"There is a lot of homicide using guns that were not legally obtained. if you say ok now all guns are illegal you only take the weapons away from people who are licensed and legal to own them. criminals still obtain weapons anyway illegally regardless."
its prisoners dilemma. if everyone hands them in, no one needs one. if only some people do, the bad people have extra motive not to as they can fuck over the people who do. youre trapped with them now. thats how people seem to feel. resigned, rather than free. i thought you were americans used to be you guys were flying to the moon and doing all sorts of cool stuff, now this? 3d printed guns? are you guys mental?
on that topic i fucking hate that 3d printed guns prick, a because he is a douche who clearly watched fight club too many times and hasnt anticipated the backlash when someone shoots kids with one of his guns, and B because if that happens and they crack down on 3d printers, we're double fucked. you can print medicine with those things, which doesnt make medicine companies happy and you know what dicks they are.
aaanyway maybe you could keep hunting and agricultural guns legal, and some sport ones, and buy handguns and machineguns from people for a good price for a while before making them very illegal. then your working with a much smaller number most of which will be hidden away like granpas Luger from the war. its a start.
regarding crims getting guns, thats probably true, speaking of big time gangsters. for the teenage kids who shoot up schools, its not, and they would be very unlikely to get assault rifles short of robbing into an army base.
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; August 15th, 2013 at 11:39 PM.
Watch out for that seductive blurry area between reality and imagination/movies. Especially if you consider yourself a rationalist.
Last edited by LaCan; August 16th, 2013 at 04:26 AM.
No one needs a hand gun except to shoot other people with and I wouldn't mind seeing them phased out. The assault rifle thing is just bull shit, an assault rifle is an automatic weapon and those are illegal and very hard and expensive to get a hold of. What people call assault rifles are just hunting rifles with a different stocks on them, they are semi-automatic like almost all rifles are. I am not for limiting magazines because they are the easiest part of a rifle to make and people will just make them that want them.
"A slight digression. Making a universal organic molecule "printer" would be theoretically impossible. It's nothing more than a printer manufacturer's wet dream, or more likely - advertising.
Watch out for that seductive blurry area between reality and imagination/movies. Especially if you consider yourself a rationalist."
sounds whacky, and im the first to admit cheapo 3d printers these days are only useful if you really like small plastic trinkets. but i can imagine the chain of events that leads to a wide crackdown on potentially useful 3d printer development in the future;
im not at all convinced you one day package all the useful compounds you need in a box or a cable and run the printer of it to make many things.
some unabomber guy prints a gun, shoots a lot of people and waves the gun at the cameras, and all the forces who dont like 3d printers will use it to make them illegal.
" I am not for limiting magazines because they are the easiest part of a rifle to make and people will just make them that want them."
well, DP ok then.
you know tho, i bet there are a million ways to make guns less fireable; maybe it knows if youre pointing it at a peson, maybe it sprays ID water everywhere like a taser, maybe its hooked into the gps..
anyone ever read Dayworld? that had a benign totalitarian government that had panopticon surveillance and virtually zero crime? most people lived peaceful fulfilling safe lives. but it was a dystopia. interesting. maybe better the dystopia you know, and maybe we wont get a choice no matter how many mags you stockpile!
actually there was a cool short story from somewhere where a street kid finds a battlefield AI-equipped pistol and uses it to take over his backwoods world...
" Especially if you consider yourself a rationalist.!
ha i wish. im just vaguely aware of how irrational i am.
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; August 16th, 2013 at 01:36 PM.
Guns don’t kill people, Gun Culture does.
If there’s ever a reason for me to arm up to the teeth it would be to “protect” myself from the very people who say they need protection from tyranny. You know, that large body of folks that thinks the antichrist is here, embodied by a black man in the White House. That extremist thinking right-wing faction of the American Gun Culture Club whose mantra is “I want my country back”. That body of folks that is buying up the most guns, per individual.
Here’s a home invasion case (one of many that didn’t end to well for the gun owning homeowner) and a little reflection on the slimy side of American Gun Cultureof a homeowner with at least one gun, who should have been a bit more cautious from experience, who couldn’t protect his family from armed intruders with a plan. It happened less than a mile down the road from my brother’s place in Arivaca, 11 miles from the US-Mexico border in Arizona (a year before my schizophrenic brother decided to blow his brains out with his legal 38 while sitting on the tailgate of his pickup watching the sunrise one morning, which was 3 years after he and his wife found a gun owning neighbor shot through the back, over a debt, with a wad of intestines blown out the front, laying on the side of the road near his home. My late brother and wife tried to resuscitate him to no avail):
911 call interrupted by a gun fight:
“Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.
Fact: A gun in the home make homicide 2.7 times more likely.”
“Most people keep guns in their homes for self-protection. The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is an important one for gun advocates, because it justifies keeping a gun in the home. But to gun control advocates, a gun in the home means that a family fight or a drinking binge is more likely to turn deadly. Which view is more accurate?
In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.”
But of course NONE of these statistics apply to YOU.
–just my scattered pennies worth of reflection on guns.
Its a weird way to use statistics but whatever. So I'm three times more likely to be killed by a gun, but since the absolute number is 3 people out of 100,000 it kind of makes that comparison meaningless. Its right up there with the aspirin I take everyday. I do agree with Bill Maher about just about everything in that video though. People are too willing to trade their freedom for security nowadays, but that is the thing about cowardice it is always so practical compared to standing up for yourself.
The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding. The rate at which they commit crimes is really small. But at the same time, so few of these people actually use them for self defense.
And there's next to nothing in place to stop people without a criminal history, but with criminal intent, from trafficking these guns into states with tight gun laws. And around 90% of the guns used in Mexico's drug war, by the cartels, are trafficked across the border from southern states. If you own a gun, you damn well better make sure it doesn't get into the wrong hands. Israel definitely has had the best solution to the problem, where every once in a while, you have to return to your local gun store to show you're still in possession of whatever firearms you purchased from there, to make sure you didn't sell it or "lose" it. Which is basically how every criminal gets their guns.
I also do believe that sometimes force is the only way to deal with a corrupt government. But with where we're at right now, guns aren't the answer to government over stepping its bounds, political reform and activism is. The best scenario is the one that doesn't involve shooting or getting shot at.
My page on Facebook. Check it out!
survivalists who think stockpiling guns gives them a strategically viable position against an armed forces that runs nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers are mental.
in the event of unrest (unlikely as the US's median age is well above 30) if i were a general id target them specifically and with extreme prejudice. ie an airstrike
watch the news coming out of syria to see how much fun that is.
the things that made america great; its optimism, its love of science, its moderate religion, its reliance on democracy, all the guys like Lincoln and Jefferson, seems to be being replaced by insanity, where rights written into the constitution to protect people in a wild and untamed land are now, in a land almost entirely tamed, leading to the needless and horrifying deaths of thousands of people.
America seems, to quote a famous gun enthusiast to have "forgotten the face of its father."
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; August 17th, 2013 at 07:48 PM.
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
At no point in this paragraph does it advocate owning military grade weaponry, again, this word association that seems to be embedded in the American psyche whereby "security" and "gun" seem to be related is more about hundreds of years of conditioning, and leads me to believe that it will be many generations from now before we even begin to take action against this issue.
It has already been mentioned, but surely the obvious focal point being that, legislation relating to the right to own a weapon in order to protect one’s land and family was set down at a time when the country was an unknown land, with numerous risks from the natives, and the inhabitants of the natural world, so how is this applicable today?
A number of you have given examples of family members requiring protection while operating businesses, or living in dangerous neighbourhoods, I fully appreciate the sentiment behind this thinking, however, you don’t put out a fire by fuelling the flames.
The points that need to be addressed are; the evident lack of trust in the local police force in these areas, the insecurity of the civilian population in regards to living their day-to-day lives in these areas; how can we accommodate there safety without arming them? And the depiction of firearms in advertising, which I believe is a common occurrence in America.
Far from pouring in hardware to the local security forces, you should be funding civilian programs that discourage ownership of firearms, with specific focus on school programmes, and rehabilitation programmes for prisoners.
The fight should take place within the minds of the people, and not on the streets.
1) the concept of euphemism
2) the concept of "reading between the lines"
And yeah, really weird that psychological association between "security" and "guns", knowing that in all of the recent history no member of "security forces" was ever seen wielding "guns".
If youíve been drinking and driving, and have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.1, you are 7 times more likely to cause a fatal car crash than if you were sober. In 2010 more than 3 out of every 100,000 Americans were killed in drunk driving fatalities (without factoring in a specific BAC). 3 deaths/100,000! Thatís a ridiculous drop in the bucket, right! Who needs stinking drunk driving laws!! [as you argue your case to the arresting officer processing you on a vehicular homicide charge].
If you're referring to our constitutional right to bear arms, then you have you are confused indeed. Most 3rd world countries do not have the right to bear arms. It's impossible for a totalitarian government to rule over a population that can shoot back.
Once again I will explain this to you. Fast cars, alcohol, tobacco and junk food can all be listed under more alarming statistics, that you can make the same arguments against. We don't NEED any of those things either, but we like them or at least I do.
I think youre confused. but i dont think its your fault. everyone you respect from childhood has told you that guns = freedom. taking our guns is the same as taking our right to live and party as we wish.
thats the problematic part, becuase everyone loves freedom, but quite a lot of people would also like freedom from idiots with guns. and the only way you can ensure the vast majority of idiots cant get guns is make sure no one can get them.
we've been over ad nauseum the old lie that if Klebolds want guns they will get them, simply because it is practically impossible for a kid to buy a working AK47. i dont mean 'practically impossible' as a way of saying 'really difficult' either. i mean practically it is totally impossible for a kid to get an AK47.
in america, this is simply not the case.
this happened a few hours ago
School clerk talks man out of US school shooting
"A recording from a 911 call on Tuesday reveals how a school clerk in Georgia, USA, successfully talked an armed man from shooting in a school.
Antoinette Tuff, a school clerk in the Ronald E McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Georgia, placated Michael Brandon Hill, who was brandishing an AK-47."
people like you need to complete the thought you are too coy (or in denial) to express; you like guns and (pretend) you dont mind that kids are needlessly killed by kids with them. you never frame it in a sentence instead dancing around it with how you like fast cars fast food (and guns) and to hell with the consequences!.. dont follow through. because wording it that way is less offensive, and admitting it frankly is tantamount to admitting you have deep disaccociative psychological issues, in your mind. i actually dont think youre that mental at all, i think you seem like a normal person, but one who hasnt properly thought through what you would see and experience were you right now standing in the middle of the attack on Sandyhook. youre blocking it out with bravado about fast cars and freedom. childrens teeth and hands are being shattered and shredded by bullets. maybe you dont have brothers or sisters and can therefore be blase about their perishing in such a wayt, but i find it entirely easy and infinitely horrifying to imagine my kid sisters in that class. it does little to diminish my repugnance for guns, or morons who just like guns cos huhuh theyre cool and stuff, huhuh like fast cars! (what fast car do you have anyway plz)
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; August 24th, 2013 at 11:03 AM.
"everyone you respect from childhood has told you that guns = freedom"
My experience is quite contrary. It's actually quite frowned upon. You don't know shit about the reality of our culture. Our school system indoctrinates us from a young age to hate guns along with drugs, tobacco, sex and alcohol. They teach the 2nd amendment as if it were a lack of foresight. They typically mistake it for the right to hunt indians.
"and to hell with the consequences!"
The consequences of waving our rights to bear arms in the long term would be irresponsible. It's not about the government of today or tomorrow, It's about plan B for a day that'll hopefully never come.
We are starting to wave the right to a free press, the rights to search seizure and the right to a fair trial. All without public consent under the promise that our rights are bent sparingly. The right to bear arms is the only insurance to keep those rights in place when we notice they are missing without paying close attention.
It's a bad time to have a debate over sensible gun control as much as I'd like to have one. Whistle blowers are now political prisoners under the excuse of national security. Our democratically elected president handed over his responsibilities of executive authority to the pentagon at their own discretion. Speaking of which Obama talks like a peace monger, but acts like a neocon in practice. As a matter of fact he just requested diplomatic immunity for war crimes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iGSCMraF_4
"My experience is quite contrary. It's actually quite frowned upon. You don't know shit about the reality of our culture. Our school system indoctrinates us from a young age to hate guns along with drugs, tobacco, sex and alcohol."
i see so guns represent 1 part of a 5 way rebellion against the ideology of your teachers? thats... really grown up... why not take some guns into school to show them what a big boy you are?
"The consequences of waving our rights to bear arms in the long term would be irresponsible. It's not about the government of today or tomorrow, It's about plan B for a day that'll hopefully never come.
We are starting to wave the right to a free press, the rights to search seizure and the right to a fair trial. All without public consent"
how can you WAIVE something without consent? to waive is to voluntarily not use something. thats like saying you give permission without your permission. it doesnt make any sense.
what also doesnt make any sense is your plan for all the people with their random assortment of firearms and little training to somehow magically ensure a free press, or resist a tyranical goverment of the future.
please explain the mechanisms you envisage making either of these bizarre claims possible.
the US Government has jet fighters, atomic weapons, a CDC full of biological horrors; how exactly does every idiot like you owning a pistol resist that in any practical way??
im not sure if youre aware but theres a place called Not America and in that place theres a country called Syria, where the government is currently dropping sarin on its own people. the fact that the people have a few hand guns is not helping really.
now, back to what you were saying before, are you man enough to at least have courage in your convictions and complete the thought you keep leaving coyly open ended: you like guns -even though children keep shooting other children with them-..?
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; August 24th, 2013 at 11:12 AM.
what about the zombie apocalypse? Who is going to stock all the houses we break into on supply runs with ammo and guns?
sehertu mannu narāṭu ina pānāt öagapīru ningishzidda
vk- I thought I did finish my thought. Fucked up people do fucked up things. They just happen to do fucked up things with guns some times. I can live with that. There are far worse injustices the public has to live with.
Back to the importance of the 2nd amendment.
It's not worth having an armed revolution over complex civil injustice under the surface. Most people have a hard time giving a fuck because our quality of life is pretty sweet. The NSA/FBI/CIA/DHLS have no noticeable impact on daily life. Local government is more harmful towards our basic liberties when you get down to it.
There are some very alarming laws in place that the government keeps low profile, but they could implement whenever they wanted to. Eminent Domain is one that makes me appreciate the 2nd amendment. Look into Monsanto if you need inspiration for dystopian science fiction. As deeply rooted as the corruption is, it's more than tolerable if you don't fixate on the guts of the sausage. It would be foolish to trust our system as it is with no means to physically stand up for yourself. The right to bear arms is our only condom.
Do you think you can just call the cops if the dept. of agriculture stole your house? Do you think Snowden can qualify for witness protection for testifying against the NSA? The DEA regularly assaults/abducts/robs owners of legal medical marijuana dispensaries. Should they file a report to the proper authorities? We have no choice but to tolerate it. WTF do you do when it all becomes intolerable? Get a lawyer? By the time we have those kinds of problems News Corp will have talked the public into WAIVING the right to an attorney.
Here's a "not America" example: Libya had been under a brutal dictatorship for decades. Some guns fell off a truck and within weeks there was no more dictator. It didn't turn out perfect, but there was no dictator to replace the last one.
It is nice to see peaceful protests work out. Mandella and Ghandi tactics are ideal. There should be somebody like them turning around every fucked up country. But that's not always an option. Iran tried out the whole Arab spring thing before it was cool. They just got their asses kicked. Revolution of any shape or size requires leverage.
Our military is completely overstocked with everything to dominate land, sea and air the world over. Yet we lose every fight we pick with angry goat herders, even without losing a single battle. Apparently they didn't read Sun Tzu. Anybody that wants to win will lose to anybody that needs to win. The size, capability, strategy and progress of an army only matters when there is a matched need to win.
Last edited by Raoul Duke; August 25th, 2013 at 08:37 AM.
After my last post I wanted to follow up with this.
We still lead the world in science, engineering, higher education and the arts. Our religious beliefs are more moderate than ever. Every day you see immigrants from the world's most unforgiving places running their own business and succeeding.
There are these incomplete pictures of the good old days, mirrored by the complete picture of today warts and all. The truth is lying, cheating, degenerates made this country what it is. So lying, cheating, degenerates run it. At least if you work really hard and you're sharp enough, then you can be a successful, lying, cheating degenerate too.
The US does have a rather militant culture, violent video games, violent movies, violence focussed press media, so it's only logical to stock pile weapondry.
Really the problem is culture based, it's a common belief that guns deter violence from guns, I might find that to be a bit broken in terms of logic.
to be clear I don't believe in taking away guns, because the real problem is you wouldn't feel safe. Honestly I understand I find US goverment to be rather untrust worthy as a whole.
my 2 cents
Well this is because the USA has enough arrogance to pass the world thirty-three times. Bouncing words around does not make you the world supreme overlords. The issue is you have not had a real war with a real rival for over 50 years, but the arrogance since that period seems to still be in full-swing.
Losing to goat herders probably validated my point that USA is no longer the top rooster. They are even afraid of their own people and the people are afraid of them, having to bear arms.
I'm not against the USA. I love so many things about the country. It just reminds me of a brute that taunts its rival before a big fight, but with the USA its taunting all the time for more than 4 decades and more.
rist- If you look at our history, none of this is new. I'd rather have a modest foreign policy and a modest military.
I will say there are certain trades where carrying a gun might be wise. Anything where you are on your own with lots of cash can be dangerous. I was a delivery driver and cab driver for a while. I never felt the need to carry a gun, but there were a couple situations where I could empathize with anyone that did. Those things are rolling cash registers. That's why you don't see so many female cab drivers.
other things that are 'new' are countrywide police, supermarkets, and 310 million more people.
youre still going but you already framed your argument in terms of hard statistics perfectly:
-The military industrial complex. I believe I've talked about that at length already.
-Some people are above the law in every sense of the meaning http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paZi27CAMVU
The mass shootings are a mental health issue. Numerous red flags went unwaved.
Call me cold blooded, but I think parents should stop buying guns for their mentally disturbed kids. Adam Lanza was on suicide watch. There was even a court order to have all sharp objects removed from the house.
James Holmes had been detained for a 72 hour psychological evaluation as well. It was kept confidential and the record remains sealed. It didn't show up in his background check. It's the same story with the Virginia Tech shooting. Students and faculty at Columbine had been threatened beforehand.
I think gun merchants should be held accountable for guns that wind up in the hands of criminal organizations. Here's a statistic for ya
Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers.
youre quoting statistics now? LOL!
you know how to prevent crooked gun dealers? ban gun dealers. you keep saying it doesnt work, an opinion reality doesnt share as evidenced by the uk with its 37 odd gun murders a year.
"I think parents should stop buying guns for their mentally disturbed kids"
but its their right under the second amendment as a corner stone of Freedom! (tm)! and you already said youre totally cool with the murders anyway, so stop chipping away at their rights commie.
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; August 28th, 2013 at 04:49 AM.
You can argue videogames made these fucked up kids shoot up the schools. They glorify the massacre hundreds of people. You typically murder everyone you see. But we all know how invalid that "murder simulator" argument is. It's up to the parents.
I believe in practical restriction. We can't just buy grenades and bazookas. You actually need a spotless record to own an assault rifle.
Nobody is arguing against background checks. Mental health status should be included. The laundering and sale of illegal weapons should be put on a higher priority of prosecution than the drugs they are associated with. Most of the laws on the books are poorly enforced. The ATF doesn't even have a functional hierarchy.
I know it's hard for you to comprehend proof of consent, so let me explain. You suckers gotta bow down to the queen to prove your obedience. That's your agreement. I'm not judging it. But that's the fundamental difference.
The phrase "keep calm and carry on" served a very sad purpose. If Hitler toppled the English regime, you'd just have to learn German and bow down to your new master. WWII was only 70 years ago. No way would I ever concede to that massive vulnerability.
Banning all guns or even just handguns wouldn't work in America for the same reason prohibition didn't work. Too many people would resist it. But, I definitely support limits on gun purchases, of the type supported by the Daily Show - real background checks - including at gun shows, waiting periods, no assault rifles, no internet sales, etc. A whole new issue coming up now is printable guns. Pretty soon it seems the world's going to get way too hectic to legislate...