Not Another Mass Shooting...

13522947:nocturnal said:
I'm say back round checks your saying banned.
Click to expand...

You keep saying "Like Australia, like UK, like Switzerland"

We say, "gun bans don't work"

You say, "I wasn't talking about gun bans"

jackie_chan1.png
 
13522947:nocturnal said:
I'm say back round checks your saying banned.
Click to expand...

I mean I see what you did there but it tends to be people who can't legally own firearms in the first place committing a VAST majority of violent gun crime.

The post up yonder on the "gun free" cities having the highest gun crime, I agree with as well.
 
13522957:jblaski said:
You keep saying "Like Australia, like UK, like Switzerland"

We say, "gun bans don't work"

You say, "I wasn't talking about gun bans"

jackie_chan1.png
Click to expand...

You can own a gun in Australia they are not banned I'm so sick of having this convo.
 
13520436:rednecknation said:
Yeah OP ban guns so that they are illegal so that way criminals wont have them. Good idea jackass
Click to expand...

Nowhere in anything I said pointed to banning guns outright, fuckstick.

Go back to your redneck nation.
 
13522323:pow_pow~ said:
also, your 2nd amendment is just that, and amendment aka a change. it can be changed again, to stay current, if need be.
Click to expand...

That it can. Just look at the 18th and 21st.

Nothing in the constitution is safe from being changed at any one point in time. The guys who wrote it made it so it was indeed flexible (though not so flexible that it would be in constant flux - there would have to be a large majority to change anything so drastic - as did happen with booze - twice.

If this type of thing keeps happening, enough people are going to become so entirely sick of it and fearful, that prohibition of guns will become a real thing.

If you "responsible" gun owners really want to avoid any of the sort, then realize you're going to have to deal with some actual regulation for once. This isn't 1815. Get over your idiotic government conspiracies and get with the god damn times.
 
13527002:DingoSean said:
Nowhere in anything I said pointed to banning guns outright, fuckstick.

Go back to your redneck nation.
Click to expand...

All in the same buddy. Give an inch gun control advocates will take a mile. And thank you I will go back to my redneck nation because us rednecks are raised with common sense, raised living with and learning how to use and respect firearms. All I'm saying is no matter what laws are implemented criminals and those hell bent on causing harm to others will do so irregardless of laws.
 
13529199:rednecknation said:
Give an inch gun control advocates will take a mile.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You want a real 'take a mile' scenario?

It's only a matter of time before some "important" person loses a kid in a mass shooting, the NRA says what they normally say and get serious backlash, everyone entirely freaks out, congress goes overboard, says that the 2nd amendment was pertaining to flintlock muskets, and you'll ACTUALLY lose all your guns other than the one on the mantlepiece.

I don't really want that in all honesty, as I understand why many people in bumfuck egypt need guns for hunting or protection from rogue wildlife, etc... (not really people, because who the fuck else do you see in the middle-of-nowhere Texas? I mean... I'd be more afraid of chainsaws if I were living on some West Texas ranch...)

Be the proactive ones on this and you'll get respect. Regulate yourselves or prepare to get regulated.

Even Warren G & Nate Dog had to regulate...
 
Very late to the party here, but did anyone see this from Malcolm Gladwell:http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

It basically says that the threshold for the kind of person who commits a mass shooting has been lowered, to the point where "normal" people are doing it. He likens mass shootings to a riot in slow motion. When instigators start flipping cars and throwing bricks, normal people will join in and light shit on fire because those initial thresholds have been crossed already. The same thing has happened for shooters, he argues. Eric Harris was like the first guy to start rocking the cop car, and others since have joined in, to the point where it doesn't take much to convince someone new to join the violence. Preeetty wild.
 
13529284:Turner. said:
Very late to the party here, but did anyone see this from Malcolm Gladwell:http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

It basically says that the threshold for the kind of person who commits a mass shooting has been lowered, to the point where "normal" people are doing it. He likens mass shootings to a riot in slow motion. When instigators start flipping cars and throwing bricks, normal people will join in and light shit on fire because those initial thresholds have been crossed already. The same thing has happened for shooters, he argues. Eric Harris was like the first guy to start rocking the cop car, and others since have joined in, to the point where it doesn't take much to convince someone new to join the violence. Preeetty wild.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That makes total sense...

...and it's also fucking frightening.

...i'll take a fast-motion riot please. Least all those do is mess up Vancouver.
 
I live in Canada so prepare for an outsider's perspective. I fucking love guns, I can see why plenty of people love guns, they are fun as shit. No, I don't own any guns, I don't need to as I just go to a range with friends and borrow theirs (there are flaws in this, but I'll ignore them). I don't think I will ever own a gun, they are an added expense/ hobby that I don't care to pursue, if you do, good for you, I don't care.

Guns may be your passion, but I find it hilarious how much people freak out over this topic. In my experience guns aren't a big deal and they barely come up in conversation, if anything I am the one who starts the discussion.

My understanding is that prisons are profitable for those involved, those involved get involved with group lobbying, who obviously affect decisions made by the government (especially because they are rich wall street types). This means that ridiculous imprisonments for being a crack addict won't go away, which means that drug dealers and gangs won't go away and neither will turf wars. On top of that guns are profitable, so might as well keep that going too, if you restrict who can access guns or make it harder to get them, less people will do it which means less profit, so obviously gun manufacturers lobby hard for their issues (and they have money to back it). So, regardless of the public opinion I feel that because crime is profitable, it is in the best interest of the government to not change it- cut funding/ support and potential loss of power for the party in the next election.

There are obviously plenty of ways to change it as other countries have proven in the past, it seems more of a question of willingness to care.

Oh and someone brought up how the UK is more violent or has more violent crime than in the US even though they don't have guns. While the numbers don't lie and this is true it is important to note what counts as a "violent crime" in the US is different from the UK. If you want to know basically anything from pushing someone and up in the UK is considered a violent crime, regardless of if you hurt someone or not or even if you didn't intend to hurt them (oh no someone poked me on facebook!). In the US a violent crime is basically aggravated assault, murder and rape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top