AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-12-15, 13:19   Link #461
NightbatŪ
Deadpan Snarker
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
I'm serious in that if you were to attempt to unilaterally ban weapons in the United States, you'd have a second Civil War on your hands.
Gonna happen anyway if people condone these kind of things just because they want to keep their toys
You're gonna see 2 camps slowly hating eachother more

The pro-gun lobby can not imagine that their religion is as flawed as any other
People are NOT responsible beings, they forget and make misstakes, or lose control
They can't even handle the 10 commandments, they can't prevent a Beretta and full clip of 9mm rounds from getting lost
__________________
NightbatŪ is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 13:23   Link #462
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
I'm serious in that if you were to attempt to unilaterally ban weapons in the United States, you'd have a second Civil War on your hands.
I'm sure that would suit some Americans just fine, since diplomacy by the gun barrel is our cultural heritage.
__________________
Solace is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 13:31   Link #463
Mentar
Sore wa himitsu desu!
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 44
synaesthetic and Ithekro: Is it really too much to ask from you to READ what I suggest and then try to comment on that, instead of something you make up? Especially if it's then garnished with "you don't get it" to top it off, this is exceptionally annoying.

So, once more what I wrote:

1) Make the owner of the gun co-responsible for what happened with it. The only way I see how to get people to make sure that their weapons are LOCKED AWAY.

2) Force firearms registration. If someone is found in possession of a gun that he isn't registered for, immediately confiscate it and fine him to kingdom come.

3) Raid locations which are known to house people of shady background in possession of firearms. Pay bounties for whistleblowers whose tips lead to confiscation of weapons (taken partially out of the fines for illegal possession).

And Ithreko: NONE of these points are currently thoroughly implemented. So far, there are NO repercussions for the gun owner if a crime is committed with it, unless you can be whacked for criminal neglect. This isn't enough. If you own a gun, it's got to become your goddamn DUTY to protect it so that it can NOT simply be taken and used. There is also no real penalty for carrying unregistered weapons. This must become _illegal_ and punished painfully. If you have to own a gun, the for the love of got get one, BUT register it and properly handle it. And finally, unless carrying unregistered guns becomes a crime, there's also no thorough basis for my suggested measure 3)

What I expect from that? A significant reduction in firearms availability. Because over the pond, we also have nutcases tilting out and going on a rampage, but they generally have no guns.
Mentar is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 13:44   Link #464
Triple_R
Center Attraction
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
Something that I think should be said about the 2nd Amendment.

The idea behind the 2nd Amendment wasn't that the forefathers of America thought it was absolutely wonderful for every last American citizen to own and use guns.

The idea behind the 2nd Amendment is that the forefathers of America didn't want to have a standing, professional army. They figured (and it certainly looks like they were correct) that a nation having a large standing army serves as a temptation for that nation to get involved in foreign wars that they're better off not getting involved in. Well, if we look at American foreign policy since the end of WW2...


However, a nation needs some manner of military defense in case another nation decides to try to invade and/or annex it (at least this was true up through the end of WW2). So if you're not going to have a standing, professional army, you need something to act as a military deterrent against possible invaders.

So the forefathers of America conceived of "the well-regulated Militia".

And, in fairness, their concept worked.

Do you know why the Japanese opted to not follow up on Pearl Harbor with a land invasion of America? It's because the Japanese knew that Americans loved their guns and so they'd be fighting brutal battles over every square inch of American soil against armed civilians.


However, this isn't 1941 anymore. No modern nation would dare think of actually launching a land invasion of modern America. It would be complete and utter insanity.

Also, America has a professional, standing army now. Any practical need for a "well-regulated militia" is in considerable dispute now.


Now, this doesn't mean that America should just ban all guns, period. But I think that a better understanding of the basis of the 2nd Amendment should be encouraged.

I think we see that these tragic mass shootings aren't going to stop (or at least lessen in their alarming frequency) unless some concrete changes are made to curtail them. Stricter gun control is probably not the entire solution, but it probably is a good starting point.

I definitely think that thorough background checks and psychological profiling should be done before anybody can own a gun. And the standard should be set high, not low. If you had a troubled past of frequent delinquency in school, then you don't get to have a gun, sorry.
__________________
Triple_R is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 13:45   Link #465
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
I did read what you suggested and I'm not really arguing against it. I don't have any problem focusing gun control efforts on controlling the flow of illegal weapons.

I agree with #1. This is something that should definitely be happening. If you own a weapon, and it gets stolen, and you don't report it, the serial number, the bore characteristics and everything else the police need to find that weapon, you should be in trouble because you fell down on your responsibilities as a gun owner.

I also agree with #2. We have to register our cars and buy new registration tags every year. Why don't we have to register our guns? Why don't we have to get a license to use them, just like we have to get a license to drive cars?

The usual argument against gun registration is that registration is the first step to confiscation, but this is silly. Our cars are registered; has the government taken away cars? Not at all. I don't see why this is a problem. I'd fully support licensing and registration to own a gun--that way, we know the people who own the guns had to take classes and prove that they will be responsible and safe with them.

I also agree with #3, especially paying bounties to whistleblowers. That could get a lot of guns out of the hands of gang types and street-corner guys who sell hot or black-market guns out of the backs of their cars.

I'd also add a #4 to the list:

4) Redirect BATF efforts toward heavily cracking down on smuggled and stolen or otherwise black-market weapons. That agency desperately needs a purpose or it needs to be disbanded, and I think it shouldn't be mucking about in Mexico with politically-charged nonsense like Fast and Furious.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 13:55   Link #466
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
Something that I think should be said about the 2nd Amendment.

The idea behind the 2nd Amendment wasn't that the forefathers of America thought it was absolutely wonderful for every last American citizen to own and use guns.

The idea behind the 2nd Amendment is that the forefathers of America didn't want to have a standing, professional army. They figured (and it certainly looks like they were correct) that a nation having a large standing army serves as a temptation for that nation to get involved in foreign wars that they're better off not getting involved in. Well, if we look at American foreign policy since the end of WW2...
That's an interesting interpretation that I haven't heard before. Where did you come across it? There may be some truth to it, but I don't think it's the primary reason.

What we're taught in school in America is that America was founded by people who disliked the idea of being governed with no representation or say, and they wanted to ensure that the federal government they built would not degenerate into something that ruled over people in a tyrannical fashion. The separation of powers between three branches of government was a design meant to prevent this from happening, as was balancing power between the federal government and the state governments. The idea behind the second amendment was that the states should have their own fighting forces as a way to overthrow the federal government if the separation of powers broke down and the government became corrupt and uncontrolled by the will of the people it governed. It was a sort of "nuclear option" that would allow the people to escape tyranny and reset the government. Perhaps the hope was that merely having such an option would threaten the government into behaving properly.

In other words, it's more inward-focused and doesn't really deal with foreign affairs, as your account mentions.

Even though the interpretation over the historical reasons over such an amendment would exist differs, I agree with your interpretation about what the law was designed to enact. It wasn't designed to give everyone a gun, it was designed to allow states to have their own organized fighting forces.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 14:56   Link #467
Mr. DJ
Schwing!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central Texas
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
But again, this guy got a gun through illegal means.
He had legal access to them through his mother...as unfortunate as it was for her.
Mr. DJ is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 15:24   Link #468
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. DJ View Post
He had legal access to them through his mother...as unfortunate as it was for her.
That's not legal access. He stole them--I'm pretty sure his mother did not authorize him to use the weapons, and even if she did, that would be illegal on her part. A 20-year old is not legally allowed to own (or use, without adult supervision) a pistol in America, so it was doubly illegal.

It's entirely possible to steal something from your parents. That's not "legal access."
__________________
synaesthetic is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 15:56   Link #469
maplehurry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
And your point is?
Does the total matter if the idea is to stop or at least lessen the damage of these types of incidents entirely?
Obviously the total or the maximum of a single incident is not really telling.
Just as in mmo, a weapon's maximum dmg is not really telling, it's the average dps that matters more usually.
So the question is whether the mean numbers of death over all such incidents are statistically and practically different between knife users and gun users.
maplehurry is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 16:32   Link #470
Mr. DJ
Schwing!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central Texas
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
That's not legal access. He stole them--I'm pretty sure his mother did not authorize him to use the weapons, and even if she did, that would be illegal on her part. A 20-year old is not legally allowed to own (or use, without adult supervision) a pistol in America, so it was doubly illegal.

It's entirely possible to steal something from your parents. That's not "legal access."
Oh, I know it is possible. What's also possible is that he got permission, then proceeded to go about his actions. Crazy doesn't always follow a linear path.

Something slightly amusing...have to be 21 to get a handgun, but you can get a shotgun or rifle at 18 (states may vary of course)
Mr. DJ is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 16:40   Link #471
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. DJ View Post
Something slightly amusing...have to be 21 to get a handgun, but you can get a shotgun or rifle at 18 (states may vary of course)
And nothing about parents than buy gun for their kids ?
__________________

ganbaru is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 16:45   Link #472
Mr. DJ
Schwing!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central Texas
Age: 30
think syn covered that part, parental supervision.
Mr. DJ is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 16:45   Link #473
Asuras
Dictadere~!
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. DJ View Post
Something slightly amusing...have to be 21 to get a handgun, but you can get a shotgun or rifle at 18 (states may vary of course)
I'm sure it's more lenient in other states, but in California what you said is the law. I'm guessing it's because a handgun is much more dangerous in that you can more easily conceal it in public than a shotgun or rifle.

It makes sense to me, anyways. I'd rather it be this way than the other way around.
Asuras is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 16:51   Link #474
Mr. DJ
Schwing!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central Texas
Age: 30
This is true, it's just how age restrictions in this country are applied have always been weird to me
Mr. DJ is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 17:02   Link #475
NightbatŪ
Deadpan Snarker
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
That's not legal access. He stole them--I'm pretty sure his mother did not authorize him to use the weapons, and even if she did, that would be illegal on her part. A 20-year old is not legally allowed to own (or use, without adult supervision) a pistol in America, so it was doubly illegal.

It's entirely possible to steal something from your parents. That's not "legal access."
So because it was illegal he shouldn't have done it

...but he did

...so how much weight does 'illegal' carry in this case?

The words here are "EASY ACCES"

and even if he didn't have easy acces, who's to say he didn't kill his mom for the keys of her weaponslocker?

So again: if there weren't any guns in the house, he couldn't have taken them

Keep in mind: this is a nutcase, not a rational thinking criminal
a criminal will plan his act, which usually is about personal gain, and preferably without victims
A nutcase often acts on a whim and usually requires victims

A criminal will start contacting people for a weapon
A nutcase will grab the first lethal instrument he can get his hands on

Then ofcourse there are the rational planning nutcases
for them, it was still easier to shoot John lennon in the US then would be possible in the UK
__________________
NightbatŪ is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 17:12   Link #476
Arturia Polaris
Good OP Hunter
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Argentina
A friend of mine posted this.

"If more sane people had guns, the insane would be able to fire less"

Arty
__________________
Arturia's Writing Den

My fanfiction works include:

Tari Tari: Past and Present, As the Gentle Breeze Blows
Little Busters: Bird's Song
Sword Art Online: Vanquishing of the Laughing Coffin

My own works include: Social Fact
Arturia Polaris is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 17:30   Link #477
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturia Polaris View Post
A friend of mine posted this.

"If more sane people had guns, the insane would be able to fire less"

Arty
Only if thoses sane peoples hit their mark at their firsts shot, otherwise you end up wi a lot of straw bullets and thoses can kill peoples around as much as the bullets from the one doing the massacre.
__________________

ganbaru is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 17:34   Link #478
Asuras
Dictadere~!
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturia Polaris View Post
A friend of mine posted this.

"If more sane people had guns, the insane would be able to fire less"

Arty
Not everyone is a gun-slinging badass. With so many guns in the hands of willing civilians you risk innocents becoming collateral.
Asuras is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 18:06   Link #479
Arturia Polaris
Good OP Hunter
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Argentina
If you controlled guns as you do with cars... Think in terms of exams, training, licenses, etc. The risk of having a shooting like Virginia Tech would have been reduced.

The whole idea is to stop the innocents (which are already endangered by the real jerk with a gun) being just by-standers and to allow them to defend themselves.

These shootings all happen in places where no one can fire back, preying on the weak.

I'm not telling everyone to wield a gun, I'm just saying that if a madman grabs a gun and starts firing at people with no means to defend against it, there'll be casualties.

If a madman grabs a gun and starts firing at innocents who have a way to fight back, he'll be the casualty.

Arty
__________________
Arturia's Writing Den

My fanfiction works include:

Tari Tari: Past and Present, As the Gentle Breeze Blows
Little Busters: Bird's Song
Sword Art Online: Vanquishing of the Laughing Coffin

My own works include: Social Fact
Arturia Polaris is offline  
Old 2012-12-15, 18:59   Link #480
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
And now, some testimony from the shooter's neighbor:



I suppose. The saying often goes: "Beware of the quiet ones".

Things I picked up:
* Honor student
* Concerned parent
* No external signs
* Regular ordinary family
Kyuu is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:40.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.