OT: 6th grader brings gun to school

[DoobieKeebler]

Stop blaming culture. Everyone knows our culture is fucked up. But until you have a medicine for it, don't use that as an argument.

Taking away guns is easier than trying to fix culture.

Stop being lazy. Culture IS a part of it, and having no idea what to do about it does not change the facts.

 

[TobyTyler]

Stop blaming culture. Everyone knows our culture is fucked up. But until you have a medicine for it, don't use that as an argument.

Taking away guns is easier than trying to fix culture.

Guns are a big part of our culture though so its hard to seperate the two.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Stop being lazy. Culture IS a part of it, and having no idea what to do about it does not change the facts.

It's not about being lazy, it's about picking the right battles to fight. Until you find a solution to crazy, pumping more guns into this culture isn't an answer.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

Once upon a time the hunter got lazy. The hunter told himself, "Why should I go out and hunt when I could stay in?" The hunter happened to be one of the pioneers in his field of Air Infantry (pretend such a field exists). He grafted on a barrel to an aircraft, which he deployed to hunt the wild creatures in his area. He posted the schematics on how to make one of these drones onto a gun advocate website. At first all was good, but then it got into the wrong hands and a slue of killings began taking place. These "drones" were no match for any kind of gun since they would sneak up and kill people from a distance, which made them perfect for hunting. The only times you really see them dropped down were by other drones.

Where should this story head next?

Should the government outlaw and seize as many drones as possible?

OR

Should the government give the right for everyone to have a drone to protect themselves?

Weird hypothetical argument. No point in discussing. Write fiction if you want to talk about a fantasy world, but don't try to make it apply to the world we live in.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

It's not about being lazy, it's about picking the right battles to fight. Until you find a solution to crazy, pumping more guns into this culture isn't an answer.

Bruh, I'm not talking about giving everyone guns or expanding the number of guns, per se. I just think an outright ban is a bad idea.

If you support an outright ban, we aren't gonna go anywhere in this argument and I respectfully agree to disagree, though I appreciate hearing what you have to say if you care to expand.

I've already went through 10 or so pages of arguing with people, I don't need to piss off a mod...

 

[abaskin18]

My "made up" quotation was me being facetious. You should know that.

As for your list, I'd support everything you've put forth in this post. I've never needed to use the aforementioned Bushmaster, or rifles akin to it, so I can easily sweep that under the "ban it" rug because it does not affect me, though I am interested in hearing what people who use it have to say, but that is a discussion for another day. I also agree with your opinions on mental health check ups and don't see why extended waiting periods would be bad as long as it serves a purpose.

In going further than what you have listed, ideally I would like to find a way for potential gun owners, in a reasonable way, have to either learn, or prove their ability to responsibly handle a gun, though I struggle with how I would work that out in the real world. And heck, I'd almost want to make gun-safes mandatory, though have no idea how that would be enforced.

Gun control is a really difficult subject to think of because it is so complicated, and I think the crazies on the extremes of both sides ruin it for the rest of us because someone like me ends up arguing over semantics and hypotheticals.

I'm happy you'd support it, but I'd be curious if you would suggest it. The reason I ask that is I do believe the vast majority are gun owners are much closer to your line of thinking here in this last post than the politicians and lobbyists that fight every restriction tooth and nail using many of the rationales we've seen in the debate here in this thread (Guns don't kill people, it's culture, gun laws aren't effective, etc.).

So where is the outspoken gun owning crowd calling for assault weapons restrictions, waiting periods, etc.? My conclusion, as I stated above, is I think they want to keep their toys and are content with the fringe protecting their so called rights to those toys. That's not fact or anything, just what I believe, so I would be curious to hear why you think that isn't happening.

 

[I_am_1z]

Weird hypothetical argument. No point in discussing. Write fiction if you want to talk about a fantasy world, but don't try to make it apply to the world we live in.

But drones aren't fictional. And some would argue 3-D printing could allow people to create these freely inside there home.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

I usually stay out of these battles but thought I would chime in. I'm usually okay with people having guns since it was installed as our 2nd amendment and feel people deserve the right to protect themselves. But I also realize that the world and guns were a lot different when that amendment was put into place.

There is absolutely no need for all these high powered rifles that when used can just spray bullets like its nothing. I'm a fan of banning certain guns and would like to see the list as they come up with it. Shooting will still happen regardless because there are always people that will break the law and be able to get there hands on them. But it's clear we need to start somewhere and if banning certain guns is the 1st step then so be it.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

I'm happy you'd support it, but I'd be curious if you would suggest it. The reason I ask that is I do believe the vast majority are gun owners are much closer to your line of thinking here in this last post than the politicians and lobbyists that fight every restriction tooth and nail using many of the rationales we've seen in the debate here in this thread (Guns don't kill people, it's culture, gun laws aren't effective, etc.).

So where is the outspoken gun owning crowd calling for assault weapons restrictions, waiting periods, etc.? My conclusion, as I stated above, is I think they want to keep their toys and are content with the fringe protecting their so called rights to those toys. That's not fact or anything, just what I believe, so I would be curious to hear why you think that isn't happening.

Wouldn't suggest it probably, but only because I'm not on the pulse enough to have ideas of how to implement those ideas. I would most likely agree with the legislation if someone spearheaded a bill, though.

As to your question, I think realistic gun laws don't happen because complex solutions to a complex problem are not easily broken down into soundbites for 24 hour news cycles. All people hear is 1 sentence from Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann that "America wants to take your guns away/let your children be shot." And the NRA outspends their opponents by a 73-1 margin, so that is, I think, why we hear so little about rational gun laws. Congress gets lobbied by the NRA, and places like San Francisco get (substantially less) press for trying to ban guns outright. Neither are right, IMO, but voters get put in a position where (like elections) they choose what they see as a lesser of two evils.

 

[abaskin18]

Wouldn't suggest it probably, but only because I'm not on the pulse enough to have ideas of how to implement those ideas. I would most likely agree with the legislation if someone spearheaded a bill, though.

As to your question, I think realistic gun laws don't happen because complex solutions to a complex problem are not easily broken down into soundbites for 24 hour news cycles. All people hear is 1 sentence from Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann that "America wants to take your guns away/let your children be shot." And the NRA outspends their opponents by a 73-1 margin, so that is, I think, why we hear so little about rational gun laws. Congress gets lobbied by the NRA, and places like San Francisco get (substantially less) press for trying to ban guns outright. Neither are right, IMO, but voters get put in a position where (like elections) they choose what they see as a lesser of two evils.

Interesting hypothesis if I'm reading you correctly. Do you think the gun owning community would be largely like minded in supporting the legislation we've discussed here if they weren't up against such obstacles and could simply write a letter to a representative?

I'm not trying to minimize what you've said here, at all. I think those obstacles are all valid. I just don't think they justify sitting on the sidelines if people really did want a change. My contention is that they do not, in fact, want that change so I understand why the sit idly by or regurgitate arguments that gridlock the process. I don't understand how you (again, if I'm reading you correctly) manage to reconcile being merely reactive if you indeed want that change though.

In any case, I'm very happy to see where this discussion went, at least our last few back and forths anyway.

 

[TobyTyler]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I read this to mean if you are in a well regulated militia then you have the right to possess and bear your own arms. Nowhere in America is the bearing of arms well regulated however. I don't think the wirters of the 2nd Amendment had the idea at all that this act would authorize just anyone to possess a gun

 

[NinerSickness]

I don't think the wirters of the 2nd Amendment had the idea at all that this act would authorize just anyone to possess a gun

Considering that just about everyone back then owned guns, yes they did.

By the way, I have the perfect solution to the gun issue. We should just make murder illegal! That would solve everything.

 

[TobyTyler]

Considering that just about everyone back then owned guns, yes they did.

I doubt it. Otherwie there would have been no need for the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part of it. They'd have just said "All people have the right to bear arms". Those cats weren't as dumb as you think. They were a brand new government ripe for overthrow; the last thing they wanted was armed citizens roaming the streets.

 

[TobyTyler]

Considering that just about everyone back then owned guns, yes they did.

By the way, I have the perfect solution to the gun issue. We should just make murder illegal! That would solve everything.

Where you been Cheetah; murder is illegal.

 

[Rvnight18]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I read this to mean if you are in a well regulated militia then you have the right to possess and bear your own arms. Nowhere in America is the bearing of arms well regulated however. I don't think the wirters of the 2nd Amendment had the idea at all that this act would authorize just anyone to possess a gun

That's not the original amendment you wrote. Punctuation means everything.

 

[TobyTyler]

That's not the original amendment you wrote. Punctuation means everything.

It is the one ratified by congress and written by Thomas Jefferson. That's the one that counts.

 

[Rvnight18]

And by that I mean this. It is state that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. And among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean we only get those three. But we get more. Too many people don't know that the more is based on natural law which the founders believed derived from god. Just a little OT there...

 

[abaskin18]

And by that I mean this. It is state that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. And among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean we only get those three. But we get more. Too many people don't know that the more is based on natural law which the founders believed derived from god. Just a little OT there...

Not presumptive at all there.

Whatever though, I'm not getting into a discussion about the 2nd Amendment. To me it's not really at the heart or really anywhere close to why people want/have guns. It's just the thin justification people can run to. Likewise, I don't think people evoke the 5th Amendment on principle either.

 

[NinerSickness]

Those cats weren't as dumb as you think. They were a brand new government ripe for overthrow; the last thing they wanted was armed citizens roaming the streets.

That's exactly what they wanted. They were extremely wary of totalitarian governments, and they wanted people to be able to defend their families & property so that there wasn't a reason to have a standing army.

The more people who own guns the safer the society is. It's called mutually assured destruction. Nobody wants it.

 

[abaskin18]

That's exactly what they wanted. They were extremely wary of totalitarian governments, and they wanted people to be able to defend their families & property so that there wasn't a reason to have a standing army.

The more people who own guns the safer the society is. It's called mutually assured destruction. Nobody wants it.

If only.