Active Member
Active Member
With a shotgun! Not one piece of legislation will ever impact the shotgun.Originally Posted by onthewall2983
I love how the news coverage doing profiles on him are digging into his political beliefs. To quote their interviews with his classmates: very opinionated Socialist, Keynesian, very strong pro-gun-control beliefs,
Active Member
What is very telling is the lack of celebration or even awareness from the gun-control side on this:
After Newtown, few states restricted guns but 36 expanded mental-health funding
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ealth-funding/
If the gun-control people were really about making positive change toward change and not just limiting access to guns, this would be a pretty monumental win for them.
tempus est umbra in mente
Many of the people who pushed for expanded funding for mental health were undoubtably liberal anti-gun people. What do you want, a "celebration" of the sort where the anti-gun crowd unanimously declares "yay, we no longer want to change gun laws because we've done something about mental illness!"
maybe they're just a little upset because shit like this keeps happening, and they aren't ready to celebrate just yet
Last edited by Jinsai; 12-14-2013 at 07:02 PM.
Active Member
A gain in 36 states on a single topic is HUGE. It hasn't been acknowledged by the majority of people partaking in the "national debate." This was further supported with the recent shooting in CO and the Sandyhook anniversary. To me, that speaks very loudly about the intent of those partaking in that national debate.
Either way, this success is worth examining. You'll notice that this was done at the state level, not federal. The people who spent time looking at the root cause actually made traction. They made progress in SEVENTY TWO PERCENT of the country. Comparatively, Obama and the Democratic Congress tried to treat a symptom by frantically applying some federal "anything is better than nothing" gun-control hinged on emotion and they were rewarded with a massive loss.
tempus est umbra in mente
Are you implying that the majority of voters were opposed to universal background checks? The NRA is a poison here, and their political power and influence is toxic to reasonable gun reform. A loss doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to fight for it.
I know you can't possibly be implying that the people who were fighting for a reassessment of how we treat mental illness came exclusively from the pro-gun community. Also, success for something on a state level doesn't mean federal reform or federal law is therefore a bad idea.
Gun access, especially to people with mental illness, is a major part of the problem here. It's not something you can disregard as merely a "symptom."
Active Member
What does UBC have to do with it? That was just one of the many national proposals that failed. That was the most "agreeable" item but the agreement existed in name only. The logistics weren't included in the polling. Once you got to implementation and execution, it became an obvious that many disagreed with it. All other legislation was much worse off in terms of people agreeing.
No, I'm saying what I've always said about state vs federal: State is the right way to go in almost every situation, especially when it's a controversial topic. It's more localized and localized is better. You get solutions more closely tailored to each group of people. You get more agreement from each group of people. You have more power and chance of success just based on the government model that exists in the USA. You get a faster, more potent, more applicable, and more desirable outcome when you handle it more locally.
I think it's pretty obvious that guns aren't the problem, but it doesn't even matter in this situation. If you think you can limit access to guns in a way that impacts high-profile school/public killings, you will be looking toward lots more failure in the future. Go ahead and keep trying, but that energy could be put toward much more productive ways of dealing with the issue.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 12-14-2013 at 11:58 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
I think it's pretty obvious that a LOT of people disagree.
It's not a single problem. There's a lot of aspects to it. You can say it's obviously not the case, but a lot of people think easy gun access, gun show loopholes, and low restrictions to people with obvious mental problems are a part of the problem. But the NRA doesn't want any new laws passed that have anything to do with guns, and they wield this weird intimidating power.
...and the laws were shut down by politicians who were pressured by the NRA to not pass any gun legislation, not because people weren't unanimously in support of some of them. That's also pretty obvious.
I'm not going to get into a debate about the efficacy of state versus federal law. I know where you stand on this.
Last edited by Jinsai; 12-15-2013 at 12:27 AM.
Active Member
A fact that has been incredibly productive for implementing federal gun-control!
tempus est umbra in mente
well, since it's so obvious to you that no gun control legislation will ever be passed on a federal level (again), and since that's what you want, why do you bother to even chime in on it? It's never gonna happen, so who cares right?A fact that has been incredibly productive for implementing federal gun-control!
Last edited by Jinsai; 12-15-2013 at 12:41 AM.
Active Member
Well firstly, I'm not posting in this subforum under the impression that these threads will have any impact on national discourse or legislation.
Debate is fun. Debate is also a great way to explore ideas. People who engage in debate tend to be passionate. Passion usually results in above average knowledge on the topic. Sitting on a facebook echo-chamber is boring as hell. Diversity is fun.
Active Member
Aren't the people committing those mass shootings declared mentally ill after the fact?
If a kid is declared mentally ill, should the people living in the same house still be able to own guns?
Since mental illness are sometimes hereditary, should the immediate family (parents, brothers, sisters and children of said person) be banned from owning guns?
I mean, if we're gonna talk prevention using mental illness as the only problem, you gotta go all in.
tempus est umbra in mente
My comment was sarcastic. Since we've passed gun control laws on a federal level in the past (hence why you can't buy a fully automatic weapon), why are you so sure that federal laws won't be passed in the future? I know what you prefer, but it spills over into your assessment of what's possible for some reason.
In response to DeepVoid, no, in many cases it was well known that these people were unstable before they went on killing sprees. The Sandy Hook shooter was known to have severe mental problems, but his mother still left weapons around and trained him to use them. For some screwed up reason, that's a perfectly legal thing to do.
Active Member
Effective gun control just isn't possible. To get close, you'd have to repeal/modify the 2nd Amendment and NOBODY is even proposing that. That leaves you with ineffective proposals. What we saw over the last year were ineffective proposals that were heavily tied with emotion and "anything is better than nothing" type thinking. There is huge resistance to that kind of thing. More people are realizing that this approach doesn't do anything. This is the post 9/11 world where people realize that things designed "to keep us safe" like the TSA and war on terror are a waste of resources. People used to be all for that stuff. Remember those days? The horrible early Bush years. Yellow fucking ribbon magnets, etc. Now they realize it's bullshit.
Did you hear about the kid in Santa Monica CA a few months back? He had mental issues. Tried to buy a gun. He got turned down on the background check. So, he built an AR-15 and shot up a school with it. Public shootings are very rare and not worth of our energy compared to the other dangers we could deal with. They are also incredibly hard to stop.
tempus est umbra in mente
It is significantly harder for someone to obtain a fully automatic rifle because of gun control laws. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you can't just walk into a Walmart and buy one.
I consider that to be effective. Call me crazy, but I think restricting access to fully automatic weapons is a good thing, and an obvious step in the right direction.
No, I did not hear about this case. Are you talking about the case where one person was shot in a school? I didn't hear that he was turned down because of a background check. I'd be interested to read more on that.Did you hear about the kid in Santa Monica CA a few months back? He had mental issues. Tried to buy a gun. He got turned down on the background check. So, he built an AR-15 and shot up a school with it.
I guess we'll just have to disagree there.Public shootings are very rare and not worth of our energy compared to the other dangers we could deal with.
Active Member
No. It was the guy who shot his father & brother, set the house on fire, carjacked a stranger and had her drive him around, and randomly shot at people over the drive (killing 3 more, injuring another 3). He also was carrying an antique gun that circumvents most of the regulations out there. It's not like this guy suddenly popped up either. In addition to him being turned down for a gun sale a few years earlier, police searched his house for bombs. This guy was very much on the radar and still managed to pull this stuff off.
http://news.yahoo.com/police-santa-m...032651838.html
(article is a bit off on some of the legal details, but that's the bulk of it)
I can only assume this didn't get national attention because it makes an absolute mockery of the gun laws of a state that is supposed to represent some of the most strict gun laws in the country.
This was also the exact legal bypass that I was mentioning months before this happened: http://www.echoingthesound.org/commu...7937#post77937
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 12-18-2013 at 04:16 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
yeah, I looked into it. The strangest thing about the whole thing is the anti-gun-control people trying to use this as an example of how gun control doesn't work. It's a strange case. The background check prevented him from originally buying a gun. That's a good thing, and he's the exception that went out of his way to BUILD a fucking gun to still carry out the crime.
Never mind that he bought many of the parts for the gun legally.
If you wanted my take, we should have MORE laws to follow up on people with mental problems trying to buy guns. It's fucked up that they're not releasing why he was denied the permission in the first place though.
Active Member
The point is that there will always be a way to circumvent gun access laws. This guy is only an exception because there are few states that have gun control laws that would produce this situation. People who want to do public killing are fairly determined. Most all of them seem very premeditated and fairly planned. You can't really stop them by trying to limit their access to lethal objects. You can't keep drugs out of a prison... how are you going to keep objects out of the free world?
I am also very confused about the ammo he had on him. 1300 rounds... inside 30rd mags... That would be about 44 magazines worth.. how the fuck? The ammo alone would have weighed 40lbs. He also had the equivalent of 2 AR-15's and the pistol... He probably was carrying 50-60lbs, easily. Nobody goes into battle like that. You just can't dump that much ammo. Proof being that he only shot ~100 rounds in his entire spree. Either the kid was playing too many video games or the media is way off.
I'm also curious how he got the 30rd mags that are illegal in CA. It's also pretty easy to build one (it's just a box with a spring) but there are no legal ways to make/procure them.
tempus est umbra in mente
The point is that there will always be a way to circumvent ALL laws, so why have laws right?
Active Member
Let's put it a different way. CA has created a huge market for 80% lowers and the rest of the DIY market BECAUSE they have outright banned the purchase of most AR-15s. If people were still able to walk into a gun store and buy these guns (with background check and registry) this guy wouldn't have had such easy access. He would have been rejected and then had to find a different and more difficult route (theft, black market, etc).
When you create laws that put every single person who wants an AR-15 in the same group as crazy fucker who want to shoot up a school, you create a market situation that helps the crazy fucker. Meanwhile, there are people who think they can fix this by putting more restrictions in place for everyone?! There are forms of regulation that can be somewhat effective, but it gets undone when you start going too far. With the gun control debate so focused on vilifying all gun owners, this is exactly how it will keep going.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 12-18-2013 at 11:29 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
You've already said that mass/school shootings are such a rare thing that you don't think it's worth putting in the effort to prevent it from happening... but somehow, the ONE example where somebody manufactured his own weapon (mostly by buying legal gun parts) to circumvent gun laws is proof we don't need gun laws.
Active Member
Yup. This doesn't change the fact that mass shootings are incredibly rare. The rarity doesn't stop people from trying to further decrease the rate. It doesn't stop you from needing to analyze the outcome of your changes either. If you can't recognize the diminishing returns on prohibitionary action, you shouldn't be involved in implementing the prohibition.
Active Member
NY is now confiscating rifles and shotguns
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/ne...-and-shotguns/
Yea, good luck ever getting gun owners to approve of a registry! It doesn't matter what politician says "we aren't going to take your guns" when this type of thing is happening.
Active Member
I'm all for banning guns that hold more than five rounds.
Active Member
Good luck getting support from gun owners. Also, it's the magazine that holds the rounds, not the gun. Good luck banning a box with a spring in it. CA is still trying to find all the different ways people can get their hands on a box and spring well after they outlawed "high cap magazines."
Bite me
My guns hold only six bullets, each, no magazine. :-)
Last edited by allegro; 12-29-2013 at 01:27 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
Holy shit to the comments on that article. What kind of fucking website is this?
Active Member
7 and 8 rounds aren't too hard to get either. I saw an antique with 12rds too!My guns hold only six bullets, each, no magazine. :-)
Hold on... I GOT THIS!
We ban the sale/transfer of revolvers with more than 5rds capacity. Existing ones will need their chambers permanently blocked down to a 5rd capacity. The reloading clips will have to follow the same rules.
We can exempt antiques. The have wood on them which means they aren't as dangerous. They are basically the same muskets.
Did I forget anything? I don't actually understand guns, I just want to make them go away. Maybe the unregulated chunk of metal with holes drilled into it that could replace the crippled ones?
Bite me
Whatever, my point was that your post forgot that revolvers exist.
Active Member
I actually have comments disabled on most sites. It's not good place to share ideas and the people who do are usually... extremely cringe inducing, no matter the political lean. I actually looked up the background of the site and uh... "Founded in 2010 by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran journalist, and Neil Patel, former chief policy advisor to Vice President Cheney"
...yup! I cringed. That probably explains why I dislike their opinion pieces. You've ruined my effort to judge material only by the content!
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
