ADVERTISEMENT

Gun Policy in America

USFSucks said:
I liked this comment just for this line. Sums up Chemmie perfectly.
Click to expand...


He's the biggest hypocrite on this board.

5 years ago he was calling everyone idiots for not being libertarian and was calling for the return of the gold standard.

Now he calls everyone idiots for not supporting Bernie Sanders and thinks human beings should all believe the same pseudo-secular Marxist logic (That is what a DSA-member believes, I used to be one and they believe in watered-down Marxism but deny it in public), absolve themselves of tradition and religion, since that is the cure for society.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1ofTheseKnights, jetsaholic and UCFWayne
MACHater02 said:
Some opponents of closing these gaps in our laws will continue to argue that dangerous people will obtain guns in our country no matter what, and therefore that taking steps to make it harder for them is fruitless. That is both poor logic and poor leadership. - Gen Stanley McChrystal
Click to expand...


Quotes are just fancy ways of saying stupid things. I bet the most advanced alien species in the universe have laser zappers.


Having weapons, much less access to them, is not a measure of a society's progression. Jared Diamond said that....but not in those words, in the book "Guns Germs and steel"


Believing that you can "rid a society of guns" is a fallacy, and equivalent to a religious or spiritual faith.
 
MACHater02 said:
Some opponents of closing these gaps in our laws will continue to argue that dangerous people will obtain guns in our country no matter what, and therefore that taking steps to make it harder for them is fruitless. That is both poor logic and poor leadership. - Gen Stanley McChrystal
Click to expand...
Gen Stanley McChrystal sounds like a fukcing dumbass.
 
Mr. Knightman said:
Believing that you can "rid a society of guns" is a fallacy, and equivalent to a religious or spiritual faith.
Click to expand...
But no one [reasonable] actually thinks this, generally speaking....but yet apparently anyone who just wants to make it harder to obtain them is hit with this bullshit extreme in return.
 
UCF-icenhl-06 said:
But no one [reasonable] actually thinks this, generally speaking....but yet apparently anyone who just wants to make it harder to obtain them is hit with this bullshit extreme in return.
Click to expand...


No one ever asked for MY opinion.
I definitely want to make it harder for someone to get one, I never said I didn't. Only thing you all have said in any conclusion is "you don't need them". Thinking everyone has or is allowed the same need, a pretty big extreme.

Also, anyone associating gun interest and having fun outside of a concrete jungle with... "dumb-rednecks"... need to put their OWN, self-righteous, prejudice in check.

We are AT WAR. It is not crazy to firmly believe there is a place for armed, regular citizens. There should people that could carry pistols but not be in authority but trusted as such. It is the only step to take to prevent an absolute police state. Simple under-cover operations and bluffs won't work. There aren't enough cops. I think with a proof of mental stability and with a security clearance, said civilian should be able to override arbitrarily-set "no gun" rule and enter any business. This WILL happen again as we all know. I hope it doesn't, and as the recent event indicated, hired security failed, police took hours...we all know that will happen again with a soft target.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetsaholic
Mr. Knightman said:
Quotes are just fancy ways of saying stupid things. I bet the most advanced alien species in the universe have laser zappers.


Having weapons, much less access to them, is not a measure of a society's progression. Jared Diamond said that....but not in those words, in the book "Guns Germs and steel"


Believing that you can "rid a society of guns" is a fallacy, and equivalent to a religious or spiritual faith.
Click to expand...
Re-read the quote.
 
Mr. Knightman said:
No one ever asked for MY opinion.
We are AT WAR. It is not crazy to firmly believe there is a place for armed, regular citizens. There should people that could carry pistols but not be in authority but trusted as such. It is the only step to take to prevent an absolute police state. Simple under-cover operations and bluffs won't work. There aren't enough cops. I think with a proof of mental stability and with a security clearance, said civilian should be able to override arbitrarily-set "no gun" rule and enter any business. This WILL happen again as we all know. I hope it doesn't, and as the recent event indicated, hired security failed, police took hours...we all know that will happen again with a soft target.
Click to expand...
I don't entirely agree with the first sentence, but the rest is on point. Guns should be more difficult to obtain, but concealed carry and open carry should require extensive training. The general public needs to believe that if they see someone with a gun that the person is trained to handle it properly. The media focuses on the outliers that do not handle guns properly so the public perception is that all gun wielders are dangerous.
 
I've come up with a policy to reduce gun violence in the US by 5%-10%. I will lay it out below:

1) Pay Canada to take Chicago
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetsaholic
MACHater02 said:
It's appears the media aren't the only ones focusing on outliers.
Click to expand...

Oh that's cute, I bet you think that "mass shootings!!" account for the bulk of gun related deaths, right?

Well, no. As we've already stated, the majority of "gun related deaths" are suicides. Then you start digging down and find that the most common type of "gun related violence" is gang related and/or interpersonal dispute resolution. For God's sakes, hundreds of people are shot on the southside of Chicago every WEEKEND.

The fact is that terrorists or deranged shitheads with scary AR15's account for a miniscule total amount of both "gun related deaths" and overall homicides. They just make the news because it's horrific to see multiple people hit at once. (typically in a gun free zone).

It's just like plane crashes vs. car crashes. People don't blink an eye to jump in a car, despite car deaths exceeding aircraft crash deaths by a massive margin, but will not fly since the plane crashes make the big news stories.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Oh that's cute, I bet you think that "mass shootings!!" account for the bulk of gun related deaths, right?

Well, no. As we've already stated, the majority of "gun related deaths" are suicides. Then you start digging down and find that the most common type of "gun related violence" is gang related and/or interpersonal dispute resolution. For God's sakes, hundreds of people are shot on the southside of Chicago every WEEKEND.

The fact is that terrorists or deranged shitheads with scary AR15's account for a miniscule total amount of both "gun related deaths" and overall homicides. They just make the news because it's horrific to see multiple people hit at once. (typically in a gun free zone).

It's just like plane crashes vs. car crashes. People don't blink an eye to jump in a car, despite car deaths exceeding aircraft crash deaths by a massive margin, but will not fly since the plane crashes make the big news stories.
Click to expand...
I love how you always propose a position of someone else and then dispute that, rather than what the person has actually said. :clap:
 
MACHater02 said:
Their level of gun violence makes them an outlier in comparison to other cities in the US. :flush:
Click to expand...
Do you even believe the fukcing shit that comes out of your fingers?

So, if we take Chicago out of the equation, we're doing just fine, eh? Well fukc me sideways, holy fukc!
 
  • Like
Reactions: USFSucks
MACHater02 said:
I love how you always propose a position of someone else and then dispute that, rather than what the person has actually said. :clap:
Click to expand...

You said it's an outlier, most likely to imply that gang violence in major cities is not the most biggest driver of gun deaths. Yes?

If not then why claim that Chicago is an outlier? And why brush off what a goddamn disgrace that city is? There were 677 shootings in the first 4 months of this year. 677! That's not a city, it's a f*cking warzone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetsaholic
UCFKnight85 said:
You said it's an outlier, most likely to imply that gang violence in major cities is not the most biggest driver of gun deaths. Yes?

If not then why claim that Chicago is an outlier? And why brush off what a goddamn disgrace that city is? There were 677 shootings in the first 4 months of this year. 677! That's not a city, it's a f*cking warzone.
Click to expand...
Oh I totally agree its a war zone however its not representative of every city with strict gun laws as the right would like everyone to think. Its an outlier.
Do you think loosening the gun laws in Chicago would have a positive impact on the problems that exist there?
 
MACHater02 said:
Oh I totally agree its a war zone however its not representative of every city with strict gun laws as the right would like everyone to think. Its an outlier.
Do you think loosening the gun laws in Chicago would have a positive impact on the problems that exist there?
Click to expand...
But that's a completely different set of issues. You could argue that the strict gun laws put in place are the cause for the rise in gun crime. You can also argue that the situation has gone far beyond "loosening the gun laws" in order to achieve a different outcome. One variable isn't dependent on the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1ofTheseKnights
MACHater02 said:
Oh I totally agree its a war zone however its not representative of every city with strict gun laws as the right would like everyone to think. Its an outlier.
Do you think loosening the gun laws in Chicago would have a positive impact on the problems that exist there?
Click to expand...

Well, it'd give Chicago people a chance of surviving if they happen to venture in Little Aleppo in the south side.

But Chicago is beyond gun laws- that's my point. There is a cultural decay in that entire city that none of it's' "leaders" seem to care much about. Obama is from there for God's sakes, yet he wants to push the idea that a few more background checks might save a city like Chicago from itself. He could put a massive dent in gun violence rates simply by putting the southside in the spotlight and demanding a revolution from where they're at today.

This is a good time to mention that the Chicago people wanted police to piss off and they did. And this is the result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetsaholic
jetsaholic said:
But that's a completely different set of issues. You could argue that the strict gun laws put in place are the cause for the rise in gun crime. You can also argue that the situation has gone far beyond "loosening the gun laws" in order to achieve a different outcome. One variable isn't dependent on the other.
Click to expand...
I somewhat agree with the 2nd part of your statement, but the first part I don't get. You think strict guns laws are a possible cause of the level of gun violence in Chicago. Help me understand that when a lot of the shootings are done by people not old enough to own a gun.
 
MACHater02 said:
I somewhat agree with the 2nd part of your statement, but the first part I don't get. You think strict guns laws are a possible cause of the level of gun violence in Chicago. Help me understand that when a lot of the shootings are done by people not old enough to own a gun.
Click to expand...
I don't think that, I just said an argument could be made about that. But, playing devil's advocate, if more law abiding citizens could conceal and carry in Chicago, it is my opinion that the crime rate wouldn't be as big.

The mistake all of you are making is that you think there is a law solution to a problem that has nothing to do with the law; it has to do with the people. You could make every single weapon on the planet disappear today and tomorrow, somebody that is evil will find a way of hurting somebody else.

The world doesn't have a gun problem, it has a people problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dmarino110 and UCFWayne
There is an actual war going on right in Obama's home town and he has done nothing about it.

Seriously, we have enough gun laws in the books already. If he just prosecuted felons with the gun laws in place, most of these people would be in jail for a very long time. Instead he lets them off the hook or very reduced sentencing.
 
jetsaholic said:
I don't think that, I just said an argument could be made about that. But, playing devil's advocate, if more law abiding citizens could conceal and carry in Chicago, it is my opinion that the crime rate wouldn't be as big.

The mistake all of you are making is that you think there is a law solution to a problem that has nothing to do with the law; it has to do with the people. You could make every single weapon on the planet disappear today and tomorrow, somebody that is evil will find a way of hurting somebody else.

The world doesn't have a gun problem, it has a people problem.
Click to expand...
I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think more armed people would solve the situation in southside Chicago. Hence the reason it's a poor example to bring up in regards to gun laws, imo. They've had corruption at all levels for the past 50 years. Loose guns laws will do nothing to alter the impact that has had.
 
UCFWayne said:
There is an actual war going on right in Obama's home town and he has done nothing about it.

Seriously, we have enough gun laws in the books already. If he just prosecuted felons with the gun laws in place, most of these people would be in jail for a very long time. Instead he lets them off the hook or very reduced sentencing.
Click to expand...
:okay:
 
MACHater02 said:
I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think more armed people would solve the situation in southside Chicago. Hence the reason it's a poor example to bring up in regards to gun laws, imo. They've had corruption at all levels for the past 50 years. Loose guns laws will do nothing to alter the impact that has had.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's because they're just too far gone at this point. Like I said previously, I'm not agreeing with the statement, I was just playing devil's advocate.


Instead of trying to figure out how to make sure that bad guys don't get guns, perhaps we should try and make sure we don't have as many bad guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Regarding the Orlando ISIS fighter let's just remember the following:

- The FBI found reason to interview the guy 3 times
- He went to Saudi Arabia twice after being interviewed the first 2 times
- He tried to buy guns and body armor in a different store, owner called FBI, they didn't puruse
- His wife knew of this plot apparently way prior and said nothing
- He had coworkers quit due to saying insane, murderous stuff at work
- His employer took no action
- His employer "made a clerical error" on a background check run in 2008 which would have flagged warning signs if they did it right

The type of gun used by him is just the last piece of that f*cked up puzzle. There was opportunity after opportunity to stop him, warning signs everywhere, and yet again nothing was done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USFSucks, UCFWayne, UCFRogerz and 1 other person
UCFKnight85 said:
The type of gun used by him is just the last piece of that f*cked up puzzle. There was opportunity after opportunity to stop him, warning signs everywhere, and yet again nothing was done.
Click to expand...
...including allowing him to waltz in and buy guns.

no one is saying thats the only factor though and yes there are tons of other factors...but why is it such a shitshow to say that 'yea...easy access to guns was A factor'

btw the Chicago laws argument is ****ing stupid on both sides since you can buy a gun anywhere and waltz it right into the city since we have this whole open city/state borders thing. "Harsh gun laws" in a single city does nothing, proves nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetsaholic, tribbleorlfl and MACHater02
jetsaholic said:
Yes, that's because they're just too far gone at this point. Like I said previously, I'm not agreeing with the statement, I was just playing devil's advocate.


Instead of trying to figure out how to make sure that bad guys don't get guns, perhaps we should try and make sure we don't have as many bad guys.
Click to expand...
Why not do both?
 
UCF-icenhl-06 said:
...including allowing him to waltz in and buy guns.

no one is saying thats the only factor though and yes there are tons of other factors...but why is it such a shitshow to say that 'yea...easy access to guns was A factor'

btw the Chicago laws argument is ****ing stupid on both sides since you can buy a gun anywhere and waltz it right into the city since we have this whole open city/state borders thing. "Harsh gun laws" in a single city does nothing, proves nothing.
Click to expand...

Easy access to guns??? Let's just remember something- the Senate just floated bills to 1.) Expand background checks to cover "loopholes" and 2. Deny guns to people on the chaotic No Fly List.

The Orlando terrorist: 1. Passed ALL Federal and State background checks and 2. Was NOT on the No Fly List.

Stop buying into the bullshit and READ what I said. ALL of the above contributes to WHY he got a gun in the first place- the FBI, his wife, his employer all failed the system. ANY of them actually pursuing a case against him could have yielded a flag in the Federal background check registry that would have denied his gun purchase.

Please spare me the "buying a gun is as easy a latte!" bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetsaholic, USFSucks and UCFWayne
UCF-icenhl-06 said:
...including allowing him to waltz in and buy guns.

no one is saying thats the only factor though and yes there are tons of other factors...but why is it such a shitshow to say that 'yea...easy access to guns was A factor'

btw the Chicago laws argument is ****ing stupid on both sides since you can buy a gun anywhere and waltz it right into the city since we have this whole open city/state borders thing. "Harsh gun laws" in a single city does nothing, proves nothing.
Click to expand...
You do know that most of the states that surround Illinois have laws that make it illegal for them to sell to Illinois residents right? So some of them are trying to help the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetsaholic
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DaShuckster

A Shoutout to Speaker Johnson

Replies
2
Views
117
The Water Cooler
DaShuckster
DaShuckster
UCF-CZ

Wayyyy OT: Outlook Email/Tasks Tips and Tricks?

Replies
28
Views
582
The Dungeon - Knights Only
QbanKnight34
QbanKnight34
Boston.Knight

Where the gold haters at 2300? ⤴️

Replies
18
Views
467
The Water Cooler
hemightbejeremy
hemightbejeremy
NinjaKnight

When fascism comes to America

Replies
28
Views
745
The Water Cooler
NinjaKnight
NinjaKnight
BAHman

No 2025 QBs on visit list?

Replies
7
Views
348
The Dungeon - Knights Only
firm_bizzle
firm_bizzle
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back