The Firearm Topic

[Clem Fandango]

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

I think it's more to do with societal pressures and conventions, you can't really say it's only the result of the individual's mental health, otherwise these incidents would be more common outside the US. These don't seem to happen in non-western, gun-toting nations without a robust mental health industry, but they aren't as prevalent in western nations that lack America's gun culture either. A more logical conclusion is that it's due to both gun culture, and western societal strain.

Our mental health industry is terrible due to it's exclusive nature. It's just well-funded. Not to get too off topic, but I bet this kid was on some meds pushed by 'Big Pharma' 24/7. Meanwhile, the NRA comes out as the most demonized lobby in all of this.

 

If Mr. Lanza had smoked a blunt, got some pussy every once in a while, and chilled the f*ck out, he would've been fine. At least fine enough to not mow down several kids and his mother. That's how I would handle the patient.

America's mental health industry is standard fare for a western nation, yet other western nations don't see several mass murders a year. You simply can't argue that this can be explained without some reference to gun culture and/or policy.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

I think it's more to do with societal pressures and conventions, you can't really say it's only the result of the individual's mental health, otherwise these incidents would be more common outside the US. These don't seem to happen in non-western, gun-toting nations without a robust mental health industry, but they aren't as prevalent in western nations that lack America's gun culture either. A more logical conclusion is that it's due to both gun culture, and western societal strain.

Our mental health industry is terrible due to it's exclusive nature. It's just well-funded. Not to get too off topic, but I bet this kid was on some meds pushed by 'Big Pharma' 24/7. Meanwhile, the NRA comes out as the most demonized lobby in all of this.

 

If Mr. Lanza had smoked a blunt, got some pussy every once in a while, and chilled the f*ck out, he would've been fine. At least fine enough to not mow down several kids and his mother. That's how I would handle the patient.

America's mental health industry is standard fare for a western nation, yet other western nations don't see several mass murders a year. You simply can't argue that this can be explained without some reference to gun culture and/or policy.

What specifically about our gun culture/policy here in the US do you suggest we change? I'm open to critique on the matter.

[lil weasel]

 

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

I agree entirely. But that doesn't mean that firearms culture in the US doesn't have to share part of the blame.

As for restricting firearm ownership, I see no fundamental way a law-abiding citizen has their rights to firearm ownership restricted by undergoing a background check for private sales.

If you're committed to a psychiatric institution for [30 days] observation or for drug rehabilitation, you're then submitted to the NICS as a "prohibited person". Your prohibited status remains despite whether your treatment is successful or what the circumstances surrounding the commitment were.

A note, having been a Security officer at a mental health facility, I can asure you that many mental health professionals consider the mere fact that a person wants a gun to be indicative of a 'mental health problem'.

As no truely 'sane' person would want one.

Mental Health was a big bug-a-boo during the last century.

(Seemed that every Nurse there had some family member committed for one reason or another. They are trained to 'know' when something is wrong with you.)

 

It's easy to get on a list, and nearly impossible to get off one.

And, 'Everyone Knows' that once you're crazy there really isn't any cure. Would you trust someone who 'might' go off the meds?

Also, look at the No Fly lists of the TSA...

Then there is the sex offenders list. Not all are dangerous. Ever piss in an alley? Or make-out in a park?

Edited January 18, 2013 by lil weasel

[Saggy]

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

I think it's more to do with societal pressures and conventions, you can't really say it's only the result of the individual's mental health, otherwise these incidents would be more common outside the US. These don't seem to happen in non-western, gun-toting nations without a robust mental health industry, but they aren't as prevalent in western nations that lack America's gun culture either. A more logical conclusion is that it's due to both gun culture, and western societal strain.

Our mental health industry is terrible due to it's exclusive nature. It's just well-funded. Not to get too off topic, but I bet this kid was on some meds pushed by 'Big Pharma' 24/7. Meanwhile, the NRA comes out as the most demonized lobby in all of this.

 

If Mr. Lanza had smoked a blunt, got some pussy every once in a while, and chilled the f*ck out, he would've been fine. At least fine enough to not mow down several kids and his mother. That's how I would handle the patient.

America's mental health industry is standard fare for a western nation, yet other western nations don't see several mass murders a year. You simply can't argue that this can be explained without some reference to gun culture and/or policy.

We have several mass murders a year?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%93...C3%B6_shootings

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?act=Pos...91&p=1062144100

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_m...%28Australia%29

 

 

Oh yeah, clearly I can see this is something exclusive to the U.S.

[CryptReaperDorian]

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

I think it's more to do with societal pressures and conventions, you can't really say it's only the result of the individual's mental health, otherwise these incidents would be more common outside the US. These don't seem to happen in non-western, gun-toting nations without a robust mental health industry, but they aren't as prevalent in western nations that lack America's gun culture either. A more logical conclusion is that it's due to both gun culture, and western societal strain.

Our mental health industry is terrible due to it's exclusive nature. It's just well-funded. Not to get too off topic, but I bet this kid was on some meds pushed by 'Big Pharma' 24/7. Meanwhile, the NRA comes out as the most demonized lobby in all of this.

 

If Mr. Lanza had smoked a blunt, got some pussy every once in a while, and chilled the f*ck out, he would've been fine. At least fine enough to not mow down several kids and his mother. That's how I would handle the patient.

America's mental health industry is standard fare for a western nation, yet other western nations don't see several mass murders a year. You simply can't argue that this can be explained without some reference to gun culture and/or policy.

Among the Americas, the U.S.A. has the sixth lowest murders per capita. Only Canada (by a long shot), Argentina, Chile, Martinique, and Suriname are safer. So, it's not really "America and their guns", it's more of an entire Western thing. It really comes down to poverty and how people have to result to dangerous practices (such as drug trading, which the Americas are notorious for) to make a profit.

 

It would be so much better if the American government would try to use more of their resources on improving the current economic status than trying to "regulate" firearms. I honestly believe that would save much more lives.

[Clem Fandango]

These mass shootings have much more to do with mental health than guns.

I think it's more to do with societal pressures and conventions, you can't really say it's only the result of the individual's mental health, otherwise these incidents would be more common outside the US. These don't seem to happen in non-western, gun-toting nations without a robust mental health industry, but they aren't as prevalent in western nations that lack America's gun culture either. A more logical conclusion is that it's due to both gun culture, and western societal strain.

Our mental health industry is terrible due to it's exclusive nature. It's just well-funded. Not to get too off topic, but I bet this kid was on some meds pushed by 'Big Pharma' 24/7. Meanwhile, the NRA comes out as the most demonized lobby in all of this.

 

If Mr. Lanza had smoked a blunt, got some pussy every once in a while, and chilled the f*ck out, he would've been fine. At least fine enough to not mow down several kids and his mother. That's how I would handle the patient.

America's mental health industry is standard fare for a western nation, yet other western nations don't see several mass murders a year. You simply can't argue that this can be explained without some reference to gun culture and/or policy.

We have several mass murders a year?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%93...C3%B6_shootings

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?act=Pos...91&p=1062144100

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_m...%28Australia%29

 

 

Oh yeah, clearly I can see this is something exclusive to the U.S.

The US has had two this year alone, and it almost had three. You linked to the wikipedia's list of school shootings and it only supports my contention that these things are much more prevalent in the United States. Most countries have small little tables listing the shootings, America has its own page.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

The US has had two this year alone, and it almost had three. You linked to the wikipedia's list of school shootings and it only supports my contention that these things are much more prevalent in the United States. Most countries have small little tables listing the shootings, America has its own page.

That might be because we have over 300 million people here in the US.

Edited January 18, 2013 by canttakemyid

[sivispacem]

 

Oh yeah, clearly I can see this is something exclusive to the U.S. 

Disproportionately, it is.

 

The UK, with a population of 60 million, has had 3 mass-fatality (more than 4) shootings in the last 26 years. From the figures listed on the Wiki page, there have been 12 mass casualty shootings not involving education establishments, three involving them and two additional familicides, for a total of 17, since 2008 in the US, with it's population of 300 million. That makes 0.00192 mass shootings per million head of population per year in the UK, and 0.01133 mas shootings per head of population per year in the US. Meaning that statistically, in an average year, there are more than five times as many mass shootings per million head of population in the US than the UK.

 

I imagine you'd find similar outcomes with other nations.

Edited January 18, 2013 by sivispacem

[Saggy]

Oh yeah, clearly I can see this is something exclusive to the U.S. 

Disproportionately, it is.

 

The UK, with a population of 60 million, has had 3 mass-fatality (more than 4) shootings in the last 26 years. From the figures listed on the Wiki page, there have been 12 mass casualty shootings not involving education establishments, and three involving them, for a total of 17, since 2008 in the US, with it's population of 300 million. That makes 0.00192 mass shootings per million head of population per year in the UK, and 0.01133 mas shootings per head of population per year in the US. Meaning that statistically, in an average year, there are more than five times as many mass shootings per million head of population in the US than the UK.

 

I imagine you'd find similar outcomes with other nations.

So are we supposed to just ignore the incidents of this in other countries? Who is to say that incidents like this won't become more common for other countries in the future? If you look at the lists, incidents like this were more common in other countries than in the U.S. in the past. I think trying to draw some kind of connection between this being more common in the U.S. and us having a "gun culture" doesn't take into considerations nations like Norway that have a "gun culture" and where incidents like this are not nearly as common.

 

Meanwhile, let's talk about Mexico... No one wants to compare the U.S. to Mexico, but for what reason? If you consider things like unemployment, the drug trade, etc. then our predicament is more closely comparable to Mexico's than other "developed" countries", and if you look at the violent crime there you can see that very little has been helped with stricter gun control.

 

 

Also, I'm interested to here your thoughts about the post I made regarding background checks infringing on the rights of people to buy and purchase firearms.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

Oh yeah, clearly I can see this is something exclusive to the U.S. 

Disproportionately, it is.

 

The UK, with a population of 60 million, has had 3 mass-fatality (more than 4) shootings in the last 26 years. From the figures listed on the Wiki page, there have been 12 mass casualty shootings not involving education establishments, three involving them and two additional familicides, for a total of 17, since 2008 in the US, with it's population of 300 million. That makes 0.00192 mass shootings per million head of population per year in the UK, and 0.01133 mas shootings per head of population per year in the US. Meaning that statistically, in an average year, there are more than five times as many mass shootings per million head of population in the US than the UK.

 

I imagine you'd find similar outcomes with other nations.

The real danger of being killed in one of these mass shootings is still ridiculously slim.

[Clem Fandango]

 

The US has had two this year alone, and it almost had three. You linked to the wikipedia's list of school shootings and it only supports my contention that these things are much more prevalent in the United States. Most countries have small little tables listing the shootings, America has its own page.

That might be because we have over 300 million people here in the US.

Europe has a population of almost 800 million, yet the list of European school shootings isn't even a quarter the size of the American one.

 

 

I think trying to draw some kind of connection between this being more common in the U.S. and us having a "gun culture" doesn't take into considerations nations like Norway that have a "gun culture" and where incidents like this are not nearly as common.

But is it the same kind of gun culture? Does Norway make action movies that depict guns as extensions-of-self? Do Norwegians have observable "military fetishism" in their media? I'm certainly not trying to say that "people liking guns = rampant mass murders" but there's something about the US's relationship with guns that simply must be referred to for an understanding of these events. I'm not saying gun culture is inherently facilitating of violence, only that the US's idiosyncratic relationship with firearms is.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

The US has had two this year alone, and it almost had three. You linked to the wikipedia's list of school shootings and it only supports my contention that these things are much more prevalent in the United States. Most countries have small little tables listing the shootings, America has its own page.

That might be because we have over 300 million people here in the US.

Europe has a population of almost 800 million, yet the list of European school shootings isn't even a quarter the size of the American one.

 

 

I think trying to draw some kind of connection between this being more common in the U.S. and us having a "gun culture" doesn't take into considerations nations like Norway that have a "gun culture" and where incidents like this are not nearly as common.

But is it the same kind of gun culture? Does Norway make action movies that depict guns as extensions-of-self? Do Norwegians have observable "military fetishism" in their media? I'm certainly not trying to say that "people liking guns = rampant mass murders" but there's something about the US's relationship with guns that simply must be referred to for an understanding of these events. I'm not saying gun culture is inherently facilitating of violence, only that the US's idiosyncratic relationship with firearms is.

You've still yet to address my previous question. What specifically about our gun culture/policy here in the US do you suggest we change? Especially given that this is a gun topic. I'm just curious as to what you proposed to be done in order prevent mass shootings.

 

*It's not about the number of shootings. It's about the number of victims. In either circumstance (Europe or the US), the chances of getting killed in a "mass shooting" appear to be ridiculously slim. It's simply hysterical to fear such a thing.

Edited January 18, 2013 by canttakemyid

[Celticfang]

 

Does Norway make action movies that depict guns as extensions-of-self? Do Norwegians have observable "military fetishism" in their media?

 

 

Nope, they're different cultures. Besides, have you ever seen Norwegian TV or movies? They're very, very dark and twisted. Norwegians don't have military fetishism, they have dark fetishism

[sivispacem]

In response to questions regarding background checks and the infringement of rights, isn't it more the consequences of a failure which infringe? I mean, the actual act of, and direct result of, a background check does not in itself restrict ownership for the average, law-abiding citizen. The system described of re-evaluating permission for ownership does seem unnecessarily convoluted.

[Saggy]

In response to questions regarding background checks and the infringement of rights, isn't it more the consequences of a failure which infringe? I mean, the actual act of, and direct result of, a background check does not in itself restrict ownership for the average, law-abiding citizen. The system described of re-evaluating permission for ownership does seem unnecessarily convoluted.

Yes it's the failures of the system that are the problem, but I think that there's a responsibility there by the powers that be ( I hate to just say "government" ) to review and restore the rights that they have stripped from individuals. If they're not going to undertake that responsibility, then they should not have the power to take the rights away in the first place. When you consider that these background checks do prohibit law abiding citizens from purchasing firearms due to a failure in the system, it doesn't negate the fact that the person's 2nd Amendment Right was violated.

 

If the government can't effectively conduct background checks and restrictions without violating the rights of law abiding citizens, then it shouldn't be conducting background checks and restrictions.

 

What bugs me is that most people don't agree with me on this. They feel that if a few hundred or maybe a thousand people have to go petition a court to restore their rights or pay for extensive background check because the check came up with erroneous information, that it's worth it to help protect people. Well, I might feel this way if I thought these background checks actually stopped criminals from obtaining the firearms at all, but the simple fact is that the Newton, CN shooter didn't buy his firearms; in fact it's coming to light that he tried to buy another rifle days before the shooting and was denied. Yet he still got his hands on firearms. Meanwhile I've seen enough people I know to be felons buying and trading firearms in less-than-legal private sales that I don't think it's worth the violation of even one person's rights because it actually doesn't do much to stop others from obtaining firearms at all.

 

I think if the government (NICS, FBI, whoever you wanna have pick up the bill ) picked up their end of the foot-work in making sure that the people who are supposed to get firearms DID still get firearms that it wouldn't be a big deal. But as it stands, who do you think has to pay for the extensive background checks to prove you're not a bad guy if the NICS check comes back negative? Same person that has to petition the court to have their rights restored: The individual. So the government wants to A) Strip the individual of the right to bear arms for the welfare of the masses but then B) Wants the individual to pay for their right to be restored instead of the masses.

 

If there was some kind of federal program to pick up the cost of background checks, court costs and stuff for people wrongly prohibited from purchasing firearms I'd be all for tougher background checks. If they were willing to pick up that end of things, I'd say they should check every square inch of a person's life. But they're not, so I don't think even think the restrictions they're currently trying to enforce are just.

 

But beyond that, I don't think the people pushing for stricter checks and controls are really of the right attitude. They tend to feel that if a few hundred or a few thousand people have to bust their humps to restore their firearm rights or clear a background check that was erroneous, that the ends should justify the means, that it's no big deal, etc. I hear some people say "Freedom isn't free," but these are seldom the people who are having their rights violated saying this. Meanwhile they also ignore just how many people this happens to, thinking that it only effects a small minority...

[mdr279]

May I also ask what is the attraction to owning a firearm? (Not trying to be hostile, legitimate question)

 

It's a lot like asking the appeal in owning a sports car. Guns are all around fun to shoot and own. Just to name a few reasons for gun ownership....

 

For one, as with any good that has been sold for hundreds of years, guns have developed into an art form. I personally think that some guns are beautiful. Just like the auto industry, those who design certain guns often put their passion into crafting that perfect gun. Guns are a collectible too.

 

 

Secondly, recreation. Several sports revolve around shooting. Many competitions, lessons, and good times in general can be developed around a nice shooting session with friends or family. It's a wonderful bonding experience. In fact, shooting at a range with someone special can make for a wonderful date.

 

 

Three, men especially love working with tools. As "lil weasel" posted, it feels wonderful have a well-functioning piece of machinery in your hands. Within our increasingly restrictive legal means, you can modify/tailor your gun to your personal pleasing. It can even be a hobby for many. Restoring old guns is actually enjoyable.

 

 

Four, self defense. I suspect that many of you from other countries don't realize the prevalence of illegal guns here in the US. Even the average teenage street gang set in urban areas have easy access to fully-automatic rifles (especially AKs), shotguns, pistols, and sub-machine guns (especially Uzis and Tec-9s). The least we could do is allow the law abiding citizens who are actually contributing to society to have access to semi-automatic weapons. Police often take at least 5-15 min to respond even in an upscale area. You wanna try your luck with a gun-wielding assailant or try to out run a gun?...Be my guest.

 

 

Five, varmint-control.

 

 

Six, tradition. Some of us actually come from a long line of gun owners who even pass their guns down. Especially in the southern region of our country. In many families (including my own), not knowing how to handle a firearm is like not knowing how to change a spare tire. You would certainly be the subject of jokes and criticism at the family gatherings (which is when much of the recreational shooting happens). Every generation of males on my mothers side has had to use their guns for self defense at least once.

 

 

Seven, our nation is one of the few in the world that allows it. It's a wonderful experience; and some of us feel compelled to capitalize on the luck. To be honest, gun ownership in the US seems like an expiring offer too. Even though years from now, the far left will say "no look, we're still allowing you to own our legal version of that gun"...What's the point anymore ? It's almost like allowing sports car ownership after banning convertible roofs, high speeds, nimble handling, two seats, etc.

 

 

As others have stated, most of the benefits of gun ownership and shooting can only be understood though actual experience. Many of my most left-leaning friends still enjoy going out to the range.

Thank you giving me some insight into what I asked. I totally understand the attraction of collecting and restoring guns which you compared to being similar to restoring cars which I personally find awesome. I think the thing that us non-Americans see wrong with the guns in society is the fact that teenage gangs can have access to these weapons like you stated and which is why I personally believe mental health is not as reaponsible for these acts as people say it is. I am against fully restricting guns and in fact I do view it as a cool quirk of the world that the US has this openness to guns and I also do really want to go to the US more than any other place right now. But I still feel something should be done as Im not sure it can continue like this.

[Clem Fandango]

Does Norway make action movies that depict guns as extensions-of-self? Do Norwegians have observable "military fetishism" in their media?

 

 

Nope, they're different cultures. Besides, have you ever seen Norwegian TV or movies? They're very, very dark and twisted. Norwegians don't have military fetishism, they have dark fetishism

Way to completely misunderstand the point I was making.

 

 

You've still yet to address my previous question. What specifically about our gun culture/policy here in the US do you suggest we change? Especially given that this is a gun topic. I'm just curious as to what you proposed to be done in order prevent mass shootings.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I've pointed out the causes- the uniquely American aspects of gun culture that make massacres seem like a way to "go out with a bang" what to do about them is a different question. The government can't just pass a law to deal with the cultural problems, it'll have to be a long process of studying and subsequently addressing them.

 

 

It's not about the number of shootings. It's about the number of victims. In either circumstance (Europe or the US), the chances of getting killed in a "mass shooting" appear to be ridiculously slim. It's simply hysterical to fear such a thing.

The problem, at least as I see it, isn't that people run a high risk of being killed in a mass shooting, it's that a disproportionate number of Americans think committing mass murder is a good idea, even if that number is still incredibly small; the point is that these occurrences aren't an unavoidable fact of life (which is what your "it barely ever happens so why worry about it" contention seems to suggest) they are a societal ill unique to a certain culture.

 

Further, this reasoning could be applied to countless things: should we not bother curing rare diseases?

[Saggy]

Does Norway make action movies that depict guns as extensions-of-self? Do Norwegians have observable "military fetishism" in their media?

 

 

Nope, they're different cultures. Besides, have you ever seen Norwegian TV or movies? They're very, very dark and twisted. Norwegians don't have military fetishism, they have dark fetishism

Way to completely misunderstand the point I was making.

 

 

You've still yet to address my previous question. What specifically about our gun culture/policy here in the US do you suggest we change? Especially given that this is a gun topic. I'm just curious as to what you proposed to be done in order prevent mass shootings.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I've pointed out the causes- the uniquely American aspects of gun culture that make massacres seem like a way to "go out with a bang" what to do about them is a different question. The government can't just pass a law to deal with the cultural problems, it'll have to be a long process of studying and subsequently addressing them.

 

 

It's not about the number of shootings. It's about the number of victims. In either circumstance (Europe or the US), the chances of getting killed in a "mass shooting" appear to be ridiculously slim. It's simply hysterical to fear such a thing.

The problem, at least as I see it, isn't that people run a high risk of being killed in a mass shooting, it's that a disproportionate number of Americans think committing mass murder is a good idea, even if that number is still incredibly small; the point is that these occurrences aren't an unavoidable fact of life (which is what your "it barely ever happens so why worry about it" contention seems to suggest) they are a societal ill unique to a certain culture.

 

Further, this reasoning could be applied to countless things: should we not bother curing rare diseases?

At first I thought this didn't sound right, but then I considered the popularity of the movie "God Bless America"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_America_%28film%29

 

 

Would this movie be received well in other nation's?

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

 

You've still yet to address my previous question. What specifically about our gun culture/policy here in the US do you suggest we change? Especially given that this is a gun topic. I'm just curious as to what you proposed to be done in order prevent mass shootings.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I've pointed out the causes- the uniquely American aspects of gun culture that make massacres seem like a way to "go out with a bang" what to do about them is a different question. The government can't just pass a law to deal with the cultural problems, it'll have to be a long process of studying and subsequently addressing them.

 

What does going out with a bang have to do with gun culture? You are referring to our culture's mentality in general if that's your point. You can go out in a blaze of glory with any weapon. Guns just make it easier (they've been invented already...too late to take them out of the equation). Too many people like to jump on the gun-blaming bandwagon when they can't pinpoint a specific enough cause for such tragedies. Like I said a while ago, once the victim is dead people are itching for something to blame other than acknowledging that massacres happen everywhere and are only marginally more prevalent in the US than other places. The media just makes sure you hear about it when it happens here because a lot of people are bent on a restricting gun ownership.

 

 

 

The prevalence in mass shootings is simply linked to our high gun ownership (which is declining). If anyone thinks US gun ownership should be significantly reduced because of these extremely rare mass shootings is misunderstood. The overall murder rates in the US have declined over the years; which is the real issue. Twenty kids killed in an elementary school is as bad as it gets, but it's still human life in general we are concerned with. I agree we have a cultural phenomenon here that should be addressed, but the issue is far from guns. The sooner we acknowledge that, the sooner we make headway. I just maintain that making even more restrictive laws on the gun specs is utterly stupid. The profile of these shooters is more consistent than the types of guns used. In fact, the only reason guns are even used is because they are effective; and no law can change that. The focus should be on what caused the shooter to click, which is a killing issue, not a gun issue.

[AtomicPunk]

If anyone here actually believes that Obama and his cronies have the intention of banning guns in the U.S.,they are a fool.

There, I fixed that for you.

You must be losing if you have to start correcting my grammar. I'll admit right now that I type fast and could care less about it. I'm not writing the U.S. Constitution or anything. Yet, you can understand what I say.

 

OT:

In *their* mind, after they ban semi-auto cosmetic weapons, they will then claim that .22 revolvers are bad and that's when they take them all. It's all a little by little. Again, they will never succeed. The backbone of America will never allow destruction of the constitution in any way by these perverts and enemies of The United States, foreign or domestic.

[sivispacem]

 

You must be losing if you have to start correcting my grammar

I didn't. I entirely changed the meaning of what you said. A side effect of that was improving the grammar.

 

Your welcome.

[AtomicPunk]

What about the guy in China who comitted a massacre with a knife recently? We better ban knives and pencils!!!! Just the"yellow" ones, though. Oh, and thanks for altering my posts, Sivi. Just keep showing your true colors when you are losing a discussion.

[Clem Fandango]

 

What does going out with a bang have to do with gun culture?  You are referring to our culture's mentality in general if that's your point.  You can go out in a blaze of glory with any weapon.

Yeah, you missed the point completely. American media, as I've pointed out thrice now, depicts a gun not as a foreign tool or weapon, but as an extension-of-self. Shooting people is depicted as an enjoyable experience that makes you feel powerful.

 

 

people are itching for something to blame other than acknowledging that massacres happen everywhere and are only marginally more prevalent in the US

Seventeen mass murders in four years? Only marginally more prevalent!? And I haven't just been comparing it to Europe, these incidents are almost unheard of in non-western nations, which may or may not have a high rate of firearm ownership. They certainly do not "happen everywhere!" Again, you're dismissing a unique, cultural ill as an unavoidable fact of life. It's like if the Irish were to say "look, there'll always be terrorist bombings, there's no use addressing the issue, it's just part of life!"

 

 

I agree we have a cultural phenomenon here that should be addressed, but the issue is far from guns

And yet violence-soaked media that depicts guns a certain way is the only real variable between the US and Europe. I'm not saying this has anything to do with you and your guns, so I don't know why you're so desperate to divorce the issue from firearms, despite the fact that the two are clearly inextricably linked.

[anuj]

 

I've got an Army and Marine recruiter both ready to sign me up. Should I go sign the USMC contract and THEN proceed to hand you your ass?

So, almost 7 years on and here I am still waiting for you to "hand me my ass"...

Did you really wait 7 years to post this?

 

Because holy lol

 

I'm really flattered you remembered

Edited January 19, 2013 by anuj

[Ex Hellraiser]

Another brief break from the political tension!

 

I would absolutely love to get this. Mossberg 464. This is the SPX version, which looks nothing like the original. Same gun, but very modern designing.

 

 

[Colonel_Buttfuck]

I have a plugged Colt Python that used to belong to my uncle, but that's as close as I'll ever get to owning a firearm in this pussy-ass country. We have criminals arming themselves to the teeth in abundance, while ordinary law abiding citizens are left to fend for themselves with butter knives. And if, I say if, a policeman is brave enough to shoot a robber to death, the robber is instantly victimized by the media and the policeman in question is deliberately demonized.

 

Poor robber. I bet he had a real tough childhood and all. Boo-f*cking-hoo.

 

Welcome to Sweden folks.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Colonel_Buttfuck

[Chunkyman]

plugged Colt Python

What does that mean?

 

If that means they disabled the gun so that it can't fire, that is horrible. Colt Pythons are one of the best double action revolvers ever made.

[Colonel_Buttfuck]

plugged Colt Python

What does that mean?

 

If that means they disabled the gun so that it can't fire, that is horrible. Colt Pythons are one of the best double action revolvers ever made.

Yeah, the pipe has been filled with lead or something, rendering it completely useless. Sucks

[Stig]

 

plugged Colt Python

What does that mean?

 

If that means they disabled the gun so that it can't fire, that is horrible. Colt Pythons are one of the best double action revolvers ever made.

Yeah, the pipe has been filled with lead or something, rendering it completely useless. Sucks

That is absolutely terrible Are you sure it wasn't a blank firing weapon that was produced to look like the actual model?

[Colonel_Buttfuck]

plugged Colt Python

What does that mean?

 

If that means they disabled the gun so that it can't fire, that is horrible. Colt Pythons are one of the best double action revolvers ever made.

Yeah, the pipe has been filled with lead or something, rendering it completely useless. Sucks

That is absolutely terrible Are you sure it wasn't a blank firing weapon that was produced to look like the actual model?

Not sure about the history of the gun I'm afraid. It's heavy though, I can tell you that. It certainly feels like a real gun, but I'm no expert.