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

Megumi

Dozens killed at a Texas church shooting.

Recommended Posts

_47_

 

 

Maybe in this instance, but even that is largely speculative.

 

 

 

 

That's absolutely a firearm control failure. Because of lax practices and organisation failure, the gunman managed to acquire a firearm that, had the proper process been followed, he could not have done so. That's about as fundamental a gun control failure as you can imagine.

 

 

 

 

The vast majority of murders are not premeditated. That goes especially for those perpetrated in the commission of other crimes. Ease of access to firearms is largely what gets victims of crime fatally shot in the heat of confrontation. Mass shootings are shocking and astonishingly common in the US, but most victims of violence are not planned or premeditated.

 

- Speculative in the way of the citizen's ability to properly and safetly use his firearm in the first place to stop the slaughter? Yes. Law enforcement on average take 10-15 minuets even in a hurry to show up at the scene. So either way if I had a choice I'd choose the random citizen using a firearm and take my chances versus waiting for the authorities to get there.

 

- Firearm control failure couldn't have been stopped. The guy followed the exact procedures as written by law. Could they have done the background check more thoroughly? Absolutely. Honestly in my opinion Background checks should be more stringent in the same sense as getting a government clearance that requires actual investigation into who the buyer is and known affiliates.

 

- True the vast majority of fatal shootings aren't premeditated. The ease of access with firearms are with the background checks and not the buying of the weapon itself and the issue also rests with back door sellers or black market sellers that give anyone a firearm for the right price.

 

To me the failure sits squarely on Law Enforcement and Investigation Agencies not doing more to 1. Give people proper background checks into buyer's life. 2. Law Enforcement ground units not going after unsanctioned firearm dealers and/or persons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We Are Ninja

 

It's the default argument because it's true.

It isn't, though. If it were true you'd be able to cite evidence to support it, yet all evidence actually points to the inverse. Draconian restrictions introduced in the UK and Australia during the eighties and nineties resulted in substantial drops in firearm enabled violent crime. States with more restrictive firearm legislation have significantly lower violent crime on average.

 

Both of these are correlative rather than clearly causal relationships but can you point to a single example of a correlation between increasing firearm restrictions and increasing violent crime?

 

At no point did I state that violent crime would increase. My point was that if I was accosted by a gun-wielding individual, I'd be unable to defend myself. Granted, I could ask him to show me the registration for his weapon, or remind him that what he was doing was against the law, but I doubt that doing either would be very beneficial.

 

 

 

I don't know where you grew up, but it clearly wasn't where I grew up.

Where I grew up is irrelevant; as is most of this section of your response. If you can't comprehend how a legislation that makes grey market firearms harder to acquire, mandates licencing and safe storage reduces criminal access to grey and black market firearms (which are mostly stolen or straw purchases in the first place) the I don't really know what else to say.

 

Actually, where you grew up is wholly relevant. If you grew up in a place where guns were prevalent, then you might be able to better understand that legislation will not protect me when when the gun-wielding individual from my previous response is pointing a loaded gun at me. Your posts sound great in theory, but I'd rather have a gun and not need one, then need one and not have it. When guns are drawn (and they do get drawn here), your statistics become meaningless.

 

 

 

laws don't carry as much weight for people that don't follow laws. Legality doesn't deter junkies. Or pushers. Or thieves. Or murderers. Or street racers.

This is besides the point. The impact comes not from the legislation itself but from the effects the legislation has on the supply side. If buyers undergo mandatory registration and licensing, and private sales and straw purchases are banned without subsequent reregistration, then firearms can be correlated with individuals and difficult questions can be answered when those weapons are found in the hands of criminals. Stolen guns become less prevalent if secure firearm storage is mandatory.

 

None of this is rocket science.

 

That IS the point. Weapons restrictions restrict law-abiding citizens. People that don't abide by the law don't care. And, while I'm a law-abiding citizen (for the most part) I don't want my government to enact any legislation that would infringe upon my ability to protect myself from people that couldn't care less about your ideal governmental legislation. You're right. This isn't rocket science.

 

Seriously. Where are you from? And do they have guns there? Registration and bans won't deter people from obtaining and utilizing firearms in America any more than banning marijuana stopped people for obtaining and smoking/ingesting it. "Bans" haven't stopped prostitution, robberies, murders, [insert nefarious activity here], either.

Edited by We Are Ninja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Speculative in the way of the citizen's ability to properly and safetly use his firearm in the first place to stop the slaughter? Yes.

Speculative inasmuch as the outcome of events had an armed citizen not intervened simply cannot be known.

 

either way if I had a choice I'd choose the random citizen using a firearm and take my chances versus waiting for the authorities to get there.

I'm not sure I agree. You're statistically much more likely to be accidently killed by an armed citizen than you are become a victim of a spree or mass shooting. That's even putting aside how much likelier you are to be a victim of a spree or mass shooting anyway as a US citizen.

 

Firearm control failure couldn't have been stopped.

There was a very specific failure of what is undoubtedly a firearm control process- that is, the failure for one organisation to share information on an individual that would have prevented someone acquiring a firearm. It absolutely could have been prevented had due process been followed.

 

Honestly in my opinion Background checks should be more stringent in the same sense as getting a government clearance that requires actual investigation into who the buyer is and known affiliates.

This, along with restriction on straw purchases, is basically common sense at this point. It's basically how the firearm licensing system everywhere else in the developed world works.

 

To me the failure sits squarely on Law Enforcement and Investigation Agencies not doing more to 1. Give people proper background checks into buyer's life. 2. Law Enforcement ground units not going after unsanctioned firearm dealers and/or persons.

LE can only do what they are granted the powers to do. Background checks are as strict or as lax as state law permits. And LE can do almost nothing to address private sales and the associated lack of background checks without a legislative basis.

 

Weapons restrictions restrict law-abiding citizens.

*Citation needed.

 

People that don't abide by the law don't care.

You can endlessly parrot this mantra all you want, until such a time as you actually address the specific points I've made rather than irrelevantly repeat yourself ad nauseum it holds no weight.

 

Perhaps you should try reading the posts you're responding to next time?

 

Seriously. Where are you from? And do they have guns there?

They "have guns" quite literally everywhere.

 

Registration and bans won't deter people from obtaining and utilizing firearms in America

You're conflating two entirely different things here. Prohibition seldom if ever works (though in the specific case of mass casualty shootings and firearms, it largely does). Regulation however is frequently effective at reducing both the frequency and severity of harm associated with all manner of things.

 

Not one single example you've given here is remotely relevant; your entire argument seems to be one big straw man based on the false notion of my championing any kind of arbitrary firearm ban. Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdick

Rip. I wonder how many more I'll have to say rip before guns will be banned. Yes, murders could still run around killing people gun or no gun, but they would have a harder time running around with a knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We Are Ninja

 

Weapons restrictions restrict law-abiding citizens.

*Citation needed.

 

Are you really asking me to explain how laws affect law-abiding citizens? Or how restrictions restrict? Is that what you're asking for proof of?

 

 

 

People that don't abide by the law don't care.

You can endlessly parrot this mantra all you want, until such a time as you actually address the specific points I've made rather than irrelevantly repeat yourself ad nauseum it holds no weight.

 

Perhaps you should try reading the posts you're responding to next time?

 

It's either repeat it ad nauseam,or use smaller words...

 

 

 

Seriously. Where are you from? And do they have guns there?

They "have guns" quite literally everywhere.

 

Fair enough. I'll rephrase the question... Do you own a firearm? Are firearms readily available where you live? Can you walk into a department store/grocery store and buy one? Attend a gun show and acquire one? Etc? Is it concealed carry where you live? Open carry? Do people walk around with firearms on their person in plain sight? Have you ever had a gun pointed at you? Have you ever been in a situation where you needed a firearm? Have you ever fired a firearm?

 

 

 

Registration and bans won't deter people from obtaining and utilizing firearms in America

You're conflating two entirely different things here. Prohibition seldom if ever works (though in the specific case of mass casualty shootings and firearms, it largely does). Regulation however is frequently effective at reducing both the frequency and severity of harm associated with all manner of things.

 

Indeed. By limiting access to said weapons... To the people that actually abide by said regulations. I'm doing that parroting thing again, tho'...

 

 

Not one single example you've given here is remotely relevant; your entire argument seems to be one big straw man based on the false notion of my championing any kind of arbitrary firearm ban. Try again.

Well, that's unfortunate. There's no straw man here. I don't know of any other way to convey to you that stricter laws/rules/regulations affect the people that heed them, but are of little consequence to those that don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skeever

FYSA - The US Airforce failed to put the gunman's info into the gun registry. Nothing to do with gun control.

That has everything to do with gun control. Why push forward more bogus laws that only serve to oppress law-abiding citizens when the ones already in place are failing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms? They're only being proposed to appease the uninformed masses demanding action, nothing more. It's the same reason why you have people who genuinely believe that assault rifles are still legal for the average citizen to own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paisan™

You know what, I say we form a group, armed with Pistols, SMGs, Shotguns and Assault Rifles, and we just go around killing anyone who murders, rapes, tortures etc etc. This would be a challenge, but we could also break into a jail, take a murderer, and torture the sh*t out of him, ending it with a bullet to the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

It's the same reason why you have people who genuinely believe that assault rifles are still legal for the average citizen to own.

To be fair, you can legally own a fully automatic weapon that's been grand-fathered in. It just happens to be expensive, a pain in the ass, and if you plan to do something illegal with it, it's way easier to convert a legal semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic one, or better yet, build a fully-automatic ghost gun that's not registered with anyone at all.

 

But yeah, before we push through a bunch of new laws, we should try and make sure we are enforcing the ones we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Are you really asking me to explain how laws affect law-abiding citizens?

Not quite. I'm specifically asking for evidence supporting the assertion that the tangible negative impact on law-abiding citizens of measures such as registration, more stringent background checks and restrictions on private sale is greater than that on criminals.

 

It's either repeat it ad nauseam,or use smaller words...

And yet we see you being facetious rather than addressing the actual points made. If you either don't understand or aren't capable of responding to my posts all you need to do is say so.

 

Fair enough. I'll rephrase the question... Do you own a firearm? Are firearms readily available where you live? Can you walk into a department store/grocery store and buy one? Attend a gun show and acquire one? Etc? Is it concealed carry where you live? Open carry? Do people walk around with firearms on their person in plain sight? Have you ever had a gun pointed at you? Have you ever been in a situation where you needed a firearm? Have you ever fired a firearm?

I'm still struggling to see the relevance of any of these questions. Perhaps you could explain what bearing questioning whether or not people can open carry in my locale has on the discussion?

 

Indeed. By limiting access to said weapons... To the people that actually abide by said regulations.

Even putting aside the argument from repitition, I don't think this is actually true. I don't think more stringent background checks or mandatory registration actually limit access to weapons for law abiding citizens. In fact I would go as far as to say that full blown licensing as used in other countries (IE literally anywhere else in the world) does not significantly limit access for law abiding citizens.

 

There's no straw man here.

There absolutely is. You're arguing that prohibition doesn't work as if I've advocated for it, which I haven't. It's literally the definition of a straw man.

 

I don't know of any other way to convey to you that stricter laws/rules/regulations affect the people that heed them, but are of little consequence to those that don't.

And I don't know how much simpler I can make the explanation of why this is complete and utter drivel.

 

As I've already explained, if firearm regulations affect supply side, making it harder for criminals to purchase weapons from private sellers without undergoing background checks or obtain weapons stolen in burglaries, there is an obvious knock-on reduction in availability and resultant increase in cost for acquiring them.

 

And that's just looking at the career criminal types. Think about how confiscating firearms from people accused of domestic violence could affect rates of familicide or spousal murder. This is all Billy-basic common sense stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We Are Ninja

I'm specifically asking for evidence supporting the assertion that the tangible negative impact on law-abiding citizens of measures such as registration, more stringent background checks and restrictions on private sale is greater than that on criminals.

About six years ago, a thing that I won't go into detail about happened. I needed a working firearm quickly for reasons. Through official channels, there would have been background check, an application process, a wait etc. One phone call later, and I had a firearm. Fortunately, I didn't have to use it, but it was readily available. It's that easy to procure a weapon and I'm NOT a criminal. Had I gone the "official" route that you appear to champion, I'd have been defenseless in my time of need. And I'm not a criminal, just a guy. That's literal evidence, not statistics.

 

 

And yet we see you being facetious rather than addressing the actual points made. If you either don't understand or aren't capable of responding to my posts all you need to do is say so.

I fully understand your points, and this is, what, fourth or fifth direct response to your posts?

 

 

 

Fair enough. I'll rephrase the question... Do you own a firearm? Are firearms readily available where you live? Can you walk into a department store/grocery store and buy one? Attend a gun show and acquire one? Etc? Is it concealed carry where you live? Open carry? Do people walk around with firearms on their person in plain sight? Have you ever had a gun pointed at you? Have you ever been in a situation where you needed a firearm? Have you ever fired a firearm?

I'm still struggling to see the relevance of any of these questions. Perhaps you could explain what bearing questioning whether or not people can open carry in my locale has on the discussion?

 

I ask because you clearly have no experience with, or understanding of US gun culture.

 

 

 

Indeed. By limiting access to said weapons... To the people that actually abide by said regulations.

Even putting aside the argument from repitition, I don't think this is actually true. I don't think more stringent background checks or mandatory registration actually limit access to weapons for law abiding citizens. In fact I would go as far as to say that full blown licensing as used in other countries (IE literally anywhere else in the world) does not significantly limit access for law abiding citizens.

 

I covered this in my earlier response. Guns are everywhere here. If someone wants to obtain a gun with no fuss, it's not difficult. If someone wants to obtain a gun through official channels, there's a bit of a fuss. Criminals will take the no-fuss route, while non-criminals will be mired in fuss, even if it's just temporary.

 

 

You're arguing that prohibition doesn't work as if I've advocated for it, which I haven't. It's literally the definition of a straw man.

Actually, I've been trying to address your initial request in your initial response. The one where you stated:

 

 

Can someone explain to me why this remains the default retort of people when additional firearm restrictions are mooted, when it isn't even remotely close to being true?

 

Placing licensing restrictions on firearm ownership, banning straw purchases and private firearm sales without background checks, and enforcing regulations on safe storage do not affect law abiding citizens more than they do criminals. In fact, all three have explicit and obvious knock-on effects at reducing availability of firearms to criminals by linking weapons to individuals, preventing grey market sale which represents a significant proportion of firearms used in crime, and making obtaining guns through burglary significantly more difficult.

Simply put, restricting a law-abiding citizen's access to a firearm will restrict his access because he is law-abiding. A criminal, a non-law abiding citizen, can acquire a weapon through other channels with minimal effort and little consequence. Laws and regulations don't deter people determined to break the law. There are restrictions on Oxycontin. If I go through a doctor to get it, I've got to go through hoops. I'm gonna be in pain for a bit. If I call up the dopeman, I can get my hand on some in no time. Even if I don't have a medical need. Guns work the same way here. Which is why I keep asking you where you're from, because you have this starry-eyed view on how gun control would work in America.

 

 

 

I don't know of any other way to convey to you that stricter laws/rules/regulations affect the people that heed them, but are of little consequence to those that don't.

And I don't know how much simpler I can make the explanation of why this is complete and utter drivel.

 

As I've already explained, if firearm regulations affect supply side, making it harder for criminals to purchase weapons from private sellers without undergoing background checks or obtain weapons stolen in burglaries, there is an obvious knock-on reduction in availability and resultant increase in cost for acquiring them.

 

And that's just looking at the career criminal types. Think about how confiscating firearms from people accused of domestic violence could affect rates of familicide or spousal murder. This is all Billy-basic common sense stuff.

 

In theory, sure. But, as I've pointed out more than once, if someone wants to get their hands on a gun, it's not difficult. You can attempt to make it difficult, but doing so will only affect the people that abide by the system put in place more difficult. People will still be able to bypass gun regulations with a couple of phone calls. In the same way people can bypass drug regulations with a couple of phone calls.

 

Confiscating firearms? LOLOLOL. That's how I know you aren't from Texas.

 

You're right, though. I really am repeating myself at this point. I think that I've said all I can about the subject, and neither of us will convince the other that he or she is wrong, so I'm going to hang up my keyboard. I'll read your response(s), but this back and forth has become pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inttelix

Here in Brazil, that guy would get 6 months tops on a state prison, in a cell with 76 other murderers, drug lords, and thieves.

 

6 months. That is if the judge doesnt set bail.

 

But I swear if we had the constitutional right to own a gun, I really doubt Rio would be in such a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

About six years ago, a thing that I won't go into detail about happened. ...That's literal evidence

Anecdotes aren't evidence. Notwithstanding the complete absence of any detail that can be verified or validated given.

 

I fully understand your points, and this is, what, fourth or fifth direct response to your posts?

This is the first response where you've actually addressed my comments in any material way rather than attacking straw men.

 

I ask because you clearly have no experience with, or understanding of US gun culture.

I both have experience of, and understand, US firearm culture. I also understand culture is dynamic, fluid and inherently changeable. In this particular instance, firearm culture is fundamental to the problem as it blinds people to the feasibility and validity of solutions. Questioning whether cultural factors are harmful shouldn't be taboo and the faster the naysayers on the defensive side of the discussion actually take stock and listen to what those advocating for more coherent legislative responses are actually saying (rather than persistently attacking the idiotic "they're taking our guns" straw man) the faster these issues can be addressed.

 

I covered this in my earlier response. Guns are everywhere here. If someone wants to obtain a gun with no fuss, it's not difficult. If someone wants to obtain a gun through official channels, there's a bit of a fuss. Criminals will take the no-fuss route, while non-criminals will be mired in fuss, even if it's just temporary.

Again, not necessarily. If someone already holds a valid firearms license, I see no reason they shouldn't be able to go into a store and buy a firearm without any hassle or fuss; even without a mandatory waiting period.

 

And, yet again, your argument applies solely to the lowest common denominators. The vast majority of murders committed with firearms in the US do not use black-market guns obtained by career criminals.

 

In fact, even if the added hassle argument were true, which I don't necessarily thing it is, I fail to see how it would be relevant. You might have a point if there was a demonstrable correlation between firearm ownership and reduced risk of violent death or injury, but in reality the inverse is true.

 

If there are specific edge case needs for someone to acquire a weapon for personal defence purposes in very short order, why not simply accommodate that in a wider legislative framework? Never mind the notion of people using firearms to defend themselves, family or property being pretty much a fantasy anyway.

 

Actually, I've been trying to address your initial request in your initial response.

Then why start talking about prohibition, something I've neither mentioned explicitly not even vaguely alluded to?

 

Laws and regulations don't deter people determined to break the law.

Not in and of themselves, but the sure as sh*t interfere with their ability to do so if they're properly implemented and enforced. What's the obsession with deterrence anyway?

 

In theory, sure. But, as I've pointed out more than once, if someone wants to get their hands on a gun, it's not difficult. You can attempt to make it difficult, but doing so will only affect the people that abide by the system put in place more difficult.

On what are you basing this assertion, though? All evidence points to tightening firearm restrictions reducing the availability of firearms for criminals, so what's your basis for asserting that it won't have this impact? You can repeat the same mantra as much as you like but I see absolutely no evidence it's even remotely true. In fact, case studies from other countries, evidence from the US itself, and basic supply-and-demand economics suggest you're quite frankly wrong.

 

Confiscating firearms? LOLOLOL. That's how I know you aren't from Texas

There are already laws on various state statute books to enable the seizure of firearms from individuals not convicted of crimes, without warrant or court order. The federal framework for seizure of firearms from convicted felons and those under indictment already exists under the 1968 Gun Control Act, it wouldn't be unreasonable to extend this to people under criminal investigation for violent crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We Are Ninja

Anecdotes aren't evidence. Notwithstanding the complete absence of any detail that can be verified or validated given.

Personal experience trumps evidence and statistics AFAIC. Theres's an absence of detail for reasons that I won't get into on an internet forum. :/

 

 

This is the first response where you've actually addressed my comments in any material way rather than attacking straw men.

If you say so.

 

 

I both have experience of, and understand, US firearm culture. I also understand culture is dynamic, fluid and inherently changeable. In this particular instance, firearm culture is fundamental to the problem as it blinds people to the feasibility and validity of solutions. Questioning whether cultural factors are harmful shouldn't be taboo and the faster the naysayers on the defensive side of the discussion actually take stock and listen to what those advocating for more coherent legislative responses are actually saying (rather than persistently attacking the idiotic "they're taking our guns" straw man) the faster these issues can be addressed.

What "experience of" US firearm culture do you have? Clearly, it's not the general aversion to out government restricting our access to weaponry used to defend oneself from any manner of threat, including governmental ones.

 

 

 

I covered this in my earlier response. Guns are everywhere here. If someone wants to obtain a gun with no fuss, it's not difficult. If someone wants to obtain a gun through official channels, there's a bit of a fuss. Criminals will take the no-fuss route, while non-criminals will be mired in fuss, even if it's just temporary.

Again, not necessarily. If someone already holds a valid firearms license, I see no reason they shouldn't be able to go into a store and buy a firearm without any hassle or fuss; even without a mandatory waiting period.

 

And, yet again, your argument applies solely to the lowest common denominators. The vast majority of murders committed with firearms in the US do not use black-market guns obtained by career criminals.

 

In fact, even if the added hassle argument were true, which I don't necessarily thing it is, I fail to see how it would be relevant. You might have a point if there was a demonstrable correlation between firearm ownership and reduced risk of violent death or injury, but in reality the inverse is true.

 

If there are specific edge case needs for someone to acquire a weapon for personal defence purposes in very short order, why not simply accommodate that in a wider legislative framework? Never mind the notion of people using firearms to defend themselves, family or property being pretty much a fantasy anyway.

 

That bolded part is our disconnect. The lowest common denominator is whom I'm most concerned about. Firearms have been used to protect both me and my property on more than one occasion in my life. That's why I kept asking about your location and you experience with gun culture. You're playing the objective keyboard legislator, I'm contemplating people (myself included) keeping their family and property safe, and how additional restrictions could potentially hinder that.

 

 

Then why start talking about prohibition, something I've neither mentioned explicitly not even vaguely alluded to?

I guess I misunderstood you at some point.

 

 

Not in and of themselves, but the sure as sh*t interfere with their ability to do so if they're properly implemented and enforced. What's the obsession with deterrence anyway?

That depends on the person and the law in question. Traffic laws don't interfere with my propensity for exceeding the posted speed limit.

 

 

On what are you basing this assertion, though? All evidence points to tightening firearm restrictions reducing the availability of firearms for criminals, so what's your basis for asserting that it won't have this impact? You can repeat the same mantra as much as you like but I see absolutely no evidence it's even remotely true. In fact, case studies from other countries, evidence from the US itself, and basic supply-and-demand economics suggest you're quite frankly wrong.

Because someone that can procure a weapon though unofficial channels can (and will) still procure a weapon through unofficial channels despite the fact that official channels are constricted. The constriction will hinder the person attempting to utilize official channels.

 

 

There are already laws on various state statute books to enable the seizure of firearms from individuals not convicted of crimes, without warrant or court order. The federal framework for seizure of firearms from convicted felons and those under indictment already exists under the 1968 Gun Control Act, it wouldn't be unreasonable to extend this to people under criminal investigation for violent crimes.

That's the entire crux of my argument. Despite these statutes, violent criminals still get their hands on weaponry. Because they have no regard for the laws on the books. But I'm repeating myself again.

 

I concede. You win. I've got to go to work, and I'm not about to spend another workday going back and forth.

Edited by We Are Ninja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Personal experience trumps evidence and statistics AFAIC.

Subjective, emotionally driven whims trump fact in your eyes? Right-o.

 

Clearly, it's not the general aversion to out government restricting our access to weaponry used to defend oneself from any manner of threat, including governmental ones.

Your institutionalised societal paranoia is no concern of mine, and the notion that, in the modern day, an armed populace would actually be able to resist government oppression that leveraged the capabilities of the state security apparatus is exactly the kind of hilariously macho, fetishized gun worship I'm decrying.

 

That bolded part is our disconnect. The lowest common denominator is whom I'm most concerned about. You're playing the objective keyboard legislator, I'm contemplating people (myself included) keeping their family and property safe, and how additional restrictions could potentially hinder that.

Have you ever thought about moving somewhere which isn't a complete hellhole? It's empirically proven to have a more notable reducing influence in your likelihood to become a victim of violent crime than sending yourself.

 

For the record, though, legislation should be written objectively. If your lifestyle and circumstances put you in the kind of position you profess to be in with anything like the kind of regularity you suggest, then you're exactly the kind of person who clauses designed to ensure people with legitimate self defence needs are catered for would address.

 

That depends on the person and the law in question. Traffic laws don't interfere with my propensity for exceeding the posted speed limit.

Would increased highway patrols, mobile speed cameras and physical traffic calming measures combined with increased fines and seizure of vehicles belonging to repeat offenders? I suspect it would after a ticket or two. It's not the law itself which has the impact, it's the way it's enforced.

 

Because someone that can procure a weapon though unofficial channels can (and will) still procure a weapon through unofficial channels despite the fact that official channels are constricted.

So in other words you have no evidence.

 

That's the entire crux of my argument. Despite these statutes, violent criminals still get their hands on weaponry

You've largely missed my point here, but even that aside most of the states which have implemented these measures have significantly lower rates of firearm crime than neighbouring states without these laws on the statute books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We Are Ninja

I concede. You win...

Seriously. I no longer have the energy, or the desire. If you were a member of Congress, you'd effectively curb gun violence in the US.

Edited by We Are Ninja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HeavyDuke

You know what, I say we form a group, armed with Pistols, SMGs, Shotguns and Assault Rifles, and we just go around raping and killing anyone who murders, rapes, tortures etc etc. This would be a challenge as we will need some blue pills, but we could also break into a jail and f*ck them bareback, take a murderer, and torture f*ck the sh*t out of him, ending it with a bullet to the head.

Yeah sounds logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blondie

You know what, I say we form a group, armed with Pistols, SMGs, Shotguns and Assault Rifles, and we just go around killing anyone who murders, rapes, tortures etc etc. This would be a challenge, but we could also break into a jail, take a murderer, and torture the sh*t out of him, ending it with a bullet to the head.

At first I didn't want to go off-topic when I was writing this post but I guess this was bound to happen after you write a post like that (which honestly doesn't really add anything to the topic, really). But after you killed them, are you supposed to kill yourself because you did the things you despise against other people? Murder, rape, torture will always happen, unfortunately. We can't do anything to stop it. The only thing we can do is rehabilitate prisoners and hope they will become a normal functioning person in our society again one day. Until then, being emotional driven and writing these kinds of posts will not help the situation get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gnocchi Flip Flops

Well my original intention was to chime in and state how shocked I was about this. Especially for it being so close to me as well, literally 45 minutes away. But in typical GTAF fashion, no offense, this has turned into yet another asinine debate thread. Go figure...

Edited by Scaglietti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

Murder, rape, torture will always happen, unfortunately. We can't do anything to stop it. The only thing we can do is rehabilitate prisoners and hope they will become a normal functioning person in our society again one day

Why are these people worth rehabilitating? They're trash and the state should discard them as such. I don't agree with what the other guy said about everday citizens facilitating the expiration of these 'people' but that is what the state is for... protecting ME from scum like murderers and rapists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HeavyDuke

 

protecting ME from scum like murderers and rapists.

 

Keep in mind though, at this time, every man touching any woman at any place without having a signed letter that he was allowed to touch said woman, is a rapist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

You know what, I say we form a group, armed with Pistols, SMGs, Shotguns and Assault Rifles, and we just go around killing anyone who murders, rapes, tortures etc etc.

like, in a video game or?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pedinhuh

My condonlescences to the families of the victims, nobody deserves to go through this.

 

Also, big props(from me anyway) to the fellow who shot the shooter and stopped him from going after more victims, even if he gets a criminal record, he did the right thing in that situation and I would have done the same.

 

And regarding gun control...Maybe I should give my two to this, since I live in country that has a chronic problem with violence and crime:

 

Back in 2003 we had an referendum to ban the commercialization of all firearms to anyone but the authorities.

 

"No" won by over 50% of votes(the referendum was made in the entire country like a presidencial election), the commercialization of firearms didn't got banned and we kept our right to own buy a weapon.

 

BUT, regardless of the results of the referendum, in 2005 the government created the "disarming statute", that technically didn't banned the commercialization of firearms BUT made the process much, MUCH more strict, burocratic and expensive.

 

Also, it banned citizens from being allowed to carry weapons in public, legal firearms can now only be kept inside the address that the weapon is registered.

 

Seems good, right?

 

But...

 

In other words, regardless of the populations wishes, government made a gun control statute because TECHNICALLY, the referendum wasn't for the creation of a gun control, it was for the commercialization of firearms.

(In my eyes that was still a very, very scummy move)

 

Now, let's skip to 2015:

 

-From 2005 to 2015, violent crimes with firearms have increased over 15%;

 

-We have over 60,000 of deaths every year only related to violent crimes with firearms;

 

-Latrociny and hoem invasions numbers are at an all time high;

 

-80% of homicides in the country are from "futile reasons"(debts, marriages, etc..);

 

-Only 10% of homicides are effectively investigated, with a suspect tried and condemned(which puts the static of 80% of futile murders in check);

 

-We had three school shootings even after the gun control laws were in place, one in 2011 which the shooter killed 12 children and had been all over the news worldwide, and two in 2017, one resulted in the deaths of 2 classmates of student who owns being bullied and the other was more like an execution of girl who rejected the would-be shooter of her.

 

 

...So, what is the problem here? Because the gun control obviously didn't work and still is not working as intended.

 

My own theory of this is:

 

-The media gives TOO MUCH ATTENTION AND COVERAGE to the SHOOTERS, instead of focusing on the victims and WHY the shootings happen, far too many newspapers and magazines stamp the face of the shooters on their first pages, the media makes them famous;

 

-As soon as a shooting happens, EVERY NEWS CHANNEL talks about the same matter, gun control laws and try to push their agendas, instead of talking about the real issue at hand: Mental health problems of the killers and HOW these problems made the killer go on his rampage.

 

But the most important, and what NOBODY talks about, is how we could STOP these shootings from happening again.

(Hint: it doesn't involve gun control)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inttelix

Makes me wonder why hasnt the Somalia incident receive so much media attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sreyazsec

Makes me wonder why hasnt the Somalia incident receive so much media attention.

 

This is brought up everytime something like this happens. The media in the UK and the U.S. doesn't give quite as much attention to atrocities like this in different countries (compared to their own countries) just as Somalia probably doesn't give mass media coverage of the UK or the U.S. when an atrocity is committed here.

 

It's bigger news when it's your own country or a neighbouring country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inttelix

Makes sense, think of the hundreds dying in Serbia daily. Now imagine if the media had to put every single bomb that drops...

 

They would lose their entire TV news time, and we wouldn't see anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
igotskiz

Crazy world we live in now. I believe one of the first questions that go through a mass-shooters head goes something along the lines of "where can I go to get the highest body count?" This makes places like churches and schools prime targets.

 

We also have to remember that the United States is a big country, big population, and has a lot of media coverage. By turning every tragedy into a national emergency, we think the world is falling down when in reality it's the same sh*t but different day. If we let these situations hash themselves out on a local/state level, then people wouldn't be panicking like they are.

 

Remember, when we say "gun control", we don't refer to your everyday pistol or shotgun. We're talking about heavy-artillery sh*t, like Assault Rifles. Basically, anything that can kill dozens in a short time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

 

As long as there's people with agendas to disarm honest people, they won't stop at the "heavy artillery".

If I could believe, without even a shadow of doubt, that it would stop at automatic firearms, then I would agree, but that's not likely to happen.
Also, it would be nice to have a full-auto to defend your home during any kind of city-wide riot where you and your own are put at risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

As long as there's people with agendas to disarm honest people, they won't stop at the "heavy artillery".

If I could believe, without even a shadow of doubt, that it would stop at automatic firearms, then I would agree, but that's not likely to happen.

It sort of has, though. Not so much in the US where state and city laws result in a huge variance of firearm restrictions depending on the prevailing political views of the electorate, but elsewhere in the world. There hasn't been a substantive revision or increase in regulation of firearms in the UK in 20 years, and even longer in most other European countries.

 

"If you let them take X firearm, they're bound to go after Y and Z" is equally a slippery slope fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inttelix

Honestly now, all this gun control talk made me think. Even if they ban firearms, it still will be pretty easy to acquire a gun, and tragedies will still happen.

 

If you're sick enough to kill someone, going through the process of buying a gun illegally is the easiest part of the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nick rynearson

My heart go to those who have been effected by this. Also don't use a crisis like this to push your political agenda, it just make you look like scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

Honestly now, all this gun control talk made me think. Even if they ban firearms, it still will be pretty easy to acquire a gun, and tragedies will still happen.

 

But no-one is arguing for a ban of firearms. We're saying "sh*t, maybe you should actually enforce laws better if any Joe can just go to a wal-mart and buy an assault rifle, or if he can just go across state lines and buy anything off a private seller". Maybe you should actually do your background checks. Maybe you should actually have the agencies communicate with each other. Maybe you should have a better background check. All those things.

 

 

Also don't use a crisis like this to push your political agenda

 

So should we just sit around with our thumbs up our asses and go "Aww shucks! Oh well, rest in peace, and what a tragedy."?

 

Not that I expect anything to change. A lunatic shot up a school full of toddlers killing a bunch of them, and all we got out of that were some scum piece of sh*t people who say that it never really happened and all those parents were crisis actors.

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.


  • 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.