It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
CLQHonestly it's really rare for a woman to commit a mass shooting, maybe we should just ban men from having guns. Men seem to have trouble handling their emotions, for example, you crying and bitching all over Newschoolers for the last year+.
Me, crying and bitching... k.
Meanwhile, here you are in another thread obsessing and fantasizing about banning guns.
DingoSeanWe now have to take off our shoes in US airports because some dude tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb... nobody has been able to even attempt such a thing ever since. After all the bombings during the 1990s in Israel, Oklahoma City, the World Trade Center in 93, the embassy in Nairobi, etc it became waay harder for people to get things together that can be made into a bomb. I'm still surprised we can get pressure cookers after Boston, Times Square, and Manchester. One of the few things Trump claimed wanted to do that I agreed with was to ban pressure cookers (though I don't think he never mentioned it again after his '16 campaign was over).
Point is we have limited or regulated so many other things people can use to commit mass-harm.. theres a reason they keep using guns - they are readily available to be used as mass murder weapons. Gun control works - it's just failed in the USA because there's never really been any.
Sadly the new thing in the US under strict gun control would be terrorism with rented trucks like they are still seeing in Europe. No matter how many post guards you get a terrorist can jump a curb anytime and be on a sidewalk with hundreds of people. Europe has countered this by having post guards everywhere and heavily armed police at every major tourist attraction/ populated area.
The GIS and carabinieri in Italy are armed with actual full auto rifles like Scar H's and in full body armor everywhere you go. When I lived in Italy for a year every train station every major tourist attraction had entire swat teams wandering around at all times. Not just a few cops with a 9mm and a vest we are talking entire swat teams you'd only see in the US for responding to an active shooter and a search warrant.
CLQHonestly it's really rare for a woman to commit a mass shooting, maybe we should just ban men from having guns. Men seem to have trouble handling their emotions, for example, you crying and bitching all over Newschoolers for the last year+.
Hahahahaha, if you’re good for anything it’s a good laugh at your own expense. Thanks buddy
@Skierman are you embarrassed to be a white privileged kid ? I’m sure my homies in the ghetto would like to have their way with you. Pants off and all.
Craw_DaddyYou're focused on my phasing in one of the many comments I made. Give it a rest. Call it a natural right, call it a human right, call it whatever you want. That doesn't change the fact that it is a right, not a privilege, not a gift from the government, not a special permission that needs to be earned. Any restriction on it is an infringement and that's a problem when the constitution says in plain text that it shall not be infringed.
Mental health screenings would either be so subjective that they could be abused to deny law-abiding citizens guns or so generic that they would be meaningless. And even if we did find something objective and fair, think of the logistics of administering the millions of screenings that would have been required in this year alone. There aren't enough practicing psychologists to administer them and lines to get those screenings would be so long that no one would be able to buy guns. Who is going to cover the cost of getting a note that says you're not a crazy person? Health insurance? The taxpayers?
I'm sorry that you're scared but shit happens. The only guarantees in life are death and taxes. There are far greater threats to public health that can be addressed much easier than gun violence. Let's do something about the garbage people eat and the sedentary lifestyles that lead to heart disease and diabetes, and the litany of other things that kill people before looking waaaaaay down the list at guns. Let's take your movie theatre example... 12 people were killed in the Aurora shooting, There were 1.38 billion movie tickets sold in the US that year. That's a 1 in 115 million chance that someone you know would be killed in a mass shooting while attending a movie. Your odds of being struck by lightning any given year are 1 in 500,000 and probably higher if you spend a great deal of time in the mountains. I'm sorry but if you seriously think that those stats justify rewriting our constitution then you probably see lottery tickets as a sound investment for your retirement.
The risk of disarming our country far outweighs the benefit of perceived safety. For one, there are more guns than people in this country and banning them would leave millions of guns in the hands of criminals. Second, disarming our country would allow for the possibility of a tyrannical government. You should read about the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the rise of communism in Southeast Asia. Their soldiers would take babies away from their mothers and smash their brains out on trees. There is a mass grave you can visit there where that occurred thousands of times. That's what happens when you disarm your country and that's why I and many others won't give an inch on this issue.
Oh man so much to unpack here. I'll work backwards.
First of all, nobody in any position of power is advocating the slipping slope of an argument you brought up with the khmer rouge. So scratch that or literally anything like it for being a good reason to maintain the status quo. I'm scared of something happening that actually happens and often, you're scared of something happening that wouldn't possibly happen in the United States for long enough in the future to which point we and anyone we know would be dead, and the humans on earth would be seeing some pretty catastrophic effects of climate change. Sorry man, but if you're scared that an authoritarian regime is going to try and murder anyone who wears glasses in the USA and you believe they won't get immediately Mussolini'd or Ceaucescu'd, you don't have the same faith in your fellow americans as I do. Cambodia or Russia or Germany or any other country with some diabolical authoritarian regime you might list did not have hundreds of years of democratic rule preceeding some ruthless asshole taking over - those things happened during transitions to democracy from colonization or royal rule by some tin pot fuckhead, not 13 generations after it. My worries are founded in reality by something that has literally happened a matter of days ago. Yours are founded by some external nonexistant threat that we have never seen happen in a developed modern day country that has been able to form any semblance of stable democratic process. Australia and Canada and Japan can't just buy a gun all willy nilly from wal-mart and I don't see heads flying, dude.. Don't compare what's been built in America to post colonial Cambodia its fucking insulting.
2nd of all.. Our culture already shames fat people, and promotes healthy lifestyles... we have done things like banned smoking and promoted new diets and the collective risk of heart diesease and diabetes has gone down dramatically even from the last generation. In any case, heart diesease or diabetes or cancer have billions of dollars of effort put towards curtailing things that develop naturally... People died of diesease long before guns were invented. It's not natural to just casually die of being shot by bullets - something that we aren't putting a single shit towards as a society in effort to combat. By equating gun deaths with diease deaths, you're basically saying dying of a gunshot is a natural cause of death, and that's simply not the truth and nobody without an NRA membership says it is.
You do basically detail why mental health screenings will be incredibly difficult to put in place, and I agree with you.. but we can at least try right? We can at least try to make it harder for a psycho who hates people to get a gun with the full intent to use it on people.. right? We can at least allow our law enforcement agencies the ability to have a more robust database of former criminals and people we wouldnt even allow onto an airplane or to buy a bag of fertilizer to check when they go for a gun right? That alone could have prevented this psycho in Boulder from getting a gun.
Is it more important to you that criminals be allowed to get a gun with the intent to use it on your fellow americans as to not infringe their rights, or are we going to get to the point where it butts up head on with the right to property, where shops everywhere begin to put up metal detectors.. or perhaps hiring a security officer with a metal detector wand just to enter a dunkin donuts in order to prevent concealed carriers from breaking a no-firearms policy they will inevitably need to enforce at this rate...
Bars already are doing this. Public buildings do this. Stadiums do this. Some schools aleady have metal mass detectors at entry points (as I recently realized on a trip to my old high school several years ago). As these mass shootings continue to propegate, you're going to see a growth of this kinda thing enter your life... You will need to go through some sort of TSA level security just to get a hotel or enter a popular tourist area.. Which, I guess if you're fine with that, alright then, but it's not going to be convenient, and it will effect everyone's privacy when entering these places...
So with that, I ask what is freedom for you sir... Do you want unchecked, unregulated, free reign to purchase guns for anyone with a pulse, or more privacy and convenience? You can't have both - at least not everywhere - definitely not in the cool places.
If it's worth it to you, then very well thats your decision... but a significant part of the voting population - incuding gun owners - wants a balance to be found in all of this. It's not something you can shrug off anymore.
Film.Sadly the new thing in the US under strict gun control would be terrorism with rented trucks like they are still seeing in Europe. No matter how many post guards you get a terrorist can jump a curb anytime and be on a sidewalk with hundreds of people. Europe has countered this by having post guards everywhere and heavily armed police at every major tourist attraction/ populated area.
The GIS and carabinieri in Italy are armed with actual full auto rifles like Scar H's and in full body armor everywhere you go. When I lived in Italy for a year every train station every major tourist attraction had entire swat teams wandering around at all times. Not just a few cops with a 9mm and a vest we are talking entire swat teams you'd only see in the US for responding to an active shooter and a search warrant.
Yeah, but at least we can regulate who can rent a car if it gets out of hand. We already do. The Columbine shooters, the Parkland Shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter... none of those buttholes could have rented a truck to cause harm, nor could they have shot up a school with a truck. I guess you could crash mom's Honda Accord into a school or a king soopers, but those already have bullards out in front to prevent car accidents from hitting the enterance, or thieves from driving a car through the door to break in. The rented truck arguement falls apart pretty quick when it comes to schools or public buildings as it's already code to have bullards in place to prevent such shit.
as for tourist areas.. yeah, thats a whole other thing to contend with, but you'll still need heavily armed police in place if things continue down this route... It's not like that doesn't exist already, either... Look at the police you'll see roaming the grounds at a sporting event... especially something like an MLB or NFL playoff game hoooley shit those guys are ready for war... and the security checks to enter are high level as well.
**This post was edited on Mar 29th 2021 at 5:32:01am
DingoSeanSo with that, I ask what is freedom for you sir... Do you want unchecked, unregulated, free reign to purchase guns for anyone with a pulse, or more privacy and convenience? You can't have both - at least not everywhere - definitely not in the cool places.
It’s funny you mention convenience, it’s definitely more convenient to have a firearm and not need it than to not have one and need it.
I also see the gun debate boil down to a “need vs. convenience” argument. Like, “why do you need an AR-15”... IDK, why do you NEED to have a car? Oh wait you don’t, it’s just a convenience.
Charlie_KellyIt’s funny you mention convenience, it’s definitely more convenient to have a firearm and not need it than to not have one and need it.
I also see the gun debate boil down to a “need vs. convenience” argument. Like, “why do you need an AR-15”... IDK, why do you NEED to have a car? Oh wait you don’t, it’s just a convenience.
And then you go and open yourself up and compare cars to guns... If you’re going to use that argument then youre justifying anyone who says guns should be treated the same way we do acquiring, licensing, registering, and insuring an automobile.
Besides... who’s to say that “good guy with a gun” people like to tout isn’t going to just create a fucking hostage situation or open fire himself and kill innocents in the crossfire...
for your point, how is a gun going to help you when some guy is 12 stories up raining lead killing 50 and injuring hundreds like in vegas? Are we supposed to arm our kids with guns when they go to 1st grade? Just in case some guy wants to kill 20 of em? Are we constantly supposed to be ready for a Mexican standoff with a guy who might have ties to ISIS or al qaeda or the kkk or ms13 or whoever the fuck scares you the most, who was able to get a high rate of fire gun due to originalist interpretations and activate it in a place you’re in?
DingoSeanAnd then you go and open yourself up and compare cars to guns... If you’re going to use that argument then youre justifying anyone who says guns should be treated the same way we do acquiring, licensing, registering, and insuring an automobile.
Besides... who’s to say that “good guy with a gun” people like to tout isn’t going to just create a fucking hostage situation or open fire himself and kill innocents in the crossfire...
for your point, how is a gun going to help you when some guy is 12 stories up raining lead killing 50 and injuring hundreds like in vegas? Are we supposed to arm our kids with guns when they go to 1st grade? Just in case some guy wants to kill 20 of em? Are we constantly supposed to be ready for a Mexican standoff with a guy who might have ties to ISIS or al qaeda or the kkk or ms13 or whoever the fuck scares you the most, who was able to get a high rate of fire gun due to originalist interpretations and activate it in a place you’re in?
Arming the population isn’t going to save lives.
We already do have a licensing system for carrying a gun in public. It's called a concealed carry permit. It requires firearm safety training and you to have your finger prints put in a national database. I'd also like to point out that you can have a car and drive it around on private property without a license or registration. Those things only come into play when you utilize public infrastructure.
Also just as a random fact: ccw permit holders commit the least amount of crime (violent or otherwise) of any demographic in our country. They are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the average citizen
Craw_DaddyWe already do have a licensing system for carrying a gun in public. It's called a concealed carry permit. It requires firearm safety training and you to have your finger prints put in a national database. I'd also like to point out that you can have a car and drive it around on private property without a license or registration. Those things only come into play when you utilize public infrastructure.
Also just as a random fact: ccw permit holders commit the least amount of crime (violent or otherwise) of any demographic in our country. They are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the average citizen
DingoSeanOh man so much to unpack here. I'll work backwards.
First of all, nobody in any position of power is advocating the slipping slope of an argument you brought up with the khmer rouge. So scratch that or literally anything like it for being a good reason to maintain the status quo. I'm scared of something happening that actually happens and often, you're scared of something happening that wouldn't possibly happen in the United States for long enough in the future to which point we and anyone we know would be dead, and the humans on earth would be seeing some pretty catastrophic effects of climate change. Sorry man, but if you're scared that an authoritarian regime is going to try and murder anyone who wears glasses in the USA and you believe they won't get immediately Mussolini'd or Ceaucescu'd, you don't have the same faith in your fellow americans as I do. Cambodia or Russia or Germany or any other country with some diabolical authoritarian regime you might list did not have hundreds of years of democratic rule preceeding some ruthless asshole taking over - those things happened during transitions to democracy from colonization or royal rule by some tin pot fuckhead, not 13 generations after it. My worries are founded in reality by something that has literally happened a matter of days ago. Yours are founded by some external nonexistant threat that we have never seen happen in a developed modern day country that has been able to form any semblance of stable democratic process. Australia and Canada and Japan can't just buy a gun all willy nilly from wal-mart and I don't see heads flying, dude.. Don't compare what's been built in America to post colonial Cambodia its fucking insulting.
2nd of all.. Our culture already shames fat people, and promotes healthy lifestyles... we have done things like banned smoking and promoted new diets and the collective risk of heart diesease and diabetes has gone down dramatically even from the last generation. In any case, heart diesease or diabetes or cancer have billions of dollars of effort put towards curtailing things that develop naturally... People died of diesease long before guns were invented. It's not natural to just casually die of being shot by bullets - something that we aren't putting a single shit towards as a society in effort to combat. By equating gun deaths with diease deaths, you're basically saying dying of a gunshot is a natural cause of death, and that's simply not the truth and nobody without an NRA membership says it is.
You do basically detail why mental health screenings will be incredibly difficult to put in place, and I agree with you.. but we can at least try right? We can at least try to make it harder for a psycho who hates people to get a gun with the full intent to use it on people.. right? We can at least allow our law enforcement agencies the ability to have a more robust database of former criminals and people we wouldnt even allow onto an airplane or to buy a bag of fertilizer to check when they go for a gun right? That alone could have prevented this psycho in Boulder from getting a gun.
Is it more important to you that criminals be allowed to get a gun with the intent to use it on your fellow americans as to not infringe their rights, or are we going to get to the point where it butts up head on with the right to property, where shops everywhere begin to put up metal detectors.. or perhaps hiring a security officer with a metal detector wand just to enter a dunkin donuts in order to prevent concealed carriers from breaking a no-firearms policy they will inevitably need to enforce at this rate...
Bars already are doing this. Public buildings do this. Stadiums do this. Some schools aleady have metal mass detectors at entry points (as I recently realized on a trip to my old high school several years ago). As these mass shootings continue to propegate, you're going to see a growth of this kinda thing enter your life... You will need to go through some sort of TSA level security just to get a hotel or enter a popular tourist area.. Which, I guess if you're fine with that, alright then, but it's not going to be convenient, and it will effect everyone's privacy when entering these places...
So with that, I ask what is freedom for you sir... Do you want unchecked, unregulated, free reign to purchase guns for anyone with a pulse, or more privacy and convenience? You can't have both - at least not everywhere - definitely not in the cool places.
If it's worth it to you, then very well thats your decision... but a significant part of the voting population - incuding gun owners - wants a balance to be found in all of this. It's not something you can shrug off anymore.
I hope you can see the irony in trying to call me out for using a hypothetical scenario for my justification when you're also using some kind of hypothetical TSA dystopia as your justification. I'm just following the same line of reasoning that our nations founders used dude. They were some pretty smart people imo but I guess you disagree.
In any case, I really dont need to be lectured on gun policy and finding a "balance" by someone who clearly doesnt understand the laws we already have on the books. You cant seem to grasp how improbable it is that you will actually be involved in one of these scenarios you're so scared of despite me giving you statistics backed by historical data. Its pretty clear that you're not coming from a place of rationality but rather emotion and emotion has no place in determining public policy.
Charlie_KellyIt’s funny you mention convenience, it’s definitely more convenient to have a firearm and not need it than to not have one and need it.
I also see the gun debate boil down to a “need vs. convenience” argument. Like, “why do you need an AR-15”... IDK, why do you NEED to have a car? Oh wait you don’t, it’s just a convenience.
Precisely. What bothers me most about the debate is the hypocrisy. People going to great length to try and justify their opinion without admitting that the bottom line is their own personal preference/convenience.
The situation is really quite simple: We have a mass shooting problem (and more broadly a homicide problem, at a yearly rate of 5 per 100k pop, 5 times more than any other developed country), and guns are the #1 weapon of choice for these homicides.
That is a fact, not an opinion, that's the raw stat. And I'd like to think everyone is on the same page that mass shootings aren't cool and we have too many of them.
Now the opinion on solutioning is where people diverge on:
- Pro gun control people will say other developed countries don't have that same problem and that's because of stricter gun control laws and we should do that. Those people are not using guns, so the possible benefit vastly outweighs the cost for them, they don't use guns anyway, so really it won't impact them, easy decision.
- Anti gun control people are gun owners, most of them responsible gun owners who will never go shoot up a school, so it seems unfair to them that they'd have to give something up because some people are psychos. The odds of their neighborhood being shot is still pretty slim, and there are no 100% guarantees that we'd reap the same benefits other countries have with stricter gun control laws, so the possible benefit doesn't outweigh the cost for them.
I simplified a bit, but that's the gist of it, as you said when it comes to cars, everyone is on the same page that the convenience benefit vastly outweighs the cost (possible accidents, etc.) so we're on the same page as a society to keep them. When it comes to guns, we're not because the convenience benefit is not as clear cut for everyone, hence the heated debate.
Tricky for sure, I see valid points to both perspective, but let's stop the hypocrisy, people are not opposing gun reforms because they want to "protect the constitution" (shit's been amended 27 times already, it was written over 200 years ago, of course it needs to be updated if/when necessary) or to "prevent an authoritarian take over", people are opposing because of personal convenience and freedom/right to enjoy your hobby as a responsible gun owner. Period. Let's be honest about it.
Monsieur_PatatePrecisely. What bothers me most about the debate is the hypocrisy. People going to great length to try and justify their opinion without admitting that the bottom line is their own personal preference/convenience.
The situation is really quite simple: We have a mass shooting problem (and more broadly a homicide problem, at a yearly rate of 5 per 100k pop, 5 times more than any other developed country), and guns are the #1 weapon of choice for these homicides.
That is a fact, not an opinion, that's the raw stat. And I'd like to think everyone is on the same page that mass shootings aren't cool and we have too many of them.
Now the opinion on solutioning is where people diverge on:
- Pro gun control people will say other developed countries don't have that same problem and that's because of stricter gun control laws and we should do that. Those people are not using guns, so the possible benefit vastly outweighs the cost for them, they don't use guns anyway, so really it won't impact them, easy decision.
- Anti gun control people are gun owners, most of them responsible gun owners who will never go shoot up a school, so it seems unfair to them that they'd have to give something up because some people are psychos. The odds of their neighborhood being shot is still pretty slim, and there are no 100% guarantees that we'd reap the same benefits other countries have with stricter gun control laws, so the possible benefit doesn't outweigh the cost for them.
I simplified a bit, but that's the gist of it, as you said when it comes to cars, everyone is on the same page that the convenience benefit vastly outweighs the cost (possible accidents, etc.) so we're on the same page as a society to keep them. When it comes to guns, we're not because the convenience benefit is not as clear cut for everyone, hence the heated debate.
Tricky for sure, I see valid points to both perspective, but let's stop the hypocrisy, people are not opposing gun reforms because they want to "protect the constitution" (shit's been amended 27 times already, it was written over 200 years ago, of course it needs to be updated if/when necessary) or to "prevent an authoritarian take over", people are opposing because of personal convenience and freedom/right to enjoy your hobby as a responsible gun owner. Period. Let's be honest about it.
Please stop mischaracterizing the pro gun position. We have countless examples of tyrannical government take overs throughout history. 2a supporters want the people to be armed for the same reason our founding fathers did.
As for your murder statistic... it turns out that in 79.1 percent of homicides the victim knew their killer. That means that 4 out of 5 times the victim chose to associate with a killer. Let me ask you something, do you associate with people who want to kill you on a regular basis? because I certainly don't. Realistically, unless you're in a gang or have a REALLY dysfunctional family, you can reduce that murder rate statistic by a factor of 5. Then let's look at the murder weapon used. 60% of the time it's a firearm and in those cases 4% are done with a rifle and of those an even smaller fraction are done with ar 15s. Essentially your chances of being involved in a mass shooting like the one in Boulder are astronomically low. You're more likely to be struck by lightning.
Craw_DaddyPlease stop mischaracterizing the pro gun position. We have countless examples of tyrannical government take overs throughout history. 2a supporters want the people to be armed for the same reason our founding fathers did.
As for your murder statistic... it turns out that in 79.1 percent of homicides the victim knew their killer. That means that 4 out of 5 times the victim chose to associate with a killer. Let me ask you something, do you associate with people who want to kill you on a regular basis? because I certainly don't. Realistically, unless you're in a gang or have a REALLY dysfunctional family, you can reduce that murder rate statistic by a factor of 5. Then let's look at the murder weapon used. 60% of the time it's a firearm and in those cases 4% are done with a rifle and of those an even smaller fraction are done with ar 15s. Essentially your chances of being involved in a mass shooting like the one in Boulder are astronomically low. You're more likely to be struck by lightning.
Craw_DaddyPlease stop mischaracterizing the pro gun position. We have countless examples of tyrannical government take overs throughout history. 2a supporters want the people to be armed for the same reason our founding fathers did.
We could argue all day about the statistical probability of that happening in our modern day advanced democracy with all the checks and balances, and then we could further argue about the realistic impact private gun ownerships would even have in the case of a tyrannical government trying to take over. But sure, I'll agree with you that it's still a statistical probability, a major event would be needed, but nothing is impossible.
Even then, as Sean pointed out, your tentative "backup plan" to all checks and balances falling sometime in the future is costing american lives today, it's not just a probability but a hard reality. So then the question becomes where to draw the line on what is an acceptable cost to having that backup plan handy in case we need it. And on that our opinions seem to differ, but that's fine.
But frankly that's irrelevant, because I'm going to repeat myself: even under European gun control laws, you could still get the guns you have today, no one is advocating for outright banning guns, but simply making the process to get them a bit more regulated to try and prevent some of the tragedies from happening. So those law abiding citizens you mentioned before would still be able to get their guns, seems pretty reasonable to me, but again, my opinion.
theLiquorSick of this shit, we need to start frying ppl again. Remind me—where is James Holmes? Oh yea, being cared for by the “witness protection” people—why?? This guy killed a cop so maybe there will be actual justice.
my old manager’s daughter was working the store. She heard the guy say “where’s everybody” and shooting. He flipped tf out on me—apparently ever since I made fun of him for watching CNN every morning and actually thinking Trump would actually ever be removed from office he’s lumped me as a Trumper and had some very explosive words
Except around 4% of people on death row are proven innocent after execution. Full solitary confinement is much more affordable, and a worse punishment, with the added benefit that someone can be freed if later found innocent. I'm not saying I think there's a 4% chance this guy is innocent, but you would have to apply the law across the board.
CLQNo way Nikolas Cruz, Adam Lanza, or the Vegas shooter would have been able to kill as many people as they did without a gun.
168 people were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing with a uhaul and some fertilizer. A guy killed like 15 people with a truck in about 10 seconds in NYC. Arson has a similar effect. It's fucked up but it's not all that difficult to kill a bunch of people without a gun. I don't think everyone should be carrying guns around but it's a pandoras box that can't be closed without opening another box.
Rather than ban high capacity magazines, I think a better solution would be to limit the total number of bullets you can carry in public. I'm much more fearful of someone with 10 15 round mags than one 30 round mag. I also think that non lethal methods of self defense should be more normalized. More people should carry pepper spray.
Craw_DaddyAs for your murder statistic... it turns out that in 79.1 percent of homicides the victim knew their killer. That means that 4 out of 5 times the victim chose to associate with a killer. Let me ask you something, do you associate with people who want to kill you on a regular basis? because I certainly don't. Realistically, unless you're in a gang or have a REALLY dysfunctional family, you can reduce that murder rate statistic by a factor of 5. Then let's look at the murder weapon used. 60% of the time it's a firearm and in those cases 4% are done with a rifle and of those an even smaller fraction are done with ar 15s. Essentially your chances of being involved in a mass shooting like the one in Boulder are astronomically low. You're more likely to be struck by lightning.
Totally, just like the probability of a tyrannical regime taking over, statistically speaking, not exactly worth losing sleep over it.
Anyway, I don't particularly care about gun control, not my fight, I'm not losing sleep over gun violence, but trying to look at it objectively, I don't get why you're so pressed. I mean again law abiding citizens would still have no prob getting their guns, won't change anything for you my dude, but might help prevent a few psychos from killing other people, why the fuck not give that a shot.
I don't think it would help much tho, might help a bit, but realistically considering the number of guns in circulation here, it would still be too easy to get one on the black market. That's why I don't think the comparison with european countries holds any water. But again it's still worth a shot, who knows. It would take decades to see results imo.
I'd say that's where we're headed regardless of opinions, gun ownership is going down, over 60% of americans are in favor of stricter gun laws, those trends are pretty obvious indicators of what the future holds.
Craw_DaddyWe already do have a licensing system for carrying a gun in public. It's called a concealed carry permit. It requires firearm safety training and you to have your finger prints put in a national database. I'd also like to point out that you can have a car and drive it around on private property without a license or registration. Those things only come into play when you utilize public infrastructure.
Also just as a random fact: ccw permit holders commit the least amount of crime (violent or otherwise) of any demographic in our country. They are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the average citizen
Except you excluded the fact that concealed carry permitting varies drastically from one state to another. Some states don't require a permit to concealed carry (including Alaska, where I live), and I can sell my firearms to someone else in the state without going through a FFL holder or doing any paperwork.
Monsieur_PatateTotally, just like the probability of a tyrannical regime taking over, statistically speaking, not exactly worth losing sleep over it.
Anyway, I don't particularly care about gun control, not my fight, I'm not losing sleep over gun violence, but trying to look at it objectively, I don't get why you're so pressed. I mean again law abiding citizens would still have no prob getting their guns, won't change anything for you my dude, but might help prevent a few psychos from killing other people, why the fuck not give that a shot.
I don't think it would help much tho, might help a bit, but realistically considering the number of guns in circulation here, it would still be too easy to get one on the black market. That's why I don't think the comparison with european countries holds any water. But again it's still worth a shot, who knows. It would take decades to see results imo.
I'd say that's where we're headed regardless of opinions, gun ownership is going down, over 60% of americans are in favor of stricter gun laws, those trends are pretty obvious indicators of what the future holds.
The probability of a tyrannical regime taking over is not something that can be calculated. You can't make an objective assertion one way another if it is likely to occur or not. I take any restrictions on my rights as an American citizen personally. The Government can't tell me what to think and say, they can't break into my house without a warrant, they can't make me house and feed members of the military, they can't compel me to incriminate myself, and if they want my guns they can pry them from my cold dead hands. So to Joe, "Mamala", Chuck, and Skeletor I say molon labe bitch! Also I'm not sure what rock you've been sleeping under but gun ownership went WAY up in 2020.
Sdot.Except you excluded the fact that concealed carry permitting varies drastically from one state to another. Some states don't require a permit to concealed carry (including Alaska, where I live), and I can sell my firearms to someone else in the state without going through a FFL holder or doing any paperwork.
Okay well, the last time I checked Boulder isn't in Alaska. Read the title of the thread. Every law I talk about is in reference to Colorado state law or the US constitution.
**This post was edited on Mar 29th 2021 at 4:58:50pm
Monsieur_Patateno one is advocating for outright banning guns, but simply making the process to get them a bit more regulated to try and prevent some of the tragedies from happening.
Also one last thing and then I'm done commenting in this dumpster fire I helped start. But this is a complete fucking lie. Joe Biden wants to ban AR15s through an executive order.
Craw_DaddyThe probability of a tyrannical regime taking over is not something that can be calculated. You can't make an objective assertion one way another if it is likely to occur or not. I take any restrictions on my rights as an American citizen personally. The Government can't tell me what to think and say, they can't break into my house without a warrant, they can't make me house and feed members of the military, they can't compel me to incriminate myself, and if they want my guns they can pry them from my cold dead hands. So to Joe, "Mamala", Chuck, and Skeletor I say molon labe bitch! Also I'm not sure what rock you've been sleeping under but gun ownership went WAY up in 2020.
What I mean is that it's a downward trend over the last 50 years or so, but sure you'll have spikes within that trend, not unusual.
Just because the probability doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean it can't be calculated. Everything has a statistical probability of occurring whether you like it or not.
I see we're reached the "take my guns and I'll kill you" phase of the argument, good talk bud.
Tbh this attack makes any mass shooting in the USA look weak. 86 deaths and 458 injuries. Only a bomb could do that. We should make bombs illegal too I think.
Guns are very scary but clearly trucks are scary-er
**This post was edited on Mar 29th 2021 at 6:14:43pm
Wow, didn’t expect this thread to turn into a debate but not surprised either...
I’m not gonna toss out opinions cause I don’t wanna get sucked into this but all I will say is of the people I know who own guns maybe 1/2 of them own them legally, it’s so easy and so cheap to get a strap here that I’m not sure registration and restrictions would even work like we want them to. But at the same time maybe if we really cracked down on the penalties for owning an illegal gun we could see some change- but it could also very much turn into a war on drugs situation that sees a lot of innocent people locked up.
Idk, I don’t know enough about guns to really have a stance- just sharing my thoughts. It’s definitely a complicated issue that I don’t think I or anyone on a niche ski forum will be able to solve or agree on tbh
Monsieur_PatateWhat I mean is that it's a downward trend over the last 50 years or so, but sure you'll have spikes within that trend, not unusual.
Just because the probability doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean it can't be calculated. Everything has a statistical probability of occurring whether you like it or not.
I see we're reached the "take my guns and I'll kill you" phase of the argument, good talk bud.
Dude maybe if you didnt make so many bad faith arguments with nothing to back up what you're saying I wouldnt get so frustrated but here we are... fuck I said I wasn't going to keep commenting but you just keep saying stupid shit. I'd love to watch you try and make a linear regression model using systems of government or some other abstract unquantifiable concepts to back this claim youre making. Seriously please send me your findings since you seem to have all your confounding variables figured out and you're so sure you can predict the future. I'd really love to see it. What's your background in statistics again?
Craw_DaddyDude maybe if you didnt make so many bad faith arguments with nothing to back up what you're saying I wouldnt get so frustrated but here we are... fuck I said I wasn't going to keep commenting but you just keep saying stupid shit. I'd love to watch you try and make a linear regression model using systems of government or some other abstract unquantifiable concepts to back this claim youre making. Seriously please send me your findings since you seem to have all your confounding variables figured out and you're so sure you can predict the future. I'd really love to see it. What's your background in statistics again?
Why are you so pressed my dude. Quick Google search too
2018, that looks like a downward trend to me. I'm not saying 2020 wouldn't be a spike, I'm just telling you what I see here, I'm not trying to trigger you.
60% of americans in favor of stricter gun laws.
I'm asking you a simple question you keep dodging, would adding extra hoops for gun owners to jump through be that bad an idea if it can possibly prevent psychos getting guns while still allowing law abiding citizens to get theirs?
I'm not advocating preventing all people from getting guns, I'm not advocating banning AR15s or anything else (most gun violence comes from handguns anyway). Shit, in the end I even told you I'm doubtful stricter gun laws would help much anyway simply because of the amount of guns in circulation in the US. All I'm saying is assuming responsible gun owners can still get what they want under stricter laws, I don't think it's so unreasonable, worth a shot. no need to get so heated
Monsieur_PatateWhy are you so pressed my dude. Quick Google search too
2018, that looks like a downward trend to me. I'm not saying 2020 wouldn't be a spike, I'm just telling you what I see here, I'm not trying to trigger you.
60% of americans in favor of stricter gun laws.
I'm asking you a simple question you keep dodging, would adding extra hoops for gun owners to jump through be that bad an idea if it can possibly prevent psychos getting guns while still allowing law abiding citizens to get theirs?
I'm not advocating preventing all people from getting guns, I'm not advocating banning AR15s or anything else (most gun violence comes from handguns anyway). Shit, in the end I even told you I'm doubtful stricter gun laws would help much anyway simply because of the amount of guns in circulation in the US. All I'm saying is assuming responsible gun owners can still get what they want under stricter laws, I don't think it's so unreasonable, worth a shot. no need to get so heated
HAHA oh my god bro you said that a tyrannical government has a statistical probability of happening and apparently the stats on it don't support my argument. why don't you go google the stats on that? And yes adding extra hoops to something that is a right isn't okay. Just saying that people support "stricter" laws doesn't mean anything when you can't actually define policy. Most people don't even know the current gun laws and this thread is a perfect example of that. I like how now that you're getting called on your lies and bullshit you're resorting to "nO NeEd To GeT HeaTed BrO". Idiots like you are the fucking problem, either educate yourself on the policy and subject matter of the gun laws we currently have or shut the fuck up and don't chime in on things you know nothing about.
Craw_DaddyHAHA oh my god bro you said that a tyrannical government has a statistical probability of happening and apparently the stats on it don't support my argument. why don't you go google the stats on that? And yes adding extra hoops to something that is a right isn't okay. Just saying that people support "stricter" laws doesn't mean anything when you can't actually define policy. Most people don't even know the current gun laws and this thread is a perfect example of that. I like how now that you're getting called on your lies and bullshit you're resorting to "nO NeEd To GeT HeaTed BrO". Idiots like you are the fucking problem, either educate yourself on the policy and subject matter of the gun laws we currently have or shut the fuck up and don't chime in on things you know nothing about.
lmao why are you so triggered. big mad because people didn't give the answer you wanted to the survey? that means they're too dumb to understand the question, because no way someone could have an opinion different than yours unless they're idiots (like me)
Did you attend Dolan's Ted talk or something? Personal attacks and belittling, reminds me of him when he runs out of steam.
Monsieur_Patatelmao why are you so triggered. big mad because people didn't give the answer you wanted to the survey? that means they're too dumb to understand the question, because no way someone could have an opinion different than yours unless they're idiots (like me)
Did you attend Dolan's Ted talk or something? Personal attacks and belittling, reminds me of him when he runs out of steam.
haha youre a totally epic troll dude. you trolled me so hard while staying totally chyll and definitely didn't display a lack of understanding of statistics and current state gun policy. good work man. I'm sure skierman and dingo are clapping for you. It's not like youre the tenth person in this thread to say a bunch of dumb unsubstantiated bullshit while sprinkling in a bunch of half truths to maintain plausible deniability or anything.
On a serious note you actually think a predictive model could determine the likelihood that a tyrannical government could take power and that is just so... god damned stupid. you have a good one bro.
Craw_DaddyOkay well, the last time I checked Boulder isn't in Alaska. Read the title of the thread. Every law I talk about is in reference to Colorado state law or the US constitution.
**This post was edited on Mar 29th 2021 at 4:58:50pm
So the following quote from your previous post was specific to Colorado concealed carry permit holders? You state within that quote, "of any demographic in our country", which lead me to believe that you were referencing concealed carry permit holders across the country. If you want to keep this discussion specific to Colorado, then do so, but much of what you (and others in this thread) have discussed is nationwide... Which - random fact - includes Alaska.
Craw_DaddyAlso just as a random fact: ccw permit holders commit the least amount of crime (violent or otherwise) of any demographic in our country. They are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the average citizen
Sdot.So the following quote from your previous post was specific to Colorado concealed carry permit holders? You state within that quote, "of any demographic in our country", which lead me to believe that you were referencing concealed carry permit holders across the country. If you want to keep this discussion specific to Colorado, then do so, but much of what you (and others in this thread) have discussed is nationwide... Which - random fact - includes Alaska.
Craw_Daddyhaha youre a totally epic troll dude. you trolled me so hard while staying totally chyll and definitely didn't display a lack of understanding of statistics and current state gun policy. good work man. I'm sure skierman and dingo are clapping for you. It's not like youre the tenth person in this thread to say a bunch of dumb unsubstantiated bullshit while sprinkling in a bunch of half truths to maintain plausible deniability or anything.
On a serious note you actually think a predictive model could determine the likelihood that a tyrannical government could take power and that is just so... god damned stupid. you have a good one bro.
Let's be real, you bitched about my stats, I gave you the source, so you jumped to something else to try and cover the fact that you have no argument and save face.
I say most americans would be in favor of stricter gun reform, you say that's bs, I give you the stat, you say those guys are idiots, don't know what they're talking about/didn't understand the question. Bruh come on, and I'm the one trolling?
I mean I get it, it's tough to defend such a weak position, you're basically saying "I just don't like it", you're not being rational, even when I ask you if you'd be down for a hypothetical compromise that would still let you get all the guns you want while preventing the psychos from getting one, you still saying no shot, so it doesn't matter what I bring to the table.
On your serious note, can we measure the likelihood of an event such as tyrannical government taking over? You've said so yourself "We have countless examples of tyrannical government takeovers throughout history". It's happened in the physical world, we can therefore theorizes about the underlying process leading to that event occurring, and then uses it in the sense of probability to predict it happening again. But this is apparently a "god damned stupid" take, and yet in typical fashion, you're not bringing any counter points, you're just saying "u stoopid" because you don't like what I'm saying, but you're not quite able to bring anything rational to counter, so you retort with name calling and belittling. keep it up bruh, real convincing argument you got there.
Tbh this attack makes any mass shooting in the USA look weak. 86 deaths and 458 injuries. Only a bomb could do that. We should make bombs illegal too I think.
Guns are very scary but clearly trucks are scary-er
If you read what I wrote above, you will have already have the response to this.
The school shooters already couldn't have rented a truck. If they also couldn't have easily obtained firearms, they would have been limited in what they could do.
Bombs are very much illegal. I even support banning or heavily regulating pressure cookers.
So are you arguing we should make guns harder to get? I'm just popping in and half shit posting but half seriously posting. I can literally find any drug I'd like and have it delivered to me via person or in the mail. I really see the same in guns.
DingoSeanIf you read what I wrote above, you will have already have the response to this.
The school shooters already couldn't have rented a truck. If they also couldn't have easily obtained firearms, they would have been limited in what they could do.
Bombs are very much illegal. I even support banning or heavily regulating pressure cookers.
zuesSo are you arguing we should make guns harder to get? I'm just popping in and half shit posting but half seriously posting. I can literally find any drug I'd like and have it delivered to me via person or in the mail. I really see the same in guns.
The argument, as its been explained to me, is that enacting stricter gun purchasing laws will raise prices and ultimately availability of guns sold illegally to criminals. Therefore having fewer guns in the hands of criminals. Isn't that what we all agree is the end goal? I have yet to hear a pro-gun argument that addresses a desire to keep guns out the hands of criminals.
The prospect of tighter gun laws insinuates the foot-in-door technique used by politicians, they will pass one little law, then another, then another, until guns are totally outlawed and all gun owners are on a public registry (see HR127)
I mean for fucks sakes I'm against tighter gun restrictions for law abiding citizens, I live in a very loose state and still hate the magazine restrictions, too bad I lost all of my magazines in a tragic boating accident :( but I still believe something needs to be done to keep ARs and glocks out the hands of psychos and gangbangers. Who disagrees?
Also to whoever posted about 3D printers firing high-tech guns, if you mean inaccurate single-shot plastic derringers, then yeah that's pretty high-tech
TheHamburglarThe argument, as its been explained to me, is that enacting stricter gun purchasing laws will raise prices and ultimately availability of guns sold illegally to criminals. Therefore having fewer guns in the hands of criminals. Isn't that what we all agree is the end goal? I have yet to hear a pro-gun argument that addresses a desire to keep guns out the hands of criminals.
The prospect of tighter gun laws insinuates the foot-in-door technique used by politicians, they will pass one little law, then another, then another, until guns are totally outlawed and all gun owners are on a public registry (see HR127)
I mean for fucks sakes I'm against tighter gun restrictions for law abiding citizens, I live in a very loose state and still hate the magazine restrictions, too bad I lost all of my magazines in a tragic boating accident :( but I still believe something needs to be done to keep ARs and glocks out the hands of psychos and gangbangers. Who disagrees?
Also to whoever posted about 3D printers firing high-tech guns, if you mean inaccurate single-shot plastic derringers, then yeah that's pretty high-tech
I love theories because they are exactly that. It’s an idea. A good idea. But only an idea. I’d agree with you that it’s a good idea and I’m all about it. Now if only we could actually make the idea of keeping guns out of criminals hands work! Doesnt Chicago have the strictest gun control laws
yet the highest murder rate ? Just something I’ve heard before. Who knows what true these days.
