that's their decision. Also, she was already getting raped. Me interfering would have most likely resulted in the Muslim dude getting killed and then the media picking it up as a hate crime. I just kept walking and I think I made the right choice." - ElderGod http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/208447/the-american-government-thread-youre-fired-no-really-gtfo/p424
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,399
    Yeah my bad, doing this while at work so keep getting mixed up.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • dab00gdab00g Joined: Posts: 21,183
    coN wrote: »
    dab00g wrote: »
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/20/senate-gun-vote-after-orlando-shooting/86143418/

    Trump rescinded the executive order of stopping those with mental illness prevented from getting a gun
    Thats not what I asked. I asked about the loopholes (not just the single "gun show loophole") concerning the various products you mentioned and some examples.

    Especially when 2 of the 4 things you mentioned are insanely regulated up the ass. Example, "What loophole exists to get ahold of a suppressor without the government knowing?"
    Legal modifications to make seminauto into full auto

    It is more in line with i want registration regulated
    Specific Mods should be outlawed
    High cap mags

    That is it

    I also do not want psycho paths to get weapons
  • TKRTKR Inventor of Toe Socks Joined: Posts: 215
    Darksakul wrote: »
    angelpalm wrote: »
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Yet there will be no legislation on automatic weapons. America!

    The weapon that the terrorist used was estimated to cost 65k and is extremely hard to get a hold of, but apparently not hard enough.
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Yet there will be no legislation on automatic weapons. America!

    Criminals are NOT going to observe Gun laws. The way the underground gun market is, its only a question do you have enough cash for one.


    You know why the automatic Minigun is still legal, it cost thousands of dollars in Ammo to shoot one for a few minutes, only the super rich can even afford one.
    There also only 11 ever made for civilian use.

    You know who has the strictest gun laws in the western Hemisphere, Mexico. Only legal sellers, buyers and traders of arms and ammunition is the Mexican Federal government, and it's handled by their military.
    How much gun crime Mexico still sees? Mexico makes our Vegas Shooting looks like a slow tuesday.


    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729

    Regardless of whether or not criminals will do criminal things. Reducing gun ownership of "non criminal citizens" has a huge impact on gun related crime. Telling somebody something is wrong, and then having them go behind your back and do the wrong thing is on them. Telling them you would rather control it and have them misbehave in your house, and then they do, that is on you.
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,399
    TKR wrote: »
    Darksakul wrote: »
    angelpalm wrote: »
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Yet there will be no legislation on automatic weapons. America!

    The weapon that the terrorist used was estimated to cost 65k and is extremely hard to get a hold of, but apparently not hard enough.
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Yet there will be no legislation on automatic weapons. America!

    Criminals are NOT going to observe Gun laws. The way the underground gun market is, its only a question do you have enough cash for one.


    You know why the automatic Minigun is still legal, it cost thousands of dollars in Ammo to shoot one for a few minutes, only the super rich can even afford one.
    There also only 11 ever made for civilian use.

    You know who has the strictest gun laws in the western Hemisphere, Mexico. Only legal sellers, buyers and traders of arms and ammunition is the Mexican Federal government, and it's handled by their military.
    How much gun crime Mexico still sees? Mexico makes our Vegas Shooting looks like a slow tuesday.


    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729

    Regardless of whether or not criminals will do criminal things. Reducing gun ownership of "non criminal citizens" has a huge impact on gun related crime. Telling somebody something is wrong, and then having them go behind your back and do the wrong thing is on them. Telling them you would rather control it and have them misbehave in your house, and then they do, that is on you.

    But does it have an effect on overall crime?

    You can't put gun crime on a pedestal, IMO. If you reduce gun crime, but the overall crime rate isn't really affected, then it was all for naught.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • TKRTKR Inventor of Toe Socks Joined: Posts: 215
    When you are discussing a specific instance you can put anything on a pedestal.

    Gun regulations in Japan will definitely have an impact on all crime. You can't hold up a convenience store without a gun, but having written that it seems that robbery of the convenience store could be labelled as a gun crime. Which makes it hard to think of many issues which wouldn't be labelled a gun crime. But I would put Japans culture and strict regulations on things such as drugs and weapons down as the reason they have the lowest crime rate of any built up nation.

    Its impossible to say you can't ban all guns when other countries have clearly proven how much it helps. I say ban them, all of them. And once guns are out of the way, there will be a lot more time and money that can be devoted to things like drugs and other things that are clearly responsible for tipping people over the edge.
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,674
    Knives do require some competency. If your
    Wasted wrote: »
    TKR wrote: »
    Darksakul wrote: »
    angelpalm wrote: »
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Yet there will be no legislation on automatic weapons. America!

    The weapon that the terrorist used was estimated to cost 65k and is extremely hard to get a hold of, but apparently not hard enough.
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Yet there will be no legislation on automatic weapons. America!

    Criminals are NOT going to observe Gun laws. The way the underground gun market is, its only a question do you have enough cash for one.


    You know why the automatic Minigun is still legal, it cost thousands of dollars in Ammo to shoot one for a few minutes, only the super rich can even afford one.
    There also only 11 ever made for civilian use.

    You know who has the strictest gun laws in the western Hemisphere, Mexico. Only legal sellers, buyers and traders of arms and ammunition is the Mexican Federal government, and it's handled by their military.
    How much gun crime Mexico still sees? Mexico makes our Vegas Shooting looks like a slow tuesday.


    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729

    Regardless of whether or not criminals will do criminal things. Reducing gun ownership of "non criminal citizens" has a huge impact on gun related crime. Telling somebody something is wrong, and then having them go behind your back and do the wrong thing is on them. Telling them you would rather control it and have them misbehave in your house, and then they do, that is on you.

    But does it have an effect on overall crime?

    You can't put gun crime on a pedestal, IMO. If you reduce gun crime, but the overall crime rate isn't really affected, then it was all for naught.

    All of these arguments you're making have been pulled to pieces hundreds of times.

    Yes, crime will still exist and criminals will get guns.

    Yes, there have been terror attacks not involving guns.

    Do you know what has happened in countries with stricter gun laws though? Less mass shootings. The U.S is the only place it happens.

    Arguing for guns is like arguing not to have a speed limit. Yes some cars brake from high speeds, some situations are not dangerous to others by going fast, there are plenty of responsible drivers that wouldn't abuse it. At the end of the day there are speed limits though because the shit people out there ruin it for everyone else. That's just the way it is. It's the way a lot of things are, some people are fine on drugs... Again, they're too dangerous to just legalise because of irresponsible people.
    2 Kings 2:24
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,399
    edited October 4
    FrostyAU wrote: »
    Knives do require some competency. If your
    Wasted wrote: »
    But does it have an effect on overall crime?

    You can't put gun crime on a pedestal, IMO. If you reduce gun crime, but the overall crime rate isn't really affected, then it was all for naught.

    All of these arguments you're making have been pulled to pieces hundreds of times.

    But you haven't done it once.

    A death by a gun isn't any more special than a death by stabbing or burning. At the end of the day, those people are still dead.
    Yes, crime will still exist and criminals will get guns.

    Yes, there have been terror attacks not involving guns.

    Yes.
    Do you know what has happened in countries with stricter gun laws though? Less mass shootings. The U.S is the only place it happens.

    Absolutely false re: bolded. Nobody cried when 37 people got gunned down in the Phillipines. Nobody cried when a gunman opened fire on a town council in Nanterre, France. The rest of the world probably didn't even hear about it.

    https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
    https://crimeresearch.org/2017/01/with-39-killed-in-tunisia-attack-the-top-three-mass-public-shootings-are-outside-the-united-states/
    Arguing for guns is like arguing not to have a speed limit.

    There's no argument, nor comparison between the two. They exist in the US to the extent it is physically impossible to take them away. That's not something that can be argued for or against, it's a physical reality. Even if you suddenly banned all guns; until you remove them, there will still be *hundreds of millions* of them in circulation.
    Yes some cars brake from high speeds, some situations are not dangerous to others by going fast, there are plenty of responsible drivers that wouldn't abuse it. At the end of the day there are speed limits though because the shit people out there ruin it for everyone else. That's just the way it is.

    You'll notice from this whole discussion that I'm fine with regulation, and keeping guns out of the hands of psychopaths, so you're not making any sort of cohesive argument here.
    It's the way a lot of things are, some people are fine on drugs... Again, they're too dangerous to just legalise because of irresponsible people.

    If you have a means of removing guns from the US, let's hear it. We all know how the wars on alcohol and drugs turned out.

    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,674
    Starting with buybacks would be a good one.

    Making a large amount of guns illegal with heavy sentences would stop a large amount of people possessing them as they wouldn't want to go to jail for being caught with one.

    There is definitely a comparison as well. Cars exist too. Cars can go over the speed limit. People mostly don't. Put laws and punishments in place for possessing certain weapons and things will change. It's at least worth attempting.


    2 Kings 2:24
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,399
    TKR wrote: »
    When you are discussing a specific instance you can put anything on a pedestal.

    You can try, but it still invalidates your argument.
    Gun regulations in Japan will definitely have an impact on all crime.

    You correctly identify the real cause below, so I'll leave this part alone.
    You can't hold up a convenience store without a gun,

    You absolutely can. Been there, seen it. Got a nail bat? A knife? A couple of buddies? Ask Michael Brown how he held up a convenience store. Oh wait...
    but having written that it seems that robbery of the convenience store could be labelled as a gun crime. Which makes it hard to think of many issues which wouldn't be labelled a gun crime.

    ?
    But I would put Japans culture and strict regulations on things such as drugs and weapons down as the reason they have the lowest crime rate of any built up nation.

    Culture, and the fact that Japan never really had guns in the first place, absolutely.

    Do you know who also has a similarly low crime rate? Switzerland. Which happens to have the second highest gun ownership behind the US.
    Its impossible to say you can't ban all guns when other countries have clearly proven how much it helps. I say ban them, all of them. And once guns are out of the way, there will be a lot more time and money that can be devoted to things like drugs and other things that are clearly responsible for tipping people over the edge.

    Go ahead and ban them. I really don't mind. Just tell me how you plan to physically remove them from society.

    As far as drugs and other things, prohibition on alcohol was already tried, like, nearly a century ago. There's been a war on drugs since the 70s, and it's pretty much failed.

    We all know what happens when America tries to wage a crackdown on dangerous things.

    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,674
    You keep bringing up alcohol but you can't even keep alcohol out of prisons. It's incredibly easy to make. Prohibition also existed in a completely different society to the one we have now.

    The thing about alcohol and drugs is they generally harm users more than hundreds of innocents.

    A gun is an easy, convenient way to commit murder. Something that shouldn't be easy or convenient.
    2 Kings 2:24
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,399
    edited October 4
    FrostyAU wrote: »
    Starting with buybacks would be a good one.

    Making a large amount of guns illegal with heavy sentences would stop a large amount of people possessing them as they wouldn't want to go to jail for being caught with one.

    There is definitely a comparison as well. Cars exist too. Cars can go over the speed limit. People mostly don't. Put laws and punishments in place for possessing certain weapons and things will change. It's at least worth attempting.

    We had buybacks, and still do. But, we have more guns per capita now than we did before Port Arthur.

    You can still buy handguns with 10 shot mags. You can still buy lever action shotguns on the most basic firearm licences (Category B ).

    All of the means to commit a massacre are still here. Most mass shootings are committed with handguns exactly like those we have available.

    We're just not stupid enough to go through with such acts.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • TKRTKR Inventor of Toe Socks Joined: Posts: 215
    100% things would change.

    Convincing people to hand in their guns buy back or not would be tough. No doubt about it. But the USA government needs to just step up and do it. They are in charge and shouldn't let themselves be bullied around by the populace. Yes it will probably hurt their image, but at the end of it all everybody would live in a safer country. A government should take charge for the betterment of the country.

    After the buy back offer is out, there will be plenty of people still not wanting to hang on to their guns. Simple make it illegal to own them at this point and have drop off areas where people can return the weapons to be destroyed. When gun licenses expire make it impossible to renew them. And while all this is going on make it illegal to sell or buy weapons or ammunition. All law abiding citizens will comply, and those who don't are criminals and criminals will be punished for their crimes.

    Indeed, no death is more special or less special based on the weapon used in the murder. But by removing as many of those weapons as possible reduces the occurrences. But an important point to remember is that a mass stabbing is a lot harder to pull off from a hotel window.

    Getting rid of guns will take a lot of work. But doing the work to reap the rewards will be worth it in the end. And the guns will be gone a lot faster than if they continue in the same fashion and never do anything about it.

    I may have skipped over a message asking this, but I have seen people ask how he got the gun in the first place, but nothing on how he got the gun into the hotel room.
  • crucadescrucades Its a Kinda Bullshit Joined: Posts: 11,590
    Wasted will never be done until the very last school is littered with smoking craters in the walls and splattered with the blood of its pupils.

    Feel really bad for shooters the brother you know hes gunna get dogged on about this forever.
    "I was fighting from the day I was born!"

    -Michael 'The Count' Bisping, Greatest MW Champion of all time
  • StockyJamStockyJam My nigga Networkingyuppy Joined: Posts: 5,850
    edited October 4




    regulation only goes so far.
    you cant police everyone + everything 100% of the time and succeed.
    the UNIBOMBER made a 22 caliber fully functional gun out of automobile parts.
    since he was a genius. crazy...but genius.

    things that do make a difference.

    -changing the gun culture from a..."guns are cool!" or "shooting in the range relieves my stress. shoot=relaxing" or "bang bang, guns are toys" into a "guns are tools created for the destruction of life which happens to be sacred. they are not toys, stress relievers, or cool."

    -increase and support the mental health services of the country.

    -have everyone learn...talking about your problems will make you feel better. if your inner self is in turmoil, dont keep your feelings pent up inside.

    im not opposed to regulation at all. i was a member of the NRA many many years ago.
    but i got booted out when they found out i was a full supporter of the Brady bill which was totally sensible and necessary legislation involving background checks before your acquisition of firearms.
  • TKRTKR Inventor of Toe Socks Joined: Posts: 215
    It doesn't invalidate anything when the discussion is about guns and people discuss guns.

    It isn't about waging war. It's about saying something is illegal and then when people break the law they face the repercussions. Not everything needs to be a war. Simply calling it a war gets people all antsy about it.

    No matter how you want to slice it. Making guns illegal helps. Yes there are countries with people who own guns, with some low level crime stats. But those countries don't have over hyped citizens who call everything a war and have to always fight everything. America is to 'merica for guns. Just accept it. The country is tense and super indoctrinated into an aggressive mass. If you didn't have those handguns available those mass shootings would be less. And only happen by people who have the fire arm illegally anyway.

    There is nothing but good that can come from outlawing guns.

    My bad, I didn't think of taking on a convenience store with a baseball bat. I wouldn't have assumed that could happen. You have a point on that. But at least the patrons and shop clerk have more of a chance to defend themselves and handle the situation than they would have if there was a gun involved.
  • chopperbyrnechopperbyrne Joined: Posts: 1,252
    This will happen again, and again, while Americans are allowed buy guns whenever they want.

    Twenty young schoolchildren were killed in Sandyhook, while a president who wanted reform was in office, and nothing changed.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

    Australia banned guns successfully.

    But the 2nd amendment, drafted in 1791 was it, is still protected.

    Drafted at a time when guns were largely inaccurate, and took minutes to reload after each shot.

    Describing this as a tragedy is pathetic.

    A tragedy is when something happens accidentally, or when a natural disaster hits.

    This was inevitable.
    celticthrowdown.com
    PSN - Leto_II_of_Dune
  • FreezingCicadaFreezingCicada Joined: Posts: 627
    TKR wrote: »
    It doesn't invalidate anything when the discussion is about guns and people discuss guns.

    It isn't about waging war. It's about saying something is illegal and then when people break the law they face the repercussions. Not everything needs to be a war. Simply calling it a war gets people all antsy about it.

    No matter how you want to slice it. Making guns illegal helps. Yes there are countries with people who own guns, with some low level crime stats. But those countries don't have over hyped citizens who call everything a war and have to always fight everything. America is to 'merica for guns. Just accept it. The country is tense and super indoctrinated into an aggressive mass. If you didn't have those handguns available those mass shootings would be less. And only happen by people who have the fire arm illegally anyway.

    There is nothing but good that can come from outlawing guns.

    My bad, I didn't think of taking on a convenience store with a baseball bat. I wouldn't have assumed that could happen. You have a point on that. But at least the patrons and shop clerk have more of a chance to defend themselves and handle the situation than they would have if there was a gun involved.

    Convince stores usually have bullet proof glass or more crazier ones have a button that they press that drops the glass down and take a dudes arm off. (More ghetto areas.)
    Hysteria goes both ways and people scared of firearms isnt going to help the situation but makes it worst. Not to mention there are individuals that need firearms to hunt and sustain themselves with food and pelts. (Yeah there are people that still do.) A complete out law of guns is a knee jerk reaction for a country as large as the states.

    That being said. This whole thing is fishy as fuck.
    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=956_1507066205
    At 3:34, mysterious man has lights turned off & says "everyone on the ground is deceased." From what I hear the wounds dont look like anything an AR15 would cause (more damage) and even then the videos of the shooting the guy was unloading atleast over 80+ rounds that would start the melt the barrel of the gun.
    https://hooktube.com/watch?v=imeWqmK6VwQ
    Guy calling in a radio show explaining how the shooter was and things dont make sense.
  • TKRTKR Inventor of Toe Socks Joined: Posts: 215
    regulation only goes so far.
    you cant police everyone + everything 100% of the time and succeed.
    the UNIBOMBER made a 22 caliber fully functional gun out of automobile parts.
    since he was a genius. crazy...but genius.

    You can police 100% of the time. That's totally doable. You put a law in place and follow up on it. Just because some people will do wrong doesn't mean the law shouldn't be there and people shouldn't try enforce it.

    I also feel people put to much into this mental health situation. Nobody will fix the brain of a person who is willing to do what this jagamo did. Help trauma victims. Help people with learning disabilities. Help those who have porn addictions. This can be done. Help those with a broken soul, never.
  • itzpookiieitzpookiie Sherry Jenix's Soulmate Joined: Posts: 4,431
    edited October 4
    Speaking as a firearm owner and I love guns but
    A gun ban would make the US a better place except it would take YEARS before the positive effects can be seen and we COULD see some really dark days right as it begins

    how easily guns can be acquired and go into circulation is ridiculous

    If not a gun ban then atleast strict gun control

    Nobody needs an AR for self defense or any other reason such as hunting
    You also don't need 30+ round mags for anything
  • VhoziteVhozite Free Meek Mill Joined: Posts: 3,708
    In a hypothetical USA where guns are banned or much more heavily regulated are the police still armed with them?
  • itzpookiieitzpookiie Sherry Jenix's Soulmate Joined: Posts: 4,431
    Vhozite wrote: »
    In a hypothetical USA where guns are banned or much more heavily regulated are the police still armed with them?

    Yes

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file