Post: #201

michelin, there is no utopian civilization. the only true progress man has made in the past millennia is figuring a way to make more efficient pointed sticks.

Post: #202

(12-16-2012 05:24 AM)EisenBarde Wrote:  michelin, there is no utopian civilization. the only true progress man has made in the past millennia is figuring a way to make more efficient pointed sticks.

We're not talking about utopia here, but about the concrete steps to reach a major goal: reduce the number of mass shootings directly due to the omnipresence of arms in the US. It is a matter of breaking down this goal in major steps to be taken, starting with eliminating the availability of arms everywhere, from those available in the local store to those to be found in mummy's wardrobe.

Post: #203

(12-16-2012 05:34 AM)michelin Wrote:  We're not talking about utopia here, but about the concrete steps to reach a major goal: reduce the number of mass shootings directly due to the omnipresence of arms in the US.

I know some concrete steps.

1. Pass a law forbidding the ownership of any gun past a certain size, or ban guns outright.

2. Send cops to anyone with a registered firearm and have them take the gun in exchange for a monetary reimbursement.

3. If anyone refuses, then they go to prison.

4. After 40-80 million households have their guns taken from them (depending on the severity of the gun law passed), plus another 10-20 million prisoners (or those executed who resist all law compliance) the USA must lock down it's enormous borders to keep any guns from coming in illegally.

A massive military presence and wall must be erected along the borders to enforce this.



I think the above steps would be effective in reducing the number of school shooters. After all, without any guns, none of these disturbed individuals will have the ability to cause large scale destruction.

These steps are also practical to implement, since they've been done before in countless of other countries before the USA, such as the USSR, or China, or even modern day Britain .

Post: #204

(12-16-2012 05:46 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 05:34 AM)michelin Wrote:  We're not talking about utopia here, but about the concrete steps to reach a major goal: reduce the number of mass shootings directly due to the omnipresence of arms in the US.

I know some concrete steps.

1. Pass a law forbidding the ownership of any gun past a certain size, or ban guns outright.

2. Send cops to anyone with a registered firearm and have them take the gun in exchange for a monetary reimbursement.

3. If anyone refuses, then they go to prison.

4. After 40-80 million households have their guns taken from them (depending on the severity of the gun law passed), plus another 10-20 million prisoners (or those executed who resist all law compliance) the USA must lock down it's enormous borders to keep any guns from coming in illegally.

A massive military presence and wall must be erected along the borders to enforce this.



I think the above steps would be effective in reducing the number of school shooters. After all, without any guns, none of these disturbed individuals will have the ability to cause large scale destruction.

These steps are also practical to implement, since they've been done before in countless of other countries before the USA, such as the USSR, or China, or even modern dayBritain .

Aren't US prisons over crowded?

I really can't provide sources right now, but wikipedia(academic no no) says 19 states are over capacity. Alabama is nealry 200% over capacity.(according to wikipedia)

Perhaps small time drug offenders could be pardoned and the guys who say no to a reimbursment could be substituted.

Seems like there would be a huge backlash though.

Post: #205

(12-16-2012 06:19 AM)kickboxer Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 05:46 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 05:34 AM)michelin Wrote:  We're not talking about utopia here, but about the concrete steps to reach a major goal: reduce the number of mass shootings directly due to the omnipresence of arms in the US.

I know some concrete steps.

1. Pass a law forbidding the ownership of any gun past a certain size, or ban guns outright.

2. Send cops to anyone with a registered firearm and have them take the gun in exchange for a monetary reimbursement.

3. If anyone refuses, then they go to prison.

4. After 40-80 million households have their guns taken from them (depending on the severity of the gun law passed), plus another 10-20 million prisoners (or those executed who resist all law compliance) the USA must lock down it's enormous borders to keep any guns from coming in illegally.

A massive military presence and wall must be erected along the borders to enforce this.



I think the above steps would be effective in reducing the number of school shooters. After all, without any guns, none of these disturbed individuals will have the ability to cause large scale destruction.

These steps are also practical to implement, since they've been done before in countless of other countries before the USA, such as the USSR, or China, or even modern dayBritain .

Aren't US prisons over crowded?

I really can't provide sources right now, but wikipedia(academic no no) says 19 states are over capacity. Alabama is nealry 200% over capacity.(according to wikipedia)

Perhaps small time drug offenders could be pardoned and the guys who say no to a reimbursment could be substituted.

Seems like there would be a huge backlash though.

I think Samseau was dropping a deuce in Michelin's fantasy world of daisies, kittens, rainbows, and unicorns.

Post: #206

(12-16-2012 12:39 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  do you think they envisioned the right to bear arms being perversed into the right for everybody to get access to assault weapons?

I hear this silly argument from the antis a lot, so let’s address this. It is the right to bear ARMS, not MUSKETS. At the time of this country’s founding, the colonists were armed with then-modern firearms, not firearms from the 15th century. The founders (and everyone else) knew that firearms had advanced over the centuries, yet somehow the antis think the founders could never have conceived that firearms would improve past the late 18th century? Do you look at your laptop and think, “Man, this is the pinnacle, it’s never gonna get more advanced than this!”?? So why on earth do you think the founders thought that we would never move beyond muskets??

(12-16-2012 02:47 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  Here in the US, it is the exact opposite of dissastisfied underclass. For the most part, the overfed masses are unbelievably complacent and obedient. They not only have no problem with the endless upward flow of wealth, they admire and love hearing about their rich owners.

They love Big Brother.

Come to the South. I can introduce you to lots of folks who know that Big Brother is eventually going to have to be fought off.

(12-16-2012 03:02 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  IF no infringement to the right to bear arms is what they meant, shouldn't everyone be able to build missiles, build/buy fully auto .50 caliber guns?

Seriously. What do you think. Do you want ANY limits at all?

Red herring. Nobody is asking for bombs, tanks, or ‘portable tactical nukes’, so let’s drop this silly line of argumentation.

(12-16-2012 05:18 AM)michelin Wrote:  Once upon a time, men in power owned the right to appoint their successors. Some called it inbreeding, others called it nepotism.

One day, elections started to replace this right, and the word became more democratic and civilized.

This reflects extreme liberal ‘unicorns and rainbows’ thinking and a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature.

Do you think the American colonists could have just asked the British, “Hey, do you mind if we govern ourselves?”, and the Brits would have walked away?

As Josef Stalin noted, it’s not the people who vote that matter, it’s the people who count the votes. When the government has a monopoly on violence, your votes will mean nothing.

Government always tends toward tyranny because government is made up of people, and people always strive for greater power - this is just human nature. The incremental power is taken from the people. You have far too much faith in your fellow man if you think giving a small group of people a violence on monopoly is a good thing for a society.

Post: #207

For those who ask why Americans need guns, especially AR15s, or claim that we no longer need the Second Amendment:


For those who are starting to understand that gun control only disarms the law abiding, and want to learn more about guns, feel free to PM me and I can point you to some good resources as well as help you make sense of the initially bewildering array of firearms and calibers.

Post: #208

As others have suggested, let's forget the name of this psychopath, and remember the victims: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/spe...g-victims/

Post: #209

The gun laws during the 50/60s, were much more loose than today, yet how many school shootings occured yearly during this peroid? Almost none!!!

Right after the 1970s the shit started to hit the fan. Of course divorce rates and mothers not taking care of their children has nothing to do with it. You can have it all, honey!

Post: #210

(12-14-2012 05:28 PM)michelin Wrote:  ONe comment in the NY Times:

" In one year, guns murdered 17 people in Finland, 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 60 in Spain, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States."

Now have a deep guess of WHAT would the most plausible cause be for this humongous amount of victims in the U.S.....

You got it.

I remember reading that at the time there were more people dying in the US through shootings than US soldiers during the war in Iraq - so the figures above could very well be correct, at least the relations between the countries.

The US is the most gun obsessed country I know of in the western world , I don't think the gun laws will change anytime soon. The gun lobby is extremely powerful and a large portion of the population is deaf and blind to a rational discussion on guns.

Post: #211

Samseau, I am a fan of your posts - I really am - but when it comes to guns, I am glad we're not in the same place.

I recommend a one month stay in another country - you choose which one - far away from the guns available in daddy's car, mummy's wardrobe and older brother Billy's room.

You will be grateful to see that other families (= in other countries) don't have guns in their houses. So when younger brother Adam is in a bad mood, he will not touch mummy's Bushmaster Automatic rifle, .223. Of course, you wonder how this is possible. Tough question? Well, my friend, it is because, curiously, no rifle - not even a Sig Sauer! - is available in your guesthouse.

Feel the peace. Feel the breeze of the fresh air when going for a walk. Watch out for that doorstep! Glad it is not a corpse, it's just a doorstep. Relax. No fears for a neighbour's madness. You know there are no guns in your street. Feel the enlightenment.

Post: #212

(12-16-2012 09:16 AM)michelin Wrote:  You will be grateful to see that other families (= in other countries) don't have guns in their houses. So when younger brother Adam is in a bad mood, he will not touch mummy's Bushmaster Automatic rifle, .223. Of course, you wonder how this is possible. Tough question? Well, my friend, it is because, curiously, no rifle - not even a Sig Sauer! - is available in your guesthouse.

Trivializing the mental state of Adam makes you look, well, stupid. He wasn't having a bad mood.

People don't mass murder school children when in a bad mood.

People also don't pre-plan by trying to purchase a gun 3 days prior to the massacre when in a bad mood.

Instead of trying to figure out why our people are going crazy, like the amount of drugs being prescribed, people want to put a bandaid on the problem by trying to take guns away.

You think they can't use bombs, knives, cars to inflict damage? I am sure Adam would have just given up his crusade if he couldn't get a gun.

Oh yeah, you people are more interested in mitigating damage. If only one person is killed with a knife then it is better than 10. Really? What if someone you loved was that one person?

Post: #213

Quote:Trivializing the mental state of Adam makes you look, well, stupid. He wasn't having a bad mood.

I am pretty sure he did not have his best day, psycho or not.

Quote:People also don't pre-plan by trying to purchase a gun 3 days prior to the massacre when in a bad mood.

Right. That's why he went to the local store, but it was easier to grab mummy's rifle.

Quote:You think they can't use bombs, knives, cars to inflict damage? I am sure Adam would have just given up his crusade if he couldn't get a gun.

This is a tough one. My guess is that a semi-automatic rifle kills more people than a knife.

Quote:Oh yeah, you people are more interested in mitigating damage. If only one person is killed with a knife then it is better than 10. Really?

YES.

Quote:What if someone you loved was that one person?

bad luck. At least I am happy that my friends' kids survived. And their friends of friends too.

Post: #214

The only people obsessed with guns in America are the people who want them banned. They think if they touch a gun it will point itself and command them to kill. These are the same people who long to live in a nanny state. They think government is the answer to everything, that happiness comes from without, that there ought to be laws for everything including how big a can of soda should be.

They also like to use murder victims to promote their agenda and don't see that as being callous or disrespectful.

Post: #215

(12-16-2012 11:24 AM)michelin Wrote:  I am pretty sure he did not have his best day, psycho or not.

So people not having a good day end up shoot school children? Is that what you really want try and convey?

Quote:Right. That's why he went to the local store, but it was easier to grab mummy's rifle.

Gun control existed and did it's job by turning down the guy. He must have been in one bad mood that lasted for a week.

Quote:This is a tough one. My guess is that a semi-automatic rifle kills more people than a knife.

You forgot bombs and cars. Driving through a school yard in a car could do the same amount of damage. Maybe we should get rid of them as well.

Bombs are not the hard to build. The guy was a suppose "braniac" that could have easily used the internet to get some schematics. Maybe we should start censoring the internet to not allow that type of thing?

Quote:YES.

Failed logic. Why address the problem when you can legislate for lower destruction.

Quote:bad luck. At least I am happy that my friends' kids survived. And their friends of friends too.

I don't think any of the parents that lost their children are happy.

Post: #216

(12-16-2012 11:32 AM)painter Wrote:  They also like to use murder victims to promote their agenda and don't see that as being callous or disrespectful.

For some odd reason,they think it will end all the destruction even after decades of history showing how creative we can be when we want to kill.

Post: #217

Yeah, if only there were laws to cover everything, so thorough they can even account for mental illness.

Take a look at the French Revolution, they tried this and it devolved into a bloodbath.

Post: #218

assman Wrote:Let’s take a look at the UK, that Sarah Brady paradise of gun control, where gun crime has gone up 89% in a decade. By contrast, lawful gun ownership in the US has been increasing steadily and gun crime has been decreasing. This is even more pronounced if you exclude the parts of the country with the strictest gun control (Chicago, DC, etc.). I posted this along with sources in an earlier thread - I think it was the Zimmerman thread.

That's not a proper argument. By looking at the worldwide stats for firearm-related death rates, I see that USA's rate is 9 (compared to Mexico's 11 and Jamaica's 45), but the UK's is only 0.25.

0.25 * 1.89 = a bit less than 0.5, which is still twenty times less than the USA. Surely you don't believe that such an enormous difference between the two countries can be explained by more gang activity in the USA or whatever.

assman Wrote:F that noise. I carry a gun. If evil comes my way, I am shooting back.

By all means. No one is even talking about taking that away. Just don't carry an AK-47 or a handgun with a 31-bullet ammo magazine or something ridiculous that certainly isn't intended for self-defense.

Post: #219

(12-16-2012 07:00 AM)assman Wrote:  For those who ask why Americans need guns, especially AR15s, or claim that we no longer need the Second Amendment:


For those who are starting to understand that gun control only disarms the law abiding, and want to learn more about guns, feel free to PM me and I can point you to some good resources as well as help you make sense of the initially bewildering array of firearms and calibers.

Yessirree!! The more guns the more freedom.

Five more dead in Alabama today, it's not really making the news, bucause, well, that's the price for FREEDOM!! Yay!!!

Post: #220

(12-16-2012 11:57 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

assman Wrote:Let’s take a look at the UK, that Sarah Brady paradise of gun control, where gun crime has gone up 89% in a decade. By contrast, lawful gun ownership in the US has been increasing steadily and gun crime has been decreasing. This is even more pronounced if you exclude the parts of the country with the strictest gun control (Chicago, DC, etc.). I posted this along with sources in an earlier thread - I think it was the Zimmerman thread.

That's not a proper argument. By looking at the worldwide stats for firearm-related death rates, I see that USA's rate is 9 (compared to Mexico's 11 and Jamaica's 45), but the UK's is only 0.25.

0.25 * 1.89 = a bit less than 0.5, which is still twenty times less than the USA. Surely you don't believe that such an enormous difference between the two countries can be explained by more gang activity in the USA or whatever.

assman Wrote:F that noise. I carry a gun. If evil comes my way, I am shooting back.

By all means. No one is even talking about taking that away. Just don't carry an AK-47 or a handgun with a 31-bullet ammo magazine or something ridiculous that certainly isn't intended for self-defense.

The UK also has about half of overall crime as the US. That is pretty big if you compare the populations of each country.

Who is to say that removing guns won't increase crime in other ways?

Post: #221

(12-16-2012 12:00 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  Yessirree!! The more guns the more freedom.

Five more dead in Alabama today, it's not really making the news, bucause, well, that's the price for FREEDOM!! Yay!!!

I bet this guy wished he had a gun.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/us-dip...nes-297371

But it is alright since he was the only person that died.

Post: #222

(12-16-2012 12:00 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  Yessirree!! The more guns the more freedom.

Five more dead in Alabama today, it's not really making the news, bucause, well, that's the price for FREEDOM!! Yay!!!

Remember, it's the people who kill, not the guns.

By the way, why are hand grenades not legal in the US ? I think everyone should have one these days.

Post: #223

(12-16-2012 12:12 PM)sheesh Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 12:00 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  Yessirree!! The more guns the more freedom.

Five more dead in Alabama today, it's not really making the news, bucause, well, that's the price for FREEDOM!! Yay!!!

Remember, it's the people who kill, not the guns.

By the way, why are hand grenades not legal in the US ? I think everyone should have one these days.

We should ask the UK members about grenades.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningn...den-street

Post: #224

(12-16-2012 02:00 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 12:39 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  times change, who knows what the founding fathers would write into the constitution if they had to write it today...what they wrote was right for their day and age...do you think they envisioned the right to bear arms being perversed into the right for everybody to get access to assault weapons? Ideas and thinking change and evolve...can't expect 200+ year old writing to answer all of todays problems...we gotta use our own brains once in a while.

Yes. They did think that the right to bear arms meant that people could have access to assault weapons. Whenever people like you spout this nonsense of "times change", I can only think of one retort: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. You want to know what would happen if the bill of rights were written today? It would be 10,000 pages in length, loaded with pork barrel spending, ridiculous conditions and disclaimers, and in the end you would really have no rights whatsoever. Even worse, you'd have no clue as to what was actually in it. But who cares as long as the guns are gone? Right?

This is the ridiculousness of the hardcore pro gun side, if you're not for complete and utter free access to any and all weapons you're anti gun. And you're those people. Sorry scooter I'm not anti gun, I'm anti the ease with which everybody can get them. If you can't see that the current system is flawed then there is no point in continuing this conversation cause you're unable to see the obvious. You may disagree about the steps needed to be taken but we should be able to say that the free for all, isn't working.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on what we think the founding fathers foresaw with access to weapons...it's all hypothetical as we'll never know. While I agree they had to know weaponry would evolve, to what degree they'd never know but evolve sure... I can't see how they foresaw that people would reach the point where people saw being famous and infamous as the same thing...I don't think they foresaw how influencial the media would become and how anyone wanting his 15 minutes could find a way to get it. I don't think they foresaw the US gun death count by accident being higher than Japans total deaths by gun...I don't think they foresaw what America was to become, I think their vision of it was a hell of a lot more pure. I believe the founding fathers gave us a framework to work with, it's our job to make them applicable to the times we live in...if there's a lesson we can learn from history it's that those that don't adapt...fail.

And while we're talking history... your those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it quote isn't at all valid. For it to be relevant here the US or somebody would've at some point tried to put in gun control have it blown up in their face...thus they have a history to look back on and learn from...., outside of pure dictatorships and fucked up regimes how many examples thru history can you provide of nations like the US instituting some sort of gun control and having it be a complete and utter failures? Would you like to go success vs failure, 1 for 1 till we run out? so what you're saying is if you don't follow old thinking you're setting yourself up to fail...to which I say where do we draw the line then? why not go back to the bible, one written word is as good as another no? how far backwards do we go to be relevent today?

Something isn't nonsense because you don't agree with it or can't find an argument against it.

Post: #225

Yeah, we'll never know what the Founding Fathers actually wanted their government to be. Somebody should have told them to write it down or something.