Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Xoon

United States Gun Control Megathread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Xoon said:

I agree, the US is almost like Europe. 

 

Not sure how banning guns would lower gun violence,  if it is for exampled caused by gang wars in a few major cities.  
People in the entire country losing their guns, because a few gangs had a war and the media caught wind of recent statistics. 

 

Does not really make sense, unless you are motivated by different agendas. 

 

And that's precisely the issue from my experience.  They're either against guns on an emotional level (they're scary!) or they've not bothered to really educate themself on the matter, both of which could fall under the "not really making sense" part.  Other agendas is what you'd expect here, some people just don't like people owning guns for political reasons or whatever.

 

Granted these mass shootings are no bueno, but from the debates I've found myself in, people calling for gun control seem to be hyperfocused on those instead of where the vast majority of gun violence comes from.  They do a good job of sidestepping that fact even when I try to bring up that point.  You can't just use gun violence numbers against me in a debate and then ignore the cases actually causing those numbers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ApplesauceBandit said:

 

And that's precisely the issue from my experience.  They're either against guns on an emotional level (they're scary!) or they've not bothered to really educate themself on the matter, both of which could fall under the "not really making sense" part.  Other agendas is what you'd expect here, some people just don't like people owning guns for political reasons or whatever.

 

Granted these mass shootings are no bueno, but from the debates I've found myself in, people calling for gun control seem to be hyperfocused on those instead of where the vast majority of gun violence comes from.  They do a good job of sidestepping that fact even when I try to bring up that point.  You can't just use gun violence numbers against me in a debate and then ignore the cases actually causing those numbers!

Norway is a example of why gun control does not stop mass shooters, we have strict gun control. And even still, he was actually going to get a AK, but he was too impatient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ApplesauceBandit said:

 

And that's precisely the issue from my experience.  They're either against guns on an emotional level (they're scary!) or they've not bothered to really educate themself on the matter, both of which could fall under the "not really making sense" part.  Other agendas is what you'd expect here, some people just don't like people owning guns for political reasons or whatever.

 

Granted these mass shootings are no bueno, but from the debates I've found myself in, people calling for gun control seem to be hyperfocused on those instead of where the vast majority of gun violence comes from.  They do a good job of sidestepping that fact even when I try to bring up that point.  You can't just use gun violence numbers against me in a debate and then ignore the cases actually causing those numbers!

 

Just remember, you're being overly pedantic by actually knowing facts and the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/05/as-the-trial-of-omar-mateens-wife-begins-new-evidence-undermines-beliefs-about-the-pulse-massacre-including-motive/

 

Who would've thought that having armed men would deter attack:

Quote

Mateen went to Pulse only after having scouted other venues that night that were wholly unrelated to the LGBT community, only to find that they were too defended by armed guards and police, and ultimately chose Pulse only after a generic Google search for

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A interesting thought crossed my mind recently regarding a discussion about civil war in Sweden. 

 

The discussion basically boiled down to that unless the people got the Military's support, there was no way in hell a rebellion could emerge. 
This is simply because of the large military and reserve in comparison to the population, and how integrated it is into the common man. 

 

Would the second amendment work out for small countries like Scandinavian ones? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Xoon said:

A interesting thought crossed my mind recently regarding a discussion about civil war in Sweden. 

 

The discussion basically boiled down to that unless the people got the Military's support, there was no way in hell a rebellion could emerge. 
This is simply because of the large military and reserve in comparison to the population, and how integrated it is into the common man. 

 

Would the second amendment work out for small countries like Scandinavian ones? 

 

Yeah it would probably work out for all sorts of countries. I mean I do think the right to arms comes with some downsides, but in terms of making a lot of political BS untenable yeah I think it's more or less one size fits all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah it would probably work out for all sorts of countries. I mean I do think the right to arms comes with some downsides, but in terms of making a lot of political BS untenable yeah I think it's more or less one size fits all.

How about the old Homeguard model in Norway?

 

During a 60-80s, about 1 in 40 Norwegian were a part of the Homeguard, and the HG soldiers kept their rifle and equipment at home.  This meant that the military was highly integrated into the population, meaning that the people always had the support of the military, and with access to second grade military gear if the government went rogue. Considering the homeguard outnumbered the army by 12:1 right now, I think they would have a fair chance, with actual training. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Department unveils measures to prevent gun violence.

 

Overall I think this is a net positive. Most of it sounds like the NICS reform that gun owners know we've needed for years. I know some people will object to this bit, but I've highlighted what I think is the key bit:

 

Quote

On Monday, the President formally unveiled a plan that included asking states to adopt "extreme risk protection orders," which allow law enforcement officers, with court approval, to temporarily prevent some people from purchasing firearms and to remove firearms from those who pose a threat to themselves or others.

 

In other words, this is nothing different than how current warrants work.

I'm calling this one a net win for Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to lose an election in Texas.

 

Quote

 According to Politico’s Michael Calderone, O’Rourke, who’s not shy about swearing on the campaign trail, added, “I have no idea how that polls and I should give a shit what the NRA thinks about it.”

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/13/beto-orourke-just-demonstrated-how-to-lose-an-election-in-texas/

 

It's like they never learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

How to lose an election in Texas.

 

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/13/beto-orourke-just-demonstrated-how-to-lose-an-election-in-texas/

 

It's like they never learn.

 

Regardless of what one think of his idea or of how much saying that is a political suicide in Texas, I think it's a rather good sign that politician stands to their ideas even if they are unpopular rather than let the ideas of his opponents run unopposed.

It create a debate (the level of the debate is another issue) and elections are the perfect time to speak about societal issues.

 

It's like Benoît Hamon (who was was the left candidate for the French presidential election) who proposed the idea of a basic income financed by a tax on robots work in order to tackle the issue of unqualified jobs bound to disappear at some point since robots and algorithms do it better.

It's an issue that our societies will have to deal with in a not so distant future: What do we do with peoples who can't get a job anymore? How do we guarantee them a decent living standard?

I didn't liked the solution he proposed (I prefer for the State to help those people to get the necessary qualification in the new job market) but I was grateful to him for bringing that important question to the debates of the presidential election, it was the perfect stage discuss about this on a national scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Regardless of what one think of his idea or of how much saying that is a political suicide in Texas, I think it's a rather good sign that politician stands to their ideas even if they are unpopular rather than let the ideas of his opponents run unopposed.

 

It's a good thing because they will lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns still worry me, and I really don't think I'd like to live in a state where people can walk about openly carrying them. Then again, I think a lot of that worry likely stems from two things: a lack of knowledge about or experience with firearms, and a (largely) unfairly dim, cynical view of people. If you'd asked me five years ago about guns, I'd probably say that since I wouldn't trust myself with one, why would I trust anybody else? I like to think I've mellowed with time and come to see how unhealthy this attitude is. At the same time, I've become rather more interested in the workings of bolt-action, WW2 and Cold War firearms, and would like to at least fire a handful at a range one day. As far as I know, handguns are illegal in Scotland, and I've been having Hell's own game trying to find out just what kind of firearms other than hunting shotguns and some air rifles it's legal to own. If there's information about the Firearms Act on the Scottish Police website, I haven't found it.

 

I think that education about the nature of firearms is ultimately far more beneficial to society at large than simply having an outright ban. I think we should get over it like we got over our other irrational fears and boogeymen, and I think it's inevitable that firearms will fade away as a convenient scapegoat like homosexuality did. And quite frankly, it's embarrassing that so-called professional news outlets and political leaders don't know the first thing about the firearms they're discussing or deciding whether we should ban them from society. Our government benches runneth over with overweight, overpaid and undereducated people trying to look good by looking busy.

 

I have a perfect Sunday that I will wake up, polish off my egg and soldiers and walk down to the local firing range to practice my Lee-Enfield marksmanship for the Mad Minute, under the watchful tutelage of one of the Army sergeants who runs the range (because civilians can't be trusted, and it gives retired soldiers something interesting to do). I wouldn't even have to take the thing home with me; I could just buy it, keep it at a range armoury and visit to clean, maintain, use and take lessons on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jamby said:

 If you'd asked me five years ago about guns, I'd probably say that since I wouldn't trust myself with one, why would I trust anybody else?

 

 

This is literally the most real thing said so far. And this is the thought of many, many people.

 

Which is why it's frustrating when, at the suggestion of training or exposing people early to the tool, us gun-people get looked at like we have two heads.

 

If you ever find yourself in Colorado, I'll take you shooting. And I'm more fun than @Sturgeon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Untrue. Oedipus likes to take his victims on death marches, just ask @T___A.

 

The death marches are part of the experience! They give you an even deeper appreciation for firearms and the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not had a real opinion on the topic of firearm property and control until recently. Coming from a country that has had less than 20 homicides of gun origin in the past 2 years, guns to us mean nothing. Its heavily regulated, and no crimes occur besides the rare less-than-one-percent.  But living state-side these past couple years, the reoccurring incidents that appear in media really get out of hand.

 

As a newly parent, I have to say I  hope a step forward is taken for the sake of child safety, without having taken back another 2 steps in the process. Because so far I haven't seen any proper solutions come from either side of the government's mouthes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Waffentrager said:

I have not had a real opinion on the topic of firearm property and control until recently. Coming from a country that has had less than 20 homicides of gun origin in the past 2 years, guns to us mean nothing. Its heavily regulated, and no crimes occur besides the rare less-than-one-percent.  But living state-side these past couple years, the reoccurring incidents that appear in media really get out of hand.

 

As a newly parent, I have to say I  hope a step forward is taken for the sake of child safety, without having taken back another 2 steps in the process. Because so far I haven't seen any proper solutions come from either side of the government's mouthes. 

 

Every country's got problems, most of them don't have an easy solution. South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the world (40 people/day), for example. I'm sure that's a complex issue with few good solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the world (40 people/day), for example. I'm sure that's a complex issue with few good solutions.

 

It's horrible and not easy to resolve. But the government there tends to mutually agree its something needing addressing and typically come together in trying new solutions. From what I see, the US is not so mutually agreeing on the problem and how to go about it.. At least that isn't a plain horrid idea, such as the idea of arming teacher staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×