GasBandit
Staff member
That you think that would be a good thing is just sad. If you think it actually possible, you're even more delusional than you think *I* am.
*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
We’ll ignore the fact that you can’t, and I’ll even ignore the fact that you shouldn't. I’ll even skip the fact that selective enforcement of the Constitution is about an un-American as it gets. Instead, I’ll just point out that bad people will still find ways to do bad things, and thus banning guns will only have punished law-abiding gun owners. Literally nothing will get better.
I thought this shooting was a gun taken from from a law-abiding gun owner. Clearly these people aren't responsible enough. Removing the ambiguity of seeing someone with a gun and not knowing their plans would make things safer.
But again, that's just literally every other western country.
GasBandit
Staff member
Generally, seeing a person bring a shotgun to school is already completely devoid of ambiguity. And yet, here we are.
GasBandit
Staff member
One civilian with a gun may not sound like much liberty insurance, but 100 million is a different story (which is approximately how many Americans there are right now that own guns). There are only 1.2 million active duty military personnel in the US.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's supposed to be a last-ditch defense against literal tyranny, not an object of first resort when the polls don't go your way.
I thought you didn't like "vote from the rooftops?"
What should really worry you is that, if Gas's fear comes to pass and the guns come out in defense against tyranny, these are probably the likeliest results:
1) The tyrants win anyway
2) The guys with the guns win and take power
And remember: The guys with the guns are Trump's base. I hope your country has a Kirk to Kobayashi Maru the country out of that scenario
No fucking shit. And spoilers: most of the gun owners want the US to be tyrannical because they're fascists as well. If I thought I could buy a gun and kill enough republicans to make a difference, I would. I just know that's obviously not how it'd go down.
GasBandit
Staff member
This is a gross oversimplification. Of everyone I know with at least one gun (and I know a lot of em), I'd say only one is a trumper.
GasBandit
Staff member
Sounds like a subject for another thread. I don't see a correlation between that and gun ownership, though.
Dave
Staff member
It was a giant oversimplification. I wasn't thinking about the people with a few guns. And I was invoking Trump as a metaphor.
The thing I was implying was: I doubt that the Americans stockpiling weapons to fight tyranny are gonna prevent a tyrant from rising from their own ranks if this war you foresee occurs. Y'all are too divided already, I think there's bound to be some horrifying purging of the "other side" in the aftermath. Certainly not as evil as Rwanda's genocide, but more like the shit that went down in the fall of Yugoslavia.
GasBandit
Staff member
Fortunately, preparing for the worst also acts as prevention. Would-be tyrants are given pause when faced with an armed populace. But even if the worst was to come to pass, I'd rather have the situation be where armed resistance is a grim, distasteful option rather than having no hope at all and resigning to live under a dictatorial boot.
GasBandit
Staff member
Also I like to be able to drive a car without it spontaneously flinging into orbit and then exploding.
And also, said person was not the one who used the guns. But maybe, if you guys actually took guns more seriously, instead of just screaming "2nd A" every time, people would be more wary about leaving their guns at arms length from their emotionally unstable teenagers.
Or they just get some chemical weapons from their slavic friends... ask Assad.
B
BErt
I change my stance on gun control and insist that everyone be required to own them, but they can only be shovel launchers.
GasBandit
Staff member
I definitely support the institution of better firearm education, as I've said multiple times.
I don't think anybody, even tyrants of the worst stripe, thinks that Assad is in an enviable position, or has acted intelligently to get there.
I dunno, I feel like the US already does a good job of keeping guns in school.
And, as i've said multiple times, words are cheap. Show me who you're supporting that has actually done anything in that regard...
Plus, once again you're arguing that, since no gun legislation would have stopped this there shouldn't be ANY gun legislation.
Fuck it, at this point the NRA using some of that lobbying money to send out gun safety leaflets would at least be something.
He's still winning, which was the point.
GasBandit
Staff member
And as I've said multiple times, that's a bullshit requirement. I believe what I believe, and I say it to anyone who will listen. That politicians don't align with me (and I don't run for office) doesn't make my idea bad.
Well.. yes. There shouldn't be. Because, as others have pointed out, it will make things worse. It will undermine the foundation of our liberty while simultaneously disarming the law abiding and emboldening the armed criminal.
That'd be nice.
Is he, though? I wouldn't put favorable odds on him coming out of this alive, much less on top. Unless Russia just completely drops all pretense both in Syria and Ukraine and goes full blown global supervillain, which I suppose is a possibility.
No, it just makes it useless.
And i'm clearly accusing you of not actually doing that, but just talking about it when pressed.
Not all gun legislation needs to be about banning guns.
And, also, gun regulation worked out pretty well for Reagan against the Black Panthers...
ISIS is gone, the Kurds are in retreat... most places are back under his control... you know, if you visit the BBC site you'd be more up to date with outside the Us stuff.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, soon as there's a politician who shares my idea, I'll vote for them. Until then, I'm just going to keep telling people about it.
And yet, it's the only kind we ever get.
Most places are back under his control, with maybe the occasional brick resting upon another, heh?
At least there's still a conflict and the outcome is not decided. That beats death camps and hopelessness any day.
Whatever happened to THE PEOPLE suggesting stuff to your representatives?
I seem to remember that being a thing, right beside having guns so they'd have to listen to you.
Because, as i pointed out, y'all are happy to just argue about those instead of actually trying to solve the issues in any way.
You're not seriously talking about how Syria is a giant bombed out hole, and then going back to saying it's better then when it wasn't like that?
That's just cheating.... something, something cake, eating and stuff.
GasBandit
Staff member
Which is why I talk about the ideas. To get PEOPLE to support it, and thus form a support base which then influences local, then state, then hopefully national politics. If it's just me, I get ignored, no matter how right I am.
Well, I agree with you. I've said the same thing.
It definitely demonstrates what a wasteful and stupid endeavor it was for Assad, whose only future options now are death, life on the run, or king of nothing. And that gives other would-be tyrants something to mull over.
And frankly, Assad has only had ANY measure of success because he's a proxy/puppet for Russia, who has been propping him up and supplying him. Such a development is unlikely in the US.
I thought that was obvious.
Of course, this being a free country, he is completely within his rights to surrender/destroy each and every gun he owns, and even legally acquire guns from other people and surrender/destroy those as well, only limited by his means. Thanks to the First Amendment, he is even perfectly within his rights to suggest that everyone else follow his lead, and to voice his opinion in a public forum of his choosing.
--Patrick
I'm not sure that true. Most mass shootings seem to have taken place in states with a generally armed populous. It hasn't seemed to deter them.
Again, I don't think that's entirely true, at least on state-to-state basis. To my knowledge, no states have outright banned guns, but the states with the most gun restrictions have the least shooting deaths, both with homicide and suicide. I wish I had saved the article, but sometime in the past year, someone complied the numbers by state, and all I can remember is Vermont had the lowest, NJ was #2 or 3, and NY was #5, I think?
GasBandit
Staff member
"Would-be tyrants" means oppressive politicians with delusions of dictatorship, not other mass shooters. Thanks to the media, mass shootings definitely encourage other would-be mass shooters.
What kind of proposed gun legislation have you seen that wasn't banning certain types of guns, or certain gun accessories?