Quantcast
The US Politics |OT|

Forums - Politics Discussion - The US Politics |OT|

the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

So what can be done about it?

-universal background checks

-programs to help mental illness

-programs to deal with extremist propaganda

There, 3 things that can be done without even banning a single gun.  

All three sound perfectly reasonable. The devil is in the details.

Jaicee said:
KLAMarine said:

Don't mean to ruin your fun or anything but you're not supposed to allow me to see this. Now I can actively avoid them, not that I would have resorted to most of these... You're in for a boring bingo game I'm afraid.

I do have to point some out as I find them to be potentially valid points: "criminals don't obey laws" and "when seconds count, police are minutes away". Is something untrue about these two?

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away" is the only one that strikes me as a valid argument. [sarcasm] Which explains exactly why you need to have a semi-automatic instead of just a normal hand gun. It also explains why the NRA opposes the sale of smart guns that recognize their owner's fingerprints only fire when they pull the trigger. [/sarcasm]

The fact is that gun violence does, in fact, drop off starkly when stricter gun laws are in place.

Well if I was defending myself against someone else with a gun, I'm going to want as much in my favor as possible. If someone comes at me with a semi-automatic, I don't want to be stuck with a normal hand gun. I'd go for what gives me the greatest chance of success/survival and that would mean the most power money can offer.

konnichiwa said:
KLAMarine said:

What makes you think that?

Well their are cases that are overblown, you can literally have at the same time a police officer shooting a black guy and killing him and a police officer shooting a white guy and also killing him.  The first police officer will be called racist and we get a rise in 'black lives matter' while we will not see the same effect with the white 'victim'.  

but in the case of texas everything points to a man who seemed to be a white nationalist who wanted to kill and shoot non whites, if all the points are confirmed you can only speak about a white nationlist terrorist attack.  The fear of white domestic grown up supremacists terrorists is growing. 

The second shootings seems clear to a non terrorist attack because he wasn't aiming at a certain group of people but rather a place so the colour of the shooter doesn't seems to matter.

Do we know why the Texas shooting occurred? Is there a manifesto somewhere?



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:

Don't mean to ruin your fun or anything but you're not supposed to allow me to see this. Now I can actively avoid them, not that I would have resorted to most of these... You're in for a boring bingo game I'm afraid.

I do have to point some out as I find them to be potentially valid points: "criminals don't obey laws" and "when seconds count, police are minutes away". Is something untrue about these two?

>criminals don't obey laws

And yet we don't use that argument with any other laws.  Why make laws against stealing?  Criminals don't follow laws, anyways.

Just because someone is willing to break the law, doesn't mean that a law can't stop someone.  

I'm not talking about any gun bans, but suppose there was a gun ban.  Where would someone get a gun?  If you take 40 people who would cause a mass shooting, you'd likely find that most of them are neither knowledgable enough to make their own or connected enough to be able to get one illegally.  That might mean 4 mass shootings instead of 40.

>when seconds count, police are minutes away

The issue is that when someone has a gun, another gun usually isn't what saves the day.  For every "good guy with a gun", there's 10 shooting incidents that could have easily been avoided in the first place.  Even in some of these recent mass shootings, there was a "good guy with a gun", who knew better not to use theirs.  You'll have some incidents where police can't tell the difference between the good guy and the bad guy. 

Secondly, just because someone has a gun doesn't mean it can be used, let alone should be used.  People that are shooting up a place, aren't going to take time to be extra careful.  They aren't going to try giving you time to use your gun. 

And thirdly, there are issues where people aren't trained.  They aren't well trained on how to use their gun, they aren't trained on how to safely manage the situation.  



KLAMarine said:

the-pi-guy said:

-universal background checks

-programs to help mental illness

-programs to deal with extremist propaganda

There, 3 things that can be done without even banning a single gun.  

All three sound perfectly reasonable. The devil is in the details.

Jaicee said:

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away" is the only one that strikes me as a valid argument. [sarcasm] Which explains exactly why you need to have a semi-automatic instead of just a normal hand gun. It also explains why the NRA opposes the sale of smart guns that recognize their owner's fingerprints only fire when they pull the trigger. [/sarcasm]

The fact is that gun violence does, in fact, drop off starkly when stricter gun laws are in place.

Well if I was defending myself against someone else with a gun, I'm going to want as much in my favor as possible. If someone comes at me with a semi-automatic, I don't want to be stuck with a normal hand gun. I'd go for what gives me the greatest chance of success/survival and that would mean the most power money can offer.

konnichiwa said:

Well their are cases that are overblown, you can literally have at the same time a police officer shooting a black guy and killing him and a police officer shooting a white guy and also killing him.  The first police officer will be called racist and we get a rise in 'black lives matter' while we will not see the same effect with the white 'victim'.  

but in the case of texas everything points to a man who seemed to be a white nationalist who wanted to kill and shoot non whites, if all the points are confirmed you can only speak about a white nationlist terrorist attack.  The fear of white domestic grown up supremacists terrorists is growing. 

The second shootings seems clear to a non terrorist attack because he wasn't aiming at a certain group of people but rather a place so the colour of the shooter doesn't seems to matter.

Do we know why the Texas shooting occurred? Is there a manifesto somewhere?

That's why I said 'if all the points are confirmed'

The suspect is believed to be the author of a text posted on 8chan, an online message board frequently used by the far right, which describes a "cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion", alluding to Hispanic people in the US.

The four-page document, reportedly posted some 20 minutes before police received the first emergency call, also expresses support for the gunman who killed 51 people in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March.






the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

So what can be done about it?

-universal background checks

-programs to help mental illness

-programs to deal with extremist propaganda

There, 3 things that can be done without even banning a single gun.  

These things sound pretty reasonable if it can decrease mass shootings. The third one could be abused though. 



KLAMarine said:

Well if I was defending myself against someone else with a gun, I'm going to want as much in my favor as possible. If someone comes at me with a semi-automatic, I don't want to be stuck with a normal hand gun. I'd go for what gives me the greatest chance of success/survival and that would mean the most power money can offer.

By THAT logic, maybe we should just legalize the private sale of rocket launchers. I mean why be stuck with mere assault weapons when you can cover the basis? So you might blow up your home in the process of defending it. So a dozen other people might be killed by your hypothetical act of self-defense. Sacrifices have to be made!



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
the-pi-guy said:

-universal background checks

-programs to help mental illness

-programs to deal with extremist propaganda

There, 3 things that can be done without even banning a single gun.  

These things sound pretty reasonable if it can decrease mass shootings. The third one could be abused though. 

Over 90% of Americans support Universal Background Checks. Why then do our Republican politicians consistently vote against Universal Background Checks? Why then did our President vow to veto a Universal Background Check bill if it was passed by the Senate?



Raise the age for any firearm to 25? Seems like kids are behind most of these attacks. Maybe by 25 they won't be so crazy?



sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

These things sound pretty reasonable if it can decrease mass shootings. The third one could be abused though. 

Over 90% of Americans support Universal Background Checks. Why then do our Republican politicians consistently vote against Universal Background Checks? Why then did our President vow to veto a Universal Background Check bill if it was passed by the Senate?

N R A $.



Chrkeller said:
Raise the age for any firearm to 25? Seems like kids are behind most of these attacks. Maybe by 25 they won't be so crazy?

Lol no. If someone can go to war for their country they deserve the same amount of rights as other people.



jason1637 said:
Chrkeller said:
Raise the age for any firearm to 25? Seems like kids are behind most of these attacks. Maybe by 25 they won't be so crazy?

Lol no. If someone can go to war for their country they deserve the same amount of rights as other people.

Just odd to me buying beer requires 21 years old, a gun 18.  Either way, makes no sense to me.  I don't get the gun obsession this country has.  25 years to buy, with military exception?  It can't be that hard to craft an easy attempt at a fix.  As a country we haven't even made an attempt, and that is shameful.