The God Damned Gun Control Thread

[[m'kay]]

Oh good gawd!

Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

What a compelling argument, tell us more! Also, this kinda goes out to everyone, but why are you guys uploading every image as an attachment? It puts useless strain on the servers, looks far worse than just putting it in IMG tags, and imgur is a perfectly free file hosting service that might take two seconds longer than putting it up as an attachment.

[Doves]

Oh good gawd!

The attachment Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg is no longer available

What a compelling argument, tell us more! Also, this kinda goes out to everyone, but why are you guys uploading every image as an attachment? It puts useless strain on the servers, looks far worse than just putting it in IMG tags, and imgur is a perfectly free file hosting service that might take two seconds longer than putting it up as an attachment.

[Son]

[CommanderOtto]

this thread is starting to be interesting

[mrjamwin]

There is absolutely no reason to take away a persons right to defend his home and family. Do any of you folks arguing for gun control realize that laws only apply to law abiding citizens? The criminals do now and still would have firearms. Disarming the rest just turns us all into targets.
Making comparisons of U.S. firearm laws to European nations is like saying "the golf ball fits in the cup, the basketball would fit".

Haas, you're bringing logic and facts to this discussion which liberal people who can't understand facts or logic continue to agrue the subject by using only their emotions and saying "that's not fair" You should know better by now! Crater will still continue with his emotional [female dog] and bring little or nothing to this discussion.

I finally found a picture of Mr. Jamwin!

mr jamwin.jpg

I resemble that remark!!

[Darth Crater]

Just realized I missed this, sorry MD.

It's not outdated and I find it laughable that anyone thinks that it is. I challenge anyone in our current times to write a piece of legislation as well thought out and simple as the Constitution is and to have it last for 200+ years. Every piece of legislation we pass these days is a bloated waste of time that generally ends up with a ton of loopholes. The people in DC are clowns and we let them stay there for as long as they please because we treat elections like a high school popularity contest. But back on task here, if there is a piece of the Constitution we don't like, then by all means, get it changed. The means to do so are there.

You're right; poor wording on my part. Sections of it are outdated.

We're being "invaded" by those who have no regard for our Constitution. They are succeeding because we are a complacent, all inclusive society that doesn't know when or how to control this "invasion". It's funny, because as violent as we are made out to be, the US is one of the nicest and most giving countries in the world.

Who, exactly, are these "invaders"? "No regard for the Constitution" is difficult to measure, so I have no clue who you're actually talking about, sorry.

Do I maintain my weapons for an "invasion" of the US?? lol, no. I have and keep weapons for the safety of myself and my family. I DO NOT own any "assault" rifles but I will as time goes by, it's just not been a priority. Banning a style of rifle is ridiculous and stupid and lands us on a slippery slope that will only end in black market weapons and making lawbreakers out of law abiding citizens and the government will have no control over it. As it stands right now, the government generally knows who has what and where. There are enough laws in place already. The problem is that we enforce the laws we have but then release the offenders too quickly because A) we don't have the room to hold them, B) we don't have the funds to hold them or C) we don't have the intestinal fortitude to hold them. There is no effective rehab for someone who doesn't want rehab. Whatever the case, they are back on the street in no time and we start all over.

I've already talked about the "safety of your family" thing. It's entirely reasonable to ban a style of rifle that only facilitates mass murders. If there's no good reason to ban guns further, they won't be - it's called the slippery slope fallacy for a reason. I don't see how releasing offenders would also return their guns to them, as long as we attempt to prevent illegal weapon sales.

Crater, there are parts of our society that are a lot more violent than the others. Why is that and what is your solution for it? Or do you not agree with that and believe we are all equally violent? If so then what? Should we restrict Hollywood? Burn books? Let the White House write our newspaper? Kill everyone at Fox News? Kill all the crazies? Besides "gun control" what are your ideas?

Obviously we agree that none of the "solutions" you listed are desirable. I'd have to know which "parts" you think are more violent before getting into detail, but as I said to Homestar, raising basic standards of living and treating mental illness will certainly help.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

He had mental health issues that were not being sufficiently addressed and it sounds like the mom was out of options other than having him unwillfully committed. Hence the kid flipped out and did what he did. As the facts stand now I fault the mom for not keeping her firearms properly stored.

While mental health is certainly a key factor in determining our overall well-being and ability to function, this particular case does not resemble the arguments being made.

Lanza was diagnosed with Asbergers Syndrome (sort of a lesser form of autism), and also something we know very little about. However, violent outbreaks is not something characteristic of someone suffering from Asbergers.

In fact, using this site, we can see that most patients do

Not pick up on social cues and may lack inborn social skills, such as being able to read others' body language, start or maintain a conversation, and take turns talking.
Dislike any changes in routines.
Appear to lack empathy.
Be unable to recognize subtle differences in speech tone, pitch, and accent that alter the meaning of others? speech. So your child may not understand a joke or may take a sarcastic comment literally. And his or her speech may be flat and hard to understand because it lacks tone, pitch, and accent.
Have a formal style of speaking that is advanced for his or her age. For example, the child may use the word "beckon" instead of "call" or the word "return" instead of "come back."
Avoid eye contact or stare at others.
Have unusual facial expressions or postures.
Be preoccupied with only one or few interests, which he or she may be very knowledgeable about. Many children with Asperger's syndrome are overly interested in parts of a whole or in unusual activities, such as designing houses, drawing highly detailed scenes, or studying astronomy. They may show an unusual interest in certain topics such as snakes, names of stars, or dinosaurs.
Talk a lot, usually about a favorite subject. One-sided conversations are common. Internal thoughts are often verbalized.
Have delayed motor development. Your child may be late in learning to use a fork or spoon, ride a bike, or catch a ball. He or she may have an awkward walk. Handwriting is often poor.
Have heightened sensitivity and become overstimulated by loud noises, lights, or strong tastes or textures. For more information about these symptoms, see sensory processing disorder.

and many of these symptoms fade as the child/teen grows up.

[WD-40]

While invading through an artic route is actually feasible and something we constantly considered the soviets might do during the Cold War, invading through S. America and Mexico would be a lot easier.

The overall point is to circumnavigate our essentially unstoppable navy.

Oh, look, an actual argument for arctic invasion not based purely on ad hominem attacks!

I guess it does make more sense than directly attacking our coasts, but that's rather faint praise. Going through Canada would ironically be like invading Russia - look at how well that worked for Napoleon and Hitler. And their supply lines didn't have to cross an ocean.

Tell me exactly where I said anything about a 'land' invasion using ships or marching across the North Pole and Canada?!? I said 'flying', which implies 'flying' troops and equipment in. Lots of heavy lift, long range military aircraft can do great things. and just HOW do you propose Russia sneak troops, equipment and supplies to South America or Mexico without us knowing it? Last i checked, they dont own any real estate down there. hell, our Sats will see them coming from the North too, but it would at least be more of a surprise for us and far less distance travelled for them. And if they come from the North...Guess what? they just circumvented our unstoppable Navy! Get your head out of the history books, join the Military and learn that way.

[[m'kay]]

While invading through an artic route is actually feasible and something we constantly considered the soviets might do during the Cold War, invading through S. America and Mexico would be a lot easier.

The overall point is to circumnavigate our essentially unstoppable navy.

Oh, look, an actual argument for arctic invasion not based purely on ad hominem attacks!

I guess it does make more sense than directly attacking our coasts, but that's rather faint praise. Going through Canada would ironically be like invading Russia - look at how well that worked for Napoleon and Hitler. And their supply lines didn't have to cross an ocean.

Tell me exactly where I said anything about a 'land' invasion using ships or marching across the North Pole and Canada?!? I said 'flying', which implies 'flying' troops and equipment in. Lots of heavy lift, long range military aircraft can do great things. and just HOW do you propose Russia sneak troops, equipment and supplies to South America or Mexico without us knowing it? Last i checked, they dont own any real estate down there. hell, our Sats will see them coming from the North too, but it would at least be more of a surprise for us and far less distance travelled for them. And if they come from the North...Guess what? they just circumvented our unstoppable Navy! Get your head out of the history books, join the Military and learn that way.

So this entire scenario of yours relies entirely on nobody noticing an entire invasion force from Russia, Canada not noticing that same invasion force flying through their country, and Russia suddenly forgetting that we have nukes. And you're telling Crater he's got no idea what he's talking about. If Crater needs to get his head out of the history books, you need to get your head out of whatever delusional fantasy world you've thrown yourself into. I have no idea why you're trying to defend this insanity in a thread that has very little to do with an invasion scenario, but you look ridiculous. For someone who keeps citing government and military experience, you don't really seem to grasp how powerful the military might of the United States is, or the fact that there's a rather large country just to the north of us that would functionally be allied with us in the event of such an attack.

And even ignoring that, you seem to be so focused on how Russia would attack us that you don't have any reasons as to why Russia would attack us. Putin isn't an idiot. When he thinks of the US, his first thought isn't "ah yes, in a time of a global recession and through a massive amount of losses, I will seize the United States and then just sort of hope they don't fire nukes if by some ridiculous fluke I should win". People are a lot less pissed at the United States than you seem to believe they are. If you look at the news sites, sure everyone seems really upset, but those are the people who are on the news because they give a [poo] about global politics. The majority of people in other countries sure as hell don't want to go to war against the US, because we're not causing them any trouble and it would just cause a huge [poo] storm. The world isn't teetering on the brink of war, and so long as mutually assured destruction is a problem it's very unlikely for it ever to become that way.

If an invasion were to occur, it would start with an immaculately planned covert operation in which the majority of the government was captured and/or executed, with priority placed on those who are capable of launching nuclear weapons. It would not be an attack that could be predicted by a child, using a ridiculous method with no logical reasoning behind it. After the execution of the highest ranks of government, perhaps that sort of movement could be used as a shock and awe tactic, but even then it would be foolish at best. The only way this could feasibly happen is after the executions, Russia sends out a nation-wide broadcast proclaiming they have control of the entire United States nuclear supply (which would be nearly impossible to arrange, mind) and an order for the United States military to stand down. Basically for this to happen we'd have to be living in the worst of terrible B-Movies. This isn't meant as an attack on you WD, but good god. If you're going to argue on a tangent, then at least make it a comprehensible one.

[Darth Crater]

While mental health is certainly a key factor in determining our overall well-being and ability to function, this particular case does not resemble the arguments being made.

Lanza was diagnosed with Asbergers Syndrome (sort of a lesser form of autism), and also something we know very little about. However, violent outbreaks is not something characteristic of someone suffering from Asbergers.

Since Asperger's is something you know very little about, perhaps you should refrain from bringing it up? It is not a mental illness, and has no association with violence. Mentioning it at all simply confuses the issue.

Anyone willing to commit mass murder is mentally ill by definition.

Lots of heavy lift, long range military aircraft can do great things.

Yes, they will make excellent target practice.