GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
If it makes you feel any better, I knew what you meant.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
mass shooting in phoenix, AZ (five injured, three hospitalized)
- Thread starter TheContact
- Start date
- Status
If it makes you feel any better, I knew what you meant.
The poster was not factually wrong in any way.
I don't carry one.
You have to be somewhat afraid to justify banning them.
Both sides are afraid of crazy people with guns. You would be strange not to worry about a crazy person with a gun. The chance of actually running into one is so low though it is not worth worrying about on a daily basis. IMHO the chance of banning certain types of weapons or putting limits on magazine capacity actually stopping a random freak event is so low it is not worth doing either.
desertdroog
Member
totally misread the news story....didn't get much sleep last night. I retard my statement
Fair enough.
fernog323
Member
It never ceases to amaze me that one of the most watchful countries regarding terrorism and national security (some might say that even to the point of paranoia), is not able to see that the ease of access to weapons is a clear danger for your security.
Seriously, every Republican should learn about the Mumbai shootings, because that is the future of terrorism: untrained, cheap suicidal idiot firing an AK-47 in the middle of a busy street. Firearm ownership is already starting to bite you hard in the ass, and it is only going to get worse from here, I fear.
That being said, Americans, you are an all around lovable, genuinely likeable people, please stop shooting each other
Are you comparing life in America to life in Mumbai? I can speak with utmost certainty that the two are not directly comparable.
Yeah which is why I added the edit. I figured he knew his stuff... I was wrong. (The guy responding to lednerga)
Choke on the Magic
Banned
I'm talking about the people poaching the line offering money instead of them turning them in.
Unless that guy's in a FFL that should not be a legal option imo.
Gotcha. He did in a sense; he mentioned the gun show loophole in his response. He just misinterpreted lednerg's meaning.
Oh my, my suggestion doesn't sound so judicially far fetched after all. I was unfortunately too dumb to connect the dots. What am i talking about, this is an amendment ratified by OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, completely incomparable.
Mr. B Natural
Member
Angelus Errare
Banned
Who said anything about banning guns? No one is advocating that police knock on your door and take away your precious pistols and semis. That's gun nuts speaking out of fear. It's just mass stupidity, they see the word "regulation" and get their panties in a bunch and cry about these squads of fictitious police officers rolling up to their houses and taking their guns away.
Good ol South Carolina. EVERY TIME!
elitehebrew
Member
I think its ignorant to believe its a gun problem. Thats just one tool for killing, and while there is an increase of "mass shootings" lately the dumbest thing would be to try and ban guns or limit them. Its not as if banning alcohol or any other drug actually works.
Of course, but it feels so good and scores you political points.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Then call it what it is instead of making it seem like you can walk into a Wal-mart and buy a firearm no questions asked. The gunshow loophole is a problem because there is no real documentation. You don't hear it like that though. You don't hear that being the meat and potatoes of the gun control crowd. They just want to ban it all together.
The Faceless Master
Member
how much my buddy?
Those bleeding heart liberals want to close a loophole that allows anyone to sell basically any kind of gun to anyone without documentation or background checks? Scum.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
It's the main thing they should be trying to change with gun laws and they aren't. They're focused on AR-15 and magazine capacity. What's so hard to understand about that?
There are a number of problems with this post. In total there is little to extract that is of any value. :-/
1. It's ignorant to believe it's an "anything problem." There are numerous factors over which we as a society have varying degrees of influence. Gun regulation is one of them.
2. "Just one tool for killing" implies that all tools for killing are equally effective and ignores the raw data of how murders are committed in this country.
3. You assessment of what "the dumbest thing" to do would be is deeply flawed. It's subjective to begin with of course, but my take on this would be that mandating armed guards in every elementary school in America would be "the dumbest thing to do."
4. You need an operating definition for "works" in your final sentence, since you said "any other drug." Though abuse occurs, there is little evidence of a widespread methamphetamine (~700 related deaths nationally per year) epidemic in this country. This is a drug that is entirely banned.
If I could trouble you, will you read over the exact text of what he said and ensure you feel this retort is appropriate?
No. I am comparing this type of attacks with a fully flegded terrorist strike like the one that happened in Mumbai. Or dare I say, that terrorists have already took note of these type of tragedies. Why going trough the hassle of getting anal-probed in the airport and kidnapping a plane when you can just buy an automatic weapon in a convenience store or gun convention (where there are no background checks or whatsoever) and start shooting random people on the street? Much more simple, effective, and cheaper means to kill and terrorize Americans.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
I was speaking about the original post he made about 33 states not requiring background checks. I admittedly knew it was the gunshow loophole, but one, either thought he didn't know himself, or two was deliberately trying to make it sound like you can just go anywhere and get gun without a background check.
I feel I was appropriate in my response because quite honestly there are many who don't know jack about guns or gun laws.
The NRA disagree, and they own more politicians than you.
That is the post I am imploringly you to look over. I do not see how he made it sound like what you are claiming he made it sound like.
He was correct; you told him to check his information.
jamesinclair
Banned
It shocks me that the dc sniper style terrorism hadn't been repeated since.
That was real terrorism....an entire region was terrorized for weeks
Choke on the Magic
Banned
He was correct about private sellers (non FFL sellers) at gun shows. This was not mentioned in that post. It doesn't account for regular sales done in retail and by FFLs at gun shows who all do background checks.
He either didn't know or just assumed everyone did. Either way it was omitted.
Edit: Hitting the road so I won't be posting for a while.
Because in order to be a snipper, you need a modicum of training. What really stroke me of the Mumbai terrorist attacks was how similar they were to these type of killing sprees, and how easily it was to execute both (aside from the timed boms). You don't need accuracy, funds or trainning to re-create any of these massacres, you just need an idiot willing to die for a cause, easy access to guns and there you are, people dieing for no good reason. Well, dieing for the second amendment, I guess.
A battle against reality is always bound to be uphill. The initial premise of the NRA's speech about how guns are a wholly neutral neutral tool is patently false.
timetokill
Banned
So gun deaths are declining, but pre-planned mass shootings are up.
Doesn't this suggest that it's not an issue with the guns themselves, but with the perpetrators?
These are guys that are planning shit out well in advance and then going through with it. They're not sudden crimes of passion where shit got out of control.
Take the guns away from these guys and they switch to bombs, which are actually easier to construct and obtain than guns in many places, using all legal products. They're not going to just throw their hands up and say "aw hell with it" because they're determined and they're looking for attention.
In an imaginary world where the US bans guns, and the inevitable school bombing happens, somehow I don't think people are going to say, "well let's ban pipes and nails and bleach!" or whatever.
It seems to me that the major problem we're facing is one of mental illness and social help being a mess.
Doesn't this suggest that it's not an issue with the guns themselves, but with the perpetrators?
These are guys that are planning shit out well in advance and then going through with it. They're not sudden crimes of passion where shit got out of control.
Take the guns away from these guys and they switch to bombs, which are actually easier to construct and obtain than guns in many places, using all legal products. They're not going to just throw their hands up and say "aw hell with it" because they're determined and they're looking for attention.
In an imaginary world where the US bans guns, and the inevitable school bombing happens, somehow I don't think people are going to say, "well let's ban pipes and nails and bleach!" or whatever.
It seems to me that the major problem we're facing is one of mental illness and social help being a mess.
I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing here.
The only relevant question regarding gun laws is if we can improve on what we currently have on the books, everything else is noise.
Vermillion
Banned
Wow. This seriously has to stop. My first thought when I saw this topic was "whatever." And now I feel bad about that.
This is far too fucking common these days.
This is far too fucking common these days.
yn-neko hates a cat
Banned
Texas hold'em... there's guns in the box art.
timetokill
Banned
I'm responding to the sentiment that there's a massive gun problem in the US that's getting worse. That is contrary to the numbers, which say gun violence is declining.
It just seems to me that when these pre-planned mass-murder attempts happen, it makes sense to try and figure out ways we can diagnose or prevent people from wanting to do them in the first place, rather than taking one thing after another away.
desertdroog
Member
I heard more information on the way home, they still have the area around 16th and Glendale under a crime scene investigation, which made for some serious commute traffic.
So the story is, 3 people were shot, one dead, one is in critical condition and one was injured in the wrist. It is believed he used a semi-automatic pistol.
The shooter is Mr. Arthur Harmon, 70 year old white male, and he shot the person he was suing as it was in the middle of arbitration. He also shot the defendants attorney and then fled the scene in his car. The defendant is dead, the attorney is in critical condition at John C. Lincoln hospital and the other person who was injured was not involved but did work in the firm.
This is all typed from memory, so if I got any of it incorrect, I apologize, however it isn't as was originally reported based on the title of this thread.
So the story is, 3 people were shot, one dead, one is in critical condition and one was injured in the wrist. It is believed he used a semi-automatic pistol.
The shooter is Mr. Arthur Harmon, 70 year old white male, and he shot the person he was suing as it was in the middle of arbitration. He also shot the defendants attorney and then fled the scene in his car. The defendant is dead, the attorney is in critical condition at John C. Lincoln hospital and the other person who was injured was not involved but did work in the firm.
This is all typed from memory, so if I got any of it incorrect, I apologize, however it isn't as was originally reported based on the title of this thread.
First of all, I hope you agree there is a gun violence problem in the US; no developed country comes close to the number of gun deaths you see in this country.
Now there is a question about how to address it, you don't think that a change in our gun laws can affect positive change?
The reason I'm focusing on gun laws here is because I never heard anyone claiming that we shouldn't look at the mental health situation in this country (just as an example), but I keep hearing gun advocates that any change to our gun laws is zomg tyranny.
It's been said time and time again but the media coverage of these such tragic events sometimes gets way out of hand. Here's a snippet from Charlie Brookers Newswipe way back in 2009 on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
This is a bit perplexing. Did you reread what he wrote?
It seems a lot like you didn't know or acknowledge that he meant because of the gun show loophole until after halfway through your post. Look at how your response begins:lednerg said:
Then,Choke on the Magic said:
That is in fact what he was referring to. It was clear to me, and to others. Why does he need to check his information?
Then, Enco, who you misinterpreted as disagreeing with you:
He was neither dead wrong nor wrong at all. He was correct.
Let me summarize this by putting the concept in question another way:
Is it true or false that you can purchase a gun in 33 states without a background check?
This is a very good point, imo. The types of people who perpetrate these kinds of atrocities are looking for as much attention as possible. The way news organizations are handling them gives these people the reassurance that if they go through with their plan, they will gain national media exposure about all of the gritty details of their act and their motives. They are, in effect, dangling a massive megaphone for these depraved individuals to use, with the only requirement being that they kill or injure as many people as possible.
Currently, many US news organizations have a policy to not give media exposure to those who kidnap members of the press, with Richard Engel being the latest example. One of the reasons for this is to make sure kidnappers don't view them as being worthy targets. The kidnappers want the attention, so we don't give it to them. While I'm not advocating a similar total media blackout for mass shootings, I do think that the tone and style of the coverage should be given the same type of consideration. (Just don't ask me how to go about doing that.)
universalmind
Member
So when are the conspiracy theorists going to say its government hired people trying to convince the public the US needs these laws.
Mass shooting are NOT the biggest problem. They are absolutely tragic, but focusing on them is such a red herring when it comes to solving the gun problem here.
elitehebrew
Member
Agreed i just got in and out with what i wanted to say without clarity over each point. I'm not saying the shootings should be taken lightly. It is a problem but with no easy nor clear way of control of firearms/upgrades. I see it being nearly impossible to revoke guns from owners or stop illegal modifications so "gun control" just wouldn't work. I mean can you begin to imagine a door to door "give us your guns" drive? I'm sure many more deaths would ensue.
When speaking of drugs i was simply implying that if guns sales are more controlled or certain firearms in the future are found illegal, it wouldn't stop the flow of underground sales with and would still be a very visible problem. What I'm saying is it would be just as easy to get a firearm in that scenario and with less armed citizens you could be seeing higher death tolls at these mass shootings.
In most of these cases though i'd be willing to bet they all had mental issues, and while it sounds all nice and dandy to have medical history checks or a mental examination when purchasing a firearm, but how easily would it be for someone to just fake mental clarity?
Firearms are just one way of murder no matter how you look at it. I'm sure its possible to find ways on how to create homemade explosives on the internet or hell even in chemistry class which chemicals are explosive. In one instance a man in China used a KNIFE and it didn't stop him from injuring 23 students. I know you're probably focused on "injured" but it just have easily could have been deaths. I'm sure there are many other incidents around the world of attempts of mass murder using other methods than a firearm.
I know many Americans are afraid of guns, and in a lot of cases probably don't understand them because they aren't a part of any area of their lifestyle. There just isn't any easy way to deal with this issue, but from where i stand I would like people to have their right to carry. Also with this I would stress for more classes on handling firearms, and possibly in some of these mass shooting cases a citizen with the knowledge and professional capacity to use a firearm can prohibit a large incident early on.
People are scared of guns because they're fucking smart. Guns are dangerous, portable, efficient killing tools that can be used from a distance and can kill lots of people within a very short time.
The problem are the people who think its normal to have them around. I've said it a million times but its 'gun culture' that we need to ultimately address.
elitehebrew
Member
Personally I think it is a fun hobby. I'm not the type that wants to have fully auto anything, but being able to hit a target at 1000yards is challenging and fun for me. To me i compare it to setting records for athletes. I think its smart to fear guns they are a tool for killing, but they are also used for recreation. I just don't see the harm for hunters or recreational shooters is all, but how could it be possible to gauge a persons intent when they buy a firearm?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
The way I see it is that there are millions of "gun geeks" in America, and when they say they respect and understand gun safety, they mean it. They don't want you to take their fun hobby away, and they scoff at your fear of the tool they understand and operate so well.
These people are respectable individuals......... Good people.... we could probably trust them to own guns, with no issue.....
.....and they still enable society to be awash with guns, leaving them around for those who would use them for harm (including family, etc). We gotta deal with that fact.
These people are respectable individuals......... Good people.... we could probably trust them to own guns, with no issue.....
.....and they still enable society to be awash with guns, leaving them around for those who would use them for harm (including family, etc). We gotta deal with that fact.
Yep. And its not like we have examples of Tyrannical governments eradicating the people within our peer allies which we share our economic/political/civil rights goals with. The whole thing just turns my stomach. Its getting harder and harder to say "no offense.." but Its offensive to me that people think they need guns to live, in the face of the NRA's man-handling of any and all gun laws/regulation or lack thereof. Sure, you're not in the NRA mate, but the people who speak the loudest for you, are fucking insane. You don't say anything because you get all the hand cannons you want to shoot kids in your driveway.
We will look back on this one day, and it will be the same light that we cast on lead paint, womens voting, segregation, flat earth, etc.
We don't need them. But people are stuck thinking we do. They pay taxes just like I do, so fair enough. But the regulations need to be so much tighter. Gun culture + Poverty + Horrible education is not a good combination for the states.
Access to and the destigmatization of mental healthcare is a crucial step for are nation, but you're thinking of "gun control" far too narrowly. What about a requirement proven at point of sale for all guns to be stored securely (locked) at home? What about closing the gun show loophole? What about shared culpability if your weapon is used in the commission of a crime? What about general or specific licensing requirements for operation?
You also need to drop the "guns are just one method of killing" argument entirely. It is stunning that you would bring up the mass stabbing in China as a corollary. It occurred on the same day as Sandy Hook. A similar number of people were attacked; a similar number of them children. And no one died. Zero deaths, versus twenty-six.
Do you have any guesses as to what percentage of the total homicides in the U.S. guns are responsible for versus knives?
You compare it to setting records for athletes, except that the side effect of a lot of people enjoying running doesn't involve the deaths of thousands of people.
It wont happen overnight, but you might have to give up some of your 'fun' in order to save lives. At least you're honest about it, though. I think most gun owners are adamant about their gun ownership because they enjoy them, but instead scream 2nd amendment and home defense and whatnot as they are harder to argue against.
If you had to keep your gun at the range, would you be cool with that? I wouldn't mind that. Since you just like to use it for the challenge, there's no need to have it at home, right? And would you be cool with a non-automatic? I know you say you dont want a fully-automatic, but you dont exactly need a semi-automatic, either, do you?
One day, yea, maybe. I dunno. I hope so. There's a lot of work to undo.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I feel the same. Views of the second amendment are as entrenched as religious values.. And we all know how likely it is that Americans give up those.
- Status