Support NeoGAF

[timetokill]

Some good stuff in there, but fails to seriously tackle the root of the problem: mental health issues in the country.

At best it seems to be a "throw more money/pills at the problem. People forget about the issue for a while and our big pharma friends are happy in the meantime."

I also love things like: "13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime." so damn broad and useless.

It's like they were around the table and Obama says, "hey guys, what if we had the cops try and prevent shootings and we like, really came down on people who shot other people?" and everyone around the table goes, "oh yes, brilliant idea Mr. President! We'll write that one down straight away! why hadn't we thought of that?"


I'm fine with universal background checks, though the whole "mental health issues = no gun ownership for you" thing is a bit scary. Couple that with the "there is no doctor-patient privilege in cases of threats of violence" and it's not hard to see that getting abused in a lot of cases.

 

[RDreamer]

So you're saying if we nationally limit all alcohol content to say 4%... nobody would notice? lol

Herp derp

You know full well that wasn't my point. Look, if you want to be this intentionally obtuse/idiotic be my guest, but I don't think you'll get many rational people talking with you, then.

 

[Dude Abides]

So... mag limits are a good idea in case the mass muderer ends up being a goof?

Sure, or, in the case of the other two incidents I posted, which Bulbo surprisingly has nothing to say about, people are able to get to the shooter.

Wrong.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071191163461466.html


Stick to the confirmed facts.

Sounds like it's not clear what happened. How do you know those two are right and CNN is wrong?

 

[diehard]

Herp derp

You know full well that wasn't my point. Look, if you want to be this intentionally obtuse/idiotic be my guest, but I don't think you'll get many rational people talking with you, then.

K thanks for not responding to my question.

 

[Yoritomo]

Hey guys . . . rape is illegal and murder is illegal yet people still get raped and murdered. So we might as well just make them legal.

So are you proposing a ban on hardons, or repeated hardons? I admit I'd be pretty proud if I had a 5 round capacity in my boner. As I've gotten older reloading takes me a bit longer.

 

[Hitokage]

Some good stuff in there, but fails to seriously tackle the root of the problem:

The overabundance of guns in this country.

Mental health is important too, which is why we need to keep working for universal coverage.

 

[Pctx]

Same time all the bankers that ruined the economy are. Right after Bush goes to jail for making up a war, Politicians and cronies are above jail. Not sure if you're aware of it or not, but glad I could shed some light.



Curiosity leads me to stormfront.org sometimes. They are at the tipping point damn near.

I have no issue with that.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

National Rifle Association responds to President Obama's gun control proposals:

Statement: "Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership. Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority. The NRA will continue to focus on keeping our children safe and securing our schools, fixing our broken mental health system, and prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law. We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America's most valuable asset - our children. Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Sounds like it's not clear what happened. How do you know those two are right and CNN is wrong?

I just go with whatever story suits my narrative.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

It takes two seconds or less to reload a 10-round magazine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yesrVG0399M

 

[Hawkian]

So you're saying if we nationally limit all alcohol content to say 4%... nobody would notice? lol

would you oppose such a limit? why?

Seriously what the hell are you talking about?

If you could just clarify why you brought up alcohol in the first place maybe we could get somewhere.

Someone I know made this and I thought it was pretty interesting.
http://americangunfacts.com/

There's a lot of really intellectually dishonest shit in there.

 

[RDreamer]

K thanks for not responding to my question.

The question you edited in afterwards?

would you oppose such a limit? why?

This one that has nothing to do with the fucking conversation? The one that you took my line of questioning, turned it around and pushed it to a ridiculous extent and now feel smug about?


My answer would be why in hell do you think a capacity limit of 10 bullets equates to a 4% ABV limit on every single type of alcohol? You're being fucking ridiculous.

 

[Future PhaZe]

Plenty. But interesting condescension.

So then your argument is that you'd feel less safe, or that you'd need more than 7-10 rounds to defend yourself.

Do you know how many stories that exist of insane people who invade homes and have the audacity to stab CHILDREN? These people give absolutely no fucks.

7 rounds? I'm not happy with that. I'll be okay with 10.

It's a horrible idea to assume that any defense situation will go "by the numbers" statistically. There are too many dead families who also thought they were safe.

 

[The Lamp]

There's a lot of really intellectually dishonest shit in there.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[RDreamer]

Do you know how many stories that exist of insane people who invade homes and have the audacity to stab CHILDREN? These people give absolutely no fucks.

7 rounds? I'm not happy with that. I'll be okay with 10.

It's a horrible idea to assume that any defense situation will go "by the numbers" statistically. There are too many dead families who also thought they were safe.

It must be a terrible life to live so afraid of something that's so statistically small.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Because all the people that follow this stipulation will be the people that pose absolutely no threat to anyone else's safety and security. The legislation has no provisions for confiscation, surrendering, or replacing existing ten round pistol magazines. The legislation only requires that you only place seven cartridges into each ten round magazine instead of ten. The fear becomes that in a situation where I have cause to point a pistol my pistol at another human being, (and I hope very much that I never have to do this) I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will have loaded ten cartridges into each of their magazines.

The ONLY thing this requirement does is lower the survivability chances of someone who is committed to following the law.

While I agree that the above is a rather stupid formulation of this specific limit, tThe problem with this argument is that infinite escalation is the only end point when taken to its logical conclusion. You're arguing that because he's got a 10 round magazine that you should get a 10 round magazine too? What if he gets a 30 round magazine? What about a rocket launcher, ICBM's, a gatling gun, a nuclear warhead? What about aggressive biological agents? What about a tank? Should every man woman and child be fully equipped to handle whatever weapon might possibly fall into the hands of criminals? Eventually there's so much destructive force at play that the potential risks of misuse necessitate a line to be drawn somewhere. What most people argue is that in the case of self-defense there comes a point where the amount of firepower becomes superfluous to reasonably stopping an attacker without allowing a significant increase in the probability of such attacks happening more easily within legal bounds. Illegal shit happens, and mostly unexpectedly, which is why I think that 2nd amendment rights are important in that situation. But there have to be limits somewhere, and most would argue that those limits aren't harsh enough yet given recent events.

 

[NullPointer]

Could you please elaborate?

I'd love to know the specific source for this claim: "Every year, guns are used over 80x more often to protect a life than to take one."

And one thing that always bugs me about these figures on violent crime - if there were no guns there might not be any reduction in the count of violent acts, but you'd certainly expect less fatalities, and less injured per incident. Guns don't cause violence, but they can truly multiply it and make it far more lethal.

 

[JaseMath]

Does this mean if I'm on an anti-depressant, the odds are against me owning a firearm?

 

[commedieu]

Hey guys . . . rape is illegal and murder is illegal yet people still get raped and murdered. So we might as well just make them legal.

100% the argument from the pro-gun side.

Also, the pro-gun side live in a world where if a law isn't effective, it isn't passed.. Yet... war on drugs, war on terrorism, wrangling up all illegals or brown looking people from arizona to nyc, etc...

These law at least are an effort in the right direction, for once.

 

[diehard]

Seriously what the hell are you talking about?

If you could just clarify why you brought up alcohol in the first place maybe we could get somewhere.

Alcohol, like guns, cause many deaths in this country. I simply turned something that gets people killed (alcohol) applied a national limit to it (4% content) that would have a meaningful effect on DUI deaths.

People asking questions like "why do you need more than 10 round clips" is like asking someone "why do you need more then 4% alcohol content". You don't fucking "need" it either way.

Of course, the alcohol limit wouldn't be supported solely on the fact that people like to get drunk, when for some reason that is a good enough reason when it's something they care about. Guns? Fuck those people, right?

 

[Yoritomo]

Could you please elaborate?

There's a lot of stuff that isn't specifically tracked. NRA press releases are used as stats in that site. Numbers are approximated. Things that aren't comparable, like violent crime between nations, is compared.

I like this one better.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

 

[lednerg]

The more this goes on, the more gun owners are turning into the whiniest bunch of pussies imaginable.

 

[Hitokage]

But there have to be limits somewhere, and most would argue that those limits aren't harsh enough yet given recent events.

Mass shootings may not actually be on the rise, but that just makes the status quo even worse.

 

[Garryk]

I'd love to know the specific source for this claim: "Every year, guns are used over 80x more often to protect a life than to take one."

Probably includes police.

 

[Future PhaZe]

It must be a terrible life to live so afraid of something that's so statistically small.

Living in fear and being prepared are two different things. At this point your argument has desecended to "lol but it won't happen to you relax".

 

[gAg CruSh3r]

Why don't they let more teachers have guns at schools? Utah is doing it? Since US had a bad year of mentally ill people snapping and killing others. They take it out on the rest of the nation?

 

[Arde5643]

Does this mean if I'm on an anti-depressant, the odds are against me owning a firearm?

Do you have psychopathic tendencies that's been recorded in your health record profile? Cause if you do, yeah, I don't want you owning firearms or even blades ever.

 

[Yoritomo]

Does this mean if I'm on an anti-depressant, the odds are against me owning a firearm?

Depending on the context of any new laws... possibly. That's a tough question and will probably have a tough answer. Not to mention individuals to choose to not seek treatment for fear that they'll be put in the unsafe firearm owners camp. How many military Vets would end up on that list.

Is it good? Is it bad? I have no clue.

 

[diehard]

The more this goes on, the more gun owners are turning into the whiniest bunch of pussies imaginable.

Let's limit something you care about and see if you don't whine.

 

[Kinyou]

Some good stuff in there, but fails to seriously tackle the root of the problem: mental health issues in the country.

At best it seems to be a "throw more money/pills at the problem. People forget about the issue for a while and our big pharma friends are happy in the meantime."

I also love things like: "13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime." so damn broad and useless.

It's like they were around the table and Obama says, "hey guys, what if we had the cops try and prevent shootings and we like, really came down on people who shot other people?" and everyone around the table goes, "oh yes, brilliant idea Mr. President! We'll write that one down straight away! why hadn't we thought of that?"


I'm fine with universal background checks, though the whole "mental health issues = no gun ownership for you" thing is a bit scary. Couple that with the "there is no doctor-patient privilege in cases of threats of violence" and it's not hard to see that getting abused in a lot of cases.

That actually sounds a little like what Dan Carlin proposed in his latest show. http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive/Show-244---Gunning-for-Violence/guns-firearms-gun%20control

Imagine people getting something like 36 years in prison just for illegally carrying a firearm. I'm sure that would have an effect on someone.

 

[diamount]

Background checking should extend to immediate family members.

 

[Arde5643]

Let's limit something you care about and see if you don't whine.

They already limit dog breeds in apartment complexes, dude - if you want a true lawless society, please migrate to Somalia for the love of god.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Does this mean if I'm on an anti-depressant, the odds are against me owning a firearm?

I'm on one. The odds of the government taking my dads old rifle away from me? Realistically zero.

Should they be able to? That's a whole other thing that we'll probably never get into in this nation.

 

[lednerg]

Let's limit something you care about and see if you don't whine.

The emphasis was on 'pussies'.

 

[Yoritomo]

The more this goes on, the more gun owners are turning into the whiniest bunch of pussies imaginable.

There are a lot of whiny pussies in this country. I assure you gun owners can become whinier and pussier. I haven't even begun to pussy.

 

[Freshmaker]

100% the argument from the pro-gun side.

Also, the pro-gun side live in a world where if a law isn't effective, it isn't passed.. Yet... war on drugs, war on terrorism, wrangling up all illegals or brown looking people from arizona to nyc, etc...

These law at least are an effort in the right direction, for once.

This is also a world where 2 people dying is exactly the same as 32.

 

[JaseMath]

I'm on one. The odds of the government taking my dads old rifle away? Realistically zero.

So am I. That's why I asked.

There's been a steady string of crime in/around our neighborhood for some time (low income housing is nearby) and I've been thinking about a handgun for a while

 

[The Lamp]

I'd love to know the specific source for this claim: "Every year, guns are used over 80x more often to protect a life than to take one."

I'm not sure but I would think he was just doing the simple math on the figures he derived from the 31,672 statistic.

 

[diehard]

They already limit dog breeds in apartment complexes, dude - if you want a true lawless society, please migrate to Somalia for the love of god.

Wait, they have a national limit on dog breeds in apartment complexes?

hmm, you learn new stuff every day.

 

[RDreamer]

Living in fear and being prepared are two different things. At this point your argument has desecended to "lol but it won't happen to you relax".

I'm not really arguing with you there. I genuinely think it must suck to live in fear of stuff like that. Statistically most home break ins happen when no one's home and happen because a door is left open. The chances of anything violent happen is pretty low, and the chances of anyone getting killed from it is even lower. Hell, statistically your gun is almost as likely to be used against you or a family member or just plain stolen than to actually use it in defense of anything at all.

And just a curiosity, but do people that collect guns for defense put in as much money in a decent home security system? I personally don't know anyone that has, and I'd think that would have a lot more effect than owning a gun...

 

[Pristine_Condition]

The more this goes on, the more gun owners are turning into the whiniest bunch of pussies imaginable.

Glad your side is bringing such clarity of thought to the debate. Calling us "nuts" isn't enough. Now we're whiney "pussies" as well.

Maybe you should take a break. You seem to be getting emotional.

 

[Future PhaZe]

Depending on the context of any new laws... possibly. That's a tough question and will probably have a tough answer. Not to mention individuals to choose to not seek treatment for fear that they'll be put in the unsafe firearm owners camp. How many military Vets would end up on that list.

Is it good? Is it bad? I have no clue.

Great post

 

[Takamura-San]

Why don't they let more teachers have guns at schools? Utah is doing it? Since US had a bad year of mentally ill people snapping and killing others. They take it out on the rest of the nation?

Because there are some of us that would rather have the mentally unstable kid not have access to guns... than to have shootouts at classrooms.

 

[Dude Abides]

Kip Kinkel didn't have a second rifle magazine, you silly person. He was trying to reload the one magazine he had.

Which, assuming you are correct, he would not have had to do had his magazine had greater capacity, you silly person.

I just go with whatever story suits my narrative.

Clearly. I went with the first one I found, on Wikipedia. Sorry for not triple-checking!

 

[HammerOfThor]

This is a good start, but lets be a little realistic, it won't stop a crazy person from getting a hold of the weapons another way and doing something awful .

 

[lednerg]

Glad your side is bringing such clarity of thought to the debate. Calling us "nuts" isn't enough. Now we're whiney "pussies" as well.

Maybe you should take a break. You seem to be getting emotional.

I don't think so. Being told that it's unreasonable to limit ones' killing power to 10 bullets per magazine is beyond the pale. I'm sorry if that offends you, but come on.

 

[RDreamer]

Let's limit something you care about and see if you don't whine.

Why, precisely, do you care about 10 round clips? You can still keep your damned guns. You can still go shoot them. You can still defend yourself, etc. There's just a slight inconvenience on a high number of bullets. Oh noes.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

100% the argument from the pro-gun side.

Also, the pro-gun side live in a world where if a law isn't effective, it isn't passed.. Yet... war on drugs, war on terrorism, wrangling up all illegals or brown looking people from arizona to nyc, etc...

These law at least are an effort in the right direction, for once.

I actually addressed that, but of course it gets overlooked. How are those comparable? Can you please explain to me what rights have been violated when someone owns a standard magazine? Versus someone raping/murdering another? I'm having trouble following how those situations are comparable.

Further, you continue to paint broad brushes. Sure there are people that indeed are like the above. Refuse to address any issues, ignore other shit laws, etc. But not everyone is like that. Shockingly, it is possible to be for certain gun legislation and also oppose things like the Patriot act, SOPA, war on drugs, racism, etc. I certainly do not support those things yet I am pro-gun.

Passing more shit legislation just for the sake of it because it can be construed as "going in the right direction" is no good. That's exactly how things like Patriot gets passed. Knee-jerk legislation to placate upset people regardless if the damn thing is even sensible in the first place! As said in other threads by me..... fanservice.

 

[Arde5643]

Wait, they have a national limit on dog breeds in apartment complexes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation

Varies state by state.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Which, assuming you are correct, he would not have had to do had his magazine had greater capacity, you silly person.

His Ruger .22 had a 50-round magazine, silly person. Using that case isn't good for your argument, as it's really unclear as to whether a .22 will even be covered under any proposed legislation.