Gun control

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

LachiusTZ

Rogue Deathwalker Box
<Silver Donator>
14,472
27,162
Ending poverty is not a rights issue, its an result of an entitled welfare state.

Education gap is widely the same type of issue, instead of pushing the top tier of students we are weighing them down in order to pull up the bottom.

Those are the basics of those 2 issues. Thinking everyone is entitled to money and education is a fallacy and ends up doing nothing but killing those that are capable at the benefit of those that need to be removed from the gene pool via natural selection. Which, we have also eliminated.

So, back to the prior statement, what other more important rights can you list? In addition to the 3 you mentioned?

And again, it is not about fighting the US Military, that is not the issue. Its about having the capability to perform a "root canal" on the government. And if you do not understand the difference between the Military, and the US Government, then we are at a dead end.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,009
138,751
There's a concept in naval power called "fleet in being" that just having a navy even if you don't use it, and even if you would lose in open battle, changes the actions and stance of other nations. The same concept can be applied to firearms and the population, just owning them without ever firing a shot changes governments attitude towards it's population.
 

PosterOfStuff_sl

shitlord
139
0
No, laws are written to directly prohibit socially unacceptable acts.

Every argument about gun control is about the things someone 'might' do by owning them. Why not have tougher laws regarding licensing drivers? Many more people are killed every year because of our lax control over allowing virtually anyone to drive a motor vehicle. Furthermore, it isn't even a right.
.
Gun control measures need to be put in place to help address the mass shootings that take place. Please note I said took place not "might".
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,009
138,751
That's not really possible without a police state, if you want to kill not having a gun won't stop you, there is a supposition that guns cause murder that is false, people cause murder, murder is not a result of a lack of murdering implements, humans are clever mammals and can find all kinds of ways to kill if they want to.
At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.

The Bath School disaster is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults in total, and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.

There is also a known flaw in the human perception when you are exposed to television media they overexpose certain news like shootings, it distorts peoples perceptions of the actual relative threat, more people die from boating Accidents than school shootings (even in a bad year like 2012) but television distorts reality for the individual in that aspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivation_theory

Cultivation theory is a social theory which examines the long-term effects of television. "The primary proposition of cultivation theory states that the more time people spend "living" in the television world, the more likely they are to believe social reality portrayed on television."[1] Cultivation leaves people with a misperception of what is true in our world.

A statistically significant relationship between TV consumption and fear about becoming the victim of a crime. The question at the start of the chapter is illustrative: Those with light viewing habits predict their weekly odds of being a victim are 1 out of 100; those with heavy viewing habits fear the risk 1 out of 10. Actual crime statistics indicate that 1 out of 10,000 is more realistic."
-----
Mass shootings not a big problem

as a societal problem, ranked among the woes facing our country, the attention given mass shootings is way out of proportion with the people affected, and causes an after-echo of anxiety that is itself destructive.

If you count up all the mass shootings in 2012, 88 people died, which makes it a bigger problem than death-by-lightning strike or death by bee sting - 28 last year for the former, about 50 for the latter - but less of a concern than drowning in boating accidents, which claims about 500 people a year, according to the Coast Guard.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinbe...g-problem.html
Mass school shootings are not a big problem in the United States. In fact, mass shootings, period, are not a big problem in the U.S., at least not in the sense that cancer is a problem or heart disease is a problem or accidents are a problem.

That's a bold statement, and obviously deserves a caveat: Mass shootings sure are a big problem if your first-grader is killed in Newtown, Conn., or if you survive a massacre at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

I don't want to seem glib about the cause of unspeakable lifetime agony.

But as a societal problem, ranked among the woes facing our country, the attention given mass shootings is way out of proportion with the people affected, and causes an after-echo of anxiety that is itself destructive.

If you count up all the mass shootings in 2012, 88 people died, which makes it a bigger problem than death-by-lightning strike or death by bee sting - 28 last year for the former, about 50 for the latter - but less of a concern than drowning in boating accidents, which claims about 500 people a year, according to the Coast Guard.

What mass shootings are is dramatic - deranged gunmen bursting into public places murdering innocents for no reason at all. That catches and holds the public's attention, certainly more than random individuals falling off ladders or slipping in bathtubs do, and the truth of the situation - 38 percent of the people who die in the United States die from accidents, versus .003 percent who die in mass shootings - does nothing to change the attention the media lavishes on the subject. It couldn't be otherwise. The media is not the Jedi Council, weighing our public problems and writing stories trying to prevent them - if it were, there would be a lot more written about suicide (36,000 deaths last year) and a lot less about children being kidnapped and murdered by strangers (fewer than 100).

Concern turns into action. We are a society where the slightest public hazard, even if only notional, causes grave outcry, where parents thunder against proven public goods, like vaccines, based on coincidence and imagination. Thus school shootings, particularly Newtown, set off this agonized national debate on doing something about guns - increasing background checks, banning assault rifles, whatever they might be - none of which address the core problem: loons getting guns and killing people. Yet lots of public time and attention from President Obama on down are spent squabbling over symbolic non-solutions to this non-problem - again, on a national and not a personal scale.

It's a waste of time. Not a Band-Aid but a fig leaf. There are some 300 million guns in this country - the biggest argument that it is not the guns, themselves, that are the problem, because if they were, we'd all be dead. We'd do a lot better, rather than fixate on clip capacity, to address the holes in our national soul that make people seek out so many guns in the first place - the powerlessness, the fear, the anxiety. That make too many seek out guns, that is, the ones building their arsenals, preparing for the zombie apocalypse. I'm not talking about the guns of hobbyists and hunters and skeet shooters and all the other legitimate reasons to own a gun. (Heck, I might own one myself were it not for the certainty that I would start shooting the squirrels trying to get at the bird feeder in my backyard. The neighbors would hear the reports and turn me in.)

The reason it is important to realize that mass shootings are not a big problem, in the scale of national problems, is because the National Rifle Association suggested again this week that we arm all school teachers and adminstrators, a horrifically stupid idea whose result would be a bloodletting far outstripping the problem it was intended to address - instead of students snapping and coming to school with mom's Bushmaster, we'd have teachers snapping and drawing the pistols on their hips, and I'd hate to find out how those stats stack up. (Actually, we'd still have the student shootings - the armed teacher would get shot first - augmented by the new teacher-initiated shootings.)

People are human, and humans are irrational, and it is asking too much to expect otherwise. The odds of Norman Bates coming at you with a kitchen knife while you showered was 0.0 percent, but lots of women hestitated to take a shower after seeing "Psycho." Still, we must use what intelligence we have to fight against emotion-driven blunders. The gun industry worsened this problem by sticking a gun in a third of the households in America, and offers up a supposed solution - more guns! - that would push our country toward some nightmare dystopia of armed violence. Newtown was a horrible tragedy. Let's not compound it by using it as a pretext to unleash even more tragedies. We didn't reach this sad state overnight; no real improvement will happen quickly either.
-----

You might come back that "human life is precious so every beautiful snowflake must be preserved", I don't subscribe to that theory and neither does anyone who crosses the street, once you start placing an infinite value on life it distorts the the decision making process to the point of absurdity.


 

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
Its about having the capability to perform a "root canal" on the government. And if you do not understand the difference between the Military, and the US Government, then we are at a dead end.
You're horning in on Antony's schtick. The "streets running red with the blood of politicians" rhetoric is his thing.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,009
138,751
Here's a logic problem, if lacking guns are what prevents people from killing other people wouldn't we all be dead by now? there's 300 million guns in this country.
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,762
2,644
The protection from the government discussion gets really stupid in these threads. People are always saying "huh huh like you could fight tanks and fighter jets with your AR-15". I can't think of an example of a government marching the full force of it's army on a civilian population unless they were already militarized and in open revolt. That's not how you oppress a population. You oppress a population with police by making dissidents "disappear" and striking fear into everyone else. This is much harder to do to an armed population.

The only reason that we know who Randy Weaver, the Freemen, and David Koresh are is because they had guns and thus the FBI/law enforcement were not able to just quietly take them down. In their particular cases, they were not patriots, or necessarily innocent, and you could make the argument that things would have been better for them if they had not had guns, but the point is that if the people you are trying to oppress have guns, it's much harder to do, particularly without drawing scrutiny from the rest of the population.

I don't have an example of this happening to truly innocent people by a truly evil US government, because historically that kind of thing doesn't happen much here. However, the reason that the bill of rights exists is to keep that bad guy from ever getting to power. If real tyranny was ever to happen in this country, the person doing it would need to shut up the press, quickly silence dissidents, disarm the population, and railroad anyone who questioned them. To do this they need to get rid of the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments among other things. Of course if some well-meaning politician had already done this for them in the name of safety, it greatly increases the chances of that hypothetical bad guy's success.

Barack Obama is not an aspiring dictator and George W. Bush wasn't either, but they have both taken great strides to paving the way for one by systematically chipping away at the protections against tyranny that were put into our constitution and by establishing the modern surveillance state and the various intelligence agencies operating almost without oversight. It's certainly true that other countries do similar things and have not yet fallen into tyranny, but it's not the American way.
 

Zombie Thorne_sl

shitlord
918
1
We have already gone over the civilian vs government thing many times in these threads, but for the newbies: The very moment the government uses anything more than small arms against its population, that government is done. Over. Finished. The armies of the powers that be are made up of regular citizens for the most part, that would not continue to happen on a large scale.
 

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,942
52,714
Claiming that a well armed militia would stand no chance if attacked by the US military is asinine, because the militia force would be making no attempt to engage military units in pitched battles. That being said, I'm under no illusions that a rebel group wouldn't be suffering a profound disadvantage, you can't just go 'lol asymmetric warfare we win'. We're also talking about a hypothetical point in the future where things in the United States have deteriorated to the point where there actually is a cohesive group of American citizens in open rebellion operating with at least some degree of popular support from citizens who don't choose to take up arms but still support the cause. Of course if some crazed separatist militia group next week tries to say their patch of wilderness is no longer American soil, they would stand no chance, but that isn't what anyone is talking about.
 

LachiusTZ

Rogue Deathwalker Box
<Silver Donator>
14,472
27,162
Duppin, your dodging and ignoring 80% or more of what I say and applying some blanket statement and have yet to answer the single thing I have asked 3 times now.
 

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
Duppin, your dodging and ignoring 80% or more of what I say and applying some blanket statement and have yet to answer the single thing I have asked 3 times now.
I know! Isn't it frustrating when someone refuses to take the bait when you put a yummy red herring out there?

Also, it's "you're".
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
46,804
99,992
anytime the liberal side of me wants to plays devils advocate, i ask myself the same question(s) to remind myself why the point is probably null & void.

"Does this restriction help prevent gang violence, or mass shootings?"
How much gang violence has been prevented in the likes of Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York City?
 
6,216
8
How much gang violence has been prevented in the likes of Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York City?
0. i think if gun rights opponents could come to that one perspective, then identify that gang violence is the sole reason the US is near the top of gun violence statistics - the sooner the debate loosens.
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,524
43,824
Gun control measures need to be put in place to help address the mass shootings that take place. Please note I said took place not "might".
Define these measures. Do they involve confiscation? If not, then it wouldn't have stopped a thing. These people did not go out and purchase new firearms.