• 994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
    477 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;49241180]I never got out of boot... Truthfully I know lot of people still in, and people who served and got out, and none of them refer to it as a gun club.[/QUOTE] Never leaving boot is an important thing to mention when you throw around things like "I enlisted" and "medically discharged", "the gun club" is a sometimes used phrase to refer to the Marine Corps. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49241194]Because in the military we aren't a bunch of gun toting hicks? I've worked with engineers and doctors who all love the hobby of shooting.[/QUOTE] What's your MOS?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241131]What if...we did both?[/QUOTE] Why? What does gun control accomplish, really? And in a place like America when they're already commonplace, it will be nigh impossible to remove any type of weapon from the people that already owns them.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49241109]Yes. A semi-automatic is only as effective as the holder. It can't shoot faster than you can pull it. Not sure how a semi-automatic weapon entails it being a more inconspicuous weapon. But this also falls back on my argument about how things have gotten more efficient since the bronze age a few posts back.[/QUOTE] There are so-called "bump-fire" modifications, which essentially cause semi-autos to function somewhat like full automatics in terms of how many rounds they can dish out, all it does it make it so the force of the recoil causes the trigger to be pulled each time it fires. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7DTjSla-O8[/media] I may have the exact explanation completely fucking wrong, but the point is it allows you to fire semi-autos with ridiculous speeds. It's even possible to do it without any special attachments: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY[/media]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241217]Never leaving boot is an important thing to mention when you throw around things like "I enlisted" and "medically discharged", "the gun club" is a sometimes used phrase to refer to the Marine Corps.[/QUOTE] Well, speaking I did enlist, according to the Navy I did serve, and correction on my part, my DD214 merely says discharged. Also, gonna have to ask my Marine friends about that. Still ain't even heard it.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241217]Never leaving boot is an important thing to mention when you throw around things like "I enlisted" and "medically discharged", "the gun club" is a sometimes used phrase to refer to the Marine Corps. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] What's your MOS?[/QUOTE] I'm a 62E1E, so maybe I don't fit the profile of a "gun club bubba."
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49241259]There are so-called "bump-fire" modifications, which essentially cause semi-autos to function somewhat like full automatics in terms of how many rounds they can dish out, all it does it make it so the force of the recoil causes the trigger to be pulled each time it fires. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7DTjSla-O8[/media] I may have the exact explanation completely fucking wrong, but the point is it allows you to fire semi-autos with ridiculous speeds. It's even possible to do it without any special attachments: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY[/media][/QUOTE] This is not easy to do in a controlled or useful way. Or possible, really. You definitely can't do it while moving and you can't rapidly follow a target, which mitigates the value provided by the rapid fire, because any other motion interrupts the reciprocation it relies on. Bumpfire stocks are just for fun. They are not practical.
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49241278]I'm a 62E1E, so maybe I don't fit the profile of a "gun club bubba."[/QUOTE] You're in the Air Force as an engineering type so that would explain why you probably have never heard the term 'the gun club' before. Not that I ever said the Military was a bunch of 'gun club bubbas', I was being a condescending asshole and using it as a phrase to describe a branch of service. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] To clarify I'm a Hospital Corpsman and have been in the service for about 5 years now so please don't misinterpret what I said.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49240626]This is the dumbest thing ever. It is akin to saying free speech doesn't apply to the internet because the founding fathers had no idea that it would evolve this drastically.[/QUOTE] Why assume that a bunch of guys who lived over 200 years ago are completely infallible? The founding fathers couldn't just predict what the future would become. The world progresses by changing and updating laws and evolving ideas. So much shit that used to just be the norm are now now relics of an outdated society as we've moved forward, yet for some reason we maintain certain ideas from a group of people at one specific period in history and we assume that they're true and relevant forever just because. It's so bizarre to me.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;49241277]Well, speaking I did enlist, according to the Navy I did serve, and correction on my part, my DD214 merely says discharged. Also, gonna have to ask my Marine friends about that. Still ain't even heard it.[/QUOTE] Join again if you can. Or if you still want to, the Navy's p great.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241303]You're in the Air Force as an engineering type so that would explain why you probably have never heard the term 'the gun club' before. Not that I ever said the Military was a bunch of 'gun club bubbas', I was being a condescending asshole and using it as a phrase to describe a branch of service. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] To clarify I'm a Hospital Corpsman and have been in the service for about 5 years now so please don't misinterpret what I said.[/QUOTE] You should know damn well that not everyone can enlist or last long after they did. That's why the rest of us respect the ones that do. You should also know that the military is for more than dicking around with guns. I want to lead a normal civilian life and I also want to enjoy a hobby that I've found to be fun. You should probably also know the practical differences between a machine gun and a semi automatic...
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241346]Join again if you can. Or if you still want to, the Navy's p great.[/QUOTE] I'm considering it.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240985]Nobody is saying you do. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html[/url][/QUOTE] Starting from the top: 1. Could have been prevented with proper background checks, seeing as how the family had ties with foreign extremist/terrorist/whatever-word. Better background checks and mental health screenings have been advocated by a pretty significant number of "gun fanatics" as well. 2. 2008, discharged from the military (first flag). 2009, completed a specialized learning program for learning disability and emotionally challenged people. (huge, and second flag). See improved background checks above. 3. 2012, released from work on the grounds of major aggression and harassment. See improved background checks and mental health above. 4. 2006, denied a state-issued concealed weapons permit because he was accused of domestic violence and soliciting arson. 2008, a judge ordered him sent to a psychiatric hospital. Considered by family to be violent and mentally ill. See improved background checks and mental health above. 5. 2015, should have been barred from buying a gun because he had admitted to possessing drugs, but the F.B.I. examiner conducting the required background check failed to obtain the police report from the February incident. See improved background checks and mental health above. 6. 2002, shooter's father, was the subject of a permanent domestic violence protection order, which should have been entered into the federal criminal background database. 2013, a background check failed to come up with the protection order because it was never entered into the system. See improved background checks and mental health above. 7. 2011, diagnosed with PTSD. 2014, had seen a military psychiatrist as recently as the month before the shooting. He was being treated for depression and anxiety, and had been prescribed Ambien to help him sleep. See improved background checks and mental health above. 8. 2011, discharged after showing what Navy officials called a “pattern of misbehavior”. 2013, he twice sought treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs for psychiatric issues. He told police in Rhode Island that people were pursuing him and sending vibrations through the walls of his hotel. See improved background checks and mental health above. 9. Do I even have to explain this guy... Huge amount of lack of oversight by the mother, countless reported and documented issues with the shooter. Mother should have been denied and is more at fault than the shooter for even allowing this to happen. See improved background checks and mental health above. (Yes, household members should be included in background checks because they inevitably have access too) 10. 1994, violent outbreak. 2000s, under watch for white supremacy association. See improved background checks and mental health above. 11. 2012, was seeing a psychiatrist and in the process of withdrawing from a graduate program. See improved background checks and mental health above. 12. This is an unfortunate case where one does actually happen to slip through the cracks. However, upon further examination in 2013, "A judge ruled he was not fit for trial after two psychiatric evaluations concluded that he had paranoid schizophrenia." This really advocates for more mental health diagnosis research and ability. 13. 2010, he was forced to withdraw from community college because of campus officials’ fears about the safety of the staff and students. See improved background checks and mental health above. 14. 2008, intelligence agencies intercepted 10 to 20 messages between Mr. Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary anti-American teachings. Again, this is bureaucratic oversight. 15. 2009, he received the gun under a federal rule that allows a gun to be sold if the background check system does not return a decision in three business days. See improved background checks and mental health above. Source: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0[/url] (Your source)
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;49241383]I'm considering it.[/QUOTE] If you need advice regarding I work in the medical field so I could answer questions you probably have about how your discharge would effect a future enlistment.
I wasn't aware that the FBI ignoring background checks is what allowed the most recent two to get theirs. All the more proof that I was pretty much on the money.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49241353]You should know damn well that not everyone can enlist or last long after they did. That's why the rest of us respect the ones that do. You should also know that the military is for more than dicking around with guns. I want to lead a normal civilian life and I also want to enjoy a hobby that I've found to be fun. You should probably also know the practical differences between a machine gun and a semi automatic...[/QUOTE] Yeah, I do know those differences. Nowhere earlier did I ever confuse the two. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Sorry, I realize I sounded like a condescending asshole earlier.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49241192]Heres the thing. You are right about nearly every point you made. However, your entire argument hinges on the fact that the United States is unique in having gang violence, mental illness, and "the negative factors that lead people to violence and crime in general". It isn't, and yet the US has a unique gun violence problem that far exceeds any other developed nation. This is a gun problem.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't discredit your argument, but I do think it is worth noting that socially there are many more variables in play. With media being more sensationalist, criminal and violent situations are proportionally overrepresented, and there is still the element of different cultures between regions. There are still some countries that don't have very strict gun laws like the US but somehow the US has more gun violence; that doesn't necessarily mean it's the existence of guns' fault. Something has to give people reason to pick up the gun. Again, it's the big picture. You can say gun control will stop these people from being harmful, but I would vastly prefer a solution that mitigates violent behavior overall. It's not an easy solution but everyone will benefit in the long run.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49241259]There are so-called "bump-fire" modifications, which essentially cause semi-autos to function somewhat like full automatics in terms of how many rounds they can dish out, all it does it make it so the force of the recoil causes the trigger to be pulled each time it fires. I may have the exact explanation completely fucking wrong, but the point is it allows you to fire semi-autos with ridiculous speeds. It's even possible to do it without any special attachments:[/QUOTE] I'm well aware of these, and wanted one until I saw the pricetag on them. Then having shot fully automatic myself, realized that there is near zero practicality to shooting one. You can't control it worth a damn, even if you practice. The slide fire stocks make it even worse because the gun is moving along with everything else. Hardly an issue for the topic, really. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;49241411]I wasn't aware that the FBI ignoring background checks is what allowed the most recent two to get theirs. All the more proof that I was pretty much on the money.[/QUOTE] It's the 3 day wait and the lack of requiring mental health records to be released that really kills the point of a background check.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240901]Why doesn't it work? Honestly why? Free speech is a shit example because you don't use your free speech to facilitate the murder of elementary school children.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240938]Great, some people do and have had at an alarmingly increasing rate.[/QUOTE] Hey there I'm the federal government, some people are using the right to free speech to recruit others to ISIS so we're gonna have to repeal that. The founding fathers never could have envisioned the Internet- don't worry, you can say whatever you want in your home or on a printing press, just make sure not to say anything politically inconvenient by radio, television, megaphone, or Internet. Now that we're done with our analogies I'm going to have to point out [i]yet again[/i] that the AR-15 has been around for some fifty years and yet mass shootings with ~scary military style assault weapons~ have only become a widespread problem in recent years- even while the overall homicide rate is [i]decreasing[/i] but more firearms are in circulation than ever before. So, y'know, if you want to stop mass shootings, maybe there's a better way than a knee-jerk ban on the instruments they used, considering the weapons available to the general populace have remained fairly static for the last few decades. Not that I'm saying a gun ban wouldn't help things in a blunt-force sorta way, but maybe the best way to stop drugs isn't to ban needles.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241422]Yeah, I do know those differences. Nowhere earlier did I ever confuse the two. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Sorry, I realize I sounded like a condescending asshole earlier.[/QUOTE] I cannot personally enlist because of medical issues. I'm not sure if I'd actually be disqualified but I am sure that I'd be a burden to everyone else if I somehow skirted by. My guns are all legal. I am mentally fit to own them and have helped introduce others to safe handling practices. Because of the area I live in it's exceedingly unlikely that I'll be involved in an incident involving a firearm and exceedingly unlikely that mine will be stolen or misused in a way that threatens another human being. (I will say that on one occasion a junkie from down the street wandered in through my open front door and left in a hell of a hurry when I came into the living room holding my shotgun - but this doesn't happen frequently and anyway I'm glad I had it since there's no way to be sure what would've happened if I hadn't.) Why should a high murder rate in another part of the country, entirely due to factors that do not exist where I live, result in my right to own firearms being rescinded? If Sally hit Timmy in the head with a building block in kindergarten, her teacher wouldn't take all the building blocks away from the rest of the class. If Sally and Timmy formed building block gangs and engaged in turf wars, it's unlikely that the rest of the school would see all building blocks removed. You will probably say that that is not comparable to the firearms situation because firearms are deadly weapons etc but I'm speaking strictly cause and effect here. Sally and Timmy hit each other with blocks and dragged others into it because they're assholes and their parents didn't teach them better, not because the blocks whispered in their ears to do it, so a block ban is an irrational response. Splitting hairs over types of blocks is an irrational response. Sally and Timmy need to be expelled and then everyone else who wants to play with blocks in a nonviolent manner is free to do so and everyone who doesn't really care for blocks anyway doesn't have to lose sleep over it.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49241563]I cannot personally enlist because of medical issues. I'm not sure if I'd actually be disqualified but I am sure that I'd be a burden to everyone else if I somehow skirted by. My guns are all legal. I am mentally fit to own them and have helped introduce others to safe handling practices. Because of the area I live in it's exceedingly unlikely that I'll be involved in an incident involving a firearm and exceedingly unlikely that mine will be stolen or misused in a way that threatens another human being. Why should a high murder rate in another part of the country, entirely due to factors that do not exist where I live, result in my right to own firearms being rescinded? [b]If Sally hit Timmy in the head with a building block in kindergarten, her teacher wouldn't take all the building blocks away from the rest of the class. If Sally and Timmy formed building block gangs and engaged in turf wars, it's unlikely that the rest of the school would see all building blocks removed.[/b] You will probably say that that is not comparable to the firearms situation because firearms are deadly weapons etc but I'm speaking strictly cause and effect here. Sally and Timmy hit each other with blocks and dragged others into it because they're assholes and their parents didn't teach them better, not because the blocks whispered in their ears to do it.[/QUOTE] If Sally hit Timmy with a building block, and then Bobby hit Billy with a building block, and then Ryan hit 10 children with a building block, and Marcus went over to the Kindergarten and hit 25 kids with the building blocks, and then four kids in the French class hit 115 kids with the building block, then I can absolutely guarantee you that building blocks would be taken away and people would try to figure out why kids are always trying to hit each other with building blocks. It's not an entirely foreign concept either, it happens in the Military all the time (privileges taken away for the greater good). [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] But the school has a "right to bear building blocks" clause in its charter written during the time of powdered wigs that all of the children are now screaming about.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241647]If Sally hit Timmy with a building block, and then Bobby hit Billy with a building block, and then Ryan hit 10 children with a building block, and Marcus went over to the Kindergarten and hit 25 kids with the building blocks, and then four kids in the French class hit 115 kids with the building block, then I can absolutely guarantee you that building blocks would be taken away and people would try to figure out why kids are always trying to hit each other with building blocks. It's not an entirely foreign concept either, it happens in the Military all the time.[/QUOTE] The military isn't a democracy and you don't run a free country like a military. That's called a dictatorship. You cannot punish and criminalize a group of innocents for the actions of a group of criminals. If there was a situation where all children were hitting each other with blocks yes there would be a problem but the proportion of gun violence compared to people who are unaffected by it results in an exceptionally tiny number. I'm surprised our national rates are as low as they are, and if you correct for some of our worst shitholes (assume they were cleaned up and brought more in line with better cities) it's literally negligible, the situation at that point has been refined to the point where any further homicides can be considered anomalies.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49241689]The military isn't a democracy and you don't run a free country like a military. That's called a dictatorship. You cannot punish and criminalize a group of innocents for the actions of a group of criminals. If there was a situation where all children were hitting each other with blocks yes there would be a problem but the proportion of gun violence compared to people who are unaffected by it results in an exceptionally tiny number. I'm surprised our national rates are as low as they are, and if you correct for some of our worst shitholes (assume they were cleaned up and brought more in line with better cities) it's literally negligible, the situation at that point has been refined to the point where any further homicides can be considered anomalies.[/QUOTE] So because the majority of people are unaffected by gun violence (since we don't live in an active war zone) it totally negates the lives of those who are?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241722]So because the majority of people are unaffected by gun violence (since we don't live in an active war zone) it totally negates the lives of those who are?[/QUOTE] No, it means banning guns outright or instituting further controls which only affect people who would be following the law anyway is an irrational, ineffectual, feel-good kneejerk response. Additional regulations need to be considered carefully and with respect to the fact that the issue is really one of socioeconomics and cannot be directly correlated to firearms ownership.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49241733]No, it means banning guns outright or instituting further controls which only affect people who would be following the law anyway is an irrational, ineffectual, feel-good kneejerk response.[/QUOTE] 15 of the most recent mass shootings in America were perpetrated by people who legally acquired their firearms. This doesn't just affect law abiding citizens.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241768]15 of the most recent mass shootings in America were perpetrated by people who legally acquired their firearms. This doesn't just affect law abiding citizens.[/QUOTE] Many at the fault of the federal government for refusing to do its job in carrying out background checks and the rest at the fault of the federal government for not carrying out background checks with enough attention to detail. I see a pattern here. Do you?
I'm not a ban the guns type of guy since my profession is mainly centered around killing people (or saving people from being killed I guess).
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241786]I'm not a ban the guns type of guy since my profession is mainly centered around killing people (or saving people from being killed I guess).[/QUOTE] How is this pertinent to the FBI failing to exercise due diligence in background checks, resulting in criminals getting guns they shouldn't have been able to?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241303] To clarify I'm a Hospital Corpsman and have been in the service for about 5 years now so please don't misinterpret what I said.[/QUOTE] Ahem. "I am a United States Sailor, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." Right there man. It's right there. In one of the first things you learn when you join the Navy. Do you understand why the right to bear arms was even put there? It wasn't put there so people could defend against home invaders or hunt. It was put there as a form of checks and balances between the people and the government. Simply put, people should be able to own firearms capable of resisting our military. So people [I]do[/I] need access to M249's and all of the above. The inherent right of the people to not be oppressed supersedes the occasional mass shooting. It is more important than a handful of lives a year. Maybe that sounds fucked up or whatever, but that's the way it is. Freedom, liberty, are more important than a handful of lives a year. They're more important than thousands of lives a year. They are more important than anything, because life is not worth living unless you are free. Mitigating mass murders is [B]not[/B] more important than the people's right to defend themselves. You raised your right hand and swore to uphold and defend that concept. Fucking unsat, dude. You should want the people you're fighting for to have weapons that can suppress you, put holes in your body armor, disable your vehicles. Because it means your leadership will hesitate to turn against them, people being armed is what keeps you from being ordered to roam American streets and enforce curfews/martial law. People tend to see that reasoning behind everything and scoff, the whole, "hurr durr military would smash any resistance EZ it doesn't matter," but then we come full circle to the very argument you're posing. You're saying we should enforce stricter gun control, because even if it doesn't do much, it'll do [I]something.[/I] Letting civies own machine guns might not do much against the military, but it'd do more than hunting rifles and handguns. They deserve to own everything short of fucking JDAMs and obviously dangerous explosives that would end up with tons of accidental deaths. Fight for liberty, don't try to take it away from people. Making us look bad, man.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49241857]How is this pertinent to the FBI failing to exercise due diligence in background checks, resulting in criminals getting guns they shouldn't have been able to?[/QUOTE] I wanted to do an auto merge with my last post but you replied too soon. A lot of these people weren't criminals though? Who's to say there isn't a problem with the system? But I think your placing too much stock in the 'system working' there is literally no way to create an all encompassing omniscient background check system that would prevent lunatics from getting firearms ever again. Can something change? Yeah, we can definitely do some process improvement with the FBI, but at the end of the day the only way to prevent things like this from happening is to have a minority report type of scenario.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241912]I wanted to do an auto merge with my last post but you replied too soon. A lot of these people weren't criminals though? Who's to say there isn't a problem with the system? But I think your placing too much stock in the 'system working' there is literally no way to create an all encompassing omniscient background check system that would prevent lunatics from getting firearms ever again. Can something change? Yeah, we can definitely do some process improvement with the FBI, but at the end of the day the only way to prevent things like this from happening is to have a minority report type of scenario.[/QUOTE] You can't prevent all violent crime. It's not possible by any measure. You can however seriously reduce certain patterns of crime through fine approaches rather than 'ok we banned guns situation over go home' since that demonstrably does nothing. See; Chicago, New York, all of California [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MaverickIB;49241890]Ahem. "I am a United States Sailor, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." Right there man. It's right there. In one of the first things you learn when you join the Navy. Do you understand why the right to bear arms was even put there? It wasn't put there so people could defend against home invaders or hunt. It was put there as a form of checks and balances between the people and the government. Simply put, people should be able to own firearms capable of resisting our military. So people [I]do[/I] need access to M249's and all of the above. The inherent right of the people to not be oppressed supersedes the occasional mass shooting. It is more important than a handful of lives a year. Maybe that sounds fucked up or whatever, but that's the way it is. Freedom, liberty, are more important than a handful of lives a year. They're more important than thousands of lives a year. They are more important than anything, because life is not worth living unless you are free. Mitigating mass murders is [B]not[/B] more important than the people's right to defend themselves. You raised your right hand and swore to uphold and defend that concept. Fucking unsat, dude. You should want the people you're fighting for to have weapons that can suppress you, put holes in your body armor, disable your vehicles. Because it means your leadership will hesitate to turn against them, people being armed is what keeps you from being ordered to roam American streets and enforce curfews/martial law. People tend to see that reasoning behind everything and scoff, the whole, "hurr durr military would smash any resistance EZ it doesn't matter," but then we come full circle to the very argument you're posing. You're saying we should enforce stricter gun control, because even if it doesn't do much, it'll do [I]something.[/I] Letting civies own machine guns might not do much against the military, but it'd do more than hunting rifles and handguns. They deserve to own everything short of fucking JDAMs and obviously dangerous explosives that would end up with tons of accidental deaths. Fight for liberty, don't try to take it away from people. Making us look bad, man.[/QUOTE] I didn't want to be the one to say this since I'm a civvie so I'm glad you did.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.