Las Vegas Strip Shooting

[aztek]

Just now, Kismit said:

I don't own guns. I said I'm not against ownership. I measure the ability to commit mass murder in relation to the weopan, not the user

weapons do not commit murders, people do.

[RavenHawk]

2 hours ago, Saru said:

We don't want to host graphic content, our members do not want to look at graphic content - there is no reason for us to host graphic content.

Don’t take what I say too far.  I’m merely curious.  How do you know what your members want?  As I had said in the prior post, how do you monitor what “society in general” wants?  Saying something like, ‘because they tell you’, isn’t much of an answer because there are members telling you that they want it by posting it.  I’m not saying that UM needs to “host” graphic content either.  I’m saying that the occasional link to news articles that may be graphic is a bit different.  Certainly, such a link can come with a disclaimer.  I.e. like the “[ spoiler ]” function.  Leave it up to the individual to proceed at their own risk.

And of course, it would be up to your judgment to assure that the members don’t go overboard with such links.  The point of posting links with graphic content is to educate and inform, not to be offensive.  People with thin-skins shouldn’t be on forums like UM in the first place.

Edited October 4, 2017 by RavenHawk

[Kismit]

2 hours ago, aztek said:

i can post dozens of videos of wild pig hunt that show completely different picture. but you do not allow graphic links, it is not nearly as easy and safe as you make it look

I didn't say it was safe or easy. I just explained the hunting techniques that are used here . Boar hunting is massive in the South Island of New Zealand and we dont have rapid fire weopans.

[Kismit]

3 minutes ago, aztek said:

weapons do not commit murders, people do.

Yes they do. So perhaps we should put a limit on the murder tools they can get there hands on.

[Kismit]

3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Don’t take what I say too far.  I’m merely curious.  How do you know what your members want?  As I had said in the prior post, how do you monitor what “society in general” wants?  Saying something like, ‘because they tell you’, isn’t much of an answer because there are members telling you that they want it by posting it.  I’m not saying that UM needs to “host” graphic content either.  I’m saying that the occasional link to news articles that may be graphic is a bit different.  Certainly, such a link can come with a disclaimer.  I.e. like the “[ spoiler ]” function.  Leave it up to the individual to proceed at their own risk.

And of course, it would be up to your judgment to assure that the members don’t go overboard with such links.  The point of posting links with graphic content is to educate and inform, not to be offensive.  People with thin-skins shouldn’t be on forums like UM in the first place.

Ravenhawk

Knock it off.

[aztek]

 

Just now, Kismit said:

Yes they do. So perhaps we should put a limit on the murder tools they can get there hands on.

what one uses to commit crimes others use to protect themselves. so no, i would not want to take it from millions, just because 1 used it in a criminal way

Edited October 4, 2017 by aztek

[Saru]

19 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Don’t take what I say too far.  I’m merely curious.  How do you know what your members want?  As I had said in the prior post, how do you monitor what “society in general” wants?  Saying something like, ‘because they tell you’, isn’t much of an answer because there are members telling you that they want it by posting it.  I’m not saying that UM needs to “host” graphic content either.  I’m saying that the occasional link to news articles that may be graphic is a bit different.  Certainly, such a link can come with a disclaimer.  I.e. like the “[ spoiler ]” function.  Leave it up to the individual to proceed at their own risk.

We are not going to be changing our policy on hosting or linking to graphic content.

End of story.

[Kismit]

2 minutes ago, aztek said:

 

what one uses to commit crimes other use to protect themselves. so no, i would not want to take it from millions, just because 1 used it in a criminal way

Again back to the self defence argument. Who needs a rapidfire weapon for self defence?

i'm sure we covered the topic earlier, even if your a bad shot a double barrell shot gun will defend your home. Unless the army is comming. 

A more easily concealed weapon would be apropriate for street protection. No one is talking about removing the right to self defence. Just opening dialougue to make improvments.

[aztek]

Just now, Kismit said:

Again back to the self defence argument. Who needs a rapidfire weapon for self defence?

 

going back to need argument, who decides what one needs,???   i do need auto loading rifle.  you never know what other guy has, or how many are there.  you may miss and have urgent need to make 2nd 3rd.....nth's shot.

what you think should be enough is not what i go by when i think of home defense, 

Edited October 4, 2017 by aztek

[RavenHawk]

4 minutes ago, Kismit said:

Again back to the self defence argument. Who needs a rapidfire weapon for self defence?

If you want to stay alive then you want to assure you have more firepower than the assailant.  The 2nd Amendment is not just about being able to defend yourself and home from an intruder but also from the government.

[Kismit]

Just now, aztek said:

going back to need argument, who decides what one needs,???   i do need auto loading rifle.  you never know what other guy has, or how many are there.  

That's because the anti has been uped so much. I understand it would be a very difficult and tricky transition. But arn't there little things that might help bring change in the future. Where it would not be necisary to think you needed a bigger gun.

Small changes like passing the legislation to close up the gun buying loopholes? 

[aztek]

Just now, Kismit said:

. But arn't there little things that might help bring change in the future. Where it would not be necisary to think you needed a bigger gun.

 

not really no. bad guys will still be same bad guys no matter what restrictions you put on me. see you can't take their guns, you can't take their desire to rob\ rape\kill, so what little things are you talking about???? 

what loopholes, who do they affect? criminals? or law abiding citizens who need to protect themselves against those criminals.

lets talk about those loopholes , which ones do you have in mind?  lets not be general lets talk about those laws you think are the problem, lets see if there is a PRACTICAL way to enforce changes you have in mind..

Edited October 4, 2017 by aztek

[Kismit]

2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

If you want to stay alive then you want to assure you have more firepower than the assailant.  The 2nd Amendment is not just about being able to defend yourself and home from an intruder but also from the government.

 

That's an extremist argument. It's the absolute extreme scenario.  

Why can't the gun buying loopholes be closed as a small start to saving lives?

[F3SS]

47 minutes ago, Kismit said:

F3SS

how so? Just stating it doesn't make it fact. I could claim all Elephants are pink in the pink Elephant debate by this standard and that's the end of discussion.

I hope you have better argument than that. I would apreciate being treated clever enough to be actually taught why you believe that.

The argument for second amendment rights by gun enthusiasts is based in general on the right to defend, the right to hunt and the right to own. That's great. What reason would there be to limit those rights? Mental illness? Criminal convictions? The ability to create mass murder?

 

I wasn’t trying to be condescending just to be clear. It really does boil down to the second amendment though which grants us a right. Our rights do not require a need in order to exercise them. I know you want more nuance than that but it honestly is the dead end road of this conversation. In the guns save lives thread we had this discussion over 200-300 pages and the debate over necessity proved two things. One, that no explanation will suffice and two, that no explanation is required. It’s pretty circular in that regard.

[aztek]

Just now, Kismit said:

 

That's an extremist argument. It's the absolute extreme scenario.  

 

no it is not , it is perfectly valid argument, that is exactly what writers of constitution had in mind.  if you keeps throwing words like extremist,  where they do not belong, you make them lose value.

again lets talk about loopholes you think are the problem

Edited October 4, 2017 by aztek

[RavenHawk]

Just now, Kismit said:

That's an extremist argument. It's the absolute extreme scenario. 

It’s a common-sense argument.  If it were extreme, then the Founding Fathers were extreme.  They knew how governments can turn tyrannical and provided means for the people to control it.

 

Why can't the gun buying loopholes be closed as a small start to saving lives?

Because it won’t save lives.  Those that are going to kill aren’t bothered by loopholes or laws.  As I pointed out in an earlier post, there have been more people killed in Europe in terrorist acts by non-gun means over the last two years than by guns in this country.

[Kismit]

9 minutes ago, aztek said:

not really no. bad guys will still be same bad guys no matter what restrictions you put on me. see you can't take their guns, you can't take their desire to rob\ rape\kill, so what little things are you talking about???? 

what loopholes, who do they affect? criminals? or law abiding citizens who need to protect themselves against those criminals.

lets talk about those loopholes , which ones do you have in mind?  lets not be general lets talk about those laws you think are the problem, lets see if there is a PRACTICAL way to enforce changes you have in mind..

Link but I'm pretty sure you know this what I meant.

This loophole even if just a perception, benefits the criminals. Shouldn't that be reason enough to support passing the legislation. Surely if the government makes it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns, then the requirement for heavier armements would gradually over time become less?

Where is the problem with small legislative changes that help get the guns out of the bad guys hands?

 

[toast]

1 hour ago, AnchorSteam said:

That's why the Nazis did Gun Control first.

Gun control in Germany was established in 1920 already, in compliance to the Treaty of Versailles.

[aztek]

Just now, Kismit said:

Link but I'm pretty sure you know this what I meant.

This loophole even if just a perception, benefits the criminals.

 

no it does not,  it is myth spread by liberals, and anti gunners, have you been to us gun show?   this myth has been debunked many times.  next

MILLER: The gun-show loophole myth

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/

from Washington post no less,.

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by aztek

[Kismit]

Just now, toast said:

Gun control in Germany was established in 1920 already, in compliance to the Treaty of Versailles.

Yep. We have always had gun control in New Zealand and Australia.

[Michelle]

1 minute ago, Kismit said:

Surely if the government makes it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns, then the requirement for heavier armements would gradually over time become less?

It's already illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to have or even live in a house with firearms. Firearms are not allowed in the home no matter who owns them. The problem is the court system and overcrowded jails. They get a slap on the wrist and they know it.

[Kismit]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

no it does not,  it is myth spread by liberals, and anti gunners, have you been to us gun show?   this myth has been debunked many times.  next

 

Okay then.. What practicle steps do you think will prevent the next mass shooting? What is your solution?

[Kismit]

Just now, Michelle said:

It's already illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to have or even live in a house with firearms. Firearms are not allowed in the home no matter who owns them. The problem is the court system and overcrowded jails. They get a slap on the wrist and they know it.

Then there needs to be changes to free up the system and fix the slap on the wrist.

or we can all just shrug our shoulders and say there is nothing we can do? 

There must be something.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Kismit said:

Why can't the sale of guns be better regulated. Why can't the government carry out a buy back scheme. Why can't a non rapid fire limit be enforced?

I can agree with you that the bump fire device should be outlawed since it obviously is designed to evade the rules on fully automatic fire.  For the rest, if you take an honest look at our body politic today, can you understand why gunowners, whether they vote D, R or I, would not trust a government to stop with simple regulations?  If you can't then no further words of mine could ever convince you - and thankfully, I don't have that burden.

[aztek]

i'm not offering any solutions yet, i want to hear good reason from you why you think my guns need to be restricted.  

Edited October 4, 2017 by aztek