Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Gabrielle Giffords Shooting and Gun Control


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 566 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Kirth some of those points are cultural, and have been true since the inception of America. Have we already been fascist, or just a perfect society for fascism to take root?

Taken individually, those points can definitely be cultural quirks or popular trends. It's only when all of them are seen together that the term "fascism" applies. To my mind, any Imperial power past its prime and facing a downhill slide is at risk; we just happen to fit the bill nicely right now -- and combined with the economic downturn since 2006-07 that doesn't seem to be improving, conditions are especially ripe here.

I totally agree with Stebehil that we're not there yet -- but we do seem to be headed that way as fast as can manage, especially during the last two administrations, and the future crop looks to accelerate the trend. I think we're a tinderbox, and all it takes now is one president declaring a state of emergency and suspending elections.

I would like to point out that, in my earlier posts, I said "sliding into fascism".

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm new to the back-and-forth here, but to me it's pretty simple.

Why on earth would you not want to make it 10, 20, 100, 500 times harder for people with homicidal intent (like this moron from this weekend) to acquire firearms? If your answer is "Because...ME! I want firearms, and I want them whenever I want them!!"...examine your moral compass and try again.

Your second amendment is trodding on my preamble. The Constitution exists in part to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare".

The domicile is not tranquil. People are getting shot in movie theatres and in shopping malls, and our children (our children!!) are getting shot in school.

The common defence is not being provided for. I do not wish to own a gun, or shoot someone with one. As such, the constitution is doing nothing whatsoever to protect me from homicidal maniacs with guns. "But Jeremy", you say, "It's giving you the right to own a gun to defend yourself!!" I choose not to own one. I am allowed to make that choice, right? Many others have made it as well. To defend us, the constitution would need to forbid access to weapons of mass murder. It's not doing that. It's guaranteeing access to same.

The general Welfare is not being promoted. Your owning a gun is not making me fare any more well. This right that you have, whether or not you like it, is actually hurting my ability to live my life. I now have to go in fear that one or more homicidal maniacs has decided to mow down the midnight screening of freaking Batman. That's no way to live life, dudes.

If an article of the Constitution is no longer serving the means for which the Constitution is designed, is it not incumbent upon the citizenry and our elected officials to eliminate or severely modify the article?

It needs to be much, much more difficult for someone like this to acquire guns than it is currently. If that means that you have to join an actual state militia, or the National Guard, or whatever, and serve whatever their monthly commitment is to drill excercises, and respond in times of crisis and natural disaster, and that type of thing, fine. If it means that you need to undergo a regular psychiatric evaluation in order to continue to own said guns, fine. If it means we need to outlaw guns, fine. But it needs to be more difficult than it currently is for morons like this Colorado shooter to get his hands on what he needs to take human life. That's all there is to it, in my view.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
pres man wrote:

Just think what this guy could have done.

Sadly, he goes to bed at 8 PM and so would never be able to attend a midnight showing.

Considering the caliber of that pistol and the armor that the shooter was wearing, that guy would have been another casualty. Those bullets didn't even drop guys in grey jumpsuits, let alone a ballistic-armored cold-blooded murderer. Great video though.

Yes, the old fellow was lucky, but as Pasteur said luck favors the prepared. I'm sure if the video had one robber, then someone would say, "Well if there had been 2 then he would have been outnumbered and probably gotten killed." Look, I don't know if someone willing and able to act as this old fellow did would have saved anyone. Probably not. But it is also likely that the pissant would have crapped his pants if a bullet hit him in the body armor and would have ran off. He seemed to surrender to the cops without any struggle, so I think there is a higher than 0 chance that if faced with armed resistance he would have booked it like those two guys did. At the least it might have drawn his attention giving others a chance to escape.

I might also say, that you seemed to be assuming the old fellow was intent on killing the robbers. What if he wasn't? What if what happened was exactly what he was trying to do, scare the little weasels off before anyone innocent got hurt. In fact, if he had killed one of the robbers once they started to run, he would have most likely charged with murder.

Andoran

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Dude, do you know how infinitesimally small your chances of being killed in a spree shooting are? You have a better chance of being killed by a cop. You have a better chance of being killed by your spouse, if you're married. You have a better chance of being killed by a serial killer. You have a better chance of being killed by falling down a flight of steps. You have a better chance of being killed by choking on food. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning. You have a better chance of being killed slipping in the bathtub. You have a better chance of being hit by a car. You have a better chance of being killed by heat exhaustion.

I can go on and on. Maybe we should make it harder to be a cop, get married, build a flight of stairs, buy food, take a bath, buy a car, go outside in the summer, etc.

You get a story like this, and everyone overreacts, like this happens every day.

You don't get to pick and choose what you think anyone's rights are. Mexico has gun control laws like you wouldn't believe. Hasn't stopped the cartels from going buck wild down there.

You choosing not to exercise a right isn't an invitation to deny other people's rights.

Of course, discussing the constitution with someone that doesn't know the difference between an article and an amendment can get a bit dicey.

But, seriously, I'd stop watching TV and keeping up with the news, you obviously have zero perspective about how vast the odds against something like this happening to you are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

Yes, the old fellow was lucky, but as Pasteur said luck favors the prepared. I'm sure if the video had one robber, then someone would say, "Well if there had been 2 then he would have been outnumbered and probably gotten killed." Look, I don't know if someone willing and able to act as this old fellow did would have saved anyone. Probably not. But it is also likely that the pissant would have crapped his pants if a bullet hit him in the body armor and would have ran off. He seemed to surrender to the cops without any struggle, so I think there is a higher than 0 chance that if faced with armed resistance he would have booked it like those two guys did. At the least it might have drawn his attention giving others a chance to escape.

I might also say, that you seemed to be assuming the old fellow was intent on killing the robbers. What if he wasn't? What if what happened was exactly what he was trying to do, scare the little weasels off before anyone innocent got hurt. In fact, if he had killed one of the robbers once they started to run, he would have most likely charged with murder.

If he was shooting at them, he should have been trying to kill them. Shooting to disarm or disable is a trick for the movies. As it turns out he didn't disarm or disable them. Shooting to scare is even dumber. You don't know how anyone is going to react to being scared. Especially people already waving guns around.

These 2 panicked and ran. What if they'd panicked and shot? Hitting him or others in the cafe?
Did this hero actually save people or risk escalating the crime?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed.

I knew this was gonna be a good post when it started with 'Dude...'


thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:

Yes, the old fellow was lucky, but as Pasteur said luck favors the prepared. I'm sure if the video had one robber, then someone would say, "Well if there had been 2 then he would have been outnumbered and probably gotten killed." Look, I don't know if someone willing and able to act as this old fellow did would have saved anyone. Probably not. But it is also likely that the pissant would have crapped his pants if a bullet hit him in the body armor and would have ran off. He seemed to surrender to the cops without any struggle, so I think there is a higher than 0 chance that if faced with armed resistance he would have booked it like those two guys did. At the least it might have drawn his attention giving others a chance to escape.

I might also say, that you seemed to be assuming the old fellow was intent on killing the robbers. What if he wasn't? What if what happened was exactly what he was trying to do, scare the little weasels off before anyone innocent got hurt. In fact, if he had killed one of the robbers once they started to run, he would have most likely charged with murder.

If he was shooting at them, he should have been trying to kill them. Shooting to disarm or disable is a trick for the movies. As it turns out he didn't disarm or disable them. Shooting to scare is even dumber. You don't know how anyone is going to react to being scared. Especially people already waving guns around.

These 2 panicked and ran. What if they'd panicked and shot? Hitting him or others in the cafe?
Did this hero actually save people or risk escalating the crime?

While I agree with the 'you don't shoot to scare off' part of your post...

He was there. He had the concealed carry license that he had to pass classes on gun use to have. He was there, and he made the call. He didn't immediately jump up and start shooting, he waited until a window of opportunity showed itself. He used it, and the would be robbers fled.
Kinda sick of this 'second guess the guy who was there and made the right call' kind of crap. Clearly this man was a hero, and not the kind to just sit there and play the 'what if' game.
There is always a fine line between heroic act and tragedy. He decided to try to make it a choice instead of letting it be made for him.
Appreciate that he made the right call, and that it ended well, instead of dwelling on the what if.


houstonderek wrote:
Dude, do you know how infinitesimally small your chances of being killed in a spree shooting are? ...You have a better chance of being killed by your spouse, if you're married.

Yeah, but then you probably had it coming. *rimshot*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeremiziah wrote:
I choose not to own one. I am allowed to make that choice, right?

Absolutely!

But just as you have the RIGHT not to own one, I equally HAVE the RIGHT to own one...

You have a far far far greater chance of getting hit by a drunk driver than you do by some wing-nut shooting at you...

Qadira

Digitalelf wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
I choose not to own one. I am allowed to make that choice, right?

Absolutely!

But just as you have the RIGHT not to own one, I equally HAVE the RIGHT to own one...

You have a far far far greater chance of getting hit by a drunk driver than you do by some wing-nut shooting at you...

But the crippling fear of getting shot is being pushed by media not MUCH more likely dangers

Shadow Lodge

Digitalelf wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
I choose not to own one. I am allowed to make that choice, right?

Absolutely!

But just as you have the RIGHT not to own one, I equally HAVE the RIGHT to own one...

You have a far far far greater chance of getting hit by a drunk driver than you do by some wing-nut shooting at you...

Right, which is why

1) we make drunk driving illegal
2) we limit the size of vehicles that can be on the road
3) we don't let certain types of vehicles into certain areas


Digitalelf wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
I choose not to own one. I am allowed to make that choice, right?

Absolutely!

But just as you have the RIGHT not to own one, I equally HAVE the RIGHT to own one...

You have a far far far greater chance of getting hit by a drunk driver than you do by some wing-nut shooting at you...

... but ... but what about ... but what about drunk wing-nuts shooting at you while trying to hit you with their truck?

Shadow Lodge

pres man wrote:


... but ... but what about ... but what about drunk wing-nuts shooting at you while trying to hit you with their truck?

Sound like my summer job in Montana...


pres man wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
I choose not to own one. I am allowed to make that choice, right?

Absolutely!

But just as you have the RIGHT not to own one, I equally HAVE the RIGHT to own one...

You have a far far far greater chance of getting hit by a drunk driver than you do by some wing-nut shooting at you...

... but ... but what about ... but what about drunk wing-nuts shooting at you while trying to hit you with their truck?

Been there.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Right, which is why

1) we make drunk driving illegal

And yet someone can just get into a car after spending the evening downing shot after shot of 80 proof (or more) alcohol and just obliviously drive down the road (despite already having his license revoked for doing the same)...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
2) we limit the size of vehicles that can be on the road

And yet I still have "big rigs" parking on my street (with some repeat offenders even after getting ticketed multiple times)...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
3) we don't let certain types of vehicles into certain areas

And still people try and drive in these places (like some public beaches where driving is not permitted)...

The point being, where-ever there are laws, there are people more than willing to break them...

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

As it turns out, murdering somebody with a gun is illegal. Just like murdering them with a knife.

Drunk driving is bad, mkay, but we don't have car control arguments on the Internet.

But wait, someone will say, cars have legitimate purposes, but guns have none.

Defending oneself against armed, potentially lethal aggression is a legitimate use of a gun.

OTOH, the only purpose for alcohol is inebriation, yet basically nobody since Prohibition argues that we should ban alcohol to prevent drunk driving.


Charlie Bell wrote:

As it turns out, murdering somebody with a gun is illegal. Just like murdering them with a knife.

Drunk driving is bad, mkay, but we don't have car control arguments on the Internet.

But wait, someone will say, cars have legitimate purposes, but guns have none.

Defending oneself against armed, potentially lethal aggression is a legitimate use of a gun.

OTOH, the only purpose for alcohol is inebriation, yet basically nobody since Prohibition argues that we should ban alcohol to prevent drunk driving.

If you get pulled over for drunk driving, EVEN IF you don't kill or harm or endanger anyone, there's a high chance you'll get your license suspended.

To PREVENT you from doing something irresponsible in the future. It's not punitive, it's preventative. Why can't we have preventative measures to secure guns from people who would use them irresponsibly?


We do, kinda. Once they become felons, they don't get that right anymore.

Qadira

meatrace wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:

As it turns out, murdering somebody with a gun is illegal. Just like murdering them with a knife.

Drunk driving is bad, mkay, but we don't have car control arguments on the Internet.

But wait, someone will say, cars have legitimate purposes, but guns have none.

Defending oneself against armed, potentially lethal aggression is a legitimate use of a gun.

OTOH, the only purpose for alcohol is inebriation, yet basically nobody since Prohibition argues that we should ban alcohol to prevent drunk driving.

If you get pulled over for drunk driving, EVEN IF you don't kill or harm or endanger anyone, there's a high chance you'll get your license suspended.

To PREVENT you from doing something irresponsible in the future. It's not punitive, it's preventative. Why can't we have preventative measures to secure guns from people who would use them irresponsibly?

We DO but much like the drunk driver you have to show you are not safe first, not treated like a criminal until you prove you are not

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:

If you get pulled over for drunk driving, EVEN IF you don't kill or harm or endanger anyone, there's a high chance you'll get your license suspended.

To PREVENT you from doing something irresponsible in the future. It's not punitive, it's preventative.

There are innumerable people whom drive with a suspended license. Some even do so while drunk...

So while it may be preventative for some, it certainly isn't for others...

Felons can't have firearms, and yet many still obtain one (or several)...

Again, preventative for some, others simply don't give a rat’s bottom...


Digitalelf wrote:
meatrace wrote:

If you get pulled over for drunk driving, EVEN IF you don't kill or harm or endanger anyone, there's a high chance you'll get your license suspended.

To PREVENT you from doing something irresponsible in the future. It's not punitive, it's preventative.

There are innumerable people whom drive with a suspended license. Some even do so while drunk...

So while it may be preventative for some, it certainly isn't for others...

Felons can't have firearms, and yet many still obtain one (or several)...

Again, preventative for some, others simply don't give a rat’s bottom...

I'm not sure how this is an argument for anything, other than perfectionist fallacy.

Hey, we can't keep EVERYONE from killing EVERYONE ELSE therefore we shouldn't bother trying.

Poppycock!


Andrew R wrote:
We DO but much like the drunk driver you have to show you are not safe first, not treated like a criminal until you prove you are not

Really? They let you drive at any age and without any kind of training?

Oh, right...

I just feel that convicted felony is a very high bar to set for denying someone the tools for mass murder.

I'd rather a test in than a test out system.

I completely understand that is politically infeasible, given the SCOTUS decision on the second amendment and the power of lobbying groups like the NRA. But if we were to start over, from scratch, I don't think it would be wise to let any old yokel have powerful weapons.

I'll just bring up one little thing. Okay, so you say you need absolute leeway in deciding how best to protect yourself, your family, your property, etc. I think you're a cuckoo but whatever. You can't reasonably shoot more than 1 gun at once, unless you're Chow Yun Fat. Why doesn't buying multiple guns in a short period send up some sort of flag?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
I'm not sure how this is an argument for anything

It was an argument of your statement of taking someone's incense away somehow prevents them from driving drunk...

We have laws in place against using a firearm while perpetrating a crime...

Someone willing enough to kill is not going to care if he has to break several other laws in order to do so...

More laws are not going to change this...

Qadira

meatrace wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
We DO but much like the drunk driver you have to show you are not safe first, not treated like a criminal until you prove you are not

Really? They let you drive at any age and without any kind of training?

Oh, right...

I just feel that convicted felony is a very high bar to set for denying someone the tools for mass murder.

I'd rather a test in than a test out system.

I completely understand that is politically infeasible, given the SCOTUS decision on the second amendment and the power of lobbying groups like the NRA. But if we were to start over, from scratch, I don't think it would be wise to let any old yokel have powerful weapons.

I'll just bring up one little thing. Okay, so you say you need absolute leeway in deciding how best to protect yourself, your family, your property, etc. I think you're a cuckoo but whatever. You can't reasonably shoot more than 1 gun at once, unless you're Chow Yun Fat. Why doesn't buying multiple guns in a short period send up some sort of flag?

And i doubt the sanity of any that want to disarm law abiding citizens. Buying multiple guns CAN be a bad sign or a collector getting a great deal or sudden windfall that lets him make a serious addition to his collection. Or worry that your side is going to soon end his rights and buying while he can (as IS happening tight now)


Digitalelf wrote:
meatrace wrote:
I'm not sure how this is an argument for anything

It was an argument of your statement of taking someone's incense away somehow prevents them from driving drunk...

We have laws in place against using a firearm while perpetrating a crime...

Someone willing enough to kill is not going to care if he has to break several other laws in order to do so...

More laws are not going to change this...

Sure it could. Make all guns illegal. That would change it.

I'm not advocating that, but the belief that removing guns from the equation will somehow not prevent people from using guns for crimes is patently absurd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Or worry that your side is going to soon end his rights and buying while he can (as IS happening tight now)

The deep end. You just jumped off of it. Citation needed, please.

The government has been about to take away all your guns for a couple hundred years now. Stop panicking about something that's NOT going to happen. This is purely a paranoid delusional mindset that, sadly, a significant portion of our country holds.

Next you're going to tell me that the rapture is in 30 days, and this time you're SURE.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:


And yet someone can just get into a car after spending the evening downing shot after shot of 80 proof (or more) alcohol and just obliviously drive down the road (despite already having his license revoked for doing the same)...

And yet incidences of drunk driving HAVE dropped since meaningful laws and enforcement have been enacted. Nothing is ever going to prevent all deaths, but legislation CAN change things for the better.

Why is the AR 15 legal? Why is a 100 round drum magazine legal? What possible reason is there for allowing these? You don't need them for hunting, you don't need them for home defense, and they're pointless for rising up against the future possibility of a tyrannical government.

The fantasy of rising up against an oppressive future government using these weapons is just that: a fantasy. They would be no more effective against a tank than a bolt action rifle.

Shadow Lodge

Digitalelf wrote:
meatrace wrote:
I'm not sure how this is an argument for anything

It was an argument of your statement of taking someone's incense away somehow prevents them from driving drunk...

We have laws in place against using a firearm while perpetrating a crime...

Someone willing enough to kill is not going to care if he has to break several other laws in order to do so...

More laws are not going to change this...

Ban or regulate the sale and manufacture of certain weapons. Treat an AR 15 the same way that we now treat a Gatling gun.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Why doesn't buying multiple guns in a short period send up some sort of flag?

Why should it?

It is estimated that there are over 250 million gun owners in the United States, and the yearly statistics for people getting shot (including suicides AND accidental shootings) does not even go into triple digits...

There are far more deaths per year from other things that people do and own that fall into the category of "privilege" rather than a RIGHT set forth by our Constitution...

Yet these others are somehow dwarfed in comparison to the dreaded "death by gun" and have even less laws than guns have governing their use (even though many of these others have much higher statistics resulting in death than "death by gun")...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Treat an AR 15 the same way that we now treat a Gatling gun.

Um, a Gatling gun (unless modified) is hand cranked, and therefore 100% legal and 100% BATFE approved...

And since it's considered a "curio & relic", it's even legal in most of the restrictive gun states like California...

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the US, the presence of firearms does not correlate with murder rates. In the US, the number of gun owners per capita is much higher in rural areas, yet murder rates are much, much higher in urban areas with much lower numbers of gun owners.

What these urban areas do have in abundance is violent criminal street gang members. The majority of US murders are committed by a subset of this criminal subculture. Studies have found that less than 6% of the active criminals in an area are responsible for over 75% of the violent crime, so efficient identification and incarceration of such individuals can tremendously reduce crime.

As an example, when Arizona authorities learned of a plot to kidnap and assassinate correctional and police officials, they arrested over 50 gang members alleged to be involved with the plot. While many were eventuially released, 13 were subsequently convicted of various murders and other serious crimes. The next year saw murder in the Phoenix area drop by over 50%.


meatrace wrote:
You can't reasonably shoot more than 1 gun at once, unless you're Chow Yun Fat. Why doesn't buying multiple guns in a short period send up some sort of flag?

You can't play more than one game at once. So if someone buys multiple board games, shouldn't that send up some kind of flag?

Seriously, for some people it is a hobby. And they have different guns for different situations, so buying multiple guns is reasonable. You are not going to use the same gun to shoot the rattlesnake 5 feet away as you are to shoot prairie dogs a football field away to help farmers.

Shadow Lodge

Digitalelf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Treat an AR 15 the same way that we now treat a Gatling gun.

Um, a Gatling gun (unless modified) is hand cranked, and therefore 100% legal and 100% BATFE approved...

And since it's considered a "curio & relic", it's even legal in restrictive gun states like California...

I thought you needed the 200 dollar transfer fee and the background check?

Fine, why don't we make acquiring an ar 15 as much of a pain in the rear that we do to acquire machine guns? What do we really loose by not having that kind of weapon readily available in society?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What do we really loose by not having that kind of weapon readily available in society?

The AR-15 is THE single most popular firearm in the country right now, and has been for some time...

It can be personalized to no end (with it being available in different calibers as well)...

It is therefore highly sought after by professional competitors (who also use these 100 round magazines)...

The AR-15 is a very different animal than the M4 or M-16. It [the AR-15] is no different than any other "semi-auto firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine"...

The two may look the same, and many of the parts are indeed interchangeable...

However, the "sear" of the M4/M-16 (which is the part that really makes a firearm like the M4/M-16 a "machine gun") WILL NOT fit into an AR-15 (the receivers ARE different)...

Of the parts that are interchangeable (the ones that really matter like the trigger, hammer, selector switch, and disconnect), if one owns an AR-15 and owns any ONE of the aforementioned parts of an M4/M-16 fire control group (even if the parts are not on the AR-15), that person is in constructive possession of a "machine gun" (a felony) and will go to prison...

People go after the AR-15 because it looks evil (and because of its popularity). There are firearms that look nothing like the AR-15 but function exactly like one, but you never hear about these other firearms do you?

What’s more, most of these other firearms I speak of are considered “harmless” hunting rifles…

Andoran

Kryzbyn wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:


We didn't lose in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan because they had huge navies and air forces and vastly superior technology. We lost to poorly trained insurgents with (largely) light weapons.
...and diplomatic and political ass-hattery.

I think the NVA may want to talk to you about the 'poorly trained insurgents' bit.

Andoran

houstonderek wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

I

Why do you hate the show Pawn Stars so much?

1. It's on the "History" channel.

2. It is mindless tripe.

History channel?! Huh, that is a bit offensive. Not as bad as 'reality' ghost shows on Discover, though.


Sir_Wulf wrote:

In the US, the presence of firearms does not correlate with murder rates. In the US, the number of gun owners per capita is much higher in rural areas, yet murder rates are much, much higher in urban areas with much lower numbers of gun owners.

What these urban areas do have in abundance is violent criminal street gang members. The majority of US murders are committed by a subset of this criminal subculture. Studies have found that less than 6% of the active criminals in an area are responsible for over 75% of the violent crime, so efficient identification and incarceration of such individuals can tremendously reduce crime.

As an example, when Arizona authorities learned of a plot to kidnap and assassinate correctional and police officials, they arrested over 50 gang members alleged to be involved with the plot. While many were eventuially released, 13 were subsequently convicted of various murders and other serious crimes. The next year saw murder in the Phoenix area drop by over 50%.

Well said. I live in Chicago and its been a bloody summer. We, the citizens of Crook county feel like the thugs and gang bangers have the guns while We The People are the lambs.

I hope IL allows conceal and carry ASAP.
P.S. An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It may look bad ass but its semi auto and .22 caliber by in large.

Qadira

meatrace wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Or worry that your side is going to soon end his rights and buying while he can (as IS happening tight now)

The deep end. You just jumped off of it. Citation needed, please.

The government has been about to take away all your guns for a couple hundred years now. Stop panicking about something that's NOT going to happen. This is purely a paranoid delusional mindset that, sadly, a significant portion of our country holds.

Next you're going to tell me that the rapture is in 30 days, and this time you're SURE.

Colorado gun sales, also national, are higher now then before the shooting. People know how this is going to become a political tool. Was on the news as i typed that. I'm not saying they are going to confiscate today, but people DO have a legit fear that liberals will be using this to make gun purchases harder for decent folks.

Qadira

Aretas wrote:
Sir_Wulf wrote:

In the US, the presence of firearms does not correlate with murder rates. In the US, the number of gun owners per capita is much higher in rural areas, yet murder rates are much, much higher in urban areas with much lower numbers of gun owners.

What these urban areas do have in abundance is violent criminal street gang members. The majority of US murders are committed by a subset of this criminal subculture. Studies have found that less than 6% of the active criminals in an area are responsible for over 75% of the violent crime, so efficient identification and incarceration of such individuals can tremendously reduce crime.

As an example, when Arizona authorities learned of a plot to kidnap and assassinate correctional and police officials, they arrested over 50 gang members alleged to be involved with the plot. While many were eventuially released, 13 were subsequently convicted of various murders and other serious crimes. The next year saw murder in the Phoenix area drop by over 50%.

Well said. I live in Chicago and its been a bloody summer. We, the citizens of Crook county feel like the thugs and gang bangers have the guns while We The People are the lambs.

I hope IL allows conceal and carry ASAP.
P.S. An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It may look bad ass but its semi auto and .22 caliber by in large.

Nah, they like to feel safe that you cannot have a gun and the state will protect them

Andoran

houstonderek wrote:


Yeah, I forgot a government that assassinates its own citizens without any charges or due process or that assists state governments with oppressing and brutalizing people exercising their First Amendment right to peaceful assembly could never be considered "fascist". Mussolini, Pinochet and Franco weren't half as bad as Hitler, but they were still fascists. Fascism, last I checked, meant government oppressing the populace while allowing industrialists to get richer...

This is more of a quibble than a disagreement, but classicly fascism is more about state control of (important) industry in support of the National Will than it is about enriching private business. Maybe authoritarian would be more precise?

Andoran

Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


Yeah, I forgot a government that assassinates its own citizens without any charges or due process or that assists state governments with oppressing and brutalizing people exercising their First Amendment right to peaceful assembly could never be considered "fascist". Mussolini, Pinochet and Franco weren't half as bad as Hitler, but they were still fascists. Fascism, last I checked, meant government oppressing the populace while allowing industrialists to get richer...
This is more of a quibble than a disagreement, but classicly fascism is more about state control of (important) industry in support of the National Will than it is about enriching private business. Maybe authoritarian would be more precise?

Maybe.

Andoran

Kryzbyn wrote:

Indeed.

I knew this was gonna be a good post when it started with 'Dude...'

Am I that predictable?

;-)

Andoran

Aretas wrote:


P.S. An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It may look bad ass but its semi auto and .22 caliber by in large.

It isn't an assault weapon, but there is a huge difference between a weapon firing .22 LR cartridges and one firing .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO.

The AR-15 is *not* a pea-shooter by any stretch of the imagination.


Motor Cars and Firearms, The Revolutionary Oneness: The Musical Interlude

Andoran

Digitalelf wrote:


It is estimated that there are over 250 million gun owners in the United States, and the yearly statistics for people getting shot (including suicides AND accidental shootings) does not even go into triple digits...

Triple digits? You mean less than a hundred? The FBI disagrees with you. According to them you are off by at least two orders of magnitude, even counting only homicides involving firearms.

(for 2009)

Andoran

I though Chicago alone has had over 600 homicides already? But that's mostly black on black crime, the media only cares about a bunch of white people getting shot, apparently, unless they can make a huge media circus around it (the Martin case).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Digital Elf wrote:
It is therefore highly sought after by professional competitors (who also use these 100 round magazines)..

I'm sorry, but as fun as it is, sporting competitions don't strike me as good enough reason to keep around something that dangerous. I don't care if it just looks like an ar 15 or shoots that fast, the cost of having them as available as they are outweighs the benefit.


Not to brag or nothing, but our happy little politroll thread has outlasted the real thing!

I'm not sure if that's because we're better behaved or less likely to flag each other. Hmmm....

Qadira

Eh flagging is for those that are too thin skinned for debate and cannot come up with a good response

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Triple digits? You mean less than a hundred?

I'm sorry, I miss-typed...

I meant to say "does not even go into 6 digits" (and that is a yearly figure)...

301 to 350 of 566 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Gabrielle Giffords Shooting and Gun Control All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.