Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Again, I meant, and I thought the context of my other posts made it quite clear, that there is relatively almost complete lack of control when comparing the USA and other western nations. As I believe I have now made clear on more than enough occasions.

No such context was provided, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. What you have done is attempt to clarify after the fact, and then try to shift the blame onto those reading your actual words instead of owning your mistake.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Given your conuct in this thread you are more concerned about hanging up discussion on trivial, already resolved points in an attempt to disrail and prevent discussion and to (perhaps further ) smear someone you disagree with.

Ah, a pithy reconstituting of my own post.

Focusing on trivial points? You mean actual facts, or context that you omitted and wonder why I respond to what you said instead of what you thought you said
Derail? My responses to you have been on topic and relevant, with a few humorous quips
Prevent discussion? By asking for clarification, figures, and addressing the topic.
Smear? Not from me in this thread
Strange definitions you're working off there, its almost as if you're trying to turn the words on their head to wring out the meaning that you desire. I must be missing some of that vital context you keep failing to provide

But yet again you seem unwilling/unable to provide any actual suggestions to remedy this alleged gun problem. Instead you seem to be distracting and deflecting so you can make your exit hoping no one will call you out on your stunning lack of knowledge - all noise and no substance. This last post confirms my previous suspicions about your attitudes to those who disagreed with your and your legislative suggestions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Focusing on trivial points?

The continual fixation on a single point which has been gone over now, what? three or four times?

As to the rest of your post, well, I think it is a good indication as to how people can read what they want in another's post - something that works both ways of course. Although I'm still waiting for you to clarify what figures you want sources for so I can attempt to provide them for you, so I guess you are more interested in point scoring than actual discussion.

As to suggestions as to how things are currenly not working and a few ideas as to how to correct this - perhaps in your haste to go over the same point over and over again (as mentioned above), you have missed my comments on this? Or perhaps they were hidden in the context. Who knows?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.

I will take a look in detail later as I am just about to go to the cinema and I am headed down to London tomorrow morning so it will be a few days until I can comment on this thread again (I am sure to many tears from some posters ).

Makes sense after a post like Whembly's

I took that as a compliment.

You kept accusing me of missing some vital "context", or tilting at windmills, and that I was at fault. It was a matter that you kept putting in issue and accordingly I rebutted it. I note that the rest of my counter points to your accusations have gone unremarked. But if you insist on continually dragging this context matter up then perhaps you should question whether it is you that is derailing the topic.

You mean you cannot provide the facts and figures for the claim that "first would country where as many people are getting shot as in some 3rd world war torn nation", and you need me to spell it out after quoting this and objecting to it? Are you really being that obtuse?
Nice to see that you aren't objecting to the fact you are making a false comparison though.

Yet again you keep attempting to deflect and distract away from the topic. You've done this since I pointed out that the US does have gun control. You clearly aren't interested in a meaningful response, you'd much rather plead ignorance and claim to be pressed for time (yet still post in spite of your haste) and anyone who disagrees with you is determined to "ignore the general thrust of the points and get bogged down in semantics over how these hypothetical laws would not work, make everything worse, or cause the founding fathers to explode,"

What am I uniformed about? You're the one that doesn't have a clue how gun ownership and the laws governing them work in the United States.

If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.

So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.

Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.

 Crablezworth wrote:
If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say,

Or, as we seem to know that he ultimately had a single target, that 28 days would have been used to further simmer his rage, develop his plan further than "walk in, shoot something", etc. etc. Sure, it may have happened later in the year, but that 28 days of not having that gun could have potentially made things a whole lot worse for everyone else.

Or maybe he would have just gotten over it?

Since we are throwing out hypotheticals...

Perhaps, but how many nerds/socially awkward people do you know of who routinely "let it go" ??

Or, another hypothetical, he could have seen the school counselor, and eventually received treatment for whatever his ailment was...

Or he could have showed up with just the molotovs and machete he had...

He would have been defeated by Concealed Molotov Carriers.

 CptJake wrote:
Or he could have showed up with just the molotovs and machete he had...

If he had forgone the molotovss, they could have made a movie about him... and have Danny Trejo play the lead role

Silver, you should cut your losses.

It's okay to be wrong once in a while.

 Crablezworth wrote:
If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.

So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.

Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.

I had a explanation for why this won't work, at best. Unfortunately, I left work without clicking submit and don't feel like retyping it.

tl;dr, people sometimes just "go crazy". They will be crazy if they have to wait any period of time to enact their craziness. If anything, that'll only give them time to plan and something to look forward to.

Your plan seems sound, but will fail because you're thinking like a reasonable person, who gets angry, not like a crazy person, who is genuinely crazy enough to hurt people.

My question is this: Why does it appear that there are more crazy people here than elsewhere?

Because the 24 hour news cycle needs fuel.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.

Because phrases like that scream constructive discussion. Right?

 Crablezworth wrote:
If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.

So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.

Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.

So... I guess your fine with TSA pat downs, the NSA listening in on your phone calls, Obama telling you what you can and cannot eat, and every other intrusive aspect of government then? You're cool with the government hand so far up your ass they'll wipe your nose for you when you sneeze.

I mean, it's all there to help keep you safe, isn't it?

 djones520 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.

So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.

Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.

So... I guess your fine with TSA pat downs, the NSA listening in on your phone calls, Obama telling you what you can and cannot eat, and every other intrusive aspect of government then? You're cool with the government hand so far up your ass they'll wipe your nose for you when you sneeze.

I mean, it's all there to help keep you safe, isn't it?

Winner Winner! Chicken dinner!

 djones520 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.

So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.

Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.

So... I guess your fine with TSA pat downs, the NSA listening in on your phone calls, Obama telling you what you can and cannot eat, and every other intrusive aspect of government then? You're cool with the government hand so far up your ass they'll wipe your nose for you when you sneeze.

I mean, it's all there to help keep you safe, isn't it?

You seem to be under the assumption that having to get a licence to be able obtain something makes it so you can't obtain that thing. You have to get a drivers licence, a hunting licence, a fishing licence, and a licence to sell alcohol. What is actually wrong with having to licence guns. You have to register to vote, a constitutionally protected right, so why shouldn't you have to register a gun?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


...so why shouldn't you have to register a gun?

Freedom means never having to ask permission.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.

So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.

Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.

So... I guess your fine with TSA pat downs, the NSA listening in on your phone calls, Obama telling you what you can and cannot eat, and every other intrusive aspect of government then? You're cool with the government hand so far up your ass they'll wipe your nose for you when you sneeze.

I mean, it's all there to help keep you safe, isn't it?

You seem to be under the assumption that having to get a licence to be able obtain something makes it so you can't obtain that thing.

Well, if the license doesn't make it so that you can't obtain a gun, and you're someone who is going to use said gun to inflict pain upon innocent people, then it's a pretty piss poor at serving the purpose that Crablezworth came up with the idea for in the first place, right?

You have to get a drivers licence, a hunting licence, a fishing licence, and a licence to sell alcohol. What is actually wrong with having to licence guns. You have to register to vote, a constitutionally protected right, so why shouldn't you have to register a gun?

Driver's licenses are to ensure that you're who you say you are, and are operating vehicles under any applicable restrictions. They're also there because driving isn't a right, and this can be revoked if necessary.
Hunting licenses are to ensure that some level of conservation is occurring, and people aren't completely depleting natural wildlife, same as fishing.
You need a license to sell alcohol because it's a dangerous substance, and it's taxed differently than food. You also need a license to sell food. There's a level of inspection that goes on as well.
You have to register to vote because (and this shouldn't even need to be said, but) otherwise, you could just vote as many times as you felt like. You can't (or shouldn't) be DENIED the right to vote.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


...so why shouldn't you have to register a gun?

Freedom means never having to ask permission.

So what's the justification for having to register to vote? Also try to answer the entire question. What is your justification against registering guns (preferentially without just saying the 2nd amendment)?



This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

So what's the justification for having to register to vote? Also try to answer the entire question. What is your justification against registering guns (preferentially without just saying the 2nd amendment)?

You have to register to vote because (and this shouldn't even need to be said, but) otherwise, you could just vote as many times as you felt like. You can't (or shouldn't) be DENIED the right to vote.

Justification against registering guns is that you can't come up with a justification FOR registering guns that isn't flawed or ineffective, and typically you don't change something without rationale.

This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...

The word is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy. We're not discussing animals here. I'm also confused by this statement, because I thought we were talking about a specific topic, not broadly accusing other people of subscribing to a list of partisan talking points, as if that has any relevance to the topic at hand.

I'll play...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


...so why shouldn't you have to register a gun?

Freedom means never having to ask permission.

So what's the justification for having to register to vote?

This guy also thought it was necessary:

So... it may not be such a bad idea after all.

Also try to answer the entire question. What is your justification against registering guns (preferentially without just saying the 2nd amendment)?

It's not needed. Simple as that.

This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...

Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

But, in your case, gun registration/license lead to confiscation... right?

 djones520 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.

So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.

Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.

So... I guess your fine with TSA pat downs, the NSA listening in on your phone calls, Obama telling you what you can and cannot eat, and every other intrusive aspect of government then? You're cool with the government hand so far up your ass they'll wipe your nose for you when you sneeze.

I mean, it's all there to help keep you safe, isn't it?

TSA pat downs are stupid, the nsa listening in on phone calls is unconstitutional, I have no idea about the obama thing but you just showed your hand. As for the rest of your comments, perhaps the only way to argue against sensible licensing is to create strawmen, so, good luck with that.

 whembly wrote:

This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...

Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

But, in your case, gun registration/license lead to confiscation... right?

I think he's genuinely assuming that if you're against gun control, then you're a stereotypical Republican, down to every last stereotype.

Registering to vote helps ensure you are only voting where you are supposed to due to residency. It would be pretty gakky of me to go to another state or even county and vote in their elections. It also helps to verify legitimacy of the vote, protecting your right to vote by ensuring your vote is not canceled out by the vote of an ineligible person.

To understand why I am against gun registry you would need to first honestly answer what you believe the purpose of the registry to be.



Assuming the above is legit, it is a glaring example of why allowing the gov't to know what legally owned personal property I have is a bad thing. It empowers them to pull dumb gak like that. Even if the picture is not legit, it exemplifies what can and has happened where the gov't had lists of who owns what weapons. Add in the current trend of 'news' organizations to get the names and identifying info of concealed carry permit holders and publish their addresses and names and you have another reason why I do not think sharing any info about any weapons I may legally own is a bad idea. The gov't has proven less than able to protect my information and in fact has allowed it to be used for political reasons and agendas I very much do not approve of.

And another basic argument, what again is the purpose of this registry? What will it cost? Why should the tax payers fund its creation and upkeep? I cannot think of a benign reason for its existence that justifies the cost.

That picture is legit Jake. Das Gestapo is already on the move in New York.

that form looks like all the forms we started getting since we registered long guns up here....

even canadians get that registration leads to confiscation now, but learning the hard way will do that to you.

 djones520 wrote:
That picture is legit Jake. Das Gestapo is already on the move in New York.

I just know I cannot personally verify it as legit, thought it does appear so. I did do a quick Snopes search and could not find anything on it.