What's new
By:

Welcome to 'Murica

Stoked said:
I'd say all of the bolded and then some others not mentioned.
Click to expand...

I also think that just the prevalence of guns itself is a major contributing factor. It leads to a "shoot 'em up" type of mentality that wouldn't be as dominant if guns weren't as prevalent.
 
moevillini said:
I also think that just the prevalence of guns itself is a major contributing factor. It leads to a "shoot 'em up" type of mentality that wouldn't be as dominant if guns weren't as prevalent.
Click to expand...

So what do you think about the 2nd Amendment? What does it mean to you?
 
Jamezz said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

The fact that you will ascribe freedom -- in such absolute, black-and-white terms -- to the power of a State lets me know exactly what kind of thinker you are. On the street, you'd be called a bitch.

I'd suggest looking into what a State is. And how a State behaves. You could begin by asking Native Americans if the free State has been a good influence on their freedom.

the 2nd amendment: written by a slave State calling itself "free."
 
Where to start

Let's do Mass Murder

Will restricting guns lead to fewer mass shootings? Yeah, It probably would. Will it lead to fewer mass murders. I don't think so. The weapon of choice will just become bombs. Some of you will say it's hard to build a bomb. You are wrong. It's easy and it's cheap. Some will say that it takes time and that the murderer may change his mind. Again, I think you are wrong. The people that commit these crimes have been going over it in their head over and over again. They went out and they gathered the supplies for their rampage often times spending quite a bit of dough. Having to build a bomb will not deter them. Will they be less deadly. NO, hell NO. Search Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma city building.
 
Jamezz said:
"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."

If you ask me I think it's worth it taking the risk of having a few psychos go berzerk every now and then to ensure the permanence of a free State. More people die in car accidents every day.

That's what America is all about, individual freedom. The right to defend yourself and your property. The moment I convinced myself that the US government has been hijacked by international power groups that want to end the concept of sovereignty around the world the clearer things became to me.
Click to expand...
Good post
 
♪alt13 said:
Where to start

Let's do Mass Murder

Will restricting guns lead to fewer mass shootings? Yeah, It probably would. Will it lead to fewer mass murders. I don't think so. The weapon of choice will just become bombs. Some of you will say it's hard to build a bomb. You are wrong. It's easy and it's cheap. Some will say that it takes time and that the murderer may change his mind. Again, I think you are wrong. The people that commit these crimes have been going over it in their head over and over again. They went out and they gathered the supplies for their rampage often times spending quite a bit of dough. Having to build a bomb will not deter them. Will they be less deadly. NO, hell NO. Search Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma city building.
Click to expand...
Bombs are less predictable
And even if you think bombs are easy to make, as of right now if I wanted to kill someone I could simply grab my gun and kill someone..... However, as of right now I don't know how to make a bomb. So it would require a extra step for me to do my killing. (Research how to make the bomb, get the supplies for it, make it, set it up, etc)

There simply is no easier and more efficient way to kill some dudes than to use a gun.
 
moevillini said:
I also think that just the prevalence of guns itself is a major contributing factor. It leads to a "shoot 'em up" type of mentality that wouldn't be as dominant if guns weren't as prevalent.
Click to expand...

I think it does contribute to that. I think programs to voluntarily turn them in for monetary compensation is a great idea.

But it is only one part of the problem.

But guns are so prevalent today and the right to buy and own them is so entrenched that any measures that are allowable to remove guns, like buy back programs, will not reduce the number of guns enough.
 
fishonjazz said:
Bombs are less predictable
And even if you think bombs are easy to make, as of right now if I wanted to kill someone I could simply grab my gun and kill someone..... However, as of right now I don't know how to make a bomb. So it would require a extra step for me to do my killing. (Research how to make the bomb, get the supplies for it, make it, set it up, etc)

There simply is no easier and more efficient way to kill some dudes than to use a gun.
Click to expand...

I agree. There isn't.

But what can realistically be done? Forced confiscation is not allowed and would lead to a fight where no one wins if the issue was forced.

Buy back programs will trim a little of the excess but never on a scale to matter enough.

So what? Restrict future sales? Guns are prevalent enough that it wouldn't make a difference for decades. Not to mention that those laws are overturned as well.

Until the 2nd amendment is struck down (wont happen short of civil war and new constitution imo) than these discussions are all theoretical and cannot be applied.
 
I think I am a little uncomfortable with the discussion about thequickest and most efficient way of killing people. I realize that mass murder happens in many places and through out history, but what is really strange to me, is that these school shootings are not motivated by a great struggle...I mean this is violence for just for the sake of violence. It is not to show defiance to an oppressive dictator, it is not a call for better treatment of a marginalized group, it is not a battle against an occupying army. It is meaningless, and it is the meaningless that makes it so frightening and uncomfortable.

I am uncomfortable reading about people moving to bombs if guns are unavailable, but perhaps we need to consider it so that we might begin asking the right questions. there is no end to ways and means a destructive person can inflict harm on civilized society, and We will never be able to legislate our way to safety. So why aren't we asking why people in our society, want to hurt our society.? What are these kids experiencing, or not experiencing that turns them into killers?
 
mellow said:
I think I am a little uncomfortable with the discussion about thequickest and most efficient way of killing people. I realize that mass murder happens in many places and through out history, but what is really strange to me, is that these school shootings are not motivated by a great struggle...I mean this is violence for just for the sake of violence. It is not to show defiance to an oppressive dictator, it is not a call for better treatment of a marginalized group, it is not a battle against an occupying army. It is meaningless, and it is the meaningless that makes it so frightening and uncomfortable.

I am uncomfortable reading about people moving to bombs if guns are unavailable, but perhaps we need to consider it so that we might begin asking the right questions. there is no end to ways and means a destructive person can inflict harm on civilized society, and We will never be able to legislate our way to safety. So why aren't we asking why people in our society, want to hurt our society.? What are these kids experiencing, or not experiencing that turns them into killers?
Click to expand...

I think people are starting to. And steps to address that along with any gun measures (I do think improvements and changes can be made) is part of the best "solution" we are going to get.
 
Stoked said:
I agree. There isn't.

But what can realistically be done? Forced confiscation is not allowed and would lead to a fight where no one wins if the issue was forced.

Buy back programs will trim a little of the excess but never on a scale to matter enough.

So what? Restrict future sales? Guns are prevalent enough that it wouldn't make a difference for decades. Not to mention that those laws are overturned as well.

Until the 2nd amendment is struck down (wont happen short of civil war and new constitution imo) than these discussions are all theoretical and cannot be applied.
Click to expand...

I was just waiting for your unsubstantiated, pessimistic, throw-your-hands-up post of the morning. Yick. Links?

Los Angeles's gun buyback programs, which are very lightly funded, leave plenty of room for optimism. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/la-gun-buyback-2013_n_3229435.html

this also happened in the REAL WORLD.
 
NAOS said:
The fact that you will ascribe freedom -- in such absolute, black-and-white terms -- to the power of a State lets me know exactly what kind of thinker you are. On the street, you'd be called a bitch.

I'd suggest looking into what a State is. And how a State behaves. You could begin by asking Native Americans if the free State has been a good influence on their freedom.

the 2nd amendment: written by a slave State calling itself "free."
Click to expand...

You got it all wrong NAOS! The more liberty among the population the more powerful the country is! Get it?

Also, wtf does the Native American issue have to do with this. We're talking about an ever-growing government that's trying to gain more power over the nation's population by the day. The smaller the government the better. If you want to discuss colonialism start another thread. Get your **** straight.

The discussion boils down to Individualism vs. Collectivism, what side are you on, wimp?
 
Jamezz said:
You got it all wrong NAOS! The more liberty among the population the more powerful the country is! Get it?

Also, wtf does the Native American issue have to do with this. We're talking about an ever-growing government that's trying to gain more power over the nation's population by the day. The smaller the government the better. If you want to discuss colonialism start another thread. Get your **** straight.

The discussion boils down to Individualism vs. Collectivism, what side are you on, wimp?
Click to expand...

lol what a bitchface.
 
NAOS said:
It appears to me that step 1 is far from complete.

I was surprised to read that I would push for much tougher regulation than gandalfe.
Click to expand...

Regulation is a difficult task. I'd personally be fine with banning all private ownership of guns (with certain exceptions made for historic and sport usage) but I think that is an unreasonable goal from where we are today. The time to ban guns was about 230 years ago, but the genie is out of the bottle now.

Then again, Australia did it...

The mass shootings are, again, a minor, albeit flashy, problem, compared to the individual shooting that occur daily.
 
mellow said:
So why aren't we asking why people in our society, want to hurt our society.?
Click to expand...

We already know allot of these reasons and already try to prevent them.
Depression, poverty, child abuse, neglect, temper issues, drugs and alcohol to name a few.

We already have psychiatrists and zanax and other medications.
We have alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous.
We have welfare, and food stamps.
We have family counseling available and laws against child molesting
Anger management classes.

To name a few
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top