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

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

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

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

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

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

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

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

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

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

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

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

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

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

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

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

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

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

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

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

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

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Fuzzknuckles

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

FukNRekd

 

 

That a gun that looks meaner but fires the same as another gun makes it "ban-able" (there's that word again) is a joke. (Ausalt weapon ban from 90s)

 

Show me where gun control advocates are making this argument.

 

 

That society feels the need to punish a 5th grader for making a gun shape with his fingers is a joke. (Or a piece of toast, whatever)

 

Show me where this has happened. And how this is relevant to gun control laws.

 

 

That .gov thinks banning guns[1] will stop violence instead of promote it is a joke. (That didn't work[2], let's start restricting knives)

 

[1] The government isn't talking about banning guns. Nor are any serious gun control advocates. We're talking about stronger regulations and limiting availability of certain types of firearms. If you could address the subject properly instead of building strawmen would be greatly appreciated.

 

[2] I'm gonna need a citation for how gun controls do not stop violence and instead promote it. Because I call bullsh*t.

 

 

That people like you have the mentality that a spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat is a joke.

 

Where in Crom's name did you get this from what sivis, or any other gun control advocate, are saying?

 

 

And just because something is old does not equate to outdated or wrong. Likely it's just the opposite.

 

Factually wrong, I'd say. I'd wager that most old customs end up becoming outdated and wrong, needing refreshment. When the second amendment dates from a time where slavery was ok, actually defending against tyrannical government was a thing, you couldn't simply pick up your musket and erase a group of people in seconds, it tells me that it badly needs updating. Why do you think it doesn't?

 

 

Uhh, pistol grips, collapsible stocks, rail systems, etc are considered assault weapon items. Without them a gun is not considered an assault weapon. Have you been paying attention?

 

I honestly don't believe you're that ignorant, but here are a few examples:

 

6 year old in Colorado suspended for pointing fingers in shape of a gun https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/6-year-old-fingers-shape-of-gun-suspended_n_6813864.html

 

7 year old in Maryland suspended for chewing a gun out of a pop tart https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/student-suspended-for-pop-tart-gun_n_2903500.html

 

10 year old in Ohio suspended for making a gun shape with fingers https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/us/ohio-boy-suspended-finger-gun/index.html

 

High school student in Florida suspended for putting hands in shape of holding a gun https://www.wxyz.com/news/national/student-suspended-for-imitating-gun-with-hands-in-classroom

 

From the Ohio "shooter incident":

 

 

 

"He was pointing it at a friend's head and he said 'boom.' The kid didn't see it. No other kids saw it. But the teacher saw it," he said. "It wasn't threatening. It wasn't hostile. It was a 10-year-old kid playing."
The next morning Paul Entingh escorted his son Nathan to the principal's office, where they met with Devonshire Alternative Elementary School Principal Patricia Price.
"She said if it happened again the suspension would be longer, if not permanent," said Entingh, who also received a letter explaining the reason for Nathan's suspension as a "level 2 look alike firearm."

 

Yeah, his fingers, a "level 2 look alike firearm".

 

Our .gov is always talking about banning guns. They did it in the 90s, California is in the process of doing it. Every time there's a shooting they preach it. Are you serious? Or just wasting my time?

 

I already cited Britain considering more extensive knife "bans" (restrictions). Banning guns didn't work now they're going after these http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37080682

 

Do you think guns are the problem, or people are the problem?

 

Edited by FukNRekd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Oh wow, way to not address any of the points I made.

 

 

Uhh, pistol grips, collapsible stocks, rail systems, etc are considered assault weapon items. Without them a gun is not considered an assault weapon. Have you been paying attention?

 

Where does it state that? Where does it state that those things are considered "assault weapon items"?

 

 

I honestly don't believe you're that ignorant, but here are a few examples:

 

I believe what I asked was:

 

 

And how this is relevant to gun control laws.

 

All the examples you posted have to do with school zero-tolerance policies, which are a sh*tshow. But ironically, these zero-tolerance policies are influenced exactly by people like you, who think the government is out to get them and ban all guns. If there was a better conversation regarding gun laws, and proper regulations put in place, not only would gun violence rates fall, it would likely put an end to school shootings, bringing back the less oppressive environment of before this whole thing started, and killing the need for zero-tolerance policies. The gun regulations you oppose leave schools with no option but to go zero tolerance. Congrats.

 

 

Our .gov is always talking about banning guns. They did it in the 90s, California is in the process of doing it. Every time there's a shooting they preach it. Are you serious? Or just wasting my time?

 

I fear it's you who is wasting everyone's time. "is always talking about banning guns" then, show me. Show me the news pieces. Show me the pending legislation being worked on to BAN ALL THE GUNS!11!!!!1. Because I don't see it happening anywhere. Go ahead, show me. It should be easy, right?

 

 

I already cited Britain considering more extensive knife "bans" (restrictions). Banning guns didn't work now they're going after these http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37080682

 

Banning guns did work, though. In fact, don't know if you know this, but Britain already had stronger gun laws since the 60s, which were largely responsible for the very low gun crime rate in the UK.

 

Nevertheless, you said it didn't work. Ok, show it to us. Show us the research, the arguments, the facts that show why the banning didn't work. Burden of proof is on you. Go.

 

And they're going after retarded knives whose sole purpose is to kill. They have no other utility. Good on them for banning that sh*t.

 

 

Do you think guns are the problem, or people are the problem?

 

In America? Both. Guns are a massive part of the culture, and a way for men to compensate for their lacking in masculinity. Certain guns also have no place in being on civilians' hands either. And the regulations are incredibly retarded and weak, coupled with a severe disconnect between states that makes it nearly impossible for any background check to be conducted accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Sensible means background checks and sanity checks. But it doesn't stop there.

What comprises "sensible" background and sanity checks? Where should these apply- to all sales or just to commercial ones? What other legislation would you support?

 

 

(Ausalt weapon ban from 90s)

The AWB was a joke, but mostly because it explicitly legitimised ownership of certain American-made firearms fitting the definition of "assault weapons" through a series of exemptions, to avoid upsetting the firearm lobby.

As if a Colt-made "assault weapon" (certain AR-15s derivites were exempted from the ban) is less likely to be used maliciously than an IZHMASH made one (all Kalashnikov pattern rifles regardless of manufacturer or specification were blanket banned).

 

 

That people like you have the mentality that a spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat is a joke

What's a joke is asserting the two are in any way analogous.

 

 

And just because something is old does not equate to outdated or wrong.

Does the total absence of any actual evidence to support it not do that?

 

 

I honestly don't believe you're that ignorant, but here are a few examples:

None of these have anything to do with firearm policy, though. They're discipline decisions made by individual schools, and are therefore not relevant to the topic at hand.

 

 

Our .gov is always talking about banning guns.

If this was actually true, you'd be able to cite examples of it (rather than generally talking about "the 90s") and point to how restrictions have been put in place since the Gun Control Act. But, Brady Bill aside (and even then pretty debatable as it didn't fundamentally change the availability of firearms, simply better implement existing laws preventing sale to people for whom possession was already illegal or heavily restricted), there haven't been any substantive pieces of Federal firearm legislation that could be argued as tantamount to "banning guns" implemented. The AWB expired in 2004 and even when it was in place was so full of loopholes (like specifically excluding entire manufacturers such as Browning and Remington from being bound by its clauses in order to maintain the domestic US firearms industry) that it didn't actually "ban" anything in the first place. You could still buy a weapon meeting the definition of an "assault weapon", it just had to be from an accredited list of firearm models and manufacturers that were exempt.

 

 

Banning guns didn't work now they're going after these

Firstly, that article is from two years ago. Secondly, this was primarily an extension of existing legislation that makes the sale and purchase of certain kinds of bladed articles illegal. They simply added "zombie knives" as a new category, alongside ballistic knives, a variety of concealed blades and a few other specific categories of bladed weapon (though interestingly almost all fixed combat/fighting knives are technically legal to own, buy or sell, though not legal to carry in public). Given the proportionality clause in UK law, none of this is particularly surprising- carrying weapons in public for non-specific self-defence purposes is illegal (carrying weapons for specific self-defence is legal under certain circumstances and in certain jurestinctions, primarily Northern Ireland where handguns can still be legally owned).

 

 

Do you think guns are the problem, or people are the problem?

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

You're just like sivis (who I've begun ignoring several weeks ago). You deny and derail with much pomp and circumstance and refuse to acknowledge situations and in fact ignore any and all arguments from the other side as if they don't exist. Honestly, you sound like a couple of lawyers that just ramble without really saying anything and looking for ways to confuse the topic. Do you get paid by the word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

who I've begun ignoring several weeks ago

Not doing a very good job then, are you, given that you responded to me less than 24 hours ago?

And here I was thinking that you were just simple incapable of formulating a coherent response.

 

 

You deny and derail with much pomp and circumstance

What absolute nonsense. The notion that anyone is "denying" or "derailing" but you is frankly laughable:

 

> It was you that brought up school policies as if they were relevant to a discussion of State or Federal government policy

> It was you that made the fallacious tertium non datur forcing a binary choice between firearms and people being "the problem".

> It was you who claims that the government always talked about "banning guns", then refused to provide examples of this.

 

Frankly, your contributions to this topic have been nothing more than repetitive nonsense, incessant parroting of dogma without any consideration for reality and a point blank refusal to be engaged on the subject. I don't particularly care why this is, whether it's a cse of incompetence, petulance or just a really f*cking short attention span, but I struggle to see why you're bothering to return if any of those are the case. It's not our fault you're incapable of defending your argument without throwing your toys out of the pram and hurling insults at anyone who dares question your opinions- pretty ironic given that you asserted your opponents offered "arguments consisting of little fact and lots of name calling"- this is a pretty apt description of basically everything you've ever contributed to this topic, or any other topic in D&D for that matter.

 

 

Do you get paid by the word?

I used to, but it's day rate these days.

Jog on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inttelix

Gun control is bad for everyone in my way of thinking. Know why? I live where people are afraid to pop their smartphones out fearing someone will stick a gun to their heads and ask for it. In here the thieves are using plastic replicas. When they get arrested, not even gun possession charges they will get. If we allow anyone to carry a handgun I doubt these assholes will keep doing this.

 

The thing in america is not to strict laws on gun control. Is to install metal detectors in schools, and hotels, like they do at banks. Very simple. Anyone see a killing spree happen inside a bank?

Edited by Inttelix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham

Who ever had the stupid idea of arming teachers as a response to school shootings? Then you'd have some crazy teacher shooting a kid who wouldn't keep quiet, or maybe a whole class of kids. Then you'd have to arm the kids. Then you'd have school shoot-outs, not school shootings.

 

Me, I think the deep-seated reason for the gun love in the US is the fear that one day the blacks zombies are gonna come lurching up the driveway, rape your wife and eat all your food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

The thing in america is not to strict laws on gun control. Is to install metal detectors in schools, and hotels, like they do at banks. Very simple. Anyone see a killing spree happen inside a bank?

 

Yeah, just look at how much Americans love the TSA in the airports. I'm sure we'd just love to bring that level of over-bearing security in to our vacation and education locations. It might be effective, but Americans prefer our dystopian security-state to be a little more subtle.

 

 

Who ever had the stupid idea of arming teachers as a response to school shootings? Then you'd have some crazy teacher shooting a kid who wouldn't keep quiet, or maybe a whole class of kids. Then you'd have to arm the kids. Then you'd have school shoot-outs, not school shootings.

 

Me, I think the deep-seated reason for the gun love in the US is the fear that one day the blacks zombies are gonna come lurching up the driveway, rape your wife and eat all your food.

 

It is a stupid idea to arm teachers. Teachers are a bit lionized in today's politics, and to a degree that's justified, but there are a lot of bad ones out there that hardly have any business being around children, let alone being armed around them. There'd have to be some sort of vetting process. After you count out the teachers that don't WANT to have a gun (after all, you can't force them to have one), then the ones who shouldn't have a gun, you might have two or three that actually end up with one. That's when you remember that most schools already have two or three security officers and maybe even a local cop who comes by. Of course, that didn't help the Parkland kids, but you have to ask if an untrained teacher would have done better...assuming they don't get mistaken for the gunman in all the chaos.

 

Whoever came up with that idea wouldn't be satisfied until every person in every situation has a gun. I suspect that whoever floated the idea in the first place was some NRA lobbyist just trying to drum up some sales for Hi-Point (you know these teachers would only be able to afford cheap sh*t on their salaries). I can't help but imagine a future where every morning, you have to walk out the door barrel-first and have to order your fries in a Mexican standoff with the cashier and the store manager. Like

from Key & Peele, but with every person in your city. Edited by Twang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham

@ Twang. I agree that the 'Arm the teachers' call was most likely some knee-jerk NRA type response.

 

On a slightly different tack, I was musing the other day about what would happen if, say, you were involved in a traffic accident with another vehicle, out in the middle of nowhere, you both get out of your cars, things get a bit heated and irrational - though you feel certain the other driver was at fault - then you notice the open carry pistol on his hip. Put things in a very different light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inttelix

Seriously, people who want a ban on guns need to move to a third world country and get robbed by an underage thug with a plastic pistol but what are you going to do? take a try and see if its plastic or metal?

Edited by Inttelix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday

Gun control is bad for everyone in my way of thinking. Know why? I live where people are afraid to pop their smartphones out fearing someone will stick a gun to their heads and ask for it. In here the thieves are using plastic replicas. When they get arrested, not even gun possession charges they will get. If we allow anyone to carry a handgun I doubt these assholes will keep doing this.

 

The thing in america is not to strict laws on gun control. Is to install metal detectors in schools, and hotels, like they do at banks. Very simple. Anyone see a killing spree happen inside a bank?

Friend, you admitted that your solution is "very simple" but clearly the issue of gun control and American gun violence is very complex.

You must understand that turning schools into prisons with security and metal detectors is not going to prevent public shooting sprees.

 

We can use the NRA's own logic to underpin this point: if criminals are just going to ignore gun laws and get their hands on a weapon, they're also going to ignore some metal detectors and middle-aged cops waiting around at the front door. You just asked if anyone had ever seen a killing spree inside of a bank but criminals do not come into banks with the intention of mass murder, they come into banks intending to get away safely and leave with the money. This is a poor example for your argument because a public shooter is not usually concerned with getting away or causing excess damage. You also mentioned living in a neighborhood where people are afraid to walk around with electronics for fear of being mugged. All the metal detectors in the world won't prevent your garden variety daily crime and you know this. Clearly you're describing a larger issue within society and perhaps [a lack of] culture itself.

 

You want to allow "anyone" to carry a gun seemingly anywhere... at the same time you want metal detectors and increased security in public spaces... which are two things that will constantly be in conflict with one another and neither of which would do anything to actually address the problem you chose to illustrate about rampant, petty crime. I'm not here claiming to have all the answers, but it seems like you haven't given your argument enough thought. I don't think more guns + more private security is going to fix the unique American issue of public massacres.

 

Seriously, people who want a ban on guns need to move to a third world country and get robbed by an underage thug

Here is another problem, friend.

It doesn't sound like any serious person or politician is actually talking about banning guns. Many of them talk about increasing the kind of restrictions and regulations that we already put up with (and that many Americans support in public polls), but nobody wants to take away all the guns. This might come as a shock, but the 2nd Amendment itself is a regulation, because that is the definition of an amendment to the Constitution. It's a novel idea we decided to amend to the original document. Including the fact that I cannot go down the street and buy an Anti-Aircraft cannon, we already accept a laundry list of restrictions on our 2nd Amendment.

 

When you attack "people who want a ban," you're not really attacking anyone specific, which makes this a straw-man argument.

I wish I had more solutions to offer in response. Obviously banning guns would be functionally impossible and not solve anything. But we could afford to sell a lot less guns and start with having a lot less of them floating around to become absorbed by the black market. America needs to unify its gun laws because they are wildly inconsistent across the country. The NRA likes to point to Chicago as an example of why gun laws do not work, when in fact it's actually the perfect argument for stronger gun laws. We know Chicago has tight restrictions on firearms sales and we know that this works because virtually ALL of the murder weapons in Chicago COME FROM OUTSIDE the state or the city. Criminals can't get weapons in the hood so they flood in from the black market of OTHER STATES where gun laws are loose and gun show loopholes are not closed.

 

When you have more weapons than citizens, we definitely have too many weapons in America. When it's easier to get weapons and ammunition and body armor than it is to buy a bundle of cough medicine or a carton of cigarettes or a box of Tide Pods, we definitely have too much access to weapons in America. Nobody wants to eliminate guns but would it be so bad if we had less of them and made them a lot harder to get? People who want to collect or hunt or enjoy sport shooting can still do it. The only difference is that our laws would be more in line with the laws of the rest of the 'civilized world' where they don't have to worry about monthly school shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rome7

Also in Georgia theres 1 dead and 1 injured from a shooting that occurred right across the street from a school graduating ceremony... guns smh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S.A.C.

 

 

 

Do you think guns are the problem, or people are the problem?

 

In America? Both. Guns are a massive part of the culture, and a way for men to compensate for their lacking in masculinity.

So me liking an inanimate object automatically means I'm "lacking in masculinity"? What about all the military servicemen who are into guns? Are they lacking in masculinity too?

Edited by S.A.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

Lol, some Republicans are now arguing that schools should have less doors. Is anyone really stupid enough to think that less escape routes is a good idea or is this another NRA attempt to shift the discussion away from gun control? You decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

 

 

 

Do you think guns are the problem, or people are the problem?

 

In America? Both. Guns are a massive part of the culture, and a way for men to compensate for their lacking in masculinity.

So me liking an inanimate object automatically means I'm "lacking in masculinity"? What about all the military servicemen who are into guns? Are they lacking in masculinity too?

 

 

Do you lack in textual comprehension?

 

I said it's a way for men to compensate for their lacking in masculinity: ie, they think a gun will make them stronger and manlier.

 

You might like guns for whatever reason you like. Where did I say liking guns automatically means "lacking in masculinity"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S.A.C.

You might like guns for whatever reason you like. Where did I say liking guns automatically means "lacking in masculinity"?

 

When you say "Guns are a massive part of the culture, and a way for men to compensate for their lacking in masculinity" it sounds like you're referring to most men, which is simply not the case. People own guns for a variety of different reasons. Whether it be hunting to self-defense.

Edited by S.A.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

It sounds like, but I am not. I'm making a statement of fact. Guns are ways for men to compensate for their lacking in masculinity. That doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate reasons for owning guns, or that anyone interested in guns are compensating for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham

It sounds like, but I am not. I'm making a statement of fact. Guns are ways for men to compensate for their lacking in masculinity. That doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate reasons for owning guns, or that anyone interested in guns are compensating for something.

If guns are a means to compensate for lack of masculinity does that mean that men who do not lack masculinity never own guns? And if the man who does not lack masculinity does own a gun does that mean that any man who does not lack masculinity has some kind of trigger (pun) in his head which makes him feel that he lacks masculinity even though he doesn't? And if this is so how can that man be free of such evolutionary crap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

If guns are a means to compensate for lack of masculinity does that mean that men who do not lack masculinity never own guns?

 

No. Again, I said that guns are a way for men to compensate. I didn't say they are the ONLY way, nor did I say that there's NO OTHER REASON FOR OWNING A GUN EXCEPT FOR COMPENSATION.

 

 

And if the man who does not lack masculinity does own a gun does that mean that any man who does not lack masculinity has some kind of trigger (pun) in his head which makes him feel that he lacks masculinity even though he doesn't?

 

Ask him. I didn't say what you think I said.

 

 

And if this is so how can that man be free of such evolutionary crap?

 

People in every single country out there that doesn't have a strong culture of guns can live without them in their daily lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham

@Tchuck I didn't wish accuse you personally of saying or not saying anything. I was using your words as a springboard to question where this nagging feeling of lacking masculinity comes from. Equally, is it the same sort of compulsion that compels women to think they are never pretty enough or thin enough? Is it nature or nurture, and if we ever found out and eliminated it would it spell the end of the human race?

 

Forget about guns for the moment and just shout "Oi, Nature, f*ck you!"

 

Go on, try it, it feels good.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

I'd say it's more nurture than nature, specially in today's vain society. Women are held to standards of beauty that are nigh on unreachable for most, and put down by the patriarchy everywhere so they fit in the mold

Men are also held to standards of masculinity that most can never reach. Having a great career, a good paying job, a family, a good wife etc.

 

But then you have the outcomes, which imo vary tremendously between the sexes. Women who lack in femininity will resort to self harm, to lower confidence, to finding less violent means to try and overcome that lack.

 

Men, however, will usually resort to violence and hatred. Just look at the whole incel movement. Extremely violent people who put the blame in failure to achieve their masculine ideals solely on the women who have rejected them. And then they find a gun, and the rest is history. This school shooting was apparently related to that. Dumbass incel got rejected to the prom, people made fun of him, he went and killed them. Starting with the girl who rejected him. Who threatened his masculinity. Who made him out to be less of a man than he thought himself to be. So he had to prove to everyone he was a man and make them regret.

 

Or that f*cker with the van in Canada as well, same deal. But since guns are less available than in America, he chose a van instead.

 

It's all very f*cked up. Which is why I don't think the problem is solely guns. Surely better gun control would be nice, but enforcing it would be even better. If the current laws were actually enforced, I'd wager we'd see a reduction in these kinds of crimes. But then that is also not enough. There's the whole psychological aspect of it all that is mostly left to the side in the debate, since the democrats will invariably focus on guns, and the republicans will focus on defending guns. Bringing mental health and society into the debate will only see you being ignored by either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday

Unless you simply make it more difficult to obtain firearms, there's virtually nothing you can do in the United States in the year 2018 to prevent a determined loser from shooting up a public place and killing a bunch of innocent people. We have too many weapons and they're everywhere. Our so-called "culture" is vapid wasteland of money-chasing, pussy-grabbing, celebrity worship where justice is not served in court but rather dispensed at the end of a loaded barrel; just look at the content which makes up the vast majority of our so-called "entertainment."

 

We put guns and destruction and violence and vigilantism up on a pedestal.

We hide sex and nudity and consensual human love behind closed doors and censorship.

 

I would argue our society itself is to blame for these outbursts and unfortunately I have no easy answer on how to rectify this situation. Income inequality. Outcome inequality. The rise of tribalism. The denial of basic reality and shared fact. The splintering of traditional social networks and physical support groups, giving way to isolated communities of anger and distrust in online message boards. Arguably the "InCel" or Involuntary Celibate phenomenon wouldn't really exist or have any traction if not for 'places' like Reddit or 4Chan, etc etc etc.

 

This is a perpetual motion machine.

Our political leaders clearly lack the willpower and motivation to enact the kind of changes that might address these growing issues. Our winner-takes-all economy means that ordinary citizens are trapped in the rat-race while privileged elites enjoy living above the law and writing their own tax code to ensure the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

 

If the common people are kept JUST comfortable enough with their Starbucks and their American Idol, they'll allow this rape to continue. This is the decadence that may ultimately be the ruin of the United States as a sovereign nation. Our military capability and nuclear weapons are essentially the only thing keeping us afloat as our tenuous Superpower status begins to wane.

 

I just went off on a crazy tangent and almost lost my point... but basically we're screwed :) You want your children to go to school and come home safe? Might as well move to Canada.

Edited by Doctor Holliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham
On 5/22/2018 at 1:39 PM, Tchuck said:

I'd say it's more nurture than nature, specially in today's vain society. Women are held to standards of beauty that are nigh on unreachable for most, and put down by the patriarchy everywhere so they fit in the mold

~~~~~~~snip~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd argue we've always been vain but that vanity is simply more enabled today. Nurture is like the part of the tree above ground, with nature as its roots.

Women hold themselves to standards of beauty that are nigh on unreachable. Sure, men select for beauty, as they have to select on some criteria, but we can ponder which came first if any, men's selection or women's presentation.

We all glibly assume that those who are made of sugar and spice and all things nice are just that all the way through and we ignore the single-minded little fascist lurking on the inside, a single-mindedness which admirably sees to it that the race is reproduced and nurtured. But what would "The personal is political" be like on the wider world stage? Perhaps the 'Patriarchy' exists for good reason.

 

 

Edited by Short Stay
Edited the wrong post - can you believe that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

With the advance of technology like 3D printing, which eventually will grow to the level where even the poor have access to it, I fear that gun control measures will not only become obsolete - but that even in nations with stricter regulations than America, we will see more people creating their own weaponry and proliferating it across society.

It was always a doomed battle in America - the spread of firearms has gone on for too long and is too culturally entrenched. But 3D printing may well render all concepts of gun control obsolete. Lawmakers, owing to their age, are often ignorant as to the march of technology. Their utter impotence in the face of online piracy has proven this. How much worse will it be when the poorest among us has the potential to create their own weaponry free from any scrutiny or regulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham

@Typhus:  This is indeed a frightening prospect but I do wonder how or when will the technology be capable of printing the parts of guns which need to be both precise and withstand high stresses.  All the printing I have seen in plastics has been pretty lame tbh.  It will get better of course, but then the government will bring in regulation and licensing accordingly.

 

Another one to watch out for are the DNA sequencing and manipulation machines.  These are getting very small and powerful. Make your own doomsday virus anyone? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
On 6/6/2018 at 11:37 AM, Typhus said:

With the advance of technology like 3D printing, which eventually will grow to the level where even the poor have access to it, I fear that gun control measures will not only become obsolete - but that even in nations with stricter regulations than America, we will see more people creating their own weaponry and proliferating it across society.

It was always a doomed battle in America - the spread of firearms has gone on for too long and is too culturally entrenched. But 3D printing may well render all concepts of gun control obsolete. Lawmakers, owing to their age, are often ignorant as to the march of technology. Their utter impotence in the face of online piracy has proven this. How much worse will it be when the poorest among us has the potential to create their own weaponry free from any scrutiny or regulation?

 

4 hours ago, Short Stay said:

@Typhus:  This is indeed a frightening prospect but I do wonder how or when will the technology be capable of printing the parts of guns which need to be both precise and withstand high stresses.  All the printing I have seen in plastics has been pretty lame tbh.  It will get better of course, but then the government will bring in regulation and licensing accordingly.

 

Another one to watch out for are the DNA sequencing and manipulation machines.  These are getting very small and powerful. Make your own doomsday virus anyone? 

I watched a documentary where a guy in the Philippines made a 1911 Colt .45 in a jungle workshop using hand files and templates.

 

I'm just saying that the technology to make gun parts isn't overly advanced or inaccessible at the current moment, what really matters is supply and demand.  People there are making "ghost guns" in the forest because there's a demand for untraceable guns, but on the other hand their profits are not in any way impressive.  They're basically doing it to earn a very meager existence.

 

At the end of the day what I'm saying is the only reason there's a guy in the Philippines filing together a ghost gun versus a guy in Kentucky doing it, is because the guy in Kentucky can make a better living doing something else.

 

 

Realistically, there's enough retired machinists and endmills in this America to produce an armory for every small town.

Edited by Saggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Outlaw Biker Viking

We don’t need gun control. It’s f*cking stupid on so many levels! By that logic, we might as well have “video game control” because some maniac decides to shoot someone else because he plays too many violent video games. Guns and video games are both INAMIMATE OBJECTS! If someone plays a video game or owns a gun and becomes violent, then they were screwed up to begin with! We need to control those individuals, NOT guns, video games, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye
3 hours ago, ThatBenGuy said:

We don’t need gun control. It’s f*cking stupid on so many levels! By that logic, we might as well have “video game control” because some maniac decides to shoot someone else because he plays too many violent video games. Guns and video games are both INAMIMATE OBJECTS! If someone plays a video game or owns a gun and becomes violent, then they were screwed up to begin with! We need to control those individuals, NOT guns, video games, etc. 

 

They have gun control in Chicago and look how perfectly that is going. It's the most ridiculous idea which is usually backed up by the most ridiculous people - liberals.

 

It's a wonder why the left haven't suggested knife control. I know of a good portion of the left who wish to see guns banned as it's commonly favoured by White Americans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

I know this might sound like some hippie bs but really most of these people really just need someone to talk to. It is always the outcast or the loner. People need someone to offload their problems onto that can agree and understand their issue and to simply tell them "you are right to feel the way you do". This is only exacerbated by shoddy doctors over prescribing pharmaceuticals that either do nothing to help the issue or can cause a complete loss of feeling or emotion which can then lead to horrible events. In most depression cases you can see improvement just by a good diet, exercise and proper sleep accompanied by having someone that you trust that you can talk to about it. It might not work for all cases but you have to think of it in terms of it's function in tribalism. If you lose your tribe it means you are basically dead, humans can't survive without eachother and your body is telling that to you. So effectively you need others to help you console those differences. Obviously there are cases where it is more extreme than just that. But it is an epidemic and one that always ends up with the same hallmarks.

 

Of all places you would think schools should be able to offer this kind of counseling and to be able to spot this behavior early. Because its the only way to stop it, it will keep happening, in the most recent shooting (that got barely any press as it did not fit their anti-gun agenda) the guy used a revolver and a shotgun. They will use whatever it takes regardless of law. If all they can get is a side by side shotgun then that is what it will be.

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.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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