And when I say Culture, I'm talking about the promotion of Gun Violence in all forms of entertainment - especially in movies and video games? What will banning any weapon do if the country is obsessed with using and promoting guns (all types) as the primary source / solution for winning or stopping a threat? If the gun is considered the only equalizer then what will change?

Also, more people die from handguns than assault weapons. It's just the magnitude of one single event (mass shooting by one person) that captures the real horror the gun crazed culture.


ADDED: If the culture glorifies violence, then people will seek out violent means to solve problems or achieve goals of any kind. To that point, if a person is bent on causing mass destruction then banning the assault weapons will not mitigate that goal. People that want to cause mass destruction don value human life and that's what our entertainment culture promotes - the marginalization and devaluing of human life. And until our culture puts a premium on human life then nothing will really change long-term. IMO.


If the government bans Assault Weapons and does not ban the use of these weapons in entertainment then, in my opinion, the ban is a fake solution that's being promoted a means to appease the masses reaction to horrible events.


I say all forms of guns in movies except for historical material like war movies or movies based on true events in conjunction with banning assault weapons.

Just my opinion. How do you feel?

.
.
.

I thought you had left for good, bruh

I get censored a lot around here. Eh Oh well.
.
.
.

>Also, more people die from handguns than assault weapons.

By nearly THREE times. 2013 stats:

Firearm-related deaths: 11,208
Auto-related deaths: 32,719


Funny how folks get selective outrage tho. Probably a lot of people that text, drink and fuck around behind the wheel while driving are the same people that scream for gun control and act live everyone that doesn't see things their way is crazy.

Can you say that for guns?

I mean, if you want to compare guns and cars, I'm willing to have that debate, but please know that you're setting up a pretty shitty thesis.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

Folks get mad emotional when it comes to guns, but are all "meh" when it comes to something that takes 3x as many lives per year.

Case's post was about culture, and I wanted to point out how adamant people are about particular causes, while completely ignoring other legit causes and concerns because it doesn't meet *their* (often poorly thought through) agendas.

Look at violent rap music. Shit basically GLORIFIES the same violence and the same assualt rifles that people are having heart attacks over now, yet they won't let the negative music go. Generations of people grew up listening to this shit, but many anti-gun folks STILL won't acknowledge the negative conditioning that this causes.

Instead of trying to get to the root of why Americans are shooting each other, they just jump to the same old knee-jerk "ban guns," and "throw them in jail" solutions that have been proven over time (decades, actually) to simply not work at preventing future shootings.

you're just too dumb to know how numbers work.

hundreds of millions of people drive every year.

if people died from driving at the same rate they die from being shot, you'd have something of a point, but you don't.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Your opinion is meaningless to me.

Fucking loser.

I know you don't like them. It's ok.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

if we are going to use cars is

why do we need cars that can over over 60 70 or 80 mph?

there's a ton separating it, but just OH PEOPLE DIE IN CAR ACCIDENTS isn't really applicable.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and i love guns! and a texan!

but i also am realistic and have common sense

If the government was not tied to the auto industry and all businesses that support it to include the oil industry, we would have safer more advanced forms of individual and mass transportation.

.
.
.

>>Also, more people die from handguns than assault weapons.
>
>By nearly THREE times. 2013 stats:
>
>Firearm-related deaths: 11,208
>Auto-related deaths: 32,719
>
>
>Funny how folks get selective outrage tho. Probably a lot of
>people that text, drink and fuck around behind the wheel while
>driving are the same people that scream for gun control and
>act live everyone that doesn't see things their way is crazy.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Quantity, frequency and kind.

.
.
.

Last time I checked you needed to go through a fair few hours of practical training, an eye test, a practical test and in most places a theory test before anyone will let you drive a car in public.

Perhaps that would be a half decent first step.

>>Also, more people die from handguns than assault weapons.
>
>By nearly THREE times. 2013 stats:
>
>Firearm-related deaths: 11,208
>Auto-related deaths: 32,719
>
>
>Funny how folks get selective outrage tho. Probably a lot of
>people that text, drink and fuck around behind the wheel while
>driving are the same people that scream for gun control and
>act live everyone that doesn't see things their way is crazy.

90% of american households have cars, while (if you believe the numbers) around 35% of American households have guns.

So maybe 3 times as many households have cars than guns... which is roughly the same multiple of auto-related deaths to firearm related deaths.

But it goes deeper... vast majority of households that own cars, use their cars EVERY SINGLE DAY while most gun owners likely don't. While some people carry every day due to their jobs, the vast majority maybe use their guns a couple times a month (if that) to target practice or hunt).

So if you look at how often cars or guns are used and compare it to the number of people that die, there's a huge disparity. Owning a car is relatively MUCH safe than owning a gun because 1)owning a car is highly regulated and 2) a car is primarily used for transportation and deaths are accidental while guns are often used TO kill.

Cars vs. Guns aren't even close to being in the same category, except for one stat: fatalities.


>Owning a car is relatively MUCH safe than owning a gun because

According to the 2013 stats I used above, 10.3 per 100k die in car accidents in the us, while 3.5 per 100k die in firearms-related incidents. The average citizen is 3x more likely to die in a car accident than a shooting. I'm not trying to compare the two AT ALL except for this one stat. In terms of risk, there's a much greater one from autos than guns.

Knowing this, I do wonder why people get so worked up over guns, yet text away while operating a vehicle and act like it's no big deal. And it makes me question whether they truly care about making this country safer, or if they are motivated more by what they *feel* personally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Cars provide a benefit for which the cost (in terms of deaths) can be balanced against the value they provide. So we'd be reasonable in saying that we'll accept car fatalities in order to receive the benefits they provide.

Guns really don't offer the same benefit to society that cars do. So lives lost because of guns are avoidable and not off-set by a greater benefit.

A lot more people would be alive.

If you balance that negative with the positive of such personal use of such weapons (what is it again?), then you have to conclude it's an easy decision to either ban their use or greatly restrict who can own such a weapon.

I don't think you absolutely have to ban them, we just have to stop allowing any tom, dick or hank from being able to so easily purchase them.




>And when I say Culture, I'm talking about the promotion of
>Gun Violence in all forms of entertainment - especially in
>movies and video games? What will banning any weapon do if the
>country is obsessed with using and promoting guns (all types)
>as the primary source / solution for winning or stopping a
>threat? If the gun is considered the only equalizer then what
>will change?
>
>Also, more people die from handguns than assault weapons. It's
>just the magnitude of one single event (mass shooting by one
>person) that captures the real horror the gun crazed culture.
>
>If the government bans Assault Weapons and does not ban the
>use of these weapons in entertainment then, in my opinion, the
>ban is a fake solution that's being promoted a means to
>appease the masses reaction to horrible events.
>
>
>I say all forms of guns in movies except for historical
>material like war movies or movies based on true events in
>conjunction with banning assault weapons.
>
>Just my opinion. How do you feel?
>
>.
>.
>.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

was bent on causing a mas killing he would have used a Bomb or some other means to murder all of those people.

My point is that we live in a culture that promotes violence like a sickness and then wonder why people are sick.

.
.
.

have to have a license to buy certain fertilizers (often used to make bombs).


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I'm just saying.
.
.
.

You don't think they couldn't have gotten assault rifles if they really wanted? If someone has a plan to do some really evil shit like that I don't think they'd let a gun ban stop them from acquiring what they wanted.

And perhaps they would have been arrested before they committed their crimes.

The whole, "THEY BOUGHT THEIR GUNS LEGALLY" argument is shitty circular logic. If the guns weren't legal, they would've been harder to get and perhaps exposed them to law enforcement while they were contemplating their crimes rather than after they committed them.

It's not like they'd be illegal and no one would be looking to enforce the law, right?


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

>And perhaps they would have been arrested before they
>committed their crimes.
>

LOL like the same way that they arrest gang bangers before they go out and commit a drive by with an illegal assault weapon. SMH come on man...

>The whole, "THEY BOUGHT THEIR GUNS LEGALLY" argument is shitty
>circular logic. If the guns weren't legal, they would've been
>harder to get and perhaps exposed them to law enforcement
>while they were contemplating their crimes rather than after
>they committed them.

There are a lot of snitches out there so there is a chance that they would get told on if expressing their intention. But then again what criminal minded individual goes around buying illegal guns telling others what they're about to do with them?

>It's not like they'd be illegal and no one would be looking to
>enforce the law, right?
>

Just cause the police are looking to enforce the law on illegal guns doesn't mean they will find those who possess them. That sounds good to someone who actually believes police are really out here looking to protect them.

>my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right:
>http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
>my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com
>
>*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

>And perhaps they would have been arrested before they
>committed their crimes.
>
>The whole, "THEY BOUGHT THEIR GUNS LEGALLY" argument is shitty
>circular logic. If the guns weren't legal, they would've been
>harder to get and perhaps exposed them to law enforcement
>while they were contemplating their crimes rather than after
>they committed them.
>


The FBI interviewed the Orlando shooter 3 times and followed him for weeks. He even purchased firearms under their supposed surveillance, I have zero confidence in law enforcement stopping someone because they bought an illegal firearm.

Because it presupposes that any change that comes from regulation has to be immediate to be efficacious. That's far from the truth.

Banning assault weapons isn't about stopping a mass shooting next week. It's about slowing the ebb of mass shootings and creating a new "normal" when it comes to what constitutes reasonable gun ownership. Just like prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, it did change the culture around drinking from being something you did all fucking day to being something you did in certain places on nights and weekends.

We can't stop mass shootings until we reign in the tools that are used to commit the crimes and we can't/won't do that if we insist that their regulation and prohibition somehow show an immediate impact rather than treat them like any other policy that is proven right or wrong over time.



my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

If the heart and mind of the culture is sick then the tool doesn't matter. Unhealthy people will always find a tool to cause mass pain and death
.
.
.

You're operating from the assumption that something is wrong with society, I disagree. Humans are humans and to question their "nature" as a means of debating policy relies of certain normative assumptions of ethics and morality that you're not qualified to posit.

That said, I don't know about changing hearts and minds as much as I know about influencing sentiment and opinion and there have been plenty of public shifts when it comes to prevailing issues when presented with sensible regulation.

There was a time when we didn't bat an eye at children working. Then we passed laws that said that wasn't cool, and now if you see an 8 year-old too close to the stove you get nervous.

There was a time when you could and did smoke cigarettes just about everywhere. I remember my grandfather smoking in the hospital. Then we realized the health risks associated with cigarettes and regulated the shit outta them. Now, if you see someone smoking too close to the door of a bar you look at them funny.

You can change public opinion, and it's very reasonable to assume it can be done with guns. There just has to be the collective will legislatively to try.



my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

has any affect on the love of guns and the use of guns in our society?






.
.
.

I mean, there are always going to be those that exist at the extremes, but that's like saying that China's love for Kung Fu would predispose them to giant karate fights in the streets and we don't see that happening.

The issue is that we've started to normalize and internalize a bastardized culture of weapons porn and our legislators act like mass shootings are an aberration rather than a direct result of their policy choices.

There have been crazy and violent people for eons, it's only when you have those people AND unfettered access to weapons where you find us where we are now.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

We see the same problem - mass murders. We just see the solutions differently. I'm cool with that.


.
.
.

>has any affect on the love of guns and the use of guns in our
>society?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>.
>.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

.
.
.

Shame.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

.
.
.

>If the heart and mind of the culture is sick then the tool
>doesn't matter. Unhealthy people will always find a tool to
>cause mass pain and death


Even if we say there will always be people that will want to do mass amounts of damage, it still makes sense to minimize their potential impactt by limiting the availability of powerful weapons.

I've seen people on my news feed post repeatedly about an incident in China 5 years ago where 4 fanatics killed 30 people and injured another 150 people when they went on a stabbing free. The logic goes "SEE?!?! Even if you ban guns there could still be events like this!"

1 man in Orlando killed 49 people and injured another 50. If he had only had knives, or even just a regular handgun, there certainly would've been fewer. On the other hand, if there were 2 other shooters as armed as he was, there might have been 200 dead.

The tools matter and part of the reason folks want to restrict everyone's access to certain tools (like we already do for fully automatic firearms) is because we can't effectively screen for obviously sick minds, let alone usually sane folks who go off the deep end during periods of high stress and pressure and lash out at anyone nearby.

>>If the heart and mind of the culture is sick then the tool
>>doesn't matter. Unhealthy people will always find a tool to
>>cause mass pain and death
>
>
>Even if we say there will always be people that will want to
>do mass amounts of damage, it still makes sense to minimize
>their potential impactt by limiting the availability of
>powerful weapons.
>
>I've seen people on my news feed post repeatedly about an
>incident in China 5 years ago where 4 fanatics killed 30
>people and injured another 150 people when they went on a
>stabbing free. The logic goes "SEE?!?! Even if you ban guns
>there could still be events like this!"
>
>1 man in Orlando killed 49 people and injured another 50. If
>he had only had knives, or even just a regular handgun, there
>certainly would've been fewer. On the other hand, if there
>were 2 other shooters as armed as he was, there might have
>been 200 dead.
>
>The tools matter and part of the reason folks want to restrict
>everyone's access to certain tools (like we already do for
>fully automatic firearms) is because we can't effectively
>screen for obviously sick minds, let alone usually sane folks
>who go off the deep end during periods of high stress and
>pressure and lash out at anyone nearby.


.
.
.

(c) some shit biggie prolly NEVER said

.
.
.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

the death toll will always have the opportunity to rise.
.
.
.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

#justsayin

So we ban guns, but we don't ban guns in movies? While there are differences the same violent movies/games/movies that we consume are consumed WORLDWIDE. And if you combine the gun deaths in all the other first world countries you have a number that basically just equals Camden, NJ, lol.

America's got a might makes right gene right down to it's very core; I don't think it will ever fix it's gun violence problem because its a nation that was built on gun violence.

Gun violence to commit genocide for land.
Gun violence to keep man enslaved.
Gun violence to spread its sphere of influence.

Can't fix that in schools because that history's been re-written to make the above all positives. Can't fix that in church because if there's anything that pushes the us vs them narrative it's organized religion (men of various faiths being pro-death penalty and 'tough on crime'). Can't fix it in the workforce because as opposed to fair wages/benefits/ etc for all we just care about OUR bonuses and salary, fuck yours.

Basically, we've had it coming for awhile. Its easy to look at the surface issue of it and say guns or gun related entertainment should be banned instead of looking in the mirror and realizing yes, WE ARE THE BADGUYS.

*kanye shrug*

It's actually not that hard to get a gun here if you want one, just takes time and money. That discourages the crazies though.

I think John Oliver nailed it. People who want guns are more committed than those who want to ban them. They mobilise for every piece of legislation in a way that gun control supporters don't.

It's a big reason for Sanders looking like a mirage to me. Making progress on issues is a grind. Look at how the GOP is wearing down Roe v Wade. Democrats don't have the same single mindedness on their issues.

> Camden, NJ,

ugh

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/06/everyday-gun-violence-orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooting/


More Than 500 People Were Shot In America During the Week After Orlando
The massacre at Pulse nightclub was the beginning of a typically bloody week in the U.S.

BY JENNIFER MASCIA· @JENNIFERMASCIA·June 20, 2016
In the early morning of Sunday, June 12, shortly after the Pulse nightclub gunman was killed by police, Camarillo Pedro Lara, 48, was found shot to death in the passenger seat of a car in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Around the time that Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer broke the news that the massacre at the venue had claimed 49 lives, making it the deadliest mass shooting on American soil in modern history, a woman in Fountain, Colorado, found a note tacked to her neighbor’s fence: “Call 911 killed Val and myself,” it read. Inside the home, police found 60-year-old Merwin Rowe dead of a self-inflicted shotgun blast. The body of Valerie Hills, 56, lay beside him.

On Sunday night, shortly before the names of victims began trickling out from news outlets, 24-year-old Perez Villa Rufino was unintentionally shot and killed by a friend while they were play-fighting with a rifle in Queens, New York.

The week wore on. Investigators sought clues, senators filibustered, lobbyists angled. And as during quieter times, shootings claimed dozens more lives every day.

On Monday, John Cloud, 81, was shot and killed by 80-year-old Edward Acquisto at a cemetery in Tiverton, Rhode Island. On Tuesday, Regginna Jefferies, 17, was killed in a shooting that wounded three others outside a vigil for teenaged drowning victims in Oakland, California. On Wednesday, Dr. Robert Sowers, 46, was shot and killed by the husband of his receptionist, who then killed himself, inside a chiropractic office in McKenna, Washington. On Thursday, Michael Wayne Jensen, 30, a clerk at a Shell station, was shot and killed during an armed robbery in George West, Texas. On Friday afternoon, a 4-year-old boy fatally shot himself in the head while visiting the home of his mother’s friend in Elgin, Iowa. From Friday evening to Sunday morning, another 10 people were killed by shootings in Chicago alone.

During the seven days between the end of the siege at Pulse and the following Sunday at the same time, at least 228 people were fatally shot across the country, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research collective which tallies gun deaths and injuries. As weekend reports trickle in, that tally will likely rise.

As at Pulse, where another 53 people were injured, the full toll that gun violence wreaked between 6 a.m. June 12 and the same time on June 19 encompassed another 536 who were shot but survived. That tally includes includes Lynn Herriott, shot six times by her ex-fiancé, a former police officer, as she got off work in Jacksonville, Florida. A 12-year-old and three teenagers — ages 13, 15, and 16 — were struck by bullets when someone opened fire as they played tag in Wilmington, Delaware. And the three people were hit by gunfire during a large gathering in a Buffalo, New York, parking lot early Saturday.

As much as mass shootings like Orlando devastate, they account for less than 2 percent of all deaths due to firearms. Annually, over the past five years, total gun deaths have ranged from 31,672 to 33,599, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for an average of 32,964 annually.

Whether it’s a result of neighborhood conflict, domestic arguments, or suicide, Americans are killed by guns at a rate unparalleled in other advanced nations.

America records about 30 gun homicides a day — but the deaths hit one population much harder than others

Nearly a million people have seen the Facebook Live video of Antonio Perkins’s murder on Tuesday night.

“It’s hot. Hot. Mom, I’m hot,” the 28-year-old father of three murmurs into his cell phone as he livestreams a steamy late-spring evening with friends and family in the North Lawndale neighborhood of Chicago. Thirty-four minutes later, shots ring out, the phone falls to the ground, and Perkins is dead.

According an analysis of CDC statistics by FiveThirtyEight.com last June, black Americans are killed at 12 times the rate of people in other developed countries.

The firearm homicide rate among black men ages 15 to 34 is 68 per 100,000 residents, which is six times the national average, and is a large reason why homicide is the leading cause of death for their cohort. For white and Hispanic men in the same age group, the firearm homicide rate is 3 percent and 13 percent, respectively.

Most gun homicide victims know their killers — and many are killed by people they love

According to an analysis by the Violence Policy Center, 1,001 women were murdered in 2013 by men they were married to or dating, the most recent year such statistics were available.

Intimate partner homicide is largely an American phenomenon: The lion’s share of women killed by guns in high-income countries — 90 percent — are from the United States. An American woman is shot and killed by a current or former romantic partner every 16 hours, according to a February analysis of crime data.

The fatal combination of guns and domestic violence can sometimes ensnare other family members too. Michael Ratliff, 44, fatally shot his 44-year-old wife and their 15-year-old daughter at their south Houston, Texas, home early Thursday.

The biggest source of gun deaths is the least discussed and most often discounted

Any contemporaneous tally of gun deaths and injuries, such as the one provided here, is inevitably incomplete. The gap comes from the fact that 60 percent of all gun deaths are suicides, many of which are not recorded by the media reports and law enforcement sources from which the Gun Violence Archive culls its rolling totals. And no government agency tracks them in anything close to real-time.

When a suicide does get covered in the media, it’s usually because it’s a murder-suicide, or foul play is initially suspected. Early Tuesday morning in Oxford, Maine, 41-year-old Daniel Pulkkinen shot and killed himself during a domestic dispute with his wife. He’d barricaded himself in their mobile home and ended his life before police arrived. At least twice this week, someone committed suicide during a police pursuit.

According to the CDC, 21,334 Americans shot themselves to death in 2014, a 28 percent jump from 15 years earlier. Because guns are responsible for half of all American suicides, these victims of gun violence form a forgotten majority, and some pro-gun advocates don’t believe that their deaths should be considered in statistics on gun violence. Even well-intentioned debates about America’s epidemic of shooting violence — like last week’s 15-hour Senate filibuster — don’t include suicide victims. That blind spot can be attributed in part to the mistaken belief that someone intent on taking their own life can’t be stopped.

But suicide is an impulse that’s often fleeting, and most people who survive rarely go on to re-attempt. “If you look at studies of people who’ve attempted suicide, only about 10 percent go on to die by suicide,” Catherine Barber, who directs the Means Matter Campaign at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center, told The Trace last month. “For those making quick decisions, it really matters what’s available to them.”

And the means by which people attempt suicide do, in fact, matter — 85 percent of all suicide attempts by firearm are successful, while overdosing and wrist-cutting, two of the most common methods, have a success rate of just 3 percent.

.
.
.

Maybe you will catch hold to it one day.
.
.
.

But if that's all you got out of what i said and that's your conclusion then I'm just gonna have to accept you for what you are.
.
.
.

this is the same argument racists make about Hip Hop music

And the Entertainment industry is a key influence in the gun culture and the culture of violence.


.
.
.

but I'm sure movies and video games have almost no influence on anyone who wasnt already mentally prepared to commit homicide

Assault Rifles more than hand guns.

Folks don't really talk about it but the purpose of the second amendment is to fight invading armies or even our own army. Not to provide for personal safety.

In that context their is a better constitutional argument to protect assault rifles more than hand guns.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

.
.
.

yes, at the state level
in case the national (federal) govt over-extends itself
... thats not the right for every single individual to bear arms
its individuals who are part of a regulated militia
(in today's day and age that would be the state's national guard)
what y'all are arguing is the re-interpretation of the second amendment by the supreme court
and very recent too

so, no.

perhaps we need to go back to the letter of the law

.
.
.

I don't think the second amendment intended for PEOPLE to carry around weapons for personal safety.

In fact, when the second amendment was written people didn't keep arms in their home. They kept them at militia depots.

So I think it is clear though that it intends for people (the 2nd amendment references PEOPLE not STATES) to have access to arms in order to fight the national government or foreign government but what type of weapons do you need to best fight governments? At least guns as powerful as the government have, assault weapons.

In fact, I think a good argument can be made that the 2nd amendment did intend for us to have access to RPGs and other serious weaponry because that's what would be needed to fight off the government, just that we don't have the right to walk around carrying them for personal protection.




>yes, at the state level
>in case the national (federal) govt over-extends itself
>... thats not the right for every single individual to bear
>arms
>its individuals who are part of a regulated militia
>(in today's day and age that would be the state's national
>guard)
>what y'all are arguing is the re-interpretation of the second
>amendment by the supreme court
>and very recent too
>
>so, no.
>
>perhaps we need to go back to the letter of the law


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

which i think is closer to what the 2nd amendment intended
the people, yes but only the people who are part of a well-regulated militia

the recent ruling is based on arguing what the comma means
i.e. it disengages the first part of that sentence (being part of a well regulated militia)
from the latter part (the people's right)
thats a failure of english

If banning assault rifles doesn't change the numbers, or if the deaths continue to climb instead of decrease, they can always *un-ban* them.

There's no surefire way to stop violence. The only thing politicians can do is try something. Right now, they're trying nothing, because the NRA uses fear-mongering to fight any attempt to add any regulation whatsoever. So nothing gets done. At all.

Just try things. See how they work. If they do, great. Keep them in place. If they don't, cool. Future elected officials can always propose going back to the old laws if the new ones make things worse.

Just try ANYTHING. Allow ANYTHING to get done.

and this promotion of violence stops then we will always have this kind of sick and twisted crap going on.
.
.
.

I'm so tired of the bullshit arguments

"gun control won't stop every single mass shooting"
"bad guys will still find a way to get guns"
"we need to focus on treating mental health problems"

All of these statements are true. But they're also totally inane in this context.

As if treating mental health problems and gun control are mutually exclusive. We can do both. We should do both.

And of course you can never eradicate mental illness or crime, but at the very least we can make it a LITTLE more difficult for dangerous people to have guns. Why not try that?

It's as if a partial solution isn't still progress. Fuck, it'll be progress if in the next mass shooting only 25 people die instead of 49. I know that sounds morbid, but it's true.

They have to do SOMETHING. Demanding a perfect solution is basically just procrastination. We have perfectly reasonable solutions available, and we can't even get Congress to vote on them.

.

.
.
.

me praying can totally change the lives of killers who dont know I exist

.
.
.

surefire solutions to gun violence

that is

crazy + access = mass shootings

you can't cure crazy...that I know of

least we could do is make it harder for crazies to get WMDs, IMO.

I haven't heard the rationale for selling these AR-15s/AK-47 high capacity multi round kill as many people as you can as quickly as you can, etc...

I haven't heard the rationale for citizens to have access to these types of weapons

are we suppose to believe people are buying them for something other than mass shootings?

I could see some of the analogies if I was able to go into Walmart and buy rocket launchers, bombs, nuclear weapons, etc...

but as far as I know, those weapons are illegal, for what I will assume are the same reasons these automatic assault weapons should be illegal

I'm sayin, what's a well regulated militia without fighter jets

I want a tank, why can't I own a tank

etc...

anyway, IRT regulation

we regulate everything else

take 911 for example (I heard this analogy in a panel)

crazies decided to turn airplanes into WMDs

and we responded with increased regulations

air marshalls, reinforced cockpit doors, enhanced security screenings, etc...

the gun debate is the only one I can think of where people are so inclined to just throw up their hands, shrug, and say there's nothing we can do about it

???

oh, and Australia.

>that is
>
>crazy + access = mass shootings
>
>you can't cure crazy...that I know of
>
>least we could do is make it harder for crazies to get WMDs,
>IMO.
>
>I haven't heard the rationale for selling these AR-15s/AK-47
>high capacity multi round kill as many people as you can as
>quickly as you can, etc...
>
>I haven't heard the rationale for citizens to have access to
>these types of weapons
>
>are we suppose to believe people are buying them for something
>other than mass shootings?
>
>I could see some of the analogies if I was able to go into
>Walmart and buy rocket launchers, bombs, nuclear weapons,
>etc...
>
>but as far as I know, those weapons are illegal, for what I
>will assume are the same reasons these automatic assault
>weapons should be illegal
>
>I'm sayin, what's a well regulated militia without fighter
>jets
>
>I want a tank, why can't I own a tank
>
>etc...
>
>anyway, IRT regulation
>
>we regulate everything else
>
>take 911 for example (I heard this analogy in a panel)
>
>crazies decided to turn airplanes into WMDs
>
>and we responded with increased regulations
>
>air marshalls, reinforced cockpit doors, enhanced security
>screenings, etc...
>
>the gun debate is the only one I can think of where people are
>so inclined to just throw up their hands, shrug, and say
>there's nothing we can do about it
>
>???
>
>oh, and Australia.

Yep. Sensible stuff. Lots of common sense steps and perspectives that can be entertained before trying to scapegoat movies or games.

>
>Yep. Sensible stuff. Lots of common sense steps and
>perspectives that can be entertained before trying to
>scapegoat movies or games.
>


^^ SMH.


.
.
.

Feel better little buddy?

somehow effect the culture?

Like, if you still think gay people will want to be together, then what is the energy behind banning gay marriage?

An assault weapons ban will effect the culture. For someone to not have access to the weapon stops short the fantasy of carrying out the rampage they would otherwise only be able to carry out in video games. It is the same principle behind the death penalty, and that the threat of capital punishment is enough to help dissuade people from breaking the law to that extent of that verdict levied against them.

damn, but the more I am typing, the more I'm making your argument.....gay marriage shouldn't be banned, the death penalty should be outlawed....hmm....and assault weapons shouldn't be in the hands of civilians.

I guess it is because one is an attempt to legislate something innate to a person, and the other is gunz at WalMart. Yeah, let's ban commodities, not non-heteronormative oddities.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

.
.
.

The AR-15 isn't an assault rifle.

.
.
.

An assault rifle is fully automatic. ARs are semi automatic like any other rifle you only have to cock once.

because what we have seen to date, and in numerous instances, is that by increasing regulation
then we change the culture surrounding what is being regulated
so the culture follows the laws in place (and really, not the other way round)
this may not be true in *all* instances - we are increasingly seeing instances where
the cultural attitudes have changed, and the laws have then had to follow (e.g gay marriage)
but with regards instances where we have been forward thinking enough to institute forward thinking laws
we have been able to then influence/shift cultural attitudes
the same is true of gun control legislation
although even in this instance, the majority of americans believe access to guns should be regulated
its the laws that are failing to catch up (and we know why)

of ways to look at the problem of gun violence in this nation.
.
.
.

of other creatures and nothing changes if the culture doesn't change. The culture that would require change would be that of ignorance, intolerance, and possibly greed across a broad spectrum of society i.e. schools, homes, churches, political offices, etc.

Only a catastrophic or otherwise unprecedented event could even have a chance of getting that to happen.

Less people will die.

Although we've never been as attached to our guns as you, when we banned handguns in the 90s following ONE school shooting (Dunblane) there were headlines and whinge stories from all over the country about how we're destroying a hobby, even that we're making it harder for our Olympians to compete and that we were endangering the age-old tradition of shooting intruders in the face multiple times.

20 years later and nobody ever even mentions it. I remember Dunblane vividly and Turns out we missed handguns for about 2 weeks and then everyone realised only sad excuses for people needed to go around carrying lethal force next to their shriveled genitals.

gun worship/culture in America is underpinned by the aforementioned as well as fear of government oppression and "Mexicans".

Were the country mostly white like Scotland then your example would be more apples to apples.

not praying, not trying to get rid of guns in movies and video games
working towards a solution

Hate to say it, but a handful of aarp members sitting on a hard floor for hours won't last very long.