Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Las Vegas shooting

Las Vegas shooting (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 03:38 AM
 
This sums up my thinking on all this perfectly. The class war, modern tribalism (as fostered by the MSM), has created this.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 03:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Because like most things in life, in hindsight it's much easier to say.

Hotel staff must see no end of odd sh*t going on. How long was he in the room? I've heard quite a while meaning individual staff may or may not have seen much of anything. And even if they did, who would imagine...
Well, it's time for them to imagine it. Next time someone goes upstairs with a couple boxes of Borax, 4 jugs of ammonia, and a gallon of lighter fluid, they may not be just stripping paint off antiques to flip them at the flea market.

Yesterday a friend of mine reminded me of how hotel security stopped us from going upstairs with half a dozen large comic book boxes (roughly the same size as a gun case) when we attended the 2015 SDCC. They made us open each one and show them the contents, and while at the time it was a little funny ("Are my X-Men comics a cause for concern, ma'am?") in retrospect it was quite understandable.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 03:59 AM
 
I tried... can't handle the delivery.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 05:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Well, it's time for them to imagine it. Next time someone goes upstairs with a couple boxes of Borax, 4 jugs of ammonia, and a gallon of lighter fluid, they may not be just stripping paint off antiques to flip them at the flea market.

Yesterday a friend of mine reminded me of how hotel security stopped us from going upstairs with half a dozen large comic book boxes (roughly the same size as a gun case) when we attended the 2015 SDCC. They made us open each one and show them the contents, and while at the time it was a little funny ("Are my X-Men comics a cause for concern, ma'am?") in retrospect it was quite understandable.
I'm getting the impression there's no way this guy could ping hotel security. He was enough of a known quantity to be getting "high roller" treatment.

This is so unprecedented I have to stop myself from thinking there's Manchurian Candidate type shit happening.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Well, it's time for them to imagine it. Next time someone goes upstairs with a couple boxes of Borax, 4 jugs of ammonia, and a gallon of lighter fluid, they may not be just stripping paint off antiques to flip them at the flea market.

Yesterday a friend of mine reminded me of how hotel security stopped us from going upstairs with half a dozen large comic book boxes (roughly the same size as a gun case) when we attended the 2015 SDCC. They made us open each one and show them the contents, and while at the time it was a little funny ("Are my X-Men comics a cause for concern, ma'am?") in retrospect it was quite understandable.
So really you seem to have 3 choices
1) Adjust your society so that you perform constant and intrusive surveillance on everyone, all the time so they can't smuggle boxes with guns and ammo in them into and out of places.
2) Make it harder (or next to impossible) to fill dozens of boxes with tens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition
3) Carry on as you are and accept that horrific events like this will continue.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 02:53 PM
 
I think the implied answer to the question is contained within the bomb recipe.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm getting the impression there's no way this guy could ping hotel security. He was enough of a known quantity to be getting "high roller" treatment.

This is so unprecedented I have to stop myself from thinking there's Manchurian Candidate type shit happening.
More like Telefon
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
So really you seem to have 3 choices
1) Adjust your society so that you perform constant and intrusive surveillance on everyone, all the time so they can't smuggle boxes with guns and ammo in them into and out of places.
2) Make it harder (or next to impossible) to fill dozens of boxes with tens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition
3) Carry on as you are and accept that horrific events like this will continue.
Option 4: Argue 1 and 2 against each other so that 3 happens as a consequence of the inevitable stalemate.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Option 4: Argue 1 and 2 against each other so that 3 happens as a consequence of the inevitable stalemate.
I find it odd that in avoiding 2 because you fear your own government so much, you end up pushing for more and more surveillance in order to make sure you aren't abusing the freedoms you thought you once had?
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
I find it odd that in avoiding 2 because you fear your own government so much, you end up pushing for more and more surveillance in order to make sure you aren't abusing the freedoms you thought you once had?
Reminder: The same people who think you 'can't legislate away evil' re: gun violence tried to do a blanket ban of Muslims in response to terrorism.

Reminder 2: In the US, you're more likely to die in a gun accident than to muslim terrorism.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
So really you seem to have 3 choices
1) Adjust your society so that you perform constant and intrusive surveillance on everyone, all the time so they can't smuggle boxes with guns and ammo in them into and out of places.
2) Make it harder (or next to impossible) to fill dozens of boxes with tens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition
3) Carry on as you are and accept that horrific events like this will continue.
Wow, you really only see 3 (equally bad) choices? Maybe that's why you guys were so easily fooled into allowing yourselves to be disarmed?

4. Allow the violent crime rate to continue to drop (as it has for decades now), educate people in key positions to better watch for these situations, reform mental health evaluation procedures, and most importantly, don't overreact and infringe the rights of close to 400 million people, in some dubious attempt to throw potential solutions against a wall to see if any of them stick.

Honestly, you don't see how "just do something" is often a bad idea? It's no wonder the UK is in such a crisis in terms of individual liberties, your first reaction is to cut them back whenever anything bad happens
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Reminder: The same people who think you 'can't legislate away evil' re: gun violence tried to do a blanket ban of Muslims in response to terrorism.
Limit visas and illegal immigration as a means of stopping crime? What a crazy idea. It's almost as if you believe those people have a right to be here, despite not being US citizens. Well, they don't. The only people who have a right to be in the USA are US citizens. How hard is that to grasp? Maybe there's a more reasonable, and Constitutional, way of dealing with some of the issues we face without infringing upon citizens' rights?

Reminder 2: In the US, you're more likely to die in a gun accident than to muslim terrorism.
Considering that neither is likely in the first place, you're much more likely to slip and break your neck in the shower, perhaps it's time we address such ridiculously dishonest comparisons? Let's look at both situations.

1. You're more likely to die in a gun accident. True, but you're >50x more likely to die in a car accident (deaths due to gun accidents are exceedingly rare), but no one's talking about banning cars.
2. If limiting visas from countries that endorse terrorism, which doesn't infringe upon any US citizen's rights, saves just one life, it's worth it. They're allowed to enter the USA as a courtesy, they have no right to demand entry, they're only visitors.

Hopefully this now makes sense.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Because I believe it acts as a deterrence to tyranny.

I'll note our current political situation has me more convinced of the importance of it than ever.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The world has seen multiple, horrible tyrants in the last 100 years. Is the rarity implied by grizzly bears apt?

I'm not sure how I should explain deterrence. An armed citizenry doesn't merely respond to tyranny, it makes it less likely in the first place by making it less attractive an option for the government.
Let me preface the following by saying I've come to the conclusion that there is no workable way to disarm the USA for the foreseeable future- even if a sizeable majority wish it to happen, so I'm not arguing for that. What I am going to call BS on is your arguments above.

An armed citizenry would protect against a very specific type of tyranny, one that I don't this the US is in any real danger of encountering- a hostile or military take over. These tin pot tyrants can rise to power in deprived, war-torn, or failed states. The kind of tyrants we see in the the first world don't conquer, they are voted in by the people. The guy you say 'has [you] more convinced of the importance of it than ever.' was voted in, on balance, by the people with the guns, and I don't think it's too far of a stretch to believe there are a good number of our armed country men who would be more likely to use their weaponry to defend him and his regime than to take up arms against any over-reach.

I can't really see a bunch of armed guys in MAGA hats storming the White House, but I can see them mobilised on the border keeping the bad hombres out. I can see them at poling stations making sure the next Obama or Hillary doesn't 'steal the next election'.

An armed citizenry could be be just as much an enabler of tyranny as a defence against it. I'd argue it's the more likely scenario.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
1. You're more likely to die in a gun accident. True, but you're >50x more likely to die in a car accident (deaths due to gun accidents are exceedingly rare), but no one's talking about banning cars.
Gee, what a refreshingly original point. Deaths due to gun accidents are considerably lower than they would be because you can get inside your gun and drive yourself to the ER for treatment if you have an accident with it. Oh wait, thats some other invention isn't it? One that requires all sorts of licensing, government tracking and insurance in order to own and use because despite its primary intended purpose, it can be quite dangerous.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Honestly, you don't see how "just do something" is often a bad idea? It's no wonder the UK is in such a crisis in terms of individual liberties, your first reaction is to cut them back whenever anything bad happens
I actually agree with you on this one. We have developed a governmental culture of depriving us of things as a matter of course, particularly anything we might enjoy. Legal highs are the latest things to go with talk being heard of legislation that effectively bans anything that could be used as a recreational drug from recreational use and without any research into the effects or side effects, harmful or otherwise first. In other words, "if its fun we want it banned" is the mantra of our government.

That said our heavy handed approach is just the other extreme of the spectrum and there has to be a happy middle ground where people can smoke in bars without the danger of being shot by some asshat.

If rights really are that inalienable as far as you're concerned, then that guy in the NYT was right, its time to revoke that right. Theres no likely scenario where it fulfils its intended purpose anymore anyway.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Gee, what a refreshingly original point.
Still hasn't been countered, either. We all accept a certain number fatalities for the sake of convenience (cars), and in the USA we accept a certain number for the sake of liberty, and they've been steadily dropping.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If rights really are that inalienable as far as you're concerned, then that guy in the NYT was right, its time to revoke that right. Theres no likely scenario where it fulfils its intended purpose anymore anyway.
It is inalienable, and they can feel free to try. It will lead to secession of >2/3rds of US states if the government attempted it, largely leaving only New England, the West Coast, and a couple others like Illinois, but most Americans will not give up our right to bear arms, under any circumstances.

Also, that's the second time you've made the statement that because a right is inalienable is must be revoked. It was illogical then and it's still illogical now.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 10:52 PM
 
Its perfectly logical. If you can't infringe it in any way, what else can you do but revoke it?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2017, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Still hasn't been countered, either. We all accept a certain number fatalities for the sake of convenience (cars), and in the USA we accept a certain number for the sake of liberty, and they've been steadily dropping.
Of course it has. Many other countries have liberty without guns. They aren't essential to it in any way.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 12:39 AM
 
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 12:49 AM
 
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Let me preface the following by saying I've come to the conclusion that there is no workable way to disarm the USA for the foreseeable future- even if a sizeable majority wish it to happen, so I'm not arguing for that. What I am going to call BS on is your arguments above.

An armed citizenry would protect against a very specific type of tyranny, one that I don't this the US is in any real danger of encountering- a hostile or military take over. These tin pot tyrants can rise to power in deprived, war-torn, or failed states. The kind of tyrants we see in the the first world don't conquer, they are voted in by the people. The guy you say 'has [you] more convinced of the importance of it than ever.' was voted in, on balance, by the people with the guns, and I don't think it's too far of a stretch to believe there are a good number of our armed country men who would be more likely to use their weaponry to defend him and his regime than to take up arms against any over-reach.

I can't really see a bunch of armed guys in MAGA hats storming the White House, but I can see them mobilised on the border keeping the bad hombres out. I can see them at poling stations making sure the next Obama or Hillary doesn't 'steal the next election'.

An armed citizenry could be be just as much an enabler of tyranny as a defence against it. I'd argue it's the more likely scenario.
I would point to 9/11 as the means by which a first world country with a democratically elected leader gets pushed towards tyranny. Level-headed leaders are incentivized towards reacting to such events with regressive policy, let alone ones afflicted with the need to overcompensate for their crippling case of self-loathing.

My premise is to allow the citizenry to be freely armed as a bulwark against tyranny. This will unquestionably fail if the preponderance of those armed themselves support tyranny.

If my premise is right, doesn't the fault lie with the people who failed to arm themselves because they rejected the premise?

If my premise is wrong, I must take responsibility for what the supporters of tyrants do with being allowed to arm themselves, in addition to the death and injury my premise is responsible for.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 01:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Of course it has. Many other countries have liberty without guns. They aren't essential to it in any way.
The important distinction is we have an enormous military to keep in line.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 01:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The important distinction is we have an enormous military to keep in line.
Given that a bunch of guys with concealed carry weapons were utterly powerless against a single amateur sniper, what good do you expect them to do against the military?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 02:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I would point to 9/11 as the means by which a first world country with a democratically elected leader gets pushed towards tyranny.
As you may recall, the Patriot Act was pretty damn popular with the right (and a good bit of the left) when it was passed. While the US is still suffering from the after effects, parts of the bill have been allowed to expire- not because of an armed citizenry, but because of the democratic process and, to some extent, the courts.

I would again ask the hypothetical- which was more likely after 9/11- people with guns rising up as a check against the overreach of the Government, or armed vigilantes randomly killing (perceived) enemies of the State?

Well, it's not a hypothetical, we know which one actually happened.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
As you may recall, the Patriot Act was pretty damn popular with the right (and a good bit of the left) when it was passed. While the US is still suffering from the after effects, parts of the bill have been allowed to expire- not because of an armed citizenry, but because of the democratic process and, to some extent, the courts.

I would again ask the hypothetical- which was more likely after 9/11- people with guns rising up as a check against the overreach of the Government, or armed vigilantes randomly killing (perceived) enemies of the State?

Well, it's not a hypothetical, we know which one actually happened.
In hindsight, my point could have been made more clearly.

I'm not arguing our response to 9/11 was such it deserved armed resistance. I'm asking for our overreaction to 9/11 to be extrapolated out for other attacks.

Think "dirty nuke in DC".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Given that a bunch of guys with concealed carry weapons were utterly powerless against a single amateur sniper, what good do you expect them to do against the military?
Like my post to Paco, I could have made my point more clearly.

Our government controls an enormous military. The governments of the other countries in question don't.

The armed citizenry keep a check on the military by being a check on the government.

Should it come down to armed revolt, I expect the revolutionaries to attempt to collapse the government through terrorism, not force the government to surrender because its military has been destroyed.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 02:59 PM
 
What about the actual design of these things? Apart from the mechanics (single shot, large magazines etc) some guns look like basic workmans tools while others (AR-15) look like fetish toys. I guess these have a certain appeal to those more prone to fantasies and basic inadequacy?

Maybe painting all guns pink (like toy guns have to be) would actually stop some peoples obsession with them?
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
What about the actual design of these things? Apart from the mechanics (single shot, large magazines etc) some guns look like basic workmans tools while others (AR-15) look like fetish toys. I guess these have a certain appeal to those more prone to fantasies and basic inadequacy?

Maybe painting all guns pink (like toy guns have to be) would actually stop some peoples obsession with them?
I've suggested this before. Way, way back. I think my version required them to look like dildos. That way you'll use it when you really need to, but you won't be acting like a dumbass posing with it in the mirror.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 05:17 PM
 
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Of course it has. Many other countries have liberty without guns.
No, they actually don't.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Sure he was, as if it matters anyway.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 08:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
As you may recall, the Patriot Act was pretty damn popular with the right (and a good bit of the left)
That's shady. "A good bit of the Left"? It was popular with 96% of congress, on both sides of the aisle. It's also been repealed, and action also endorsed by both sides.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 08:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Like my post to Paco, I could have made my point more clearly.

Our government controls an enormous military. The governments of the other countries in question don't.

The armed citizenry keep a check on the military by being a check on the government.

Should it come down to armed revolt, I expect the revolutionaries to attempt to collapse the government through terrorism, not force the government to surrender because its military has been destroyed.
Exactly. No one in the senate wants to go home to speak to their constituents, after say, passing a piece of legislation that kneecaps free speech, and get a bullet from a very angry citizen for their trouble.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
What about the actual design of these things? Apart from the mechanics (single shot, large magazines etc) some guns look like basic workmans tools while others (AR-15) look like fetish toys. I guess these have a certain appeal to those more prone to fantasies and basic inadequacy?

Maybe painting all guns pink (like toy guns have to be) would actually stop some peoples obsession with them?
The cosmetics are what worry you? These are functionally the same rifle (the hunting version is actually a little more accurate, since it has a better sighting system).



Are you saying the black one bothers you more than the other?

Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Maybe painting all guns pink (like toy guns have to be) would actually stop some peoples obsession with them?
You can easily repaint a gun, you know?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's shady. "A good bit of the Left"? It was popular with 96% of congress, on both sides of the aisle. It's also been repealed, and action also endorsed by both sides.
You seem to be confused. 63 Democrats (and a handful of Republicans) voted against it. That's not 96% popular. I think it's your math that's shady.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 09:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
You seem to be confused. 63 Democrats (and a handful of Republicans) voted against it. That's not 96% popular. I think it's your math that's shady.
My bad, I did make a mistake, it was actually the Senate , and it was 98%, going entirely bipartisan.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patri...natevote.shtml

I'm going to say you probably knew that already, regarding the senate, you simply decided to try and slide one by.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In hindsight, my point could have been made more clearly.

I'm not arguing our response to 9/11 was such it deserved armed resistance. I'm asking for our overreaction to 9/11 to be extrapolated out for other attacks.

Think "dirty nuke in DC".
Americans have let our voting rights be eroded through nonsense such as gerrymandering, allowed our 4th amendment rights be trashed at the border, and many seem perfectly happy to watch the 1st amendment be watered down because fake news. The list could go on and on.

No one fires a shot. No one even discusses it.

However, start talking about taking the guns away, and it's threats of civil war.

It doesn't take much to imagine that this mythical tyrant could convince the freedom loving gun owners that the other side is going to take their guns away unless we suspend all kinds of other rights and we round up the opposition and throw them in prison without due process - because, you know, they are going to take your guns away.

Why disarm the populace when you can turn them into your enforcers?

Of course it's far-fetched, but no more far-fetched than your scenario.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 09:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
My bad, I did make a mistake, it was actually the Senate , and it was 98%, going entirely bipartisan.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patri...natevote.shtml

I'm going to say you probably knew that already, regarding the senate, you simply decided to try and slide one by.
I slid nothing by. You said 96% of congress. Congress includes the House and the Senate. 62 Dem House Reps and 1 Dem Senator voted against it. It's how I got my numbers, because, yeah, I knew it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Of course it's far-fetched, but no more far-fetched than your scenario.
It actually is more far-fetched. Do you believe that Repubs are the only ones armed, that those are the only people who see the value in being armed? Unless you're going to try and tell me that people like Whoopi Goldberg and Sam Jackson are staunch Right-wing proponents of the 2A, there's no air in the ball you're trying to punt.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I slid nothing by. You said 96% of congress. Congress includes the House and the Senate. 62 Dem House Reps and 1 Dem Senator voted against it. It's how I got my numbers, because, yeah, I knew it.
98% of the senate is extremely bipartisan, more so than anything else passed in the last 20 years. So yeah, Dems were very much in favor of it. They've been every bit as responsible for the erosion of civil liberties in the last 2 decades. You can't even exercise free speech on most university campuses now, unless you're espousing Left-wing ideals, and that's a direct invasion of the 1st Amendment, in one of the places it matters the most.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
98% of the senate is extremely bipartisan, more so than anything else passed in the last 20 years. So yeah, Dems were very much in favor of it. They've been every bit as responsible for the erosion of civil liberties in the last 2 decades. You can't even exercise free speech on most university campuses now, unless you're espousing Left-wing ideals, and that's a direct invasion of the 1st Amendment, in one of the places it matters the most.
I'm not sure why you are trying to turn this into a partisan thing. Are you worked up that I said 'a good many?' In this discussion I've tried to leave the partisan designations out of it, because I'm fully aware that there are a large number of democrats (while not as many as republicans, but still a substantial number) who are seemingly very sanguine about the slow erosion of rights but would likely come out shooting if someone tried to take their guns. While the issue is clearly politically weighted, the frenzied single-mindedness of 2nd Amendment supporters is culturally ingrained and transcends party politics.

As a side note (and not to take anything away from the bipartisan support for the Patriot Act, which I thought I had clearly acknowledged from the beginning), there have been a hand full of 100-0 votes in the Senate in the last 20 years. You really do need to check your numbers before posting them.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 10:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The cosmetics are what worry you? These are functionally the same rifle (the hunting version is actually a little more accurate, since it has a better sighting system).



Are you saying the black one bothers you more than the other?



You can easily repaint a gun, you know?
You can buy after market kits that will transform the Mini 14 into an assault rifle. The same for the Mini’s little brother the 10/22.

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 10:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Americans have let our voting rights be eroded through nonsense such as gerrymandering, allowed our 4th amendment rights be trashed at the border, and many seem perfectly happy to watch the 1st amendment be watered down because fake news. The list could go on and on.

No one fires a shot. No one even discusses it.

However, start talking about taking the guns away, and it's threats of civil war.

It doesn't take much to imagine that this mythical tyrant could convince the freedom loving gun owners that the other side is going to take their guns away unless we suspend all kinds of other rights and we round up the opposition and throw them in prison without due process - because, you know, they are going to take your guns away.

Why disarm the populace when you can turn them into your enforcers?

Of course it's far-fetched, but no more far-fetched than your scenario.
Most magnificent President Paco, praise be upon you, master and commander of all he sees. Your plan is as brilliant as the sun, and I, your humble servant, would never dare to call it into question.

But... umm... ahh... we've been letting the opposition buy guns this whole time.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2017, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I'm not sure why you are trying to turn this into a partisan thing. Are you worked up that I said 'a good many?' In this discussion I've tried to leave the partisan designations out of it, because I'm fully aware that there are a large number of democrats (while not as many as republicans, but still a substantial number) who are seemingly very sanguine about the slow erosion of rights but would likely come out shooting if someone tried to take their guns. While the issue is clearly politically weighted, the frenzied single-mindedness of 2nd Amendment supporters is culturally ingrained and transcends party politics.

As a side note (and not to take anything away from the bipartisan support for the Patriot Act, which I thought I had clearly acknowledged from the beginning), there have been a hand full of 100-0 votes in the Senate in the last 20 years. You really do need to check your numbers before posting them.
The Second Amendment has been just as subject to erosion as the others, and it hasn't caused a civil war, because like the others, the erosion hasn't really taken the right away.

At this point, the only way they could be taken away is extralegally. That's why the civil war comes up.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2017, 12:30 AM
 
Regarding bump-fire stocks and "silencers":

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2017, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I'm not sure why you are trying to turn this into a partisan thing. Are you worked up that I said 'a good many?' In this discussion I've tried to leave the partisan designations out of it, because I'm fully aware that there are a large number of democrats (while not as many as republicans, but still a substantial number) who are seemingly very sanguine about the slow erosion of rights but would likely come out shooting if someone tried to take their guns. While the issue is clearly politically weighted, the frenzied single-mindedness of 2nd Amendment supporters is culturally ingrained and transcends party politics.
Probably because if the 2nd dies, so will follow the other 9.

As a side note (and not to take anything away from the bipartisan support for the Patriot Act, which I thought I had clearly acknowledged from the beginning), there have been a hand full of 100-0 votes in the Senate in the last 20 years. You really do need to check your numbers before posting them.
For where to go to lunch? To release aid? To approve a pay-raise?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2017, 01:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Probably because if the 2nd dies, so will follow the other 9.
Because in other places where gun rights have been restricted, we all live in gulags and work in chain gangs now. This is baseless fear mongering.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2017, 01:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You can buy after market kits that will transform the Mini 14 into an assault rifle. The same for the Mini’s little brother the 10/22.

I know its convenient to dismiss the cosmetics but they do have psychological implications. In the UK if you fit a body kit to your car, your insurance premium goes up. Same for alloy wheels or sometimes even racing stripes. The insurance will argue that statistically it means you are more likely to drive the car faster, crash it and do more damage when you do because of the higher speed. I don't know if thats the same in the US but I imagine it is because any stat they can use to screw you is a great one in the insurers book.

It would be an interesting area of study for sure. I wonder what correlation might be found between taking selfies with guns of different types and perpetrating mass shootings. And indeed whether there is correlation between the "military style" cosmetic set ups and the more traditional hunter style ones.

If I were a researcher I would hypothesise that people taking 'hunter' selfies are less likely to commit mass shootings than people who take 'assault' selfies. Anyone expect different?
Would such studies be hindered or prohibited by any of the legislation or policies that seem to prohibit or hinder studies related to gun safety?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2017, 02:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Because in other places where gun rights have been restricted, we all live in gulags and work in chain gangs now. This is baseless fear mongering.
No it isn't. The USA isn't the UK, we have a culture that's grown around our ownership of guns, and we certainly don't want what's been happening over there and the EU (and getting worse). I believe some of you, particularly those who currently disagree with the state, are closer to being thrown into gulags than you think. As an example, this poor bastard, whom I know (he goes by the Youtube name "Count Dankula", who is likely going to spend time in prison for nothing more than teaching his dog to "heil Hitler" as a joke. Nice free expression you guys have over there.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2017, 04:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No it isn't. The USA isn't the UK, we have a culture that's grown around our ownership of guns, and we certainly don't want what's been happening over there and the EU (and getting worse). I believe some of you, particularly those who currently disagree with the state, are closer to being thrown into gulags than you think. As an example, this poor bastard, whom I know (he goes by the Youtube name "Count Dankula", who is likely going to spend time in prison for nothing more than teaching his dog to "heil Hitler" as a joke. Nice free expression you guys have over there.
edit - perhaps he should have known better?
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:05 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,