Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. Cliffy McEdgeface

    Cliffy McEdgeface bitch I will cut you

    Jun 28, 2018
    >no motive
    War vets don't shoot up country music concerts at nightclubs for no fucking reason.
    >died in the melee, not clear how
    The shooter was reported to be in a fucking firefight with the police at the end and 'you don't know how'. Uh huh. It's not like you can't see something like a gunshot wound and pretty quickly figure out from location and such whether he did it himself or whether he was shot by an officer. This already reeks of bullshit.
    >"The country-themed venue was filled with college students when Long tossed a smoke bomb and opened fire at around 11:20 p.m. local time."
    either that's a typo or this dude literally traveled many hours into the fucking future to commit this shooting
    EDIT: ok, it STARTED on the night of Nov 7th and apparently dragged on into the twilight hours of the 8th, now it makes sense. Whoever wrote this article could stand to have clarified that.

    Keep in mind that the witness ABC7 interviewed described him as a big guy, dressed in black, wearing a vest. No "white" or "Caucasian" or anything like that. Unless this dude was dressed like a fucking ninja how the fuck do you miss that.

    And now people are saying he had mental health issues, possibly serious PTSD. Yes, of course, we need to strip gun rights from everyone because the fucking military breaks people and throws them back into civilian life like nothing bad could possibly happen. Government screws up, citizenry needs to pay for it though. Fuck you.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018 at 1:49 AM
  2. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Vault Fossil

    Oct 27, 2003
    I would dispute the idea that the military 'breaks' people. Most folks, including a great deal of my friends, have no issues readjusting to civilian life. The problem is the liberal hollywood machine and goddamned hippies love to make a big deal about those who have issues returning. If you watch war movies, it is as if every single veteran coming home cries himself to sleep or dives for cover after hearing loud noises.

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/08/the-difficult-transition-from-military-to-civilian-life/

    https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2017/article/veterans.htm
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018 at 1:43 PM
  3. TheHouseAlwaysWins

    TheHouseAlwaysWins Still Mildly Glowing

    Nov 28, 2015
    So do you guys really think like this or are you just trying to push an agenda?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018 at 4:28 PM
  4. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Vault Fossil

    Oct 27, 2003

    I dunno, you don't have anything typed for what I said.
     
  5. WeissYohji

    WeissYohji First time out of the vault

    Thursday
    What happened to blaming the individual? Guns, knives, swords, axes, bats, spears, you name it--they're all just tools. They require a human agent to use.

    I'm as far left as a libertarian can be (tending toward anarcho-socialism), and I'm against gun control. The right to bear arms--ALL arms, whether currently existing or yet to be invented--protects the proletariat from the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would have agreed with the Second Amendment:

    "To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising."

    Source: The Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, London, 1850.
     
  6. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    Personally responsibility is so passe, like what is this 1953?
    You know you're dealing with exceptional people when their political views have hyphens in them.
     
  7. WeissYohji

    WeissYohji First time out of the vault

    Thursday
    Why blame the tool instead of the person? We don't blame the knife when there's a stabbing. We don't blame the car when there's a car crash. Nobody blamed the lightsaber when Anakin Skywalker (d.b.a. Darth Vader) killed those Jedi younglings. So why do we go and blame the gun when there's a shooting?
     
  8. Rheios

    Rheios Mr. House's Employee of the Apocalypse

    Oct 22, 2018
    End of the day, its the fundamental question: Do you favor Freedom or Security more? They are both innately dangerous taken to their conclusions. Freedom leaves responsibility for dealing with things - even bad luck - purely upon your own shoulders at its natural conclusion, allows you anything - no matter how destructive, and allows dangerous people to abuse and misuse the items/tools/mechanisms of society that you interact with and enjoy in good faith. Security leaves you without freedom to deal with things yourself - even good luck - because it could endanger the system of security and others, it allows you nothing remotely dangerous even if its enjoyable, and allows whoever becomes the designator of 'safe' to abuse and misuse the system, which you obey for the betterment of others, to better themselves. The scale between them slides, few people being purely for one or the other to the absolute extension (for example I think a governmental duty is protection of private property rights. They being a type of security.) Still, whichever one you favor more tends to fundamentally answer how you think guns should be handled.

    For my part, I tend to favor freedom and think that death and harm are an expected result of having it, particularly when its an explicitly stated right in the constitution. The attempts to roll back that freedom for security, usually with quite innocent and even good intentioned, seem punitive on the whole for the minority to me. They seem dangerous to approach as each one can be easily enough misused for all the good they may or may not do - even stuff on the books like background checks could be abused and seem to frequently fail their intentions - like when the military fails to report dishonorable discharges on them or they fail to include histories of spousal abuse or violence. I also don't think they'll do as good as some would think they'd do as we move into the future and closer and closer to a day when we can just print guns that work consistently enough to do damage. (I don't necessarily think this day is *super* soon, as the currently printable ones are rather iffy, but it's also closer than a lot of law writers probably think.)

    Not that I'm saying anything profound or unknown. I just also think that the argument tends to evolve on its own and people think they can convince others to give up their innate preferences of one or the other. They likely can't, and the best and most wise thing people could do is stop demonizing those with a different place in the scale - as none are doing it purely out of malice, at least up until the point you start demonizing them because then they'll squat in your coffee and laugh - and vote and protest in manner they think will improve things. Then let a freakin' system built to try and work this stuff out - slowly but work it out - and functioning as it can. Including the concept that sometimes a majority opinion also isn't an accepted one and won't get implemented. There's a reason we're not a direct democracy too.

    Also, to be fair, by no means do I avoid hypocrisy for my view: I favor freedom because I can not trust those like me. Given power and opportunity I'd happily sit upon the world and its people, a proverbial dragon on his hoard. I'd be a pretty noble, kind, and gentle dragon, I like to think, but name a dictator who didn't think they were that - self delusion is quite a drug.

    EDIT: I should probably add that this, by no means, should imply that the debates shouldn't ever happen. Exposing yourself to different views is important to keeping eachother's humanity and positions in mind, but sometimes it does the opposite when the argument becomes just yelling, which happens when we think we can just argue down fundamental viewpoints. People have to change those themselves, the best you can ever do is encourage them to consider it and even then they'll likely slide back towards that original position.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018 at 10:16 PM
  9. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    These latter comments are a pretty wordy way of saying "just do your thing", but sadly keep falling on the pitfall of thinking that pro control means something way more drastic and out there than the reality of it, that generally being basic shit the large majority of countries are up to date with that don't happen to have a mass shooting for almost every day in the year. Pretty sure that absolutely nobody is actually against better background cheking.
     
  10. Fall Out Boy

    Fall Out Boy Unbeliever

    Oct 7, 2015
    Lol, try to recreate Las Vegas with just a knife...
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  11. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA A Smooth-Skin

    Oct 26, 2016
    It's not background checking. California already requires you to shit through a screen door just to get a firearm. Fundamentally it's a matter of universal healthcare (which actually saves us money) and ensuring people have access to mental healthcare (therapy most of all which is super effective at dealing with stress). Background checks are just unreliable because we don't live in the Minority Report world where psykers can read minds and determine something bad is going to go down in your future. These problems can develop after passing a bg check.
     
  12. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    Agree, but if it wasn't clear that was just an example of an instance. And you can just do both, shit ain't mutually exclusive.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  13. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009