[worry]

I will literally never stop calling it a hobby.

It's entirely false that our "freedom" comes from this hobby, and I wouldn't want the kind of 'freedom' bought by 30,000 dead civilians annually anyway.

Obdigore, on 22 February 2018 - 08:55 PM, said:

The 2nd amendment was originally included for 2 reasons. The first, was to put down slave revolts, and the second is to defend against other nations, as the founding fathers didn't make any provision for, in fact many were against, a standing military.

There was absolutely nothing included in any writings about keeping the United States government in line with armed force.

Here's where I will grant Nico something. There is an element of the 2nd Amendment that imagines the States (as in the individual states) protecting themselves from the federal government. That might seem a little quaint, but the 3rd Amendment (the one about not being forced to lodge soldiers) may seem quaint too, but who knows how things would have shaken out if we didn't have it? But this means a few specific things about the 2nd:

Most importantly, it's a States' Rights compromise. And we ALL know what states' rights is a euphemism for. The 2nd Amendment is one of the first examples of the same 'compromise' our country has made time and again. So along that narrow line, it's fair imo to say you're both right.

More generally, it imagines a United States where the individual states really are more sovereign. There actually is a bit of quaintness about it, relative to how we think of nations now.

It's not explicit in the text, but like the 3rd Amendment, it was written in reflection of a time of emergency, with emergency situations in mind. Regardless of where they're stored, the guns come out for well-regulated militia use in collective defense of the State.

There's absolutely nothing in the 2nd Amendment in the text or historically that addresses or even imagines individual self defense. Perhaps the founders thought it was obvious from other aspects of the body of the Constitution that self defense was a natural right. But that's what makes the 2nd such a navel-gazing dunce cap of an amendment: it's a lousy compromise between high-minded ideals, statecraft, and the special interests of a few very rich, very slave-owning men, and it stinks up the rest of the Bill of Rights with how obvious that is.

And speaking of special interests, the individual right to bear arms was excreted by SCOTUS in 2008 in the Heller decision, the culmination of the gun industry lobby pouring money into our politics.

[Nicodimas]

Obdigore, on 22 February 2018 - 09:21 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 22 February 2018 - 09:13 PM, said:

@ Obigore: I actually don’t currently own any guns, bit of a social experiment this last year. I still have means to buy one tomorrow.. they aren’t going anywhere. At this point there are so many it wouldn’t be too tough to find one really if it did go to shit. The hardest thing is I can see my shooting skills go down, but have been using a buddies at the range. This last year I stopped carrying outright. I did this kind of at this forums behest kinda..

I really don’t buy what your selling though. Wish I could properly explain it to you, but probably not going to change your mind.

American gun violence has been failing for thirty years. We are a safer society.

Please don’t OMG your approach as your constructiveposts you have armed me with tons of facts that I have listened too. There is however the freedom aspect you should ponder .. why this is so important?? I firmly believe that.

I really don't care that you personally don't own any guns, unless you have also changed your stance on them, and support taking them away from the populace at large.

I'm not selling anything, that's the thing. I'm not Alex Jones, trying to sell you Super Omega Bone Broth, not GMO but totally GMO.

I'm trying to give you facts. I'm trying to help you understand what reality is, as opposed to what you want it to me. 'The Freedom Aspect' sounds like a ride at some NASCAR track where you fuck a bald eagle then drive a stock car into a giant tub of milk.

Guns bring American Citizens literally no freedom. Guns do not provide freedom to the poor, the disheartened, the huddled masses. Guns do not provide freedom to 330 million american citizens. Guns are not 'freedom sticks', or some sort of financial security generators, or even some sort of back-up plan in case the US Military decides to kill us all. Guns literally do one thing, they kill living creatures. That is their purpose.

There are times and places for guns. Being in the hands of citizens for no reason other than the founding fathers viewpoints were tainted from their struggle against Britain is idiocy to the level of the movie of the same name. GUNS, THE LIFE MUTILATOR.

Fuck off with your 'oh im one of the good pro-gun people.' I notice you backed right off your 'George Washington Loved Remingtons!' spiel from your earlier post. Do you only post lies until people call you out on them, or do you still believe that, because it's easier than accepting that you have been essentially programmed by the NRA?

@ obigore: Thank you for your reply and will consider what you have stated.

Note: The NRA has never really played a place in my life. Never sure where you got that from.. well never been a member or anything.

[Andorion]

worry, on 22 February 2018 - 09:43 PM, said:

I will literally never stop calling it a hobby.

It's entirely false that our "freedom" comes from this hobby, and I wouldn't want the kind of 'freedom' bought by 30,000 dead civilians annually anyway.

Obdigore, on 22 February 2018 - 08:55 PM, said:

The 2nd amendment was originally included for 2 reasons. The first, was to put down slave revolts, and the second is to defend against other nations, as the founding fathers didn't make any provision for, in fact many were against, a standing military.

There was absolutely nothing included in any writings about keeping the United States government in line with armed force.

Here's where I will grant Nico something. There is an element of the 2nd Amendment that imagines the States (as in the individual states) protecting themselves from the federal government. That might seem a little quaint, but the 3rd Amendment (the one about not being forced to lodge soldiers) may seem quaint too, but who knows how things would have shaken out if we didn't have it? But this means a few specific things about the 2nd:

Most importantly, it's a States' Rights compromise. And we ALL know what states' rights is a euphemism for. The 2nd Amendment is one of the first examples of the same 'compromise' our country has made time and again. So along that narrow line, it's fair imo to say you're both right.

More generally, it imagines a United States where the individual states really are more sovereign. There actually is a bit of quaintness about it, relative to how we think of nations now.

It's not explicit in the text, but like the 3rd Amendment, it was written in reflection of a time of emergency, with emergency situations in mind. Regardless of where they're stored, the guns come out for well-regulated militia use in collective defense of the State.

There's absolutely nothing in the 2nd Amendment in the text or historically that addresses or even imagines individual self defense. Perhaps the founders thought it was obvious from other aspects of the body of the Constitution that self defense was a natural right. But that's what makes the 2nd such a navel-gazing dunce cap of an amendment: it's a lousy compromise between high-minded ideals, statecraft, and the special interests of a few very rich, very slave-owning men, and it stinks up the rest of the Bill of Rights with how obvious that is.

And speaking of special interests, the individual right to bear arms was excreted by SCOTUS in 2008 in the Heller decision, the culmination of the gun industry lobby pouring money into our politics.

Another element to the 2nd Amendment way back in the 18th Century was the problems posed by Native Americans as the citizens of the 13 colonies expanded westward.

Regarding guns, militias and states rights, I see the 2nd to be a hangover from the war of independence where state militias did play an important role. Also there was a certain "Confederationist" mentality where the states were thought to be a lot more autonomous.

Both these ideas died in the Civil War which demonstrated that states could not defy the Union on the really large matters.

I remember that Scotus decision, where Scalia read the two clauses separately and refused to associate militias with the right to bear arms.

The idea of putting vets in schools is idiotic. Firstly they already have enough PTSD from the crap they were thrown into by the government. Just because the VA is a joke, and the USA as a country simply does not care enough to actually look after the wounded soldiers coming home, does not mean that they can be sources of discipline and protection.

Teachers teach students. If they are having problems, it is because of the fact that they are paid like beggars and get little support from the government. Soldiers have no place in schools.

Frankly getting a gun and getting a car should be a similar process. Cars are far more necessary than guns for most Americans in their daily lives as public transport has been so badly neglected.

[Vengeance]

Nicodimas, on 22 February 2018 - 09:21 PM, said:

@ Macros:

Trump stated raising it to be 21. I’m for that as I am for raising the age of military enlistment too. 18 is clearly a child.

@ Vengy: I like that idea for reasons and not. How would the poor get by? My buddies and his wife barely scrape by in the current system. The rich having more access to something so personal as self-defence would bother a crowd.

I don’t think their would be money in it for insurance companies and that’s why they haven’t tried this. A publicly traded company wouldn’t go near it...

Would the NRA offer this? Probably. How comfortable do you feel making them richer ?

If you are too poor to have insurance then don't buy a gun. You would be very surprised what insurance companies would be willing to sell. They would go for it, especially once they loose out to national healthcare. The NRA couldn't sell insurance they are a nonprofit and a terrorts organization just like plo.

[Vengeance]

Just like red States and voting rights. You have the right to vote. Youhave the right to a fire arm. It doesn't have to be easy or cheap.

[Andorion]

The Swampfather, on 23 February 2018 - 02:46 AM, said:

I would say this is where the laser fine details would come into play. Putting vets in schools(to teach) is not idiotic. Putting vets in schools with guns(to teach) is idiotic. Many kids could very well benefit from a sterner education esp in a more troubled life. The opposite could happen in opposite lives. Parents would need to be well informed and it be proven true that they aren't trying push enlisting upon graduation.

Where would be the line on not being able to get the job on recorded cases of PTSD and treatments to comfortably be around kids teaching them? Not all vets suffer from this and I have no personal exp with anyone who has among friends and family. I could/can freely talk to my grandfather about WW2/Korea or Nam with the old man without it bothering them in the least. Never woke up in the middle of the night in my childhood with the old man out of his mind. Before I knew any better I asked no no questions all the time. "Dad what did it feel like to get shot?" "It hurt like hell boy but I got some time off with some pretty nurses." "Dad did you ever kill anyone?" "I don't know if I did or not. I fired my gun with everyone else and people fell down where I was shooting." "Dad did any of your friends ever die?" "Oh all the time. We would be walking one minute and the next thing I knew they were blown apart or shot up and I would have their blood and guts all over me." Ed: 30 yrs later I overheard my son asking the same questions and he was as cool and collected now as he was back then with me. Afterwards I explained to him that he should not be seeking these answers out from vets.

Many vets could make outstanding coaches and really improve a schools sport league.

I would most certainly ask questions but my 1st thought is not oh hell no.

I am saying that not all vets are suited to be teachers. They need to be trained about teaching - here, in my country you need to complete a fairly thorough 1-2 year degree course to get a B.Ed degree to be able to teach.

Also I am highly sceptical of this sterner treatment idea - this just seems like code word for intimidation and corporal punishment.

Also, the idea of a militarized physical education class is my idea of a nightmare - not all students are physically equal, not all are suited to athletics and I have always viewed dubiously the idea of schools forcing students to do things they can't do. Teaching the basics of physical fitness especially from a lifestyle and health viewpoint is fine. Dragooning students into sports that have been clinically proven to inflict brain damage is not.

I have never understood the excessive emphasis American schools put on sports - I once heard that sports brings in money, which basically implies that actual public funding is inadequate. That is what needs to be fixed.

Regarding PTSD, my point was that the US government has a horrific record of post-conflict treatment of veterans especially with regard to mental health. In that context, expecting veterans to once again put their bodies on the line because the people are too dumb and politicians are too bought to implement common sense gun control regulations is the height of hypocrisy.

[worry]

Nevyn, on 22 February 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

I got that you said that earlier.

And on some issues, you are right.

But I have yet to see evidence guns are one of those issues.

With each generation, american kids grow up with more diverse friends and classmates. That does wonders over time for fighting racism, and sexism, helps with gay and transgender rights and other issues. But the gun culture starts in the home.

And also, this particular generation are growing up with far more polarized news. 30+% of them are growing up in 'fox news' households, which means they are also growing up with a build in distrust of both science, and "mainstream media".

And I worry that when people talk about how the next generation will change so much, part of why they think that is what has changed is they are no longer even talking to those who disagree.

I understand the caution, I just don't think people are that divided on this. Broken record: it's a money in politics thing & it's a hierarchy-of-issues thing for voters. Most people want the basic gun control reforms, the NRA doesn't and has money, the voters prioritize other issues so don't punish NRA blood money recipients at the polls. The challenges are: messing with the NRA's money, and getting shunned by entire generations is gonna do that well enough (including boycotts/public shaming of financial partners who rely on a broader base of customers); and making gun control a higher priority issue for voters, which takes sustained organization and awareness -- historically spotty, but perhaps seeing the start of a sea change. I don't think Gen Z are going to convince fogeys and boomers to change; but some of their own Gen X parents? Millennials who are halfway there already? It's a good start.

Also, I don't think of the news as particularly polarized either. Sure, Fox News is extreme, but CNN & MSNBC are the other extreme in the way Diet Coke with Lime is the opposite extreme of Coke (Chris Hayes is the lime btw). Besides, 30% of people don't grow up in Fox News households. The median viewer of Fox News is 69-70 years old, and they aren't raising younger Millennials and Gen Z. Sean Hannity, who has the top show on cable news, gets like ~3 million viewers. ABC World News Tonight, for comparison, gets 8-9 million viewers nightly.

I do hear your concern about information and social bubbles. I don't know how deeply I have the same concerns. Enough that while I'm inspired and hopeful, I wouldn't bet my house on this just yet? Still, the fact is that conservatism as a philosophy is shrinking by generation. I am concerned that this shrinking constituency will hold similar (and thus even more outsized) legislative power for the foreseeable future. The numbers aren't there, but the electoral districts are...combined with an incompetent, entrenched money-suckling Dem party apparatus, the road ahead will be rocky. And it allows for the Stephen Millers of the world to rise a bit easier in one party.

[Maark Abbott]

Nicodimas, on 22 February 2018 - 09:13 PM, said:

American gun violence has been failing for thirty years. We are a safer society.

I have to question this as no society can really be called safe in the first place if their schools are getting shot up, and especially when we're not fully two months into the year and it's the 18th (citation?) incident of this type at a school in 2018. Whereas the UK has had Dunblane, and... I can't even think of a similar incident we've had since then.

Of course that opens the debate as to what obligations society itself has toward safety versus the individual but we'll leave that for another time.

[Macros]

I think the short answer again is

A young girls right to go to school and not get shot 9 times trump's the rights of people wanting to own guns without any regulation or control.

[Morgoth]

How little respect do you have for teachers if you think that it's a good idea to put vets with no formal teaching education into schools and think that'll be perfectly fine? Are you, Nico, under the impression that teaching is easy? That you can just step into it and be great?

And for christ sake, stop with the freedom nonsene! It's such a stereotypical american thing and it makes us all cringe. By any measurable metric except for one I live in a vastly freer society than you do. I cannot, however, own semi-automatic weapons. So, explain to me, Nico, how does guns ensure your freedom? Countries like mine, where guns are not readily available are much freer than yours. Which freedoms are these guns protecting?

[Tiste Simeon]

Morgoth, on 23 February 2018 - 08:15 AM, said:

How little respect do you have for teachers if you think that it's a good idea to put vets with no formal teaching education into schools and think that'll be perfectly fine? Are you, Nico, under the impression that teaching is easy? That you can just step into it and be great?

And for christ sake, stop with the freedom nonsene! It's such a stereotypical american thing and it makes us all cringe. By any measurable metric except for one I live in a vastly freer society than you do. I cannot, however, own semi-automatic weapons. So, explain to me, Nico, how does guns ensure your freedom? Countries like mine, where guns are not readily available are much freer than yours. Which freedoms are these guns protecting?

So much this. By so many measurements, America is not such a land of freedom as they'd have us believe...

[Macros]

No kinder eggs for a start, that should be listed as a crime against humanity right there

[Tsundoku]

Macros, on 23 February 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

No kinder eggs for a start, that should be listed as a crime against humanity right there

I dunno man, after you eat 50 or so, they really don't taste as good as they look.
True story - a mate with more money than impulse control when I was at uni bought like 200 of the damn things to get the toys. So me and a couple of other mates helped him eat them.
Long story short - I can never eat another one again.

Back on topic - worry, I keep reading your projection that conservatism will fall by the wayside when the current generation of old farts dies off. Or at least diminish significantly in it's influence and extremity of beliefs. I'm not so sure, basically because it's always been a thing that we tend to get more conservative as we get older. Those same old farts today were getting shot with rubber bullets and water cannons in the 60s. Is it because we grow more risk-averse as we get older? More straight-out fearful? More stuff to lose if there's a shakeup in society? I dunno, whatever the reason, I believe it's a thing. I'm sorry, I can't give you stats, but I hope you get the gist. Please understand I don't like this either, I'm just saying is all.

HOWEVER: could it be another "thing" that if an individual's politics could be considered a sliding scale (or even see-saw) with full on leftie SJW bleeding heart crybully at one end and gun toting, bible thumping, Fox watchers and/or evil rich bastards at the other end, then perhaps it's not the amount you change over a lifetime, but where you finish compared to where you start?
Ie the further to the left you start, the more likely you are not to finish up at the far right of the spectrum? And the reverse ... although generally people go from left to right with age.
The example of the baby boomers doesn't exactly fill me with optimism though. Fuckers were supposedly all about peace, love freedom etc and now they own everything, hate the idea of peace and cooperation and don't have the decency to pass the resources on and die.

Anyhoo, I'm hoping you're right enough in the sense that we won't have so many at the extreme right as the current lot die off and are replaced. Maybe the next lot will retain enough leftisms to have some empathy. Or at least more than the current lot.

Man, that made more sense in my head.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 23 February 2018 - 11:22 AM

[Cause]

Nicodimas, on 22 February 2018 - 08:38 PM, said:

@ Cause: Gun Free zones account for **90%+** of where all mass shootings occur. Of course they are magnet.. this is called a soft target where you encounter little to no resistance. You know nobody can challenge you when they pick this target. The idea has always been the idea, the thought someone may be carrying.. you don’t know.

I don’t see how it would be tough to geographical locate schools nearer to police stations. Indiana has done this with one that has camera feeds/panic buttons/smoke systems.

I believe every school in my country is a gun free zone by law. Zero school shootings in the 31 years I have been alive. We came close once. I believe a kid took a samurai sword to school and tried to attack someone. https://en.wikipedia...School_slashing

Now I actually used to work as security guard here. Now this is all enecdote of course but I believe the stats in general follow the same trend.

I recall only one instance in which a private citizen fought of his attacker with a gun. His robbers pulled out a toy gun (which looked real) and asked for his waller. He pulled out hiw own gun and opened fire. Had their gun not been fake he would have died.

I recall an instance when I was called by a man saying he had just opened fire on a suspicious black man on the street from his balcony and I needed to send the cops. I had to reply that he had opened fire on my patrolman and the law gave him no legal rights to open fire on people in a public street and we would be pursuing charges.

A man once attempted to test the readiness of our security company by pretending to follow one of our patrol cars, when they stopped he got out the car and would you believe it things escalated (he was armed) and he got shot for being stupid

I recall a man who was armed got hijacked and had no time to reach for his gun. They pulled him out his car threw him to the ground and when he rolled over and they saw his holster they pistol whipped him with his own gun and drove off with it. This story and variations of it were the most common

Once a group of armed men were having dinner at a restaurant when it got held up. It happened so fast and the risk to staff and patrons was so great not one of them felt it was a good idea to draw their guns and fight.

Guns belong in the hand of those well trained and prepared to use them. They are not toys (I know you agree with me on this) and by far away too many people who own them and not prepared in their use and lack the proper training. Fighting off a mugger or a hijacker requires more than just a gun it requires vigilance to see the possible threat coming, training to be able to draw the gun quickly and with steady hands a premediated readiness to know that when the moment comes you know how far you will go. Firing a gun safely (especially in a public place) requires training to check the sightlines behind your target.

People who walk in to a gunshop buy a gun and then keep it in their purse or put it on their belt as part of their EDC with no further thoughts are more likely to be shot by their own guns than save another's life.

I actually support responsible gun ownership no reason not too. Id even like to own one for the same reason I own a knife, it can be a useful tool. Plus they are cool! No getting around that point and I think for too many people that's the be all and end all of it. When I was hired as a security guard (I was actually working dispatch and control) they had me get certified with firearms. I wrote a test (open book) and I had to shoot a paper sized target at 10 or 20 metres. First time I picked up a gun I passed. I went back to work, gave them my certification and told them I would never carry a gun while working as my duties did not require it as far as I was concerned and I felt my training to be inadequate.

Got to get back to experiments. Will speak more about the real dangers of terrorism and public threats at malls, cinemas etc. when I get back,

[Vengeance]

Morgoth, on 23 February 2018 - 08:15 AM, said:

How little respect do you have for teachers if you think that it's a good idea to put vets with no formal teaching education into schools and think that'll be perfectly fine? Are you, Nico, under the impression that teaching is easy? That you can just step into it and be great?

And for christ sake, stop with the freedom nonsene! It's such a stereotypical american thing and it makes us all cringe. By any measurable metric except for one I live in a vastly freer society than you do. I cannot, however, own semi-automatic weapons. So, explain to me, Nico, how does guns ensure your freedom? Countries like mine, where guns are not readily available are much freer than yours. Which freedoms are these guns protecting?

Well the right to own guns. Jesus it is like you aren't watching FOX news and the NRA. The right to own guns is the Second Admendment. It is more important then any other document.

The Bill of rights was written in 1791 by the brilliant founders of our country.


You would have to go to an earlier document from the very founding of our country to get a document that has more importance. Something like the Declaration of Independence.

Lets take a gander at what that has to say.

en in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

My god it does say the right to life. It is as if our founders after spending years fighting for their freedom valued life. Welp I guess that settles it a childs right to life was of greater importance to the men who wrote the Declaration of Independance and the Bill of rights then being able to buy a ar-15.

[Slow Ben]

Morgoth, on 23 February 2018 - 08:15 AM, said:

How little respect do you have for teachers if you think that it's a good idea to put vets with no formal teaching education into schools and think that'll be perfectly fine? Are you, Nico, under the impression that teaching is easy? That you can just step into it and be great?

And for christ sake, stop with the freedom nonsene! It's such a stereotypical american thing and it makes us all cringe. By any measurable metric except for one I live in a vastly freer society than you do. I cannot, however, own semi-automatic weapons. So, explain to me, Nico, how does guns ensure your freedom? Countries like mine, where guns are not readily available are much freer than yours. Which freedoms are these guns protecting?

I really think you all are underestimating the amount of Americans who seriously believe they need guns to protect them from our government. I know multiple people in my small town that seriously believe there will be "boots on the ground" in their lifetime. And of course the freedom to protect their families from those who would do them harm. Because if someone is breaking into your home, the only way to deal with that is with a high powered assault rifle.

I live in a town of 5000 people, and seriously, at least 60% don't believe gun control is the answer. That number is probably low. I know you all are surprised by Nico's posts, but they are severely tame compared to some I see. It is seriously terrifying/frustrating to be constantly surrounded by this type of mindset.

[QuickTidal]

So...some of the students dunking on Rubio make me smile.

 RubioIdiot.png (38.44K)
Number of downloads: 0

[Vengeance]

Slow Ben, on 23 February 2018 - 02:08 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 23 February 2018 - 08:15 AM, said:

How little respect do you have for teachers if you think that it's a good idea to put vets with no formal teaching education into schools and think that'll be perfectly fine? Are you, Nico, under the impression that teaching is easy? That you can just step into it and be great?

And for christ sake, stop with the freedom nonsene! It's such a stereotypical american thing and it makes us all cringe. By any measurable metric except for one I live in a vastly freer society than you do. I cannot, however, own semi-automatic weapons. So, explain to me, Nico, how does guns ensure your freedom? Countries like mine, where guns are not readily available are much freer than yours. Which freedoms are these guns protecting?

I really think you all are underestimating the amount of Americans who seriously believe they need guns to protect them from our government. I know multiple people in my small town that seriously believe there will be "boots on the ground" in their lifetime. And of course the freedom to protect their families from those who would do them harm. Because if someone is breaking into your home, the only way to deal with that is with a high powered assault rifle.

I live in a town of 5000 people, and seriously, at least 60% don't believe gun control is the answer. That number is probably low. I know you all are surprised by Nico's posts, but they are severely tame compared to some I see. It is seriously terrifying/frustrating to be constantly surrounded by this type of mindset.

Yeah it is the same where my mom and dad live. My dad was doing some rehad for a shoulder surgery and a bunch of older gentlemen where in the waiting room with my mom. A guy of 80+ years who could barely walk had a pistol on his hip. My mom asked him why he needed a gun. His reply was to stop terrorists. My mom could have walked over kicked his good leg and then pulled out his gun and shot him with it. Why any terrorist would be bothered to come to that small nothing of a town I have no idea. Fuck Fox news and the NRA for making people think that they need to be constantly armed. This America not Afghanistan or the south Sudan.

[Gorefest]

Gun ownership isn't the problem, it's gun mentality and ease of access. As long as someone with a documented history of mental health problems can have easy access to semi-automatic guns and ammunation, there is something fundamentally broken in your society. And it isn't just gun laws. It is also social and healthcare. Probably even more so. Trying to take guns away from people is just fighting the symptoms, not the root causes. Let people have their guns if they want them, just make sure that they are able and competent to handle them.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 23 February 2018 - 03:30 PM

[QuickTidal]

Gorefest, on 23 February 2018 - 03:28 PM, said:

Gun ownership isn't the problem, it's gun mentality and ease of access. As long as someone with a documented history of mental health problems can have easy access to semi-automatic guns and ammunation, there is something fundamentally broken in your society. And it isn't just gun laws. It is also social and healthcare. Probably even more so. Trying to take guns away from people is just fighting the symptoms, not the root causes. Let people have their guns if they want them, just make sure that they are able and competent to handle them.

Actually, the TYPES of guns ARE a big part of the problem.

No civilian needs an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. No one.