• Two US TV journalists shot dead on air
    1,049 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546376]Pages and pages of "rip" isn't going to help either, condolences were expressed and now we're using the forum for its intended purpose, discussion, in this case attempting to come to terms with the situation that led to this occurrence.[/QUOTE] We could always discuss the current news situation instead of debating gun control. I came to the thread to read about current updates on the story, and there's only a few posts per page that are about the shooting, while the others are just gun control debate.
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;48546366][img]http://s22.postimg.org/xibso4y9t/1440630713110_0.jpg[/img] i refuse to believe this is real[/QUOTE] So it [I]was[/I] the friend in the photo?
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48546371]Killing is bad, I feel sorry for the victims. Did me typing that sentence into the forum serve any justice for the victims? Did that solve anything beyond making you feel more comfortable about the death of some of fellow citizens?[/QUOTE] It sure as hell makes you less of a detached person.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546370]You have demonstrated your opposition to gun ownership and think that nobody should own them. But you aren't in favor of a ban? My ass.[/QUOTE] Uh yeah. As I said even the UK doesn't have a total ban. Not black and white enough for you?
[QUOTE=Sir Colton;48546392]We could always discuss the current news situation instead of debating gun control. I came to the thread to read about current updates on the story, and there's only a few posts per page that are about the shooting, while the others are just gun control debate.[/QUOTE] The situation has concluded with the shooter in the hospital.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;48546248]My point is take illegal or unregistered guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals and psychos, don't force law abiding, well to do citizens to relinquish one of their core rights. If you're going to make the argument to ban all guns on the basis that all they do is kill people, then you need to apply the same logic to all things whose sole purpose is to kill people. Even if Cloak didn't say it directly or imply it, I'm mentioning it on the basis that I know too many people who think a blanket ban is the only way to fix this problem, when it would only make the problem worse.[/QUOTE] We look at things kind of differently. First of all, guns are not solely created to kill people, and I know that well. It's not an argument for their removal. Guns are however extremely efficient tools for directing high velocity metal projectiles very accurately, and this is a property that is very easily abused even for the untrained. These things make a very obvious problem, since in the US it's pretty easy to buy guns. So what could be done to fix the problem? Because there is a problem, there's no doubt about that. Well, it's complicated, right? And I'm sure you'll agree that you can't outright remove guns from everyone, because by doing that you remove them only from those who chose to abide the law, and not from those who oppose it. Aka, you're left with still a lot of guns, but only criminals carrying them. That's very possibly an even bigger problem. For a more realistic fix: Far stricter gun licensing, harder to obtain guns (especially concealable handguns), extensive background check required, proof of mental health required. Alternatively, a hard limit on production of guns could decrease the amount of guns in circulation over time (100 years or so?), without causing many problems. (that I can think of) Also about those constitutional rights. I see a lot of nearly religious following of them. To me, they're like laws. Old outdated laws that very much could use refinement. (Maybe they've been refined already?) Either way, I don't understand the clingyness towards them. And a disclaimer: I'm kind of a gun nut, I like guns and I know quite a bit about them, but I'm very glad our rules are the way they are because the (still) high gun violence rate in the US is pretty concerning. But just like nuclear explosions, which also are quite cool, I'd rather not be near them.
[QUOTE=CoilingTesla;48546383]So, take firearms away from the law abiding populace and then just expect murder to stop?[/QUOTE] No, that's wrong for three reasons I never said that. I never said take firearms away, I said lower the acquisition of. I said I would expect mitigation to occur, which is to lower the frequency of, not stop all happening of. Wouldn't that be a good thing? [QUOTE=CoilingTesla;48546383]Are you going to completely change our police force to protect us from the much better armed criminals?[/QUOTE] I would yes, if it was required to keep themselves safe. [QUOTE=CoilingTesla;48546383]There are a lot of factors affecting this, if you take guns away from the populace, you put much more responsibility on the police to actually show up on time or actually be around when crimes happen.[/QUOTE] To be honest with you I don't really see or hear about where all the gun owners in our country come out and stop all of these violent criminals. In theory it sounds like it would work, it doesn't have a track record as a practice.
[QUOTE=Gump;48544506]Fair hint of sarcasm, considering some peoples answer to gun crime in the US is more guns in the hands of other people who might help. I dunno if my British perspective leaves me unable to understand the situation in the US properly though. Seems the US posters unanimously agree guns are Holy so there must be some aspect of it all I don't understand.[/QUOTE] Americans like fighting (and not just physical fighting; watch our news media and notice the two-sided political red-vs.-blue/Conservatives-vs.-Liberals/etc. shitfest they have going on; we fight and compete over politics, over sports, over girls, over every goddamned thing under the sun), and when we aren't fighting because we like to, we're fighting because we have to. Gun ownership is also more pervasive in some areas than it is in others due to differences in mentality; some areas have a Wild West mentality about them, some are big on hunting, etc. Here in the Midwest, we've got a blend of the two. In the cities, though, you'll find gun ownership is going down with us in the younger generations because we just don't need them. Or we own them, but we don't necessarily carry them around with us everywhere we go like there's a potential threat around every corner we turn. We're a paranoid people (at least many of us are), and in some places here, it makes sense to be (like, for example, St. Louis). But overall, if you keep out of bad areas, you'll be safe and don't need a gun for personal protection. I carry one occasionally (an old nickle-plated .32 American Bulldog) only because sometimes I find myself having to pass through worse areas of Columbia and Kansas City from time to time. And also, in the small towns around here, people will treat you like you're a shitbag of a man if you don't have a gun. There's just a cultural obsession we have with them because of the power they have. Beyond the rationalizations people will offer you for how guns can be useful tools (and yes, they can be), there's a childlike fascination for them that those people feel deep down inside that they refuse to admit to, and I think that's because they want their opinions to seem more valid beyond "I like them because they're loud, they're intricate pieces of machinery, and they destroy things". I really don't care anymore. American views on guns are a clusterfuck-- just one more thing that we like to fight each other over. So long as nobody I care about is a victim of gun violence, and nobody has been thusfar, I really don't give a shit anymore about who believes what. Pro-gunners say the high ratio of guns to people in this country isn't a problem and shift the blame over to mental health, then champion the rare instance when some private citizen with a CC manages to shoot and kill (or at least incapacitate) a criminal in public with one; anti-gunners go everywhere on the spectrum from "we need to ban guns entirely" (not a feasible proposition) to "we need more checks and restrictions" (with no real concrete propositions, just this very broad and undescriptive suggestion). Both sides slog it out back and forth against each other for a while, and then everyone stops caring and goes back to doing whatever they were before as soon as they forget about whatever incident occurred that brought the issue up in the first place. It's an endless cycle that's absolutely ridiculous and never leads to getting anything done.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;48546398]Uh yeah. As I said even the UK doesn't have a total ban. Not black and white enough for you?[/QUOTE] The UK has a [I]de facto[/I] ban on firearms ownership. I don't care if you can technically claim ownership of a 1920s shotgun which has to be stored in a lockup at a skeet range, or if farmers can jump through hoops for two years to get one to shoot foxes that attack their goats. There is no conceivable way for the average Brit to obtain and maintain his or her own firearm for a recreational or defense purpose.
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;48546366][img]http://s22.postimg.org/xibso4y9t/1440630713110_0.jpg[/img] i refuse to believe this is real[/QUOTE] "rip to the victims even though they may have been racist" gawker media should honestly be sent to hell
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;48546396]It sure as hell makes you less of a detached person.[/QUOTE] Look man, I'm sure you meant well, but how am I a detached person for not alarm calling how bad I feel for the victims every 15 minutes. On the first page I displayed my sentiments on the subject, just for you to assume how I feel across the internet because of your misplaced semantics of showing empathy on forums.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48546416]To be honest with you I don't really see or hear about where all the gun owners in our country come out and stop all of these violent criminals. In theory it sounds like it would work, it doesn't have a track record as a practice.[/QUOTE] Most of the time it doesn't make the news. It happens a lot, however - has happened to me, when a tweaker kicked in my front door and bolted when I came into the living room with my shotgun. I'm glad I didn't have to shoot him because I don't think I would have been able to, but there's no telling what he would have done if I had been unarmed.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546419]The UK has a [I]de facto[/I] ban on firearms ownership. I don't care if you can technically claim ownership of a 1920s shotgun which has to be stored in a lockup at a skeet range, or if farmers can jump through hoops for two years to get one to shoot foxes that attack their goats. There is no conceivable way for the average Brit to obtain and maintain his or her own firearm.[/QUOTE] If you have legitimate reason to own one, you can obtain one when assessed by the police Seems fair to me. Calling it a de facto ban doesn't make it a ban I'm afraid
Crazy video. Literally just news people doing a story why would he involved them? Sad.
[QUOTE=Kidd;48546453]Crazy video. Literally just news people doing a story why would he involved them? Sad.[/QUOTE] It was premeditated. The victims had apparently complained against him to the HR department and he had accused one of the victims of making racist remarks against him.
[QUOTE=Kidd;48546453]Crazy video. Literally just news people doing a story why would he involved them? Sad.[/QUOTE] -snip- better explanation above
[QUOTE=WarRage333;48546464]Well since you didn't read anything, he had beef with the reporter woman.[/QUOTE] The camera man too. [editline]26th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;48546445]If you have legitimate reason to own one, you can obtain one when assessed by the police Seems fair to me. Calling it a de facto ban doesn't make it a ban I'm afraid[/QUOTE] That does sound fair until you also dismiss all reasons as illegitimate, creating a [I]de facto[/I] ban, just like the [I]de facto[/I] ban on machine guns in the US.
-snip- definitely already was posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546469]The camera man too. [editline]26th August 2015[/editline] That does sound fair until you also dismiss all reasons as illegitimate, creating a [I]de facto[/I] ban, just like the [I]de facto[/I] ban on machine guns in the US.[/QUOTE] OK. Are all reasons considered to be illigitimate in the UK? I'm going to say most likely no seeing as there is a licensing system in the first place
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48546416]No, I never said that. I said I would expect MITIGATION: Which is to lower the frequency of. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I would yes, if it was required to keep themselves safe. To be honest with you I don't really see or hear about where all the gun owners in our country come out and stop all of these violent criminals. In theory it sounds like it would work, it doesn't have a track record as a practice.[/QUOTE] Just because you take all the firearms from the populace doesn't mean that the violent crime rate will continue to decrease, if someone wants to commit a crime with a firearm, they will get one regardless of where it comes from, whether that be from a criminal organization or black market. All you do is take away individuals' ability to defend themselves, their families, and others for the sake of the one bad apple, who instead of dealing with their anger or getting help from a doctor or therapist, goes out and decides to enact vengeance. What kind of law could you possibly pass to take illegal firearms from their source across the border/overseas?
[QUOTE]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE] Just allow organized militias to be formed and allow sane and intelligent people to train to join these militias so they can carry guns. It's a good way to lower gun violence, keep the security of the nation, and still abide by the second amendment. This also prevents the government from enacting a total gun ban.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;48546489]OK. Are all reasons considered to be illigitimate in the UK? I'm going to say most likely no seeing as there is a licensing system in the first place[/QUOTE] There is a licensing system for machine guns in the US. Licenses are denied in most cases unless you are willing to spend a significant amount of money and wait a very long time while you chase the ATF around. My understanding is that it's effectively the same in the UK, except for all guns, unless you are a farmer in a rural area, in which case you can get an old shotgun to shoot foxes, or rich and from an affluent family.
Jesus christ. Someone showed me this at work and I thought it was fake. That's just awful.
[QUOTE=CoilingTesla;48546500]:words:[/QUOTE] Dude, if you keep straw manning me I can't keep trying to hold a serious conversation with you. Read my posts, address my points, and stop arguing against someone that isn't me.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48546513]There is a licensing system for machine guns in the US. Licenses are denied in most cases unless you are willing to spend a significant amount of money and wait a very long time while you chase the ATF around. My understanding is that it's effectively the same in the UK, except for all guns, unless you are a farmer in a rural area, in which case you can get an old shotgun to shoot foxes, or rich and from an affluent family.[/QUOTE] Other than the rich and affluent families part, I agree with all of that. What you're saying to me is that its a ban on people without an assessed as legitimate reason to own a firearm.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48546522]Dude, if you keep straw manning me I can't keep trying to hold a serious conversation with you. Read my posts, address my points, and stop arguing against someone that isn't me.[/QUOTE] You seem to know how to fix our problems, so can't you just answer my question?
Some of the arguments and what ifs you guy come up with are stupid as fuck. The guy was sane for all intents and purposes, therefore even if there was some kind of license system it's not like he wouldn't pass. OK so you say handguns should be banned? Despite pretty much every civilised country allowing handguns (minus the UK lmao) so he uses a shotgun instead and blows them away with buckshot at point blank. What the hell is the difference? Where is the argument? Some of you just like arguing for the sake of arguing over the most vaguely related things. It was a shitty tragedy and event, that's it. Move on.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48544418]Hopefully they find the people responsible and shove them in a cage for the rest of their lives.[/QUOTE] That doesn't help anybody. Reform the perpetrators so that they never do it again.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;48546533]Other than the rich and affluent families part, I agree with all of that. What you're saying to me is that its a ban on people without an assessed as legitimate reason to own a firearm.[/QUOTE] Because you don't consider sport, collecting (particularly for historic interests) or self defense legitimate and I do.
[QUOTE=exhale77;48546554]That doesn't help anybody. Reform the perpetrators so that they never do it again.[/QUOTE] Gotta fix the prison system and criminal justice system first.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.