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. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    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

ten-a-penny

There weren't protests against Obama after Sandy Hook,

Because Obama actually tried to fix this issue and issued a Bill that prevents mentally ill people of obtaining guns. Guess what "mister President" Trump did? He removed that rule.

 

 

Yet, Trump, despite indicating more of a willingness to enact gun control measures than his recent predecessors

And what is this "willingness to enact gun control" nonsense? He suggested to arm Teachers. Some "pro-gun-control" is that.

 

I did hear something about Bump Stocks but I don't remember all of it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

Active measures are still in effect:

 

13lCLdV.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Take a look on Twitter, Reddit, or Facebook.

Last time I checked, Trump aside, diplomacy and policy is not conducted through social media. It's not even a good barometer of public opinion as it tends to accentuate extreme opinions.

 

surely even you have to realize that a lot of people are calling for all guns to be banned.

And surely you realise that literally nobody in this thread, on this forum, is making arguments in line with these viewpoints, and that therefore any reference to them is, as previously noted, simply a straw man?

 

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

That's literally exactly what advocates of arming teachers expect to happen. Which is why the whole notion of armed citizen defenders is an idiotic militaristic fantasy- even trained people explicitly paid to provide security services experience flight responses when bullets start flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

That's literally exactly what advocates of arming teachers expect to happen. Which is why the whole notion of armed citizen defenders is an idiotic militaristic fantasy- even trained people explicitly paid to provide security services experience flight responses when bullets start flying.

It's as if these pro-gun activists have never fired from a gun before. They seem to think that real life firefights are like in the movies, or at the very least a shooting range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CHARMANDER50

Everyone decides on compulsive reaction, to eradicate the threat of gun violence by rushing into foolish action conclusion.

The recent move by the US government to allow teachers/educators to bear

guns inside schools/universities is a foolish compulsive reaction to the

existing threat of gun violence is ineffective.

Prevention of this guns from entering school zones is for all students/teachers, no exceptions.

Teachers should not be allowed to bear guns in school zones only lawmen

are allowed to equip guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

That's literally exactly what advocates of arming teachers expect to happen. Which is why the whole notion of armed citizen defenders is an idiotic militaristic fantasy- even trained people explicitly paid to provide security services experience flight responses when bullets start flying.

 

The last mass shooting before this, in my state, ended because an armed citizen wounded the gunman. Not everyone reacts to abrupt, extremely violent situations the same way. Some people try to eliminate the threat and others try to run from it. Both are predictable outcomes. Something that may not be well understood, especially by the Europeans here, is what the role of this cop at the school actually is. He's a resource officer, my school had one too, and he is not there to protect the school from a shooter. His presence at the school is related to issuing citations, breaking up fights, making arrests etc. These cops deal with everyday issues at high schools like disorderly conduct, drugs, truancy, and altercations. His job isn't to just sit there waiting to spring into action on the 1 in a million chance a school shooting happens today. I'm also not familiar with the blue prints of the school, but it's reported that the shooting was in the freshmen building. It's common for freshmen to have a separated part of the campus to reduce bullying and hazing by upperclassmen.

 

It's pretty standard for cops to wait for backup, especially in a dangerous situation. It's worth mentioning that every mass shooting ends in one of two ways: either the shooter kills himself, or is stopped by an armed person. It took an armed person detain this kid, an armed person to wound the TX shooter, and armed people to kill the Pulse nightclub guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

Lol, hey Chiari what say you to this: http://uk.businessinsider.com/parkland-shooting-survivors-family-shops-doctored-cnn-emails-to-media-2018-2

 

So not only are pro-gun advocates so morally deprived that they will gladly use dead children to curb any criticism of guns in order to sell more weapons which leads to more dead children (among other human beings), but apparently some of them think that using such a tragedy to smear CNN is a worthy enough cause as well.

 

As usual, it's the pro-gun advocates that have to make up sh*t. Funny how the truth never seems to be on your side. Why is that? It's a rhetorical question.

Edited by Darth Yokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

He's a resource officer, my school had one too, and he is not there to protect the school from a shooter.

 

But the narrative goes "good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun". He was a good guy with a gun, had 30 years of experience on the force, and was trained and prepared to use his firearms. And he didn't. If he chose to not get in the line of fire or engage the shooter while there was still time to save other students, why should we expect any kind of armed good guy to do so?

 

Because, look at that, it wasn't just one good guy with a gun, it was three. Three good guys with guns waited outside the school grounds while the shooter was still active on the scene. Three good guys that could have rushed in and cornered the shooter if they wanted to. They had the means, they had the training, they had the motive.

 

All three chose to do f*ck all and wait.

 

 

His job isn't to just sit there waiting to spring into action on the 1 in a million chance a school shooting happens today.

 

Neither is the job of any good guy with a gun. According to pro-gun activists, guns help make things safer. Guns haven't helped make things safer in this case, with three good guys with guns waiting outside while the shooter killed more people. Any three of them could have sprung into action, and all three of them were actual deputies with experience and training in using their firearms. But they didn't.

 

 

It's pretty standard for cops to wait for backup, especially in a dangerous situation.

 

So what is the point of having more guns on the scene? Of arming teachers? If all cops do is show up and wait (which is what they've been doing in most mass shootings) until they have an opportunity to "safely engage" the shooter, what good is their action then? They can act earlier, risk themselves, and save more people. But they don't. And funny you should mention this:

 

 

and armed people to kill the Pulse nightclub guy.

 

The police entered the location, exchanged fire with the suspect, cornered him and.... did f*ck all. They knew where he was, they knew he had no other way to go, and instead of storming in and killing him, they did nothing. It took THREE HOURS for SWAT to act and finish it all off. THREE WHOLE DAMN HOURS that the shooter had to be free to kill other innocents. There were dozens of good guys with guns, all ready, all outnumbering the killer, all in a position to take him down.

 

And they did f*ck all. They cornered him, waited three hours, then finally went in and took him out.

 

Again, this whole "good guy with gun" narrative simply doesn't work in reality. Or when it does, it's already too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

 

 

 

 

But the narrative goes "good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun". He was a good guy with a gun, had 30 years of experience on the force, and was trained and prepared to use his firearms. And he didn't. If he chose to not get in the line of fire or engage the shooter while there was still time to save other students, why should we expect any kind of armed good guy to do so? Because they do, every day. Not in schools, but in every day duty.

 

 

 

Neither is the job of any good guy with a gun. According to pro-gun activists, guns help make things safer. Guns haven't helped make things safer in this case, with three good guys with guns waiting outside while the shooter killed more people. Any three of them could have sprung into action, and all three of them were actual deputies with experience and training in using their firearms. But they didn't. Because they threw protocol asside and should be punished for it. Saying this goes for all armed guards or even most of them is absurd.

 

 

So what is the point of having more guns on the scene? Of arming teachers? If all cops do is show up and wait (which is what they've been doing in most mass shootings) until they have an opportunity to "safely engage" the shooter, what good is their action then? They can act earlier, risk themselves, and save more people. But they don't. And funny you should mention this: After Columbine the protocol is not to sit and wait, it's to rush in. These cops failed to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

 

That's literally exactly what advocates of arming teachers expect to happen. Which is why the whole notion of armed citizen defenders is an idiotic militaristic fantasy- even trained people explicitly paid to provide security services experience flight responses when bullets start flying.

 

The last mass shooting before this, in my state, ended because an armed citizen wounded the gunman. Not everyone reacts to abrupt, extremely violent situations the same way. Some people try to eliminate the threat and others try to run from it. Both are predictable outcomes. Something that may not be well understood, especially by the Europeans here, is what the role of this cop at the school actually is. He's a resource officer, my school had one too, and he is not there to protect the school from a shooter. His presence at the school is related to issuing citations, breaking up fights, making arrests etc. These cops deal with everyday issues at high schools like disorderly conduct, drugs, truancy, and altercations. His job isn't to just sit there waiting to spring into action on the 1 in a million chance a school shooting happens today. I'm also not familiar with the blue prints of the school, but it's reported that the shooting was in the freshmen building. It's common for freshmen to have a separated part of the campus to reduce bullying and hazing by upperclassmen.

 

It's pretty standard for cops to wait for backup, especially in a dangerous situation. It's worth mentioning that every mass shooting ends in one of two ways: either the shooter kills himself, or is stopped by an armed person. It took an armed person detain this kid, an armed person to wound the TX shooter, and armed people to kill the Pulse nightclub guy.

 

 

The shooter that was stopped by a man in Texas had a pistol and was shot by a man wielding a rifle. He continued on down the road and could have kept shooting people as he did so before he died. And what would have happened if the rifle owner was confronted with a shooter with another rifle? What would you be saying if he'd died in the shoot out with the other guy? It's like you choose to find one exception where someone with a gun engages an active-shooter and act like it's the rule.

 

Meanwhile, the school resources officer was an army veteran and probably knew he stood little chance against someone wielding a rifle if all he had was a sidearm. The whole "good guy with a gun" argument falls real short; about as short as his sidearm's bullets would have trying to engage someone with a rifle at 100 yards. I strongly doubt even a trained shooter could have managed the hold-over amidst all the adrenaline, and against someone wielding a weapon that is basically point-and-click at that range. Gun proponents seem not to take this into consideration and I find it ironic since they seem to suggest that gun opponents are clueless about guns, when their experience of them is limited to first person shooters that give them a totally unrealistic idea of what a firefight would be like and how successful, "Just one good guy with a gun," would actually be. That's what leads them to make arguments like, "Why didn't the school resource officer engage the shooter with his pistol?' as if it wouldn't just be the guy throwing his life away in some Hail Mary attempt.

 

ULPaperContract, do you ever actually check any of the bullsh*t you're spewing? You're telling me standard operating procedure for police in an active shooter situation is to rush in without waiting for backup? How about you go and find something to back that up with? Oh, forgot you're just here to spam the thread with unsubstantiated claims and one-liners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

Over a dozen Parkland students have received death threats from pro-NRA lunatics. So the masks are officially off. Kids can die in a rain of bullets as far as gun loving maniacs are concerned. And they probably consider themselves pro-life too. Because they don't actually have any thoughts of their own or the intellectual capacity to know what they believe in and why. They just believe in what they're told without questioning it. Jesus Christ what a new low to threaten victims of school shooting for not wanting to get killed and not wanting their peers to get killed. Conservative values are completely anti-social.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Input

Can someone explain in layman/peanut land terms what it is the NRA even does?

 

I've been both a gun owner and concealed carry card holder for years and not once have I even felt remotely compelled to care about them. I've been under the impression it was literally just a Mickey Mouse Club for guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

If I recall they fund shooting groups and safety stuff as well, not sure though because I've never taken part in it despite my NRA membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

Because they do, every day. Not in schools, but in every day duty.

 

sh*t, I didn't know cops and good guys were stopping mass shootings daily! Wow! Care to source that?

 

 

Because they threw protocol asside and should be punished for it. Saying this goes for all armed guards or even most of them is absurd.

 

But it has gone for most of them? Are you ignorant to the police action in mass shootings? You should definitely check it out. Not doing anything is the norm. Waiting until the suspect kills himself, surrenders, or walks into a safe situation for the police is the norm. And again, handguns aren't going to stop a guy with a rifle. Should all teachers carry assault rifles as well? Should there be classroom rifles? Should you just employ more security officers, place them patrolling around the schools, keeping an eye on them dark/brown kids?

 

Since Columbine, thousands of officers were added to schools. From 10% of schools having them in 1999, to 30% of schools having them. They failed to stop mass shootings. So should we make it 100% of the schools? Or should we just, you know, actually address the problem?

 

These cops still won't stop mass shootings. They may be there to end it after the shooter makes a mistake or kills himself. But they won't stop it. They sure as hell will arrest and cite minority students for engaging in shenanigans, though!

 

 

After Columbine the protocol is not to sit and wait, it's to rush in. These cops failed to do so.

 

So? It's what every single officer has done in these situations. Look at all school shootings since Columbine. Show me the ones that followed the protocol. If you're just going to hide behind this sh*tty "oh but the protocol is there" excuse, then you have just as much blood on your hands as the murderer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockstar Vienna

Many gun owners live in their own reality. I'm not even trying to debate that ridiculous "more guns - more safety" logic. But I am amazed that they really think that almost everybody with a gun can stop a mass shooting like it's nothing. This is not a hollywood blockbuster. This is not GTA. I don't even want to know how many gun owners with their tough talk would just feel the same way as this officer outside of the school! And he's actually trained! He choose to do nothing. He should have done something. After all, it's his job right!? But you can be a police officer for more than 30 years. If you haven't seen sh*t in those 30 years but suddenly have to face a guy who's killing everyone in his sight!? What will happen? Some may do the right thing, some may panic as well, some may get shot. But it's least likely that he runs towards the danger, finds this guy with his AR-15, blows a few bullets in him and saves the day (or what is left of it).

 

And especially Trump with his narcissistic personality disorder and a guy who never served in the military saying "he would have run into the school even If he was not armed"... That's taking all this to a new level of stupidity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

Can someone explain in layman/peanut land terms what it is the NRA even does?

 

I've been both a gun owner and concealed carry card holder for years and not once have I even felt remotely compelled to care about them. I've been under the impression it was literally just a Mickey Mouse Club for guns.

They're a lobbying group for gun manufacturers. But they don't want people to think that. They're also under federal investigation for receiving money from Russian oligarchs and pour it into Trump's campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadHammerThorsteen

I think a couple things on the matter:

 

I don't think that the unique issue we face in America with mass shootings is as simple as being a gun problem, a gun access problem, or a problem surrounding certain models of guns. Inarguably, the laxity of legislation on firearms and the ease of access in America does bolster and convenience the gunmen and their plans of attack. That much we should all agree on, I think.

 

Those facts being considered, I think that the problem is much more deeply rooted in psychology, culture, and philosophy. Allow me to clarify that when I say that the problem is rooted partly in psychology, I do not mean to imply that these murderers suffer from any mental or neurological illness (though in the rare case, that can come into play, such as turned out to be the case with Charles Whitman). Overall, I think the appeal to mental illness is about as lazy as "God did it" when it comes to explaining things we sometimes have a hard time wrapping our heads around. These aren't people suffering from bipolarism or schizophrenia. These aren't people who are on the spectrum. If mental makeup contributes to the issue, it is more likely to be as varied as the number of actual mass murderers.

 

So: psychology, culture, and philosophy. What compels a mass murderer? What compelled Ted Kaczynski to become the Una-Bomber? What compelled Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate president John F. Kennedy? What compelled John Wilkes Booth to assassinate Abraham Lincoln? What compelled a nation to vilify an entire race? Psychology, culture, and philosophy.

 

For every single one of these, their acts were carried out as a means of solving a problem. A grossly disproportionalized problem with a grossly excessive act in proportion to their perception. What is the problem they perceive? For Booth, it was Lincoln's politics. For Oswald, it was Kennedy's politics. For mass murderers, it is humanity itself. What lies at the heart of their actions is a near-incurable and insatiable hatred, rooted in a philosophy of apathy at best and misanthropy at worst.

 

How did they bescome that way? I think the answer is as complex as the individual, but there are probably some social markers (culture).

 

Somehow, somewhere along the line, these individuals got it in their heads that humanity is irredeemable, that humanity is the problem. And more than likely, they were raised in a culture that on some level, allowed for aggression as a solution--not necessarily physical. Nay, more likely psychological aggression, which needn't require anything other than disdain for one's neighbor. But disdain for one's neighbor is all one needs to graduate from petty grudge to acts of violence.

 

In these individuals' hearts, hatred grew. And from that hatred sprang forth their solution. "Kill as many as you can". And perhaps we may begin to understand why suicide often plays into these murders. Hatred for humanity necessitates hatred for oneself. Or is it perhaps the other way around?

 

So if hatred is at the root of it, what can we do? We can try to restrict gun flow, and maybe we resolve some of the issue surrounding body count. But victims aren't the problem. They're a symptom of the problem. How can we remedy the source? How can we remedy hatred? Well, legislatively, there's not much we can do. But culturally, there's a lot we can do.

 

We can stop choosing sides and choose love. We can instill love and forgiveness of one another, and community and accountability with each other. We'll never entirely rid ourselves of the hateful few, but maybe, just maybe, with less disdain and isolation in our society, which sadly abounds at present, we can soften the hearts of some potential mass murderers before the seeds of hatred take root.

 

These problems run up and down the chain of society. Just as any group has to take some responsibility for the actions of its fanatics, as a society, we too must start to take responsibility for what we put out into our world. For surely, if enough people utter even one line of hatred, it will gather and manifest.

 

So what of the gun issue? Well, again, we have a unique situation in America--one of both historical and of mythological precedence. Perhaps a brief summary of the mythological element would best come first.

 

In America, it's simple: whether guns can ever be seen wholesale as practical tools of safety and security is its own question. But for Americans, the symbolism of the gun, the rifle, the firearm is embedded in the nation's psyche. Just as the sword is romanticized as the medieval knight's device against the evils of the medieval world, the rifle is the romantic device of the American patriot against the evils of their world. Even more, or precisely because, it is a symbol of freedom. As such, it might never be abolished from the American mind. And it is its status as a symbol of freedom which renders it also as inseverably bound with our history, and thus our future.

 

America's founding citizenry fought the British regency equally and simultaneously with rifle and with pen and as such, the rifle has always been seen in our country as a just tool of liberty--so much so that the right to bear arms was written as the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, just behind our freedom of speech. It is this "right" which is so unique and which presents us with much to argue about in the 21st century.

 

Of course most of us agree that a responsible citizenry ought to take as its responsibility the means by which the right to bear arms is exercised. However, we do well to avoid advocacy against possession of personal firearms by any and all. If we are to believe that the rights we have are to remain unabridgable rights afforded to us by the virtue of our citizenship, and that by such rights, the virtues of our nation are upheld and our government sublimated to those virtues, we cannot simply alter or impede the second amendment.

 

I dare not say we shouldn't legislate the use and distribution of firearms, but if one among the Bill of Rights may be changed, none of the others will remain as the safeguards of our liberty any longer. For if one might be changed to address contemporary issues, then all might do the same.

 

How long then, may we ask, will the United States remain at least a visage of freedom? How long, may we ask, will our Constitution remain as the binding instrument of our liberty? The very protective spirit that would seek either to amend or abolish the second among our Bill of Rights might soon turn on itself until it no longer recognizes even what it set out to do.

 

Food for thought any way. I'm open to the possibility that I know no more than any other schmo on here.

Edited by Mattodon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayduke

Common argument by yanks opposing gun control:

 

'You can't change the constitution, it's unAmerican and goes against liberty'

 

cites the second AMENDMENT

Edited by Hayduke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

A lot of what Mattodon says rings true to me, though 'love' being the solution seems naively simplistic. Though it may be true that such a thing would do a lot to make the world better, there's really no way make that happen. It's kind of an abstract idea to begin with, and getting people to change themselves, even in practical and well-defined ways, is nearly impossible as it is. As such, that's not really a solution.

 

You're spot-on with saying that guns are central to the American psyche. I see that in myself, in fact. It's because of this that I don't have much faith that gun control legislation would provide satisfactory results. Especially considering the heated political climate of today. A ban of even 'assault weapons' would probably lead to a rise in right-wing extremism and terror attacks, completely negating any positive impact it had in the first place.

 

Speaking of impact, it should be noted that these mass shootings account for less than a percent of gun homicides in the US...and that suicides account for twice as many gun deaths than homicides...and that gun deaths make up a small amount of homicides...and that homicides aren't even the biggest cause of death among Americans. They're tragic, without a doubt, and I truly wish they would stop happening, but I find it curious that many Americans are willing to throw away their rights over 1% of gun deaths and yet won't lift a finger to stop the other 99% (suicide, gang violence, domestic violence).

 

Addressing health, be it mental or otherwise, would reduce suicides. Treating for depression is the obvious way. A particularly bleak diagnosis...or just a regularly bleak diagnosis combined with a lack of health insurance...could lead to an individual choosing to 'get it over with.'

 

Then there's the whole health insurance thing...getting an illness can plunge a family into poverty which can lead to disenfranchisement, gang activity, 'breaking bad.' An expensive procedure with no support can be a one-way ticket to the underclass.

 

Abject poverty can come part and parcel with substance abuse, which can lead to getting involved with gangs and such, or simply drive a person to become violent and irrational.

 

Then there are people who simply have nothing to do. Maybe they're unemployed...that problem's only going to get worse. Or maybe they have a job but it sucks ass and yet their true passion isn't financially viable. Idle minds...the devil's workshop. Perhaps a renaissance of sorts in emphasizing individual expression would lead to a decrease in anti-social behavior. Instead, we pound into our youth that arts and humanities aren't worth pursuing, and that you need to be a businessman or an engineer to be worth something to society. Your value as a person is tied to your paycheck.

 

Some of these things are things that Democrats have finally started to notice. However, they waste political capital on feel-good half-measures like banning bump stocks which amount to little more than symbolic victories. Then of course, even if the Dems had been doing this from the start, the Republicans dismiss anything that isn't exorbitant military spending or massive tax cuts for billionaires as communism, so I can't imagine we'd be in that much better of a position if they had been. Our 'leaders' are just as incompetent as they are malevolent.

 

It's hard to argue against the idea that fewer guns = less gun violence. It's tautologically true. However, it lacks quite a bit of nuance. It ignores the political realities of how much Americans value their guns, and it ignores that there's a huge cancerous problem growing in our culture and gun violence is only a symptom of it. Long-winded debates about whether or not someone "really needs an AR-15" or "should go back to eating Tide pods" are tantamount to trying to decide what Nickelodeon character should be on the Band-Aid put over a tumor.

 

Besides, have yall seen the way the government is going? And cops? We ought to think twice before letting those maniacs have a monopoly of violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

when teachers will be allowed to hold guns will be when dissuasion had reached his paroxism. one has to be blind honestly not to see that dissuasion has reached its limits. first we had blade runner like sirens, then helicopters, then teachers in school holding weapons. i mean we are not far away from snake plissken world. seriously can you imagine the desastrous message on kids it would have. live in the fear of the other one, live in the fear horror can happen anytime. for me it's just pathetic.

mass slaughters are definitely an American problem. i mean we see these things only in America. some people, i wouldn't call them rednecks coz it's a bit injurious, but a bit redneck minded still, are in an absolutely incomprehensible way of thinking that consist of saying that when some Americans becomes politics, they potentially become tyrans. i don't know where that way of thinking take birth, but there's definitely a problem there. like if tomorrow a politics becomes mad, there won't be other politics, lawers, and security forces to halt him :dozing:.

also another important thing we rarely spot in pro/anti weapons debates. in the USA there's no illness coverage like in other countries, like in France for example. in France when you feel bad, or depressed you can go and see a psychiatrics. and you pay 0. you are totally covered. i heard that up to 10% of the Americans had important mental issues. if you let the disease grow up, then it can end up into an explosion

concerning the increasing violence, that contributes to increase the number of firearms around, as i said dissuasion shoudn't be seen as the remedy anymore. one should focus on prevention

- school programs for young kids. that explain the griefing, and the psycological damage of a rape/crime

- difficult buying course for automatic weapons

- ban of common cells. assimilated to torture by Europe. this is a HUman fundamental right, there's not even to argue about this. one thing is sure about, not only it's torture, but it's a subsequent offence springboard

- create a coverage for mental illnesses. so that people in need can heal themselves freely

 

that 'i need a gun to protect from tyrans' is really a mystery to me. i mean this is one of the very rare things the French i am doesn't understand. i don't understand that survivalist/parano mentality??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

Pffft. We had guns in and around schools in the 70s and 80's and didn't have this problem.

 

It's not the guns. It's the people.

 

 

I mean, the UK is now banning knives. Look at Londons violent crime rate compared to the likes of NYC. Sounds stupid when you parrot it, but its true: when knives are outlawed only outlaws will have knives.

 

We have a problem and the solutions offered by .gov (and by a few select members of our beloved and highly liberal GTAF) are stupid at best and dangerous at worst.

 

What else should we ban? Clubs and rocks?

Edited by FukNRekd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I mean, the UK is now banning knives.

...no, it isn't. Seriously, where do you get this drivel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi
FukNRekd

I don't think...

You had me there.

 

Be that as it may...

 

According to United Kingdom law, it is illegal for any U.K .resident to carry without good reason a knife with a folding blade larger than three inches. Using a knife in a threatening way is also illegal.

Sounds pretty close to a ban to me but feel free to pretend it's not a thing. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Be that as it may...

The bans on certain bladed articles was initiated in 1959, and the ban on carrying bladed articles in public was in 1988. These aren't new legislation as you suggest; they're older than you.

 

But, as I said, you've got no idea what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

Sorry, "ban" was a bad choice of words. I'll try to use words like highly restricted and possession without a good reason in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Sorry, "ban" was a bad choice of words.

Pretty much everything you say could be described as a "bad choice of words".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

From my short time here its painfully obvious that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong, stupid, ignorant or any other number of choice words you use to belittle them.

 

No offense, but your better-than-everyone, gotta-get-the-last-word and if-you-dont-agree-with-me-youre-an-idiot mentality is, well... offensive. (It's really not offensive, just used that for a pun, but it's funny as hell to watch)

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.


  • 3 Users Currently Viewing
    1 member, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

    • Tchuck
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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