Gun laws and control

[Zzzptm]

^ Wow... that's a story one normally expects to see coming out of Florida...

[Typhon]

A new video game called “Active Shooter” is drawing plenty of outrage as it allows players to simulate a school shooting.  The “dynamic S.W.A. T. simulator” game is expected to be released on June 6.  It will be available on Steam, a digital distribution platform.  Perhaps even more egregious, the game gives you the choice of being the S.W.A.T team member or the shooter murdering innocent children.  “Pick your role, gear up and fight or destroy!” the game description reads.

If a kid plays this a lot and then goes out and shoots school children, I'm sure plenty of clowns will still blame the NRA. 

[Vyn]

I'm sure plenty of clowns will still blame the NRA. 

Z mentioned "being taken seriously" in an earlier post. There have been a few talking heads over the past couple of months (that I've seen anyway) referring to the NRA as a terrorist organization.

I don't take them seriously.

If you're goal is to preach to the choir, putting nonsense like "the NRA are terrorists" on stilts works great. If you're trying to convince those who are trying to learn, you've failed. And look like a dumbass.

Goes for both sides. Which is interesting in and of itself. Why two sides? Why not twelve sides? Because it is much easier to get people to act on emotion rather than logic when you take away nuance and grey areas.

[Zzzptm]

I'm sure some non-clowns would blame the NRA, as well. It's set itself up as a polarizing force in the debate, pretty much refusing to compromise. Even then, there are people that think the NRA is too soft on the issue.

It's not a terrorist organization as much as it is a radicalizing organization. It doesn't radicalize to generate violence, but it radicalizes to prevent thoughtful solutions to limiting gun-related violence in the USA.

The very fact that it's getting funding from Russia tells me that it's poisoning the minds and conversations in the USA. Russia doesn't have infinite resources, so when it has to undermine another country, it has to be very selective where it targets its efforts. That it picked the NRA is very telling.

[Vyn]

I'm sure some non-clowns would blame the NRA, as well. It's set itself up as a polarizing force in the debate, pretty much refusing to compromise. Even then, there are people that think the NRA is too soft on the issue.

That hits the root issue with the political system in the United States across the board. The people that blame the NRA for refusing to compromise miss the mark, because the NRA does not create legislation.

They are a powerful lobbying force, but that's all. Blaming them is like blaming the guy you're running against in a foot race for being stronger and faster than you are, when what you should be doing is figuring out how to be faster and stronger yourself.

It's not a terrorist organization as much as it is a radicalizing organization. It doesn't radicalize to generate violence, but it radicalizes to prevent thoughtful solutions to limiting gun-related violence in the USA.

The NRA is not a terrorist organization in any way, shape, or form, through creed, thought, or deed.

Murder is illegal in the United States.

That is the only law that should be needed to address the issue. Sadly, not everyone is well-meaning and thoughtful. Jumping right to the end point here, we can go ahead and ban so-called "assault rifles", but those children who go and kill other children will just use something else. Like a shotgun, or .38 revolver. And here is where I stop going down that rabbit hole.

The very fact that it's getting funding from Russia

Where is that fact at? Because Schiff, et. al. stated he is concerned and wants to look into whether that happened?

But let's get a bit more specific here. Foreign nationals can be members of the NRA, so is that "funding" in the form of membership dues? Or is that funding from Torshin purchasing NRA branded products?

tells me that it's poisoning the minds and conversations in the USA.

When you say "it's", do you mean Russia or the NRA? If it is the former, then no doubt Russia contantly does whatever it can to jack up the USA. If it is the latter, then that is a matter of opinion. I'm certain that if the NRA consisted solely of one old guy with a deer rifle passing around hand-written announcements calling for the protection of our right to bear arms, someone would still say the NRA was poisoning minds and conversations.

Except that one old dude would have no power so people would ignore him. But the NRA is a powerful lobbying machine, so the folks that disagree with their stance are going to frame the NRA's actions in as negative a light as possible. 

Russia doesn't have infinite resources, so when it has to undermine another country, it has to be very selective where it targets its efforts. That it picked the NRA is very telling.

What does that tell? That the NRA is powerful?

[Zzzptm]

NRA lobbyists *do* write the laws. That's what lobbying organizations do. They write the laws and give them to legislators to pass. That, or tell their legislators what to vote against.

And always with the "killers gonna kill" diversion. Gun control isn't about eliminating murder, it's about reducing the casualty rate. I guarantee if the Las Vegas shooter was using black powder smoothbore muskets, the casualties of that incident would have been much, much lower.

Trying to reduce casualties and overall numbers of mass shootings without reducing the availability and number of weapons with high fire rates and large magazines is like trying to improve lung health without giving up smoking.

[Typhon]

NRA lobbyists *do* write the laws. That's what lobbying organizations do. They write the laws and give them to legislators to pass. That, or tell their legislators what to vote against.

If you want to ban all lobbyists, then I'm fine with that.  But, not just one.

And always with the "killers gonna kill" diversion. Gun control isn't about eliminating murder, it's about reducing the casualty rate. I guarantee if the Las Vegas shooter was using black powder smoothbore muskets, the casualties of that incident would have been much, much lower.

So where does this method end?
  Ban semiautomatic guns = less deaths, but,
  ban handguns = even less deaths, but, but,
  ban all rifles = even less deaths, but, but, but
  ban 'black powder smoothbore muskets' = even less deaths, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but . . .

[Jack the Stripper]

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

[Billy Underdog]

So where does this method end?
  Ban semiautomatic guns = less deaths, but,
  ban handguns = even less deaths, but, but,
  ban all rifles = even less deaths, but, but, but
  ban 'black powder smoothbore muskets' = even less deaths, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but . . .

The only reasonable way to end it is to get rid of weapons...

[Vyn]

NRA lobbyists *do* write the laws. That's what lobbying organizations do. They write the laws and give them to legislators to pass. That, or tell their legislators what to vote against.

Which is what is wrong with our political system...apparently very few people actually VOTE for legislators that aren't on the take. Legislators with INTEGRITY. In fact, personal integrity, honesty, compassion, and servant leadership - or hell, any kind of actual leadership, is a rarity among politicians and the greater populace in general.

Get rid of lobbying groups altogether.

Or better yet, have more than a few percent of the voting population get involved in learning about our government and vote for people who have the greater good at heart. But that won't happen. Same reason why people aren't going to stop killing each other. Or treating each other like shit, or happily stepping on others if it means they think they're getting a step up in life. Or treating each other with basic god damned human decency and respect. Fuck.

And always with the "killers gonna kill" diversion. Gun control isn't about eliminating murder, it's about reducing the casualty rate. I guarantee if the Las Vegas shooter was using black powder smoothbore muskets, the casualties of that incident would have been much, much lower.

It isn't a diversion, it's the truth. Regardless, The USA tends to follow England regarding societal changes - with a gap of a few hundred years. Depending. But I do believe that one day the USA will ban all firearms, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

In Mexico, you can walk out in the street and chop someone's head off with a machete for no apparent reason (just kill and kill again, survive my brutal thrashing, I'll hunt you to the end...sorry got sidetracked with song lyrics) and go to prison for a few years.

Get caught with a .22 derringer in your pocket? Unloaded? You're going away for 15-20 years. No bail, no nothing.

Anyway...

Trying to reduce casualties and overall numbers of mass shootings without reducing the availability and number of weapons with high fire rates and large magazines is like trying to improve lung health without giving up smoking.

Meh. High fire-rates (not sure what that means in this context - one trigger pull = one shot for everything but automatics) and large capacity magazines (which means what? 30? 100? 10?) mean fuck-all. Ban them. Don't ban them. I don't care, and I can promise you that maniacs don't care either. THAT is a diversion. The NRA plays the opposition game to keep the narrative away from the real issues.

And some folks eat it up. Again, the NRA does not create legislation, our elected reps do. And the people do the electing.

People need to wake up. But they won't. As long as they can have cheese doodles and Mountain Dew they'll ignore whatever is happening to SOMEONE ELSE.

[Typhon]

So where does this method end?
  Ban semiautomatic guns = less deaths, but,
  ban handguns = even less deaths, but, but,
  ban all rifles = even less deaths, but, but, but
  ban 'black powder smoothbore muskets' = even less deaths, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but . . .

The only reasonable way to end it is to get rid of weapons...

Great, so in the end, I won't even be able to cut my steak for dinner. Now who can live like that?

[Zzzptm]

So where does this method end?
  Ban semiautomatic guns = less deaths, but,
  ban handguns = even less deaths, but, but,
  ban all rifles = even less deaths, but, but, but
  ban 'black powder smoothbore muskets' = even less deaths, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but . . .

The only reasonable way to end it is to get rid of weapons...

Great, so in the end, I won't even be able to cut my steak for dinner. Now who can live like that?

Apparently, the Australians do just fine and it's not a slippery slope there, it's a matter of sensible, workable public policy.

As for voting, I'm going with a straight Democratic ticket this year. The candidates are not taking money from lobbyists like the NRA - the candidates for Senate and Governor here in Texas aren't taking any PAC money at all - and they're promising to vote for sensible regulations. I'm all for making the USA more like Australia or the UK in regards to gun laws.

[Typhon]

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

In your article it stated that:  "Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone."

Well here is another important fact:  As many as 70 active and inactive Chicago street gangs with 753 factions have been identified.

Now I ask you, how many street gangs exist in the entire country of Australia?  I don't know the answer to that, but I would bet it is far less than Chicago, and this is just 1 major city in America.  Comparing our 2 countries whose makeup and lifestyles are so vastly different is nonsensical.

[Jack the Stripper]

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

In your article it stated that:  "Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone."

Well here is another important fact:  As many as 70 active and inactive Chicago street gangs with 753 factions have been identified.

Now I ask you, how many street gangs exist in the entire country of Australia?  I don't know the answer to that, but I would bet it is far less than Chicago, and this is just 1 major city in America.  Comparing our 2 countries whose makeup and lifestyles are so vastly different is nonsensical.

Dont know the exact statistics on gangs here but I do know it's many and out of control, especially since the Sudanese have migrated here. Thankfully they can't gain access to guns as they can in your country.

[Typhon]

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

In your article it stated that:  "Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone."

Well here is another important fact:  As many as 70 active and inactive Chicago street gangs with 753 factions have been identified.

Now I ask you, how many street gangs exist in the entire country of Australia?  I don't know the answer to that, but I would bet it is far less than Chicago, and this is just 1 major city in America.  Comparing our 2 countries whose makeup and lifestyles are so vastly different is nonsensical.

Dont know the exact statistics on gangs here but I do know it's many and out of control, especially since the Sudanese have migrated here. Thankfully they can't gain access to guns as they can in your country.

Well if they are anything like the gangs in Chicago, they still must be killing each other.  But my main point was that if you were to remove the gangs and leave the guns, that 500 number would be way down.