Gun Control

California needs to realise that as long as its borders are porous to neighbouring states with none of the same restrictions, all of the legislation in the world won't amount to much.
 
Walpknut said:
If automotive owners get into accidents they get penalized and if you run around uninsured you get fined. Would you like people going around the city uninsured?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about. Liability insurance is an _added_ cost on top of the vehicle's existing insurance. It's basically a hypothetical tax for driving something that _might_ kill somebody.
 
Walpknut said:
That has to be the worst visual analogy I've ever seen in my life. Congrats.
Click to expand...
You're welcome.
Lanfear said:
State borders do nothing to stop circulation of guns. The law needs to be addressed federally.
Click to expand...
Oh like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, a law that did absolutely nothing because the amount of rifles used in crimes in minuscule.
BigGuyCIA said:
Because that appears to be the only direction we seem to be headed in. California already banned the sale of rifles that are above .22 calibre. I basically squeezed a purchase in a month before the ban went into effect. I also can't buy ammo online anymore - I have to go to the local gunsmith and place an order there. How much more gun legislation does California need to pass until the surburban housewife can rest assured that the local psychopath has to resort to driving their car into crowds of high-school kids over gunning them down. We'll be talking about liability insurance for automotive owners soon enough.
Click to expand...
Fucking A Right. That's the funny thing about not just California but Democratic states in general. Ban guns yet have stupidly high crime. Did those gun laws in Cali stop that Elliot Rodger kid who shot a bunch of people because he was upset he couldn't get his penis into a Vagina? Did it stop the bloods and crips from killing each other?...actually that was the mexican gangs when they ran all the black people out of South Central LA in a race war nobody ever talks about.
 
I think part of the back and forth here is due to the fact that everyone makes something a different priority despite ultimately agreeing on things in the end.

Is it safe to assume here that everyone thinks America needs to get its shit together with mental health at some point, regardless of the reason? Can I also speak for us all when I say that common sense gun regulations like background checks are acceptable public safety measures?
 
Hey BigGuyCIA, you are a gun enthutiast, mind if I ask you a few things on inbox about shooting ranges in the US?
 
Gizmojunk said:
Did they encourage him? Put him up to it?
Guilt by that kind of association can apply to any school in the country; as though the teacher were at fault. I don't think so.
Click to expand...

They trained the dude.

Also, his foster parents were pretty pro-gun too, had weapons around the house. Seems very strange overall.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean that in the same way that the Army trains their recruits?
Are you saying that the Army is equally responsible for the after-discharge behavior of any and all of their veterans? If not, then what (exactly) are you stating is the NRA's fault?
 
Last edited:
SuAside said:
Never presented it as such, Bux. I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm already wasting enough time in this thread without having to find you scientific papers backing up my opinions.
Click to expand...
This is not an opinion:
"Israel had a terrorist & school shooter problem, up until they started to allow teachers and janitors to go about their job armed. After that? No real issue remained."

It's either a fact or not. If it's a fact, there's gotta be evidence. Otherwise it's either a blatant lie or wishful thinking.
 
Crni Vuk said:
But there is very little the civilian population could have done in Srebrenica if they would have been armed, of which SOME(!) groups have been as the Serbian paramilitary/army pushed them out before they closed their grasp on the town.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that the only fights worth having are those you can win.
We differ in this respect. Some lost causes are still worth fighting for, even if it means your death in the process.

Crni Vuk said:
That's the problem with weapons, they can give you a false sense of defence or strength. And you're making it sound like getting shelled is a preferable way to go
Click to expand...
I would prefer it, yes. I refuse to be lined up and executed without fighting back.

You also fail to take into account the realities that the UN peace keepers faced. They were outnumbered and covered by superior artillery and tanks from elevated positions around the town. Their situation was indefensible without extensive use of pre-emptive air strikes and support, and it's why they pussied out.
The air assets for this were not freed up because there was no immediate threat to the UN soldiers and the threat to the locals could not be "properly measured".
What do you think happens the moment that the genocider's hands are forced and it turns into a shooting war with UN troops stuck in the middle? Shelling of the city would have INCREASED likelihood of survival for the people stuck there.

Crni Vuk said:
Well, they at least still can. Those that get killed by mass shooters, can't anymore. Where are their rights coming into this? Like the right to be protected from crazy people with guns?
Click to expand...
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. ;)

Thomas Jefferson said this when talking about the cost of putting down rebellions to maintain the Union. He's not talking about a handful of lives lost in school shootings. He's talking about astronomical numbers required to keep his country "free".

This is the kind of rhetoric which the US is based on. People moving there or living there know quite well what they got themselves into.

Lanfear said:
Which opinion? That lawmakers are justified in making laws for the collective security of the majority of citizens? If you think that's unreasonable then I don't know what to tell you. That's how government is meant to operate.

If you disagree with my portrayal, which honestly is just based on law enforcement material, then say why, don't just call it into question and then shove on.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that that's what politicians do. I'm disagreeing with the fact that it's been proven that proposed changes would be evidently better for the country as a whole.
And judging by the stalemate that american politics is in this, they seem to agree in sufficient numbers to oppose the changes for now.

Lanfear said:
Why does their right as a citizen to own a gun carry more weight than other people's rights as citizens to not get shot?
Click to expand...
Why does my right to sleep at night trump some guy's right to play his drum set at night? Merely because we decide this as a society, and our laws reflect that.
I'm not sure what kind of answer you were expecting here. We've been over this ad nauseam.

Lanfear said:
Between 1600 and 2100 guns are stolen in Belgium per year according to this, which looks as though it forms a substantial contribution to your illegal gun market given the amount of guns that are illegally traded every year over there. The same document also says that improvised or illicitly manufactured guns are an extremely small source of illegal guns by comparison. Granted you have specific problems with illegal military guns coming up through the Balkans.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, the theft of two thousand legally owned firearms per year has a huge impact on violent crime when the illegal arms market already is well over 1 million illegal guns in circulation by even the most conservative estimations...
Pardon my sarcasm.

It also fails to point out that many of these "stolen" and "lost" guns that disappeared into the illegal circuit were due to gun laws tightening and people deciding they may as well lose their guns in a "tragic boating accident" or "theft" rather than get fucked in the ass by the government. (note that the Belgium government offers no compensation for firearms which suddenly became outlawed or required special hoops to jump through to keep)

Lanfear said:
The problem isn't that gun laws don't work (they work well in pretty much every developed country which isn't the US). The problem is that you guys aren't doing it properly.
Click to expand...
The problem posed in the USA is not whether gun control can be effective, but whether it can be implemented in such a way that it does not otherwise bring more harm the the nation than what it attempts to alleviate.
You are messing with a nation's founding principles here. Surely there's going to be repercussions. Not all of which will be obvious from the start.

Buxbaum666 said:
If it's a fact, there's gotta be evidence.
Click to expand...
Sure, but as much as you're entitled to ask for proof, I'm entitled to tell you to go climb a tree.
If I fail to provide you with proof that the moon orbits the earth, that merely means that I don't want to waste my time on pointless shit that's not going to get us anywhere even if I do. Doesn't mean that the moon doesn't orbit the earth. Stop being obnoxious. Aint nobody got time to source every fucking thing they say on the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top