[Nicodimas]

amphibian, on 06 October 2015 - 02:00 AM, said:

Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

Sidebar: Been thinking and reviewing stats today.

What about instead of pumping money into new law, what about using current law on the books to go about urban areas to remove guns from people that shouldn't have access to them? This would actually lend credibility to your argument and the pro gunners might relax a little if they saw results...

Know what this reads like to me? "Take the guns away from black people because they steal them."

Off the top of my head, the only mass shooting black people were the DC snipers, the LA guy who died in a fire, and maybe the former reporter who murdered the other reporters on camera.

The vast, vast majority of mass shooters have had legally obtained weapons and were white men.

If I'm more charitable in how I read that, you're talking about home searches for possible firearms based on something that wouldn't clear a warrant in almost every court. That's a huge, huge undertaking and it'd be challenged immediately in court with a high likelihood of being shot down.

Here is the real world example:

https://www.crimesol...ils.aspx?ID=238

[amphibian]

That's heightened patrols in high crime areas.

There is nothing revolutionary about what that experiment says. Furthermore, it would have little to no effect on mass shootings because most of those take place at schools, hospitals, and malls - most of which are not in high crime areas.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 06 October 2015 - 03:39 AM

[EmperorMagus]

I admit I have argued for pro gun positions in the past and I now realize how irrational my positions at the time were. I'm not firmly in the camp of "less guns would solve the problem".

Amph talked about how a large number of the mass shooting were done by white middle-class men which reminded me of this article. It talks about the Racist angle of America's gun laws. I think the article brings up some good points.

[Nicodimas]

amphibian, on 06 October 2015 - 02:22 AM, said:

That's heightened patrols in high crime areas.

There is nothing revolutionary about what that excitement says. Furthermore, it would have little to no effect on mass shootings because most of those take place at schools, hospitals, and malls - most of which are not in high crime areas.

There would have to be a multi-pronged approach to this problem, it's not just mass shootings that are a problem.

http://www.wnd.com/2...tan-death-toll/

[HoosierDaddy]

This thread makes me sick.

For all our international members: This is why America has gun problems. Why there is no solution. Nic's opinion is not uncommon except on this board.

It's the Total Gun solution, like Total War was to War. The only solution is more solution.

I'm so sick of this bullshit. Nic, you are probably well meaning, but your positions are so beyond being a solution they might as well be magic. Guns don't fix guns. Less regulation doesn't fix regulation. Kids and teachers with guns make a school far more dangerous than you could ever imagine. I grew up in schools, all my family are teachers. I was a little shit. I would've been so fucking tempted to shoot that thing that my mouth would water, just like everything else in my parents' desks: superglue, glue somebody; stapler, stapled kids; scissors, stabbed someone, thank god we gave no one access to the paper cutter.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...."

As a CALI award winner in Legislation let me give you my interpretation: "Being a free state, a well regulated militia is necessary. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

As a non-2nder, a "well regulated militia" gives the government every reason in the world to chop the NRA into pieces and actually legislate this to death. Give them muskets and hunting rifles.

That'll never work. NRA hates government. Republicans hate government. America has been poisoned to hate government.

There are already private mercenary companies. Those are obviously necessary to a free state.

[Andorion]

HoosierDaddy, on 06 October 2015 - 02:41 AM, said:

This thread makes me sick.

For all our international members: This is why America has gun problems. Why there is no solution. Nic's opinion is not uncommon except on this board.

It's the Total Gun solution, like Total War was to War. The only solution is more solution.

I'm so sick of this bullshit. Nic, you are probably well meaning, but your positions are so beyond being a solution they might as well be magic. Guns don't fix guns. Less regulation doesn't fix regulation. Kids and teachers with guns make a school far more dangerous than you could ever imagine. I grew up in schools, all my family are teachers. I was a little shit. I would've been so fucking tempted to shoot that thing that my mouth would water, just like everything else in my parents' desks: superglue, glue somebody; stapler, stapled kids; scissors, stabbed someone, thank god we gave no one access to the paper cutter.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...."

As a CALI award winner in Legislation let me give you my interpretation: "Being a free state, a well regulated militia is necessary. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

As a non-2nder, a "well regulated militia" gives the government every reason in the world to chop the NRA into pieces and actually legislate this to death. Give them muskets and hunting rifles.

That'll never work. NRA hates government. Republicans hate government. America has been poisoned to hate government.

There are already private mercenary companies. Those are obviously necessary to a free state.

Haven't had the time to read all the new posts, but my thoughts on the "guns in schools" issue.

I knew some people in school. If I had thought they would have legally sanctioned access to guns I would have started running and not stopped. Guns in school is insane. The kids would grow up imagining a society where everybody is armed and walk the streets giving each other intimidating looks. Then the chap with the Uzi or the M4 decides to assert dominance over the poor kid carrying only a semi-auto. And to enforce the laws ina society like this the police would have to be armed like the Green Berets or SEAL teams or something.

[Silencer]

Shinrei, on 05 October 2015 - 11:26 PM, said:

I like Venges post.

Licensing and training people and registering the guns. Close the gun-show loophole and have a ban on private sales of guns except through a licensed intermediary. This is just making "responsible gun owners" more responsible.

Now while I disagree that taking guns away would mean "civil war", I do think that there would be significant violence that would erupt if there was any involuntary collecting of guns. In America you have a populace that is by nature (and on average) more distrusting of the government and the gun culture is more embedded than Australia.

Not going to get into the whole debate again - especially not with Nico doing his insane troll logic bit again (much as it reflects far too many other American's positions), but;

No. The Aussies were just as into their guns. There were rallies. There was shouting and violence and people threatening to shoot anyone who tried to take their guns. It is the single best case study in the world for the current US situation. The population was smaller, but the vocal side was just as vocal and just as large a proportion of the population. C'mon Shin. You know this is true.

[Nicodimas]

Quote

I knew some people in school. If I had thought they would have legally sanctioned access to guns I would have started running and not stopped. Guns in school is insane.

Your not understanding the argument then, children already have access to guns on this level. Today. A child could easily take there parents..neighbors..whatever.

Start here:
This is direct and intelligent reply. Your right kids are little shits, so I totally understand where you are coming from there. Trying to get my 10 year nephew not to goof off with a mere BB gun was a enlightening experience. I totally banned him from having one at this time as his parent's aren't gun savvy . Maturity was not there, but I am glad we went over the rules.

The curriculum exists and to knowledge used to be taught into the 50-- 60s-- 70s and was removed. Money issues I would suspect.
http://www.outdoorli...-public-schools

If we are being realistic--we use school to educate our children--are we just to bury are heads in the sand on gun violence. I don't think im going to you know magically change you all's opinion.

Second point:

Magic* may be the key. Now think about this for a moment. We can technology the shit out of this argument for a moment. People want to feel safe? People want the means to defend themselves? People like to hunt? How do the two parties come together to fix this in a meaningful way. Banning is never occurring at this junction, until overall violence is spiked DOWN hard. You have to make people feel safe...all people.

Technology:

Hand/finger print analysis. @ Venge However...
Wifi embedded device that sends back shots as they occur to a hub.
Wifi sends back information if previous felon picks up a gun.

This technology seems cheap cost-wise, is implementable with current tech and on current devices.

[amphibian]

Guns in a school environment is a terrible, terrible idea. There would be a near exponential rise in accidental deaths and stolen guns.

The schools have enough trouble keeping kids in attendance and fully participating.

The reason children have access to guns that they do is because there is a culture of gun ownership across the country that does not properly use gun safes and/or other methods of security. That culture has come about since the 1950s.

Back then, children did NOT have widespread access to guns. In the 1950s, something like half of American households had guns (about 22 million). Now, only about 30% do - 117 million - but the number of guns owned by Americans has gone up to 320 million. The numbers of guns owned have gone up by 80 million since 2002 - and the trend looks like it is directly tied to Obama's elections and the subsequent white paranoia because gun ownership didn't spike after 9/11/2001, it spiked after Obama was elected.

Anyways, my point was that fewer people are holding WAY more guns now than they did back then in the 1950s and most of these guns are not for regular use/utility purposes (crow-shooting, hunting etc).

Addressing this newly risen culture should not involve school-based training of kids. The methods used should involve directly addressing the problem of the known bad gun dealers, they should address the adults who currently own guns, and they should address the astounding number of weapons and ammunition a single person is able to have.

[Shinrei]

@Silencer

Actually I did not know that. I watched a mini-documentary (one of those 10 minute type deals) about the Australian mass shooting and what happened afterwards politically, but protests etc., were not included in that piece. All the Australians I know in Japan only say things like "we gave up ours and it was no big deal, so America should too." So yeah, I had no idea.

@Amph

Your post reminded me about the interesting factoid that schools 50 years ago still had shooting ranges and competitive shooting teams. So yeah, more guns now and perhaps a more rabid culture, but it's not like they weren't around.

For whatever people think about Nico, he's right about there being a problem with the lack of enforcement of laws that already exist. We don't want to fall into the trap of re-casting existing laws so politicians look good for "doing something" while nothing actually changes.

[Andorion]

Nicodimas, on 06 October 2015 - 03:30 AM, said:

Quote

I knew some people in school. If I had thought they would have legally sanctioned access to guns I would have started running and not stopped. Guns in school is insane.

Your not understanding the argument then, children already have access to guns on this level. Today. A child could easily take there parents..neighbors..whatever.

Start here:
This is direct and intelligent reply. Your right kids are little shits, so I totally understand where you are coming from there. Trying to get my 10 year nephew not to goof off with a mere BB gun was a enlightening experience. I totally banned him from having one at this time as his parent's aren't gun savvy . Maturity was not there, but I am glad we went over the rules.

The curriculum exists and to knowledge used to be taught into the 50-- 60s-- 70s and was removed. Money issues I would suspect.
http://www.outdoorli...-public-schools

If we are being realistic--we use school to educate our children--are we just to bury are heads in the sand on gun violence. I don't think im going to you know magically change you all's opinion.

Second point:

Magic* may be the key. Now think about this for a moment. We can technology the shit out of this argument for a moment. People want to feel safe? People want the means to defend themselves? People like to hunt? How do the two parties come together to fix this in a meaningful way. Banning is never occurring at this junction, until overall violence is spiked DOWN hard. You have to make people feel safe...all people.

Technology:

Hand/finger print analysis. @ Venge However...
Wifi embedded device that sends back shots as they occur to a hub.
Wifi sends back information if previous felon picks up a gun.

This technology seems cheap cost-wise, is implementable with current tech and on current devices.

Firstly, why let kids have access to guns at all. You wouldn't trust them with cleaning fluids or the kitchen knife, why give them guns?

Secondly, you want to educate kids on guns? Sure. Tell them the history of guns, the frontier, the wars, the hunting. Then tell them about the shootings and the massacres. Show them photos. Show them interviews of the survivors and the victims families. Show them the consequences of being trigger happy and teach them how not to enact their little revenge fantasy. I am sure the mothers of Sandy Hook or the violence victims of Chicago would be happy to help educate future gun owners about gun violence and its consequences.

Thirdly, hunting. I personally neither like nor support hunting. But thats not the issue. What do you need to hunt? A hunting rifle? I assume these are basically bolt-action, or semi-auto with a limited magazine? You don't need assault rifles with high capacity magazines. Also I think hunters should only be allowed to have loaded guns within the designated hunting area. Plus to qualify for a hunting license, you should need to demonstrate proficiency with a gun, and have proper eyesight etc. And I don't mean submit a certificate, but actually take a designed test at the hunting area under supervision of rangers. Like you get a driving license after passing a driving test.

Fourthly, gun tracking and recording equipment. Fantastic idea. But in my experience, if its digital it can be hacked. This will spawn a sub-industry of gun-hackers.

Fifthly, Finance. Who is going to pay for this national database of gun tracking, gun videos and snapshots? It would mean increased taxes somewhere. Ask the right-wing gun lobby how they feel about increased taxes.

Sixthly, Acceptance. Do you really think that the same people who hoard arms for fear of government taking their liberty will accept a single regulatory measure, let alone gun tracking and recording? I they do they should also accept government checks on who is buying arms to begin with

I did some browsing and reading up last night. Unfortunately I didn't save the links but it was eye-opening.

[Andorion]

amphibian, on 06 October 2015 - 02:00 AM, said:

Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

Sidebar: Been thinking and reviewing stats today.

What about instead of pumping money into new law, what about using current law on the books to go about urban areas to remove guns from people that shouldn't have access to them? This would actually lend credibility to your argument and the pro gunners might relax a little if they saw results...

Know what this reads like to me? "Take the guns away from black people because they steal them."

Off the top of my head, the only mass shooting black people were the DC snipers, the LA guy who died in a fire, and maybe the former reporter who murdered the other reporters on camera.

The vast, vast majority of mass shooters have had legally obtained weapons and were white men.

If I'm more charitable in how I read that, you're talking about home searches for possible firearms based on something that wouldn't clear a warrant in almost every court. That's a huge, huge undertaking and it'd be challenged immediately in court with a high likelihood of being shot down.

How is 'shouldn't have access' defined? Criminal record? Health problems (mental)? Record of domestic abuse?

With the gun show and online loophole, how can anybody even begin to know?

The church shooter - Dylan something.. I think his gun was gifted to him by his uncle . How can that be checked?

[Macros]

Guns shouldn't change hands without permits and licensing, who the heel gives a gun as a present??

Again a video, hmm, a bit of swearing in it so possibly nsfw.

But Jim Jefferies (Australian) tears it apart pretty well too.

[Solidsnape]

Anyone who thinks guns and schools are a good combination, shouldn't be allowed a gun.
Or a child.

[Shinrei]

Who gives a gun as a present? Give a gun collector some rare piece and they'll be ecstatic. My uncle gave his son his own hunting rifle on his 18th birthday. If that seems strange, it might accurately be called a cultural difference.

When I was home over the holidays I went to the range with my uncle and brother in law and we shot a couple of WWII era pistols that my uncle has. While I"m not a gun person myself, I could see why he likes them.

To be frank, this issue pulls me both ways because I can understand the allure from a standpoint of collecting, going to the range to have some fun, hunting for game or whatever. And I generally dislike the idea of banning something that many enjoy over the actions of a few.

On the other hand, whatever you feel about guns having so much gun violence in the US compared to other developed countries IS a problem. One tragedy is too many, and we have far more than one tragedy on our hands. Something has to be done to make guns harder to get and/or harder to keep with some sort of sensible registration and training requirements too.

In my old age, I find I become less and less sure about issues like this. I can't agree with people saying "guns are terrible and serve no purpose and anyone who likes them is crazy". Nor can I agree with people who say "more guns are the solution".

[Macros]

I can see that side of it yea shin, a rare or collectable, but I don't think that's what the guy was given, he was just given a gun.
Proper licensing and legislation of guns and ammo shouldn't (in theory) hinder a gun collector or enthusiast, but look how easy it is to lose your driving license, and guns are more deadly than that. Again having no license doesn't stop some people, but the majority it will.

Keep ammunition at the gun ranges where you go to shoot the guns, have every gun documented and tracked, no live ammo, etc these are checks and measures that mean people who just like guns (see video) can still go and enjoy them in a safe environment and the butters will have a harder time getting and or using guns.

I'm genuinely baffled how people don't see a direct correlation between taking guns off the streets and a lower fatality count.

If you had to have a license to carry a mobile phone and could only make calls in a specific area, wouldn't you make less calls?

[DeadHedge]

I'm not trying to weigh in on the debate but on the subject of letting kids know about guns I think that this shows that kids are clearly not mature enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-34450841

and this

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-34428946

This post has been edited by DeadHedge: 06 October 2015 - 11:29 AM

[Tsundoku]

Silencer, on 06 October 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 05 October 2015 - 11:26 PM, said:

I like Venges post.Licensing and training people and registering the guns. Close the gun-show loophole and have a ban on private sales of guns except through a licensed intermediary. This is just making "responsible gun owners" more responsible.Now while I disagree that taking guns away would mean "civil war", I do think that there would be significant violence that would erupt if there was any involuntary collecting of guns. In America you have a populace that is by nature (and on average) more distrusting of the government and the gun culture is more embedded than Australia.

Not going to get into the whole debate again - especially not with Nico doing his insane troll logic bit again (much as it reflects far too many other American's positions), but;No. The Aussies were just as into their guns. There were rallies. There was shouting and violence and people threatening to shoot anyone who tried to take their guns. It is the single best case study in the world for the current US situation. The population was smaller, but the vocal side was just as vocal and just as large a proportion of the population. C'mon Shin. You know this is true.

Shinrei, on 06 October 2015 - 04:17 AM, said:

@SilencerActually I did not know that. I watched a mini-documentary (one of those 10 minute type deals) about the Australian mass shooting and what happened afterwards politically, but protests etc., were not included in that piece. All the Australians I know in Japan only say things like "we gave up ours and it was no big deal, so America should too." So yeah, I had no idea.@AmphYour post reminded me about the interesting factoid that schools 50 years ago still had shooting ranges and competitive shooting teams. So yeah, more guns now and perhaps a more rabid culture, but it's not like they weren't around. For whatever people think about Nico, he's right about there being a problem with the lack of enforcement of laws that already exist. We don't want to fall into the trap of re-casting existing laws so politicians look good for "doing something" while nothing actually changes.

Silencer has a point about the rallies and the venom. The difference though between us and the USA is - I thi nk - our general attitude toward our Govt (ambivalence, amused contempt, but mostly trusting they're either generally looking out for us or at least they're only a little bit corrupt and/or too incompetent to fuck us over). Plus our attitude toward each other, the general citizen in the street. We just don't have the fear, the distrust, the sheer paranoia that the USA has. While I often lament what I see as us appearing to go down the "USA path" on a lot of cultural issues, we generally are pretty chilled and trusting of each other by comparison. Of course we have our looney fringes, but they are by far the exception, not the rule - or at least the significant minority that they are in the USA.

Does that make sense?

Anyhoo, here's Chris Rock with what will always be one of the best solutions I have ever heard:

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 06 October 2015 - 02:55 PM

[Vengeance]

Why all guns should have finger prints that only allow the owners to fire them.

Kids shooting kids over puppies

[Vengeance]

Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 08:57 PM, said:

Quote

Any one who sells fully auto conversion kits are held libel if a gun is used in a crime that has been converted to semi or fully automatic if it is found out that said person purchased a kit. Even if the gun they used was not the one that had been converted. Once again it is a red flag.

This is already law and you will be getting a knock on your door/search if you have one of these. However, there are interia based devices that are considered legal that do the same thing. They review these constantly if they should be illegal, some aren't though.

Quote

If you are purchasing a fire arm a federal and state back ground check should be ran. If you are purchasing more then one fire arm then a mental check should be ran. Are you on medication if so what and why...... If you are purchasing a semi-automatic (shouldn't be able to ) gun then a check to see if you have ever been committed and have ever been deemed a threat to yourself or others.

FBI NICS is run on every gun purchase. The tough part is once you own a thing selling a thing is not tracked. I have no problem filling out the form and making everyone do this at a gun shop <FFL>.

Quote

No citizen should be able to purchase bullet proof jackets (Oregon killer had one). If you are unwilling to prevent them then the purchase of a bullet proof jacket should be a red flag. If someone has red flags a visit from the local authorities should happen as soon as possible.

I don't see a problem with self protection, this would be tough to implement.

You have a gun for self protection. You have a bullet proof jacket to commit crimes against the state and other people. This is not Afghanistan we are not a country at war with large internal terrorist organizations.

Quote

Finally the constitution says nothing about how many guns nor type of guns that a person may have. Thus if we stick to a true interpretation then it would be the type of guns available when the constitution was written. Flint locks anyone?

Pro 2nd amendment people use this the same way to have the same level of technology the military owns and has, so can't have it both ways.

Actually yes you can. For instance a citizen is not allowed to have Surface to air missiles, functional tanks, Military air craft, Attack Helicopters, Attack subs, Destroyers, functional field artillery... and so on. As a country our military with is for the protection of the state has access to far better weapons then a citizen is allowed to have. One only needs to look at what a major city's SWAT team can roll out in response to a hostage situation to know that a citizen has no chance using any over the counter weapons of declaring war on the state. So if you are going to have guns based on a constitutional right to have guns then you get guns for self protection and for hunting. Period. Anything else is and should be considered violating a persons right to life.

Quote

If you purchase a fire arm you are required before taking possession of said fire arm to go to mandatory gun safety and handling classes. The last class should involve what happens to children when they are shot. It should involve graphic pictures and updates as to what kind of trauma the shooter had to deal with over the course of his life.

More training!! I love it. Everyone should read Dave Grossman on traumatic experiences by killing.

http://www.amazon.co...ords=on+killing
http://www.amazon.co...QNS5T52DPA50P4K

My answers are in Red.