Gun Control discussion - Post ITT every time there's another senseless shooting

**Grim** · 2012-07-24

Originally Posted by jimmychrist

The military will side with the generals and the generals will side with whoever keeps feeding them tax payer dollars for weapon systems.

The federal government isn't the problem. The problem is the unchecked corporate sponsorship of the legislative process.

People have an unrealistic view of the military if they believe that. Of course, most succesful modern revolutions that were semi-violent had the support of at least some of the military.

And in case you want me to cite a hopelessly out of date example: American Civil War. Large segments of the military peacefully (wtf) left their federal units to go fight for the confederacy.

**Manfred Hideous** · 2012-07-24

Originally Posted by Grim

People have an unrealistic view of the military if they believe that. Of course, most succesful modern revolutions that were semi-violent had the support of at least some of the military.

And in case you want me to cite a hopelessly out of date example: American Civil War. Large segments of the military peacefully (wtf) left their federal units to go fight for the confederacy.

Didn't you get the memo? We're all brainless automatons.

**Bill Schwartzski** · 2012-07-24

Originally Posted by Grath

Fuck you a man took a plane out with a box cutter, and killed every single person on board, or wait, 4 planes actually. You know why? Nobody on that plane had balls.

FTFY

Logical fallacy. You don't need a gun to stop a man with a box cutter. Shit, you could stop him with luggage.

9/11 was very painful half because we got attacked, half because it showed most Americans when confronted with a dude with a knife would rather cower in fear than throw something heavy at them.

I pulled someone out of a burning building once. I didn't have a gun, I didn't have any protective gear, I didn't even have a shirt (it was on fire so I took it off). The primary component of my arsenal? Bravery and courage. Neither require ammunition.

In this movie theatre? When homeboy's gun jammed? Should have been 3-4 dudes on top of him immediately. But once again people were too busy running and screaming and being retarded apes.

**Brooks Puuntai** · 2012-07-25

Originally Posted by Bill Schwartzski

FTFY
In this movie theatre? When homeboy's gun jammed? Should have been 3-4 dudes on top of him immediately. But once again people were too busy running and screaming and being retarded apes.

Hindsight is neat. Personally I can't blame those who where in the theater for not jumping the shooter. Your talking about a dark and crowded theater, with tear gas being used and someone shooting an assault rifle. Some didn't even know if it was just one shooter or multiple. As much as I want try and be a badass and say I would've jumped him, I probably would have done what most did, and try to protect and get the women and children out.

**Wusti** · 2012-07-25

Read my Sig.

That's all I have to say about that.

**Securitas** · 2012-07-25

Originally Posted by Brooks Puuntai

and try to protect and get the women and children out.

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

**Grim** · 2012-07-25

Originally Posted by Securitas

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

Its our culture. People aren't equal. Deal with it.

**Matos** · 2012-07-25

Originally Posted by Securitas

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

You think there are more fat man then woman then? I would attribute that to a perception bias on your side

**jimmychrist** · 2012-07-25

Originally Posted by Bill Schwartzski

But once again people were too busy running and screaming and being retarded apes.

And these are the same people we want packing heat.

Anyway the point is moot, they'll ban costumes in film theatres and that will be that. Discussing gun control is either met with "too soon, now is not the time to talk about that" or "what are you talking about nothing bad has happened for a while why are you going on about it now?"

**Brooks Puuntai** · 2012-07-25

Originally Posted by Securitas

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

Its not necessarily a modern or ancient society type ideology. Its for most a (heterosexual)ideology of defending those of the opposite sex, call it a natural instinct. Also like Grath said that even today in society people still do have the mindset that people aren't equal, especially when it comes to men and women, that its a mans job to protect or that females are in a sense weaker.

Edit: To put a example of the above, its the same way that fathers are generally more protective of their daughters, and mothers are generally more protective of their sons.

**Manfred Hideous** · 2012-07-25

Originally Posted by Securitas

Not to disavow you of your noble intentions, but why in our modern society is there this idea that women have to be specially protected? Children I can see, but adult women are no more or less capable of taking a bullet than anyone else. I mean sure, they're a little physically weaker, but statistically I'm not even sure that's true anymore because so many of our men are morbidly obese. :V

Fat men have more mass to absorb the bullet? Just because you're gay you don't have to look down on guys old fashioned enough to put women and children first. It's a matter of being a responsible man.

For the record, I'd help the guys who need help, too. Gay guys even. and I would put special effort into saving a pair of lipstick lesbians... Just in case they might make an exception for their savior.

**Securitas** · 2012-07-25

Originally Posted by Grim

Its our culture. People aren't equal. Deal with it.

That is undeniable but also regrettable. Unfortunately 'dealing with' or ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

Seriously what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

v0v it doesn't have anything to do with me being gay. I just think treating women in a special sort of way has its dark sides as well.

**Securitas** · 2012-07-25

Originally Posted by Matos

You think there are more fat man then woman then? I would attribute that to a perception bias on your side

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/...htm#overweight

**Manfred Hideous** · 2012-07-26

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-gun-violence/

Aww snap. Here we go.

My favorite line: “A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,”

So, you're either a US soldier (who Obama thinks carry Russian rifles) or a criminal. No mention of the fact that the overwhelming majority of privately held "assault" weapons have never been misused.

He may be playing to his base but I don't see how alienating gun owners en-mass will help him among anyone on the right and a fair number of gun owning liberals (yeah they exist here).

**jimmychrist** · 2012-07-26

Originally Posted by Manfred Hideous

He may be playing to his base but I don't see how alienating gun owners en-mass will help him among anyone on the right and a fair number of gun owning liberals (yeah they exist here).

Fox pundits and conservative politicians have been shouting "he be comin' for yer guns!" since about the time Obama won the primary. He never did come for anyone's guns, in fact he's been taking flak for not doing it from the left. But the NRA, et. al. kept on shouting. So people for whom gun-ownership is a political wedge issue were already well and truly alienated.

**Night** · 2012-07-26

Yeah, I see the NRA magazine occasionally and they've been spouting all kinds of gibberish about "we must defeat Obama" for the last six months. It has nothing to do with any reality, and the reality is this isn't going to go anywhere either and he's not going to come for your guns, he's just expressing his opinion rather than his legislative intentions.

Plus, honestly, anyone who wants to sport-shoot an AK is a complete goddamn retard, because they're really that bad from everything I've heard, and if you're not shooting it for fun, might as well give it to the Feds anyways.

**Barry Zuckerkorn** · 2012-07-26

Because of how statistical data is gathered it can be tricky to find solid data dealing with 'assault style' weapons and crime.

However looking at,
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd..._Report_09.pdf
http://www.amfire.com/statistic.asp?page=9

I think it's safe to say that 'assault weapons' are clearly not used as much others would like to believe.

**Brooks Puuntai** · 2012-07-26

I think he used AK-47 as a reference, for assault rifles or any other automatic/semi-automatic weapon, since pretty much everyone knows what it is. One of the issues is not that they are legal, but the ease in some places in the US it is to get them. Prime example is in Arizona which was the whole deal behind Fast and Furious. People where legally buying assault rifles and reselling them to gangs. I don't think that they should be illegal per-say, but they should be hard as fuck to get, and not by pretty much anyone.

**Grim** · 2012-07-26

"Assault Rifles" are fun to play with, but there is really no reason to allow civilians to buy them, along with high capacity (100 rd) magazines. You can hunt or defend your home just fine, if not better with a shotgun.

Pistols are another point of contention, with no real civilian application beyond shooting other people.

I have gone to the range with friends who own AKs, and I own a pistol myself, but I dont see why they should be legal to own.

Americans should be allowed to own some weapons, for hunting, recreational shooting, and home protection but I see no reason to allow them to walk around with concealed weapons in public, or purchase what are effectively military weapons with full auto removed.

**Manfred Hideous** · 2012-07-27

The NRA bases this on the fact Obama's been pushing for strict gun control since the early 2000's. But that's really beside the point I was making; I can't see how this helps him. His base has nowhere to go but him and he'll drive moderates away.

Night,
AK isn't the only "assault weapon". The mini 14 shoots pretty well and the M-1 platform is fantastic (yes you can get them with pistol grips). You may wonder why I scare quoted. The reason I did is there are NO LEGAL assault rifles that are sold being in the NFS registration database (AFT run), require a $200 transfer tax, require an extensive background check. I may have missed something but the real assault rifles are very rare. What you see being carped about on tv are just semi auto rifles that happen to look like actual assault rifles (and the ammo capacity). One could do as much damage with a mini ranch as a mini tactical.

**jimmychrist** · 2012-07-27

Originally Posted by Manfred Hideous

The NRA bases this on the fact Obama's been pushing for strict gun control since the early 2000's. But that's really beside the point I was making; I can't see how this helps him. His base has nowhere to go but him and he'll drive moderates away.

Do you honestly think that anything he was quoted as saying in that article is in any way, shape or form an extreme position on gun policy? Wanting to abolish the second amendment is an extreme stance. Giving every man, woman, and child in America their own tank is an extreme stance. In between that is shades of grey.

Saying that "we should consider if there are measures we could put in place that better helps keep these guns from ending up in the hands of mentally unstable people, or people who intend to use them to commit crimes, without unjustly infringing on the people's right to bear arms as granted by the constitution" just doesn't seem extreme enough to be a wedge issue for anyone who can be considered as having moderate opinions about the role of guns in American society.

**Night** · 2012-07-27

Originally Posted by Manfred Hideous

The NRA bases this on the fact Obama's been pushing for strict gun control since the early 2000's. But that's really beside the point I was making; I can't see how this helps him. His base has nowhere to go but him and he'll drive moderates away.

Except all the time he's been President where this is literally the first time he's nodded at gun control, and he has no intention of pursing it as legislation. You're offering an argument for NRA actions that might have made sense back in 2008, but still does not explain their actions now.

Originally Posted by Manfred Hideous

Night,
AK isn't the only "assault weapon".

But it is the one that was mentioned by name. And having fired some of these I can actually see how somebody could have fun shooting one, so I'm not going crap on private ownership as completely out of the question. (Though personally the Garand is really about as far down the modernization line as I find fun.) I was being selective, not inclusive.

**Grim** · 2012-07-27

When the supposed "greatest nation in the world" has citizens who are more heavily armed then tribal Yemen (in the middle of a civil war) you have to step back and at least wonder why that is.

**Manfred Hideous** · 2012-07-27

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ontrol-measure

Looks like I'll have to visit a gun store soon. I need to get some stuff before the next ban is slipped in somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Grim

When the supposed "greatest nation in the world" has citizens who are more heavily armed then tribal Yemen (in the middle of a civil war) you have to step back and at least wonder why that is.

Non sequitor much? Yemen is in a civil war despite having as heavily armed population as us? By your measure, we should be wading through rivers of blood to arrive at work. The key word in your comparison is "tribal". It's not the guns.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ontrol-measure

Looks like I'm going to have to visit the gun store now. I want to make sure I buy some stuff before the ban has a chance to happen.

Originally Posted by Night

Except all the time he's been President where this is literally the first time he's nodded at gun control, and he has no intention of pursing it as legislation. You're offering an argument for NRA actions that might have made sense back in 2008, but still does not explain their actions now.

But it is the one that was mentioned by name. And having fired some of these I can actually see how somebody could have fun shooting one, so I'm not going crap on private ownership as completely out of the question. (Though personally the Garand is really about as far down the modernization line as I find fun.) I was being selective, not inclusive.

I know it's no assault rifle but you should really try out the black powder carbines. Holy SHIT is BP fun!

**Securitas** · 2012-07-27

Originally Posted by Manfred Hideous

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...ontrol-measure

Looks like I'll have to visit a gun store soon. I need to get some stuff before the next ban is slipped in somewhere else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlNQ5...tailpage#t=15s

**Manfred Hideous** · 2012-07-27

Originally Posted by Securitas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlNQ5...tailpage#t=15s

I didn't watch. The title was enough. idgi, what does this have to do with me?

**Securitas** · 2012-07-27

Originally Posted by Manfred Hideous

I didn't watch. The title was enough. idgi, what does this have to do with me?

I linked it to a specific time. Just watch the first few seconds and you can see the tinfoil similar to that expressed by many NRA members. It doesn't necessarily have to do with you specifically.

**Grim** · 2012-07-28

Originally Posted by Manfred Hideous

I didn't watch. The title was enough. idgi, what does this have to do with me?

Securitas is just stereotyping people who dont agree with him as ignorant rednecks.

**Securitas** · 2012-07-28

Originally Posted by Grim

Securitas is just stereotyping people who dont agree with him as ignorant rednecks.

wrong lol
it's right above you

**Manfred Hideous** · 2012-07-28

Originally Posted by Securitas

wrong lol
it's right above you

I want my ten seconds back.

And yeah, I get the impression that Grim is right.

**Brooks Puuntai** · 2012-07-28

Using a idiot redneck who posted a video on youtube isn't really the best example for trying to profile most who are against stricter gun control and the NRA stance.

Its like saying

Is a definitive stereotype of homosexuals.

**Securitas** · 2012-07-28

It probably is though lmao

**Nicky D** · 2012-07-29

America is to guns what Columbia is to cocaine, I wonder why people are surprised that it has a problem with the illegitimate tracking and usage of firearms.

**Burnizz** · 2012-07-30

While I don't see myself as a gunhater or a gunnut, (I own a shotgun for hunting) I don't agree that having guns designed for killing people in the hands of civilians is a good idea. Hunting or recreational shooting, sure. But you don't need automatic weapons or huge magazines for that. Alternatively, if you really want to shoot fully automatic or heavy guns, give out licenses to shooting ranges so they can rent out guns under supervision, like renting supercars on tracks work today. But of course, I live in quiet Norway where people trust each other and the police can even do their job without having a gun on them while patrolling.

Originally Posted by Frederick Garrish

Well, my point is I talked to a guy who lives in Norway. That Norwegian shooting was the only time he can remember something like that happening.

Although it was our first massacre, we have had other bad cases of shootings. Which led to the Norwegian equivalent of the national guard not giving out operational ag-3 rifles to their soldiers to keep at home anymore.
Breivik did not use a fully automatic assault rifle iirc btw, he used a ruger of some sort. With a glock sidearm. (Btw if someone you know engraves Mjølnir on their pistol, you might want to call someone)

Originally Posted by poaw

As far as education, it's laughable that you'd say our secondary education system sucks. Foreign exchange students aren't exactly avoiding American colleges and universities. (Can I interest anyone in a Russian engineering degree?)

American high schools are very popular for exchange students in Norway. This has nothing to do with their quality though, in fact, most who come back say it was rather easy compared to Norwegian schools. (Which don't score very well internationally either) The reason they still go to the US is that it's an interesting country that speaks a language they have been learning for 10 years already.

Originally Posted by Manfred Hideous

Bullshit. Americans have never been subjects after kicking the King's men out. We believe in something called natural rights. No man can give you the right to defend yourself or speak your mind. It is inherent within the human condition (in the American belief). We believe that a government that takes away our rights as men needs to be brought down.

I was gonna write something about the problems between having complete freedom and those freedoms taking away the freedoms of others but I completely lost my chain of thought, so meh.

**madp0k** · 2012-08-06

Ok there was another mass shooting and I have couple of questions (by the way don't take this as a dig because im genuinely interested in the answers + we had a mass shooting on the same news page I heard about this, four were shot but no-one died and involved young scallywags so probably drug/gang related).

1. Someone said they were treating this as a hate crime because the shooter had tattoo's (maybe one with 9/11 on his arm), would this be a hate crime against sikh's (what have they done?) or just random nutter hating the non-whites. (guessed it was slightly hateful due to the fact he killed 6 people!!!)

2. They also said that in 2011 this state (wisconssin?) allowed people to carry concealed weapons, is there a reason behind this/ for this?

3. How the fuck do you shoot someone in the face 9 times and they don't die?

**Brooks Puuntai** · 2012-08-07

Originally Posted by madp0k

Ok there was another mass shooting and I have couple of questions (by the way don't take this as a dig because im genuinely interested in the answers + we had a mass shooting on the same news page I heard about this, four were shot but no-one died and involved young scallywags so probably drug/gang related).

1. Someone said they were treating this as a hate crime because the shooter had tattoo's (maybe one with 9/11 on his arm), would this be a hate crime against sikh's (what have they done?) or just random nutter hating the non-whites. (guessed it was slightly hateful due to the fact he killed 6 people!!!)

Can only somewhat answer the first one. The shooter's identity has been released today and he was a Neo-Nazi so that should sum it up. However the reason it was initially considered a hate crime is because the Sikh have been targeted for hate crimes since 9/11. Since people seem to mistake them for Muslims, when actually they are a branch of Buddhists. People see a turban and thats it.

**jimmychrist** · 2012-08-07

Sikhism is a mix of Bhakti Hinduism and Islamic Sufism, or so I was led to believe. But yeah, they do their own thing. Although you can never be too careful about religions with funny hats.

**jimmychrist** · 2012-08-07

Turns out hey also have magic underwear.

**madp0k** · 2012-08-07

Yeah I read today that he had links to white power, so that does pretty much answer question 1, shame the sikhs have been getting picked on because of their headwear choice though, I also thought they had a different kind of turban for some reason but "they all look the same" excuse covers hats aswell as skin colour apparently

**Manfred Hideous** · 2012-08-07

I wonder if it was just the headwear. Dude wouldn't have liked anyone who wasn't white (and probably of the northern EU variety).

As for your third question the answer is "Have balls of steel".

**Viribus** · 2012-08-09

I think gun control is very important. I was shooting the other day and it took me far too long to reacquire a sight picture after taking a shot, but I began exercising proper gun control with a thumb-over-bore grip on my reaction hand and my accuracy was greatly improved.

btw I just put down an order for a CZ 97B, czech this shit out:

**Bill Schwartzski** · 2012-08-11

A take on American crime and, believe it or not it has been going down for awhile. Even though we have nutcases thinking they're the Joker it would appear we're maybe also aborting a lot of potential Jokers?

http://io9.com/5933173/three-strange...rate-is-so-low

Joseph Ellis · 2012-08-12

Originally Posted by Grim

"Assault Rifles" are fun to play with, but there is really no reason to allow civilians to buy them, along with high capacity (100 rd) magazines. You can hunt or defend your home just fine, if not better with a shotgun.

Pistols are another point of contention, with no real civilian application beyond shooting other people.

I have gone to the range with friends who own AKs, and I own a pistol myself, but I dont see why they should be legal to own.

Americans should be allowed to own some weapons, for hunting, recreational shooting, and home protection but I see no reason to allow them to walk around with concealed weapons in public, or purchase what are effectively military weapons with full auto removed.

I also think the best gun for home defense is a shot gun. It can be successfully used without a solid sight picture, i.e. firing from the hip, and by most adults. Recoil can be an issue, however if you have to fire twice against a typical burglar than I hope you called 911 before reaching for the gun.

Pistols offer an option for those who are scared of the recoil of a shotgun but these run the risk of collateral damage in other rooms as the bullet tends to travel farther and faster than a shotgun pellet. In my opinion, a pistol would not be the best choice for general defense. However, I think they still serve as a good alternative for a defensive weapon but they definitely take more training and control to be used effectively.

As far as assault weapons, I agree that there is no need for a civilian to own an operational model. Sorry, if you want to be in a militia join the National Guard...that's what it was designed to function as. I believe no weapon needs a high capacity magazine in the civilian sector. If you can't stop the threat with 10 rounds than you more bullets won't help. I like the concealed weapons permit, just because criminals don't care what the laws are anyway. I like the option to at least be able to give them a surprise when they drop by my way.

**Viribus** · 2012-08-12

boy I can't wait to live in a world where what you're allowed to own is dictated by your need for it

**madp0k** · 2012-08-12

About the concealed weapon permit, defending your home is one thing but then taking a handgun (well I guess it's for handguns and not anything else due to concealing a shot gun or an assault rifle will require an emo trenchcoat look!!)out into the streets is just adding to the trouble I would of thought. Surely outside your property its the dibble's job to keep you safe from the criminals.

**true** · 2012-09-06

in 2009 we had a cop (and not a low ranked one) going postal in a Moscow mall. Due to probably strictest gun laws in the world you can imagine such cases are pretty one-sided.
Enough weapons are in illegal circulation and a line between police and crime is murky.

So "angry losers" side is all non-criminal civilians.

**Scroobius Pip** · 2012-09-06

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19506853

**madp0k** · 2012-09-07

I thought that was looking like some kind of political hit (Iraqis fleed the old saddam regime to the uk etc) but turns out it could be the brother over inheritance, must be a bit mental to want to shoot his brothers kids. Anyway I'm declaring this arab nutters not ours, what ever their passports say.....