What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Warren Zevon]

22 hours ago, Rockpile233 said:

I don’t own any guns, but I’ve never had any problem with people who consider that right a big part of their personal identity.

 

I just don’t understand why we can’t limit personal ownership to rifles that aren’t capable of (x) amount of rounds per minute. (I’m no expert you would obviously need to carefully craft this) I don’t see any practical need in having a rifle that can unload that many rounds per minute apart from personal enjoyment. I have a lot of close friends who are Motorheads and we don’t let them drive as fast as they want for their personal enjoyment.

 

If you already own one you’re grandfathered in. Don’t worry the second amendment isn’t under assault. 

 

I don’t really understand why conversations like this send people into a frenzy. Seems like a reasonable train of thought. 

 

A crazy would have have trouble killing 17 with a handgun under most circumstances. People want to point at mass shootings as a relatively recent phenomenon (and reference loss of family values, religion, parenting as the causes) yet don’t want to look at technological advances of personally owned firearms making that type of carnage even possible.

 

#makeserialkillinginvougeagain

 

 

Quoting this as it's a fantastic post that got lost in some bickering

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

I’m interested in what the staunchly anti-gun regulation crowd would propose doing on a federal level to combat the regular mass shootings we experience here.

 

I think most people acknowledge that there is something wrong, and thus a reasonable person would acknowledge that changing nothing is unlikely to stop the phenomenon from occurring.

 

To me then you fall into a few camps:

 

1. “Mass shootings are a cost of doing business if you will, in a county that affords freedoms we hold dear. While unfortunate occurrences, mass shootings do not offset the benefit of the second amendment and thus must be endured.”

 

While I don’t agree with this mindset, I respect it because it’s at least consistent.

 

2. Mass shootings ARE an issue that should be addressed federally, but guns aren’t the problem. It’s those difficult to quantify “underlying issues” that we need to address. (Loss of family values, war on religion, mental health etc.)

 

Okkkkkk. I would argue that there is some merit to this, but nobody I speak to in person ever has an idea to do anything different. I would argue that many people typically can agree that someone with documented mental health issues shouldn’t have access to firearms, but this becomes an opportunity to posture politically and no one actually does anything.

 

3. “Mass shootings ARE an issue and increased federal regulation on guns should be considered”

 

I would say this is probably the majority opinion these days from people I am surrounded by (small sample obviously for the smart asses) Ideas have been floated, but are constantly confused by slippery slope counter arguments and declarations that there is a war on the second amendment. At least this camp seems to acknowledge that we should TRY SOMETHING even if it’s small.

 

4. “Guns kill and should be outlawed for personal ownership.”

 

These people are crazy, unrealistic, self absorbed, idiots. Unfortunately people try to group #3 in with them to drag reasonable conversations into absurdity.

 

So if you think mass shootings are an issue that needs work, come

up with something. Easy to bash everyone’s ideas without having an alternative. 

 

And if if you think your hoard of rifles and ammunition is going to protect you from a tyrannical government...please pass that good stuff my way. A former friend of mine with this opinion is already online spreading Florida is a false flag conspiracy stories. You are a special sort of crazy and nobody is going to push you off your opinion. 

 

I think camps 2 and 3 could have reasonable conversations if this pathetic generation of politicians would go away.

No group is going to take on the American military, but they will resist federal over reach such as what happened at the Bundy Ranch.

[LeviF]

11 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

 

 

4. “Guns kill and should be outlawed for personal ownership.”

 

These people are crazy, unrealistic, self absorbed, idiots. Unfortunately people try to group #3 in with them to drag reasonable conversations into absurdity.

 

 

 

Unfortunately the position in #3 almost inevitably leads to #4.  This has been seen time and again and has been demonstrated several times in this very thread.

 

12 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

 

 

And if if you think your hoard of rifles and ammunition is going to protect you from a tyrannical government...please pass that good stuff my way.

 

"An AR-15 is an assault weapon that is only good for killing lots of people!"

 

"Your AR-15 won't protect you if someone comes for your guns!"

 

Which is it, brahim?

[TakeYouToTasker]

20 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

I’m interested in what the staunchly anti-gun regulation crowd would propose doing on a federal level to combat the regular mass shootings we experience here.

 

I think most people acknowledge that there is something wrong, and thus a reasonable person would acknowledge that changing nothing is unlikely to stop the phenomenon from occurring.

 

To me then you fall into a few camps:

 

1. “Mass shootings are a cost of doing business if you will, in a county that affords freedoms we hold dear. While unfortunate occurrences, mass shootings do not offset the benefit of the second amendment and thus must be endured.”

 

While I don’t agree with this mindset, I respect it because it’s at least consistent.

 

2. Mass shootings ARE an issue that should be addressed federally, but guns aren’t the problem. It’s those difficult to quantify “underlying issues” that we need to address. (Loss of family values, war on religion, mental health etc.)

 

Okkkkkk. I would argue that there is some merit to this, but nobody I speak to in person ever has an idea to do anything different. I would argue that many people typically can agree that someone with documented mental health issues shouldn’t have access to firearms, but this becomes an opportunity to posture politically and no one actually does anything.

 

3. “Mass shootings ARE an issue and increased federal regulation on guns should be considered”

 

I would say this is probably the majority opinion these days from people I am surrounded by (small sample obviously for the smart asses) Ideas have been floated, but are constantly confused by slippery slope counter arguments and declarations that there is a war on the second amendment. At least this camp seems to acknowledge that we should TRY SOMETHING even if it’s small.

 

4. “Guns kill and should be outlawed for personal ownership.”

 

These people are crazy, unrealistic, self absorbed, idiots. Unfortunately people try to group #3 in with them to drag reasonable conversations into absurdity.

 

So if you think mass shootings are an issue that needs work, come

up with something. Easy to bash everyone’s ideas without having an alternative. 

 

And if if you think your hoard of rifles and ammunition is going to protect you from a tyrannical government...please pass that good stuff my way. A former friend of mine with this opinion is already online spreading Florida is a false flag conspiracy stories. You are a special sort of crazy and nobody is going to push you off your opinion. 

 

I think camps 2 and 3 could have reasonable conversations if this pathetic generation of politicians would go away.

This strikes me as an inquisitive post, setting out with an attempt at intellectual honesty, so I'll engage.

 

I don't think there are any reasonable people out there who don't think mas shootings are problematic.  The individual instances are incredibly problematic, because they represent tragic, often senseless, personal loss; and are heart breaking, especially when the victims are children.

 

With that said, we are not facing an epidemic.  As I mentioned earlier, an individual, over the course of their lives, are just as likely to be mauled to death by a dog as they are to die in a mass shooting, and there are roughly the same amount of bathtubs drownings in the US annually as there are these types of gun deaths.

 

So while it is problematic, it is not problematic enough that we need to rethink the entire concept of human rights and our nation's Foundational values.  (Our Foundational values, as much as you've handwaived them away, are an assertion that a free people have the right to bear arms in order to prevent their own government from becoming tyrannical.  This is just as relevant today as it was 250 years ago.)

 

Further, if we wish to address the issue, it seems wise to address the actual problem rather than the symptom; and the symptom is the mass shootings.  You need to address the pathology.

 

Guns are not the problem.  The problem are the people going on rampages.  Let's address that, and by address, I don't mean legislate:  I mean talk about the problem.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Koko78]

6 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

"An AR-15 is an assault weapon that is only good for killing lots of people!"

 

"Your AR-15 won't protect you if someone comes for your guns!"

 

Which is it, brahim?

 

Well duh, the quad .50's he has mounted are for protection. The AR-15 is for fun.

[Rockpile233]

7 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Unfortunately the position in #3 almost inevitably leads to #4.  This has been seen time and again and has been demonstrated several times in this very thread.

 

 

"An AR-15 is an assault weapon that is only good for killing lots of people!"

 

"Your AR-15 won't protect you if someone comes for your guns!"

 

Which is it, brahim?

 

Soooooo are mass shootings a problem? You’re deflecting with a fallacious slippery slope argument. Should people with mental health issues have the right to purchase firearms? 

 

I never said an AR-15 is only a killing device. I said it was at best an adult toy for target shooting. I said I didn’t see many practical reasons for owning one apart from protection, which could also be accomplished with hand guns. And I stand by that your AR-15 isn’t protecting you from the military.

 

You can be camp #1, I’ve acknowledged the logical consistency to that group and can at least respect that.

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, Rockpile233 said:

 

Soooooo are mass shootings a problem? You’re deflecting with a fallacious slippery slope argument. Should people with mental health issues have the right to purchase firearms? 

 

I never said an AR-15 is only a killing device. I said it was at best an adult toy for target shooting. I said I didn’t see many practical reasons for owning one apart from protection, which could also be accomplished with hand guns. And I stand by that your AR-15 isn’t protecting you from the military.

 

You can be camp #1, I’ve acknowledged the logical consistency to that group and can at least respect that.

 

That I am in camp #1 is well-documented here, I didn't feel the need to state it again. 

 

Calling the slippery slope argument fallacious doesn't make it fallacious.  Aside from letting one portion of one law expire, there has been zero legislation on the federal level to protect gun rights generally since 1934.  Looking at the last 80 years of gun legislation makes it clear that it's not going to stop and every gun ban or restriction is seen as a "new normal" from which we need to retreat to be closer to an all-out ban on personal firearm ownership.

 

 

PS: An AR platform firearm is a much more effective home and personal defense tool than a handgun, IMO. 

[Rockpile233]

7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

This strikes me as an inquisitive post, setting out with an attempt at intellectual honesty, so I'll engage.

 

I don't think there are any reasonable people out there who don't think mas shootings are problematic.  The individual instances are incredibly problematic, because they represent tragic, often senseless, personal loss; and are heart breaking, especially when the victims are children.

 

With that said, we are not facing an epidemic.  As I mentioned earlier, an individual, over the course of their lives, are just as likely to be mauled to death by a dog as they are to die in a mass shooting, and there are roughly the same amount of bathtubs drownings in the US annually as there are these types of gun deaths.

 

So while it is problematic, it is not problematic enough that we need to rethink the entire concept of human rights and our nation's Foundational values.

 

Further, if we wish to address the issue, it seems wise to address the actual problem rather than the symptom; and the symptom is the mass shootings.  You need to address the pathology.

 

Guns are not the problem.  The problem are the people going on rampages.  Let's address that, and by address, I don't mean legislate:  I mean talk about the problem.

 

 

 

You are camp #1? Shocking...to no one lol.

 

I would love for people to talk more about the underlying issues, which I agree are certainly contributing, but these are naturally harder to work out and only pursuing this avenue will of course lead to nothing actually being done. Maybe nothing needs to be...I don’t have all the answers.

 

I definitely blame advancements in personal owned firearms to an extent. The common pathological issues have always existed even in the days of family values people talk about. The broken people did not have access to firearms that could unload the quantity of ammunition then as they do now. I brought up serial killing in jest, but that was in vogue among the crazies (which we can all agree there is a certain one upping type of thing with social media (formally print media)) I think most of those issues aren’t any different than they were 50 years ago. It’s the firearms that advanced and social media one upping probably took it from there.

 

I’m rambling now, back to real work.

[B-Man]

Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S.‏ @Neoavatara 2h2 hours ago

25 warnings. 25. If we can't act on that, then nothing else will ever matter:

Parkland student: We warned people several times about mass shooter

 

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/20/parkland-student-warned-people-several-times-mass-shooter/ … @edmorrissey

[Rockpile233]

4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

That I am in camp #1 is well-documented here, I didn't feel the need to state it again. 

 

Calling the slippery slope argument fallacious doesn't make it fallacious.  Aside from letting one portion of one law expire, there has been zero legislation on the federal level to protect gun rights generally since 1934.  Looking at the last 80 years of gun legislation makes it clear that it's not going to stop and every gun ban or restriction is seen as a "new normal" from which we need to retreat to be closer to an all-out ban on personal firearm ownership.

 

 

PS: An AR platform firearm is a much more effective home and personal defense tool than a handgun, IMO. 

 

I haven’t been on here in a while, position noted.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

 

You are camp #1? Shocking...to no one lol.

 

I would love for people to talk more about the underlying issues, which I agree are certainly contributing, but these are naturally harder to work out and only pursuing this avenue will of course lead to nothing actually being done. Maybe nothing needs to be...I don’t have all the answers.

 

I definitely blame advancements in personal owned firearms to an extent. The common pathological issues have always existed even in the days of family values people talk about. The broken people did not have access to firearms that could unload the quantity of ammunition then as they do now. I brought up serial killing in jest, but that was in vogue among the crazies (which we can all agree there is a certain one upping type of thing with social media (formally print media)) I think most of those issues aren’t any different than they were 50 years ago. It’s the firearms that advanced and social media one upping probably took it from there.

 

I’m rambling now, back to real work.

I don't think you've defined camp #1 well enough, because my personal view is much more nuanced.

 

I've never said, anywhere, that nothing should be done, or that mass shootings should simply view viewed as the cost of doing business in a free society.

 

This:  "I would love for people to talk more about the underlying issues, which I agree are certainly contributing, but these are naturally harder to work out and only pursuing this avenue will of course lead to nothing actually being done. Maybe nothing needs to be...I don’t have all the answers." in my opinion forms the bulk of the issue.

 

Of course mass shootings are a complicated problem.  Most problems are.  The thing is, the problem doesn't get solved unless we treat the actual problem, so while it may be difficult, if we want to solve it, treating symptoms doesn't help.

 

As to your third paragraph, I don't think you have the right of it there.

 

[sodbuster]

19 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

 

You are camp #1? Shocking...to no one lol.

 

I would love for people to talk more about the underlying issues, which I agree are certainly contributing, but these are naturally harder to work out and only pursuing this avenue will of course lead to nothing actually being done. Maybe nothing needs to be...I don’t have all the answers.

 

I definitely blame advancements in personal owned firearms to an extent. The common pathological issues have always existed even in the days of family values people talk about. The broken people did not have access to firearms that could unload the quantity of ammunition then as they do now. I brought up serial killing in jest, but that was in vogue among the crazies (which we can all agree there is a certain one upping type of thing with social media (formally print media)) I think most of those issues aren’t any different than they were 50 years ago. It’s the firearms that advanced and social media one upping probably took it from there.

 

I’m rambling now, back to real work.

Your third paragraph really stands out to me. I think you're falling victim to your ignorance of firearms. At the risk of sounding morbid or insensitive, an autoloading shotgun or semiautomatic handgun would be probably as effective in a school shooting as a semiautomatic rifle, the handgun possibly more so. Both of those have been in production and readily available to citizens since well before the World War 1.

 

One of the biggest reasons handguns aren't used as much is because many big box stores that sell cheap guns, Wal Mart for example, make it company policy not to stock handguns.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Rockpile233 said:

I would love for people to talk more about the underlying issues, which I agree are certainly contributing, but these are naturally harder to work out and only pursuing this avenue will of course lead to nothing actually being done. Maybe nothing needs to be...I don’t have all the answers.

 

I definitely blame advancements in personal owned firearms to an extent. The common pathological issues have always existed even in the days of family values people talk about. The broken people did not have access to firearms that could unload the quantity of ammunition then as they do now. I brought up serial killing in jest, but that was in vogue among the crazies (which we can all agree there is a certain one upping type of thing with social media (formally print media)) I think most of those issues aren’t any different than they were 50 years ago. It’s the firearms that advanced and social media one upping probably took it from there.

 

I’m rambling now, back to real work.

 

There is one area that is not being discussed enough, and it's advanced more technologically speaking in recent times than firearm technology. 

 

 

People get mad about the NRA and it's funding of politicians - but they PALE in comparison to how much Big Pharma gives and games the system. 

 

I'm not talking about mental health issues, I'm talking about our brain chemistry changing due to the over prescription of medications. 

[Chandemonium]

2 hours ago, Rockpile233 said:

And if if you think your hoard of rifles and ammunition is going to protect you from a tyrannical government...please pass that good stuff my way.

To me this is perhaps the biggest reason to support the second amendment. If you recognize that the amendment is in place as  a safeguard against tyranny, and if you also believe that in a scenario where armed conflict is necessary to defend liberty the deck would be heavily stacked in favor of the oppressors, why would you willingly give up one of the few cards in your favor?

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

To me this is perhaps the biggest reason to support the second amendment. If you recognize that the amendment is in place as  a safeguard against tyranny, and if you also believe that in a scenario where armed conflict is necessary to defend liberty the deck would be heavily stacked in favor of the oppressors, why would you willingly give up one of the few cards in your favor?

Do you believe it coincidental that the party of gun grabbers is also the party who attempted to fix a federal election and then initiated a coup against the justly elected government?

 

As I said up-thread, Second Amendment protections against government tyranny are just as relevant today as they were 250 years ago.

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Do you believe it coincidental that the party of gun grabbers is also the party who attempted to fix a federal election and then initiated a coup against the justly elected government?

 

As I said up-thread, Second Amendment protections against government tyranny are just as relevant today as they were 250 years ago.

 

has to be some kind of way to keep guns with law-abiding citizens and keep them out of the hands of the insane (just a little bit more.)

 

 

[Chandemonium]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Do you believe it coincidental that the party of gun grabbers is also the party who attempted to fix a federal election and then initiated a coup against the justly elected government?

 

As I said up-thread, Second Amendment protections against government tyranny are just as relevant today as they were 250 years ago.

Not coincidental at all. It just blows my mind when I see the gun grabbers say things like"your AR won't help against tanks and nukes" as if that somehow invalidates the 2nd amendment, when really the only implication of that statement is that freedom isn't worth defending.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

has to be some kind of way to keep guns with law-abiding citizens and keep them out of the hands of the insane (just a little bit more.)

 

 

The problem will be solved as soon as people stop treating this as a gun issue and start treating it as a mental health issue.  The issue is that the gun grabbers don't care about the deaths of innocents, they care about taking away guns, which is why they stand on the stacked up bodies of the dead to propose non-solutions to the problem of mental illness.  They don't care about the dead, they just want your guns, and the death of children is the tool they're choosing to use.

 

It's very similar to the climate change crowd who insists the solution is the global redistribution of wealth.  They don't care about climate change, real or imagined.  They're communists who want to redistribute wealth, and climate change is the convenient car they've chosen to drive to their final destination.

2 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

Not coincidental at all. It just blows my mind when I see the gun grabbers say things like"your AR won't help against tanks and nukes" as if that somehow invalidates the 2nd amendment, when really the only implication of that statement is that freedom isn't worth defending.

They don't want you to have freedom.  They want you to live by their dictates, which they've determined to be better for you than freedom.

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The problem will be solved as soon as people stop treating this as a gun issue and start treating it as a mental health issue.  The issue is that the gun grabbers don't care about the deaths of innocents, they care about taking away guns, which is why they stand on the stacked up bodies of the dead to propose non-solutions to the problem of mental illness.  They don't care about the dead, they just want your guns, and the death of children is the tool they're choosing to use.

 

It's very similar to the climate change crowd who insists the solution is the global redistribution of wealth.  They don't care about climate change, real or imagined.  They're communists who want to redistribute wealth, and climate change is the convenient car they've chosen to drive to their final destination.

They don't want you to have freedom.  They want you to live by their dictates, which they've determined to be better for you than freedom.

 

but a sick mental state is seen as a choice of existence, it is very difficult to involuntarily restrain someone who needs care, and there are few facilities to send them to.

 

all in the name of liberal excess and permisiveness

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by row_33

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The problem will be solved as soon as people stop treating this as a gun issue and start treating it as a mental health issue. 

 

I took a quick look at all the mass school shootings since Columbine.  In only one was the shooter not identified as "socially isolated," "outcast," or "bullied" before the shooting took place.  And they still can't figure out a reason for the one outlier.

 

It's a really straightforward profile, fairly easy to identify and mitigate.  There's not a lot of ambiguity to it.