The Guns thread

[regwec]

Yes it was. Perhaps you don't grasp the irony? I can't believe that it isn't glaringly obvious given the context and my previous posts on this topic, but fine, I'll be more direct and less acerbic when I flag the mass shooting next week (if I'm not banned first).

 

[regwec]

Furthermore, if you deleted a post because in your judgment it was too painful for people to read, why on God's Earth would you repost it verbatim?

 

[C. Lee]

Yes it was. Perhaps you don't grasp the irony? I can't believe that it isn't glaringly obvious given the context and my previous posts on this topic, but fine, I'll be more direct and less acerbic when I flag the mass shooting next week (if I'm not banned first).

Apparently others didn't grasp it either, since it was reported to me.

Furthermore, if you deleted a post because in your judgment it was too painful for people to read, why on God's Earth would you repost it verbatim?

Because there is a difference between a post made by a poster to be snarky and condescending and a staff member using it in telling a poster not to use such posts to be snarky and condescending.

 

[regwec]

It is no great surprise that it was reported to you by a gun enthusiast who would probably rather these recurrent massacres passed without comment. I doubt his feelings were hurt more by my condescension than my feelings were hurt by a couple of dozen more corpses, but there it is.

 

[Donner]

I reported one of your posts because you were being a dick, ironic or not. And I'm not a gun nut in any way.

Just let it go. You're not doing yourself any favours.

 

[regwec]

Whose favour, precisely, do you think I should seek? Yours? You're apparently too fragile to engage in argument about this. I've been here ten years longer than you which is enough time to learn that Chris always throws around an infraction or six in response to a complaint, no matter how ill-founded. But I have enough respect for him to let him know when I think he's wrong.

 

[demitri_vampiro]

Why is it that none of these shootings is ever labeled as terrorism?
Or is terrorism nowadays linked with a certain ethnic group?

 

[DeadPresident]

Because terrorism’s definition usually contains reference to some kind of ideological aim or objective.

 

[squeekness]

It's still terrifying, the thought that you can get murdered doing something as peaceful as worship.

 

[Donner]

Whose favour, precisely, do you think I should seek? Yours? You're apparently too fragile to engage in argument about this. I've been here ten years longer than you which is enough time to learn that Chris always throws around an infraction or six in response to a complaint, no matter how ill-founded. But I have enough respect for him to let him know when I think he's wrong.

Fragile? Wtf? I reported your post about how the Holy Spirit should have had a .45, which is just super dickish and unnecessary. It contributed absolutely nothing to any argument. You were trying to be clever, which no one appreciated. And I'm not sure which argument you're trying to engage in. 99% of the people here want stricter gun control laws in place.

I'm not the fragile one. How many posts have you made so far trying to defend your comments? Get over it.

 

[Hypestyle]

horrible incident. The "new normal" is appalling and should spur direct action by policymakers. But it won't.

 

[mclay18]

Ryan and other GOP politicians will spew the same "thoughts and prayers" drivel and continue to say "LALALA!" with their ears plugged while the Democratic Party demands action on gun control. Like they did with the Las Vegas shooting, talked briefly about one change and dropped it.

The only way gun control will happen is when the Democratic Party retakes the House and Senate (and likely the White House).

 

[squeekness]

Ryan and other GOP politicians will spew the same "thoughts and prayers" drivel and continue to say "LALALA!" with their ears plugged while the Democratic Party demands action on gun control. Like they did with the Las Vegas shooting, talked briefly about one change and dropped it.

The only way gun control will happen is when the Democratic Party retakes the House and Senate (and likely the White House).

I wish that was happening right now.

 

[Ash J. Williams]

Ryan and other GOP politicians will spew the same "thoughts and prayers" drivel and continue to say "LALALA!" with their ears plugged while the Democratic Party demands action on gun control. Like they did with the Las Vegas shooting, talked briefly about one change and dropped it.

The only way gun control will happen is when the Democratic Party retakes the House and Senate (and likely the White House).

While I agree that there are regulations that should be maintained, at what point does that get out of hand? I have no desire to own an automatic weapon, but there is the concern of how responsible gun owners such as myself are affected by the regulations due to others' actions. Starting next year, for example, in California, you'll need a permit to buy ammo, which I see a lot of people having a problem with and likely stocking up in the meantime. I doubt that the 300 or so million guns that are in this country would be taken away because it'd be bloodbath and probably start a civil war -- not to mention the other unknown factors that go along with it.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

While I agree that there are regulations that should be maintained, at what point does that get out of hand? I have no desire to own an automatic weapon, but there is the concern of how responsible gun owners such as myself are affected by the regulations due to others' actions. Starting next year, for example, in California, you'll need a permit to buy ammo, which I see a lot of people having a problem with and likely stocking up in the meantime. I doubt that the 300 or so million guns that are in this country would be taken away because it'd be bloodbath and probably start a civil war -- not to mention the other unknown factors that go along with it.

The slippery slope argument has SOME merit but let's be honest... From rank and file to the elected officials the overwhelming majority of Democrats aren't for stripping every single person of firearms. It's silly if anyone thinks that. However... The recalcitrance or the other side in the face of all this mass death on a regular basis to even countenance the mildest of gun control? That's pushing more people into the other side and the fringes of that group is starting to swell with folks that could be amendable to full on disarmament. So... Maybe instead of being so inflexible the GOP should think of compromising and allowing some common sense reform?

 

[Sithborg]

While I agree that there are regulations that should be maintained, at what point does that get out of hand? I have no desire to own an automatic weapon, but there is the concern of how responsible gun owners such as myself are affected by the regulations due to others' actions. Starting next year, for example, in California, you'll need a permit to buy ammo, which I see a lot of people having a problem with and likely stocking up in the meantime. I doubt that the 300 or so million guns that are in this country would be taken away because it'd be bloodbath and probably start a civil war -- not to mention the other unknown factors that go along with it.

There is a fairly large population that supports a middle ground. But the middle ground is not acceptable to the NRA, a racist organization in the pocket of the gun manufacturers.

Also, the main question you need to ask, is how much are you willing to risk before even the middle ground isn't enough for the majority. The more these attacks happen, the more people will get on board with a total ban. You don't even need a new amendment. All you need is a new court, who looks at the second amendment and says, no, it is not a personal right to own guns, but a right to have a well regulated militia.

I will say, my personal needle is quickly, quickly moving toward a total ban.

 

[redhawk23]

Besides being almost universally male, one thing that links all these shooters are previous histories of domestic abuse. The shooter in Texas was outright discharged from the military and spent a year in jail for assaulting his wife and child.

Domestic abuse charges need to be added as redflags in background searches.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Man another jackass...

 

[Marvolo]

There is a fairly large population that supports a middle ground. But the middle ground is not acceptable to the NRA, a racist organization in the pocket of the gun manufacturers.

Also, the main question you need to ask, is how much are you willing to risk before even the middle ground isn't enough for the majority. The more these attacks happen, the more people will get on board with a total ban. You don't even need a new amendment. All you need is a new court, who looks at the second amendment and says, no, it is not a personal right to own guns, but a right to have a well regulated militia.

I will say, my personal needle is quickly, quickly moving toward a total ban.

A total ban wouldn't work. Americans aren't like other country's citizens. Due to our history, the way our country was founded by rebellion against a king, the almost legendary idea that's developed around the second amendment, and just general stubbornness, innocent Americans wouldn't be inclined to give up guns they already own. Some might do it if the government reimbursed them the total market value of their weapons. Others would bury or store them somewhere. And some would take an aggressive approach and kill anyone that tries to take their guns. We'd have a lot of law enforcement getting killed just trying to confiscate millions of Americans' guns. It'd be senseless and dangerous and make an already bad situation into an unmanageable cluster****.

Speaking for myself, I'm someone that supports more strict gun regulations, but even I would never turn my guns in. Not even for money. I'd bury them somewhere before I'd do that.

 

[redhawk23]

Following his dishonorable discharge from the military, the Texas shooter shouldn't have been able to buy the gun. He was able to because our policies and practices around selling guns are ridiculously lax and completely ineffective. He didn't get the gun on the black market. He just lied about his past and bought the gun with no further question asked.

 

[redhawk23]

This is the ad for the gun used in Aurora, Newtown, San Bernidino, Las Vegas and now in Texas.

Its almost as if this whole situation is toxic and hilariously on the nose.

 

[Lighthouse]

This is the ad for the gun used in Aurora, Newtown, San Bernidino, Las Vegas and now in Texas.

Its almost as if this whole situation is toxic and hilariously on the nose.

Toxic Masculinity the poster.

 

[Jericholyte]

A total ban wouldn't work. Americans aren't like other country's citizens. Due to our history, the way our country was founded by rebellion against a king, the almost legendary idea that's developed around the second amendment, and just general stubbornness, innocent Americans wouldn't be inclined to give up guns they already own. Some might do it if the government reimbursed them the total market value of their weapons. Others would bury or store them somewhere. And some would take an aggressive approach and kill anyone that tries to take their guns. We'd have a lot of law enforcement getting killed just trying to confiscate millions of Americans' guns. It'd be senseless and dangerous and make an already bad situation into an unmanageable cluster****.

Speaking for myself, I'm someone that supports more strict gun regulations, but even I would never turn my guns in. Not even for money. I'd bury them somewhere before I'd do that.

May I ask, and this is a genuine question, not trying to be funny but.....why?

Have you been the victim of such regular crime that you only feel safe by having a gun?

What is the reason for your abject refusal as a law-abiding citizen to feel the need to be armed?

 

[regwec]

This is the ad for the gun used in Aurora, Newtown, San Bernidino, Las Vegas and now in Texas.

Its almost as if this whole situation is toxic and hilariously on the nose.

This is what I find so infuriating. The gun nuts alternately treat the whole horror of the situation as a joke and then try to stifle debate and avoid consequential change by piously rehearsing the ridiculous "now's not the time" hypocrisy.

And Marvolo, I'm sorry but your argument against a ban is nonsense for two reasons.

Firstly, it's misconceived because no democracy has a total ban. Even in the UK, which has about the toughest gun laws anywhere, farmers, gamekeepers and sportsmen still use guns. They can only obtain the tools appropriate for the job, however, and they can't obtain any at all if they're lunatic.

Secondly, the suggestion that Americans lovemuhgunz because British colonists broke away from imperial control in the eighteenth century is less than compelling. Pretty much every country in Europe has a history of armed insurrection or "regime change", which is why most are now republics. But their menfolk don't have such a childish commitment to gun ownership. And, in any case, is there really an American monoculture that has developed in sublime isolation since the war of independence? Can every American trace their ancestry to that conflict? Of course not. It's just a fantasy shared and propagated by gun fans who are determined to keep their toys.

 

[redhawk23]

This is what I find so infuriating. The gun nuts alternately treat the whole horror of the situation as a joke and then try to stifle debate and avoid consequential change by piously rehearsing the ridiculous "now's not the time" hypocrisy.

And Marvolo, I'm sorry but your argument against a ban is nonsense for two reasons.

Firstly, it's misconceived because no democracy has a total ban. Even in the UK, which has about the toughest gun laws anywhere, farmers, gamekeepers and sportsmen still use guns. They can only obtain the tools appropriate for the job, however, and they can't obtain any at all if they're lunatic.

Secondly, the suggestion that Americans lovemuhgunz because British colonists broke away from imperial control in the eighteenth century is less than compelling. Pretty much every country in Europe has a history of armed insurrection or "regime change", which is why most are now republics. But their menfolk don't have such a childish commitment to gun ownership. And, in any case, is there really an American monoculture that has developed in sublime isolation since the war of independence? Can every American trace their ancestry to that conflict? Of course not. It's just a fantasy shared and propagated by gun fans who are determined to keep their toys.

It is a fantasy. It's an original myth. That's the whole point. It operates very similar to a religion. American identity has very little history behind it. We are not a shared ethnicity or people, which is quite different from say, France it Japan. All we have is a narrative that everyone buys into to a certain degree. The story of our founding fathers leaves out all kinds of details and is condemsed down to a elementary school level. The guns are a major part of it, a weird built in belief that everyone having f guns will somehow keep the government in check even though our government now has a massive standing f army, and ranks, and an airdorce and nuclear bombs.