Support NeoGAF

[kame-sennin]

Yeah, I disagree wholeheartedly with this in the abstract, just because I think lethal force just isn't justfied.

Black lives matter.

 

[Bleepey]

What sporting purpose do grenades and launchers have? They're classified as destructive devices for that reason. You should actually look up why they're in a separate, restricted class before pulling out the dumb "might as well legalize everything because they're all the same anyway" argument.

Also my suggestions were ways in which we can reduce gun violence and accidents, not completely eliminate them. You can't eliminate all idiots. But the country as a whole also won't stand for the level of government intervention a full ban would entail. You have to start somewhere.

But how are you going to take down the gov't without grenades and shit. You're bringing guns to a drone/talk/fighter jet/nuke fight!

I have to admit, given the conversations we've had, that I'm a little surprised and disappointed that you're still funding the NRA. I think you know, at a national level, they don't share the same ideas you have, and that they're functionally an arm of the gun manufacture industry (which is why they won't support the same common sense laws their members do), so it surprises me that you allow them to speak in your name, with your money, against your own interests.

Dude NRA membership comes with discounts on ammunition. Priorities man.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I have to admit, given the conversations we've had, that I'm a little surprised and disappointed that you're still funding the NRA. I think you know, at a national level, they don't share the same ideas you have, and that they're functionally an arm of the gun manufacture industry (which is why they won't support the same common sense laws their members do), so it surprises me that you allow them to speak in your name, with your money, against your own interests.

And, as the mod who last time listed some places folks could go to support gun control, I completely agree that folks should be doing more than talking on the internet, but that doesn't really avoid the fact that you're financially supporting a group that you know is only making things worse.

I can't sit up top my high horse about gun manufacturers when I support them directly by buying their products repeatedly. Enjoying their products and hoping they continue to innovate and make new products.

You can look at it like that or you can look at it from the perspective that there's actually NRA members that aren't drinking the cool aid and get it.

Say what you want but the NRA exists yet there are some sensible gun laws in NYS. Granted there's a lot of dogshit that does nothing. But gotta take the good with the bad.

Dude NRA membership comes with discounts on ammunition. Priorities man.

Pretty much. I don't blame the NRA for "stopping" change. I've said it before and I've said it to the NRA leadership via emails:

The problem is by saying no to everything there will come a time where that no longer resonates with the overwhelming majority of people and it'll relegate the organization to the back burner and like the boy that cried wolf no one will pay them any heed. It'll take one time.

 

[PBY]

Black lives matter.

I agree.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I don't think this will work. Education and awareness do nothing to prevent a shooter, and penalties are irrelevant to them as well because almost every single active shooter situation ends with the shooter's death. So penalties are no deterrent.

This specific reply you're quoting was in reference to the drunken negligent discharge.

My view on the shooter a bit more comprehensive.

 

[kame-sennin]

But how are you going to take down the gov't without grenades and shit. You're bringing guns to a drone/talk/fighter jet/nuke fight!

These comments show a stunning ignorance of very recent history. As I said before, the Deacons for Defense and Justice stopped police attacks at civil rights protests without firing a shot. All they had to do was show up with guns. The police in those southern states were preying on people who couldn't defend themselves. Even the prospect of armed resistance - in self defense - was enough to deter that violence. As I stated the Black Panthers also effectively used deterrence to keep the state in check.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Quite an outburst, not prompted by any internal conflicts about the position you're straddling I'm sure.

I mean you do admit here that the NRA are responsible for stalling change, yet you're giving them money to do so in exchange for cheaper bullets? Unlike your bullets, that doesn't really fly.

And I'm in the UK, thankfully we dealt with this shit when we needed to and these aren't concerns we have now. I'm not part of the efforts to try and fix things over there, but I'm not part of the problem either.

I wouldn't say it's an outburst. Just annoying when we're discussing an issue and people want to try to get personal with my affiliations in order ti play to the crowd and discredit anything I try to say on the subject. Very underhanded debating tactic. That's all. Not any conflict, lol. I follow the laws. No conflict here. I love the second amendment and I love freedom of association.

Some change I want them to stall because they're shitty ideas. Other change I wanna see let through and embraced. Some changes I agree with but take some issues with details of their implementation that make me very reluctant to support it overall despite it being very close to what I'd like to see.

You act like I send my weekly "you guys are doing a wonderful job keep it up" check. They got a few bucks from me once. fl

 

[Bleepey]

These comments show a stunning ignorance of very recent history. As I said before, the Deacons for Defense and Justice stopped police attacks at civil rights protests without firing a shot. All they had to do was show up with guns. The police in those southern states were preying on people who couldn't defend themselves. Even the prospect of armed resistance - in self defense - was enough to deter that violence. As I stated the Black Panthers also effectively used deterrence to keep the state in check.

I do believe that guns can be used in self defence and have been used in self defence. You won't convince me that society will be better of with every other prick armed.Do you think if someone went to Baltimore, East St Louis, South Side of Chicago or some place in West Virginia where everyone is on meth and gave every Tom, Dick and Harry a gun and a shit tonne of arms that the crime rate would fall?

 

[BearFlexington]

Take guns away from the police and you can have mine.

 

[DivineRage002]

What sporting purpose do grenades and launchers have? They're classified as destructive devices for that reason. You should actually look up why they're in a separate, restricted class before pulling out the dumb "might as well legalize everything because they're all the same anyway" argument.

Also my suggestions were ways in which we can reduce gun violence and accidents, not completely eliminate them. You can't eliminate all idiots. But the country as a whole also won't stand for the level of government intervention a full ban would entail. You have to start somewhere.

I'm pretty sure a grenade launcher range would be a lot more entertaining than a regular gun range.

Besides, it's not like you'really going to hunt with a 9mm anyway.

Legalize grenade launchers above 9mms I say.

 

[Piggus]

I'm pretty sure a grenade launcher range would be a lot more entertaining than a regular gun range.

Besides, it's not like you'really going to hunt with a 9mm anyway.

Legalize grenade launchers above 9mms I say.

I'm sure it would be entertaining, but I'm pretty sure someone who's that determined has a legal path to obtain that sort of stuff in the same way that machine guns and whatnot can be had if you're willing to go through the the long and expensive process to get it.

 

[TheJLC]

I'm pretty sure a grenade launcher range would be a lot more entertaining than a regular gun range.

Besides, it's not like you'really going to hunt with a 9mm anyway.

Legalize grenade launchers above 9mms I say.

They are legal, just very hard to get. You can own pretty much just about anything short of a nuke if you have the right paperwork.

 

[besada]

Again, just a list of a variety of different gun control advocates, all of whom could use your money to offset the massive amount of money being spent by the NRA. And that's what it really comes down to. The NRA is effective because they control huge sums of cash that can be used for lobbying and donating to candidates they find friendly -- which is part of the reason they find so many friendly candidates. If you want to combat that, put your money where your mouth is. If you don't have cash, many of these places are also looking for volunteers.

New Yorkers Against Gun Violence
http://nyagv.org/

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
http://csgv.org/

The Violence Policy Center
http://www.vpc.org/

Americans for Responsible Solutions
http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
http://www.bradycampaign.org/

Everytown for Gun Safety
http://everytown.org/

Sandyhook Promise
http://www.sandyhookpromise.org/

Moms Demand Action
http://momsdemandaction.org/

 

[PBY]

Again, just a list of a variety of different gun control advocates, all of whom could use your money to offset the massive amount of money being spent by the NRA. And that's what it really comes down to. The NRA is effective because they control huge sums of cash that can be used for lobbying and donating to candidates they find friendly -- which is part of the reason they find so many friendly candidates. If you want to combat that, put your money where your mouth is. If you don't have cash, many of these places are also looking for volunteers.

New Yorkers Against Gun Violence
http://nyagv.org/

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
http://csgv.org/

The Violence Policy Center
http://www.vpc.org/

Americans for Responsible Solutions
http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
http://www.bradycampaign.org/

Everytown for Gun Safety
http://everytown.org/

Sandyhook Promise
http://www.sandyhookpromise.org/

Moms Demand Action
http://momsdemandaction.org/

Thank you

 

[kame-sennin]

I do believe that guns can be used in self defence and have been used in self defence. You won't convince me that society will be better of with every other prick armed.Do you think if someone went to Baltimore, East St Louis, South Side of Chicago or some place in West Virginia where everyone is on meth and gave every Tom, Dick and Harry a gun and a shit tonne of arms that the crime rate would fall?

Who in the fuck said aaaaaannny of that?

 

[DivineRage002]

They are legal, just very hard to get. You can own pretty much just about anything short of a nuke if you have the right paperwork.

Please tell me you're joking. I was being super hyperbolic in my sarcasm to show the stupidity of the whole thing.

 

[TheJLC]

Please tell me you're joking. I was being super hyperbolic in my sarcasm to show the stupidity of the whole thing.

No. How you think collectors buy grenade launchers, machine guns, and other military grade weapons? Fully workable too. Contractors also can buy those weapon within the US. Law Enforcement agencies can buy them as well. You just need someone with a high level FFL license and pay a whole bunch of fees for transferring, taxes, etc...

Hell, just googling I can see some grenade launchers for sale for ~$7,000 each that's before all the fees involved.

Ever heard of the Big Sandy Shoot? Vice visited it. Almost all those weapons are civilian owned or civilian company owned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCppmoZiXUY

 

[Bodacious]

I do believe that guns can be used in self defence and have been used in self defence. You won't convince me that society will be better of with every other prick armed.Do you think if someone went to Baltimore, East St Louis, South Side of Chicago or some place in West Virginia where everyone is on meth and gave every Tom, Dick and Harry a gun and a shit tonne of arms that the crime rate would fall?

Meth is still a thing, but our big problem now is heroin.

But the gun ownership rate is quite high here, and the gun homicide rate is rather low.

 

[Piggus]

No. How you think collectors buy grenade launchers, machine guns, and other military grade weapons? Fully workable too. Contractors also can buy those weapon within the US. Law Enforcement agencies can buy them as well. You just need someone with a high level FFL license and pay a whole bunch of fees for transferring, taxes, etc...

Hell, just googling I can see some grenade launchers for sale for ~$7,000 each that's before all the fees involved.

Ever heard of the Big Sandy Shoot? Vice visited it. Almost all those weapons are civilian owned or civilian company owned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCppmoZiXUY

I should point out that in order to get something like that, you need to fill out quite a bit of paperwork, pay a $200 tax to the ATF, go through an extensive background check, get approval by your county's sherif, then wait upwards of 6 months for all the paperwork processing to go through the right channels. Only then do you have the ability to pay $15,000+ for a legally registered full-auto, and the ATF can come to you house at any point to make sure you still have the gun and your paperwork. You must go through the same process to get a short barrel rifle or shotgun or a suppressor.

It may seem crazy that you can get that sort of thing, but since 1934 there have only been two known homicides committed with legally-owned full autos, and one of those was by a cop, not a civilian. They're owned exclusively by rich collectors. Even a piece of crap Mac-11 is like $4000. Hell, just and auto sear from an AK-47 or M-16 (a registered small piece of stamped metal that can be used to build a full auto) can cost upwards of 20 grand.

 

[Bleepey]

Who in the fuck said aaaaaannny of that?

The NRA with their "all you need to reduce gun violence is more guns".

 

[Messofanego]

Damn, Mammoth Jones and other gun owners funding NRA which goes to their excessive lobbying in fucking everything up. Like, there comes a point where you gotta look at whether getting the newest deadly toy is worth losing your soul.

 

[nynt9]

Damn, Mammoth Jones and other gun owners funding NRA which goes to their excessive lobbying in fucking everything up. Like, there comes a point where you gotta look at whether getting the newest deadly toy is worth losing your soul.

I mean we have a dude that said this:

The fact that it's baffling to you only shows how little you know about this history and culture of this country. If you don't like that the country as a whole values gun ownership over the risk it brings, then there are plenty of other places for you to go.

Literally saying they value gun ownership above the deaths of innocent people

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Damn, Mammoth Jones and other gun owners funding NRA which goes to their excessive lobbying in fucking everything up. Like, there comes a point where you gotta look at whether getting the newest deadly toy is worth losing your soul.

Now anyone that owns a gun or supports an organization you disagree with doesn't have a soul? This type of shitty emotional hyperbolic rhetoric is half the reason why such a divide exists on the issue.

I understand the desire to vilify those that have a different worldview that you believe to be an impediment to your notion of progress. But it doesn't accomplish good dialogue.

Literally saying they value gun ownership above the deaths of innocent people

This is one person speaking for themselves...stop trying to attribute that to "they".

The majority of Americans support civilian firearm ownership. Does that mean we literally value that "over" innocent deaths? Only if you believe that law abiding citizens (I know...I know..they are until they aren't.) and not those that break the law are morally responsible.

 

[nynt9]

Now anyone that owns a gun or supports an organization you disagree with doesn't have a soul? This type of shitty emotional hyperbolic rhetoric is half the reason why such a divide exists on the issue.

I understand the desire to vilify those that have a different worldview that you believe to be an impediment to your notion of progress. But it doesn't accomplish good dialogue.



This is one person speaking for themselves...stop trying to attribute that to "they".

The majority of Americans support civilian firearm ownership. Does that mean we literally value that "over" innocent deaths? Only if you believe that law abiding citizens (I know...I know..they are until they aren't.) and not those that break the law are morally responsible.

Do you not think the culture created by the NRA is toxic? They promote arming kids, they compare critics of elephant hunting to Hitler, insinuating that if politics don't go down their way, they will incite violence etc. ?

Even more directly, why do you support the NRA? Their leadership is full of people who make absolutely crazy claims, have said racist things and in general shown themselves to be toxic.

 

[Messofanego]

Let's drop the law abiding bullshit. It's law abiding gun owners that put family and children at higher risk of accidental injuries and deaths. Law abiding doesn't mean you won't use a gun in a heated argument with your family. Law abiding doesn't mean you're always in a calm and collected mental state. 21,175 of 33,636 firearm deaths being suicides should tell you that. Being law abiding doesn't let anyone off the hook.

If you had a few more gun laws in your state, you might have less firearm deaths. The states with the most firearm deaths don't even require permits to purchase the guns or to register the gun, while the opposite is true for states with least firearm deaths. Maybe you do need a few more laws to abide by.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Do you not think the culture created by the NRA is toxic? They promote arming kids, they compare critics of elephant hunting to Hitler, insinuating that if politics don't go down their way, they will incite violence etc. ?

I think the culture created by violent criminals is far more relevant to societal toxicity than the NRA by many orders of magnitude. Their shitty attempts and riling the base (like darkening Obama's skin tone on the monthly magazine they sent me) doesn't phase me. Just something I notice, roll my eye and keep it moving.

Even more directly, why do you support the NRA? Their leadership is full of people who make absolutely crazy claims, have said racist things and in general shown themselves to be toxic.

No offense but to me I don't consider being a member for my own reasons as this moral crime that you do. Nothing I say would make you go "Ok, I understand and respect your viewpoint even though I disagree". So why waste each others time discussing it?

PM me if you really wanna know and keep going into details.

Let's drop the law abiding bullshit. It's law abiding gun owners that put family and children at higher risk of accidental injuries and deaths. Law abiding doesn't mean you won't use a gun in a heated argument with your family. Law abiding doesn't mean you're always in a calm and collected mental state. 21,175 of 33,636 firearm deaths being suicides should tell you that. Being law abiding doesn't let anyone off the hook.

Of course it doesn't "let anyone off the hook". By the fact that they're law abiding they have no hook to be on. Until such time as they are found in a court of law and have their rights revoked. Sorry if that bothers you but that's how it works. We have laws to mitigate risks.

If you had a few more gun laws in your state, you might have less firearm deaths. The states with the most firearm deaths don't even require permits to purchase the guns or to register the gun, while the opposite is true for states with least firearm deaths. Maybe you do need a few more laws to abide by.

Maybe. But as long as people like you continue to try and vilify and demonize legal gun owners that follow the rules you make that task more impossible.

 

[kame-sennin]

The NRA with their "all you need to reduce gun violence is more guns".

But that has nothing to do with what I posted or the line of argument that I was addressing. I despise the NRA and I don't agree with their rhetoric. When you quote people, it's probably best to respond to what they actually said.

 

[Bleepey]

But that has nothing to do with what I posted or the line of argument that I was addressing. I despise the NRA and I don't agree with their rhetoric. When you quote people, it's probably best to respond to what they actually said.

You mentioned that guns can be used for self defence and cited examples, I agreed and then made a comment about self defence and gun crime as a whole.

 

[DECK'ARD]

It's the bans on research that the NRA has got that I find the most insidious, and a big part of why America is unable and unwilling to try and tackle this.

Even the senator who introduced it said again only a few weeks ago that he regrets it:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf

"I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time," Dickey, an Arkansas Republican, told the Huffington Post in an interview. "I have regrets."

Banning research is saying don't even look into the issues the country is facing, don't inform people, don't try and find solutions. It's incredibly irresponsible.

It's like an addict refusing to accept they have a problem, and nothing will be done until they do.

"If there is no research, it is harder to make suggestions for policy reform," said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. "And if you have a vested interest in stopping policy reform, what better way to do it than to choke off the research? It was brilliant and it worked. And my question is how many people died as a result?”

As for the influence of the NRA?

After the Dickey amendment passed in '96, the Knight Ridder media chain did an analysis of the vote. It discovered that three-quarters of those who backed the measure had received a collective $1.6 million from the NRA that calendar year. Only six of the 158 members who opposed the measure had received support from the gun lobby.

And it didn't stop with the CDC, they got the NIH as well. Again, after a study the results of which they didn't like:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

In December 2011, Congress added language equivalent to the Dickey amendment to fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation that funded the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (PDF, 1.3MB), stating that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” The NRA’s advocacy efforts that lead to this amendment are thought to be a response to a 2009 American Journal of Public Health article by Branas et al., titled “Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault,” presenting the results of research that was funded by the NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

And it's still going on, even in the wake of the Charleston shooting:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7?r=US&IR=T

A congressional ban on gun violence research backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been extended in the aftermath of the Charleston church shooting that left 9 people dead.

As Public Radio International (PRI) reported recently, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted to reject an amendment last month that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to study the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence.

The reasoning? "A gun is not a disease," and therefore falls outside of the CDC's research domain.

Not very helpful.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, has been vocal about what essentially has amounted to a ban on federal funding for gun violence research, claiming that “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA.” In July 2012, former Representative Dickey co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with Rosenberg, announcing that his views had reversed since he introduced the Dickey amendment in 1996. Wrote Dickey and Rosenberg, “We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence.”

How can anyone argue with this?

I'm sorry, I just don't see how anyone can be a member of the NRA and claim to be a responsible gun-owner. And this is just against research, not even efforts towards improved legislation.

Those 'benefits' are costing lives, even a better understanding of the issues faced. Maybe let that membership lapse while sincerely arguing for change.

 

[appaws]

How can anyone argue with this?

I'm sorry, I just don't see how anyone can be a member of the NRA and claim to be a responsible gun-owner. And this is just against research, not even efforts towards improved legislation.

Those 'benefits' are costing lives, even a better understanding of the issues faced. Maybe let that membership lapse while sincerely arguing for change.

I am an NRA member for a long time, and I make no mea culpas about it like some do. I value the chance to aid in some small way in the defense of human rights. I like the gun safety and education stuff that they (we?) do...and I like the stuff that is done through the NRA-ILA political action committee. Every politician should know that they face being voted out of office if they threaten our right to defend ourselves and our families. And yes, I also like range discounts, etc.

I don't want "research" funded by the government to be used as advocacy against my rights. Go get Michael Bloomberg to pay for it...he pays for all those anti-gun organizations that have no actual membership.

I have a proposal to reduce gun crime. Let's see if you all agree with it. 1st felony with use of a firearm=10 years, no possibility of parole. 2nd felony with use of a firearm=20 years, no possibility of parole. 3rd felony with use of a firearm, life with no possibility of parole. I don't care if we have to build 500 new prisons. This is how we can punish gun crime without taking away the human rights of citizens.

 

[PBY]

I am an NRA member for a long time, and I make no mea culpas about it like some do. I value the chance to aid in some small way in the defense of human rights. I like the gun safety and education stuff that they (we?) do...and I like the stuff that is done through the NRA-ILA political action committee. Every politician should know that they face being voted out of office if they threaten our right to defend ourselves and our families. And yes, I also like range discounts, etc.

I don't want "research" funded by the government to be used as advocacy against my rights. Go get Michael Bloomberg to pay for it...he pays for all those anti-gun organizations that have no actual membership.

I have a proposal to reduce gun crime. Let's see if you all agree with it. 1st felony with use of a firearm=10 years, no possibility of parole. 2nd felony with use of a firearm=20 years, no possibility of parole. 3rd felony with use of a firearm, life with no possibility of parole. I don't care if we have to build 500 new prisons. This is how we can punish gun crime without taking away the human rights of citizens.

what the fuck. your proposal won't do anything, gun crime isn't high due to imbalanced incentives on the backend.

Also 500 new prisons? geez. come on man.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I am an NRA member for a long time, and I make no mea culpas about it like some do. I value the chance to aid in some small way in the defense of human rights. I like the gun safety and education stuff that they (we?) do...and I like the stuff that is done through the NRA-ILA political action committee. Every politician should know that they face being voted out of office if they threaten our right to defend ourselves and our families. And yes, I also like range discounts, etc.

I don't want "research" funded by the government to be used as advocacy against my rights. Go get Michael Bloomberg to pay for it...he pays for all those anti-gun organizations that have no actual membership.

I have a proposal to reduce gun crime. Let's see if you all agree with it. 1st felony with use of a firearm=10 years, no possibility of parole. 2nd felony with use of a firearm=20 years, no possibility of parole. 3rd felony with use of a firearm, life with no possibility of parole. I don't care if we have to build 500 new prisons. This is how we can punish gun crime without taking away the human rights of citizens.

Mind boggling.

The fetishisation of guns inevitably comes with the minimisation of loss of life that accompanies it. As so ably demonstrated by your post that so glibly glosses over it to offer up your solution.

Minimisation of loss of life is damaging for society as a whole, and that's one fundamental human right any civilised society should be concerned about. Especially when you have a classroom of your most vulnerable wiped out. One Dunblane was enough for us.

It's seriously like an addict talking, with the NRA as your pusher. Giving you every incentive to continue while telling you to ignore the destructive consequences that can accompany the behaviour, because you're getting yours.

Scared of information? There's a problem.

 

[kame-sennin]

I don't want "research" funded by the government to be used as advocacy against my rights. Go get Michael Bloomberg to pay for it...he pays for all those anti-gun organizations that have no actual membership.

This is a public health issue. The government has a duty to research things that may cause harm to its citizens. Even if you disagree with the resulting legislation, any democracy depends on the unimpeded flow of accurate information. You have every right to advocate for your rights, but everyone else also has the right to all the information necessary to make informed decisions. To do otherwise would be exercising an autocratic level of control over the public.

I have a proposal to reduce gun crime. Let's see if you all agree with it. 1st felony with use of a firearm=10 years, no possibility of parole. 2nd felony with use of a firearm=20 years, no possibility of parole. 3rd felony with use of a firearm, life with no possibility of parole. I don't care if we have to build 500 new prisons. This is how we can punish gun crime without taking away the human rights of citizens.

What about the human rights of the convicted?

what the fuck. your proposal won't do anything, gun crime isn't high due to imbalanced incentives on the backend.

Also 500 new prisons? geez. come on man.

Yeah, this is really horrific. And those 500 prisons would be mostly filed with impoverished black men.

 

[Dan]

Here's an interesting tidbit from this article:

Bettis said she recognized the gunman as her neighbor — whom she didn't know by name — and that before the initial slaying she saw him roaming outside with a rifle. She called 911 to report the man, but a dispatcher explained that Colorado has an open carry law that allows public handling of firearms.

"He did have a distraught look on his face," Bettis said. "It looked like he had a rough couple days or so."

What a fun, dangerous world. "Call us after he starts killing people."

 

[PBY]

Here's an interesting tidbit from this article:

What a fun, dangerous world. "Call us after he starts killing people."

Is there any gun owner who would be opposed to banning both open and concealed carry, except for hunting? What is the counter argument to doing this?

You would at least be able to "protect" your sacred home.

 

[darscot]

Here's an interesting tidbit from this article:

What a fun, dangerous world. "Call us after he starts killing people."

That is really hard to comprehend, the level of stupidity of it is mind boggling. How can any rational human being accept that type of law as a good idea.

 

[Chris R]

Is there any gun owner who would be opposed to banning both open and concealed carry, except for hunting? What is the counter argument to doing this?

You would at least be able to "protect" your sacred home.

They will never be for banning concealed carry. You need to have your gun on your person if you hope to survive a shooting.

As for the open carry ban I'd like to hear their thoughts on it, and if they would be for a partial open carry ban (for say non-handguns, since a good handgun seems to be the concealed carry weapon of choice).

 

[appaws]

This is a public health issue. The government has a duty to research things that may cause harm to its citizens. Even if you disagree with the resulting legislation, any democracy depends on the unimpeded flow of accurate information. You have every right to advocate for your rights, but everyone else also has the right to all the information necessary to make informed decisions. To do otherwise would be exercising an autocratic level of control over the public.



What about the human rights of the convicted?



Yeah, this is really horrific. And those 500 prisons would be mostly filed with impoverished black men.

Well, it is a decision by Congress that you are complaining about...so the people through our elected representatives have decided not to fund partisan "research" with an aim to the destruction of our constitutional rights. You, of course, have every right to complain about that, and work to change it. And donate money to organizations that want to change it.

The convicted lose the right to personal liberty when they are convicted and sentenced. If you have committed multiple crimes with a firearm, I have no sympathy for you.

 

[appaws]

Is there any gun owner who would be opposed to banning both open and concealed carry, except for hunting? What is the counter argument to doing this?

You would at least be able to "protect" your sacred home.

There has not been an increase in crime in places with concealed carry, and concealed carry license holders commit crimes at a much lower rate than the population at large.

They will never be for banning concealed carry. You need to have your gun on your person if you hope to survive a shooting.

As for the open carry ban I'd like to hear their thoughts on it, and if they would be for a partial open carry ban (for say non-handguns, since a good handgun seems to be the concealed carry weapon of choice).

I have no real use for open carry. It does not seem to serve any purpose. Maybe for hunting or on ones own property it is OK, or out in really remote areas for safety purposes. This probably shocks you guys, but I concede that a community probably has a good reason to restrict open carry because it causes disorder for no purpose.

I have to edit to add in one caveat however...I support communities coming together for defense purposes, like the Black Panthers or the store owners during the L.A. Riots...I would not want to see laws against open carry used against them.

 

[Hunter S.]

I used to live near and ride my own bike on those streets where the cyclist was shot. The worst part seems is there is no obvious motive, or reason given by the gunman. This is basically in downtown Colorado Springs.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Well, it is a decision by Congress that you are complaining about...so the people through our elected representatives have decided not to fund partisan "research" with an aim to the destruction of our constitutional rights. You, of course, have every right to complain about that, and work to change it. And donate money to organizations that want to change it.

The convicted lose the right to personal liberty when they are convicted and sentenced. If you have committed multiple crimes with a firearm, I have no sympathy for you.

No, your elected representatives through the pockets of the NRA decided it. And even the person who first tabled it says it's been abused to the point of being damaging.

Constantly putting research in scare quotes doesn't make you look the most rational individual either.

Research can be disputed, to be afraid of it entirely just says you don't want to hear it. Ignorance and paranoia is bliss I guess for some?

 

[nynt9]

Well, it is a decision by Congress that you are complaining about...so the people through our elected representatives have decided not to fund partisan "research" with an aim to the destruction of our constitutional rights. You, of course, have every right to complain about that, and work to change it. And donate money to organizations that want to change it.

The convicted lose the right to personal liberty when they are convicted and sentenced. If you have committed multiple crimes with a firearm, I have no sympathy for you.

because banning research on guns is a totally non partisan thing and information being withheld from you is not a destruction of your constitutional rights.

What's with gun nuts and their obsession with constitutional rights anyway? Why are people so attached to a document drafted when black people were considered property, the strongest gun was a fucking musket and we weren't 1/100th as informed and knowledgeable and had absolutely no technology anywhere near what we have today?

 

[Horns]

Well, it is a decision by Congress that you are complaining about...so the people through our elected representatives have decided not to fund partisan "research" with an aim to the destruction of our constitutional rights. You, of course, have every right to complain about that, and work to change it. And donate money to organizations that want to change it.

The convicted lose the right to personal liberty when they are convicted and sentenced. If you have committed multiple crimes with a firearm, I have no sympathy for you.

Partisan research, what? Please show me where in the methodology reports these so-called "partisan" effects can be found.

 

[appaws]

No, your elected representatives through the pockets of the NRA decided it. And even the person who first tabled it says it's been abused to the point of being damaging.

Constantly putting research in scare quotes doesn't make you look the most rational individual either.

Research can be disputed, to be afraid of it entirely just says you don't want to hear it. Ignorance and paranoia is bliss I guess for some?

I guess everyone who has a point of view thinks opposite points of view are not rational. I think surrendering the human right, given by God, of self-defense because the state promises to protect me is irrational. No thanks, no matter how much "research" is cherry-picked to justify it. I think statism in general is completely irrational and I am, for some reason. shocked anew each time I see how utopian some people's thinking is.

because banning research on guns is a totally non partisan thing and information being withheld from you is not a destruction of your constitutional rights.

What's with gun nuts and their obsession with constitutional rights anyway? Why are people so attached to a document drafted when black people were considered property, the strongest gun was a fucking musket and we weren't 1/100th as informed and knowledgeable and had absolutely no technology anywhere near what we have today?

What other rights would you like to give up?

Partisan research, what? Please show me where in the methodology reports these so-called "partisan" effects can be found.

You can tell just from looking at who is all upset that the government is not funding anti-gun propaganda. Why do we need all this so-called "research" anyway...? According to most gaffers, this is a settled issue and we have all the facts we need. Appaws is just an irrational gun nut.

BTW, someone earlier in this very thread pointed out the terrible methodology of the most often cited study, but I don't feel like paging back through to find it.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I guess everyone who has a point of view thinks opposite points of view are not rational. I think surrendering the human right, given by God

Ok, we can stop there.

 

[Horns]

You can tell just from looking at who is all upset that the government is not funding anti-gun propaganda. Why do we need all this so-called "research" anyway...? According to most gaffers, this is a settled issue and we have all the facts we need. Appaws is just an irrational gun nut.

Who needs federal research? I'm sure the millions of lives federal research has saved was just "propaganda" too. Thanks for the laughs.

BTW, someone earlier in this very thread pointed out the terrible methodology of the most often cited study, but I don't feel like paging back through to find it.

Not sure which one that is.

 

[Drensch]

I'm not a fan of the NRA.
But the personal attack on Mammoth for paying to get discounts and such are ridiculous.
He puts discounts above human lives? I hope you're not: driving a car which causes climate change, using a computer using materials mined in countries that don't treat workers fairly, smoking, eating meat, etc etc etc.

You can say you find the NRA distasteful, a bad organization, a pox on politics etc. But trying to equate memberships obtained to a indifference to the loss of life is ridiculous.

A lot of posts in this thread from anti-gun posters make a lot of gun nuts look sane.

 

[neurosyphilis]

Im pretty sure you got yourself on some sort of FBI watchlist.... Good luck in life... Lol

I would highly doubt that.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I'm not a fan of the NRA.
But the personal attack on Mammoth for paying to get discounts and such are ridiculous.
He puts discounts above human lives? I hope you're not: driving a car which causes climate change, using a computer using materials mined in countries that don't treat workers fairly, smoking, eating meat, etc etc etc.

You can say you find the NRA distasteful, a bad organization, a pox on politics etc. But trying to equate memberships obtained to a indifference to the loss of life is ridiculous.

A lot of posts in this thread from anti-gun posters make a lot of gun nuts look sane.

Well, the NRA is directly responsible for many, if not most, if not all, of the gun-related issues currently plaguing the US and they have before and will continue to spread dangerous and poisonous arguments/rhetorics regarding guns, probably while bandwagoning on an event of mass shooting even (as they have before.)

So it makes you wonder, why would someone support an organization like that? Just why? Why would you give financial support to an organization like this?

 

[DECK'ARD]

I'm not a fan of the NRA.
But the personal attack on Mammoth for paying to get discounts and such are ridiculous.
He puts discounts above human lives? I hope you're not: driving a car which causes climate change, using a computer using materials mined in countries that don't treat workers fairly, smoking, eating meat, etc etc etc.

You can say you find the NRA distasteful, a bad organization, a pox on politics etc. But trying to equate memberships obtained to a indifference to the loss of life is ridiculous.

A lot of posts in this thread from anti-gun posters make a lot of gun nuts look sane.

I'm sure Mammoth can handle it, it's only a position being challenged.

When someone is posting every time we have a shooting thread here to portray the responsible gun-owner who is sick of this happening, argues constantly how important it is to see "common-sense changes" and how they can save lives, but financially contributes to the organisation stopping the implementation of any such common-sense changes on a national level, including even research into it to better find what could or should be done in America, and allows them to speak in his name, I'd say it's relevant.

That seems to fly in the face of common-sense, and if his NRA membership were to lapse I would see him as a more responsible gun-owner.

And no, I've yet to post about how important my AR named Carly is to me, or how God personally put it in my hand.