• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744732]It's not totally wrong to say that gun control won't have any obvious impact due to the massive stockpile of weapons already in existence. We need to [I]halt the production[/I] of new weapons, and focus on slowly chipping down that stockpile. It will take decades, but it's the only realistic way to regain control of this. Our country is flooded with guns, and our only hope to drain it is to plug the leak and grab a bucket.[/QUOTE] We live in a democratic nation, and as such your solution would have to have bipartisan representation. It is so very, very obvious that this will not happen. Forcing in legislation only divides an already divided nation. Doesn't matter if it would work or not. America doesn't want guns to be used for murder. What we need is small steps that unify this idea. That is where the focus needs to be.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744756]Okay, but that makes no sense. The freedom of speech has been [I]empowered[/I] by modern technology. It was the a right conceived to give people a voice to speak out without fear of censorship. Technology has empowered people to do that, not undermined it. The right to bear arms was conceived when the understanding of firearms and military tactics necessitated militias bearing single-shot muskets for defense of villages and homesteads. The entire [I]foundation[/I] of the right to bear arms no longer even [I]exists[/I], as militias are fully irrelevant in the modern age. Looking at the advancement of weapons technology has also made it abundantly clear just how [I]shortsighted[/I] that amendment really was in considering the future consequences of gun ownership. Has the entire foundation of the first amendment been made completely irrelevant, sgman?[/QUOTE] Last I checked, Finland and Switzerland, both modern European countries, still rely largely on militias rather than what most places would call a formal "military" to defend themselves. And those are just two that I know off the top of my head. Some people also argue that the various state's National Guards constitute state-sponsored militias. There's also the argument that the right enshrined in the 2dn Amendment is inherent to all Americans with arms who are willing to take them up to fight for their country, and that it makes the entire citizenry of the US a militia. And, last I checked, the foundation of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to protect homesteads or whatever, it was to protect the citizenry against a tyrannical government, either one that was created by a foreign invader, or one created by an overzealous domestic politician. That principle still stands very true in the hearts and minds of many Americans, whether you agree with it or not.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52744735]The founding fathers weren't stupid men, to say that they couldn't have predicted advancements in weapons technology is frankly insulting to them. The entire reason the constitution is written with broad, generally all-encompassing wording is because they knew that things would change, but they had a set of principles that they wanted enforced even as technology advanced. Whether or not they'd be horrified at the power of modern weaponry is irrelevant, they believed in principle that every man should be able to arm himself equivalent to a soldier, so they'd damn well want people to be able to own the same automatic firearms that are issued to the military. That's what the principle of the 2nd Amendment was, was for the citizenry to be equivalently armed to a military, no matter what weaponry that military was using in what age. To say "The 2nd Amendment should only apply to muskets because that's all that was around back then," but then to go and say "The government can't censor internet or television because that's a violation of the 1st Amendment" is completely hypocritical. The 1st Amendment existed in a time before modern technology, and if one section of the constitution only applies to technology available at the time, then the same can be equally said to all other aspects of it. If the 2nd protects only muskets, then the 1st protects only newsprint and literature, not the radio, telephone, CDs, television, movies, video games, or the internet, because of course the founding fathers could have never imagined all the ways those could potentially be abused to support tyranny and terrorism and crime. Therefore since those weren't around back then, it's not a violation of the 1st Amendment to have the government censor the news, the internet, ban video games, CDs, and movies for corrupting the populace, and tap phone lines and monitor text communications to ensure that terrorists aren't coordinating attacks through unforeseen electronic means. Or you accept that the constitution was written to be a document that applied to advancements in technology through the ages because it espouses a set of principles rather than explicits, and that therefore the 2nd Amendment still applies, in principle, to today's weaponry because of what it was meant to stand for, and the 1st Amendment still protects communication and publication through electronic means without government interference.[/QUOTE] There's zero hypocrisy here. The fundamental need of the second amendment no longer exists. Furthermore, even if it did, the [I]means[/I] to carry it out no longer exist. Civilians do not have live tanks, artillery, missiles, assault helicopters, hand grenades, armed strike UASs, etc, etc. Our civilians are no comparably outfitted to our military, because to allow them to be in the modern era would be [B]absolute madness.[/B] As clever as the founding fathers may have been, the era of modern warfare could not possible have been predicted by them, no more than television or the cell phones. Nobody knew what an airplane was until it existed. Nobody knew what an ICBM was until it was created. Nobody could envision nuclear weaponry until it was reality. You are essentially arguing [I]omniscience[/I] of the founding fathers, which is a bit silly. No, they could not have imagined the weapons of war used today.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744691]The constitutional argument for gun ownership at any cost fully fails to take into account two important facts. First: if the intention was to allow the public to outgun the military in the event that open rebellion somehow became necessary, it has already [B]fully[/B] failed to allow that. No matter how many assault rifles are in the hands of everyday people, military technology so massively outpaces that which is available to the public that any hope of armed insurrection is doomed. Thus, the amendment has failed and is now fully irrelevant in that regard. Second: the drafters of the constitution literally could not even fathom a reality in which a single person could climb to the 32nd floor of a skyscraper and shoot over 500 people in nine minutes. While I may respect the spirit behind the amendment, it is clearly one that is fully removed from the reality we live in today, and that's to be expected. The constitution is old. There are bound to be cracks. Thankfully, the drafters also gave us the means by which to [I]amend[/I] the constitution in the event that aspects of it needed to change to suit a changing world. The 2nd amendment desperately needs to be amended to reflect the fact that guns are no longer single shot muzzle loaders capable of firing, in highly trained hands, a maximum of three rounds per minute.[/QUOTE] 1.) It isn't a matter of outgunning anyone. It is a matter of making the endeavor not worth it. We didn't defeat the British empire during the revolution, we made ourselves enough of a pain in the ass that it was simply no longer feasible to continue fighting. Revolutions work, at the most basic of levels, in an entirely different fashion from international conflicts. A revolution today would be much more difficult in many respects, but also much easier in some. The military has gotten much more dangerous, but rebels don't need to fight directly. Explosives and advances in small arms have made smaller groups far more dangerous than before. This leads to.. 2.) So it is too hard to fight a revolution, but too easy to kill people with a small group of people. These are opposing points. Rebels don't need to attack the military directly. They attack the logistics side of the government. The military can't have tanks and drones everywhere. Yes, the document could be changed. Attempts to do so, however, would fail miserably. The point is irrelevant. A successful change to the second amendment would, ironically, spawn the response that the second amendment was intended to facilitate.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744771]There's zero hypocrisy here. The fundamental need of the second amendment no longer exists. Furthermore, even if it did, the [I]means[/I] to carry it out no longer exist. Civilians do not have live tanks, artillery, missiles, assault helicopters, hand grenades, armed strike UASs, etc, etc. Our civilians are no comparably outfitted to our military, because to allow them to be in the modern era would be [B]absolute madness.[/B][/QUOTE] You seem to be creating a false dichotomy. The only two choices aren't full submission to government overlords or full military revolution against the full force of the US armed forces. There's a whole ton of middle room where personal firearms would play a massive role.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52744766]Last I checked, Finland and Switzerland, both modern European countries, still rely largely on militias rather than what most places would call a formal "military" to defend themselves. And those are just two that I know off the top of my head. Some people also argue that the various state's National Guards constitute state-sponsored militias. There's also the argument that the right enshrined in the 2dn Amendment is inherent to all Americans with arms who are willing to take them up to fight for their country, and that it makes the entire citizenry of the US a militia.[/QUOTE] I didn't realize that Finland and Switzerland were US territories operating under the auspices of the US Constitution. Shoot, I guess the second amendment [I]isn't[/I] irrelevant in the modern US.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744771]There's zero hypocrisy here. The fundamental need of the second amendment no longer exists. Furthermore, even if it did, the [I]means[/I] to carry it out no longer exist. Civilians do not have live tanks, artillery, missiles, assault helicopters, hand grenades, armed strike UASs, etc, etc. Our civilians are no comparably outfitted to our military, because to allow them to be in the modern era would be [B]absolute madness.[/B] As clever as the founding fathers may have been, the era of modern warfare could not possible have been predicted by them, no more than television or the cell phones. Nobody knew what an airplane was until it existed. Nobody knew what an ICBM was until it was created. Nobody could envision nuclear weaponry until it was reality. You are essentially arguing [I]omniscience[/I] of the founding fathers, which is a bit silly. No, they could not have imagined the weapons of war used today.[/QUOTE] And the first amendment couldn't have predicted encrypted chat apps being used to coordinate terrorist attacks, the dark web selling illegal everything, and massive oligopolies of biased news corporations with agendas misleading the American public in one way or another on every issue. There are things you can find from both that you can say run inherent risks to society by allowing, but because of the principles of that they are about we allow them to stand despite their risks. It is absolutely hypocritical to ignore the downsides that near unregulated free speech can have while at the same time decrying the downsides that lax gun laws can have when both are enshrined as rights in the same document. Especially when you are choosing to selectively ignore the justifications as to why it's hypocritical, and the justifications for why your opinion on the matter is not a be-all, end-all accepted fact. Also you don't seem to know a lot about US weapons laws. A citizen can very well own a tank, an anti-aircraft gun, a jet fighter, an attack helicopter, a rocket launcher, and all the ordnance to go in them legally in America. It will just cost them a shitload of money in tax stamps, but it's all 100% legal. The principles of the 2nd Amendment still stand. A citizen can still arm themselves roughly equivalently to a modern military force, it's just very expensive to do so.
I just don't see a world where you will successfully control an armed populace that is no longer interested in your control. You can't collect taxes, you can't enforce laws, you can't make a move without having your soldiers catch a round in the neck from the bushes 200 meters away. Yes, you can engage in total war. Total war is what you use when you intend to destroy the manufacturing capabilities of your enemy. Doing it against yourself defeats the entire purpose. You have to fight a limited conflict. You might get away with making an example or two out of a city, but at some point you are just going to collapse because you have bombed yourself hollow. Not to mention the ridiculous rates of desertion and the fact that we separate our national guard units into states. You are going to have entire national guard units desert immediately. It is ridiculous to assume that a resistance movement would be as simple as civilians with basic small arms vs bombers. Reality is so much more complex.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744777]I didn't realize that Finland and Switzerland were US territories operating under the auspices of the US Constitution. Shoot, I guess the second amendment [I]isn't[/I] irrelevant in the modern US.[/QUOTE] You didn't specify America, you said "in the modern age," which means presently in the broad sense. I showed you examples in the modern age where militias are still present. I'm not going to let you move the goalposts to avoid the examples that disprove your statement.
And that's assuming a large portion of the armed forces wouldn't just quit.
here we go with another assault weapons ban How many thousands die by handguns every year vs the handful by rifles. More are killed by shotguns than rifles, and they always want to go after the scary looking ones. If you want to single out a type of weapon to make the streets safer, you should go after handguns first Second, Mental health needs to be included in background checks. That information should not be allowed to be kept secret when it comes to purchasing a firearm. This won't catch everyone, though, people snap and go crazy every day with no prior history Third, Private sales need to be banned, period. Some states allow you to find a gun for sale from someone, and then perfectly legally buy it from the guy in a parking lot. Supposed to show ID and all of that but how would anyone do a background check like this? Fourth, Every firearm should have a week long waiting period, even bolt action .22's parents buy their kids here in the south And there's a bunch of other shit, some questionable, you can do like restrict the number of rounds you can buy, flag people after owning a certain number of weapons for scrutiny by the FBI, ban high capacity mags which are so plentiful it wouldn't matter because they're easy to get, Make bump fire stocks illegal, and so on and so forth And even if all of this was in place, it still wouldn't have stopped what happened in Vegas, or even changed it. If you want to stop gun violence, you got to get rid of all the guns, it's that simple. And it'll never happen in the USA because there's just too many of them and it's literally impossible. Maybe if the government offered a fuck ton of money per firearm turned in with no questions asked you could get rid of about half. No one who believes in the 2nd amendment is going to give up their $3000 Rifle and attachments for $350 to feel good about getting guns off the streets, it would have to be such an incentive that there's no way it could be afforded and thus will never happen
The military in the US takes an oath to uphold the principles of the constitution and protect the people, they do not pledge allegiance to an individual who then would have unilateral control over them. The expectation is that if the US military were to be deployed against its own people to suppress a rebellion against a tyrannical government, the military would instead work with the rebellion to topple the government and ensure the principles of the US constitution are upheld. The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure that there is no incentive for it to come to that, because there would be too great a loss of life that would ruin the nation were such a thing ever attempted by a president, because they would have to engage in boots-on-ground suppression and annexation, lest they fuck themselves by bombing their own industrial capabilities, and that would lead to a massive loss of soldiers as the citizenry engages in guerrilla warfare.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52744799]You didn't specify America, you said "in the modern age," which means presently in the broad sense. I showed you examples in the modern age where militias are still present. I'm not going to let you move the goalposts to avoid the examples that disprove your statement.[/QUOTE] It's a discussion about the 2nd amendment of US constitution's relevance today. If I make a generalized statement in a specific context, do you ignore the specific in favor of the general in every instance? Like, I see the point you're trying to make here, and it's not bad, but it's not wholly relevant either. Finland and Switzerland are totally different beasts than the United States, with hugely different laws relating to gun ownership, military forces, militias, etc. Arguing that they are modern proof that the 2nd Amendment is still relevant is more than a little bit flawed.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52744766]Last I checked, Finland and Switzerland, both modern European countries, still rely largely on militias rather than what most places would call a formal "military" to defend themselves. And those are just two that I know off the top of my head. Some people also argue that the various state's National Guards constitute state-sponsored militias. There's also the argument that the right enshrined in the 2dn Amendment is inherent to all Americans with arms who are willing to take them up to fight for their country, and that it makes the entire citizenry of the US a militia. And, last I checked, the foundation of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to protect homesteads or whatever, it was to protect the citizenry against a tyrannical government, either one that was created by a foreign invader, or one created by an overzealous domestic politician. That principle still stands very true in the hearts and minds of many Americans, whether you agree with it or not.[/QUOTE] The 2nd amendment exists to protect itself and no one else. The government can oppress and take away rights but as long as they don't touch the guns no one cares. No one will ever act on the 2nd amendment unless the 2nd amendment itself is at stake.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52744807]The military in the US takes an oath to uphold the principles of the constitution and protect the people, they do not pledge allegiance to an individual who then would have unilateral control over them. The expectation is that if the US military were to be deployed against its own people to suppress a rebellion against a tyrannical government, the military would instead work with the rebellion to topple the government and ensure the principles of the US constitution are upheld. The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure that there is no incentive for it to come to that, because there would be too great a loss of life that would ruin the nation were such a thing ever attempted by a president, because they would have to engage in boots-on-ground suppression and annexation, lest they fuck themselves by bombing their own industrial capabilities, and that would lead to a massive loss of soldiers as the citizenry engages in guerrilla warfare.[/QUOTE] In theory, yeah. In practice? I'm not so sure. As ya'll have already pointed out, rebellion doesn't come in the form of every man, woman, and child in the country taking up arms. Rebellion, if it ever somehow actually came to pass, would occur in spits and spurts. Little pockets here and there. Soldiers follow orders, and when they're fighting "terrorists" it becomes easy to self-rationalize those orders. [I]These aren't put upon civilians trying to regain control of their government,[/I] they'll tell themselves, [I]they're violent terrorists shooting soldiers and cops in the street.[/I] If that's so hard to believe, simply look at how quickly and easily police forces banded against minorities protesting their treatment. Police also owe their responsibility to protecting and serving the public, but at the first sign of resistance they band together and turn on the very people they're supposed to be defending. There will never be unilateral support for rebellion, either. As pockets of "freedom fighters" rise up, they'll be condemned by huge swathes of the country. Who is the soldier to believe he is protecting, then? Are "The People" those rising up in violent rebellion, or those condemning the behavior and calling for order? At the end of the day, if ordered to attack the "terrorists," I believe that most soldiers probably will. Orders are powerful things.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;52744820]The 2nd amendment exists to protect itself and no one else. The government can oppress and take away rights but as long as they don't touch the guns no one cares. No one will ever act on the 2nd amendment unless the 2nd amendment itself is at stake.[/QUOTE] Considering how eroded it has become both in the past and in certain states, it seems like the most likely time it would actually be used is if a president straight-up said "I'm not calling an election. Ever." Because frankly, the attempts to suppress Net Neutrality I feel are the modern-day equivalent of the tax stamps on paper that helped lead to the revolution, but most of the people who support Net Neutrality hate guns, and most people who like guns don't know or care what Net Neutrality is or means. People haven't shot up the California State Legislature over Cali's egregious gun laws, which kind of sits as a counter-argument to your statement. In reality, the most likely use of it would be to directly defend democracy by toppling a politician who refuses to call an election, thus violating the democratic nature of America. The reason I say that is because if it were going to be used to defend itself it would have by now.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52744806]here we go with another assault weapons ban How many thousands die by handguns every year vs the handful by rifles. More are killed by shotguns than rifles, and they always want to go after the scary looking ones. If you want to single out a type of weapon to make the streets safer, you should go after handguns first Second, Mental health needs to be included in background checks. That information should not be allowed to be kept secret when it comes to purchasing a firearm. This won't catch everyone, though, people snap and go crazy every day with no prior history Third, Private sales need to be banned, period. Some states allow you to find a gun for sale from someone, and then perfectly legally buy it from the guy in a parking lot. Supposed to show ID and all of that but how would anyone do a background check like this? Fourth, Every firearm should have a week long waiting period, even bolt action .22's parents buy their kids here in the south And there's a bunch of other shit, some questionable, you can do like restrict the number of rounds you can buy, flag people after owning a certain number of weapons for scrutiny by the FBI, ban high capacity mags which are so plentiful it wouldn't matter because they're easy to get, Make bump fire stocks illegal, and so on and so forth And even if all of this was in place, it still wouldn't have stopped what happened in Vegas, or even changed it. If you want to stop gun violence, you got to get rid of all the guns, it's that simple. And it'll never happen in the USA because there's just too many of them and it's literally impossible. Maybe if the government offered a fuck ton of money per firearm turned in with no questions asked you could get rid of about half[/QUOTE] Making firearm ownership dependent on mental health creates problems. 1.) If you do it, you have created a reason for people NOT TO SEEK HELP. People will actively attempt to avoid mental health professionals, even if they know there is a problem, because it could mean having your rights abridged 2.) Mental health is extremely subjective. Different doctors will return wildly different results. Meanwhile major mental health issues, like clinical depression, can be justified and passing conditions. If you use mental health as the basis for gun ownership, then you reinforce the massive stigma associated with it. You ensure that the government reinforces the stigma in a very official fashion. 3.) Who gets to determine what mental illness counts? Gender dysphoria is a mental illness in the DSM V. Not only is it a mental illness, but one that has a dramatically increased chance of suicide. Do we deny transgender people firearms? 4.) Who pays for it? The government sure as hell won't. A mental health screening is expensive and would need to be done periodically to be effective. This seems like a great way to deny the poor access to rights. 5.) What happens when the next DSM rolls around and suddenly you aren't in the DSM as a mental illness? Private sales: So what about giving a family member a gun? What about loaning a gun? How about instead we just give everyone access to the national instant background check and let them text in an access request? That way the sale can still happen in the parking lot, but they are required to run the standard check. Waiting periods: I'm not sure these do much. I'd be curious to see good research on the matter. If they are more than feel good legislation, then cool. I'd say dump the waiting period for people who already own a firearm in that category. Don't really need a cool down period if you already own a similar firearm.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744691]First: if the intention was to allow the public to outgun the military in the event that open rebellion somehow became necessary, it has already [B]fully[/B] failed to allow that. No matter how many assault rifles are in the hands of everyday people, military technology so massively outpaces that which is available to the public that any hope of armed insurrection is doomed. Thus, the amendment has failed and is now fully irrelevant in that regard.[/QUOTE] I don't mean to only pick out one part of your argument but I think at least this part can be pretty easily refuted. The past 60 or so years have shown that this idea simply doesn't hold up, asymmetrical warfare has almost universally been the name of the game and proven to be incredibly effective and almost impossible to stop. Just look at the Viet Cong, the Mujahideen, the Taliban, hell you could even argue the Finnish army in WW2, all effective at resisting or even beating some of the largest and most technologically advanced militaries in the world simply through breaking the other army's will to fight via attrition. Now imagine that what has been done to combat this guerrilla warfare is used within the borders of the United States. When a drone strike is done on a particular enemy of strategic value and it kills a few innocent people via collateral damage in some far off land it's easy for your every day western person to ignore, and isn't even a story in the western media. What happens when that same tactic is employed on US soil? The setting becomes some small mom and pop shop on the corner of 1st and 2nd, that "enemy of strategic value" becomes a US citizen, those innocent civilians caught in the blast become people we personally know and love. Are we going to carpet bomb suburban neighborhoods? Call in fire support into populated cities? Roll tanks through people's homes? Not to mention, the US army is made up of real people with their own personal thoughts and an oath to defend the constitution (plus to only obey orders they believe to be lawful). You need willing people to operate all that military technology and I think against US citizens on domestic soil you'd be hard pressed to find them. If anything, what we've learned is that small arms, other improvised devices (a hole with sharp, shit covered sticks at the bottom anybody?), and simply being able to hide in plain sight are almost universally effective against overwhelming force
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744691]The constitutional argument for gun ownership at any cost fully fails to take into account two important facts. First: if the intention was to allow the public to outgun the military in the event that open rebellion somehow became necessary, it has already [B]fully[/B] failed to allow that. No matter how many assault rifles are in the hands of everyday people, military technology so massively outpaces that which is available to the public that any hope of armed insurrection is doomed. Thus, the amendment has failed and is now fully irrelevant in that regard. Second: the drafters of the constitution literally could not even fathom a reality in which a single person could climb to the 32nd floor of a skyscraper and shoot over 500 people in nine minutes. While I may respect the spirit behind the amendment, it is clearly one that is fully removed from the reality we live in today, and that's to be expected. The constitution is old. There are bound to be cracks.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting something, man. The military is trained and equipped to fight a very specific kind of war: high-tempo, large-scale, open combat operations against a peer or near-peer force. Scenarios like that, that's when all that high-tech weaponry like tanks, guided bombs and so on comes into play. Take the military out of that scenario, and it fucking sucks. Look at how we've handled Afghanistan and Iraq. Yeah, there've been plenty of objective successes in the field, but where has that gotten us? The Taliban still holds control over significant portions of the country, AQI in its current iteration as IS continues to touch off IEDs in Iraq, and so on. And look at where that got us in Vietnam. Khe Sanh and the Tet offensive were, in every sense of the word, victories for the US. In the end, it was irrelevant. We lost Vietnam. We [I]will[/I] lose in Afghanistan. I don't believe there's any question of that, it's only a matter of time. We have the most lethal fighting force in the history of mankind, but that factor alone is irrelevant to the question of victory. Here's another thing to consider. You went through basic combat training, right? Remember urban ops? You go into this tiny little simulated village made out of some shipping containers, like five buildings tops, and pretend to clear rooms for an hour. That's what the Army's urban combat training looks like. It doesn't scale up significantly from that, not in any way I'd call meaningful. With that in mind, look at some of the cities in the US. Now tell me the training is adequate. We had enough trouble clearing Fallujah back in the day, and that's a small shithole of a city. Imagine trying to clear NYC, or Chicago, or your Saint Louis. If you were up against an enemy with a little competence, determination and local support, you'd be looking at a fucking nightmare.
Can I just state that I believe we need to bring back a serious mental health overhaul in this country? We effectively neutered any mental health funding back in the 70's and 80's[thanks Reagan], and we are now crippled with a lack of ability to help people, as well as take care of the more harmful individuals with facilities meant to take care of them. Another thing which I wish too say and make myself clear on: Unless you are put in involuntary psych hold, or you are deemed too far gone psychologically to own a firearm, I do not think that things like autism, schizophrenia, and otherwise should disallow you from ownership of a firearm. The reality for those illnesses is that they can be treated, and by targeting people based on said labels, you are only threatening them with a situation where it's a lose/lose. Do you give up rights for safety of something that [I]could[/I] happen? Or would you rather scare someone away from getting help they need, because they are scared of losing said rights in the first place, and in turn might lead too a larger problem in the future? This is not to say, do not put limitations on individuals with mental health problems. People should be given a bit longer wait times, and depending on the illness need to be confirmed to be safe for ownership if the psych/therapist deems it necessary. Things like this may seem out there, but they go a long way to make people not feel ostracized for something they had no choice in. One thing which I personally believe should be done is having a longer wait-time on individuals who were recently put on new medications. It may not seem like much, but it should be at least two weeks to one month before another firearm purchase. This ensures that someone is not losing their mind and is gonna off themselves or someone else due to adverse interactions from medication. In all honesty though, I do not have all the solutions in my head. The situation sucks on all grounds. Fellow Americans were killed, people are angry and pointing fingers, and the collective conscious of America as a whole was harmed in such a way which will not be easily healed for at least a few years.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742761]Are we speaking about pump actions here? Because I've already stated that I have no issues with shotguns, generally. They can be used for mass violence, but are much more limited than rifles, carbines, and automatic pistols I've already highlighted. As for your Olympic pistol nonsense, show me the mass shooter running around with one of these lol: [img]http://www.issf-sports.org/iteam_data/public/issf/images/userimages/academy/20110324_London2012-1YearToGo_001.jpg[/img] Literally yes? They are assault style weapons made for the express purpose of killing other people, often multiple targets, and especially those who are also heavily armed? They are effectively military hardware. I don't have any major problem with [B]police[/B] having those weapons, but [B]civilians[/B] should not. A revolver holds 6-8 rounds and requires time and practice to reload that a magazine fed pistol does not. It's really as simple as that. The 6-8 rounds that the revolver fires are obviously just as deadly, but if you put one in your Average Joe's hands, he's going to be severely hampered by his ability to keep putting more rounds into the weapon to [I]keep[/I] killing, a feat that is made much easier and more convenient by automatic pistols.[/QUOTE] But police are civilians? You're aware that the police are not part of the military, right?
[QUOTE=Nookyava;52744605]That's... dumb. I'm sorry but no shit you're going to get in trouble for shouting fire in a movie theater. You're causing a mass disturbance which could potentially lead to injuries. Also just saying "gonna take that as a no" is not a proper response, so no idea why you'd even bring it up if you're not gonna keep going on it.[/QUOTE] So we agree that people should not have absolute freedom of speech. I'm not sure why I should continue down that thread if you're not gonna even bother to humor me and meet me half way. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Psychokitten;52744608]I'd say it's feasible with a little practice and preparation. AQI was routinely daisy-chaining IEDs in an attempt to destroy entire convoys, back when US forces still had a significant footprint in the country. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to hear IS is still doing it against IGF convoys.[/QUOTE] The more IEDs you add into the mix, the more obvious it will be and the more likely the terrorist attack will be stopped before it even starts.
Well I think not voting republicans into office would be a good place to start, considering they don't really care about the state of healthcare.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;52745275]But police are civilians? You're aware that the police are not part of the military, right?[/QUOTE] I think he meant whilst the police are doing their job. When they're not, they certainly shouldn't have weapons
[QUOTE=viper shtf;52745275]But police are civilians? You're aware that the police are not part of the military, right?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=djjkxbox;52745301]I think he meant whilst the police are doing their job. When they're not, they certainly shouldn't have weapons[/QUOTE] I dropped that subject because it reached the point where he was saying he believes ordinary beat cops employ and require weapons that in his own words are designed for mass murder and no other purpose, and I didn't feel like calling him out on how clearly illogical that is. He's implying that for an ordinary civilian such a weapon has absolutely no legitimate purpose, but in the hands of a cop it's a valuable tool for self-defense against an armed assailant. As an ordinary civilian you'd [i]never ever[/i] have a legitimate use for such a weapon, but if you're a cop oh no what if there's a bad guy and he has a gun? If people actually believed semi-automatic, magazine-fed weapons were 'solely designed for mass murder' they'd be calling for a return to cops only being armed with revolvers, because clearly no police officer needs to [i]commit mass murder[/i] in the course of their duties. Instead what they're really saying is that they don't think common citizens should have effective means of self-defense but that cops should, which sounds far weaker than the 'nobody needs a mass murder weapon!!!' rhetoric.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52744799]You didn't specify America, you said "in the modern age," which means presently in the broad sense. I showed you examples in the modern age where militias are still present. I'm not going to let you move the goalposts to avoid the examples that disprove your statement.[/QUOTE] Switzerland and Finland are hugely different to the US in that regard though, because they employ conscription through compulsory military service and take their gun culture ENTIRELY differently to the US as a result. It's not some constitutionally mandated right, but a duty in case their nations should ever be threatened by foreign aggressors. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=PrusseLusken;52745304]a legislation that lowered suicides by firearms in Norway was the 2010 law that requires guns or a vital part to be kept in a locked safe. will never happen in the US so i don't know why i bother mentioning it.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the UK does this too, part of getting a firearms license is proving that you have secure, safe storage (Gun safe, essentially) in which to keep your firearm.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52745277]So we agree that people should not have absolute freedom of speech. I'm not sure why I should continue down that thread if you're not gonna even bother to humor me and meet me half way. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] The more IEDs you add into the mix, the more obvious it will be and the more likely the terrorist attack will be stopped before it even starts.[/QUOTE] Because you're making a "what if" that is just ridiculous, and freedom of speech applies to your right to speak out against your government without fear of being attacked for doing so. It does not give you the right to act like an idiot like you were suggesting. There's no half way because your arguments so far have been weak and just based on what ifs and misinterpretation of our rights.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52745361]I dropped that subject because it reached the point where he was saying he believes ordinary beat cops employ and require weapons that in his own words are designed for mass murder and no other purpose, and I didn't feel like calling him out on how clearly illogical that is. He's implying that for an ordinary civilian such a weapon has absolutely no legitimate purpose, but in the hands of a cop it's a valuable tool for self-defense against an armed assailant. As an ordinary civilian you'd [i]never ever[/i] have a legitimate use for such a weapon, but if you're a cop oh no what if there's a bad guy and he has a gun? If people actually believed semi-automatic, magazine-fed weapons were 'solely designed for mass murder' they'd be calling for a return to cops only being armed with revolvers, because clearly no police officer needs to [i]commit mass murder[/i] in the course of their duties. Instead what they're really saying is that they don't think common citizens should have effective means of self-defense but that cops should, which sounds far weaker than the 'nobody needs a mass murder weapon!!!' rhetoric.[/QUOTE] BDA, your response?
[QUOTE=catbarf;52745361]I dropped that subject because it reached the point where he was saying he believes ordinary beat cops employ and require weapons that in his own words are designed for mass murder and no other purpose, and I didn't feel like calling him out on how clearly illogical that is. He's implying that for an ordinary civilian such a weapon has absolutely no legitimate purpose, but in the hands of a cop it's a valuable tool for self-defense against an armed assailant. As an ordinary civilian you'd [i]never ever[/i] have a legitimate use for such a weapon, but if you're a cop oh no what if there's a bad guy and he has a gun? If people actually believed semi-automatic, magazine-fed weapons were 'solely designed for mass murder' they'd be calling for a return to cops only being armed with revolvers, because clearly no police officer needs to [i]commit mass murder[/i] in the course of their duties. Instead what they're really saying is that they don't think common citizens should have effective means of self-defense but that cops should, which sounds far weaker than the 'nobody needs a mass murder weapon!!!' rhetoric.[/QUOTE] Are you now arguing that assault rifles [I]aren't[/I] weapons of war designed to rapidly kill as many people as possible? Because that's simply not true. Furthermore, Cops are expected to respond to violent crime on a daily basis. While few occasions require much in the way of firepower, they need to be equipped for every eventuality, because when you are the n person whose job is to come respond to violence, a weapon of war makes sense to have in your arsenal. Cops charge [I]towards[/I] the danger, and need to have a way to deal with the worst case scenario of multiple armed assailants, because cops are the ones who have a way to deal with that. Civilians don't. There is no rational reason why a civilian would need a weapon designed to rapidly kill large groups of people. They don't respond to violent crime every day. They don't run towards the danger. They aren't responsible for ending the threat. They aren't professionally trained in responding to a threat like that. They aren't professionally trained in using their weapons. Not only do civilians not NEED weapons like that, they actively become a threat the moment they decide to use them in a firefight. Joe Schmoe with an assault rifle, even with the best intentions, is a threat to everyone around him the moment he wants to start playing hero. The needs of an on-duty police officer in regards to firearms are fundamentally different than the needs of other people. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=viper shtf;52745275]But police are civilians? You're aware that the police are not part of the military, right?[/QUOTE] Let's not play semantics. It's pretty clear what I'm talking about.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52745640]Are you now arguing that assault rifles [I]aren't[/I] weapons of war designed to rapidly kill as many people as possible? Because that's simply not true. [/QUOTE] An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It's not an assault rifle unless it has a select fire switch. This murder did not use an assault rifle. Assault rifles are already extremely hard to get. You're talking about semi automatic rifles. It's not semantics, it's an important distinction. There are plenty of "hunting rifles" that are semi automatic and magazine fed. Even plenty with detectable magazines. I repeat, you cannot go to Walmart or your average gun store and walk out with an assault rifle in the united states. That's simply untrue.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.