Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Elliot Rodger kills 6, injures 13 others. Is it rape culture, guns or something else? Options · View
dpw
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:21:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/15/2013
Posts: 4,447
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
NudistRob wrote:
If you get your information from Main Stream Media, you have no idea what really happened. First, there were multiple shooter. Witnesses all tell of at least two people shooting. He was on as many as 5 drugs with 2 of them being anti psycotics. Same drugs used by ALL mass murderers. He was also under the watchful eye of doctors with direct connections to CIA mind control experiments. Also notice within hours of the shooting a father is crying on camera about the NRA and more gun control! What? I'm sorry, did this mental patient hold a firearms permit? I think NOT. This is a classic FALSE FLAG. A Psyop to manipulate the masses. Remember Sandy Hook? Tons of dead kids, but no blood, no bodies, no death certificates, no survivors. Nurse was a Spanish singer/actor with no legal nursing certificates. Shooter actually never existed. Homes all bought in cash several years prior. Dead children seen in photo with president after the shooting! 26 xmas trees for the dead children see in air photos before the event. Donation pages set up days in advance. No local abulances allowed to respond. The entire event was a made for TV SHOW!!!!!!!!

This post reminds me of Germany's denial that the Holocaust ever took place!
The list of killing sprees at educational establishments since Texas State in the 60's, is alarming. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Newtown.... the list just goes on and on.
elicia
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:26:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 8/31/2013
Posts: 89
Location: socal, United States
dpw wrote:

This post reminds me of Germany's denial that the Holocaust ever took place!
The list of killing sprees at educational establishments since Texas State in the 60's, is alarming. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Newtown.... the list just goes on and on.


You are exactly right dpw. The list is getting longer and longer. The problem is seriously getting out of hand. If these 2nd Amendment assholes can't see the threat to our way of life in America as we know it, then they are more worthless than I thought and they damn sure aren't patriots.
dpw
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:40:10 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/15/2013
Posts: 4,447
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
Magical_felix wrote:


AND he probably owns a bunch of guns... But I guess asking someone like him to take a few tests and classes where his obvious psychosis can be caught before he acquires a bunch of guns is unconstitutional.

Now this is a serious question, I know little about how much the law allows in the US.
Is it legal to own hand grenades, rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks? How far can you go over there, where is the line drawn?
Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:48:08 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
dpw wrote:

Now this is a serious question, I know little about how much the law allows in the US.
Is it legal to own hand grenades, rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks? How far can you go over there, where is the line drawn?


I'm pretty sure you can't own any of that except maybe a grenade in some states. I'm sure one of the gun nuts knows all the loop holes and exactly what you need to do to get a grenade. You can probably have a tank actually but without artillery shells and shit like that. It's just a vehicle without the ammunition.



Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:51:43 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,394
dpw wrote:

Firstly, you're wrong about the gun laws, the UK is stricter than Australia. You cannot own a handgun or any kind of automatic weapon over here. To legally own a rifle or shotgun, extensive background checks are made. Every weapon has to be registered with the police and they must be secured when not in use.
What you said about Israel may well be true, I don't know. However, and this may raise eyebrows but it's true, you are talking about an ethnically cleansed country that is in a constant state of alert with every neighbouring country. When countries are at war, crime falls.
As far as the second amendment goes, that was introduced because of the threat from Britain and to protect people from the Native Americans. It was at a time when the country was being formed, and there was no police force and few laws.


Hi Derek. Our gun laws also include the laws you mentioned. It is also illegal for us to have in our possession mace or tazers. When outside the home it is illegal to have weapons of ANY kind including pocket knives or box cutters.

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:56:19 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,394
Whilst there were clearly many mitigating circumstances in this tragedy and as an Englishman, I can't even comprehend the gun laws in America, surely the biggest factor in this awful set of circumstances is mental illness.
dpw
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:00:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/15/2013
Posts: 4,447
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
Magical_felix wrote:


I'm pretty sure you can't own any of that except maybe a grenade in some states. I'm sure one of the gun nuts knows all the loop holes and exactly what you need to do to get a grenade. You can probably have a tank actually but without artillery shells and shit like that. It's just a vehicle without the ammunition.

I only asked because I thought that in the Waco siege there was a lot of legally owned weapons like that, not tanks though.
AK 47's an Uzi's are legal aren't they? They are assault weapons, not weapons of defence!
Your idea of passing a test seemed to me like a sensible one. Maybe add that insurance is mandatory, like with cars.
Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:04:56 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
dpw wrote:

I only asked because I thought that in the Waco siege there was a lot of legally owned weapons like that, not tanks though.
AK 47's an Uzi's are legal aren't they? They are assault weapons, not weapons of defence!
Your idea of passing a test seemed to me like a sensible one. Maybe add that insurance is mandatory, like with cars.


Yeah but they can't be fully automatic. BUT you can purchase one legally, take it home and convert it to full auto if you want.

The insurance is a good idea actually in case some dumbass misses his target or fires it by mistake and hits you. They should have to cover all your medical bills.



sprite
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:49:53 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 16,005
Location: My Tower, United States
elicia wrote:


Sprite, I'm not arguing any of the points you made but I just gotta say...how fucked up is this?

Don't be too fun, pretty or smart..........if that's what this country has come to........that's fucked up and it enrages me!
Carry a weapon of some kind and be prepared to use it.......We are actually becoming a militarized society.
Take self defense classes......good advise....nice to know.....totally fucked up if that's an absolute necessity because of the world we live in.
Stay indoors unless absolutely necessary....REALLY? Sorry no waves roll thru my living room so I'm just gonna have to tempt the psycho's in my wet suit.

The rest of what you say is good common sense. And again, I'm NOT putting you down. Just sayin...THAT's FUCKED UP! If this is what my world has become it's no better than the Jews hiding from the Germans in World War II. That's what it reminds me of. A militarized state of fear and hiding. Should we live with barbed wire around our properties and have bunkers ready and equipped for warfare? Don't laugh...it might be a good idea.

And another thing...if this were happening to men you can bet they'd be making radical changes to the law to protect their lifestyle.

I'm just disgusted with the tweets I saw. The whole thing is fucked up. Seriously considering another country where I can actually live my life in peace.



it IS fucked up, but that was kind of my point. seriously, how many of us carry something for protection for just such instances? btw, i don't carry or own a gun, but i do have pepper spray. and no, i don't live my life in fear, but i am aware that going out for a night on the town does put me at risk. like i said, the onus SHOULD be on men to simply not give us reason to have to go to such lengths. it SHOULD be on guys to not abuse, harass, or rape, but that's not how we roll in this society of ours. i mean, like you said, those tweets depressed the hell out of me. if that's the mentality of people i brush elbows with on a daily basis, yeah, that scares me too, right?

Live, love, laugh.
Weavindreams
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:51:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 7,365
Location: On the bluffs above the Mississippi River., United

We are also talking about a relatively SMALL...ILAND nation. And, a nation wih many OTHER laws that differ from our own. (PC don't fly there. SO, how many of THOSE do you want to propose?)


One insult following another with you and your friend up there and she wonders WHY I talk down to the two of you. She starts off with the idea that anyone and everyone who owns a firearm is an ignorant, moronic fool and then gets insulted when I treat her Pollyana thinking as imbecilic? Nor, have youbeen any better.Regarding police; perhaps one of you "Einstein's" could explain WHERE we are going to get the money to provide police protection 24/7/365 for every citizen. (BTW Inspite of the slogan the simple fact is that police are powerless to act unless and until a crime IS actually COMMITTED! In short, they DO NOT protect; unless of course you are a government official. They APPREHEND criminals AFTER the fact, AS IN after you and your family are dead!) With regard to paranoia, by that same measure then it also follows that anyone who owns ANY of the following must also be paranoid: a fire extinguisher, 1st aid kit, or insurance policy! Those items, just like a firearm are things we own in recognition of the fact that it IS a dangerous world and bad things can and DO happen! AND, while you have chosen to blithely ignore everything I said regarding our prison system and the stark reality (OH MY GOD! REALITY?) of life as dangerous throughout history, the fact that you chose to ignore it doesn't mean it ISN'T factual. Oh, what's being discussed ISN'T JUST the 2nd Amendment...


How pray tell do you confiscate anything without FIRST knowing WHERE to find it? THAT is the purpose behind registration, NOT "crime prevention". Thus the 4th Amendment is now also in play here. But, hey; those idiots who wrote the Bill of Rights were clueless compared to master minds like Mikie Bloomerbug who also wanted to outlaw drinks over 16 oz! NAH, no danger of trampling on people's rights for naught with him! PER Ben Franklin; "Those who are willing to trade liberty for security will deserve neither and lose BOTH!" Those words applied then and still apply today! IF you want to forego the right to own firearms and let the police investigate what happens to you and yours...FINE BY ME! BUT, I'd rather be ABLE to do what I've done in the past... let THEM do the dying!
Oh and Felix, a firearm owner with a concealed carry permit is already held liable for any harm his or her rounds may do whether or not they hit the intended target. In short, IF it goes through the criminal on your block and hits you next, they can be charged with a crime AND be held responsible for your bills etc. (I know being actually INFORMED is just entirely too much bother.)
Derek, as regards your questions, only collector's with the appropriate federal liscense can own full auto weapons;grenades and heavy weapons (artillery, tanks etc only by military service organizations and those must be in an unusable condition (firing mechanisms removed) . Further, for a concealed carry permit, training IS required as are criminal records checks. Additionally, a permit in one state is NOT of necessity valid elsewhere.

Oh, and with regard to that "aren't patriotic" crack... MY DD- 214 says I served a combat tour as a US Marine in Vietnam... what does YOURS say?

Ya don't HAVE TO be crazy to live in my world, but is sure cuts down on the introductions!
dpw
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:13:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/15/2013
Posts: 4,447
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
trinket wrote:


Hi Derek. Our gun laws also include the laws you mentioned. It is also illegal for us to have in our possession mace or tazers. When outside the home it is illegal to have weapons of ANY kind including pocket knives or box cutters.


There's no handgun ban in Oz, even semi automatic handguns are legal. Also there is no law that prevents people that have had mental illness from owning a gun.
Tazers, mace, pepper spray and flick knives are all illegal here. Any concealed weapon and any dangerous weapon are illegal.
Here you need two references for a rifle and one for a shotgun. Any criminal record bans you for 5 years and a prison term of 3 years means a lifetime ban. Any mental illness bans you.
All weapons with a barrel length of less than 30" are banned. All weapons must be manually loading.
The only country that is stricter is Japan.
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:19:02 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 16,005
Location: My Tower, United States
Weavindreams wrote:

We are also talking about a relatively SMALL...ILAND nation. And, a nation wih many OTHER laws that differ from our own. (PC don't fly there. SO, how many of THOSE do you want to propose?)


One insult following another with you and your friend up there and she wonders WHY I talk down to the two of you. She starts off with the idea that anyone and everyone who owns a firearm is an ignorant, moronic fool and then gets insulted when I treat her Pollyana thinking as imbecilic? Nor, have youbeen any better.Regarding police; perhaps one of you "Einstein's" could explain WHERE we are going to get the money to provide police protection 24/7/365 for every citizen. (BTW Inspite of the slogan the simple fact is that police are powerless to act unless and until a crime IS actually COMMITTED! In short, they DO NOT protect; unless of course you are a government official. They APPREHEND criminals AFTER the fact, AS IN after you and your family are dead!) With regard to paranoia, by that same measure then it also follows that anyone who owns ANY of the following must also be paranoid: a fire extinguisher, 1st aid kit, or insurance policy! Those items, just like a firearm are things we own in recognition of the fact that it IS a dangerous world and bad things can and DO happen! AND, while you have chosen to blithely ignore everything I said regarding our prison system and the stark reality (OH MY GOD! REALITY?) of life as dangerous throughout history, the fact that you chose to ignore it does mean it ISN'T factual. Oh, what's being discussed ISN'T JUST the 2nd Amendment...


How pray tell do you confiscate anything without FIRST knowing WHERE to find it? THAT is the purpose behind registration, NOT "crime prevention". Thus the 4th Amendment is now also in play here. But, hey; those idiots who wrote the Bill of Rights were clueless compared to master minds like Mikie Bloomerbug who also wanted to outlaw drinks over 16 oz! NAH, no danger of trampling on people's rights for naught with him! PER Ben Franklin; "Those who are willing to trade liberty for security will deserve neither and lose BOTH!" Those words applied then and still apply today! IF you want to forego the right to own firearms and let the police investigate what happens to you and yours...FINE BY ME! BUT, I'd rather be ABLE to do what I've done in the past... let THEM do the dying!
Oh and Felix, a firearm owner with a concealed carry permit is already held liable for any harm his or her rounds may do whether or not they hit the intended target. In short, IF it goes through the criminal on your block and hits you next, they can be charged with a crime AND by held responsible for your bills etc. (I know being actually INFORMED is just entirely too much bother.)
Derek, as regards your questions, only collector's with the appropriate federal liscense can own full auto weapons;grenades and heavy weapons (artillery, tanks etc only by military service organizations and those must be in an unusable condition (firing mechanisms removed) . Further, for a concealed carry permit, training IS required as are criminal records checks. Additionally, a permit in one state is NOT of necessity valid elsewhere.


so... let me get this right... your solution is to arm everyone, is that the crux of your argument?

Live, love, laugh.
Weavindreams
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:29:52 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 7,365
Location: On the bluffs above the Mississippi River., United
NOPE! Obtaining concealed carry permits requires training by approved trainers who teach both use and the law regarding the use of deadly force (which I've already had twice before; once in the military as a Brig Guard and once as a State Security officer) as well as the law regarding liability. Besides which; laws are already on the books regarding selling to: criminals, children and the mentally ill. My point is, that what's missing AREN'T more laws; it's ENFORCEMENT of the laws that already exist; by a police force too over stretched already to ABLE to adequately enforce THOSE laws! The ONLY additional law I would WANT to see is a uniform approach to concealed carry permits so as to make them reciprocal (which at the moment MOST are NOT!)

Ya don't HAVE TO be crazy to live in my world, but is sure cuts down on the introductions!
dpw
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:49:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/15/2013
Posts: 4,447
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
Weavindreams wrote:
NOPE! Obtaining concealed carry permits requires training by approved trainers who teach both use and the law regarding the use of deadly force (which I've already had twice before; once in the military as a Brig Guard and once as a State Security officer) as well as the law regarding liability. Besides which; laws are already on the books regarding selling to: criminals, children and the mentally ill. My point is, that what's missing AREN'T more laws; it's ENFORCEMENT of the laws that already exist; by a police force too over stretched already to ABLE to adequately enforce THOSE laws! The ONLY additional law I would WANT to see is a uniform approach to concealed carry permits so as to make them reciprocal (which at the moment MOST are NOT!)

Is there no Mental Health Laws that permit the holding of a person for assessment?
Is there no law covering threatening behaviour?
Weavindreams
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:57:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 7,365
Location: On the bluffs above the Mississippi River., United
dpw wrote:

Is there no Mental Health Laws that permit the holding of a person for assessment?
Is there no law covering threatening behaviour?


No, however; it IS against the law to sell to an individual who DOES have a mental health history. There IS a "waiting period" between time of purchase and actual delivery of the firearm during which ALL of the "No Sale" triggers are SUPPOSED to be checked by law enforcement. (THIS is where the glitch occurs! Under staffed and over worked police NOT doing this with diligence!) As to "threatening behavior" I'm not sure what you mean.

Ya don't HAVE TO be crazy to live in my world, but is sure cuts down on the introductions!
dpw
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:22:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/15/2013
Posts: 4,447
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
Weavindreams wrote:


No, however; it IS against the law to sell to an individual who DOES have a mental health history. There IS a "waiting period" between time of purchase and actual delivery of the firearm during which ALL of the "No Sale" triggers are SUPPOSED to be checked by law enforcement. (THIS is where the glitch occurs! Under staffed and over worked police NOT doing this with diligence!) As to "threatening behavior" I'm not sure what you mean.

If he had been in the UK he would have been arrested before the fact.
Our laws cover various options:
1. Threatening behaviour. For threatening to harm unspecified people.
2. Assault. That would cover threateng specific people.
3. Mental Health Act. If he is thought to be a danger to himself or the public.
If he'd made those threats here, he'd be probably be locked up before he carried them out.
Weavindreams
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:31:54 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 7,365
Location: On the bluffs above the Mississippi River., United
dpw wrote:

If he had been in the UK he would have been arrested before the fact.
Our laws cover various options:
1. Threatening behaviour. For threatening to harm unspecified people.
2. Assault. That would cover threateng specific people.
3. Mental Health Act. If he is thought to be a danger to himself or the public.
If he'd made those threats here, he'd be probably be locked up before he carried them out.


Oh Ok now I get ya. No He would not (or SHOULD NOT) have been sold a gun HERE IF he had been making threats at the time of purchase. In fact, sellers routinely ASK, "You don't intend to shot anyone with this gun do you?" (And no, here you can't be arrested for threatening to harm anyone OTHER than a judge or an elected official.) And here, assault ONLY occurs when you ATTEMPT to harm some one (like taking a swing at them; hitting them makes it assault AND battery)

Ya don't HAVE TO be crazy to live in my world, but is sure cuts down on the introductions!
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:01:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
dpw wrote:

Now this is a serious question, I know little about how much the law allows in the US.
Is it legal to own hand grenades, rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks? How far can you go over there, where is the line drawn?


Over here, you can go pretty far. You can buy grenade launchers, mortars, tanks... Hell, you can buy a fully functional combat aircraft if you have the scratch. Each has its own list of requirements that have to be met before you can buy one. In the case of small arms, you can pay a Special Occupational Tax and become a manufacturer of machine guns. You can't sell them to anyone but police or military agencies. Legally, anyway. Anyone can purchase a grenade launcher or mortar tube. Without the projectiles, they're merely oversized and overly expensive paperweights. You can buy the projectiles if you want, but they're quite expensive and each one requires background checks and taxes paid. Same story for the projectiles needed for a tank or aircraft cannon. If you have the scratch, you can buy it, but if you're the type of person who has that kind of money, you're not going to risk it foolishly.

Regarding some of the other posts that have been made: yes, every state has a process that will take a person into custody for evaluation, if that person has been deemed a threat to themselves or others. It's against the law to sell a firearm to such a person. It's against the law to make a fully automatic firearm without theproper licensing, and to sell one to anyone but the proper agency with the proper paperwork. There's a lot of controversy about the Federal actions at Waco, and I'm afraid the public at large won't every know the whole truth about what happened there as many (most? ) of the witnesses are now dead.

In any event, the discussion her should not be about gun control, knife control, club control, or car control. The discussion should be about society. How did society fail the victims of this madman? How could he have been anticipated? Could some kind of proactive steps been taken to prevent his actions? Further, how can we learn from this? How can we effect change in our mores so that people don't have to follow Sprite's list of do's and don'ts? There's an old cliche that goes, "You don't walk through the lion's den wearing steak underwear", but we're people, not animals. She, or you, or I, should be able to walk down the street without having to worry about being assaulted for no reason, or for any reason.


Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:47:59 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,394
dpw wrote:

There's no handgun ban in Oz, even semi automatic handguns are legal. Also there is no law that prevents people that have had mental illness from owning a gun.
Tazers, mace, pepper spray and flick knives are all illegal here. Any concealed weapon and any dangerous weapon are illegal.
Here you need two references for a rifle and one for a shotgun. Any criminal record bans you for 5 years and a prison term of 3 years means a lifetime ban. Any mental illness bans you.
All weapons with a barrel length of less than 30" are banned. All weapons must be manually loading.
The only country that is stricter is Japan.




Australian law states firearms are banned without having obtained an appropriate licence for a particular firearm for a specific reason. The granting of licences is done on a case by case investigation. Good luck getting a licence. The issue of a licence is subject to the applicant history. In the case of any episodes of mental illness or criminal record of any kind there is a lifetime ban.

The firearm laws here vary from State to State. In one state it might be legal for someone to have a particular firearm while holding a licence specifically for a professional hunter but nobody else. Someone who wants a firearm for competing in a pistol club will have to apply for a licence that only pertains to shooters who are members of a legit club. Australians can't just walk into a firearms dealer, buy a gun over the counter, take it home then carry it around everywhere with them.

Other required information includes what is the intended purpose for the firearm , where it will be stored, is the applicant already in ownership of a firearm and if so, why do they need another one? There is a 28 day waiting period from the time of obtaining your licence (which can take quite some time because of red tape) to when you can purchase a firearm.

It is mandatory for any firearm to be registered along with information that identifies who you purchased the firearm from, and any other history of the firearm. The owner of a licensed firearm must have it locked in a gun safe for the entire time it is not being used for it's intended purpose (shooting club or professional hunter). Anyone who has been rejected for a firearms licence in any one state is automatically rejected for the entire Country.

I wish good luck to anyone trying to get a firearms licence here. I can't actually think of a valid reason to have one in your possession within those laws which is what the Govt intended when they made them. I'm not advocating gun control one way or another with that statement.

The Govt has made it almost impossible to legally own a firearm.

Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:09:05 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
Weavindreams wrote:

We are also talking about a relatively SMALL...ILAND nation. And, a nation wih many OTHER laws that differ from our own. (PC don't fly there. SO, how many of THOSE do you want to propose?)



So your answer is because they are an island nation and "other" laws. What are the other laws? And it's not that small its similar to the size of california in population.

Weavindreams wrote:
Oh Ok now I get ya. No He would not (or SHOULD NOT) have been sold a gun HERE IF he had been making threats at the time of purchase. In fact, sellers routinely ASK, "You don't intend to shot anyone with this gun do you?"


LOL Jim Bob asks Hoyt Clyde "you aint's gonna be shootin' no one is you?" at the time of purchase. Well then, how thorough.

Weavindreams wrote:
One insult following another with you and your friend up there and she wonders WHY I talk down to the two of you. She starts off with the idea that anyone and everyone who owns a firearm is an ignorant, moronic fool and then gets insulted when I treat her Pollyana thinking as imbecilic?


I would never feel talked down to by someone moronic... But you aren't really proving her wrong.

Weavindreams wrote:
Oh and Felix, a firearm owner with a concealed carry permit is already held liable for any harm his or her rounds may do whether or not they hit the intended target.


It's impossible to know how many people have guns since there is no registry... But it's estimated there are over 250 million guns. Of all those millions how many of those gun owners have a concealed weapons permit? The fact that you are using that as any kind of argument is ridiculous.

A registry isn't so Obama can come take your guns. It's for making sure guns stay in the hands of the original owner. Cops can use it to see how many guns are in a home before they enter it. You don't think that is a useful piece of information for them? Where do you think black market guns come from? Do you think they grow on trees? They are made here, they fall off a truck here, they are stolen here, they are given away here. All of them were legal at one point. Since there is no registry it's all too easy to lose track of a gun. Just the fact that they are so easy to obtain has companies making more and more guns. Black market guns aren't being made by criminals here in the US. Maybe in the Philippines but here in the US all those black market guns are just guns that were legal at one point.



Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:18:38 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
MrNudiePants wrote:


In any event, the discussion her should not be about gun control, knife control, club control, or car control. The discussion should be about society. How did society fail the victims of this madman?


As a society we failed the victims because we refuse to do anything about making it easy for madmen to kill them. You can't rid the country of madness, misogyny and violence with the stroke of a pen but you can rid the country of insane people having guns by having registries in place, having mandatory classes, extensive testing and extended wait periods for guns.

When a junkie has a problem with heroin the first thing people around them do if they want him to get clean is take away the heroin. If you ask the junkie the first thing he will say is that the heroin isn't the problem, he'll say trying to get more and more heroin is the problem. You ask a gun nut like yourself the same question and the last thing you believe anyone can ever do to stop gun violence is to regulate guns in a serious way.

On a side note, It did make me laugh that there is more than one gun nut nudist in this thread. Where does a nudist conceal his gun anyway?



MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:21:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:


...registries in place, having mandatory classes, extensive testing and extended wait periods for guns...



None if which would have done a single thing to prevent a single one of any of the recent acts of violence committed by mad men.

As far as your strawman argument goes, if you want to "cure" a heroin junkie, you get him into a treatment program. You don't remove the substance, because you can't. He'll always be able to get it if he wants it badly enough. You remove the desire for it. Give any other answer and you're just fooling yourself.
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:39:26 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
MrNudiePants wrote:


None if which would have done a single thing to prevent a single one of any of the recent acts of violence committed by mad men.

As far as your strawman argument goes, if you want to "cure" a heroin junkie, you get him into a treatment program. You don't remove the substance, because you can't. He'll always be able to get it if he wants it badly enough. You remove the desire for it. Give any other answer and you're just fooling yourself.


There's merit to this.

Every shooting/mass-shooting that occurs in the US re-ignites the debate over gun ownership, and for good reason. I do think less guns equals less crime. I don't think removing guns removes all horrific and fatal crimes from occurring, and I'm sure even the staunchest gun-confiscator would concede that point.

This incident is a little bit different than most. It touches on a few specific, under-reported aspects of gender relations in this country (and perhaps other countries too): the spurned beta-male, floundering around in a culture that teaches him that fucking chicks is a necessary rite and a perk he's entitled to. It also strikes to the core of the continuing mostly-unsung struggles of girls and women today. Much like racism, there's this tendency among those who haven't suffered all along to declare said struggle to over. Just like that, there's no more inequality, the world has changed, we're all one big happy society, right?

Wrong.

Harassment happens every day, and this clown sought out wisdom from those who wish to keep such harassment and subjugation of women in the mainstream. The paternalistic system let him down; the wealthy kid who was bad with women didn't feel he was getting better with women, so he started killing people.

Do I wish he hadn't had a gun? Yes. In this case though, do I think he'd have probably knifed a few people, maybe started an apartment fire, and perhaps run somebody down in his car? Yes.

Nothing scientific, just a hunch.

Women are beated, raped, and killed daily. Hourly. Usually guns aren't involved. If there are no more guns, the beatings, rapes, and murders will continue.
Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:44:54 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
MrNudiePants wrote:


None if which would have done a single thing to prevent a single one of any of the recent acts of violence committed by mad men.



You think all those measures wouldn't help weed out insane people like your fellow nudist above having guns? Insane people can't jump through all those hoops. You think all those measures wouldn't stop people in some dark mindset for a couple weeks from obtaining a gun and carrying out some moment of insanity. You know damn well you can just go to a gun show and take home guns as easily and way faster than going out to a car lot and taking a car home today.

Why are you so against responsibility. Are you afraid you wont pass the tests? Has the government come and taken your car because it's registered? No and No. So why are you so against a responsible gun system? People like you are what is wrong with society. If guns dont make it easier for these people to go on a spree killing then why don't they use knives or clubs nudiepants? Answer the question, or you can ignore it because you have no answer that doesn't make you look stupid.

MrNudiePants wrote:
As far as your strawman argument goes, if you want to "cure" a heroin junkie, you get him into a treatment program. You don't remove the substance, because you can't. He'll always be able to get it if he wants it badly enough. You remove the desire for it. Give any other answer and you're just fooling yourself


Oh you mean that they have heroin for the junkies in the treatment program? And the the treatment program is just a bunch of people convincing the junkie to not take heroin? LOL a treatment program forces the junkie to get clean and go through the withdrawals by taking the heroin away...

You can't remove the desire for people to commit violence. That's the thing nudiepants. You can't do that. There is no answer for that. You CAN remove a tool that makes it easy for people to kill a bunch of innocent people though.

The way you think is so stupid. It's like having two children in a room and one of them keeps hitting the other with a stick... Instead of taking the stick away so the victim stops getting their head split open your solution is remove the desire for the kid hitting the other with a stick but you have no way of actually removing that desire. Your solution is to basically do nothing. That or give the other kid a stick too right? So they can both fuck each other up. But then one kid gets a bigger stick so the other kid needs a bigger stick and on and on and on. When you could have just taken the stick away to begin with THEN try and figure out how to remove the desire for violence. Your solution is backwards.

All because you enjoy your little man's hobby of shooting. I get it you need to feel powerful somehow. But when does common sense and the wake of despair left behind after these senseless mass murders outweigh your love for your hobby?






Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:55:26 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
LadyX wrote:


Do I wish he hadn't had a gun? Yes. In this case though, do I think he'd have probably knifed a few people, maybe started an apartment fire, and perhaps run somebody down in his car? Yes.

Nothing scientific, just a hunch.



By that way of thinking why not just make fully automatic weapons legal then? I mean he was gonna kill someone anyway. I guess he would have managed to hit nearly 20 people with his car right? If he was lucky he would have started the fire in a way where the building burned down before the firemen got there right? Why don't we hear more stories about apartment buildings trapping everyone inside and killing them all before the firemen get there? Must be because they are good at what they do.

If they are going to kill anyway and it's not guns then why do we even have any kind of laws about it. Why are some guns banned and some aren't? What is the difference then.





LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:58:56 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
Magical_felix wrote:


By that way of thinking why not just make fully automatic weapons legal then? I mean he was gonna kill someone anyway. I guess he would have managed to hit nearly 20 people with his car right? If he was lucky he would have started the fire in a way where the building burned down before the firemen got there right? Why don't we hear more stories about apartment buildings trapping everyone inside and killing them all before the firemen get there? Must be because they are good at what they do.

If they are going to kill anyway and it's not guns then why do we even have any kind of laws about it. Why are some guns banned and some aren't? What is the difference then.



Not really making a pro-gun argument here. Just stating that in this case, I think we were dealing with one of those who'd have projected his rage at others one way or the other.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:05:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:


Blah, blah, blah, and a couple of random personal attacks as well.




Yes, junkies in treatment programs get illicit drugs smuggled in every day. And what are you gonna do - get rid of every stick in the world? No, unless you're an asshole, you teach the kid not to hit.

Elliott Rodger was a severely disturbed individual. He was able to obtain firearms in a state with some of the strictest firearms laws in the nation. More laws wouldn't have prevented this. This wasn't a brief "dark period" in his life. He plotted it for years.

Assume for a moment that we live in your gun-free utopia, and that Rodger wasn't able to use a firearm. So? His first three victims were all stabbed to death. In your mind, I suppose that's a more pleasant way to be murdered.

He would have used knives, bombs, clubs, even his cherished BMW. The death toll might have been even higher, the tragedy greater. People like you are the problem, because you refuse to acknowledge what the real problem is. You want to blame a tool for the actions of the user, and that's not only counter productive, it's just insane.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:09:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


Not really making a pro-gun argument here. Just stating that in this case, I think we were dealing with one of those who'd have projected his rage at others one way or the other.


This shouldn't even be a pro-gun vs anti-gun discussion. It should be a "how can we be proactive in preventing wackos from repeating this kind of terror attack" discussion.
Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:09:12 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,156
Location: California
LadyX wrote:


Not really making a pro-gun argument here. Just stating that in this case, I think we were dealing with one of those who'd have projected his rage at others one way or the other.


Some ways are less deadly than others.

You said there was merit in not making it hard for people like this to stockpile firearms because they were gonna do something stupid anyway. Don't see how anyone with common sense could think that the result would have been the same if he didn't have the fire power he had.

The onion's article on this was pretty spot on even if it's tongue in cheek.





LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:14:20 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
Magical_felix wrote:


Some ways are less deadly than others.

You said there was merit in not making it hard for people like this to stockpile firearms because they were gonna do something stupid anyway.


That's not really what I was implying; I could have been clearer.

I do think a casualty of gun-rights debates is that even now, the underlying recipe for violence isn't dealt with. I think guns are a big problem. I don't think they're the entire problem. As I stated before, this case brings to light a few things different than most mass shootings lately, and makes a whole other discussion possible. If you want to just stick with the gun angle though, fair enough.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.