Feb 27, 2018 2:42:59 GMT System said:

Feb 26, 2018 2:47:00 GMT vendrell said:

Kind of the point there isn't it?  If it's these peoples job to carry a gun, deal with intense situations, and be ready and if they fail to act, how confident do we really feel arming teachers who god only knows how they would react in an active shooter situation.  It's easy to see yourself as Rambo when your not in the situation but put in it, I could see a lot going wrong. I mean i'm all for beefing up security if the guns are in the hands of actual law enforcement but in the hands of people whose primary job is to teach the students, I don't like that.  The last thing I'd want is some jitter bug so freaked out they just start capping anything that moves in their direction. 

I’ve heard some people who live in the area claim that police under report crimes to make it look like crime is reducing, but that’s seems far fetched to ignore.

Between the deputy not taking action and the FBI visiting him 39 times, a lot of the conspiracy theories about the shooting add up.

On a seperate note, it was super scummy off CNN to only allow students to the town hall that were anti-gun.

Just to clarify, you're not ok with increased gun control?

What is a way the USA could reduce their shootings like this?

What is really strange, is the US is almost obsessed with any other country obtaining Nuclear weapons, because imagine what the world would be like if a mad-man had his finger on the button.. yet a functioning retard can buy an assault rifle, because..'MERICA!

What is a way the USA could reduce their shootings like this?

Start with increasing the confidentiality between people who have urges to kill and the people they can report it to that can get them productive treatment.

Follow it up with PSA's and community outreach to find the people the who have the urges and direct them to help.

Same as done with drug addiction. Make people feel less ostracized and like criminals, for having the criminal thought and get them to the help they need before they act.


Odd note, what is it with Australia and the arson?

Guess America is not exceptional with its shootings

crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

So you're comparing a continent of over 741 Million people and 50 sovereign states and a handful of others to a one single country, with 325 Million people?

ok, so there is no comparison to America I guess then, you proved your own point. America is an exception. Based just on population. The two countries larger the US are multiple times the size and the next countries smaller are one-third smaller.


Or else you didn't click the link and see how the comparisons were made...

Didn't care to.

What's concerning is America can't see what the rest of the world sees. No, what's concerning is America does see it, but chooses to justify it.

retracted

Feb 27, 2018 3:56:33 GMT nazzer said:

Feb 27, 2018 2:42:59 GMT System said:

I’ve heard some people who live in the area claim that police under report crimes to make it look like crime is reducing, but that’s seems far fetched to ignore.

Between the deputy not taking action and the FBI visiting him 39 times, a lot of the conspiracy theories about the shooting add up.

On a seperate note, it was super scummy off CNN to only allow students to the town hall that were anti-gun.

Just to clarify, you're not ok with increased gun control?

What is a way the USA could reduce their shootings like this?

I used to be very much on the gun control side, until it became more evident it was more about virtue signalling and screaming “think of the children!” and taking away people’s rights rather than any form of solutions. They would constantly get names and classifications of guns wrong, without bothering to inform themselves properly of what exactly they were trying to ban. The latest town hall thing on CNN was particular scummy with CNN re-writing questions for the survivors and refusing to let pro gun students speak. The most
Prominent anti-gun advocates remind me of a child covering their ears and screaming to block out noise when presented with counter arguments.

The right to bear arms is only second to the right to free speech, and I never understood why people considered so important until you see the European countries overrun by crime and terrorism with no way for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

If both the FBI and the armed deputy on duty did their jobs correctly, this could have been avoided. I don’t know the solution to stop every mass shooting as there’s different variables, as preventative measures for this and the Las Vegas shooting would obviously be different but it’s been 19 years since Columbine and not much has changed in terms of gun laws because the same tired flawed arguments are presented again and again, like Sisyphus their efforts go nowhere.

CNN changed questions in order to help people put forth their question in the most expedient way, not to change the gist of the question or to keep all questions pro gun control. They’ve already released the full email conversation which makes this fairly clear.

System

As always your in depth response is always appreciated.

I'm not afraid to admit I don't know all the facts about American gun issues, what with living in Canada and all. I find it interesting you note that since Columbine no major laws have changed and correspondingly we have seen no change for the better in terms of gun activity in your country.

I find your logic of needing guns to protect yourself interesting. And that's not to say there aren't people of that attitude here, but if you had less guns then you wouldn't need to have a gun to protect yourself right? I know, I know, now you'll respond by saying that the bad guys will still have guns.

I find it strange how this discussion seems to focus on heavy artillery and large magazine guns (prob using wrong terms there, I mean the bug guns), why doesn't anyone want to ban handguns? They are literally only used for killing each other and oneself. Why would a person need that?

Why not push for a future where nobody has any non hunting guns? Just get rid of them all. Or is that an idea that is way too weird and I just don't understand the American inalienable right to shoot people?

Just to play a bit of devil's advocate here on a bit of an odd element in all of this...

If I wanted to end my life (for whatever reason... say a terminal illness or some other situation that isn't necessarily linked to suicidal depression or other mental illness), and I subsequently decided that a gunshot would be the quickest/easiest/most painless way to go about it, shouldn't I be allowed to manage my life and death according to how I see fit?

Mar 2, 2018 3:02:26 GMT 🤯 said:

Just to play a bit of devil's advocate here on a bit of an odd element in all of this...

If I wanted to end my life (for whatever reason... say a terminal illness or some other situation that isn't necessarily linked to suicidal depression or other mental illness), and I subsequently decided that a gunshot would be the quickest/easiest/most painless way to go about it, shouldn't I be allowed to manage my life and death according to how I see fit?

Euthanasia isn’t legal so catering gun laws to the suicidal is probably not going to happen. And absent any debate on gun control laws, any law that makes people safer trumps your right to kill yourself easier. That includes other laws like those affecting controlled narcotics as well.

Mar 2, 2018 3:25:04 GMT mikec said:

Mar 2, 2018 3:02:26 GMT 🤯 said:

Just to play a bit of devil's advocate here on a bit of an odd element in all of this...

If I wanted to end my life (for whatever reason... say a terminal illness or some other situation that isn't necessarily linked to suicidal depression or other mental illness), and I subsequently decided that a gunshot would be the quickest/easiest/most painless way to go about it, shouldn't I be allowed to manage my life and death according to how I see fit?

Euthanasia isn’t legal so catering gun laws to the suicidal is probably not going to happen. And absent any debate on gun control laws, any law that makes people safer trumps your right to kill yourself easier. That includes other laws like those affecting controlled narcotics as well.

I guess that was kinda my off topic point... The illegality of euthanasia is so dumb.

🤯,Agreed. The euthanasia argument arguably should be more of a social issue than it is.

It's also kind of off topic, and I'm not finished with it yet, so who knows where else it will lead, but so far it has been fascinating... Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast recently dropped an episode called "Painfotainment" which chronicles and discusses humankind's fascination with pain, specifically inflicting pain on each other for entertainment purposes. Definitely recommend checking it out. So far, listening to it and thinking of this thread and the topic of guns, I kind of feel like there's got to be some kind of deeply human element to our attachment to guns in America and even just the idea that we could inflict pain upon others.

Mar 2, 2018 1:14:35 GMT nazzer said:

System

As always your in depth response is always appreciated.

I'm not afraid to admit I don't know all the facts about American gun issues, what with living in Canada and all. I find it interesting you note that since Columbine no major laws have changed and correspondingly we have seen no change for the better in terms of gun activity in your country.

I find your logic of needing guns to protect yourself interesting. And that's not to say there aren't people of that attitude here, but if you had less guns then you wouldn't need to have a gun to protect yourself right? I know, I know, now you'll respond by saying that the bad guys will still have guns.

I find it strange how this discussion seems to focus on heavy artillery and large magazine guns (prob using wrong terms there, I mean the bug guns), why doesn't anyone want to ban handguns? They are literally only used for killing each other and oneself. Why would a person need that?

Why not push for a future where nobody has any non hunting guns? Just get rid of them all. Or is that an idea that is way too weird and I just don't understand the American inalienable right to shoot people?

But that's not possible. Even if you could magic away every single gun within US borders with the snap of a finger, relatively unchecked cargo ships means a steady supply of weapons would be back in the States inside of like a week.

And even if you couldn't, here is Popular Mechanics fabricating a pistol out of sheet metal -- which, granted, looks like a pile of garbage and takes quite a bit of time, effort, and knowledge but could still be done.

Here is a test of a homemade $7 shotgun.

So banning guns, even if it were desirable (and to me it is not), is an impossibility.

And I still keep things like this in mind:

www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html

Now, clutching the .38 revolver, Melinda Herman was in the middle of a heart-pounding crisis inside her own home.
She had already locked multiple doors before she and her children took refuge in an adjacent-room attic -- the kind with a small door that you have to bend down to go through.
The intruder had used the crowbar to break through the front door and then two other doors upstairs, and she could hear him coming closer and closer.

-----✂-----

Despite being shot five times, the suspect, identified as Paul Ali Slater, still managed to get back into his SUV, but he drove off the road and crashed a short distance away.

so to be clear, SHE SHOT ALL SIX BULLETS, HIT HIM FIVE TIMES AND HE GOT UP AND RAN AWAY. Like, if there had been more than one home invader or if he had decided to keep going, what could she have done?

Mar 6, 2018 3:01:29 GMT Michinokudriver said:

Mar 2, 2018 1:14:35 GMT nazzer said:

System

As always your in depth response is always appreciated.

I'm not afraid to admit I don't know all the facts about American gun issues, what with living in Canada and all. I find it interesting you note that since Columbine no major laws have changed and correspondingly we have seen no change for the better in terms of gun activity in your country.

I find your logic of needing guns to protect yourself interesting. And that's not to say there aren't people of that attitude here, but if you had less guns then you wouldn't need to have a gun to protect yourself right? I know, I know, now you'll respond by saying that the bad guys will still have guns.

I find it strange how this discussion seems to focus on heavy artillery and large magazine guns (prob using wrong terms there, I mean the bug guns), why doesn't anyone want to ban handguns? They are literally only used for killing each other and oneself. Why would a person need that?

Why not push for a future where nobody has any non hunting guns? Just get rid of them all. Or is that an idea that is way too weird and I just don't understand the American inalienable right to shoot people?

But that's not possible. Even if you could magic away every single gun within US borders with the snap of a finger, relatively unchecked cargo ships means a steady supply of weapons would be back in the States inside of like a week.

And even if you couldn't, here is Popular Mechanics fabricating a pistol out of sheet metal -- which, granted, looks like a pile of garbage and takes quite a bit of time, effort, and knowledge but could still be done.

Here is a test of a homemade $7 shotgun.

So banning guns, even if it were desirable (and to me it is not), is an impossibility.

And I still keep things like this in mind:

www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html

Now, clutching the .38 revolver, Melinda Herman was in the middle of a heart-pounding crisis inside her own home.
She had already locked multiple doors before she and her children took refuge in an adjacent-room attic -- the kind with a small door that you have to bend down to go through.
The intruder had used the crowbar to break through the front door and then two other doors upstairs, and she could hear him coming closer and closer.

-----✂-----

Despite being shot five times, the suspect, identified as Paul Ali Slater, still managed to get back into his SUV, but he drove off the road and crashed a short distance away.

so to be clear, SHE SHOT ALL SIX BULLETS, HIT HIM FIVE TIMES AND HE GOT UP AND RAN AWAY. Like, if there had been more than one home invader or if he had decided to keep going, what could she have done?

The answer is not to give every one guns to protect themselves. The answer is to change the culture so people stop attacking each other, and defense with guns becomes unnecessary. However, I feel the average American will say you are past that being a possibility in your country. And that is very frightening. I am afraid to visit your country, could not imagine living there.

Mar 2, 2018 1:14:35 GMT nazzer said:

System

As always your in depth response is always appreciated.

I'm not afraid to admit I don't know all the facts about American gun issues, what with living in Canada and all. I find it interesting you note that since Columbine no major laws have changed and correspondingly we have seen no change for the better in terms of gun activity in your country.

I find your logic of needing guns to protect yourself interesting. And that's not to say there aren't people of that attitude here, but if you had less guns then you wouldn't need to have a gun to protect yourself right? I know, I know, now you'll respond by saying that the bad guys will still have guns.

I find it strange how this discussion seems to focus on heavy artillery and large magazine guns (prob using wrong terms there, I mean the bug guns), why doesn't anyone want to ban handguns? They are literally only used for killing each other and oneself. Why would a person need that?

Why not push for a future where nobody has any non hunting guns? Just get rid of them all. Or is that an idea that is way too weird and I just don't understand the American inalienable right to shoot people?

To me it's not even "the bad guys still have guns" argument.  If somebody busts into my home with the intent of fucking killing me and taking my money and vast wrestling figure collection with a machete, knife, or crow bar or whatever the hell, I still like my chances of survival better with a gun.  And for me it's not even to shoot them if I get the chance.  That is what freaks me out about some gun owners, it seems like their wet dream to be able to be in the legal right to cap somebody in the scull.  That isn't me.  I want to avoid dangerous conflict and don't want anybodys blood on my hands.  I throw out a warning shot, I would like to think most would decide it's not worth it to try and bust through my door.  Luckily I've never been in the situation but if my life is on the line, I want the upper hand, not a fair fight.  

Mar 11, 2018 20:59:34 GMT vendrell said:

Mar 2, 2018 1:14:35 GMT nazzer said:

System

As always your in depth response is always appreciated.

I'm not afraid to admit I don't know all the facts about American gun issues, what with living in Canada and all. I find it interesting you note that since Columbine no major laws have changed and correspondingly we have seen no change for the better in terms of gun activity in your country.

I find your logic of needing guns to protect yourself interesting. And that's not to say there aren't people of that attitude here, but if you had less guns then you wouldn't need to have a gun to protect yourself right? I know, I know, now you'll respond by saying that the bad guys will still have guns.

I find it strange how this discussion seems to focus on heavy artillery and large magazine guns (prob using wrong terms there, I mean the bug guns), why doesn't anyone want to ban handguns? They are literally only used for killing each other and oneself. Why would a person need that?

Why not push for a future where nobody has any non hunting guns? Just get rid of them all. Or is that an idea that is way too weird and I just don't understand the American inalienable right to shoot people?

To me it's not even "the bad guys still have guns" argument.  If somebody busts into my home with the intent of fucking killing me and taking my money and vast wrestling figure collection with a machete, knife, or crow bar or whatever the hell, I still like my chances of survival better with a gun.  And for me it's not even to shoot them if I get the chance.  That is what freaks me out about some gun owners, it seems like their wet dream to be able to be in the legal right to cap somebody in the scull.  That isn't me.  I want to avoid dangerous conflict and don't want anybodys blood on my hands.  I throw out a warning shot, I would like to think most would decide it's not worth it to try and bust through my door.  Luckily I've never been in the situation but if my life is on the line, I want the upper hand, not a fair fight.  

You'd make a terrible gun owner.

There is no such thing as a "warning shot". Certainly not in a civilian context.

You never pull the trigger unless you're prepared to destroy whatever the firearm is pointed at.

You fire a warning shot, where's it going? Through the drywall into your toddler's head? Or ricocheting off something and fucking up someone or something you didn't intend for it to?

This is why I'm fully on board with people being required to take some sort of actual training in order to own guns. It's not unreasonable for driving a car. It's not unreasonable for owning guns. The government doesn't have to know if you own guns, or how many or what kind, but you should be expected to at least know the basic principles of gun safety.

"ricocheting" 🤯,says. I have such an irrational fear of ricocheting bullets it will likely keep me from ever firing a gun in close quarters.

Mar 12, 2018 14:59:38 GMT theend said:

"ricocheting" 🤯,says. I have such an irrational fear of ricocheting bullets it will likely keep me from ever firing a gun in close quarters.

I don't know if it's that much of an irrational fear.

I've been surprised learning from various anecdotes over the years about the things a bullet can ricochet off of.

And I've played enough pool to understand that I have no idea how to comprehend angles, changes in direction, etc.

Indoor gun ranges always come with a sense of queasiness... What happens when that beginner learning to shoot a lane over panics in anticipation of the recoil and hits the target support with an errant bullet. What real guarantee do I have that that bullet isn't somehow bouncing back at me?

I mean, Seinfeld pretty well illuminated how a magic bullet fucked up JFK from its ricochet pattern.

Mar 6, 2018 3:13:03 GMT nazzer said:

The answer is not to give every one guns to protect themselves. The answer is to change the culture so people stop attacking each other, and defense with guns becomes unnecessary. However, I feel the average American will say you are past that being a possibility in your country. And that is very frightening. I am afraid to visit your country, could not imagine living there.

To be clear, your answer is "let's just make things so there isn't any more crime?" Because I don't think any first world nation without crime exists, and where crime DOES exist I would never begrudge someone getting what they need to protect themselves.