Guns

[Rage Racer]

That is the obvious people in denial don't see & others with...... challenged perspective, or has not lived in the States can't seem to see. People who want to do harm can still get job done without guns, and that's if they somehow can't get the guns. Guns are everywhere here & Americans are quite ingenious, too. Gun ban would be as effective as the War on Drugs in this country.

Agree that. 👍
Criminals don't care if guns are banned or not, they may be able to get them anyway. But law-abiding people must be able to protect themselves. The problem is - how to tell a criminal when he's about to purchase a gun? Or what's he going to do with it?.. A strict control must be, but...

In the country where I live, guns are banned, instead of shotguns and "less-lethal" pistols, which are strictly controlled. But gun murders aren't seldom there. A recent tradegy: in Belgorod, a man has shot six people to death with a hunting shotgun. He was convicted four (!) times before. So how'd he get that shotgun? The answer is simple: after he was released from a prison last time, he moved to his father's flat and lived there. Father was a hunter and had a bunch of firearms...

So, a real strict control isn't always possible. Also, these "less-lethal" things create a lot of problems, too: they are really capable of killing (if they shoot to head, for example), what makes their shooters say in court: "I didn't know it can kill, I just wanted to scare him, it's kinda "non-lethal", isn't it?".

Last year, our parliament was speaking about allowing normal firearms, too. But the idea was denied. This is probably good - no need to hurry, they must first put things we already have, in order.

 

[eran0004]

So if a hunter snaps, he can have his gun to kill me. But if I'm a sane non-hunter, I can't have a gun in my house or car (or concealed, when properly certified and in a legal area) to fend him off?

That seems legit.

If 0.1% of the population have access to a firearm, the chance that one of them is suddenly going insane is much smaller than if 10% of the population have access to a firearm.

 

[Exorcet]

If 0.1% of the population have access to a firearm, the chance that one of them is suddenly going insane is much smaller than if 10% of the population have access to a firearm.

The chance they go insane stays exactly the same. The chance someone shoots back drops.

 

[MustangRyan]

If 0.1% of the population have access to a firearm, the chance that one of them is suddenly going insane is much smaller than if 10% of the population have access to a firearm.

If only hunters could legally have guns, suddenly everyone would be a hunter.

 

[arora]

Having a gun for self-defense purpose is not okay.

How do you propose we defend ourselves then?

 

[GTsail]

How do you propose we defend ourselves then?

Lightsaber's?

Wookieepedia link

 

[FoolKiller]

Most people can obviously handle guns well (or else there would be a massacre every day in the US),

How does knowing how to handle a gun relate to committing massacres? Massacres are not accidents caused by mishandling a gun.

but some people may just snap and decide to go on a killing spree for one reason or another. Those people are usually not criminals, they're regular people with mental illness and you can't tell who they are or who is in risk of being a threat before they've snapped.

Now, to me the question becomes one of hypocritical compassion. If you take away access to guns from a mentally ill person (borderline laughable considering how many of these shooters illegally obtain their guns already) and just stop there what problem did you solve? Are you comfortable knowing mentally ill individuals with the potential for a psychotic episode wander the streets just because you took away the gun aspect? I personally feel this shows an aspect of society that I find disturbing. You've done nothing to help the person who is truly suffering but feel good because you took your personal bugaboo out of the equation. The heart of the problem still exists, but society would no longer care.

Instead of people going around arguing about bad guns why don't we address the real problem. Bad society. Bad health system. Bad Us. You want to know who is truly to blame for a previously untreated mentally ill person going on a killing spree? Us. Our society. Our health system. We hear about someone with a heart issue or cancer and we have fundraisers, news stories, walks, bake sales, and a push for legislation. We have public awareness campaigns about the food we eat, our lifestyles, getting tests performed at certain age ranges, and even try to legislate lifestyles. We suggest vaccines at specific intervals. Why don't we suggest a mental health examine at certain points? Why don't we walk to bring attention to the undiagnosed patients?

Instead of denying something to the millions of law-abiding, safe citizens (throwing the baby out with the bath water), why not help these sick people become identified and treated?

For those people to have access to firearms is just insane.

I agree. Allowing them to be dangers to themselves and others in anyway is even moreso.

Of course you can kill a human being in many different ways, but with a knife you may only get to one or two before you're stopped.

If just one or two deaths helps you sleep better at night...

With a gun you can get dozens of people before the police even arrives to the scene. That's what makes guns so much more dangerous than other weapons.

Like homemade explosives? I look at Oklahoma City and wonder wonder what would happen when a mentally ill person really wants to kill.

In my opinion, having hunting rifles are okay if you're a hunter. Having a gun for self-defense purpose is not okay.

Perhaps you are unaware of Charles Whitman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
All his kills were done with guns considered hunting rifles. One was a semi-auto civilian variant of a military (WWII-Vietnam) weapon sold as a hunting rifle, but was banned in some states for being unable to guarantee kill a one-shot kill on a deer from a short distance. One of his kills was from 1,500 feet. As he used a one-shot, one-kill method of shooting its hard to tell if the semi-auto feature aided him in any way.

Limiting ownership to hunting rifles doesn't seem like it would have affected him.

He did leave a note saying he can't explain his thoughts or actions.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If 0.1% of the population have access to a firearm, the chance that one of them is suddenly going insane is much smaller than if 10% of the population have access to a firearm.

i get the analogy but as I'm fond of telling my liberal friends, the guns are already there, they aren't going to go away, so using a 1% or 10% or 50% analogy is irrelevant. Deal with reality which is that gun ownership is widespread and will remain that way for a very long time.

 

[Nicksfix]

A bit more on the 3D printing phenomenon...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185



Obviously, 3D printers are extremely expensive at the moment, but given the massive demand and the virtually limitless applications, it's surely not going to be long before 3D printers and the necessary consumables are affordable... currently, the materials, expertise and designs necessary to make a firearm prohibit all but a tiny fraction of people from crafting their own weapons, but 3D printing - coupled with the availability of designs and know-how now available to the layperson via the web - make this a different matter...

This is half-ass scary stuff to be honest. This renders a gun totally undetectable by all current standards of metal detection that we currently have. This just opens the door for some bad things to happen.

Having a gun for self-defense purpose is not okay.

Have a look at this, read the back of her shirt. Tell us your opinion about it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'd marry her.

 

[Tornado]

This is half-ass scary stuff to be honest. This renders a gun totally undetectable by all current standards of metal detection that we currently have. This just opens the door for some bad things to happen.

It took almost 25 years, but Die Hard 2 is finally somewhat less stupid.

 

[a6m5]

This is half-ass scary stuff to be honest. This renders a gun totally undetectable by all current standards of metal detection that we currently have. This just opens the door for some bad things to happen.

Down the line, maybe. AR they are testing(with Russian 5.45x39?) is shown firing up to 100 rounds in the earlier part of the video, but they could only produce the lowers at that time, and then they break apart.

Of course, I can totally see all-plastic gun via 3D printing in the near-future, and if you are hijacking a plane, you don't need to be able to fire 100 shots.

Scary indeed, but we all know there is no stopping advancement in technology like this. It will make gun control just that much harder down the line, too.

If I were them, I'd be making .22LR guns.

Edit: Great video. Thanks Chris for posting it. 👍

 

[Zenith]

It took almost 25 years, but Die Hard 2 is finally somewhat less stupid.

Glock 7's, punk!

 

[arora]

Scary indeed, but we all know there is no stopping advancement in technology like this. It will make gun control just that much harder down the line, too.

Gun control is not the problem and I don't see anything scary about this at all. What I see is people being born and raised in an environment where they see no opportunity to excel, if you give people true liberty they will choose it.

What is happening in the U.S. is people are being deprived to begin with, some wonder why we have criminals, we are creating them. Taking away guns will not solve that problem obviously.

 

[a6m5]

Gun control is not the problem and I don't see anything scary about this at all. What I see is people being born and raised in an environment where they see no opportunity to excel, if you give people true liberty they will choose it.

What is happening in the U.S. is people are being deprived to begin with, some wonder why we have criminals, we are creating them. Taking away guns will not solve that problem obviously.

Well, on gun control, you know right about where I stand on that. I like to think that we see eye-to-eye(or close to that).

When I say scary, I'm talking about the unlimited potential of this thing. This could go in a million different direction, some potential threat(arming of underage, criminals, disposable firearms for crimes) we can foresee, but surely, this technology will aid, or cause some unforeseen problems for us down the line? I don't know, I think I'm being realistic......

Crazy. They just talked about it on the news as I'm posting this.

 

[arora]

Well I'm introducing a concept foreign to some, most likely not to you though.

We will always have criminals, no way around that, the tech, the cop tech, the laws, whatever, some will always try to be slick and get over. I'm talking about a realistic approach to guns and very avoidable crimes.

Not sure if you see it, let people be and let people have a fair shake at life.

 

[a6m5]

Well, I think it's always about the degree of "be", people argue over.

 

[arora]

It's not so variable tbh, everyone in the U.S. should have a fair chance to find what they want. ATM we are criminalizing our youth, choking out business competition, etc., etc. It's not rocket science, we create the threat out of greed supported by the government, and complacency by the population at large.

 

[BobK]

I don't see that much of an issue with 3D printers. It will be a long long time before you could simply load a file, push the start button and sit back and wait for a finished gun to pop out. The lower receivers in the video need some machining operations after they've been printed and I don't see that likely to change.

Besides, it has always been possible to make a gun at home. CNC machines have been around for a while, and they could make a much higher quality firearm than a 3D printer probably ever will. They are, however, quite expensive and that's not likely to change soon.

About the woman with the T-shirt: I'd really like to see commentary on it by some of our gun control advocates here. Here it is again, in quotable form:

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

 

[FoolKiller]

About the woman with the T-shirt: I'd really like to see commentary on it by some of our gun control advocates here. Here it is again, in quotable form:

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

The point it makes is so narrowly focused that it would be easy to come back with something like:

Gun Rights: The theory that 20 dead children is morally superior to preventing the shooter from having access to guns.


And that points out the main problem with this debate. Each side has their own narrow scope of why they feel they are right. No one wants to discuss the cause of the violence itself. The NRA just wants to be able to fight back and the gun control groups just want guns removed from the violence. Truth be told, both outcomes will likely have a similar result on paper, less deaths over time. Who is dead changes in each scenario.

If we wanted a solution we would examine the cause of the violence and work to create a world where there is less reason for the crimes to be committed. But that requires taking a very hard look at ourselves. The solutions are primarily things that neither side wants to budge on, like reducing corporatism, legalizing drugs and redirecting War on Drug funding to addiction treatment, and creating an emergency net only style welfare plan that doesn't encourage or make it easy to be unemployed. It clashes too much with views held by both sides on other views.

 

[nobuffalo]

If we wanted a solution we would examine the cause of the violence and work to create a world where there is less reason for the crimes to be committed. But that requires taking a very hard look at ourselves. The solutions are primarily things that neither side wants to budge on, like reducing corporatism, legalizing drugs and redirect War on Drug funding to addition treatment, and creating an emergency net only style welfare plan that doesn't encourage or make it easy to be unemployed. It clashes too much with view held by both sides on other views.

This, this and more of this. Sorry it just needs to be repeated.

 

[arora]

It's hard for some to imagine treating addiction as an illness instead of a crime, oh noos what would happen to all our hired gangs(police) and private prison systems supporting entire communities?

Welfare is a joke in this country, my view is it simply creates a voter base in a politicians eye while destroying the very foundation we seek as a free people.

Guns are not the problem, they are simply tools.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The point it makes is so narrowly focused that it would be easy to come back with something like:

Gun Rights: The theory that 20 dead children is morally superior to preventing the shooter from having access to guns.


And that points out the main problem with this debate. Each side has their own narrow scope of why they feel they are right. No one wants to discuss the cause of the violence itself. The NRA just wants to be able to fight back and the gun control groups just want guns removed from the violence. Truth be told, both outcomes will likely have a similar result on paper, less deaths over time. Who is dead changes in each scenario.

If we wanted a solution we would examine the cause of the violence and work to create a world where there is less reason for the crimes to be committed. But that requires taking a very hard look at ourselves. The solutions are primarily things that neither side wants to budge on, like reducing corporatism, legalizing drugs and redirecting War on Drug funding to addiction treatment, and creating an emergency net only style welfare plan that doesn't encourage or make it easy to be unemployed. It clashes too much with views held by both sides on other views.

How does reducing corporatism reduce crime?

 

[FoolKiller]

How does reducing corporatism reduce crime?

Other than damaging the economy, siphoning jobs and money overseas, creating the rich get richer and poor get poorer scenario, all while lacing corporations with government money and cycling money into campaign funds?

Better yet, look at the 1 percenters (set aside that most don't know the difference between corporatism and capitalism) and tell me you don't see a growing anger and sense of entitlement aimed at the wealthier in society that makes theft of any form (from very unbalanced taxes to pirating digital media to blatantly robbing) seem more acceptable.

We could also get into things like how testing by government agencies, like the FDA, is funded by the companies that they regulate and somehow every now and then those watchdog agencies completely miss the ease with which a drug can be abused and become an abuse and crime problem (essentially making it little better than our illegal drugs).


But ultimately it comes down to corporatism, not capitalism, damages the economy over time, and bad economy creates crimes of necessity.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If 0.1% of the population have access to a firearm, the chance that one of them is suddenly going insane is much smaller than if 10% of the population have access to a firearm.

Yet hunting is .1% of fire arm users, and one only has to look state to state at hunting license sold by Game and Fish depts. To figure out how many hunters there are per capita compared to suggested guns with in the U.S. to get an estimate. Then you have other countries as well with hunters and figuring those numbers. I realize you may be using that figure to express your "point" to the nth degree, but it's lazy and confuses those who come and read this for actual insight. Also if only 10% of the pop had guns, we would be talking about this on the national level of the U.S.

The point is, your safety check and reasoning is very problematic and infringes on people. Also how do you suggest those who make fake a hunting permit to obtain the gun if your idea became law? Or those who are clean as far as records go and obtain a hunting license to hurt people an actually not hunt (but people would never do that)? What about those who may get the gun under good standing and pass it on to someone who cant?

It's hard for some to imagine treating addiction as an illness instead of a crime, oh noos what would happen to all our hired gangs(police) and private prison systems supporting entire communities?

Welfare is a joke in this country, my view is it simply creates a voter base in a politicians eye while destroying the very foundation we seek as a free people.

Guns are not the problem, they are simply tools.

Thank you, finally someone getting to roots (along with FoolKiller). Also really quick I like the fact that this Texas law student made a functioning weapon as a big **** you to the gov't and anti-groups that would have the populous belittled to the function of not being able to make a weapon no matter what, as if people can't dress themselves in the morning. Also I agree with BobK to a degree, give me a CNC machine and a lathe and I can produce a weapon that could at least fire a couple shots, but the idea of 3D printers being a long way out isn't true. People have been trying to make more compact 3D printers for home use, and realistically the type of tech can probably be brought to the home in say 5-10 years, perhaps less. It doesn't matter though, the fact is it can be done now and all it takes is the wrong person to get one tomorrow for something to happen.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Other than damaging the economy, siphoning jobs and money overseas, creating the rich get richer and poor get poorer scenario, all while lacing corporations with government money and cycling money into campaign funds?

Better yet, look at the 1 percenters (set aside that most don't know the difference between corporatism and capitalism) and tell me you don't see a growing anger and sense of entitlement aimed at the wealthier in society that makes theft of any form (from very unbalanced taxes to pirating digital media to blatantly robbing) seem more acceptable.

We could also get into things like how testing by government agencies, like the FDA, is funded by the companies that they regulate and somehow every now and then those watchdog agencies completely miss the ease with which a drug can be abused and become an abuse and crime problem (essentially making it little better than our illegal drugs).


But ultimately it comes down to corporatism, not capitalism, damages the economy over time, and bad economy creates crimes of necessity.

Nice rant, but still doesn't explain how reducing corporatism reduces violence. Or are you proposing that by reducing the power of corporations we'll all gather 'round a campfire, start singing kumbaya, stop stealing free stuff off the internet and be so happy some people will stop committing murder and other violent crimes? And who fills the power vacuum? Politicians?...lol...

 

[FoolKiller]

Nice rant, but still doesn't explain how reducing corporatism reduces violence. Or are you proposing that by reducing the power of corporations we'll all gather 'round a campfire, start singing kumbaya, stop stealing free stuff off the internet and be so happy some people will stop committing murder and other violent crimes? And who fills the power vacuum? Politicians?...lol...

I'm not sure you understand the difference between corporatism and capitalism after that last sentence.

I'm suggesting we get government out of the business of business, let capitalism and free markets take hold, and stop creating economic situations where crime becomes a necessity for some as public policy.

 

[Keef]

Gun violence is down drastically in the US, but most people don't think so.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-75813428/

In the article they say its not clear why people believe violence is up. I think it's pretty clear; what isn't clear is why people think their government wouldn't engage in domestic propagandism in a bid for control under the guise of safety.

Meanwhile, gun ownership has risen through this entire period, especially since Obama became president. Interesting.

 

[FoolKiller]

Gun violence is down drastically in the US, but most people don't think so.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-75813428/

In the article they say its not clear why people believe violence is up. I think it's pretty clear; what isn't clear is why people think their government wouldn't engage in domestic propagandism in a bid for control under the guise of safety.

Meanwhile, gun ownership has risen through this entire period, especially since Obama became president. Interesting.

Gun violence, as a whole, is down. Mass shootings are up, although more than one every two years is above average, so up is a relative term. When we take one instance and turn it into months of discussion the mind just registers 500 discussions on gun violence. It is partly why you will find politicians visiting the site, inviting victims' family to big events, and so on. You can cover a lot of ground by just stepping on the graves of victims.

 

[GTsail]

I'm not sure you understand the difference between corporatism and capitalism after that last sentence.

I'm suggesting we get government out of the business of business, let capitalism and free markets take hold, and stop creating economic situations where crime becomes a necessity for some as public policy.

Are you suggesting that a society will have more crime if a society leans towards more corporatism?

I don't know that much about Corporatism, but according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Countries of Norway and Sweden have leaned more towards corporatism. So would these Countries have more gun violence than the United States?

Just above, Keef mentions that gun violence is down in the United States.

Does this mean that the US has been leaning further away from corporatism, over the last 10-20 years, which has reduced gun violence?

Or does it mean that the US has leaned more towards corporatism, over the last 10-20 years, which has reduced gun violence?

Respectfully,
GTsail