The Guns thread - Part 1

[DarthSkywalker]

Ehh, stuff like sport shooting with rifles I have no issue with 13 year olds doing, if properly supervised.

Apparently it's the fastest growing sport in a couple of states in Australia - not with AR-10s of course, likely just bolt-action stuff, but still. Nothing wrong with a 13 year old learning how to shoot, that was pretty much widespread in generations past and they never had the spree shooting crap we're dealing with now.

Yes, this would have solved the problem of her 9 year old brother shooting and killing her. She could have just killed him instead...

 

[Aximili86]

'Cause yeah, those instances are the rule rather than the exception.

Also not sure how the hell such an occurence falls under "properly supervised". In a situation like that, those parents should do ****ing jail time.

 

[chaseter]

We need to arm 13 year old girls!

We need to sterilize and incarcerate horrible parents.

 

[squeekness]

'Cause yeah, those instances are the rule rather than the exception.

Also not sure how the hell such an occurence falls under "properly supervised". In a situation like that, those parents should do ****ing jail time.

The parents are firmly to blame here. Trigger lock too much of a pain? So is burying your kid.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

We need to sterilize and incarcerate horrible parents.

One of the few issues we can both agree on Chaster. I would also submit there should be some type of test before they can even procreate so we can preempt all these horrible parents in the first place.

 

[Aximili86]

Well, there's a straight-up Josef Mengele notion, right there.

 

[chaseter]

I am 100% for sterilizing horrible parents and pedophiles. I won’t sign up for Minority Report sterilizing but ruining a child’s life whether negligence or on purpose = sterilize in prison.

 

[moviedoors]

I would also submit there should be some type of test before they can even procreate so we can preempt all these horrible parents in the first place.

That is an absolutely absurd idea.

 

[LTuser]

This is the world we live in. Where so many worship guns and they teach kids they are how you solve your problems.

http://www.wtva.com/content/news/Teen-shot-in-head-by-9-year-old-in-Monroe-County-477207783.html

IMO that's on the MOM, for not properly securing her weapon where kids were around..

Ehh, stuff like sport shooting with rifles I have no issue with 13 year olds doing, if properly supervised.

Apparently it's the fastest growing sport in a couple of states in Australia - not with AR-10s of course, likely just bolt-action stuff, but still. Nothing wrong with a 13 year old learning how to shoot, that was pretty much widespread in generations past and they never had the spree shooting crap we're dealing with now.

That's something i wonder. Back as a kid myself, i heard all sorts of stories from my 2 uncles and dad (on my American side of the family), and from my Grandpa and one of my other older relatives (On my british side), about how THEIR parents took them out to teach them shooting as a kid. BUT i never once, had any of my relatives do it with me..
So i wonder, what the rate of parents who THEMSELVES got taught proper care/use/respect for guns, have done so with THEIR kids?

The parents are firmly to blame here. Trigger lock too much of a pain? So is burying your kid.

We certainly need to find out why said parent Didn't keep the gun properly locked up..

I am 100% for sterilizing horrible parents and pedophiles. I won’t sign up for Minority Report sterilizing but ruining a child’s life whether negligence or on purpose = sterilize in prison.

Pedos i agree. BUT what counts as a horible parent??

 

[Aximili86]

Yeah, I'm not even sure sterilization is necessary with pedophiles. Just put them the hell away for a long time and supervise/surveil the **** out of them once they're out.

You start getting into sterilization of various groups, that's dangerous ****ing ground. It's one thing to assert it for sex criminals, but that can pretty easily get expanded out into other stuff, other groups. Yeah, it's the "slippery slope" argument, but it's a valid concern.

Not like it's some new concept anyway, used to get done to gays & disabled people all the time. Not a great road to go down, even with criminals - just have the stomach to be harsher on them with prison sentences that we are currently.

 

[parkerpete]

As a Brooklynite left-winger, I can only say that people on my side of the fence have no interest in banning all guns. I have no issue with people keeping firearms in their home for protection. I don't even have a problem with an AR-15 if you own a ranch in Texas and need to routinely go hunting to kill off the invasive wild boars that are tearing up the countryside there.

But the gun lobby has gone nuts in this country. I have no problem with states deciding how to manage guns depending on the rural/urban culture they have, but the fact is that it's the right-wing gun nuts who keep pushing bills to allow an Oklahoman with an open-carry permit to bring his gun to Central Park. That's just nonsense.

And the idea of arming teachers/ushers/what-have-you is ridiculous. Any trained serviceman or woman will tell you-- trained or not, if you are in a darkened movie theater and someone starts shooting people without warning, all you're going to do with your weapon, most likely, is kill even more innocents.

 

[Aximili86]

As a Brooklynite left-winger, I can only say that people on my side of the fence have no interest in banning all guns.

That's the discrepancy, though. You don't want to ban all guns (some do, but the left in general doesn't, agreed), just a couple of specific models that account for a tiny, ridiculously small amount of gun murders in the country when compared to other types. Under the guise of "semi-automatic! unacceptable!", when virtually every gun now is a semi-automatic. The Virginia Tech scumbag did this same thing with pistols only a decade ago, Columbine didn't involve an AR - all an AR ban is going to do is have these evil bastards either a) get the weapons on the black market all the same, or b) just switch to a different type of weapon which is easier to buy legally.

 

[STINGRAY]

all an AR ban is going to do is have these evil bastards either a) get the weapons on the black market all the same, or b) just switch to a different type of weapon which is easier to buy legally.

This may surprise you, but The Black Market does not sell on Ebay, and is not as simple to make contact with as you seem to assume.

Further; Your logic about 'easier-to-buy weapon options' is flawed.

First, the limitation of the level of firepower equates to a limit of casualties during a shooting. Lower firepower capacity = fewer rounds fired in a short time, and that time is what allows possible victims the chance to hide or escape and Police time to arrive.

Second; The easiest form of gun to obtain is a Black Powder Cap & Ball gun. You can actually order those through the mail...yet you do not see violent perps buying them to commit shootings with.

The fact that such guns require 3-5 minutes to load to fire 6 shots might have something to do with that.

So no, "evil bastards" will not be as well off as you may think if certain weapons are off the market.

 

[Aximili86]

Dude. Virginia Tech, 32 dead, 17 injured. Two pistols. Yeaaahhh, "limited firepower, less damage!" That loon killed almost twice what the Florida kid did, with two pistols.

No reasonable person is ever going to assert "Americans shouldn't be able to buy pistols."

As for the black market being unaccessible to the average joes point, yeah, keep believing that. Someone not of sound mind, and motivated, is going to be able to find some other a$$hole selling a rifle out of a car trunk. In most states.

Even then, it's still going to be easier for said psycho to go buy those two pistols, those 2 or 3 or 4 clips which old 14 bullets each.

Banning ARs doesn't somehow limit the damage a civilian with a violent agenda can cause. Ammunition's sold everywhere for handguns, outside of the Chicago city limits. One clip, 14 bullets. 28, 42, 56 bullets, easily attainable without sounding any alarm from the authorities over stockpiling.

The Virginia Tech kid had major-league head issues, he managed to pull this off. The laws haven't changed on handguns since then, in virtually all states. That same exact crap could happen tomorrow should any insane dip***** feel the desire, with nothing more than a couple of glocks. Twice the Florida numbers. Without an AR in sight.

The. World. Sucks. Horrible people are out there. That doesn't mean we ban products given 99.999% of the people buying them never ever point them at anothe living soul. You know, because they're not bananaballs insane in the membrane.

 

[STINGRAY]

Dude. Virginia Tech, 32 dead, 17 injured. Two pistols. Yeaaahhh, "limited firepower, less damage!" That loon killed almost twice what the Florida kid did, with two pistols.


Banning ARs doesn't somehow limit the damage a civilian with a violent agenda can cause.

--- Wow...Makes NO DIFFERENCE what the violent perp is armed with `eh? How enlightening. You should stop wasting all this wisdom on a message board and head down to Florida to set straight all the families of the victims who caught high velocity rounds fired from a distance. I`m sure it would comfort them no end to hear that there would be just as much death if only pistols had been involved.

Your hyperbole` aside, the fact is that ANY Idiot Can Pull A Trigger...

Therefore it`s not an unreasonable concept to limit the available firepower to guns that DO NOT dramatically enhance the lethal capability of those idiots.

By your reasoning, the military should be just as capable with Glocks and a bandoleer of magazines...yet they don`t arm troops that way, do they?

It`s called an ASSAULT rifle for a reason, y`know....'Dude'.

 

[Aximili86]

You're not really getting the point here. ARs have been involved in mass shootings. Pistols have too, unsupplemented by ARs. One crazy guy took out more innocent people with two pistols than the Florida crazy did with the AR.

Why ban one, and not the other? Surely if you're not for banning all guns (which I acknowledge) one can't be unacceptable and the other is.

That's not even factoring in all the non-spree shootings, the general gun crimes, smaller stuff, which happens infinitely more often with...yeah, handguns.

If people see the data and want to ban both, fine, that's cool. I just don't like this inconsistency. "Handguns kill a whole lot more people every year, spree shootings can and have happened with pistols, but the AR's are the problem specifically."

Again, crazies gonna crazy. These idiots'll just start favoring glocks & buttload of extra clips instead. Then we'll be having the "do we need to ban handguns?" conversation, which would be warranted too. But nobody would ever stand for banning handguns in the U.S., that'd pretty clearly be beyond the pale.

Rationally, logically, it'd seem that should be the case with the ARs too. Harmless in the hands of someone who should qualify to have the gun, really dangerous in the hands of someone who shouldn't. Same situation.

 

[STINGRAY]

You're not really getting the point here.

Why ban one, and not the other? Surely if you're not for banning all guns (which I acknowledge) one can't be unacceptable and the other is.

--By that ..'reasoning', (and I use the term loosely) , why not make the M134 Minigun legal for civilians to own?

After all, it really doesn`t matter (according to you) that it offers a rate of fire of 2,000 to 6,000 round per minute, because, hey--people can kill people with pistols anyway, right?
So why not allow them a better killing weapon? ...We`ll just be careful about selling it !

So, let`s make the M134 Minigun available...

BUT...REMEMBER; let`s make gosh-darn certain that ONLY the people who SHOULD have one can get it, right?
After all --in your words--it would be "Harmless in the hands of someone who should qualify to have the gun, really dangerous in the hands of someone who shouldn't."... Right??

Cause a gun is - a gun is - a gun...according to you, right?
Let`s just make gosh-darn-certain that ONLY the pure of heart and sane get a M134 Minigun...and everything will be FINE!

"Why ban one and not the other"... right?
"one can't be unacceptable and the other is." --PERIOD !
No further consideration required.
How simple.
How neat.
How tidy.

(How asinine.)


So...I`m the one " not really getting the point here"....?

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAA !
SAY!...Here`s an idea...In the midst of our freedom and acknowledgement of the need for and right of self defense...
Let`s just place a few limitations upon how efficiently we can kill each other.

Just for that odd incident when someone gets into an indiscriminate killing mood.

 

[chaseter]

Pedos i agree. BUT what counts as a horible parent??

Negligent death or abuse of a child resulting in prison time = castration.

Examples: kid who killed his sibling with a gun, CA parents that chained up their kids in the horror house, high Mom whose kid froze to death outside, high dad that left his kid in a hot car. Castration.

Convicted pedos deserve more than castrations, I’ll take it a step further and say mutilation...it should be removed.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Are people seriously suggesting torture and mutilation? The hell is going on in here.

 

[chaseter]

Are people seriously suggesting torture and mutilation? The hell is going on in here.

We take away life from an innocent fetus but woah woah woah...can’t take away the pedo’s instrument!? Related to gun control, why not peen and uterus control? I’m not being silly...pedos walk free and recidivism is high...almost up to 50% based on category.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

We take away life from an innocent fetus but woah woah woah...can’t take away the pedo’s instrument!? Related to gun control, why not peen and uterus control? I’m not being silly...pedos walk free and recidivism is high...almost up to 50% based on category.

Abortion is in no way similar to torture and mutilation and is such a deflection. What does recidivism have to do with torture? You simply punish such behavior with longer sentences. I'd think life for rape or child molestation is not unreasonable at all. but we live in a world where Trump is talking about the death penalty for people who sell drugs.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

You're not really getting the point here. ARs have been involved in mass shootings. Pistols have too, unsupplemented by ARs. One crazy guy took out more innocent people with two pistols than the Florida crazy did with the AR.

Why ban one, and not the other? Surely if you're not for banning all guns (which I acknowledge) one can't be unacceptable and the other is.

That's not even factoring in all the non-spree shootings, the general gun crimes, smaller stuff, which happens infinitely more often with...yeah, handguns.

If people see the data and want to ban both, fine, that's cool. I just don't like this inconsistency. "Handguns kill a whole lot more people every year, spree shootings can and have happened with pistols, but the AR's are the problem specifically."

Again, crazies gonna crazy. These idiots'll just start favoring glocks & buttload of extra clips instead. Then we'll be having the "do we need to ban handguns?" conversation, which would be warranted too. But nobody would ever stand for banning handguns in the U.S., that'd pretty clearly be beyond the pale.

Rationally, logically, it'd seem that should be the case with the ARs too. Harmless in the hands of someone who should qualify to have the gun, really dangerous in the hands of someone who shouldn't. Same situation.

Because your point makes little to no sense. We shouldnt ban a weapon with a high likelihood of being able to kill a lot of people quickly (and that has ZERO other intrinsic civilian value) because in one event 11 years ago someone was able to kill a lot of people with less firepower?

That's like saying we shouldn't make weapons grade plutonium illegal because Timothy McVeigh was able to blow up the OKC building with ammonium nitrate in 1995.

The "well nutjobs are gonna get em if they really want to" argument is a logical fallacy and frankly, a cop out. Sure, one individual might be able to get a hold of one and commit a crime. But a lot of others won't. And if regulation prevents at least one of these stupid, senseless occurrences from happening than its worth it. We don't need some magic regulation that stops every single shooting. We just need ones that make their occurrences less frequent, or at the very least the carnage that can be dispensed by the perpetrator to be a fraction of what it could've been. (Imagine what VA Tech would've looked like had the guy been armed with assault rifles.)

It seems to have worked out pretty well for the Australians after the Port Arthur massacre.

And BTW most of the pistol-related deaths in this country are not mass murders. Hell, they're not murders at all. Most of them are suicides, which is a whole other issue to deal with.

 

[Zarex]

We take away life from an innocent fetus but woah woah woah...can’t take away the pedo’s instrument!? Related to gun control, why not peen and uterus control? I’m not being silly...pedos walk free and recidivism is high...almost up to 50% based on category.

Recidivism is high because once these sick people - many of whom have been tortured themselves - are released into the wild we do absolutely nothing to keep them from re-offending other than put restrictions on where they can and cannot live. And, if you actually think about it, castrating mentally disturbed individuals won't keep kids safe. The problem can be reduced by spending money on medical treatment and counseling. But we've sunk so far this past year and a half I wouldn't be surprised if government authorized mutilation goes to the top of the Trump Agenda.

And please, spare us the far right crocodile tears for aborted babies.

 

[chaseter]

Does a fetus feel pain? You do realize how they mutilate the baby to be able to remove?

They can have anesthesia. It’s not torture.

Drug dealers won’t get the death penalty as they have no control over use. Same would be for alcohol sales.

 

[chaseter]

Recidivism is high because once these sick people - many of whom have been tortured themselves - are released into the wild we do absolutely nothing to keep them from re-offending other than put restrictions on where they can and cannot live. And, if you actually think about it, castrating mentally disturbed individuals won't keep kids safe. The problem can be reduced by spending money on medical treatment and counseling. But we've sunk so far this past year and a half I wouldn't be surprised if government authorized mutilation goes to the top of the Trump Agenda.

And please, spare us the far right crocodile tears for aborted babies.

Tears for aborted babies > tears for pedophiles. There is no cure for pedophilia. If you want to champion that cause, go for it.