Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

So, somehow this thread doesn't exist yet...? I did a search for it, but it didn't pop up, so I figured I'd put it here. Excuse me if I somehow looked over it.

I'm sure you've all heard about the tragedy in Connecticut. A man was driven insane by a group of 26 individuals -- 20 of them being kindergardeners. He lashed out, forced his way into the school, and killed them. Due to our corrupt law system, he was locked away, despite his insanity being their fault.

Anyway, this thread isn't about just that event. It is about gun control in general. So what are your thoughts on gun control? Are you a conservative pig who is willing to sacrifice innocent people for their blasty-sticks? Or are you a faggot Liberal who doesn't care about the Constitution and gets off at the thought of turning the States into a Socialist dictatorship? (Crossed out Socialist because it is redundant).

i'm completely for gun control. guns need to be heavily regulated and harder to obtain. not banned completely, just extremely regulated.

i actually think it's ridiculous that once someone talks about putting restrictions on guns, people scream "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT" as if guns were actually a reasonable weapon to own back when the Constitution was made. besides, "the right to bear arms" dealt more with allowing people to make their own armed regimes. when was the last time one of these crazy yahoos who decided to shoot up a bunch of people in a public space belonged to an actual group.

I live in a country where you seriously need to put a lot of work into getting a gun, and we rarely ever have any problems with guns because of this. This system seems to work just fine.
If you want a gun, you'll have to earn it.

I need a moment to arouse my moral indignation.

This post has been edited by Jerk: 15 December 2012 - 11:01 PM

Jerk, on 15 December 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Jerk
You are awesome

I don't own a gun. I don't give a fuck about the rights of shrimp dick white trash that want to own them.

How was his insanity their fault, unless you're being ironic on purpose?

Also, the second amendment was put in to protect yourself from other people.
Banning guns, or making them really difficult to obtain can't make a determined psychopath get a gun, he can just get it somewhere else on less legal terms.
What it does stop is a lot of ordinary people from getting guns, because they wouldn't want to get them illegally, and they'd give up trying to get one after a while.

Give the poll the options, I want to see where the opinions are.

This post has been edited by falconboy99: 15 December 2012 - 11:24 PM

falconboy99, on 15 December 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Pretty damn sure that's the job for the police, and if few cases, private security firms

falconboy99, on 15 December 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Well that's what you get when you're in a country that's practically flooded with weapons.

falconboy99, on 15 December 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

And that's a good thing, because some ordinary people don't always have good intentions, or "somehow" lose said weapon.
The obvious consequence of that is that the US is over-saturated with unregistered or "lost" weapons.

You can keep them legal and continue throwing fuel on the fire so it'll be harder to get rid of in the future, or take action now and slowly get rid of them, while that's still slightly manageable.
It's gonna take decades, and it won't be easy, but you gotta look at the long term, instead of a quick band-aid that's covering a hole in the already existing layers of band-aids.

Livin in Australia sure is great

I love poll option. It's just great.

Even if they are heavily regulated and controlled, people can still get them if they really want.

Whether you ban guns or not people will still be able to get the by other means. Its not like all those guns already around will just suddenly disappear.

Its not the first school shooting to happen in america and it probably wont be the last and i dont see much you can do to stop them, unless you increase security at schools to stop an armed man from just coming in and killing people.

"People will still be able to get guns somehow" is just about the stupidest most self-defeatist argument ever. What's the point of arresting people if there will always be other people committing crimes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sofa_King, on 15 December 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Yeah, those stupid fucking kindergardeners had it coming. Dumb fucks. Should have moved while they had the chance.

why should we ban enriched uranium people will just find ways to make or obtain atomic bombs anyway

Taeshi, on 16 December 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

Its may be but its still the truth.

Get back in your oven, brony faggot.

it's literally one of the stupidest things you can say in a discussion about gun control, Supah.

America built modern gun control on "everyone can get one" and built (very few) exceptions on top of that. America also has one of the highest gun-related deaths in the world among civilians. compare that to other countries which built their gun control around "no one can have one" and built exceptions on top of that.

Sofa_King, on 15 December 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Banning guns IS the quick band-aid.

Sofa_King, on 15 December 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

What happens when the police are corrupt?

Sofa_King, on 15 December 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

A determined person can get one in a country that's not flooded with weapons.

This post has been edited by falconboy99: 16 December 2012 - 01:04 AM

Don't people have this same discussion/argument every time a mass shooting happens in america?

Seems kind of stupid thinking things will change.

Arguments don't win people over.

Taeshi, on 16 December 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

Before anyone reads my post really fast and concludes I didn't get Tae's sarcasm in her last sentence, read my post carefully:

Arresting people and banning guns have different results.
If you don't arrest anyone, then there won't be consequences for any things done wrong.
If you don't ban guns, then it'll be easier to get them, both good people and bad people alike.

falconboy99, on 16 December 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

Get a load of this shit, he doesn't think removing the cause solves the problem.
Sure, let's just keep taking painkillers in order to deal with the pain instead of taking care of the problem eh?

falconboy99, on 15 December 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Hoo boy, take of your tinfoil hat sonny.
You're in a first world country.
They ain't like Judge Dredd, and if they just try to PRETEND that, then they're in a truckload of trouble.

falconboy99, on 16 December 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

Said person would have to be a member of a organised gang in order to get said gun.
They're not selling them to a random stranger due to sting operations.
And any organized gang are pretty much automatically under surveillance in order to collect evidence to actually bust them right before they do something serious.

Supah, on 16 December 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

Well it's pretty much the first world country country with the most mass shootings per citizen.
If that doesn't show that somethings fundamentally wrong, then damn.

Supah, on 16 December 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

Sometimes things MUST change in order to achieve progress.

This post has been edited by Sofa_King: 16 December 2012 - 01:51 AM

i think it should be decided by the states

As a US citizen, I am having far more fun with the inevitable dark humor accompanying this tragedy. I feel horrible for laughing, but I would be lying if I said it weren't funny.

Sofa_King, on 16 December 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

Guns are only the problem when you view gun specific crimes. But crime in general would not be removed if guns were banned. In fact, neither would gun specific crimes.

Sofa_King, on 16 December 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

I'm not entirely sure what this means, since I don't really keep up with pop culture and I'm not well versed on movies, but I'm thinking the implication is that the police are not corrupt. Assuming that is what you meant, I will say you are very wrong and that is a dumb thing to say. There are plenty of corrupt police; it is not a myth. In fact, the assumption that the police are not corrupt is inexcusably stupid, and much like being raised to hate gays but having a change of heart, should probably be followed with an apology.

Now, a real answer to this would be to point out to Falconboy that it wouldn't make a difference. You're not allowed to shoot police, whether or not they're corrupt.

Sofa_King, on 16 December 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

How cute and idealistic. I'm gonna go off on a limb and say you don't know much about the FBI or the black market. (Not to imply I do). If banning guns went anything like alcohol prohibition, then you can see how that wouldn't work at all. And yes, times have changed, obviously things wouldn't be the same down to a tee. Just bear in mind that these dealings can go on out of the governments eye, and in order to bring them into the governments eye... Well, we would probably have to get all "Orwellian."

Fun fact: did you know it is actually extremely easy to obtain child pornography?

Sofa_King, on 16 December 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

This I agree with.

Meowth, on 16 December 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

BRB I'm building an assault rifle distillery in my basement.

Jerk, on 16 December 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

That would almost be clever if it weren't for the sentence directly after the sentence you're mocking.

No, I read that part. It still doesn't get you past the fact that you're alluding to a relatively simple chemical process against the manufacturing of an object that requires sophisticated industrial machinery to produce. I'm kind of disappointed you missed that.

A total ban is foolish. There are plenty of areas in the country where you can't survive without a gun. In areas with big bears, carrying a medium-bore rifle, a shotgun loaded with slugs or large caliber revolver is a good idea, and good luck trying to kill them with a bow an arrow. Many of these same areas are rural enough that you just can't survive without hunting or farming; people in big cities are used to seeing supermarkets, but these stores don't exist in remote areas. Alaska, for instance, is known for having very remote villages that can't be accessed without plane and a very large population of very big, aggressive brown bears.

But I do not have any issue at all with extremely strict gun laws. For the majority of the guns on the market, their use outside of shooting targets or people is limited, and these are the kind of guns that should be more strictly regulated. Hell, ban them even; as much as I like writing about them and drawing them, a gun that has no use in hunting just doesn't need to be available to the public. Here's an idea: ban all non-revolver firearms sporting a capacity over six rounds (yes, high capacity revolvers exist, there's just not many of them) and with anything less than a .40 caliber (specifically, anything less than a 10mm Auto in caliber and power). Give them a minimum barrel length of six inches. Take any small caliber rifle, like say a .22 LR or .223 Remington, and limit the magazine to 5 rounds. For that matter, ban all semi-auto variants--no one's going to go hunting with a AR-15 after all--and limit larger calibers to bolt or lever action. Cap the capacity on bolt rifles to 3 rounds and raise the minimum barrel length to 18 inches. Leave shotguns where they are, but do ban stock-and-pistol-grip combinations (banning pistol grip only is pointless as they're nowhere near as useful as people like to think they are, but I have no objections if the government goes this route. Since most states only allow 3 or 4 round capacities for hunting, draw the line there.

There are downsides to this. First, most violent crimes that involve guns involve a large caliber revolver, so it's not a complete solution. Also, there will still be idiots who buy illegal guns and use those, but you won't actually be able to avoid that with any ban and strict enforcement should help fight it. Unfortunately, people who want to kill others are still going to do it, but this should make it more difficult.

This post has been edited by Carcharocles: 16 December 2012 - 03:04 AM

Jerk, on 16 December 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

cute

I can't wait to go deer hunting with my .330.

Keep in mind that 3D printable technology is becoming readily accessible, even for guns. That'll be fun to control.

This post has been edited by Purin: 16 December 2012 - 03:36 AM

shut up purin

Kaxbe, on 16 December 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

mad

Sofa_King, on 16 December 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

Banning guns isn't going to stop gun use. Look at prohibition, it didn't get rid of alcohol.

Quote

Some police officers are corrupt. There are corrupt police officers in first world countries.

Sofa_King, on 16 December 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

No, they wouldn't have to be a member of an organized gang.
And fuck you. Don't call me an idiot for my opinion.

This post has been edited by falconboy99: 16 December 2012 - 04:47 AM

Gun control makes it harder to obtain guns, for everyone. It lowers gun-related crime, not stop it. If guns are harder to buy, there'll be fewer people buying them. Fewer buyers means less supply and this cascades into a much reduced market. Fewer guns all around, means it also gets harder for criminals to obtain guns.

Police corruption (or in some countries military corruption) can be a problem, but in first world countries there are systems in place to keep them in check. It's not perfect, but it is better than each man taking justice into his own hands. There has to be SOME trust and good faith.

What are the gun laws in Australia, actually? The aussies always seem so americanised, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out not to difficult to buy a gun.
Fun fact, cops in Australia usually travel in groups of 4 or more to avoid being ambushed or attacked. Each one of them carries a gun. Cops in New Zealand only do their shifts in pairs, and they have one gun between them, which stays in the car unless they REALLY need it.

In relation to the initial post apparently the shooters mother bought the assault rifle for him.

Well, chicks should DEFINITELY not be allowed to buy guns!

Taeshi, on 16 December 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

It is a little daunting though, the US has the worlds highest guns per capita ratio, and that's just the registered weapons. I know someone with an unregistered automatic AK47, M16, and an UZI with a fucking illegal as shit silencer. He also has a registered Barret 50 cal, because in 'merica, it's legal for civilians to own weapons that can blow off someones entire torso through a concrete wall.

These things do not surprise me in a country run by a vague and exploited enlightenment era document. There's also a large stockpile of black market weapons in the US, and handling that requires massive changes in legislation not related to guns in any way. So I do agree with you to an extent, and it certainly seems most of the people who have gone on killing sprees in the US obtained their guns legally, but most regular criminals obtain their guns illegally. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms stolen guns account for only about 15% of guns used in crimes.

This is because the most common way criminals get guns is through straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers that sell illegal weapons on the side.


pictured here, the south

Gun laws in Australia: http://en.wikipedia....cs_in_Australia

It's complicated, but basically it boils down to: The more dangerous it is, the harder it is to get or hold on to. All weapons must be registered. I, personally, have had to go into the police station to sign off on fencing equipment that one of my club members was 'taken down to the station'. It is an offense to brandish weapons or toys that can be mistaken as weapons, and it's also an offense to joke about using weapons in certain areas (e.g. airports, football grounds, parliament houses, etc etc).

We do have illegal weapons in Australia, in fact a whole bunch of semi-automatic and automatic assault rifles were recently discovered arriving by post, and there's been a few gang related gunfights in some of the capital cities this year. These are far in the minority. My experience is that most farmers will own single shot rifles or shotguns primarily for shooting rabbits.

Over the last three months, the Federal Police had a gun amnesty where people could hand in unregistered or illegal weapons with no penalty. About a decade ago, there was another 'hand in your guns' type thing that took a couple hundred thousand guns out of the system.

However, the real killer in Australia is actually drunk drivers

Instead of having guns so easily accessible for everyone, why not allow some of the alternatives to be available for everyone? I hardly ever hear about anyone defending themselves with pepper-spray or anything along those lines.
I'm not saying everyone should walk around with a damn tazer in their pocket, but it seems like a better alternative than brandishing a Smith and Wesson when threatened.

Fun fact: In Denmark, it's illegal to defend yourself in any way when a robber enters your house, unless the robber attacks you directly. And even then, you can be criminally charged if you hurt the robber.

Thanks SkyPal.

Yeah, in NZ there was a very controversial court case a couple of years ago where a man was charged of murder for shooting a robber who'd entered his house. That's really scary, though. Cut-the-body-into-little-bits-and-keep-them-in-the-freezer-to-slowly-dispose-of Scary.

mAceOfHearts:

The danger of arming everybody is that anybody can be a crazy person.

Consider -

If you have a thousand people, and ten are randomly assigned weapons (guns or otherwise), and precisely one is crazy, there's a 0.1% chance that you have a crazy person with a weapon.

If you have a thousand people, and any of them are randomly assigned weapons (guns or otherwise), and precisely one is crazy, then I have no idea what the % is but it is certainly bigger than 0.1%.

There is an argument that if you arm everybody, then they can take down a crazy person. So the number of casualties from a crazy person is REDUCED.

However, if you arm everybody, then the number of crazy people is increased. So the net casualties from arming everybody is actually higher than removing all the armaments.

This is what Migrant was saying, earlier:

Quote

Which is right on the money. We can probably never remove the idiot genes from humanity (at least until we get some David Brin style gene preselection going on) but we can dampen their impact on the rest of us by reducing their ability to inflict harm.

There is THIS counter argument though:

If you have a thousand people, and ten of them have been vetted as anti-crazy and trained for protecting the remaining thousand, and you specifically give those ten weapons, in addition to the ten randomly assigned to the rest of the group, then you still have a 0.09% chance of a crazy person, but now you have some kind of defense against it. It's the best of both worlds. We call those people Police, or possibly, Soldiers.

Arming everybody is dangerous to everybody. Selectively arming the right people can prevent harm. This is the meaning of gun control. It is about preventing weapons from falling into the hands of those who would misuse them, and issuing them to those who need them. You can never make the world completely safe, but you can put rubber stoppers over some of the sharp edges.

That makes sense, and I don't believe I ever said otherwise. In fact, I completely agree with all that. I was just saying that having people walk around with some sort of non-lethal defensive weapon would give people a better way to defend themselves against the crazy ones. And the actual hazard of giving out these non-lethal weapons is pretty low, as I can't rightly imagine one guy going on a killing spree with a pepper spray.
You could argue that this would make the more "casual" fights escalate to more dangerous states, but that's a low risk in my opinion.

Yup. Banning guns in Washington D.C. And Chicago really worked wonders there.

Oh and there is no compelling evidence that anything beyond gun related suicides dropped in Australia after that law.

Besides, who needs a gun when you can stab 22 children to death? The Chinese are showing us how it's done.

Ace, on 16 December 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

Fun Fact: None of those people died, and only a couple were even hospitalized.

Tells you something.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Ace, on 16 December 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

I'm gonna murder you with my thoughts alone.
Tell me when it's working.

Sofa_King, on 16 December 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

You're retarded.

Ace, on 16 December 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Thank you Jerk, I'm glad someone has sense around here.