994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
477 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49244542]Shall not be infringed[/QUOTE]
dude's a troll of higher caliber, don't worry he only makes his own cause look bad.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Birdman101;49245682]I bet if I organized a proper civilian militia, armed them with legally bought weapons, trained them, and set out to protect the people in any way other than a charity bake sale, we would all be labeled terrorists and arrested/killed within the month.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
But yhheah in no way does the national guard even resemble a militia. It's just a government controlled military organization that operates on american soil and provides support in disasters and states of emergency.[/QUOTE]
plus, remember kent state
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49236043][IMG]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/gb.png[/IMG]: "guns are bad"
[IMG]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/us.png[/IMG]: "crazy people are bad"
[IMG]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/se.png[/IMG]: "as a European I am compelled to agree with england and disagree with america"[/QUOTE]
As a Brit, I want to be able to go shoot guns for my personal enjoyment. I wish gun control weren't so strict, but IMO it's way too lax in America; Being able to walk in to a shop and buy something which is (likely; I know there are target guns and the like) designed primarily for killing, with the same barrier for entry as a pack of cigs kinda ridiculous. Criminal and mental health background checks are the minimum controls I'd personally be comfortable with in America's case, however since guns aren't prevalent in the UK, in addition to those I'd be fine if they had to be kept at a range unless your circumstances dictate you need to have it at home ie farmers for the purpose of killing pests - in which case you already can
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;49245807]As a Brit, I want to be able to go shoot guns for my personal enjoyment. I wish gun control weren't so strict, but IMO it's way too lax in America; Being able to walk in to a shop and buy something which is (likely; I know there are target guns and the like) designed primarily for killing, with the same barrier for entry as a pack of cigs kinda ridiculous. Criminal and mental health background checks are the minimum controls I'd personally be comfortable with in America's case, however since guns aren't prevalent in the UK, in addition to those I'd be fine if they had to be kept at a range unless your circumstances dictate you need to have it at home ie farmers for the purpose of killing pests - in which case you already can[/QUOTE]
The thing about keeping your guns at a range/club is that they will gouge you to death since you have no other option and if it'll be anything like Britain they won't take care of the guns at all. I like to know where mine are at, know who's handling them and know that they're being maintained correctly, so they live in my house where I have access to them. They are mostly antiques and very rust prone.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49245389][b]No, it could not possibly mean that.[/b] The whole, "It could be referencing people owning arms in a militia," argument falls flat on its face when the sentence is actually analyzed. This has been covered a fuckton of times, it is only up for interpretation by people who don't understand how to read properly.
When analyzed by someone who understands proper english, it states all people have the right to bear arms. Back then, the militia was the people. In order to have a militia in the first place, everyone must be allowed to carry weapons. Therefore, a militia being necessary to protect the people means people also need the right to carry arms in order to form said militia. The amendment is a one-two punch, all people have the right to carry arms, and said people should form a militia in order to defend freedom if called upon. You cannot have a militia made of the people without the right to bear arms, if the arms are supplied by the government then they are no longer an effective militia. Militias are meant as a last-resort defense when the government either fails or has become the oppressor, in both cases relying on them for weapons means the militia is completely useless. Militias should be formed by people using their personal rightfully owned weapons. This is similar to Sweden, where males who serve are given rifles to keep at home, it essentially becomes their rifle. Keeping everything in a National Guard armory = militia formed by the people is null.
The National Guard is not a true militia as well. You said it yourself, it's controlled by both the state and federal governments. Militias, especially back when the Constitution was drafted, were comprised of locals, operated by locals, and while ragtag in nature gave them the ability to fight back. The government should not be involved in any formation of militias because militias are there to check and balance the government. It's like putting a lock on a chest full of stuff you want to keep yourself from, but you know the combination so the lock is completely useless.[/QUOTE]
You see you say that but you would be wrong. Until 2008-2010-ish the Supreme Court majority interpretation of the 2nd amendment was exactly what I just said, only very recently did it change to the whole "individual rights". Chief Berger actually went on record to say that the "biggest fraud" that has ever deceived the American people was the idea that the 2nd amendment's intention was "everyone can own guns" (words to that effect). Only after INTENSE lobbying by the NRA in recent times have you seem the mentality change to the one we have now. Also, the National Guard is EXACTLY the well-regulated militia that the amendment talks about, and was also specifically noted in later times that it was referring to what is now the national guard. Why though? George Washington was also on record saying that the colonial militia (farmers with guns) were one of the greatest detriments to the colonial army during the Revolutionary War, it was only after that we started using militiamen as guerilla fighters and scout troops that we appreciated their use. The 2nd amendment was conceivably written as a result of this, they didn't want a bunch of untrained, unregulated citizens running around with guns. My point is that the intention of the amendment (in my opinion) wasn't this whole "to ensure against a tyrannical government" thing that people espouse.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
The language in the amendment isn't very clear about who or what they're actually referring too in the second part "right to bear arms" and has always been heavily debated. Really, the only way to know would be to time travel and ask them why their punctuation was so bad and language not precise and what they actually meant.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49244414]But I am getting what I want. I can look on armslist for a long gun to buy, meet with the seller, exchange cash and gun, and be back at my place all without having to fill out ANY paperwork.[/QUOTE]
And you don't think there's anything wrong with that?
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;49245807]As a Brit, I want to be able to go shoot guns for my personal enjoyment. I wish gun control weren't so strict, but IMO it's way too lax in America; Being able to walk in to a shop and buy something which is (likely; I know there are target guns and the like) designed primarily for killing, with the same barrier for entry as a pack of cigs kinda ridiculous. Criminal and mental health background checks are the minimum controls I'd personally be comfortable with in America's case, however since guns aren't prevalent in the UK, in addition to those I'd be fine if they had to be kept at a range unless your circumstances dictate you need to have it at home ie farmers for the purpose of killing pests - in which case you already can[/QUOTE]
You do realize people do a federal background check and fill out paperwork everytime you buy a firearm at a store in america right?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;49246284]You do realize people do a federal background check and fill out paperwork everytime you buy a firearm at a store in america right?[/QUOTE]
It is unfortunate that this gets mentioned literally every page on these debates, and yet people still have the audacity to assume you can just walk into Walmart and go through self-checkout within 10 minutes.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49236043][Img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/gb.png[/img]: "guns are bad"
[Img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/us.png[/img]: "crazy people are bad"
[Img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/se.png[/img]: "as a European I am compelled to agree with england and disagree with america"[/QUOTE]
Guns are pretty dank.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49246428]It is unfortunate that this gets mentioned literally every page on these debates, and yet people still have the audacity to assume you can just walk into Walmart and go through self-checkout within 10 minutes.[/QUOTE]
Actually I did just that at my local Walmart when I bought my shotgun, though it was more like 30 minutes than 10, and I bought it at the gun counter in the hunting section.
But they still did a background check on you
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49246056]You see you say that but you would be wrong. Until 2008-2010-ish the Supreme Court majority interpretation of the 2nd amendment was exactly what I just said, only very recently did it change to the whole "individual rights". Chief Berger actually went on record to say that the "biggest fraud" that has ever deceived the American people was the idea that the 2nd amendment's intention was "everyone can own guns" (words to that effect). Only after INTENSE lobbying by the NRA in recent times have you seem the mentality change to the one we have now. Also, the National Guard is EXACTLY the well-regulated militia that the amendment talks about, and was also specifically noted in later times that it was referring to what is now the national guard. Why though? George Washington was also on record saying that the colonial militia (farmers with guns) were one of the greatest detriments to the colonial army during the Revolutionary War, it was only after that we started using militiamen as guerilla fighters and scout troops that we appreciated their use. The 2nd amendment was conceivably written as a result of this, they didn't want a bunch of untrained, unregulated citizens running around with guns. My point is that the intention of the amendment (in my opinion) wasn't this whole "to ensure against a tyrannical government" thing that people espouse.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
The language in the amendment isn't very clear about who or what they're actually referring too in the second part "right to bear arms" and has always been heavily debated. Really, the only way to know would be to time travel and ask them why their punctuation was so bad and language not precise and what they actually meant.[/QUOTE]
The Supreme Court majority interpretation =/= what it was really meant to say. The Supreme Court's majority viewpoint is rooted in the politics of the party that controls the majority of the court, or the party most of the justices align to. A majority rule from judges with liberal pro-gun control viewpoints would obviously interpret the 2nd amendment the way you choose to, just because that's what the majority says doesn't mean that's what it was intended to say.
Colonial militia were a detriment until they were used properly, you just said that yourself. Untrained men are shit at conventional warfare, but you don't need much training beyond basic marksmanship (if even that) to conduct guerrilla warfare. Our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan prove that.
Washington might have said negative things about the colonial militia, but he was still a supporter of arming the people, all people.
[quote]Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable... [B]The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference.[/B] When firearms go, all goes..."[/quote]
As was James Madison,
[quote]Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed.[/quote]
And Thomas Jefferson,
[quote]No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.[/quote]
Samuel Adams as well.
[quote]Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms [/quote]
I'm pretty sure the very people involved in the process of forming the foundation of our country hold more weight in their opinions than a supreme court justice when determining the original intention behind the 2nd amendment. It can be inferred (which was also a big factor in the modern court's decision to rule the 2nd amendment as applying to individuals) based on the fact nearly every individual involved in the process of forging the Constitution spoke of all persons holding the right to bear arms, that the 2nd amendment was clearly meant for all Americans.
Their language was precise, most people just lost the ability to read and therefore feel like because they can't understand it, they can simply impose what they want it to mean and say that's what it is.
[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Aik5Hzgxtoo/UPb3YwPNrRI/AAAAAAAAAV8/8hT8MJJRULI/s1600/2nd+Amendment.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Rumbler;49244089]Make nukes easily accessible to everyone.
Nukes don´t kill, people do!!! Stop blaming nukes!
Do we really want to restrict access to nukes for everyone, just because a few idiots can´t be responsible around them?[/QUOTE]
I can't find a way to reply to this without shit posting, so I'll just say you're argument was not well thought out.
It's also worth pointing out, more people have died from mass shootings in France during the year 2015 than have been casualties (killed/injured) in mass shootings in America during Obama's entire presidency. But mass shooting is still just an American problem.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49246682]Actually I did just that at my local Walmart when I bought my shotgun, though it was more like 30 minutes than 10, and I bought it at the gun counter in the hunting section.[/QUOTE]
So you walked up, grabbed the gun yourself off the rack, scanned it at self-checkout and walked out the door with zero employee intervention?
-OR-
Did you go to the gun section, ask the staff to get the weapon from behind the counter, where he then preformed all necessary legal checks, and then you paid him for the weapon, and walked out?
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49247167]So you walked up, grabbed the gun yourself off the rack, scanned it at self-checkout and walked out the door with zero employee intervention?
-OR-
Did you go to the gun section, ask the staff to get the weapon from behind the counter, where he then preformed all necessary legal checks, and then you paid him for the weapon, and walked out?[/QUOTE]
Damn lucky, i had to wait around 30 minutes and then ten days. Gayfornia for real.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;49246284]You do realize people do a federal background check and fill out paperwork everytime you buy a firearm at a store in america right?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49246428]It is unfortunate that this gets mentioned literally every page on these debates, and yet people still have the audacity to assume you can just walk into Walmart and go through self-checkout within 10 minutes.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49246682]Actually I did just that at my local Walmart when I bought my shotgun, though it was more like 30 minutes than 10, and I bought it at the gun counter in the hunting section.[/QUOTE]
Is this something that varies by state and/or outlet?
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49247167]So you walked up, grabbed the gun yourself off the rack, scanned it at self-checkout and walked out the door with zero employee intervention?
-OR-
Did you go to the gun section, ask the staff to get the weapon from behind the counter, where he then preformed all necessary legal checks, and then you paid him for the weapon, and walked out?[/QUOTE]
Did you read my post? I said I bought it at the gun counter.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;49247194]Is this something that varies by state and/or outlet?[/QUOTE]
Yes, gun laws vary between states.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49247195]Did you read my post? I said I bought it at the gun counter.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
Yes, gun laws vary between states.[/QUOTE]
I meant specifically relating to the ease of purchase so to speak, and whether or not background checks are mandatory. I'm at least peripherally aware that NY and california have pretty restrictive (but ultimately, imo, pointless) laws relating to the types and configurations available
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;49247206]I meant specifically relating to the ease of purchase so to speak, and whether or not background checks are mandatory. I'm at least peripherally aware that NY and california have pretty restrictive (but ultimately, imo, pointless) laws relating to the types and configurations available[/QUOTE]
Background checks are mandatory in every single state when purchasing from a FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealer.
However in many states if you are purchasing from a private seller, such as from someone who just wants to sell their gun, you do not need any paperwork and can simply exchange cash and gun.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;49235913]Anyone ever thought about a "mental issue" crisis?[/QUOTE]
Sure.
People with "mental issues", and other issues, [I]all[/I] have a relatively easy access to guns, don't they?
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49247214]Background checks are mandatory in every single state when purchasing from a FFL (Federal Firearms Lescense) dealer.
However in many states if you are purchasing from a private seller, such as from someone who just wants to sell their gun, you do not need any paperwork and can simply exchange cash and gun.[/QUOTE]
Ah, that's probably where the misconception comes from, thanks for clarifying.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49247218]Sure.
People with "mental issues", and other issues, [I]all[/I] have a relatively easy access to guns, don't they?[/QUOTE]
Not if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. People with mental issues like anxiety disorders or minor depression who voluntarily seek treatment and are probably quite a bit less likely to commit violent crime than the general population, should not have their rights violated.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49244867] Nowhere am I suggesting to take away people's guns, but I suggest to again [B]severely regulate the types of weaponry Joe schmuckatelli can purchase[/B] and how easily he can do so.[/QUOTE]
Why? Any kind of widely produced gun is going to enable a person to kill unarmed persons, inane shit like restricting the magazine capacity or type of action isn't going to make a [I]significant[/I] difference to someone who knows their way around their firearm. Unless you're talking ultra-restriction ie no self-loading or repeating firearms allowed what-so-ever, but that'd never happen because there's simply way too much money in it. Either way I'd be just as shit-scared of being shot at with a double-barrel shotgun as I would be with a full-auto, high-capacity, laser-guided scary black assault rifle with the shoulder thing that goes up and an evil pistol grip channelling satan himself. If it's capable of firing a projectile at speed and with accuracy, it's going to be enough to kill somebody - all these restrictions wouldn't make a lick of difference in targeted murders, while mass-shootings only account for a small chunk of firearms homicides.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;49235913]Anyone ever thought about a "mental issue" crisis?[/QUOTE]
that's crazy
[QUOTE=Morrigi;49247256][I][B]Not if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.[/B][/I] People with mental issues like anxiety disorders or minor depression who voluntarily seek treatment and are probably quite a bit less likely to commit violent crime than the general population, should not have their rights violated.[/QUOTE]
Ah great, ty for info. That's a good thing.
Is the restriction ever lifted from those involuntary committed to mental institution tho? Or, is it like a felony?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49250513]Ah great, ty for info. That's a good thing.
Is the restriction ever lifted from those involuntary committed to mental institution tho? Or, is it like a felony?[/QUOTE]
Totally depends on the state.
For example, in my state of North Dakota, getting caught on a 5150 is pretty much a tough love type deal. Even if you become stable, you are still a victim to your problems, even if in certain cases it may of been no fault of your own. One example being if you were being pushed back and forth through medications by your doctor, and you ended up snapping because of an adverse reaction which caused you to become suicidal. You[I] theoretically can [/I]petition the courts to get the 5150 pulled from your record IIRC, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49246928]It's also worth pointing out, more people have died from mass shootings in France during the year 2015 than have been casualties (killed/injured) in mass shootings in America during Obama's entire presidency. But mass shooting is still just an American problem.[/QUOTE]
What? Are you saying there were more than 5164 casualties (dead/injured) in 2015 in France?
And nobody every says mass shooting is just an American problem, only that it happens a lot more often.
[QUOTE=Apache249;49235907]And people, but you'd never call it a "people crisis"[/QUOTE]
If the problem is people and not guns, maybe all those problematic people aren't fit to handle all those non-problematic guns
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49250952]What? Are you saying there were more than 5164 casualties (dead/injured) in 2015 in France?
And nobody every says mass shooting is just an American problem, only that it happens a lot more often.[/QUOTE]
Actual mass shootings, the type that are covered on the news. Not the ones considered mass shootings by sources like the one in the OP, that include kids with BB guns and gang violence. I'm talking mass public shootings. The numbers come out to 508 to 424.
[QUOTE=H4ngman;49251259]If the problem is people and not guns, maybe all those problematic people aren't fit to handle all those non-problematic guns[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.