• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

America doesn't have enough guns

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,667
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
While clicking around I noticed a post-funeral shooting. The Newsweek article linked to several other shootings, e.g.
The McDonald's shooting led to several more articles, e.g.
I'm not happy when KFC gives me the chili sauce after I ask for tomato sauce but I've managed to avoid losing my temper. Maybe they'd listen better if I brandished a fire-arm while ordering.

But it does seem sad that teenagers working at fast-food joints are being shot indiscriminately. Are the shooters just jealous that they don't also have these lucrative executive positions?

I didn't study the articles and don't know if the fast-food victims had the wherewithal to stand their ground. Aren't the franchise owners under a moral obligation to provide these front-line troops with guns? Better yet, why not mount cannons or bazookas aimed directly at the cars at the drive-thru windows? The cashier could eliminate a threat as soon as voices are raised, before escalation.

And why didn't the parents of the 8-year old provide him with a semi-automatic weapon? Kyle Rittenhouse had one. Shooters might have been less brash if the toddler were firing bullets indiscriminately as he walked down the street.

Yes yes, I know the Jihadists, Communists and "fascists" want to overturn the universe and steal guns from the Nazi/plague rats. Have they no respect for Our Lord God Almighty and the Blessed Baby Jesus? It was the Finger of Jehovah Himself who inscribed the Right to Bear Arms on the Commandment Tablets, right between the Right to Grab Pussy and the Thou Shalt Not Tax.

Since reducing the number of America's guns is simply not an option, perhaps we need to increase them.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,607
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Naw. We've on it. We're accelerated dumb-down by bringing a new back fence to the fore with Twitter, Facebook, Howzat.

Since cellphones, Kiss my tush Republicans fell upon an amazing dumb accelerator when they nominated Sarah Palin the turkey queen for VP then followed that up by Electing Trump ass kisser of own his damn self.

Americans are so Ugly now that we even hate ourselves. And dumb! Wow. We're working on adding two thumbs to every newborn and flat-heads are now in fashion because of all the duh we're doing.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,720
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
I think we need to follow the vision of the NRA.

From the 1970s.


My dad was an avid hunter and lifelong member of the National Rifle Association. He passed away before they went all "from my cold, dead hands," and would be horrified at what they've become.

He had a few shotguns for duck hunting, one deer rifle, and as a kid I had absolutely no idea where they were kept. When he felt we were old enough, my brother and I got BB guns, and he used those mostly harmless pea shooters to teach us how to handle firearms. I remember one day when he was cleaning one of his shotguns after a hunting trip. It was completely disassembled, and I picked up the barrel and looked into it. He about lost his fucking mind. I got in more trouble for looking down that barrel than I did for spilling paint in the garage, and as a result got sent to a hunter's safety course...sponsored by the NRA.

The course was run by a former (I think) drill sergeant, and began and ended with "you never, ever, ever point a firearm at another human being." Not by accident, not through negligence, and non-existent god not on purpose. You always knew what was down range, how far your round could possibly travel, and what was around you. Deer blinds, duck blinds, layout boats, skeet shooting...you name it, we covered it. Some kid wasn't carrying his gun properly as we hiked through a field and the instructor slapped his hand (again, 1970s) and showed him how to carry it properly. It was a course in now NOT to shoot people...yourself included. Many kids failed, and the instructor berated them like they were recruits that had washed out of basic.

We also got the NRA-sponsored magazines at the house. I used to read them, as I was a voracious reader of anything I could get my hands on. The magazines were about hunting, sport shooting, collecting, and were filled with ads for elegant shotguns and rifles with polished wooden stocks and beaded sights. There were the occasional pistols, but it was usually stuff like my friend's classic breech-loading revolver.

You might be wondering "but what about self defense? What about the stalwart gun-owner stopping crime?" Yes, there was a column called "Armed Citizen." It was all of two pages at most, and read like a small town police blotter in the newspaper. No patriotic defense of "liberty" or stopping of terrorists. Just some rural gun owner who scared off someone breaking into his barn.

The "gun nuts" read "Soldier of Fortune" magazine, and responsible gun owners like my dad laughed at those idiots. I grew up with a healthy respect for firearms. I've shot everything from those early BB guns all the way up to my brother's 50 cal muzzle loader (the joke was "I didn't hit the deer, but I lit him on fire!") and have enjoyed many wild game dinners. I never understood or felt the need to own an "assault-style rifle." Awhile back I did some commercials for a gun store, and went to their website to do some research. It was all military-style weapons splashed on the front page, I had to dig down to find the sort of guns my father owned, and the merch was all stuff with the word "tactical" attached. Tactical vests. Tactical sunglasses. Tactical (and I'm not kidding) wallets.

My dad's NRA has mutated from "oh my god don't you ever point that at another person" to "always be at the ready to shoot your fellow American." From "look at the detail on this beautiful Henry rifle" to "dur hurr...this looks like an M16." From a time when my late father had a few hunting firearms hidden away to a former friend of mine who proudly showed me his six foot tall gun safe with 10 semi-auto pistols. You know...just in case he had to shoot Diane Feinstein when she came for them. Seriously.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,527
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The current governor of my state truly believes that we don't have enough guns. He wants to make a concealed carrying available to everyone. No background check required. You can be as looney as you want to be to carry concealed if Kemp gets his way. He claims that if we have more guns it will help reduce violent crime. I'm not making this shit up. I read about it several times in the AJC. Near that article were the latest reports of gun violence. For example, light last night or maybe it was Saturday night, two women in ATL began arguing outside of a restaurant, then the men showed up and the bullets were flying. At least one victim was found dead or seriously injured. It's hard to keep up with all of these shootings. If only we had more guns! /s
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,137
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Seems to me that obvious answer is that fast food restaurants need a machine gun turret on the roof or drive thru window.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,904
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Seems to me that obvious answer is that fast food restaurants need a machine gun turret on the roof or drive thru window.
Naw man, I got you:
Just replace every stoplight pedestrian crossing button and automobile panic button with a nuclear detonation trigger.

That'll be sure to kill "the bad guys!"
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,459
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The obvious solution is to allow, nay, to encourage, widespread private ownership of thermonuclear weapons.

The whole problem would solve itself in a week. Hell, maybe only a few hours.

I've been advocating for a limited version of this for years.
Keep it down to "tactical" sized nukes for private ownership; no need to sterilize the entire planet when wiping out a continent or two, or even just blowing up a city or two, will satisfy the emotional urge behind their use.
Let's not wipe out the human race when we can simply reduce it to a few million individuals whose survival depends on co-operation instead of conquest.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,904
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The obvious solution is to allow, nay, to encourage, widespread private ownership of thermonuclear weapons.

The whole problem would solve itself in a week. Hell, maybe only a few hours.

I've been advocating for a limited version of this for years.
Keep it down to "tactical" sized nukes for private ownership; no need to sterilize the entire planet when blowing up a city or two, or even wiping out a continent or two will satisfy the emotional urge behind their use.
Let's not wipe out the human race when we can simply reduce it to a few million individuals whose survival depends on co-operation instead of conquest.
God damnit, I'm never going to get away from that college essay, am I?
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,772
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
The "gun nuts" read "Soldier of Fortune" magazine, and responsible gun owners like my dad laughed at those idiots.
You talkin' to me, Punk?

Guns aren't going away, and there are more guns in the hands of irresponsible, unconscientious individuals today than any other day in American history. There needs to be more liability and accountability... enforcement paid for by taxes on gun sales. Required training to own a gun that includes medical (mental) background checks... Extreme consequence for egregiously illegal possession... lots can be done.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Extreme consequence for egregiously illegal possession

We have the means for that already. But law enforcement and prosecution are now viewed as icky and bad. No bail. Restorative justice. Abolish prisons.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,137
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Extreme consequence for egregiously illegal possession

We have the means for that already. But law enforcement and prosecution are now viewed as icky and bad. No bail. Restorative justice. Abolish prisons.
While we have the theoretical means for that, we don't have the actual means for it. Why? For one reason, conservatives in Congress (which are mostly GOP) prevent even the simplest measures like having cross-referencing for gun ownership files.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Extreme consequence for egregiously illegal possession

We have the means for that already. But law enforcement and prosecution are now viewed as icky and bad. No bail. Restorative justice. Abolish prisons.
While we have the theoretical means for that, we don't have the actual means for it. Why? For one reason, conservatives in Congress (which are mostly GOP) prevent even the simplest measures like having cross-referencing for gun ownership files.

In what world would criminals give a shit if Congress passed more regulations on lawful gun owners?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,137
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Extreme consequence for egregiously illegal possession

We have the means for that already. But law enforcement and prosecution are now viewed as icky and bad. No bail. Restorative justice. Abolish prisons.
While we have the theoretical means for that, we don't have the actual means for it. Why? For one reason, conservatives in Congress (which are mostly GOP) prevent even the simplest measures like having cross-referencing for gun ownership files.

In what world would criminals give a shit if Congress passed more regulations on lawful gun owners?
In the world that made it harder or more expensive for them to get guns. It would also make it more difficult for the mentally ill to get firearms. Come on, even you can figure that one out.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,363
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Extreme consequence for egregiously illegal possession

We have the means for that already. But law enforcement and prosecution are now viewed as icky and bad. No bail. Restorative justice. Abolish prisons.
While we have the theoretical means for that, we don't have the actual means for it. Why? For one reason, conservatives in Congress (which are mostly GOP) prevent even the simplest measures like having cross-referencing for gun ownership files.

In what world would criminals give a shit if Congress passed more regulations on lawful gun owners?
Every part of this one, outside the USA.

Why do you imagine it must be different inside the USA?

Gun violence in Europe isn't rare because guns are hard for criminals to obtain (they aren't). It's rare because the regulations around guns are such that merely posessing an illegal gun adds massively to the chances of being arrested, and to the consequences if you are.

If the general public see a handgun in Europe, they call the cops. Who respond with massive force. Because even in the unlikely event that that handgun is lawfully owned, its owner is going to be in serious trouble for scaring people by letting it be seen.

The same applies to long guns outside obvious situations such as a shooting competition or an organised and sanctioned hunting event.

Being seen with a gun gets you arrested. Being caught with one turns your petty crime into a serious aggravated offence attracting hard time.

Even gangsters don't habitually own guns in Europe. There are specialists who rent out illegal guns to gangs for specific crimes (such as bank heists); The bank robbers don't want to take the risk of owning these 'tools of the trade', because it's just not worthwhile for them.

The idea that criminals wouldn't care about the law is a typically American Conservative bit of simplistic nonsense. US Conservatives are incredibly naïve simpletons; That's one reason why they are wrong about pretty much everything.

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is simply untrue - and even if it were true, no nation in the world outlaws guns. But "If guns are regulated, only regulators will have guns" is much closer to the truth.

"Criminals don't care what the law says, because they're criminals so they ignore the law" is nonsense, and you know it. Shit, you just argued in this very thread that the laws against theft and robbery are too soft, and that this is causing crime to rise. Surely, if (as you claim) criminals don't care what laws are in place, harsher laws would have no effect at all on levels of crime.

"Criminals don't care about laws constraining lawful gun owners" is the gun-nut equivalent of the creationist's "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". It's not the brilliant coup of logic you appear to imagine it to be, it's just a way for you to advertise your failure to think things through.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,667
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
In what world would criminals give a shit if Congress passed more regulations on lawful gun owners?

60% of the ~48,000 gun deaths per year in America are suicides. (No, most of these would NOT have committed suicide elsehow anyway. This fact is well known.) There are also about 120,000 non-fatal gun injuries per year.

15% of the 48,000 gun deaths are murders in which murderer and victim are spouses or close relatives. Many or most of these were done with a legally owned gun. About 2% of the 48,000 are killings by police, all with legal guns. Yes, most of the guns used by criminals are obtained illegally, but many of these illegal guns are obtained due to lax or non-existent enforcement (bad background checks, etc.)

Handguns which are purchased legally as protection against criminals are far FAR more likely to (a) injure or kill someone accidentally, (b) be used by the legal owner or his close kin to murder or maim, or (c) be stolen by a criminal; than to be deployed against a criminal.

It is simply NOT true that stricter gun laws will NOT reduce illegal gun ownership; but even if it were true the legal guns do more harm than good.

The U.S. has MORE civilian-owned guns than it has ... civilians! This is more than three times the civilian guns per capita of any country on the planet except Yemen.

And No, I do NOT claim America's gun problems are easily solved. In OP I wrote "Reducing the number of America's guns is simply not an option", and perhaps that's true, at least in the short term. Frankly I'm amused that so many Americans think shootings at drive-thrus (because the shooter expected more catsup or some such) are the price Americans should be proud to pay for their Freedumb.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,363
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
In what world would criminals give a shit if Congress passed more regulations on lawful gun owners?

60% of the ~48,000 gun deaths per year in America are suicides. (No, most of these would NOT have committed suicide elsehow anyway. This fact is well known.) There are also about 120,000 non-fatal gun injuries per year.

15% of the 48,000 gun deaths are murders in which murderer and victim are spouses or close relatives. Many or most of these were done with a legally owned gun. About 2% of the 48,000 are killings by police, all with legal guns. Yes, most of the guns used by criminals are obtained illegally, but many of these illegal guns are obtained due to lax or non-existent enforcement (bad background checks, etc.)

Handguns which are purchased legally as protection against criminals are far FAR more likely to (a) injure or kill someone accidentally, (b) be used by the legal owner or his close kin to murder or maim, or (c) be stolen by a criminal; than to be deployed against a criminal.

It is simply NOT true that stricter gun laws will NOT reduce illegal gun ownership; but even if it were true the legal guns do more harm than good.

The U.S. has MORE civilian-owned guns than it has ... civilians! This is more than three times the civilian guns per capita of any country on the planet except Yemen.

And No, I do NOT claim America's gun problems are easily solved. In OP I wrote "Reducing the number of America's guns is simply not an option", and perhaps that's true, at least in the short term. Frankly I'm amused that so many Americans think shootings at drive-thrus (because the shooter expected more catsup or some such) are the price Americans should be proud to pay for their Freedumb.
We should note. however, that Yemen is a far nicer place to live than most parts of the world, as we should expect of a place where citizens have the means to defend themselves and their property against both criminals and the corrupt government.

Oh, wait.





Shit.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,527
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
It's not just criminals that are the problem. People are careless when it comes to gun owernship. People lose their tempers and shoot at strangers or shoot each other etc. So, sure it would be very difficult to reduce gun violence in the US, but that mean we should just give up? Of course ghost guns and other illegal guns will always be an issue, but we've go to start somewhere in an attempt to reduce gun violence. Actually, I'm not optimistic that things will change, but if the fucking county wasn't so divided, there could be a few things that could be done. Things like background checks and a required gun safety training course certainly could help. 3 children have already been shot in Atlanta this year and it's still January.

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/brea...ting-at-food-mart/Q3SGAIHDLBCZTPW6DXXPVRXXHE/

For the second time this month, a baby became a homicide victim in Atlanta. On Monday afternoon, a 6-month-old riding in a car was killed in the Dixie Hills neighborhood of northwest Atlanta.

Standing side by side at the scene, Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens and police Chief Rodney Bryant echoed a similar message: Enough is enough.


“These children are bearing the burden and the pain of adults who are choosing to use guns to solve disputes,” Dickens said. “The children are bearing this burden with their lives, and I’m here to ask, and to demand, that it stop right now.”

The third child was only slightly injured. The above case happened when two drivers started shooting at each other and a bullet accidentally hit the baby. The other death happened when the mother of two young children carelessly left a gun where the older child could get it. He shot his baby sibling, who died three days later.

I've noticed lately that when people get upset at each other, they frequently resort to gun violence. Seriously. Someone cuts you off in traffic or shoots you a bird because you cut them, gives you the right to shoot them! It's becoming like the Wild West in many of our cities. Thanks goddamn 2nd amendment.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,904
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Or, I know, we can just make a big mega factory for batteries that can be run entirely by vehicles that can be repaired by machines that are maintained by "dog" robots which also maintain each other. We can design a second Dog type that is repaired by the first one. We add a portion onto the factory that spits out dogs. We build a whole logistics network.

We arm some of them with nukes.

Then the minute anyone cries or screams, or wets their pants, they exterminate the lot of us black mirror style, then blow up their factory and all the logistics dogs self destruct until the remainder slowly wind down, in the nuclear winter that ends all life.

Edit: Or maybe we stop the insanity and try our best to spin down, and stop people from collecting evil wizards and their guns and threatening to destroy everything we love*.

*Except of those who only love chaos.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Extreme consequence for egregiously illegal possession

We have the means for that already. But law enforcement and prosecution are now viewed as icky and bad. No bail. Restorative justice. Abolish prisons.
While we have the theoretical means for that, we don't have the actual means for it. Why? For one reason, conservatives in Congress (which are mostly GOP) prevent even the simplest measures like having cross-referencing for gun ownership files.

In what world would criminals give a shit if Congress passed more regulations on lawful gun owners?
In the world that made it harder or more expensive for them to get guns. It would also make it more difficult for the mentally ill to get firearms. Come on, even you can figure that one out.

Brazil had some of the strictest gun laws in world. Result?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,904
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Extreme consequence for egregiously illegal possession

We have the means for that already. But law enforcement and prosecution are now viewed as icky and bad. No bail. Restorative justice. Abolish prisons.
While we have the theoretical means for that, we don't have the actual means for it. Why? For one reason, conservatives in Congress (which are mostly GOP) prevent even the simplest measures like having cross-referencing for gun ownership files.

In what world would criminals give a shit if Congress passed more regulations on lawful gun owners?
In the world that made it harder or more expensive for them to get guns. It would also make it more difficult for the mentally ill to get firearms. Come on, even you can figure that one out.

Brazil had some of the strictest gun laws [and most corrupt governments and police forces] in world. Result?
Back to you: answer your own question Trausti!
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,772
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
Extreme consequence for egregiously illegal possession

We have the means for that already. But law enforcement and prosecution are now viewed as icky and bad. No bail. Restorative justice. Abolish prisons.
While we have the theoretical means for that, we don't have the actual means for it. Why? For one reason, conservatives in Congress (which are mostly GOP) prevent even the simplest measures like having cross-referencing for gun ownership files.

In what world would criminals give a shit if Congress passed more regulations on lawful gun owners?
.. when the "more regulations" are somewhere in the vicinity of death penalty for the things that ONLY unlawful gun owners do (as opposed to things an otherwise lawful gun owner may accidently do)... Gang violence is a huge chunk of the problem - that sort of distribution of illegal guns and repeat offenses, etc..
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,459
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,137
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Extreme consequence for egregiously illegal possession

We have the means for that already. But law enforcement and prosecution are now viewed as icky and bad. No bail. Restorative justice. Abolish prisons.
While we have the theoretical means for that, we don't have the actual means for it. Why? For one reason, conservatives in Congress (which are mostly GOP) prevent even the simplest measures like having cross-referencing for gun ownership files.

In what world would criminals give a shit if Congress passed more regulations on lawful gun owners?
In the world that made it harder or more expensive for them to get guns. It would also make it more difficult for the mentally ill to get firearms. Come on, even you can figure that one out.

Brazil had some of the strictest gun laws in world. Result?
In order to have an actual point, you'd have to
1) substantiate your claim,
2) show that the laws were enforced,
3) have some indication of the outcomes without those laws.

Without the above, you have nothing. Moreover, as bilby pointed out earlier, your position is logically inconsistent. In other threads, you bemoan the lack of prosecution of criminals and the increase in crime. Yet here you are implying that gun laws will have no effect on crime.

To make this simple, either enforced laws reduce crime or they don't. Which one is it? If it is the former, you need to revisit your love affair with unlimited gun ownership.

For example, if the gun laws had been strict and enforced enough, do you think this erstwhile law-abiding citizen and stalwart Republican (up to the point where his road rage did him in) John Kuczwanski, might still be alive today?
 
Last edited:

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,258
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
For example, if the gun laws had been strict and enforced enough, do you think this erstwhile law-abiding citizen and stalwart Republican (up to the point where his road rage did him in) John Kuczwanski, might still be alive today?

This is a clear case of where better gun laws would help. His prior road rage case should have denied him guns.

Note, however, a problem that has cropped up locally--I forget what the offense was but it was changed to result in a denial of guns. That had the unintended consequence that prosecutors were undercharging rather than deal with the required court time it caused. They simply didn't have the resources to prosecute the charges they should have brought.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,667
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism

What could possible go wrong?
Perhaps the pressing problem of not super-sizing the ketchup doses is not confined to fast food drive-thrus.

Wisconsin school cafeteria workers are apt to be less stingy with the condiments after this.

Brazil had some of the strictest gun laws [and most corrupt governments and police forces] in world. Result?
Back to you: answer your own question Trausti!

I like to play charades. Sounds like? Break it up into syllables? Is it bigger than a breadbox?


In another matter, bilby wasn't sure that Yemen was a utopia despite being in the #2 slot for civilian gun possession. But Yemen has only 0.5 civilian guns per capita compared to U.S.A.'s 1.2. Perhaps Yemen, like America, needs MORE guns.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,459
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Perhaps Yemen, like America, needs MORE guns.
Well, duh!
Has there EVER been a problem that could not be addressed with MORE GUNS?

Note to self: stop by the friendly local shop and pick up a Glock19, a couple of ARs and enough ammo to get them sighted in and still have plenty for ... well, ya never know, right? But whatever it is, my air rifle/pellet gun is almost certainly not gonna be enough.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,027
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The obvious solution is to allow, nay, to encourage, widespread private ownership of thermonuclear weapons.

The whole problem would solve itself in a week. Hell, maybe only a few hours.
The costs to license a privately owned thermonuclear device are exorbitant. Heck, the costs to license a 50-cal belt-fed machine gun are exorbitant too, although many jurisdictions will allow you to own and operate one if you are not a felon and willing to pay for the permit.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,274
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
German police say university attacker got weapons in Austria

The 18-year-old gunman who opened fire Monday during a packed lecture at Heidelberg University in southwestern German bought three weapons about a week ago in Austria, German police said Wednesday. The gunman killed one person and wounded three others before killing himself. Two of these weapons were seized at the scene, along with around 150 rounds of ammunition. The third weapon, a rifle, was found by Austrian police in a room that the man, who was not identified by name in line with German privacy rules, had rented during his stay in Austria, Heidelberg police said in a statement. Police say the German man (who was a biology student at the university) purchased the two weapons used in the attack from a weapons dealer and the third from a private individual, both in Austria.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,363
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
German police say university attacker got weapons in Austria

The 18-year-old gunman who opened fire Monday during a packed lecture at Heidelberg University in southwestern German bought three weapons about a week ago in Austria, German police said Wednesday. The gunman killed one person and wounded three others before killing himself. Two of these weapons were seized at the scene, along with around 150 rounds of ammunition. The third weapon, a rifle, was found by Austrian police in a room that the man, who was not identified by name in line with German privacy rules, had rented during his stay in Austria, Heidelberg police said in a statement. Police say the German man (who was a biology student at the university) purchased the two weapons used in the attack from a weapons dealer and the third from a private individual, both in Austria.
Firearms are not at all difficult to obtain in Europe.

They're uncommonly used because they're rendered undesirable by the laws and regulations, not because the laws and regulations make them hard to obtain.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,258
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The obvious solution is to allow, nay, to encourage, widespread private ownership of thermonuclear weapons.

The whole problem would solve itself in a week. Hell, maybe only a few hours.
The costs to license a privately owned thermonuclear device are exorbitant. Heck, the costs to license a 50-cal belt-fed machine gun are exorbitant too, although many jurisdictions will allow you to own and operate one if you are not a felon and willing to pay for the permit.

Actually, the cost to license is $200 plus a background check that I'm sure the person pays for. Same as any other NFA item.

Nukes wouldn't be considered firearms in the first place, they're explosives. Explosives have their own licensing system.

(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes. Private possession would be impossible because the same rules should apply in civilian hands that apply in military hands--among other things, the two man rule. Ownership, though--if SpaceX decides it wants to use nukes to move an asteroid I see no reason to prohibit it. The military sends people along to place the bombs where the engineers say to.)
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,904
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
...
(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes...)
There absolutely is a difference between a selfish entity begging and paying for access to one or two nuclear cores for a tightly controlled mission of controlled detonation with strong anti-malignancy measures, and a selfish entity having the unilateral right to make, control, and deploy unilaterally a nuclear MIRV.

The original joke was on Nuclear Weapons, as I understood it.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,027
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The obvious solution is to allow, nay, to encourage, widespread private ownership of thermonuclear weapons.

The whole problem would solve itself in a week. Hell, maybe only a few hours.
The costs to license a privately owned thermonuclear device are exorbitant. Heck, the costs to license a 50-cal belt-fed machine gun are exorbitant too, although many jurisdictions will allow you to own and operate one if you are not a felon and willing to pay for the permit.

Actually, the cost to license is $200 plus a background check that I'm sure the person pays for. Same as any other NFA item.
Yes. But the cost for a dealer to get and maintain a license to sell fully automatic firearms gets passed on to the buyer, and the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.

Nukes wouldn't be considered firearms in the first place, they're explosives. Explosives have their own licensing system.

(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes. Private possession would be impossible because the same rules should apply in civilian hands that apply in military hands--among other things, the two man rule. Ownership, though--if SpaceX decides it wants to use nukes to move an asteroid I see no reason to prohibit it. The military sends people along to place the bombs where the engineers say to.)
I was not serious when I made the post, in case it wasn't obvious. I don't think civilians should be permitted to own nuclear weapons privately, or even fully automatic firearms for that matter.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,667
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
:confused:
Second Commandment said:
... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Dictionary said:
arms
/ärmz/
noun
plural noun: arms

1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"arms exports"
It seems pretty clear to me. Jehovah didn't inscribe "small fire-arms" on the Holy Tablet: He wrote "arms" and "arms" means "weapons." Foreigners and legalistic persons may have signed over their right to bear arms of mass destruction, but the Rights of the American People are inviolable. Prohibitions against machine-guns, flame-throwers, SAMs, cruise missiles, etc.are just more liberal overreach.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,667
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
:confused:
Second Commandment said:
... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Purists will note that the comma is ungrammatical. The complete Commandment (according to most sources?) is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Three commas, at least two of which are ungrammatical! IIRC one of the "commas" is allegedly just a smudge. Has the bad grammar of the Second Commandment ever been adjudicated by a judge?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,363
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.
That's a stupid and arbitrary restriction though.

I could see an argument for its constitutionality if it were 1786 though.

A restrction that civilians could only own firearms manufactured before 1786 would be both in keeping with the intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights, and a massive improvement to US society.

Even if you were to exchange the word 'manufactured' with 'designed', that would still be a big help.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,258
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
...
(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes...)
There absolutely is a difference between a selfish entity begging and paying for access to one or two nuclear cores for a tightly controlled mission of controlled detonation with strong anti-malignancy measures, and a selfish entity having the unilateral right to make, control, and deploy unilaterally a nuclear MIRV.

The original joke was on Nuclear Weapons, as I understood it.

Note that my position is that private possession is impossible. Furthermore, any large blasting requires permits. This would be no different. I'm just saying a private entity with a legitimate, safe use for a nuke should be able to buy it and have it set off where they want--unless somebody comes up with something new this would mean only deep space use.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,258
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Actually, the cost to license is $200 plus a background check that I'm sure the person pays for. Same as any other NFA item.
Yes. But the cost for a dealer to get and maintain a license to sell fully automatic firearms gets passed on to the buyer, and the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.
The cost is a matter of supply and demand. Note the 1986 bit--no new full-auto weapons enter the civilian market, thus the competition for the existing ones makes the price something like 10x what a buyer not subject to those limits would pay.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,258
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.
That's a stupid and arbitrary restriction though.
It's when the law was passed. They grandfathered the existing ones but prohibited any new ones from entering the market.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,459
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.
That's a stupid and arbitrary restriction though.
It's when the law was passed. They grandfathered the existing ones but prohibited any new ones from entering the market.
Whelp…
That horse has left the barn. Wooops.
Too bad guns don’t behave like nukes, and “go bad” after a few years.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,258
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.
That's a stupid and arbitrary restriction though.
It's when the law was passed. They grandfathered the existing ones but prohibited any new ones from entering the market.
Whelp…
That horse has left the barn. Wooops.
Too bad guns don’t behave like nukes, and “go bad” after a few years.

Legally owned full auto weapons are basically nonexistent in the criminal statistics. It's a non-issue. Restrictions on the legal ones does nothing about the illegal imports and conversions that are the only ones to show up in the crime data--and even then only very rarely.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,904
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
...
(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes...)
There absolutely is a difference between a selfish entity begging and paying for access to one or two nuclear cores for a tightly controlled mission of controlled detonation with strong anti-malignancy measures, and a selfish entity having the unilateral right to make, control, and deploy unilaterally a nuclear MIRV.

The original joke was on Nuclear Weapons, as I understood it.

Note that my position is that private possession is impossible. Furthermore, any large blasting requires permits. This would be no different. I'm just saying a private entity with a legitimate, safe use for a nuke should be able to buy it and have it set off where they want--unless somebody comes up with something new this would mean only deep space use.
Oh, yeah, but that isn't 2a and I'm not even sure that's safe. It's probably far safer on or near a planetary body of some kind where gravity can be used to contain the whole mess.

I guess the point is that we put oversight on possession and deployment of certain tools and I don't see any reason that tools of violence need for some magical reason as the 2a abuser would have us believe in that they must be handled any differently, except with MORE scrutiny.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,459
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.
That's a stupid and arbitrary restriction though.
It's when the law was passed. They grandfathered the existing ones but prohibited any new ones from entering the market.
Whelp…
That horse has left the barn. Wooops.
Too bad guns don’t behave like nukes, and “go bad” after a few years.

Legally owned full auto weapons are basically nonexistent in the criminal statistics. It's a non-issue. Restrictions on the legal ones does nothing about the illegal imports and conversions that are the only ones to show up in the crime data--and even then only very rarely.
Right. Sloppy posting on my part. I was thinking of what happens if they outlawed new semi-auto assault rifles. Wouldn't make a goddam bit of difference because the Country is awash in them.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,363
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
...
(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes...)
There absolutely is a difference between a selfish entity begging and paying for access to one or two nuclear cores for a tightly controlled mission of controlled detonation with strong anti-malignancy measures, and a selfish entity having the unilateral right to make, control, and deploy unilaterally a nuclear MIRV.

The original joke was on Nuclear Weapons, as I understood it.

Note that my position is that private possession is impossible. Furthermore, any large blasting requires permits. This would be no different. I'm just saying a private entity with a legitimate, safe use for a nuke should be able to buy it and have it set off where they want--unless somebody comes up with something new this would mean only deep space use.
Oh, yeah, but that isn't 2a and I'm not even sure that's safe. It's probably far safer on or near a planetary body of some kind where gravity can be used to contain the whole mess.

...
Yeah, it would be terrible if we were to contaminate outer space with radiation. :rolleyes:
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,904
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
...
(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes...)
There absolutely is a difference between a selfish entity begging and paying for access to one or two nuclear cores for a tightly controlled mission of controlled detonation with strong anti-malignancy measures, and a selfish entity having the unilateral right to make, control, and deploy unilaterally a nuclear MIRV.

The original joke was on Nuclear Weapons, as I understood it.

Note that my position is that private possession is impossible. Furthermore, any large blasting requires permits. This would be no different. I'm just saying a private entity with a legitimate, safe use for a nuke should be able to buy it and have it set off where they want--unless somebody comes up with something new this would mean only deep space use.
Oh, yeah, but that isn't 2a and I'm not even sure that's safe. It's probably far safer on or near a planetary body of some kind where gravity can be used to contain the whole mess.

...
Yeah, it would be terrible if we were to contaminate outer space with radiation. :rolleyes:
I am thinking more contaminating it with clouds of shit that are going to accrete and just be new obstacles in places things may need to move through. We shouldn't even be irresponsible and messy with outer space. Look where that got us with earth orbits
 
Top Bottom