Gabrielle Giffords Shooting and Gun Control


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 566 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Look, when you allow people to make free choices, you have to be willing to accept that some people are going to make horrible choices. We can try to discourage that, but unless you are willing to remove all freedom of choice (assuming there was some way to do that), you have to tolerate that bad things are going.

That doesn't mean that people don't care that bad things happen and that people want those to be stopped or avoided, but some times the cost is too great.

Let's say I could prove without a doubt that if we outlawed all video games and raided everyone's house for their games we save 10 lives every year. Would that be worth it to anyone? Is your need to play Diablo 3 so great that you are willing to be responsible for someone dying? (And yes people do die from playing video games too much.)

Yet I think we can all rationally say that something like that is horrible tragedy, but the cost to save a life like that would require every single person to give up all video games. And that cost is just not worth it ultimately. It is horrible to say, but the joy and improvement that others receive from having those privileges out weighs the fact that some people are going to suffer.

That doesn't mean we can't react some kind of reasonable compromise, for example there was a ban on assault weapons for several years and was evidently constitution the statute just ran out of time and wasn't renewed but of course that wouldn't have stopped this shooting. But suggesting we remove a right instilled into the constitution that allows millions of people enjoyment every year (collectors, sport, and/or game shooters) just doesn't seem reasonable to some, just like banning all video games might not seem reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Canada still has a relatively high rate of gun ownership (as does, surprisingly, Australia), which is my point. They are there, but they aren't usually abused.

Australia does not have high levels of gun ownership and the list of what types of firearms private citizens can own is very restrictive.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:

It would be nothing to make it harder for people without a license to drive. Cellphones are cheep. The government could mandate that all cars have a transmitter built in that works off of the cell phone grid.

If the car is in range of a cell tower, it will not start without holding up your state ID card which includes an RFID chip - a chip they want us saddled with anyway. If the car is out of range of a cellphone tower, then the car starts but the cell phone logs the RFID chip number and transmits it later when the car comes back into range, or when the black sedan drives through with a recorder auditing all your disks.

If a car was driven without a valid RFID chip or the cellphone is tampered with, the owner of the car gets a big fat fine.

This plan is entirely practical and wouldn't be intrusive at all! Moreover, it'll be a simple task to get all of the old cars out of circulation in order to make this plan work.

Digitalelf wrote:
Tell that to the person killed, or better yet, tell that person's family that we cannot make it harder because the consequences of restricting them are much greater...

Right, but a case can be made that modern society can continue without guns (see also: Canada), while it'd be a damn sight more difficult to do that for cars.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
Some parts of Chicago are like Gaza or Michoacan. The only way to clean up the violence is by stomping on civil rights to put an end to the gangs and their supporters. They should be treated like domestic terrorists.

Holy crap, dude, do you realize what you sound like? Again, here's a quote from another site.

Quote:
I feel that todays gangs are nothing but domestic terrorists and need to be put away and charged with domestic terrorism. Quit the PC crap, and give these gangs what they deserve. Ok, my rant is over. Thanks.

Guess what site?:
Yup, it's Stormfront again.
The Exchange

houstonderek wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

You know what would put us on par with European levels of crime and violence? Getting 14% of the population caught in a vicious cycle of gang violence and poverty out of it. You know, improving education and opportunity. Because the sad fact is, most of our crime stats are fueled by black on black crime in the poorest neighborhoods in America, not by random theater shootings. If you remove black on black crime from our crime statistics, we are right in the middle of the pack for Western European crime rates, across the board.

But that doesn't make good sensationalist TV, and involves actually DOING SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES EFFORT AND DEDICATION instead of armchair politicking. It would also require dropping the PC BS and tackling the issue head on. It is criminal how much we allow the cycle to persist, paying lip service and doing nothing of substance to correct the problem. Everyone wants more laws, but guess what? Any new laws would just impact that community harder than it does lily white America. Yeah, let's incarcerate more black people and destroy more black families, like our incredibly racist "War on Drugs" does. Yeah, that little experiment made life in the 'hood sooooo much better.

You know how New York City solved the crime problem in Manhattan? They forced the black people out and turned their neighborhoods into yuppie and hipster hell holes. That isn't a solution, that's sweeping the problem under the rug and not addressing the disservice we've done that community.

Get over yourselves, y'all are discussing the statistical equivalent of being hit by lightning while being bitten by a shark and ignoring the fact that, for white America, a lot of this crap is academic. More gun control isn't the answer to crime in this country, more education and opportunity for our most vulnerable citizens is.

Choosing not to do drugs and commit crimes would be a good start there. No "racist" government program makes anyone do either. Personal responsability
...

I grew up with a biker father, my childhood was full of drugs and booze around me. I do not drink nor break any law. i have no criminal history. It IS a choice.


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

No, I was literally following your instructions to "think what this old guy could have done"... and despite my thinking that video is a piece of pure and uncut awesome, the real answer is: not much.

Let me put it this way: if the guy from your video was a PC and I was the GM, then I would be derelict in my duties putting him up against a CR like the aurora shooter. He couldn't even get through the DR.

I only feel the need to speak up because, while I believe fewer guns are not a realistic solution to spree violence, I also believe more guns are an equally silly solution. Can gun rights supporters really claim that more guns would have stopped the Aurora shooter? Or are they just fixated on a personal heroism fantasy and not really thinking about how inescapable that situation really is? Would an armed populace really deter such a person, or would it simply call for more armor and more planning?

The truth is, there is NO good answer for society when faced with this. These people are trying to hack away at the foundations of society, mutual trust and respect, by forcing us to turn on each other. And what sucks is that their tactic works all too well, because nobody has a solution, nobody can prevent this behavior, and attempting to prevent it only makes things worse.

But to all of you in this thread who stand up and say "more guns is the solution" AND THOSE WHO SAY "fewer guns is the solution", do me a personal favor and stop for a moment, and consider whether your dearly-held beliefs actually have any bearing on that situation. They don't. And that's what makes it so damn scary.


Andrew R wrote:
I grew up with a biker father, my childhood was full of drugs and booze around me. I do not drink nor break any law. i have no criminal history. It IS a choice.

No one claims that growing up in a bad situation guarantees criminal behavior. It just makes it far more likely. Saying you don't have a criminal history doesn't mean it a choice.

In fact, I'd say very little of human behavior can be reduced to anything as simple as "choice" or "not choice".

Do you claim that people raised in urban poverty are making free and unconstrained choices to perpetuate the cycle of gang violence and poverty? While people raised in the suburban middle class are making equally free and unconstrained choices not to? That there are no pressures on either group that make certain choices more likely?

If so, how do you explain street gangs being common in poor urban environments but not in middle class suburbs?

And to shoot down one possible response, genetic arguments are also not "choice".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charlie Bell wrote:


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

Not quite true. For millennia wine was a far safer way to quench your thirst than water, so it was essentially a family drink. It had the same place in a meal as orange juice would for breakfast.

The Exchange

If you pick up the booze, you choose to drink. pick up the drug you choose to use it. commit a crime you choose to do it. It is more common because they are use to it so they CHOOSE to stick with what they know not what is right. It is easy to do as the other trash, hard to stand out as having an ounce of morality

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:


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

Not quite true. For millennia wine was a far safer way to quench your thirst than water, so it was essentially a family drink. It had the same place in a meal as orange juice would for breakfast.

Primitive europeans thought beer was safe and water dangerous. Of course step one in making the beer was boiling the water......


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

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.

The fact that it ended well doesn't mean he made the right call. That's a fallacy. Maybe he did. Maybe he did something stupid and got lucky.

Just like driving home drunk is still the wrong decision, even if you make it home without an accident.


Andrew R wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:


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

Not quite true. For millennia wine was a far safer way to quench your thirst than water, so it was essentially a family drink. It had the same place in a meal as orange juice would for breakfast.
Primitive europeans thought beer was safe and water dangerous. Of course step one in making the beer was boiling the water......

It wasn't boiling the water that made the beer safe, it was the alcohol in it.

And you can't always boil your water right before drinking. Beer or wine stay safe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Man. "The only purpose of alcohol is inebriation"?

"If you pick up the booze"?

You people are philistines. I make beer. It's an art. And I haven't been drunk since my friend's wedding party.

Drug use != immorality. It's how you conduct yourself as a person, chemical enhancement or no.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
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.

So would many Vietnam veterans I imagine.

I remember reading about George Washington's experiences in the French and Indian wars as a colonial soldier and the observations he made about how bad a fit Redcoat military practises were for engaging an enemy that made a forest it's home turf. It seemed to paralell much our experience in Vietnam and the Phillipine Insurgency as well as the Russians in Afghanistan.


Gallo wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Canada still has a relatively high rate of gun ownership (as does, surprisingly, Australia), which is my point. They are there, but they aren't usually abused.
Australia does not have high levels of gun ownership and the list of what types of firearms private citizens can own is very restrictive.

The Australian rate of gun ownership is 15 guns per 100 residents, which ranks them at 42nd highest worldwide (source). I consider 42nd highest comparitively high. Australian laws on guns may be strict, but it is a country where a lot of people in rural areas have need of them and so buy them. Considering that Australia is one of the most urbanized countries in the world, this means there are some rural areas of the country with a lot of guns lying around.

If you don't want to take Australia as an example, take New Zealand. Or Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Canada, Germany, Iceland, and so on. All these countries may have strict gun control, but they still have a ton of firearms in private hands, so the example stands.


meatrace wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
meatrace wrote:
For example, if you had repeatedly sent death threats to people, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to buy or use guns until you get some counselling and a shrink signs off on it.
Sending death threats is a felony. In most places, felons can't buy guns.

Convicted felons, yes.

There are remarkably few prosecutions for death threats in the age of email and internet messageboards.

Hee hee!

Sorry about that, Citizen Meatrace.


Digitalelf wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
you're saying that 6 digits is a really small number, not even worth getting worked up about, since so many people die from all kinds of other stuff.
What I'm saying is that 250 MILLION gun owners is a much greater number. What I'm saying is that the amount of people dying from gun violence is much smaller than the number of gun owners (which tells me that the laws ALREADY in place are in fact working). What I'm saying is that death from things other than guns is a much larger number, yet for some unknown reason those numbers seem to pale in comparison to the dreaded gun (and most of these other thing have deterrent laws as well, and people seem to think those laws are enough)...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this subject is about guns and their place in society.

If you want to talk about drunk driving, feel free to make a new thread and I'll happily discuss why I think it should be required that all new cars should be outfitted with alcolocks (and I'd like to see them implemented in those cars already on the road where it's technologically feasible).
But that's a different issue and by saying that "well, this other thing is even more dangerous!" you're trying to deflect the harm that gun violence does too.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's not a bad line of logic, GG. If the logic behind your line of thinking is "but guns cause so many deaths, so they should be limited/banned" than it's perfectly logical to bring up other things that cause even more deaths and what little is done about them to show that if it's truly the number of deaths that are a concern, why doesn't your logic extend to these other things as well?
I agree it's a tired argument, but so is the former. Unless all guns everywhere are simultaneously destroyed and their manufacture is made impossible, you can not end gun violence. You can only hope to limit it. So therefore, even your line of thinking implies there is a number of gun deaths you would find tolerable or acceptable.


Andrew R wrote:
I grew up with a biker father, my childhood was full of drugs and booze around me. I do not drink nor break any law. i have no criminal history. It IS a choice.

I do not have a criminal history, either.

Well, not a record anyway...


houstonderek wrote:

I think his point was that gun violence isn't as big an issue as the press makes it. Even including the crime stats for our poorest people, our rate of violence isn't that much higher than Europe's (we're talking about a couple of percentage points in a much more diverse culture than most European nations have). Basically, it's making a mountain out of a molehill, which is a trademark of political posturing pretty much globally.

My ultimate point is that focusing on this incident is a) racist as f!$$ - i.e. apparently we only care when it's white people being killed unless the press can make a big story out of it, and b) ignoring the actual problems we have that affect a much larger part of the population, which is also racist.

We've had 1018 black Americans murdered since Treyvan Martin, yet the press ignores all of that. Hell, the POLICE in this country have killed more innocent people (mostly black) this year than the psycho in Aurora, but our press doesn't want to talk about that. Maybe we should disarm the cops, apparently they aren't responsible enough to carry firearms, in spite of receiving far more training than your average conceal carry permit owner.

This is all smoke and noise that sells ad time on news stations. We don't care about the real problems, we just sit back and allow the press to scare us and allow the politicians to use this to further erode our rights.

I agree with a whole bunch of this, too.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

What possible purpose could be served by owning a car that can go over the legal speed limit? It's only useful for nefarious lawbreaking. Ban all cars that can go over 75.

You can't drive more than one car at a time. It should be prohibited to own more than one car.

If your credit card shows a bar tab, it should send up a red flag to the government that you're going to drink and drive, so you should be carefully monitored and a file should be kept on you in a national registry database.

Tens of thousands of people die in auto accidents in the US each year. Certainly limiting the number of these highly lethal devices would reduce the number of deaths. Think of the children!

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Man. "The only purpose of alcohol is inebriation"?

"If you pick up the booze"?

You people are philistines. I make beer. It's an art. And I haven't been drunk since my friend's wedding party.

Drug use != immorality. It's how you conduct yourself as a person, chemical enhancement or no.

That's actually pretty analogous to the arguments of legal gun owners against gun control. Guns != murder. I've never killed anybody with a gun, not even in combat or a legitimate self-defense scenario. Why should I be prohibited from owning one?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If it saves the life of just one child, it's worth it.

A very dangerous statement where lawmaking is concerned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not going to war would save thousands of children's lives, but our lawmakers don't seem terribly concerned.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Not quite the same thing, but ok. Valid point none-the-less.


Kryzbyn wrote:

It's not a bad line of logic, GG. If the logic behind your line of thinking is "but guns cause so many deaths, so they should be limited/banned" than it's perfectly logical to bring up other things that cause even more deaths and what little is done about them to show that if it's truly the number of deaths that are a concern, why doesn't your logic extend to these other things as well?

I agree it's a tired argument, but so is the former. Unless all guns everywhere are simultaneously destroyed and their manufacture is made impossible, you can not end gun violence. You can only hope to limit it. So therefore, even your line of thinking implies there is a number of gun deaths you would find tolerable or acceptable.

First of all, can we stop with the "ban all guns" rhetoric? I don't recall anyone saying that, so it's a strawman inclusion in the discussion.

Restricting or banning certain types of guns (which is already being done!) doesn't mean that all guns should be banned.
And just because someone is concerned with gun violence doesn't mean that they aren't concerned with other areas where lots of people lose their lives each year, as I also mentioned above.
But it's easier to keep the issues separate because they don't necessarily have any influence on each other (you could talk general drinking culture, which has an impact on both shooting and drunk driving statistic, but people also die from other motor accidents, so it's better to keep that subject separate).
Sure, my personal number of gun deaths would be 0, which is why I'm advocating for measures taken to get as close to that.
Making sure that certain weapons aren't readily available might cause the next spree killer to only kill 7 as opposed to 12 people, since he couldn't lay down as much fire with other weapons. That's a step in the right direction IMO.

I would also like to share this from comic book artist Phil Foglio:

Warning; Guns.

Now nobody asked my opinion, but this is my little writing space and no one is forcing anyone to read it. If it annoys you, go here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sUdijlomfw). Okay? Fine.Yes, we've seen it before. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/sadly-nation-knows-exactly-how-colorado-s hootings,28857/) And until we do something about guns in America, we'll see it again.

Continued behind the spoiler tag:
Twenty years ago I asked a friend of mine who was a police officer (Hi, John!), what he thought about the whole 2nd Amendment thing. Now I had to consider that John might be biased, because in all likelihood, if someone owned a gun, and was going to do something stupid with it, there was a real good chance they'd try to use it against him (or someone wearing the same outfit). His immediate response was that in his opinion, times had changed from when this particular Amendment had been forged. Foreign powers weren't actively attacking us, or trying to board their occupying soldiers in our homes. We also didn't have much of an Indian problem lately, which really removed two important justifications for an armed citizenry.

However, he conceded that there was a significant percentage of the population that relied upon hunting for subsistence to a greater or lesser degree, and it would be ridiculous to expect them to hunt stuff down with bows and clubs. (I am well aware that there is a large and growing segment of the hunting community that does in fact, hunt with bows. Good for you. Shut up.) You could also make a case for said hunters being useful in controlling various out–of–balance animal populations (I'll talk about re–introducing top predators somewhere else).

So, in his considered opinion. he said that he had no problem with people owning rifles. Of course you can commit crimes with a rifle, but it's harder to do. Any glance through police statistics will tell you that not too many crimes of passion are committed with a rifle. Allowing ownership of rifles should also satisfy that element of the gun–owning population that declares that the only thing keeping our Democracy safe is that the government knows that the populace has guns and that if they "try something", they will be met with an armed response. (Yes, yes, I know, but if it keeps them happy…)

Handguns, on the other hand, are different. Their only practical purpose is to kill people, and they are astonishingly good at it. They are light, portable, easy to conceal, cheap to manufacture and simple to maintain. The most terrifying thing, that I can attest to from first–hand experience, is that when you hold a gun in your hand, You Want To Use It. It is a machine that is designed to feel good when you operate it. Yikes.

Assault weapons also fall into the 'unreasonable category'. No serious hunter is going to want to turn that trophy buck into a red mist, and hardly anyone considers using grenades for fishing to be sportsmanlike these days. Now I will concede that there are shades of grey here. I once found myself at a meet up of guys who actually owned, maintained and fired off civil war era cannons, and spent a deafening couple of hours watching these folks give lectures and demonstrations which were a glorious excuse to blast away at the nearby embankment.

But nobody is going to wheel a 3 ton cannon into a 7–11. Nobody is going to fire a Congreve rocket into a movie theatre. No one is going to unleash a trebuchet onto a schoolyard.

Modern weapons are too portable, too effective and too easy to get. That's my opinion.

Now I imagine any number of you, if you've gotten this far without combusting, are feverishly planning your Reasonable Response to my misguided, liberal, know nothing blathering. Don't bother. I'm not initiating a dialog here, this is a screed. I've tried having discussions about this. Around 20 years ago, I had a burst of civic responsibility and I published a list of every congressperson in America and urged people to write to them. I also gave them a list about possible subjects. One of them was gun control.

That was the only one I got feedback about, and it was vitriolic and incoherent, and I learned soon enough to just toss out all the letters that came to me with several mis-spellings on the envelope. But what really made an impression on me was a conversation I had shortly thereafter at a convention. There was this comics creator who put out a book I liked. It was a mindless thing with girls in bikinis and heavy ordinance, and he came up and said he just couldn't understand what I had against guns. Here is the rest of the conversation as best as I can remember it;

HIM; "So, have you ever been shot with a gun?"
ME; "No."
HIM; Has anyone in your family ever been killed by a gun?"
ME; "No."
HIM; "Have you ever been threatened by someone with a gun?"
ME; "No."
HIM; "Have you ever accidentally been exposed to gunfire? Or found yourself in the middle of a gun battle?"
ME; "No."
HIM; "Huh. Then what do you have against guns?"
ME (screaming); "ARE YOU LISTENING TO YOURSELF?!"

The answer, of course, was no, he wasn't. So I don't have to either.


Charlie Bell wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Man. "The only purpose of alcohol is inebriation"?

"If you pick up the booze"?

You people are philistines. I make beer. It's an art. And I haven't been drunk since my friend's wedding party.

Drug use != immorality. It's how you conduct yourself as a person, chemical enhancement or no.

That's actually pretty analogous to the arguments of legal gun owners against gun control. Guns != murder. I've never killed anybody with a gun, not even in combat or a legitimate self-defense scenario. Why should I be prohibited from owning one?

No, but guns = easier to murder someone.

I hope that's something we can all agree on.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
If you pick up the booze, you choose to drink. pick up the drug you choose to use it. commit a crime you choose to do it. It is more common because they are use to it so they CHOOSE to stick with what they know not what is right. It is easy to do as the other trash, hard to stand out as having an ounce of morality

And yet we have clear, empirical evidence that environment affects outcome.

The very people you vilify, if put in better circumstances, would make better choices. Likewise, the people who make better choices under better circumstances would make bad choices if they found themselves in less favorable circumstances.

In short, your "choice is all" narrative simply does not reflect reality.

Does that mean choice doesn't matter? Of course not. It matters. But it does mean that if our goal is to improve outcomes we must address the factors that lead to bad environments and bad choices.

Or we could gloat, secure in our own moral superiority.


I wish that the gun lobby would be more honest about what it thinks guns are for. I wish people purchased guns specifically for the use they are interested.

Hunting
Home Defense
Personal Defense
Killing Government Officials

The government has done a good job of disarming us to a point where it would be hard to fight back against the military if they decided to use them against us. The entire point of gun control in my opinion, is to make it harder and harder for citizens to fight back against if we ever need to.

Just like I believe that the tea party has been tricked into supporting causes that are not in their self interest (libertarian billionaires don't give a crap about you), liberal gun control advocates are being lured by politicians who want to erode our ability to maintain our freedom.

If all you thought guns were for were self defense and hunting, we don't really need very strong weapons. Hell, shotguns and pistols should cover it. Everything else that they want to ban, they want to ban because they are more effective against military personnel.


cranewings wrote:

I wish that the gun lobby would be more honest about what it thinks guns are for. I wish people purchased guns specifically for the use they are interested.

Hunting
Home Defense
Personal Defense
Killing Government Officials

The government has done a good job of disarming us to a point where it would be hard to fight back against the military if they decided to use them against us. The entire point of gun control in my opinion, is to make it harder and harder for citizens to fight back against if we ever need to.

Just like I believe that the tea party has been tricked into supporting causes that are not in their self interest (libertarian billionaires don't give a crap about you), liberal gun control advocates are being lured by politicians who want to erode our ability to maintain our freedom.

If all you thought guns were for were self defense and hunting, we don't really need very strong weapons. Hell, shotguns and pistols should cover it. Everything else that they want to ban, they want to ban because they are more effective against military personnel.

So as I said before, you support private ownership of actual assault rifles, RPGs, mortars, SAMs, land mines and other bombs (IEDs are the substitute)?

Because that's what you use to fight asymetric wars against modern militaries.

Sczarni

cranewings wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Why aren't you then, up in arms by how easy it is for an unlicensed person to drive despite that person's rights being curtailed??

Because there's no good way to stop it barring imprisoning people, while there are ways to make it more difficult for criminals (or anyone, if that's what you want to do) to get guns. Furthermore, cars are much more necessary than guns, so the consequences of strictly restricting access to them are much greater.

It's almost as if you're comparing things that aren't at all alike!

It would be nothing to make it harder for people without a license to drive. Cellphones are cheep. The government could mandate that all cars have a transmitter built in that works off of the cell phone grid.

If the car is in range of a cell tower, it will not start without holding up your state ID card which includes an RFID chip - a chip they want us saddled with anyway. If the car is out of range of a cellphone tower, then the car starts but the cell phone logs the RFID chip number and transmits it later when the car comes back into range, or when the black sedan drives through with a recorder auditing all your disks.

If a car was driven without a valid RFID chip or the cellphone is tampered with, the owner of the car gets a big fat fine.

Implement this by 2016 - everyone has 4 years to save 100 dollars to get the thing installed in their cars.

Just to be clear:

You want a government agency which dictates whether or not you can travel, and logs all that travel, including "a black sedan...with a recorder auditing all your disks"?

Really? Does that not sound a little...Orwellian perhaps?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
psionichamster wrote:

ust to be clear:

You want a government agency which dictates whether or not you can travel, and logs all that travel, including "a black sedan...with a recorder auditing all your disks"?

Really? Does that not sound a little...Orwellian perhaps

Much of this exists privately. In New Jersey the Garden State Parkway and the Turnpike are equipped with EZPass to allow you to speed through turnpike tolls.

And most likely you're already carrying something that tracks your movements constantly... it's called a cell phone.


You see Badger, HD? Why I don't have a cell phone?

Liberty's Edge

A Man In Black wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Convicted felons, yes.

There are remarkably few prosecutions for death threats in the age of email and internet messageboards.

Because it's difficult to track and often crosses state (or national) lines.

The point is that we already have a system for keeping people who make death threats from buying guns. That it isn't very good is more a consequence of the difficulty of investigating death threats, rather than a lack of will.

Except threatening harm isn't actually a felony (cite me if I am wrong, threats are misdemeanors here and almost impossible to prosecute...) and the year or so you are going through the court process prior to the magical conviction...

Back to base issue, should Cho and Loughner have been able to purchase guns considering the concerns of the therapists who worked with them. And should those concerns have been sufficient to have them added to the no sale database.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
Look, when you allow people to make free choices, you have to be willing to accept that some people are going to make horrible choices. We can try to discourage that, but unless you are willing to remove all freedom of choice (assuming there was some way to do that), you have to tolerate that bad things are going.

So if people choose to move here, they shouldn't make laws to stop that, because freedom of choice, right?

Right?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GentleGiant wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

It's not a bad line of logic, GG. If the logic behind your line of thinking is "but guns cause so many deaths, so they should be limited/banned" than it's perfectly logical to bring up other things that cause even more deaths and what little is done about them to show that if it's truly the number of deaths that are a concern, why doesn't your logic extend to these other things as well?

I agree it's a tired argument, but so is the former. Unless all guns everywhere are simultaneously destroyed and their manufacture is made impossible, you can not end gun violence. You can only hope to limit it. So therefore, even your line of thinking implies there is a number of gun deaths you would find tolerable or acceptable.

First of all, can we stop with the "ban all guns" rhetoric? I don't recall anyone saying that, so it's a strawman inclusion in the discussion.

Restricting or banning certain types of guns (which is already being done!) doesn't mean that all guns should be banned.
And just because someone is concerned with gun violence doesn't mean that they aren't concerned with other areas where lots of people lose their lives each year, as I also mentioned above.
But it's easier to keep the issues separate because they don't necessarily have any influence on each other (you could talk general drinking culture, which has an impact on both shooting and drunk driving statistic, but people also die from other motor accidents, so it's better to keep that subject separate).
Sure, my personal number of gun deaths would be 0, which is why I'm advocating for measures taken to get as close to that.
Making sure that certain weapons aren't readily available might cause the next spree killer to only kill 7 as opposed to 12 people, since he couldn't lay down as much fire with other weapons. That's a step in the right direction IMO.

Well, I said "limited/ban" as in 'either or', not as in 'they are synonymnous'.

The one thing all of these issues have in common is bad judgement. Just as it isn't the car's fault or the alchohol's fault that a man went driving drunk and killed someone, it's also not the gun's fault or the ammunition's fault taht a man decided to go kill people in a theatre.
We don't limit access to cars or alchohol to minimize those deaths, why does it then make sense to do so for firearms or ammunition?
This will not fix or correct the issue. It will only lull you into a false sense of security about it.
The gumption, time, and effort to fix this issue would be better spent and will ultimately be more successful, imho, if you tried to cure the societal problems that lead to this bad decision making on the part of an individual, than to infringe on the rights of other individuals unnecessarily.


cranewings wrote:

liberal gun control advocates are being lured by politicians who want to erode our ability to maintain our freedom.

Is it only the liberal gun control advocates? Or, if there aren't any other kind, why the need to specify the liberal ones?

I'm a liberal, but I recognize the futility of trying to create a free society that is 100% safe. I think gun control is like unsupervised government surveillance -- the solution is worse than the problem.


Aretas wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
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).

What happened in Aurora was a slaughter.

Some parts of Chicago are like Gaza or Michoacan. The only way to clean up the violence is by stomping on civil rights to put an end to the gangs and their supporters. They should be treated like domestic terrorists.

Apparently, the Anaheim police agree with Citizen Aretas.

EDIT: Woops, wrong link!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
cranewings wrote:

liberal gun control advocates are being lured by politicians who want to erode our ability to maintain our freedom.

Is it only the liberal gun control advocates? Or, if there aren't any other kind, why the need to specify the liberal ones?

I'm a liberal, but I recognize the futility of trying to create a free society that is 100% safe. I think gun control is like unsupervised government surveillance -- the solution is worse than the problem.

You must have missed out on all those Glenn Beck lectures which prove that all Liberals are evil minions of Hitler and Marx. And you're all out to destroy America.


Uh, selective quote much?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
cranewings wrote:

liberal gun control advocates are being lured by politicians who want to erode our ability to maintain our freedom.

Is it only the liberal gun control advocates? Or, if there aren't any other kind, why the need to specify the liberal ones?

I'm a liberal, but I recognize the futility of trying to create a free society that is 100% safe. I think gun control is like unsupervised government surveillance -- the solution is worse than the problem.

You must have missed out on all those Glenn Beck lectures which prove that all Liberals are evil minions of Hitler and Marx. And you're all out to destroy America.

Well, you're not doing it on purpose, anyway. At least there's that, am I right?

:P


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
cranewings wrote:

liberal gun control advocates are being lured by politicians who want to erode our ability to maintain our freedom.

Is it only the liberal gun control advocates? Or, if there aren't any other kind, why the need to specify the liberal ones?

I'm a liberal, but I recognize the futility of trying to create a free society that is 100% safe. I think gun control is like unsupervised government surveillance -- the solution is worse than the problem.

There are conservative ones, but they aren't willing to go as far as the liberal ones, usually. But I see, and agree with, your point.

Especially the last part.


bugleyman wrote:
cranewings wrote:

liberal gun control advocates are being lured by politicians who want to erode our ability to maintain our freedom.

Is it only the liberal gun control advocates? Or, if there aren't any other kind, why the need to specify the liberal ones?

I'm a liberal, but I recognize the futility of trying to create a free society that is 100% safe. I think gun control is like unsupervised government surveillance -- the solution is worse than the problem.

Any gun control? The gun control we have now? More than that?

How much does it take to be worse than the problem?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Nurture v nature. The following is anecdotal, but the crime stats back it up.

We had a ton of NOLA people dumped on us after Katrina, and the crime rate went through the roof for a while. But, Houston has a lot more in the way of legit opportunity than NOLA ever had (or still has, even with the drastic reduction in their population), and once the people from there realized they could actually get jobs and have normal lives, the crime rate dropped. Yeah, some of it was due to people going to jail, or the local wayward youth showing them that we do crime differently than in NOLA (the Houston criminal is typically a drug dealer, and the drug gangs here are aware that violence is bad for business and that there's enough to go around for everyone), but a vast majority of it was just people actually seeing a real opportunity to break the cycle they were stuck in in New Orleans.

Given a legitimate opportunity, most people are going to do things right. It is only a small percentage of the criminal element that will break the law regardless of other, more legit, opportunities available.

But, the operative phrase is "legitimate opportunity".


houstonderek wrote:

Nurture v nature. The following is anecdotal, but the crime stats back it up.

We had a ton of NOLA people dumped on us after Katrina, and the crime rate went through the roof for a while. But, Houston has a lot more in the way of legit opportunity than NOLA ever had (or still has, even with the drastic reduction in their population), and once the people from there realized they could actually get jobs and have normal lives, the crime rate dropped. Yeah, some of it was due to people going to jail, or the local wayward youth showing them that we do crime differently than in NOLA (the Houston criminal is typically a drug dealer, and the drug gangs here are aware that violence is bad for business and that there's enough to go around for everyone), but a vast majority of it was just people actually seeing a real opportunity to break the cycle they were stuck in in New Orleans.

Given a legitimate opportunity, most people are going to do things right. It is only a small percentage of the criminal element that will break the law regardless of other, more legit, opportunities available.

But, the operative phrase is "legitimate opportunity".

HD, do you know if there was any sort of job placement program, or if they had to find their own employment?

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:

Nurture v nature. The following is anecdotal, but the crime stats back it up.

We had a ton of NOLA people dumped on us after Katrina, and the crime rate went through the roof for a while. But, Houston has a lot more in the way of legit opportunity than NOLA ever had (or still has, even with the drastic reduction in their population), and once the people from there realized they could actually get jobs and have normal lives, the crime rate dropped. Yeah, some of it was due to people going to jail, or the local wayward youth showing them that we do crime differently than in NOLA (the Houston criminal is typically a drug dealer, and the drug gangs here are aware that violence is bad for business and that there's enough to go around for everyone), but a vast majority of it was just people actually seeing a real opportunity to break the cycle they were stuck in in New Orleans.

Given a legitimate opportunity, most people are going to do things right. It is only a small percentage of the criminal element that will break the law regardless of other, more legit, opportunities available.

But, the operative phrase is "legitimate opportunity".

National youth crime rates are actually way, way down. As in almost cut in half in some areas in the last 10 years down, despite the economy.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that you can't just ignore problem kids until they drop out anymore because of no child left behind.

When I started 11 years ago, I had kids who were socially promoted who literally never attended schools. You don't see that anymore, and I think it is reflected in the reduction in crime.

A little bit of opportunity goes a long way.

Liberty's Edge

Kryzbyn wrote:

It's not a bad line of logic, GG. If the logic behind your line of thinking is "but guns cause so many deaths, so they should be limited/banned" than it's perfectly logical to bring up other things that cause even more deaths and what little is done about them to show that if it's truly the number of deaths that are a concern, why doesn't your logic extend to these other things as well?

And they do. Roads have speed limits, drunk driving is illegal.

The conversation isn't about banning guns, but limiting access for people with serious mental illness as determined by a trained and licensed therapists.

We have some limits in place, but they are both poorly written, applied and enforced.

None of us want to fight the strawman "you are trying to ban guns" because none of us (as far as I can tell) are saying that.

What we are all saying is maybe Jared Loughner and Cho should have been on the no sell registry, and we should fix that.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

Nurture v nature. The following is anecdotal, but the crime stats back it up.

We had a ton of NOLA people dumped on us after Katrina, and the crime rate went through the roof for a while. But, Houston has a lot more in the way of legit opportunity than NOLA ever had (or still has, even with the drastic reduction in their population), and once the people from there realized they could actually get jobs and have normal lives, the crime rate dropped. Yeah, some of it was due to people going to jail, or the local wayward youth showing them that we do crime differently than in NOLA (the Houston criminal is typically a drug dealer, and the drug gangs here are aware that violence is bad for business and that there's enough to go around for everyone), but a vast majority of it was just people actually seeing a real opportunity to break the cycle they were stuck in in New Orleans.

Given a legitimate opportunity, most people are going to do things right. It is only a small percentage of the criminal element that will break the law regardless of other, more legit, opportunities available.

But, the operative phrase is "legitimate opportunity".

HD, do you know if there was any sort of job placement program, or if they had to find their own employment?

Yeah, they had some FEMA programs, some local programs, and a lot of money was used to help people get some training and other educational opportunities. But that goes back to my earlier point. If we stopped spending money just to keep people's heads above water, and used that money to help them climb out of the cesspool, we'd probably see some very nice benefits in reduced crime, including gun crime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:

I wish that the gun lobby would be more honest about what it thinks guns are for. I wish people purchased guns specifically for the use they are interested.

Hunting
Home Defense
Personal Defense
Killing Government Officials

The government has done a good job of disarming us to a point where it would be hard to fight back against the military if they decided to use them against us. The entire point of gun control in my opinion, is to make it harder and harder for citizens to fight back against if we ever need to.

Disarming? With the Wikipedia link above, the opposite seems true (close to 9 guns per 10 people in the US). I would hardly see this as being disarmed.

Others have stated before, what for are rounds of 100 bullets sold to civilians? If you are some kind of contestant, buy the rounds at the contest. Hunting? Don´t think so. Home or self defence? If you would need a hundred or more bullets in a situation like that, something probably has gone so wrong that even a thousand bullets won´t save you.

If the military decided to fight against you, you are screwed royally anyway, as the people in Syria surely can attest. This has been true throughout times and ages, until the people formed their own army or at least a decent militia and got military-grade weaponry and some kind of training to fight back. This "we need to be able to fight back" is just wishful thinking IMO. Especially with the US armed forces, which are probably the best-equipped army in the world presently. They killed people in Pakistan with unmanned aircraft IIRC. What kind of gun you can acquire legally as a civilian anywhere in the world would help you against this? To say nothing of the probability that this happens - as it stands, you are more likely to be the victim of some killing spree than of being killed on orders saying that by your own army in the US. And as we learned above, even this is highly unlikely.

I do respect that the US populace has a tradition to carry guns. I don´t buy some of the reasons commonly given as to why this tradition is necessary today. And I can´t subscribe to the point of view that carrying guns is something like an universal human right.


houstonderek wrote:
Yeah, they had some FEMA programs, some local programs, and a lot of money was used to help people get some training and other educational opportunities. But that goes back to my earlier point. If we stopped spending money just to keep people's heads above water, and used that money to help them climb out of the cesspool, we'd probably see some very nice benefits in reduced crime, including gun crime.

Sure, I agree; I just wondered if sympathy for refugee status was the only factor mitigating against the typical socio-economic discrimination. Then again, if their refugee status got them the aid, I suppose that's a bit of a chicken/egg question.

401 to 450 of 566 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Gabrielle Giffords Shooting and Gun Control All Messageboards