Mass Shootings, American Pride, Gun Laws...

[BoM]

The @BoMft. @Mannyv @kabLeportion of this thread has concluded via private debate.

 

Please look to the main showing @Gentoov @jazzy for further entertainment.

[kabLe]

This for @Greggy G

 

i personally believe there will never be a compromise because one side of the aisle says let’s compromise between them being outright legal and having restrictions while the other side says let’s compromise between them being outright illegal and having restrictions. 
 

As in the current climate, our country was founded on the principle that they should be available to anyone and everyone and the compromise was restrictions via background checks and other various tickboxes that if you check off your not eligible. From my point of view, I see people asking to compromise further with more restrictions. I personally don’t see how you can ask a group of people to compromise on something that they are already in the power position on. They already compromised on limiting gun sales to people who fail a background check or have recorded history of mental health issues, and now your asking them to compromise by restricting certain guns. You may be able to say it’s a logical fallacy to say in another 10 years someone may run into a school and kill 5 people people with a legally obtained glock 17 with a legal mag of 5 bullets. Should we then restrict at that point in time people from being able to buy Glock 17s? My question is where do we draw the line and say it’s not the guns fault it’s the persons fault or the processes fault? Why are we so ready to put more restrictions on who can own a gun in a country that was founded on the principle that anyone and every can own a gun just because whoever is advocating for more restrictions doesn’t think it’s likely to happen to the point that nobody can get a gun. 

[Gentoo]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_ said:

Honestly we can argue here all day about who's right and who's wrong between us but it doesn't change the fact that nothing has changed and nothing will change. Nothing has changed since Columbine. Nothing has changed since Sandy hook. Nothing will continue to change in our current political climate. It's almost like we're stuck in a military-industrial complex where weapons companies profit and pay off politicians to maintain this status-quo of innocent people dying. Until we the people come together to vote out corrupt politicians, aint shit changing.

Voting hasn't worked in the past thirty years despite the majority flipping between red and blue 5 times and hundreds of seats changing. This time we really need to band together and just get different guys in the same system.

 

2 hours ago, BoM said:

I'm supporting exploring it is as a viable option to the solution rather than dismissing it. quite simply. It's nothing to be cautious about as all...your sentiment is just more worrying about what ifs instead of just opening lines of communication.

Again, was just spitballing. Even with all this generalized information it still would clearly be an okay place to start as a basis for a solution as there is already some groundwork set.

Fair enough, I'll grant you that it's potentially a viable solution to the symptoms of an underlying problem. I think the semantics need to be very carefully considered and legislated rather than knee-jerked and sweeping like the last 10 bills in this sympathy have been, and that's not an excuse to dismiss the underlying issues.

 

1 hour ago, Manny said:

idk how we keep getting back to the idea that we should ban specific guns, I said it's an argument to restrict them even more. Don't really care about punishing manufacturers, brokers, and non-school shooters. Especially when it's evident that rifles are a popular choice amongst mass shooters... are you arguing there's no correlation there? Who care about if someone can do it with x, y, or z, the whole point is that these events are consistently done with a specific type of gun.

You mentioned it, which is specifically what I quoted and responded to. "I don't think banning specific shooter guns is a bad idea" or whatever. This is kicking the can down the road and dragging various manufacturers. If you ban ARs, shooters will use AKs, if you ban AKs, shooters will use Mossbergs, and you are not going to see a significant drop in frequency or effectiveness. 

 

2 hours ago, Manny said:

I don't think you've spent any significant amount of time thinking. Restricting guns is not the be all end all for these events, our lack of mental health support plays a major role. I am by no means defending the Uvalde shooter at all, we need to do a better job of getting people the right kind of help they deserve. You've provided no substance on what could be done to prevent this from happening

This is something that sounds more reasonable to me. However, you say this, but you and most other people in this thread lead with "we should really ban/restrict guns" rather than looking deeper into the causes or bringing up alternative more moderate and less infringing solutions.

 

Starting with someone posting their opinion and having someone else dunk on them and post their solution without connecting the dots or making an effort to bridge the gap is what turns these threads into toxic pissing matches. If I did have any solutions of my own, would it make any difference posting them of we're not going to work there from where you're at? Or is it just going to be more content for people to tear apart and meme obtusely?

 

1 hour ago, jazzy said:

Are we talking about gun control or slavery I honestly can't tell.
 

 

 

 

So you guys (and others) are all making the same argument so I'll just say this:
The root problem is obviously not guns, it is murder. However, I've yet to see anyone figure out how to make people stop murdering others, so we can probably cross that one off. The root problem is mental health, but I think Republican's whole charade of "mental health" is kind of fictitious in nature because we're probably not going to prevent people from going literally insane in our lifetime, and wanting to kill kids. It's just a universal constant with humans at this point. Not saying we can't improve the lives of people substantially to prevent them from WANTING to do that, but yeah, you guys can guess where I'm going with this.

 

So anyway the reason most of us don't really like guns is because guns are really fucking good at killing people. Like so good the military is like "we should use guns." So I'd guess guns are pretty effective. And when we talk about the mind of a murderer most of them want to use the tool that murders people the best. The first person I quoted, Autistic, said that after guns were banned stabbings went up. That's true, but I'd probably wager it's a lot harder to stab someone than shoot them, considering I also need to be pretty dang close to stab someone.

 

So what do you get when you create a tool that's really efficient at killing people, really easy to acquire, really easy to use, really easy to transport, decently cheap to buy, and has almost no oversight by da gubbament? Well you have the mass murderer's favorite choice. If remote detonated bombs were legal in America I bet those would be way more popular, but they're banned, so they're not as used.
 

Everyone in here seems pretty smart so it's kind of like the analogy if you prevent people from dying to preventable diseases like polio and shit, more people die of cancer (because they live longer). But would anyone really make the argument that why use the polio vaccine if they're just going to get cancer 10 years later anyway? I mean that's a stupid argument.

Just the same, if you banned guns and gun violence went down by knife violence went up, would that really be THAT BAD?

 

I got it- I assume you will stop posting in this thread. (Does that mean it will happen?)

This is a troll post right? You can't think of anything that reduces the rate of crime? Here, I'll start you off. Crowding is a significant factor in increases of stress, antisocial behavior, mental illness, crime and violence. Can you think of any way this correlation could be useful in decreasing the likeliness of these events?

 

You say "it's a universal constant at this point". Has it always been? When did it arise? What may have caused it? You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as just an anomaly or inevitable.

[destroylonelyfan2011]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_ said:

Nothing will continue Until we the people come together to vote out corrupt politicians, aint shit changing.

 

get any alt girl to fuck you mentality 

[jazzy]

21 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

You can't think of anything that reduces the rate of crime? Here, I'll start you off. Crowding is a significant factor in increases of stress, antisocial behavior, mental illness, crime and violence. Can you think of any way this correlation could be useful in decreasing the likeliness of these events?

So just to preface this I brought up that we reasonably can't reduce murder to 0 because that is what a few of you were talking about- because when someone said "gun control" people were saying "well what about cars?"

The point of gun control isn't to reduce the number of murders to 0 for all things all the time. We all acknowledge this is pretty much completely impossible today. The point I was making is that guns are too effective in the hands of psychopaths.

It's a little annoying you dodged that entire point. You can't disagree that guns are more effective as tools than almost all other tools (aside from maybe explosive ordinance), so you latch onto a very side tangent.

And just on this discussion you're half correct at best. I'm not sure I agree that crowding increases antisocial behavior (compared to what scale?), but even if crime is up in dense metropolis areas, why are some of the most densely metropolitan areas in the world inside gun controlled states and those gun controlled states have low gun violence rates? India, China, Taiwan, Japan, S Korea, etc...

 

21 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

You say "it's a universal constant at this point". Has it always been? When did it arise? What may have caused it? You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as just an anomaly or inevitable.

Bro we used to bonk each other with rocks in trees. Like 200 years ago there were people rationalizing slavery, we still have people rationalizing slavery today. I think if you're asking me when people started being sociopaths you should probably read some cave paintings.

[Gentoo]

2 minutes ago, jazzy said:

So just to preface this I brought up that we reasonably can't reduce murder to 0 because that is what a few of you were talking about- because when someone said "gun control" people were saying "well what about cars?"

The point of gun control isn't to reduce the number of murders to 0 for all things all the time. We all acknowledge this is pretty much completely impossible today. The point I was making is that guns are too effective in the hands of psychopaths.

It's a little annoying you dodged that entire point. You can't disagree that guns are more effective as tools than almost all other tools (aside from maybe explosive ordinance), so you latch onto a very side tangent.

And just on this discussion you're half correct at best. I'm not sure I agree that crowding increases antisocial behavior (compared to what scale?), but even if crime is up in dense metropolis areas, why are some of the most densely metropolitan areas in the world inside gun controlled states and those gun controlled states have aggressive anti gun laws? India, China, Taiwan, Japan, S Korea, etc...

 

Bro we used to bonk each other with rocks in trees. Like 200 years ago there were people rationalizing slavery, we still have people rationalizing slavery today. I think if you're asking me when people started being sociopaths you should probably read some cave paintings.

Careful with your words here. How many of these bozos do you think are psychopaths/sociopaths? I can see the case being made for the Columbine shooters, but anyone deeply affected by bullying would not fit the bill for "blunted emotional response", their issues would seem to be a bit more nuanced.

 

I'm asking specifically about mass murderers against children. Tribalism, primitivism etc are all their own beasts and can't be compared to someone scraping together the nerve to kill children and aren't remotely caused by the same phenomenon.

 

Sorry for dodging your point that guns are good at killing people, I have limited time to read and write posts and it wasn't the point that I thought was important to respond to, but I can loop back around later if you're so rabid to have that discussion.

[BoM]

 

 

 

[Gentoo]

30 minutes ago, BoM said:

 

 

 

This but unironically. If the precedent is "shall not be infringed" are you not creative or hopeful enough that there could be some other solution that could reduce or stop school shootings?

[delirium]

Does anyone who has responded to this thread so far even own a gun? Just wondering... (and no its not to shoot gentoo; i promise.) 

[Phoenix_]

4 minutes ago, delirium said:

Does anyone who has responded to this thread so far even own a gun? Just wondering... (and no its not to shoot gentoo; i promise.) 

Yes, two. Four if you count the ones I'll inherit from my dad once I get out of college.