The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[Chris]

Probably a better question for Stannis or anyone with a military background and a better understanding of the weapons.

I'd much prefer not to have semi-auto anything out there for the public to have.

So no semiauto handguns either?

Sounds pretty much like a gun ban to me which isn't realistic... If I could snap my fingers and we could be a country where few if any could own guns I wouldn't really mind to be honest. I own a gun strictly to protect myself because, well, everyone has guns.

We need to ban military style weapons outright, as they have been repeatedly used in these mass shootings. That's why there's a focus on them, because they are used in the most high-profile killings.

We also need to heavily regulate the ownership of handguns. I agree we should have a gun registry, better/more background checks, and licenses that need to be earned/renewed. There needs to be work done to reduce the number of guns available in the US, legal and illegal. We are well past the point of insanity with this shit. A lot of times the conversation becomes about assault weapons and how that's not a real term and gun people try to make the argument about how non-gun people are ignorant because they can't identify a gun. But I don't give a shit. Fuck guns. Fuck them all. Ban them all... That won't happen unfortunately, but I hate them. We should start with assault/military style/whatever the fuck you want to call them weapons and work toward common sense regulations on all guns. It'll be tougher than Japan or Australia because we have a 2nd amendment and way more guns than they did. But I believe it's possible.

Some good points are being made though, murder doesn't matter until we stop abortions... ???

Yeah, as you said not happening. I pretty much only own a gun to protect myself as stated above, so I'm not some huge gun advocate who will freak if tomorrow citizens couldn't own guns, but it just isn't gonna happen. Not with the point we're at in this country. This focus on "military style" weapons is just totally missing the point IMO but I'll let someone like Stannis or Q Tip talk about that more, as Boobie said.

 

[-Akronite-]

Yeah, as you said not happening. I pretty much only own a gun to protect myself as stated above, so I'm not some huge gun advocate who will freak if tomorrow citizens couldn't own guns, but it just isn't gonna happen. Not with the point we're at in this country. This focus on "military style" weapons is just totally missing the point IMO but I'll let someone like Stannis or Q Tip talk about that more, as Boobie said.

I agree that the focus, as if a ban on those weapons is a true solution, misses the real issue. AND I totally understand owning a gun for self defense because this country has too many goddamn guns. But I think long term we can shift the culture and laws to reduce guns in the future. I refuse to admit defeat. We aren't so deep now that the only solution is to buy more guns, that's asinine IMO.

Start somewhere, ban these guns that are fairly consistently used in mass shootings. But you CAN'T stop there and expect the massive gun deaths in this country to go down. Less guns=less gun deaths. We know it's true. It's really that simple. Actually doing something about it ISN'T simple, but the problem is clear.

 

[AZ_]

So no semiauto handguns either?

Sounds pretty much like a gun ban to me which isn't realistic... If I could snap my fingers and we could be a country where few if any could own guns I wouldn't really mind to be honest. I own a gun strictly to protect myself because, well, everyone has guns.



Yeah, as you said not happening. I pretty much only own a gun to protect myself as stated above, so I'm not some huge gun advocate who will freak if tomorrow citizens couldn't own guns, but it just isn't gonna happen. Not with the point we're at in this country. This focus on "military style" weapons is just totally missing the point IMO but I'll let someone like Stannis or Q Tip talk about that more, as Boobie said.

It will never be a snap of the fingers, nor should we expect it to be.

Gradual, over time.

I'm honestly fine with citizens owning weapons, but that should come along with some pretty extensive training and mental health screenings that must be performed over some time period.

With a registry to help diminish the surplus of guns out there now.

That change would have a meaningful impact, even if we'll never truly eliminate the threat.

 

[Los216]

So no semiauto handguns either?

Sounds pretty much like a gun ban to me which isn't realistic... If I could snap my fingers and we could be a country where few if any could own guns I wouldn't really mind to be honest. I own a gun strictly to protect myself because, well, everyone has guns.



Yeah, as you said not happening. I pretty much only own a gun to protect myself as stated above, so I'm not some huge gun advocate who will freak if tomorrow citizens couldn't own guns, but it just isn't gonna happen. Not with the point we're at in this country. This focus on "military style" weapons is just totally missing the point IMO but I'll let someone like Stannis or Q Tip talk about that more, as Boobie said.

That's not quite what it is. I understand your point though.

 

[Chris]

That's not quite what it is. I understand your point though.

Well, he said he'd prefer no semiauto weapons unless I misread. Are we bringing back flintlock pistols or what?

 

[Los216]

Well, he said he'd prefer no semiauto weapons unless I misread. Are we bringing back flintlock pistols or what?

This is where you have to get into specifics. For example I'd advise you to take a look at what California did last year. The implemented more measures on banning semi-automatic weapons but within that they offered specifics like gun types and modifications. So while it says it's a semi-automatic weapon ban it clearly lays out what they are trying to accomplish. I know it's difficult when people see or hear ban semi-automatic weapons. It is a blanket statement but it's almost always followed by specifics.

 

[Chris]

This is where you have to get into specifics. For example I'd advise you to take a look at what California did last year. The implemented more measures on banning semi-automatic weapons but within that they offered specifics like gun types and modifications. So while it says it's a semi-automatic weapon ban it clearly lays out what they are trying to accomplish. I know it's difficult when people see or hear ban semi-automatic weapons. It is a blanket statement but it's almost always followed by specifics.

Got it, that's a bit more clear.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

How about make it harder to own a gun, not banning pistols or whatever?

Put people through a rigorous coures, mental exam, and other things. We do the same with cars, we do the same with basically anything that is dangerous that we use. But you can just go buy a gun and use it.

More regulation. More constraint. More education. And for the love of god, more help for the mentally ill.

 

[Los216]

The hardest part about having discussions on gun legislation is usually due to the gun supporters going to extreme takes. I had a guy tell me one time that it's unfair to responsible gun owners like him who keep their AR-15's locked away and are responsible. My simple response to him was not to question how he handles his gun but why he needs it in the first place. No matter how you slice it there's so many holes in the argument for owning assault rifles that to biggest advocates almost always contradict themselves I asked the guy why we don't call in drone strikes or tanks and other war fare on American citizens. I told him that we could do that so why don't we. he told me its because we have assault rifles and other weapons to use instead. I then asked him so what exactly do you need an assault rifle for and what's it's purpose because there's absolutely nothing logical that you need to have an assault rifle for that a non assault rifle couldn't accomplish. That includes hunting, protection, and sport.

 

[-Akronite-]

How about make it harder to own a gun, not banning pistols or whatever?

Put people through a rigorous coures, mental exam, and other things. We do the same with cars, we do the same with basically anything that is dangerous that we use. But you can just go buy a gun and use it.

More regulation. More constraint. More education. And for the love of god, more help for the mentally ill.

I agree with this as a "realistic" solution. A complete ban on firearms, handguns, etc. is not realistic right now or in the near future. But we do so little in this country to track and regulate the ownership and use of dangerous, life-threatening weapons that statistically increase the likelihood of massacres, homicide, suicide, and accidental deaths.

What bothers me so much about the mental health talk (besides the fact that it's essentially a myth, other countries with similar mental health and less guns don't face these issues) is how, by and large, these are the same fuckers trying to reduce federal spending on healthcare and strip healthcare funding from the vulnerable. I am 100% in favor of bolstering our mental health coverage and awareness in this country. The politicians that use it as a scapegoat for the mass shooting epidemic seem to not give a single shit about the "real" issue.

 

[Los216]

How about make it harder to own a gun, not banning pistols or whatever?

Put people through a rigorous coures, mental exam, and other things. We do the same with cars, we do the same with basically anything that is dangerous that we use. But you can just go buy a gun and use it.

More regulation. More constraint. More education. And for the love of god, more help for the mentally ill.

I think most people agree with you to an extent. It should be noted the the majority of people don't want a complete ban on guns in general. Just assault rifles and gun modifications. Also consider this. What's the point of making it extremely hard to own an assault rifle when you can simply just ban them? What's the end game of making owning an assault rifle extremely hard? You go through the most thorough vetting process so that in the end you still get the weapon and use it for what?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

We're not supposed to be discussion political issues, and as was pointed out to me elsewhere, that's the direction in which this thread has gone. So I'm out.

 

[Los216]

I agree with this as a "realistic" solution. A complete ban on firearms, handguns, etc. is not realistic right now or in the near future. But we do so little in this country to track and regulate the ownership and use of dangerous, life-threatening weapons that statistically increase the likelihood of massacres, homicide, suicide, and accidental deaths.

What bothers me so much about the mental health talk (besides the fact that it's essentially a myth, other countries with similar mental health and less guns don't face these issues) is how, by and large, these are the same fuckers trying to reduce federal spending on healthcare and strip healthcare funding from the vulnerable. I am 100% in favor of bolstering our mental health coverage and awareness in this country. The politicians that use it as a scapegoat for the mass shooting epidemic seem to not give a single shit about the "real" issue.

I was just going to say this about mental health. The way people use mental health as a crutch for gun violence starts looking funny in the light real quick. We don't really care about mental health as a nation and other nations who deal with it on a more sever case don't have nearly as much gun violence.

One thing I would also like to know is why mental health is only linked to gun violence. Why don't people ever link mental health to car accidents, workplace accidents, drug accidents, diseases. Mental health is the go to topic for gun violence but it's as if people think it's exclusive to gun violence. We all know that it clearly isn't but the real thing to investigate is if mental health is actually as big of a deal in gun violence as people make it out to be. From my experience in the military I would have to say that no it is not.

 

[Los216]

We're not supposed to be discussion political issues, and that's the direction in which this thread has done. So I'm out.

Well it is called the General Terrorist Rampage Thread It would be near impossible to not have any political talk in these instances but I suspect that with a healthy and open discussion we can all be civil.

 

[gourimoko]

Okay, that's never happening, nor should it, so let's move on to realistic alternatives.

I think that's the point of contention right there....

If you talk to most other people in the world, they wouldn't understand why you're stating this as a fact.