Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Ducimus]

The video is unavailable in the us.
The title is "Can Australia teach the US about gun control?"

My response would be, No. Mainly because it's a sure bet that what is being advocated is another square peg into a round hole type of solution. The metaphor of "If all you have is a hammer, then all problems must be nails" probably applies here as well.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The video is unavailable in the us.
The title is "Can Australia teach the US about gun control?"

My response would be, No. Mainly because it's a sure bet that what is being advocated is another square peg into a round hole type of solution.

Without seeing you'll never know. This one is actually a relatively balanced argument about whether similar solutions could work. Personally I don't give a rat's clacker what your response is. These are not aimed at anyone in particular just posting relevant stuff some may find interesting. I'm sure some will agree and others will not. Posting it here won't make a jot of difference to those at either pole.

They grab an asanine clown?
That "clown" makes exactly the same arguments several people have made here, even the swimming pool nonsense.
Does that mean the people here who use the same arguments are also asinine clowns?

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

They grab an asanine clown?
That "clown" makes exactly the same arguments several people have made here, even the swimming pool nonsense.
Does that mean the people here who use the same arguments are also asinine clowns?

Of course not. They are not on TV.

[Ducimus]

Ah, feel the love.



Truthfully, I have no desire to debate this issue at all anymore. I'm burnt out on the back and forth, and my position will never change. I think the anti-gun people feel the exact same way. Given the current level of polarization in the US, the two sides will probably never be on the same page, nor find any common ground. Generally speaking, people do not come to discuss, they come to state their opinions. I would liken it to a snowball fight where nobody is laughing.

[TarJak]

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Ok Oberon, here ya go:

(CNN) Opinion: Gun control is not the answer

I am surprised to see a thoughtful article out of that particular news source on this particular subject. Usually it's just more rehetoric. Some people over there might actually be starting to wise up.

I think that it's becoming less of a partisanship issue and more of a opinion based issue, and perhaps in some cases a geographical issue, although if you were to take broad strokes at the subject you could say that geography and partisanship in the US go hand in hand, but various elections and mid-terms have shown us that there can be some surprises in otherwise certain Rep/Dem locations.
I can't disagree with the article if I'm honest, gun control may be a quick and dirty solution, but it won't address the underlying cause. It may certain reduce the number of incidents that happen, but it won't stop them, no more than it has stopped them here in the UK, or any other country. The people who want to kill will find a way to get access to a weapon, the only thing that will change is the number of people that they will kill since it is easier to kill a large amount of people with a gun than with a knife.

So, in short, while gun control might possibly work to reduce random shootings, in particular school shootings, the social and political side effects make it so unfeasible to work in America, and it will fail to address the underlying issues that cause the rampages in the first place.

Originally Posted by TarJak

Didn't you get the message?
Nobody is laughing.

my position will never change

The only people whose position will never change are those who close their mind.

[Ducimus]

Oberon, I have to give you some credit. You know how to discuss things, or post a response in such a way where you'll get a more rational response in return, or at least show some semblence of understanding to the other side of the argument. That will usually keep a discussion open longer, and is rare to see.

Much of the angst I carry on this issue, comes from reading various posts, responses, articles, etc etc from many sources on the internet. I have read enough to where I am bankrupt of patience for the continual baiting, trolling, subtle digs, and condescending remarks. The more negativity in it's many forms that I have read from these people on the issue, the more galvanized I have become in my own position. I imagine that I am not alone in this regard.

[Armistead]

I think the hard issue is mass shootings have become the "in thing" to do to prove a point or to punish society. I can't remember which shooter it was, but he wrote those in school bullied him and took his innocence, so he would take theirs.

I do think tools like music and video games play a large part regarding some mental cases.

I think the problem with mental health is that it's so profit driven, that real answers won't be found. We now depend on mass meds that effect the mind, blame and entitlement.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by August

Especially when it's a left wing Obama lover like the author.

I think i see the reason for the sudden ray of enlightenment the author of that article had. It's coming out now, that the gunman actually followed Joe Biden's advice and got a shotgun.


Aaron Alexis Used Shotgun, Handgun to Kill at D.C. Navy Yard, Police Say (US News Weekly)

Aaron Alexis began Navy Yard shooting with shotgun, then obtained pistol (Los Angeles Times )

Aaron Alexis Bought Shotgun Legally; Didn't Have AR-15 Assault Rifle, FBI Says (Huffington Post )

The fact that the level of carnage was done without any of the evil black rifles really put's alot of holes in the anti's argument. Obama was already framing the tragedy from the get go before the facts were known to springboard off of later (never let a good tragedy go to waste and all that).

So what are they going to now? Ban shotguns? That would fly like a lead balloon and they know it. So it appears now, they're either changing their tune to something akin to what most of us have been saying all along, or perhaps just not saying anything at all. Whatever the case maybe, it appears their crusade against civil liberties they don't agree with (2A), isn't gaining any traction with this one.

The fact that the level of carnage was done without any of the evil black rifles really put's alot of holes in the anti's argument.

Not at all, the only hole it would put in the argument is that of those who say "my position would never change", and as those type of person are immune to accepting facts it doesn't really put any holes in their argument as their position is permanently fixed regardless.

Whatever the case maybe, it appears their crusade against civil liberties they don't agree with (2A), isn't gaining any traction with this one.

Yet this case would appear to be a solid one for stricter background checks, so a thinking person would look at that angle for traction.
Whereas unthinking ones would oversimplify this to the nonsense polar opposite levels of ban/no regulation and maintain their traction by sticking their head firmly into the ground.

[Ducimus]

Apparently the gunman used a Remington 870 express, according to this AP article that is making it's way around:

Navy Yard weapon exempted under proposed ban

WASHINGTON (AP) - The shotgun used by the Navy Yard shooter is identified by name as a firearm that would not be covered under a proposed weapons ban supported by the White House.

The shotgun Navy Yard gunman (DILL WEED*) used in his rampage, the Remington 870 Express, is included in a long list of firearms that would be exempted from a ban if legislation introduced in the Senate earlier this year were to become law.

The bill, introduced by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, has little hope of passage. It would ban 157 specific firearms designed for military and law enforcement use, and it would exempt more than 2,200 others.

Feinstein said the purpose of listing exempted weapons was to send a message that the ban wouldn't affect hunting and sporting weapons.

* I refuse to repeat the name of any crazy person turned mass murder for their 15 minutes of fame.


This particular shotgun has been around for a very long time. Hell, my dad's first shotgun was a remington 870. Just goes to show, the gun is only a tool. It's a hard (or insane) heart that kills.

* I refuse to repeat the name of any crazy person turned mass murder for their 15 minutes of fame.

vilification, demean, belittle, disparage, abase, vilipend....or glorification.
Most people would view mentioning it as any one of many words, you take it as being the latter which is the complete opposite.

Aaron Alexis Used Shotgun
Aaron Alexis began Navy Yard shooting with shotgun
Aaron Alexis Bought Shotgun Legally;

Still its nice to be consistant with your refusals.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Truthfully, I have no desire to debate this issue at all anymore. I'm burnt out on the back and forth, and my position will never change.

And yet you continue to do so. Which of course is your right.

Beyond the social and political resistance there's also a strong economic reason the same type of legislation that works here would not work in the US. What's more of a question is whether the US public is prepared to let the maddies keep doing what they do.

Based on recent record the answer is clearly yes at the present moment. If you don't have an open mind on solving what is clearly a problem then you cannot be part of the solution. Like every thing in life it is your choice.