Las Vegas Shooting

[RustInPeace]

It's unlikely @Quantumcat meant every American was brainwashed. More likely, she was just addressing the very real disease that is American nationalism.

Is that disease showing up now? I haven't seen the things she's claimed in the wake of this particular issue, so it's rather odd to bring that up. Before the massacre? Okay, I can kind of see that, but now? And addressing the gun control response. Just...something! Do something! Congress, Trump, any legislator, just fucking do something! That's all I want, something, not nothing. My body temperature's warming up just typing this out, I'm passionate about that plea. Just do something for fuck's sake.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Is that disease showing up now? I haven't seen the things she's claimed in the wake of this particular issue, so it's rather odd to bring that up. Before the massacre? Okay, I can kind of see that, but now? And addressing the gun control response. Just...something! Do something! Congress, Trump, any legislator, just fucking do something! That's all I want, something, not nothing. My body temperature's warming up just typing this out, I'm passionate about that plea. Just do something for fuck's sake.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised that it hasn't by now, but the 'temp's chronic offenders that represent the far right nationalist views whenever this debate comes up seem to be asleep and/or ignoring the situation right now

I'm not going to tag them because I really, really don't want to deal with them right now

 

[Posghetti]

Just so sad..

 

[Xzi]

The NRA of course pulled their ads encouraging violence toward liberals in the wake of this shooting, but their plan is to reportedly bring them back in eight days. Because that's the acceptable amount of time passed after a tragedy to start advocating for violence again, right?

 

[Subtle Demise]

What does any of this have to do with your analogy that restricting gun ownership is like caging a lion

Well, if we go back to the drafting of the constitution, the writers did not want this new nation to become like the one they just rebelled against, so they wrote in the constitution that the citizens shall have the right to bear arms and to form a militia. Now, try to take the guns, and there will be trouble from all these state militias that have formed over the years. The caged animal also refers to the general police state nature that has formed in most of the developed nations around the world. In the US alone there are several government agencies that have the power to create laws without going through Congress, as well as no chance of veto from the president. How is that right? What happened to checks and balances? Why hasn't the Supreme Court stopped this?

If you want to leagally buy one. You also have to be 21 to drink.

Well who's going to follow a gun ban then? There are already a lot of restrictions as to what kind of person can own what type of gun, but that doesn't stop them from getting them anyway. For instance, even non-violent felonies prevent a person from legally owning any type of gun, even hunting rifles. Police find them every day regardless. Laws do not prevent crime. They just cause more people to become convicted, causing the illusion that they're doing good, when in reality the prison system creates more criminals when they are released.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Well, if we go back to the drafting of the constitution, the writers did not want this new nation to become like the one they just rebelled against, so they wrote in the constitution that the citizens shall have the right to bear arms and to form a militia. Now, try to take the guns, and there will be trouble from all these state militias that have formed over the years. The caged animal also refers to the general police state nature that has formed in most of the developed nations around the world. In the US alone there are several government agencies that have the power to create laws without going through Congress, as well as no chance of veto from the president. How is that right? What happened to checks and balances? Why hasn't the Supreme Court stopped this?

Well who's going to follow a gun ban then? There are already a lot of restrictions as to what kind of person can own what type of gun, but that doesn't stop them from getting them anyway. For instance, even non-violent felonies prevent a person from legally owning any type of gun, even hunting rifles. Police find them every day regardless. Laws do not prevent crime. They just cause more people to become convicted, causing the illusion that they're doing good, when in reality the prison system creates more criminals when they are released.

That wasn't what I was asking about, you specifically said something about medication

Also, the constitution doesn't cover the right to hunt

 

[Subtle Demise]

That wasn't what I was asking about, you specifically said something about medication

Also, the constitution doesn't cover the right to hunt

I don't remember saying anything about hunting in the constitution, but if I did it was a mistake or I was unclear about something. As for the medication thing, there are many people who are in chronic pain whose doctors either refuse to subscribe narcotic painkillers, Federal limits on how much a single person can be prescribed aren't enough to effectively control their pain, or they simply can't afford to see a doctor at all due to not being able to afford insurance, and not eligible for Medicaid/Medicare. Their options are: Try to obtain the medication or similar alternatives through the black market, grow opium poppies or cannabis or some other banned plant (even though both of those have a proven track record of being medically beneficial), or go to something like kratom, which was recently about to be banned despite helping many through addiction to drug and alcohol, as well as pain relief and euphoric properties that would probably help with a lot of mental conditions as well. It's nearly impossible to be prescribed benzodiazepines in the US as well, despite the fact easy access to these things as well as marijuana would prevent a lot of violence. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Gizametalman]

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH XD lmao
that made me laugh, do you really think something could get better in this end world country? XD HAHAHAHA

Woah! One can generalize that all Brazil is corrupt due everyone being in poverty, but if a Mexican say: Otherwise you wouldn't have the exact same scenario in schools" everyone goes crazy and starts saying: "You sick don't generalize us"

Once again, you all just proved my point.
And i quote: Even a fucking child can get a machine gun easily.


Yes I'm rude and bad and everything you want, if being right in opinion offends you, that's not my problem. Once again, prove my point.

 

[aykay55]

Woah! One can generalize that all Brazil is corrupt due everyone being in poverty, but if a Mexican say: Otherwise you wouldn't have the exact same scenario in schools" everyone goes crazy and starts saying: "You sick don't generalize us"

Once again, you all just proved my point.
And i quote: Even a fucking child can get a machine gun easily.


Yes I'm rude and bad and everything you want, if being right in opinion offends you, that's not my problem. Once again, prove my point.

Lol i posted the exact same vid on the last page

 

[Hanafuda]

.
And i quote: Even a fucking child can get a machine gun easily.
.

There are no machine guns in that video.

 

[Quantumcat]

There are no machine guns in that video.

Yes there are. The son gets an AK47 near the end. Did you watch it all the way through?

 

[Hanafuda]

Yes there are. The son gets an AK47 near the end. Did you watch it all the way through?

That AK47 is semiautomatic, not a machine gun.

Besides he didn't 'get' it. They let him hold it for a few seconds, and you can be quite sure it wasn't loaded. That video seems staged as fuck.

If you want to legally purchase an actual machine gun, you'll have to first apply to BATFE for a Class III permit, go through their Class III background check (not the usual background check for gun purchases), pay for the tax stamp if approved, wait a VERY long time before the paperwork actually goes through, and then actually purchase the gun which will in most cases be $20,000 or more. Sometimes much more. There was a law passed in 1986 that banned any further importation of full auto firearms, and sale to civilians of any new full auto firearms. The only 'machine guns' that civilians can buy and sell were already in circulation prior to 1986, so the supply is finite and tightly regulated/supervised by BATFE. There aren't that many actually for sale at any given time. Most of them are owned only for collector/investment value, or to make some money off letting people shoot it briefly at occasional events. And if you decide to become a Class III firearm owner, you are consenting to BATFE coming to your home at any time without appointment to inspect the weapon(s) and your safe storage practices and facilities.

 

[Quantumcat]

That AK47 is semiautomatic, not a machine gun.

Besides he didn't 'get' it. They let him hold it for a few seconds, and you can be quite sure it wasn't loaded. That video seems staged as fuck.

If you want to legally purchase an actual machine gun, you'll have to first apply to BATFE for a Class III permit, go through their Class III background check (not the usual background check for gun purchases), pay for the tax stamp if approved, wait a VERY long time before the paperwork actually goes through, and then actually purchase the gun which will in most cases be $20,000 or more. Sometimes much more. There was a law passed in 1986 that banned any further importation of full auto firearms, and sale to civilians of any new full auto firearms. The only 'machine guns' that civilians can buy and sell were already in circulation prior to 1986, so the supply is finite and tightly regulated/supervised by BATFE. Most of them are owned only for collector/investment value, or to make some money off letting people shoot it briefly at occasional events. And if you decide to become a Class III firearm owner, you are consenting to BATFE coming to your home at any time without appointment to inspect the weapon(s) and your safe storage practices and facilities.

The store owner didn't tell the father that he couldn't buy it. If it hadn't been staged, the boy could have walked out with it if he wanted to. Replace the "machine gun" in the previous guy's comment with "semi automatic" then. Just as shocking. You're only arguing over semantics, not meaning. What other civilised country lets children have weapons like that?

I think it is kind of funny that you can't trust an adult to bring a bottle of water on a plane but you can trust a little child with a weapon that can kill dozens of people with one pull of a trigger.

 

[Hanafuda]

The store owner didn't tell the father that he couldn't buy it. If it hadn't been staged, the boy could have walked out with it if he wanted to. Replace the "machine gun" in the previous guy's comment with "semi automatic" then. Just as shocking. You're only arguing over semantics, not meaning. What other civilised country lets children have weapons like that?

The difference between semiauto and full auto is definitely not just semantics.

As for that rifle, assuming he passes the background check, the father could purchase it. The child cannot legally own or purchase a firearm. And the only reason the pistol or the AK came into it is because ABC wanted to present that scenario, so you could be shocked.

I was taught to shoot from about that age. I've been using firearms for over 40 years, and in my experience generally the people with the safest innate practices are those who were taught when young.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

The difference between semiauto and full auto is definitely not just semantics.

As for that rifle, assuming he passes the background check, the father could purchase it. The child cannot legally own or purchase a firearm. And the only reason the pistol or the AK came into it is because ABC wanted to present that scenario, so you could be shocked.

I was taught to shoot from about that age. I've been using firearms for over 40 years, and in my experience generally the people with the safest innate practices are those who were taught when young.

Sandy Hook was also the nightmare scenario that was never supposed to exist except for shock factor, but here we are

 

[Hanafuda]

Sandy Hook was also the nightmare scenario that was never supposed to exist except for shock factor, but here we are

The shooter at Sandy Hook was 20 years old, had never been trained in gun safety, stole his mother's rifle and murdered her with it before he murdered a bunch of kids. He broke all kinds of laws to do so, laws which didn't stop him. Quantamcat was complaining of his shock that it could be legal for a parent to purchase a rifle to teach their kids how to shoot and handle firearms safely, and he had earlier mistaken the AK variant rifle in the video for a machine gun. I don't see the connection between your comment and the points we were discussing, unless you're just throwing that out for its own shock value.

 

[Quantumcat]

The shooter at Sandy Hook was 20 years old, had never been trained in gun safety, stole his mother's rifle and murdered her with it before he murdered a bunch of kids. He broke all kinds of laws to do so, laws which didn't stop him. Quantamcat was complaining of his shock that it could be legal for a parent to purchase a rifle to teach their kids how to shoot and handle firearms safely, and he had earlier mistaken the AK variant rifle in the video for a machine gun. I don't see the connection between your comment and the points we were discussing, unless you're just throwing that out for its own shock value.

Yeah it isn't relevant to the point I was making, but still, if it hadn't been so easy for the mother to stockpile so many guns, and if there were laws about how they had to be stored, her son might never have gotten ahold of any guns and Sandy Hook might not have happened at all.

But anyway, I'll stay out of this discussion now, I think if it isn't obvious to people right now they'll never get it. So no point continuing.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

The shooter at Sandy Hook was 20 years old, had never been trained in gun safety, stole his mother's rifle and murdered her with it before he murdered a bunch of kids. He broke all kinds of laws to do so, laws which didn't stop him. Quantamcat was complaining of his shock that it could be legal for a parent to purchase a rifle to teach their kids how to shoot and handle firearms safely, and he had earlier mistaken the AK variant rifle in the video for a machine gun. I don't see the connection between your comment and the points we were discussing, unless you're just throwing that out for its own shock value.

You got me there

No, but in all seriousness, I said it because there is absolutely nothing that is off the table for discussion in trying to crack down on loopholes in our fucked up system, because we have had our collective feet stuffed into our mouths so many times now and nothing is going to change

 

[Hanafuda]

Yeah it isn't relevant to the point I was making, but still, if it hadn't been so easy for the mother to stockpile so many guns, and if there were laws about how they had to be stored, her son might never have gotten ahold of any guns and Sandy Hook might not have happened at all.

But anyway, I'll stay out of this discussion now, I think if it isn't obvious to people right now they'll never get it. So no point continuing.

He was an adult and old enough to buy the rifle himself. Not the 2 handguns, but the rifle he could've. But you're right that his mother shares the blame for that tragedy, especially considering she had to know how fucked up that dude was.

Back in the 30's my grandfather bought a 12 gauge shotgun from Sears&Roebuck, mail order from their catalog. Delivered right to his door. He was 13 years old. I hunted with that shotgun for a couple years in high school. The gun laws in effect then were quite minimal, yet these 'mass shooting' type events were extremely rare. Gang violence during Prohibition was the closest thing. Until 1934 you could even buy a Thompson submachine gun by mail order. The guns haven't changed or gotten more deadly - the people have.

 

[Quantumcat]

The guns haven't changed or gotten more deadly - the people have.

Ok, one last reply. Did people in Australia suddenly get less deadly between 1996 and the 2000s when the homicide rate dropped considerably following gun law reforms? It isn't people to blame. See this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26396147/

This is the summary results and conclusions, but you can read the whole study from the link above (Edit: just realised you'd have to pay to see the whole thing, sorry).

RESULTS: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

CONCLUSIONS: Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.