(February 21, 2018 at 7:21 am)notimportant1234 Wrote: Again, you will need a higher stressor to make someone kill a person , "confiscating guns" won't do the trick for most people.

Once again, come meet my cousins.

(February 21, 2018 at 6:40 am)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(February 21, 2018 at 6:29 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: At what word?  How many 'gun nuts' have ever said, 'If the government tries to take away my assault rifle, I'm going to shoot up a school'?

Boru

Maybe not shoot up a school specifically.  But shoot up places, yeah for sure. Besides, do you feel like they are mentally stable people with predictable behavior?

You tell me - YOU'RE the one predicting their behavior.

Boru

(February 21, 2018 at 7:31 am)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(February 21, 2018 at 7:18 am)Khemikal Wrote: I'm sure a few of them would start shooting...but if they're going in to confiscate weapons from a militia..they'll bring tactical units.  It would be great tv for a police state.

It would make for a bloodbath. Considering that is what control is supposed to be preventing, I cant wrap my head around the logic of gun confiscation in the U.S. People like to think of these militias as a bunch of Billy Bob hillbillies playing pretend red dawn in the words, but watch the Vice documentary on them. Many are well trained, well armed, ptsd suffering ex marines. Swat might not be able to handle that, the national guard might not be that willing, and is that really a reasonable solution by any measure?

I was searching the Google and found a quora question with a bunch of NRA folks talking about what they would do if the government busted down their doors to take their guns, obviously it's not a pretty picture. https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-...ll-private

People who advocate this haven't thought it through at all, especially if the goal is to prevent gun violence.  You are going to trigger the craziest gun violence ever .

---

(February 21, 2018 at 7:21 am)notimportant1234 Wrote: Again, you will need a higher stressor to make someone kill a person , "confiscating guns" won't do the trick for most people.

It doesn't have to be most people.   One tenth of one percent of gun owners in the US is 30,000 people. Gun confiscation is not a viable solution and creates a problem many many times the magnitude of what you are trying to solve. Mental health care and mental health screening is the solution.  It's easier, cheaper, more politically viable. You can get many gun owners on board with it. It wont cause a terrible bloodbath.

Suffering ex-marines should not be let to own or carry a gun. Why ? Maybe because they are not mentally stable wich comes to to psychological evaluation wich should be mandatory before trying to aquire a weapon. An evaluation wich can be easily implemented.
Now my argument of stressors doesn't aplly to ex marines , it is still valid for most USA citizens who haven't taken a life.

(February 21, 2018 at 8:21 am)notimportant1234 Wrote:

(February 21, 2018 at 7:31 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: It would make for a bloodbath. Considering that is what control is supposed to be preventing, I cant wrap my head around the logic of gun confiscation in the U.S. People like to think of these militias as a bunch of Billy Bob hillbillies playing pretend red dawn in the words, but watch the Vice documentary on them. Many are well trained, well armed, ptsd suffering ex marines. Swat might not be able to handle that, the national guard might not be that willing, and is that really a reasonable solution by any measure?

I was searching the Google and found a quora question with a bunch of NRA folks talking about what they would do if the government busted down their doors to take their guns, obviously it's not a pretty picture. https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-...ll-private

People who advocate this haven't thought it through at all, especially if the goal is to prevent gun violence.  You are going to trigger the craziest gun violence ever .

---

It doesn't have to be most people.   One tenth of one percent of gun owners in the US is 30,000 people. Gun confiscation is not a viable solution and creates a problem many many times the magnitude of what you are trying to solve. Mental health care and mental health screening is the solution.  It's easier, cheaper, more politically viable. You can get many gun owners on board with it. It wont cause a terrible bloodbath.

Suffering ex-marines should not be let to own or carry a gun. Why ? Maybe because they are not mentally stable wich comes to to psychological evaluation wich should be mandatory before trying to aquire a weapon. An evaluation wich can be easily implemented.
Now my argument of stressors doesn't aplly to ex marines , it is still valid for most USA citizens who haven't taken a life.

It doesn't matter what your argument is, since those people still own guns. Can't pretend like they don't in order to justify your argument.

---

(February 21, 2018 at 8:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 21, 2018 at 6:40 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Maybe not shoot up a school specifically.  But shoot up places, yeah for sure. Besides, do you feel like they are mentally stable people with predictable behavior?

You tell me - YOU'RE the one predicting their behavior.

Boru

It would be a bloodbath. I base that on what the gun nuts themselves are saying. Read the link. Watch the Vice documentary on militias. Think about pure numbers. 1 tenth of 1 percent of gun owners is 10,000 people. So confiscation would not go well. No way in hell.

Tell me why you think it would. Im curious.

I think that some of the things that get's me, is that the case for gun control is not made well.    It's more emotional reaction than logical. Say for instance that you want to limit or get rid of automatic rifles with a large clip size.  It doesn't make sense, to cite all gun deaths, when the majority of incidences are not made with this type of weapon.  In this recent school tragedy even, that weapon may have only made a little difference.  This (in my opinion) is more of concern, when you have  a crowd, where indiscriminate fire is more effective. 

Similarly for many places which have enacted gun bans, while they did eventually minimize gun deaths, they didn't have that much effect on overall deaths.  People within a time, realized that they could kill themselves or kill others with things besides a gun.  There may be some instances where the lack of a gun will change things, but for someone who wants to kill another, the problem isn't the weapon. 

We need to be realistic about what is being proposed, and what will be the results.   Arguments that make you come off as someone who is just afraid of guns does not help.

Similarly, the "right to bear arms" shouldn't be used as a conversation stopper.   And it needs to be realistically looked at, that not all who own guns are responsible or thoughtful in their use.  Specific weapons and their availability do need to be looked at, and arguments heard.

Also of consideration is why the founders of the nation included the "right to bear arms".  This is fairly unique to the U.S. from my understanding.  We may not always have a stable and wise leader like Trump in control, and may need to be able to stand up to the government at some point.

(February 21, 2018 at 10:57 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Similarly for many places which have enacted gun bans, while they did eventually minimize gun deaths, they didn't have that much effect on overall deaths.  People within a time, realized that they could kill themselves or kill others with things besides a gun.  There may be some instances where the lack of a gun will change things, but for someone who wants to kill another, the problem isn't the weapon. 

I made a case a couple of pages back about how the availability of guns seemingly leads to an increase in the number of actual deaths (caused by guns).
Indeed, I didn't present stats on the overall homicide rate, regardless of the means to achieve it... but I think that it would only add one more nail in the argument that gun availability does cause more deaths.

(February 21, 2018 at 10:57 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: We may not always have a stable and wise leader like Trump in control, and may need to be able to stand up to the government at some point.

Apologetic, gun-fondling hooey.

Edit: in relation to RR's post above.

(February 21, 2018 at 6:40 am)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(February 21, 2018 at 6:29 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: At what word?  How many 'gun nuts' have ever said, 'If the government tries to take away my assault rifle, I'm going to shoot up a school'?

Boru

Maybe not shoot up a school specifically. But shoot up places, yeah for sure. Besides, do you feel like they are mentally stable people with predictable behavior?

If they are so mentally unstable that they would try to shoot up places when faced with increased gun control measures, they shouldn't have guns in the first place.

(February 21, 2018 at 11:05 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(February 21, 2018 at 6:40 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Maybe not shoot up a school specifically.  But shoot up places, yeah for sure. Besides, do you feel like they are mentally stable people with predictable behavior?

If they are so mentally unstable that they would try to shoot up places when faced with increased gun control measures, they shouldn't have guns in the first place.

The problem is one of practicality... They do have those guns and they are that unstable.

How to deal with it, ideally, causing zero armed conflicts with the authorities who come to enforce the law that states that they stop having the guns?

I'm reluctantly with CapnAwesome on this one. I guarantee that if we tried to disarm the militia types, there would be a series of bloody shoot-outs or worse. Theirs is the same ideology that resulted in the Oklahoma City bombing. One man's murderous terrorist is another man's freedom fighter/patriot. This is what comes of decades of right-wing propaganda and conspiracy mongering.