Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

Sure, I mean making them harder to get and making it harder for shitty people to get them is something we can all agree on.

 

That said an outright ban on most guns or restricting people from them based on arbitrary criteria by people with no knowledge of what they are talking is something most people resist.

 

Unfortunately, our representatives in Congress are some of the few that cannot agree on it. Nothing has been passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and also the NRA was never close to going broke. That was just something they argued in their court case against New York State that would happen if they lost.

 

But congrats ngata for donating money to them. They love suckers like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and also the NRA was never close to going broke. That was just something they argued in their court case against New York State that would happen if they lost.

But congrats ngata for donating money to them. They love suckers like you.

I have been donating to them for years. I believe I actually said in my post, that they weren't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

I'm aware that they are nowhere near bankruptcy, I just support them as a group in general. I don't necessarily like who they have at the front of the organization right now, but I believe in what they stand for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, our representatives in Congress are some of the few that cannot agree on it. Nothing has been passed.

Honestly, I think it comes down to terms. I have said this before but I think it Bears repeating, when the Brady Bill went through in the 90s, it literally was all cosmetic except for the high capacity magazine.

 

when Congress has something like assault weapons, I don't know why but it always goes back to the looks of the gun. For instance pistol grips and Bayonet lugs have no practical purpose as far as the efficiency of killing. I mean yes if you have a bayonet on there it can kill somebody but that generally means you have no bullets, or somebody is close to you and either event that isn't how these mass shootings shake out. So in effect they're banning something that actually has nothing to do with how lethally efficient a weapon is.

 

I know it's debatable, but I could make a strong case that an M14 is every bit as deadly, if not more so then an AR-15. Yet you never hear of people wanting to ban in for teens because they look like your standard hunting rifle. Yet they have a higher caliber round, they are more accurate, and they are fairly quick to reload as well. Some of the things that reduce the lethal effectiveness of an AR-15 is that yes they are accurate but not as accurate is the M14, they are prone to jams, the high-capacity magazines they use have feeding issues sometimes, and they have a small round which reduces the amount of kinetic energy transferred to the Target, so you have to be more accurate to get a kill shot.

 

none of these are things that are currently being discussed, which I think is where the actual debate should begin. What exactly constitutes the lethal efficacy of a weapon?

 

Also speaking of an assault weapon ban Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban, as a number of other school shootings did before the Brady Bill expired. Generally speakingcomma in this country when you ban something, you create a black market which thereby props up the value of those weapons. I mean you may make them harder to get, but then again you might actually flood the market with illegal weapons, and no way to trace them for the government or your local police station. This is why closing the Gun Show loophole has been such a hotly contested topic as of late, because it is extremely hard to track guns that are bought outside of a state's borders, and when they are brought into the state there's no reasonable method to be able to find that, unless you do door-to-door searches. I am all for closing the gun-show loophole, I think that could do some good.

 

again getting back to the terms, when you say things like assault rifle ban, 1.) you immediately create resistance, 2.) you're really dealing with a lot of terms that have no actual augmentation to the efficacy of that weapon.

 

my entire issue with the gun debate, is that you end up with a bunch of people who really don't know much about weapons, just saying that gun looks dangerous. Instead of sitting down and actually making a concerted effort to figure out which weapons are Far and Away the most dangerous, ways that you can prevent school shootings, and stop focusing solely on the guns. You're never going to take them away, that is in a reasonable solution, and it is in a feasible solution. Not in this country anyway, it has never been done, and it will never be done to a point where it's effective.

 

With that being the case we should start focusing on police departments to see if they can have better response times, updating the standard operating procedures for entries into buildings with active Shooters and unarmed civilians, maybe think about installing those bulletproof vestibules (pods) inside all of classrooms that we can, and have metal detectors and armed guards in schools. I think these are all relatively easy fixes, granted some would be expensive, specifically the bulletproof festivals inside classrooms, but it really comes down to how much our lives worth? I think doing a lot of these we could mitigate many of the casualties. The truth of the matter is that school shootings have been happening for the last 60 years, and we haven't found a good way to stop people from getting guns, so maybe we should shift our Avenue of approach to mitigating casualties and stopping the threat.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's debatable, but I could make a strong case that an M14 is every bit as deadly, if not more so then an AR-15. Yet you never hear of people wanting to ban in for teens because they look like your standard hunting rifle. Yet they have a higher caliber round, they are more accurate, and they are fairly quick to reload as well. Some of the things that reduce the lethal effectiveness of an AR-15 is that yes they are accurate but not as accurate is the M14, they are prone to jams, the high-capacity magazines they use have feeding issues sometimes, and they have a small round which reduces the amount of kinetic energy transferred to the Target, so you have to be more accurate to get a kill shot.

Ban the M14

 

Also speaking of an assault weapon ban Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban, as a number of other school shootings did before the Brady Bill expired. Generally speakingcomma in this country when you ban something, you create a black market which thereby props up the value of those weapons. I mean you may make them harder to get, but then again you might actually flood the market with illegal weapons, and no way to trace them for the government or your local police station. This is why closing the Gun Show loophole has been such a hotly contested topic as of late, because it is extremely hard to track guns that are bought outside of a state's borders, and when they are brought into the state there's no reasonable method to be able to find that, unless you do door-to-door searches. I am all for closing the gun-show loophole, I think that could do some good.

 

again getting back to the terms, when you say things like assault rifle ban, 1.) you immediately create resistance, 2.) you're really dealing with a lot of terms that have no actual augmentation to the efficacy of that weapon.

 

my entire issue with the gun debate, is that you end up with a bunch of people who really don't know much about weapons, just saying that gun looks dangerous. Instead of sitting down and actually making a concerted effort to figure out which weapons are Far and Away the most dangerous, ways that you can prevent school shootings, and stop focusing solely on the guns. You're never going to take them away, that is in a reasonable solution, and it is in a feasible solution. Not in this country anyway, it has never been done, and it will never be done to a point where it's effective.

 

With that being the case we should start focusing on police departments to see if they can have better response times, updating the standard operating procedures for entries into buildings with active Shooters and unarmed civilians, maybe think about installing those bulletproof vest stipules inside all of classrooms that we can, and have metal detectors and armed guards in schools. I think these are all relatively easy fixes, granted some would be expensive, specifically the bulletproof festivals inside classrooms, but it really comes down to how much our lives worth? I think doing a lot of these we could mitigate many of the casualties. The truth of the matter is that school shootings have been happening for the last 60 years, and we haven't found a good way to stop people from getting guns, so maybe we should shift our Avenue of approach to mitigating casualties and stopping the threat.

136e8fd6b17d9fed1cd9ea2e40032dec.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ban any gun that can kill people ? I guess what I am getting at is how do you measure that in regards to should it be banned? Can it kill 5 people per minute or is that too little or too much.

 

I thought I gave a few solutions in there, or things we should try. We could either have this debate on a civil way or you can keep being a douche about it. I thought me and windy were doing well respecting each other and such, I am all for continuing in that manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thing is people don't want gun control but they also don't want to do anything about poverty or making any sort of commitment to seriously revamping our mental health care apparatus because it would cost too much money. The problem I'm is not access to guns. What do you want? Can we have a serious conversation because if you can say that we need to invest in ending poverty and giving people health care as a right (including mental health), then I'm with the gun people. Let them have their guns idc.

 

Who's more likely to rob you and kill you at gun point? Likely somebody in a desperate situation. Who is most likely to shoot up a school? Somebody with some serious mental and social disorders. How do we solve those problems? By putting our money where our mouth is. Period. There is no room for any other discussion because it's just invalid honestly.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ban any gun that can kill people ? I guess what I am getting at is how do you measure that in regards to should it be banned? Can it kill 5 people per minute or is that too little or too much.

 

I thought I gave a few solutions in there, or things we should try. We could either have this debate on a civil way or you can keep being a douche about it. I thought me and windy were doing well respecting each other and such, I am all for continuing in that manner.

You're seriously suggesting giving all kids bulletproof vests because the idea of giving up your guns is that horrific to you. The fact that you come to that conclusion shows that your mind will never be changed. This is a problem in exactly one western country. The answer is obvious. The right wing of the country doesn't want to admit it. Which makes sense: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

 

And Sean, we definitely do need all those things. It's just that no matter what, people will fall through the cracks. It is impossible to be 100% successful. I'd rather when they slip, it's incredibly hard for them to get a gun.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was supposed to say vestibules. No we should not give kids bulletproof vests.

 

But at least now I have my answer as to whether or not you can have this conversation while being civil. Enjoy it sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who is against gun control AND against ending the root issues of gun violence doesn't give a fuck about gun violence so long as they get to have their guns. That's kind of my point. If you don't want one or both of those things then meaningful dialogue is impossible because the other person doesn't believe there is a problem. That's the only logical conclusion in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These things. Great idea.


Anyone who is against gun control AND against ending the root issues of gun violence doesn't give a fuck about gun violence so long as they get to have their guns. That's kind of my point. If you don't want one or both of those things then meaningful dialogue is impossible because the other person doesn't believe there is a problem. That's the only logical conclusion in my eyes.

 

 

I get your mental health aspect, I think that's certainly a point of discussion that should be had. Although I am more Curious to hear how you think poverty fits into this. Most Mass Shooters are adolescent white males. they generally don't come from poverty either, so I'm extremely interested to see what you think the root cause as it pertains to poverty is.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think gun violence is perpetrated by 3 kinds of people mentally I'll/socially inept people (mass shootings/domestic terrorism), poor people (most gun violence) and people acting in self defense (the smallest portion).

 

People who are poor Rob people to eat or get high. Gangs don't exist in areas where people have money lol so there's that too. What neighborhoods do you lock your doors and roll up your windows in? The poor ones. It's a very basic principle that has existed as a law since people have come together to form civilizations throughout every single society without exception in human history. Poverty=violence. There is no debate on that fact.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poverty is more about the general kind of gun violence that is way more common than mass shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of animal is most likely to attafk? A starving animal or a sick animal or an animal protecting it's children. We are after all, animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think gun violence is perpetrated by 3 kinds of people mentally I'll/socially inept people (mass shootings/domestic terrorism), poor people (most gun violence) and people acting in self defense (the smallest portion).

People who are poor Rob people to eat or get high. Gangs don't exist in areas where people have money lol so there's that too. What neighborhoods do you lock your doors and roll up your windows in? The poor ones. It's a very basic principle that has existed as a law since people have come together to form civilizations throughout every single society without exception in human history. Poverty=violence. There is no debate on that fact.

So then let me ask you this man. How would you go about solving any of this? I think most people like to chunk this problem up because to solve something on the enormity of the scale that you're talking about would be the closest thing to Impossible, without actually being impossible.

 

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so let me make sure I have this right. In your mind, to solve the gun problem, we have to sell the Mental Health crisis of unprecedented proportions, poverty, and people with sociopathic tendencies and societal depression. I am not saying you're wrong, I believe wholeheartedly and everything you just said, but to solve something like that would be an enormous undertaking, granted it would be a Monumental victory, but basically we would have to create a perfect society and then have gun violence go away on its own.

 

I like your style Sean. Again, I would really like to know how you would try to fix something like this. Not in a smartass way, but I'd like to hear some of your ideas on how to do something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then let me ask you this man. How would you go about solving any of this? I think most people like to chunk this problem up because to solve something on the enormity of the scale that you're talking about would be the closest thing to Impossible, without actually being impossible.

 

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so let me make sure I have this right. In your mind, to solve the gun problem, we have to sell the Mental Health crisis of unprecedented proportions, poverty, and people with sociopathic tendencies and societal depression. I am not saying you're wrong, I believe wholeheartedly and everything you just said, but to solve something like that would be an enormous undertaking, granted it would be a Monumental victory, but basically we would have to create a perfect society and then have gun violence go away on its own.

 

I like your style Sean. Again, I would really like to know how you would try to fix something like this. Not in a smartass way, but I'd like to hear some of your ideas on how to do something like that.

I know you don't like my style, but undoing the massive budget cuts to mental health care from the Reagan administration would probably be a start. But I do agree that that wouldn't be enough for gun violence to go away, so we should probably make access to guns significantly more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against some more training and safety type courses and things, but lawful gun owners make up less than a fifth of gun crime...

 

I don't think making guns harder to get is really going to make the impact that a lot of people think it would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why has it worked in every other developed country? Serious question. If gun control won't work here, why? Why does it work in Australia, Japan, England, France- I could go on and on. The issue seems to solely be the US's issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why has it worked in every other developed country? Serious question. If gun control won't work here, why? Why does it work in Australia, Japan, England, France- I could go on and on. The issue seems to solely be the US's issue.

 

I've answered this question multiple times in this thread, my answer isn't changing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you don't like my style, but undoing the massive budget cuts to mental health care from the Reagan administration would probably be a start. But I do agree that that wouldn't be enough for gun violence to go away, so we should probably make access to guns significantly more difficult.

If you're having this conversation in earnest, and I will offer you this Banning anything in the United States has never been a recipe for Success. Didn't work for alcohol, it didn't work for assault rifles, it didn't work for marijuana, doesn't work for any illicit drugs, and all of this leads me to believe it wouldn't work for assault rifles in the second go-round. I think saying banning something would decrease access to it is a fallacy, or at least it has been through our entire existence of the nation.

 

I will also add, that I would like to hear what it is were Banning. Is it weapons that are the most lethal, or the ones that just look the scariest. If it's the ones that are most letgal, then I am behind that in principle(trial period only until the results best themselves out), however, somebody is going to have to show me what they mean by lethal. Obviously the definition is what it is, however are we talking about guns that can kill people at a rate of 506 people per minute, one or two, 10 or more, or do we go by how many it can kill per magazine, or per round, how are we deciding this criteria. If I could get some solid answers on that I think we could have a discussion about how this goes. That said, saying let's ban guns because they have a pistol grip, for both cyst, carrying handle, a bayonet lug, generally doesn't work for me. All of those things might look like it makes against carrier the bayonet lug is the only thing that adds to it.

 

Even at that it doesn't come up significantly.

 

I agree with your mental health issue, I think we're terribly underfunding this thing, and we're not giving people enough resources to be able to deal with problem adequately. And when I say adequately I don't mean push more drugs, the number of mass shooters that were on antidepressants or coming off of them is a terrifying number. I think instead of holistic approach would be more appropriate, but exponentially more expensive depending on the person.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's also not forget that 3/5 of all gun deaths in this country are suicide.

Our citizens are in pain and suffering. Gotta get to the root of the gun violence to make a noticeable difference, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've answered this question multiple times in this thread, my answer isn't changing.

 

 

 

Your source that you linked saying gun control wasn't working in other countries? The one who has been found out as having lied about making up stats to fit his narrative? It's simply not true that many other countries have as dangerous of a problem as we do.

 

Why do we keep trying to bring the conversation around to what guns we're banning? That's a small side point to the grander scheme of gun control. I know the NRA's line is that the left wants to ban guns, but that is not really true. Gun control- making it harder to get guns, and making you do just as much as, say, what it takes to own a car, is what people are trying to see happen.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any gun laws would stop mass shootings. For example Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold planned Columbine up to 18 months in advance. They were able to buy guns and materials to make explosives despite being under 18. Nothing could have or would have stopped them.

 

However restricting gun access would have an effect on heat of the moment killings. Guy comes home and catches his wife in bed with another man and snaps. He can't just go get a gun because it takes him longer to legally purchase it. In the meantime he calms down and merely divorces her instead of killing her and her new guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your source that you linked saying gun control wasn't working in other countries? The one who has been found out as having lied about making up stats to fit his narrative? It's simply not true that many other countries have as dangerous of a problem as we do.

 

Why do we keep trying to bring the conversation around to what guns we're banning? That's a small side point to the grander scheme of gun control. I know the NRA's line is that the left wants to ban guns, but that is not really true. Gun control- making it harder to get guns, and making you do just as much as, say, what it takes to own a car, is what people are trying to see happen.

 

I mean, I had what... 7-8 paragraphs in this post.. ONE of which was using that link / source and consisted of ONE of the multiple points I made? And you decided to refute that one and that one only?

 

What do people call that.. cherry picking?

 

Not really a good argument, but you do you. lol

Edited by DalaiLama4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any gun laws would stop mass shootings. For example Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold planned Columbine up to 18 months in advance. They were able to buy guns and materials to make explosives despite being under 18. Nothing could have or would have stopped them.

However restricting gun access would have an effect on heat of the moment killings. Guy comes home and catches his wife in bed with another man and snaps. He can't just go get a gun because it takes him longer to legally purchase it. In the meantime he calms down and merely divorces her instead of killing her and her new guy.

I think the Columbine shooting is also an important point to bring up when we're talking about school shootings and mass murder. From what I understand in the documentaries that I have watched about Columbine, it seems to me that the guns were for the satisfaction of killing people, but they made bombs intending to blow up the entire school. So in effect the guns were for gratification, what was really going to cause the mass casualties were bombs.

 

I'm not saying it would happen, but if we would have bbanned assault rifles, or any of the scary guns in general, I'm not sure I would like the trade if it meant more school bombings. I can't say definitively that it would, but nobody can say definitively that it wouldn't either. I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is that I wouldn't want to use the guess and check method to see if it would work or not.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×