Gun control in America

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



jinXed by JaNx
I open this forum to debate whether or not there is a practical answer to controlling gun possession and violence in, America. I often look at the "war on guns" as i do the, "war on drugs." Guns are already here and they're not going anywhere. Especially with the advent of technology (3d printers) they're only going to be more easily acquired. I think putting more restrictions and rules on gun possession is a good start but it is by no means an answer. I also think outlawing guns in general would have adverse affects.

At a certain point i think we as a nation just need to learn to live with the fact that this type of violence is going to happen. It's become apart of our world and much like drugs, i think the best place to battle the violence is spreading awareness and understanding in the communities.

Ushgarak
The problem with that view and that comparison is that the effect of the war in drugs is pretty much the same all over western civilization. We can see that as inevitable.

When it comes to guns and gun violence, the US is the weird outlier in the west. No other western country has anything remotely like its issues. It is not normal, and it is not a state of affairs that is inevitable or simply needs to be put up with. It can, should and will be challenged.

Scribble

Ushgarak
There was actually a gun in my house for a long time- my father kept a fancy shotgun for sporting. Even just having that necessitated a regular visit from a Royal Military Policeman to check it was secure.

He keeps an air rifle instead these days.

So indeed, the target is never total prohibition. As I have said in threads before, it's about confronting culture, and some amount of prohibition has to form part of that. In England, no-one can keep a gun that they could reasonably go on a rampage with- but in the end, it's not the laws stopping the rampages, it's the lack of aggressive gun culture. The laws just reflect that.

Surtur
The thing is though when you try to prohibit certain things in this country it tends to potentially have a backlash that makes things worse.

The sad reality is you need these new laws to change things, but the laws will never be changed until the people change, which..well, won't happen. Not unless you put some kind of Professor X style telepathic whammy on a large group of people in this country.

Ushgarak
I don't really believe US attitudes never change. Look at race relations.

Surtur
That's just it though, these people feel like they have nothing left now BUT their firearms.

jaden101
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I open this forum to debate whether or not there is a practical answer to controlling gun possession and violence in, America. I often look at the "war on guns" as i do the, "war on drugs." Guns are already here and they're not going anywhere. Especially with the advent of technology (3d printers) they're only going to be more easily acquired. I think putting more restrictions and rules on gun possession is a good start but it is by no means an answer. I also think outlawing guns in general would have adverse affects.

At a certain point i think we as a nation just need to learn to live with the fact that this type of violence is going to happen. It's become apart of our world and much like drugs, i think the best place to battle the violence is spreading awareness and understanding in the communities.

If a government wanted to decrease future sales of guns for the domestic market it could levy massive taxes on all types of weapons and/or ammunition thus limiting the number of people who could afford them.
To mitigate losses to the arms manufacturers you reduce red tape for exports.

Fund a gun amnesty to bring in a chunk of the ones still in circulation

That would decrease gun ownership without any gun control laws needing changed at all.

Q99
Originally posted by Surtur
That's just it though, these people feel like they have nothing left now BUT their firearms.

Which is kinda sad, as I'm pretty sure most of these people have a lot more going on in their lives than this.

And one the things is, a lot of these people are in rural areas, while at the same time we have people dying in urban areas thanks to how easy it is to get guns and ammo.


Still, I can see a solid argument for leaving guns relatively unrestricted, but enacting the ammo restrictions other countries have. In some countries, it's the bullets that are hard to come by, and while places like gun ranges can get them, even those with legitimate reasons to have ammo at home get fairly small amounts.

AsbestosFlaygon
I'm on Scribble's view. Ownership of certain types of guns, like rapid-fire guns (assault rifles, uzis, machine guns, SMGs), armor-piercing guns (magnums), and explosive guns (rocket launchers, grenade launchers, HEI rounds) should be prohibited to civilians.

Esau Cairn
The last shooting massacre in Australia happened 19 YEARS AGO.
We've proven gun control does work.

snowdragon
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
At a certain point i think we as a nation just need to learn to live with the fact that this type of violence is going to happen. It's become apart of our world and much like drugs, i think the best place to battle the violence is spreading awareness and understanding in the communities.

I'm not sure how far understanding and awareness goes when you communicate that in certain parts of american ghettos that have gun deaths practically everyday (illegal guns being used.)

Realistically guns are so ingrained in the US culture it would take generations of culture change to remove guns from the USA without revolts.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Q99
Which is kinda sad, as I'm pretty sure most of these people have a lot more going on in their lives than this.

And one the things is, a lot of these people are in rural areas, while at the same time we have people dying in urban areas thanks to how easy it is to get guns and ammo.


Still, I can see a solid argument for leaving guns relatively unrestricted, but enacting the ammo restrictions other countries have. In some countries, it's the bullets that are hard to come by, and while places like gun ranges can get them, even those with legitimate reasons to have ammo at home get fairly small amounts.
I think ammo restrictions are the way to go. There's never a legitimate reason (besides going to a gun range and bird hunting) to have more than 20, 30 bullets/shells at any given time.

My dad and I would go deer hunting with no more than three or four rifle bullets each. Why? Because when you're deer hunting, you generally don't get more than one chance to shoot when you see the deer.

With home protection, I can't envision a scenario where a home owner needs more than ten bullets--they're not getting into a lengthy shootout.

Now, if you want to perform a mass shooting, sure, a few hundred bullets is ideal.

Q99
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The last shooting massacre in Australia happened 19 YEARS AGO.
We've proven gun control does work.

For the US, here's a chart made this October:

http://40.media.tumblr.com/a7d7ef8bb6f6a013ab18690e5c50eba6/tumblr_inline_nvzryiduCZ1qjop0x_500.jpg


Mass shooting tracker

AsbestosFlaygon
The backlash with stringent gun control would be criminals would look for alternate ways to kill people, prob more gruesome ways. Like knives, Molotov cocktails, baseball bats, homemade flamethrowers . My point is killers will continue to kill. We can't control gun and ammo supply 'cause then we'd be messing with big-time syndicates. So the best solution really is to eliminate these mafia/syndicates.

Q99
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The backlash with stringent gun control would be criminals would look for alternate ways to kill people, prob more gruesome ways. Like knives, Molotov cocktails, baseball bats, homemade flamethrowers . My point is killers will continue to kill. We can't control gun and ammo supply 'cause then we'd be messing with big-time syndicates. So the best solution really is to eliminate these mafia/syndicates.


It has been done in other countries, including most recently Australia, a very similar country in many ways, and the gruesomeness has *not* gone up.


Some killers will continue to kill, but there is a such thing as a second degree murder, where someone just attacks in the heat of the moment- with whatever's convenient.. Also, first degree murders with less effective weapons are less likely to succeed. Also-also, stuff like armed robberies have a smaller chance of getting out of hand and resulting in death. Criminals, like most people, have a streak of laziness to them. Also, there's the fairly significant number of accidental gun deaths.


Eliminating mafia syndicates won't solve things on the wide scale, and controlling guns puts them in a pinch. If they keep theirs, then they stand out more and are easier for the still-armed police to find and catch. If they don't, then they have less firepower when they are caught.

Surtur
It's not the criminals that would worry me. I mean not that it wouldn't be a problem, but if they really banned guns then all these nutjobs would possibly come out of the woodwork. It'd be the final sign to them that the country has "gone to hell" and yep it is pretty much people in rural areas.

I'm not saying anything would be guaranteed to happen, just that the chances something would aren't so low that I'd rather not find out.

AsbestosFlaygon
Yeah, people would pretty much riot, storming the streets with their guns out and start shooting randomly.

Bardock42
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Yeah, people would pretty much riot, storming the streets with their guns out and start shooting randomly.

I don't see that happening at all.

Surtur
I don't know about randomly shooting people, but it would be possible for some of these nutjobs to try to pull something. Especially when they are surrounded by like minded people.

But we have seen riots over things like sports games so who knows.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Q99
For the US, here's a chart made this October:

http://40.media.tumblr.com/a7d7ef8bb6f6a013ab18690e5c50eba6/tumblr_inline_nvzryiduCZ1qjop0x_500.jpg


Mass shooting tracker

We all know there has not been 294 mass shootings in the US in less then a year.. So your source in accurate.

Bardock42
The source is accurate, it just uses a definition that we wouldn't use for mass shootings like those on campuses. i.e. that there were more than 4 victims including the shooter. That includes gang violence, family murder/suicide, etc, which we would generally exclude, it also includes wounded as victims, not just killed.

This is the source it was compiled from: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

Time-Immemorial
I bet most of that happened in Chicago involving drug and gang violence among blacks. 294 mass shootings is kinda being disingenuous.

Surtur
Yep the gang violence is out of control, nobody seems to care that much.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I bet most of that happened in Chicago involving drug and gang violence among blacks. 294 mass shootings is kinda being disingenuous.

You could just check the source. You would find that most did not happen in Chicago. Of the last 10 entries none happened in Chicago, they happened in: Memphis, TN; Savannah, GA; Dallas, TX; Roanoke, VA; Miami, FL; Chattanooga, TN; Boston, MA; San Francisco, CA; Moscow, ID; San Jose, CA.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep the gang violence is out of control, nobody seems to care that much.

Of course people care, politicians have been fighting this for decades. If you have the genius idea that can solve it you should share it with them, because pretty much everyone agrees that we want less gang violence, but it's not a simple problem to solve.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Bardock42



Of course people care, politicians have been fighting this for decades. If you have the genius idea that can solve it you should share it with them, because pretty much everyone agrees that we want less gang violence, but it's not a simple problem to solve.


Thats simple, take away their guns.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Surtur
It's not the criminals that would worry me. I mean not that it wouldn't be a problem, but if they really banned guns then all these nutjobs would possibly come out of the woodwork. It'd be the final sign to them that the country has "gone to hell" and yep it is pretty much people in rural areas.

I'm not saying anything would be guaranteed to happen, just that the chances something would aren't so low that I'd rather not find out.
Those people are crazy anyway though. This is a dumb argument.

red g jacks
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The problem with that view and that comparison is that the effect of the war in drugs is pretty much the same all over western civilization. We can see that as inevitable.

When it comes to guns and gun violence, the US is the weird outlier in the west. No other western country has anything remotely like its issues. It is not normal, and it is not a state of affairs that is inevitable or simply needs to be put up with. It can, should and will be challenged. you are correct... however we must consider the circumstances which render this true

namely the fact that the founding fathers of the united states created the bill of rights as an unalterable document. they did this because they knew they had to put into place some form of govt to rule the country but they were weary that this govt might eventually come to resemble the type of tyranny that they originally fought to escape

and it just so happens that gun ownership is one of the inalienable rights that they established.

now it might be that they were short sighted or counter productive in doing so... but nonetheless they did, and they did so based on what seemed at the time to be perfectly valid reasoning

so now we're stuck with the fact that guns must be legal to own in the united states. there is no getting away from this, unless you have a bloody revolution which throws away the existing constitution and starts over. and it just so happens that the gun culture in america makes this scenario virtually impossible... since the only time you see civilians overthrow the govt and set a law straight is when they have most of the public on their side.

so we're stuck with legal guns, short of a bloody revolution.

i think gun control should be focused on keeping those legal guns away from the black market. the vast majority of gun related homicides in this country happen with illegal guns... and said illegal guns are made easy to come by, by the fact that there are basic loopholes and oversight in our existing laws which make straw purchases easy (i.e. someone acting as a proxy by purchasing a gun and then transferring it into the possession of a criminal).

we should focus gun control on an effort to make it hard to make legal guns illegal. a properly moderated database which requires gun owners to periodically reaffirm their status as the gun owner would go a long way in combating this problem.

imagine if when you bought a gun, it was immediately signed into your name in the database, and every two years you were expected to show up to the govt office with the gun in hand to confirm that you still do have the gun which is verified via serial number.

if the gun is stolen or lost, just make it required that any gun owner who experiences this loss of possession of their gun has the legal duty to immediately report this to the authorities. failure to do so should be a crime.

that's basically my stance on the whole gun issue.

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks

and it just so happens that gun ownership is one of the inalienable rights that they established.

I think this was discussed before. Why do you think that gun ownership (or specifically the 2nd Amendment) is an inalienable right?

Bashar Teg
if it's an inalienable right, why do we need it in the bill of rights?

Newjak
I think most can see that the Constitution/Bill of Rights is not some divine document that can not be altered if something in it is outdated or no longer needed.

This includes guns ownership. It can be altered and changed same as anything.

red g jacks
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think this was discussed before. Why do you think that gun ownership (or specifically the 2nd Amendment) is an inalienable right? because it's in the bill of rights, which was specifically made unalterable because the founding fathers figured there were some rights that no matter what the context couldn't be violated

once again, whether or not you agree that gun ownership should be inalienable is not the point. because the only way to truly undo a right that is established in the bill of rights is to either have a bloody revolution or a corrupt govt/supreme court that 'reinterprets' said rights to mean something other than what they were intended to mean

neither of which is a particularly attractive scenario to most americans

red g jacks
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if it's an inalienable right, why do we need it in the bill of rights? because the state has a habit of violating rights and only respecting the boundaries that they specifically create. so the bill of rights was created so that regardless of which direction the govt went, certain rights couldn't be undone

you might as well ask "if free speech is an inalienable right, why do we need the bill of rights"

red g jacks
Originally posted by Newjak
I think most can see that the Constitution/Bill of Rights is not some divine document that can not be altered if something in it is outdated or no longer needed.

This includes guns ownership. It can be altered and changed same as anything. you are quite simply wrong. the bill of rights literally cannot be altered based on the system that the constitution laid out, the only way to alter it is to have a revolution and nix the constitution in general.

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
because it's in the bill of rights, which was specifically made unalterable because the founding fathers figured there were some rights that no matter what the context couldn't be violated

once again, whether or not you agree that gun ownership should be inalienable is not the point. because the only way to truly undo a right that is established in the bill of rights is to either have a bloody revolution or a corrupt govt/supreme court that 'reinterprets' said rights to mean something other than what they were intended to mean

neither of which is a particularly attractive scenario to most americans
I think you are incorrect about this. There's nothing in the constitution that gives the first ten amendments special protection, as such they can be altered with subsequent amendments like any other.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Surtur
Yep the gang violence is out of control, nobody seems to care that much.

The liberal media does not really care about blacks killing blacks because there is no story. What sells ad time is Racial/Cop violence. No one in the media really cares that blacks are killing each other. They will blame the guns though.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by red g jacks
you are quite simply wrong. the bill of rights literally cannot be altered based on the system that the constitution laid out, the only way to alter it is to have a revolution and nix the constitution in general.
Please provide actual evidence of the special protection of the first ten amendments from alteration.

Surtur
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Those people are crazy anyway though. This is a dumb argument.

If they are crazy anyway why is it a dumb argument to suggest outlawing guns would possibly push them over the edge?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course people care, politicians have been fighting this for decades. If you have the genius idea that can solve it you should share it with them, because pretty much everyone agrees that we want less gang violence, but it's not a simple problem to solve.

But this is the same excuse people always say. Black lives matter only when taken by cops. Otherwise the excuse is that it is not an easy problem to solve. People do not get passionate about it to the extent of other things despite the fact it happens far more often and is a far larger issue and does more damage to the community then any cop.

So people do not really care as much. Chicago would be ground zero if they did.

Time-Immemorial
If Obama could somehow get guns away from the people by going around congress and right over the constitution. This gun problem would be solved.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Surtur
If they are crazy anyway why is it a dumb argument to suggest outlawing guns would possibly push them over the edge?


Because they're already over the edge. If anything, taking their guns away makes them less dangerous, not more dangerous.

Anyone who would actually engage in guerrilla warfare if the Second Amendment got repealed has bigger problems than their love of guns, and I really doubt there are that many of them anyway. For every hundred gunnuts who talk a big game about being a survivalist and prepping to fight the army, maybe one of them is serious, and that's because they're off their meds.

Again, dumb argument. If anything it's an argument for gun control, not against it.

Time-Immemorial
**** Americans liking their guns.

Q99
Originally posted by Surtur
It's not the criminals that would worry me. I mean not that it wouldn't be a problem, but if they really banned guns then all these nutjobs would possibly come out of the woodwork. It'd be the final sign to them that the country has "gone to hell" and yep it is pretty much people in rural areas.

I'm not saying anything would be guaranteed to happen, just that the chances something would aren't so low that I'd rather not find out.

The thing is, as-is.... that stuff already happens. Look at the number of shootings.


And this kind of thing has been implemented in other countries not all that dissimilar from the US. Things didn't explode.

Flyattractor
Things will when they try to take mine.

Q99
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Things will when they try to take mine.

One, I doubt you actually would push comes to shove.


Two, the most common way of handling this kind of thing is... buyback.


I.e. you'd certainly object to someone just coming in and taking your guns, but someone putting a pile of cash in front of you for your guns...? I bet your level of objection would shrink significantly.


Also, like most countries, there will almost certainly be ways to get gun licenses, if more limited and with more demonstrated need, so you could also have the route of spending the effort to get one of those.


One of the things here is when people hear 'gun control,' they think "people marching in and grabbing all the guns from people's hands," which is not how it works.


Also, it helps to be reminded that the purpose of this is to prevent people from getting shot. Can you honestly say your guns matter more to you than people dying?

Flyattractor
No. I still have both my balls.

Esau Cairn
1) Gun Shop will be held accountable for guns they have sold that's been used in a crime.

2) Guns will be installed with a GPS. Like cell phones & vehicles.

3) Guns will only be sold with the purchase (& professional installation) of a gun safe.

4) Random checks by police on licensed gun-owners to ensure their firearms are properly secured & not missing.

5) Gun shops will no longer sell ammunition. Ammunition will be sold at police stations.

Esau Cairn
Originally posted by Flyattractor
No. I still have both my balls.


And yet you're compensating your manhood with a gun.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
But this is the same excuse people always say.

It's not an excuse. It's the reality. Gang violence has a lot of exposure, it's talked about a lot, it is targeted in a myriad of ways, but because of political reasons some ways aren't tried (ending the war on drugs, gun control, increased spending in education in these areas, etc.).

People just don't like when it is always brought up to deflect from cops disproportionately killing black people.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
And yet you're compensating your manhood with a gun.
Ethered.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. Gang violence has a lot of exposure, it's talked about a lot, it is targeted in a myriad of ways, but because of political reasons some ways aren't tried (ending the war on drugs, gun control, increased spending in education in these areas, etc.).

People just don't like when it is always brought up to deflect from cops disproportionately killing black people.

But it's brought up in stuff with cops because the other stuff doesn't get as much attention. Where is Al Shaprton? Chicago is out of control and it's not talked about as much. If a white cop shoots a black guy in the face here then will we get more attention?

I see it literally every single day. We don't get the huge crowds of BLM's or the big name black leaders showing up. We don't have Obama saying shit about it that I can recall either. People don't riot even though the people constantly go unpunished.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
But it's brought up in stuff with cops because the other stuff doesn't get as much attention. Where is Al Shaprton? Chicago is out of control and it's not talked about as much. If a white cop shoots a black guy in the face here then will we get more attention?

I see it literally every single day. We don't get the huge crowds of BLM's or the big name black leaders showing up. We don't have Obama saying shit about it that I can recall either. People don't riot even though the people constantly go unpunished.

No, you bring it up in cop threads because you've bought into this lie, that racists use to divert attention from the very real problem of racial police brutality.

What would riots accomplish? You think a riot would make the gangs go "Oh yeah, our bad, we'll be better now"?

Surtur
It's brought up because it doesn't get the attention the other stories do. Constantly. Black lives matter when killed by white cops. Not when anything else happens.

It's out of control and we turn a blind eye in comparison to the cop things. Nobody says cops aren't a problem. But they are by far not the biggest.

Then if you talk about it you are a racist. I'll watch my city get torn apart while you worry about cops.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
It's brought up because it doesn't get the attention the other stories do. Constantly. Black lives matter when killed by white cops. Not when anything else happens.

It's out of control and we turn a blind eye in comparison to the cop things. Nobody says cops aren't a problem. But they are by far not the biggest.

Then if you talk about it you are a racist.

No, you just think that. For one it gets brought up by people like you every time a black person is killed by police, so we basically talk about it constantly.

We don't turn a blind eye, we spend insane amounts of money to combat the issue.

red g jacks
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you are incorrect about this. There's nothing in the constitution that gives the first ten amendments special protection, as such they can be altered with subsequent amendments like any other.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Please provide actual evidence of the special protection of the first ten amendments from alteration. so i googled and yea i guess i was wrong about the bill of rights can't be changed

technically any amendment can be undone

i guess i got confused cause in school they always phrased it as "inalieble rights from god" that the state is just respecting... so how are they inalieable if they can be changed? why even bother?

but yea i was wrong about the bill of rights being entrenched. so i guess the reality is that technically you can change the bill of rights but you will have to have a lot of political will to do so... which isn't going to happen for guns in america so once again trying to ban them outright is probably a lost cause imo. it might quite simply be for cultural reasons... but hey, you support democracy, right? here's what you get. a bunch of mouth breathers with their lazy hand on the wheel.

Surtur
We talk about it constantly here. I'm talking about in the media overall. It doesn't get the attention the other stuff does. I said we turn a blind eye in comparison. Not that we do overall.

It's there, we toss some money at it, but it doesn't get the national uproar the other stuff does. And why? Oh, it's not an easy fix.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
We talk about it constantly here. I'm talking about in the media overall. It doesn't get the attention the other stuff does. I said we turn a blind eye in comparison. Not that we do overall.

It's there, we toss some money at it, but it doesn't get the national uproar the other stuff does. And why? Oh, it's not an easy fix.

Yeah, but you also forget that the reason white cops shooting black kids gets a lot of attention by the media is because it is a problem that isn't being addressed.

The other issues is addressed by politics, lots of money is spent, everyone is aware of it, everyone is on the same page.

It's like going into a briefing about how to avoid being shot in a warzone and interjecting "I think we should take the time to talk about breathing, if you don't breathe you die, and that's a huge issue that no one ever talks about, so please remember to breathe" ...everyone's already on the same page, everyone does their best to breathe...

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
so i googled and yea i guess i was wrong about the bill of rights can't be changed

technically any amendment can be undone

i guess i got confused cause in school they always phrased it as "inalieble rights from god" that the state is just respecting... so how are they inalieable if they can be changed? why even bother?

but yea i was wrong about the bill of rights being entrenched. so i guess the reality is that technically you can change the bill of rights but you will have to have a lot of political will to do so... which isn't going to happen for guns in america so once again trying to ban them outright is probably a lost cause imo. it might quite simply be for cultural reasons... but hey, you support democracy, right? here's what you get. a bunch of mouth breathers with their lazy hand on the wheel.

I think the misunderstanding comes from the Declaration of Independence. Which does talk about unalienable rights.

At any rate, I don't think an outright ban is what most people advocate for anyways. And the Supreme Court has already shown that the 2nd amendment is not absolute, and can be limited. A "drivers license" for guns, a ban on certain types of weapons, as well as a federal register of guns, is perfectly in line with 2nd Amendment requirements.

Flyattractor
They are changeable because we have people in this country that don't like people to have rights.


**cough cough liberal progressives cough cough**

Bardock42
Originally posted by Flyattractor
They are changeable because we have people in this country that don't like people to have rights.


**cough cough liberal progressives cough cough**

They are changeable because the people who wrote it made them in that way. But you're probably right, the founding fathers were just stupid liberals, why don't you go piss on a statue of Washington to make your point.

red g jacks
Originally posted by Bardock42
At any rate, I don't think an outright ban is what most people advocate for anyways. maybe not, but some of the leftist rhetoric is a bit lazy i think cause it conflates a number of different issues. like the chart cited earlier.... very misleading to just refer to all those incidents as "mass shootings." it's one of those technically true but disingenuous type propaganda tools. conflating the gang violence with the random acts of terror.... the vast majority of those shootings were gang related.

like i said we have to be realistic and address the real problem, which is the black market for guns. i really think we should drop all the other baggage cause it just serves as a platform for the NRA to do their thing. so when you say ban certain types of guns for example... i don't see why. it wouldn't change a thing. you can do a mass shooting with pistols just as easily... see the virginia tech shooter. so that angle is pointless to me.

what i think we really need is a system of accountability that locks a person's identity with the gun they purchase. that is what is making murder so easy in the states... most of the guns on the black market are put there by straw purchases... without that you could identify a killer based on the forensics of the fingerprint the gun leaves on the bullet, and if that's linked to someone's name who is then held accountable...guns from legal markets will become a lot harder to come by.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
They are changeable because the people who wrote it made them in that way. But you're probably right, the founding fathers were just stupid liberals, why don't you go piss on a statue of Washington to make your point.

Are you that mad you needed to go off and say something as stupid as this?

Flyattractor
Happy Dance

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Surtur
It's brought up because it doesn't get the attention the other stories do. Constantly. Black lives matter when killed by white cops. Not when anything else happens.

It's out of control and we turn a blind eye in comparison to the cop things. Nobody says cops aren't a problem. But they are by far not the biggest.

Then if you talk about it you are a racist. I'll watch my city get torn apart while you worry about cops.
Here's the thing, areas with high levels of gang activity typically don't have the best police departments either. There are cases of neighborhoods where the locals trust the gangs more than they do the cops because the police there are corrupt and heavy-handed.

Corrupt cops and gang violence aren't completely separate issues. I've never heard of heavy gang presence in neighborhoods where the locals have a good, close relationship with their police and the police do their job well. Gangs thrive in areas where the locals don't speak with cops and don't trust the law, but they can't really function as well if the police are good at their jobs, have rapport with their community, and are receiving information on gang activities from the locals.

The gangs are much harder to change than the cops are, because unlike cops, gangs don't have any official oversight or responsibilities to the public. It's ludicrous to suggest we prioritize gang violence over straightening out the police when straightening out the police would likely diminish the effectiveness of gangs. We can't control the gangs directly, but we CAN control the police directly, so let's deal with that side of the problem first.

Time-Immemorial
Death is a sad part of population control.

draxx_tOfU
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The backlash with stringent gun control would be criminals would look for alternate ways to kill people, prob more gruesome ways. Like knives, Molotov cocktails, baseball bats, homemade flamethrowers . My point is killers will continue to kill. We can't control gun and ammo supply 'cause then we'd be messing with big-time syndicates. So the best solution really is to eliminate these mafia/syndicates.

Underrated post.

Time-Immemorial
We should start gun control by taking it away from the police and putting them in the hands of outstanding citizens.

Slay
Like George Zimmerman?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Slay
Like George Zimmerman?

Like your mom.

Slay
Intelligent, mature posting. As to be expected.

Time-Immemorial
As was yours, you tried to troll and you failed.

That's like saying we should throw out all Muslims because of radicals.

Slay
Not at all, it's saying that taking guns away from police and giving them to ''outstanding citizens'' will result in complete anarchy.

Time-Immemorial
When did I ever claim he was an outstanding citizen?

Surtur
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Here's the thing, areas with high levels of gang activity typically don't have the best police departments either. There are cases of neighborhoods where the locals trust the gangs more than they do the cops because the police there are corrupt and heavy-handed.

Corrupt cops and gang violence aren't completely separate issues. I've never heard of heavy gang presence in neighborhoods where the locals have a good, close relationship with their police and the police do their job well. Gangs thrive in areas where the locals don't speak with cops and don't trust the law, but they can't really function as well if the police are good at their jobs, have rapport with their community, and are receiving information on gang activities from the locals.

The gangs are much harder to change than the cops are, because unlike cops, gangs don't have any official oversight or responsibilities to the public. It's ludicrous to suggest we prioritize gang violence over straightening out the police when straightening out the police would likely diminish the effectiveness of gangs. We can't control the gangs directly, but we CAN control the police directly, so let's deal with that side of the problem first.

I never said it would be easy, but it's MUCH bigger problem. Also if you are blaming the police departments then...well, they blamed the cops for Michael Brown, but they blamed the police departments for the police brutality. So there is a common factor that needs to be addressed.

We don't have the focus the other stuff does even though it is a big problem. You have people you know that you fear for their lives now because these gang bangers are too stupid to learn how to shoot properly.

The epic problem and difficulty fixing it is why we need more focus on it.

Flyattractor
Next we should take away everybody's cars to stop drunk driving accidents.

red g jacks
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Here's the thing, areas with high levels of gang activity typically don't have the best police departments either. There are cases of neighborhoods where the locals trust the gangs more than they do the cops because the police there are corrupt and heavy-handed.

Corrupt cops and gang violence aren't completely separate issues. I've never heard of heavy gang presence in neighborhoods where the locals have a good, close relationship with their police and the police do their job well. Gangs thrive in areas where the locals don't speak with cops and don't trust the law, but they can't really function as well if the police are good at their jobs, have rapport with their community, and are receiving information on gang activities from the locals.

The gangs are much harder to change than the cops are, because unlike cops, gangs don't have any official oversight or responsibilities to the public. It's ludicrous to suggest we prioritize gang violence over straightening out the police when straightening out the police would likely diminish the effectiveness of gangs. We can't control the gangs directly, but we CAN control the police directly, so let's deal with that side of the problem first. tbh i think you're overemphasizing the importance of police when it comes to the gang issue

not that there isn't a relationship

but it's not just necessarily that bad cops breed gang ridden neighborhoods.... its also that gang ridden neighborhoods breed hostility to the police

gangs literally terrorize anyone who does cooperate with police... so you'd be smarter not to cooperate with the police in lets say baltimore...otherwise gangs will literally firebomb your house

how can different police tactics change that? that's the silly part of only focusing on the police.... most of the places that are ridden with gang violence are in that circumstance because it's become the most profitable industry for young kids growing up in the ghetto. once upon a time the crips were to protect black people from white racism/the LA police.... now it's just money and drugs for the most part. times have changed but people are still harping on the same tired tropes from decades ago... it's just a failure to get with the times.

Esau Cairn
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Next we should take away everybody's cars to stop drunk driving accidents.

Hmm how many massacres to date involved a driver ploughing down students in a school yard?

Maybe they should just take keyboards away from morons instead?

Time-Immemorial
laughing out loud

Just had to post this

2LGa4IR9B5s

Bardock42
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
laughing out loud

Just had to post this

2LGa4IR9B5s

So you think guns should be treated the same as cars? i.e. you need a driver's license and every car is registered and has to be insured?

Surtur
Woke up this morning, turned on the news. Gee, more deaths and shootings.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
So you think guns should be treated the same as cars? i.e. you need a driver's license and every car is registered and has to be insured?

The Satire of that post eluded you.

Esau Cairn
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The Satire of that post eluded you.

You see satire.
I see black comedy.


Boom. Tish.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.