Octopus Overlords

How do we remove guns from America? Just making it illegal seems to have no affect since murder is illegal too.

Do we allow the government to search all areas for guns? Break down doors of all residence and business that don't allow searches?

How much will that cost? What people will be against that? How far do we go to take fire arms from the people of America?

I'm more worried about the guys who threatens my friends and family with the nukes than a stranger with the gun.

Stop settling more guns and ask people to voluntary turn in their guns. It'll not remove all guns from America but it'll reduce number of guns in circulation.

You can't remove guns like that. It just isn't possible. We aren't a homogeneous culture in agreement that they're a problem, and many see gun ownership as a vital thing, an essential part of life.

I honestly believe that the only thing that will be productive (in an attempt to eliminate guns entirely) is the chip away at that culture. We work on a time in later generations when guns are no longer considered such a vital thing by so many. At that point you can start talking about getting rid of guns. But getting rid of them now? Can not and will not happen.

What we don't do is keep throwing out useless measures that don't actually help. They serve to bring the more extreme gun advocates together and motivate them without touching the issues at all. What we do is stop looking at mass shootings so much as the core gun issue to solve. They're statistical outliers that aren't at all representative of the gun problem. I know that sounds harsh, and someone jumps on me every time I say it, but the truth of the matter is that if you could either eliminate all mass shootings, now, today, or reduce other gun deaths by 1%, you'd be heartless to stop the mass shootings. I'm not saying ignore them. Use them the point a spotlight, use them to motivate people, use them to bring about change, but make that change meaningful. We've wasted too much energy on solutions that were never going to help instead of finding ways to actually make a difference.

My personal take on this matter:

We don't need to remove guns from America. We just need to reduce the firing rate and magazine capacity, which WILL reduce casualties.

No civilians should own full auto or semi-full-auto like bump stock weapons, or magazines holding more than 10 shots, IMHO.

They may be special exceptions, but they need to be ex-military to get them, not regular civilians, and only after much more certifications.

My personal take on this matter: Gun crime is predominately a democrat problem, police your own.

What is that noise? Am I hearing a whistling noise? I think i am but I'm not sure.

Kasey Chang wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:39 am My personal take on this matter:

We don't need to remove guns from America. We just need to reduce the firing rate and magazine capacity, which WILL reduce casualties.


No civilians should own full auto or semi-full-auto like bump stock weapons, or magazines holding more than 10 shots, IMHO.

It will only reduce casualties in the rarest of the rare mass shootings. Criminals who already have illegal firearms will have no qualms about obtaining and using high capacity mags anyway. All it means is that legal, responsible gun owners won't have them.

It does mean less in circulation but you know that as soon at a ban looks likely, people will be buying them 100 at a time.

Kasey Chang wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:39 am They may be special exceptions, but they need to be ex-military to get them, not regular civilians, and only after much more certifications.

Why ex-military? Why would an ex-marine need greater magazine capacity in a pistol?



Personally I don't really care but lager capacity magazines are more convenient at the range and offer piece of mind for defensive carriers.

Kasey Chang wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:39 am My personal take on this matter:



They may be special exceptions, but they need to be ex-military to get them, not regular civilians, and only after much more certifications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

Why do you think military personnel would do no harm? This happened before video games too.

I still think an important question in solving gun violence is to realize that gun violence is two words.

Guns are hard to solve. Any solution is going to be slow and generations long.

Violence, on the other hand, can be addressed now, although it would generally by doing the opposite of what Washington's doing.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:44 am I still think an important question in solving gun violence is to realize that gun violence is two words.

Guns are hard to solve. Any solution is going to be slow and generations long.

Violence, on the other hand, can be addressed now, although it would generally by doing the opposite of what Washington's doing.

Why do you think violence is easier to solve than guns?

For all the debate, it's still things like this that keep me on the side of gun ownership. A grandmother, abducted at knife-point, keeps her cool long enough for the kidnapper to become distracted so she could pull her concealed carry firearm. She was able to save her own life when no one else could have.

I simply see firearms as another facet of life. I personally still say focus on the criminal, the motives, the causes, and the ways to prevent that and you'll get further in the US at least.

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:05 pm For all the debate, it's still things like this that keep me on the side of gun ownership. A grandmother, abducted at knife-point, keeps her cool long enough for the kidnapper to become distracted so she could pull her concealed carry firearm. She was able to save her own life when no one else could have.

I simply see firearms as another facet of life. I personally still say focus on the criminal, the motives, the causes, and the ways to prevent that and you'll get further in the US at least.

Oh cool, we're doing one-off anecdotes now? Me too!

Domestic Violence Survivor Explains Why Guns Don’t Actually Protect Women: ‘I Was Shot With My Own Gun’

Personally though, I am more moved by statistics taken holistically that seem to show owning a gun is on balance more dangerous for most people than not. Oh and before we go to the suicide argument, keep in mind depression is an insanely common condition we all can experience and to my knowledge guns typically do not help int he treatment of said condition.

The "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws would have guns" argument is basically a "let's do nothing" argument, which I don't agree with.

As for "ex-military", they are TRAINED to be lethal, and already gun trained. Limiting the weapons they have access to is not likely to reduce casualties. We're after the lone-wolf attackers.

I'm not trying to solve gun problem in one fell swoop. That is impossible. It will take decades of gradual mood swings, much like women's suffrage and such, to change that.

America is anecdotal.

I've gotta say, I've never been anywhere in public and thought to myself, "Man, I wish I had a gun right now, I'd feel better." This includes the day I spent in an underground command bunker on 9/11/01, for reference.

Enough wrote:Oh and before we go to the suicide argument, keep in mind depression is an insanely common condition we all can experience and to my knowledge guns typically do not help int he treatment of said condition.

To be fair, it does cut down on recurrence.

Kasey Chang wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:47 pm The "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws would have guns" argument is basically a "let's do nothing" argument, which I don't agree with.

Well, that was certainly the case in Chicago.

Kasey Chang wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:47 pm As for "ex-military", they are TRAINED to be lethal, and already gun trained. Limiting the weapons they have access to is not likely to reduce casualties. We're after the lone-wolf attackers.

So because they are already "lethal", let them have whatever? Sounds kind of do-nothing to me. What if a civilian is trained and is "lethal"? Do they get high capacity mags?


Also, you may be surprised that not all ex-military are highly tuned killing machines. And even those that are "lethal" aren't all gun nuts or even proficient with all small arms.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:30 am

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:44 am I still think an important question in solving gun violence is to realize that gun violence is two words.

Guns are hard to solve. Any solution is going to be slow and generations long.

Violence, on the other hand, can be addressed now, although it would generally by doing the opposite of what Washington's doing.

Why do you think violence is easier to solve than guns?

You can't 'solve' either problem. One is ingrained into our society, the other is ingrained into human nature.

Any actually practicable answer to the gun problem is going to be very long term, with very little short term benefit.

Approaches to the problem of violence, on the other hand, could show some benefit in the short term. Issues like health care, mental health care, mental health stigmas, education, systemic problems that keep high crime neighborhoods poor and uneducated, a law enforcement 'reboot', etc. A serious approach to those issues could do more to reduce gun violence than more pointless back-and-forth on gun laws. Of course, the gun culture would continue to be impacted during all of this.

On the other hand, we could just deny mental health care, hoist more costs on the poor neighborhoods, and go out of our way to make Americans hate each others' differences, too. I'm sure that will bring benefits.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 772104001/

Georgia GOP gubernatorial candidate offers a bump stock giveaway

A Republican primary candidate in the Georgia governor’s race is giving away a free bump stock to “one lucky winner” in response to congressional efforts to ban the rapid-fire devices used in the Las Vegas mass murder.

State Sen. Michael Williams, who was the first Georgia elected official to back Donald Trump's presidential campaign, said there is “zero evidence” banning bump stocks would prevent gun violence deaths, and he’s giving one device away in a show of support for the Second Amendment.

“The tragedy in Las Vegas broke my heart, but any talk of banning or regulating bump stocks is merely cheap political lip service from career politicians,” Williams said in a statement. “In reality, the bump stock is the new, shiny object politicians are using to deceive voters into believing they are taking action against gun violence.”

I think he's backing the wrong horse this time.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:45 pm I think he's backing the wrong horse this time.

Even I think that's a stupid move.

Good thing these soulless assholes are focusing on raising our taxes.

Just a reminder that we live in a sick, sick world. Stop the world - I want to get off.

The Texas Attorney General, ladies and gentlemen.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) gave a sad warning in the wake of the gun massacre at a Texas church Sunday morning.

"This is going to happen again," the attorney general predicted.
...
"All I can say is in Texas at least we have the opportunity to have conceal carry," he explained. "And so ... there's always the opportunity that gunman will be taken out before he has the opportunity to kill very many people."

So make sure you're packing when you go to church.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:04 am The Texas Attorney General, ladies and gentlemen.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) gave a sad warning in the wake of the gun massacre at a Texas church Sunday morning.

"This is going to happen again," the attorney general predicted.
...
"All I can say is in Texas at least we have the opportunity to have conceal carry," he explained. "And so ... there's always the opportunity that gunman will be taken out before he has the opportunity to kill very many people."

So make sure you're packing when you go to church.

Pound of cure snakeoil.

So, white American guns down women and children in a church - that's a mental health issue. Immigrant drives over people in NYC and he's a terrorist that deserves quick execution.

Also, let's look at what President Trump did back in February of this year:

President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

So 9 months ago, guns were not a mental health issue. Today? Absolutely a mental health issue.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:58 am So, white American guns down women and children in a church - that's a mental health issue. Immigrant drives over people in NYC and he's a terrorist that deserves quick execution.

Also, let's look at what President Trump did back in February of this year:

President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

So 9 months ago, guns were not a mental health issue. Today? Absolutely a mental health issue.

He's a fucking idiot.

A former middle school classmate told Fox News that Kelley – who stormed into the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas on Sunday and killed at least 26 people – would complain about his parents and medications during school.

“His parents had him on high doses of ‘psych’ meds from 6th to 9th grade, the time I knew him,” said the student, who only wished to be identified as Reid.

The student also said Kelley often posted on his Facebook page about his assault rifle and Atheism, and that “a lot of friends quit talking to him by senior year.”

Courtney Kleiber, a New Braunfels High School student who identified herself as Kelley’s “best friend for a number of years,” said in a Facebook discussion about the shooting that Kelley once was heavily involved with the First Baptist Church.

“I was his best friend for a number of years and he was a happy, caring person back then. It's crazy what time and metal illness can do to you,” she wrote.

“Great, now I can't even look through my senior yearbook without seeing this,” she posted on her Facebook page late Sunday, next to a picture of her and Kelley in her senior yearbook.

Todd Piro reports on deadly shooting.Video
Why did former airman attack Texas church?

Another classmate who spoke to Fox News and wished to remain anonymous described Kelley as a quiet student, though he had his share of friends.

“He recently added me on [Facebook]. I accepted hence we went to school together, and any time I saw him on my timeline he was sharing stuff about guns and being Atheist,” she said. “He was pretty negative. The last post I remember was of a rifle.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/06/te ... elley.html

Kasey Chang wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:47 pm The "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws would have guns" argument is basically a "let's do nothing" argument, which I don't agree with.

As for "ex-military", they are TRAINED to be lethal, and already gun trained. Limiting the weapons they have access to is not likely to reduce casualties. We're after the lone-wolf attackers.

I'm not trying to solve gun problem in one fell swoop. That is impossible. It will take decades of gradual mood swings, much like women's suffrage and such, to change that.

I disagree that 'doing something' is better than doing nothing. "Let's do nothing" makes the most sense if no one can show what their 'something' will accomplish.

For example, in this thread is floated the idea of limiting magazines to 10 rounds maximum. I've seen similar ideas before. My question is why limit the magazines to 10 rounds? Why not 9, why not 11, why not 5 or 15? What's magical about 10 that it's acceptable? The truth? I think it's that there is nothing special about 10, or any number, it's just a random number someone chose because it sounded good. It won't accomplish anything. You can shoot 30 rounds just as easy with three 10 round magazines as you can with one 30 round magazine. Anyone who has spent time shooting guns knows this.

I do agree with the idea that a cultural change can be successful. People and lifestyles do change, what was once acceptable can become unacceptable and vice versa. I also agree with the idea that, as a practical matter, gun removal is impossible at this time. You would need to send out Federal troops to confiscate people's guns. Think about that. You would need to do exactly what the paranoid types are afraid of, thereby validating what they've been saying all along. Gun control people are dreaming if they think gun owners will turn over their guns by choice. Even the law abiding will want compensation. If I had 2 or 3 thousand dollars in guns and gun related items(ammo, holsters, whatnot) you think I'm going to take that loss just because there's a law that says I have to? Haha, no. The only way you'd get any worthwhile number of guns out of circulation is to forcibly take them, and that's going to make things far, far worse than they are now.

I'm not defending anything, but I can understand the reasoning. 10 seems like an arbitrary number, sure. But the goal is lessening the damage, as it's already been proven that we'll never eliminate it in these situations.

We compromise every day on many subjects. This discussion shouldn't be any different.

Doing something gives the possibility of affecting change. Doing nothing guarantees no change.

We can't arrive at a solution without trying things. Fixing problems is an iterative process. You try something, see if it works, and if it doesn't, you try something else. This is true in just about every field - science, medicine, engineering, IT.

Guns are no different. It's a problem. There is a solution. But we're being asked to fix it without actually trying anything.

As always posted in the Onion...

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:02 pm Doing something gives the possibility of affecting change. Doing nothing guarantees no change.

We can't arrive at a solution without trying things. Fixing problems is an iterative process. You try something, see if it works, and if it doesn't, you try something else. This is true in just about every field - science, medicine, engineering, IT.

Guns are no different. It's a problem. There is a solution. But we're being asked to fix it without actually trying anything.

But you also first try things that are likely to work based on data and common sense.

I put this in the other thread but it probably belongs here:

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:39 am

We're always playing legal whack-a-mole after these shootings. If we enacted every piecemeal proposal that may have stopped a particular shooting from occurring exactly as it did (though possibly not stop it from happening completely), we'd have a patchwork of reactionary laws that would have little impact on the next shooting. [They'd be administratively impossible to enforce and likey counter to their intended goal in the first place.]

I say let the gun nuts and the anti gun nuts fight it out over bump stocks and gun shows and whatever else. It's tic-tac-tie a la War Games. Everyone else, that is, the rational among us, need to step outside of that pointless debate and actually solve the problem. It's seriously time to start acting more like adults with a life and death problem to solve and less like a high school debate team trying to score points on pedantry and poor analogies.


They very first thing we need to do is enforce existing gun laws. Mr. Executive Order should demand that federal agencies focus on enforcing laws already in the books. There are plenty of un/under enforced laws already in the books that will prevent shootings. If we can demonstrate the willingness and ability to enforce these laws, then we can and should move on to new regulation. Including general health and safety such as mental health.

Start with an assessment of existing laws and existing enforcement. Then develop new laws. And I'm not saying do the assessment to placate everyone and then sit back and do fuck all as we have been. Do a valid, fact-based assessment and then actually pass some regulation where needed.

But don't just throw out laws for the sake of it.

Too bad those studies often become the victims of politicization as well.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:50 pm Too bad those studies often become the victims of politicization as well.

Yeah, and a good place to start. There is no reason that unbiased, scientific studies should be quashed. We need the balls to stand up that kind of shit. NRAILA money is big, but beatable. The problem is that people like Bloomberg on the other side of the issue are just as anti-science. If he put all his resources into getting that CDC gag removed, it would be removed. Instead he creates all these pearl-clutching, astroturfed movements to ban as much gun and soda as possible.

Neither side wants the truth or the best solution, they just want to push their agenda (all guns or no guns). It's the same thing happening to our politics on a wider scale. So screw them. We have to move beyond them.

I always find the argument "enforce the existing laws" ignores the weak laws that are on the books. They suck, which is why we keep having this conversation.

gameoverman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:50 pm You can shoot 30 rounds just as easy with three 10 round magazines as you can with one 30 round magazine. Anyone who has spent time shooting guns knows this.

I'd disagree there. I believe shooter who are forced to change magazines will be slowed down somewhat, and in a mass casualty situation, such as the Colorado movie theater shooting, even an additional few seconds would be enough for some people to get away, or for someone to attempt disarming the perp.

Another point to make is often we are often not talking about a well trained perp. The Aurora shooting, for example, the perp had a 100 round drum magazine (and he just held it down like action hero, and the gun jammed after 65 rounds) If he had to switch magazines every 10-15 rounds, he may have gotten more rounds off, but I think more people may have escaped.

In the Virginia tech shooting, the perp had a Glock with 15 round mags and a Walther with 10 round mags (and 19 magazines). His rampage may or may not be affected by hi-cap mags.

10 is indeed an arbitrary number. But 10 was the number used in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (which had since lapsed). San Francisco tried to have a ban of weapons larger than 10 rounds, but was sued by NRA in 2013. However, the lawsuit was tossed out. It seems as good number as any.

If 10 is not enough then maybe limit it to one. So legal guns are those that can only shoot one bullet then require a reload.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:50 pmSo legal guns are those that can only shoot one bullet then require a reload.

As the framers intended.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:27 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:50 pmSo legal guns are those that can only shoot one bullet then require a reload.

As the framers intended.

I'm pretty the framers intended for me to own my own M-1 Abrams, or A-10 Thunderbolt II if I so desired. What they didn't picture is a runaway military industrial complex which is partly responsible for the easy availability of weapons today. Neuter citizens rights to firearms, and you should neuter the military as well.