Obama being a dumbass again

[peplaw06]

The worst school mass killing in USA history wasn't done with guns by the way. If there were zero guns out there bad people would still find ways to do awful things.

Are bombs legal?

 

[peplaw06]

What law is in place to attempts to remove guns that are already in the hands of the criminal?

Not exactly sure what you're trying to get at here... but in Texas it is illegal for any felon to have possession of a firearm. Don't know if that's an answer to your question or not.

 

[VTA]

I think it's pretty clear what tool needs to be focused on here.

I think it’s simply a matter of convenience and not the tool. Taking away the gun changes nothing as the killer simply adapts. 200+ year old allowances and the inanimate objects they protect are not what’s ailing this generation.

 

[peplaw06]

I think it’s simply a matter of convenience and not the tool. Taking away the gun changes nothing as the killer simply adapts. 200+ year old allowances and the inanimate objects they protect are not what’s ailing this generation.

They may adapt, but can they adapt to something that's as deadly and effective for their purposes?

The idea that we shouldn't try to solve this issue by restricting ownership of guns, simply because the people who want to do bad things will still do bad things is just laziness.

I mean, maybe we should just legalize killing children altogether. We tried to legislate it out, but it still happens. Time to give up right?

 

[VTA]

Yes, they’ll adapt to something much worse, like homemade bombs. Which is entirely indiscriminate in terms of destruction. There’s nothing lazy about recognizing a futile idea. Rather it’s lazy to think the entire problem can be simplified into blaming inanimate objects for the complex short-comings of an entire culture that's regressed to the point of suicidal tendencies. It’s not simply any single aspect, it’s all aspects involved, from morals, bad judgement, junk science and over-arching misunderstanding of human nature. Removing the gun won't even begin to fix that.

There isn’t a simple solution and frankly we lack the conviction to self examine our own habits to come to a conclusion on how to solve such a problem.

 

[Scot]

Not exactly sure what you're trying to get at here... but in Texas it is illegal for any felon to have possession of a firearm. Don't know if that's an answer to your question or not.

That's nationwide, not just Texas. But my point is that gun control doesn't do a single thing to actively remove illegally obtained firearms that are already in the hands of the criminal.

The laws work to make it and more difficult for a criminal to legally obtain a firearm. But that entire idea is flawed in that it assumes criminals obtain firearms legally. They don't! No criminal wants a gun that can ever be traced back to them. They buy their guns illegally so no amount of new firearm regulations will effect them since they are not buying them from a licensed firearm dealer.

Laws that are already in place allow a criminal to be prosecuted if caught with an illegal firearm. But no new law attempts to reduce the illegal guns that are in the possession of the criminal already. No new law attempts to go after and remove the illegal guns that are already in circulation.

The only thing new gun regulations serve to do is make more types of guns illegal for everyone including law abiding citizens or make it more difficult to obtain a gun legally. Again that assumes that a criminal is going to buy a gun legally. They don't

 

[peplaw06]

Yes, they’ll adapt to something much worse, like homemade bombs. Which is entirely indiscriminate in terms of destruction. There’s nothing lazy about recognizing a futile idea. Rather it’s lazy to think the entire problem can be simplified into blaming inanimate objects for the complex short-comings of an entire culture that's regressed to the point of suicidal tendencies. It’s not simply any single aspect, it’s all aspects involved, from morals, bad judgement, junk science and over-arching misunderstanding of human nature. Removing the gun won't even begin to fix that.

There isn’t a simple solution and frankly we lack the conviction to self examine our own habits to come to a conclusion on how to solve such a problem.

So our country just doesn't have the conviction to solve a problem that all these other developed countries have solved...? (When I say solved, I'm using your terminology, and they have to the extent that they don't deal with mass killings at the rate we do.)

 

[peplaw06]

That's nationwide, not just Texas. But my point is that gun control doesn't do a single thing to actively remove illegally obtained firearms that are already in the hands of the criminal.

The laws work to make it and more difficult for a criminal to legally obtain a firearm. But that entire idea is flawed in that it assumes criminals obtain firearms legally. They don't! No criminal wants a gun that can ever be traced back to them. They buy their guns illegally so no amount of new firearm regulations will effect them since they are not buying them from a licensed firearm dealer.

Laws that are already in place allow a criminal to be prosecuted if caught with an illegal firearm. But no new law attempts to reduce the illegal guns that are in the possession of the criminal already. No new law attempts to go after and remove the illegal guns that are already in circulation.

The only thing new gun regulations serve to do is make more types of guns illegal for everyone including law abiding citizens or make it more difficult to obtain a gun legally. Again that assumes that a criminal is going to buy a gun legally. They don't

Oh, there are firearm regulations that would work, but you're not going to like those solutions.

You're basically ending up with a set of laws that ban the production of guns, and allows law enforcement to pursue guns in people's houses. Is that what you want?

 

[Scot]

I personally don't want any further gun regulations.

Especially since they are ineffective and only serve to restrict the law abiding citizen from legally purchase and own a firearm

I am in no way saying this I have the answer

I personally don't believe there is an answer that would actually work to remove firearms from the hands of criminals without removing the right to own from the overall population

 

[VTA]

So our country just doesn't have the conviction to solve a problem that all these other developed countries have solved...? (When I say solved, I'm using your terminology, and they have to the extent that they don't deal with mass killings at the rate we do.)

Have they solved any mass killing problems or were they simply not as prevalent? There's a difference between the two.

For the most part, our population and cultural differences should be enough to end the constant grass-is-always-greener examples of pointing to Europe. And considering the mass immigration problem that's just begun, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Europe is going to be a much different place soon, with a list of statistics that we will not envy.

All that aside, there doesn't exist universal solutions to diverse problems. If our country isn't going to face the complexities of the problem and continues to think it's a simple matter that can be legislated by adding a new law on top of a mountain of already existing laws, then no, it does not have the conviction. It doesn't have the conviction of self-examination, and it doesn't have the clarity to accept that we're not in any way 'United' by a common moral or ethic.

Celebrate diversity! Then become mortified when a diverging set of ethics collide. :/

 

[dbair1967]

Are bombs legal?

Not sure I am getting whatever point you are trying to make.

 

[dbair1967]

As far as male suspects go (which is 94% of the killers), 73% do it by gun. 6% by knife, 8% by arson, 0% by strangulation, 4% by beating, and 9% "other." I think it's pretty clear what tool needs to be focused on here.

The fact is most of the guns that do all these killings are acquired legally.

If somehow tomorrow there was some sort of extreme left wing fruit cake law banning guns no matter what, that 73% would simply be done with some other form of weapon, "tool", etc etc

BAD PEOPLE WILL FIND WAYS TO DO BAD THINGS, especially if they have mental issues.

 

[peplaw06]

Have they solved any mass killing problems or were they simply not as prevalent? There's a difference between the two.

They weren't as prevalent here until what, the late 90s/early 00s? Something must have happened to have this explosion of violence here that they don't generally see. It just seems obvious that other developed countries don't have the problems we do, and the one thing they all have that we don't is pretty severe firearm restrictions. Occam's razor just might be relevant here.

For the most part, our population and cultural differences should be enough to end the constant grass-is-always-greener examples of pointing to Europe. And considering the mass immigration problem that's just begun, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Europe is going to be a much different place soon, with a list of statistics that we will not envy.

What cultural differences cause young white males to shoot white children in schools?

And if the mass immigration problem is going to cause Europe to explode in violence, then we're going to have the same problem, right? Or is mass immigration not a problem here?

All that aside, there doesn't exist universal solutions to diverse problems. If our country isn't going to face the complexities of the problem and continues to think it's a simple matter that can be legislated by adding a new law on top of a mountain of already existing laws, then no, it does not have the conviction. It doesn't have the conviction of self-examination, and it doesn't have the clarity to accept that we're not in any way 'United' by a common moral or ethic.

Celebrate diversity! Then become mortified when a diverging set of ethics collide. :/

So, I'm interested... What conviction does the country need in your opinion? How would you propose going about solving the problem? You think we need to impose a common moral or ethic upon people? How do you do that without legislation? Cause a solution that goes along these lines sounds really scary to me... and not like something you would be in favor of at all.

 

[peplaw06]

Not sure I am getting whatever point you are trying to make.

The point is, you don't see bombs used in mass killings domestically as often as you see mass killings committed by firearms. One of these "tools" is illegal to own or manufacture, the other isn't.

The fact is most of the guns that do all these killings are acquired legally.

Exactly! The guns are acquired legally, and they just happen to be the tool most often used to commit mass killings. Like, it sounds to me that if chemical weapons were legal to own and people were acquiring chemical weapons legally, and using them to kill hundreds of people, we might, you know, consider making them illegal.

If somehow tomorrow there was some sort of extreme left wing fruit cake law banning guns no matter what, that 73% would simply be done with some other form of weapon, "tool", etc etc

BAD PEOPLE WILL FIND WAYS TO DO BAD THINGS, especially if they have mental issues.

Bad people will do bad things... I've never argued that. The question is why shouldn't we make it more difficult for bad people to do bad things?

Let's say John Doe bad guy is going to go shoot up a movie theater and kill 20 people with a legally obtained semi-automatic weapon. If you made the semi-automatic weapon illegal to obtain -- that would, by definition, make it more difficult to obtain -- and he is forced to go purchase a less-effective (even if legal) weapon and he can only kill 10 people, that's a win in my book. No?

 

[Scot]

If someone wants a semi auto rifle and is serious about committing mass murder and they are made illegal then they will still obtain them. They will just do it illegally and pay more for the weapon. It won't solve the issue. Nor would it decrease the frequency

 

[peplaw06]

If someone wants a semi auto rifle and is serious about committing mass murder and they are made illegal then they will still obtain them. They will just do it illegally and pay more for the weapon. It won't solve the issue. Nor would it decrease the frequency

If it were made harder to gain access to a semi-automatic weapon, it would absolutely decrease the frequency.

 

[VTA]

They weren't as prevalent here until what, the late 90s/early 00s? Something must have happened to have this explosion of violence here that they don't generally see. It just seems obvious that other developed countries don't have the problems we do, and the one thing they all have that we don't is pretty severe firearm restrictions. Occam's razor just might be relevant here.

That’s my point: Europe and other countries have not solved anything; they just haven’t had to deal with it. There is no hypothesis, just singularly an absence of experience that states these nations can’t serve as examples for how to handle our own dilemma.

What cultural differences cause young white males to shoot white children in schools?

And if the mass immigration problem is going to cause Europe to explode in violence, then we're going to have the same problem, right? Or is mass immigration not a problem here?

Why constrain it to race? The Oregon shooter is black and so was the disgruntled anchor-man. Singling out a race certainly doesn’t simplify the problem. (The U.S. is predominantly white, so it goes that most everything, both good and bad is going to have a white majority to it).

Any and all cultural differences can and do result in violence. This country is so far frigging divided you’d be hard pressed to attribute any singular cultural influence as an over-arching factor. One clown cries discrimination, another cites an inability to get laid. One spouts anarchist views, another hides behind depression. No society can tackle all of these human elements because that’s just what they are: part of the human condition. Add in the political, religious and mass media agitations of any and all human diversities and you get a the mess you see now. How complex a problem that won’t be fixed, and definitely not through the dismantling of our constitutional rights. You can't function under the assumption that simply acting is actually doing something valuable.

***

The un-enviable stat that’s soon going to become crystal clear is the European views on gun laws and their effects. The Le Pen incident provided a perfect example, as some schmuck with a smart-phone records the action of a terrorist murdering a cop. If Le-Progressive had the ability to own and train himself with a gun he might have been pointing that at a terrorist, sparing an innocent life instead of recording the death of cop.

And yes, our day is coming. We have a small sampling in the case of Freddie Akoa murdered in the state of Maine, by 3 Islamists brought to you by the wonderful Refugee Resettlement Program. (Kind of ironic that Islamist are going bat-shit crazy persecuting Chrisitians and such and as a result the refugees our lovely leaders import are… Islamists. :/) So Freddie of Maine is now dead, with his bloody bible next to him after being beaten for hours by 3 Sudanese Islamists and with more to come and the judge seals the fucking file.

So! On one hand you have a political establishment calling for restricting our rights to own guns, on the other that same political establishment is promising to import thousands more ‘refugees’ into our country. Are you sure you want to join the chorus of gun control?

So, I'm interested... What conviction does the country need in your opinion? How would you propose going about solving the problem? You think we need to impose a common moral or ethic upon people? How do you do that without legislation? Cause a solution that goes along these lines sounds really scary to me... and not like something you would be in favor of at all.

How arrogant would I have to be to think I could solve this mess? Sure I can identify a festering wound, but I wouldn’t get on board with trying to heal it. But as for our conviction we can start with facing the ugly facts that not all ideas are created equal. That multiculturalism is an experiment that leads to chaos and we shouldn’t respect all cultures, religions and ideological systems, simply because they exist. We can look at the ugly fact that we’ve allowed ourselves to be conditioned to accept almost anything as long as it’s packaged nice, be it political, religious or even scientific.

We can stop being afraid to acknowledge that our constitutional allowances are being badly abused, from the Westboro Baptist Anti-Christs to social agitators like Farrakhan and historically Sharpton. Sorry, we all love freedom of speech, but if espousing a biblical view on marriage can result in losing your job, then calls to rise up and kill should not be able to hide behind any amendment.

Just to name a few.

Edit: Though I should add: we'd do much better to recognize that when a situation is politicized, it's normally to our benefit to opt out of either sides arguments and talking points and ask what their advantages are in pursuing their agenda. With the number of murders going on in this nation for such various reasons, the need to focus on one is a dead give-away.

 

[dbair1967]

The point is, you don't see bombs used in mass killings domestically as often as you see mass killings committed by firearms. One of these "tools" is illegal to own or manufacture, the other isn't.

Better check overseas dude.

Exactly! The guns are acquired legally, and they just happen to be the tool most often used to commit mass killings. Like, it sounds to me that if chemical weapons were legal to own and people were acquiring chemical weapons legally, and using them to kill hundreds of people, we might, you know, consider making them illegal.

When alcohol was illegal what did people that wanted it do? What do people that want illegal drugs do?

Bad people will do bad things... I've never argued that. The question is why shouldn't we make it more difficult for bad people to do bad things?

I don't know how you do it, but banning guns and installing more anti gun laws wont make a hill of beans of difference. Those same people will find ways to get guns somewhere or simply turn to some other means for doing what they want.

Let's say John Doe bad guy is going to go shoot up a movie theater and kill 20 people with a legally obtained semi-automatic weapon. If you made the semi-automatic weapon illegal to obtain -- that would, by definition, make it more difficult to obtain -- and he is forced to go purchase a less-effective (even if legal) weapon and he can only kill 10 people, that's a win in my book. No?

You have no proof hat you say would happen. Maybe he just hauls in 10 different guns and uses them all. Maybe he decides to pour 50 gallons of gasoline on a building full of people and then throw some matches on it.

 

[dbair1967]

If it were made harder to gain access to a semi-automatic weapon, it would absolutely decrease the frequency.

No, it wouldnt.

I don't know how a sane person could eve argue such non-sense.

 

[Scot]

If it were made harder to gain access to a semi-automatic weapon, it would absolutely decrease the frequency.

And what proof do you have of this?

They have been made harder to obtain over the years. In the past 20-30 years there have been many laws put in place regarding semi auto rifles. The problem with your theory is that the mass murders are happening with greater frequency now more than ever as opposed to decreasing like you believe they should.

So your theory is incorrect. We have had semi auto rifles since WWII in the 40's, and the dreaded M16/AR15 since 1956 which didn't become popular till Vietnam in the 60's/70's. So people have had access to AR15's for the last 60 years and other assorted semi autos for longer than that.

Laws regulating the civilian version the AR15 from what I can remember started in the 80's and have continued to this day. So since the 80's they have continuously been making them harder to obtain and regulating the accessories that are allowed such as high capacity magazines

For the last 35 years they have worked towards an outright ban of the AR15. They know an outright ban will be almost impossible to obtain so they keep trying to modify them and neuter them little by little. The only thing that would work is complete ban. They have attempted to pass the outright ban since 1994 with the Federal Assault Weapon Ban and virtually every year since which hasn't worked and will never work.

If they ever do succeed in banning semi auto rifles there is still the problem of semi auto pistols. So an assault weapon ban wouldn't solve the problem. It would just change the weapon of choice