• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

i'm just gonna leave this here. and if toddlers ever learn how to tame the wild lawnmower and make it their mighty steed then we're all in for a world of trouble.

2016-09-01-1472759565-493250-extreme_extreme_vetting-thumb.jpg
 
swilow said:
For example 1, if you weren't carrying a gun you'd have no fear of it being taken. The gun is making that situation more dangerous for you for the very reason you said. But I agree with tathra, self defense should be proportionate.

In example 2, you are leaving a gun lying around in case of a very unlikely eventuality. Home invasions are rare but people shooting themselves and others because of a loaded gun lying around is less so. So you may be safer in a home invasion but are inherently less safe simply by dint of said loaded weapon.

In neither example is your gun really protecting you.
Click to expand...

Lol... What if you're 150'bs and someone twice your size is trying to assault you? You seriously think you're safer without a gun? What if someone tries to attack you with another weapon? Having a gun only makes the situation more dangerous if you're not prepared to defend yourself with it.

And as for guns "laying around" how am I less safe? Whenever I take my gun out I practice your basic gun safety, and otherwise it stays in the unlatched case. I don't think you've proved at all that I'm safer without a gun in either case. I don't have kids so there's no worries about it getting into the wrong hands.
 
Last edited:
Nice graphic tathra :)

nuttynutskin said:
Lol... What if you're 150'bs and someone twice your size is trying to assault you? You seriously think you're safer without a gun? What if someone tries to attack you with another weapon? Having a gun only makes the situation more dangerous if you're not prepared to defend yourself with it.
Click to expand...

Nutty, you are the one that mentioned getting your gun taken. I'm saying that the gun doesn't make you safer in that instance, at all.

What if some twice your size is trying to assault you and takes your gun because you were distracted fumbling around trying to get it out? We could trade scenarios all night. Either way, if someone actually attacks you, you would be better off trying to fight them with your bare hands, guns are unlikely to be useful in a really close-combat scenario.

And as for guns "laying around" how am I less safe? Whenever I take my gun out I practice your basic gun safety, and otherwise it stays in the unlatched case.
Click to expand...

You are more likely to die from an accident with a gun than you are are from the very unlikely home invasion. In that sense, its hard to say that a gun is really keeping you safe. If you live with other people, shooting wildly when totally tweaked on adrenaline during a home invasion is ill-advised. ;)

don't think you've proved at all that I'm safer without a gun in either case. I don't have kids so there's no worries about it getting into the wrong hands.
Click to expand...

You're the one making a case that your gun is protecting you dude. I'm just rebutting it.
 
Last edited:
Well, I feel safer with it. I could post Youtube videos of people defending themselves, their homes and others with guns all night but it would be pretty pointless as people's minds on both sides of the argument are pretty much made up.
 
David Wooderson said:
I have a problem with actors posing as victims to further leftist agendas.
Click to expand...

You should be ashamed of yourself for this. I find it to be the height of disgusting that there are adults accusing these poor traumatized kids of being actors in some conspiracy to undermine gun owner rights when they've just had 17 friends/peers murdered in cold blood and are trying to use this tragedy to make changes they see as necessary. For shame. Seriously. :|
 
bptubbs said:
I have, didn't have to fire it, like someone else said, but it kept me from getting stabbed.
Click to expand...

Glad to know you didn't get stabbed man.

swilow said:
I don't think thats correct. Guns were certainly NOT designed for defense. They are offensive weapons by their very nature. They are designed to kill.
Click to expand...

Arguable. Many bullets are designed to do minimal impact.

Not all gun owners have armor piercing hollow point bullets, or a sawed off shotgun. Most people who possess guns do not have the intent to kill human beings.

Let's stop demonizing the gun world just because some big news headline broke. It's worse than the people who initiated racism towards Middle Easterners post 9/11.

I agree with Thomas; the 2nd amendment is becoming a disfavored right. We don't get to slowly erode away our constitutional rights just because some people misuse their rights. Paying for the sins of the father, and so on.
 
Last edited:
Can I ask you, why does that disappoint you do much? It's just an extra 10 days, why do you need a gun so fast? An extra 10 days is designed to make it less likely someone will act out a crime of passion.
 
Xorkoth said:
Can I ask you, why does that disappoint you do much? It's just an extra 10 days, why do you need a gun so fast? An extra 10 days is designed to make it less likely someone will act out a crime of passion.
Click to expand...

A 10 day waiting period wouldn't have prevented the Vegas shooting or the Florida shooting (both individuals had their guns for long periods of time before the respective shootings). People who commit premeditated murder (these were not crimes of passion, Xorkoth, these people put a lot of time and effort into their mass shootings; at the very least the Vegas shooter did) will commit lots of time to their crimes. The waiting period is only an obstacle for people who are otherwise good people with solid intentions.

In this case the advocates wanted the waiting period abolished for people who already owned guns. So if they were going to commit a crime of passion they don't need another one, they would, in a rage, go get their first one and go on a rampage. The 10 day waiting period doesn't make sense. There's already a background check that isn't instantaneous from my understanding.
 
I understand that in these shootings they are not crimes of passion and it wouldn't have made a difference, but would you agree that people do commit crimes of passion? That people who currently do not own guns commit crimes of passion?
 
Xorkoth said:
You should be ashamed of yourself for this. I find it to be the height of disgusting that there are adults accusing these poor traumatized kids of being actors in some conspiracy to undermine gun owner rights when they've just had 17 friends/peers murdered in cold blood and are trying to use this tragedy to make changes they see as necessary. For shame. Seriously. :|
Click to expand...

i could not have put it better myself. it's cynical, mean nonsense. when viewed in the context of republican politicians who send 'thoughts and prayers' while taking tens of millions of dollars from the gun lobby and telling us there's nothing they can do, its's especially craven.

alasdair
 
Xorkoth said:
I understand that in these shootings they are not crimes of passion and it wouldn't have made a difference, but would you agree that people do commit crimes of passion? That people who currently do not own guns commit crimes of passion?
Click to expand...

Yes.

There's still a background check process which takes time. As is, you can't just walk out with a gun from a store same-day. Not in California, at least. Certain states are different (i.e. Alaska). Putting an additional 10 day waiting period seems unnecessary; especially for people who already own guns.
 
Fact is, longer waiting periods are what you ask for when you want to be seen to be doing something without any of the difficulty of doing something. That or saying you're going to close the gun show loophole.

People don't just wake up one morning and decide "today in gonna shoot everyone at school". They've always been planned for a while.

I've never found the idea of waiting periods particularly persuasive. Either the person should be allowed to have a gun or not. I've never seen any evidence to suggest that anyone's less likely to commit premeditated murder for having had to wait a few days or weeks than not. Humans just don't work like that.

Either they really are someone who'd decide to just kill someone over something, in which case they're probably gonna do it eventually. Even if they have to wait a week and then cool off, they'll then have a gun for next time they get angry. Or they are like almost everybody and they were never gonna do it at all.

The whole thing strikes me as bullshit.

It's a political trick. A way of saying you're increasing gun control without ever doing anything of serious consequence. It annoys the gun lobby but they'll sacrifice it for the same reasons, so they can then point to it and say how they're not against gun control just bad gun control.

Seriously, am I the only one to see how silly a cool down period is? Humans do lots and lots of stupid things. But they don't do every and any stupid thing. Cool down periods are a solution for a nonexistent problem.

EDIT: Oh, and since I saw it mentioned earlier I just want to say. There's no such thing as an armor piercing hollow point. It's pretty much a contradiction in terms. It's just people who don't know what they're talking about throwing together different scary terms they've heard used on TV. Like saying there's a powerful new form of barbiturate amphetamine opioid cannabis out there causing delirium. It's just throwing together words in ways that make no sense by people who don't know what they mean.

But yet again I'm clearly insane to compare the drug issue and the gun issue.

Xorkoth said:
You should be ashamed of yourself for this. I find it to be the height of disgusting that there are adults accusing these poor traumatized kids of being actors in some conspiracy to undermine gun owner rights when they've just had 17 friends/peers murdered in cold blood and are trying to use this tragedy to make changes they see as necessary. For shame. Seriously. :|
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
Last edited:
Another word for a gun nut I guess?
I don't have a particular problem with people being interested in guns, but let's be honest some people do take it a bit far. But then some people take stamp collecting too far. The difference is that people aren't scared of stamp collectors.

And people have a tendency to hate what frightens them.
 
JessFR said:
And people have a tendency to hate what frightens them.
Click to expand...

i can't speak for anyone else, but being a combat veteran and all, I'm intimately familiar with many different weapons, probably more than anyone else here, and that's exactly why i know that firearms need to be regulated better. i know how deadly they are firsthand, especially in the hands of ignorant amateurs with zero training.

putting rounds down range at a firing range is great, total zen mode relaxation, but theres not really any reason why civilians should be able to own military-grade weaponry; being able to sign out machine guns and sniper rifles and stuff like that at the range to shoot them there would be pretty awesome though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top