Shooting reported at Purdue University, IN. One injured, suspect in custody.
204 replies, posted
[QUOTE=iFail;43625608]obviously
but ammunition manufacturers won't stay afloat without the civilian market, and without ammunition manufacturers, the police and military might as well be unarmed. I realize that that isn't the case with the UK, but that's because most of the arms manufacturers there are either tiny, or they're BAE, which is large enough to survive off military contracts alone. In the states basically no arms companies can get away with that.[/QUOTE]
Then let the government fucking do something about it. More taxes wouldn't be anything terrible if that means less crime and less needless killings.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;43625612]
Those are notorious for giving you shit prices for your great guns.[/QUOTE]
Sucks. Too bad. But would you rather have the government go door-to-door, forcefully taking people's guns?
[QUOTE=UziXxX;43621727]I think there is some confusion about the difference between a mass shooting and a school shooting. Not excusing or defending the "only 28?" statements. Just saying.[/QUOTE]
Be quiet your intelligence is showing.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43625666][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism[/url][/QUOTE]
Please, just saying "It's gradualism" doesn't in any way make an ineffective policy somehow more tolerable.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;43625699]I assumed you wanted to stop all ammunition sales so no one would have any to shoot out of guns[/QUOTE]
you assume a lot of things tbh
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43625687]
Sucks. Too bad. But would you rather have the government go door-to-door, forcefully taking people's guns?[/QUOTE]
Which I would be one of the millions of people that would give it to them in bullet segments.
[QUOTE=iFail;43625685]First of all, turning in firearms for cash or coupons or whatever they do nowadays is not going to be a one size fits all solution.
These programs target a very small demographic, basically, poor people with firearms that don't know what to do with them.
In order to be willing to turn in potentially valuable weapons (especially once prices rise due to fear of anti-gun legislation), one must be pretty financially desperate. Even then, the demographic of people participating in gun-buybacks isn't going to include violent criminals, since they'd just use their weapons in crimes to get paid.
Also, a lot of the stuff the police buy back as "weapons" are useless, inert, or just plain crappy. Useful weapons will stay on the market, as always.[/QUOTE]
But again, the goal isn't taking EVERY gun off the streets. I'm sure they'd need to come up with new solutions, because there has never been a situation like in the US, but any action, as inneffective as it may be, is already better than none
[QUOTE=iFail;43625711]Please, just saying "It's gradualism" doesn't in any way make an ineffective policy somehow more tolerable.[/QUOTE]
The guy literally said it would take decades.
Sounds like a pretty good fucking deal to me.
I would love if solving global warming would only take mere decades.
[QUOTE=lolz3;43625718]Which I would be one of the millions of people that would give it to them in bullet segments.[/QUOTE]
yeehaw brother
It's just going to create a business opportunity for people like me who reload their own ammunition. It's not that hard.
I bet you can't even think of a solution to the problem that DOES NOT involve the banning, restricting, or a de-facto ban of anything. I bet you can't even think of one way to solve this that won't involve people screaming about their freedoms. That, my friend, is what's wrong with a LOT of people today.
[QUOTE=lolz3;43625718]Which I would be one of the millions of people that would give it to them in bullet segments.[/QUOTE]
the phantom box bandit appears
with now his proto-revolutionary sexual fantasies
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43625722]The guy literally said it would take decades.
Sounds like a pretty good fucking deal to me.
I would love if solving global warming would only take mere decades.[/QUOTE]
Dude, he also said "if not [I]centuries[/I]."
I think I speak for all of us when I say that it'd be good for you to slow down and think your posts through more carefully.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43625732]It's just going to create a business opportunity for people like me who reload their own ammunition. It's not that hard.
I bet you can't even think of a solution to the problem that DOES NOT involve the banning, restricting, or a de-facto ban of anything. I bet you can't even think of one way to solve this that won't involve people screaming about their freedoms. That, my friend, is what's wrong with a LOT of people today.[/QUOTE]
I know how. Start giving out much more severe punishments for the crime.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;43625727]Uhh what if everyone just says "fuck you" and keeps their guns anyways..? (which would happen)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and that's expected. But then again, gun regulation/a weapons ban in the US wouldn't be a simple thing. It'd need to go through a lot of phases, but, it'd need to start somewhere, so you might as well start with the people that are willing to give their guns away for some quick cash.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43625625]Did you even read the thread?[/QUOTE]
Did you even read my post? No shit, the US has had an abnormal number of school shootings. But the idea that we shrug it off as 'oh well, business as usual' is just [I]wrong[/I].
In the UK there were 552 homicides in 2012. Did every single one make national news? Did they all spark discussion over further laws and getting tougher on crime?
You have kids in gangs killing each other in Philadelphia, Chicago, LA every day and it sure doesn't make the nightly news either. But if it happens in a school, suddenly it goes from 'gang shooting' to 'school shooting' and it's time for panic, it's time for laws, it's time for more reasonable discussion over gun culture and oh god think of the children.
Edit: My mistake, I missed the update that confirmed a fatality. Still, in the context of violent crime in the US school shootings sure as hell get more air time.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43625753]Yeah, and that's expected. But then again, gun regulation/a weapons ban in the US wouldn't be a simple thing. It'd need to go through a lot of phases, but, it'd need to start somewhere, so you might as well start with the people that are willing to give their guns away for some quick cash.[/QUOTE]
Nobody here will stop you from having gun buybacks. I mean, sure, it's an interesting idea, but in the end, it doesn't really affect anyone, for better or for worse.
I could see these buybacks working better if they had better incentives, perhaps. That's assuming that criminals have completely rational behavior regarding their guns, which I also find somewhat doubtful.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43625767]Did you even read my post? No shit, the US has had an abnormal number of school shootings. But the idea that we shrug it off as 'oh well, business as usual' is just [i]wrong[/i].
In the UK there were 552 homicides in 2012. Did every single one make national news? Did they all spark discussion over further laws and getting tougher on crime?
You have kids in gangs killing each other in Philadelphia, Chicago, LA every day and it sure doesn't make the nightly news either. But if it happens in a school, suddenly it goes from 'gang shooting' to 'school shooting' and it's time for panic, it's time for laws, it's time for more reasonable discussion over gun culture and oh god think of the children.
Fuck, the fact that we even have a thread over a shooting incident where [i]nobody died[/i] should prove that it's taken more seriously than other forms of crime in this country. How many threads do we have over murders committed elsewhere, or other types of violent crime?[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood it. Yes, I agree those are more serious problems, I just misread it and thought you were talking about something else entirely
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43625666][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism[/url][/QUOTE]
Isn't gradualism the same thing as "slippery slope" :v:
[QUOTE=lolz3;43625748]I know how. Start giving out much more severe punishments for the crime.[/QUOTE]
You get a damn cookie!
I got another one: Subsidize the price of gun safes for parents of children so they can afford something to lock up their guns in.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43625793]You get a damn cookie!
I got another one: Subsidize the price of gun safes for parents of children so they can afford something to lock up their guns in.[/QUOTE]
That'd be pointless without regulation though. You know, there would still be plenty of people who'd trust their own judgement and would simply not buy them
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;43625727]Uhh what if everyone just says "fuck you" and keeps their guns anyways..? (which would happen)[/QUOTE]
Like you said "fuck you" to the NSA?
[editline]22nd January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43625790]Isn't gradualism the same thing as "slippery slope" :v:[/QUOTE]
no gradualism is the same as "democratic accountability"
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43625807]Like you said "fuck you" to the NSA?
[/QUOTE]
do you mind explaining your comparison here? maybe something's wrong with me, but i don't see the parallels.
[QUOTE=iFail;43625837]do you mind explaining your comparison here? maybe something's wrong with me, but i don't see the parallels.[/QUOTE]
americans don't really ~resist~
they're just another comfy first world nation who would much rather get along with life than causing a civil war over something as stupid as guns.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43625851]americans don't really ~resist~
they're just another comfy first world nation who would much rather get along with life than causing a civil war over something as stupid as guns.[/QUOTE]
i'm receiving mixed signals here.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;43625858]i'm receiving mixed signals here.[/QUOTE]
its ok bb i do love u
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43625804]That'd be pointless without regulation though. You know, there would still be plenty of people who'd trust their own judgement and would simply not buy them[/QUOTE]
People who don't adequately secure their weapons and then have them stolen and used in crime should be held accountable to those crimes, and punishments should be much more severe. If you have children, or family members with mental illness, or live in a crime-prone neighborhood, you absolutely have a responsibility to secure firearms in a safe and responsible manner and the law should reflect this.
If you want to start cracking down on people getting their hands on firearms when they shouldn't, start with the incompetence of mental health evaluation in the NICS background check (where people like the Navy Yard shooter are prohibited, but aren't flagged in the system), the relatively lax punishments for straw purchases, and the lack of regulation regarding punishments for weapons being casually left around and then stolen. Criminals are not, by and large, walking into gun stores, passing comprehensive background checks, and then walking out with weapons they use to commit crimes. They're using other methods and many of them stem from the sheer negligence of many gun owners.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43625870]People who don't adequately secure their weapons and then have them stolen and used in crime should be held accountable to those crimes, and punishments should be much more severe. If you have children, or family members with mental illness, or live in a crime-prone neighborhood, you absolutely have a responsibility to secure firearms in a safe and responsible manner and the law should reflect this.
If you want to start cracking down on people getting their hands on firearms when they shouldn't, start with the incompetence of mental health evaluation in the NICS background check, the relatively lax punishments for straw purchases, and the lack of regulation regarding punishments for weapons being casually left around and then stolen. Criminals are not, by and large, walking into gun stores, passing comprehensive background checks, and then walking out with weapons they use to commit crimes. They're using other methods and many of them stem from the sheer negligence of many gun owners.[/QUOTE]
this sounds reasonable
[editline]22nd January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;43625874]Here's where your underestimating our apathetic Americans.
NSA doesn't [I]directly[/I] touch us or do anything to us (directly), if we didn't know about it we wouldn't know the difference.
But taking guns is something we'd notice pretty darn quick as it directly changes things.[/QUOTE]
the folly of human conceits
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43625851]americans don't really ~resist~
they're just another comfy first world nation who would much rather get along with life than causing a civil war over something as stupid as guns.[/QUOTE]
That's what I sorta expected, but I think your comparison here is seriously flawed.
~resisting~ the NSA is an entirely different beast from burying some guns and ammo in your backyard. Most people don't have the technical background or political involvement to really understand what's happening with the NSA or to keep up with the debate over it. Anyone can hide a gun.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43625753]Yeah, and that's expected. But then again, gun regulation/a weapons ban in the US wouldn't be a simple thing. It'd need to go through a lot of phases, but, it'd need to start somewhere, so you might as well start with the people that are willing to give their guns away for some quick cash.[/QUOTE]
Start with the people that are already Government slaves submitting to their masters for shit money then go against people that would actually fight for the Constitution and Countries building blocks. When a country is disarmed the Government now has free reign over all and can do what ever they want. It's our founding fathers greatest warning. The one reason why the public should not be disarmed is for the rise of Government tyranny.
Yet, this falls on deaf ears and is mocked and made fun of by Government slaves and people that have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. Every country in the world has been crushed and destroyed by Governments trying to enslave the public in under 400 years. Unlike millions of people, I know politics and history. Democrats want a Government that will enslave everyone. Republicans want a Government that's severely unstable which would fall in on itself because people would have too much freedom. The perfect system would be a Government of 45%D-55%R, no more, no less. Limiting the Government to where it should be involved and giving the people what they are entitled to.
[QUOTE=lolz3;43625897]Start with the people that are already Government slaves submitting to their masters for shit money then go against people that would actually fight for the Constitution and Countries building blocks. When a country is disarmed the Government now has free reign over all and can do what ever they want. It's our founding fathers greatest warning. The one reason why the public should not be disarmed is for the rise of Government tyranny.
Yet, this falls on deaf ears and is mocked and made fun of by Government slaves and people that have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. Every country in the world has been crushed and destroyed by Governments trying to enslave the public in under 400 years. Unlike millions of people, I know politics and history. Democrats want a Government that will enslave everyone. Republicans want a Government that's severely unstable which would fall in on itself because people would have too much freedom. The perfect system would be a Government of 45%D-55%R, no more, no less. Limiting the Government to where it should be involved and giving the people what they are entitled to.[/QUOTE]
this is brilliant
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43625731]yeehaw brother[/QUOTE]
If the government began taking people's guns, people would obviously fight back because it's a direct constitutional violation and usually one of the first things that happens before major shit goes down.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.