Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Fuzzknuckles

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

trip

You know what I fear?

In order to make schools safer from someone coming in and shooting people they will make the schools more prison like.

 

There will never be a firm clamp down on guns in this country. I bet that we won't even see a AR ban in most of your life times.

 

The civil liberties and basic feeling of freedom of school kids will be (and has been) removed because gun people scream their civil liberties and freedoms are being attacked.

 

I hate kids, and I hate children...but I believe the world and future are better served when kids have a comfortable existence And growing up. That should carry more weight than the freedom of easy accessibility to (all)guns.

Edited by trip
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

You work with what you've got. Firearms are just an instrument that can be used to achieve a goal. If firearms aren't available then you can just use other means, like a car. Europe, unlike America, has a problem with masses of people being ran over. There's probably a couple of cases of vehicular mass murder here, then again, there's a couple of cases of mass shootings over there. I don't understand why people think there's some kind of distinguishing horror surrounding guns as opposed to another method. Dead is dead.

 

No one who decides they want to kill as many people as they can gives up because they can't get a gun. They'll use a car, bomb, poison etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Europe, unlike America, has a problem with masses of people being ran over.

I mean France in particular has had a real problem with vehicle ramming attacks in the last couple of years, but to sell this as a "European" problem or insinuate that the US is immune from it as a form of terrorism is rather unrealistic given that there have been three notable (through either fatalities or mass casualties) vehicle ramming terrorist attacks in the US since November 2016. Even putting that inconvenient fact aside, I don't think you can necessarily draw comparison between terrorism and mass murder more generally. The US sees vastly more terrorist mass shootings that Europe, but it's largely irrelevant when looking at the wider statistics because terrorist murders are typically recorded separately anyway.

 

 

I don't understand why people think there's some kind of distinguishing horror surrounding guns as opposed to another method

If you remove firearms from the equation, the US has a murder rate roughly akin to that (admittedly the higher end) of Western European countries. You add firearm murders to that, and it jumps to between four and seven times that of countries with similar HDI or GDP per capita. The specific example of school mass murders is an interesting one. They do occur in Europe- usually firearm enabled, and disproportionately in countries with atypically high instance of firearm ownership like Germany or Finland- but compared to the US still remain vanishingly rare. The US is the murder capital, mass murder capital, school murder capital, workplace murder capital, familicide capital of the developed world. Each of these phenomena is an order of magnitude more frequent in the US than in comparable Western countries, and each is enabled primarily by ease of access to firearms. I have yet to hear a single coherent explanation as to why these instances (and the general murder rate) are so much higher per capita in the US than elsewhere in the developed world which doesn't effectively boil down to "trivial access to firearms for people who are in a violent state enables them to inflict large numbers of casualties in short spaces of time without any prerequisite preparation or foreplanning".

 

 

No one who decides they want to kill as many people as they can gives up because they can't get a gun.

Which might be a valid point in the instances of individuals who do actually actively intend, prepare and plan for the commission of violent actions, but doesn't really account for those who simply "go postal".
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

No point, really. It's a common occurrence in America. This is the 18th school shooting in 2018. Double the amount of the entirety of last year.

 

This is a bit of a misleading statistic. Yes there have been 18 incidents involving the discharging of a firearm on school property this year, but if we break those down by simply using the data available on the source of origin: 8 out of 18 were the 'mere' discharging of a firearm on school property without injury, 2 were (attempted) suicides without injury to third parties, 1 was a case of unintentional (negligent) discharge of a firearm resulting in injury. Of the remaining 7 incidents, all involving injury and/or death to third parties, only 2 could be qualified as mass-casualty events, with a further 2 may be classified as attempts.

 

This may seem like nitpicking but it's important we qualify mass shootings as they are: statistical anomalies. The vast majority (2/3) of incidents involving firearms are suicides or attempted suicides. Now you may rightfully make the argument that any incident involving a firearm is one too many, but it is vital we use correct and objective statistics.

 

 

I get where you're coming from, but to me, any incident involving firearms in a school setting, is one incident too many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

You work with what you've got. Firearms are just an instrument that can be used to achieve a goal. If firearms aren't available then you can just use other means, like a car. Europe, unlike America, has a problem with masses of people being ran over. There's probably a couple of cases of vehicular mass murder here, then again, there's a couple of cases of mass shootings over there. I don't understand why people think there's some kind of distinguishing horror surrounding guns as opposed to another method. Dead is dead.

 

No one who decides they want to kill as many people as they can gives up because they can't get a gun. They'll use a car, bomb, poison etc.

Firearms have cultural, masculine significance. There is no action movie where the hero kills all the bad guys with poison or a snow plough.

Edited by Melchior
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

A pathetic state of affairs indeed. But what are you gonna do eh? Mass shootings are more or less a natural disaster at this point. Judging from the numbers, it would be odd if they didn't happened.

 

 

I have yet to hear a single coherent explanation as to why these instances (and the general murder rate) are so much higher per capita in the US than elsewhere in the developed world which doesn't effectively boil down to "trivial access to firearms for people who are in a violent state enables them to inflict large numbers of casualties in short spaces of time without any prerequisite preparation or foreplanning".


To be fair, the general murder rate in the US is hardly related to these mass shooting anomalies. These are what get people excited and rushing over to social media of course, but much of the murder problem in the US (especially firearm-related) is an extension of the drug war failure. Most of the systemic murder in the homicide rate-driving hubs like St. Louis, New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. involve the illicit drug trade in some way.

 

Sure in regards to mass shootings, it's clearly a matter of access to firearms. But in regards to our high homicide rates overall, it's less cut and dry. Even if we had the lowest/safest homicide rates in the West, I doubt most folks would be any more willing to accept these mass shootings without a major legislative response. The public outcry is hardly with 'gun violence', it's with the mass shootings and general terror tbh. In other words, the entire gun debate in the US is driven by shock value instead of an urge to systemically prevent gun death.

 

Realistically speaking, assuming the frequency of these events keeps its recent pace, hundreds more people will die before we see any meaningful legislative response to mass shootings and even that probably won't work. We must remember that the entire legislative branch of the US government is literally for sale.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

Hundreds of people have already died. Hundreds more will continue to do so as long as people assume gun control either will not work or that it will result in the federal government "cummin fer ya gunz". No one seems to understand that you can have whatever guns you want within existing laws and have the freedom to use them and have common sense regulations and restrictions on who can access weapons and what kind of weapons people can access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonesizzle

I know a few people at work who have said the similar things that, "it wasn't the guns fault, a gun doesn't shoot people, people aim the gun and shoot". I've come to find a bit of a lazy argument now a days. there needs to be serious discussion of changing gun laws and control. I don't think that's going to happen in the foreseeable future because of sh*t written on paper hundreds of years ago. As a father of two it's sad watching these parents mourn the loss of their children..it's horrifying to even imagine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

No one who decides they want to kill as many people as they can gives up because they can't get a gun. They'll use a car, bomb, poison etc.

Not everyone can make a bomb, get poison or drive a car. Speaking of cars, you need a drivers license in order to legally drive a car but you need f*ck all to buy a lethal weapon. To add to this insanity, this guy wasn't even old enough to legally drink, but he was old enough to buy a gun. Where is the sense in that? What was he trying to protect himself from by purchasing a f*ckin AR-15 at his age?

 

I also disagree with people that are saying how it's a cultural thing and it can't be fixed. No it isn't, and you never tried to fix it. Just look at Trump. Everything that Trump says and does flies directly in the face of American culture. Yet dumb as sh*t conservatives still love him. Because they don't actually have any real values or ideas. That would require a thinking brain. They just buy into whatever story their masters tell them. Or look at slavery. It used to be a part of your culture. It's not anymore. So it's not a cultural issue or a freedom issue. And it absolutely can be fixed. It's an issue of lack of intellect and money in politics. Gun manufacturers have bought your politicians and they sold you this narrative that they're protecting the 2nd amendment. And people that are dumb as sh*t bought it. As they always do and will continue to do.

 

Just look at this. Is this the glorious American culture?

 

 

 

The NRA is bordering on terrorism.

Edited by Darth Yokel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

The root cause is American mistrust of big government. This cultural baggage, in which certain Americans envision themselves one day having to fight against their own leaders, would first have to be unloaded bit-by-bit before any significant disarmament could be accomplished and sustained.

As with most issues of culture and tradition, using logical arguments simply will not shift people on the issue if they believe it to be about national identity and ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

 

No one who decides they want to kill as many people as they can gives up because they can't get a gun. They'll use a car, bomb, poison etc.

Not everyone can make a bomb, get poison or drive a car. Speaking of cars, you need a drivers license in order to legally drive a car but you need f*ck all to buy a lethal weapon. To add to this insanity, this guy wasn't even old enough to legally drink, but he was old enough to buy a gun. Where is the sense in that? What was he trying to protect himself from by purchasing a f*ckin AR-15 at his age?

 

I also disagree with people that are saying how it's a cultural thing and it can't be fixed. No it isn't, and you never tried to fix it. Just look at Trump. Everything that Trump says and does flies directly in the face of American culture. Yet dumb as sh*t conservatives still love him. Because they don't actually have any real values or ideas. That would require a thinking brain. They just buy into whatever story their masters tell them. Or look at slavery. It used to be a part of your culture. It's not anymore. So it's not a cultural issue or a freedom issue. And it absolutely can be fixed. It's an issue of lack of intellect and money in politics. Gun manufacturers have bought your politicians and they sold you this narrative that they're protecting the 2nd amendment. And people that are dumb as sh*t bought it. As they always do and will continue to do.

 

Just look at this. Is this the glorious American culture?

 

 

 

The NRA is bordering on terrorism.

 

I just would like to make the point that a large majority of gun owners hate the NRA, it is full of corruption and in fighting. It often does not speak for the average gun owner. Regardless of life membership they often don't give life members the ability to even vote on who governs the board and only about 3000 even get that vote. And recently they have thrown gun owners under the bus by agreeing to horrible and moronic anti-gun laws in order to appease people. The problem is there isn't any other large organization that stands up for the rights of gun owners so a lot of people have to just ally with them otherwise it would open the flood gates to terrible bills that aren't thought out at all which are purposely left open ended so it can strike at pretty much any form of firearm.

 

I do think it would be better to have some form of licensing for firearms, but IT IS too late. Even if you banned all firearms in the US right now, do you even realize how long that would take for all those firearms left in peoples cupboards and attics to be rightfully licensed or disposed? Sure you need a license to drive but that doesn't stop anyone from breaking into someones house finding someones car keys and stealing it, then using it to joyride. Often these cases can't rightfully prevent these atrocities without full blown gun confiscation. If you had banned all semi automatic rifles, then what would have stopped this person from then using a bunch of handguns, or even shotguns? Where will it end? Until there are no guns left to purchase except bolt action rifles and double barrel shotguns, right?

 

The complication is that how do you license or restrict firearms but at the same time still allow fit and proper people from obtaining them legally for their uses such as target shooting and hunting? That is the most difficult part. You could go as to say that the only permitted firearms for self defense should be pistols, or to go further and say only revolvers and non automatic shotguns. But the retort to that is always going to be "why should I have to protect my life with something that has less power, capacity or simplicity than some criminal or insane person that gets a hold of something that outmatches my firearm". You can't really get around it. I can give you reasons why I require standard capacity magazines and why it is stupid to prohibit their capacity. But when it comes down to being allowed to purchase firearms for defense then you can't really say you should have less as each one of those rounds lost is on less of a chance of you surviving an encounter.

 

The issue is so intertwined with many different reasons for things. But the part that annoys me the most is that atrocities happen and what ends up happening is something gets banned for everyone regardless of their reasons for having it. How are you meant to compete as a 3-gun competition shooter in California if EVERYONE has horrible restrictions on their firearms. And that just ends up hurting every legitimate citizen, and does not actually prevent these events. Because how likely is it that someone planning on murdering people will give a sh*t about a law saying it's illegal to put a stock onto their pistol or modify it to function without a "bullet button".

 

It is just so easy to blame the tool than the root of the cause that sparked off these events. It will be extremely difficult to get guns out of circulation. In the case of sandy hook, the kid already was denied purchasing a firearm, but just stole some from his mother. All it takes is someone to rob the house of someone with guns to get a hold of them. But would it really be that hard for people to actually take notice of these people that act in that way, people they already know would probably shoot up a school, and not even mention it to a school authority or Councillor? It could have possibly been prevented by people taking charge and trying to get help for people before their mind goes that far. There isn't just a band-aid that can be applied to stop any of this. It takes years of research, government money, tighter security at schools, knowledge to spot troubled individuals. But that isn't going to happen either, nobody wants to fork out that money. It is far more easier to blame the object like it was in fault for existing, that costs no money to do that, that shifts the blame very nicely for them. I personally wouldn't be against people prohibited from buying firearms that have serious mental health issues. But then who governs what is considered having "mental health issues"? Does that now mean that because you had a run of depression or anxiety and have been on anti-depressants previously you cannot now own a gun to defend yourself? That is the case in the UK, but we cannot own them for self defense. In fact you will never be able to own another one again if you try to use them for that purpose. The US is far too big of a country to narrow it down just to one aspect, that is the complication. It is the exaggerated version of the scale that makes these events stand out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dacelo

But would it really be that hard for people to actually take notice of these people that act in that way, people they already know would probably shoot up a school, and not even mention it to a school authority or Councillor?

There seemed to be a lot of warning signs about this guy, he probably should have been getting psychological help a long time ago

 

 

Does that now mean that because you had a run of depression or anxiety and have been on anti-depressants previously you cannot now own a gun to defend yourself? That is the case in the UK, but we cannot own them for self defense. In fact you will never be able to own another one again if you try to use them for that purpose.

Honestly I'm biased in this because I've been diagnosed with depression and have an interest in shooting, but I don't believe that having been on (or even being on) anti-depressants should prevent people from owning a gun license.

Edited by Dacelo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

Here in the US you need more training and approval to drive a car than you need to own and shoot a gun. Seems odd.

 

Nothing will be done. Sorry. I think the fact that bump stocks are still easily available after the Vegas shooting is a prime example that nothing will be done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

Here in the US you need more training and approval to drive a car than you need to own and shoot a gun. Seems odd.

 

Nothing will be done. Sorry. I think the fact that bump stocks are still easily available after the Vegas shooting is a prime example that nothing will be done.

I 100% agree you should be forced to go through a training course in order to obtain a firearm, but once you have it, it should be yours for life. There are far too many morons that have access to guns, those are NOT people we want in the shooting community.

 

I honestly have no idea why anyone cares about bump stocks. First of all you don't even need one to bump fire a rifle. It is very easy to do once you know how, and you can even do it with a .22 if you have a good trigger. And then there is another way where you just put the stock in your chest and rapidly move your finger back and forth in the trigger guard which is easy to make you shoot as if it were auto. None of these, including bump stocks are considered proper ways of shooting and are not exactly a proper way to accurately shoot. I still highly dispute the fact the vegas shooter actually used the bump stocks during that shooting. To me that sounded like uninterrupted 7.62 belt fed fire. Though I am sure he owned a lot of bump stocks and a lot were found. If anyone wanted to commit a crime with a firearm, very few people would choose to use one of those. If it did happen, it was only due to the sheer size of the crowd that made it effective. The issue with that bill was that it listed "any device" that increased the rate of fire of a firearm. That means that any form of trigger group or anything as simple as a wooden stick could be considered illegal if used that way on a firearm, that is a horrendous bill to have been written. Most shooters couldn't give a single crap about a bump fire stock and they are considered nothing more than a gimmick and not a serious item. That said, it is more the principle that all that stock is, is a piece of plastic, you do not require it to get that same result. Therefore the ban is moronic. Creating mass hand ins and putting companies out of business at the same time not actually preventing deaths. That is the problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

I 100% agree you should be forced to go through a training course in order to obtain a firearm, but once you have it, it should be yours for life.

A periodic check wouldn't be a bad idea either.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

 

I 100% agree you should be forced to go through a training course in order to obtain a firearm, but once you have it, it should be yours for life.

 

A periodic check wouldn't be a bad idea either.Just like the license to drive a car. Except there are no periodic checks. Pass the test, get approved and you can own and drive a car for life.

 

If you f*ck up with your license to drive a car they take it away and you can no longer drive. Heck, and even keeping with the driver's license analogy - I like a thrill greater then just a basic car and I had to test and get approval to have a license saying I can operate a motorcycle. Want something more exciting than a pistol or hunting rifle? Test up and get approved.

Edited by trip
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SaveTheZombies

 

Aren't we supposed to be thinking and praying?

 

I 100% agree you should be forced to go through a training course in order to obtain a firearm, but once you have it, it should be yours for life.

A periodic check wouldn't be a bad idea either.

 

Been saying this for years: anyone who wants anything more sophisticated (or maybe just as sophisticated) than a musket, a bolt action rifle, or hunting shotgun needs to apply for a license. Make sure they aren't a basket case and to make sure that they are storing their weapons correctly. There are states like that but it should be national. Unfortunately too many politicians like to suckle at the teat of the NRA so they write the rules and they write those rules for the manufacturers, not the gun owners.

It's like George Carlin said: We live in a country where gun store owners are given a list of stolen credit cards but not a list of criminals and maniacs.

Edited by SaveTheZombies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

Well you have issues with that. Once you are fully trained and aren't unsafe with that mechanical device, you are trained for life and should not need any retests unless you are severely elderly and your judgement is in question.

 

If you are talking about medical background checks we have a bigger issue. Who determines what is safe and what isn't? Are you as a taxpayer willing to pay more tax so that the ATF or any other government body has to now renew a license for gun owners? Does that now mean you will be prevented to own or shoot firearms if it expires? Or is it just the ability to purchase is what expires? It gets very complicated when you involve doctors surgeries as I know in the UK. They can charge extraordinarily high charges just for a quick letter stating you are a fit and proper person or even just a copy of medical records that far exceeds the price of your license or even some actual firearms for that matter. It would be even worse in the US where it is all private and it would then be that some people just cannot afford to keep shooting and own a gun because of the constant charges that will occur for renewing and getting medical checks done.

 

With a car in the US you do not have a right to own one it is a privilege, you are constantly using it around others and could instantly kill someone at any moment if used improperly and it is always loaded as long as it has gas. You do however have the right to own a firearm to defend yourself, which unless it is your self defense firearm it should be locked up and stored and be unloaded at all times. A one off check does completely nothing to stop people abusing either vehicle or firearm down the road. Like in many cases, people had no prior history of mental health or criminal behaviour and just "snapped" so there may not be any signs of someone having any issues and what many people fear is that this could just simply happen to anyone no matter who under the right circumstances. This could happen to (and has) police officers, the difference is that you need people around you to monitor your behavior and be able to have someone to call if they suspect something. You have that with police so that is less common, but as a teenager or some 50 year old loner, that may not be something that is possible. The only option would then to be preventing purchasing firearms if you have mental illness issues of any kind for a few years after becoming cleared, and the only way of obtaining one is via gift or loan. Which should then not prevent people from owning firearms and being able to still shoot and hunt but at the same time having to go through a family member or friend in order to obtain it, they could then not agree to do it based off their demeanor. Though this obviously happens anyway already and we can't trust the judgement of people close to these people as it could obviously be bias. Furthermore it is actually illegal if you give/sell someone a gun that is prohibited from obtaining one such as someone with a criminal record, so the deterrents are already there anyway. But I don't think any of these options really can prevent any of these shootings. Banning things outright is never a good solution for anyone. It has happened in the past such as the night club shooting that the guy had a concealed weapons permit which would require mass amounts of background checks but still was permitted one. The only preventative measure in my eyes is just stopping it before it happens, to be more responsible as a family member or friend or acquaintance to spot these types of people. As a target shooter, if anyone starts doing anything dangerous or we think is a threat at a range they are ejected immediately with even the police informed if required, and their membership revoked. That same monitoring needs to go on with people that are unstable at home. It is important to make sure they do not have access to weapons regardless. However, taking someones guns off them just because their son has commit suicide and you deem them unsafe is not entirely the correct way of going about it, as this does happen over here and it is still jumping to conclusions than actually having evidence of mental health issues. It really needs to start at home with family and friends. The burden really needs to lay with those close to the person involved, it really needs to be their responsibility to get them treated before things like this can ever happen. Just as it would be stopping a loved one from driving drunk, nobody else knows about it so you need to be the one to act on it and stop it.

 

At the moment there is a criminal records check every time you purchase any gun from an authorized dealer in the US. There is not such a system for medical, but this would be difficult to counteract as you could just not have been treated for anything and it would not show up on any national system. Hopefully this is picked up by people selling firearms but this is not technically their job to refuse sales to people who act "a bit shifty". I would not be apposed to longer waiting periods for certain firearms within reason, but we need to be able to have some form of credentials such as some form of license so we can buy instantly if you are an avid collector or shooter. As you would be surprised how often people purchase and sell firearms even in the UK. We don't want anything that would start to kill off the industry and market.

Edited by Daz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SaveTheZombies

Yea, I've heard all those arguments before and no the 2nd amendment doesn't mean that every citizen has a right to tuck whatever weapon they want under their pillow at night.

But let me see if I understand you: You don't think there should be any restrictions or measures taken on the side of the gun sellers or manufacturers? It's just up to us to watch each others' back? Seems like gun owners/manufacturers/sellers have proven that they need oversight. Sure, it means more federal workers/spending and someone might have to wait a week or two before buying that handgun (they were about to kill their ex with) but maybe that's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

Its extremely easy for someone to put as much legislation on something that they are in no way involved in whatsoever. Unless you use firearms on a monthly basis at least you should really understand that these discussions effect a lot of peoples lives.

 

I don't quite understand your point. Firearms dealers and manufactures all operate within the law and do not sell or manufacture anything illegal. A semi automatic firearm has been around for well over 100 years and is nothing new. I don't see how there is any issue with any dealer or manufacturer.

 

And yes, they actually do have the right to tuck a firearm under their pillow at night if they so please. The 2nd amendment wasn't created for hunting purposes. Regardless of what reason you purchase one for you are allowed to if you are at the correct age and have no criminal record. Often many states it is illegal to sell firearms to people across state lines and is often illegal to transport certain firearms across state lines. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". The only loophole is having a person sell you a firearm and you are a criminal, in that case they are also committing a crime. As I said before, for people that plan to murder, these laws stop nothing anyway.

 

We are in a quite pathetic state of affairs if you think using your intellect and judgement to try and spot troubled individuals and get them help is too much of a task, then I really can't help you here. Not everything can be solved by government intervention, babysitting your children for you. For you it is easy, you couldn't give a damn what happens to firearms, and that's fine for you, but not for those that use them for their jobs, their protection, for their hobbies and for their source of food. For those people it is their entire life. So we really need smart answers and solutions rather than taking freedoms away from everyone because of the misuse of the few.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SaveTheZombies

100 years? How old do you think the 2nd amendment is? Free speech doesn't necessarily apply to everything technology has come up with; you can't say f*ck on broadcast tv. I can't even say f*ck on this site. Look : f*ckity f*ck f*ck f*ckers

And on the contrary; I understand that guns are important to people even on the level of pure entertainment. I try out different crazy guns when I go to the shooting ranges in places like vegas. I love things like the kill the car event in Oklahoma and I think people should have a right to bring a mounted minigun to it. However, that persons neighbors should sleep comfortably knowing that individual isn't one car honk away from a rampage and those neighbors shouldn't be relied upon to make that assessment either.

Edited by SaveTheZombies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

The LEOs were at this guys house 39 times before he shot up the school. 39 times!

 

The so called background check he PASSED when he bought the gun last year failed miserably yet you want more of the same? More "gun control" like this?

 

You stupid if you believe this craps works. The people that have done these things with legal guns prove a failed background check system. The people that have done these things with illegal guns prove a failed restricted possession system.

 

All they are trying to do here is prevent everyone from having guns, NOT just the people that might shoot up a school.

 

In fact, given that this guy was visited 39 times by the cops yet still managed to get a LEGAL gun, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that .gov are willing to let a few psychopaths get through and cause mayhem because, well, according to the lawmakers in this country, don't let a good crisis go to waste.

 

Look at the Patriot Act. A massive piece of legislation that was polished and ready to drop before the smoke even cleared after 9-11. They were waiting for this to happen, just the way it did, in order to dupe the people into thinking it was created after-the-fact and in order to help the citizens be safe. And the citizens bought it hook, line and sinker. Probably because of the name knowing how ignorant many Americans are.

 

"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"

 

What the patriot act does is allow unfettered spying on and incarceration of citizens by our trusted .gov for no reason and with zero checks and balances, and give us a blank check to screw with any country in the world that we deem a threat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

100 years? How old do you think the 2nd amendment is? Free speech doesn't necessarily apply to everything technology has come up with; you can't say f*ck on broadcast tv. I can't even say f*ck on this site. Look : f*ckity f*ck f*ck f*ckers

And on the contrary; I understand that guns are important to people even on the level of pure entertainment. I try out different crazy guns when I go to the shooting ranges in places like vegas. I love things like the kill the car event in Oklahoma and I think people should have a right to bring a mounted minigun to it. However, that persons neighbors should sleep comfortably knowing that individual isn't one car honk away from a rampage and those neighbors shouldn't be relied upon to make that assessment either.

What the hell are you babbling about?

 

We have had semi automatic firearms in existence for over 100 years, so its not a new thing, this is not some new fangled space age firearm that it's sole purpose is for baby killing. I was not talking about the age of the 2nd amendment.

 

You do not have the right to free speech on television, it is owned by a company and they can tell you what and what not to say on tv. This website is not free speech it is owned by someone who does not want you to swear, this is not a publicly funded free space, it is owned. The same goes for youtube, though it is pretty lame of them, they can pull your video down about whatever they like. It is company owned.

 

And like the 2nd amendment, with free speech they also had no idea back when the constitution was written that the internet would exist and that we would need to protect our ability to converse with eachother and not be silenced by our government. Or that the entire global population would rise to this level. They are solid truths that need to be upheld regardless of the time period. And originally the 2nd amendment was to allow the people the same arms as the military had, you could privately own cannons on par with the military, we don't even have that level of equality now, you cannot own fully automatic firearms unless you pay ungodly prices for a transferable fully automatic firearm or you are a firearms manufacturer. All firearms in question are no different in design to rifles made in the 1960s and that we have been allowed to own since the 1960s. The mechanism type is over 100 years old. So why was it not a problem until now? Maybe it is because of the mental health crisis, big pharma, the toxic and parasitic nature of our news media and failures in our school disciplinary systems that create these results.

Edited by Daz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

100 years? How old do you think the 2nd amendment is? Free speech doesn't necessarily apply to everything technology has come up with; you can't say f*ck on broadcast tv. I can't even say f*ck on this site. Look : f*ckity f*ck f*ck f*ckers

And on the contrary; I understand that guns are important to people even on the level of pure entertainment. I try out different crazy guns when I go to the shooting ranges in places like vegas. I love things like the kill the car event in Oklahoma and I think people should have a right to bring a mounted minigun to it. However, that persons neighbors should sleep comfortably knowing that individual isn't one car honk away from a rampage and those neighbors shouldn't be relied upon to make that assessment either.

 

2A does not have a shelf life, sorry. It doesn't say anywhere in it that we are limited to muskets and muzzle loaders. Perhaps you should read it and see why it was created. Our forefathers saw fit to provide the same level of power to the citizens as it did to it's army. It did this to ensure we dont' end up with more tyrannical .govs like are all over the world. It has kept .gov in check somewhat but they continue to find new and exciting ways to undermine our freedom and they will continue to do so until they are successful in removing our ability to defend ourselves from their tyranny.

 

 

And for those of you that keep trying to say the US has more gun violence, you're right because we have more guns. Just like when you have more cars you have more car wrecks. But if you were really honest you would look at ALL violent crime, not just gun crimes. When you do that you'll see very quickly that the US is much less violent than places like England, Canada, Scotland, Ireland, France, Sweden and Switzerland.

 

And nobody ever mentions the fact that the US has a violent crime rate lower than 12 of 17 industrialized countries due in large part to the 2.5 million annual defense gun uses. (That means guns are used for self defense 2,500,000 times a year).

 

29veamu.jpg

 

Yeah, that'll fix it!! (LMAO at dopy brits)

 

And here's what happens when you ban guns altogether...

 

2ih1dsj.jpg

Edited by FukNRekd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

I find both the "rah ban all guns, ensure the state maintains a monopoly on violence" and the "i need 200 armalite rifles to defend my house from BAD PEOPLE" to be equally ridiculous positions.

 

gun control debate sux.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SaveTheZombies

So you're just going to give the usual bs arguments now? In the UK slapping someone in the face is a violent crime, some kid giving his brother a nuggie could be considered a violent crime.

 

And when you curse on network TV you don't get fined by the network, you get fined by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

So you're just going to give the usual bs arguments now? In the UK slapping someone in the face is a violent crime, some kid giving his brother a nuggie could be considered a violent crime.

 

And when you curse on network TV you don't get fined by the network, you get fined by the government.

 

 

LMAO!

 

Is that all you've got? :lol:

 

The same data works for US, too. Nice try though. :breadfish:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

And here's what happens when you ban guns altogether...

 

2ih1dsj.jpg

 

 

This also is a misleading statistic. Firstly, there is no uniform definition of violent crime. In fact, if we compare what constitutes violent crime in the United States versus what it does in the UK we can discern that the UK's definition is much more inclusive. Whereas the US definition as can be found in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, includes only 4 offences (Murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault). In the UK, violent crime as defined by the Office for National Statistics covers a lot more offences:

 

"Violent crime covers a wide range of offences from minor assaults (such as pushing and shoving), harassment and abuse (that result in no physical harm), through to wounding and homicide."

 

The lower the threshold for what is defined as violent crime you apply, the higher your resultant statistical rates of violent crime will be. The US's definition of violent crime arguably being under-inclusive, and the UK's over-inclusive; any comparisons between the two datasets used to get to the above numbers is going to have skewed results. You can't just take two datasets that have been compiled with vastly different methodologies, using completely different definitions and expect results anywhere close to reality. Whilst it might make a nice meme, it's moot beyond that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.