Gun Control... Or lack thereof

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Sothis
Bridge Officer
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:17 am
Contact:

Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Sothis » Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:08 pm

I'm sharing this pretty much all over the place to get a variety of opinions... I'd value any responses anyone might have.

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/you-america ... your-guns/

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Cocytus » Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:41 am

It's always interesting to see what people from other countries have to say about America's gun laws, since we're in a pretty unique position in the developed world.

It is simply untrue that no background checks are required at gun shows. As a gun enthusiast myself, I went through one just last weekend at the Nation's Gun Show here in Virginia. Anyone who purchases a firearm from an FFL holder must undergo a background check, whether the sale occurs at a gun show, at the licensee's place of business, or online. Any transfer that takes place across state lines must move through an FFL. If, for example, I were to purchase a firearm through Gunbroker from someone in Pennsylvania, I would have to contact my nearest FFL (read: gun store) to arrange for the transfer. The seller would ship the firearm to the FFL, who would transfer it to me after a background check (and for a fee, which is why closing the private sale loophole will produce a windfall for dealers). The only sales that don't require checks are private sales, which occur between nonlicensees living in the same state. The website Armslist, for example, was explicity created to exploit private sale.

Since the Federal Government has not made law in this area, and likely won't, the left's best avenue is to close private sale loopholes on a state by state basis.

I know the left has a bug up its ass about the NRA, but the simple truth is that Representatives and Senators in Wyoming or Texas simply aren't accountable to voters in Connecticut or New York. And let's take this "issue" of the NRA. If, as the left's facile premise suggests, passing legislation is simply a matter of buying votes, there are plenty of left wing activists with way more money than the NRA. The organization has a total budget of around $275,000,000, which funds everything the NRA does. The lobbying arm, the NRA-ILA, operates on far less. The left loves to delude itself that it's the party of the "little guys" fighting against big moneyed interests, but the truth is the left has plenty of money of its own. Hell, if he was really interested, and the left's premise were really true, Michael Bloomberg could outspend the NRA many times over.

The unfortunate reality is that the overall rate of gun violence and the specific incidents of mass shootings aren't causally related, and legislation designed to address one isn't going to affect the other, so we really need to craft targeted laws rather than default to the broad brush, back-patting proposals we regularly cough up every time this happens. Eliminating the private sale loophole should help the overall rate of gun violence, however slightly. We could also put resources into buyback programs targeted at particularly violent areas, like Chicago or Baltimore. Revenues from such programs can be used to fund public improvements, especially if such improvements are touted to those communities and tied to specific milestones. But mass shootings are carried out by seriously disturbed people who often plan well in advance, and planning entails circumvention of laws. The truth is that the one thing that could do the most is virtually impossible: wide-ranging confiscation. I have no doubt the left would have a civil war on its hands, one that it can't win. Absent that, perhaps we should crack open medical databases and feed that into the NICS system, so we attach extra scrutiny to anyone who's been on antidepressants within a given timeframe. Also, put some goddamn security in our schools. I cannot fathom the left's opposition to this.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by 2046 » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:21 pm

That's a flimsy, shallow argument, based on a tiny survey. I could make the similarly flimsy case that Sweden's stricter gun laws are related to its high rape rates, for instance. You could also make the same exact case as you made against baseball bats.

The simple fact is that the US Constitution renders the argument largely moot and the genie is out of the bottle, has been for awhile, so our problem at the moment is cultural. After years of mass violence by crazy leftists, there have finally been a couple of crazy right-wing shooters, one in Louisiana and the recent anti-Christian Brit who at least claimed he was conservative in order to date Christian girls.

So naturally it's time for the left to really panic over guns.

Regarding mass shootings, our problems are more related to mental healthcare and the prevalence of soft-target gun-free zones which the shooters often point to as a factor in their targeting decisions. The big caveat on the first of those two, though, is how can one trust the state to decide who's sane. Left and right believe the other to be mentally disturbed, for instance, and there are politicized folks in the mental health industry (Thom Hartmann comes to mind). Are "bitter clingers" sane? Are Occupy hippies?

So the easiest thing to do is harden targets, and the easiest way to do that is to allow defensive arms in places other than bars inasmuch as patrons are concerned. This will also help with crime more generally, as has been widely observed.

Sothis
Bridge Officer
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:17 am
Contact:

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Sothis » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:01 pm

2046 wrote:That's a flimsy, shallow argument, based on a tiny survey. I could make the similarly flimsy case that Sweden's stricter gun laws are related to its high rape rates, for instance. You could also make the same exact case as you made against baseball bats.
Drawing upon rape as a comparison to gun crime is somewhat misleading. My page compares rates of gun ownership and rates of gun-related homicides, between three countries, and the sources I use are far from the only sources to reach my conclusions. I would be interested in a more thorough argument as to why my argument and the sources are flimsy.

There is a link between gun ownership and homicide, and this is a conclusion I do not reach from one source alone.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... statistics

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... er-million

I can expand this to include other countries as well, should you wish.
The simple fact is that the US Constitution renders the argument largely moot and the genie is out of the bottle, has been for awhile, so our problem at the moment is cultural. After years of mass violence by crazy leftists, there have finally been a couple of crazy right-wing shooters, one in Louisiana and the recent anti-Christian Brit who at least claimed he was conservative in order to date Christian girls.

So naturally it's time for the left to really panic over guns.
I realise you have a problem with the left, but this is not a one-sided affair. There is a long history of mass shootings in the US, and I would be very interested in understanding why you feel this is due to 'crazy leftists'. Some of the mass shootings to take place have been carried out by self-confessed white supremacists (who would probably not claim allegiance to either political spectrum) and others have had mental problems (which, again does not allegiance to either party). In terms of overall gun crime (IE, not including mass shootings), I don't see how it is possible to conclude any one side of the political spectrum is more or less responsible than the other.

What is clear is that both parties in America have pretty much done nothing to deal with the problem. Whilst the status quo remains, who actually benefits?
Regarding mass shootings, our problems are more related to mental healthcare and the prevalence of soft-target gun-free zones which the shooters often point to as a factor in their targeting decisions. The big caveat on the first of those two, though, is how can one trust the state to decide who's sane. Left and right believe the other to be mentally disturbed, for instance, and there are politicized folks in the mental health industry (Thom Hartmann comes to mind). Are "bitter clingers" sane? Are Occupy hippies?

So the easiest thing to do is harden targets, and the easiest way to do that is to allow defensive arms in places other than bars inasmuch as patrons are concerned. This will also help with crime more generally, as has been widely observed.
What are you proposing? More guns in more places? What evidence can you provide to show this has in fact, worked?

In terms of mental health evaluations, surely most medical professionals will be exactly that - professional. I seriously doubt anything even remotely close to a significant percentage of them will be motivated by political agendas. More thorough background checks too.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by 2046 » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:34 pm

1. Guns, like knives and bats, can be involved in or used as a defense against many crimes. By your expansion of the topic to homicide generally, you opened the door to other crime generally.

2. I am well aware of the history of school shootings and similar events. I am usually the one pointing out the guy from 1921 in Bath (IIRC off the top of my head) that made most school attacks look like amateur hour. But as far as recent events of school attacks and other mass shooting incidents against soft targets (and that plane guy who hit the IRS building), it's been a curiously left-wing phenomenon until recently.

Folks have been clouding that lately by fudging the numbers and counting as mass shootings all the non-horrific stuff like careless shotgun sprays breaking the skin of multiple campers and the like, but that's not the sort of obscene event folks are referring to.

3. Research the times mass shootings were prevented by an armed individual. Makes a lot less news so it is harder, but it has happened a good bit. Indeed, the thing about news is that prevented events don't make headlines, which rather skews people's perceptions.

Sothis
Bridge Officer
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:17 am
Contact:

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Sothis » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:51 pm

Yowser that was a quick reply! I was pondering bed (well, peanut butter on toast then bed), but I'll quickly reply before I go.
2046 wrote:1. Guns, like knives and bats, can be involved in or used as a defense against many crimes. By your expansion of the topic to homicide generally, you opened the door to other crime generally.
I don't quite follow. The original focus of my page was about gun-related homicide. The links were regarding gun-related homicide. Drawing a link between the ease (or lack thereof) of buying guns in different countries, the homicide rates in those countries, and the percentage of the population of those countries who owned guns was the purpose of the exercise. It is a lot easier to buy guns in the US than the UK. The US has a higher rate of gun-related homicide and guns account for 60%-80% of homicide in the US. Is the lack of regulation in this area a contributing factor? Would better background checks help? How about better training for people wanting to buy guns? I saw an idea on another forum about teaching gun safety at an early age, to teach respect for guns and what they can do. Unlike knifes and bats, guns are designed as weapons - their purpose is to inflict injury or death. Are they respected enough for what they can do in US society?
2. I am well aware of the history of school shootings and similar events. I am usually the one pointing out the guy from 1921 in Bath (IIRC off the top of my head) that made most school attacks look like amateur hour. But as far as recent events of school attacks and other mass shooting incidents against soft targets (and that plane guy who hit the IRS building), it's been a curiously left-wing phenomenon until recently.
Again, what is your evidence that these events are perpetuated by left-wingers? Did they publicly declare their political beliefs at any stage? Is it documented as to what their values were?
Folks have been clouding that lately by fudging the numbers and counting as mass shootings all the non-horrific stuff like careless shotgun sprays breaking the skin of multiple campers and the like, but that's not the sort of obscene event folks are referring to.
A lot of people from both sides of the gun argument and both sides of the political spectrum are no doubt prepared to fudge the numbers to suit whatever agenda they have. That's politics, everywhere unfortunately.
3. Research the times mass shootings were prevented by an armed individual. Makes a lot less news so it is harder, but it has happened a good bit. Indeed, the thing about news is that prevented events don't make headlines, which rather skews people's perceptions.
I will concede that overall gun crime is declining (as is crime in general) in the US. [url]http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rh ... facts/[url]

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by 2046 » Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:05 pm

Regarding #1, it appeared to me that you branched out from gun homicides to homicides generally. Well, other non-homicide crimes exist where guns can be involved as an enabler or a deterrent, rape being a prime example.

I also branched out from your small-sample-size country list.

Regarding #2, the media in this country is always trying to pin events on Tea Party members, which works for a few hours until the facts emerge.

The Boston Marathon bombing was a prime example as CNN's Wolf Blitzer tried to suggest it was a tax protest within about 37 seconds. Dylann Roof was claimed to be a right-winger in no time in regards to Charleston, when in fact he explicitly hated America and patriotism per his manifesto and was consumed by racism more than politics. (Racism is hardly a right-wing phenomenon, despite media efforts to portray it as such.) Jared Loughner is a right-winger to the media but a left-wing liberal to those who knew him. The airplane IRS guy was portrayed as right-wing but wasn't.

Et cetera. Personally I think they're all just crazy folk, but insidious centrists such as myself have had to be on defense because of the foolish efforts to tie everything to Tea Party folks, which just isn't so.

Sothis
Bridge Officer
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:17 am
Contact:

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Sothis » Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:33 pm

2046 wrote:Regarding #1, it appeared to me that you branched out from gun homicides to homicides generally. Well, other non-homicide crimes exist where guns can be involved as an enabler or a deterrent, rape being a prime example.

I also branched out from your small-sample-size country list.
RE 1, it would seem there were some crossed wires as to what I was trying to say (not saying that's on you either, by the way), though I would still argue there is a link between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun-related homicides (although, interestingly, Switzerland has very high rates of gun ownership and a considerably lower homicide rate - but then, Switzerland has national service, which unquestionably teaches discipline, as well as gun safety!).

I'm not sure national service is an answer for America!
Regarding #2, the media in this country is always trying to pin events on Tea Party members, which works for a few hours until the facts emerge.

The Boston Marathon bombing was a prime example as CNN's Wolf Blitzer tried to suggest it was a tax protest within about 37 seconds. Dylann Roof was claimed to be a right-winger in no time in regards to Charleston, when in fact he explicitly hated America and patriotism per his manifesto and was consumed by racism more than politics. (Racism is hardly a right-wing phenomenon, despite media efforts to portray it as such.) Jared Loughner is a right-winger to the media but a left-wing liberal to those who knew him. The airplane IRS guy was portrayed as right-wing but wasn't.

Et cetera. Personally I think they're all just crazy folk, but insidious centrists such as myself have had to be on defense because of the foolish efforts to tie everything to Tea Party folks, which just isn't so.
The problem of blame cuts both ways. The right blames the left (at least one Republican has tried to suggest 99% of mass shootings are committed by Democrats, despite not being able to back that claim up - http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/18/ ... crats.html) and the left blames the right. Whilst they throw mud at each other, nothing changes.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5768
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Oct 17, 2015 4:54 pm

2046 wrote: Jared Loughner is a right-winger to the media but a left-wing liberal to those who knew him.
Speaking as someone who lives in Arizona where that unfortunate shooting occurred, I can say that neither is true, regardless of what pundits said in the early days following the shooting. Loughner has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and his views on anything prior to being medicated while in prison are very disjointed and the anti-government stance he had were not in line with any political parties' view, but borne from his increasing paranoia and made worse by delusions and disorganization brought on by his schizophrenia.

The warning signs were there and if someone had taken Loughner into custody, say during his outbursts at Pima Community College, he might have been properly diagnosed and been given treatment, and the unfortunate events of January 8, 2011 would never have happened.

The other fact touched on in this thread is that unfortunately the media also bears a good portion of the responsibility since Columbine and with every subsequent mass shooting there is almost nothing but 24/7 coverage of the event that can drag on for days. This kind of "glorification" can play right into the mindset of a disturbed individual who may be seeking attention of any kind, and will commit a shooting, bombing, or stabbing attack to revel in it.

And here's another thing to consider. Why the intense focus on shootings, but almost nothing on say, the mass stabbing attacks, like the Akihabara massacre in Japan, and similar fatal attacks in China? Where's the 24/7, days on end, pundits yabbering on those (outside of their respective countries, that is)?

Where's the snarky little "You Japanese and your sharp cutting implements" op-ed piece? Why the double standard?

Think on that.
-Mike

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Cocytus » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:10 pm

The issue of involuntary commitment is another potential avenue to reducing mass shootings specifically, but I'd be very wary. Laws vary by state, but generally people can submit forms requesting an evaluation of an individual for posing a potential threat to the community. That request can then be acted upon by some combination of judges or physicians.
Sothis wrote:In terms of mental health evaluations, surely most medical professionals will be exactly that - professional. I seriously doubt anything even remotely close to a significant percentage of them will be motivated by political agendas.
I'm not so sure myself. Many people in the West have this peculiar conviction that scientists are somehow superior to the rest of us when it comes to avoiding cognitive bias, often expressed as "scientists are logical, rational people who love to be proven wrong and discover things, so if they don't believe in X, X can't be true." This statement reflects on the sad state of skepticism in the West today, which is largely a political weapon used against the right. (Which is why groups like CSI are so angry about climate skeptics and have mounted this PR campaign to take the word away from them.)

And even if I could trust that scientists would not be motivated by political agendas, evaluation requests can be submitted in most states by any individual. Given the social-justice insanity sweeping through the political left, it is not difficult to imagine that liberals would take advantage of relaxed standards for involuntary commitment to submit requests for anyone who "triggered" them, to use the current parlance. I'm not furtive about discussing firearms in public, both because I enjoy technical discussion and because I try to promote safe practices even to people who don't own them. I find it all to easy to imagine a leftist, hopped up on their rage-fueled self righteousness, submitting such an application upon overhearing my conversations. This is part of how the left destroys free speech, which they will justify by saying "hey, your free speech isn't being taken away, you're just suffering consequences for it." Yeah, that means it's being taken away. I could use the same logic to justify any criminal activity. "Hey, your right to fuck children isn't being taken away, you're just suffering consequences for it."
Sothis wrote:What are you proposing? More guns in more places? What evidence can you provide to show this has in fact, worked?
Here is a survey of criminals that might shed some light on the matter: From the National Institute of Justice, 1985. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photoco ... 9NCJRS.pdf

From page 30:

A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun

Strong Agree: 21 Agree: 31 Disagree: 35 Strong Disagree: 9

One reason burglars avoid houses when people are home is that they fear being shot

35, 39, 20, 7

Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than running into the police

21, 36, 32, 10

A smart criminal always tried to find out if his potential victim is armed

30, 51, 15, 4

A store owner who is known to keep a gun on the premises is not going to get robbed very often

18, 40, 32, 9

Committing crime against an armed victim is an exciting challenge

10, 14, 34, 42

A clear majority of criminals prefer to avoid being shot. The answers to question 3 are particularly interesting, especially if the people are recidivist. They know there are precise rules of engagement police officers are required to observe, even if they don't always do so. That isn't the case for civilians, who are less exposed to threat situations than officers, and thus, more likely to shoot.

Of course, all of this pertains to incarcerated criminals, who are violent but not insane. Mass shooters frequently are. Many commit suicide at the scene, therefore demonstrating no sense of self-preservation. There are a number of schools that have employed School Resource Officers, which are LEOs assigned to a school. There's a lot of debate among psychologists as to the effectiveness of SROs in deterring crime in general, as in this PDF:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4873,d.cWw

Nota bene: this particular PDF is not talking about mass shootings, but merely general school violence. Also, it lists students 12-18, which means middle to high school. SROs are generally not a presence in elementary schools since the environment isn't conducive to intra-student violence. However, many jurisdictions have begun to employ SROs in elementary schools in direct response to things like Sandy Hook. There are valid concerns about the impact on the learning environment of protective measures, but sadly the left often strawmans the school safety argument by alleging that we're "turning schools into fortresses." No, what we are trying to do is ensure some measure of armed protection in case of another mass shooting. No one is saying it will prove 100% effective, but its part of a spectrum of strategies. There is no "silver bullet" to fixing this problem.

In looking for solutions to the problem of gun violence in general, and mass shootings in particular, we need to be cognizant of what we are likely to achieve, and that solutions for one problem may not be applicable to the other. There are 300,000,000 firearms in circulation in this country. Confiscation is in the exceedingly unlikely pile, for reasons which you yourself admit to, i.e. the gun is enshrined in American culture in a way it just isn't elsewhere. An expanded background check is certainly possible and desirable, but the left is going to have to give up a few things to get it. There's a perception among gun owners (and I certainly share it) that the left is never satisfied with anything it achieves, and if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. I don't have an issue with eliminating private sale, I just don't want the left to segue from that into another assault weapons ban or other such thing. Banning and confiscating guns is pretty useless in a nation like the US, which makes comparisons to the UK and Australia faulty. Also, even the left doesn't believe in the efficacy of such things. Just ask them why we can't ban drugs or deport 11,000,000 illegal immigrants. You'll be treated to a scoffing lecture about logistics, costs, and black markets, which they probably won't realize is a valid objection to their gun ban, but then, reflection isn't a significant feature of leftist thought. To target the crime guns that result from theft, we should make gun safes tax deductible to incentivize their purchase, since theft is a major source of crime guns: https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/ ... x?ID=97099 I'm not sure exactly what we could do to make illegal activity more illegal that would act as a deterrent. Straw purchase, for example, is already a federal felony. Adding or increasing things like mandatory minimum sentences for illegal purchases perhaps, but that only works on sane, if criminal, people. How do you deter a mentally unbalanced individual with no regard for his own safety, let alone others', from carrying out a highly illegal act? I can see relaxing rules on involuntary commitment and strengthening defenses at possible shooting sites. The point is that the mass shooting solutions are much harder problems, and the simplistic narratives pushed by the media (of all stripes) do not inspire thoughtful discussion.

Throughout all of this we need to be aware of a realistic goal. We're never going to prevent every incident of violence, just like we're never going to prevent every single border crossing. So what, given the unique conditions that exist in the United States, constitutes an "acceptable" level of gun violence?

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by 2046 » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:41 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:
2046 wrote: Jared Loughner is a right-winger to the media but a left-wing liberal to those who knew him.
Speaking as someone who lives in Arizona where that unfortunate shooting occurred, I can say that neither is true, regardless of what pundits said in the early days following the shooting.
Media pundits are the very source of my point, along with quotes from his friends. This is not to suggest he was not insane, but merely making the point that media bias runs strong.

I also concur with your point about glorification. I fully support the "Some @$$hole Initiative".

http://imgur.com/gallery/5dSs8p4
And here's another thing to consider. Why the intense focus on shootings, but almost nothing on say, the mass stabbing attacks, like the Akihabara massacre in Japan, and similar fatal attacks in China? Where's the 24/7, days on end, pundits yabbering on those (outside of their respective countries, that is)?

Where's the snarky little "You Japanese and your sharp cutting implements" op-ed piece? Why the double standard?

Think on that.
-Mike
Anti-gun folks get really mad when you point out anti-knife and anti-glass moves in Britain, or the use of citizen firearms to stop car and knife attacks in Israel, et cetera.

Kang and Kodos (The Simpsons, not TOS) will be pleased, until someone puts a nail in a board.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by 2046 » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:44 am

Most gun-free zones in the US are jokes because there is no security enforcing them. As such, law-abiding folks are disarmed whereas criminals and psychopaths get a free-fire zone. It's like an unfenced cattle property with a "no wolves" sign.

As to the question of more guns equating to more safety, this list is often trotted out: http://controversialtimes.com/issues/co ... with-guns/

I've seen some dispute the Pearl MS timeline, but I don't recall the details at the moment.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5768
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:58 pm

Yeah the Virgina Tech shootings were so totally prevented by that campus being a gun-free zone. Oh, no wait, it wasn't. I just shake my head whenever I see one of those silly gun or weapons-free zone signs.

You hit the nail on the head there, Robert; it does no good unless the campus is willing to have armed check points and walls around it, and even then that won't stop someone determined enough to cause harm. The reason college campuses don't have military base style check points, armed guards, attack dogs, surveillance cameras in every nook and cranny, and huge razor wire-lined fences is because it's too damn expensive not to mention very inconvenient for staff and students alike. They have to hope and pray that someone will be good and rational, will look at the sign, and say to themselves "Oh! I guess I won't commit mass murder today because this institution doesn't allow guns or weapons!"

Argh. Just argh.
-Mike

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3888
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Praeothmin » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:40 pm

I would say it goes with the population's general mentality...
I don't feel I need to own a gun in Canada, but were I to live in the US, I would definitely buy one and get a carrier license, as the chances of getting mugged or attacked are proportionately much higher in the US than in Canada...

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:30 pm

Ok, I thought this post has never given a chance to exist, yet there it was. Damn I must have been tired. Still, the next post being a better version, here goes that one.
Woops.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply