owning guns is clearly not a right, as we already have laws in place that restrict people from buying them for certain reasons. Gun ownership is a privilege, just like driving or whatever else. The law already has provisions in place that allow for it to be taken away.
That doesn't mean that I think further restriction is going to do anything to stop actual gun violence when the country is already saturated with firearms. If you want to have results you got to target the crime, not the tool.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49235636]This guy said it best:
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
I was literally the only guy who said it was a human right, gee, I wonder who you were talking about.[/QUOTE]
As I said it's not normal to live somewhere where a situation where you'd have to defend yourself from someone with a gun is something that's so likely to happen, that everyone needs to carry a gun just to feel/be safe. Again, that's fucked up.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49235647]True, you are right that it's shaky logic, (and also it's not the beginning and end of my feelings on the right of firearm ownership) but no matter what I, you, or anyone else says we're still going to be treated like mouth-breathing troglodytes so it doesn't matter.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
With that said, fuck it, I'm going to work.[/QUOTE]
Don't get me wrong i support gun ownership. But declaring it a human right is one of the reasons people think anyone who supports guns is crazy
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49235658]As I said it's not normal to live somewhere where a situation where you'd have to defend yourself from someone with a gun is something that's so likely to happen, that everyone needs to carry a gun just to feel/be safe. Again, that's fucked up.[/QUOTE]
Shit can happen even in the most peaceful places in the world. Better have it and not need it, etc.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;49235670]Shit can happen even in the most peaceful places in the world. Better have it and not need it, etc.[/QUOTE]
Yes but providing guns for everybody might stimulate bad shit to happen. How else would you explain the relative safety of Europe?
Do we have a motive yet?
Hey I don't have time to catch up on this story from work, could someone help me out?
Did they catch the third guy? Did they establish a motive? Do they know how the guns were acquired? I'm really curious to know, thanks.
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49235675]Yes but providing guns for everybody might stimulate bad shit to happen. How else would you explain the relative safety of Europe?[/QUOTE]
How can you explain the relative safety of New Zealand? 35 guns per 100 people, no registration for most firearms, own an AR15 at 16.
[QUOTE=Bathacker;49235679]Hey I don't have time to catch up on this story from work, could someone help me out?
Did they catch the third guy? Did they establish a motive? Do they know how the guns were acquired? I'm really curious to know, thanks.[/QUOTE]
1) Not sure
2) No
3) Legally but possible straw purchase
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
Not to mention if they did have "automatic weapons" those are so banned in California, that they would face massive penalties simply for bringing them in.
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49235675]Yes but providing guns for everybody might stimulate bad shit to happen. How else would you explain the relative safety of Europe?[/QUOTE]
Dunno, everyone down here with a clean criminal record can file some paperwork, wait for some lazy-ass bureaucrats to process his license, and then buy himself a sizable arsenal. Our only limitations are pretty much "no machineguns, no grenade launchers, and no more than three handguns and/or military-looking rifles, any other long weapon you can own infinite". We're fine.
[QUOTE=download;49235683]How can you explain the relative safety of New Zealand? 35 guns per 100 people, no registration for most firearms, own an AR15 at 16.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Except under supervision of a licence holder, owning or using firearms requires a firearms licence from the police. The licence is normally issued, under the conditions that the applicant has secure storage for firearms, attends a safety program administered by the Mountain Safety Council and passes a written safety test. The police will also interview the applicant and two referees (one must be a close relative and the other not related) to determine whether the applicant is "fit and proper" to have a firearm. The applicant's residence is also visited to check that they have appropriate storage for firearms and ammunition. Having criminal associations or a history of domestic violence almost always leads to a licence being declined.[/QUOTE]
That probably, tight control and background checks. Yes, there's no registration but you do need a licence which only makes sense. It's not the thing you need to register, it's the person owning/using it. I mean, safety programs, interviews, etc. probably helps a lot.
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49235715]That probably, tight control and background checks. Yes, there's no registration but you do need a licence which only makes sense. It's not the thing you need to register, it's the person owning/using it. I mean, safety programs, interviews, etc. probably helps a lot.[/QUOTE]
All those things also exclude you from owning a firearm in the US.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;49235706] no more than three military-looking semiautos[/QUOTE]
That's a major problem when it comes to "assault weapons" laws in the US. They're feel-good and ineffective.
The most infamous was the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which failed to do anything to stop the Columbine shooting in 1999, which all of the weapons were considered legal by the AWB.
[QUOTE=OvB;49235656]owning guns is clearly not a right, as we already have laws in place that restrict people from buying them for certain reasons. Gun ownership is a privilege, just like driving or whatever else. The law already has provisions in place that allow for it to be taken away.
That doesn't mean that I think further restriction is going to do anything to stop actual gun violence when the country is already saturated with firearms. If you want to have results you got to target the crime, not the tool.[/QUOTE]
Guns are definitely a privilege that need to be respected more in this country. It's hard to believe they are a human right because the implications of every U.S resident having one is absurd. But I do believe it's more of a right to have the [B]privilege[/B] to be granted access to use one/ get the correct training in the event that you know it could actually save your life. I think that makes a bit more sense. We should have the privilege to get firearms under the circumstance that you get cleared for access to one just like another person should have to be cleared for access too.
But I'm still wrapping my head around how to make things better
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49235715]That probably, tight control and background checks. Yes, there's no registration but you do need a licence which only makes sense. It's not the thing you need to register, it's the person owning/using it. I mean, safety programs, interviews, etc. probably helps a lot.[/QUOTE]
As a gun-friendly person, I am appalled to see that Illinois is the only place with a license to purchase firearms.
Simplistic licensing, checks and waiting periods could help a shitload. Would it irk some people? Sure. But it's not a registry, it's not a sweep feelgood ban, and it's not "we're taking things away".
[QUOTE=download;49235724]All those things also exclude you from owning a firearm in the US.[/QUOTE]
Yes but it seems a lot easier to come by a license in America.
latest details I've seen
- The investigation of at a home in Redlands continues, with more than two dozen FBI agents combing the home and its garage, according to federal officials. FBI officials say it is likely the home will yield answers as to what motivated the shooting.
-- Dozens of federal agents and local police are scouring the mass shooting scene in the Inland Regional Center.
-- The scene where police shot the shooters remains blocked off and a smashed SUV is still in the middle of San Bernardino Avenue. Forensic experts are still examining the scene.
[QUOTE=download;49235533]An adult can choose to take the risk they'll accidentally be shot by police.[/QUOTE]
An adult can choose to take the risk of getting shot by another bystander with a gun, an adult can choose to further confuse the situation when someone inevitably reports the other person with a gun they saw and make it seem like there are more shooters than there are, an adult can choose to make the situation even worse spreading further panic when more people who aren't readily identifiable as not being the culprit.
An adult can choose to make any situation far worse but I don't see anyone arguing in favor of people doing it. An adult can choose to jump into the rushing river to try and save the drowning child, an adult can choose to jump into the trench to save his buddy who fell and broke his leg, and an adult can choose to enter the confined space to save the trapped worker before confirming it's safe. Sure you can choose to do these things and they sound like the heroic thing to do on paper, but in the end all they do is cause more casualties than an actual organized response would.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49235742]An adult can choose to take the risk of getting shot by another bystander with a gun, an adult can choose to further confuse the situation when someone inevitably reports the other person with a gun they saw and make it seem like there are more shooters than there are, an adult can choose to make the situation even worse spreading further panic when more people who aren't readily identifiable as not being the culprit.
An adult can choose to make any situation far worse but I don't see anyone arguing in favor of people doing it. An adult can choose to jump into the rushing river to try and save the drowning child, an adult can choose to jump into the trench to save his buddy who fell and broke his leg, and an adult can choose to enter the confined space to save the trapped worker before confirming it's safe. Sure you can choose to do these things and they sound like the heroic thing to do on paper, but in the end all they do is cause more casualties than an actual organized response would.[/QUOTE]
Find an example or trend of this happening with the tens of millions of licensed CCW holders in the US.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49235725]That's a major problem when it comes to "assault weapons" laws in the US. They're feel-good and ineffective.[/QUOTE]
I know, the funny part is that they introduced it only this year. Before that, them scary salt rifles were still in the "unlimited" category and everything was still fine. But all of a sudden, lefty fearmongering happened. Sucks.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49235732]As a gun-friendly person, I am appalled to see that Illinois is the only place with a license to purchase firearms.
Simplistic licensing, checks and waiting periods could help a shitload. Would it irk some people? Sure. But it's not a registry, it's not a sweep feelgood ban, and it's not "we're taking things away".[/QUOTE]
I'll say again, I love guns as much as the next bubba, but would it not make sense to have firearms require a training course and license to own and operate? Banning pistol grips and bayonet lugs is just a ridiculous method to get more easy votes from the left for politicians without actually solving the problem.
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49235675]Yes but providing guns for everybody might stimulate bad shit to happen. How else would you explain the relative safety of Europe?[/QUOTE]
Well Switzerland has gun ownership but it also has some of the best quality of life in the world and everybody is apparently happy, so there is low crime. US doesn't have a particularly good quality of life so it has lots of crime (increasing crime linked to poor economy/social breakdown/loss of industry in detroit and chicago being examples.)
So either fix the crime or lower the impact guns have on the crime (less availably of guns ~= less gun deaths).
Fixing crime requires lowering inequality, decreasing poverty, increasing quality of life, more jobs. A few of those are out of reach atm so it is VERY unlikely that crime will decrease.
So try your best to limit the impact of guns.
Attacks like this where the shooter is well armed with a good gun and body armour and has likely been training for a while will likely leave the average citizen totally out numbered, out classed and out gunned; for civilian self defence to be effective people need to be relatively well armed and well trained (always with several "good guys" near by with an available gun), this is unlikely so IMO the other option to take would be to reduce the availability of guns to crooks via gun control.
They seriously banned fucking bayonet lugs????
Most of my family's firearms have bayonet lugs and matching bayonets lol
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49235715]That probably, tight control and background checks. Yes, there's no registration but you do need a licence which only makes sense. It's not the thing you need to register, it's the person owning/using it. I mean, safety programs, interviews, etc. probably helps a lot.[/QUOTE]
My bet would be higher social stability and overall quality of life in NZ. No gun will start killing people by itself. USA is all fancy from the outside, but when you scratch the surface it has all these issues that should be reserved for third world countries, and is no wonder some people start to "rot" in this system and snap. Gun violence is just one of the symptoms, not a core problem I would say.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49235766]Well Switzerland has gun ownership but it also has some of the best quality of life in the world and everybody is apparently happy, so there is low crime. US doesn't have a particularly good quality of life so it has lots of crime (increasing crime linked to poor economy/social breakdown/loss of industry in detroit and chicago being examples.)
So either fix the crime or lower the impact guns have on the crime (less availably of guns ~= less gun deaths).
Fixing crime requires lowering inequality, decreasing poverty, increasing quality of life, more jobs. A few of those are out of reach atm so it is VERY unlikely that crime will decrease.
So try your best to limit the impact of guns.
Attacks like this where the shooter is well armed with a good gun and body armour and has likely been training for a while will likely leave the average citizen totally out numbered, out classed and out gunned; for civilian self defence to be effective people need to be relatively well armed and well trained (always with several "good guys" near by with an available gun), this is unlikely so IMO the other option to take would be to reduce the availability of guns to crooks via gun control.[/QUOTE]
What is your definition of gun control? Not picking on you particularly, but every argument for gun control I hear always throws the term around without elaborating on just how exactly they plan on getting rid of a 1 to 1 gun-to-person ratio without having fifty years worth of protests and rioting by just banning the concept of a gun.
Can I ask for a update? I read about 10 pages where two suspects got downed and 1 was running and then facepunch shit itself with gun chat making it impossible to find out anything else.
I honestly just heard about all this and want to know what's going on as I have a relative flying out there on Monday and I've got some serious anxiety issues about safety
[QUOTE=Sift;49235791]Can I ask for a update? I read about 10 pages where two suspects got downed and 1 was running and then facepunch shit itself with gun chat making it impossible to find out anything else.
I honestly just heard about all this and want to know what's going on as I have a relative flying out there on Monday and I've got some serious anxiety issues about safety[/QUOTE]
The suspects are dead. Just google the news if you have to.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49235636]This guy said it best:
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
I was literally the only guy who said it was a human right, gee, I wonder who you were talking about.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I was talking about people that don't even post here, that argue in the manner I implied? It's a big, big world, after all.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49235732]As a gun-friendly person, I am appalled to see that Illinois is the only place with a license to purchase firearms.
Simplistic licensing, checks and waiting periods could help a shitload. Would it irk some people? Sure. But it's not a registry, it's not a sweep feelgood ban, and it's not "we're taking things away".[/QUOTE]
Waiting periods haven't been shown to have a meaningful impact on anything, not even suicides.
Licensing is a bit eeh - I think you should be required to take a free safety/basic operations course and receive a little laminated plastic card verifying you've done so. Licensing systems always become convoluted and wind up being used to effectively ban ownership (UK, and US with automatics).
Our current background checks are really shitty and only required for FFL transfers, and the FBI doesn't even have to comply, in which case the sale goes through anyway. Like I said earlier in this thread, I think the FBI should be obligated to respond to the check within 3 days, and you should be able to run them for private sales, and if you didn't do one on the guy you sold the gun to and he winds up committing a crime with it, you're held as an accomplice for negligent sale.
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49235789]What is your definition of gun control? Not picking on you particularly, but every argument for control I hear always throws the turn around without elaborating on just how exactly they plan on getting rid of a 1 to 1 gun-to-person ratio without having fifty years worth of protests and rioting by just banning the concept of a gun.[/QUOTE]
What's wrong with a 1:1 gun to person ratio? You should be interested in reducing the crime rate, not the legal ownership rate. Most gun owners aren't criminals, and having lots of guns in circulation isn't inherently a bad thing as long as those guns aren't in the hands of people who will commit crimes with them.
[QUOTE=download;49235749]Find an example or trend of this happening with the tens of millions of licensed CCW holders in the US.[/QUOTE]
Clarify your question, the "tens of millions of licensed holders" is confusing me because it seems to be there for literally no reason. Find an example of someone causing confusion in an active shooter incident or just people with guns in general being confused for an active shooter?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
