Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[Haggis_McMutton]

It is relevant. We ban guns to save maybe hundreds of children from mass shootings. Or we stop abortions and save millions. Although losing 18 kids is horrible what say you to all the babies that dont even get that old? Why do 'mericans have such grief over 18 but not tens of thousands?

Let's play a game of "spot the differences" !

Victim of abortion:


Victim of shooting:


What do you think? Can we spot any differences?

[Crazyirishman]

In regards to the Connecticut Shooting, I find myself agreeing with Morgan Freeman. This is much more of a problem with society and the media than it its a problem with the mechanism used to cause harm.

Is the US media radically different than media in Britain? Is the US society significantly more homicidal and lunatic than that of Australia?

Or perhaps, it's the easy access to guns that's enabling unstable people like these to perpetrate these crimes?

What I'm saying is that this is more of a cultural problem than anything. The reasons people go apeshit and randomly shoot up everything is that in our culture tells everybody that they're special for their whole lives, and then one day they realize that they aren't and then they face an identity crises. Some people aren't mentally stable enough to deal with not being special, so they try to find a way to be. Then they turn on the TV and see that every major new outlet in the US will plaster their face on every program, find survivors of the victims before a tear hit the ground, and turn the event into a sick and twisted idol-worship while asking why did they do it? And then presto!... they are now famous for being a monster and they will be remembered by many. Guns just happen to be the easiest way to accomplish this motive.

[MegaProphet]

Well, I'm thoroughly disappointed in this community. I guess I really was wasting my time in thinking that there could be a good discussion about the problems of how mental illness in the United States is viewed and treated, but it's clear that nobody on the conservative side of things here has any interest in it, and even the liberals here don't seem interested in giving it a serious discussion. Most likely because it would cost significant money to help protect those kids, and we can't have that because personal greed is far more important than safety. I guess I was wrong to come to this thread in the hope for it.

Perhaps the discussion of the problems of how mental illness is viewed in our society deserves its own thread. Though it is related to the topic of gun control in light of the recent tragedy I can see how it could be considered off the topic of this thread.

[-Maximus-]

It is relevant. We ban guns to save maybe hundreds of children from mass shootings. Or we stop abortions and save millions. Although losing 18 kids is horrible what say you to all the babies that dont even get that old? Why do 'mericans have such grief over 18 but not tens of thousands?

Let's play a game of "spot the differences" !

What do you think? Can we spot any differences?

Looks like murder either way. Even evolutionists that have no basis for morality are against murder.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Well, I'm thoroughly disappointed in this community. I guess I really was wasting my time in thinking that there could be a good discussion about the problems of how mental illness in the United States is viewed and treated, but it's clear that nobody on the conservative side of things here has any interest in it, and even the liberals here don't seem interested in giving it a serious discussion. Most likely because it would cost significant money to help protect those kids, and we can't have that because personal greed is far more important than safety. I guess I was wrong to come to this thread in the hope for it.

Perhaps the discussion of the problems of how mental illness is viewed in our society deserves its own thread. Though it is related to the topic of gun control in light of the recent tragedy I can see how it could be considered off the topic of this thread.

Done: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182707

[Haggis_McMutton]

Looks like murder either way. Even evolutionists that have no basis for morality are against murder.

Next time try to troll a little more subtly.

[HapSmo19]

It is relevant. We ban guns to save maybe hundreds of children from mass shootings. Or we stop abortions and save millions. Although losing 18 kids is horrible what say you to all the babies that dont even get that old? Why do 'mericans have such grief over 18 but not tens of thousands?

Let's play a game of "spot the differences" !

Victim of abortion:


Victim of shooting:


What do you think? Can we spot any differences?

The first one is a bird and the 2nd one wasn't aborted?

[Phatscotty]

Is the US media radically different than media in Britain? Is the US society significantly more homicidal and lunatic than that of Australia?

Uh...YEAH!!!!!!!! Our media does not spoon feed us bullshit about Britain and Australia 24-7 so that we can blame all our problems on the big bad scapegoat America. We reserve that for scapegoats in our own country. And we are much more free to speak here.

And as for the homicidal tendencies, it's not only geographical, but I concede that America is far more engulfed in the counter-culture than the other countries. I would bet we are more medicated as well.

And I do think that scaring the shit out of young children about global warming, and starting off their lives overly worried that the world is going to end, not to mention being born into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, is starting them off on the wrong foot.

[Phatscotty]

Okay...Why the F does everyone keep mentioning the assault rifle, the Bushmaster????? It wasn't even used, was it?

[daddy1gringo]

I have a serious question. (Although I am obviously on the conservative side of most issues, I'm not sure I buy in on the gun-control issue, so this is an honest, serious question.) Actually it is several related questions. The gun that the shooter used in the Newtown shooting -- was it legal or illegal? What kind of gun was it and how did he obtain it? Would tighter gun-control laws have prevented him from having access to it? Does anybody know?

[crispybits]

From everything I have read his mother was a gun fan. She owned the weapons he used legally.

Obviously at the point where he stole them from her they became illegally obtained.

Tighter gun control laws that would prevent civilians from owning lethal weapons would almost certainly have prevented access, as he was a painfully shy kid with autism and aspergers, so the chances of him having black market contacts is virtually nil. These were guns inside the family home.

[Lootifer]

I have a serious question. (Although I am obviously on the conservative side of most issues, i'm not sure I buy in on the gun-control issue, so this is an honest, serious question.) Actually it is several related questions. The gun that the shooter used in the Newtown shooting -- was it legal or illegal? What kind of gun was it and how did he obtain it? Would tighter gun-control laws have prevented him from having access to it? Does anybody know?

Im not sure on the legality of the gun but your other question can be estimated.

Firstly he did the shooting using a handgun (or pair of handguns iirc), which were owned by his mother.

Would tighter gun laws prevented him from having access to a handgun: (just my 2c)

- If tighter gun laws were applied to present day CT; no it wouldnt have made much of a difference as there is a huge volume of guns in america, meaning even if they were illegal as of tomorrow it would take years to turn guns from "readily accessible" to "very hard to get hold of"

- If hand guns, assault rifles and other protection/military grade weapons (as opposed to non-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns) had been essentially illegal for 5+ years (and the required gun related cultural change had occured) then I would suggest that yes in this case it would have made a difference; I dont think he would have been able to get the required hardware to do what he did*

* note that this only applies to the CT guy, I could not confidently say the same about, for example, the theatre shooter. Look at NZ, we have very restrictive gun laws (compared to the US) yet we still have shooting sprees every decade or so - but none of our shooters are 20 year old kids essentially stealing a gun out of mums handbag like it was a 20 dollar note.

[Phatscotty]

I have a serious question. (Although I am obviously on the conservative side of most issues, I'm not sure I buy in on the gun-control issue, so this is an honest, serious question.) Actually it is several related questions. The gun that the shooter used in the Newtown shooting -- was it legal or illegal? What kind of gun was it and how did he obtain it? Would tighter gun-control laws have prevented him from having access to it? Does anybody know?

Not trying to tease liberals, but want to share the point made in this picture

[Phatscotty]

From everything I have read his mother was a gun fan. She owned the weapons he used legally.

Obviously at the point where he stole them from her they became illegally obtained.

Tighter gun control laws that would prevent civilians from owning lethal weapons would almost certainly have prevented access, as he was a painfully shy kid with autism and aspergers, so the chances of him having black market contacts is virtually nil. These were guns inside the family home.

wait, how does tighter gun control prevent someone stealing weapons from another who obtained them legally (no matter how tight the gun laws are?) How is the government inserted inbetween the point where the guns are legally owned, and the moment where someone who the government cuts off from owning weapons, steals them?

[Night Strike]

1) It's mostly handguns used in crime, and you don't need one to protect yourself

BS. The handgun is the best option for self-defense. People rarely have the ability to wait for a police officer to bring their own guns to assist.

For everyone who wants to outlaw guns, do you just want every person to hopefully have a chance to call 911 for help and to hopefully have the time to wait for the police to come to take care of you in the event of an emergency?

A personal weapon is the first line of defense for self-protection, and a gun in the possession of a person trained to use it is the best personal weapon for defense. It has enough power to dissuade someone from using force in the first place, but it also has enough stopping power to end any attack that starts. You don't get that same effect from a knife, bat, pan, etc.

Were you going to discuss my ideas regarding mental health or just pretend it is a liberal wasteland?

We have problems with covering mental health because all the liberal trial lawyers go out of their way to sue anyone who commits others if they were even possibly incorrect in doing so. Furthermore, the government doesn't currently have the resources available to provide mental health care to people, unless we make some serious cutbacks in all the other government handouts that are currently provided. Until then, we should make sure that all citizens who choose to carry guns are aware of their responsibilities in doing so.

Well, I'm thoroughly disappointed in this community. I guess I really was wasting my time in thinking that there could be a good discussion about the problems of how mental illness in the United States is viewed and treated, but it's clear that nobody on the conservative side of things here has any interest in it, and even the liberals here don't seem interested in giving it a serious discussion. Most likely because it would cost significant money to help protect those kids, and we can't have that because personal greed is far more important than safety. I guess I was wrong to come to this thread in the hope for it.

Cut current governmental spending to be balanced and then we can have an honest discussion about the role the government should play in the mental health care arena. Until then, the politicians' greed of giving out handouts to get elected is what causes there to not be enough money for this topic.

[AAFitz]

Until then, we should make sure that all citizens who choose to carry guns are aware of their responsibilities in doing so.

Maybe standard boilerplate at the end of the form such as:

"Dont kill anyone with this, mkay?"

[AAFitz]

It is relevant. We ban guns to save maybe hundreds of children from mass shootings. Or we stop abortions and save millions. Although losing 18 kids is horrible what say you to all the babies that dont even get that old? Why do 'mericans have such grief over 18 but not tens of thousands?

Let's play a game of "spot the differences" !

What do you think? Can we spot any differences?

Looks like murder either way. Even evolutionists that have no basis for morality are against murder.

Or the majority of evolutionists who have a basis for morality for that matter.

Oh, and just so you know, if your belief in God is the only thing that is keeping you from killing someone...youre a fucking psycho.

[Night Strike]

Until then, we should make sure that all citizens who choose to carry guns are aware of their responsibilities in doing so.

Maybe standard boilerplate at the end of the form such as:

"Dont kill anyone with this, mkay?"

Actually, that wouldn't be a good idea because it would imply you couldn't use it for self-defense.

Besides, the legal owner of the guns wasn't the one who did the killing.

[AAFitz]

Until then, we should make sure that all citizens who choose to carry guns are aware of their responsibilities in doing so.

Maybe standard boilerplate at the end of the form such as:

"Dont kill anyone with this, mkay?"

Actually, that wouldn't be a good idea because it would imply you couldn't use it for self-defense.

Besides, the legal owner of the guns wasn't the one who did the killing.

Very insightful as always.

[crispybits]

From everything I have read his mother was a gun fan. She owned the weapons he used legally.

Obviously at the point where he stole them from her they became illegally obtained.

Tighter gun control laws that would prevent civilians from owning lethal weapons would almost certainly have prevented access, as he was a painfully shy kid with autism and aspergers, so the chances of him having black market contacts is virtually nil. These were guns inside the family home.

wait, how does tighter gun control prevent someone stealing weapons from another who obtained them legally (no matter how tight the gun laws are?) How is the government inserted inbetween the point where the guns are legally owned, and the moment where someone who the government cuts off from owning weapons, steals them?

Because if his mother had not legally been allowed to own guns then he wouldn't have been able to illegally steal them from her. Not legal/illegal - possible/impossible. Don't make it illegal to make it illegal - make it illegal to make it impossible (or at least much, much, MUCH more difficult)

[Phatscotty]

From everything I have read his mother was a gun fan. She owned the weapons he used legally.

Obviously at the point where he stole them from her they became illegally obtained.

Tighter gun control laws that would prevent civilians from owning lethal weapons would almost certainly have prevented access, as he was a painfully shy kid with autism and aspergers, so the chances of him having black market contacts is virtually nil. These were guns inside the family home.

wait, how does tighter gun control prevent someone stealing weapons from another who obtained them legally (no matter how tight the gun laws are?) How is the government inserted inbetween the point where the guns are legally owned, and the moment where someone who the government cuts off from owning weapons, steals them?

Because if his mother had not legally been allowed to own guns then he wouldn't have been able to illegally steal them from her. Not legal/illegal - possible/impossible. Don't make it illegal to make it illegal - make it illegal to make it impossible (or at least much, much, MUCH more difficult)

so...then...what you meant to say...is take away American citizens ability to own a gun, based on the .01% possibility that a psycho might steal those guns. That's throwing out the baby with the bath water.

that gives and awful lot of sway when it comes to the worst among us (mass murdering psychopaths) dictating how other 99.9% of us are going to live our lives, apparently without any rights or any ability to defend ourselves.

[crispybits]

Without any rights? You are joking right? The only rights you have are directly linked to gun ownership?

If you mean psychopaths as in killers that will shoot you because they're insane like the guy here or other examples of "going postal" then like I said - the law tries to make it as difficult as possible for them to get hold of the weapons they can do major damage with. Obviously you'll never do that 100%, but does that mean you shouldn't try? That you should just say "yeah whatever, as long as I get my gun I can defend myself" (as long as you're not asleep, or falling over drunk, or facing the wrong direction, or mentally ill and therefore denied that right, or a kid, or any one of a hundred other reasons why just having a legal gun won't provide any protection whatsoever because you're either too far away from it or you don't have it ready when you needed it)

And besides, do those kind of people dictate your lifestyle? If guns are purely self-defence, then preventing your need to use one is surely better than putting you into a firefight?

If you mean the psychopaths in government, then do you honestly think you and however many of your friends stand any chance at all against tanks, cruise missiles, attack helicopters and all those other much bigger toys the army have if the government really did try and do something outrageous?

How about the over-reaction of arming everyone with lethal weapons on the 0.0000000000000000001% chance a psychopath will come along that day?

[Symmetry]

To play Devil's advocate for a moment, Jeff Goldberg had an interesting take on owning guns:

The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)

[Phatscotty]

Without any rights? You are joking right? The only rights you have are directly linked to gun ownership?

YES! Crispy, please try to understand. As a Brit, you are missing all the reasons. As I have pointed out before, there is no reason why you should be familiar with American's rights (and how we defend them), our Constitution, our history, and the way WE do Freedom.

How long did people rights last in Germany after Hitler took all the guns? Russia with Stalin? China with Mao? (you are in great company btw)

Once the guns are taken away, how in the hell are you supposed to defend your rights? I'm betting you are under the impression that government is always good, and doesn't have any reason to violate peoples rights...

[crispybits]

So my definition of freedom is different from yours? My definition of justice is different from yours?

Why, just because it's in the constitution, is it automatically right and above question or reproach? After all the constitution has changed over time. ignoring the "would it ever happen because politics" argument think about "should it ever happen because ethics"

Repeatedly falling back on the words on a 200 year old document that at one point advocated slavery is not a strong position. I don't understand why you can't understand that.

If the government goes bat shit crazy, either the army goes along with it (what legal weapons could you own that defeat a cruise missile or apache helicopter popping up from behind a hill 2 miles away), or the army fights it. Either way your legal guns make sweet FA difference.