Gun Control
it's not "irony"; it's grass-roots activism by proxy
but "irony" rolls of the tongue better
Seeing a laid corpse.. A way of business?
Yeah, total freedom. Pressing a button and atomic bomb is released - boom!
It's just a business, man! Sorry.
I'd love to see Chinese government to raise it's power! Communism is gonna win. It is another way of...well... Business.
Yeah, total freedom. Pressing a button and atomic bomb is released - boom!
It's just a business, man! Sorry.
I'd love to see Chinese government to raise it's power! Communism is gonna win. It is another way of...well... Business.
I'm guessing there's going to be an uptick in sales in whatever weapon he used to kill 6 people?
Saw that live. I haven't seen any NRA retorts yet, but then again, I don't watch Fox.
I'm guessing there's going to be an uptick in sales in whatever weapon he used to kill 6 people?
I know this is an old post but it's perfect IMO.
From an outsider looking in, my impression is that this issue is so controversial because of American ideals of 'freedom', which I take to mean an ability to have or do whatever you want. This extends to and perhaps encourages excesses like possessing 30 round clips, hollow point rounds and hoarding the types of guns that are designed to kill people, not animals. Taking those things away encroaches on the freedom that Americans take for granted in everyday life and seemingly punishes the majority, for the actions of a few.
My more recent impressions, going by social media, is that more Americans are starting to see gun control as a pressing issue. I think if a vote was taken, most would agree to regulations along the lines of the OP.
I would also like to see changes to the way the media sensationalises mass shootings, creating an idol-like status for the perpetrators. It caters to the ego of these people and gives them power and notoriety. IMO, make the shooters anonymous. Report only the victims. They put the Boston marathon bomber on the Rolling Stones cover FFS. It's insanity.
So am I suggesting limiting free access to arms and freedom of speech? Not necessarily. More a compromise for the greater good.
Last edited:
Unpopular opinion time...
Time to face facts, despite the stupidity of the weirdo minority, the "gun nuts" are right, it's not a gun control issue. All the changes the OP of this thread asked for and most every anti-gun group demands are already laws on the books here in Ca, and have been for years, . Just another in a long list of mass shootings that gun control did nothing to prevent. The longer we bicker about 10 round mags, or hollow point rounds, the more mass murders will come and go while we ignore the real issue and do nothing to prevent the next mass murder.
You mean knives/sharp objects and registered pistols, acquired after a thorough background check, 10 day waiting period, and used with 10 round capacity magazines?
I'm guessing there's going to be an uptick in sales in whatever weapon he used to kill 6 people?
Time to face facts, despite the stupidity of the weirdo minority, the "gun nuts" are right, it's not a gun control issue. All the changes the OP of this thread asked for and most every anti-gun group demands are already laws on the books here in Ca, and have been for years, . Just another in a long list of mass shootings that gun control did nothing to prevent. The longer we bicker about 10 round mags, or hollow point rounds, the more mass murders will come and go while we ignore the real issue and do nothing to prevent the next mass murder.
...and your solution is? To stop bickering? Good job, that will fix it all.
How about mandatory backgorund checks and waiting periods? Required training and insurance for owners (Works for cars...and the frothers continually tell us that cars kill more people then guns.) along with registration of owners and taxation of guns to cover the costs of mainitaing a system of record to track ownership and training.
From a Law Enforcement standpoint, the absolute last thing I want is all these other wanna be heroes out there with guns. Respond to a call of shots fired or active shooter situation and find Billy Joe, Jim Bob and Jethro all out there swapping lead. Which one is the "good guy with a gun"? Fewer guns on the streets = fewer mass shootings. Take mass capacity away from the public = less opportunity to inflict damage to the general public. Yes, allow cops to have such things...they deserve and need an advantage over the general public.
Law abiding types should have no problems with waiting periods, registration, insurance and the like...
How about mandatory backgorund checks and waiting periods? Required training and insurance for owners (Works for cars...and the frothers continually tell us that cars kill more people then guns.) along with registration of owners and taxation of guns to cover the costs of mainitaing a system of record to track ownership and training.
From a Law Enforcement standpoint, the absolute last thing I want is all these other wanna be heroes out there with guns. Respond to a call of shots fired or active shooter situation and find Billy Joe, Jim Bob and Jethro all out there swapping lead. Which one is the "good guy with a gun"? Fewer guns on the streets = fewer mass shootings. Take mass capacity away from the public = less opportunity to inflict damage to the general public. Yes, allow cops to have such things...they deserve and need an advantage over the general public.
Law abiding types should have no problems with waiting periods, registration, insurance and the like...
The current NZ system of licensing owners (making sure they are aware of and competently understand gun safety) and registering each weapon, has with NZ's societal structure proven to be quite effective. Yes there is the odd aberration but on a per capita basis we come out waaaay ahead for what is comparatively a very basic and easy to use legal framework.
The "deserve" bit is perhaps debatable......
The need bit is fairly obvious tho given the inherent paranoia (which leads to violence) in what I see of american society.
Whoops forgot to link this......
http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms/standard-new-zealand-firearms-licence
http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms/standard-new-zealand-firearms-licence
Maybe that's why our current gun policies are inadequate? Just sayin'...
Oh, by the way, Chris Martinez was shot through a deli window. Let me know when "knives/sharp objects" can kill someone from 20 feet away through a window. Yes, he killed his 3 roommates with a knife, but he was also able to go on a rampage and kill/injure far more people because he had 3 handguns and ~500 rounds of ammunition.
No amount of legislation will prevent f'tards like this from assuming the Napolean Stance.
This country can wish for the impossible (eradicate guns outright; never will or should happen imo) or we can address the real issues which are a horrifying lack of respect for life, personal entitlement and the sweeping of mental health issues under the rug through a combination of denial and stigmas related to seeking treatment/public discourse.
This country can wish for the impossible (eradicate guns outright; never will or should happen imo) or we can address the real issues which are a horrifying lack of respect for life, personal entitlement and the sweeping of mental health issues under the rug through a combination of denial and stigmas related to seeking treatment/public discourse.
this.
He purchased his guns in California, so...
He passed his mandatory background check.
He waited through his mandatory 10-day waiting period, as well as Ca's 1 handgun every 30-days waiting period.
His guns were registered to him.
He passed a gun safety test before he was allowed to buy them.
He passed a safe handling demonstration before he was allowed to take possession of them.
He did not have " mass capacity" magazines, he had multiple low capacity mags.
In Ca, a concealed carry permit is very hard to get, especially in SB county, so the cops did not have Billy Joe, Jim Bob and Jethro all out there swapping lead.
With the exception of insurance to cover the cost, what have you or anybody in the gun-control lobby proposed that's not already a law on the books in Ca.?
My solution is not to simply stop bickering, but rather realize a futile and pointless effort and start actually working on a solution, focus on the mental issue. The longer you label this a gun control issue, the more people are going to die while the anti-gun lobby fights the gun lobby, and the mental health lobby gets ignored.
Don't mistake my desire for logical gun control as being anti gun control. I like background checks, I like the waiting period, I dislike stupid restrictions that accomplish nothing. I also dislike crazy people with no respect for human life, and would rather see the money spent by the gun control lobbies are to try and prevent me from buying more AR15s go toward something that actually makes a difference.
Harvard Law's peer reviewed research paper, StanCan, Statistics Australia, And the Center for Disease Control all disagree with that incorrect, and already disproven statement. Go ahead and read up.
As does case studies like Russia, Mexico, and several other countries where bans did zero to prevent an increase in crime. In fact if history, or current world events are any indication, crime increased in places that sought to outright ban them.
The hoplophobia is strong in here, but let's not allow it to make up facts and statistics. I understand your perspective as a LEO, and I completely agree with mandatory checks, waiting periods, etc, but the problem won't ever solve itself if we ignore the hard proven facts and make stuff up. You can't make what's out there disappear.
Dan-O is right.
That's some logic you're sporting there sir. This is the control thread, where hoplophobic emotional fallacies take precedence over logic and reason. Tone it down. Next thing you know your peen might shrink and you'll be saying #merica every second word!
Hmmm.....Centers for Disease Control, the only US gubbamint agency in your list. Why does that agency stick out in terms of firearm data? Can't quite put my finger on it.
Help me out. You know, so I can 'read up'.
Last edited:
This thread got quite entertaining. Not because of kidwoo’s sense of ‘humor’ or his disgruntled manipulation of facts, but mainly because the he is so imperceptive and steadfast in his insular beliefs he wouldn’t understand statistics or fact if it hit him upside the head. His viewpoint is so skewed and close minded he forgets that there’s an entire world around him proving his dinky little thought process wrong. Places like Harvard Law, Australian statistics, StatCan, or entire countries used as a case study like the Czech Republic vs Russia. Studies involving numerous countries and millions of people seem to take a second place (if a place at all) to news clippings and stories of FloridaMan going crazy with a handgun. According to the definition of ‘Misuse of Statistics’, Kidwoo has committed many examples thus far: Discarding unfavorable data; Loaded questions; Overgeneralization; Misunderstanding of estimated error. This, in the real world outside of a bike forum, or to those better versed with the topic, would render his opinion on this matter as being deceitful and untrustworthy.
The tell in his bluff to be perceived as intelligent is his repetitive ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments, attempting to belittle anyone who opposes his erroneous and ignorant ‘viewpoint’ with foaming at the mouth comments relating to phallic inadequacies or ones ‘IQ’. This behavior clearly indicates an insecurity from him with regards to both…. Take from that what you will
. Also of note is that the seething hoplophobia is indicative of both a violent predisposition, and sexual and emotional immaturity, discussed by Freud and various other philosophers and psychologists. In other words, if he wasn’t inadequate and immature, he wouldn’t care to the degree he doesCDC is enough. Where's your proof? Oh right, the ONE study done by the government states things both sides don't like. Go figure
Tone it down, focus on the real issues, and you'll start to see the big picture, just like Dan-O and several others see it.
Last edited:
Sweet link bro.
Let's just keep it simple.
If you're a detective, and you show up at the latest crime scene where someone was shot, and the words you utter are "well no kidding he shot him, he had a gun!!!", you'd be the laughing stock of the force. How is this any different?
If you're a detective, and you show up at the latest crime scene where someone was shot, and the words you utter are "well no kidding he shot him, he had a gun!!!", you'd be the laughing stock of the force. How is this any different?
So let me get this straight. You're the 'data guy', and I'm the one who doesn't understand how data reporting works, and oversimplifies everything right?
The biggest issue at hand here is to take the NRA and its associated lunatic fringes out of the equation. When they lobby for anyone, anywhere, at any time, to have the ability to purchase guns and ammo of their choice, and marginalize and terrorize those who oppose them, there will always be a problem.
We can make things disappear, if we as a community have one mind to do what is right, safe and sane in order for our childrens children to enjoy the life they are left. But there are those among us who feel that THEIR RIGHTS take precedence over those of others.
You can apply most of these arguments to almost any hot button issues of any day. Anti smoking, abortion, motorcycle helmet laws etc. And the extremists on either side will never agree. Those of us in the middle must speak louder...
An armed citizen on the street responding to this and any other active shooter situation would only confuse matters more, and possibly create more victims.
We can make things disappear, if we as a community have one mind to do what is right, safe and sane in order for our childrens children to enjoy the life they are left. But there are those among us who feel that THEIR RIGHTS take precedence over those of others.
You can apply most of these arguments to almost any hot button issues of any day. Anti smoking, abortion, motorcycle helmet laws etc. And the extremists on either side will never agree. Those of us in the middle must speak louder...
An armed citizen on the street responding to this and any other active shooter situation would only confuse matters more, and possibly create more victims.
I'm the guy that isn't going to play your game, because I already did the search. I don't need to convince you, nor do I believe I would regardless.
There's a whole world wide web, and I already listed what to look for:
Harvard Law
CDC
StatCan (proves violence just finds another way)
Australian Statistics (as above, proves overall murder rate does NOT decrease following a ban, and crime actually increases)
UK statistics on violent crime
Crime statistics in any country with a ban
It should be pointed out that I believe both sides have points, and both sides are wrong on certain issues. Why take one side's belief and run with it? I may have jabbed you but I know you're smarter than that.
There's a whole world wide web, and I already listed what to look for:
Harvard Law
CDC
StatCan (proves violence just finds another way)
Australian Statistics (as above, proves overall murder rate does NOT decrease following a ban, and crime actually increases)
UK statistics on violent crime
Crime statistics in any country with a ban
It should be pointed out that I believe both sides have points, and both sides are wrong on certain issues. Why take one side's belief and run with it? I may have jabbed you but I know you're smarter than that.
I believe they are their biggest enemy. Case in point is the recent offer in New Jersey regarding smart guns. WTF were they thinking?
Scroll back through this thread, and tell me how many respondents have advocated for a ban? Common sense legislation is what is most popularly called for, and NRA lobbyists strive to prevent such legislation. Many who reside in countries other than ours have replied with intelligent insight regarding safety in their countries, most of which laugh at the gun culture prevalent in the US...
I actually read it all. It's quite a read of both absurd thoughts and some sound logic. I guess that's par for the course.
Thing is, some of the common sense isn't that. I mean, a mag restriction does very little (we in Canada are evidence of that) as I'm sure you know how quickly mag changes take place or how easily pins are taken out. 'Assault' bans (I can't take that seriously, as someone very well versed in small arms) are political games to play with emotions.
In my opinion though, common sense would be a few changes. Carry in cities is an issue as it's not the wild west anymore. It would also allow Police to immediately respond to someone with one as a threat instead of not knowing. It probably helps account for why police are so on edge. We are very restrictive up here (too much, imo, as a lot are just 'feel good' rhetoric that does nothing but punish the law abiding) but we do some things right, like safe storage (reduced suicides) and restricted licensing. we all have background checks and assessments, and my name is run through databases daily. In fact as a pal holder I'm 3x less likely to commit a crime than a citizen who doesn't have one. So maybe somewhere in the middle? I'd love to be able to carry when I'm backpacking through BC where the nearest town is 40 miles away, but I can't, and some dude can carry in a city center down south.
But then you're right in that both sides will just push until both side turtle and we're left with this mess. Emotions and ignorance is an incredibly dangerous combo and both are guilty of that.
Oh, off topic, if you're active LEO I make a product you may or may not be interested in.
Thing is, some of the common sense isn't that. I mean, a mag restriction does very little (we in Canada are evidence of that) as I'm sure you know how quickly mag changes take place or how easily pins are taken out. 'Assault' bans (I can't take that seriously, as someone very well versed in small arms) are political games to play with emotions.
In my opinion though, common sense would be a few changes. Carry in cities is an issue as it's not the wild west anymore. It would also allow Police to immediately respond to someone with one as a threat instead of not knowing. It probably helps account for why police are so on edge. We are very restrictive up here (too much, imo, as a lot are just 'feel good' rhetoric that does nothing but punish the law abiding) but we do some things right, like safe storage (reduced suicides) and restricted licensing. we all have background checks and assessments, and my name is run through databases daily. In fact as a pal holder I'm 3x less likely to commit a crime than a citizen who doesn't have one. So maybe somewhere in the middle? I'd love to be able to carry when I'm backpacking through BC where the nearest town is 40 miles away, but I can't, and some dude can carry in a city center down south.
But then you're right in that both sides will just push until both side turtle and we're left with this mess. Emotions and ignorance is an incredibly dangerous combo and both are guilty of that.
Oh, off topic, if you're active LEO I make a product you may or may not be interested in.
Last edited:
i advocated for banning guns in the residence where a crazy person lives (and by obvious extension, CC)
i saw a piece on that, it was basically the NRA going off. lemme find the article.
Ooh look what I found
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347
So let's see. A good decade plus ban on collecting current data, leaving mostly information pushing 20 years old before the NRA was anywhere near as active as they are now and helping to foster a much more aggressive gun ownership culture.
Man, that just seems like it wouldn't affect anything published with less than a year's worth of relevant information at all!
And the UK statistics on violent crime numbers......what do those specifically state about gun violence and gun control measures? But mostly you tell me what the 'data' means. Hint: it's in the definition of 'violent crime.'
You don't understand what you're actually reading aktroz (and let's be honest, it's headlines you're reading, not research). I crunch numbers and run statistics for a living and have been trained to do so. I understand 'data' more than you can ever hope to.
You can bloviate all you want about me, but it's patently clear you're incapable of actually discussing topics you yourself bring up. Or you just know you're regurgitating 'talking points' while accusing me of doing exactly that.
I'm not playing a game genius, I'm actually trying to get you to pay attention to your own citations and learn a little about what they actually convey. Because if that's what you think you've got to stand on, you're just grossly misinformed.
Well that certainly makes a lot more sense now.
more from the article:
Last edited:
hurr durr
The legislation most people in the middle-ground advocate is already in place here in CA. What did it do? What laws did the NRA lobby successfully to block/overturn would have prevented the IV shootings?
If you want to argue for a total ban on private ownership of firearms, I think you could make a solid case, though I don't believe you want to live in the police-state required to accomplish such a goal. However there's simply no logic behind the restrictions proposed by the anti-gun crowd.
As I said, with the exception of insurance, every single thing the anti-gun crowd demands was in-place here in Ca over the weekend. Insurance is great for repairing damage, but never in history has it prevented damage, so while I understand your desire for gun owners, such as myself, to carry a personal liability policy, I fail to see how it would dissuade a would-be killer.
I meant overall banning of course...which is a pipe dream and would really trigger some serious idiocy. I simply believe that the reasonable use of firearms should not be infringed...the NRA does not.
I do not and will not ever see why the average citizen needs high cap mags, high powered (.50 cal sniper rifle? Why?) and why a mentally ill person needs to shoot up a college town/movie theater/grade school/college classroom/Army base/Navy base/resort island/ad nauseum. It all comes back to penis size in the end. Mentally ill fvckers who do this **** all have phallic issues. Responsible gun owners are quite often fully functioning and decent citizens.