Dr Winston O'Boogie;1874531 wrote:No one's suggesting ending democracy. It's looking for a way to reduce the formidable danger firearm violence poses. We want to be free, sure. But we are willing to establish some constraints to our freedom in order to make our society more beneficial. Laws that prevent citizens from owning certain things or doing certain things because they put others at risk are part of civilized society since the beginning.

That’s quite a fancy way of saying you want to see laws stripping our rights. No thanks.

I don’t see you using other countries that applied this approach and it failed miserably.

thavoice;1874484 wrote:Exactly, They would have to forceably take millions of weapons in a sweep of every domicile and shed and any hiding spot.

Yep. There are over 300M guns in the US.....200k are stolen every year - that's 200,000 (plenty of opportunity to get an illegal stolen gun regardless of whatever laws you pass).

QuakerOats;1874534 wrote:...not just for personal defense but for holding tyranny at bay...

gut;1874545 wrote:

Yeah, this logic has worked really well in the middle east...

like_that;1874547 wrote:Yeah, this logic has worked really well in the middle east...

It also supposes that the military sides with the tyrannical government. It's a pretty poorly thought out response, IMO.

queencitybuckeye;1874451 wrote:See "prohibition" and "war on drugs" for two obvious examples of that fallacy.

Laws may not prevent crimes, but they do indeed deter them.
Instead of looking at laws about prohibition or drugs, lets look at theft. Country Alpha makes punishment for theft 20 hours of community service. Country Beta makes the punishment for theft 20 years in prison. Which country do you think more thefts will occur......?

Harsh laws will encourage the average person to think twice before committing a crime.

salto;1874561 wrote:Laws may not prevent crimes, but they do indeed deter them.
Instead of looking at laws about prohibition or drugs, lets look at theft. Country Alpha makes punishment for theft 20 hours of community service. Country Beta makes the punishment for theft 20 years in prison.

Which country do you think more thefts will occur......?

It's pretty well known that the severity of the punishment is far less a factor that the certainty of it. The correct answer is "whichever catches more thieves".

like_that;1874547 wrote:Yeah, this logic has worked really well in the middle east...

Because the non-tyrannical US govt cares about collateral damage, not because the resistance isn't massively outgunned.

queencitybuckeye;1874468 wrote:Another question for the "we need better laws" types - considering the number of victims, today's POS broke literally thousands of laws, including 50+ counts of murder. Please give me the text of the law that would have caused him not to proceed.

Good thing Trump revoked a plan to block mentally ill people from getting guns.

salto;1874561 wrote:Laws may not prevent crimes, but they do indeed deter them.
Instead of looking at laws about prohibition or drugs, lets look at theft. Country Alpha makes punishment for theft 20 hours of community service. Country Beta makes the punishment for theft 20 years in prison. Which country do you think more thefts will occur......?

Harsh laws will encourage the average person to think twice before committing a crime.

Most people are sentenced to death for killing someone else. I am not sure how it gets harsher than that.

justincredible;1874554 wrote:It also supposes that the military sides with the tyrannical government. It's a pretty poorly thought out response, IMO.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether you're going to be effective with your pistol/hunting rifle. That's 18th century thinking that aligns with when the law was written.

Either the military sides with a tyrannical govt and they absolutely steam roll opposition, or the military removes said tyrannical govt. You're right to own a firearm isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.

salto;1874568 wrote:Good thing Trump revoked a plan to block mentally ill people from getting guns.

It doesn't sound to me like this has anything to do with it. Guy's brother was in shock - I don't think there were any indications this guy was mentally ill. The law you're referring to would have had fuckall to do with keeping a gun out of this guy's hands.

gut;1874567 wrote:Because the non-tyrannical US govt cares about collateral damage, not because the resistance isn't massively outgunned.

Yeah, they have done a great job with that the past 16 years.

gut;1874570 wrote:That doesn't have anything to do with whether you're going to be effective with your pistol/hunting rifle. That's 18th century thinking that aligns with when the law was written.

Either the military sides with a tyrannical govt and they absolutely steam roll opposition, or the military removes said tyrannical govt. You're right to own a firearm isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.

Steam roll by completing destroying their own country. It would be pure chaos and the end of the US as we know it. No point in being tyrannical when you're going to be left with ruins in the end.

like_that;1874573 wrote:Yeah, they have done a great job with that the past 16 years.

But you made an apples-to-oranges comparison. A tyrannical govt won't care at all about innocents and collateral damage, and won't tie any hands. You and your buddies hunker down with your pistols and they'll just take out your house and the ones around you. The tyrannical govt would be ruthless and merciless sending a message to intimidate and coerce compliance.

Let me put it this way....The US has a long history of arming resistance fighters, and in some cases more active support, and generally not a single tyrant was overthrown. So, I'll say again, you and your pistol are useless.

like_that;1874574 wrote:Steam roll by completing destroying their own country. It would be pure chaos and the end of the US as we know it. No point in being tyrannical when you're going to be left with ruins in the end.

Residential areas really aren't critical and can be rebuilt....which you'll fit in nicely doing at the labor camp.

like_that;1874542 wrote:That’s quite a fancy way of saying you want to see laws stripping our rights. No thanks.

I don’t see you using other countries that applied this approach and it failed miserably.

We don't have the right to own other things and we're still functioning as a democracy. I don't suggest there's a simple answer. All I'm saying is what we have now doesn't work. Why not explore options for significant change. To your point, we should look at examples of countries where gun safety is not successful too. From them we can learn just as well.

gut;1874575 wrote:But you made an apples-to-oranges comparison. A tyrannical govt won't care at all about innocents and collateral damage, and won't tie any hands. You and your buddies hunker down with your pistols and they'll just take out your house and the ones around you. The tyrannical govt would be ruthless and merciless sending a message to intimidate and coerce compliance.

Let me put it this way....The US has a long history of arming resistance fighters, and in some cases more active support, and generally not a single tyrant was overthrown. So, I'll say again, you and your pistol are useless.

Like they have done in the middle east with counter insurgencies and it has done nothing but completely leave the region in ruins.

A ruthless tyrannical government would destroy it's own country. A tyrannical dictator wants power, order, and compliance with their country. They don't want it to be destroyed. Good luck finding compliance with a population of 320+ million people.

gut;1874578 wrote:Residential areas really aren't critical and can be rebuilt....which you'll fit in nicely doing at the labor camp.

Yeah, cities won't be destroyed either. It will be a perfect clean operation like it always is. Not to mention none of the enemies of the US will take advantage of the US destroying itself. :rolleyes:

I won't fit in nice in labor camp, because I would most likely be dead fighting for my freedom. Considering your beta approach, I am sure labor camp will fit nicely for you. I doubt they will have cable TV for you though.

QuakerOats;1874534 wrote:You obviously pay little regard to the benefits of gun ownership, not just for personal defense but for holding tyranny at bay. The far greater good is served because of gun ownership, than otherwise. Please, see the entire picture.

It is a murky picture when trying to determine whether gun ownership's benefits to personal safety outweigh the risks. "Guns save lives" is not a fact, it is a marketing line by the gun lobby. As far as your personal gun supply holding tyranny at bay - yeah, good luck there. That ship sailed a long, long time ago. If the big, bad government wants to come and git ya, there ain't a thing your guns are going to do that will prevent that.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1874579 wrote:We don't have the right to own other things and we're still functioning as a democracy. I don't suggest there's a simple answer. All I'm saying is what we have now doesn't work. Why not explore options for significant change. To your point, we should look at examples of countries where gun safety is not successful too. From them we can learn just as well.

This is right up here with "let's have a discussion."

As QCB suggested, instead of focusing on laws revolving around the weapon itself, why not focus on the root causes? I recommended ending the war on drugs.

like_that;1874394 wrote:I don't want to argue about taxpayers paying for this, but mental health is never talked about when this shit happens. I remember reading a few months ago, that 90% of mass shooters were prescribed SSRIs or stopped taking them. My generation (millennials) were the first to be prescribed this shit from childhood and I think we are seeing the fucked up side effects.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the dude was 63.

queencitybuckeye;1874419 wrote:People who raise problems without a clue to solutions tend to be pretty worthless.

The exception being if they are the first people to bring up the problem ... or at least the first to bring up a particular nuance of the problem.

gut;1874570 wrote:That doesn't have anything to do with whether you're going to be effective with your pistol/hunting rifle. That's 18th century thinking that aligns with when the law was written.

Interesting story: I met, and subsequently got to know, a man who worked in Soviet government during the Cold War before defecting to the US. We got to talking about that era one day, and the reason he gave for the Soviets not invading the US was that they would have had to contend with both the US military AND an armed population. As he put it, "Because you all had guns."

gut;1874570 wrote:Either the military sides with a tyrannical govt and they absolutely steam roll opposition, or the military removes said tyrannical govt. You're right to own a firearm isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.

This does assume that the military completely goes one way or the other, though. What of a scenario in which the military is divided, where 40-60% side one way, and 40-60% side the other way? I daresay eight figures-worth of armed civilians wouldn't be the primary factor, but it certainly might be worthy of consideration in an otherwise fairly even war.

This is all assuming that citizens shouldn't be allowed to have military-level equipment, of course.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1874579 wrote:We don't have the right to own other things and we're still functioning as a democracy. I don't suggest there's a simple answer. All I'm saying is what we have now doesn't work. Why not explore options for significant change. To your point, we should look at examples of countries where gun safety is not successful too. From them we can learn just as well.

You might say it doesn't work, but that does assume that we have an option somewhere that will produce acceptable results. What if this is about as good ... or bad ... as it's going to get, and anything else makes it worse?

I'm not suggesting we put our heads in the sand and pretend this is acceptable, of course, but any exploration of options for significant change ought to come with some pretty iron-clad evidence, particularly if we're talking about making the upstanding citizens of today law-breakers tomorrow because we're requiring them to do something or give up something that was never necessary in order for them to be the upstanding citizens they were.

like_that;1874582 wrote:Considering your beta approach, I am sure labor camp will fit nicely for you. I doubt they will have cable TV for you though.

LOL, no, I'll just move to Canada. Then we'll sit around saying "remember like_that? Really brave, stupid, but brave....RIP 'Murica".

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1874583 wrote:It is a murky picture when trying to determine whether gun ownership's benefits to personal safety outweigh the risks. "Guns save lives" is not a fact, it is a marketing line by the gun lobby. As far as your personal gun supply holding tyranny at bay - yeah, good luck there. That ship sailed a long, long time ago. If the big, bad government wants to come and git ya, there ain't a thing your guns are going to do that will prevent that.

Indeed guns saves lives; it is not a marketing line. A marketing line would be: 'We need gun control to stop gun violence, so vote for me and I will do it'. Obviously that line would fail the truth-in-advertising test, but who cares as long as it wins dems votes and gives government more power.