You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
March 25, 2017, 06:52:18 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 18102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #375 on: November 03, 2015, 07:40:25 PM »
Except where I pointed out earlier: your homicide rate STILL didn't drop to anything approaching a pre-ban level until 2011 at the earliest. So your claim is its taken a decade and a half but now we're going to credit the gun ban with the reduction?

No. We're going to credit it with reducing gun crime, as was my original point. Nice try, though.


'look they banned guns, look how much their crime went down'

I never said that. I said "look how much our gun crime went down."


As if homicide rate doesn't have much to do with what weapons you have access to and more to do with your culture and socioeconomic status?


I never disagreed with that. I just think that limiting access to weapons that make killing easier and faster is a good idea. Not necessarily taking them all away, just increasing the regulation of them.


Really? Because the 2nd thing that you again quoted was you're going to tell me about how some martial art is much better than a gun. Which is exactly what you just did.

Well, no. I was thinking about the lack of efficacy considering tight quarters and how cumbersome a gun actually is in an enclosed space. I only addressed martial arts because you brought it up. Again, nice try.


How many real world situations have you been in that you've actually had to use said training?

Quite a few, actually. I try and avoid fights - part of martial arts is learning the discipline to not use it at every opportunity - but they happen. The rest of that little snippit is irrelevant because I only addressed martial arts because you brought it up.


We developed guns because they were easy to use and most importantly their lethality was not directly tied to the physical prowess of the one using them. They are force multipliers. And you're welcome think that you're good enough to take a gun away from someone that draws it on you. I'm going to take the word of the police officers and instructors I've dealt with over the years: the people that like to tout how guns aren't that great 'if you get close' are usually the ones in the ER after being shot.

And I'll take the word of the trained soldiers and police that I know that say that in close quarters, you're better off using disarming techniques than attempting to draw your gun...especially if they're in your house. You know the terrain better than them, so exploit that advantage.


The scenarios we are talking about are not first person shooters with enemies running at you with the only desire to cut your throat. We're talking about real world situations: robberies, muggings, rapes. I know full well how effective a knife is within that half dozen yard range. It doesn't change the fact that no amount of wishful thinking or YMCA self defense training 'basic techniques' is going to make a regular 45 year old housewife physically equivalent to a 20 year old burglar.

And you're saying that a 45 year old housewife with no training would be any more effective with a gun? There are reasons why people train with them; guns are hard to use, especially if you're not used to handling them. Then there's the question of whether she'd actually be able to pull the trigger, but that's a psychological question, not a practicality question.


Why? I've been around people with loaded weapons my entire life and oddly nobody has ever went on a shooting rampage. Because, as eBadger as attempted to point out over and over, you are more likely to get hit by lightning than targeted by a mass shooter.

But mass shooting isn't the only kind of gun crime, now is it? You're conveniently ignoring all the other gun crime. As I "posted over and over," I was only using MS's as an example.
But I don't know. What could it be about knowing that anybody around me is legally allowed to carry a loaded weapon of deadly force that could possibly make me a tad uneasy? I'm not sure, maybe I'm just paranoid.


That's rather my point. Based upon the guidelines your country has set down that weighted length of chain is illegal. I've got a 10 foot chain with a hitch nut on the end in my truck. By UK Law I'm driving around with an illegal weapon. It's absurd.

Your country has decided to ban things because they are afraid of them. Not because any data, logic, or anything else as shown them to be more dangerous. But because they would rather quell hysterical idiots with 'tough laws' than tell people 'this is ridiculous, no one is running around South London killing people with ninja stars this isn't Big Trouble in Little China'.

I find that abhorrent because you are telling people how to live their lives, telling them what they can and cannot own, not out of reason and rational decisions but out of fear and complacency. "Well I don't want this thing and its scary to me, so I don't think other adult citizens should have it either."

Again, utter exaggeration. Do you live here? No. You're allowed chains - most people here lock their bikes up with them - just not ones of specific types or weights. A bit silly, but they're hardly kicking doors down to confiscate weighted ropes of all kinds. You're trying to make out like it's some nightmare scenario from V For Vendetta, when it's just...not. I disagree with a lot of the legislation, but I have to call you out on your poppycock when you try and exaggerate things to make it seem ten times worse than it actually is.


That would be great if not contradictory. You keep saying 'oh well I dont think banning handguns would work' but then say we should copy Australia which... banned handguns for pretty much all extents and purposes.

Oh for fucks sake will you stop that?
I already outline my position. Here it is ONE more time.

I think America should copy ASPECTS of Australia's gun laws.
I think America should copy aspects of Australia's gun laws.
Not all of it.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Because that's what it's starting to feel like. When I say "handgun banning wouldn't work, but copying Australia where they increased regulation" isn't a contradiction because I outright excluded banning it from the sentence at the very beginning of the statement. I'm not clarifying that position again.


I've mentioned multiple compromise solutions, but everyone on the pro-control side always seems to want to jump to 'you shouldn't be able to have X'.

And from our perspective, you want to jump down our throats whenever somebody suggests something even slightly more extreme than you're comfortable with. You keep trying to twist my words or misrepresent my position, which I think might be part of where the animosity is coming from. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of aggressive, staunchly ban-everything pro controllers, but your attitude of putting words in peoples mouths and apparently trying to trap them with word tricks doesn't do you any favours. My apologies if that isn't your intention, but when you misunderstand my position again after me specifically outlining it, it does make me wonder. It's probably not what you intend, but it's certainly how you're coming across to me, at least.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #376 on: November 03, 2015, 08:27:39 PM »

Oh for fucks sake will you stop that?
I already outline my position. Here it is ONE more time.

I think America should copy ASPECTS of Australia's gun laws.
I think America should copy aspects of Australia's gun laws.
Not all of it.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Because that's what it's starting to feel like. When I say "handgun banning wouldn't work, but copying Australia where they increased regulation" isn't a contradiction because I outright excluded banning it from the sentence at the very beginning of the statement. I'm not clarifying that position again.


Since I'm tired of playing merry go round with you I'll replace it with this single question and quote.

What aspects of the Australian Law are you talking about?

I've actually looked up those laws. The least restricted classification of firearms are Class A which includes basically single shot rimfire rifles (.22 LR would be 90% of these) break top rifles and paint ball guns. At the single most lenient part of Australian gun control I have to get a permit to own a paintball gun.

There is no part of the Australian laws that is anything short of a ban with 'exceptions'. I have to provide a 'Genuine Reason' to legally own a paintball gun? This seems to be the part where these is a disconnect here. The government telling me I cannot own a pistol for self defense because I didn't give them a good enough reason is a ban in all but name. You have taken away my right to bear arms and replaced it with a 'government can I please have a gun'?

I will not give the government that power to decide who in the populace gets to be armed at their discretion. The government should have to provide me a reason why I cannot own a firearm. I will not prove to the government that I can exercise my own rights anymore than I am going to provide the government a 'genuine reason' why I should get to exercise my right to free speech or against unlawful search and seizure.

Put restrictions in place to make sure people are mentally competent to purchase a gun? All for it. Put a (reasonable) waiting period on gun purchases to prevent someone from buying a gun 'in the heat of the moment'? All for it. Requiring basic, universal licensing to carry a firearm in public? All for that too.

But I will not accept any form of government agency telling me I cannot own a gun because they decided I didn't need it. We've already given our government too much power to push their personal agendas. We've been letting the government tell us what we're allowed to do with our own bodies for centuries. I have no interest in giving them any more control.

You love to accuse me of 'exaggerating' but every single thing about these ridiculous restrictions has been backed up by facts provided by your own government. You're right, the cops aren't going to lock you up for using a bike chain... unless they need something to charge you with. Suddenly that bike chain becomes a weapon because the suspect was 'wielding it in a threatening manner'. Because the way the law appears to be written they can justify that. Its called Selective Enforcement. And in a country where we have a constant problem with racial tensions between cops and citizens as it is? I'd rather not put more vague, paranoid laws on the books to placate people.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 08:29:04 PM by Tairis »

Offline Vergil Tanner

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #377 on: November 03, 2015, 08:52:35 PM »
What aspects of the Australian Law are you talking about?

I disagree with their outright banning of every single firearm. I agree with banning handguns, but that's not what I'm advocating in America. Now, I think Australian gun laws have gotten stricter and stricter since the 90's, so I'll clarify in that I support some of their initial reforms, which included limiting access to certain types of weaponry, creating a national gun ownership database, requiring a licence for ownership that could be revoked for a set list of specific reasons, creating a gun buyback program so people who wanted to get rid of guns could (but unlike them, I wouldn't make it compulsory except for the outlawed weaponry (EG, explosive weapons)), requiring universal background checks, requiring anybody selling a gun to be licensed, limiting magazine size and requiring anybody buying a gun type that the haven't owned before to take a gun safety course specifically designed for that weapon and taught by the experts to make sure that everybody has at least basic safety training before owning the deadly weapon.


You have taken away my right to bear arms and replaced it with a 'government can I please have a gun'?

I personally disagree that owning a deadly weapon should be a right. I think it should be considered a privilege that gets granted once you prove you can be trusted with it, since a "right" is something that everybody is entitled to, and I don't everybody should be entitled to firearms. However, I know that we are never going to agree on that topic, so I would really rather leave it there.


I will not give the government that power to decide who in the populace gets to be armed at their discretion. The government should have to provide me a reason why I cannot own a firearm.

Again, I disagree. If you turn around and say "I want a gun," I think it's a fair question for the government to say "Why?" I would be worried if the government said "Sure, here you go!" with no questions asked.


I will not prove to the government that I can exercise my own rights

Again, I disagree that it should be considered a right, but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole.


I am going to provide the government a 'genuine reason' why I should get to exercise my right to free speech or against unlawful search and seizure.

Freedom of speech is slightly different to owning a gun, since last I checked, words aren't capable of directly killing people.


Put restrictions in place to make sure people are mentally competent to purchase a gun? All for it. Put a (reasonable) waiting period on gun purchases to prevent someone from buying a gun 'in the heat of the moment'? All for it. Requiring basic, universal licensing to carry a firearm in public? All for that too.

Then at least we're in agreement there.


But I will not accept any form of government agency telling me I cannot own a gun because they decided I didn't need it.

You need to accept their authority in some way, or what's the point in having a government in the first place? It's the government that sets up the laws, the state organisations like the police, they build infrastructure and industry...the government, like it or not, is responsible for a lot of what you rely on. I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to say "you're not allowed this because we say so," however. They should be required to give a valid reason, and give you opportunities to appeal if you dislike their decision. Because by allowing background checks, for example, you're still giving them the power to refuse certain people access to firearms. So you at least accept that the government should have a say in who gets guns and who doesn't.


I have no interest in giving them any more control.

Thing is, no matter how bad the West gets, I doubt it will ever be an out and out tyranny until I take over. Democracy is...flawed, to say the least, but there are recourses and there are ways of making your voice heard. The government will always have control and there's no real solution to that since society needs a government to function, so all we can do is make sure there are adequate checks and balances in place. Personally, I like the idea of the Spartan system. Not in practice, but in theory; one group comes up with the ideas, one group proposes them, one group votes on them, one group leads the military but has to leave after a set amount of time and face trial for their year in office and the group that proposes the ideas also has veto rights on the military group. Not perfect, but there's the basis there for a pretty balanced system, with some work. Athenian democracy, on the other hand, was a mess. Of course, I am kinda biased....the Spartans - relative to the day - went through phases of being cool and phases of being dicks. The Athenians were pretty much dicks all the way through.


You're right, the cops aren't going to lock you up for using a bike chain... unless they need something to charge you with.

And now you're getting into tinfoil hat territory. Calm down. The government isn't out to get you. They likely don't even know that you exist except as a number on a piece of paper. The cases of that happening - in the UK, at least - are practically 0, since the media would have a field day with it. Ridiculous arrests happen, of course, but nowhere near the level that you need to start considering it a problem.


Its called Selective Enforcement. And in a country where we have a constant problem with racial tensions between cops and citizens as it is? I'd rather not put more vague, paranoid laws on the books to placate people.

I agree...so make them extremely specific. Where exactly did I advocate banning bike chains with vague laws that allows racist cops to arrest anybody with a moped?

Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #378 on: November 03, 2015, 08:55:49 PM »
If you both are feeling frustrated, it might be best to take a bit of a time out before things get too heated.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #379 on: November 04, 2015, 03:51:43 AM »
And again I note your reading is just as selective.  That graph shows a small but continuing decrease in gun violence; the "stagnant" interpretation is brought about by an increase in suicides and the apparent fact that Americans are 75% more likely to shoot themselves than be shot by someone else.  You also selectively pick a low before a slight increase, but we've had a downturn since and continue to steadily decrease.
I would like to ask you to read my post you are referring to again. I said the "per-capita rate of gun deaths" has been stagnating - and that is supported by the graph I posted.

I also said that the ratio of suicides vs. homicides varies only little, and, again, I fail to see how that is not supported by that graph and the underlying data.

What I completely fail to see is how you can look at that graph and claim a "continuing decrease" in "gun violence". For one, the homicide-per-capita numbers do tend slightly upward till about 2005/2006, then fall slightly again. It's only a "continuing decrease" if you pick two data points and ignore what happened in-between. For another, "gun violence" and homicide rates are not the same. Just that the number of gun homicides has been more or less stable does not mean you are just as likely (or less so) to be shot than you were ten years ago.

In fact, the deaths caused by guns would actually show an increase over time, if not for the improving survival rate, as I have pointed out earlier. Take that into account and the rate of gun violence is a good bit higher than just the fatality figures would indicate.



The 2011 homicide rate was, in fact, the lowest since 1960.
May I ask for the source of that graph? I can't make heads or tails of it, as it shows homicide methods by percent. If I total all the most recent numbers I come to about 0.006% of all homicides committed with handguns, other guns, blunt objects, knives, or other weapons. What's used in the rest of homicides? Bare hands and poison? How are the other 99,994% of homicides committed?

I also must admit that I can't completely follow you when you use that graph to draw comparrisons to 1960 when the data reaches back only to the mid-70s, but maybe that's just me.

Offline Zakharra

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #380 on: December 03, 2015, 12:12:34 PM »
  It undoubtedly is. But part of the problem is the mentality to guns. Even if no legislated is made in response to it, accepting that guns kill would be an important step towards that.

  Doesn't Canada manage to deal with such problems without needing the second Amendment? (Okay no alligators, but police are far away and wolves and bears)

  Two problems with this:

  1. This could happen in the future, people are dying now.

  2. The US has a military. Either they side with the government, and you will get slaughtered (Vietnam does not support a civilian victory because the political considerations that lead to the withdrawal of US forces would not be a factor in an revolution), or they side with the people against the government, and you don't need an armed population to topple them, the professional military does that.

  So you want a balance, but you don't want new gun laws? How are things going to be balanced? By changing nothing?

  Yes, but people problems don't have as high a death count when the problematic people don't have such easy access to guns.

  Not too relevant, no state is an island and authorities have limited control to prevent guns crossing a a state borders. Besides, strictest gun law in the US doesn't mean too much when it still needs to comply with the latest interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

  Twice (that I know of). This is the 350th mass shooting event in the US this year. Now I get that figure from an anti-gun page, so we can assume it have been inflated by some ridiculously broad definition of "mass shooting", but even assuming its been artificially boosted, the point remains that a mass shooting incident in Paris is a major event. For the US, someone in this thread responded "Not again".

 Lisztes restricting firearms runs into the big problem that in the US, firearm ownership is a right, just like the freedom of speech, or the press, assembly, to worship your religion (or not), to object to quartering of troops in your home, to unreasonable search and seizure, and so on. I, like many others, hold ALL of those rights as sacred, and none of them should be limited, restricted or removed -except- by due process, on the individual level. Not for the entire country in restricting/removing it, but on a case by case basis.

 That being said; asking that new gun laws be passed isn't going to help when current gun laws now aren't being enforced. If the government isn't enforcing many gun control measures now, why would adding more mean they will be enforced? It also ignores that if driven underground, there will be a large black market for firearms, and not cheap dangerous ones either, but well crafted and sophisticated firearms that work and work well, and are completely unknown to the system. A computer controlled lathe and milling machine can make make pistols easily. 3-D printers are getting into metal so they will be able to make a reliable firearm, and laser mills (DMLS) http://gizmodo.com/the-world-just-got-its-first-entirely-3d-printed-metal-1460338036  will only come down in price and get better at making firearms. All of this isn't counting the people who can make good modern firearms with hand tools or low tech machinery.
 this is also ignoring that the murder rate and firearm related deaths have been going down. What is going up is the coverage in this age of cell phones, Twitter and vid streaming.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #381 on: December 03, 2015, 12:34:17 PM »
Lisztes restricting firearms runs into the big problem that in the US, firearm ownership is a right, just like the freedom of speech, or the press, assembly, to worship your religion (or not), to object to quartering of troops in your home, to unreasonable search and seizure, and so on. I, like many others, hold ALL of those rights as sacred, and none of them should be limited, restricted or removed -except- by due process, on the individual level. Not for the entire country in restricting/removing it, but on a case by case basis.

  I wish people would stand up against civil forfeiture as strongly as they would against gun control. I barely ever hear people complaining about that. Maybe if police started taking people's guns via civil forfeiture enough people would get angry that the practice would stop.

That being said; asking that new gun laws be passed isn't going to help when current gun laws now aren't being enforced. If the government isn't enforcing many gun control measures now, why would adding more mean they will be enforced?

  Because new laws could be more easily enforced, or legislation could give governmental bodies more power/resources to enforce them. Which laws in particular aren't being enforced?

It also ignores that if driven underground, there will be a large black market for firearms,

  So, no physical goods should be illegal because they will just be available on the black market anyway, or is this stance only applicable to fire arms?

this is also ignoring that the murder rate and firearm related deaths have been going down. What is going up is the coverage in this age of cell phones, Twitter and vid streaming.

  That statistic is debated. Whilst it has fallen since the mid 90s, a lot of graph show that in recent years the rate has leveled out. Besides, this was the 355th mass shooting incident this years. "We're getting better" doesn't really cut it, at least not to me.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #382 on: December 03, 2015, 12:41:11 PM »
I find it amusing that the same special interest advancing the argument that gun control laws aren't being enforced enough (i.e. the NRA) is also the one demanding that the ATF's funding be cut.  (Another.)

Seriously, I'll play this out.  Call.  Now let's triple the funding to all of the law enforcement agencies so they can get those illegal gun sellers/owners.  Congress?  Get to it.

Well?

Hmm?

Why do I hear crickets?


Offline Aiyanna

  • Generally Lucid ~ Marginally Manic ~ Intentionally Poetic ~ Sarcastically Witty ~ Loveable Comic Relief for the Masses
  • Lady
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Location: On the hi-i-i-ighway to Hell!
  • Gender: Female
  • I only bite when you ask nice! ;)
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #383 on: December 03, 2015, 06:07:07 PM »
So, no physical goods should be illegal because they will just be available on the black market anyway, or is this stance only applicable to fire arms?


Okay, I could be reading this wrong here, but I think the point being made with the black market argument is that, if you outlaw guns, then only those with questionable morals/ethics have guns. Law-abiding citizens who just want to protect their loved ones wouldn't. Just my 2 cents. *goes back to lurking*

Offline Zakharra

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #384 on: December 03, 2015, 06:17:08 PM »
Okay, I could be reading this wrong here, but I think the point being made with the black market argument is that, if you outlaw guns, then only those with questionable morals/ethics have guns. Law-abiding citizens who just want to protect their loved ones wouldn't. Just my 2 cents. *goes back to lurking*

 I disagree with this (assuming I read it correctly). I can tell you that a hell of a LOT of US citizens would flat out not comply with a gun ban. I certainly would not, and I can bet that most of the population of my state and large sections of the populations of the states surrounding Idaho would ignore such a ruling/action by the feds. I honestly think it would be the country as a whole, especially west of the Mississippi that would ignore the ban/repeal of the 2nd. And the government would not be able to do a damned thing about it; not to mention that the politicians that voted for this would almost certainly lose their seats in the next elections. Assuming they were not recalled and replaced before that. Rights should always be added to, not removed.

Offline Aiyanna

  • Generally Lucid ~ Marginally Manic ~ Intentionally Poetic ~ Sarcastically Witty ~ Loveable Comic Relief for the Masses
  • Lady
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Location: On the hi-i-i-ighway to Hell!
  • Gender: Female
  • I only bite when you ask nice! ;)
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #385 on: December 03, 2015, 06:22:47 PM »
I disagree with this (assuming I read it correctly). I can tell you that a hell of a LOT of US citizens would flat out not comply with a gun ban. I certainly would not, and I can bet that most of the population of my state and large sections of the populations of the states surrounding Idaho would ignore such a ruling/action by the feds. I honestly think it would be the country as a whole, especially west of the Mississippi that would ignore the ban/repeal of the 2nd. And the government would not be able to do a damned thing about it; not to mention that the politicians that voted for this would almost certainly lose their seats in the next elections. Assuming they were not recalled and replaced before that. Rights should always be added to, not removed.

Not saying I agree with it, or that the attempt would work, just saying that I think that is the point being made. Not so much that things should just be legal otherwise they go on the black market.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #386 on: December 03, 2015, 07:01:38 PM »
I disagree with this (assuming I read it correctly). I can tell you that a hell of a LOT of US citizens would flat out not comply with a gun ban. I certainly would not, and I can bet that most of the population of my state and large sections of the populations of the states surrounding Idaho would ignore such a ruling/action by the feds. I honestly think it would be the country as a whole, especially west of the Mississippi that would ignore the ban/repeal of the 2nd. And the government would not be able to do a damned thing about it; not to mention that the politicians that voted for this would almost certainly lose their seats in the next elections. Assuming they were not recalled and replaced before that. Rights should always be added to, not removed.

  In this hypothetical situation of the 2nd amendment being repelled the politicians are either doing it because they have popular support to do so or the democratic process has been subverted to the point that losing their seats/being recalled isn;t an issue (oh and if armed revolt is your reaction to this, my previous point about professional militarizes vs. armed civilians stands).

  This attitude really bothers me. I believe in gun control, but if hypothetical the US did enact strict gun control laws and there were provably more deaths as a result, I would change my chance. Pro-2nd amendment people though seem almost universally unwilling to acknowledge even a hypothetical scenario in which they would give up their guns, which I find to be an unhealthy attitude to have.

  Anyway, this discussion is becoming a bit prolonged. Do you want to switch to the gun control thread, or have one last post and then I'll both leave it?

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #387 on: December 03, 2015, 07:21:38 PM »
At this point, the more gun vs. anti gun arguments I see...the less I begin to care. Because neither side will ever open up for a real dialogue, instead settling for jumping up and down screaming and throwing tantrums, its why nothing ever gets done anymore. and people dance around and get offended like puppets and do whatever their party says and wont move until they get 100% of what they want.

I have no hope that an actual intelligent compromise could ever be reached.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 07:23:41 PM by Lustful Bride »

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #388 on: December 03, 2015, 07:42:33 PM »
At this point, the more gun vs. anti gun arguments I see...the less I begin to care. Because neither side will ever open up for a real dialogue, instead settling for jumping up and down screaming and throwing tantrums, its why nothing ever gets done anymore. and people dance around and get offended like puppets and do whatever their party says and wont move until they get 100% of what they want.

I have no hope that an actual intelligent compromise could ever be reached.

  The problem is the two groups don't really have much way of compromising. How do you find common group between "we need better gun control laws" and "guns aren't the problem, we need to be focusing on social issues"? There's no intelligent compromise to be had between those two views because they are looking at the problem too differently.

  Or maybe there is a compromise between the two stances, and I'm just missing it.

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #389 on: December 03, 2015, 08:24:07 PM »
At this point, the more gun vs. anti gun arguments I see...the less I begin to care. Because neither side will ever open up for a real dialogue

Ugh. Miss me with the "both sides are at fault" faux-balance shite. "Both sides" aren't having a problem opening up. "Both sides" showed up for a real dialogue decades ago, and then the facts didn't favour the conservative side and the gun manufacturers and most of their arguments fell apart on the merits of real-world data, and so they made up a fantasy world with their own set of facts and demanded everybody else "discuss" those with them and act as if they were real (even going so far as to do things like try to suppress research into real-world gun violence). So after that point (reached long, long ago on gun control, like in the Nineties) it makes sense that fewer and fewer people would be interested in "discussing" their made-up fantasy world with them, because that is dishonest and stupid and a massive waste of everyone's time. You need two sides willing to engage in good faith to have a genuine dialogue.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #390 on: December 03, 2015, 08:28:26 PM »
Ugh. Miss me with the "both sides are at fault" faux-balance shite. "Both sides" aren't having a problem opening up. "Both sides" showed up for a real dialogue decades ago, and then the facts didn't favour the conservative side and the gun manufacturers and most of their arguments fell apart on the merits of real-world data, and so they made up a fantasy world with their own set of facts and demanded everybody else "discuss" those with them and act as if they were real (even going so far as to do things like try to suppress research into real-world gun violence). So after that point (reached long, long ago on gun control, like in the Nineties) it makes sense that fewer and fewer people would be interested in "discussing" their made-up fantasy world with them, because that is dishonest and stupid and a massive waste of everyone's time. You need two sides willing to engage in good faith to have a genuine dialogue.

I don't even care anymore man :/ if the feds show up to collect my gun i'l just hand over everything I have without a fight and pray I don't get raped/robbed while at home for the rest of my life. 

If they don't I will still be following every law to the letter because that's how I am. I will go where the society goes, even if im being dragged by my feet with it.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 08:31:54 PM by Lustful Bride »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #391 on: December 03, 2015, 08:33:06 PM »
Hold on.  This isn't black or white.  There are many different positions here:
  • There are those who want no gun control laws of any kind whatsoever.
  • There are those who want very limited gun control laws.
  • There are those that want very restrictive gun control laws.
  • There are those that want to ban private gun ownership.
We shouldn't pretend that only groups 1 and 4 exist.  That's not true, even looking at the posts people have made on this site.  There are pro-gun rights folks who have stated they would support a law that requires gun show sales to comply with the same rules as in-store sales.  Similarly, some folks have agreed that people on the terrorist watch lists shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. 

Of course there are others who disagree with the above, but let's stop lumping everyone into just the unlimited-gun-rights and no-guns-for-anyone camps.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #392 on: December 03, 2015, 08:42:50 PM »
I don't even care anymore man :/ if the feds show up to collect my gun i'l just hand over everything I have without a fight and pray I don't get raped/robbed while at home for the rest of my life.

  Its not as if guns have been helping keep rape numbers down in the USA. Most European countries have a similar rate, a few are lower and one is higher. Guns don't appear to be the answer. Better education on consent, better public understanding of the crime and making sure police and courts are properly equipped to handle such investigations is more likely the answer.

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #393 on: December 03, 2015, 08:43:17 PM »
Hold on.  This isn't black or white.  There are many different positions here

True, but for practical purposes in any gun control debate in the States there is a) the side that reflexively defends whatever load of horse manure the NRA is currently serving and pretends everyone with a variant position wants them raped and killed in their beds for want of an assault weapon, and b) basically everyone else, from minimalist regulators on up to maximalist ban advocates. Now, b) certainly includes a number of different positions among whom there can be reasonable and honest debate. But there is no sense pretending that a) is interested in reasonable debate with any of b)'s constituents. a)'s whole posture is about culture war, not debate. It's important to forthrightly recognize this and to call it exactly what it is.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 08:44:28 PM by Cyrano Johnson »

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #394 on: December 03, 2015, 09:01:10 PM »
  Its not as if guns have been helping keep rape numbers down in the USA. Most European countries have a similar rate, a few are lower and one is higher. Guns don't appear to be the answer. Better education on consent, better public understanding of the crime and making sure police and courts are properly equipped to handle such investigations is more likely the answer.

Yeah but it doesn't hurt my chance either... i know id never win if i had to fight an attacker with my bare hands and a tazer gets 1 shot while pepper spray require close contact with the attacker...*shrug*

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #395 on: December 04, 2015, 10:40:55 AM »
So the NRA's argument that California's "extremely strict" gun law failed to prohibit the San Bernardino actually proves the opposite to be true.

The AR-15 style weapons used by the shooters were not covered by that law because those weapns were designed to use a loophole based on how the ammo is loaded.  Obviously, if that loophole was closed--i.e., if the law was stricter--then those guns could have been blocked.

Conclusion: the NRA just proved that California's gun law should be more restrictive.


Online gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #396 on: December 04, 2015, 10:50:26 AM »
  Its not as if guns have been helping keep rape numbers down in the USA. Most European countries have a similar rate, a few are lower and one is higher. Guns don't appear to be the answer. Better education on consent, better public understanding of the crime and making sure police and courts are properly equipped to handle such investigations is more likely the answer.


I'm not going to get into a wider argument about rape and courtrooms here, but if the reference of "one is higher" is Sweden, I suggest this is more to do with the differences as to what legally counts as rape, what kind of actions and circumstances can be filed as rape - and how willing the police and prosecutors are to pull through with those suspicions - than with people being so much more eager to assault other people. In many countries - like Italy, Russia and much of eastern Europe, there can be strong pressure (economical, moral, family pressure) on women not to file charges or to retract charges and testimonies - especially if it's about something that took place within a marriage or a relationship. And the scope of rape as a crime within the law is more narrow in many countries than it is in Sweden and some other northern European countries.

Most countries in Europe (except the UK and Ireland) having a civil law system, if it's to count as actionable as rape the act has to fit within the definitions set out in the code of law or it's not likely to go far in a trial...so if the law in a country places high demands on the act to make it count, then a "mid-level sexual assault" or a "domestic bedroom demand for sex" effectively won't float in the courtroom or even lead to any charges being brought to court, and people are going to be aware of roughtly what works in their country, what kind of things are meaningful to file as rape (or assault).

***

Back to the main topic: the news outlets are now saying the couple in San Bernardino had stockpiled enough munitions and explosives to kill hundreds of people quickly if they had had some time and managed to corner enough people. Remember, they could have gone on to some other place and continued the assault.  Maybe the police can't find all the nutjobs or militants before those people would act - of course they can't - but some measure of control of who gets to hold a gun (licensing and background checks) would at least make it easier for the police to focus on many of the seriously dangerous people, and make it harder for some other extreme nutjobs or people with an alerting background to get to acquire guns. That's just common sense, and the general availability of guns everywhere does affect this.

And please don't tell me that if the people at the Christmas reunion party had brought their own guns, then very few people had been killed except those two. Nobody - well, very few people - brings a gun around to every place where they will be meeting up with fellow workers or having some fun on the town. And especially not a heavy-duty firearm that's strong enough to force down a guy with an assault rifle and a handbag full of bombs or something.  :-(
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 11:10:55 AM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Skynet

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #397 on: December 04, 2015, 01:26:35 PM »
Now bulletproof blankets for kids to use doing school shootings are for sale now.

It's sad to say that things came to this, but almost every single week I keep hearing about mass shootings in the US.

Sure, many people talk about reform or doing something, but politicians and the NRA keep shooting things down.  The latter even's going so far as to try and allow people on the terrorism watch list the ability to buy weapons without any background checks.

It may not be popular to say among my US peers, but I feel as if most Americans are okay with this.  Not as in they see the increasing body count as good in any way, but rather they view it as an acceptable price to pay in order to "guard against government tyranny."  In spite of the fact that certain US policies have been bordering tyrannical at points even when gun control laws were very lax; or that a lot of the same organizations who say they're for gun rights tend to also be for restricting the rights of minority groups.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 01:28:11 PM by Skynet »

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #398 on: December 04, 2015, 01:42:51 PM »
I think it's as much that while most Americans (excluding the NRA nuts in Liztec's Group A) aren't okay with it, the problem is that as Cycle points out, the 'opposition' is not a united front. They have a very wide range of how much, if any, new legislation or regulation or restriction is acceptable, and while they can agree on the principle, the specifics and details can't get unified support, which lets the gun-nut minority dictate the course of action; they don't outnumber any of the other groups, but they are unified and extremely loud, to the point of drowning out any other voices and giving that perception that "most" Americans are okay with this.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #399 on: December 04, 2015, 06:58:44 PM »

Back to the main topic: the news outlets are now saying the couple in San Bernardino had stockpiled enough munitions and explosives to kill hundreds of people quickly if they had had some time and managed to corner enough people. Remember, they could have gone on to some other place and continued the assault.  Maybe the police can't find all the nutjobs or militants before those people would act - of course they can't - but some measure of control of who gets to hold a gun (licensing and background checks) would at least make it easier for the police to focus on many of the seriously dangerous people, and make it harder for some other extreme nutjobs or people with an alerting background to get to acquire guns. That's just common sense, and the general availability of guns everywhere does affect this.

Wouldn't have helped in this case, based upon what's been released even if we had the theorized perfect background check system where it reviews all medical records, US government holds, etc? They were clean. Even the FBI has stated they were never even examined as terrorist threats.

Quote
And please don't tell me that if the people at the Christmas reunion party had brought their own guns, then very few people had been killed except those two. Nobody - well, very few people - brings a gun around to every place where they will be meeting up with fellow workers or having some fun on the town. And especially not a heavy-duty firearm that's strong enough to force down a guy with an assault rifle and a handbag full of bombs or something.  :-(

There's really nothing you can do if you're caught at the exact wrong moment by anyone. If you literally don't suspect anything at all you don't have anything to react to. Generally when people get to play hero is when they're a) tipped off in advance by suspicious behavior or b) the wacko in question isn't good at what they're doing and someone is close by such as with the soldiers at the train station in France.

I would say that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about serious concealed carry holders, though. Personally? I absolutely would have been armed in that scenario because to me its simply another part of what I carry every day. Pocket knife, phone, wallet, keys, multitool, gun. Would it have mattered? Who knows. Its really luck of the draw at that point. If you're one of the first people hit when someone comes in the door? Nothing you can do. If you're not and you have the presence of mind (and that really is the important part since most people are going to freeze) then maybe you could have changed something.

But unfortunately like all things its a gray area. In the NRA's version of events everyone with a gun is a trained marksman with quick draw reflexes. In the Brady Campaign's version everyone with a gun is Barney, fumbling and dropping, about to kill their entire family at every moment.