Support NeoGAF

[Gigglepoo]

Second Amendment.

The obvious solution is to limit guns to the kind that existed when the constitution was written.

 

[Vilix]

Really? Did you catch this part?

That seems to be implying pretty clearly that the situations are equitable; that the only difference was the weapon used which itself made no appreciable difference..

I did. Did you read his previous posts? They tend to stem that both situations could be equal due to the state of the mental stability of the people that carried them out. Then the conversation starts to evolve into comparing the outcome rather than why it happened in the first place.

 

[thezerofire]

The "Battle of Athens" story is a good example, I think.

Ok, that's 1946. Nowadays we have fun things to keep people accountable like video cameras in our phones and the internet

The right for a citizen to defend their home with lethal force.

So you need a gun to defend yourself in your home against someone who may or may not have a gun themselves?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Gun violence has been dropping since the mid-nineties. As has general violent crime stats. I expect when the economy gets healthy again it will drop even lower.

A lot of that has to do with aging population though. Compare the US and its average age to the Latin American/Caribbean countries with a much higher murder rate.

 

[AstroNut325]

The right for a citizen to defend their home with lethal force.

I'm ok with this. So you can't take guns outside of your home!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

So you need a gun to defend yourself in your home against someone who may or may not have a gun themselves?

you certainly might. are you suggesting this scenario is an impossibility?

I'm ok with this. So you can't take guns outside of your home!

Out of curiosity, do you believe such a rule, if it existed, would have stopped today's massacre?

"Upp, law says I can't take these guns out of the house. Foiled again!"

?

Such laws are good for stopping law-abiding citizens who have no bad intentions. That's about it.

 

[BruiserBear]

Gun regulations are everywhere, and these types of shootings are no less common.


IMO the only way to truly cut down on shootings is to basically remove the 2nd amendment, and make guns completely illegal to own. I would be fine with this option, but I doubt there is any chance of it happening in my lifetime. :/


Cultural issues are also a part of the discussion, but IMO they're a smaller piece of the problem. Until you makes guns really hard to get, or impossible to get, you're going to have people getting shot on a regular basis.

 

[bdouble]

Ok, that's 1946. Nowadays we have fun things to keep people accountable like video cameras in our phones and the internet


So you need a gun to defend yourself in your home against someone who may or may not have a gun themselves?

Cameras dont really stop people from doing crime

Yes because i dont want to defend myself From someone crazy enough to get in my house.

 

[Eidan]

From my Facebook.

My prayers go out to everyone that has to go thru this tragedy in CT... However if you are going to turn this into a thing to take away my right to keep a gun, please Un-friend me or I will do it for you... when this world turns into more chaos then it is now... do not come crawling to me... Morons will kill by a bathtub if they have the oppertunity...

I honestly find this shit maddening. How can you profess to care about this and other spree killings and not even be willing to discuss restricting access to guns? It doesn't add up.

And what the hell are these people expecting will happen? Do they honestly think Obama's Chicago thugs are going to barge into their houses any day now?

 

[7Th]

Such laws are good for stopping law-abiding citizens who have no bad intentions. That's about it.

Today's shooting was executed by a mentally troubled man that probably couldn't have gotten his guns illegally, actually.

 

[Seanspeed]

Ah ok, sorry to hear about that man. I know it's been a long time since it happened, but that still sucks to know that it happened to your family. Your mom was a strong woman too from what I remember of her. It seemed she handled the whole "single mom" thing remarkably.

Yup, she's awesome.

I'm all for change in our gun laws when possible, but gun culture is ingrained in America. Too many people believe guns of all sorts is a protected right. Too many politicians believe this. Unless there's a fundamental change in how people view guns in this country, I doubt we will change from the status quo.

Like I said, it has to be small steps. Fundamental changes may not happen overnight and I'm not saying to ban all guns tomorrow, but eventually, a large-scale change in gun outlook isn't impossible. We're not a 3rd world country that doesn't have the means to police this stuff. Its just something we need to grow out of, and there will be plenty of resistance to it at first, but its nothing completely unrealistic. Gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted, recreational marijuana is legal in some places, etc. Things can change.

 

[Angry Grimace]

The obvious solution is to limit guns to the kind that existed when the constitution was written.

McDonald v. Chicago, District of Columbia v. Heller

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Hey, the school WAS a gun-free zone. Wait what?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

A lot of that has to do with aging population though. Compare the US and its average age to the Latin American/Caribbean countries with a much higher murder rate.

I think you're looking at the wrong metric.

Look at economics instead.

Not a bad idea, actually.

which criminals will such a rule stop?

 

[thezerofire]

you certainly might. are you suggesting this scenario is an impossibility?

No, I'm saying it's a little ridiculous to say you need something to apply lethal force in order to defend yourself. Why not something nonlethal? Why is always the claim that you need to be able to kill to be able to defend yourself?

Cameras dont really stop people from doing crime

I'm talking about that particular circumstance

Yes because i dont want to defend myself From someone crazy enough to get in my house.

see above

 

[Choke on the Magic]

I'm ok with this. So you can't take guns outside of your home!

People hunt you know.

 

[Canis lupus]

Yes.

 

[pestul]

Probably posted already, but anyway..

@TheMatthewKeys
NBC News: Weapons used in Connecticut school shooting legally purchased, registered to shooting suspect's mother, source says - @NBC News

 

[Gahiggidy]

Most of gun violence is a direct result of plain vanilla crime, not mass crazed shootings. Crime, poverty and drugs are certainly solvable problems that don't require a change in gun regulation.

 

[7Th]

which criminals will such a rule stop?

Depends on how the rule is enforced. If all you need a gun for is defending your home a handgun with 6 shots top would be all you need and anything else would be illegal.

 

[BruiserBear]

If you walk into a store right now and buy a gun in America, the odds of that gun being used to save your life are far, far lower than the odds of that gun one day killing another person in a non self defense related situation. FACT

 

[Seanspeed]

People hunt you know.

I have friends that enjoy bow-hunting, you know.

 

[dark_prinny]

Yes.

 

[Deified Data]

From Facebook:

Genius. Escalation will solve all our problems.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

I have friends that enjoy bow-hunting, you know.

So because of your anti gun stance I shouldn't be allowed to rifle hunt?

 

[kingkitty]

Gun violence has been dropping since the mid-nineties. As has general violent crime stats. I expect when the economy gets healthy again it will drop even lower.

I was talking about America's attitude towards gun violence but I can see why you'd misinterpret.

 

[Hawkian]

I did. Did you read his previous posts? They tend to stem that both situations could be equal due to the state of the mental stability of the people that carried them out. Then the conversation starts to evolve into comparing the outcome rather than why it happened in the first place.

I replied to the first post he made in this thread, which was "No," (referencing the question in the thread title), "look at China, which happened on the SAME FUCKING DAY." This caught my attention because it appeared that he was equating the two situations. When pressed it turns out this is exactly what he was doing.

I used the phrase "equally senseless" to describe the two tragedies because attacking children is by definition as senseless as possible a premise to discuss. This is vastly different to me than them being "equal" or involving the "same number of damage."

And by the way, I recognize where your angle of defense on his posts is coming from- but the method of attack used by these two disparate psychotic individuals is relevant to what occurred.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

Poor Manos.

 

[7Th]

So because of your anti gun stance I shouldn't be allowed to rifle hunt?

You should be allowed to rifle hunt only if you own a license (gotten after psychological exams and background checks) and your weapons are all registered and tagged with GPS devices.

 

[la flama blanca]

It could have, and that's all the reason why I want gun control.

 

[Seanspeed]

So because of your anti gun stance I shouldn't be allowed to rifle hunt?

If your gun hunting priviledges mean the deaths of ten thousand Americans, then yes.

Just talking from an ideal standpoint.

 

[7Th]

It could have, and that's all the reason why I want gun control.

Stricter gun control would have prevented today's massacre; the weapons were legally purchased.

 

[dark_prinny]

From Facebook:

Genius. Escalation will solve all our problems.

This is terrifiying.

And sad.

 

[Gahiggidy]

You should be allowed to rifle hunt only if you own a license (gotten after psychological exams and background checks) and your weapon are all registered and tagged with GPS devices.

Who would have access to the GPS tracking info?

 

[Choke on the Magic]

You should be allowed to rifle hunt only if you own a license (gotten after psychological exams and background checks) and your weapon are all registered and tagged with GPS devices.

Hey I have no problem with a psychological exam. I already have background checks and my firearms are registered and have proper hunting licensing. You're a bit nutty with the GPS tracking though.

 

[Seanspeed]

Stricter gun control would have prevented today's massacre; the weapons were legally purchased.

Could have.

You can never say that for sure.

But thats a good enough reason for me.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

No, I'm saying it's a little ridiculous to say you need something to apply lethal force in order to defend yourself. Why not something nonlethal? Why is always the claim that you need to be able to kill to be able to defend yourself?

Well, guns should only be used when one has a reasonable threat of grievous bodily harm to you or someone else. That said, "grievious" is a very strong word, commensurate to a "life or death" struggle. If someone feels their life is in danger, a man should be able to defend himself however he can. Non-lethality may not be a realistic option. Criminals can keep coming if pepper sprayed, and tasers typically mean hand-to-hand combat...which could very much be a losing proposition. Projectile tasers like the X26 are pretty much one-shot deals. Miss and you're sol.

If a ranged, non-lethal weapon that could be fired multiple times from distance could be made and sold to consumers for a reasonable price, I'd be all for it. I'm not sure that product exists at the moment. I think such weapons will be the future and whoever can make a commercially-viable weapon that meets this description will be a very wealthy man.

Depends on how the rule is enforced. If all you need a gun for is defending your home a handgun with 6 shots top would be all you need and anything else would be illegal.

fair point. thing is, a guy can reload a 6-shooter in about 2 seconds and the tragedy still happens, just with different equipment.

google "moon clip".

Stricter gun control would have prevented today's massacre; the weapons were legally purchased.

that's quite the assumption. it's a hypothetical that can't be proven or disproven. that may be how you feel about it, but it's far from a fact. IMO, somebody capable of doing this kind of crime is capable of getting his weapons through other means he he had to.

 

[LAUGHTREY]

From Facebook:

Genius. Escalation will solve all our problems.

This...I dont even


I DONT EVEN

 

[coldvein]

But thats a good enough reason for me.

exactly. "could stricter gun control have prevented this?" "maybe". THEN DO IT. jezuz christ people.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

The obvious solution is to limit guns to the kind that existed when the constitution was written.

Liberals embracing originalism is amusing.

 

[Timedog]

I think our recent adventures in the middle east shows you can do quite a lot against modern militaries with small arms and explosives.

LOL, so you think the militias in the middle east even had a fucking fraction of a percentage of a chance of toppling the US military? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. The most a foreign force, on foreign soil could do would be to make the entanglement too annoying to continue. On US soil the military can't just go "aw schucks, this sucks, let's get outta here".

It is not even close to possible for the gun owners of the nation to topple our military by might. The best case scenario would be for the government to give up because they don't want to have to kill/deal with so many people, and the leaders started to have moral objections. A scenario which would be more likely if the secessionists/revolutionists weren't going around shooting at the government constantly.

Potential revolution as a reasoning for the 2nd amendment is as outdated as the first microchip.

 

[7Th]

Who would have access to the GPS tracking info?

Everyone. It should be made public by the government online.

If you own a killing machine everyone that could be harmed by it has the right to know you own it.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Stricter gun control would have prevented today's massacre; the weapons were legally purchased.

How so? What law would have prevented the mother from owning those guns?

 

[LProtag]

As a teacher, fuck every single person saying that teachers should be armed.

Do you want to create a safe environment conducive to learning or are you really just looking to make a place where students go to be afraid all day?

 

[Balphon]

From Facebook:

Genius. Escalation will solve all our problems.

You should ask them if they're in favor of universal conscription, since they seem to be so enamored with the Israeli model.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

If your gun hunting priviledges mean the deaths of ten thousand Americans, then yes.

Just talking from an ideal standpoint.

Fuck your ideal standpoint. I'm a law-biding, tax paying citizen and I'll be damned if you or like minded legislation tries to prevent me from owning a firearm. Whether it be used for hunting, home defense, or general target shooting.

 

[FLEABttn]

which criminals will such a rule stop?

The suggestion that making a law is pointless if people violate it is ludicrous.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Everyone. It should be made public by the government online.

If you own a killing machine everyone that could be harmed by it has the right to know you own it.

Well that sucks for non-gun owning homeowners... as would be home invaders can look up their neighborhood and see which homes have guns and which are unarmed.

 

[Seanspeed]

If a ranged, non-lethal weapon that could be fired multiple times from distance could be made and sold to consumers for a reasonable price, I'd be all for it.

Beanbag rounds are pretty close. Not perfect, but I'm pretty sure something worthy could be R&D'd if people cared enough about it.

 

[Escape Goat]

Teachers should be experts in krav maga