Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

That safe "might" detour someone one but it's unlikely. If it's not bolted down then at 40kg it's easily removed. Which is the same problem that most safe's have and most people suffer from having to deal with (the inability to be or have a bolted safe.) Also, I've seen just how weak most of these "cabinet" safes actually are and how quickly and easily they are broken into even on the spot. As mentioned before, it's actually as simple as a crowbar on many of them.

I don't have time and this isn't the place but there is a channel somewhere on youtube sort of dedicated to this whole subject. They go into depth explaining how most of the safes on the market are from China and the quality of steal and structural integrity they have ( or don't as it happens to be.) My education is in Engineering and I was actually horrified when I saw how easily they are gotten into. I see them all the time at Walmart and other big box stores here in the States.

Again, this still doesnt' really attack the Economical issue I was discussing before hand. A defensive weapon already costs as little or less than the safe you listed, over here. When "we're" discussing the people who are the most likely to be victimized, we are putting a higher tax on them to be able to rightfully protect and defend themselves.

That is why I support concealed carry so much.

Obviously it's going to be bolted, a safe that isn't bolted is useless and a waste of money.

All gun safes here HAVE to be bolted and securely fit.

As for "Guns are cheaper than the safe", well if you're spending 200 dollars on a gun it's either cheap tat or well beyond second hand used. That safe holds 6-7 rifles/shotguns. If you're unwilling to pay that much then by a smaller one and have fewer firearms.

Keeping them safe should be a requirement.

A safe and an alarm blaring is enough to send most people running, the only people that would stay are the idiots that will most probably get caught by the police.

Sit aside a few minutes, but a great watch.

I've seen this video and Tom from that channel is retarded. That video is good, but it doesn't prove anything.

The safe I linked is certified by the police here to be sufficient. Try and get leverage on a safe in the corner in a cupboard or whatever. You make it sound like you can just pull it off the wall, set it down and get a good amount of leverage on it...

How many people would want to go to that much trouble if you have an alarm drawing all the eyes on the street to that house and people probably already dialing the police? Criminals don't want to get caught, yano?

[Priestiality]

It's not shifting blame. It's trying to pinpoint the cause that led to the effect. I know the gun didn't whisper to the person and tell them to shoot up places. It's a tool. An inanimate object. So what could have led to the cause? There's MANY drugs out there, that on their side effects slip, will straight up say "may cause suicidal tendencies" or worse. You calling it a conspiracy theory is shifting something that could legitimately be a cause of some of these things as a joke. People who are more concerned with STOPPING these things, would be looking to the cause. Not the tools or effect.

http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/sympto...de-effects.htm

http://www.naturalnews.com/002082_an...s_the_FDA.html

http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/is-...mass-shootings

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 06:14 PM ----------



That's exactly what people who have a specific agenda do, and I'm glad you've pointed it out. Your argument is so weak, many of you are having to latch on to the fact that I linked a "Specific" site, to discredit any point I am making to try and strengthen yours. Way to point out your weaknesses, fellas.

So, by pasting a bunch of other, known infowars affiliates, it somehow lends credibility? As I pointed out in previous posts (which were dodged by the posters they were directed at) natural news and food matters constantly cross-post/share stories with infowars.

[hakujinbakasama]

Sounds like a depressing way to live.

That's an opinion. I have a very specific view or mindset on humans. That doesn't mean I behave any more or less abnormal than the average. However, it does mean that when I speak I do so very viciously. The whole talk of "violence" in the United States makes me laugh at the small mindedness of people. While cannibalism and a few incidents of savagery exist each year here, the one thing we generally don't have "regularly" or at least on a regular bases public executions, beheading, torture/murders, stoning, and even the dragging of people behind vehicles as a way of capital punishment.

I think because of that, people get this false idea that we, as a species, have evolved and shed that way of life. That those acts exist in darker times and in fantasy movies, television, and video games. I mean, the one really shocking thing is that some of the places with the most "horrific" brutal violence also have cell phones and the internet. If they didn't, we wouldn't have the pictures and videos of the acts.

[Kasierith]

It's not shifting blame. It's trying to pinpoint the cause that led to the effect. I know the gun didn't whisper to the person and tell them to shoot up places. It's a tool. An inanimate object. So what could have led to the cause? There's MANY drugs out there, that on their side effects slip, will straight up say "may cause suicidal tendencies" or worse. You calling it a conspiracy theory is shifting something that could legitimately be a cause of some of these things as a joke. People who are more concerned with STOPPING these things, would be looking to the cause. Not the tools or effect.

http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/sympto...de-effects.htm

http://www.naturalnews.com/002082_an...s_the_FDA.html

http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/is-...mass-shootings

So you think that any drug that has even a 1 in 100,000 chance of causing a suicide should be pulled from the market? No matter its therapeutic use?

I suppose you're an individual who fully advocates alternative medicine over pharmaceutical products.

[ShaggySweetness]

Prove to me that that is the definite result of said medication. That said drug has a 100% incident of those side effects. Until then.... you have nothing, and are attempting to extrapolate the minority to the entirety.

Ok, so... if a drug has a 1% chance out of millions of people to have a side effect that causes people to shoot up schools, you'd be ok with that since it's not 100%? I thought the anti gun people were supposed to be all for saving "1" life by banning peoples weapons? Well if thats the case, if we could save "1" life by banning medications that may cause 1% of millions of people to go crazy, wouldn't it be worth it? By your argument, it would not be. Less than 1% of gun owners have been in a crime involving a weapon. Why ban their arms then by that argument?

[Priestiality]

What does that have to do with you claiming your defamation is protected by the first amendment? Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's not defamation. By definition statements like that can be construed as mental illness. "There's this person that may or may not exist and may or may not do something but if I see them I will totally take a chainsaw to their face!" This is not something a sane, rational individual states.

[ShaggySweetness]

So you think that any drug that has even a 1 in 100,000 chance of causing a suicide should be pulled from the market? No matter its therapeutic use?

Exactly. Why pull my right to bear arms and own weapons because 1 in 100,000 may *possibly* be used in a crime? Thanks for supporting my argument.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Exactly. Why pull my right to bear arms and own weapons because 1 in 100,000 may *possibly* be used in a crime? Thanks for supporting my argument.

Are you really comparing Guns to Drugs now? Guns kill no matter what, Drugs have other effects.

[mistuhbull]

So you think that any drug that has even a 1 in 100,000 chance of causing a suicide should be pulled from the market? No matter its therapeutic use?

I suppose you're an individual who fully advocates alternative medicine over pharmaceutical products.

Also, isn't one of the main causes of the sucidal tendencies from the antidepressents due to them fixing the "lack of motivation" symptom before it fixes the "life sucks and i want to die" symptom?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Honestly? I think it would probably be good for the country. Either compulsorty military service or compulsory civil service. I may be the only liberal in the world who feels this way though.

I agree with that too. It's a lot better than the "any retard can own a gun" system the US has at the moment. Proper mandatory military training and service would do us some good.

[Kasierith]

Exactly. Why pull my right to bear arms and own weapons because 1 in 100,000 may *possibly* be used in a crime? Thanks for supporting my argument.

Except that drugs have been pulled from the market for having chances of lethal effects at under 1 in 100,000. Meaning that your gun argument is invalid.

I hope you realize by now that I'm being intentionally vague, and thus poking at your obvious lack of interpretive-level medical knowledge despite your attempt to bring the discussion into that area.

[Tinykong]

It's not defamation. By definition statements like that can be construed as mental illness. "There's this person that may or may not exist and may or may not do something but if I see them I will totally take a chainsaw to their face!" This is not something a sane, rational individual states.

It doesn't matter what he said, you called him unstable, and talking about someone's character or mental health in a negative way on a forum is libel. No one cares what you say here because it's a private forum, however don't act as if you are protected by the first amendment, because you are not.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I agree with that too. It's a lot better than the "any retard can own a gun" system the US has at the moment. Proper mandatory military training and service would do us some good.

I don't want to force people to join the military, that just seems really unfair even if you are unfit.

[Priestiality]

It doesn't matter what he said, you called him unstable, and talking about someone's character or mental health in a negative way on a forum is libel. No one cares what you say here because it's a private forum, however don't act as if you are protected by the first amendment, because you are not.

Please, by all means take me to court. Also, I see you are unfamiliar with the term sarcasm. Ie. I was being sarcastic when I said it was my first amendment right to call her unstable, after she used the first amendment to defend her threat of violence. So, you've got me, calling a single person unstable, versus her saying she would willfully cause harm or death to ANY lawyer. Which one of us will be going to jail first?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but occasionally DO make excellent satire.

[ShaggySweetness]

Except that drugs have been pulled from the market for having chances of lethal effects at under 1 in 100,000. Meaning that your gun argument is invalid.

I hope you realize by now that I'm being intentionally vague, and thus poking at your obvious lack of interpretive-level medical knowledge despite your attempt to bring the discussion into that area.

Then why aren't these drugs that have listed in the side effect suicidal tendencies, and have been proven to cause them pulled from the market yet?

You can poke all you like, but the fact that you basically agreed that a certain thing shouldn't be punished because 1 in 100,000 may be "bad" makes it all worth it. It compliments my argument for our second amendment rights perfectly.

[hakujinbakasama]

Obviously it's going to be bolted, a safe that isn't bolted is useless and a waste of money.
All gun safes here HAVE to be bolted and securely fit.
As for "Guns are cheaper than the safe", well if you're spending 200 dollars on a gun it's either cheap tat or well beyond second hand used. That safe holds 6-7 rifles/shotguns. If you're unwilling to pay that much then by a smaller one and have fewer firearms.
Keeping them safe should be a requirement.
A safe and an alarm blaring is enough to send most people running, the only people that would stay are the idiots that will most probably get caught by the police.
I've seen this video and Tom from that channel is retarded. That video is good, but it doesn't prove anything.
The safe I linked is certified by the police here to be sufficient. Try and get leverage on a safe in the corner in a cupboard or whatever. You make it sound like you can just pull it off the wall, set it down and get a good amount of leverage on it...
How many people would want to go to that much trouble if you have an alarm drawing all the eyes on the street to that house and people probably already dialing the police? Criminals don't want to get caught, yano?

You're extremely well spaced reply really didn't address anything I've tried to address. Not everyone has the ability to bolt a safe. Even if we ignore the financial level of the whole debate; there still hasn't been an acknowledgement that there should be a look at the legal issue some people have with this "proper level" of security. It's very easy to smugly say that if they can't have a safe they can't have a gun, but you can only do that if once again you wish to ignore the ramifications and context such things actually express.

In short, you and anyone else would be saying that people who live in condos or apartments are people who are not worthy enough to protect themselves because of their financial or economical level. That's a pretty shitty thing to be proclaiming.

Listen, I get it and I agree. Weapons should be in safe locations. However, the means available to 1 person aren't always available to another, and unless you can address everyone from an college student to a 80 year old retiree, you're idealizing out a vast number of people from being able to reasonably provide personal defense and protection. That's a very dire problem to much of these broad stroke opinions on firearms in general. Either people are personalizing or narrowing ideas down to extremely limited cases or situations while ignoring the general populace.

[Kasierith]

Also, isn't one of the main causes of the sucidal tendencies from the antidepressents due to them fixing the "lack of motivation" symptom before it fixes the "life sucks and i want to die" symptom?

That's one cause; another is that antidepressants are incredibly, incredibly tricky since people are so individual, meaning that you do not focus on the source of the problem and the medication does not help. There are a few that do increase suicidal tendencies, but this is ultimately a minute byproduct as if there were a substantial amount of such incidents it would not have been put on the market in the first place. These warnings, therefore, are intended to make the patient aware and able to communicate potential problems with medical professionals. It's why responsible psychiatrists enforce strict oversight when trying out a particular antidepressant or another drug that has potential side effects.

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 01:24 AM ----------

Then why aren't these drugs that have listed in the side effect suicidal tendencies, and have been proven to cause them pulled from the market yet?

You can poke all you like, but the fact that you basically agreed that a certain thing shouldn't be punished because 1 in 100,000 may be "bad" makes it all worth it. It compliments my argument for our second amendment rights perfectly.

Because there are drugs that have been pulled from the market for causing suicidal tendencies, of course. And there are those that were not pulled despite causing suicidal tendencies.

[hakujinbakasama]

That's one cause; another is that antidepressants are incredibly, incredibly tricky since people are so individual, meaning that you do not focus on the source of the problem and the medication does not help. There are a few that do increase suicidal tendencies, but this is ultimately a minute byproduct as if there were a substantial amount of such incidents it would not have been put on the market in the first place. These warnings, therefore, are intended to make the patient aware and able to communicate potential problems with medical professionals. It's why responsible psychiatrists enforce strict oversight when trying out a particular antidepressant or another drug that has potential side effects.

You're actually gravely wrong on this subject. You should go back a page or two and watch the video I posted from Ted Talks. This is a growing recognized issue with the Medical Industry and not just here in the States. Research is not well regulated and divulged and studies of side effects of these drugs are in those unknown research studies.

**edit**
I'd also like to add that there is a well known issue with improper diagnosis of certain mental issues with children or young adults here in the states atleast due to an extremely poor mental health system. There are dire consequences for improper treatment. The symptoms for ADD, ADHD, and Bipolar are extremely similar however the treatment or targets of the medication are very different. The wrong prescription can cause extreme results including violent behavior or even suicidal tendencies.

This is what a lot of people have been trying to talk about for a long time now. However, it only really becomes a discussion foot note after a mass murder involving a gun.

[Kasierith]

You're actually gravely wrong on this subject. You should go back a page or two and watch the video I posted from Ted Talks. This is a growing recognized issue with the Medical Industry and not just here in the States. Research is not well regulated and divulged and studies of side effects of these drugs are in those unknown research studies.

I don't know who Ted Talks is, and do not in any way recognize his validity. If you want to use an external source, try to use one that I care about. And if you want to asset that research is not based first and foremost on discovering and removing drugs with potential lethal side effects, perhaps you should do some research on your own besides cruising through circle-jerking web blogs.

[Svifnymr]

This is simply not true. The ATF doesn't have the man power to conduct an inspection of every gun dealers inventory in the US every year. The requirement is for the dealership to provide an inventory to the ATF yearly, which the ATF cannot legally verify with in store checks or short notice inspections. Actually, the inspections provided by dealers to the ATF can only be reviewed, and with the current manpower of the ATF, they're only reviewed about once every decade or so.

BTW, it was the NRA that pushed laws restricting the ATF from in store inspections or verifications. There are many, many laws currently on the books that literally tie the ATFs hand behind their back when it comes to enforcing current gun laws.

ATFE does annual inspections on large dealers, at a minimum they do every dealer each 3 years to renew the license. The folks doing this are not law enforcement officers (not allowed to have guns), but they are ATF agents. There IS a limit that they cannot inspect more than once a year without cause, but with a proper cause they can inspect at will.

I've DONE the inventory with them before. They match each gun to each spot in the book. You are misinformed.