[IMG]http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/05/us/05weapons_hp/05weapons_hp-master675.jpg[/IMG]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?_r=0[/url]
The murder weapons
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49246441]Sounds like a call to improve the police force rather than let the citizens take "justice" into their own hands. Violent crime will happen, but rather than complain about the police being slow and then do nothing to fix that, why don't you guys work on that?
A speedy police response is helpful for a shitload of reasons. Even if you already have guns.[/QUOTE]
teach me the secrets of teleportation pls
[QUOTE=sgman91;49246472]It's not "justice" it's self defense. If we were arguing for allowing gun owners to go find criminals after the fact and kill them, then "justice" might be relevant.
Also, it's unrealistic to expect police response times fast enough to be relevant in a normal home break-in scenario under any scenario.[/QUOTE]
Naturally someone from a country where you can go to jail for defending yourself successfully from a murder attempt even if you don't kill the would be murderer in the process - who wholeheartedly believes that makes sense - is not going to be reasoned with on the subject of self defense with firearms.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49246441]Sounds like a call to improve the police force rather than let the citizens take "justice" into their own hands. Violent crime will happen, but rather than complain about the police being slow and then do nothing to fix that, why don't you guys work on that?
A speedy police response is helpful for a shitload of reasons. Even if you already have guns.[/QUOTE]
That would require blanketing the country in police. The lowest response times are for privileged, affluent neighborhoods, and the worst are for isolated, rural locations. The problem isn't that they're doing a shitty job, it's that literally the only way they could be doing better is to have a cop posted at every conceivable crime location, and I don't need to tell you just how unfeasible that is.
remember, there's a reason it's simply unfeasible to cut down on response times in a lot of places
[t]http://brisray.com/isu/images/us_uk_map.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49246686]remember, there's a reason it's simply unfeasible to cut down on response times in a lot of places
[t]http://brisray.com/isu/images/us_uk_map.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Also the fact that in 2008, the nation employed a grand total of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Number_of_police"]a little over a million active police[/URL] for a population of over 300 million.
That number has been decreasing. Unless we can fix the economy and in turn the law-enforcement budget, it's going to continue getting worse, not better.
In addition, police in dense urban areas show a tendency to be overworked, underpaid, and at odds with large swathes of the community. Police in rural areas often face a different set of problems, among them laughable budgets, sub-par training and long distances to travel in order to reach crime scenes.
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49246686]remember, there's a reason it's simply unfeasible to cut down on response times in a lot of places
[t]http://brisray.com/isu/images/us_uk_map.png[/t][/QUOTE]
That's being a bit dishonest, land space itself is meaningless here. Population centres are much more important. If police take 30 minutes to reach you in a city or major town that isn't a problem caused by the entire country being fucking huge.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49246504]One by one you are being forced to admit that guns are not [B]the[/B] problem and I think you don't even realize it. Firearm homicides are a symptom of a much more severe issue, and still an incredibly minor statistic in the grand scheme of things - certainly not prevalent enough to justify criminalizing currently law abiding gun owners.[/QUOTE]
lmao I'm not being "forced to admit" shit. I've never been of the opinion that guns are 100% the cause of all your problems. They are a major enabler of violent crime however, and solving the issue of violent crime requires a lot of different approaches. Some to mitigate the potential impact (weapon restrictions) whilst the longer term societal changes (poverty relief, etc.) are implemented.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49246514]Naturally someone from a country where you can go to jail for defending yourself successfully from a murder attempt even if you don't kill the would be murderer in the process - who wholeheartedly believes that makes sense[/QUOTE]
Oh sick, are we making assumptions? Am I allowed to join in?
I've never said I like the idea of being arrested for defending yourself (and you wont be here if you actually argue your case and avoid responding with excessive force, which is turbo vague so get a remotely decent lawyer and you can probably win any case). But uses of weapons in self defence should still be investigated to ensure it was used correctly and as claimed.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49246749]I've never said I like the idea of being arrested for defending yourself (and you wont be here if you actually argue your case and avoid responding with excessive force, which is turbo vague so get a remotely decent lawyer and you can probably win any case). But uses of weapons in self defence should still be investigated to ensure it was used correctly and as claimed.[/QUOTE]
Have you actually said what you want beyond the meaningless phrase of "gun control?"
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49246749]
I've never said I like the idea of being arrested for defending yourself (and you wont be here if you actually argue your case and avoid responding with excessive force, which is turbo vague so get a remotely decent lawyer and you can probably win any case). But uses of weapons in self defence should still be investigated to ensure it was used correctly and as claimed.[/QUOTE]
What did you think that if someone shoots someone else and claims self defense the police let him go and don't investigate?
They already do exactly what you describe. No matter what the shooter goes to jail until they investigate and determine what happened.
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;49245635]The shooters were reported as white
Would it have not been safe to assume at that moment that they were, given no consistent or reliable contradiction? Did you immediately assume against all indications that the shooters were muslims?[/QUOTE]
those same people who reported that it was white people/workplace violence are also heavily far left and have their own agenda just like the far right in this situation
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;49245872]You speak of facts and ignore the fact that the UK has had two mass shootings in two decades, and the US has had two in under the span of a week. What a radical idea that somehow not having easy access to firearms makes crime with firearms less likely.[/QUOTE]
you dumb fucking brit, THERES A THING CALLED ILLEGAL GUNS THAT CAN BE BOUGHT FROM SOME RANDOM ASSHOLE
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Swebonny))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;49246853]What did you think that if someone shoots someone else and claims self defense the police let him go and don't investigate?
They already do exactly what you describe. No matter what the shooter goes to jail until they investigate and determine what happened.[/QUOTE]
Okay? That's cool. I expect that varies a bit based on the state, but I never said it never goes down that way. Just that that is the way it should be handled preferably.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49246924]Okay? That's cool. I expect that varies a bit based on the state, but I never said it never goes down that way. Just that that is the way it should be handled preferably.[/QUOTE]
Why bring it up then if it's already being handled correctly in your estimation?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49246807]Have you actually said what you want beyond the meaningless phrase of "gun control?"[/QUOTE]
Many, many times that a lot of the pro-gun side seem to conveniently forget every thread. Along with the entire previous debate it seems.
Many fatalities are sourced to handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles are generally less of a problem. Fucking hard to conceal, already fairly restricted and despite being outright more powerful they still somewhat unwieldy due to their size in more enclosed spaces.
It seems more logical to try and restrict guns that can be easily hidden and are generally quite easy to handle as shooter (kinda the point of smaller size, lower weight and caliber). This way you can still get access to shotguns and rifles for hunting and sport, but the kind of shit that actually impacts gun homicide in a massive way is more restricted.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49246944]Why bring it up then if it's already being handled correctly in your estimation?[/QUOTE]
People apparently want to know my opinion on shit so I'm just putting it out there so they don't ask later.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49246412]Yes. Call the police. They'll be there in anywhere from 5 minutes to over an hour, depending on location and serving department. In the meantime, have fun staying alive. An armed criminal only needs a [URL="http://www.self-defense-mind-body-spirit.com/average-police-response-time.html"]little over a minute[/URL] total to shoot you and leave you to bleed out on the curb, or gut you with a knife, or beat your brains out with a tire iron. But hey, at least now nobody's dying of gun violence now that they've confiscated everyone's guns, right? Right?[/QUOTE]
I prefer the pro gun stance btw.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49246972]Many, many times that a lot of the pro-gun side seem to conveniently forget every thread. Along with the entire previous debate it seems.
Many fatalities are sourced to handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles are generally less of a problem. Fucking hard to conceal, already fairly restricted and despite being outright more powerful they still somewhat unwieldy due to their size in more enclosed spaces.
It seems more logical to try and restrict guns that can be easily hidden and are generally quite easy to handle as shooter (kinda the point of smaller size, lower weight and caliber). This way you can still get access to shotguns and rifles for hunting and sport, but the kind of shit that actually impacts gun homicide in a massive way is more restricted.[/QUOTE]
I kind of agree with you on that, but at the same time I believe the major issue isn't with the type of gun so much as it is the ease with which weapons find their way into the hands of criminals. An automatic rifle or a handgun in the hands of a competent, law-abiding citizen is not a threat. Any kind of firearm in the hands of a criminal [I]is[/I]. We need to deal with the issue by handling the actual threat, rather than an adjacent factor.
I'd have no problem with a state-by-state licensing system similar to drivers licenses, so long as that licensing system weren't abused. My state, Illinois, already does this, albeit without the mandatory testing and training that goes along with a driver's license. I believe there needs to be some form of instruction and testing with firearms. Give a weapon to a safety-conscious person who knows what they're doing? No threat. Give a weapon to an ignoramus whose knowledge of firearms comes from videogames? Big. Fucking. Problem.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;49246986]I prefer the pro gun stance btw.[/QUOTE]
I know bro, I was just making a point.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49247008]I kind of agree with you on that, but at the same time I believe the major issue isn't with the type of gun so much as it is the ease with which weapons find their way into the hands of criminals. An automatic rifle or a handgun in the hands of a competent, law-abiding citizen is no threat. Any kind of firearm in the hands of a criminal [I]is[/I].[/QUOTE]
Right, the ease of access to firearms is a massive contributor to the problem. Many of the guns used in criminal activity were legally owned at some point after all. Either bought by someone else and stolen, bought by a user who then goes on to commit crime, etc. Background checks aren't going to do shit if the person buying the gun hasn't performed a criminal act yet (or been caught!) after all.
Illegal importation from other countries is a negligible at best source of illegal firearms, more guns leave the US than enter as the US has a shitload of production facilities.
Access is a massive problem and just improving the background check system isn't going to help that if the people using guns illegally just circumvent it anyway. Part of the process should really include vetting from trustworthy individuals (family, friends, etc. with no criminal record), and some check to ensure you can actually securely store the bloody thing. Seems to work well over here considering a friends father still has his three legal and one just-about-legal shotguns in their house. Preventing the theft of the guns is pretty damn key to any of this working.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49247045]Access is a massive problem and just improving the background check system isn't going to help that if the people using guns illegally just circumvent it anyway. Part of the process should really include vetting from trustworthy individuals (family, friends, etc. with no criminal record), and some check to ensure you can actually securely store the bloody thing. Seems to work well over here considering a friends father still has his three legal and one just-about-legal shotguns in their house. Preventing the theft of the guns is pretty damn key to any of this working.[/QUOTE]
I honestly just trying to understand your position here. Are you saying that you want an FBI agent to personally spend a few days investigating every person who buys a handgun including interviewing friends and family members and going to their house to check their storage system?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49247058]I honestly just trying to understand your position here. Are you saying that you wan an FBI agent to personally spend a few days investigating every person who buys a handgun?[/QUOTE]
Who said it has to be FBI? Just some group trustworthy enough to not fuck the job up when someone applies to buy a weapon. If they have a gun safe that is actually secure, awesome. That's one less thing to worry about and future purchases won't need that checking again unless they move or something.
It's not like it requires an in depth investigation into the very psyche of that person. Just asking a few trustworthy people they know "hey have they ever expressed anything like the urge to kill everyone?". The background checks combined with some kind of peer opinions shouldn't take excessive amounts of time to perform.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49247045]Right, the ease of access to firearms is a massive contributor to the problem. Many of the guns used in criminal activity were legally owned at some point after all. Either bought by someone else and stolen, bought by a user who then goes on to commit crime, etc. Background checks aren't going to do shit if the person buying the gun hasn't performed a criminal act yet (or been caught!) after all.
Illegal importation from other countries is a negligible at best source of illegal firearms, more guns leave the US than enter as the US has a shitload of production facilities.
Access is a massive problem and just improving the background check system isn't going to help that if the people using guns illegally just circumvent it anyway. Part of the process should really include vetting from trustworthy individuals (family, friends, etc. with no criminal record), and some check to ensure you can actually securely store the bloody thing. Seems to work well over here considering a friends father still has his three legal and one just-about-legal shotguns in their house. Preventing the theft of the guns is pretty damn key to any of this working.[/QUOTE]
And I agree with you on that too. There isn't much that pisses me off more than, again, total ignoramuses who decide that there isn't anything wrong with leaving their weapons lying around in the open, or stashed in a drawer next to their beds, with a magazine loaded and a round in the chamber. Even if nobody breaks in, what if your fucking kid finds it? There are way too many cases where small children have been injured or killed because they found daddy's gun and hadn't been taught that it wasn't a toy and they should not play with it. That's another reason I believe there needs to be some form of mandatory training for ownership. It won't prevent all cases, some people are lazy bastards who don't give a fuck, but it would help.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49247074]Who said it has to be FBI? Just some group trustworthy enough to not fuck the job up when someone applies to buy a weapon. If they have a gun safe that is actually secure, awesome. That's one less thing to worry about and future purchases won't need that checking again unless they move or something.[/QUOTE]
Who else would it be? The FBI are in charge of doing the background checks. Just to be clear what kind of undertaking this would be: there have been ~80 million handgun background check applications in the US from 1998 to 2012. That's ~15,000 checks a day. How exactly do you propose to do what you've said for all of those. ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us[/url])
Also note that that doesn't include any sales that didn't have a background check application.
[editline]4th December 2015[/editline]
You basically want the same kind of check for military security clearance to be done for gun buyers.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49246944]Why bring it up then if it's already being handled correctly in your estimation?[/QUOTE]
To shitpost probably.
This is Tashfeen
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/International/female-san-bernardino-shooter-tashfeen-malik/story?id=35589386[/url]
[IMG]http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_tashfeen_malik_float_jc_151204_12x5_1600.jpg[/IMG]
The news is going to eat the shit out of that picture.
people are already posting "this was an act of war, don't let democrats fool you" nonsense on facebook
Can you feel the clickbait coming on? The flowering blossoms of sensationalism? Because I personally think it feels more like the blossoming of a nuke.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49247074]Who said it has to be FBI? Just some group trustworthy enough to not fuck the job up when someone applies to buy a weapon. If they have a gun safe that is actually secure, awesome. That's one less thing to worry about and future purchases won't need that checking again unless they move or something.
It's not like it requires an in depth investigation into the very psyche of that person. Just asking a few trustworthy people they know "hey have they ever expressed anything like the urge to kill everyone?". The background checks combined with some kind of peer opinions shouldn't take excessive amounts of time to perform.[/QUOTE]
How do you determine who knows the person? How do you know they're not just sycophants? How do you know where these people live or if they're even going to be home? It's not as simple as "Just ask people he knows". Additionally, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who hasn't expressed the urge to kill someone, and it can be hard to judge whether that expression was in jest or serious. I know that in my personal experience that people who are frustrated with an individual will sometimes say that they "feel like killing them" but of course they have no intention of actually carrying out that act. In the end, peer opinions are unreliable and it's a large logistical challenge to actually travel to these peoples' homes or workplaces in order to question them every single time a firearm is purchased.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;49245767]Uh huh. Clearly everyone who has committed a mass shooting would have stopped with the intervention of mental healthcare.[/QUOTE]
When people refer to mental healthcare in reference to shootings like this they aren't just talking about access to therapists. It extends a bit further, to our dog shit prison system(highest incarceration rates in the world, pretty bad re-offense rate) and the widespread poverty issues. There are pretty clear ways to go about remedying this, decriminalization of victim-less crimes, close private prisons, focus on improved rehabilitation. Copy countries that have been very successful with their programs, there is no sense in re-inventing the wheel or testing new things when we have proof strategies work for cutting down reoffending rates and crime to begin with. Poverty is a harder problem, not in terms of how to solve it, but in terms of how to solve it when the US is dominated by a culture of selfishness and a hate for social welfare programs and a worship of the rich and nonsense ideas like the trickle down effect. Schools in poor areas are just depressingly bad, it's probably a good idea to start there.
Sure, if you somehow magically removed all the guns in america it would decrease overall violent crime rates(and make "gun violence" nil, but that number is irrelevant, the total violence is whats important) simply because guns are more efficient murder weapons. Violent crimes would continue though, getting rid of guns doesnt remove the motives, and the question becomes one of cost effeciency and viability when it comes to clearing an entire nation of guns. Is it even possible? Even if you tried, there are enough guns in america to sustain a black market gun trade for a century. There are countries with very high gun ownership rates that have low violent crime rates. On the other hand, you have very clear goals that should probably be accomplished anyway when it comes to poverty, prisons, and mental healthcare, which will with a high degree of certainty decrease violent crime by a significant amount.
I felt i should mention I have no interest in guns and have significant disdain for certain pro-gun groups. However, the whole gun debate is just so fucking plainly irrelevant that it drives me mad.
So my grandpa used to work there.
Gonna ask him if he knew anyone there cause he like just attended a retirement dinner a week ago.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49246509][IMG]http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/05/us/05weapons_hp/05weapons_hp-master675.jpg[/IMG]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?_r=0[/url]
The murder weapons[/QUOTE]
Collapsible stocks, pistol grips, threaded muzzles, bayonet lug on one.
Those guns definitely don't follow CA's laws regarding assault weapons.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49250262]Collapsible stocks, pistol grips, threaded muzzles, bayonet lug on one.
Those guns definitely don't follow CA's laws regarding assault weapons.[/QUOTE]
None of these features are illegal at all if a bullet button device is installed. My friend owns a fully outfitted CA legal AR-15.
...The only drawback is that you can remove the device in 5 minutes with minimal tools lol.. So it's not like it's gonna actually stop anyone.
Also according to CNN the weapons were modified to be fully automatic, so a bullet button getting removed was really the least of our worries.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
