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

Chiarii

And what exactly is the narrative I'm trying to push? Preserving the 2nd amendment as is, or eliminating it entirely, doesn't make the slightest difference to me. It's ironic that you accuse me of using kids to push a narrative when it's CNN who is actually doing it.

 

E: These kids aren't activists, they're just a mouthpiece being used by activists. Shouldn't be so hard to figure out. If you actually were capable of critical thinking, you would realize that 14-17 year olds in high school aren't exactly the most politically savvy, socially active demographic.

Edited by Chiari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

And what exactly is the narrative I'm trying to push? Preserving the 2nd amendment as is, or eliminating it entirely, doesn't make the slightest difference to me. It's ironic that you accuse me of using kids to push a narrative when it's CNN who is actually doing it.

 

E: These kids aren't activists, they're just a mouthpiece being used by activists. Shouldn't be so hard to figure out. If you actually were capable of critical thinking, you would realize that 14-17 year olds in high school aren't exactly the most politically savvy, socially active demographic.

Sure. They're old enough to legally buy guns but they're not old enough to have common sense opinion about them. Maybe you weren't bright enough to see the obvious when you were their age. It's not surprising since you're obviously not bright enough to see it now, either.

 

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that you couldn't utter a single negative word about all the lunatics attacking these kids. You just happened to show up right in time to criticize CNN and to downplay the outrage of these kids, which is just an indirect way of attacking them. What a good boy you are. Go fetch another right-wing talking point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

14-17 year olds are not old enough to buy guns, champ. You really need to quit calling people stupid, at least until you can refrain from making such uneducated statements. Back when I was in high school I was balancing school work, college preparation and social interaction; not shaving my head and organizing protests. Either a) high school has changed significantly, or b) media outlets are providing scripts to these kids. Since b is confirmed I'm gonna roll with that one.

Edited by Chiari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

There are several states that do allow it. I can tell you which ones. In one US state a 14 year old can buy a rifle without parental consent. But since you're so smart I'm sure you already knew that, right?

But that's not even that relevant since possessing a rifle is legal for basically any age under federal law. So even if you had to be 50 years old to buy a gun, it's a law that can be easily bypassed if you know a 50 year old crazy enough to buy one for you. It's a glaringly obvious loophole.

 

You can quit your attempts to weasel your way out of this one. You're parroting the insane right-wing talking points including attacking the victims. Which is hilarious, because those talking points were provided by the NRA and the NRA is under criminal investigation for taking money from Russians. Congrats!

Edited by Darth Yokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

Name it. It's federal law that 18 year olds can buy rifles, 21 for handguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

Go ahead and cite that claim yokel.

 

While I wait, I'll go ahead and let you know that between me and you, I'm the one defending these kids. I think they deserve better than to be a puppet for CNN. Using their tragedy for your own purposes and making them spout talking points that aren't their own is wrong. They should have their own voice. Apparently, you and CNN see them as political pawns.

 

BTW, I'm laughing at you. Let me guess, the kid who complained that CNN demanded he ask a scripted question is just a Russian bot right? Everyone who doesn't hold liberal values is some kind of Russian bot, or a Russian spy, or financially indebted to Russia. For someone so 'woke' you certainly do revel in fantasy a lot.

Share this post


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

Name it. It's federal law that 18 year olds can buy rifles, 21 for handguns.

18yo to buy rifles but 21yo to buy handguns and drinks. Quality sense you have there bruh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

 

Name it. It's federal law that 18 year olds can buy rifles, 21 for handguns.

18yo to buy rifles but 21yo to buy handguns and drinks. Quality sense you have there bruh.

 

You are far more likely to have your life threatened due to the access of alcohol than firearms. Though that is not really relevant to this discussion.

 

Just an FYI, you can more or less be any age to own a shotgun license in the UK. And can possess rifles as young as 14. (Under supervision of course). But this obviously doesn't exclude the fact if they were to do anything harmful they wouldn't care about the law and just find the keys and take the gun if they wished. So in a sense, nothing 100% from protecting against it other than good security precautions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

Name it. It's federal law

This is publicly available info. If you can't find it using Google then you're a lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

No. You make this claim, you're going to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayduke

14-17 year olds are not old enough to buy guns, champ. You really need to quit calling people stupid, at least until you can refrain from making such uneducated statements. Back when I was in high school I was balancing school work, college preparation and social interaction; not shaving my head and organizing protests. Either a) high school has changed significantly, or b) media outlets are providing scripts to these kids. Since b is confirmed I'm gonna roll with that one.

Or maybe you should think that something is severely wrong with the society in which you live when Teenagers feel the need to protest against the President of the country when their classmates were massacred. Maybe you should also consider that something needs fundamentally changing in such a society when gun fueled massacres are a monthly occurrence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

Maybe you need to realize that people who try to ban all guns, or even one subcategory (like the AR15) are not going to be very popular in a country founded on keeping oppressors from taking over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayduke

Maybe you need to realize that people who try to ban all guns, or even one subcategory (like the AR15) are not going to be very popular in a country founded on keeping oppressors from taking over?

I said nothing whatsoever about banning guns, in fact these sort of massacres are pretty rare in other countries that have similar gun laws to the US, Like Switzerland and Norway and some other sh*t probably. Yes though, I do realise American hillbillies care more about Gun laws than fundamental needs like not being homeless, not having food pumped with chemical sh*t, not having a corrupt elite controlling the political and media systems, not having a production force that strips away any rights of workers the list goes on.

 

As for the country being founded on certain principles, it was more not wanting to pay tax and wanting to own slaves. If the US was founded on not letting oppressors take over it did a bad f*cking job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

people who try to ban all guns

Where are these mythical people? Seriously, the only time this narrative ever actually exists is in straw men committed by firearm advocates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

Take a look on Twitter, Reddit, or Facebook. People unironically call for all guns to be banned, or all AR-15s to be banned. If you wanted I could screenshot some posts, but surely even you have to realize that a lot of people are calling for all guns to be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayduke

I do realise this, I do not agree with them particularly. Frankly if you want a shocking revelation I at least agree with Trump's telepromptor that mental health is a greater factor in the causes of these shootings than the ability of people to attain guns. It's not like guns are hard to get illegally anyway, if someone really wants a gun they will get a gun. I think that the relationship the people in the United States have with guns is pretty unhealthy though.

 

I will also say that I don't think there's any purpose to have or any valid need to sell to anyone an AR-15 or an M16 or an AR-556 or whatever, especially not to protect them from the overarching hand of the state. If you buy a weapon from the state along with a serial number and handing over all of your details, you're going the wrong way about it, because when the time comes the state will make sure you don't have that gun when it's needed and they wouldn't bother passing minuscule legislation to take them away.

 

In short I don't care about legislation because legislation comes from a government which is a form of control by the state. I don't even live in a country where this is relevant, but if I did I would not care too much about legislation either way because I couldn't care less what a government decides is legal and there are much more relevant factors as to why mass shootings are a frequent occurrence in the US.

Edited by Hayduke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

Or maybe you should think that something is severely wrong with the society in which you live when Teenagers feel the need to protest against the President

What part of these teenagers being guided, to the point of being given physical scripts, was not clear? You make a good point on one thing though: why are they protesting the President? There weren't protests against Obama after Sandy Hook, or Bush after Virginia Tech, or Clinton after Columbine. Yet, Trump, despite indicating more of a willingness to enact gun control measures than his recent predecessors, is catching far more hate. Explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayduke

 

Or maybe you should think that something is severely wrong with the society in which you live when Teenagers feel the need to protest against the President

What part of these teenagers being guided, to the point of being given physical scripts, was not clear? You make a good point on one thing though: why are they protesting the President? There weren't protests against Obama after Sandy Hook, or Bush after Virginia Tech, or Clinton after Columbine. Yet, Trump, despite indicating more of a willingness to enact gun control measures than his recent predecessors, is catching far more hate. Explain.

 

Well there is an obvious media and liberal bias against Donald Trump and he is an easier target than his predecessors. This does nothing to detract from my point that there is something fundamentally wrong with the state of the society in the US, in fact in only reinforces it given that this is a presidency that is mired in controversy from before it even began and has been one of the most intrusive, radical and schizophrenic presidencies in recent memory. If you didn't notice, the US has been fundamentally divided publicly for a long time now and the division is deepening. You can think this is a concoction of the liberal media if you wish, but the state of that country and the western world in general has become more politically radical, divided and out of control ever since the worldwide economic depression of 2007. Trump is a symptom of that and the increased outburst by members of the society is a reflection of that.

 

As for these kids being given scripts, well I can give you two remarks. Firstly, the media probably wants their own concise perspective on the situation being that as you said they are kids who probably do not all have deep insights towards the nuances of politics, whether that is good or bad is up to you, me and the people watching. Secondly, as far as I'm aware they weren't physically forced to say anything and probably had the decision to agree or disagree with what they were saying. Maybe not, but either way they felt strongly enough to decide to speak out. The video linked was of one of the kids saying his questions were disregarded. Sure, that is a sign of media bias, but nothing I can do about that. It's not good, but that has nothing to do with the people who did speak out and partake in the discussion.

 

Caveat, many people did speak out against Obama after Sandy Hook and Aurora, it was all over the mainstream media. It wasn't decrying the president for not acting on gun control however (which he didn't do), it was stating that Obama had orchestrated the attacks to implement gun control (which he didn't do), so I'd personally consider a bunch of kids who are directly affected by this speaking out against Trump and his inaction and very existence in the white house more legitimate than the swathes of nutty Conspiratorial D-list celebrities and talk show hosts who actively suggested the President carried out hits on kids and film theatres. As a side note, all presidents have carried out hits on kids and people in public spaces including Obama, the victims just happen to be in countries filled with brown people. There is no moral difference to me so they are all murderers, but Americans only care about this sh*t when it happens to them.

Edited by Hayduke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

So apparently, there was an armed officer on the school, who heard the gunshots, and did nothing to stop the assailant.

 

 

According to Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, that’s exactly what happened at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Even with training and a weapon, the officer stalled — and allowed the shooting to continue for about four to six minutes as he stood outside the building. The deputy, Scot Peterson, has since quit.

 

So there WAS a good guy with a gun at school. and he HAD more than enough time to try and react and make a difference. He didn't. And he is PAID to do this kind of work. And he failed.

Proponents of "arm the teachers" should take notice of this. If a security officer, armed, trained, paid to protect and serve, failed at his job, why expect a teacher, who is underpaid, underfunded, undertrained, already with a massive workload, to do better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

Right, one man is supposed to patrol a huge campus, then respond to a gunman after shots start ringing somewhere across the campus.

 

If you have a school that big, one is not enough. If it's the size of my old elementary school, one guard would suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Doesn't matter if he was 1 or 100. He heard the shots, he had time to react, he chose not to.

 

The famous saying is "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun". It was one bad guy with a gun, and it was one good guy with a gun. One good guy with a gun who heard shots, who had an idea of where they were coming from, who had enough time to react and see what he can do about it, and who chose not to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

What does it matter? Are you assuming this goes for all armed guards that would be employed? If not, why bring it up? He was negligent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

I'm bringing it up because there's now talks of arming school personnel to stop mass shooters. And pointing out how asinine that idea is because in this very situation, there WAS armed personnel at the school, and they utterly failed at their job. A good guy with a gun did not stop a bad guy with gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

Right, so what's your point? Is this to say most/all armed guards would do this? If so, that's not a reasonable argument. If not, what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

just give every student an ar-15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

Right, so what's your point? Is this to say most/all armed guards would do this? If so, that's not a reasonable argument. If not, what is it?

 

Why is it not a reasonable argument? The guard in question was a combat veteran, and a Sherriff's Deputy from 1985. What makes you think any that the average armed guard is going to have better qualifications than the person in question? There's no indication of lack of training, lack of experience, etc. A person who had every qualification to wield a weapon under duress in a combat situation, chose self-preservation instead. I'm not faulting the guy, but what reasonable argument can you make to say most other guards wouldn't do exactly the same thing?

 

Meanwhile, the story of police and armed responders not entering the building when responding to a mass shooting event is not singular to this event at all. Sandy Hook and Oralndo both saw responding officers waiting before they entered the building and not "engaging the shooter". Hell just google "law enforcement waited before entering building" into Google. Armed responders being hesitant to get into a shootout isn't a new thing.

 

Despite all the cries of, "If there was just one person with a gun," here you have an event where there was an armed guard and it still happened. If the argument is that it just takes one, then there you go, debunked. You're acting as if this man is the exception, but I think the onus of proof is on you to go find all these examples of armed responders stopping mass shootings.

 

Also, maybe try responding with more than a couple of sentences?

Share this post


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

 

Right, so what's your point? Is this to say most/all armed guards would do this? If so, that's not a reasonable argument. If not, what is it?

 

Why is it not a reasonable argument? The guard in question was a combat veteran, and a Sherriff's Deputy from 1985. What makes you think any that the average armed guard is going to have better qualifications than the person in question? There's no indication of lack of training, lack of experience, etc. A person who had every qualification to wield a weapon under duress in a combat situation, chose self-preservation instead. I'm not faulting the guy, but what reasonable argument can you make to say most other guards wouldn't do exactly the same thing?

 

Exactly. People who are police or military trained are not going to go into a building with guns ablaze unless they know where the shooter is and who they're shooting at, especially in an environment like a school where you are in an enclosed space. The guards are there primarily for peace of mind, they're likely not going to stop someone who is determined to go in and kill people.

 

I mean picking fault in the guy is unreasonable, because no one is going to recklessly endanger themselves or other people for nothing. At the same time though, it proves the belief behind the concept of a "good guy with a gun" to be utterly flawed, because a good guy with a gun in most circumstances isn't going to do anything against someone armed with semi-automatic rifles. Same thing goes for teachers. If a guard isn't going to do anything, why does anyone expect teachers to do so? How does anyone think a teacher with basic firearms training is going to fare? Not to mention the possibility for students to be caught in the crossfire between the shooter and an armed teacher, which negates the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Yep, as addressed by others, the argument from pro-gun people is that if you had armed people on the spot, the shooter wouldn't have killed as many people/could have been neutralized.

In this specific case, that is false, as there was an armed person on the spot, a veteran no less, with all the training and preparation in the world. He still couldn't avoid/reduce the casualties.

Not only him, in other cases the armed forces did the same thing, waiting to stop the assailant until it was far too late to save anyone.

 

So more guns clearly isn't the solution. It didn't help this time, or in previous times.

 

Then we look at the other argument put forward by pro-gun people, that "Ah but this was a gun-free zone, which means the shooter knows he would have no-one to stop him, and that's why he chose the place".

Which is flawed because it assumes that the reason why he chose the school was because it was a gun-free zone. He used to be a student there, which means he was familiar with how everything worked, with the staff, the students, and likely blamed them for whatever it is that went wrong in his life, and wanted to make them pay. Who knows. But being gun-free or not won't stop mass murderers. Looking at most of these mass shootings, the shooters all had some relation with the place they attacked.

 

And even then, there were even mass shootings inside military bases or places where people could carry guns. So being a gun-free zone bears littler relation to being chosen as a target.

 

So, increasing gun presence won't increase safety. If anything, it could lead these killers to be more crafty and use more dangerous methods to conduct their attacks. You escalate by adding armed teachers, killers will escalate by using explosives. By then, you're turning schools into prisons. And what about outside the school grounds? The roads are also gun-free ish, or do you also add patrols to them? What about in convenience stores, in malls, in restaurants? Also add armed personnel to them? Might as well declare martial law and mandate everyone owns a gun and everyone is free to guarantee their own security at that point.

 

And all of the pro-gun people are missing the point. These mass shootings aren't the underlying problem; they are a symptom. If you "treat" the symptom (poorly, by adding guns), the underlying problem still remains and only grows stronger.

Edited by Tchuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

 

And all of the pro-gun people are missing the point. These mass shootings aren't the underlying problem; they are a symptom. If you "treat" the symptom (poorly, by adding guns), the underlying problem still remains and only grows stronger.

 

Well that's because for the most part people who like guns have been taught that the dangers related to them are blown out of proportion, and then you add in kind of lofty statistics... Okay so for example if you tell someone they're 10x more likely to be shot by having a gun in their home than a non gun owner, it's kind of like telling someone with a swimming pool they're 10x as likely to drown at home as someone without one. So that kind of causation/correlation effect are really easy to argue ad you get the whole, "It's not firearms, it's how people use them," arguments, it kind of gives them more ammunition... Pun definitely intended.

 

I'm not saying that I don't believe the abundance of guns leads to these abundances of shootings... It seems pretty well established, but that is of course not an argument that you can suggest should be taken as evident, especially when a good part of the time there is a reason why people will just ignore reason and logic and choose to believe what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

No. You make this claim, you're going to back it up.

Or what? Do your own homework.

 

I hope you gun-nuts realise that the longer it takes for gun control to happen, the more rigorous the inevitable measures will be. Not to mention that more people will have to die before that happens. Just so you know that you are advocating for more deaths.

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.