The Pew Pew Thread

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,763
6,763
136
This last weekend or the one before was a big weekend of mass shootings, barely made a blip in the news compared to other things going on.

The gun nuts have created their utopia, this is the kind of indifference they wanted to create in order for their to be no threat to their fetishization of guns. They all have blood on their hands.
Makes me think of this scene in “American Gods”:
I’ve yet to find the full 7+ minute intro clip anywhere, but you’ll hardly find a better summation of gun culture in America.

Every time I hear that Jefferson quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”, I think

A) But what of Jefferson’s suggestion that “the remedy” to violent resistance is “to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them”—not spur them on with dubious warnings of groomers and election fraudsters, etcetera etcetera…and,

B) Isn’t this thread proof that we’ve been watering the tree of liberty with enough blood to last many lifetimes?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,049
14,135
146
What I read sounded to me like an opinion piece founded on faulty logic. The contention that deaths by accident or intent of young people are unnecessary would be the same as saying that deaths by automobile are unnecessary too. The answer is to eliminate guns and cars. Its still also about eliminating an instrument rather than dealing with the origin of violent or careless behavior typical in anti-gun culture. This is the kind of cultural ignorance that turn people off to liberals, in my opinion.

The causes of violence in our society are also unnecessary but nobody is doing anything there.
I figured I’d circle back to this and try to give it a shot, cuz it doesn’t actually sound like you read the article.

the article spells out facts. Facts like accidents are the leading cause of death in young people, and how gun death research was not funded.

the answer isn’t to eliminate guns are cars, that’s just a weird straw man from you, the answer is to research gun violence via the CDC, compare why vehicle accidents have decreased versus gun deaths increased. And what we can do about it.

personally, it sounds like you’re the one whose culturally ignorant here. You seem to think the only answer is to change people from birth to not hate themselves and viola all of societies problems will disappear. Well hot damn, maybe if we did that and we all lived another 100 years to see it then we could all be amazed and egos would soar.

but alas, this is not in step with human history, and we have real problems to solve, which means that if Americans want to decrease unnecessary gun deaths(which most are) then some basic cultural changes are required.

I do t really see that happening, but have fun blaming the libtards for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackangst1

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,636
4,592
126
I figured I’d circle back to this and try to give it a shot, cuz it doesn’t actually sound like you read the article.

the article spells out facts. Facts like accidents are the leading cause of death in young people, and how gun death research was not funded.

the answer isn’t to eliminate guns are cars, that’s just a weird straw man from you, the answer is to research gun violence via the CDC, compare why vehicle accidents have decreased versus gun deaths increased. And what we can do about it.

personally, it sounds like you’re the one whose culturally ignorant here. You seem to think the only answer is to change people from birth to not hate themselves and viola all of societies problems will disappear. Well hot damn, maybe if we did that and we all lived another 100 years to see it then we could all be amazed and egos would soar.

but alas, this is not in step with human history, and we have real problems to solve, which means that if Americans want to decrease unnecessary gun deaths(which most are) then some basic cultural changes are required.

I do t really see that happening, but have fun blaming the libtards for it.
Thank you for this well argued post:

From the link:

"Accidental deaths, whether truly by accident or by injuries due to intent, by any means, are, in large part, preventable. Access to firearms by children, by unlicensed owners, and absence of safety measures when it comes to both intentional and unintentional gun-related injuries and deaths, are among the reasons that the incidence of this horrific, truly avoidable tragedy is on the rise."

What the author does, in my opinion is practice a slide of hand. Deaths by intent are not accidents in the first place and the cure for real accidental deaths and intentional ones are completely different. The former are largely caused by careless gun ownership. People who practice safe gun handling at home for the purpose of responsible self defense are not responsible for this and should not have their rights abridged because of the recklessness of others. Deaths due to intent are the result of mental problems our society will not bother to fix because we carry the cause of such violence within each of us and are motivated not to see it.

The problem with trying to regulate guns is a political matter. Conservatives have their campaigns paid for by creating a boogie man liberal out to take them away. Unfortunately, that is exactly what many liberals want to do. This issue raised to culture war status leads to laws being passed that prevent record keeping. Got to keep the gun money flowing into the coffers. Both liberals who are full of gun fear and conservatives full of fear their guns will be taken prevent anything sane from happening when it comes to better efforts to keep guns out of sick people's hands. It is a profoundly difficult issue, like locking up someone because you just know they are going to commit a crime. Such certainty can be dangerous. Surrendering to the fact such things are hard is also dangerous.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,636
4,592
126
both valid points, re: self defense, I was just replying to moonbeam who invoked that as some sorta catch all for what the numbers say
Again what I read the numbers to be saying and the logic of the author is this: Gun deaths 1-24 now exceed accidental automobile deaths in that age group because no attention is being paid to improving gun safety but lots has happened on the automobile front. The author also attempts to say that intentional killings of 1-24 year olds are included as accidental deaths when they are intentional rather than accidental.

People who try to block efforts to educate and restrict gun ownership to create and encourage more responsible gun owners are either insane or financially motivated in my opinion. Efforts to eliminate the right to own guns is also, in my opinion, ignorant and motivated by an unwillingness to address the complexity of the situation. The enemy, in my opinion, is that too many people walking around are actually deeply mentally ill and dangerous to themselves and others. That issue, difficult as it is, will never be fixed unrecognized.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,802
497
136
People who try to block efforts to educate and restrict gun ownership to create and encourage more responsible gun owners are either insane or financially motivated in my opinion.
What is the financial motivation for not encouraging people to be responsible gun owners? Doesn't gun owners killing themselves result in fewer gun/ammo sales?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,636
4,592
126
What is the financial motivation for not encouraging people to be responsible gun owners? Doesn't gun owners killing themselves result in fewer gun/ammo sales?
I did not say they were not encouraging people to be responsible gun owners. I said they were blocking legislation that would do so or gather proper data to do so more intelligently. The gun industry supports the political right, as do many many gun owners because they fear anti gun legislation. The right, by ginning up fear that guns will be taken by the left, serve the gun industry and themselves by acquiring donations from those who fear loss of gun ownership rights and from the industry, a fear of loss of sales. If you shop for guns you will find so many out of stock. Fear sells and fear generated and played on wins elections and contributions. Minus that sort of shit most gun owners have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals etc.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,049
14,135
146
Thank you for this well argued post:

From the link:

"Accidental deaths, whether truly by accident or by injuries due to intent, by any means, are, in large part, preventable. Access to firearms by children, by unlicensed owners, and absence of safety measures when it comes to both intentional and unintentional gun-related injuries and deaths, are among the reasons that the incidence of this horrific, truly avoidable tragedy is on the rise."

What the author does, in my opinion is practice a slide of hand. Deaths by intent are not accidents in the first place and the cure for real accidental deaths and intentional ones are completely different. The former are largely caused by careless gun ownership. People who practice safe gun handling at home for the purpose of responsible self defense are not responsible for this and should not have their rights abridged because of the recklessness of others. Deaths due to intent are the result of mental problems our society will not bother to fix because we carry the cause of such violence within each of us and are motivated not to see it.
Yes, I figured this last paragraph is what you're referring to. I disagree, she is really just questioning the validity of gun deaths ruled accidents due to our worship at the altar of guns.

You ignored all of the previous paragraphs and data to write it off as an opinion piece. Pretty effed up, and revealing.

Gun deaths due to intent aren't necessarily mental problem related, but I would agree there's more than enough mental health issues in the U.S. to create the majority of intentional gun violence and death.

But, that's not what the short article is about, it's about an increase in gun deaths among 1-24 year olds, and it's surpassed vehicle deaths, whether intentional or not.

The problem with trying to regulate guns is a political matter. Conservatives have their campaigns paid for by creating a boogie man liberal out to take them away. Unfortunately, that is exactly what many liberals want to do. This issue raised to culture war status leads to laws being passed that prevent record keeping. Got to keep the gun money flowing into the coffers. Both liberals who are full of gun fear and conservatives full of fear their guns will be taken prevent anything sane from happening when it comes to better efforts to keep guns out of sick people's hands. It is a profoundly difficult issue, like locking up someone because you just know they are going to commit a crime. Such certainty can be dangerous. Surrendering to the fact such things are hard is also dangerous.
I personally don't know a SINGLE Democrat or liberal that wants to take guns away, and I'm in MA libtard utopia. We have common sense gun laws, my right to self defense is intact, we keep guns out of people's hands that don't measure up mentally, but you know the rules going in. We also have almost the lowest rate of gun deaths in the states.

My rights are not infringed. I'm totally fine with never owning an AR or AK, or that type of gun. Self defense doesn't demand or require it. I'm perfectly fine with limited mag capacities, self defense isn't a shoot out like on TV or movies.

Now, if you want to bounce to the constitution like a R voter would, then gun rights aren't even about self defense, it's about freedom from oppressive government

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Biden's campaign plan for gun reform is very similar to MA's current status. It's common sense and personal responsibility driven.

I think you highlight the problem well here, because even you seem to be under the impression that the Dem's are going to kick down some doors and take all the guns because now everyone's all of a sudden a criminal owner. That's simply never going to happen, and you know it.

Again what I read the numbers to be saying and the logic of the author is this: Gun deaths 1-24 now exceed accidental automobile deaths in that age group because no attention is being paid to improving gun safety but lots has happened on the automobile front. The author also attempts to say that intentional killings of 1-24 year olds are included as accidental deaths when they are intentional rather than accidental.
Sounds like you need to read it again:

"Accidental deaths, whether truly by accident or by injuries due to intent, by any means, are, in large part, preventable. Access to firearms by children, by unlicensed owners, and absence of safety measures when it comes to both intentional and unintentional gun-related injuries and deaths, are among the reasons that the incidence of this horrific, truly avoidable tragedy is on the rise. " [/quote]

She's not conflating the two here, and I think you are interpreting that incorrectly. We worship guns in this country, and you can bet your buttons some intentional shootings get written off as accidents.

People who try to block efforts to educate and restrict gun ownership to create and encourage more responsible gun owners are either insane or financially motivated in my opinion.
I mean, go blame them then, you're not describing liberals there.

Efforts to eliminate the right to own guns is also, in my opinion, ignorant and motivated by an unwillingness to address the complexity of the situation.[
Which isn't even a thing in play. You're falling for the boogie man.

The enemy, in my opinion, is that too many people walking around are actually deeply mentally ill and dangerous to themselves and others. That issue, difficult as it is, will never be fixed unrecognized.
Yea, poor mental health is the enemy. It's a piece to the puzzle, and in our culture gun violence has been the truly american way since our countries birth. Our national anthem lauds war violence. There's plenty of options to reducing gun violence that aren't attacking the 2A, and I'd encourage you to stop thinking that way.

Here's MA's laws: https://www.mass.gov/lists/massachusetts-firearms-laws

2A still intact.

Gun deaths by state https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,636
4,592
126
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I figured this last paragraph is what you're referring to. I disagree, she is really just questioning the validity of gun deaths ruled accidents due to our worship at the altar of guns.
She describes gun deaths as accidental and intentional.

You ignored all of the previous paragraphs and data to write it off as an opinion piece. Pretty effed up, and revealing.
I accept the statistics as given. I do not write them off. I distinguish between accidental and intentional when she lumps them together

Gun deaths due to intent aren't necessarily mental problem related, but I would agree there's more than enough mental health issues in the U.S. to create the majority of intentional gun violence and death.
Yes, gun deaths perpetrated in self defense are intentional and quite sane in my opinion. Intentional murder is a sure sign of mental health issues, also in my opinion. Some accidents may be unavoidable but most are related to a lack of training and responsibility, also in my opinion.

But, that's not what the short article is about, it's about an increase in gun deaths among 1-24 year olds, and it's surpassed vehicle deaths, whether intentional or not.
Yes, that is the topic of the link. The validity of the opinions expressed therein fail, because the addressing to the mental health issue isn't made, is what I am arguing.

I personally don't know a SINGLE Democrat or liberal that wants to take guns away, and I'm in MA libtard utopia. We have common sense gun laws, my right to self defense is intact, we keep guns out of people's hands that don't measure up mentally, but you know the rules going in. We also have almost the lowest rate of gun deaths in the states.
I know many and some in this forum have expressed exactly that if I am not mistaken. But I have no issues with reasonable gun laws that keep crazy people from acquiring them provided those who are responsible owners maintain their full 2nd amendment freedoms. Your state is also one of the best to live in for poor people. I am arguing that gun violence isn't about guns but about the social conditions that create the violence behind their use.

My rights are not infringed. I'm totally fine with never owning an AR or AK, or that type of gun. Self defense doesn't demand or require it. I'm perfectly fine with limited mag capacities, self defense isn't a shoot out like on TV or movies.

Now, if you want to bounce to the constitution like a R voter would, then gun rights aren't even about self defense, it's about freedom from oppressive government
That is your opinion. I am interested in owning them but I can't do so like others in most of the country because of ignorant and easily frightened and illogical Democrats. It is a felony in California to own a suppressor. They make a ton of noise but allow a person to shoot without going deaf or disturbing everybody around. I can't help protect my and others hearing without going to jail. Fuck the assholes that passed that law.

Biden's campaign plan for gun reform is very similar to MA's current status. It's common sense and personal responsibility driven.

I think you highlight the problem well here, because even you seem to be under the impression that the Dem's are going to kick down some doors and take all the guns because now everyone's all of a sudden a criminal owner. That's simply never going to happen, and you know it.
As I just said it is already true in California. I am required to own a featureless rifle unless I have a fixed magazine. Those are the ones that look like they can swim. I would be denied a permit for conceal carry. I can only have a 10 round magazine. If I decide to kill somebody with a gun other than one I already own I have to wait ten days. All I have to do then is just not reveal my intent. What a joke. Do nothing about violence except allow ten days to cool down. OK I can wait but I can only buy so many hand guns per period of time. I guess that's to prevent octopi from going on rampages.

Sounds like you need to read it again:

"Accidental deaths, whether truly by accident or by injuries due to intent, by any means, are, in large part, preventable. Access to firearms by children, by unlicensed owners, and absence of safety measures when it comes to both intentional and unintentional gun-related injuries and deaths, are among the reasons that the incidence of this horrific, truly avoidable tragedy is on the rise. "
She's not conflating the two here, and I think you are interpreting that incorrectly. We worship guns in this country, and you can bet your buttons some intentional shootings get written off as accidents [/QUOTE]
.
To conflate is to combine (two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc.) into one. To argue an increase is due to adding two things up is to conflate in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with conflating when you are adding equal things, but the author admits that car accidents have gone down by focusing on safety issues not by fewer people using cars to kill people intentionally. It is not a fair comparison when you add in to the reason that gun violence has increased is because more people are intent on murder than there used to be. Guns are constitutional because you can use then to kill in self defense. It is stupid to argue that guns should be made less lethal for some than for others when those others will pay no attention to what the law is. The only way to solve that problem is to build a society that creates fewer people driven to kill. When people feel no risk they will have no interest in guns for self defense.



I mean, go blame them then, you're not describing liberals there.
I don' believe in blame. I believe in cause and effect. I attributed the cause and effect here to conservatives not liberals. I did not intend it as cause and effect among liberals.

Which isn't even a thing in play. You're falling for the boogie man.
I do not have to fear the boogie man to suffer from that belief. Neither do liberals. For all intents and purposes we live in a society that is profoundly influenced by the belief the boogie man is real. That makes the effects of that belief real.

Yea, poor mental health is the enemy. It's a piece to the puzzle, and in our culture gun violence has been the truly american way since our countries birth. Our national anthem lauds war violence. There's plenty of options to reducing gun violence that aren't attacking the 2A, and I'd encourage you to stop thinking that way.

Here's MA's laws: https://www.mass.gov/lists/massachusetts-firearms-laws

2A still intact.

Gun deaths by state https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
I would urge you to stop seeing regulating guns and now who can own them as a viable solution to violence in American society. I do not oppose gun laws that attempt to deal with mental health issues, ignorance of safety procedures, unauthorized access to weapons of all kinds. I oppose legislation that says the gun is the problem not the mental condition of people who own them.

Liberals hand the right a powerful weapon to use to defeat them when they regulate the gun instead of focusing on the real issue, the conditions in our society that make people reach for them to solve their mental problems.
 
Last edited:

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,049
14,135
146
She describes gun deaths as accidental and intentional.

She's saying both are preventable, she's not saying that the numbers presented are intentional. It seems like you're just making up what you want this to mean.

"Accidental deaths, whether truly by accident or by injuries due to intent, by any means, are, in large part, preventable. Access to firearms by children, by unlicensed owners, and absence of safety measures when it comes to both intentional and unintentional gun-related injuries and deaths, are among the reasons that the incidence of this horrific, truly avoidable tragedy is on the rise."


I accept the statistics as given. I do not write them off. I distinguish between accidental and intentional when she lumps them together
No you didn't, you described it as an opinion piece and went on some long winded self defense thing.


Yes, gun deaths perpetrated in self defense are intentional and quite sane in my opinion. Intentional murder is a sure sign of mental health issues, also in my opinion. Some accidents may be unavoidable but most are related to a lack of training and responsibility, also in my opinion.
Yea, and common sense gun laws are part of that. In this way, I don't think MA's laws are strict enough. Follow on trainings are optional unless you get yourself into trouble.

Yes, that is the topic of the link. The validity of the opinions expressed therein fail, because the addressing to the mental health issue isn't made, is what I am arguing.
That's silly, because the numbers are the numbers. They don't care about your opinion about them. Addressing mental health issues or not doesn't make the numbers disappear.

I know many and some in this forum have expressed exactly that if I am not mistaken. But I have no issues with reasonable gun laws that keep crazy people from acquiring them provided those who are responsible owners maintain their full 2nd amendment freedoms. Your state is also one of the best to live in for poor people. I am arguing that gun violence isn't about guns but about the social conditions that create the violence behind their use.
Yea, I know what you're arguing, it's just not always pertinent to the conversation....or barely even part of the remedy.

I am curious though, the 2A is very short, what do YOU think are "2A freedoms"?

That is your opinion. I am interested in owning them but I can't do so like others in most of the country because of ignorant and easily frightened and illogical Democrats. It is a felony in California to own a suppressor. They make a ton of noise but allow a person to shoot without going deaf or disturbing everybody around. I can't help protect my and others hearing without going to jail. Fuck the assholes that passed that law.
Those mean ole democrats, not allowing a suppressor.

Besides concealing a gun shot in a crime, there's not real world scenario that requires a suppressor. You use hearing protection whenever practicing, I'm sure. So the thousands of rounds spent doing that don't need one. And in a life or death self defense scenario, you're not going to be firing magazines. Crime is the only scenario I can come up with that one would want a suppressor.

It's clear from this particular response that you are biased and emotional regarding this topic...Your 2A freedoms are still intact though, as suppressor's aren't mentioned at all in the 2A

As I just said it is already true in California. I am required to own a featureless rifle unless I have a fixed magazine. Those are the ones that look like they can swim. I would be denied a permit for conceal carry. I can only have a 10 round magazine. If I decide to kill somebody with a gun other than one I already own I have to wait ten days. All I have to do then is just not reveal my intent. What a joke. Do nothing about violence except allow ten days to cool down. OK I can wait but I can only buy so many hand guns per period of time. I guess that's to prevent octopi from going on rampages.
Wow dude, just wow. Those are you're problems?

1) Concealed carry law's vary by state, I don't know CA's, but MA's are reasonable

2) A 10 day waiting period is a problem for you? That's odd, because outside of crime (intent), I can't see how waiting 10 days is a problem, or a violation of your 2A freedoms.

3) "All I have to do then is just not reveal my intent"

- LOL, now who's conflating the issues here. It's not an accident if your intent is to harm....lol

4) You don't think 10 days to cool down is enough? I mean, you don't want to infringe on others rights, correct? like background checks, criminal history, correct?

5) "OK I can wait but I can only buy so many hand guns per period of time. I guess that's to prevent octopi from going on rampages."

- What a weird strawman. We both know octopi prefer hand to hand combat.

To conflate is to combine (two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc.) into one. To argue an increase is due to adding two things up is to conflate in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with conflating when you are adding equal things, but the author admits that car accidents have gone down by focusing on safety issues not by fewer people using cars to kill people intentionally.
Umm, no she doesn't, lol. Stop making stuff up. She doesn't claim the numbers for either are intentional.

It is not a fair comparison when you add in to the reason that gun violence has increased is because more people are intent on murder than there used to be. Guns are constitutional because you can use then to kill in self defense. It is stupid to argue that guns should be made less lethal for some than for others when those others will pay no attention to what the law is. The only way to solve that problem is to build a society that creates fewer people driven to kill. When people feel no risk they will have no interest in guns for self defense.
The comparison in the article is about accidents, plain and simple. You're emotional attachment to this topic is glaringly obvious.

You can hope for some utopia where humanity won't be driven to harm, but good luck with that. You're still ignoring pretty much ALL human history. And if you think that's going to happen anytime soon in a country that sings about bomb's bursting in are and has been actively waging war in some fashion for most of it's history, lol....you're not as enlightened as I thought you were ;)

I don' believe in blame. I believe in cause and effect. I attributed the cause and effect here to conservatives not liberals. I did not intend it as cause and effect among liberals.
Sure you do, you just blamed democrats for banning suppresors.

I do not have to fear the boogie man to suffer from that belief. Neither do liberals. For all intents and purposes we live in a society that is profoundly influenced by the belief the boogie man is real. That makes the effects of that belief real.
Sure you do, and so do liberals, that's why they banned your suppressor, you said it yourself, lol.

I would urge you to stop seeing regulating guns and now who can own them as a viable solution to violence in American society. I do not oppose gun laws that attempt to deal with mental health issues, ignorance of safety procedures, unauthorized access to weapons of all kinds. I oppose legislation that says the gun is the problem not the mental condition of people who own them.
I see regulating both firearms and people as the solution, you do not. This is where you and I disagree. You want to be able to stock pile guns while I don't think people need to in the name of self defense. You think a surge suppressor is required, it's not. Self defense still intact, 2A rights still intact. You think a 10 round magazine isn't enough, I do, self defense still intact, 2A rights still intact.

I think mental health screenings and background checks should be part of gun ownership, maybe you do too. You haven't really said, as your focus is on hardware.

Liberals hand the right a powerful weapon to use to defeat them when they regulate the gun instead of focusing on the real issue, the conditions in our society that make people reach for them to solve their mental problems.
Ah, I see. So liberals using common sense gun laws are the problem. What you wanna do is tell and bunch of people with a gun fetish that they're crazy. I'm sure that will make those people who already hate themselves less angry, thus reducing gun violence! /s

I can say this Moonie, I did not suspect you to have an emotional attachment to firearms, lol....that's a surprise.

the good news is that you’re still in America, and there’s plenty of states to move to that will accommodate you’re hardware desires.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,636
4,592
126
lol, whaddababy.
Probably frustrated he can't shoot us both.
She's saying both are preventable, she's not saying that the numbers presented are intentional. It seems like you're just making up what you want this to mean.

"Accidental deaths, whether truly by accident or by injuries due to intent, by any means, are, in large part, preventable. Access to firearms by children, by unlicensed owners, and absence of safety measures when it comes to both intentional and unintentional gun-related injuries and deaths, are among the reasons that the incidence of this horrific, truly avoidable tragedy is on the rise."




No you didn't, you described it as an opinion piece and went on some long winded self defense thing.




Yea, and common sense gun laws are part of that. In this way, I don't think MA's laws are strict enough. Follow on trainings are optional unless you get yourself into trouble.



That's silly, because the numbers are the numbers. They don't care about your opinion about them. Addressing mental health issues or not doesn't make the numbers disappear.



Yea, I know what you're arguing, it's just not always pertinent to the conversation....or barely even part of the remedy.

I am curious though, the 2A is very short, what do YOU think are "2A freedoms"?



Those mean ole democrats, not allowing a suppressor.

Besides concealing a gun shot in a crime, there's not real world scenario that requires a suppressor. You use hearing protection whenever practicing, I'm sure. So the thousands of rounds spent doing that don't need one. And in a life or death self defense scenario, you're not going to be firing magazines. Crime is the only scenario I can come up with that one would want a suppressor.

It's clear from this particular response that you are biased and emotional regarding this topic...Your 2A freedoms are still intact though, as suppressor's aren't mentioned at all in the 2A



Wow dude, just wow. Those are you're problems?

1) Concealed carry law's vary by state, I don't know CA's, but MA's are reasonable

2) A 10 day waiting period is a problem for you? That's odd, because outside of crime (intent), I can't see how waiting 10 days is a problem, or a violation of your 2A freedoms.

3) "All I have to do then is just not reveal my intent"

- LOL, now who's conflating the issues here. It's not an accident if your intent is to harm....lol

4) You don't think 10 days to cool down is enough? I mean, you don't want to infringe on others rights, correct? like background checks, criminal history, correct?

5) "OK I can wait but I can only buy so many hand guns per period of time. I guess that's to prevent octopi from going on rampages."

- What a weird strawman. We both know octopi prefer hand to hand combat.



Umm, no she doesn't, lol. Stop making stuff up. She doesn't claim the numbers for either are intentional.



The comparison in the article is about accidents, plain and simple. You're emotional attachment to this topic is glaringly obvious.

You can hope for some utopia where humanity won't be driven to harm, but good luck with that. You're still ignoring pretty much ALL human history. And if you think that's going to happen anytime soon in a country that sings about bomb's bursting in are and has been actively waging war in some fashion for most of it's history, lol....you're not as enlightened as I thought you were ;)



Sure you do, you just blamed democrats for banning suppresors.



Sure you do, and so do liberals, that's why they banned your suppressor, you said it yourself, lol.



I see regulating both firearms and people as the solution, you do not. This is where you and I disagree. You want to be able to stock pile guns while I don't think people need to in the name of self defense. You think a surge suppressor is required, it's not. Self defense still intact, 2A rights still intact. You think a 10 round magazine isn't enough, I do, self defense still intact, 2A rights still intact.

I think mental health screenings and background checks should be part of gun ownership, maybe you do too. You haven't really said, as your focus is on hardware.



Ah, I see. So liberals using common sense gun laws are the problem. What you wanna do is tell and bunch of people with a gun fetish that they're crazy. I'm sure that will make those people who already hate themselves less angry, thus reducing gun violence! /s

I can say this Moonie, I did not suspect you to have an emotional attachment to firearms, lol....that's a surprise.

the good news is that you’re still in America, and there’s plenty of states to move to that will accommodate you’re hardware desires.
Perhaps I can try another tack:

Are there psychological differences behind our weltanschauungen that might account for the apparent differences in how we perceive gun regulation? On a political scale I would guess that I am more progressive and libertarian than you are. I would chalk this up to the enlightenment experience, for the definite lack of a useful term. I see people as infinitely perfectible and infinitely good. I attribute this directly to having experienced if briefly a God conscious state that gave me an insight into my real and true human nature. In short I see in every person a divine being, but one in most cases where the person themselves do not. What this means in the world is that I do not fear looking at myself because that is what I saw when I did. All of my hopes and dreams shattered by doubt washed away. I know everything is OK. It is only thought that makes it seem otherwise.

Those who do not perceive others as having this inner good are projecting their inner mistrust of themselves onto them. This makes them tend to the authoritarian, to believe that rules of conduct are needed to keep people safe, and of course, always backed up by threat.

Thus we have authoritarian and libertarian leaning liberals, the latter being among those who wrote the constitution but fully aware of that nasty fact that fear of the other is profoundly dangerous to democracy.

What is the difference between these two liberal attitudes toward gun laws. What you describe as my emotional attitude toward gun ownership I would attribute to your fear of other people, that I appear as a threat to you whereas I see you as a threat to the state of trust that is required to maintain a healthy democratic state not dominated by control freaks and fear motivated people. I see authoritarian attitudes as a form of bigotry, the notion that people are evil and need to be controlled for others to be safe. This stereotyping as a form of bigotry, like all forms of bigotry finds lots in the world to make it appear justified. And like all bigotry such bigots are blind.

Thus, in my opinion, and this is all my opinion, it is the control people who are actually in the grips of emotion, namely fear of the other, the certainty that others can't be trusted. It is the presence of this attitude in parents that destroys the faith children should be encouraged to have in themselves. We teach them to fear themselves with the result that fear gets projected later in life on everybody else. Fear is the product of thought making thought and fear the source of hate. We create what we fear. Haters create more hate.

This disease is translated into a need to control and that leads to a fascist state. It is a state that has lost the capacity to love.
For me the answer to violence in society lies in enlightenment and anything that makes that experience more possible. But trust has been destroyed. We can't trust because it was in a state of trust that our state of trust in ourselves was destroyed. We are determined never to be sucker-punched again.

We will live in an insane world driven to self destruction and Armageddon if we remain in this state of sleep. You are trying to manage a world made sick by the need for control by creating more control. It is the fact that I see that as insanity that you describe as me being emotional. But I just see that you are crazy and have no idea that you are. As I said, you don't have to be insane yourself to suffer from the insanity of others. Telling you that your nuts is a fact for which you are not to blame. You, yourself can't call others crazy without experiencing blame because the whole worldview based on fear of others was created by blame so you can't hear me without feeling it being laid on you.

As to gun regulations, in an insane world full of mistrusting people, sometimes psychotically so, it is understandable and proper to attempt to limit the very mentally ill from owning them, but when that fear of others turns to limiting the freedom of people from whom there is nothing to fear, have their wishes to own weapons legal in most states denied to them by local infections of authoritarian liberals, I feel I have a right to protest it. I feel also I have a right to point out that such authoritarian desires are mental illness itself, an illness I hope to alter it by describing its true nature. That is the thing the authoritarian mind does not wish to see, that it's that very attitude itself that creates violence. We are the cause of gun violence, not guns and the deeper the belief that the answer to violence is control the sicker we will become. I am persistent in this because to me there is a lot at stake, the survival of the human race.

Note also how much of your judgement is based on your personal needs. You have no interest in gun ownership and piss on the interests of those who do. In this you believe you are the one who is enlightened.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,636
4,592
126
A couple of points to add. If you want to argue that intentional gun deaths are preventable by restricting the types of weapons that can be sold beyond what is already regulated and blame their availability on ease of purchase then we are not really talking about children doing the killing. And where children have access to firearms owned by adults, in California at least, improper storage of guns is a crime already. If you are talking about accidental deaths other than by guns improperly stored and obtained by children, those guns are also not the property of children. So when in comes to limiting weapon features and you tell my my 2nd amendment rights to own are not compromised and I can still own guns, so can anybody else own them who intends to kill and can buy them legally, or irresponsibly leave them laying around. It will just mean that adult criminals intent on killing many at the same time will have to study up on how to rig legal weapons illegally. For all others it will still be easy to kill very quickly 10 at a time and then, with the right legal equipment spend an extra few seconds before killing 10 more, and all that if they use legal magazines instead of 100 round drums illegally acquired.

I believe my 2nd amendment rights are whatever the Supreme Court says they are. My hope is that California style gun laws will be deemed unconstitutional. I don't want Californians dying with their 10 round BB guns while having to reload while the Marching Morons from Redstatesville have 100 round fire power.

What's in your boogie bag?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,498
998
126
We already have sufficient background checks via the Brady Act (1993):

A prohibited person is someone who:

Has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an illegal alien;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Has been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a restraining order for harassing, stalking, or threatening a partner or child of a partner; or
Has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,261
5,442
126
We already have sufficient background checks via the Brady Act (1993):

A prohibited person is someone who:

Has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an illegal alien;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Has been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
Has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a restraining order for harassing, stalking, or threatening a partner or child of a partner; or
Has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.
private sales are not covered universally for background checks.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,049
14,135
146
Probably frustrated he can't shoot us both.

Perhaps I can try another tack:

Are there psychological differences behind our weltanschauungen that might account for the apparent differences in how we perceive gun regulation? On a political scale I would guess that I am more progressive and libertarian than you are. I would chalk this up to the enlightenment experience, for the definite lack of a useful term. I see people as infinitely perfectible and infinitely good. I attribute this directly to having experienced if briefly a God conscious state that gave me an insight into my real and true human nature. In short I see in every person a divine being, but one in most cases where the person themselves do not. What this means in the world is that I do not fear looking at myself because that is what I saw when I did. All of my hopes and dreams shattered by doubt washed away. I know everything is OK. It is only thought that makes it seem otherwise.
Right, you're enlightened, that's why you desire a suppressor.

Dunno how progressive you are, or libertarian, but at the end of this very close to TLDR post, you defer to your rights being whatever the SCOTUS says they are. doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Those who do not perceive others as having this inner good are projecting their inner mistrust of themselves onto them. This makes them tend to the authoritarian, to believe that rules of conduct are needed to keep people safe, and of course, always backed up by threat.

Thus we have authoritarian and libertarian leaning liberals, the latter being among those who wrote the constitution but fully aware of that nasty fact that fear of the other is profoundly dangerous to democracy.
If your sample size is the human race, then sure...it's obvious that very many people don't have this "inner good". As evidenced by our history perpetrating violence onto each other en masse. Not only that, but humans can commit terrible atrocities in the name of what they think is "good", and they still have the ability to rationalize it internally.

I do find it funny that you're the one complaining about what you can and cannot own in firearm hardware, but discussing why you would even need to own any of it as someone else's problem.

I mean, if you perceived others as having this inner good, then you wouldn't really need any firearms at all.

What is the difference between these two liberal attitudes toward gun laws. What you describe as my emotional attitude toward gun ownership I would attribute to your fear of other people, that I appear as a threat to you whereas I see you as a threat to the state of trust that is required to maintain a healthy democratic state not dominated by control freaks and fear motivated people. I see authoritarian attitudes as a form of bigotry, the notion that people are evil and need to be controlled for others to be safe. This stereotyping as a form of bigotry, like all forms of bigotry finds lots in the world to make it appear justified. And like all bigotry such bigots are blind.
You demonstrated your humanity, nothing to be ashamed of. It's obvious to me that firearms are an emotional thing for you. You can try to project onto me if you want, like it's my problem, but that's your issue, not mine.

I'm human just like everyone else. When I encounter people, some of them give me a strange vibe that starts to stir that fight or flight response. However, most of the time, that's not the case. So it's fine to say that some people create a fear response, but it's not accurate to blanket statement that like you did here.

In terms of state gun laws: we can disagree, then, on what common sense really means. Common sense IMO means reasonable accommodations relative to the situation. Firearms are very good at their job, killing. It seems to me, common sense would include locking them up when not in use, especially if there's young persons around. That is not a rule of thumb everywhere in America, but it should be.

Waiting 10 days or owning a suppressor is just your desire. It's not required for self defense, and it's not even in the 2A (neither is self defense).

Thus, in my opinion, and this is all my opinion, it is the control people who are actually in the grips of emotion, namely fear of the other, the certainty that others can't be trusted. It is the presence of this attitude in parents that destroys the faith children should be encouraged to have in themselves. We teach them to fear themselves with the result that fear gets projected later in life on everybody else. Fear is the product of thought making thought and fear the source of hate. We create what we fear. Haters create more hate.

This disease is translated into a need to control and that leads to a fascist state. It is a state that has lost the capacity to love.
For me the answer to violence in society lies in enlightenment and anything that makes that experience more possible. But trust has been destroyed. We can't trust because it was in a state of trust that our state of trust in ourselves was destroyed. We are determined never to be sucker-punched again.

We will live in an insane world driven to self destruction and Armageddon if we remain in this state of sleep. You are trying to manage a world made sick by the need for control by creating more control. It is the fact that I see that as insanity that you describe as me being emotional. But I just see that you are crazy and have no idea that you are. As I said, you don't have to be insane yourself to suffer from the insanity of others. Telling you that your nuts is a fact for which you are not to blame. You, yourself can't call others crazy without experiencing blame because the whole worldview based on fear of others was created by blame so you can't hear me without feeling it being laid on you.

As to gun regulations, in an insane world full of mistrusting people, sometimes psychotically so, it is understandable and proper to attempt to limit the very mentally ill from owning them, but when that fear of others turns to limiting the freedom of people from whom there is nothing to fear, have their wishes to own weapons legal in most states denied to them by local infections of authoritarian liberals, I feel I have a right to protest it. I feel also I have a right to point out that such authoritarian desires are mental illness itself, an illness I hope to alter it by describing its true nature. That is the thing the authoritarian mind does not wish to see, that it's that very attitude itself that creates violence. We are the cause of gun violence, not guns and the deeper the belief that the answer to violence is control the sicker we will become. I am persistent in this because to me there is a lot at stake, the survival of the human race.
Whatever dude, this entire back and forth was generated by basic numbers showing firearm related deaths in the age group 1-24 overtaking car deaths. The numbers reveal that in the last 20 years, car deaths have come down a lot due to regulation, and it's likely firearm deaths have increased because the lack of regulations.

If personal responsibility were such an American pillar of society, this wouldn't be the case.

Note also how much of your judgement is based on your personal needs. You have no interest in gun ownership and piss on the interests of those who do. In this you believe you are the one who is enlightened.
Incorrect all around. You wish it to be true, but it's not.
 
Last edited:

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
35,049
14,135
146
A couple of points to add. If you want to argue that intentional gun deaths are preventable by restricting the types of weapons that can be sold beyond what is already regulated and blame their availability on ease of purchase then we are not really talking about children doing the killing. And where children have access to firearms owned by adults, in California at least, improper storage of guns is a crime already. If you are talking about accidental deaths other than by guns improperly stored and obtained by children, those guns are also not the property of children. So when in comes to limiting weapon features and you tell my my 2nd amendment rights to own are not compromised and I can still own guns, so can anybody else own them who intends to kill and can buy them legally, or irresponsibly leave them laying around. It will just mean that adult criminals intent on killing many at the same time will have to study up on how to rig legal weapons illegally. For all others it will still be easy to kill very quickly 10 at a time and then, with the right legal equipment spend an extra few seconds before killing 10 more, and all that if they use legal magazines instead of 100 round drums illegally acquired.
So because people break the law, it means your 2A rights are violated? lol, do you hear yourself?

I believe my 2nd amendment rights are whatever the Supreme Court says they are. My hope is that California style gun laws will be deemed unconstitutional. I don't want Californians dying with their 10 round BB guns while having to reload while the Marching Morons from Redstatesville have 100 round fire power.

What's in your boogie bag?
Interesting, I wonder if you defer to all SCOTUS decisions so effortlessly. I'm curious if you will do the same when Roe vs. Wade is rolled back.

Nice how you want to follow the red states down the civil war path, while somehow rationalizing that you're enlightenment means you see humans as inherently good.

Anyways, good talk moonie, turns out you're human after all, with some of the same human traits as your fellow americans.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,261
5,442
126
I dont support the same background checks for private sales. Gun shows, perhaps.
You're talking in circles here.

Gun sales made by dealers at gun shows are required to undergo background checks per state and federal law, because they are *dealers*.

Private sales, arranged by two individuals who meet at a gun show, are not covered under federal law because it is a private sale.

So either you want universal background checks (federal requirement for private sales), or you're fine with the current system.

The "gun show loophole" is a complete misnomer because a gun show doesn't magically exempt dealers or anyone else from federal background check requirements.

The gun show is merely a convenient avenue for private sales to occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

ASK THE COMMUNITY