• Thousand Oaks parent: 'I don’t want thoughts and prayers. I want gun control.'
    145 replies, posted
Nah dawg, Coydog just has alternate facts. If you just surrender all agency to defend yourself to the government, even if you're the 20% of americans living out in places where police response time is 20-40 minutes, all of America's problems with gun violence will be solved, people who are suicidal will stop killing themselves, people who want to commit mass violence won't just find some other way to do so, and gangs will stop existing so much and will not have any access to guns ever! If you just remove gang violence from the equation places with full bans are 100% successful in what they do, and there are absolutely no other factors to consider when thinking about a complex issue such as this one.
Nuclear power was not designed with the express intent to murder and destroy. GPS was not designed with the express intent to murder and destroy. The Internet was not designed with the express intent to murder and destroy. These are fallacies. I'm not scared of guns. I think guns are super cool. I have a bundle of replicas because I like the visual appeal. I make first-person shooters for a living. I just don't think anybody needs a gun. "without glassing everything" You pretty much answered your own rhetorical there. For homicides, yes. "creative intent" - yes, let me make you a painting with my glock 17 The use case is irrelevant because it's not a necessity nor something that can't be substituted with non-lethal firearms. Want to go on a shooting range? Get an air rifle. Well, duh, of course people will take the most effective form of self-defense when it's available. If I could build a self-destruct into my home that would blow it up in case the Russians invade then I'd probably do that if it was legal as a last-ditch effort to aid the resistance in its fight against the invasion, but I'm not gonna cry to the government that I'm not allowed to do so.
Nuclear Power is the express development from the Manhattan Project, which we all know what happened to that. GPS was developed for better missile accuracy The internet I misstepped on, however I can swap it out for Ballistics, Jet Engines, and Digital Photography. I just don't think anybody needs a gun. So what gives you thinking anyone NEEDS a gun better priority than all the cases and statistics we have given to you that shows the opposite? "without glassing everything" You pretty much answered your own rhetorical there. my point is that the military firing upon US citizens is a much more complex and hard situation than your thought process of "lol rednecks can't beat mindless drones and tanks that are also controlled by Americans". And if it does get that far, good luck quelling that without destroying the goodwill of people on the sidelines and other countries, while also losing a good chunk of your own military power. For homicides, yes. Suicides will still happen and can be decreased without blindly restricting guns. The use case is irrelevant because it's not a necessity nor something that can't be substituted with non-lethal firearms. Want to go on a shooting range? Get an air rifle. Good luck shooting past 100 yards. Air rifles can still kill, too. Shooting an air rifle is a completely different experience too. And when any chosen gun has less than a .01% chance of killing, why should I use an inferior product? My chef's knife has a higher chance of killing someone than a rifle.
I guess I can't answer for GPS, but nuclear power was invented before the Manhattan Project. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/The%20History%20of%20Nuclear%20Energy_0.pdf I suppose it doesn't, but the cases and statistics don't show that you couldn't use something other than a gun. A gun is effective, sure. You could eliminate vermin from your house by blowing it up, doesn't necessarily make it a good course of action. So why even bother, basically? And so we circle back; gun ownership is basically a fetish. Being a "different experience" isn't a good enough reason. It's a "different experience" to fire a rocket launcher too, yet they're not legal. Select the part you want to quote (don't double-click, just click and drag) then click reply. It creates a quote of just the highlighted text. You can do this several times to the same post and it makes a new quote for each highlighted bit.
They are actually
Don't forget WWII thru Vietnam era flamethrowers. Or any flamethrower for that matter, depending on state.
However, the first fission reactor was rolled into the Manhatten Project, and kickstarted the worlds use of it. It's analogue is gunpowder. This does not make sense at all. Why do we need to be inefficient, when a supreme majority of the "problem" is never a problem? You are being absurd. Absurdity is not a good debating tactic. Yeah. Why bother. Fuck health care. As Grendiac said, they are. You are also being dismissive. You are already set against guns, so you refuse to look at the statistics and other reasons why they are perfectly reasonable. Thank you so much. Have a heart. I swear to god the last time I tried that it just quoted the whole post.
Soooo you're a single-issue voter. Why am I not surprised. Wouldn't those numbers be skewed by the sheer number of guns this country possesses? Which if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the guns owned in this country belong to people who already own multiple fire-arms. Okay, let's dissect these one at a time. First, you're equating nuclear generators with nuclear bombs. That's Hollywood gimmick talk. There is an irrefutable difference between "Intended to, during normal operation and usage, destroying/irradiating a massive area" and "intended to, during normal operation and usage, generating a metric fuck-tonne of power" (don't summon SnowMew by bringing up nuclear disaster, that's been done to death and it won't look good for you). Show applications for guns (not BB guns, not airsoft guns, not NERF guns, not bean-bags GUNS guns, as in what an American fire-arms owner is likely to own for "self defense", "hunting", or whatever other excuse you can find that fuels the zealous defense for them) that, during normal operation procedures and usage, isn't intended to destroy whatever you're pointing the thing at, and you may have some credence. But I'm inclined to predict it'll be absolutely minuscule compared to what the gun, from its inception as a shitty tube with crappy powder to put holes in plate-mail centuries ago, is designed to do. So if you can find an example where guns transitioned from "I put holes in you " to "Now I generate electrical energy on a large scale", you might have a point. Second, GPS was utilized in weapons later in its life-cycle. Its original intended purpose was for navigation for ground, air, and naval forces. GPS-guided munitions wouldn't be a thing until after the Gulf War. We used lasers first because early GPS wasn't all that accurate. Once it was made available to the public sector, it saw massive usage in peaceful applications. GPS satellites themselves aren't designed to destroy anything during normal operating procedures, unlike a fire-arm or a bomb. Third, neither the Internet, jet engines, or digital photography are designed/intended to destroy anything during normal operating procedures. The Internet is a redundancy measure that applies itself very well to civilian application, jet engines are just a progression of the old ICE propellor-propulsion systems for aircraft that also apply very well to civilian application, and other than oxygen and fuel (and perhaps ear-drums) isn't designed to destroy anything. Digital photography is a natural progression of ye olde photographye that, again, is incapable by itself of destroying anything. Ballistics has been developed ever since we discovered we can put a sharp point on a stick and chuck that motherfucker as hard as we could to kill something, and fire-arms are a natural progression of that technological lineage, which, again, is intended to destroy what you're pointing it at. Fucking hell, even gun powder itself was an "oopsie doodles" in the search for immortality, and saw uses other than military applications before someone decided "hey we can put arrow heads on these rockets..." (the Chinese used firecrackers to ward of evil spirits during festivals and celebrations). The first confirmed reference to what can be considered gunpowder in China occurred more than three hundred years later during the Tang dynasty, first in a formula contained in the Taishang Shengzu Jindan Mijue (太上聖祖金丹秘訣) in 808, and then about 50 years later in a Taoist text known as the Zhenyuan miaodao yaolüe (真元妙道要略).[5] The first formula was a combination of six parts sulfur to six parts saltpeter to one part birthwort herb. The Taoist text warned against an assortment of dangerous formulas, one of which corresponds with gunpowder: "Some have heated together sulfur, realgar (arsenic disulphide), and saltpeter with honey; smoke [and flames] result, so that their hands and faces have been burnt, and even the whole house burned down."[5] Alchemists called this discovery fire medicine ("huoyao" 火藥), and the term has continued to refer to gunpowder in China into the present day, a reminder of its heritage as a side result in the search for longevity increasing drugs.[9] The earliest surviving chemical formula of gunpowder dates to 1044 in the form of the military manual Wujing Zongyao, also known in English as the Complete Essentials for the Military Classics, which contains a collection of factoids on Chinese weaponry.[10][11] The Wujing Zongyao served as a repository of antiquated or fanciful weaponry, and this applied to gunpowder as well, suggesting that it had already been weaponized long before the invention of what would today be considered conventional firearms. These types of gunpowder weapons styles an assortment of odd names such as "flying incendiary club for subjugating demons," "caltrop fire ball," "ten-thousand fire flying sand magic bomb," "big bees nest," "burning heaven fierce fire unstoppable bomb," "fire bricks" which released "flying swallows," "flying rats," "fire birds," and "fire oxen". Eventually they gave way and coalesced into a smaller number of dominant weapon types, notably gunpowder arrows, bombs, and guns. This was most likely because some weapons were deemed too onerous or ineffective to deploy.[12]
Kinda like your entire arguement
US gun control is "We have background checks" *looks at amount paid to confirm* "Ok background check complete"
The second amendment is the law of tyrant militias. [–]forpath1284 points 23 hours ago  No second election. There was one election already. McSally won. Dems tried to steal via fraud. End of story. I swear, I don't want it, but this open election fuckery if tolerated will be the spark that starts a civil war one way or another. If the ballot box no longer works, then there's only one other recourse. [–]CNN_Can_Dox_My_Balls45 points 23 hours ago  They gotta understand that they are speeding recklessly towards open warfare. [–]Atrand759 points 23 hours ago  It's over. this is it, THIS is the turning point. Mid terms are over, and trump gave them 2 fucking years to play nice. Mid terms are over, sessions lame duck ass is fired and now it's on. totally on, not just a little because we have to wait for mid terms. we have the senate and there are MANY MANY people who are sick to death of this bullshit going on. Stop this madness now. Fuck it all. something extreme needs to happen in order to protect our elections and our future. Jail every single person that had anything to do with this. if any finances are connected to the dnc? jail them all. I don't give a shit anymore. I seriously do not. I have reached by boiling point. Fuck them ALL! you push a good man too far, and you will SEE unleashed hell upon your ass. [–]ONE_MAN_MILITIA23 points 22 hours ago  Options: 1. Soap Box 2. Ballot Box <----- we're here 3. Ammo Box [–]HillDocAMAx585 points 23 hours ago  Yeah, this is it fam. Get prepped. [–]IncredibleMrE148 points 23 hours ago  Democrats are trying their best to turn our beautiful Country into a shithole. Fight to the death. [–]TGordonShumway3 points 23 hours ago  Glad I just bought all that Ammo
that's not how the background checks work, like, at all. A request is submitted to NICS, either by phone or internet. It checks for these things: Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Is a fugitive from justice; Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution; Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship; Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33) Problems arise when NICS isn't updated with the latest information, such as in the case of Dylan Roof.
Sure, you can multiply that figure by 2x or 3x if you want and you still get an infinitesimally small percent. And Coydog equated using a gun for self defense to using a hand grenade to kill a rat in the home I already explained to you that people aren't only allowed to have what they need, such thinking is dystopic. Moot point and silly comparison, obviously using a gun to defend is a good course of action, based on the success rate.
I'm being a smartass, obviously that isn't how it literally works. No one would actually think that is how it actually works. There have been cases where background checks have failed. Just look at the Texas church shooter, Devin Kelley. He was discharged for violent conduct and legally got firearms. I don't know what they do for background checks there, but he shouldn't have gotten them at all. From what I understand though the air-force didn't report the issue during a check, so check itself may have not been the thing that fucked up. When fuck ups like this happen, it seriously makes me wonder if we run ANY checks. How does the airforce fuck up that hard.
Can’t we just conclude that Europe and the US are just too different when it comes to this or something? I think in most European countries you wouldn’t be able to use a gun in self defense the way you can in America, even. In many European countries you can’t just shoot someone for breaking in.
I can't help but notice how in virtually any negative news thread concerning the US (see: anything about healthcare, life expectancy, civil rights, etc), Europeans are quick to say that the US is basically a third world nation- unless it's a gun thread, and then suddenly we're a developed peer and our violence is judged on that standard.
What do you consider yourselves?
And you expect this small percentage of the population to win against a tyranny-led army and armed civilian fanatics twice or thrice more numerous than them?
i think this is arguing in bad faith. i never said anything about healthcare, life expectancy, or civil rights - and for that matter the only thing i think the average state is behind on is healthcare (and not for lack of want, either), and as far as i'm concerned almost every country in Europe has civil rights issues and elements that leave me ashamed. that aside, whether or not the US is a "peer" (whatever that means) doesn't change the fact that it clearly has the potential to do better, doesn't it? i'm not posting here just because i think the US is some third-world hellhole and i want to rub it in and flex my Eurotrash pretensions on you. you guys have a problem and i think a solution exists within your country. i don't see why i'm not allowed to point out a misleading graph just because i happen to be from the wrong continent.
Percent compared to total guns, yes, but a percentage taken from a massive number is still going to be a massive number. I'm also interested in knowing where you got your figures from. If that's JUST mass-shootings, then that's ignoring a massive part of the problem we face in terms of guns in this country. According to the figures you provided (0.000027%), that's "only" 8,370 people per-year. But total gun deaths, including suicide, were 35,000 in 2015, and on the rise. That's per-year. So your numbers don't account for at least 75% of gun-related deaths in this country, if that is in fact where your numbers came from.
In the case of Devin Kelley, the Air Force failed to relay his court martial to the FBI.
In these threads it's always people bashing how gun control doesn't work,and how stripping away the ownership of guns would actually cause more shootings. Alright,if that's the case,what's your solution? Because I never see any purposed solutions from people who say that.
Never look, never see.
So it wasn't even a background check issue There issue was even deeper and worse
Pretty sure I actually managed to mix you up with Zombinie somehow, lol. Sorry about that. I know it's ineffective because I have this thing called an understanding of American culture. Oddly enough if you have that you can quite accurately predict how American citizens are most likely to react in such a situation. And going off past precedent for less stringent limitations it would be an extremely poor reaction. So if you'd like to cause outright rebellion and a lot of violence, sure. Let's go with your poorly thought out idea. Also sorry to tell you this but I don't even own a gun nor am I conservative. Why is it ideal to ban guns? Ideally you wouldn't need to ban guns because they're simply not an issue, no? Nobody needs a car, internet, video games, [insert other luxury here], that's a fact. So you'd be perfectly fine with banning all those things, right? Cause clearly in your eyes the only thing that matters when banning something is whether or not you need it. Cars kill people, the internet has helped radicalize plenty of people which has resulted in death and injury to innocent people, video games apparently cause people to go on shooting sprees. All those things are unnecessary and dangerous so I vote we ban them all. So... A tool that wasn't designed to kill yet kills and injures far more than a tool designed to kill is somehow not an issue? Cause I'm having trouble following you here. How is that somehow less of a problem than a tool intended to kill? A tool not intended to kill should kinda be safe, no? And it should especially be safer than a tool that's intended to kill. So if it fails at that then there's clearly a problem. Thus we need to ban cars. But you just can't know until you try!!! My moral position is superior to yours even though I'm totally disregarding any and all arguments otherwise!!!!!!!! And those countries are not the freaking United States. That is WHY this will not work. You already have hundreds of millions of firearms out there and they are primarily in the hands of people who are not going to give them up if we simply outlawed them. Get this through your thick fucking skull already. If you tried to ban them these people would get violent. For someone who's trying to act morally superior and imply your solution is the only nonviolent one you sure seem dead set on ensuring shit loads of completely unnecessary bloodshed. Right, that guy totally can't fire a gun when getting pepper sprayed. That couldn't possibly backfire. Nor could a taser which commonly fails to actually work properly. You're right, it is a dumb as fuck argument. But you keep digging your heels in and refusing to listen to a thing anyone says. Don't forget that it's technically legal in many places to own tanks too. Clearly you haven't bothered actually reading those threads because people give solutions every damned time.
I read this thread a little bit and i gotta ask why when someone says stricter laws on gun ownership, people start to show examples like canada or brazil. Thats their problem and slacky control, whos to say america also will fail to check properly?
You either leave America, or live there long enough to become victim of a gun shot Friedrich Nietzche or something.
That is so insanely reductive that I'd go as far as to call it a flat out fucking lie
(Mobile sticky quote) The fuck you can, man, you either made all up, or you believed it when one of your friends told you while extolling the virtues of the Military industrial complex. None of what you just said is true. It's actually such an interesting statement that I'd like to see @Zombinie explain himself
Because we already fail to check properly. I don't know what you're trying to say. All that I mentioned were developed by militaries to further aspects of war, and all have found civilian uses. No it's not. Notice I specifically said rifle, because rifle's are what the proponents of gun control go after (spoopy assault weapons). https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls Handguns are another, more murky story because of gang violence and such.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.