• Shooting reported at Purdue University, IN. One injured, suspect in custody.
    204 replies, posted
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43625918]this is brilliant[/QUOTE] Like I said, it falls on deaf ears and is mocked by people who have no idea what the fuck they are talking about.
[QUOTE=lolz3;43625943]Like I said, it falls on deaf ears and is mocked by people who have no idea what the fuck they are talking about.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights[/url] [quote]Of course not. The idea that, in the modern world, a country full of people with private handguns, shotguns and AR-15s in their households is more likely to remain a liberal democracy than a country whose citizens lack such weapons is frankly ridiculous. Worldwide, there is no correlation whatsoever at the country level between private handgun ownership and liberal democracy. There are no cases of democratic countries in which nascent authoritarian governments were successfully resisted due to widespread gun ownership. When authoritarian governments come to power in democracies (which is rare), they do so at the ballot box or with heavy popular support; where juntas overthrow democratic governments, as in Greece, Brazil, Chile or Iran, popular gun ownership is irrelevant. Once authoritarian governments take power, if they decide they don't want citizens to own guns, they take them away, easily crushing any isolated attempts at resistance. When, on the other hand, authoritarian governments are overthrown in military uprisings (as opposed to peaceful revolutions, which are more common), the arms that defeat them come from defecting soldiers or outside aid. Widespread gun ownership among the common folk may conceivably have been an important obstacle to centralised government control in 17th-century Britain, just emerging from feudalism; but since the universalisation of the modern nation-state in the 19th century, the degree of force that governments can bring to bear has overwhelmed any conceivable popular defence of localised rights and privileges by companies of yeoman musketeers. To stack up against police, the National Guard or the US Army, private gun enthusiasts would, at a minimum, have to be packing an arsenal that would be illegal in any state in the union, even Arizona.[/quote] This is why you are mocked.
[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 the kind of person that buys those hunter magazines, reads the sections with experiences people had defending themselves against criminals with their concealed weapons, then furiously masturbates to it
[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 (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] Ultimately, I should not be held responsible for someone breaking into my LOCKED house or car and stealing my firearm. They have, at that point, forcibly gone through a barrier designed to keep them out. Now, if I leave my gun sitting on my passenger seat and leave my doors unlocked, then yes, I am being irresponsible and should be held accountable. I was thinking more along the ways of trying to help people be responsible, be it with assistance or incentives.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43625974]this is the kind of person that buys those hunter magazines, reads the sections with experiences people had defending themselves against criminals with their concealed weapons, then furiously masturbates to it[/QUOTE] I do not hunt, nor carry a concealed license. But I do lock my doors at night and it's not for my safety, it's for the burglars.
[QUOTE=lolz3;43625992]But I do lock my doors at night and it's not for my safety, it's for the burglars.[/QUOTE] im dyin that could totally be a NRA bumper sticker man send it in
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43625962][url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights[/url] This is why you are mocked.[/QUOTE] So? It seems to be working fine for the insurgents in the middle east. And the Viet Cong. And if we found ourselves needing expanded arsenals we could steal them. It's really a no brainer, given basic tools we stand a much better chance against a government than if we lacked those tools. And that begs the question, should a government have this: "the degree of force that governments can bring to bear has overwhelmed any conceivable popular defence of localised rights and privileges by companies of yeoman musketeers" to use on the populace in the first place?
[QUOTE=lolz3;43625992]I do not hunt, nor carry a concealed license. But I do lock my doors at night and it's not for my safety, it's for the burglars.[/QUOTE] see i think youre vastly overestimating how cool that makes you sound. maybe if you said you had a genuine folded steel katana to use on the burglars id be more inclined to think otherwise [editline]22nd January[/editline] you could also try quoting rorschach from watchmen that might work
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43625414]Mexico is in a completely different situation. Look at countries that are more similar to the US but don't have guns and then you'll find plenty of good examples. In countries like Mexico, most of the crimes exist because of financial reasons, or because of a lack of education, etc etc (people stealing because they need money, kids getting involved with crime). In countries like the US, where poverty is still a real problem but not as much as in Mexico, you have a lot more crimes of a psychological nature, like school shooters and such[/QUOTE] I can change the narrative by tightening the filter on the available subjects as well...
[QUOTE=Cone;43626060]see i think youre vastly overestimating how cool that makes you sound. maybe if you said you had a genuine folded steel katana to use on the burglars id be more inclined to think otherwise[/QUOTE] Not sounding cool. It's a fact. My door is locked not to keep people from unwantadly coming into my house, it's to keep them from getting shot. And for that reason that's why it's never happened because it's clear as day with the signs on my yard and is legal and cleared by Police. "YOU WILL BE SHOT. PERIOD." My neighbourhood is small and houses about 250 people, I know 75 own a gun. There has not been a single crime for over 20 years in my area.
[QUOTE=lolz3;43626095]Not sounding cool. It's a fact. My door is locked not to keep people from coming into my house, it's to keep them from getting shot.[/QUOTE] then why are you posting this fact on an internet forum [editline]22nd January[/editline] youre not locked in there with them theyre locked in there with u!!
[QUOTE=lolz3;43626095]Not sounding cool. It's a fact. My door is locked not to keep people from unwantadly coming into my house, it's to keep them from getting shot.[/QUOTE] you are everything that makes america great personified
[QUOTE=lolz3;43626095]Not sounding cool. It's a fact. My door is locked not to keep people from unwantadly coming into my house, it's to keep them from getting shot.[/QUOTE] this is the kind of person that drives a beat up '98 chevy truck with a camo version of the rebel flag on the back and an assortment of redneck bumper stickers all over it
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43626119]this is the kind of person that drives a beat up '98 chevy truck with a camo version of the rebel flag on the back and an assortment of redneck bumper stickers all over it[/QUOTE] Drive a 2006 Saturn Ion with no decals.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;43626135]You just described 20% of my morning traffic :v:[/QUOTE] Oh boy. I'd hate to be in that on the way to work. "GET THE FUCK OUTTA' MY WAY I GOT THE CLAP!"
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43626119]this is the kind of person that drives a beat up '98 chevy truck with a camo version of the rebel flag on the back and an assortment of redneck bumper stickers all over it[/QUOTE] This is the type of person that constantly slams down ad hominem because they have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
[QUOTE=katbug;43626186]This is the type of person that constantly slams down ad hominem because they have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.[/QUOTE] chill out bud just having some fun
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43626198]chill out bud just having some fun[/QUOTE] Sarcasm and overall emotional intent of a post is hard to tell through text Why exactly did we drop emoticons? They make telling what someone's saying so much easier.
i like having guns but i do think getting guns is really easy it takes me like a weekend, with about an hour per class to get a license to get a fire arm [i]any firearm[/i] and something should be done about that for sure [editline]22nd January 2014[/editline] we should have dna locked guns
I was so stupid for making this thread in hopes of discussion about the event and not another stupid fucking gun debate. You didn't see me making the title "Reported shooting at Purdue University. But fuck that, LET'S ARGUE ABOUT GUNS!!!!" Take that fucking shit into the Mass Debate section for fucks sake. This gets [I]really[/I] old.
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;43626224]i like having guns but i do think getting guns is really easy it takes me like a weekend, with about an hour per class to get a license to get a fire arm [i]any firearm[/i] and something should be done about that for sure [editline]22nd January 2014[/editline] we should have dna locked guns[/QUOTE] DNA locked guns removes all the fun of going to the range with some friends, as well as a lot of the other recreational parts of gun use. Something that would be much nicer is a fingerprint auth, where the user makes a "profile" with their fingerprint, and to shoot they have to have at least part of their fingerprint on the scanner. This would make it so that guns have a record of who's been using them, and who shot when.
[QUOTE=Boaraes;43626243]I was so stupid for making this thread in hopes of discussion about the event and not another stupid fucking gun debate. You didn't see me making the title "Reported shooting at Purdue University. But fuck that, LET'S ARGUE ABOUT GUNS!!!!" Take that fucking shit into the Mass Debate section for fucks sake. This gets [I]really[/I] old.[/QUOTE] learn how conversations progress
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;43626224]i like having guns but i do think getting guns is really easy it takes me like a weekend, with about an hour per class to get a license to get a fire arm [i]any firearm[/i] and something should be done about that for sure [editline]22nd January 2014[/editline] we should have dna locked guns[/QUOTE] You mean any semi automatic, bolt, lever, revolver, or single shot. You can't get [I]any firearm[/I] you want in a weekend. Anything Class 3 or above takes a MINIMUM of 6 months while the BATF processes the paperwork and conducts a strict background check on you. But I guess this wouldn't be "sensationalist headlines" without somebody exaggerating reality.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43625962]Once authoritarian governments take power, if they decide they don't want citizens to own guns, they take them away, easily crushing any isolated attempts at resistance.[/QUOTE] This is a pretty sweeping statement considering we have plenty of examples to the contrary. The US has had a substantial military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq that could be likened to the efforts of an authoritarian government, yet we're still having problems with largely untrained and incompetent guerillas. Does this author mean to imply that in the US, where a large percentage of the population has had direct military experience, information on producing improvised weapons and explosives is widespread, and we have roughly as many guns as people, that it's a sure thing that an authoritarian government would so casually and easily brush aside all resistance? That's quite a leap. There's also the possibility of a more military-led uprising amounting to a civil war, in which case armed guerrillas are a substantial force operating in support of a conventional military, which we can clearly see with the Viet Cong. Even though the original idea when the 2nd Amendment was first written, for the people to rise up en masse, form militias, and go to-to-toe with a standing army, is irrelevant and impossible in a modern context, we've seen again and again just how effective an insurgent movement with popular support can be. The idea of people rising up against the US government over some power grab may be an unlikely fantasy, but it's ludicrous to say that insurgencies can't do anything against a modern army when the past ten years have clearly shown otherwise. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43625975]Ultimately, I should not be held responsible for someone breaking into my LOCKED house or car and stealing my firearm.[/QUOTE] In a perfect world, yes, but in a world where every day around thirty Americans are shot and killed with firearms acquired from a variety of sources, I think some extra measure of responsibility is warranted. I'm not saying that you're automatically responsible if it [I]does[/I] get stolen regardless of what precautions you take, but that a gun is important and dangerous enough to require an extra level of security. My point especially about unstable family members or children is that they're already within your home and may have access, so just locking your house is not a suitable safeguard. 'It's in my house so it's safe' is the kind of mindset that leads to kids accidentally shooting themselves or each other, nuts like Adam Lanza taking family guns and going on sprees, or burglars coming through a window and getting free guns they can then use or sell. Keeping a weapon locked up is really not much of an extra burden on a gun owner and I think it's a lot friendlier to gun owners than some of the proposed legislation we've been seeing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43626276]This is a pretty sweeping statement considering we have plenty of examples to the contrary. The US has had a substantial military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq that could be likened to the efforts of an authoritarian government, yet we're still having problems with largely untrained and incompetent guerillas. Does this author mean to imply that in the US, where a large percentage of the population has had direct military experience, information on producing improvised weapons and explosives is widespread, and we have roughly as many guns as people, that it's a sure thing that an authoritarian government would so casually and easily brush aside all resistance? That's quite a leap. There's also the possibility of a more military-led uprising amounting to a civil war, in which case armed guerrillas are a substantial force operating in support of a conventional military, which we can clearly see with the Viet Cong. Even though the original idea when the 2nd Amendment was first written, for the people to rise up en masse, form militias, and go to-to-toe with a standing army, is irrelevant and impossible in a modern context, we've seen again and again just how effective an insurgent movement with popular support can be. The idea of people rising up against the US government over some power grab may be an unlikely fantasy, but it's ludicrous to say that insurgencies can't do anything against a modern army when the past ten years have clearly shown otherwise. In a perfect world, yes, but in a world where every day around thirty Americans are shot and killed with firearms acquired from a variety of sources, I think some extra measure of responsibility is warranted. I'm not saying that you're automatically responsible if it [i]does[/i] get stolen regardless of what precautions you take, but that a gun is important and dangerous enough to require an extra level of security. My point especially about unstable family members or children is that they're already within your home and may have access, so just locking your house is not a suitable safeguard.[/QUOTE] I wish you would read the entire quote. Plus the Vietcong and the insurgency in iraq were not supplied through private firearm ownership. But as the quote said, from military stockpiles and outside support.
[QUOTE=katbug;43626219]Sarcasm and overall emotional intent of a post is hard to tell through text Why exactly did we drop emoticons? They make telling what someone's saying so much easier.[/QUOTE] I know right all the typing I could of saved if I'd just done: [img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/623.gif[/img] or [img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/1335.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43626314]I wish you would read the entire quote.[/QUOTE] I did. I'm saying, in many ways it seems to be boiling down to just asserting that the government would easily take away weapons and it'd be all over, without any further support. It's borderline tautological- 'revolution would fail because revolution would fail'. [QUOTE=NoDachi;43626314]Plus the Vietcong and the insurgency in iraq were not supplied through private firearm ownership. But as the quote said, from military stockpiles and outside support.[/QUOTE] So? It doesn't matter how they got the weapons, what mattered was that they got them. Having some domestic weapons in the first place makes getting access to military stockpiles far easier (just look at the Algerian revolution), and outside support won't be coming unless it looks like you have a chance of winning.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43626338]outside support won't be coming unless it looks like you have a chance of winning.[/QUOTE] not true in the slightest countries that get involved in internal struggles are hostile to the regime in power, they don't have to care if the internal struggle is ultimately successful or not, but rather that it continues to subvert and disrupt.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43625666][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism[/url][/QUOTE] Is that code word for slippery slope? [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43625687]Sucks. Too bad. But would you rather have the government go door-to-door, forcefully taking people's guns?[/QUOTE] Illegal
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43626264]learn how conversations progress[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;43626298]This debate is actually fun/not hostile man, relax. I'm personally having fun mixing ideas.[/QUOTE] To be frank, gun debates aren't particularly the most friendly kind. They never start well, and it just festers until the thread dies. First comment in the thread was some snarky assumption, and to this page I still see people being dicks to each other. The state of the thread hasn't changed since the first reply, in my opinion. I'm probably not doing anything to help it, but it's whatever. It was doomed from the moment I decided to make it. Not only gun threads, but threads about feminism are also never good. Any news that's even barely related to feminism immediately turns into a shitfest as soon as some specific people (not going to name any names) post irrelevant and unwanted provocations and spark something no one asked for. Long story short, news threads should never become debate threads. We have a debate section for a reason. The discussion should be about the story AKA the title of the fucking thread. This is all my opinion, of course. Feel free to disagree. I just think unwarranted senseless arguing ruins the quality of thread from what could have been a simple discussion. There are [I]very[/I] little posts about the shooting itself. That's sad, really.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.