Jump to content

Mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, CA

thewhyteboar
 Share

Recommended Posts

CitizenVectron

CitizenVectron

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

The fact that they were armed meant they couldn't easily apprehend/arrest the clan and end the standoff.  The guns were an equalization of force. 

 

So then you are in favour of gangs having guns to defend against police, as an equalization of force? We don't know that gangs are guilty of crimes at the time of the police arriving, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mclumber1

mclumber1

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

So then you are in favour of gangs having guns to defend against police, as an equalization of force? We don't know that gangs are guilty of crimes at the time of the police arriving, after all.

 

I'm not in favor of that, no.  Gangs don't normally use guns to defend themselves against police - they use them to intimidate and kill rival gangs and individuals.  The last thing most gang members want is to have a confrontation with Police.

 

I understand the point you are making though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skillzdadirecta

skillzdadirecta

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I'm not in favor of that, no.  Gangs don't normally use guns to defend themselves against police - they use them to intimidate and kill rival gangs and individuals.  The last thing most gang members want is to have a confrontation with Police.

 

I understand the point you are making though. 

 

Ummm You're wrong there sir... most of the classic street gangs, particularly in minority neighborhoods, started out as militant groups tasked with protecting that neighborhood. The Bloods, The Gangster's Disciples  and The Latin Kings in particular. Shit, even the Triads in China and Yakuza in Japan started out originally as community responses/alternatives to their respective governments. Same with the Mafia. All of these groups started out as civilian "militias" or militia like organizations before they evolved into criminal organizations in modern times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwinIon

TwinIon

Posted
Posted

I've never really thought that the durability or number of guns in the US is a great argument for why we shouldn't outlaw them. Setting aside the constitutional issue and the political impossibility, the practicality never seemed that daunting to me.

 

 

 

No, gun violence wouldn't disappear overnight, but you'd quickly put up significant barriers to entry to getting a gun. They'd immediately become far harder and more expensive to purchase and more dangerous to carry or even own. Those soft barriers would reduce a lot of the more standard gun deaths from things like accidents or suicides, just because a lot of law abiding citizens that might otherwise own guns wouldn't anymore. Over time guns would filter out of circulation and it would become much more difficult and expensive to own one. It might take decades for gun levels in the US to resemble those in other countries, if they ever got to such a point, but I feel like the reduction in deaths would be inevitable, if slow.

 

There's a good chance that the gun population in the US never gets to the point that it would prevent someone like the Las Vegas shooter. If you're skilled, determined, well funded, and not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, you can probably do some real damage, but those kind of people are rare (though not rare enough). Outright bans and stiff penalties would measurably reduce gun violence at the mere cost of a hobby.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mclumber1

mclumber1

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Outright bans and stiff penalties would measurably reduce gun violence at the mere cost of a hobby.

 

Would it though?  I would think it would just make the black market for guns even more deadly than it is now.  We see time and time again that violence circulates around pretty much every banned object, substance, or act. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boyle5150

Boyle5150

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Would it though?  I would think it would just make the black market for guns even more deadly than it is now.  We see time and time again that violence circulates around pretty much every banned object, substance, or act. 

That's a pretty bold argument that I would like to see the statistics involving the banning of guns in other countries and the increase in deadly violence because of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwinIon

TwinIon

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

Would it though?  I would think it would just make the black market for guns even more deadly than it is now.  We see time and time again that violence circulates around pretty much every banned object, substance, or act. 

By that logic, no object, substance, or act should be banned.

 

I think the evidence for my assumption is the dramatically lower gun death rate in countries where strong bans and penalties exist. I doubt we'd ever get it from 12 per 100k down to the .06 of Japan, but inching it towards the 3 of Switzerland might be doable. Cutting it in half would mean 18k fewer deaths a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimpleG

SimpleG

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

You can't legally buy a pistol in any state that is not your own without having the firearm shipped to an in-state FFL.  I've bought a gun online before, and it had to be shipped to a gun shop near where I lived. 

KS guns shows do not require a state id to purchase a pistol

 

Kansas does, however, prohibit any person from knowingly selling, giving or otherwise transferring any firearm to any person:

 

Under 18 years of age, if the firearm has a barrel less than 12 inches long

 

Who is both addicted to and an unlawful user of a controlled substance

 

Who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of Kansas or any other state and was found to have been in possession of a firearm at the time of the commission of the offense;3

 

Who, within the preceding five years, has been convicted of certain felonies under the law of Kansas or any other state or has been released from imprisonment for a felony, and was not found to have been in possession of a firearm at the time of the commission of the offense;4

 

Who, within the preceding ten years, has been convicted of certain felonies, even if he or she was not found to have been in possession of a firearm at the time of the commission of the offense or has been released from imprisonment for such crime, and has not had the conviction of the crime expunged or been pardoned for such crime;5 or
Is or has been a mentally ill person subject to involuntary commitment for care and treatment as defined by Kansas law, or a person with an alcohol or substance abuse problem subject to involuntary commitment for care and treatment, unless he or she obtained a “certificate of restoration pursuant to Kansas law.”6 See the Kansas Prohibited Persons Generally section for further information about these certificates.

 

The last 2 pistols we bought were brand new,they asked the questions above,we paid in cash,got a paper receipt. At that point the guns essentially disappear because there is no record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimpleG

SimpleG

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I figured the guy used an extended magazine. Fuck those things, they shouldn't exist. There's absolutely no civilian need for them.

But what if there is like a 20 guys breaking into my house all at once, I wont have time to reload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kal-El814

Kal-El814

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

By that logic, no object, substance, or act should be banned.

 

I think the evidence for my assumption is the dramatically lower gun death rate in countries where strong bans and penalties exist. I doubt we'd ever get it from 12 per 100k down to the .06 of Japan, but inching it towards the 3 of Switzerland might be doable. Cutting it in half would mean 18k fewer deaths a year.

But some of those deaths are suicides which do not count because equivocation on this topic makes me rock hard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skillzdadirecta

skillzdadirecta

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Would it though?  I would think it would just make the black market for guns even more deadly than it is now.  We see time and time again that violence circulates around pretty much every banned object, substance, or act. 

 

Japan and Australia sure do suffer from a lot of gun violence... wait they don't :|

 

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

But some of those deaths are suicides which do not count because equivocation on this topic makes me rock hard. 

Suicide rates increase when there's a gun in the home... it is known.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mclumber1

mclumber1

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Maybe if we make violence and murder legal it would stop.

 

Violence and murder are illegal because they generally cause harm to another person.   Simply owning a gun, or using a drug, doesn't harm anyone else.   Once you cross the line and cause harm to someone else with that gun or drug that is when justice should be served. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...