ilovefuzz.com

D.o.S. wrote: The easy response to that is "but well the criminals will still get guns" and the answer to that is somewhat obvious: you don't make laws to govern what criminals (who are, by definition, law breakers) do: you make laws to govern what the law-abiding population can do, in a hope that the person with a clean criminal record who goes postal out of nowhere will have a harder time getting the sort of weaponry he or she would require to do so.

wooooord

D.o.S. wrote:When a mountain lion or a bear shoots up a school because they can't get laid, let me know.

As it stands, the laws and regulations we have are (fairly obviously) not working. And, exactly because "we don't have a Minority Report style of predicting future crimes," the easiest solution is to tighten restrictions on who can own guns -- something that, again, shouldn't affect responsible gun owners in the slightest beyond whatever minor inconvenience a longer waiting list or lessened accessibility to buy whatever weapon you want -- to ensure that the people-on-people violence is lessened.

The easy response to that is "but well the criminals will still get guns" and the answer to that is somewhat obvious: you don't make laws to govern what criminals (who are, by definition, law breakers) do: you make laws to govern what the law-abiding population can do, in a hope that the person with a clean criminal record who goes postal out of nowhere will have a harder time getting the sort of weaponry he or she would require to do so.

That's not "going after every gun owner" in the slightest. If I want to buy another gun I can get the process going tomorrow, but I'm not going to claim that my rights are getting trampled on if they make the waiting peroid longer, or if my selection is somewhat limited.

Fair, but what in your opinion is a lesser selection or a fair waiting period?

Can we address that fact that places are designated as gun free zones without adequate security being provided? No one to defend you and you can't defend yourself. Next time someone shoots up a church or school or movie theater where concealed weapons are banned, whoever owns the place should be held criminally responsible. There's a reason murdering cowards choose these kinds of places.

Very true

morange wrote:Can we address that fact that places are designated as gun free zones without adequate security being provided? No one to defend you and you can't defend yourself. Next time someone shoots up a church or school or movie theater where concealed weapons are banned, whoever owns the place should be held criminally responsible. There's a reason murdering cowards choose these kinds of places.

What about Home Depot?

also, see: John Wayne-style heroic fantasies et. al.

theAntihero wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:When a mountain lion or a bear shoots up a school because they can't get laid, let me know.

As it stands, the laws and regulations we have are (fairly obviously) not working. And, exactly because "we don't have a Minority Report style of predicting future crimes," the easiest solution is to tighten restrictions on who can own guns -- something that, again, shouldn't affect responsible gun owners in the slightest beyond whatever minor inconvenience a longer waiting list or lessened accessibility to buy whatever weapon you want -- to ensure that the people-on-people violence is lessened.

The easy response to that is "but well the criminals will still get guns" and the answer to that is somewhat obvious: you don't make laws to govern what criminals (who are, by definition, law breakers) do: you make laws to govern what the law-abiding population can do, in a hope that the person with a clean criminal record who goes postal out of nowhere will have a harder time getting the sort of weaponry he or she would require to do so.

That's not "going after every gun owner" in the slightest. If I want to buy another gun I can get the process going tomorrow, but I'm not going to claim that my rights are getting trampled on if they make the waiting peroid longer, or if my selection is somewhat limited.

Fair, but what in your opinion is a lesser selection or a fair waiting period?

I don't think there's a one-size fits all answer to this question. One way to approach it would be similar to zoning -- which is arguably what the state laws are supposed to be doing, but, again, clearly insufficient. For example, you want to buy an AR-15, you have to prove that you live in an area that requires it. And you have to wait a week, get a background check, and your name probably winds up on a list somewhere. Don't like that? Don't buy an AR-15 (hypothetical firearm picked only because it starts with the letter A and I'm tired).

I don't know what you mean by the Home Depot comment. But gun owners do stop criminals, you just don't hear about it often, probably because the would-be headline worthy crime is prevented. Here are three examples. Many more could be pulled from local news.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/27/ci ... led-carry/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/09/22/c ... ank-robber

The father of a friend of mine was in a shootout at a gas station. He's a police officer, but was off duty at the time.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0aa_1192555186

Here's a relevant article I just found from the Washington Post, with more examples of mass shootings prevented by gun owners.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... shootings/

More food for thought: gun bans don't reduce the homicide rate.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts- ... ol/207152/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... -gun-laws/

I view gun ownership as a necessary evil that may one day prevent me from having to see something bad happen to someone I care about. It's not a fantasy of mine. I sure as shit don't ever want to shoot someone.

The Home Depot thing refers to this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

The Guns + Homicide rate is skewed, I think, by the fact that most of the places with high gun regulations/bans have a high population, and you're more likely to see more homicides because of that (sad but true).

And, from the last article:

Now of course this doesn’t prove that gun laws have no effect on total homicide rates. Correlation, especially between just two variables, doesn’t show causation.

But he also goes into it with the belief that if you got rid of guns you'd have the homicides replaces by, say, knives.
That's a massive assumption that ignores the fundamental difference between a gun and a knife: that the damage a person can do with a gun is significantly larger than the damage that same person could do with a knife.

Of course, he's also the guy that equates gun use with alcohol use, so I don't know if he's really the best source of arguments (although he is a fun read even if I disagree with some of his premises).

And, again, I'm not saying that you've got these sort of vigilante/wild west notions, but there's definitely that undercurrent in what a lot of vocal 2nd amendment/NRA types say -- coupled with the fact that the argument has shifted is mostly towards the fact that it's A RIGHT TO OWN GUNS, regardless of whether or not you need to own one -- and that makes me nervous.

I'm more nervous about the people who are carrying their assault rifles into a store to "make a point." You're not making a fucking point, you're mental.

The handful of "good gun owners" who have stopped murderers is piss in the ocean compared to the number of children who die every year from gun violence or even gun accidents.

D.o.S. wrote:

theAntihero wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:When a mountain lion or a bear shoots up a school because they can't get laid, let me know.

As it stands, the laws and regulations we have are (fairly obviously) not working. And, exactly because "we don't have a Minority Report style of predicting future crimes," the easiest solution is to tighten restrictions on who can own guns -- something that, again, shouldn't affect responsible gun owners in the slightest beyond whatever minor inconvenience a longer waiting list or lessened accessibility to buy whatever weapon you want -- to ensure that the people-on-people violence is lessened.

The easy response to that is "but well the criminals will still get guns" and the answer to that is somewhat obvious: you don't make laws to govern what criminals (who are, by definition, law breakers) do: you make laws to govern what the law-abiding population can do, in a hope that the person with a clean criminal record who goes postal out of nowhere will have a harder time getting the sort of weaponry he or she would require to do so.

That's not "going after every gun owner" in the slightest. If I want to buy another gun I can get the process going tomorrow, but I'm not going to claim that my rights are getting trampled on if they make the waiting peroid longer, or if my selection is somewhat limited.

Fair, but what in your opinion is a lesser selection or a fair waiting period?

I don't think there's a one-size fits all answer to this question. One way to approach it would be similar to zoning -- which is arguably what the state laws are supposed to be doing, but, again, clearly insufficient. For example, you want to buy an AR-15, you have to prove that you live in an area that requires it. And you have to wait a week, get a background check, and your name probably winds up on a list somewhere. Don't like that? Don't buy an AR-15 (hypothetical firearm picked only because it starts with the letter A and I'm tired).

And who decides that it's something you need? It seems like that would punish the law abiding citizen that isn't a criminal which is the side that I am. I don't particularly need my Enfield from ww2 but I enjoy having and shooting it.


Do you own guns?

D.o.S. wrote:
I don't think there's a one-size fits all answer to this question.

This is the main point.

The cry from most of the left is to band certain weapons, magazine sizes or more regulations.

Those on the right say more guns could have prevented the shooting.

The point about having armed security in gun free-zones is a point worth considering. I'm not sure what the requirements are for being able to be eligible to be an armed security guard, but I'd hope there is rigorous training so as to well equip someone in a shooter situation, so as to know how to act as well as how not to act in any other situation, and not draw their gun too easily.

The dude's mother certainly didn't help the situation.

I'm not sure if both sides of the political divide have said this - I know people on the right have, that these shooting occurrences are a mental health issue. People have been quick to say that unfairly stigmatizes people with mental illness by suggesting they are someone more likely to commit acts of violence - really they are often more the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

The causes seem to be less tangible and thus easily approachable, like everyone wants it to be.

Did everyone see that the guy was posting on an online forum prior to the shooting, getting encouragement from other people?

There is a social cocktail at work here that I think is contributing to this: The desire for recognition and knowing they will get it after the incident - the shooter cited the ex-reporter that killed the two reporters on TV, and how no one knew him prior to the shooting and everyone did afterwards.

I don't know how else to describe it.

theAntihero wrote:
And who decides that it's something you need? It seems like that would punish the law abiding citizen that isn't a criminal which is the side that I am. I don't particularly need my Enfield from ww2 but I enjoy having and shooting it.


Do you own guns?

The elected officials get to decide. That's how this democracy works. The idiots we vote for decide, as a group, how we function as a society.

I own guns and I have no problem with them in a general sense, but our culture is fucked up about them.

We could also talk about the culture of hyper-macho MRAs that feed this beast. I mean, women had a rights movement and a lot of public discourse, lots of minority cultures have had rights movements and public discourse. White men are the ones left behind and they are lashing out in a big way. Online, with guns IRL, etc. It is getting ugly and it seems like something to address.

theAntihero wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:

theAntihero wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:When a mountain lion or a bear shoots up a school because they can't get laid, let me know.

As it stands, the laws and regulations we have are (fairly obviously) not working. And, exactly because "we don't have a Minority Report style of predicting future crimes," the easiest solution is to tighten restrictions on who can own guns -- something that, again, shouldn't affect responsible gun owners in the slightest beyond whatever minor inconvenience a longer waiting list or lessened accessibility to buy whatever weapon you want -- to ensure that the people-on-people violence is lessened.

The easy response to that is "but well the criminals will still get guns" and the answer to that is somewhat obvious: you don't make laws to govern what criminals (who are, by definition, law breakers) do: you make laws to govern what the law-abiding population can do, in a hope that the person with a clean criminal record who goes postal out of nowhere will have a harder time getting the sort of weaponry he or she would require to do so.

That's not "going after every gun owner" in the slightest. If I want to buy another gun I can get the process going tomorrow, but I'm not going to claim that my rights are getting trampled on if they make the waiting peroid longer, or if my selection is somewhat limited.

Fair, but what in your opinion is a lesser selection or a fair waiting period?

I don't think there's a one-size fits all answer to this question. One way to approach it would be similar to zoning -- which is arguably what the state laws are supposed to be doing, but, again, clearly insufficient. For example, you want to buy an AR-15, you have to prove that you live in an area that requires it. And you have to wait a week, get a background check, and your name probably winds up on a list somewhere. Don't like that? Don't buy an AR-15 (hypothetical firearm picked only because it starts with the letter A and I'm tired).

And who decides that it's something you need? It seems like that would punish the law abiding citizen that isn't a criminal which is the side that I am. I don't particularly need my Enfield from ww2 but I enjoy having and shooting it.


Do you own guns?

I would say that there's a process there that can determine what you need. You, for example, don't need "a gun", right? You need a gun that will fit your needs. Not in the phallic gun culture sense, but in the practical sense that clearly exists, considering your argument thus far has been "BUT I NEEDS IT FOR PROTECTING MAHSELF FROM THE WILD ANIMALLLS". Which is it, because the "have my cake and eat it too" Second Amendment isn't a real argument, IMO, it's a cop out.

As to my own gun ownership, I don't own any modern guns currently, although I have a civil war ear shotgun which is non-working. Like I said earlier,I've owned a gun before/lived in homes with roomates and housemates who have. I don't like them enough to buy one, so it is unlikely I'll own one in the future.