Mass Shootings, American Pride, Gun Laws...

[Manny]

27 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

This is like saying the Honda Civic is the most commonly crashed vehicle because it's dangerous to drive lol. It's just the most widely produced, readily available, and popular platform. There is nothing about it that makes it inherently more affective at killing large amounts of people than any other rifle on the market.

Cars aren't guns. Cars serve much more utility than guns could ever. Nor am I saying it's the most dangerous gun because it's a popular choice. I'm saying, it's a popular choice, why not make it harder to get? Sometimes we can't have nice things. Also, last sentence is just an argument to restrict rifles even more.

[Gentoo]

1 hour ago, BoM said:

Excuse me sir you dropped this:

 

Sidenote: Mental health checks would be more akin to having a psych review prior to purchasing a gun, so it would really only discourage people from getting a gun based on wanting to avoid having a pysch review. It wouldn't discourage anyone seeking treatment outside of that.

"Dude the government would never do that. Why would they do that bro?" Not an argument. If it can be done, you should assume it will. If you'd like, you can walk me through what one of these reviews would look like and what objective measures could be used to determine who does and doesn't get to exercise their second amendment rights.

 

35 minutes ago, Manny said:

Cars aren't guns. Cars serve much more utility than guns could ever. Nor am I saying it's the most dangerous gun because it's a popular choice. I'm saying, it's a popular choice, why not make it harder to get? Sometimes we can't have nice things. Also, last sentence is just an argument to restrict rifles even more.

???

 

There's too many people walking around with iPhones nowadays, most serial killers have an iPhone and Apple just did too good of a job with it. We gotta make em harder to get bro.

 

It's a means to an end. There's no point in punishing manufacturers, brokers, and other non-school-shooters because bad apples are grabbing the first thing they see in the store.

 

As for rifles, idk man, I think any goober could do a lot more damage with a single or pair of pump shotguns and a speed loader. I really don't understand your mindset or motivations on this at all. It seems like you saw this and looked for the shortest route to making this specific event not occur the way it did again. I don't think you have the knowledge or experience on firearms to dictate what is and isn't dangerous and I don't think you've spent any significant amount of time considering what may have caused something like this to happen.

[BoM]

5 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

"Dude the government would never do that. Why would they do that bro?" Not an argument. If it can be done, you should assume it will. If you'd like, you can walk me through what one of these reviews would look like and what objective measures could be used to determine who does and doesn't get to exercise their second amendment rights.

Sure but I'd still rather weigh reality over hypotheticals...maybe that's a crazy sentiment. Nothing to do with thinking the government isn't capable of corruption, I'm just being pragmatic and worrying about the problem that is in front of me not the one that might happen.

 

I'm not a public health official nor educated enough on the specifics of any review, nor am I aware of a source of information that would define that now as the discussions on the subject have never even gotten into any validated legislation. Apply parts of what a police officer goes through in terms of a psych eval? Just spitballing

[Autistic]

12 hours ago, The Real Slim Jim said:

IF THE PROBLEM YOU SEEK TO SOLVE IS MASS SHOOTINGS EVER OCCOURING, THE ONLY SOLUTION IS THE COMPLETE ERADICATIONS OF GUNS GLOBALLY.

PICK YOUR CLUCKING MUTHA DUCKING BATTLES BETTER PEOPLES.

In britian since almost all guns are gone gun violence is eradicated. YAY PROBLEM SOLVED RIGHT? No knife violence went up, hence there the word murderer is irelevent they are now called stabbers. 

[BoM]

1 minute ago, Autistic said:

In britian since almost all guns are gone gun violence is eradicated. YAY PROBLEM SOLVED RIGHT? No knife violence went up, hence there the word murderer is irelevent they are now called stabbers. 

[Gentoo]

4 minutes ago, BoM said:

Sure but I'd still rather weigh reality over hypotheticals...maybe that's a crazy sentiment. Nothing to do with thinking the government isn't capable of corruption, I'm just being pragmatic and worrying about the problem that is in front of me not the one that might happen.

 

I'm not a public health official nor educated enough on the specifics of any review, nor am I aware of a source of information that would define that now as the discussions on the subject have never even gotten into any validated legislation. Apply parts of what a police officer goes through in terms of a psych eval? Just spitballing

This traces back to point number one: No amount of tragedies justify relinquishing the right and ability to the people to overthrow a tyrannical government.

 

Sure it's a hypothetical, but that means it's a possibility; not worth chancing it or introducing a precedent.

 

If you're not informed enough to give a rough estimate of what this would entail, I would be very cautious about supporting or campaigning for it.

 

Police evaluations and requirements are not standardized. Two counties over you can have a criminal record and still join the force, in my county, if you've even had the cops called on you, or aren't putting enough of your paychecks into savings, you're not getting on. Determination on this would most likely come down to how strict or lenient different places are and what their interpretation of the laws/standards is - kind of like how it already is. Some places have laws about it and some don't, move somewhere that sounds safe enough if you're that worried about lightning striking you I guess.

[Phoenix_]

Honestly we can argue here all day about who's right and who's wrong between us but it doesn't change the fact that nothing has changed and nothing will change. Nothing has changed since Columbine. Nothing has changed since Sandy hook. Nothing will continue to change in our current political climate. It's almost like we're stuck in a military-industrial complex where weapons companies profit and pay off politicians to maintain this status-quo of innocent people dying. Until we the people come together to vote out corrupt politicians, aint shit changing.

 

[BoM]

27 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

If you're not informed enough to give a rough estimate of what this would entail, I would be very cautious about supporting or campaigning for it.

I'm supporting exploring it is as a viable option to the solution rather than dismissing it. quite simply. It's nothing to be cautious about as all...your sentiment is just more worrying about what ifs instead of just opening lines of communication.

Quote

Police evaluations and requirements are not standardized. Two counties over you can have a criminal record and still join the force, in my county, if you've even had the cops called on you, or aren't putting enough of your paychecks into savings, you're not getting on. Determination on this would most likely come down to how strict or lenient different places are and what their interpretation of the laws/standards is - kind of like how it already is. Some places have laws about it and some don't, move somewhere that sounds safe enough if you're that worried about lightning striking you I guess.

Again, was just spitballing. Even with all this generalized information it still would clearly be an okay place to start as a basis for a solution as there is already some groundwork set.

[Manny]

16 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

???

 

There's too many people walking around with iPhones nowadays, most serial killers have an iPhone and Apple just did too good of a job with it. We gotta make em harder to get bro.

 

It's a means to an end. There's no point in punishing manufacturers, brokers, and other non-school-shooters because bad apples are grabbing the first thing they see in the store.

 

As for rifles, idk man, I think any goober could do a lot more damage with a single or pair of pump shotguns and a speed loader. I really don't understand your mindset or motivations on this at all. It seems like you saw this and looked for the shortest route to making this specific event not occur the way it did again. I don't think you have the knowledge or experience on firearms to dictate what is and isn't dangerous and I don't think you've spent any significant amount of time considering what may have caused something like this to happen.

iPhones aren't Guns. 

 

idk how we keep getting back to the idea that we should ban specific guns, I said it's an argument to restrict them even more. Don't really care about punishing manufacturers, brokers, and non-school shooters. Especially when it's evident that rifles are a popular choice amongst mass shooters... are you arguing there's no correlation there? Who care about if someone can do it with x, y, or z, the whole point is that these events are consistently done with a specific type of gun.

 

I don't think you've spent any significant amount of time thinking. Restricting guns is not the be all end all for these events, our lack of mental health support plays a major role. I am by no means defending the Uvalde shooter at all, we need to do a better job of getting people the right kind of help they deserve. You've provided no substance on what could be done to prevent this from happening.

[jazzy]

On 6/2/2022 at 9:16 AM, Infinityward said:

Banning all guns is not in the realm of possibility, there are more guns than people in America and taking them away would most likely result in extreme violence across America the likes you've never seen.

Are we talking about gun control or slavery I honestly can't tell.
 

 

4 minutes ago, Autistic said:

In britian since almost all guns are gone gun violence is eradicated. YAY PROBLEM SOLVED RIGHT? No knife violence went up, hence there the word murderer is irelevent they are now called stabbers. 

 

1 hour ago, Gentoo said:

This is like saying the Honda Civic is the most commonly crashed vehicle because it's dangerous to drive lol. It's just the most widely produced, readily available, and popular platform. There is nothing about it that makes it inherently more affective at killing large amounts of people than any other rifle on the market.

 

13 hours ago, The Real Slim Jim said:

THE ONLY SOLUTION IS THE COMPLETE ERADICATIONS OF GUNS GLOBALLY.

So you guys (and others) are all making the same argument so I'll just say this:
The root problem is obviously not guns, it is murder. However, I've yet to see anyone figure out how to make people stop murdering others, so we can probably cross that one off. The root problem is mental health, but I think Republican's whole charade of "mental health" is kind of fictitious in nature because we're probably not going to prevent people from going literally insane in our lifetime, and wanting to kill kids. It's just a universal constant with humans at this point. Not saying we can't improve the lives of people substantially to prevent them from WANTING to do that, but yeah, you guys can guess where I'm going with this.

 

So anyway the reason most of us don't really like guns is because guns are really fucking good at killing people. Like so good the military is like "we should use guns." So I'd guess guns are pretty effective. And when we talk about the mind of a murderer most of them want to use the tool that murders people the best. The first person I quoted, Autistic, said that after guns were banned stabbings went up. That's true, but I'd probably wager it's a lot harder to stab someone than shoot them, considering I also need to be pretty dang close to stab someone.

 

So what do you get when you create a tool that's really efficient at killing people, really easy to acquire, really easy to use, really easy to transport, decently cheap to buy, and has almost no oversight by da gubbament? Well you have the mass murderer's favorite choice. If remote detonated bombs were legal in America I bet those would be way more popular, but they're banned, so they're not as used.
 

Everyone in here seems pretty smart so it's kind of like the analogy if you prevent people from dying to preventable diseases like polio and shit, more people die of cancer (because they live longer). But would anyone really make the argument that why use the polio vaccine if they're just going to get cancer 10 years later anyway? I mean that's a stupid argument.

Just the same, if you banned guns and gun violence went down by knife violence went up, would that really be THAT BAD?

 

35 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

"Dude the government would never do that. Why would they do that bro?" Not an argument. If it can be done, you should assume it will.

I got it- I assume you will stop posting in this thread. (Does that mean it will happen?)