LegendofJoe
Member
Seriously, why in the eff does anyone give her the time of day then? Eff her if true.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
America Has Lost The War Against Guns - Deadspin
- Thread starter LyleLanley
- Start date
- Status
Seriously, why in the eff does anyone give her the time of day then? Eff her if true.
this mentality is the problem, it's perfectly doable you just don't want to put the effort into it. you rather keep the status quo then go through the pain of change.
Why do people keep talking about what can "reasonably" be passed with regards to gun control, when we've seen time and time again that on the federal level, next to nothing can be passed? With that in mind, I say talk freely and openly about what you think are the best ways to solve the problem.
I didn't say money, I said political capital:
"Political capital refers to the trust, goodwill, and influence a politician has with the public and other political figures. This goodwill is a type of invisible currency that politicians can use to mobilize the voting public or spend on policy reform."
Because changing things costs political capital.
Obama arrived in office with a Democratic house and a supermajority in the senate, and still struggled to get healthcare passed. If he'd tried to tackle both healthcare and gun control at the same time, he'd have failed at both. There's only so many favors he can call in, pork riders he can attach, threats he can make, etc.
Meanwhile every time a gun tragedy is in the news, moderates lean a bit more to the left, giving the Democrats more breathing room in the next election and thus more political capital. I'd bet gun control legislation would cost way more political capital than its lack produces for the DP.
Factually untrue. A gun does not kill people "on a much larger scale" than alcohol. I've cited sources earlier in the thread. What it's designed for isn't necessarily correlated with it actually does: in this case, because alcohol use is so much more common than gun ownership, a lower fatality rate generates higher net fatalities.
... Over 60 million people were killed in WW2. They certainly weren't killed by alcohol poisoning.
Guns absolutely can, and have, killed people on an enormous scale, whether in war situations or not.
The statistics are jaw-droppingly awful.
Just saying... most of those people killed in WW2 didn't die to firearms. Though I am being picky, I agree with you in that people need to stop acting like guns are not designed to kill.
This might be relevant if this thread were about banning guns' use in war, or banning war altogether. But the topic at hand is gun control and legislation regulating their ownership by civilians.
I'm not saying guns aren't designed to kill. I'm saying guns don't cause as much death as alcohol does. Honestly what they're designed for doesn't concern me in the slightest.
Elfforkusu
Member
Justify what??? Owning guns? I own an AR15, a Spring Field Armory XD9m, a Browing 280, and a 308 my grandpa gave me. Why do I have to justify that to you or anyone else? It is my right... It's like owning my PS4, my PS3, my PS2, my house, my car, my dog, my computer, my tooth brush... What does that question even mean??? Gun owners now need justification for why they own guns??? Really, are you an American?
How are 12,577 gun deaths associated with me and 99% of the other gun owners in America??? I/We didn't commit a crime, so why should we feel guilty about owning our guns?
Why is that horseshit? How does one defend against a gun toting criminal, psychopath, murderer? If you were there that day, would you not have wanted a gun to try to take him out before he could take you out or other children?
Sure they are??? How old are you? Do you know why the second amendment came to be? If it wasn't for individuals with guns, 200+ years ago, America would not be here. So you think that before 1975, guns were a privilege???
I don't know if this is what you mean but this is what I think you are getting at...
You anti-gun folks bring up the numbers of people killed by guns. Just looked up 2013 Alcohol-Impaired Driving fatalities and there were 10,076. 1,994 of those fatalities were innocent people either driving another car or pedestrians. So your argument is guns kill people - ban guns. We say cars/alcohol kill people - ban cars/alcohol. We both know that the cars/alcohol did not kill those people. It was the person behind the wheel that CHOSE to drink and drive that killed. Why would we ban cars or alcohol in that situation? We wouldn't because it is illogical and stupid, Why should we ban guns then? It was a choice by the person to use a particular tool to accomplish what they want, to kill someone. If there were no guns, what tool would they choose??? That person still has that motivation and desire to kill that person. YES/NO?
Go look up the definition of militia. Key words "Civilian Population". Now go read the 2nd Amendment again. If I am not allowed to bear arms, how am I and others like me able to create a militia, well regulated or not?
Why do you hate guns? Real question from a gun owner? Have you ever held a real gun, shot a gun, or even touched a gun? If no, then you have a prejudice against guns, and probably gun owners too. That's ignorance. There is a lot of that in this world, and isn't that where racism comes from, ignorance and prejudice? There is so much BS and un-informed stuff that is thrown around in these forums, it's ridiculous.
Who here thinks an AR-15 is a machine gun? I heard that in another thread...
Who here thinks that fully automatic weapons are illegal? Here this a lot...
Who here thinks that silencers are for military and LEO's only? Just curios...
Who here has actually gone through the process of buying a gun? Another curiosity...
Even if it were hypothetically possible to get rid of the second amendment, people wouldn't give up their guns willingly. The military/police would be forced to murder a lot of people.
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
There was never a war.
Gun Culture is fucking disgusting.
Gun Culture is fucking disgusting.
cheezcake
Member
Alocohol related deaths are almost all self-inflicted, which is a completely different topic.
We can compare deaths due to alcohol related driving crashes (10,076) vs deaths due to firearm homicide (11,208). Both figures from 2013. Statistically speaking its a significant issue when you're actually comparing the relevant data.
It doesn't happen in other countries when they banned guns. And if there were some violence, given the current rate of violence that's not much of a price to pay if meant the end of future violence.
SolicitorPirate
Member
Well, Australia enacted incredibly strict gun control and started a government buyback program, after which gun related deaths dropped sharply and we haven't had a gun related massacre since, so there's that.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
uncredited male
Member
I don't know if this is real or not.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I, myself, am not in favor of a repealing of the second amendment. I'm just saying, if you want to curb gun deaths (and I believe a number of those are suicides, to which I think people should have a right, fwiw), as I think most do, focus on what actually has a shot.
So you don't think there is a lot of looking down upon gun owners in this thread?
Real! See your putting yourself above me. I understand your hate of guns, but why not hate the fucking guy that pulled the trigger? What if this guy used his car to run them over repeatedly? Would you then be stating "I hate cars" so passionately?
Edit to add: The gun was his tool for his desired outcome. If he didn't have a gun what tool would he have used? If someone wants to kill someone, they will whether it be a gun, a blunt object, a knife, their hands, a car, etc.
uncredited male
Member
Now I know you are not real.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
This is where the argument always becomes disingenuous, though, because it attempts to sidestep or minimize the fact the specific tool's purpose is to shoot another human being.
So the purpose of the tool in question makes a big difference when discussing its use. It can't not.
The large, large majority of these weapons are purchased with the expectation they will, at some point, be fired at another human being. A large amount of these weapons are made with that presumption. And sold with that presumption. Everyone seems to fundamentally understand this, but they never actually seem to speak this knowledge out loud. They just sorta/kinda dance around it, or acknolwedge it weakly while simultaneously rationalizing it.
People buy guns. Guns are for shooting at other people.
If this guy had used a tool that wasn't expressly for the purpose of injuring and/or killing another human being, people would automatically focus on the person's misuse of that tool for their own malicious purposes. It makes sense people would make that connection more or less automatically. "That guy obviously is fucked up somehow, because he ran that guy over/hit him in the head with a bat/stabbed him with a bread knife" We all know that's not what those things are for, so the focus is on the person and the misuse of their chosen tool.
With a murder, it's not an automatic that someone would do that, because guns are for murdering other people.
I have a really, really hard time assuming that most people buy guns with the the "yep, going to shoot me a human one day" mindset.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
That's exactly what they're buying it for, though. The terminology for justifying that changes, and the justifications themselves might actually be just in very specific hypothetical scenarios. But when people talk about "protecting their family..." or "protecting their homes..." the unspoken end of that sentence is "...by shooting someone."
That's the entire point of it. These are tools created with the express purpose of firing them at another human being. The reasons why you're doing so might be varied, and again, even justified in some specific scenarios. But you're buying the potential to put a bullet in another person. That's what the sale of a gun is. Really no way around it unless you're the vast minority that is actually using your weapon to hunt your own food, or do nothing but target shoot at a range for the sport of target shooting.
Otherwise: You're buying a gun to shoot another person with it at some undetermined point in the future.
People will do their best to dance around that or make it sound morally righteous, while never actually saying it that plainly. A lot of the discussions about guns in America breaks down at this very key, early point.
Because America has always been paranoid about foreign threats and never cared much about its own demons and homegrown ennemies.
I don't understand how people can accept the patriot act and the shit NASA does and go bersek when someone mentions gun control. The constant surveillance is way more scary than the government making it more difficult for you to get a firearm.
The Albatross
Member
Because America has always been paranoid about foreign threats and never cared much about its own demons and homegrown ennemies.
I don't understand how people can accept the patriot act and the shit NASA does and go bersek when someone mentions gun control. The constant surveillance is way more scary than the government making it more difficult for you to get a firearm.
THE FUCK NASA DO TO YOU
adamsappel
Member
I'm glad to be proven wrong, but it's my understanding that "well regulated," in the usage of the time, meant "well armed," not as we would currently use the words.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Laughs are rare in these threads.
What I am trying to get at is if guns were banned and this same situation arose, would the person wanting to kill use another tool to get the job done? I would say yes. So what does banning guns achieve in the long run? People kill people... a tool is just a tool. I understand that the gun is the right tool for the job but it is the person holding the gun that kills. I just don't understand the "ban guns" mentality...
Switch bombs for guns in what you said. Where do you draw the line? A convenient one would be devices made solely for killing people. And no, you can't do what you do with a gun with a knife or baseball bat. It's so disingenuous. The sandy hook kid would have had a hard time taking an old lady teacher with a knife.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Murder is already illegal. There are already laws against it.
What is the argument against severely limiting both the production and distribution of tools that are created specifically for the purpose of murdering other human beings?
Keep in mind - trying to reduce the role of gun to nothing more than a simple tool while not acknowledging or trying to minimize the purpose of that tool (to injure or kill another person) is disingenuous, and usually inhibits further discussion.
The gun is a tool primarily created, distributed, and used for the purpose of injuring/killing other people.
If murder is illegal, why are tools created specifically for the purpose of committing murders (justified or not) off-limits when discussing means of making it harder for murders to be committed?
What's the argument for keeping tools around whose primary usage is to commit an act that is already illegal?
Indeed. He would have killed just as many kids with a knife. That makes you wonder why people choose automatic weapons to commit massacres ... smh.
You're so emotionally attached to your toys that it's making you delusional. You obviously shouldn't feel guilty about those massacres but you're part of the gun culture that allows these mass shootings to happen day in day out. You should read about the UK and Australia and how their stats plummeted after they banned firearms. Heck look at EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. The US are alone on this. You're not smarter than the rest of the Western World. And the world weeps for your kids. I know I did when Sandy Hook happened. French news channel ran the story 24/7 for days. I cried with my mom weeping next to me and I remember the journalists being like " It's America. What did you expect. They love their guns more than they love their kids. "
That was beyond sad.
Maximus.
Member
Agreed. Pretty fucked.
It's not though. A majority of gun violence is not schools, theatres etc getting shot up, it's one on one. The people who commit the mass shootings are legit messed up in the head. Should all of us responsible, law abiding citizens give up our right to own guns because of a few messed up, crazy, whacked out sociopaths?
Those sociopaths rarely exists in other countries, but a regular occurrence in the US. Perhaps the answer is yes.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Public opinion is 90 percent of Americans believe in things like background checks.
Money in politics keeps politicians fROM doing shit. Has nothing to do with public opinion.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Again, the question is: What's the point of keeping a tool around that primarily exists for the purpose of injuring/killing another human being?
We seem to agree that killing people is generally wrong.
How many justifiable homicides are you planning on committing with your gun?
How much more weight does exercising the right to own a tool primarily used to injure/kill another person carry with you?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Plenty of ways to keep Gun rights.
StronGer checks. Hell we have a DMV for cars.
What about finger print safeties?
Lots of options but excuses are a plenty.
Do you think drive bys, stick ups, etc would be just as prevalent and just as lethal if you substitute something for the gun?
To answer your question, if it was up to me, yes. It is the same as a bomb to me. I wouldn't kill anyone with my bomb, but I'll trade my ability to own one to keep them out of the hands of others. It's a trade off a normal society makes.
We do not live in a world without violence. So since there is violence we need tools to combat that. Would you agree?
BertramCooper
Banned
You mean the mentality that has basically eliminated widespread gun violence in pretty much every other first-world country on the planet?
I know, it's perplexing, right?
Oops mis-read qoute.
Elfforkusu
Member
So, your plan is to systematically eliminate sociopaths? Or is it that we do nothing?
There will always be sociopaths. They are human beings. The question is, should we let them have guns?
e: And it's more than sociopaths that should prevented to owning guns... Anyone who hasn't done a ton of training shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. How many accidental gun deaths are there a year?
I swear, if people were as militant about the 4th amendment as they are about the 2nd, we'd be a lot better country.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
No doubt. And an organization that tests for and measures whether or not a person is really responsible and mentally prepared for what it means to shoot another human being (in the same way we test to see if someone is nominally responsible and mentally prepared enough to drive a car) would be a valid option, I think. But then we still come up against this distinction: A car is for transportation. Part of the reason we have a DMV is to help cut down on the improper use of the car as anything but a safe transportation device.
The proper use of a gun is to shoot another person with it. At some point, I feel like that simple sentence needs to be put right up front, with no coded language or rationalized scenarios to soften that basic fact. You're buying a shooting to occur at some point in the future.
So how do we regulate that? How do we minimize the number of shootings with that in mind?
Absolutely. And large amounts of those excuses grow in the bogging down that occurs when the conversation begins from a disingenuous place. It makes the whole thing pretty frustrating and complicated.
There are absolutely safety measures that could be applied, regulations that could be enacted (that include scarcity of ammunition as well as drastic reduction in production of the weaponry itself), but the discussion seems to always cripple itself around the reluctance to admit people who own guns own them for the purpose of shooting another person with it.
I guess my question is then why would your tool of choice in reducing violence be the inherently violent tool created specifically for the purpose of causing violence to other people?
If we're going to keep discussion going along the lines of "the right tool for the right job," how do you make the case that the best tool for preventing murders is also, simultaneously, the best tool for committing them?
Why wouldn't removing the abundance of said tools be a more valid option?
No we shouldn't and this is where I have been trying to get. Punish the majority due to the few. Is that fair?
We need to combat mental health, the real issue, not guns and gun owners but our society with regards to those we see as outsiders, social ourcasts, etc. It's like theatre shooting kid, he was seeing a therapist. Does that therapist have a responsibility to notify fbi? Or maybe therapists should have the ability to see if any of their patients have gone through the background check for purchasing a gun. Maybe that should be a law, therapists once a week are required to see if any their patients have gone through the gun buying process with the help of the fbi...
Vicetrailia
Banned
He's just providing filler discussion. Conversations are done, we have a variety of ways to mitigate or reduce this problem. If only things could get done.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Is the main reason you own a gun that it's the answer to the question "What if I have to shoot somebody?"
If not, what is the reason you own one?
- Status