So Obama...

[Brovo]

Agreed on gun control not being a magical pill. It's a common sense measure, but it's not going to save you from everything. I guess you could compare it to a firewall: It doesn't matter how good the firewall is if you constantly bypass it and download viruses and other shady shit onto your computer. Kill the causes of crime, not the symptoms. Some of the biggest causes of crime are things like poverty, and the illegal drug trade. The more you breed the environment for desperate killers, the more desperate killers you will inevitably breed. If we spent the money fighting the drug war on, say, swaying black "urban" youth away from gangs with well funded public programs to alleviate the poverty their families suffer, and segway them into constructive careers? You cut off the manpower for the gangs. If you legalized and taxed drugs, you could use the tax money to pay off the burden in the medical system that the drug users will inflict (similar to how cigarette & alcohol taxes are supposed to do the same thing), you'd immediately destroy any sane man's reason to go looking for it from the black market.

Basically, the harder you try to fight individuals from doing what they want, the more you'll breed the environment for crime. Some things you can't fix, like murder: We'll always have murders. However, most murders are motivated by something preventable: Like a desperate need for "that next hit" which we could just tax and sell in the same facility that offers advice and medical aid for quitting it, or help for families that live in neighbourhoods which are so shit, that their children either join a gang, or get ganged up on and murdered for not joining a gang.

We have to fight the causes if we ever want to lower the rate of the symptoms.

Unfortunately, however, politicians and the media have created a nice smokescreen out of guns so as to distract people from what really causes the horrendous levels of violence in the United States.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with how profitable the multi-billion dollar private prison system is, no siree. No way it could have anything to do with how monumentally wealthy certain people get from continually shitting out ammo and firearms that certain suspect parties "acquire" through puppet groups. Nope. No way. I couldn't even imagine a world in which Mexican drug cartels would have a hundreds of millions of dollars of vested interest in ensuring that the status quo is maintained. I mean, goodness, surely they would be concerned for the welfare of the average man, right?

 

[Dervish]

@Brovo you're pretty much right about the suppressor bit, with a few extra points of consideration. Suppressed guns are still pretty loud, but you can usually fire them without hearing protection, but if aomebody was in a shoot out, you would have no problem telling where the gunshots are coming from.

For suppressors to be truly effective, they're usually coupled with subsonic ammo (ammunition that doesn't break the sound barrier), which does a lot to mask the sound profile.

Now, while that all sounds great for snipers, it lowers your velocity by a lot, which means less damage and range. Most snipers would forgo a suppressor because the ranges they operate at basically makes sound a non-issue; the bullet arrives entire seconds before the sound of the rifle firing, and a single shot is nearly impossible to find a direction, let alone pinpoint.

I mean, let that sink in; imagine the man next to you dying suddenly and you only hear a gunshot a few seconds later. That's terrifying.

The stuff you bring up your last post is exactly how I feel on the matter, guns themselves aren't the issue, it's people who shouldn't have them getting cheap and easy to obtain guns that are the issue. Why target military style rifles when most shootings are done with handguns?

A common misconception about guns in the US are automatic firearms; most citizens cannot legally own them, and those who can have special permits. They're also probably not going to be used in crimes because a semi-auto AR-15 can be bought for less than 1000 bucks. An automatic AR-15 is easily in the 20k range.

Background checks and licensing is something that statistics show is agreed upon by 86% of American citizens; it's a great first step forward.

 

[Decimate]

@Brovo

I mostly agree with your points.

As someone with a lot of family who works over at the youth prison, the gangs are extremely influential and fulfill many, many needs more than just a source of monetary income. There are tons of young adults in there with absolutely no familial structure what so ever. They're basically third and even fourth generation criminals and most of their family is either in prison for heavier crimes ... or they've been killed. No exaggeration. For a lot of them, the gangs represent familial ties they've never gotten to experience on the outside. Many of them have adamantly stated that if they had a choice to become doctors, lawyers, or some other well paying career versus sticking with their gang, they would not only choose to remain with their gang, but they would advocate for their children to join as well.

It's kind of one of the saddest things I've ever seen.

Unfortunately, however, politicians and the media have created a nice smokescreen out of guns so as to distract people from what really causes the horrendous levels of violence in the United States.
And basically this on a lot of levels. The political partisanship in the US is pretty damn toxic at this time. Most of it coming from the way the news is produced as a product here and basically exists to cause controversy / clickbait +9000 level drama.

 

[Peter Feels]

A lot of you share my points on both gun ownership and gun regulation. I can understand and relate, in some way or another, with a lot of the opposing view points.

I am very interested in guns, and weapons as a whole, and yes I would like to have access to a lot of them. I'm also willing to accept, as Brovo pointed out, that some things (nukes and bugs) are excess and even I wonder why have them. For the other stuff like silencers or modified parts, it seems all excessive nit picking to want to control every aspect of them.

Also, people kill people. Obviously. You aren't going to stop them from killing people and some will do it better than others. While weapons of any kind can help with that task, they aren't the thing that makes the task possible. I don't think any amount of regulation and banning would help us from ourselves. I think only we can.

 

[Durandal]

Had a recent speech, in regards to gun control, how fed up he is and basically fuck everyone who disagrees because he's tired of hearing about dead children (rough summary).

President Obama's amazingly emotional speech on gun control

There's the link if you want to read it.

Can I just say...how goddamn amazing it is to see someone of such high political status actually showing EMOTION. Like seriously, it's such a difference from what we normally get and is a great reminder.of how human he is. Omo

Thoughts?

My thoughts are I can't believe you thought bringing up anything regarding politics is a good idea due to people's vastly differing ideas on things and the potential sheer fire you're playing with just doing so, if I was an admin or mod I'd have locked this thread immediately

I have no idea if things have stayed civil, if they have it's a miracle, but either way, really just...don't bring it up, don't go there, and I personally feel any moderators or administrators who see this SHOULD lock the thread just due to the potential firecracker the topic is.

I know for example I feel extremely strongly about politics, and the desire to state several unkind things about your apparent belief that Obama's such a great guy is very strong for example.

 

[Brovo]

I'm also willing to accept, as Brovo pointed out, that some things (nukes and bugs) are excess and even I wonder why have them

M.A.D Policies have helped to keep the world from descending into further world wars. Good ole' mutually assured destruction basically ensures the invulnerability of a state: Nobody who has the capacity to nuke someone else is going to nuke someone else because they themselves will be nuked by someone else as retaliation. It's basically the world's biggest Mexican Standoff. That's why Iran and North Korea want them so badly: It would make invading them an extremely difficult task, because they could just threaten to nuke anyone who got in their way, thereby ensuring a sort of pseudo-invulnerability.

So long as nobody fires any of them, anyway.

As for gun control... Just have licences that require people to take safety courses and have those licences expire every five years or so, just like a driver's licence. That way you can have someone take a safety course again and update their shit. It also funnels a constant stream of fee-related money into the coffers of the approval system, so the feds don't have to engage in yet another tax to feed yet another bloated department. Then you could add specialized licences (again, much like driver's licences--a licence for driving an air break bus is different from that of a standard vehicle) for whatever else people want to do.

I mean, fuck, if Hollywood is allowed to rent military hardware outright just for movie shots, surely random joes can have their hobbyist collection guns.

 

[Arlathina]

My post was to illustrate that, going the route of other countries and making weapons, guns in particular, illegal won't really hurt gun crime as a whole within the United States. We may see a drop off in "horror" moments in the same vein of Sandy Hook and Columbine, but criminals will always have weapons-- because Mexican cartels will take over weapon trade.

See: War on Drugs. Mexican Cartels are a superpower in and unto themselves due to their control of foreign drugs entering the US.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is, while getting your hand on a gun may be harder for an individual, and while it may be harder for one of those insane teenagers to shoot up a school, criminals will still get their hands on them. Someone who wants to murder with a gun, will get their hand on a gun.

I understand that, and the point I'm trying to illustrate is that you're misinformed because the majority of guns crossing the US-Mexican border end up in Mexico, not the other way around. The U.S. is actually fueling the Mexican drug cartels through their lack of regulation in the firearms industry, despite what the NRA would tell you. I'm not calling for an outright ban on guns, but I do think that it would be in the best interest to introduce extremely comprehensive gun laws, which is part of the reason I applaud Obama for finally taking some sort of action on the issue despite having to work around an obstinate and uncooperative Congress.

I'm also not denying that the Mexican cartels are vastly powerful and corrupt criminal organizations. However, I object the surmise that we shouldn't take action on gun violence in America because it will only have a negligible impact, and that this is somehow due to Mexicans smuggling guns into the U.S. That simply isn't what the facts show.

Also, the Second Amendment of the Constitution is wildly misinterpreted by many people today. Most believe that is gives every Tom, Dick, and Harry the right to bear arms, and this is not true. The amendment actually states that the state has the right to keep a well-regulated militia. When they say, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," they do not mean every singular individual. They mean the people as a collective group, that those within this well-regulated milita that represents the collective group cannot be infringed from bearing arms.

Also, people kill people. Obviously. You aren't going to stop them from killing people and some will do it better than others. While weapons of any kind can help with that task, they aren't the thing that makes the task possible. I don't think any amount of regulation and banning would help us from ourselves. I think only we can.

We've established that people have a tendency to hurt one another long ago. Simply because we know that this happens doesn't mean that we should give up on gun legislation and give homicidal individuals the capability to access weapons that make it possible to kill many people quickly and efficiently.

While I think it would be wonderful if we could all meditate, do some soul searching, and then gather around a campfire to sing kumbaya, that isn't how the world works.

My thoughts are I can't believe you thought bringing up anything regarding politics is a good idea due to people's vastly differing ideas on things and the potential sheer fire you're playing with just doing so, if I was an admin or mod I'd have locked this thread immediately

I have no idea if things have stayed civil, if they have it's a miracle, but either way, really just...don't bring it up, don't go there, and I personally feel any moderators or administrators who see this SHOULD lock the thread just due to the potential firecracker the topic is.

I know for example I feel extremely strongly about politics, and the desire to state several unkind things about your apparent belief that Obama's such a great guy is very strong for example.

The fact that you find it difficult to have a civil conversation about a controversial topic doesn't mean that those of us who can shouldn't be able to. If you can't restrain yourself from saying "unkind things", then don't participate in the conversation. Otherwise, stop calling for the thread to be censored, as it's an important topic that needs to be discussed since there are clearly many misconceptions.

 

[Peter Feels]

We've established that people have a tendency to hurt one another long ago. Simply because we know that this happens doesn't mean that we should give up on gun legislation and give homicidal individuals the capability to access weapons that make it possible to kill many people quickly and efficiently.

While I think it would be wonderful if we could all meditate, do some soul searching, and then gather around a campfire to sing kumbaya, that isn't how the world works.

You misread me. I'm not saying we need a cup of tea and a guitar session around a fire. Nor was I endorsing the idea of letting individuals have weapons carte blanche. I was stating that human interaction has some rather static (in the sense of how hard it would be to overcome) tendencies. One of those is violence. So yes, it would be wonderful of we could sing around a fire, but we aren't. As I said.

I also earlier mentioned that I agree with a lot of what has been said before. One of those things is a sensible, responsible (both theirs and ours) laws and regulations.


I left what I was for and against vague since I didn't want to parrot everyone else. Apologies if that confused you.

 

[Arlathina]

You misread me. I'm not saying we need a cup of tea and a guitar session around a fire. Nor was I endorsing the idea of letting individuals have weapons carte blanche. I was stating that human interaction has some rather static (in the sense of how hard it would be to overcome) tendencies. One of those is violence. So yes, it would be wonderful of we could sing around a fire, but we aren't. As I said.

I also earlier mentioned that I agree with a lot of what has been said before. One of those things is a sensible, responsible (both theirs and ours) laws and regulations.


I left what I was for and against vague since I didn't want to parrot everyone else. Apologies if that confused you.

I wasn't confused at all. It wasn't even what you said, but rather what was implied. To me, it just indicated a certain sense of futility that I disagreed with. Maybe I misinterpreted it, but there are certainly some people who would try to forgo gun legislation on the basis of some philosophical quandary about the inevitable human condition.

 

[Peter Feels]

I wasn't confused at all. It wasn't even what you said, but rather what was implied. To me, it just indicated a certain sense of futility that I disagreed with. Maybe I misinterpreted it, but there are certainly some people who would try to forgo gun legislation on the basis of some philosophical quandary about the inevitable human condition.

Okey doke. Well, I don't know the text definition of confusion, so I just don't care.

But beyond that, it seems we agree. What I was implying is that we should focus more on root causes of violence and misunderstanding, rather than "band-aiding" the problem. Of course, the root cause goes beyond guns and this is not that sort of thread.

So, again, I am FOR gun laws and regulation that have a sensible and responsible approaches.

 

[Durandal]

The fact that you find it difficult to have a civil conversation about a controversial topic doesn't mean that those of us who can shouldn't be able to. If you can't restrain yourself from saying "unkind things", then don't participate in the conversation. Otherwise, stop calling for the thread to be censored, as it's an important topic that needs to be discussed since there are clearly many misconceptions.

Called missing the point, I stand by what I said and I'd say it again every time, biting my tongue wasn't all that hard actually, so don't be patronizing okay?

I said what I said because I've seen this sort of thing devolve into flame wars so easily, congratulations on keeping it civil, it's practically an act of a god that it managed to stay civil, so bravo to you all for keeping it that way. The point still stands that any topic regarding politics or religion is like holding a ticking bomb that could go off at any moment and should be avoided.

In fact, I think it's more a statement on the whole of how fantastic the moderator team this thread hasn't been locked, and that they're trusting you guys, in other forums I've seen anything that even alleges to being politically motivated for the discussion topic be instantly locked, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go straight to thread jail.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

Also, the Second Amendment of the Constitution is wildly misinterpreted by many people today. Most believe that is gives every Tom, Dick, and Harry the right to bear arms, and this is not true. The amendment actually states that the state has the right to keep a well-regulated militia. When they say, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," they do not mean every singular individual. They mean the people as a collective group, that those within this well-regulated milita that represents the collective group cannot be infringed from bearing arms.

In which, I will disagree. Why do I think that's wrong? One tiny detail in the second amendment people tend to skip over.

"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."

What I see, is a comma. A comma that separates the militia, and the people. Meaning that the ones allowed to bear arms are a well regulated militia, AND the people.

If it truly meant just a militia, then they wouldn't even bother mentioning the right of the people. Even if the camma wasn't there, it still mentions the right of the people. If the amendment meant what you said and nothing more, then I think the amendment would have been written like this

"The right of a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state to bear arms, shall not be infringed"

That's what I think the second amendment would say if you were right about it's interpretation.

Also, why would they allow like every citizen when it was created to still bear arms if they only meant militia? I doubt that each and every citizen was in a milita, and I doubt the ones who created the amendment would just sit in the corner and ignore people mis-reading their laws.


So yes, you're right that it's talking about a well regulated militia... But it's also talking about the people, the part you seemed to have missed (Or mis-interpreted)

 

[Windsong]

In fact, I think it's more a statement on the whole of how fantastic the moderator team this thread hasn't been locked, and that they're trusting you guys, in other forums I've seen anything that even alleges to being politically motivated for the discussion topic be instantly locked, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go straight to thread jail.

Grumpy would. In a fucking heartbeat. But we're also not on Reddit. Where if you disagree with the masses, you're banned, but you don't know it.

 

[Durandal]

Grumpy would. In a fucking heartbeat. But we're also not on Reddit. Where if you disagree with the masses, you're banned, but you don't know it.

That's because Grumpy understands much like I do just how easily this sort of stuff devolves into chaos

So yea, I'm amazed it hasn't, good job guys :)

 

[Dervish]

Called missing the point, I stand by what I said and I'd say it again every time, biting my tongue wasn't all that hard actually, so don't be patronizing okay?

I said what I said because I've seen this sort of thing devolve into flame wars so easily, congratulations on keeping it civil, it's practically an act of a god that it managed to stay civil, so bravo to you all for keeping it that way. The point still stands that any topic regarding politics or religion is like holding a ticking bomb that could go off at any moment and should be avoided.

In fact, I think it's more a statement on the whole of how fantastic the moderator team this thread hasn't been locked, and that they're trusting you guys, in other forums I've seen anything that even alleges to being politically motivated for the discussion topic be instantly locked, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go straight to thread jail.

I have to admit, it's a pleasant surprise. I've seen a lot of threads devolve into ugly scraps and locked for far less controversial topics, especially the past few months. I think we kind of have a volatile community here with a few powder keg members, but people seem to have cooled off.

Warms my non-beating, necrotic heart.

 

[Roose Hurro]

As a man, it is unusual to see one cry especially so publicly. He has always been very vocal about how stricter America needs to be in regards to gun control, ever since the Sandy Hook incident. People are crying out that he has an agenda, one in which we are blind too and all I can think is...he has a weakness in regards to children being murdered. He has been very vocal in regards to gun violence, especially in incidents where children have died as a result. And I cannot find it within me to bring up other issues when I feel he is right in his stance.

Ahem. You do realize you just anthropomorphized an inanimate object. Guns are not violent, people are. Guns are not people. Therefore, guns are not violent. They are inanimate tools, and, like any tool, only dangerous when someone picks it up and uses it irresponsibly. Controlling the tool does nothing. Control the tool user, if you wish to control the violence. How? Make sure those who use a gun in the commission of a crime are put into a condition in which they cannot harm anyone. Either lock them up for life or end their life. Never let them out to commit their violence again. If you don't, then all the children ever murdered by violent PEOPLE will have died for nothing.

 

[Hellis]

Please stop calling a gun a tool. It is a weapon. There is a distinct, and vast different. The Intention of Design. A weapon is designed to harm, potentially kill. It is the only purpose of its existence. This is something that always bothered me, because I am a very technical minded person, and design interface and design philosophy are two areas I received a lot education in. A weapon is a weapon, not a tool. A screwdriver is a tool, that can be wielded as a weapon. At that point, you are using the screwdriver for something else entirely then its express purpose. You go against the purpose of the design. YOU transform its use from that of a tool to a weapon.

A gun was a weapon from start, will remain a weapon, will always be a weapon. It is a matter of purpose. This is becouse a guns design is so mechanically intricate and so efficiently aimed to a single purpose. The difference is thus huge and distinct. Don't confuse the two. It is nto a matter of semantic, I see you over there, trying to raise your hand in protest. The key to successful design is to establish a purpose. The purpose define the design. The design and purpose establish the parimiters of its useage. A gun is a weapon, creation for the purpose of violence. In defense or offence, as as agressor or protector. It is a thing meant for only violence, implied (See: Threat and Deterring) or otherwise. It is not made for anything but violence. I am saying this as someone who is working on a hunting licence, and likely gonna own two different rifles in the future. One that is unnecessarily swanky for what I am possibly gonna use it for.

A Tool can many times be used as a weapon. A weapon can never be argued to be tool.

This is my contribution to this lovely civil debate about a subject that is infected as all hell.

Sneaky edit: A person who argue that a weapon is a tool, misses the point of the weapon and makes himself look like a tool. *I made a clever joke, see?*

 

[Dervish]

Please stop calling a gun a tool. It is a weapon. There is a distinct, and vast different. The Intention of Design. A weapon is designed to harm, potentially kill. It is the only purpose of its existence. This is something that always bothered me, because I am a very technical minded person, and design interface and design philosophy are two areas I received a lot education in. A weapon is a weapon, not a tool. A screwdriver is a tool, that can be wielded as a weapon. At that point, you are using the screwdriver for something else entirely then its express purpose. You go against the purpose of the design. YOU transform its use from that of a tool to a weapon.

A gun was a weapon from start, will remain a weapon, will always be a weapon. It is a matter of purpose. This is becouse a guns design is so mechanically intricate and so efficiently aimed to a single purpose. The difference is thus huge and distinct. Don't confuse the two. It is nto a matter of semantic, I see you over there, trying to raise your hand in protest. The key to successful design is to establish a purpose. The purpose define the design. The design and purpose establish the parimiters of its useage. A gun is a weapon, creation for the purpose of violence. In defense or offence, as as agressor or protector. It is a thing meant for only violence, implied (See: Threat and Deterring) or otherwise. It is not made for anything but violence. I am saying this as someone who is working on a hunting licence, and likely gonna own two different rifles in the future. One that is unnecessarily swanky for what I am possibly gonna use it for.

A Tool can many times be used as a weapon. A weapon can never be argued to be tool.

This is my contribution to this lovely civil debate about a subject that is infected as all hell.

Sneaky edit: A person who argue that a weapon is a tool, misses the point of the weapon and makes himself look like a tool. *I made a clever joke, see?*

I will have you know my rifle is fantastic for aerating my garden and the bayonet tills the soil! >:[

jk my dog destroyed my garden eons ago.

 

[Hecatoncheires]

RIP Dervish's garden.

 

[Hellis]

My finish buddy us a winter war mortar shell as a flower pit