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. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

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

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    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 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 Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

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

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA 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

darthYENIK

Guns are fun. Theyre fun to go hunting with. Theyre fun to shoot a beer can with. Theyre fun to look at, and collect. And sure its great to feel personal security even if you will probably never fire your weapon in the name of self defense. Guns are fun.

 

I wont go into the whole 'we need guns to protect us in case our government needs to be overthrown' because those people who believe that would probably willfully let the government get too much control in the name of xenophobia, 'god', and 'keeping our guns'. It is a bullsh*t reason, they know it, we know it, but it is the only real reason they can give in the defense of the 2nd amendment, so they stick to that ideal.

 

Guns are fun, change is hard, but we need to learn to selflessly separate our needs and wants, prioritize the needs, and sacrifice our wants for the better good.

 

Need: to stop mass shootings

 

Want: to have guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

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?

...no, we want gun control that actually works. The current background checks and vetting system in the US is an abysmal clusterf*ck. Citing examples of failed vetting reinforces the arguments against US controls being improper and lax; it's not an argument against it. But if you gave some meaningful consideration to counter arguments rather than spurting ad hominems and repeating NRA dogma then you might actually make a contribution worth reading.

 

The people that have done these things with legal guns prove a failed background check system.

You're not wrong, but the logical resolution to this is to fix the broken system, not to abandon it wholesale. For instance, I don't think it's unreasonable to implement forfeiture requirements for people under criminal investigation, especially in instances of domestic violence.

 

The people that have done these things with illegal guns prove a failed restricted possession system.

No, what it shows is that the US utterly fails to enforce the regulations it already has properly, never mind implement any new coherent plans to deal with the availability of illicit and grey market firearms.

 

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

This is quite frankly drivel.

 

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

What an absurd, incoherent and utterly baseless assertion.

 

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

You clearly have absolutely no idea what the PATRIOT act actually say. But that's not particularly surprising because everything you've said thusfar is ignorant nonsense.

 

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

 

2ih1dsj.jpg

And this is what you get when you let idiots get access to statistics they don't understand and try to make political points from it.

 

Firstly, the UK has not completely banned firearms. Anyone who asserts this should be immediate dismissed as an idiot because they don't have even the most basic grasp of the subject.

 

Secondly, as Raavi has already pointed out, the US and UK categorise violent crime very differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd
Guns are fun.

 

^^^ Like I said, people keep ignoring the 2.5 million times every year a gun is used in defense.

 

Sure, it's just a "want" for you. It's a tool for me. Just like my wallet that's with me everywhere I go. Just like the Buck knife that's with me everywhere I go. Just like the Bic lighter that goes with me everywhere I go.

 

Just because you trust that everyone will protect you doesn't make it so. For example, if that coach that got killed would have pulled out a gun and shot that little coward f*cker instead of getting himself killed he probably could have saved a lot more people's lives.

 

When a bad guy has a gun (and they will always get them) only a good guy with a gun will be able to stop him. But by all means, completely ignore all of the pro's to the idea of keeping guns in the hands of good guys. (And don't make me LOL by saying the police will be there to protect me. We all know they will not. They'll be there to take a report later and maybe, just maybe... catch the guy that raped your wife and killed your kids.

Edited by FukNRekd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Are you actually going to respond to rebuttals or are you just going to repeat the same old tired dogma or make ridiculous appeals to emotion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

 

 

we want gun control that actually works

 

So do we. But that's not what our .gov is pushing. Once they start using smart ideas that work I'll be on board. But we both know that's not very likely.

 

And taking them away from everyone is simply not going to happen. Nor is it going to work. The cat is out of the bag. There are more guns in America than people. They're not going away.

 

 

 

 

You clearly have absolutely no idea what the PATRIOT act actually say.

 

How can you abjectly say that with a straight face? You've no idea what I know. That's simply a moronic statement. And inherently false.

 

That being said, it's not just what it says, it's the loose wording and how it's being interpreted.

 

The provisions in the Patriot Act call for these little inconspicuous items called National Security Letters (NSLs) which are issued by FBI agents, without a judge's approval, to obtain personal information including phone, computer, credit and banking records.

 

In the few years after 9-11 the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs, which led to one terror-related conviction. The conviction would have occurred even without the Patriot Act.

 

The Patriot Act does not require information obtained by NSLs to be destroyed - even if the information is deemed to concern innocent Americans. Right or wrong, involved or not, your info is there forever.

 

Tens of thousands of law enforcement and intelligence agents have access to phone records collected through these same NSLs, again, without a warrant. And don't forget, the Patriot Act prohibits Americans who receive NSLs from telling anyone, which has been deemed unconstitutional yet it still happens. Wonder why that is...

 

Not only that, the Patriot Act allows LEOs to break in to your house while you're not there, take evidence, and not inform you until afterwards, a clear violation of the 4A. They call that tactic "Sneak Peaks" and they used it nearly 4,000 times in 2010. The results of those "raids" ??

 

76% drug-related

24% other

1% terror-related

 

Have a look for yourself.

 

http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=34eddcdb-2541-42f5-8f...
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0803b/final.pdf
http://thescienceofsecurity.org/blog/CT%20Since%209-11_by_Breakthrough.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0703b/final.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0803b/final.pdf

 

The Patriot Act also allowed for the massive extortion LEOs can now use in the form of Civil Asset Forfeiture. Basically LEOs can confiscate something from you, anything from you, just by saying they think it was used in the commission of a crime.

 

From the Civil Liberties Union:

 

 

 

Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SaveTheZombies

Any cop (or any person who's experienced a shooting incident) will tell you that the last thing you need is a good guy with a gun you can't recognize as a good guy to confuse the situation. Imagine a good guy with a gun in the middle of that Vegas shooting; would've just sown more panic.

Edited by SaveTheZombies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

Need: to stop mass shootings

 

Want: to have guns

this is really what it comes down to.

gun enthusiasts access to a wide variety of weapons is far less important than our ability to have a safe and functional society.

 

we have to pick one or the other.

this is an American problem.

 

when these stupid f.cking kids started eating Tide Pods, stores began to lock up Tide Pods making them far more difficult to access, even though most people use laundry detergent responsibly... why can't we do the same thing with guns that we do with f/cking goddamn Tide Pods?? this country is retarded.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

Any cop (or any person who's experienced a shooting incident) will tell you that the last thing you need is a good guy with a gun you can't recognize as a good guy to confuse the situation. Imagine a good guy with a gun in the middle of that Vegas shooting; would've just sown more panic.

Dead wrong. And this was not a situation that could have been confused with something else. That coach knew what was going on. If he had a weapon and even a weekend's worth of training a year he'd have put that punk down in not much more time than it took to throw away his life for one or three others. (Bless him for what he did but he could have done so much more. Again, just keep ignoring the 2.5 million times a gun is used in defense every year because it doesn't fit your argument).

 

Do you even have any LEO family/friends? Talk to them. Have a beer with them, go camping with them, play pool with them every week, get to know them and they'll tell you they can not be there to protect you and that you need to protect yourself and your family. Do you think their wives and adult children are at home without some kind of protection and the knowledge of how and more importantly when to use it?

 

You guys crack me up with your blanket statements about what people know or don't know, how they think or don't think and especially how they should think.

Edited by FukNRekd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

 

 

 

You guys crack me up with your blanket statements about what people know or don't know, how they think or don't think and especially how they should think.

 

 

That's pretty hilarious coming from a guy who actually buys into peoples' "From my cold dead hands," or "Come and take it," bullsh*t. I actually know people with felony convictions--you know, people who generally don't give a crap about authority in the first place--who gave up their guns before playing showdown with a SWAT team. You're seriously deluded if you actually think for a second that more than 1/4 of the people spouting this, "I'll never give up my guns," crap wouldn't actually tuck tail and hand them over at the first request, and just totally out of your mind if you think that they'll somehow actually keep them from getting their guns while they choke on tear gas. If you're so keen on pointing out how the cops are out of control in this country, why don't you go look up the MOVE 7 bombing that the Philadelphia police did. A bunch of crazy religious zealots boarded themselves up their home with their guns, and told them, "Come get them," and you know what they did? They bombed them. You know what they did to Micah Johnson? They bombed him too. Have you ever even heard of Waco? Ruby Ridge? You can have all your little small arms you want, but it's a total make believe fairy tale to act like we've got a country full of minutemen actually willing to die to keep their weapon, and you're completely out of touch with reality if you think even 1% would have the skills and ability to actually fight it out with an armed, paramilitary force tasked with "coming and getting them". Next time you're sitting waist deep in this rhetoric of yours, just remember, even Rambo had to surrender in the end.

 

Also, you do realize that Chris Kyle is revered by many as an American hero and is an iconic symbol of gun culture, self-defense and patriotism in America? The fact that you claim to be so in touch with American culture, yet had to learn of Chris Kyle from a foreigner, really tells me something. You're not even close to being in touch with Americans on a whole as you think you are.

 

 

I don't know why the forum software keeps insisting this quote came from FuknRed and not Cebra who I quoted it from...

 

Look, we all retread the same ground every single time something like this comes up, and it's coming up more and more often. Nobody will ever agree on what needs to be done because I truly don't think there is a solution to this uniquely American problem. More guns are certainly not the answer, and the guns already out there aren't going anywhere either. No buyback problem will ever work. Guns in the US are a cultural problem, period. We go in circles about fixing mental health issues to prevent massacres like this happening but that's not the issue at hand either. Guns are something so ingrained in the collective mindset of Americans that there is absolutely no chance of fixing it. I saw a comment on Reddit earlier that put my exact take into words better than I can.

 

What if the reason we have a culture of violence is not because people cant see a therapist, but because from the moment they enter school, Lesson One in U.S. History is:

 

Okay, kids, here's what you gotta know about America. Number one: You're free to say and believe what you want. Number two: Someone, someday, will be out to get you, and you and all your buddies will need guns to kill them. And the people you will need to shoot might be in this very room or in the house next door.

 

I'm sure everyone is rushing to bring up mental health, but you know what is really disturbing about our conversations about mental health?

 

Not only are the conversations themselves opportunist (we only talk about it after a shooting), we also bend over backwards to talk about it in the method that most cleanly absolves us of our own responsibility in crafting the uniquely American culture of violence.

 

We act like mental illness is just this disease that you can "catch" for no reason at all. Like there are just Mental Illness Spores floating around out there and one day you just breathe it in and whoop, you're crazy! You've been cursed and there's nothing we can do except hope you don't find a gun before you get a chance to see the Therapy Wizard!

 

Sure, depression can be totally arbitrary sometimes. Sometimes it's just senseless and pervasive, and people become depressed even without any good reasons, or sometimes your brain gets twisted because some enzyme made it somewhere it shouldn't have been.

 

But you know what? A lot of time time, mental health problems happen as a direct response to the values and pressures placed upon people by the society that surrounds them.

 

When waves of overworked Japanese salarymen commit suicide, we don't just say to ourselves "Oh man, if only Japan had more therapists! If only they had access to better mental health care!" No, we recognize the presence of certain kinds of toxicity in foreign cultures when we see it. We say dude, that culture needs to start rethinking their whole sh*t.

 

If a woman forced to stay in the home and wear a burka against her will, suddenly committed suicide, I wouldn't just blame the vague specter of mental illness and wish shed gotten to talk to someone about her mother.

 

It should be the same thing here at home. When we hear about the mental health crisis in poor urban black communities, it's not because they're short on ink blot tests and reclining couches, it's because they need grocery stores, and decent jobs, and cops who don't act like they're enforcing martial law.

 

When we hear about Puerto Rico having a sudden epidemic in mental health problems after a hurricane, I don't think "Gosh, I really hope those folks get their Xanax shipment soon!" I think "f*ck, of course. They're losing their loved ones to preventable diseases, they don't have power or clean food or medical care, or even the comforting illusion that the rest of the nation considers them full citizens."

 

No, when a society suffers a mental health crisis, they've usually earned it, and the nature of the crisis usually reflects the values of the society that brought it about. Systems and processes and care facilities can help you identify, quarantine, or heal the crazy. But culture is what synthesizes the crazy in the first place.

 

And the United States has earned every bit of the epidemic we suffer now. Whether it's radical white terrorism, disaffected schoolkids, or just nutsos with guns, we've earned every one of these shootings, and it can't just be because these people didn't make it to a therapist on time.

 

It's our values, stupid. It's because we indoctrinate our citizens into thinking that they are deficient if they can't scrape together a successful life out of this crucible of capitalist indifference. We fill the minds of the have-nots with shame and guilt beyond anyone's ability to fully cope with, and we fill the minds of the haves with supremacist fantasies that convince them that it's okay to treat others like dirt, or they deserve to get away with anything if they're rich. We tell foreign children studying their asses off that they haven't earned the right to live in the one place they've known as home, and we tell native-born Americans that their entire way of life is under attack.

 

By kids.

 

But most of all, we worship the fantasy of the gun. Not just the guns. It's the narrative that guns represent.

 

We've all heard the saying, right? To a man who has a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Well, what happens to a nation founded upon the idea that one day, there will necessarily arise a problem that can only be solved if everyone has guns?

 

If you enshrine that idea into your country's constitution, what will you get, except a society that's always looking for the fabled nail that justifies the ownership of this horrifically dangerous hammer that they've just got sitting there?

 

I mean, if that royal tyrant that our founding fathers told us to fear just...never appears, we're all kinda just left with our dicks in our hands, right?

 

Come on, we didn't need the 2nd amendment so we could own a shotgun and protect ourselves from thieves in the night. We could've found some way to allow people to protect themselves without an amendment. No, we have an amendment because our founding fathers, for better or worse, believed in the secular version of an apocalypse prophecy.

 

And a political apocalypse prophecy needs an enemy, but a functioning nation can't just allow people to freely plan violence against the state, so we gotta make up the enemies, because in order for this to work, the imaginary enemy still has to be domestic and covert (otherwise, the military or police should be able to handle it). So what do you get instead?

 

There could be Muslims in your community, I say! Muslims! Or it'll probably be those thieving blacks! Mexican rapists! Or the Deep State G-men in the suits! Or Hillary Clinton and the Pizza-Pedos! Or maybe it's just my shifty neighbors! I don't know who yet, but dammit, there's gotta be someone out there that I bought this gun to protect myself from! Or else why would I have it? Why would George Washington warn me that I'd need a gun, if there weren't dangerous people lurking out there?

 

You can't escape the filter of paranoia that re-colors our political discourse. How could you? It's built into our constitution, and placed pretty high up on the priority list, right behind free speech. But beyond that, there are people who stand to benefit a lot, financially and politically, if they can get into your head and tell you who to be scared of. Is it so crazy so suggest that that paranoid perspective has integrated itself into our conversations about poverty? About race? About labor? About war? About justice?

 

I'm not saying all our problems would go away if we get rid of guns.

 

We probably couldn't even if we tried. They're like a native species by now, it'd be like trying to get rid of all the kangaroos in Australia. There'll always be so damn many that we're probably stuck figuring out how to live with them. It's probably baked in. But is it so crazy to say that we may need to have a major reflection about how many guns we need in a household, or how deadly they really need to be, and how we go about acquiring them, or how we talk about what it should mean to own one?

 

All I'm saying is that we might be suffering from the same issue that you would see in a suicidal Japanese salaryman. The words "Why not just go home after 8 hours?" don't make sense when you're living in the problem. When you're steeped in the cultural norms that push people to the brink, it's hard to step back and see that there are options, that there are entirely different and valid ways for a civilization to be organized. Because somehow, other good countries manage to not be this way. Like I'm pretty sure we're not the only country with bears.

 

But America seems like it's suffering from a similar kind of myopia.

 

It's like we've simply never posited the question: What if there isn't as much to fear as we thought? And even if there is that much to fear, what if the sources of those fears are only strengthened when we tell a society that they need to be ready to kill what they're afraid of?

 

We're all psychologically (if not literally) locked and loaded but with nowhere to go. We've built a cultural identity around being ready for that big threat that never comes.

 

But we still have to have faith that the threat is out there! Because otherwise, well...that would mean that this whole time...we kinda just allowed our kids to murder each other for no good reason.

 

So now we're more afraid of that question than we would've been afraid of the imaginary threat.

 

And we're more dangerous to ourselves than that threat ever could've been.

A lot of this is very symptomatic of the type of paranoid delusions that you're talking about. Gun owners love to pretend that owning and carrying their gun is all about protection, and that it's as much a tool of preparedness as their Buck knife. But they seldom realize that they've been utterly conditioned into believing they need such a tool for defense, and gracefully had blinders put on them so that they cannot see how what they see as the cure is actually the poison that's causing society to be so terrible. It's a complete and total irony, especially when you bring in the topic of mental health. Firearm proliferation proponents sit there and try to throw the mentally ill under the bus and paint it as a mental health problem, without realizing that they could probably be easily diagnosed and deemed a prohibited person themselves. They're practically begging to give the same government they accuse of wanting to grab their guns, the complete and total authority to grab their guns. Then on top of all this, they see Smith and Wesson as their savior from government tyranny, come up with crack-pot notions of FEMA death camps and population control, all the while not considering that unabated firearm ownership is doing a hell of a better job at population control than whatever inane death-camp idea they floated could do. The sad part is that statistically speaking, the mentally ill are actually more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators. Now can you predict the gun enthusiast's next response? "Well clearly the mentally ill need better access to guns to protect themselves with."
Edited by Saggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

So do we. But that's not what our .gov is pushing.

Really? Because last time I checked your ".gov" were Republicans and had been for over a year, and what they're actually pushing is f*ck all.

These paranoid militia movement conspiracy theories were cute when the Democrats were in power, but in eight years they did pretty much f*ck all too, so where's the "taking them away" people of your ilk keep alleging is happening?

 

And taking them away from everyone is simply not going to happen.

Nice straw man

 

How can you abjectly say that with a straight face? You've no idea what I know.

Because your summary comment, "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", is abjectly false.

If you did know what you were talking about, you wouldn't have made it, and you certainly wouldn't believe it was true.

 

Firstly, the PATRIOT act does not allow unfettered surveillance of civilians.

Secondly, it does not allow the unfettered incarceration of civilians (I assume you mean without trial here.

Thirdly, neither of the above, even if they were allowed, would be allowed for no reason.

Finally, checks and balances do exist.

 

Please don't construe my comment as a defence of the PATRIOT act; it isn't. It's simply a rebuttal of manifest falsehoods you are promoting. As a piece of legislation, the Act is an abhorrent affront to civil liberties which places far too much power in the hands of unaccountable individuals and strips away numerous protections designed to prevent the abuse of state surveillance capability, but your specific summary is quite frankly nonsense. None of the subsequent points are unreasonable- in fact I'm broadly in agreement with all of them- but they also don't support your initial assertion, which lets be honest was simply hyperbole.

 

With regard to 1), whilst Title II of the act did substantially broaden the reach of intelligence agencies in several areas (primarily suspected terrorists, known or suspected foreign agents and those conducting computer-related crime), most of the provisions reside not in the PATRIOT act itself but in other pieces of legislation which pre-existed but were amended under the act- primarily FISA and ECPA. Constitutional limitations are expressly repeated in the PATRIOT act, such as preventing the usage of powers in the act to infringe on the First Amendment.

 

In the case of 2), the legal consensus is that the provisions enabling indefinite trial without detention are, in practical terms, far more prescriptive than you suggest (for instance, only being applicable to those meeting the admittedly rather broad but hardly all encompassing definition of "enemy combatants".

 

In 3) and 4), the act strips away many of the litmus tests for ensuring that investigation or surveillance are proportional, but does not fundamentally remove the requirement for some legal justification, though often that boils down to proximity and association rather than compelling evidence or even suspicion. Similarly, checks and balances do exist in the system, such as the FISC- it's just these checks and balances are woefully inadequate and entirely opaque to those on the receiving end of LE or IC attention.

 

 

Now, weren't you complaining about people making sweeping statements a minute ago? Physician heal thyself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

 

 

 

 

 

You guys crack me up with your blanket statements about what people know or don't know, how they think or don't think and especially how they should think.

 

 

That's pretty hilarious coming from a guy who actually buys into peoples' "From my cold dead hands," or "Come and take it," bullsh*t. I actually know people with felony convictions--you know, people who generally don't give a crap about authority in the first place--who gave up their guns before playing showdown with a SWAT team. You're seriously deluded if you actually think for a second that more than 1/4 of the people spouting this, "I'll never give up my guns," crap wouldn't actually tuck tail and hand them over at the first request, and just totally out of your mind if you think that they'll somehow actually keep them from getting their guns while they choke on tear gas. If you're so keen on pointing out how the cops are out of control in this country, why don't you go look up the MOVE 7 bombing that the Philadelphia police did. A bunch of crazy religious zealots boarded themselves up their home with their guns, and told them, "Come get them," and you know what they did? They bombed them. You know what they did to Micah Johnson? They bombed him too. Have you ever even heard of Waco? Ruby Ridge? You can have all your little small arms you want, but it's a total make believe fairy tale to act like we've got a country full of minutemen actually willing to die to keep their weapon, and you're completely out of touch with reality if you think even 1% would have the skills and ability to actually fight it out with an armed, paramilitary force tasked with "coming and getting them". Next time you're sitting waist deep in this rhetoric of yours, just remember, even Rambo had to surrender in the end.

 

 

I'm not that guy, sorry if I gave that impression. My weapons, if I have any, are none of your business unless you wander into my home in the middle of the night without being invited. I was mentioning the 3% because they are real. Not that I think they're right but they're out there (literally and figuratively, LOL) But again, your blanket statements and generalizations are hilarious to me. :lol:

 

 

So do we. But that's not what our .gov is pushing.

Really? Because last time I checked your ".gov" were Republicans and had been for over a year, and what they're actually pushing is f*ck all.

These paranoid militia movement conspiracy theories were cute when the Democrats were in power, but in eight years they did pretty much f*ck all too, so where's the "taking them away" people of your ilk keep alleging is happening?

 

And taking them away from everyone is simply not going to happen.

Nice straw man

 

How can you abjectly say that with a straight face? You've no idea what I know.

Because your summary comment, "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", is abjectly false.

If you did know what you were talking about, you wouldn't have made it, and you certainly wouldn't believe it was true.

 

Firstly, the PATRIOT act does not allow unfettered surveillance of civilians.

Secondly, it does not allow the unfettered incarceration of civilians (I assume you mean without trial here.

Thirdly, neither of the above, even if they were allowed, would be allowed for no reason.

Finally, checks and balances do exist.

 

Please don't construe my comment as a defence of the PATRIOT act; it isn't. It's simply a rebuttal of manifest falsehoods you are promoting. As a piece of legislation, the Act is an abhorrent affront to civil liberties which places far too much power in the hands of unaccountable individuals and strips away numerous protections designed to prevent the abuse of state surveillance capability, but your specific summary is quite frankly nonsense.

 

With regard to 1), whilst Title II of the act did substantially broaden the reach of intelligence agencies in several areas (primarily suspected terrorists, known or suspected foreign agents and those conducting computer-related crime), most of the provisions reside not in the PATRIOT act itself but in other pieces of legislation which pre-existed but were amended under the act- primarily FISA and ECPA. Constitutional limitations are expressly repeated in the PATRIOT act, such as preventing the usage of powers in the act to infringe on the First Amendment.

 

In the case of 2), the legal consensus is that the provisions enabling indefinite trial without detention are, in practical terms, far more prescriptive than you suggest (for instance, only being applicable to those meeting the admittedly rather broad but hardly all encompassing definition of "enemy combatants".

 

In 3) and 4), the act strips away many of the litmus tests for ensuring that investigation or surveillance are proportional, but does not fundamentally remove the requirement for some legal justification, though often that boils down to proximity and association rather than compelling evidence or even suspicion. Similarly, checks and balances do exist in the system, such as the FISC- it's just these checks and balances are woefully inadequate and entirely opaque to those on the receiving end of LE or IC attention.

 

 

Now, weren't you complaining about people baking sweeping statements s minute ago? Physician heal thyself.

 

 

I'm not Republican. Again, sorry if I mislead you. I hate Republicans just as much as I hate Democrats, but still I appreciate the blanket assumptions.

 

Straw man or not, they're not going anywhere whether you want them to or not. Even if I wanted them to they're not going anywhere. It's our culture and you will only change that by force. See my reply above r.e. 3%.

 

There have been several cases where .gov was caught doing massive info sweeps without warrants nor consent. They have fake cell towers all over that trick your cell into giving it your location and other info. They get info from carriers like AT&T (where my wife works) without warrants and without the consent. There is no "legal consent" or "legal justification" to collecting your info.

 

There ARE people that have been incarcerated for years without trial and US courts have said it's legal!!

 

 

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, September 10, 2005

 

A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

 

 

"vital during wartime". We've been "at war" non-stop for decades.

 

That's just a start, and just what we know about. There's so much more that's started happening since and directly because of the Patriot Act. I could care less if you believe me or not but I suggest you do a bit more research on the matter.

 

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt ya know... :evilgrin:

Edited by FukNRekd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SaveTheZombies

 

Any cop (or any person who's experienced a shooting incident) will tell you that the last thing you need is a good guy with a gun you can't recognize as a good guy to confuse the situation. Imagine a good guy with a gun in the middle of that Vegas shooting; would've just sown more panic.

Dead wrong. And this was not a situation that could have been confused with something else. That coach knew what was going on. If he had a weapon and even a weekend's worth of training a year he'd have put that punk down in not much more time than it took to throw away his life for one or three others. (Bless him for what he did but he could have done so much more. Again, just keep ignoring the 2.5 million times a gun is used in defense every year because it doesn't fit your argument).

 

And it's even possible that some of the kids would know he wasn't the shooter but how would the cops know. The last thing a cop wants when he shows up on a scene hearing about a gunman, is to see a bunch of people running around with guns.

 

You should recognize that I'm the closest you have to an ally in this argument. I actually like guns and don't want to see them all taken away which is why I don't think we should get to the point where most of society says "we have to put them away" and the only way we do that is to make sure guns aren't given/sold to criminals and maniacs. However the NRA rhetoric only makes gun owners out to be nuts and/or corporate shills. I think there's still a middle ground that can be found here between "everyone should carry a gun" and "nobody should have a gun" and I think either extreme is a sad state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

 

 

Any cop (or any person who's experienced a shooting incident) will tell you that the last thing you need is a good guy with a gun you can't recognize as a good guy to confuse the situation. Imagine a good guy with a gun in the middle of that Vegas shooting; would've just sown more panic.

Dead wrong. And this was not a situation that could have been confused with something else. That coach knew what was going on. If he had a weapon and even a weekend's worth of training a year he'd have put that punk down in not much more time than it took to throw away his life for one or three others. (Bless him for what he did but he could have done so much more. Again, just keep ignoring the 2.5 million times a gun is used in defense every year because it doesn't fit your argument).

 

And it's even possible that some of the kids would know he wasn't the shooter but how would the cops know. The last thing a cop wants when he shows up on a scene hearing about a gunman, is to see a bunch of people running around with guns.

 

You should recognize that I'm the closest you have to an ally in this argument. I actually like guns and don't want to see them all taken away which is why I don't think we should get to the point where most of society says "we have to put them away" and the only way we do that is to make sure guns aren't given/sold to criminals and maniacs. However the NRA rhetoric only makes gun owners out to be nuts and/or corporate shills. I think there's still a middle ground that can be found here between "everyone should carry a gun" and "nobody should have a gun" and I think either extreme is a sad state.

Again, in this situation the coach had no reservations about who he was protecting from whom.

 

All I'm saying is if he were armed he could have stopped this.

 

And respectfully, I'm not sure why I should recognize that you are my only so called ally. I'm just new here and am not tired if the same old lame arguments yet. But give it time, I will leave this thread too when I've made my points, hopefully at least one of which that hasn't been tabled yet. ;)

 

I do not believe everyone should carry. But just a few trained teachers at schools will cut these incidents dramatically.

 

Oh, and screw the NRA just as much as the Republicans.

Edited by FukNRekd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

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.

 

Well what specific measures are common sense? Why would anyone knowledgeable about gun legislation assume such measures will work? 'Gun control' has turned into a catch-all buzzword for "just make it stop somehow" or "tell Congress to go yonder and do that thing". Vague criticism has lead us to arbitrarily restrictive laws that still manage to be ineffective, the complete opposite of common sense regulation. In fact, an understanding of this issue along with the public's capacity to be rational in general is quite uncommon.

 

 

As some people in this thread with actual knowledge of firearms and gun laws have pointed out, the practicality breaks down once the gun control debate gets into specifics. Congress will schlep around with some dim-witted 'proposal' utterly devoid of logic even before the lobbyist get their filthy hands on it. This mass shooting problem will remain with us for the foreseeable future.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

Damned facts. Always getting in the way of good fake news. (And yes, I feel dirty for quoting that baffoon Trump but it's true.)

 

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/02/15/reality-check-gun-permit-background-checks/

 

The author of this article almost seems to want to imply that there is correlation, if not some causal link between a higher rate of gun ownership and lower rate of violent crime. That sounds like an interesting claim, so I decided to have a look. I compared a 2013 survey of gun ownership rates per state, focussing on those states that significantly exceed the national average cited by that same survey to be at 29.1% with the 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics Report looking at rates of violent crime in the aforementioned states with significantly higher gun ownership rates.

 

I narrowed down my initial sampling of what was 30 states exceeding the national average of gun ownership to those that exceeded the national average by at least 50% (meaning a gun owernship rate of at least 43.65%) . If we want to assert higher rates of firearm ownership implies less violent crime these 11 states should be most illustrative of this notion.

 

 

States with highest rates of gun ownership in 2013

 

GOR being Gun Ownership Rate

VCR being Violent Crime Rate per 100.000 inhabitants

 

South Carolina: 44.4% GOR and a VCR of 508.5

Hawaii: 45.1% GOR and a VCR of 251.6

Louisiana: 44.5% GOR and a VCR of 518.5

Alabama: 48.9% GOR and a VCR of 430.8

New Mexico: 49.9 GOR and a VCR of 613.0

Montana: 52.3% GOR and a VCR of 252.9

Wyoming 53.8% GOR and a VCR of 205.1

West Virginia: 54.2% GOR and a VCR of 300.3

Idaho: 56.9% GOR and a VCR of 217.0

Arkansas: 57.9% GOR and a VCR of 460.3

Alaska: 61.7% GOR and a VCR of 640.4

 

Average VCR: 399.85

 

States with lowest rates of gun ownership in 2013

 

Delaware: 5.2% GOR and a VCR of 491.4

Rhode Island: 5.8% GOR and a VCR of 257.2
New York: 10.3% GOR and a VCR of 393.7
New Jersey: 11.3% GOR and a VCR of 288.5
New Hampshire: 14.4% GOR and a VCR of 215.3
Connecticut: 16.6% GOR and a VCR of 262.5
Massachusetts: 22.6% GOR and a VCR of 413.4
Ohio: 19.6% GOR and a VCR of 286.2
Nebraska 19.8% GOR and a VCR of 262.1
California 20.1% GOR and a VCR of 402.1
Maryland 20.7% GOR and a VCR of 473.8
Average VCR: 340.56
This would imply that, on average, states with the highest reported gun ownership have in actual fact a 17.40% higher rate of violent crime than the states with the lowest reported rates of gun ownership. In fact 4 out of the 11 states mentioned are among the highest ranking states in terms of violent crime, compared to 1 out of 11 for the states with the lowest gun ownership rates. Now this is by no means an exhaustive and or conclusive analysis, and I would be remiss to note that there are myriad other factors that impact violent crime rate. It does however offer some interesting insight as to the narrative of more guns somehow being correlated with there being less violent crime as seems to be implied in the article, and as you seem to be aiming to hypothesise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I could care less if you believe me or not but I suggest you do a bit more research on the matter.

If you could actually produce a rebuttal to any of my points that would be grand, because telling me to "do my research" when you've spent the entire post making straw man arguments against points I haven't made isn't doing you any favours.

 

Might I advise learning basic reading comprehension as a start?

Share this post


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

Gun control, by itself, doesn't do sh*t.

 

Of course it won't do anything in Brazil because police and civil servants at virtually every level of municipal, state and federal administration are corrupt. They're not being paid to do their jobs, they're being paid to look the part and accept bribes from criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

 

I could care less if you believe me or not but I suggest you do a bit more research on the matter.

If you could actually produce a rebuttal to any of my points that would be grand, because telling me to "do my research" when you've spent the entire post making straw man arguments against points I haven't made isn't doing you any favours.

 

Might I advise learning basic reading comprehension as a start?

 

 

Sorry, with so many butt-hurt people jumping up my arse it's hard to respond to everyone. I mean, I didn't know I was having all these conversations with myself...

 

http://gtaforums.com/topic/817410-gun-control/page-18?do=findComment&comment=1070097429

http://gtaforums.com/topic/817410-gun-control/page-18?do=findComment&comment=1070097515

http://gtaforums.com/topic/817410-gun-control/page-18?do=findComment&comment=1070097549

 

Besides, half of your "rebuttals" to me are simply derogatory remarks or brushed off as straw man arguments because you don't have a case to argue.

 

And since you and your merry band of men and women are very selective about which points you respond to, I suggest you don't grief me about it, it's hypocritical. Mkthx. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I note that we've now descended into calling people "butt-hurt" and accusing them of "griefing" like you're a thirteen year old Call of Duty player. I assume this is because you have nothing of intellectual worth to contribute, which is why your also mindlessly copying the accusations levelled against you.

 

Come back when you have something worth reading to contribute, or actually want to engage in discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

 


This is quite frankly drivel.

 


What an absurd, incoherent and utterly baseless assertion.

 


everything you've said thusfar is ignorant nonsense.

 

 


when you let idiots

 

 


Anyone who asserts this should be immediate dismissed as an idiot

 

 


I note that we've now descended into calling people "butt-hurt" and accusing them of "griefing" like you're a thirteen year old Call of Duty player.

 

 

Gotcha!!

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

I mean, you could start by responding to Raavi who completely obliterated your "theory" that more guns equals less violent crime.

 

He even used your own sources.

 

So?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Gotcha!!

Do you know what an ad hominem is? Clue- describing a comments as "drivel" or "utterly baseless" is not an ad hominem. Nor is describing your pathological desire to avoid responding to rebuttals; describing proponents of a particular view (or in this instance, people producing poorly informed bitesize propaganda images than ten seconds his basic googling will rebut) might be, but it's not really aimed at you is it. Unless you made those images?

 

Respond to the numerous rebuttals you've received in the thread, or don't bother posting. It's not rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

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.

 

Well what specific measures are common sense? Why would anyone knowledgeable about gun legislation assume such measures will work? 'Gun control' has turned into a catch-all buzzword for "just make it stop somehow" or "tell Congress to go yonder and do that thing". Vague criticism has lead us to arbitrarily restrictive laws that still manage to be ineffective, the complete opposite of common sense regulation. In fact, an understanding of this issue along with the public's capacity to be rational in general is quite uncommon.

 

 

As some people in this thread with actual knowledge of firearms and gun laws have pointed out, the practicality breaks down once the gun control debate gets into specifics. Congress will schlep around with some dim-witted 'proposal' utterly devoid of logic even before the lobbyist get their filthy hands on it. This mass shooting problem will remain with us for the foreseeable future.

 

 

Gonna skirt around the usual humdrum for this more juicy tidbit.

 

So I'd say I have actual knowledge of firearms. I mean, I don't own a bunch, I use to have a couple of .22s I knew how to break apart and shoot to 1" groupings out to 100 yards, and still like to shoot with air rifles, so maybe I'd say I know more about marksmanship. But when they found those notecards next to the Vegas shooter, I was one of the people going, "Oh they found his range cards." So without going into a bunch of technical jargon, trust me, I'm more intimately familiar with firearms than the average metropolite who is too afraid to touch one. But just to add, I've also spent time in a machine shop and I'm pretty familiar with what it takes to produce metal parts, and have been around a few firearm forums so know how meaningless that is with things like the sh*t-shovel AK-47, or your 3D liberator printed pistols, etc. So I know the arguments, and I also know that there's enough out-of-work master machinists, and enough end mills and lathes around in the country to make sure that there will never be a time in the next 100 years, even with the strictest of gun bans, that Americans could not get their hands on weapons within some reasonable hurdles. I mean, if the confederates could still mass produce weapons even back in the 1800s, then even a few well-off people with a basic shop full of modern tools could produce enough firearms to put a hurt on even Smith and Wesson's bottom line. SO I get it. Guns are here to stay.

 

But I don't see why that means we can't do more to try to stem the tide, and to try to make a whole sea change in the type of cultural symbolism that guns have to us. We know the cultural significance, and it's really hard to deny that Americans buy more guns for sentimental reasons than practical. They want to feel "prepared", or they want to feel "protected", or they want to feel "powerful", but the bottom line is they're all using that gun to feel something. That's not what that gun was ever intended for, but that's the kind of emotional baggage we've attached to guns in this country. As much as gun rights proponents want to talk about it being like a tool to them, the fact is that they rarely if ever actually justify their need for that tool.

 

Cebra spoke a lot about that mentality, and how it drives up the propensity for shootings when "...everything is a nail", but I think more importantly he pointed out how it indicates a deeply troubled American psyche. I mean, how ironic is it with that entire analogy and this discussion, that there's probably a good number of guys riding around with "nail-guns" in their truck that don't need those either; and hell their truck is probably some F-350 behemoth they don't really need. Couple that concept with American's penchant for excess, and yeah, I'm not surprised we'll go to any length to justify why we need access to guns like an AR-15. I mean sure a gun may be a tool, but if we're going to be honest with ourselves, there is an entire industry based on Americans buying more tool than they need. You can't tell me that the firearm market isn't exactly the same. I feel like half the people who own an AR-15 or a Glock just want a place to mount their flashlights and laser gizmos. I mean whatever your thoughts and feelings are on materialism and consumerism, should firearms be subject to materialism and consumerism?

 

Someone in this thread also mentioned that there's not enough action heroes that don't use guns. Honestly it's really pretty true, I could only think of a handful of very popular American icons that weren't popular because of or despite the fact that they used guns. You have your John Waynes, your Dirty Harries, Rambo, and so on and so forth, but the only cultural icon I can think of that didn't resort to just blasting guys away was MacGyver. I'm sure there are more, but the point is that it's like a 3:1 ratio, and so every American child grew up watching some version of Matt Dilon blowing the bad guy away to save the day. It's probably thanks in part to those liberalized, propagandizing bleeding-hearts that role models like MacGyver even made it past the network executives, and probably what influenced a lot of people to not like guns as well. So I'm not trying to say that America owes its gun culture to the media, but just pointing out that it definitely has its influences both ways. That's especially evident when you look at how popular the .44 Magnum became after Dirty Harry.

 

That may be what it takes to actually remedy any of this: A completely cultural sea change. But is that going to come about all on its own? I'm not advocating that we do ban guns, but the argument always becomes that we wouldn't be able to regulate them even if we did. Then we could just look at things like the war on drugs or prohibition as perfectly representative failures.

 

Well, what about cigarettes? I mean, if you want to talk about a cultural sea change, just look at the way America's disposition to tobacco has shifted over the last 40 years. Is there anybody that doesn't really know the story of big tobacco and the lobbyists? They're always making those parallels to the NRA, but more importantly, I think it points out to a way the government has, with some great success, greatly changed the cultural view on cigarette usage over decades with what appeared to be feeble regulation. Less and less people are smoking than ever now, less and less people are seeing it as appropriate to smoke in public, etc. I'm not exactly in total agreement with it, but I guess what I'm saying is that if like tobacco we started limiting the exposure our kids had to guns, started shaping it as a public health issue and convinced people they were safer without gun proliferation than with gun proliferation, then why wouldn't it eventually have the same change? I mean, we took steps to limit the way tobacco manufacturers could advertise, made it totally illegal to advertise to children, pulled them from magazines, and gradually they disappeared from movies and media as the social consciousness shifted, and there's really no reason it couldn't happen for firearms except that it might just take longer. But is that a reason to never try at all?

 

In 40 years, maybe instead of a million kids fantasizing about owning some kind of gun they saw in a movie, or heard about in a song, etc. there would only be a few hundred thousand, and then maybe in 60 years it would be only a few hundred, and then do you think that in a country of 300 million people those couple of hundred of kids who grew up into gun-toting adults would be able to generate this type of month-by-month massacre? I mean, even if there weren't strict gun laws, imagine if they'd somehow fell into such low popularity that it was actually somewhat troublesome to get one, and there weren't so many people casually acquainted with guns, etc. How often do you think someone would pick one up and run amok? The proliferation may not have caused this endemic, but it facilitated it, and it's the culture that caused the proliferation.

Edited by Saggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

Wow, what a useless f*ckin' dope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

https://youtu.be/SYQoa09xeJ4

 

It looks like CNN is using traumatized kids as puppets to forward a politically expedient goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ten-a-penny

Yeah. How dare kids who were just traumatized by a Mass Shooting protest against gun violence. These kids are definitely puppets!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

>Kid, quite literally, says CNN didn't let him ask his question, he needed to ask their question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

It was a sh*tty move on their part. The kid should have been allowed to ask his questions. But it doesn't mean that CNN's questions are the wrong questions to ask. So try, once in your life to use critical thinking. It's not that difficult.

 

And since you're so quick to accuse CNN of using traumatized kids, can I ask where were you when right-wingers were attacking them? And where were you when right-wing politicians bought off by the NRA were using them to silence the other side? Funny how you don't seem to actually give a sh*t about these kids. It's as if you're using them to push your own sick narrative.

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.