10 dead in Oregon Community College shooting

[dallen]

Nobody pushes anything "reasonable".

That's the problem.

It is just like abortion.

Extreme side to get votes and money. The other extreme to do the same.

This country lives off of being divided.

I guess that is the "American Way" but most people have no fucking clue what the founding fathers meant by a damn thing they sat down and wrote out.

They just take it to mean I can be a lazy fuck, I can do what I want, I don't have to follow rules and fuck you if you try to suggest otherwise.

Our country was built on compromises. I don't know why that has become such a dirty word in American politics. No one wants to compromise any more. Representative democracy is based on a fundamental compromise - let's have everyone vote and then losers accept they lost. Dictators don't compromise. Whatever the guy in charge says goes. That kind of decisive leadership is appealing because it gets things done, but it isn't healthy for a country. You can call it laziness if you want, I'm not sure what it is. No one is willing to give up any portion of their wants\needs in order to get the rest of them. Politics can't be an all or nothing system.

 

[dallen]

Like I said, I don't know a fix for it. I just know gun regulation will do dick and shit. The reasons for this are pretty obvious. We aren't Australia or any other country where they have things for young men to do other than be all isolated and crazy.

In a few short generations we've erased agricultural jobs and trade skills, and effectively extended childhood (for men) to 25. We have an economy based on small mobile, unstable families that can move where the work is. So a lot of men have nothing going on for them, and had little to no real social ties. This is why men also own the lions share of suicides.

Only an asshole would suggest a quick and simple solution to a big problem that's been generations in the making.

I think you are close, but I think all of it - the shootings, the political climate, the death of the middle class - all of it, comes from the lack of social ties. Everyone is just out for themselves. No one wants to build a community

 

[dallen]

I wouldn't have been in favor of it before, but I'm for upping the age restrictions on ownership of certain classes of weapons. I think it's hard to say you've really done a background check on an 18 year old. They haven't been around long enough to have a background. Young men are angrier and have less self control. Hell, an 18 year old's brain is literally not fully developed. They are nature's crash dummies, easy to rile up and radicalize, desperate for attention and dumb as bricks, by and large. I'd bump it up to age 25 for semi-auto weapons with an exception for military service. I think I wouldn't get too excited for bringing back the waiting list for people who aren't pre-cleared in a database like their state concealed carry permit registry.

Is this your idea? That's one of the smartest approaches to this I've read

 

[1bigfan13]

I know that there are already restrictions.

Why aren't these considered part of our constitutional right?

How am I supposed to maintain a healthy democracy by having a revolution with a pea shooter when the authority has tanks and all sorts of weaponry?

This has been my main counterpoint when someone suggests that we need weapons to protect ourselves in the event of a rogue government/revolution.

Joe Citizen and his semi-automatic rifles and other such weaponry wouldn't stand a chance in hell if the government and those with authority turned "heel", to use a wrestling term.

The government has tanks, nuclear weapons, bombers, control of satellite communications, wire taps, intelligence gadgets out the ass, etc. So I always find it comical when people try to use that as their main argument to own assault rifles and other stronger weapons.

You can have yourself an arsenal and bunker like Reba McEntire & Michael Gross' character in 'Tremors and it wouldn't make a difference. If things did go to hell in a hand basket you might as well take one of those assault rifles and squeeze off a few rounds into your own head because you damn sure aren't resisting a full on government assault.

Full disclosure: I'm pro gun. My father owned guns, my grandparents owned guns, and I have a handgun. But my personal belief has always been that I don't believe the average citizen should possess assault rifles. I get that there's always going to be the argument that "only the bad guys will have assault rifles". So no need to post that response. It's just my personal view and I don't try to beat anyone over the head with it. To each their own.

Honestly you can make that retort about anything that's banned.

- We ban drugs. Now only the bad guys are making money on it.
- The enforcement of prohibition approx. a century ago. Now only bad guys are making money from it.
- Ban prostitution. Now only bad guys are making money from it.

My point is this. At some point decisions have to be made to better/advance our society regardless of the benefits that we perceive the bad guys will gain from it. I'm not saying that banning assault rifles will improve our society, but what I am saying is that we shouldn't allow the "bad guys won't follow the rules" crutch to prevent us from seeking out options to make things better.

 

[Rev]

Let me know when we have no more crackheads or meth addicts.

 

[L.T. Fan]

This has been my main counterpoint when someone suggests that we need weapons to protect ourselves in the event of a rogue government/revolution.

Joe Citizen and his semi-automatic rifles and other such weaponry wouldn't stand a chance in hell if the government and those with authority turned "heel", to use a wrestling term.

The government has tanks, nuclear weapons, bombers, control of satellite communications, wire taps, intelligence gadgets out the ass, etc. So I always find it comical when people try to use that as their main argument to own assault rifles and other stronger weapons.

You can have yourself an arsenal and bunker like Reba McEntire & Michael Gross' character in 'Tremors and it wouldn't make a difference. If things did go to hell in a hand basket you might as well take one of those assault rifles and squeeze off a few rounds into your own head because you damn sure aren't resisting a full on government assault.

Full disclosure: I'm pro gun. My father owned guns, my grandparents owned guns, and I have a handgun. But my personal belief has always been that I don't believe the average citizen should possess assault rifles. I get that there's always going to be the argument that "only the bad guys will have assault rifles". So no need to post that response. It's just my personal view and I don't try to beat anyone over the head with it. To each their own.

Honestly you can make that retort about anything that's banned.

- We ban drugs. Now only the bad guys are making money on it.
- The enforcement of prohibition approx. a century ago. Now only bad guys are making money from it.
- Ban prostitution. Now only bad guys are making money from it.

My point is this. At some point decisions have to be made to better/advance our society regardless of the benefits that we perceive the bad guys will gain from it. I'm not saying that banning assault rifles will improve our society, but I what I am saying is that we shouldn't allow the "bad guys won't follow the rules" crutch to prevent us from seeking out options to make things better.

Didn't you see the movie "The Red Dawn"?

 

[Cotton]

I wouldn't have been in favor of it before, but I'm for upping the age restrictions on ownership of certain classes of weapons. I think it's hard to say you've really done a background check on an 18 year old. They haven't been around long enough to have a background. Young men are angrier and have less self control. Hell, an 18 year old's brain is literally not fully developed. They are nature's crash dummies, easy to rile up and radicalize, desperate for attention and dumb as bricks, by and large. I'd bump it up to age 25 for semi-auto weapons with an exception for military service. I think I wouldn't get too excited for bringing back the waiting list for people who aren't pre-cleared in a database like their state concealed carry permit registry.

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but even that wouldn't necessarily stop things like this from happening. He very well could have taken one of his dad's guns. I don't know that he did, just saying he could have and adding this restriction wouldn't have kept this from happening.

 

[Cotton]

Pushing regulation in the wake of a tragedy is exactly the stupidity that leads to the patriot act.

100% correct.

 

[1bigfan13]

Didn't you see the movie "The Red Dawn"?

Nope, never saw it.

 

[data]

Heres an interesting question: if citizens were allowed to carry guns on planes, I don't think 9/11 happens. However, more 'road rage' incidents probably occur which may lead to more incidents, but not to the 9/11 grandeur.

Would you you be in support of allowing guns on planes?

 

[Cotton]

This has been my main counterpoint when someone suggests that we need weapons to protect ourselves in the event of a rogue government/revolution.

Joe Citizen and his semi-automatic rifles and other such weaponry wouldn't stand a chance in hell if the government and those with authority turned "heel", to use a wrestling term.

The government has tanks, nuclear weapons, bombers, control of satellite communications, wire taps, intelligence gadgets out the ass, etc. So I always find it comical when people try to use that as their main argument to own assault rifles and other stronger weapons.

You can have yourself an arsenal and bunker like Reba McEntire & Michael Gross' character in 'Tremors and it wouldn't make a difference. If things did go to hell in a hand basket you might as well take one of those assault rifles and squeeze off a few rounds into your own head because you damn sure aren't resisting a full on government assault.

Full disclosure: I'm pro gun. My father owned guns, my grandparents owned guns, and I have a handgun. But my personal belief has always been that I don't believe the average citizen should possess assault rifles. I get that there's always going to be the argument that "only the bad guys will have assault rifles". So no need to post that response. It's just my personal view and I don't try to beat anyone over the head with it. To each their own.

Honestly you can make that retort about anything that's banned.

- We ban drugs. Now only the bad guys are making money on it.
- The enforcement of prohibition approx. a century ago. Now only bad guys are making money from it.
- Ban prostitution. Now only bad guys are making money from it.

My point is this. At some point decisions have to be made to better/advance our society regardless of the benefits that we perceive the bad guys will gain from it. I'm not saying that banning assault rifles will improve our society, but I what I am saying is that we shouldn't allow the "bad guys won't follow the rules" crutch to prevent us from seeking out options to make things better.

Very good post.

Allow me to comment on a couple of things. The idea of protecting yourself against the government isn't one of holing up in your house waiting for the storm to blow over. It's outnumbering them 100 to 1. If a true revolution were to happen that would be about the disparity of guns. Granted you have a point about the government having the much bigger guns. Let me ask you this, and I am asking out of pure curiosity. I'm not baiting you into anything. If this country's population were to revolt, how many of the military would side with the populace over their military vows?

Second, banning assault rifles doesn't stop this. A simple handgun causes just as much damage. This kid executed these people from very close range. Not sure banning assault rifles does anything. Most of these massacres are done with handguns.

Obviously, I am very pro gun, but some shit has got to change. This has spiraled out of control. I don't know what the answer is, I just know it's not more laws. Because whether you want to admit it or not, the lawless don't give a shit about laws.

 

[Cotton]

Heres an interesting question: if citizens were allowed to carry guns on planes, I don't think 9/11 happens. However, more 'road rage' incidents probably occur which may lead to more incidents, but not to the 9/11 grandeur.

Would you you be in support of allowing guns on planes?

Hell no. You are in the damn air. Huge difference versus being on the ground.

 

[Cotton]

How much more effective at starting a revolution would the LA riots, Seattle WHO and recent Ferguson riots have been if they were armed with more powerful weapons? Too bad the police were able to contain them.

Not sure if serious.

 

[NoDak]

This has been my main counterpoint when someone suggests that we need weapons to protect ourselves in the event of a rogue government/revolution.

Joe Citizen and his semi-automatic rifles and other such weaponry wouldn't stand a chance in hell if the government and those with authority turned "heel", to use a wrestling term.'

The government has tanks, nuclear weapons, bombers, control of satellite communications, wire taps, intelligence gadgets out the ass, etc. So I always find it comical when people try to use that as their main argument to own assault rifles and other stronger weapons.

You are/were military, right? If you received an order to drop bombs into an American town, would you follow it? Or drive a tank in and open fire? I wouldn't. And I doubt the vast majority of American servicemen and women would, either.

There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass, and all that.

 

[data]

Hell no. You are in the damn air. Huge difference versus being on the ground.

~i thought we were together on this~

Jury, disregard what you just heard.

 

[1bigfan13]

Second, banning assault rifles doesn't stop this. A simple handgun causes just as much damage. This kid executed these people from very close range. Not sure banning assault rifles does anything. Most of these massacres are done with handguns.

I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't mean for it to come off as if an assault rifle ban would stop these types of shootings. I just brought up them up as a point of discussion on gun control.

 

[Cotton]

~i thought we were together on this~

Jury, disregard what you just heard.

I mean, it takes one shot to take the whole plane down. On the ground, if you miss most of the time you just miss and it harms no one. In the air you can kill 180 people by missing. I am in favor of people being able to carry guns in just about every other scenario you can dream up, though.

 

[Cotton]

I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't mean for it to come off as if an assault rifle ban would stop these types of shootings. I just brought up them up as a point of discussion on gun control.

 

[1bigfan13]

You are/were military, right? If you received an order to drop bombs into an American town, would you follow it? Or drive a tank in and open fire? I wouldn't. And I doubt the vast majority of American servicemen and women would, either.

There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass, and all that.

Personally I wouldn't and I'd like to think that most American serviceman wouldn't either.

 

[Cotton]

exactly. So why are we accepting of the existing bans on grenades, Gatling guns and other stuff? I'd like to mount a turret gun on my car, mad max style. Hunting would be much more fun.

I am really not getting if you are being serious or if you are arguing the other side passive aggressively.