• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

This is the start of a revolution

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You'd think those pressing for gun control could figure out that banning dumb shit they know nothing about isn't the solution, but no. We've had decades of bullshit gun control proposals that have proven worthless even when they did pass.

To this day every major press for gun control high-balls with a nonsensical ban of some sort, only dropping down to lesser restrictions in the face of political opposition. And you're surprised when gun owners, you know, the people these bans actually affect, galvanize? You're shocked and outraged that after decades of hearing the same tired arguments from the same tired people and organizations, we don't believe said people when they suddenly say all they want is "registration"? And offer us pinkie swears that it won't go any further?

Properly applied gun control could very well help things, and we might have had universal mental health checks and mandatory liability insurance by now if the gun control lobby had acted with a little more tact and a little less rabies. It's clear to gun owners now, with a track record decades long, that any reasonable gun control proposed will only be used as a vehicle for further, unreasonable restrictions in the name of nonsensically trying to legislate guns out of society. In the last year New York in particular has proven the pattern.

That political stalemate leaves us with two options: addressing the root causes of gun violence (mental illness, poverty, culture) and enabling citizens to defend themselves should they encounter it (or any other form of violent assault). The NRA has come out in support of both. I fail to see the issue or any better solution. Perhaps Bloomberg should open a nationwide chain of free mental health clinics, would certainly save more lives than his current efforts; unfortunately him and those like him are more interested in ideology than problem solving.

That will never happen. There's no money to be made from it and in a country where corporations wield all the power and greed is the driving factor in our economy it will never be a priority no matter how many people are gunned down by lunatics on a daily basis.
 
The 'good guy with a gun stopping bad guys with guns' theory needs more study.

It's not a theory. Last I checked cops were good guys with guns, and they usually end up stopping these situations with said guns. Cops are not soldiers, and outside of SWAT teams their firearm training is pretty weak, as in qualify with their handgun a couple of times a year weak.

In this case two cops got killed. No one's arguing that the mere act of carrying a gun makes you superman, but it does provide options. If the bad guy's wife hadn't been there to ambush him, the "innocent bystander" might very well have ended the conflict and this story would receive about half the press coverage.
 
But the main stream makes an environment that allows and legitimises the radical elements to a certain extent.

Taking your example. If the Pope was constantly warning about the dangers of a certain group and that violence was a legitimate tactic to use in certain situations then, yes, I think that the Pope should bare a certain blame for the actions of his followers.

Well that's where we differ. Unless there's direct incitement to violence, I'd rather hold the individual accountable.
 
Basically. There is a shooting everyday somewhere on this planet. I find it ironic that so many millions of people flee their countries to come to America to escape the gun violence perpetrated by their governments, or drug cartels, or whoever; and here you have supposed Americans like yourself spreading this idiocy to the masses.

Yes, because the United States is absolutely horrible, what with the average citizen's .0028% chance of being a gun homicide victim.

Contrary to media focus (shootings make for good ad revenue), the US is actually a very safe place overall. Sure we aren't Geneva Switzerland, where you can walk down the darkest ally and possibly get a friendly hello, but I doubt many on this forum have ever been shot at, are likely to be shot at, or know anyone who's been shot at, military service notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
That will never happen. There's no money to be made from it and in a country where corporations wield all the power and greed is the driving factor in our economy it will never be a priority no matter how many people are gunned down by lunatics on a daily basis.

Well we'll keep bouncing back and forth until it does happen then, I suppose. We are heading towards a non-capitalistic model eventually. Technology is going to be become too advanced, individuals capable of too much, for both traditional organizations to exist and everyone to have a meaningful job.
 
It's not a theory. Last I checked cops were good guys with guns, and they usually end up stopping these situations with said guns. Cops are not soldiers, and outside of SWAT teams their firearm training is pretty weak, as in qualify with their handgun a couple of times a year weak.

In this case two cops got killed. No one's arguing that the mere act of carrying a gun makes you superman, but it does provide options. If the bad guy's wife hadn't been there to ambush him, the "innocent bystander" might very well have ended the conflict and this story would receive about half the press coverage.

Are you trying to imply that average citizens are like cops? We can play the 'if' game all day long. There are some situations that I wouldn't trust regular cops to handle which is why you have SWAT. The last I checked the average citizen doesn't have a radio where they can call a 100 of their armed boys to come help them ASAP. The NRA would have you believe that the every average citizen carrying a gun would be a good thing. I think it might result in some innocent people getting killed therefore I said it needs more study. I hate to think what would have happened if a movie theater full of people most of whom couldn't hit the side of a barn decided to take out the shooter. IMO, people need more training before they go around carrying guns thinking that they can stop 'bad guys'. To get a carry permit does not take a lot of training/background checks. If you want to get involved in stopping crime you really need to do significant training otherwise just carry the gun for your own personal protection.
 
Are you trying to imply that average citizens are like cops? We can play the 'if' game all day long. There are some situations that I wouldn't trust regular cops to handle which is why you have SWAT. The last I checked the average citizen doesn't have a radio where they can call a 100 of their armed boys to come help them ASAP. The NRA would have you believe that the every average citizen carrying a gun would be a good thing. I think it might result in some innocent people getting killed therefore I said it needs more study. I hate to think what would have happened if a movie theater full of people most of whom couldn't hit the side of a barn decided to take out the shooter. IMO, people need more training before they go around carrying guns thinking that they can stop 'bad guys'. To get a carry permit does not take a lot of training/background checks. If you want to get involved in stopping crime you really need to do significant training otherwise just carry the gun for your own personal protection.

I'm saying the average citizen is typically about 4 days of training away from being equal to your average cop in terms of firearms proficiency. I don't shoot as often as I'd like (about every other week), and I've out-shot cops on the range.

And I don't hear anyone, NRA included saying that everyone walking around armed in a mandatory fashion would be a good thing. But, say, 10% taking responsibility for their own defense? I think that would be a major crime deterrent. Imagine if violent criminals had a 1/10 chance of running into an armed would-be "victim".

Also you seem confused as to why people carry. Everyone I've ever heard of does it entirely for self defense, no one I've ever heard of carries to stop the next active shooter, hell for that you should probably carry something bigger than a handgun. With the little Sig P238 pocket pistol I carry I'd have been at a major disadvantage in the most recent shootings. However, said pistol would give me the opportunity to stop such a shooter should they kindly forgo the bulletproof armor and step into a 20 yard radius.

But I will agree that "more training" is one of the few potential gun control initiatives I'd have little issue with. My only fear is the more anti-gun states making such training ridiculously expensive/hard to get, turning it into a de-facto carry ban. Such states already do similar with their current carry policies ("oh you can get a permit, if you meet this list of impossible requirements or have political connections")
 
Last edited:
I'm saying the average citizen is typically about 4 days of training away from being equal to your average cop in terms of firearms proficiency. I don't shoot as often as I'd like (about every other week), and I've out-shot cops on the range.

And I don't hear anyone, NRA included saying that everyone walking around armed in a mandatory fashion would be a good thing. But, say, 10% taking responsibility for their own defense? I think that would be a major crime deterrent. Imagine if violent criminals had a 1/10 chance of running into an armed would-be "victim".

Also you seem confused as to why people carry. Everyone I've ever heard of does it entirely for self defense, no one I've ever heard of carries to stop the next active shooter, hell for that you should probably carry something bigger than a handgun. With the little Sig P238 pocket pistol I carry I'd have been at a major disadvantage in the most recent shootings. However, said pistol would give me the opportunity to stop such a shooter should they kindly forgo the bulletproof armor and step into a 20 yard radius.

But I will agree that "more training" is one of the few potential gun control initiatives I'd have little issue with. My only fear is the more anti-gun states making such training ridiculously expensive/hard to get, turning it into a de-facto carry ban. Such states already do similar with their current carry policies ("oh you can get a permit, if you meet this list of impossible requirements or have political connections")

That's my point. Carry for your own self-protection, but if you want to enter the 'good guy with gun stopping bad guy with gun' (which the NRA has stated I believe) realm you need a lot more training. I think you need a decent amount of training just for self-protection, but I believe you need a lot more for 'playing the hero'.
 
Are you trying to imply that average citizens are like cops? We can play the 'if' game all day long. There are some situations that I wouldn't trust regular cops to handle which is why you have SWAT. The last I checked the average citizen doesn't have a radio where they can call a 100 of their armed boys to come help them ASAP. The NRA would have you believe that the every average citizen carrying a gun would be a good thing. I think it might result in some innocent people getting killed therefore I said it needs more study. I hate to think what would have happened if a movie theater full of people most of whom couldn't hit the side of a barn decided to take out the shooter. IMO, people need more training before they go around carrying guns thinking that they can stop 'bad guys'. To get a carry permit does not take a lot of training/background checks. If you want to get involved in stopping crime you really need to do significant training otherwise just carry the gun for your own personal protection.

If you believe in history being our teacher, this is settled already.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
 
That's my point. Carry for your own self-protection, but if you want to enter the 'good guy with gun stopping bad guy with gun' (which the NRA has stated I believe) realm you need a lot more training. I think you need a decent amount of training just for self-protection, but I believe you need a lot more for 'playing the hero'.

Depends on the specific situation. If the bad guy with a gun doesn't see the good guy with the gun, which could easily happen in a chaotic situation, then the situation is completely reversed and little "tactical" training is needed.

I'll agree that more training is always better than less, but armed is always better than unarmed when we're talking active shooters. If I'm in a crowd that some nutjob decides to open up on, I'd rather be in the crowd with 3 guns between them than the crowd with none.
 
What law can we pass to make these people not do what they did? Responsible gun owners get behind laws that will actually make a difference, not bullshit laws that don't do a damn thing but make politicians try to look good.

Yeah, right. Please provide us with examples of specific gun-control laws that the NRA is advocating, apart from vague lip-service to goals such as "keeping the mentally ill from getting guns (without providing any details of what that even means)"?

The hard-core gun nuts are opposed to any law that reduces their access to guns and ammunition.
 
Listen to too much Alex Jones?

The infuriated, spittle laden response to this event that I heard earlier today from him on the radio made me want to puke.

Basically, was all pissed and indignant that people are calling these psychos well, psychos. 'They are honorable patriots standing up for their freedom!' was the gist of it.

Fucking retarded ass megalomaniac. I'd love to hear that asshole detail exactly what freedoms had been taken away to produce this kind of act, as well as describe the honor found in assassinating family men while they were eating a meal. Those mental giants that came to that ranch to interfere with the law were looking to make a line of females their cannon fodder if the shooting started, as female deaths were seen as more egregious and news worthy. Hiding behind women, assassination, how al Qaeda-esque!

These delusional hypocrites with civil war fetishes take issue with democracy - well too fucking bad! Obama was elected and re-elected, just fucking deal with it. Or keep the terrorist type tactics going and get snuffed by LEOs, SWAT or Feds, that will work too.
 
Yeah, right. Please provide us with examples of specific gun-control laws that the NRA is advocating, apart from vague lip-service to goals such as "keeping the mentally ill from getting guns (without providing any details of what that even means)"?

The hard-core gun nuts are opposed to any law that reduces their access to guns and ammunition.

Hard to back a law that no one has put on the table.
 
Regardless, implied violence does not make a group responsible for actual violence. Nowhere did any substantial part of the right wing say "go out and kill police officers for America!"

I'll admit our ultra right is currently far more militant in their radicalism than our ultra left (eco-terrorists notwithstanding), but these murders are at best the acts and words of a few fringe morons. If some hateful Catholic kills a person, cites some interpretation of a speech the Pope made, and places a cross on the body, do we blame the Pope?

A free person's conduct is their personal responsibility. It's perfectly human to want to blow this up into an indictment of the entire ultra-right, but that's simply not accurate IMO.
And that's why incitement to illegal acts isn't a crime. Because we all know that it's impossible to "normalize" violent behavior. Which is why Al Qaeda has given up recruiting and training suicide bombers, because they've learned that it's impossible to influence a "free person's" conduct.
 
Back
Top