|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Ah, so you've completely misunderstood the mentality. Its not that The People are going to get into a toe-to-toe fight with the Army. Its that having The People armed means that it would be too big of a pain in the ass for the Army to even begin to think about starting the battle. I would disagree. The matter and type of armament that 'The People' have at their disposal is, at best, a minor nuisance to a well armed military and I don't believe it in any way deters the government. The bigger 'deterrent' in my mind is our voting system. Politicians are placating to those with the loudest voices and the biggest wallets. I don't think for one second they consider armed citizens as being any type of threat. Perhaps in the past, it might have carried more weight. But to be honest, even when individuals and groups have had access to weapons that placed them on near-equal footing with a tyrannical state, it at best only delayed the inevitable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
NoNukes writes: They damn well should be. ... the school is on the defensive about why they involved the police. Isn't one of the larger issues here the idiotic 'Zero Tolerance' policies that now exist in our schools? From what I have seen, it almost appears as though school administrators are actually been incentivized to not think critically anymore. Whether it be a perceived bomb threat, some phrase on a T-shirt, making a gun shape with your thumb and forefinger, it's all part in parcel with this notion that every possible situation must be handled as if it is a worst case scenario. Did the school over-react here? Of course. But that seems to be the norm nowadays.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
But construing EVERYTHING as a possible threat is not only idiotic; it also diverts security resources from actual threats Could not agree more. In fact, this is an argument I have been making in deference to the NSA's spying program. As someone who performs business analysis as part of their job, I am fully cognizant of what happens when you attempt to track too many parameters and data points. It invariably becomes 'noise'. With that, your metrics are meaningless and are likely leading to false positives far more than they lead to net tangibles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Not thinking critically may have been an issue, yes. Wasn't the teacher who ultimately 'sounded the alarm' an English teacher? I may sound like a condescending douche, but I would not put English teachers too high on the rating scale when it comes to technical acumen. My suspicion is that is part of the problem here. A teacher with limited knowledge of electronics and circuitry makes a judgement call likely referencing what they 'thought' bombs looked like based on hours of television programming. But as I indicated, to play a little devil's advocate, the zero tolerance policies are exacerbating the situation with regards to these knee-jerk reactions to anything that might seem marginally threatening. To make matters worse, this school isn't located too far from that 'Draw Mohammed' exhibit that occurred in Texas where two gunman tried to shoot up the place but were shot first by security. Naturally, the local populace is probably a little on edge as a result. Then again, it is Texas too. Shoot first and ask questions later. And never go jogging without your firearm lest a rabid coyote crosses your path.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
As a gun owner myself, I think the NRA is the best example of an organization that was hijacked by some shrewd corporate lobbyists and now exists merely as an extension of the gun industry to further their own agenda.
It certainly is a far cry from how it originated, which was an organization that existed to provide classes on safety and the proper handling and storage of firearms. The end result is it caters to the fringe elements of the gun-nut crowd as a means to and end of helping to keep Colt, Winchester and Smith&Wesson making money hand over fist. From my perspective regarding the list you provided, here is my feedback:
Some others I would add:
That's just off the top of my head. Also, start educating the public regarding that tired old rationale for being armed to the teeth because you need to overthrow the government. That is the most asinine, anachronistic concept we have in place today. I am sorry, but you could be armed to the teeth with thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammo, but it won't mean a hill of beans when you see ten M1A1 Abrahams tanks at your doorstep. You might as well arm yourself with Nerf guns for all the good it will do you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Cat Sci writes: The obvious point would be that weapons aren't appropriate in every situation.Well, obviously guns are more effective weapons. What's your point? To further the point, the notion is that certain weapons are capable of tremendous amounts of death and destruction. So how do we, as a society, draw a line in the sand with regards to which weapons the general populace should have access to? One of the primary arguments that gun proponents make is that the citizenry needs to be armed in order to have the capability of fighting back against an oppressive or corrupt government. By extension of that logic, that would seem to indicate that the citizenry should be given access to the same types of weapons the military has at their disposal. Now I ask, even the most ardent gun supporter, is that really what you honestly want? Do we want to foster a scenario where individuals who have the funds are free to purchase any form of military ordinance they like? i.e. tanks, fighter jets, missiles, bazookas, stinger launch systems, SAMS, land mines, grenades, VX gas rockets, etc? The point here is: we are living in the 21st century. There are weapons and technology available that the Founding Fathers could scarcely conceive of. Would they have drafted the second amendment in its current guise if they had known? Hard to say. But I would argue they DID take that notion into account by injecting one specific word in the 2nd amendment:
quote: Keyword: REGULATED I would echo what others here have stipulated: we are living in a time where a single individual can wreak havoc with a small arsenal of weapons at their disposal. Simply shrugging it off as a consequence of our existing gun laws drives home the point that they indeed do need to change. And Congress (both Repubs AND Dems) need to grow a pair and stand up to the lunatic fringe in the NRA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Police say when Aragon Salas pulled the trigger, the gun fired and the bullet traveled through both of Martinez’s legs. If there is any upside (for him anyway), at least he didn't blow off his own junk. Which has happened in the past with other 'responsible gun owners'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Anyone here against improved background checks and dealer licensing? I certainly am not. And I am a gun owner. I was watching BBC news yesterday and they were interviewing a couple of gun shop owners out of Tennessee. Interestingly, they were actually very much in favor of Obama's assertions because they indicated it would likely increase business for them and reduce the likelihood of guns being transferred between parties through the back channels. Like anything though, the fringe is usually the loudest, so their voices are the ones being utilized on our cable news outlets like CNN, MSNBC or Fox. Similar to other discussions or debates in our country, like abortion, gay rights, etc., it seems our news agencies are more concerned with putting on a spectacle as opposed to actually having a cogent discussion on a particular topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
A criminal manages to take the gun from a cop from 2076. He fires the gun at the cop, but the gun detects the unauthorized user and instead stuns the criminal with an electrical shock. That idea is actually borrowed from Judge Dredd comics. For those that don't know, Judge Dredd is a futuristic law enforcement officer in a dystopian future. In a similar fashion, his gun is coded genetically to only him and other 'judges'. i.e. other cops. If a criminal tries to use his gun against him, it won't fire and will incapacitate the criminal. Sometimes its electric shocks; sometimes the gun actually just detonates and kills the criminal. A little overboard, but hey, its the comics.
Any objections out there to guns that only fire for authorized users? Not from me. But the NRA is opposed to this type of technology as they feel it is a 'slippery slope' to having the government mandate that all guns behave this way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
The shooter was also interviewed by the FBI twice. I believe he was on the terrorist watch list. Yet thanks to the idiots at the NRA, they repeatedly shoot down (no pun intended), any legislation that would forbid the selling of firearms to those on the terrorist watch list.
Also disconcerting to realize that this guy was working as an armed security guard since 2007! Either way, sad day for the nation and especially hard on those of us who live in Central Florida.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
What is the purpose of the AR15? Of course to kill humans. It was designed to kill humans in large numbers and should be banned to anyone who can not pass a extensive background check or is on any no fly list. I also think if you are a lunatic or have a lunatic in your house hold you should not be allowed to own one Technically, all guns are designed to kill. That is there function. With that being said, there is a logical dividing line between a weapon that is more about personal defense than personal offense. Handguns for example are meant to be lightweight and have limited ranges. The army (as you well know), considers them 'side arms'. They are a weapon the soldier will turn to if their primary weapon (their rifle) is out of ammunition or malfunctions. But no one is going to fight a war with a handgun. Assault rifles exemplify their function in their name: they are designed for assaults. They have long ranges and are not meant to function in a defensive role. I actually don't think any of these types of weapons should be available to the general public as I put them in the same class as bazookas or RPGs. They are weapons of war, pure and simple. And even I will admit that handguns are somewhat on the fence regarding their function. Granted, they are in the 'defensive' camp, but they are also easily concealed, which makes them often used in crimes. I have a few good friends that are cops and all of them have told me the same thing: the best gun for home defense, if you feel you need one, is a pump action shotgun loaded with non-lethal ammunition. Like rubber pellets, low grade bird shot or even rock salt. Ultimately, it isn't even the ammunition that matters. It is the shotgun's iconic sound. The cop mentioned to me that the moment any intruder hears that distinctive 'click-click' of a pump action shotgun, they will bolt. On a side note, I am quite interested to hear from the FBI the circumstances of why this lunatic was interviewed twice in 2013. Clearly something tipped them off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
You should not be able to buy a Claymore antipersonnel mine or a AR-15 for the same reasons imo. Our laws are never going to change until we change the perception in this country of needing to be armed in order to overthrow the government. That is the core philosophical argument used by right wing nut job militias. Their military level weapons are required 'just in case' they have to band together in case the government becomes corrupt. This concept is so fucking asinine that it reaches a level of absurdity that I can scarcely comprehend at this stage. We saw this behavior with Cliven Bundy and his band of inbred hillbilly jackoffs that were arming themselves and preparing for the 'evil government' coming to usurp their land. And it wasn't even their land! Personally, if I was president, I would have been a total dick at that stage. I would have sent a couple of Apache gunships and a few M1A2 Abrahams tanks to that location. Not as a means to escalate violence, but as a reality check for these nimrods. Take a look at the fire-power that the US military has at it's disposal. What are you possibly going to do against that even with your friggen AR-15? You could shoot at that parked tank all day and the soldiers inside would be pissing themselves laughing at your stupidity as the bullets bounce off. You might was well arm yourselves with Nerf guns for all the good it will do you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36563337
quote: He does have a point. Although I would call 'the disease' the sheer stupidity of the average Republican Senator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
How about taking guns away from Americans with insufficient/no training? As a gun owner, I concur. I believe training is a core component of firearm safety and usage. And not just general training on being safe with the weapon. Training pertaining to how to respond in various situations. That could help mitigate the knee-jerk reactions that result in people drawing their firearm at the slightest inclination. And by the way, that includes police as well. Too many instances of a 'shoot first ask questions later' mentality in this country.
How about taking guns away from Americans with known mental health issues? This is a no brainer. I would also go further and provide more provisions and support to families who have family members that exhibit mental health problems.
How about taking guns away from Americans who have previously proved themselves to be irresponsible by letting their infant children blow someone's head off? Also a no brainer. The NRA would fight this tooth and nail, but they are beyond reproach at this stage. A few things I would add: - No guns for anyone on the terrorist watch list.- Ban on assault weapons; guns in the hands of citizens should be defensive in nature. Assault weapons are the the very definition of an offensive weapon. - Stricter penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
A gun is not a defensive weapon. The idea that you can defend yourself with a gun is the problem, not the solution. Sorry, but I disagree. A Tae Kwon Do kick can be lethal. But I wouldn't call the usage of Tae Kwon Do as being a problem in defending oneself. It is a response to an attack. If a gun is used in response to an attack, it is being used in a defensive posture. Police use their guns for defense all the time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024