Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

I did not.

[scriver]

I did not.

Well that is the point Traveller is arguing against, that you responded to him on.

[dragdeler]

What are the most dangerous animals regardless of species? Mothers because they are afraid and protective of their youngs. Since when do we accept fear as the best advisor?


None of this is difficult to understand, if they don't it's because they don't want to, not because they can't. I've yet to witness a single based gunowner thats says: you're right, and I understand you, but guns are my hobby so I will allways vote against you.

No that would expose their skewed priorities so they hide behind their sob stories. There aren't enough hours in the day to give them all the verbal abuse they need. How exactly do you think society self regulates, are we filling stadias with philosopherkings, to let them sort it out? No humans ostracise whom they don't like, then it's up to that person to see if they value their opinions or company more.

[MaxTheFox]

Eh, a lot/most mass shootings are fairly small ones -- 4 or 5 folks shot, that sort of thing. Irrational and momentarily emotional is all that takes when you have a gun that can spit out two or three times that number of bullets in the span of a few seconds, any of which can easily kill someone, which is most guns that aren't single shot (and probably some that are).

Reducing access and proliferation is just... literally pretty much the only thing that will help on that front. Those sorts of shootings are caused by availability, just having an extremely deadly weapon sufficiently near someone that's pissed off or otherwise distressed, and stopped when it's no longer there. It's the difference between four dead to gunfire and one or two stabbed but stable in the hospital, basically.

It's also not something that's going to have anything done about stateside anytime soon, unfortunately. Stateside, there's a bunch of people stridently opposed to implementing any and all solutions proposed, and until that changes, welp.

Again, mentally stable people don't snap like that either. Yes I support restricting access to guns for those with e.g anger issues. Are we on the same page here?

This is unlikely, but deadass blanket restricting guns is even less likely. I wouldn't loosen gun laws in Europe even to the extent I want them to go in America. But America is a different social environment from Europe. I like thinking about policies in terms of things that can realistically happen.

[dragdeler]

What sort of oversimplification is that, anger issues speaking, I spit on guns. Remember todd from breaking bad? That's the kind of person you need to be afraid of. School shootings are just a side-effect of an overabundance of guns, without which those murder-suicides would be several orders of magnitude rarer.

[MaxTheFox]

What sort of oversimplification is that, anger issues speaking, I spit on guns. Remember todd from breaking bad? That's the kind of person you need to be afraid of. School shootings are just a side-effect of an overabundance of guns, without which those murder-suicides would be several orders of magnitude rarer.

Gun abundance is a factor, and so is widespread bullying and the radicalization of the far-right.

[dragdeler]

I mean... I guess it's fair to presume them righties, given gun access at home... But I wouldn't go so far as to politicise it. I think "teen angst" is a major factor, I had more murderous intent back then then now, eventhough my discourse went the other way and I can appear to have way more violent intent nowadays... Dogs that bark don't bite.

[hector13]

Eh, a lot/most mass shootings are fairly small ones -- 4 or 5 folks shot, that sort of thing. Irrational and momentarily emotional is all that takes when you have a gun that can spit out two or three times that number of bullets in the span of a few seconds, any of which can easily kill someone, which is most guns that aren't single shot (and probably some that are).

Reducing access and proliferation is just... literally pretty much the only thing that will help on that front. Those sorts of shootings are caused by availability, just having an extremely deadly weapon sufficiently near someone that's pissed off or otherwise distressed, and stopped when it's no longer there. It's the difference between four dead to gunfire and one or two stabbed but stable in the hospital, basically.

It's also not something that's going to have anything done about stateside anytime soon, unfortunately. Stateside, there's a bunch of people stridently opposed to implementing any and all solutions proposed, and until that changes, welp.

Again, mentally stable people don't snap like that either. Yes I support restricting access to guns for those with e.g anger issues. Are we on the same page here?

This is unlikely, but deadass blanket restricting guns is even less likely. I wouldn't loosen gun laws in Europe even to the extent I want them to go in America. But America is a different social environment from Europe. I like thinking about policies in terms of things that can realistically happen.

You’re very naive about emotions. Everyone in the world is capable of getting angry, and if they get angry enough they can kill someone, or do something that might kill someone.

[MaxTheFox]

Eh, a lot/most mass shootings are fairly small ones -- 4 or 5 folks shot, that sort of thing. Irrational and momentarily emotional is all that takes when you have a gun that can spit out two or three times that number of bullets in the span of a few seconds, any of which can easily kill someone, which is most guns that aren't single shot (and probably some that are).

Reducing access and proliferation is just... literally pretty much the only thing that will help on that front. Those sorts of shootings are caused by availability, just having an extremely deadly weapon sufficiently near someone that's pissed off or otherwise distressed, and stopped when it's no longer there. It's the difference between four dead to gunfire and one or two stabbed but stable in the hospital, basically.

It's also not something that's going to have anything done about stateside anytime soon, unfortunately. Stateside, there's a bunch of people stridently opposed to implementing any and all solutions proposed, and until that changes, welp.

Again, mentally stable people don't snap like that either. Yes I support restricting access to guns for those with e.g anger issues. Are we on the same page here?

This is unlikely, but deadass blanket restricting guns is even less likely. I wouldn't loosen gun laws in Europe even to the extent I want them to go in America. But America is a different social environment from Europe. I like thinking about policies in terms of things that can realistically happen.

You’re very naive about emotions. Everyone in the world is capable of getting angry, and if they get angry enough they can kill someone, or do something that might kill someone.

I know for a fact that the vast majority of people have enough self-control to not shoot several people, even when extremely angry. Especially a school shooting. If your anger spirals last long enough for you to walk to your school with a loaded gun, that is your mental issue.

[dragdeler]

I doubt they went in hot rage. Rather cold determination. IDK maybe they yell a lot while shooting but I doubt it.


I also think it's essential to differntiate between murder-suicide and plain psychopathic murders. I feel strongly that you could have helped easily half or more of those that are dead, whereas the rittenhouse type who go to court after are the insalvagable monsters. Murder-suicide is when you don't want to live, and you don't want your dead to be comfortable to those you hate, you want it to hurt them just as much.

[hector13]

Eh, a lot/most mass shootings are fairly small ones -- 4 or 5 folks shot, that sort of thing. Irrational and momentarily emotional is all that takes when you have a gun that can spit out two or three times that number of bullets in the span of a few seconds, any of which can easily kill someone, which is most guns that aren't single shot (and probably some that are).

Reducing access and proliferation is just... literally pretty much the only thing that will help on that front. Those sorts of shootings are caused by availability, just having an extremely deadly weapon sufficiently near someone that's pissed off or otherwise distressed, and stopped when it's no longer there. It's the difference between four dead to gunfire and one or two stabbed but stable in the hospital, basically.

It's also not something that's going to have anything done about stateside anytime soon, unfortunately. Stateside, there's a bunch of people stridently opposed to implementing any and all solutions proposed, and until that changes, welp.

Again, mentally stable people don't snap like that either. Yes I support restricting access to guns for those with e.g anger issues. Are we on the same page here?

This is unlikely, but deadass blanket restricting guns is even less likely. I wouldn't loosen gun laws in Europe even to the extent I want them to go in America. But America is a different social environment from Europe. I like thinking about policies in terms of things that can realistically happen.

You’re very naive about emotions. Everyone in the world is capable of getting angry, and if they get angry enough they can kill someone, or do something that might kill someone.

I know for a fact that the vast majority of people have enough self-control to not shoot several people, even when extremely angry. Especially a school shooting. If your anger spirals last long enough for you to walk to your school with a loaded gun, that is your mental issue.

Know for a fact, right. Are you going to share your sources on that one? Utter nonsense.

We weren’t talking about school shootings, we were talking about people snapping. You do not need anger issues to attack someone.

Most people do not have ready access to a gun, so most people aren’t going to respond by shooting someone they get angry with, but angry people do stupid things, even if they only lose control momentarily. That is literally all it takes, and guns make it so much easier to kill in those moments.

[scriver]

What sort of oversimplification is that, anger issues speaking, I spit on guns. Remember todd from breaking bad? That's the kind of person you need to be afraid of.

The kind of person we need to be afraid of is the myopic ones who go around with murder ideations in their heads all day, ie you.

[nenjin]

No one believes they'll commit a "Crime of Passion" right up until the minute they do.

What bugs me is that we give people the default assumption of responsibility with the power to kill at whim. We won't even trust people under the age of 21 to drink responsibly, yet we trust them to own a gun and use it responsibly years before hand. You have to prove you're worth of driving a car and pay lots of money and can lose the privilege rather easily......yet guns do not afford that kind of censure. By the time you've abused the privilege, other people are dead and chances are you are as well.

I'm sick of random Americans paying the price for this default assumption of responsibility. If that's freedom, then fuck that, the price is too high. I'd rather infringe on a "well meaning gun owner who just wants to hunt" if it prevents even a single act of violence like we've been seeing for the last 25 years. And I firmly believe if you disagree with that statement, you're essentially saying "I'm ok with all the random murder and horror of psychopaths proving the system is broken if it means my freedoms stay the way I want them."

[scriver]

Nobody here is arguing against restrictions, nenjin.

[nenjin]

I'm not arguing with anyone specifically. It's just a statement I want to get off my chest. And ya know...there are plenty of lurkers who definitely do believe restrictions are unwarranted.