Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 12:13:08 am

ballp.it is the community forum for The F Plus.

You're only seeing part of the forum conversation. To see more, register for an account. This will give you read-only access to nearly all the forums.

Topic: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.  (Read 40064 times)

Keetah Spacecat

  • Oh ho ho, Dear Reader!
  • Paid
  • Zero G's and I Feel Fine!
  • 178
  • 48
Gosh this is making me think about the gun cache's my dad has hidden around the house and basement in case the 'race war' starts.

I dunno I always thought education was a good way at least, to help prevent accidental gun deaths between children. I grew up in rural PA and even though my dad is an insane gun nut, he at least taught me that guns are a powerful and dangerous tool. And that by learning about guns and how they should be properly handled and such makes you get a healthy fear of using it so you don't start playing around with guns. I'm not saying teach kids how to shoot guns XD I mean at least a lesson on it on why it's dangerous and why you shouldn't mess with a gun. And also educate parents on how to properly store their guns in a secure gun safe with a lock and NOT LEAVE THEM AROUND THE FREAKING HOUSE LIKE MY BROTHER. Something to that extent? 

Hahaha according to that mental health law thing I'm not suppose to be owning my .22 long rifle right now because of my chronic depression.

The NRA is effing crazy. My dad gets clips from them and they seriously had an article about how Bambi is the worst propaganda film ever and it ruined a whole generation of kids from loving guns and hunting.

Ansemaru

  • we put our faith in
  • Paid
  • blast hardcheese
  • 494
  • 113
The fucking NRA, man. LET'S TAKE THIS HORRIBLE TRAGEDY AND USE IT AS A TIME TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT GUNS ARE GREAT! EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE GUNS! MORE GUNS! ALL THE GUNS ARE THE BEST WAY TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE (AND THE GUV'MINT TAKING AWAY OUR MONEY AND GUNS BECAUSE THEY'RE EEEEEVIL COMMIES)

It boggles the mind.

Delcat

  • Paid
  • 1,347
  • 17
I dunno I always thought education was a good way at least, to help prevent accidental gun deaths between children. I grew up in rural PA and even though my dad is an insane gun nut, he at least taught me that guns are a powerful and dangerous tool. And that by learning about guns and how they should be properly handled and such makes you get a healthy fear of using it so you don't start playing around with guns. I'm not saying teach kids how to shoot guns XD I mean at least a lesson on it on why it's dangerous and why you shouldn't mess with a gun. And also educate parents on how to properly store their guns in a secure gun safe with a lock and NOT LEAVE THEM AROUND THE FREAKING HOUSE LIKE MY BROTHER. Something to that extent?Keetah Spacecat, April 02, 2013, 07:34:30 pm

I grew up in rural Michigan and the last bit, so much.  Sooo many houses with young children with guns just lying around.  I don't really have a stance on gun control so much as I just really don't want kids handling guns.  It's not a legislative thing, it's a "no please don't do that" thing.

Yossarian

  • Sophisticated Sophistry
  • Paid
  • No one tell Hitler!
  • 834
  • 89
Its the abstinence argument all over again. You don't educate kids on guns and they go around thinking they are toys, and the people legislating on them don't know any better themselves for the most part. There's a little segment of tumblr that made it a mission to call out everyone with bad TD or treating guns like CAWADUUTY is real life. There are even a few gun safety blogs hanging around now.

Acierocolotl

  • Romance Supremacist
  • Ridiculist
  • You will be romanticized
  • 993
  • 159

I'd say mixed news at best. Banning guns? Registering clips? Ammunition eligibility certificate? None of that is going to prevent shit.

Criminals buy their guns illegally. The Newtown shooter stole the gun he used from his mother. I suppose they could try to pass some hilarious secure-your-gun legislation which would be completely unenforceable, but the problem here is that people are still thinking that this shit could be avoided if we only figure out what law will prevent it.

I mean, it's already pretty illegal to murder somebody, and not just with a gun, and yet it keeps happening.
Isfahan, April 02, 2013, 06:45:27 pm

Canada's a good starting point for comparisons--the culture isn't that radically different from the US, but it has much fiercer gun restrictions in place.  Maximum clip sizes, minimum barrel lengths, etc., etc.  Compare and contrast gun crimes between Canada and the US.  Honestly, I don't know what your results are and I'm only dipping my toes into this pond.

If you see really significant differences between the two, then you know that restricting gun access has an impact on crime, cultural differences notwithstanding.  If there isn't, your point stands with extra science to back it up and your post has gone from words to logical argument.

Victor Laszlo

  • May my path be lit up by the bridges that I've burned
  • Ridiculist
  • Yay Victor!
    • 1,387
    • 721
Criminals buy their guns illegally. The Newtown shooter stole the gun he used from his mother. Isfahan, April 02, 2013, 06:45:27 pm
The second sentence is a direct refutation of the first.  What if it had been illegal for his mother to buy it?  Where would he have gotten it then?

We aren't talking about "criminals" in the sense of Vincent and Jules from Pulp Fiction, we're talking about mentally ill white kids mostly.  Do you think they have the money and connections to buy a pile of assault rifles from the cartel?

Part of the intent of restrictive laws is to slowly, like over a generation, reduce this country's collective boner for guns.  There really is little justification for private gun ownership.  Hunting I suppose, and home defense depending on where you live, but neither of those requires automatic firing and 30-round clips.  Really, what legitimate non-boner reason could you possibly have for owning an M-16?

As far as the armed guards in schools bit, I wonder if anyone at the NRA think tank considered whether a high school student would be smart enough to locate the old guy in the USS Ticonderoga hat with the bulge under his jacket and just shoot him first.  Hey look, free gun!


[yay] [victor] [yayvictor] [yayvictor!] [yay victor] [yay victor!] [yay-victor] [yay-victor!] [yay!] [victor!] [heart] [heart!] [dammitlemon]
Bunnybread Runic Boots Raingear

Isfahan

  • Ask me about AKs.
  • Ridiculist
  • Trouble with customers? Isfahano cares.
    • 3,728
    • 68
The second sentence is a direct refutation of the first.  What if it had been illegal for his mother to buy it?  Where would he have gotten it then?Victor Laszlo, April 02, 2013, 08:53:53 pm

That gun wasn't bought illegally, and it wasn't bought by a criminal. I mean, what if the kid had no hands? How would he have pulled the trigger? Thinking up mitigating circumstances and then trying to wring a law out of them is exactly what people are trying to do.

We aren't talking about "criminals" in the sense of Vincent and Jules from Pulp Fiction, we're talking about mentally ill white kids mostly.  Do you think they have the money and connections to buy a pile of assault rifles from the cartel?

I sure don't, but I'm arguing the laws here. One perceived solution for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy white kids is to keep the guns out of the hands of fucking everybody. I don't cotton to that, and besides, you can't do it.

Part of the intent of restrictive laws is to slowly, like over a generation, reduce this country's collective boner for guns. There really is little justification for private gun ownership. Hunting I suppose, and home defense depending on where you live, but neither of those requires automatic firing and 30-round clips.  Really, what legitimate non-boner reason could you possibly have for owning an M-16?

I completely agree that that is the aim of gun-control legislation. Yes, remove the boner, and once the boner is gone, they can just remove the guns themselves. Gun-rights advocates are aware of the long-game trying to be played here. The immediate aim is to make gun ownership such a goddamn expensive hassle that nobody bothers. Then, when our grandkids are in the mindset of "oh, this gun-ban legislation won't affect me because I don't own a gun," it'll get passed through and even the option of legal gun ownership is completely off the table and then I guess we'll live in a utopia of good feelings where people aren't shitty to each other and no violent crime occurs ever. I mean, I can give reasons for gun ownership important to me and then someone else will dismiss those reasons as insufficient. Luckily for me, I don't need to play the justification game because it's a right. The second amendment is in place so that the people can violently oppose their government if need be. The hunting thing is actually a good monster cockogue between gun ownership and the presence of law enforcement. I mean, hunting is no justification for gun ownership either. Nobody has to hunt for their food anymore. We have grocery stores! It's not the wild west! If you're hungry and you want some venison, go to a restaurant! Why does anybody bother hunting at all? It's easy to do that with just about any reason someone could come up with to try and justify gun ownership. So let's take this to its logical conclusion and put up a straw man who owns guns but who can think of absolutely no reason why he should. The straw man still wins, because he doesn't have to provide a reason.

If we lose gun rights, we will never ever get them back. Never. Not ever. Zero percent chance. I know some folks would be fine with that, but I'm not. The world is not a place where you can pretend your safety will always be assured with no effort on your own part. The fact that you think even an appreciable fraction of the guns in private ownership are configured for fully-automatic fire is telling, as is calling clips "clips." Current gun legislation is going after semi-automatic operation. After that, they'll go after pump action, then lever action, then bolt action, then break-top/single-shot firearms, then anything else designed to strike a primer on a cartridge. Because of the 1986 manufacture-and-transfer law it's already quite prohibitively expensive to own a fully-automatic or select-fire firearm. Well, legally, anyway.

As far as the armed guards in schools bit, I wonder if anyone at the NRA think tank considered whether a high school student would be smart enough to locate the old guy in the USS Ticonderoga hat with the bulge under his jacket and just shoot him first.  Hey look, free gun!

We're pretty much all in agreement that the NRA is retarded. Their school-posse idea is retarded. Their rhetoric is retarded. The image they perpetuate is alienating and confrontational and it makes gun owners suffer because we get lumped in with it.
Yossarian Chai

Lady Naga

  • I died a little just now, it was wonderful.
  • Paid
  • Je M'amuse.
  • 172
  • 14
You know how when your dad catches you smoking at fourteen he makes you smoke an entire carton of cigarettes in a row? Guns should be treated the same way. If we just left whole piles of them lying around they'd stop being so novel and interesting and nobody would want to shoot them anymore because it'd be too gauché.

Boots Raingear

  • BBQ Man-Pop
  • Administrator
  • CEO of Victor's basement
  • 1,109
  • 190
If we lose gun rights, we will never ever get them back. Never. Not ever. Zero percent chance. Isfahan, April 03, 2013, 02:07:27 am
That does sound nice.

Victor Laszlo

  • May my path be lit up by the bridges that I've burned
  • Ridiculist
  • Yay Victor!
    • 1,387
    • 721
The second amendment is in place so that the people can violently oppose their government if need be.
You of all people should know better than to trot this one out.  I know that you know better than to believe that a pile of rednecks with AR-15s have the ability to violently oppose their government in any way that doesn't end in tragedy.  Their government also has assault weapons, along with tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons and an unlimited supply of money to acquire more of all of these.  This is a bullshit argument and has been ever since we decided to go from ad hoc militias to a standing army.  The 2nd amendment specifically allows the right to keep and bear arms so that when you were called up to join the military you would show up with your rifle.  There is no meaning to that today since you are issued a rifle when you are called up.  I think the hunting argument is silly too, but a lot of people like hunting and generally you don't hear about schools being shot up by hunting rifles so I'm willing to shrug my shoulders and let people sit in a tree all day hoping a deer wanders by because they aren't really hurting anybody by doing it.
That gun wasn't bought illegally, and it wasn't bought by a criminal. I mean, what if the kid had no hands? How would he have pulled the trigger? Thinking up mitigating circumstances and then trying to wring a law out of them is exactly what people are trying to do.
This is the entire point.  A gun capable of murdering 30 kindergarteners in a small amount of time was purchased legally.  If you think that's okay then we are starting pretty far apart.  Had that gun not been legally for sale then the specific tragedy in question would have had a harder time occurring.  Which is something some of us find desirable.  He could have gone in there with pistols, but odds are he wouldn't have clipped 30 kids before someone tackled him.  We can't prevent all shootings, but we can probably significantly reduce the number of mass casualty events that take place, and that is a worthy goal to me if only because if someone brought 30 shot-up kindergarteners into my ER I would probably develop an incurable drinking problem and I don't want that to happen.
The world is not a place where you can pretend your safety will always be assured with no effort on your own part. The fact that you think even an appreciable fraction of the guns in private ownership are configured for fully-automatic fire is telling, as is calling clips "clips."
Sorry I'm not up on the gun lingo.  It doesn't come up in my day to day life all that much. 
Because of the 1986 manufacture-and-transfer law it's already quite prohibitively expensive to own a fully-automatic or select-fire firearm.
And they're a small percentage of privately-owned guns?  You're right, gun laws are a total failure.

When was the last time, in a non-military setting, you fired a gun with a 30-round clip to assure your own safety?  In that setting, would a .38 special have done the trick, or did you need all thirty bullets to be fired within a few seconds without taking time to reload?


[yay] [victor] [yayvictor] [yayvictor!] [yay victor] [yay victor!] [yay-victor] [yay-victor!] [yay!] [victor!] [heart] [heart!] [dammitlemon]
Adept strifeheart

montrith

  • Petrodactyl Spotter
  • Internaut
  • You must be this tall to ride
  • 3,114
  • 402
[heart] [heart!]

Lemon, you need to make Victor an emoticon quickly before he morphs into the fifth Planeteer.

As for guns, my personal stance is similar to that of Scott Adams. Everyone should have all the guns they want, but only I should have bullets.
Delcat

Acierocolotl

  • Romance Supremacist
  • Ridiculist
  • You will be romanticized
  • 993
  • 159
Am I pissing into the wind here?  Do I need to start chasing people around with all-caps screeds to get a point across?

ONE MORE TIME THEN:  The argument that "restricted guns may or may not have an impact on US crime," can be put the fuckin' crucible of science:  Canada, the country most like the US, has restricted gun laws.  DO THEY HAVE REDUCED GUN CRIMES?  Gee guys, why don't you find out from sources you trust and get back to me on this one?  Can I make it more obvious?

Victor Laszlo

  • May my path be lit up by the bridges that I've burned
  • Ridiculist
  • Yay Victor!
    • 1,387
    • 721
Am I pissing into the wind here?  Do I need to start chasing people around with all-caps screeds to get a point across?

ONE MORE TIME THEN:  The argument that "restricted guns may or may not have an impact on US crime," can be put the fuckin' crucible of science:  Canada, the country most like the US, has restricted gun laws.  DO THEY HAVE REDUCED GUN CRIMES?  Gee guys, why don't you find out from sources you trust and get back to me on this one?  Can I make it more obvious?
Acierocolotl, April 03, 2013, 11:59:07 am
This is America, Jack.  We don't argue from evidence here.  We just talk louder and louder until someone says "fuck it" and storms off to get drunk.  Or drunker, since these sorts of debates tend to start after we're drunk in the first place.


[heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart]

Acierocolotl

  • Romance Supremacist
  • Ridiculist
  • You will be romanticized
  • 993
  • 159
This is America, Jack.  We don't argue from evidence here.  We just talk louder and louder until someone says "fuck it" and storms off to get drunk.  Or drunker, since these sorts of debates tend to start after we're drunk in the first place.
Victor Laszlo, April 03, 2013, 12:29:11 pm

Your points are solid.  Forgot where I was.  Sorry.

FUCK IT!  FUCK ALL YOUSE.  I'M GOIN' TO DWAYNE'S TO GO DRINKIN', BITCH!

Boots Raingear

  • BBQ Man-Pop
  • Administrator
  • CEO of Victor's basement
  • 1,109
  • 190
In Switzerland, everyone is required to own a gun and (until recently, I believe) soldiers were allowed to keep relatively powerful weapons from their time in service.
Al, April 03, 2013, 12:40:46 pm
You may want to check your sources on this.