• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Roanoke VA Reporter & Cameraman Shot Dead on Live TV

RevDeac06 said:
Or, you know, actually read the text of the Second Amendment and restrict gun ownership to militia members, and then promptly arrest them for treason for forming an unlicensed militia against the US government.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my recollection of David Koresh's militia was that it didn't fare well against Janet Reno.

I've always wondered that about the text. It's awkwardly worded. Does the right of the people to bear arms apply only in the case of well regulated militias and not shittily regulated militias or to folks otherwise?
 
PhDeac said:
So what did you think the video was about?
Click to expand...

The video was a generalized attack on, or mocking of, Americans' love of guns, and love of their freedom to own guns. I didn't hear any specific changes being suggested. He talks about Australia, where, I gather, guns are either illegal or highly restricted. Other than Townie, I don't think anyone is suggesting anything so drastic in the U.S.

My question was an honest one and a specific one. Which of the changes that are being seriously considered in the US would have helped in this case?
 
There is no reason for 99% of people to own a handgun period.

The infatuation with guns in The United States is bizarre and has led to a lot of people being needlessly killed.
 
scooter84 said:
The video was a generalized attack on, or mocking of, Americans' love of guns, and love of their freedom to own guns. I didn't hear any specific changes being suggested. He talks about Australia, where, I gather, guns are either illegal or highly restricted. Other than Townie, I don't think anyone is suggesting anything so drastic in the U.S.

My question was an honest one and a specific one. Which of the changes that are being seriously considered in the US would have helped in this case?
Click to expand...

Based on my reading of this thread I think a lot of people don't see a need for guns in America.
 
scooter84 said:
The video was a generalized attack on, or mocking of, Americans' love of guns, and love of their freedom to own guns. I didn't hear any specific changes being suggested. He talks about Australia, where, I gather, guns are either illegal or highly restricted. Other than Townie, I don't think anyone is suggesting anything so drastic in the U.S.

My question was an honest one and a specific one. Which of the changes that are being seriously considered in the US would have helped in this case?
Click to expand...

None of them because they aren't common sense solutions. They're attempts to pacify people with a gun fetish and people who want to do something, anything to address the unique high rate of gun violence in the US.

And your question isn't an honest one because you twisted what people are saying into your own reductionist, restrictive understanding of the issue.
 
Made a poll on politics board if anyone wants to vote on it.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Based on my reading of this thread I think a lot of people don't see a need for guns in America.
Click to expand...

If guns weren't so loved in this country, people wouldn't see guns as a way to solve their problems.
 
PhDeac said:
If guns weren't so loved in this country, people wouldn't see guns as a way to solve their problems.
Click to expand...

And if Christians (who probably own a higher % of the guns than any other group) would get serious about their faith and peace-making, then the problem would solve itself.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
There is no reason for 99% of people to own a handgun period.

The infatuation with guns in The United States is bizarre and has led to a lot of people being needlessly killed.
Click to expand...

yup other than law enforcement or I guess like working for Brinks trucks, what other people need them?
 
PhDeac said:
None of them because they aren't common sense solutions. They're attempts to pacify people with a gun fetish and people who want to do something, anything to address the unique high rate of gun violence in the US.

And your question isn't an honest one because you twisted what people are saying into your own reductionist, restrictive understanding of the issue.
Click to expand...

The bolded is complete bullshit. I was being completely open and honest with my question - I really haven't heard of any proposed changes to the current laws (like, actually proposed on the national level, not suggested by someone you or I know) that would have prevented what happened today. Am I wrong? I certainly could be, I have never claimed to be the most informed person in the world. So, if I am wrong, please correct me - I like to learn.

The only suggestion or response to my question in this thread is to ban guns completely. I respect that opinion but I have a hard time imagining that ever happening in this country.
 
scooter84 said:
The bolded is complete bullshit. I was being completely open and honest with my question - I really haven't heard of any proposed changes to the current laws (like, actually proposed on the national level, not suggested by someone you or I know) that would have prevented what happened today. Am I wrong? I certainly could be, I have never claimed to be the most informed person in the world. So, if I am wrong, please correct me - I like to learn.

The only suggestion or response to my question in this thread is to ban guns completely. I respect that opinion but I have a hard time imagining that ever happening in this country.
Click to expand...

The reason it's a bad question is that murder is illegal in this country, but it didn't prevent the crimes either. Prevention of violence is only one reason and goal for stricter gun laws.
 
the countries without guns or with strict gun control compared to the usa is staggering in terms of gun homicides. personally I like what switzerland does, you can own a gun but illegal to own ammo, to shoot the gun must be at a sanctioned range
 
scooter84 said:
The bolded is complete bullshit. I was being completely open and honest with my question - I really haven't heard of any proposed changes to the current laws (like, actually proposed on the national level, not suggested by someone you or I know) that would have prevented what happened today. Am I wrong? I certainly could be, I have never claimed to be the most informed person in the world. So, if I am wrong, please correct me - I like to learn.

The only suggestion or response to my question in this thread is to ban guns completely. I respect that opinion but I have a hard time imagining that ever happening in this country.
Click to expand...

i think his point is that starting the discussion of gun control "what would've stopped today's random act of violence? if you don't have a reasonable answer other than 'ban everything, then why do anything at all"? is incredibly unproductive.
 
scooter84 said:
OK, so I watched the video. While it was funny and all, I did not see one single mention of a common sense change to the gun control laws that would have prevented this terrible tragedy. Did you?

As I understand it, this guy bought his gun back in June. And, as far as I know, he was not a felon, and, in fact, had no criminal record. He also, as far as I know, had no record of mental illness.

So, I ask my question again, 'what commone sense gun control law or laws would have prevented this tragedy?'. Neither waiting periods, background checks or bans on assault rifles would have helped at all. I am in favor of many of these types of changes to the laws, by the way.

Short of simply banning all personal ownership of firearms, which, as far as I know, no one is advocating; I don't see any way of preventing these types of actions...

I am open to suggestions - but don't give me flippant "watch the video" answers like I am an idiot gun nut.
Click to expand...

Well if you didn't listen to all of his suggestions, you might not be very quick. He did offer solutions, so let me dumb it down and
spell it out for you:

Make guns prohibitively expensive and difficult to get via the imposition of exorbitant taxes (those were big words so that means raise taxes on guns so that they are really, really high, so then the guns cost more at WalMart). Sell 9MM Glocs for $15,000.00. Sell AR-15s for $50,000.00.

If that was the case, that probably WOULD have prevented this recently fired loser from going out and buying a gun in response to the Charleston shootings.
 
Last edited:
I'm no economist, but can't price floors serve to create incentive for black market trading? That doesn't sound like a positive alternative.
 
scooter84 said:
OK, so I watched the video. While it was funny and all, I did not see one single mention of a common sense change to the gun control laws that would have prevented this terrible tragedy. Did you?

As I understand it, this guy bought his gun back in June. And, as far as I know, he was not a felon, and, in fact, had no criminal record. He also, as far as I know, had no record of mental illness.

So, I ask my question again, 'what commone sense gun control law or laws would have prevented this tragedy?'. Neither waiting periods, background checks or bans on assault rifles would have helped at all. I am in favor of many of these types of changes to the laws, by the way.

Short of simply banning all personal ownership of firearms, which, as far as I know, no one is advocating; I don't see any way of preventing these types of actions...

I am open to suggestions - but don't give me flippant "watch the video" answers like I am an idiot gun nut.
Click to expand...

Well, he mentions the Australia law. DC was just forced to repeal its handgun ban, so it's not like restrictions haven't been attempted or even implemented with huge public support in certain areas. Australia groups guns into categories - for handguns:

To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club.

So in this specific case, where a guy ordered a gun just to murder people in retaliation for something recent, I'm guessing having to jump through hoops like belonging to a target club and applying after 6 months, participate in matches with other target shooters, etc - then yeah, I'd say there's a good chance that if this kind of law was in place a few years ago then by now he'd have to go to extraordinary measures to acquire something like a pistol filled with hollow points.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
Well if you didn't listen to all of his suggestions, you might not be very quick. He did offer solutions, so let me dumb it down and
spell it out for you:

Make guns prohibitively expensive and difficult to get via the imposition of exorbitant taxes (those were big words so that means raise taxes on guns so that they are really, really high, so then the guns cost more at WalMart). Sell 9MM Glocs for $15,000.00. Sell AR-15s for $50,000.00.

If that was the case, that probably WOULD have prevented this recently fired loser from going out and buying a gun in response to the Charleston shootings.
Click to expand...

You are a complete ass but I will respond anyway. Unless I missed it - I don't think he was suggesting exorbitant taxes on guns - at least he didn't spell it out that way. He said that assault rifles are hugely expensive on the black market over there but I assume that is because they are illegal and therefore very difficult to obtain. Low supply means high prices. Are you telling me that the prices are high because of exorbitant taxes - or are you just making shit up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top