[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:
So this is one of the circumstances that they had armed people at the location and still were not able to save the lives of those who were killed. It is important to remember that the person already shooting will have the upper hand here and it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to stop them before they kill anyone

That's the case with any situation where the attacker has an element of surprise.

Hell the one guy from the army who was also armed stated that the police thought HE was the shooter rather than him being someone trying to help and he is lucky he didn't get killed by police for trying to help. According to police, the more people armed on a scene like that the more confusing it is for them to find the actual shooter.

I'd tell the cops to suck it up and figure it out. I'd rather be armed and ready then and there than, depending on the situation, wait several minutes for police to arrive that might also be complete cowards and not go in to stop the threat.

Having more people armed very well could likely get themselves killed while allowing the actual shooter to get away. "More people with guns" is the opposite of a solution.

I'm sorry, I'm just so beyond done with the idea of laying down and taking it from these bastards, and still having people wanting more and more disarmament of the people being shot. I see this all as making more and more victims, instead of arming ourselves and making sure these sick fucks know that they're not going to have fresh meat. Fuck these savages.

For the past couple of months, I've actually started to train myself at finding the exit to any store in case of a shoot out. And always looking up at tall buildings, in case there's a shooter who's trying to shoot from above.

Leg End:

Lil devils x:
So this is one of the circumstances that they had armed people at the location and still were not able to save the lives of those who were killed. It is important to remember that the person already shooting will have the upper hand here and it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to stop them before they kill anyone

That's the case with any situation where the attacker has an element of surprise.

Hell the one guy from the army who was also armed stated that the police thought HE was the shooter rather than him being someone trying to help and he is lucky he didn't get killed by police for trying to help. According to police, the more people armed on a scene like that the more confusing it is for them to find the actual shooter.

I'd tell the cops to suck it up and figure it out. I'd rather be armed and ready then and there than, depending on the situation, wait several minutes for police to arrive that might also be complete cowards and not go in to stop the threat.

Having more people armed very well could likely get themselves killed while allowing the actual shooter to get away. "More people with guns" is the opposite of a solution.

I'm sorry, I'm just so beyond done with the idea of laying down and taking it from these bastards, and still having people wanting more and more disarmament of the people being shot. I see this all as making more and more victims, instead of arming ourselves and making sure these sick fucks know that they're not going to have fresh meat. Fuck these savages.

Would you support the cops just shooting everyone with a gun first and asking questions later?

Saelune:
Would you support the cops just shooting everyone with a gun first and asking questions later?

...No I would not. That is a very strange question.

Marik2:
For the past couple of months, I've actually started to train myself at finding the exit to any store in case of a shoot out. And always looking up at tall buildings, in case there's a shooter who's trying to shoot from above.

I worked with a Vietnam vet who did something like that. When we would eat lunch together he would always want a seat with his back to the wall where he could see the rest of the cafeteria and he was uncomfortable not being able to have a good view of the rest of any location he was in.

Leg End:

Lil devils x:
So this is one of the circumstances that they had armed people at the location and still were not able to save the lives of those who were killed. It is important to remember that the person already shooting will have the upper hand here and it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to stop them before they kill anyone

That's the case with any situation where the attacker has an element of surprise.

Hell the one guy from the army who was also armed stated that the police thought HE was the shooter rather than him being someone trying to help and he is lucky he didn't get killed by police for trying to help. According to police, the more people armed on a scene like that the more confusing it is for them to find the actual shooter.

I'd tell the cops to suck it up and figure it out. I'd rather be armed and ready then and there than, depending on the situation, wait several minutes for police to arrive that might also be complete cowards and not go in to stop the threat.

Having more people armed very well could likely get themselves killed while allowing the actual shooter to get away. "More people with guns" is the opposite of a solution.

I'm sorry, I'm just so beyond done with the idea of laying down and taking it from these bastards, and still having people wanting more and more disarmament of the people being shot. I see this all as making more and more victims, instead of arming ourselves and making sure these sick fucks know that they're not going to have fresh meat. Fuck these savages.

Why would you assume that people are just "Laying down and taking it" by looking for better means to deal with the situation? The objective is to have less deaths, not more here and calling for outright war in the markets, schools, neighborhoods and streets is calling for the destruction of civilization and will result in many more deaths, not less. We already have far too many people with firearms in the US that should never have firearms in the first place who lose their tempter and wind up shooting people, we need to reduce that, not increase it. We need much more stringent gun laws to reduce this happening, not add more guns.

Some of the regulation we need, but likely not all of it:

1)Create a firearm registry and all firearms must be registered to the person who has possession of them. If someone is caught with a firearm that is not registered to them, they will be confiscated and only the rightful owner can pick them up. This way police can actually confiscate firearms when pulling someone over or raiding their home if they have possession of unregistered firearms.'

2)End open carry. This guy literally walked down the street openly carrying a gun and the police could do nothing about it. People walking around with guns SHOULD be considered suspicious so that people can call the police when they see it rather than it just being something people expect to see. Special permits could be issued for ranchers and hog hunters, but most people have no reason to need to open carry in the first place.

3)Have stricter requirements for open carry and conceal to carry permits.

4) Close all background check loopholes and add more requirements to buy and own firearms. Every single time a firearm changes hands, whether online, a gift, inheritance, garage sale or or at a gun show, an extensive background and mental health check should be required.

5) Households with domestic violence calls on a member of their household on their record should be prohibited from having firearms on premises. People with a history of violence or threats of violence should be prohibited from owning firearms and firearms should not be allowed on premises where they live.

6) Certain firearms should be restricted to permit only and actually have to show reason for such permits. For example, certain weapons are only needed for hog hunting but you cant just say you need it for hog hunting, you have to show proof that is what you need it for to be able to keep and continue to renew your permit.

7) raise the age of being able to own a firearm. A human's brain does not mature until the age of 26, why do we allow anyone with immature judgement centers of their brains to even own guns in the first place?

Just to name a few. I am sure we likely need more. Public places such as stores, malls, parking lots, parks and such should be automatic gun free zones and anyone without a permit should not be walking around with a firearm there and police should be able to confiscate them at will. The lax attitude towards firearms and police not being able to do anything about them even when they could stop things from happening in the first place if their hands weren't tied is a huge part of the problem here.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Would you support the cops just shooting everyone with a gun first and asking questions later?

...No I would not. That is a very strange question.

That is exactly what happens though much of the time because they are trained to "see gun and shoot before they get shot" . Hell, when they shoot you they could claim you were an accomplice to the shooter rather than someone trying to help to justify the shooting, it would not be the first time police lie to protect themselves. It is safer for them and everyone else for them to just shoot everyone with a gun before they can shoot more people and call it a day tbh.

I remember reading a long while back about a person who called the police about a gun they found and a police officer who was not responding to that call saw them first with the gun and shot them before the officers responding to the call could even arrive. That is how this goes down in reality.

Worgen:

I worked with a Vietnam vet who did something like that. When we would eat lunch together he would always want a seat with his back to the wall where he could see the rest of the cafeteria and he was uncomfortable not being able to have a good view of the rest of any location he was in.

Once you get in that mindset of needing constant situational awareness and plan making, very few can ever truly shut it off. Can just imagine what his own home may have been like.

Lil devils x:
Why would you assume that people are just "Laying down and taking it" by looking for better means to deal with the situation? The objective is to have less deaths, not more here

Because those with murder in their heart will kill. We are not addressing the hearts of man. We are doing nothing to stop the situation.

and calling for outright war in the markets, schools, neighborhoods and streets is calling for the destruction of civilization and will result in many more deaths, not less.

I'm of the mindset that as many people being armed as possible presents a situation where numbnuts think twice about their actions, and those that go through will not get far. Hard targets are not preferable to predators, who desire soft targets.

We already have far too many people with firearms in the US that should never have firearms in the first place who lose their tempter and wind up shooting people

As opposed to the various other ways people murder each other in blind rage.

, we need to reduce that, not increase it. We need much more stringent gun laws to reduce this happening, not add more guns.

Some of the regulation we need, but likely not all of it:

1)Create a firearm registry and all firearms must be registered to the person who has possession of them. If someone is caught with a firearm that is not registered to them, they will be confiscated and only the rightful owner can pick them up. This way police can actually confiscate firearms when pulling someone over or raiding their home if they have possession of unregistered firearms.'

2)End open carry. This guy literally walked down the street openly carrying a gun and the police could do nothing about it. People walking around with guns SHOULD be considered suspicious so that people can call the police when they see it rather than it just being something people expect to see. Special permits could be issued for ranchers and hog hunters, but most people have no reason to need to open carry in the first place.

3)Have stricter requirements for open carry and conceal to carry permits.

4) Close all background check loopholes and add more requirements to buy and own firearms. Every single time a firearm changes hands, whether online, a gift, inheritance, garage sale or or at a gun show, an extensive background and mental health check should be required.

5) Households with domestic violence calls on a member of their household on their record should be prohibited from having firearms on premises. People with a history of violence or threats of violence should be prohibited from owning firearms and firearms should not be allowed on premises where they live.

6) Certain firearms should be restricted to permit only and actually have to show reason for such permits. For example, certain weapons are only needed for hog hunting but you cant just say you need it for hog hunting, you have to show proof that is what you need it for to be able to keep and continue to renew your permit.

7) raise the age of being able to own a firearm. A human's brain does not mature until the age of 26, why do we allow anyone with immature judgement centers of their brains to even own guns in the first place?

Just to name a few. I am sure we likely need more. Public places such as stores, malls, parking lots, parks and such should be automatic gun free zones and anyone without a permit should not be walking around with a firearm there and police should be able to confiscate them at will.

I'm going to go for specific points in a moment, but here's a blanket answer with a hypothetical scenario, which I should very, very clearly mention now is a hypothetical and uses me as an example, and that I do not desire or intend to commit any act of violence. What, out of anything you said, stops me from going to a school with a [insert firearm here because I'm a mass shooter who doesn't care about the law but we'll assume I totally bought it legally], and just mowing down kids and faculty until the police come in about... three or four minutes, give or take? Assuming they go in immediately and don't wait around because they're cowards. A school I'm imagining in such a situation is just under a mile away from a police station, but most units are, due to the area, nowhere specifically near the school. I could go on describing it but the thought is making me feel ill.

I have a legal firearm. I'm illegally taking it into a "gun-free" zone and I'm now going classroom to classroom, clearing house because good lord this school layout is the wet dream for someone wanting to shoot fish in a barrel. Not a single thing you mentioned would be stopping me, unless you decided to raise the purchase age to 26 because I am not 26. Every location you just listed doesn't matter to me because in this hypothetical, I'm already going to commit an act of mass murder. Mall, school, stores, parks, nobody in them is armed, right? Except me. How do you address that?

Next, the specific points.

5) Households with domestic violence calls on a member of their household on their record should be prohibited from having firearms on premises. People with a history of violence or threats of violence should be prohibited from owning firearms and firearms should not be allowed on premises where they live.

You just disarmed someone I care about because their ex constantly phones police with bogus DV calls, and them and their child are probably dead. Thanks.

6) Certain firearms should be restricted to permit only and actually have to show reason for such permits. For example, certain weapons are only needed for hog hunting but you cant just say you need it for hog hunting, you have to show proof that is what you need it for to be able to keep and continue to renew your permit.

So, pretending no chance to get a permit. I just went in and committed a mass shooting with a Glock. Probably your Glock, which I forget the model of.

7) raise the age of being able to own a firearm. A human's brain does not mature until the age of 26, why do we allow anyone with immature judgement centers of their brains to even own guns in the first place?

Why do we have people under the age of 26 be legally considered adults at all until then? No drinking, smoking, gambling, fucking, enlisting, ect.

Lil devils x:

That is exactly what happens though much of the time because they are trained to "see gun and shoot before they get shot" . Hell, when they shoot you they could claim you were an accomplice to the shooter rather than someone trying to help to justify the shooting, it would not be the first time police lie to protect themselves. It is safer for them and everyone else for them to just shoot everyone with a gun before they can shoot more people and call it a day tbh.

I'm a proponent of reforming police training. I don't like to call police.

I remember reading a long while back about a person who called the police about a gun they found and a police officer who was not responding to that call saw them first with the gun and shot them before the officers responding to the call could even arrive. That is how this goes down in reality.

Reality sucks. We need better cops. Simple.

EDIT: I really didn't even want to go into this, but I did. I respect your points, but I don't think I can budge on this issue, especially where it comes to disarming people out of paranoia via an easily abused system.

This is not Trump's fault. He's a symptom of the problem. This is squarely due to the corporatists, Gun nut NRA that will buy every republican president no matter how moderate they are after Trump. Republicans will be back, maybe they soften on immigration, LGBTQ rights or even climate change but they refuse to budge on this issue.

Does anyone really believe Jeb Bush would have signed an assault weapons ban, and done universal gun buybacks, what about Rubio, Cruz? Maybe Kasich, but that is it.

And you know what's the worst part, it's that to stop this you should hope that IF a mass shooting were to happen, it happens on election night near the 2020 election, but then Trump could just lie to us, and pivot.

The problem is the American people have short attention spans on this issue, this should have been stopped when the Las Vegas shootings happen, in Sandy Hook, and Bill Clinton who was a spineless weasel should have signed, and asked for a permanent assault weapons ban.

Gergar12:
Gun nut NRA

You're the first person to mention them in the thread, and I've been wanting to ask somebody this for a bit. The NRA of course has backing from various manufacturers and such, but they don't get all their monetary support from them. When you specifically target the NRA, are you not really targeting the American people in general? The ones that fund them and support their legal actions to protect Gun Rights. The NRA aren't even the only group of their kind. Ever heard of the Gun Owners of America? Second Amendment Foundation? The NRA, GOA, and 2AF are not singular entities, but essentially collectives of gun owners that put their money where they want their rights to be.

What do you think on that?

Leg End:

Worgen:

I worked with a Vietnam vet who did something like that. When we would eat lunch together he would always want a seat with his back to the wall where he could see the rest of the cafeteria and he was uncomfortable not being able to have a good view of the rest of any location he was in.

Once you get in that mindset of needing constant situational awareness and plan making, very few can ever truly shut it off. Can just imagine what his own home may have been like.

Lil devils x:
Why would you assume that people are just "Laying down and taking it" by looking for better means to deal with the situation? The objective is to have less deaths, not more here

Because those with murder in their heart will kill. We are not addressing the hearts of man. We are doing nothing to stop the situation.

and calling for outright war in the markets, schools, neighborhoods and streets is calling for the destruction of civilization and will result in many more deaths, not less.

I'm of the mindset that as many people being armed as possible presents a situation where numbnuts think twice about their actions, and those that go through will not get far. Hard targets are not preferable to predators, who desire soft targets.

We already have far too many people with firearms in the US that should never have firearms in the first place who lose their tempter and wind up shooting people

As opposed to the various other ways people murder each other in blind rage.

, we need to reduce that, not increase it. We need much more stringent gun laws to reduce this happening, not add more guns.

Some of the regulation we need, but likely not all of it:

1)Create a firearm registry and all firearms must be registered to the person who has possession of them. If someone is caught with a firearm that is not registered to them, they will be confiscated and only the rightful owner can pick them up. This way police can actually confiscate firearms when pulling someone over or raiding their home if they have possession of unregistered firearms.'

2)End open carry. This guy literally walked down the street openly carrying a gun and the police could do nothing about it. People walking around with guns SHOULD be considered suspicious so that people can call the police when they see it rather than it just being something people expect to see. Special permits could be issued for ranchers and hog hunters, but most people have no reason to need to open carry in the first place.

3)Have stricter requirements for open carry and conceal to carry permits.

4) Close all background check loopholes and add more requirements to buy and own firearms. Every single time a firearm changes hands, whether online, a gift, inheritance, garage sale or or at a gun show, an extensive background and mental health check should be required.

5) Households with domestic violence calls on a member of their household on their record should be prohibited from having firearms on premises. People with a history of violence or threats of violence should be prohibited from owning firearms and firearms should not be allowed on premises where they live.

6) Certain firearms should be restricted to permit only and actually have to show reason for such permits. For example, certain weapons are only needed for hog hunting but you cant just say you need it for hog hunting, you have to show proof that is what you need it for to be able to keep and continue to renew your permit.

7) raise the age of being able to own a firearm. A human's brain does not mature until the age of 26, why do we allow anyone with immature judgement centers of their brains to even own guns in the first place?

Just to name a few. I am sure we likely need more. Public places such as stores, malls, parking lots, parks and such should be automatic gun free zones and anyone without a permit should not be walking around with a firearm there and police should be able to confiscate them at will.

I'm going to go for specific points in a moment, but here's a blanket answer with a hypothetical scenario, which I should very, very clearly mention now is a hypothetical and uses me as an example, and that I do not desire or intend to commit any act of violence. What, out of anything you said, stops me from going to a school with a [insert firearm here because I'm a mass shooter who doesn't care about the law but we'll assume I totally bought it legally], and just mowing down kids and faculty until the police come in about... three or four minutes, give or take? Assuming they go in immediately and don't wait around because they're cowards. A school I'm imagining in such a situation is just under a mile away from a police station, but most units are, due to the area, nowhere specifically near the school. I could go on describing it but the thought is making me feel ill.

I have a legal firearm. I'm illegally taking it into a "gun-free" zone and I'm now going classroom to classroom, clearing house because good lord this school layout is the wet dream for someone wanting to shoot fish in a barrel. Not a single thing you mentioned would be stopping me, unless you decided to raise the purchase age to 26 because I am not 26. Every location you just listed doesn't matter to me because in this hypothetical, I'm already going to commit an act of mass murder. Mall, school, stores, parks, nobody in them is armed, right? Except me. How do you address that?

Next, the specific points.

5) Households with domestic violence calls on a member of their household on their record should be prohibited from having firearms on premises. People with a history of violence or threats of violence should be prohibited from owning firearms and firearms should not be allowed on premises where they live.

You just disarmed someone I care about because their ex constantly phones police with bogus DV calls, and them and their child are probably dead. Thanks.

6) Certain firearms should be restricted to permit only and actually have to show reason for such permits. For example, certain weapons are only needed for hog hunting but you cant just say you need it for hog hunting, you have to show proof that is what you need it for to be able to keep and continue to renew your permit.

So, pretending no chance to get a permit. I just went in and committed a mass shooting with a Glock. Probably your Glock, which I forget the model of.

7) raise the age of being able to own a firearm. A human's brain does not mature until the age of 26, why do we allow anyone with immature judgement centers of their brains to even own guns in the first place?

Why do we have people under the age of 26 be legally considered adults at all until then? No drinking, smoking, gambling, fucking, enlisting, ect.

I feel like your pretty young since you seem to be making a lot of arguments that don't really seem to understand the nature of people.

I'm feeling too lazy to address all your stuff but here are a couple points. Neither of these shootings were in "soft target" areas. Tx has concealed carry and open carry so anyone in the store could and probably did have a firearm, hell, they sell guns at wallmart here. (or at least they used too, haven't been in one in awhile.) And in Ohio the only reason it wasn't more of a blood bath was that the cops got there in like a minute and took the guy out, but he still managed to kill 9 people in a very short amount of time. Imagine if it was a bit harder for them to have acquire force multipliers such as those?

So, from my research, the one in El Paso was a crazy right winger jingoist but more worryingly the one in Ohio was a left winger anime fan and I thought we were supposed to be better than that. My only solace is that he seems to be one of the weirdos who lists their pronouns on twitter so he's more along the radical SJW side and not your run of the mill pro-democratic socialism liberal like myself. But still, he had anime fan on his twitter which is depressing. Especially when there was the attack on Kyoto animation only a while ago. I would think any anime fan would be disgusted by any sort of real world violence for life after seeing what happened in that fire.

Dirty Hipsters:
I heard about the walmart one and my first thought was "Wait, how was no one in a walmart in TEXAS packing? How did no one shoot back?"

I was then told that apparently walmart is a gun free zone.

How can walmart be a gun free zone when it literally sells guns?!

Maybe it's a gun-free-zone in the sense that you get a gun free with every purchase? Would certainly explain the amount of guns in our society...

Leg End:

Gergar12:
Gun nut NRA

You're the first person to mention them in the thread, and I've been wanting to ask somebody this for a bit. The NRA of course has backing from various manufacturers and such, but they don't get all their monetary support from them. When you specifically target the NRA, are you not really targeting the American people in general? The ones that fund them and support their legal actions to protect Gun Rights. The NRA aren't even the only group of their kind. Ever heard of the Gun Owners of America? Second Amendment Foundation? The NRA, GOA, and 2AF are not singular entities, but essentially collectives of gun owners that put their money where they want their rights to be.

What do you think on that?

5 million people's opinions(alleged) shouldn't matter when children are being killed.

And yes the NRA's real power comes from their members as Rubio told us when he was confronted by Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school, but they reactionary extremists who have too much free time on their hands.

Also, most NRA members support light gun control(background checks, and no guns sold to terror watch list) which NRA corporate leadership disagrees with on the chance that it sells a thousand fewer Ar-15s.

Guns in civilian hands are the modern-day social carcinogen.

Leg End:

It is far easier to stop someone killing with knifes, swords and even bombs than it is with guns because it does not take much prior planning and they can kill many more people quickly. Yes, people who want to kill will try to do so, but I would not be alive today if the person trying to kill me had used a firearm. Instead the first time he tried to strangle me with a cord in my sleep, the second time he wanted to slit my throat in my sleep. because he did not use a gun, I was able to fight for my life and survive the first attempt and my neighbor saved my life on the second attempt but my neighbor was stabbed in the process and lived. If the man trying to kill me had used a firearm, I would not be here to tell you about it.

Of course societal issues fueling violence should be addressed, but this is not an either/or situation. We should be doing everything possible to reduce it, not just one or the other.

First of all, I have noticed that the schools in my area are different than schools in many other areas, but this is actually due to the gang war violence in the 80's and 90's being so prevalent in the DFW area. We had metal detectors at the doors when I was in school and armed school cops on premises. We had bulletproof glass and double door caged areas built into the school and lockdown buttons, not just at the main entrance, but also the other entrances that could be accessed from outside including the auditorium and gyms. These did not initially exist in the gym and auditorium but after we had a person come to a prep rally with a gun to one of the gyms they added this protection to the other entrances as well.

In the morning when we went to school we had to go through metal detectors and bag searches to be able to get into the building. All emergency exits in the building had teacher monitors in the morning in addition to cameras to prevent students from letting people in to alternative entrances. The schools here have police hubs on the premises, so there are always police officer's present. Of course all of these protections even being present on my cousins school in Dallas, it still did not prevent a stolen car being chased by police to be rammed through the front doors, but that could have actually been prevented by putting exterior obstacle, "art" such as those giant round red balls out in front of target or the poles out in front of Walmart, which I think they added something like that to his school after it was rebuilt. Having armed police on premises is a better solution than having armed random people who are more likely o cause more harm than good.

The reality is though, we don't just want to protect people in schools, we want to protect people everywhere, even where no adults are present. We want the children playing on the playground alone to be protected, the kids walking home from school and playing in their yards and sleeping in their beds from being hit with stray bullets. That can only happen if we reduce the number of people with guns in the first place.

As for your points:
1)Why would they be dead, can they not own pepper spray and a taser and who is trying to kill them? It isn't like they can't have things to defend themselves with, just not firearms where they can kill a bunch of people quickly.

2)I own a Glock 40, that the guy sold to me at a gun show and never asked for my ID. He didn't even know if I was of age to buy a gun. I look so young I get carded for rated R movies and alcohol, but I can walk into a gun show and by a glock 40 without an ID.
They should regulate the size of the clip further and do away with " grandfathering in" illegal clips such as the one I own as well and that would greatly reduce the amount of damage that could be done as they would be forced to change clips as the larger clips are confiscated over time. There is no reason I should even own the 15 round clip I have that was given to me and I would have no problem turning it in in exchange for a smaller one and/or financial reimbursement through a gun buyback program as long as they are destroying what is turned in rather than reselling them. As long as they grandfather the clips and guns they have banned, they are still on the streets. That needs to change.

3)We have people considered adults when their judgment centers of their brains are not fully formed because the laws are not based on science. This is also why we have so many stupid crimes committed by people under the age of 26 and why we have ignorant government officials declaring tomato's to be vegetables when they are scientifically fruits. Because the laws are not currently based on science does not somehow make it any more "right", it just makes the society that allows this to be the case less logical and does not address the issues caused by this adequately.

EDIT: In my culture, the forced marriage and treatment of girls in " western culture" was seen as " child molestation" as it is traditional in our culture for women and men not to marry or be considered mature until their mid 20's. after their 'reckless stage" was through even though we had not had the brain scans yet it was apparent by the actions of teens they still had much maturing to do before they were ready for adult decisions. I am not sure why they do not view teens the same way in western culture.

Gergar12:
Also, most NRA members support light gun control(background checks, and no guns sold to terror watch list) which NRA corporate leadership disagrees with on the chance that it sells a thousand fewer Ar-15s.

Well, it's kinda hard to justify restriction of a right to a group of people who are put on a government list for secret reasons, give no chance to appeal to the courts, who often times haven't been convicted of anything. Would you like me to link you to all the absurd cases of the no-fly list? This is the reason why the ACLU has been fighting this issue as it relates to flying. Because, again, the government doesn't have to prove you're a terrorist to actually put you on the list. Or prove anything, for that matter.

CM156:

Gergar12:
Also, most NRA members support light gun control(background checks, and no guns sold to terror watch list) which NRA corporate leadership disagrees with on the chance that it sells a thousand fewer Ar-15s.

Well, it's kinda hard to justify restriction of a right to a group of people who are put on a government list for secret reasons, give no chance to appeal to the courts, who often times haven't been convicted of anything. Would you like me to link you to all the absurd cases of the no-fly list? This is the reason why the ACLU has been fighting this issue as it relates to flying. Because, again, the government doesn't have to prove you're a terrorist to actually put you on the list. Or prove anything, for that matter.

Since I already know some of your positions, I am curious though if you support closing background check loopholes by requiring not just stores, but also having the same requirements of every time a gun changes hands, such as gun shows, garage sales, gifts and inheritance? What about someone being able to walk into a park, store, mall or other crowded place with a firearm as this shooter did? Being able to call in suspicious persons and have police be able to actually address a guy walking down the street with a firearm out? Many distorts in Texas will not even respond to those calls until someone is shot.

What do you think should actually be done to reduce something like this from happening, in addition to reducing the number of overall deaths from firearms from domestic violence or a random stray bullet hitting someone while they sleep? Most killings are from domestic violence, those are also the most dangerous situations for police according to police. Arming more people does nothing to stop stray bullets from hitting sleeping children or angry people from shooting anyone in their vicinity. I do not see making our stores, malls, schools, neighborhoods and streets a war zone as a solution. Do you have a better idea?

It looks like 8chan got shut down over this incident. That couldn't have happened to a more kind and positive environment. /s

The shooting in Ohio is the one weird one as not only does the guy appear to be left wing, but his sister was one of the victims and was reported has making a "hit list" in high school. You'd be forgiven to think both were racially motivated seeing as they happened so close together(or maybe its my inner conspiracy nut half way assuming this was all planned).

Far is the normal talking points go, I support the second amendment, and I also support gun control so long as the limits aren't outrageous.

Worgen:

I feel like your pretty young since you seem to be making a lot of arguments that don't really seem to understand the nature of people.

Hitting my mid 20s now, and I'd like to think I try to understand the nature of humanity. "Try" being the key word.

I'm feeling too lazy to address all your stuff but here are a couple points. Neither of these shootings were in "soft target" areas. Tx has concealed carry and open carry so anyone in the store could and probably did have a firearm, hell, they sell guns at wallmart here. (or at least they used too, haven't been in one in awhile.)

That I am aware of, there was at least one person interviewed who did have a firearm, and was covering his family I believe, and a few other people as they were making an exit. Everyone armed was likely making careful exits with groups of people, covering against the shooter if he came their way. All of that is speculation however.

And in Ohio the only reason it wasn't more of a blood bath was that the cops got there in like a minute and took the guy out, but he still managed to kill 9 people in a very short amount of time. Imagine if it was a bit harder for them to have acquire force multipliers such as those?

Would any proposed gun laws have actually stopped them from acquiring any such force multiplier? Even with that in mind, it was in fact good guys with guns that stopped a nutcase with one. Imagine if several people there were carrying. Well, the guy was supposedly decked out in body armor, so you'd need something of decent caliber to effectively penetrate it. But we're thankfully not talking about outlawing bullet-resistant armor.

...Outside of that one politician, but he got destroyed for that silliness.

Gergar12:

5 million people's opinions(alleged) shouldn't matter when children are being killed.

Similar ideas for people on the other side of the aisle, but in that instance they believe in different measures. It's all opinions and takes on things.

And yes the NRA's real power comes from their members as Rubio told us when he was confronted by Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school, but they reactionary extremists who have too much free time on their hands.

Or citizens like you and me. I forget if you're an American, so sorry if I'm making an assumption.

Also, most NRA members support light gun control(background checks, and no guns sold to terror watch list) which NRA corporate leadership disagrees with on the chance that it sells a thousand fewer Ar-15s.

The NRA has let pass gun control bills on several occasions, and that's had a lot of their supporters jump ship and support the GOA and 2AF instead. I know I'm not giving the NRA a single cent.

Guns in civilian hands are the modern-day social carcinogen.

Guns in the hands of exclusively corrupt police, gang members, and the supposed neo-nazi pedophile child murdering government would be worse, I'd reckon. I just don't get the logic.

Lil devils x:

It is far easier to stop someone killing with knifes, swords and even bombs than it is with guns because it does not take much prior planning and they can kill many more people quickly.

Bombs may take a bit more planning, but I can guarantee to you that you can lay a lot more to waste with explosives than you ever could with a firearm. I'm dreading the day we get an intelligent murderer that takes up McVeigh's torch and starts exploding the shit out of people.

Yes, people who want to kill will try to do so, but I would not be alive today if the person trying to kill me had used a firearm. Instead the first time he tried to strangle me with a cord in my sleep, the second time he wanted to slit my throat in my sleep. because he did not use a gun, I was able to fight for my life and survive the first attempt and my neighbor saved my life on the second attempt but my neighbor was stabbed in the process and lived. If the man trying to kill me had used a firearm, I would not be here to tell you about it.

Well I'm glad you're still here. I can't comment much because I don't know the whole situation, and I really don't want to pry.

Of course societal issues fueling violence should be addressed, but this is not an either/or situation. We should be doing everything possible to reduce it, not just one or the other.

From my view, it's the issue of people with the desire to kill. Hatred. This is all on the human being that takes up the mission to end life.

First of all, I have noticed that the schools in my area are different than schools in many other areas, but this is actually due to the gang war violence in the 80's and 90's being so prevalent in the DFW area. We had metal detectors at the doors when I was in school and armed school cops on premises. We had bulletproof glass and double door caged areas built into the school and lockdown buttons, not just at the main entrance, but also the other entrances that could be accessed from outside including the auditorium and gyms. These did not initially exist in the gym and auditorium but after we had a person come to a prep rally with a gun to one of the gyms they added this protection to the other entrances as well.

In the morning when we went to school we had to go through metal detectors and bag searches to be able to get into the building. All emergency exits in the building had teacher monitors in the morning in addition to cameras to prevent students from letting people in to alternative entrances. The schools here have police hubs on the premises, so there are always police officer's present. Of course all of these protections even being present on my cousins school in Dallas, it still did not prevent a stolen car being chased by police to be rammed through the front doors, but that could have actually been prevented by putting exterior obstacle, "art" such as those giant round red balls out in front of target or the poles out in front of Walmart, which I think they added something like that to his school after it was rebuilt. Having armed police on premises is a better solution than having armed random people who are more likely o cause more harm than good.

I don't really trust police to hit the side of a barn, is a major issue with relying on that.

The reality is though, we don't just want to protect people in schools, we want to protect people everywhere, even where no adults are present. We want the children playing on the playground alone to be protected, the kids walking home from school and playing in their yards and sleeping in their beds from being hit with stray bullets. That can only happen if we reduce the number of people with guns in the first place.

So... we're talking about stray rounds now, not shootings? Like, I should be bringing up cars again if we're going into this.

As for your points:
1)Why would they be dead, can they not own pepper spray and a taser and who is trying to kill them? It isn't like they can't have things to defend themselves with, just not firearms where they can kill a bunch of people quickly.

Pepper Spray and Tasers are not particularly effective, especially against someone who has experienced either before. Someone can power through the burning of spray quite easily, and it can also effect the person using it in a closed space. Tasers specifically require skin contact and praying that they hit their mark, and even then their success rate is just so utter garbage. For a bit more info, the ex is a rather large male and the person at risk is a female with their daughter. I have no doubt that male has experienced both things before and even then, can easily power through both if we're assuming they have been properly deployed. I would trust neither to protect them.

...I've also noticed that you didn't address the fact that said person has readily abused the system and would, logically, disarm their potential victim under your standard. Your system has empowered an abuser to do as they please, with the backing of the state.

2)I own a Glock 40, that the guy sold to me at a gun show and never asked for my ID. He didn't even know if I was of age to buy a gun. I look so young I get carded for rated R movies and alcohol, but I can walk into a gun show and by a glock 40 without an ID.
They should regulate the size of the clip further and do away with " grandfathering in" illegal clips such as the one I own

...You didn't just admit to having an illegal Magazine, right? I'm just assuming that you're meaning the one you own should be illegal as well.

as well and that would greatly reduce the amount of damage that could be done as they would be forced to change clips as the larger clips are confiscated over time.

Buy em illegally, reload faster, 3D printing, ect. Not gonna work. Hasn't worked.

There is no reason I should even own the 15 round clip I have that was given to me and I would have no problem turning it in in exchange for a smaller one and/or financial reimbursement through a gun buyback program as long as they are destroying what is turned in rather than reselling them. As long as they grandfather the clips and guns they have banned, they are still on the streets. That needs to change.

Why shouldn't you own a 15 round magazine? Here's a reason you should be able to.

3)We have people considered adults when their judgment centers of their brains are not fully formed because the laws are not based on science. This is also why we have so many stupid crimes committed by people under the age of 26 and why we have ignorant government officials declaring tomato's to be vegetables when they are scientifically fruits.

Aren't they far older than 26?

Because the laws are not currently based on science does not somehow make it any more "right", it just makes the society that allows this to be the case less logical and does not address the issues caused by this adequately.

Doesn't make it wrong either. We can do a lot of things with the backing of science that are right and wrong.

EDIT: In my culture, the forced marriage and treatment of girls in " western culture" was seen as " child molestation" as it is traditional in our culture for women and men not to marry or be considered mature until their mid 20's. after their 'reckless stage" was through even though we had not had the brain scans yet it was apparent by the actions of teens they still had much maturing to do before they were ready for adult decisions. I am not sure why they do not view teens the same way in western culture.

Maybe at a certain point, it's believed that people can make generally mature decisions at a certain age? Age of consent varies by state, California upped cigs to 21, enlistment for military is 18, ect. Hard to say what age some things people are able to truly grasp, but to say we're all basically children until 26 is a bit much for pretty much anyone. If anything, we might just be babying people too much as is, but that's a whole other thing.

Lil devils x:
Since I already know some of your positions, I am curious though if you support closing background check loopholes by requiring not just stores, but also having the same requirements of every time a gun changes hands, such as gun shows, garage sales, gifts and inheritance?

I believe in background checks for any gun purchase.

What about someone being able to walk into a park, store, mall or other crowded place with a firearm as this shooter did? Being able to call in suspicious persons and have police be able to actually address a guy walking down the street with a firearm out? Many distorts in Texas will not even respond to those calls until someone is shot.

You mean open carry? I'm not entirely sure what my opinion is.

What do you think should actually be done to reduce something like this from happening, in addition to reducing the number of overall deaths from firearms from domestic violence or a random stray bullet hitting someone while they sleep? Most killings are from domestic violence, those are also the most dangerous situations for police according to police. Arming more people does nothing to stop stray bullets from hitting sleeping children or angry people from shooting anyone in their vicinity. I do not see making our stores, malls, schools, neighborhoods and streets a war zone as a solution. Do you have a better idea?

I don't have a solution for you or for any of this, I'm afraid. Most gun crime (small time robbery, for instance) happens with handguns, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that you can't ban those. You could always convince the Democrats to run on a platform of overt and open opposition to the Second Amendment, which would be a political suicide more grotesque and lurid than that of Queen Dido.

3D printing is going to open up a Pandora's box on this issue. How long that takes remains to be seen.

Shadowstar38:
It looks like 8chan got shut down over this incident. That couldn't have happened to a more kind and positive environment. /s

Nope. Cloudflare is just dropping them as a client at midnight PST, and they're likely getting another protection provider. Even without one, the site is still going to be up, but it'd be without the protections Cloudflare provided.

The shooting in Ohio is the one weird one as not only does the guy appear to be left wing, but his sister was one of the victims and was reported has making a "hit list" in high school. You'd be forgiven to think both were racially motivated seeing as they happened so close together(or maybe its my inner conspiracy nut half way assuming this was all planned).

From one nut to another, here's one: two of the three shootings this week supposedly used WASRs which haven't exactly been known to be used in this kind of thing. Both were motivated by extremely similar reasons. First shooting explicitly has the shooter go across state lines to pick up this specific rifle when you could easily get whatever in the home state and rampage a garlic fest.

Coincidence? Probably, but rev up those X-Files anyway.

Leg End:
...

So your reason for owning guns isn't sport or hunting, it's solely as a means to kill people who you think are trying to kill you?

When everyone is armed, it just means the person who shoots first is the winner.

Kwak:

So your reason for owning guns isn't sport or hunting, it's solely as a means to kill people who you think are trying to kill you?

Sport is fun, but I don't hunt. We got these things for threats foreign and domestic, and I'm not shying away from that. From the sounds of it, you're likely against lethal force ever being used, am I guessing right in that?

Is there a point to this discussion, here or in the broader halls of the nation?

Leg End:
Sport is fun, but I don't hunt. We got these things for threats foreign and domestic, and I'm not shying away from that. From the sounds of it, you're likely against lethal force ever being used, am I guessing right in that?

No, I think sick animals should be put down. And if you try to kill me, I'm taking you with me or at least putting my thumbs in your eyes.
Just interesting to hear that is the sole reason you are into the whole gun thing. Most people say it's to appreciate the engineering and craftsmanship, or the sharpshooting sport of it.

Gordon_4:
Is there a point to this discussion, here or in the broader halls of the nation?

Just humans trying to face their ultimate violent nature as a species with the added contradiction of our comprehension that violence is a bad and undesirable outcome.

Gordon_4:
Is there a point to this discussion, here or in the broader halls of the nation?

There is not.

Kwak:

No, I think sick animals should be put down. And if you try to kill me, I'm taking you with me or at least putting my thumbs in your eyes.

Well, that's certainly common ground. We might differ on capital punishment, but eh.

Just interesting to hear that is the sole reason you are into the whole gun thing. Most people say it's to appreciate the engineering and craftsmanship, or the sharpshooting sport of it.

Not a sole reason, but it's a major one in regards to my principles. I believe having the means to protect yourself and those you care about is important, and that relying on others is not a good idea, see: Parkland. I don't trust any central authority with a monopoly on power, because we've all seen where that goes.

Unrelated to anything of that sort, I equally enjoy firearms on a personal level for the three reasons you describe, but particularly as feats of engineering. I enjoy seeing where we're going in their creation, with 3D printing and whatnot. The day we can truly 3D print something like an AR-15 or the like from the ground-up is the day I scream like a little girl and try to 3D print something like a Burgess and probably kill myself in the process because 3D printing a folding shotgun is a lot more complex than an AR. That and, I just like guns. Pew pew.

Kwak:

Just humans trying to face their ultimate violent nature as a species with the added contradiction of our comprehension that violence is a bad and undesirable outcome.

Such is the duality of man.

I'm seeing this more and more as a lack of responsibility. As a country, we gave ourselves the right to bear arms. And shooter by shooter we are proving ourselves less and less worthy of that right. Gun ownership comes with social and moral (but sadly very little legal) responsibility to safely use and maintain those guns, lest we injure or kill others... who DO have the right to LIVE. It is becoming more and more obvious we aren't responsible enough to claim we deserve those rights we gave to ourselves.

And so the arguments, "gun control just takes guns out of the hands of law abiding gun owners, criminals will just ignore the law and keep guns." Yup, they sure will. And they will probably use them to commit crimes. It will suck for a while, maybe a long while. But eventually they will get caught, and they will lose that gun. Then they won't be able to buy one, and it will get harder and harder to steal one as fewer and fewer people have them to steal. No one said it would solve gun crime overnight, but eventually it works. And the eventuality of the alternative, everyone has a gun and everyone is one "cut off in traffic blowup" away from killing dozens. I prefer the eventuality of being relatively sure no one around me has the means to kill dozens of people in a few minutes, rather than the eventuality that anyone around me could at any time.

And lest we forget, gun deaths are only a small percentage of gun crime. Many, many more are death by suicide. I've personally saved a person who took a few handfuls of pills to kill themselves, would have been a lot harder to save my friend if he had shot himself in the head. The argument is "people will just kill themselves a different way." Yup, they sure will. In usually a more difficult to access and MUCH less efficient way.

I'm not even in favor of complete and blanket ban of guns. I don't mind if a guy has a 12-gauge for hunting. But different guns carry with them different potentials for killing. When the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms, they were talking about flintlocks and muskets... very low killing potential. A musket spree... not very effective and kind of obvious if you are carrying around 10 or 12 loaded muskets. Do I think we need any regulation on those... we could probably do without much regulation of that "level" of killing potential. An AR-15 with an extended magazine and made fully automatic with a slidefire or bumpstock, capable of killing hundreds every minute... maybe there's enough of a difference in killing potential to maybe warrant some legislation there? Just a little? Banning the bumpstock, a good start... implying that more does need to be done.

I'm just saying, there are degrees of how dangerous guns are and can be. And maybe going all in on "over 200 years ago they said 'shall not be infringed' and dammit, ya'll better not ever infringe on MY rights in ANY way" isn't the most evolved position. Maybe a measured response, with plenty of debated arguments guiding potential legislation... shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. And then the old slippery slope "well, you ban this, then you ban that... where does it end?"

Fucking somewhere. That's where it ends. Any time anyone says "where does it end? It ends somewhere. It ends before either of my above exaggerated "eventualities" too. And I want to see where this ends, because its way better than where we are now.

Silentpony:
sandy Hook was the crossing of the Rubicon of mass shootings. If 20+ toddlers getting massacred by a psychopath wasn't enough to force lawmakers to take action, nothing ever will be.
Hell in a nation where stray bullets are considered an every day hazard what could we possibly expect?

The democrats have actually passed two gun safety bills through the house in the last few months.

The Senate leader, Mitch McConnell has refused to allow a vote on either of them.

Just to point out, a lot of criminals in the UK actually do have guns, but most of us (non-criminals, non-law enforcement) don't have guns, and by and large, that kind of works out.

Leg End:
Because those with murder in their heart will kill. We are not addressing the hearts of man.

Indeed, quite the opposite: look no further than the US president.

Leg End:
Because those with murder in their heart will kill.

Thoughts and prayers, but for edgelords.

Lil devils x:

1)Create a firearm registry and all firearms must be registered to the person who has possession of them. If someone is caught with a firearm that is not registered to them, they will be confiscated and only the rightful owner can pick them up. This way police can actually confiscate firearms when pulling someone over or raiding their home if they have possession of unregistered firearms.'

2)End open carry. This guy literally walked down the street openly carrying a gun and the police could do nothing about it. People walking around with guns SHOULD be considered suspicious so that people can call the police when they see it rather than it just being something people expect to see. Special permits could be issued for ranchers and hog hunters, but most people have no reason to need to open carry in the first place.

3)Have stricter requirements for open carry and conceal to carry permits.

4) Close all background check loopholes and add more requirements to buy and own firearms. Every single time a firearm changes hands, whether online, a gift, inheritance, garage sale or or at a gun show, an extensive background and mental health check should be required.

5) Households with domestic violence calls on a member of their household on their record should be prohibited from having firearms on premises. People with a history of violence or threats of violence should be prohibited from owning firearms and firearms should not be allowed on premises where they live.

6) Certain firearms should be restricted to permit only and actually have to show reason for such permits. For example, certain weapons are only needed for hog hunting but you cant just say you need it for hog hunting, you have to show proof that is what you need it for to be able to keep and continue to renew your permit.

7) raise the age of being able to own a firearm. A human's brain does not mature until the age of 26, why do we allow anyone with immature judgement centers of their brains to even own guns in the first place?

I like this post of concrete suggestions. You're like 8000 steps ahead of everyone who ever suggested "common sense gun reform".

1) This is mentioned a lot I'm not sure how huge a difference just having a registry makes. There's a real fear of the government's ability to do a mass round-up of guns using a comprehensive registry, and that's being counterweighted by just knowing who the owner is on paper? I feel like you'd need something prescriptive to make it worthwhile, like being able to use the information to hold gun owners responsible would sort of be a subversive way of punishing back alley gun sales, and that sort of law might justify a registry, but just knowing for the sake seems like a lot of intrusion and paperwork for little gain, and I suspect those who want a registry intend to use it for more heavy handed legislation in the future.

2) I don't know what constitutes ending open carry. If allowing police to stop and talk to someone for carrying a gun around constitutes ending open carry, I'm with that. Making carrying a gun publicly blanket illegal would probably be stupid, but people certainly already call the police when they see someone carrying a gun around, as it should be. And all those people who post videos of themselves walking around with rifles just because they can and pretending to be lawyers when the cops show up should be arrested for disturbing the peace.

3) I don't know how strict the requirements are currently, I assume it varies by state, so I can't really comment on this.

4) I don't think there are so many loopholes as people think, but I also don't think there's really anyone against this per se, unless they're against background checks in the first place. Close all the background check loopholes. I'm not sure how you do an extensive mental health check though, and some of the possible answers are problematic. Do we dig through people's medical history for a diagnoses and decide which can't have a gun? Do we put people in front of a psychologist every time they buy a gun? There's a minefield of ethical and logistical problems in implementing that.

5) For similar ethical and logistical problems to the mental health check, I think limiting gun ownership to violent people is sort of limited to those who have committed crimes. If we want to disarm people for being generally violent or threatening, I think we need to reform criminal justice so that people being violent or threatening have some kind of charge on their record. The old "call the cops so that they come over and mediate for a few minutes until people stop yelling and move on with their lives" is not a very good match for removing people's rights. We need a more concrete system than that.

6) This one I just don't like at all. Like, what if I buy a gun with the intention of hog hunting and then get busy and never get a chance too. Is my gun confiscated? Moreover, I really don't think the nature of the gun is the variable causing problems, so much as the nature of the gun holder. Someone who shouldn't have an AR probably also shouldn't have a handgun. Other than certain features designed only for mass death (namely fully automatic), the focus of gun legislation I think should be on the who and not the what.

7) Yes. Agreed. I cannot express how many guns were purchased by people I know between the ages of 18 and 25 because they thought it was cool, and then they never used it for anything so they just sit in hopefully a safe, possibly just a shelf, and then get sold off at a later date. Guns might be necessary to fight off tyranny, but 19 year olds aren't.

Dreiko:
So, from my research, the one in El Paso was a crazy right winger jingoist but more worryingly the one in Ohio was a left winger anime fan and I thought we were supposed to be better than that.

The demographic of mass shooter is young men with a hint of solitude. I'm not sure how you expect left-wing anime fans to avoid that.

This is getting ever more deeply unsettling. The cult are disturbing knots of anti-intellectual hate begging to herded towards violent action. The gun fetishism given convenient targets and justifications for their sick release. They're not getting any better, they aren't going to calm down. They are becoming larger liabilities with fatal repercussions, groomed timebombs covered in American flags, chanting the constitution like the world's worst Wiccan spell. Anyone who claims the president of the US doesn't have any influence over their own unquestioning fanbase are either total fucking idiots or consciously lying psychos. Why do these killers hardly ever get shot on sight after murdering so many people in cold blood while so many harmless, unarmed African-Americans are killed for nothing but twitchy paranoid excuses?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here