Freedumb

[Sean Renaud]

I sadly don't carry placards of dead babies though at this point you're making it clear those wouldn't have an effect on you either. But no this isn't God Hates Fags territory.

The 9/11 actions were over reaching. But we didn't say we couldn't have a conversation or we couldn't do anything. This time we have had that ignorant attitude.

Sure ban handguns for cops if for no other reason than to shut up Conservatives who scream about disarming the populace but not the police. The military is even something to discuss. Not unless you're going to start advocating that I should be able to own tanks, nukes and jets if I can afford them.

Yes, you should have to give up the right to defend yourself and depend on 911 if you're too stupid to find other ways around it. Or you know find a better place to do business or a better way. It's not really my fault you're stupid.

No it's not a false equivalency. You apparently don't even know what that phrase means. I am advocating your right to carry a rifle and/or shotgun in an open carry situation. It is threatening and confrontational. Which by both Conservative logic and real logic makes it superior to concealed carry. If an armed society is a polite one surely knowing for certain one is armed is superior to thinking maybe this guy is so I best be polite!

Again I call bullshit. Some combination of nobody died or was seriously injured or your flat out lying. Drunk driving doesn't fit the narrative but they make the local news. Hell every single death makes the Obits.

And again if people were getting stabbed on the regular you're damn right I'd push for tougher regulations. I'm curious what narrative you even see that wouldn't include such a thing.

Being dead is pretty damn scary. And the media doesn't really give a shit what bills are passed. The Patriot Act is against the "interests" of the populace. That's a fairly flimsy argument mind you. Most of us didn't notice the Patriot Act in any real way it simply offends our sensabilities. Which is a quality reason to discuss and hopefully repeal it. That's not on the media. Real planes hit real buildings and killed thousands. Should they have simply carried on with with their Power Ranger marathon?


Of course there was a real justification for that law. We were hit by terrorists. Terrorists who we believe had been living and operating in the United States, were part of a larger international terrorist organization that was closely allied with another organization that literally controlled a country.

This is NOT exactly the same thing. 9/11 happened once. Nothing before or since has rivaled it loss of life. Mass shootings in the US happen on a consistent basis. And one off shootings happen multiple times a day.

We know why there are school shootings and a large part of it is guns. You can deny it all you want but the reality is that nobody ever got shot witlh a gun that wasn't available.

You list off a bunch of excuses but many of these issues occur around the world. Yet nobody in the industrialized world comes close to us, certainly not in school shootings. Honestly that's a loosing argument you'd be better to pretend we're talkinga bout violence over all.

No, people do not just pick up guns and go shooting because they are available. But they can't if guns aren;t available. The harder they are to obtain the fewer people obtain them.


You can't stop people from acting crazy if you're simultaneously lowering the real wage and replacing decent paying jobs with shit paying service industry jobs.

These are two separate points. First you cannot stop people from acting crazy period. You can however limit the tools they have available to them. When it comes to school shootings in particular these are almost always done with guns owned by the family. Sure some of these kids actually had the intelligence and access to build effective weapons at home but most did not and could not.

The rest of your statement is just trying to deflect to other issues in the hopes we'll stop talking about something where your argument holds no water.

Yes you can do other things that would possibly have a greater effect. Quite probably would and we should do those things. That's not a quality reason not to have a conversation about gun control however.

The failed attempts at gun control throughout the 90's, funny. Plenty of the other gun control attempts have worked. You don't see fully automatic weapons anymore. They work fine for the rest of the world too. Even on a state by state basis they appear to work although not as well as they could.

We don't have borders between states and cities. So gun control laws at those levels are suboptimal. Especially with a place like DC.

Why is it so difficult to admit that you find the number of people dying acceptable and the rest of us should quit bitching?

 

[richard_daily]

Situational outrage is situational!!!!!!!

I don't really care about overly emotionally charged arguments that don't have
much bearing on what the real world looks like.


You can say "you're doing it wrong" or that I'm stupid because I work and live in what you would deem dangerous areas, but that's a classist argument to the 9th degree. Not everyone has the ability to leave "bad" areas, and while I may have more opportunity than some, I also do what I know, and what I have done for many years in regards to my work.

If you want to provide me with another means of making a living, free of the situation I happen to exist in, feel free to make me a generous offer. While you're at it, you can make offers like that for every single person in the US that lives in a poverty and violence stricken area, since you seem to be so concerned about the lives and well beings of children.

Where do you volunteer at out of curiosity?

You must be doing a hell of a lot for children to be taking this high-horse argument and trying to push it down other people's throats.

I believe in protecting myself, and protecting myself legally and quietly. I don't wish to draw attention to myself or create a scene. If I did, I'd make arguments like you're making.

I sadly don't carry placards of dead babies though at this point you're making it clear those wouldn't have an effect on you either. But no this isn't God Hates Fags territory.

The 9/11 actions were over reaching. But we didn't say we couldn't have a conversation or we couldn't do anything. This time we have had that ignorant attitude.

Sure ban handguns for cops if for no other reason than to shut up Conservatives who scream about disarming the populace but not the police. The military is even something to discuss. Not unless you're going to start advocating that I should be able to own tanks, nukes and jets if I can afford them.

Yes, you should have to give up the right to defend yourself and depend on 911 if you're too stupid to find other ways around it. Or you know find a better place to do business or a better way. It's not really my fault you're stupid.

No it's not a false equivalency. You apparently don't even know what that phrase means. I am advocating your right to carry a rifle and/or shotgun in an open carry situation. It is threatening and confrontational. Which by both Conservative logic and real logic makes it superior to concealed carry. If an armed society is a polite one surely knowing for certain one is armed is superior to thinking maybe this guy is so I best be polite!

Again I call bullshit. Some combination of nobody died or was seriously injured or your flat out lying. Drunk driving doesn't fit the narrative but they make the local news. Hell every single death makes the Obits.

And again if people were getting stabbed on the regular you're damn right I'd push for tougher regulations. I'm curious what narrative you even see that wouldn't include such a thing.

Being dead is pretty damn scary. And the media doesn't really give a shit what bills are passed. The Patriot Act is against the "interests" of the populace. That's a fairly flimsy argument mind you. Most of us didn't notice the Patriot Act in any real way it simply offends our sensabilities. Which is a quality reason to discuss and hopefully repeal it. That's not on the media. Real planes hit real buildings and killed thousands. Should they have simply carried on with with their Power Ranger marathon?


Of course there was a real justification for that law. We were hit by terrorists. Terrorists who we believe had been living and operating in the United States, were part of a larger international terrorist organization that was closely allied with another organization that literally controlled a country.

This is NOT exactly the same thing. 9/11 happened once. Nothing before or since has rivaled it loss of life. Mass shootings in the US happen on a consistent basis. And one off shootings happen multiple times a day.

We know why there are school shootings and a large part of it is guns. You can deny it all you want but the reality is that nobody ever got shot witlh a gun that wasn't available.

You list off a bunch of excuses but many of these issues occur around the world. Yet nobody in the industrialized world comes close to us, certainly not in school shootings. Honestly that's a loosing argument you'd be better to pretend we're talkinga bout violence over all.

No, people do not just pick up guns and go shooting because they are available. But they can't if guns aren;t available. The harder they are to obtain the fewer people obtain them.


You can't stop people from acting crazy if you're simultaneously lowering the real wage and replacing decent paying jobs with shit paying service industry jobs.

These are two separate points. First you cannot stop people from acting crazy period. You can however limit the tools they have available to them. When it comes to school shootings in particular these are almost always done with guns owned by the family. Sure some of these kids actually had the intelligence and access to build effective weapons at home but most did not and could not.

The rest of your statement is just trying to deflect to other issues in the hopes we'll stop talking about something where your argument holds no water.

Yes you can do other things that would possibly have a greater effect. Quite probably would and we should do those things. That's not a quality reason not to have a conversation about gun control however.

The failed attempts at gun control throughout the 90's, funny. Plenty of the other gun control attempts have worked. You don't see fully automatic weapons anymore. They work fine for the rest of the world too. Even on a state by state basis they appear to work although not as well as they could.

We don't have borders between states and cities. So gun control laws at those levels are suboptimal. Especially with a place like DC.

Why is it so difficult to admit that you find the number of people dying acceptable and the rest of us should quit bitching?

 

[richard_daily]

The failed attempts at gun control throughout the 90's, funny. Plenty of the other gun control attempts have worked. You don't see fully automatic weapons anymore. They work fine for the rest of the world too. Even on a state by state basis they appear to work although not as well as they could.

NFA (full auto) firearms have been illegal without a tax stamp (and either an FFL or a trust) since the 60s.

The bans of the 90s had no significant effect on crime.

Any belief you have to the contrary isn't based on fact.

 

[Sean Renaud]

NFA (full auto) firearms have been illegal without a tax stamp (and either an FFL or a trust) since the 60s.

The bans of the 90s had no significant effect on crime.

Any belief you have to the contrary isn't based on fact.

If your argument is anything other than NFA ban had no effect you've already proven me right and looking into anything from the 90's is pointless.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

But if I had 13 guns, I'd kill 0 people. So how does more guns=more violence?

Most violence is systemic and the politicians don't want to address the root causes of hopelessness, despair, poverty, lack of quality jobs, outsourcing (thanks TPP/NAFTA/FTAA, etc) and so forth.

That and the ritalin they keep shoving into our young males.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

So, you just want to ban all guns, Sean? Or just some?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

We have tighter gun laws now than we did in the 1950s, but more gun crimes, so it must be something other than guns, if you ask me.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[about_average]

I never said "no matter who owns them"

I said it depends on who owns them. You said it doesn't depend [on who owns them].

It doesn't depend on who owns them sure sounds like it doesn't matter who owns them.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We have tighter gun laws now than we did in the 1950s, but more gun crimes, so it must be something other than guns, if you ask me.

I'd be curious what the stats were in the 1950s but there are tons of things different from the 50's. Our population is larger and more concentrated than ever before. If for the sake of argument every 1000th person is bat shit crazy and a danger to themselves and others a city with a population of 900 has none. A city of 1900 hasffets one. A city of one million has one thousand. Now if that one guy does go nuts who is he gonna shoot? Does he have 1899 people many of whom may be personally familiar with him? Or does he have one million targets? More targets makes more people to shoot, stab, bomb or lick.

The income gaps are larger than at any time since the 30s. That clearly effects crime. (Though I'm less convinced it's a major part of mass shootings.)

There are tons of factors. Many of which are probably on par or even greater than the presence of guns. Until and unless people are shot with non-present guns however denying that guns are an important part of the equation is simply insane. They are.

The question is as it always is and can only be. Are the lives lost avoidable in anyway shape or form? And are the numbers acceptable? The answer to the first is a matter of fact. Yes many of the lives lost can be prevented. The answer to the second is a matter of opinion. I would say that the answer to that is yes as well.

So, you just want to ban all guns, Sean? Or just some?

Given omnipotence I'd probably ban hand guns and hand out rifles and shotguns like candy. The US government would literally give you an 18th Birthday gift. Congrats.

And I don't really have any problems with guns over all. We know from the stats what weapons are primarily used in crimes. People don't use rifles and shotguns presumably because they are kinda difficult to conceal.

In the end freedom and safety form a balancing act. Either the numbers of people dying are acceptable and we should stay the course or back off or they aren't and we should be actively finding ways to decrease the numbers. This is true of anything not just gun violence.

 

[about_average]

Yes, you should have to give up the right to defend yourself and depend on 911 if you're too stupid to find other ways around it.

Violent crime doesn't only happen in the inner city.
The US court of appeals ruled in Warren v DC that the police have no legal duty to protect people from crime.
SCOTUS reinforced that in at least two other cases.

Only a stupid person would rely on the police to protect them from a crime.

unless you're advocating my right to carry a rifle or shotgun in an open carry situation, which I wouldn't personally do because I feel it's threatening and confrontational.

Not to mention the fact that you'd be the primary target of the criminal with a handgun. Even (honest) handgun opponents admit criminals will always have access to them.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Violent crime doesn't only happen in the inner city.
The US court of appeals ruled in Warren v DC that the police have no legal duty to protect people from crime.
SCOTUS reinforced that in at least two other cases.

Only a stupid person would rely on the police to protect them from a crime.

Not to mention the fact that you'd be the primary target of the criminal with a handgun. Even (honest) handgun opponents admit criminals will always have access to them.

Exactly.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Violent crime doesn't only happen in the inner city.
The US court of appeals ruled in Warren v DC that the police have no legal duty to protect people from crime.
SCOTUS reinforced that in at least two other cases.

Only a stupid person would rely on the police to protect them from a crime.

Not to mention the fact that you'd be the primary target of the criminal with a handgun. Even (honest) handgun opponents admit criminals will always have access to them.

Then clearly the stupider you are the safer you tend to be.

And no I wouldn't be the primary target of a criminal with a handgun for two reasons. First they wouldn't have a handgun in the first fucking place. We can just look at literally every country in the industrial world not named America to prove that. And second unless you are talking about open carry being mandatory they aren't going to know if I'm the one who chose to leave his gun home today or not. Besides if he's willing to shoot me he should just you know. . .shoot me. It'll save him the risk.

 

[about_average]

Then clearly the stupider you are the safer you tend to be.

You mean because not many unarmed people are harmed by criminals?
Tell that to Miriam Douglas.

And no I wouldn't be the primary target of a criminal with a handgun for two reasons. First they wouldn't have a handgun in the first fucking place. We can just look at literally every country in the industrial world not named America to prove that.

Ummm...you obviously need to read more news from other countries if you think there are no criminals with handguns. And these are countries with fewer handguns to start with.

And second unless you are talking about open carry being mandatory they aren't going to know if I'm the one who chose to leave his gun home today or not.

How are you going to concealed carry a long gun in a way that gives easy access?
To RD's decision to concealed carry in today's society, there are documented cases of criminals just shooting the open carry person at the very beginning of the crime.

As for the OP, I have no problem whatsoever with laws that if you don't have your gun(s) in a safe and one is used by someone else to kill that the gun owner is charged with murder, even if it was an accidental discharge.
Two or three people sentenced to life in prison for that would seriously reduce incidents like in the OP.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Worse... I'm a landlord.

LMFAO!! *high 5* holding paper is the best way to make mo' money.

yes because the gun is the murder. regard

Oh I know the response to this dumbshit over simplified slogan!

MORE GUNS = MORE CRIME!!!

Thread is re balanced.

If your argument is anything other than NFA ban had no effect you've already proven me right and looking into anything from the 90's is pointless.

Not really....looking into the 90's proves the liburhul propensity for banning accessories on a class of weapon used in less than 1% of crimes didn't really do much to stop gun crimes because well....stupid. Not to mention how much the persistance in that stupid has damaged the anti gun crews credibility.

Violent crime doesn't only happen in the inner city.

Much like everything else that's the only M'uricans that matter because fuck rural folks........

And no I wouldn't be the primary target of a criminal with a handgun for two reasons. First they wouldn't have a handgun in the first fucking place.

LOL except they will have a handgun....you aren't getting rid of them, not even a possibility.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You mean because not many unarmed people are killed by criminals?

They really aren't. Considering how many times the stats have been brought up over the years this is a particularly silly claim to keep up.

Ummm...you obviously need to read more news from other countries if you think there are no criminals with handguns. And these are countries with fewer handguns to start with..

Not no, just a lot fewer. Nothing will ever eliminate 100% of most problems.

How are you going to concealed carry a long gun in a way that gives easy access?.

You're not. That's part of the point.

To RD's decision to concealed carry in today's society, there are documented cases of criminals just shooting the open carry person at the very beginning of the crime..

Duh. You make yourself a target. I'm not the one who said being unarmed makes you a target. From the point of view of a criminal it's at best hit or miss if your weapon is concealed. You certainly aren't armed by default.

As for the OP, I have no problem whatsoever with laws that if you don't have your gun(s) in a safe and one is used by someone else to kill that the gun owner is charged with murder, even if it was an accidental discharge.
Two or three people sentenced to life in prison for that would seriously reduce incidents like in the OP.

Which is stupid. If your gun is for self defense which is the crux of your argument. Not that you want one for sport shooting and should be allowed to shoot for sport. To that argument if you wanted to use fully armed drones to slaughter wild boar. . .I'd tell you the billions of dollars boars do in damages to crops and property each year and encourage you to start a league. Maybe we can get you some sponsors.

If however you want a gun to keep you and your family safe it asbolutely should not be locked up. It should never be out of reach. The question you should be asking whether your watching the Super Bowl, eating dinner or taking a shit is "can I get to it before someone gets to me if they kick in the door/window/whatever." If the answer is no you just fucked up.

Also it's not your fault if you get robbed. It sucks but that should very clearly fall under Jeb's poorly phrased but 100% accurate statement of 'shit happens.'. Because it does. Laws and policies cannot and should not be made to protect against random and isolated incidents. They should be written in ways that are most likely to preven the majority of situations that we see and/or find to be utterly intolerable. Truth be told as much press as mass shootings get they are still a fairly small percent of the overall shootings. Guess that's because "bitch pissed me off and I shot 'em" doesn't fit the narrative. That is what makes up roughly 50% of gun related violence. No long term planning that would give time to make bombs or plot out how you'd cut their breaks. No going to the theater and shooting everybody you can find because you were inspired by the Joker or whatever either.

 

[about_average]

Which is stupid. If your gun is for self defense which is the crux of your argument.

Obviously, like with any law, there has to be caveats. If you're armed and are overcome and your gun taken, then that would be a caveat.
If you have it in a safe and someone cracks the safe then, again, that's a caveat.
If you leave the house and leave your gun under your pillow, in the closet or whatever, then sorry, no excuse.

In other words, if it's not in your immediate control it needs to be in a safe or you face charges if it's taken.

 

[about_average]

They really aren't. Considering how many times the stats have been brought up over the years this is a particularly silly claim to keep up.

It took you a long time to write out and post your reply.
I changed "killed" to harmed because guns haven't just been used to stop people from being killed.
There's a whole spectrum of physical harm before you get to killed that people use guns to prevent.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Clearly it is time to arm the Zombies. If only all 20,000 were armed they they could have shot the perpetrator.

Gunfire at Florida Zombicon event leaves one dead, five hurt

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

*reads*

WTF ?

http://www.news-press.com/story/news/2015/10/18/least-1-shot-zombicon/74163952/


20,000 people were not enough reasons, to give the murderer second thoughts ?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Man held on $75K bail after son, 6, fatally shoots brother, 3

Apparently the father had the gun for self defense.

FreeDUMB