(August 26, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(August 26, 2015 at 7:40 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: The owner has a responsibility to society to demonstrate his or her responsibility. Surely we agree on that, right?

Yeah, and if people could do that I'd be all for allowing guns. But like I said, you have to play to the 1% who fuck things up for everyone else.

And that's where wise law comes into play. There's going to be a 1% in most anything. Mass attacks in China with knives show that. One cannot outlaw insanity; one cannot outlaw ideological extremists. So far as I know, the deadliest weapon used by a noncombatant was a jet liner.

One cannot prepare for every exigency, but as ATTf47 has already pointed out, in a rather cogent fashion you have to work inside the social and cultural framework already in place, and outlawing guns out of hand in America simply won't work. What has to be fashioned is a long-term plan that work to both reduce gun-accessibility to the dipshits while at the same time preserving 2A rights for those who demonstrate themselves to be sane and responsible.

Our state of Florida has a stipulation in its criminal code which demands that any criminal caught using a gun in a crime, whether it was fired, brandished, or even alluded-to, gets a mandatory ten-year sentence. That sort of thing is obviously no comfort to the maimed or dead, but it has wrought a significant reduction in gun crime there. That's one avenue. I've mentioned a couple of potential avenues earlier.

I don't think a board-wide gun ban is needed to solve the problem, and along with ATTF47, I think attempting to emplace one would be deeply counterproductive.

(August 26, 2015 at 7:52 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: You are oversimplifying things.

You're overcomplicating them.

Quote:You presume that not having massacres is of primal concern. It's not. FREEDOM is of primal concern. Eliminating massacres is a good thing but if it comes at the cost of freedom, the price is too high. Get it?

IMO the cost of massacres is too high for freedom. Seems to me you have fucked up priorities. You're not living in 1796 anymore. You don't have any real freedom.

Quote:I don't expect you to agree with it but if you want to have any influence here, you sure as hell better understand it because that's the mindset you're up against. Poo-pooing it will get you nothing but scorn. If you want to be heard, you must speak the language. You must understand the mindset of the person you are trying to persuade and address their concerns. You can just tell them to fuck off, of course but that won't accomplish anything. If anything, freedom-obsessed people feed on that kind of thing.

I literally couldn't give a fuck. I'm just expressing my opinion on an internet forum.

The problem in my eyes is a simple one.

Many other countries across the globe have dealt with it somewhat effectively, America is the ONLY first world country with as big a problem as this, and it's the ONLY country that buries its head in the sand and refuses to address the problem.

Why is it so hard to just admit that guns are the problem? Why do we have to go down all these other bullshit avenues and make out like this is more complicated than it really is? Why do we have to come up with excuse after excuse of why it wouldn't work instead of giving it a genuine go?

Whatever man, beyond giving a shit. More innocent people will die for the sake of the dickwads with a hard on for freedom.

(August 26, 2015 at 7:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Um, most western countries DO NOT ban all guns, that is myth, not even Japan has an all out ban, but they crawl up your ass to make sure you are not nuts, but most Japanese don't want them because they do not have the gun deaths we do. But the other countries, like Japan and Australia don't have a fetish and blind worship of guns.

A total ban in America won't work, but we can do better limiting access and production. I am for bans on automatic weapons and big clips. I am for longer wait periods, mandatory background checks, anual training like retaking your drivers test,end online sales, end the gun show loophole. Mandatory mental evaluation, investment in mental health and better pay for both middle class and low wage workers and free public college.

But no I am not for an all out ban.

It's a good day when we can agree, Brian.

(August 26, 2015 at 7:57 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:  Guns are an efficient tool to use to level the playing field between people.  They help the oppressed resist the oppressors.

Wait, I thought it was "Guns don't help the oppressed resist the oppressors- people do."

Fuck Dirty Harry "patriots" even when liberals tell them most on the left simply want some sanity.

(August 26, 2015 at 7:57 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: You don't need a license to own knives or rocks.  And they have killed millions if not billions of people throughout history.  

Guns are an efficient tool to use to level the playing field between people.  They help the oppressed resist the oppressors.

Knives have many other uses aside from killing folks. What about a .38 Special? Ever try to cut up a steak with one?

Seriously, you take a test to get your driver's license without complaint, even though running folks over ain't really the best way to go about offing the guy who just fucked your Jenny Mae.

I'm all for the right to own guns. But if you want that right, just like you want the right to free speech, you must use it responsibly. If you shout "Fire!" in a theater, you're being a dick, and should go to jail. If you're pissed that lil Jenny Mae got fucked by your neighbor, perhaps you should get a divorce attorney, rather than a knife, or a car, or a gun?

As far as using small arms to defend against government depredations, check back with me when you have a company of soldiers, a sound chain of command, a little air support, perhaps some armor, a good operational plan, and radio communications ... because until then, you're really burnt toast. Sorry, I've had this debate with another member, and it is completely unconvincing.

(August 26, 2015 at 7:57 pm)Iroscato Wrote:

(August 26, 2015 at 6:42 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: I'm not a supporter of any kind of gun law.  Every citizen should be able to own, possess, and carry guns without exception.  I'm sure that most, if not all, of my neighbors have guns in their houses.  I've never been concerned about any of them in any city I've ever been in shooting up the place.

That's because you're a goddamn moron, see.
Replace 'guns' with 'cars' and 'shooting up the place' with 'running motherfuckers over' and you might see where I'm coming from. I live in hope.

By all means allow people to have guns, but make jolly well sure they are mentally competent enough to use it responsibly and recreationally. If you need a license, rigorous amounts of lessons, tests, and insurance to own and operate a half-ton vehicle perfectly capable of killing people, then you need the same if not more to ensure you can own and operate devices made with the express intent of being able to kill people.

The only morons are those who think that rigorous amounts of lessons, tests, and insurance will save their butts.  

In this particular incident the perp set out to deliberately kill two people he thought had specifically and maliciously harmed him and caused him to lose his source of income.  His intent was to kill them by whatever means necessary and he would have done it without a gun.  The perp was fully prepared to die as a result of his actions so his tool is irrelevant.  He could have doused them with gasoline just as easily and set them ablaze.

(August 26, 2015 at 7:57 pm)Iroscato Wrote:  If you need a license, rigorous amounts of lessons, tests, and insurance to own and operate a half-ton vehicle perfectly capable of killing people, then you need the same if not more to ensure you can own and operate devices with the sole purpose of being able to kill people.

Most of mine, like most of everyones (including those scary black "assault rifles")...were made for target shooting, that's their "sole purpose" -despite the fantasies of their owners and detractors alike-...does that mean that we can get a discount from State Farm? Also...if I get the insurance....since I've already had the lessons and tests (and even have a license), can I actually own a firearm made for that sole purpose of killing people - because I've always wanted a 249 on my mantle, or a 40mm recoilless..... but the hoops I'd have to jump through, or the laws I'd have to break, currently...are prohibitive. If it was just like getting my Class A.....then calling up my agent......shiiiit, lol.

I have to ask, though, you from the US or Europe.....you can operate a 40 ton vehicle here with nothing in the way of rigorous lessons..and the kind of test designed to pass half the stumps in the forest......

ITT I learned a lot of Americans are fucking crazy, for reasons other than religion.

Jettisoning myself from this shitshow, I will take care to not let the door hit me on the way out, fear not.

(August 26, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(August 26, 2015 at 7:52 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: You presume that not having massacres is of primal concern. It's not. FREEDOM is of primal concern. Eliminating massacres is a good thing but if it comes at the cost of freedom, the price is too high. Get it?

IMO the cost of massacres is too high for freedom. Seems to me you have fucked up priorities. You're not living in 1796 anymore. You don't have any real freedom.

You think we have fucked up priorities? Opinion noted. So fucking what? If you want your opinion to have any fucking influence, your going to have to argue it on our fucking terms. Otherwise, you're just venting - which is fine if that's just what you want to do.

Fuck you yanks.

Yeah, fuck you limeies too.

But that doesn't really accomplish anything.