Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Yeah, ok, so people have something to hide....

But as you said, I don't get it. I don't understand that level of apparent paranoia. I normally associate that with those tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nutters.

You call them morons, but maybe they simply see the common sense of such a system.

I don't think they operate much on common sense. If they did, they'd be calling more for handguns to be banned than rifles.

And based on the history of our country you truly aren't capable of understanding why "register or sell it" would disturb people?

And if someone refuses to register or sell it, what happens?

Originally posted by Surtur
Zero haven't you...in this very thread...gotten gun facts wrong? Lol, I believe Silent Master called you on it.

So I mean...okay, cool.

But if you can't get how what your government pulled would disturb people here I don't know what to tell you.

Except he didn't. He thinks he did, but he didn't, however, it suits you to try and point to that.

I mean, are you sure you know your guns? Are you all saying I should not have assumed the AK-47 YOU refered to without clarification was a full auto instead of semi? You should have either clarified, or thanked me that I was addressing full autos and not semis. since Semis are less dangerous.

Originally posted by Surtur
Also wait, so the options were register or sell it.

And if a citizen refuses to do either...what happens?

Do you need the answer in triplicate or something? I told you the penalty for possessing an unregistered firearm - 1st offense is usually 3 to 6 months suspended sentence and a conviction on your record.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Except he didn't. He thinks he did, but he didn't, however, it suits you to try and point to that.

I mean, are you sure you know your guns? Are you all saying I should not have assumed the AK-47 YOU refered to without clarification was a full auto instead of semi? You should have either clarified, or thanked me that I was addressing full autos and not semis. since Semis are less dangerous.

Do you need the answer in triplicate or something? I told you the penalty for possessing an unregistered firearm - 1st offense is usually 3 to 6 months suspended sentence and a conviction on your record.

More saying folks in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And so you get charged with a crime if you don't register or sell your gun. Okay. And I want you to tell me the situation will never reach the point where cops show up to take a citizens firearm.

Because if the end result for not cooperating is eventually they do show up to take your shit...not good.

I guess it's wrong for me to expect people in other countries to understand these things, but I still have trouble with how people can't understand why Americans being told "get rid of the gun or register it" would be quite disturbing to most.

You didn't have a 2nd amendment. We do.

Gun owners see: morons cheering on Australia.

Gun owners see: morons cheering on the idea of banning ALL rifles in America.

So it is still strange to me some can't see why they'd be worried.

Originally posted by Surtur
More saying folks in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And so you get charged with a crime if you don't register or sell your gun. Okay. And I want you to tell me the situation will never reach the point where cops show up to take a citizens firearm.

Because if the end result for not cooperating is eventually they do show up to take your shit...not good.

Except my house remains solid, whereas the circular arguer focused on the tiniest fractal of something he thinks can score him a win is sitting in a greenhouse of candy glass. Not my problem.

If a person withholds a firearm after being given every opportunity to do the right thing then you have to question why he needs the firearm, and more importantly why he or she hides the thing. At that point they brought the law down on their own head. You'd have to be ****ing retarded or incredibly obstinant to not do the right thing.

Perhaps then we simply have more faith in our government and law to not completely **** us over. Then again, we havn't had the 2nd amendment in our constitution. The necessity of the 2nd in a modern context has never really been debated here (At least in a way that hasn't devolved into shitflinging, although I hear that happens even between US politicians so *Shrugs*)

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Except my house remains solid, whereas the circular arguer focused on the tiniest fractal of something he thinks can score him a win is sitting in a greenhouse of candy glass. Not my problem.

If a person withholds a firearm after being given every opportunity to do the right thing then you have to question why he needs the firearm, and more importantly why he or she hides the thing. At that point they brought the law down on their own head. You'd have to be ****ing retarded or incredibly obstinant to not do the right thing.

Perhaps then we simply have more faith in our government and law to not completely **** us over. Then again, we havn't had the 2nd amendment in our constitution. The necessity of the 2nd in a modern context has never really been debated here (At least in a way that hasn't devolved into shitflinging, although I hear that happens even between US politicians so *Shrugs*)

If you feel your house is solid that is fine.

Lol and it's neat if you have faith in your government. I truly mean it. I can't speak to all the shit your government has or hasn't pulled. Perhaps you have every reason to have faith in them.

It's not the same in America. Our government is full of hypocrites and liars. Look at all the whining over shit we do all the time(interfering with other countries).

Originally posted by Surtur
If you feel your house is solid that is fine.

Lol and it's neat if you have faith in your government. I truly mean it. I can't speak to all the shit your government has or hasn't pulled. Perhaps you have every reason to have faith in them.

It's not the same in America. Our government is full of hypocrites and liars. Look at all the whining over shit we do all the time(interfering with other countries).

Oh don't get me wrong, the politicians here are just as boneheaded as any other westernized nation. I could tell you the stories of some truly epic f**kups from what I term "Kangaroo Court" that is our state and federal parlaments. (believe me, at times just watching that shit makes you want to eat your desk in frustration)

But, when you get both sides agreeing to the same course of action (Which surprisingly happens every once in a while) then that is when the rusty grinding cogs of the machine move. I wish it happened more often, and TBH, John Howard managed to get those gears going more often than most PMs down here.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol wait, tell me people didn't whine over memes being posted? Like babies? Over memes I said I found interesting and didn't even know if they were true?

If so: do better.

So your contribution is....zero.

Nice.

Originally posted by jaden101
So your contribution is....zero.

Nice.

Posted a meme I said was interesting and that I didn't even know if they were true.

Contributing zero? Hogwash. I've helpfully pointed out, multiple times, that many media outlets lied about this being the 18th school shooting this year. I've helpfully pointed out none of them have corrected this.

I even helped out by saying no a rifle isn't easier to get than cough medicine. I'm helping.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I have no problems with the research continuing, but until it is proven reliable and sufficiently hack-proof, I'm 100% against it being made mandatory.

This is a fair position and carefully meted, as well. "sufficiently secure" is the best position possible because nothing is 100$ secure.

So to get us to the point of acceptance, you would need to specify your acceptance criteria. Set actual measurable or demonstrable goals. And as you are already aware, some of these goals will be nebulous so agreement will be an issue.

So, for the sake of demonstrating you're sincerity in this discussion, I would like to see your acceptance criteria. I will help inform that. And we will both mature Jaden's idea. Since you're more on the conservative side (I am not talking politically), your acceptance criteria would be more strict and, therefore, would represent a much more mature solution that I am sure the masses would like. Jaden's idea is great. But it needs maturity. I want to see someone like you add detail to what a solution looks like.

Originally posted by jaden101
A. Gun control advocate cites Australia gun laws with before and after mass shootings stats

B. Pro gun advocates highlight differences between gun cultures in said countries as reasons for differences.

C. Pro gun advocates cite Switzerland and Israel gun Proliferation rates comparable to US and relatively low gun crime rates but without comparing respective gun cultures, conscripted national military service, government allocation and auditing of ammunition and numerous other factors but that's apparently acceptable.

A. Gun Right Advocates, such as myself, cite Australian Gun Laws and the homicide statistics before and after the gun laws went into place, to demonstrate how utterly stupid it is to use Australia's ineffective gun laws to try and implement Australian-like gun laws in the US.

B. That's only one of many reasons there are differences. Do you disagree? Because there's clearly a difference between Japanese and US American culture when it comes to violence, crimes, and attitudes towards guns.

C. Actually, you're not correct, there. My conservative pals often cite mandatory military service in those countries as reasons that the libtards are idiots about gun laws. Something similar to, "Make military service mandatory and watch how the liberal babies shut up about gun control laws."

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is a fair position and carefully meted, as well. "sufficiently secure" is the best position possible because nothing is 100$ secure.

So to get us to the point of acceptance, you would need to specify your acceptance criteria. Set actual measurable or demonstrable goals. And as you are already aware, some of these goals will be nebulous so agreement will be an issue.

So, for the sake of demonstrating you're sincerity in this discussion, I would like to see your acceptance criteria. I will help inform that. And we will both mature Jaden's idea. Since you're more on the conservative side (I am not talking politically), your acceptance criteria would be more strict and, therefore, would represent a much more mature solution that I am sure the masses would like. Jaden's idea is great. But it needs maturity. I want to see someone like you add detail to what a solution looks like.

lol, "100%" not 100$"

dammit

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is a fair position and carefully meted, as well. "sufficiently secure" is the best position possible because nothing is 100$ secure.

So to get us to the point of acceptance, you would need to specify your acceptance criteria. Set actual measurable or demonstrable goals. And as you are already aware, some of these goals will be nebulous so agreement will be an issue.

So, for the sake of demonstrating you're sincerity in this discussion, I would like to see your acceptance criteria. I will help inform that. And we will both mature Jaden's idea. Since you're more on the conservative side (I am not talking politically), your acceptance criteria would be more strict and, therefore, would represent a much more mature solution that I am sure the masses would like. Jaden's idea is great. But it needs maturity. I want to see someone like you add detail to what a solution looks like.

I'm not sure off hand about exact numbers, but somewhere in the high 90's and that is after exhaustive testing. because firing a weapon would put a decent amount of strain on any electronic system on a gun. so just slapping a $3 scanner(someone mentioned that this was how much it cost for a phone) on a gun isn't likely to hold up very long.

On a side note, isn't it curious how even I'm being treated like a gun nut by some of the anti-gun side when I've listed multiple things I'd be in favor of like better background checks and metal health screenings, as well as supporting research into smart gun tech? IMO, it says a lot about what their true end goal for the 2nd amendment is that I'm considered a nut.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm not sure off hand about exact numbers, but somewhere in the high 90's and that is after exhaustive testing. because firing a weapon would put a decent amount of strain on any electronic system on a gun. so just slapping a $3 scanner(someone mentioned that this was how much it cost for a phone) on a gun isn't likely to hold up very long.

That's also fair. You're hinting at a manufacturing best practice known as Six Sigma. That's a 99.99966% product success rate as measured by a battery of tests. The tests themselves need to be properly calibrated to simulate most practical and probable real world use (meaning, you need to bring quality audit to your quality management to keep your quality in-line so that your six sigma "goal" is legit in the real world...this seems obvious but many manufacturers miss out on this crucial step to putting out a high quality product).

More specifically, that means you're targeting a 0.00034% defect rate.

Originally posted by Silent Master
On a side note, isn't it curious how even I'm being treated like a gun nut by some of the anti-gun side when I've listed multiple things I'd be in favor of like better background checks and metal health screenings, as well as supporting research into smart gun tech? IMO, it says a lot about what their true end goal for the 2nd amendment is that I'm considered a nut.

It's easier to just take the stupid, old, and tired position of "ban guns"* than to actually solve violence problems in the US. It's familiar, often spoken, and is easy for people to conceptualize. It's not so easy to conceptualize and extremely complex system of variables that requires attention in different levels and funding to actually make the most effective reforms to reduce the violence.

*Or "ban these certain types of guns which will in no way impact violence but I'm too stupid and stubborn to realize this" <-This is a tiny bit false, but I'm using hyperbole to make a point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's also fair. You're hinting at a manufacturing best practice known as Six Sigma. That's a 99.99966% product success rate as measured by a battery of tests. The tests themselves need to be properly calibrated to simulate most practical and probable real world use (meaning, you need to bring quality audit to your quality management to keep your quality in-line so that your six sigma "goal" is legit in the real world...this seems obvious but many manufacturers miss out on this crucial step to putting out a high quality product).

More specifically, that means you're targeting a 0.00034% defect rate.

It's easier to just take the stupid, old, and tired position of "ban guns"* than to actually solve violence problems in the US. It's familiar, often spoken, and is easy for people to conceptualize. It's not so easy to conceptualize and extremely complex system of variables that requires attention in different levels and funding to actually make the most effective reforms to reduce the violence.

*Or "ban these certain types of guns which will in no way impact violence but I'm too stupid and stubborn to realize this" <-This is a tiny bit false, but I'm using hyperbole to make a point.

Their idea of banning AR-15s might even make the problem worse as the AR isn't actually the most efficient weapon to use in close quarters shooting.

Florida Senate bans AR-15 in rare weekend session — what happened next shocked everyone

😆

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol so you see, you need to live in America to get this. You might not get why people here wouldn't want the government knowing exactly what weapons they have.

The option of "register with the government or sell it" is no option at all. So when people see moronic politicians point to this with glee? They worry.

Yes, but WHY?

From another Australian's point of view, I cannot understand either why the average gun-loving American cannot differentiate between registering your firearm and "taking your guns away"?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Yes, but WHY?

From another Australian's point of view, I cannot understand either why the average gun-loving American cannot differentiate between registering your firearm and "taking your guns away"?

People can tell the difference actually. The issue is that they feel that if the government ever did try to take away peoples guns...them having a registry of all the gun owners and how many guns they own would help a lot.

YouTube video

Serious question, this video is a cartoon, but Australia is mentioned and the response is that gun crime was falling at an identical rate prior to whenever that shooting happened in the 90s that caused your changes in gun laws. Do you know if that is accurate?

Originally posted by Surtur
[B Australia is mentioned and the response is that gun crime was falling at an identical rate prior to whenever that shooting happened in the 90s that caused your changes in gun laws. Do you know if that is accurate? [/B]

Honestly...from one average Australian to one average American, it's difficult to know if the stats are accurate.

There are so many different sources for stats (not just Australian) that depending on your agenda or political stand, it's difficult to know which one to take as factual.

All I can remember is that prior to the Port Arthur massacre in '96 there was also the Milperra Bikie Massacre in '84 when two rival gangs shot it out in a carpark.

Originally posted by Surtur
People can tell the difference actually. The issue is that they feel that if the government ever did try to take away peoples guns...them having a registry of all the gun owners and how many guns they own would help a lot.

Ok but registering something isn't exclusive just to guns is it?

You register your vehicle, your newborn, where you live, what educational institution you attend, you microchip your pets, what (subscribed) medication you take....

None of these garner the same paranoia as gun registration.

You argue 2nd Amendment & yet conveniently ignore the meaning of "amendment".