I'd love to have a discussion about the practicalities of passing some decent gun control regulations. Doing so will likely include bending your knee to moderate conservatives - not the NRA, mind you - and pushing it through.
I tried talking to a "moderate conservative" about regulation just a page ago. I was told it appears I don't care about the Constitution. So I'm not really sure what the difference between moderate conservatives and the NRA is supposed to be here. Would the NRA say I don't care about the Constitution and am ugly or something?
The radical conservative will scream that you are taking their freedom. The moderate conservative will smugly say that you can't fight the status quo, but they'll let you suck up to them for awhile. Then they'll go make fun of you and the other liberals to their conservative buddies.
Basically, it's a question of whether you like your stonewalling with screams of "Freedom" or a smug smirk.
As long as this is how you want to play politics, you will never have gun control until the dam completely breaks, as you pointed out.
If you let them save some face, you might get it passed quicker and maybe save a couple mass shootings in the mean time. What's more important to you?
So so much face saving has been allowed. The royal you is clearly not interested.
I've been consistent in my position in like...geez, three years of 2A threads that I support magazine size restrictions, waiting period restrictions, a national registry, etc.
The royal you
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Unless you want to ban guns like in some countries, armed police on every corner (give or take) seems like the most optimal solution while allowing for minimal gun control.
It's something you're definitely not going to see prompting much fuss from Republicans at least, and it has the added benefit of proven effectiveness.
Given the way police act in this country, putting armed police on every corner sounds like it would end up driving gun deaths up, not down.
Unless you want to ban guns like in some countries, armed police on every corner (give or take) seems like the most optimal solution while allowing for minimal gun control.
It's something you're definitely not going to see prompting much fuss from Republicans at least, and it has the added benefit of proven effectiveness.
Given the way police act in this country, putting armed police on every corner sounds like it would end up driving gun deaths up, not down.
He's just taking the Stalinesque approach. Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.
It's not the most palatable solution, but it's the only feasible one that has more than a snowball's chance in hell of being realized.
You're not going to get substantial gun control passed nationwide. It's just not going to happen.
In a society that values gun ownership as much as the United States of America, a stepped up public and private armed security presence is the most viable option.
And the result will be a safer and more secure society.
Do people really believe that the political memory of the people in this forum is so short that we've forgotten that the "compromise with Republicans" strategy that Obama attempted didn't work?
We managed to get a very, very compromised Obamacare through by catering to every corporate whim of the healthcare insurance industry to appease Republicans, and then they spent the next up until right now trying to repeal what they just passed. Other compromise attempts failed outright or the Republican compromise offered was "We get everything we want, you take everything you want off the table, or we'll shut down the government".
Personally I am not an amnesiac so how about everyone else?
I don't believe anyone on this forum is that dumb. Cause seriously, looking at any of the people posting in this thread, I know that if you brought this kind of theory up in any other thread with another topic with the same people, they'd rightly tear it apart as being unrealistic bullshit.
It's not a case of amnesia. It's a case of the subject matter suddenly meaning a bunch of people have decided that american politics is now completely different from what has ever been shown. Seems rather convenient, this sudden shift.
Its not just guns, in the Bernie Sanders thread people have a mystical belief in how politics go with these extravagant "If I start at four hundred dollars they'll agree to fifteen because it's so low!"
Basically when you support something you tend to forget political reality.
yeah you're right pushing for a $15 minimum wage is exactly the same as trying to get a $400 minimum wage
It's not the most palatable solution, but it's the only feasible one that has more than a snowball's chance in hell of being realized.
You're not going to get substantial gun control passed nationwide. It's just not going to happen.
In a society that values gun ownership as much as the United States of America, a stepped up public and private armed security presence is the most viable option.
And the result will be a safer and more secure society.
No, that's completely untenable. The police is not a magic security force that everyone can just join with money coming out of the ether for their paychecks. It's funded by the government, or more accurately, the taxpayer. An increase of police power of that scale would be ridiculous to maintain. The increase in required taxes alone would make any such act an automatic DOA, not to mention the logistical nightmare of bureaucracy that would be required. The unions would be overflooded, courts would require a major overhaul to deal with the flood of cases of minor misdemeanors, etc. And all that aside, people don't really like Big Brother, which is what this would be seen as. Shit, lots of people don't even like the idea of a camera at every intersection, much less a fucking cop with a gun. And this is only the tip of an extremely large iceberg.
So no, you're not being reasonable. You're throwing out something which is even more of a fantasy than what you're trying to critique. It's utterly ridiculous.
Well then make it easier for private security firms to do business if you're so hung up about big government.
Put the burden on corporations for not doing more to protect their journalists in the field.
I saw the video footage. The gunman actually stood there for several seconds with his gun drawn, even dropping it before picking it up again and finally opening fire.
Even just one armed security guard would've been enough to prevent this tragedy.
It's not the most palatable solution, but it's the only feasible one that has more than a snowball's chance in hell of being realized.
You're not going to get substantial gun control passed nationwide. It's just not going to happen.
In a society that values gun ownership as much as the United States of America, a stepped up public and private armed security presence is the most viable option.
And the result will be a safer and more secure society.
My dreams of a beautiful cyberpunk dystopia, one step closer!
When we could actually be a country that properly trains our students in weapons and tactics so they can protect themselves.
America the brave, the only first world country in the world where spree killers are so common that children require military training to survive society?
I think you've achieved your libertarian anarchy and returned to the lawlessness of the wild west if that's the case.
I'll remain here, in a nation where going out of the house doesn't mean donning bullet proof vests and purchasing armoured vehicles.
+19
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Like, how could you even want such a failed society? At what point does someone look at Rapture and say that's the ideal outcome?
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited August 2015
Glyph, you're either trolling or insane, but either way let's be done talking about literally having police and security on every street corner as if it's a real suggestion.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
When we could actually be a country that properly trains our students in weapons and tactics so they can protect themselves.
Assuming you are actually serious and this isn't you going into Poe's Law style Satire, from the Gizmodo piece I linked
Responding To A Mass Shooting
Think you’re a hero? While examples of members of the public overcoming and disarming armed assailants exist — the Americans on the French train last week — so do instances of even armed citizens being killed by mass shooters.
Such was the case in Las Vegas, last June, when Jerad and Amanda Miller opened fire in a WalMart. A customer carrying a concealed handgun drew it on Jerad, only to be shot from behind by Amanda.
Another characterization made evident by research on the topic shows that most mass shooters are very heavily armed, typically employing assault rifles, shotguns and large caliber pistols, as well as body armor. The limited stopping power of a concealed carry pistol would likely be no match, particularly if there’s more than one shooter.
In January, our friends at The Truth About Guns staged a recreation of the Charlie Hebdo attacks (above video) in an attempt to see what would happen had anyone in that office been armed. They ran the scenario nine different times, with different variables, but the terrorists won each time. Their reluctant conclusion? “Run.”
And that is universally the guidance provided by government and law enforcement agencies too: If you want to survive a mass shooting, run away, run away fast, and don’t let anyone or anything slow you down.
You can find the video in the link, though it may be NSFW given the swearing.
I'm seeing a lot of aversion to realistic solutions here.
None of the empty ideas you've offered are realistic in the slightest.
I've yet to see anyone object to more readily accessible private security contractors.
It has the benefit of (1) not being statist/big government and (2) not putting the onus of security squarely on the general public.
I think it's more than a fair compromise between the two anxieties.
woo private mercenary armies! That worked well for medieval Europe!
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
When we could actually be a country that properly trains our students in weapons and tactics so they can protect themselves.
America the brave, the only first world country in the world where spree killers are so common that children require military training to survive society?
I think you've achieved your libertarian anarchy and returned to the lawlessness of the wild west if that's the case.
I'll remain here, in a nation where going out of the house doesn't mean donning bullet proof vests and purchasing armoured vehicles.
well let's be honest.
As mentioned before, towns in the old west would at least occassionally demand you hand your weapon over during the duration of your stay or you get the fuck out od town.
So... we're actually probably worse off than the non-Hollywood wild west.
And who do they actually answer to when the inevitable corruption enters the system if not present from the beginning?
That's what anti-corruption and anti-trust laws and regulatory oversight are for.
Glyph I am going to ask you this very clearly and very deliberately:
Are you fucking with me?
Are you playing a character, of sorts, in a game of debate to illustrate the ludicrous nature of the current state of dark, cosmic self-parody we now find ourselves in as a nation because of our shitshow of gun policy and cultural problems coming to a violent head?
I mean for the love of christ we can't even keep the police from rampant corruption and bias. What madness do we wreak when we institute a prime and clear profit motive into the equation?
Also just going to ask: just what are you expecting school children to defend themselves with?
are we going to send Johnny and Joanie 5th Grader to art class with a fucking smith and wesson strapped to the hip?
Here in TX, it's (obviously) some teachers who concealed carry in school. The main thrust of this is the distance between towns in rural west Texas, where it can take 20 minutes for a police cruiser to respond to a call for help.
Also just going to ask: just what are you expecting school children to defend themselves with?
are we going to send Johnny and Joanie 5th Grader to art class with a fucking smith and wesson strapped to the hip?
Here in TX, it's (obviously) some teachers who concealed carry in school. The main thrust of this is the distance between towns in rural west Texas, where it can take 20 minutes for a police cruiser to respond to a call for help.
Again I refer everyone to the Gizmodo piece with
1) The video of the defender "dying" in simulation over and over and over and over and over again
2) The expert recommendation that the best method of survival is not to engage, but to find the quickest and safest route of escape from the active shooter.
As well I would suggest that is a massive infrastructure problem if it takes the police 20 minutes to respond to a call for help. I'm sorry but that is fucking miserable.
And Also the issue that Glyph was not suggesting we arm teachers. Glyph was suggesting we train children how to kill to survive the brutal world where they are at risk of being murdered by a mass murderer
Also just going to ask: just what are you expecting school children to defend themselves with?
are we going to send Johnny and Joanie 5th Grader to art class with a fucking smith and wesson strapped to the hip?
Here in TX, it's (obviously) some teachers who concealed carry in school. The main thrust of this is the distance between towns in rural west Texas, where it can take 20 minutes for a police cruiser to respond to a call for help.
It's certainly not as crazy as some people think. If we were living in a country where guns were banned outright, that would be one thing.
But we don't, and our solutions should reflect society as it stands in the here and now.
Also just going to ask: just what are you expecting school children to defend themselves with?
are we going to send Johnny and Joanie 5th Grader to art class with a fucking smith and wesson strapped to the hip?
Here in TX, it's (obviously) some teachers who concealed carry in school. The main thrust of this is the distance between towns in rural west Texas, where it can take 20 minutes for a police cruiser to respond to a call for help.
It's certainly not as crazy as some people think. If we were living in a country where guns were banned outright, that would be one thing.
But we don't, and our solutions should reflect society as it stands in the here and now.
Sure, arming everyone isn't crazy at all.
Everyone knows that active warzones are the safest place you can be.
Also just going to ask: just what are you expecting school children to defend themselves with?
are we going to send Johnny and Joanie 5th Grader to art class with a fucking smith and wesson strapped to the hip?
Here in TX, it's (obviously) some teachers who concealed carry in school. The main thrust of this is the distance between towns in rural west Texas, where it can take 20 minutes for a police cruiser to respond to a call for help.
Again I refer everyone to the Gizmodo piece with
1) The video of the defender "dying" in simulation over and over and over and over and over again
2) The expert recommendation that the best method of survival is not to engage, but to find the quickest and safest route of escape from the active shooter.
As well I would suggest that is a massive infrastructure problem if it takes the police 20 minutes to respond to a call for help. I'm sorry but that is fucking miserable.
And Also the issue that Glyph was not suggesting we arm teachers. Glyph was suggesting we train children how to kill to survive the brutal world where they are at risk of being murdered by a mass murderer
Dude have you seen Texas?
It's really big. Wreck on one end of the county, might take a while to get to the other side.
Also just going to ask: just what are you expecting school children to defend themselves with?
are we going to send Johnny and Joanie 5th Grader to art class with a fucking smith and wesson strapped to the hip?
Here in TX, it's (obviously) some teachers who concealed carry in school. The main thrust of this is the distance between towns in rural west Texas, where it can take 20 minutes for a police cruiser to respond to a call for help.
It's certainly not as crazy as some people think. If we were living in a country where guns were banned outright, that would be one thing.
But we don't, and our solutions should reflect society as it stands in the here and now.
Sure, arming everyone isn't crazy at all.
Everyone knows that active warzones are the safest place you can be.
I think we need to just step back, calm the fuck down and not be melodramatic for a second here.
People in active warzones are trained to commit murder. Usually as part of a political conflict in societies with very few enforceable laws and weak if nonexistent governments.
What I'm talking about is making more information available for responsible, law-abiding citizens in an industrialized nation, such as ours that finds itself in a very unique position of having a strong and thriving gun culture, who should have the option to protect themselves with the aid of a concealed firearm without being seen as some kind of "gun nut."
People who want to commit violent crime in the United States like this Flanagan character are going to have access to firearms. That's not going away, certainly not anytime soon. The best defense therefore is either to have a strong public security apparatus in place, or to make private security/individual self-defense a more viable and readily available option. Preferably both.
Because at the end of the day you have to ask yourself, "What is more likely to save lives?"
And I'm telling you right now that one or more of the above solutions would have had a much better chance of saving the lives of Alison Parker and Adam Ward than what was in place at the time.
Also just going to ask: just what are you expecting school children to defend themselves with?
are we going to send Johnny and Joanie 5th Grader to art class with a fucking smith and wesson strapped to the hip?
Here in TX, it's (obviously) some teachers who concealed carry in school. The main thrust of this is the distance between towns in rural west Texas, where it can take 20 minutes for a police cruiser to respond to a call for help.
Again I refer everyone to the Gizmodo piece with
1) The video of the defender "dying" in simulation over and over and over and over and over again
2) The expert recommendation that the best method of survival is not to engage, but to find the quickest and safest route of escape from the active shooter.
As well I would suggest that is a massive infrastructure problem if it takes the police 20 minutes to respond to a call for help. I'm sorry but that is fucking miserable.
And Also the issue that Glyph was not suggesting we arm teachers. Glyph was suggesting we train children how to kill to survive the brutal world where they are at risk of being murdered by a mass murderer
Dude have you seen Texas?
It's really big. Wreck on one end of the county, might take a while to get to the other side.
That is not really making a convincing argument against "That sounds like you have a major infrastructure problem" for me.
If you have the problem of "it takes 20 minutes for police to respond to a call" why is the solution "arm yourselves and get ready to fight for your life" and not "build more precincts and hire trained personel to handle responses in a timely manner"
+6
Options
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
Posts
The royal you
Given the way police act in this country, putting armed police on every corner sounds like it would end up driving gun deaths up, not down.
He's just taking the Stalinesque approach. Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
You're not going to get substantial gun control passed nationwide. It's just not going to happen.
In a society that values gun ownership as much as the United States of America, a stepped up public and private armed security presence is the most viable option.
And the result will be a safer and more secure society.
yeah you're right pushing for a $15 minimum wage is exactly the same as trying to get a $400 minimum wage
No, that's completely untenable. The police is not a magic security force that everyone can just join with money coming out of the ether for their paychecks. It's funded by the government, or more accurately, the taxpayer. An increase of police power of that scale would be ridiculous to maintain. The increase in required taxes alone would make any such act an automatic DOA, not to mention the logistical nightmare of bureaucracy that would be required. The unions would be overflooded, courts would require a major overhaul to deal with the flood of cases of minor misdemeanors, etc. And all that aside, people don't really like Big Brother, which is what this would be seen as. Shit, lots of people don't even like the idea of a camera at every intersection, much less a fucking cop with a gun. And this is only the tip of an extremely large iceberg.
So no, you're not being reasonable. You're throwing out something which is even more of a fantasy than what you're trying to critique. It's utterly ridiculous.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Put the burden on corporations for not doing more to protect their journalists in the field.
I saw the video footage. The gunman actually stood there for several seconds with his gun drawn, even dropping it before picking it up again and finally opening fire.
Even just one armed security guard would've been enough to prevent this tragedy.
My dreams of a beautiful cyberpunk dystopia, one step closer!
Wait no.
not "dreams" and "beautiful"
The other words
http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/how-to-survive-a-mass-shooting-1726863100
This is our country now.
We are a country that needs how to guides on surviving mass shooting events.
http://www.businessinsider.com/bodyguard-bulletproof-blanket-for-kids-2014-6
We are a country that now has seen the need to be filled of bulletproof "blankets" to protect our kids in massacre situations.
This is who we are now.
America the brave, the only first world country in the world where spree killers are so common that children require military training to survive society?
I think you've achieved your libertarian anarchy and returned to the lawlessness of the wild west if that's the case.
I'll remain here, in a nation where going out of the house doesn't mean donning bullet proof vests and purchasing armoured vehicles.
we might want to avoid forcing them to kill their parents as graduation though
It's hard to parse how much of a non-answer this is.
Yes, train students in weapons and tactics, I'm sure that won't at all increase the competency of student mass-murderers.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
On the one hand, stepped up security presence is too "statist and dystopian."
On the other hand, teaching our citizens self-reliance and situational awareness from an early age is too "libertarian and anarchist."
I suppose all this paranoia over slippery slopes and worst case scenarios should take precedence over saving actual lives in the here and now.
None of the empty ideas you've offered are realistic in the slightest.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
If we ever reach the point where cops on every corner are happening, we'll have different opinions about gun control...
I've yet to see anyone object to more readily accessible private security contractors.
It has the benefit of (1) not being statist/big government and (2) not putting the onus of security squarely on the general public.
I think it's more than a fair compromise between the two anxieties.
Assuming you are actually serious and this isn't you going into Poe's Law style Satire, from the Gizmodo piece I linked
You can find the video in the link, though it may be NSFW given the swearing.
Why yes it is pretty unrealistic that we are going to radically overhaul how we live as a people
woo private mercenary armies! That worked well for medieval Europe!
And who owns these security contractors?
and who pays for these contractors?
And who do they legally answer to?
And who do they actually answer to when the inevitable corruption enters the system if not present from the beginning?
The Solution to mass shooting events and the rest of America's rampant gun deaths is not fucking Private security contractors.
the best part is you don't have to pay them, just send them to a foreign land and tell them to extract payment from the locals
except in this case I guess WE would be the locals
still, beats paying taxes for it right?
well let's be honest.
As mentioned before, towns in the old west would at least occassionally demand you hand your weapon over during the duration of your stay or you get the fuck out od town.
So... we're actually probably worse off than the non-Hollywood wild west.
are we going to send Johnny and Joanie 5th Grader to art class with a fucking smith and wesson strapped to the hip?
That's what anti-graft and anti-trust legislation and regulatory oversight are for.
Glyph I am going to ask you this very clearly and very deliberately:
Are you fucking with me?
Are you playing a character, of sorts, in a game of debate to illustrate the ludicrous nature of the current state of dark, cosmic self-parody we now find ourselves in as a nation because of our shitshow of gun policy and cultural problems coming to a violent head?
Here in TX, it's (obviously) some teachers who concealed carry in school. The main thrust of this is the distance between towns in rural west Texas, where it can take 20 minutes for a police cruiser to respond to a call for help.
Again I refer everyone to the Gizmodo piece with
1) The video of the defender "dying" in simulation over and over and over and over and over again
2) The expert recommendation that the best method of survival is not to engage, but to find the quickest and safest route of escape from the active shooter.
As well I would suggest that is a massive infrastructure problem if it takes the police 20 minutes to respond to a call for help. I'm sorry but that is fucking miserable.
And Also the issue that Glyph was not suggesting we arm teachers. Glyph was suggesting we train children how to kill to survive the brutal world where they are at risk of being murdered by a mass murderer
It's certainly not as crazy as some people think. If we were living in a country where guns were banned outright, that would be one thing.
But we don't, and our solutions should reflect society as it stands in the here and now.
Sure, arming everyone isn't crazy at all.
Everyone knows that active warzones are the safest place you can be.
Dude have you seen Texas?
It's really big. Wreck on one end of the county, might take a while to get to the other side.
I think we need to just step back, calm the fuck down and not be melodramatic for a second here.
People in active warzones are trained to commit murder. Usually as part of a political conflict in societies with very few enforceable laws and weak if nonexistent governments.
What I'm talking about is making more information available for responsible, law-abiding citizens in an industrialized nation, such as ours that finds itself in a very unique position of having a strong and thriving gun culture, who should have the option to protect themselves with the aid of a concealed firearm without being seen as some kind of "gun nut."
People who want to commit violent crime in the United States like this Flanagan character are going to have access to firearms. That's not going away, certainly not anytime soon. The best defense therefore is either to have a strong public security apparatus in place, or to make private security/individual self-defense a more viable and readily available option. Preferably both.
Because at the end of the day you have to ask yourself, "What is more likely to save lives?"
And I'm telling you right now that one or more of the above solutions would have had a much better chance of saving the lives of Alison Parker and Adam Ward than what was in place at the time.
Which was nothing.
That is not really making a convincing argument against "That sounds like you have a major infrastructure problem" for me.
If you have the problem of "it takes 20 minutes for police to respond to a call" why is the solution "arm yourselves and get ready to fight for your life" and not "build more precincts and hire trained personel to handle responses in a timely manner"
What are you doing?