We've done this too many times now

string555 said:

The reason I suggest this is that the school shooter clearly had mental health issues, if he had gone through some kind of therapy early on in childhood (Elementary School), some signs of his issues may have been caught long before they escalated into something worse. Of course, nobody can say for sure if this kind of system would really have prevented the shooting this time, but I don't see how it would hurt.

So, again, just trying to explore various solutions to the problem, especially with emphasis on prevention, because we really don't want this #$^$# to keep happening, right?

Click to expand...

Better documentation, swift corrective action, and restrictions to help keep weapons away from unstable individuals would be one way to handle potential shooters. The Florida shooter had a history of violent acts toward others and plenty of red flags, including a reported post on YouTube saying he wanted to be a "professional school shooter", were shown along the way so this incident wasn't out of the blue. He was also allowed to purchase the AR-15 used for the shooting which his foster parents allowed him to keep despite all of this.

Kai Ai said:

Better documentation, swift corrective action, and restrictions to help keep weapons away from unstable individuals would be one way to handle potential shooters. The Florida shooter had a history of violent acts toward others and plenty of red flags, including a reported post on YouTube saying he wanted to be a "professional school shooter", were shown along the way so this incident wasn't out of the blue. He was also allowed to purchase the AR-15 used for the shooting which his foster parents allowed him to keep despite all of this.

Click to expand...

Agreed, regardless of whatever options he could have used in getting one, there's no damn reason why he should have been able to purchase one legally, considering all the signs there. :/

I said before after the last problem like this, there should be better psychological testing involved with getting a gun. I understand the argument against this that you could end up getting some doctor that has it in for whatever type of person getting tested, preventing a normal, sane citizen from getting a gun. I think that, however, there must be some better ways to implement these kinds of tests to reduce bias towards an individual. The problem really is finding a balance there, on one hand you have too much bias, and on the other hand you end up letting people get a gun that shouldn't have. So I guess it is about working towards the ideal middle ground, and the same goes for the other areas of this problem.

Kai Ai said:

, including a reported post on YouTube saying he wanted to be a "professional school shooter"

Click to expand...

Hi just popping in again to single out this statement, because a on a website where the most numerous type of comment is someone yelling for someone to "kill yourself" is maybe not the best detail to get hung up on.

Even when it was reported, it's not like it was someone who actually knew who the person was reported it. It was some rando multiple states away. That means they'd have to try and get the IP address from Google of the poster (which they probably wont give without legal intervention against them), then try and trace it back through their ISP then find out which of probably thousands of locations it went to, assuming they're not using a VPN to hide their IP (Even I use a VPN now-a-days) which could very well stop efforts in their tracks when the IP links back to Australia or Sweden or something.

Then you get to the fact that the FBI probably gets loads of these "reports" a day, where 99.9% of them end up being false, so employees end up being unmotivated or lazy to put all the effort into it because the odds are very against it being a serious threat.

TLDR; Can we stop using the FBI thing as a negative statement. Not only are an uncountable number of threats posted to youtube a day, the only way they would've caught it other than luck is if we had a dystopian "Big Brother is Always Watching" government (which we don't)

And again, not trying to prove or disprove your opinion. Only trying to instill an idea of what has to happen and why it is unlikely.

gimmepie said:

Hi I live in a Capitalist country with better gone control than the US and we don't have the frequent mass shootings you do. Pretty sure we've never had a school shooting. Certainly not in a very, very long time.

Click to expand...

Tell me, what is the population difference between the US and Australia again?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/7ymowl/american_european_and_australian_gun_control/
Handy reference for those that wish to see why comparing the US to other countries doesn't work. The link has references for those that wish to see them.

and a different link with video.

https://steemit.com/anarchy/@thepholosopher/3-common-gun-control-myths-debunked

Banning guns is stupid since there's legitimate reasons to own one, but to look at the gun violence problems in the US and still believe that you don't need tighter restrictions on firearms is just wilful ignorance.

Click to expand...

Gun violence is no where near the problem people think it is. Yes, the fact that around 12,000 people are murdered every year by someone with a gun is bad, but that isn't even a percent of the population. More people are killed by cars than guns.

Next, most liberal politicians have firearms huh? Would sure love to see your source for that claim.

Click to expand...

http://www.guns.com/2013/04/08/a-me...-underage-male-during-sexual-encounter-video/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/leland-yee-gun-traffickin_n_5038152.html
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/alan-brooks/anti-gun-missouri-senator-arrested-gun-drunk/
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/01/10/flashback-anti-gun-politician-shoots-intruder
https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008...-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/

And that's just a few of the gun control hypocrites. Guns for me but not for you.

"If you don't like it, move" basically goes against Democracy. People have every right to try and change the US. If you don't like that people want better gun control, move to an anarchy where they can't impose it.

Click to expand...

Technically as an Australian citizen, you have no say in how the US does things. How dare you try to impose your culture on us. (humor)

I've never heard of a conspiracy theory that was actually right and I highly doubt this will be the first. You had a mass shooting problem long before Trump and the push for greater gun control is in response to all the shootings. If you didn't have a gun violence problem, nobody would be complaining about guns being too readily available.

Click to expand...

The "problem" is being exacerbated by the way the media covers the events. It tends to encourage copycats.

LDSMan i think you really need to work on figuring out what a reliable source is, linking fox news and a ton of fairly untrustworthy vocally pro-gun sites isn't really helpful and shows you're kind of caught in a static echo chamber there with your researching abilities. You've done it in a lot of threads outside of this one

Aliencommander1245 said:

LDSMan i think you really need to work on figuring out what a reliable source is, linking fox news and a ton of fairly untrustworthy vocally pro-gun sites isn't really helpful and shows you're kind of caught in a static echo chamber there with your researching abilities. You've done it in a lot of threads outside of this one

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with my sources. What sources would you prefer I use? The pro gun control sites with their bias and lies?

Feel free to prove where the referenced events didn't happen.

Edit:

This is one of the more annoying aspects of the gun control argument. People cite pro gun control sites, or other sites that claim to be neutral but get their data from gun control sites, and no one goes "oh, but that site is biased and therefore untrustworthy". I cite pro gun groups (who else would be arguing against gun control????) who make a habit of countering the claims presented by said gun control groups, often with point by point refutations with supported links and documentation, and too many people refuse to actually read the links because "that site is vocally pro-gun and is untrustworthy,"

Edit 2:

If my source is lying about the linked item, please feel free to refute the information provided. Simply saying "it's untrustworthy" is not conducive to an interesting debate. "Attacking the source" is simply bad debating. And before anyone goes "but you did it" I provided links that showed where everytown has been caught lying with their numbers.

"If you had a teacher ... who was adept at firearms, it could very well end the attack very quickly," - Trump Today

I'm very pro-gun, but this is the exact kind of NRA "ARM EVERYWOAN YEEEEEEEEEHAW now imma go get me sum skoal long-cut" bullshit that I hate, and makes people like me look bad.

I understand how instrumental the NRA is to keeping every gun in the country from being confiscated by the dummies who claim to have PTSD from shooting and M4 at the range one time, but still, can they please just disappear off the face of the earth? They're the only barrier to reasonable (state mandated) gun control policies.

Arsenic said:

"If you had a teacher ... who was adept at firearms, it could very well end the attack very quickly," - Trump Today

I'm very pro-gun, but this is the exact kind of NRA "ARM EVERYWOAN YEEEEEEEEEHAW now imma go get me sum skoal long-cut" bull**** that I hate, and makes people like me look bad.

I understand how instrumental the NRA is to keeping every gun in the country from being confiscated by the dummies who claim to have PTSD from shooting and M4 at the range one time, but still, can they please just disappear off the face of the earth? They're the only barrier to reasonable (state mandated) gun control policies.

Click to expand...

NRA is effectively making the situation worse in my opinion. I like the points this video makes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwTN0g4AAkY
Essentially people don't don't don't need semi-automatic rifles. In addition if you consider the fire power of weapons back when the constitution was written they had muskets that cannot effectively perform a mass shooting like what we have today..

So people who still support all the big guns really need to use their brains and think about this more honestly. I don't see a problem with maybe hunting rifles and pistols for example, but the bigger 'badder' guns seriously nobody other than the military needs to own that type of stuff period.
Another thing to consider is any donations or "contributions" have been given to the NRA from individuals/companies that have high stakes in these markets.

The NRA for all we know could merely be wanting to just keep the cash flow and not really care or say about what is right for society.

S-MAN said:

NRA is effectively making the situation worse in my opinion. I like the points this video makes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwTN0g4AAkY
Essentially people don't don't don't need semi-automatic rifles. In addition if you consider the fire power of weapons back when the constitution was written they had muskets that cannot effectively perform a mass shooting like what we have today..

So people who still support all the big guns really need to use their brains and think about this more honestly. I don't see a problem with maybe hunting rifles and pistols for example, but the bigger 'badder' guns seriously nobody other than the military needs to own that type of stuff period.
Another thing to consider is any donations or "contributions" have been given to the NRA from individuals/companies that have high stakes in these markets.

The NRA for all we know could merely be wanting to just keep the cash flow and not really care or say about what is right for society.

Click to expand...

I don't know, you could cause quite a few casualties as well as gruesome injuries with a cannon loaded with grapeshot, which are still, and were intended to be upon it's original writing, protected under the second amendment.

As far as 'badder' guns go, my sentiments are pretty much this


Why? In my state, there are NO state imposed gun laws. Noneski. You do not even need a permit to carry concealed anymore. Yet, last time I checked, we have the third or fourth lowest rate of any type of crime involving firearms. That includes everything from robberies, to even yes, assault and attacks on people. Your "Evil devil black military semi-automatic assault killing machine" is something I grew up around (And I still enjoy going to the range to keep some semblance of marksman skill). I mean pretty much everyone I know has some experience with bolt and/or semi-autos. Hell, I plan on very soon even getting my own! Sig MCX Virtus, and I'm going for a Class 3 license so I can get it with a 10" SBR config and a silencer.

It's just a normal thing here. I mean not normal in that everyone is packing heat. It's just not an unheard of thing or a cause for alarm. You get what I'm saying I hope.

And as much as anyone who brings this up gets called a psycho or conspiracy nut or whatever, the 2nd was also intended as a check on the govt so the people can defend themselves from any leaders who might go the more oppressive dictator route. I hope with all my heart that something like that never need be done though of course.

On the other hand, I'm all for more intense background checks and additional state-handled legislation for states that need it. The background checks to get a NFA Class 3 license are pretty thorough so maybe something like that needs to implemented for all firearms purchases. I'm sure there are plenty of other options to consider as well (as long as I can put my say into whether I think we should have it or not)

Arsenic said:

I don't know, you could cause quite a few casualties as well as gruesome injuries with a cannon loaded with grapeshot, which are still, and were intended to be upon it's original writing, protected under the second amendment.

As far as 'badder' guns go, my sentiments are pretty much this

Spoiler:

Why? In my state, there are NO state imposed gun laws. Noneski. You do not even need a permit to carry concealed anymore. Yet, last time I checked, we have the third or fourth lowest rate of any type of crime involving firearms. That includes everything from robberies, to even yes, assault and attacks on people. Your "Evil devil black military semi-automatic assault killing machine" is something I grew up around (And I still enjoy going to the range to keep some semblance of marksman skill). I mean pretty much everyone I know has some experience with bolt and/or semi-autos. Hell, I plan on very soon even getting my own! Sig MCX Virtus, and I'm going for a Class 3 license so I can get it with a 10" SBR config and a silencer.

It's just a normal thing here. I mean not normal in that everyone is packing heat. It's just not an unheard of thing or a cause for alarm. You get what I'm saying I hope.

And as much as anyone who brings this up gets called a psycho or conspiracy nut or whatever, the 2nd was also intended as a check on the govt so the people can defend themselves from any leaders who might go the more oppressive dictator route. I hope with all my heart that something like that never need be done though of course.

On the other hand, I'm all for more intense background checks and additional state-handled legislation for states that need it. The background checks to get a NFA Class 3 license are pretty thorough so maybe something like that needs to implemented for all firearms purchases. I'm sure there are plenty of other options to consider as well (as long as I can put my say into whether I think we should have it or not)

Click to expand...

Sounds pretty reasonable. As much as I don't believe it, it might be the case as it is with drugs. I don't remember which country specifically but they made I think all drugs not illegal and in turn that lowered overdoses and drug use in general by a landslide. (Maybe Peru or Brazil?)

So.. I'm seeing a pattern here in human behavior... When we are feeling pressured or forced to do something- it creates problems. This really should be looked into more..

I just personally don't like guns for the purposes they usually serve and I'm an idealist to some degree at times, so yeah. I don't think I would want a gun (I don't trust myself with it) and at the same time I feel like I don't want to be around them- but if no laws literally equals less problems for everyone in terms of what people are/aren't allowed to have then logically that would be good choice.

And I definitely agree on the background check.. If the person has a history of violence and mental health problems that's a no-go in my book. I can't tell you how many times I thought to myself: "If I only had a gun.." Thanks for the comparison between weapons and cannons history.. (Why would anyone need cannons?.. is beyond me..)

I guess my issue here is maybe not directly related to guns, but how people can give in to a book or constitution (in this case) regardless of it being right or wrong. I.e. if a holy book presumably said it was okay to kill people it doesn't mean we should do it, you know? But in this regard to guns- that may not be case..

But what happens to people who pass the tests and still commit crimes? I guess the important point to take from here is that it's impossible to prevent mass shooting- but we can reduce it.

LDSman said:

There is nothing wrong with my sources. What sources would you prefer I use? The pro gun control sites with their bias and lies?

Click to expand...

The cognitive dissonance required to claim anti-gun sites are biased and liars, while pro-gun sites aren't, is genuinely mindboggling and should kind of be a big red flag there

LDSman said:

If my source is lying about the linked item, please feel free to refute the information provided. Simply saying "it's untrustworthy" is not conducive to an interesting debate. "Attacking the source" is simply bad debating. And before anyone goes "but you did it" I provided links that showed where everytown has been caught lying with their numbers.

Click to expand...

Attacking the source isn't bad debating? It should kind of be the cornerstone of debate, given that if your source is bad the information you're working off is bad.

If you want me to go on specifically about your sources, you linked a reddit comment (???) a "foxnation" website that links to a blank page with "coming soon" written on it, learnaboutguns.com a website literally partnered with the NRA (that gives no sources) and Thetruthaboutguns, which isn't a straight nra mouthpiece as far as i'm aware, has a long and storied history of misleading and abusive practices and pretty much only really exists in the space it does to create a pro-gun narrative through cherrypicking. It's a blog, not exactly something with incredible journalistic integrity.

You also... didn't link to where people had been "lying about their numbers" you posted a bunch of links showing that incidentally like... three guys who advocate for stronger gun control were involved in crime tangentially linked to guns, or in one case used a gun in a criminal way. Not only is that pretty much a useless point to bring up (Ignoring that you generalised it) because it doesn't actually matter or impact on the discussion at all, but it's kind of a snapshot of your point of view in this discussion, which seems more concerned with point scoring and grandstanding than having an evidence based discussion

Arsenic said:

Why? In my state, there are NO state imposed gun laws. Noneski. You do not even need a permit to carry concealed anymore. Yet, last time I checked, we have the third or fourth lowest rate of any type of crime involving firearms. That includes everything from robberies, to even yes, assault and attacks on people.

Click to expand...

I'd question which state you live in then, since as far as i'm aware that's.... just completely untrue? Nothing i've been able to find has indicated that any state with no state imposed gun control laws is anywhere near the top 10 states with the lowest gun deaths

I mean, realistically, what would even cause that? Why would more access to guns decrease gun crime? If we're subscribing to the myth that owning a gun makes you safer and less likely to be the victim of a murder/robbery/ect there's still a crime comitted by the person before you whip your own gun out and action hero them to death, so there logically shouldn't be less crime.

I mean, factually, the states with the lowest amounts of gun control have the highest amounts of gun crime so the idea that your state could be a standout utopia seems kind of suspect to me, especially considering the things that raise crime rates (high poverty, ect) not being present in a state shouldn't account for the jump in gun crime that occurs when a state has no gun control vs when it does

Arsenic said:

And as much as anyone who brings this up gets called a psycho or conspiracy nut or whatever, the 2nd was also intended as a check on the govt so the people can defend themselves from any leaders who might go the more oppressive dictator route. I hope with all my heart that something like that never need be done though of course.

Click to expand...

It seems kind of outdated then, since beyond empowering domestic terrorist things like the oklahoma bombing, waco, and the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge- it's just impossible to actually do that. It's useless because there's no way a group of people with guns is ever going to be able to fight against the government/the military and warfare/politics/modern life has advanced so far past the historical context of that law that it's completely obsolete. No one is going to grab their musket and join the union against the south anymore, that kind of thing just can't happen with the way the world is built politically, socially and economically

S-MAN said:

As much as I don't believe it, it might be the case as it is with drugs. I don't remember which country specifically but they made I think all drugs not illegal and in turn that lowered overdoses and drug use in general by a landslide. (Maybe Peru or Brazil?)

Click to expand...

I think what you're thinking of is the idea of decriminalisation and creation of things like needle sharing programs ect, or Portugal's system. That's not just making all drugs legal and going at it, that's just changing policy so having/taking drugs is a health issue rather than a crime (drugs are still illegal, and selling them ect is still a crime). Combined with their strong social safety net of a universal income and changed policies of rehabilitating addicts rather than locking them up (Putting them into rehab, weening them off the drugs ect) they've been pretty effective in treating addiction

Section Alpha; New Hampshire is where I reside. Unfortunately violent crime seems to have gone up a little since the FBI data I used was posted, but that rise was in parallel to the Opiod Crisis. Maybe that's indicative of larger cause of gun violence? ; D

Maine is still up in the toppity top rankings though (I mean NH only fell back a few spots anyways not a gun crisis) and they have the same gun laws as us last I checked!



Section Bravo; The one about fighting a major military machine and winning.

The Vietnam war and even Afgan/Iraq insurgency would like to have a word with you. Oh, and the WW2 French Resistance.

There's plenty more examples of major militaries being defeated or stuck in a stalemate with guerrilla forces.

History class must be wanning in quality...

Arsenic said:

New Hampshire is where I reside. Unfortunately violent crime seems to have gone up a little since the FBI data I used was posted, but that rise was in parallel to the Opiod Crisis.

Click to expand...

Oh, New Hampshire is actually a pretty interesting case now that i'm reading into it. Despite relatively lax gun laws, it's almost completely surrounded by states with stronger gun laws in an inverse of the normal situation. It's gun crime is proportional to it's status with lower crime than average across the board

This is, mostly, because of what new hampshire is. It's a low population rural state with low levels of poverty (the lowest in the us, in some categories?) and strong education.

You can see why it's an outlier, because it is in pretty much every respect? I'd imagine stricter gun control would lower it even more, given that you're starting from a position with lower amounts of crime. Crime is less common in rural areas, and more common in cities

Arsenic said:

Maine is still up in the toppity top rankings though (I mean NH only fell back a few spots anyways not a gun crisis) and they have the same gun laws as us last I checked!

Click to expand...

Maine, again, has a number of factors that means it has proportionally lower amounts of crimes across the board. It's like pointing to a low fat yogurt and claiming that all yogurt has no fat in it, you're starting with somewhere that has low amounts of crime and saying that, because the gun crime in that place is also low, that guns either don't influence crime rate or that no gun restrictions makes gun crime go lower. That's.... just not true? Gun restrictions decrease gun crime, and removing gun control increases it, those are facts

Arsenic said:

The one about fighting a major military machine and winning.

The Vietnam war and even Afgan/Iraq insurgency would like to have a word with you. Oh, and the WW2 French Resistance.

There's plenty more examples of major militaries being defeated or stuck in a stalemate with guerrilla forces.

Click to expand...

None of those are even mildly reasonable examples, given that the Vietnam war was... an actual war between two powers acting as proxies for the cold war powers? And over sixty years ago in an underdeveloped country, too. There's a pretty huge difference between destabilised middle eastern countries toppling a dictator either put there by a foreign power or operating in the vacuum left by one, and none of those situations had the citizens themselves rise up with weapons they already owned?

I hate arguing this non-point, but what possible fantasy situation in this modern western world would create a dictator that required armed opposition who also doesn't just actually take away your guns anyway? A president that gets voted and has a supermajority in both houses who're also in on their cabal of evil isn't someone you're going to rise up and overthrow, because you had to vote them in and they're controlled by an obtuse amount of democratic paperwork on top of that. They'd also control the largest military in the world, rather than being a destablized middle eastern country with a shaky dictatorial grasp over it, which is probably an issue, i guess.

It's just an effectively useless sanction of an event that'll pretty much never happen, and the thing it lets happen will happen regardless of whether is exists or not in nigh on impossible situation it stipulates for. Hinging the reason that guns should be allowed on that amendment to the constitution is an incredibly weak argument and lazy argument that doesn't rely on any facts and simply assumes the constitution to be a flawless document, when it literally exists to be iterated on and changed (that's the whole purpose of the amendments)

I've gone over this many, many times. I've given data tables from solid sources and have been met with tirades and blocks of text taken from some random dude from facebook, twitter or other with absolutely no ties to any governmental entity whatsoever or worse, third hand articles passed from at least two other sources so at that point it's near fiction.

If you have absolutely no clue what a firearm is, how they function, how they are obtained (both legally and illegally) you are horribly under-equipped to tackle this topic.

Rhetoric and wordy posts solve absolutely nothing. If you have no plan, no idea, no suggestions on how, when or what you are no better than the opportunists that stand on the backs of victims to achieve votes and all the glitz and glamour that goes with that sickening practice.

Blame guns, go right ahead, but no one here on this website has ever come up with what I have deemed even remotely feasible in this country from a common sense stand point.

What to do with the crkminals? How to stop the criminals from obtaining otherwise illegal firearms (machineguns)? What compensation awill you give to legal owners? Where is your data?

Where is your data? Where is it? Mine sources were always tied to the FBI, DOJ, and the DHS. The backbone of the United States' law enforcement policies.

Making wild changes to legal citizens based on poorly researched topics doesn't solve anything.

The United States has a criminality problem. Last I checked, criminals very rarely follow the law.

No arguments, no suggestions, no plans, no logistics just some heartfelt words and you won't be seen until the next mass publicized crime. Pretty much a pattern for the vast majority of you. Rather sad.

JDJacket said:

The United States has a criminality problem. Last I checked, criminals very rarely follow the law.

Click to expand...

This is an incredibly intellectually dishonest argument that does exactly what you're railing against. "Criminals will always do crime" is true, but the idea that no matter what criminals will always be able to get the same amount of guns with the same amount of ease is just a fantasy with no basis in fact. Stricter restrictions about buying and selling guns + gun ownership will take guns out of the hands of criminals and make it harder for them to get a hold of them.

Criminals aren't wizards that conjure guns out of thin air with a spell they all know, all guns start somewhere being built legally and have to change hands to get into that of a criminal. Criminals might break the law, but i'd wager it's better for registered gun owners and gun dealers to follow the law rather than to break it and illegally sell guns to criminals, but only if there's actual legal consequences, legal oversight to catch them doing it, and registers to ensure the people with the guns are the ones that should be owning it.

JDJacket said:

No arguments, no suggestions, no plans, no logistics just some heartfelt words and you won't be seen until the next mass publicized crime. Pretty much a pattern for the vast majority of you. Rather sad.

Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what you're doing, though? Rather than making vague generalisations that claim everyone here is virtue signaling that they think mass murder is bad, where's your solution? Because so far, given the tone of that post, your solution seems to be upholding the status quo and mocking anyone with any desire for change

I honestly support stricter background checks, but I'm not to big on banning various type of guns myself. Yeah it is going overboard buying a assault rifle still, but if the owner is a law abiding citizen why should they really care what type of gun they own?

Aliencommander1245 said:

This is an incredibly intellectually dishonest argument that does exactly what you're railing against. "Criminals will always do crime" is true, but the idea that no matter what criminals will always be able to get the same amount of guns with the same amount of ease is just a fantasy with no basis in fact. Stricter restrictions about buying and selling guns + gun ownership will take guns out of the hands of criminals and make it harder for them to get a hold of them.

Criminals aren't wizards that conjure guns out of thin air with a spell they all know, all guns start somewhere being built legally and have to change hands to get into that of a criminal. Criminals might break the law, but i'd wager it's better for registered gun owners and gun dealers to follow the law rather than to break it and illegally sell guns to criminals, but only if there's actual legal consequences, legal oversight to catch them doing it, and registers to ensure the people with the guns are the ones that should be owning it.

Click to expand...

There is very little here to dissuade me from, again, making the claim that criminality is not the main issue. If you make the claim that 'all guns start somewhere and are built legally' your colours are showing. No, the answer is not all firearms are manufactured legally. Millions have been funnelled from China through smugglers and otherwise. Making the statement that making them harder to obtain will also affect criminals is absolutely ridiculous for one simple reason: machineguns.

Please explain to me how an already illegal weapon, which is banned across the board (for all machineguns not grandfathered in '82) within the United States makes it's way into the hands of street thugs.

What's more is that even if I grant you leeway and say "Here, take all the 'assault weapons' from everybody in the United States" You are now left with a staggering 98% left to deal with. Handguns account for that 98% give or take 1-2%~

Now, after this is all said and done, further explain how you will reduce the remaining 80~90% of firearm homicides which are commited by felonious individuals (already banned from firearm ownership) and other gang and drug affiliated homicides.

Your proposal is to affect change through quashing a 1~10% minority how is this reasonable in the slightest or even practical?

If, let's say for the sake of argument, that any and all legal weapons registered are taken back, you're looking at roughly one third of the estimated firearms in the United States (roughly 270M~). But here's the thing: no forced recall ever works. Instead of having a clean-cut you're also looking at flooding the black market with more guns because your compensation is probably going to be non-existent or laughable.

Keep in mind, if you do offer 'compensation' from the tax payers you are essentially telling them to pay the government for taking their property.

Hence the 'no logistics' argument. And as such, I can fully declare you have proffered no such argument in way of logistics or practicality. Thus 'no plan' and merely, as I said, just words.

It is not I you must convince, because I'm not delusional enough to take on a 66% majority against a full on ban. They've tried a full on ban within California and it failed miserably.

Much of what you've done is much ado about nothing aside from reaffirm my position that if you have no plan, nothing will come from handing me blocks of text especially when I know enough to spot someone who hasn't enough experience to discuss firearms on a whole.

Assault weapons crack me up son.

Um, I hate to tell ya, but out of our bordering states of Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts, only MA has noticeably stricter gun laws (I think Maine forbids you to hunt with Automatics and carry concealed in some restaurants but that's all I can think of)

Also would you mind elaborating on "rural characteristic" because it's sounding like you're implying there is some other issue causing people to murder each other that "rural states" are lacking.


On the wars;

Vietnam war; American war machine got beat by guerilla warfare. The geopolitical reasoning for the war is irrelevant to this argument, as well as the development of the country. I'm also not sure why how long ago it was matters? I wasn't aware that forms of warfare spoiled over time like deli meat.

The Iraq insurgency (not to be confused with the gulf war or the beginning of the second Iraq war where we were fighting a professional military.) where we yet again got our butts kicked and then fought back to a stalemate with Guerrilla fighters (Or Insurgents, Jihadis, whatever you like to call them) until our withdrawl when all those guys in hiding popped back up with fresh mags.

French resistance is the same thing. Nazi war machine couldn't beat guerrilla warfare.

A traditional army has a very hard time winning when they can't make a front line.

And I don't fantasize about a possible situation like this in the states as I'm not a tinfoil hatter. I just don't dismiss history like all you people do. History repeats because of people who ignore it.


And finally, if you had read above at the other things I'd said you'd know I am fine with tweaking it. I've thrown around a couple common ideas, but upon further thought I think the best course of action is to make semi-autos Class 3 items, but still legal in all states. Restrict owning one to 21y or older; UNLESS you are enlisted in the USAF or NG or honorably discharged (because if you can die for our country with a gun you should be able to own one)

While I'm at it any one who is enlisted or was enlisted (save dishonorable discharge) should be able to own a post-'87 automatic. Maybe even cops too when they get to a certain rank (so you don't have a bunch of people join the PD just to own an auto)

I totally disprove of any federally mandated outright ban. And really anything more intense than my idea on a federal level. If states want to do it themselves that may be ok, but every state is different and states that for the most part are not causing a problem should not be impacted because another state has a problem (though cross border transfers would have to be tackled in this situation)

That's my two cents.

On mobile so I can't reply to everything I want to but I wished to point out that not all firearms are made legally.
Google illegal gun factory or zip guns.

The US doesn't see many homemade zip guns or even the rather well done knockoffs that the countries with stricter gun control laws see.

India, the Phillipines, China, and even places in the US have made arrests of people illegally making guns.
Not just putting parts together but full bore manufacturing.

LDSman said:

On mobile so I can't reply to everything I want to but I wished to point out that not all firearms are made legally.
Google illegal gun factory or zip guns.

The US doesn't see many homemade zip guns or even the rather well done knockoffs that the countries with stricter gun control laws see.

India, the Phillipines, China, and even places in the US have made arrests of people illegally making guns.
Not just putting parts together but full bore manufacturing.

Click to expand...

I gotcha bruh



Sorry it's a VICE documentary. It's super biased to the left but this is just an example anyways. From 2013