WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Discuss Continuing Conversations on Shootings from Shoutbox

TooSmartGuile

Tenderony
296
201
62
Like the title says, we had an initial conversation about the 2nd Amendment in the Shoutbox, but I think it's more important to highlight the reason for the discussion, which is the recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton.

Fire away! Oops, did I really say that?
 

Swah

Meet us @ IRC! Join the channel #wtfcom
Staff
7,994
4,488
387
That was my point exactly. Just because you have the right to keep and bear arms, doesn't mean you should.
 

Out2Lunch

☠️
2,493
4,020
207
I like Trevor’s video but I want to clarify the 2nd Amendment is about protecting human beings and it’s purpose isn’t to protect the gun but to give citizens the choice in how they protect themselves! This is because the constitution is about protecting freedom! I cant force you to own a gun and likewise you shouldn’t be able to force me to not own one. That’s freedom! If I died in a mass shooting I would find it insulting that someone used my death to campaign their mission to take the rights away from my fellow countryman. If I died in a mass shooting without firing a shot then I did so becaus I chose to not have my gun on me. And that’s the take away, I CHOSE to be unarmed instead of being forced to be unarmed.

Also my country has a unique relationship with guns because of our constitution. The idea that a weapons ban is going to work the same in my county as they have in countries which haven’t had our history or constitution is naive in my opinion. Back in 2012 it was reported that the US had 200 + million legal guns in circulation. What country has that many guns? Are you really going to tell me that an Australian response to gun laws would work in the US in the same way? A response that confiscated 650,000 privately owned guns? Ha! Think again!

Guns are here to stay in the USA and the sooner everyone accepts that reality the better we can work together on finding a solution to this problem.
 
  • 1Beer
Reactions: Crazizniac

TooSmartGuile

Tenderony
296
201
62
I feel the focus changing from gun laws to video games, which is surprising to me, since the Supreme Court upheld video games as a form of art. People are reacting hard to President Trump's commentary on video games, besides other law makers, but I hate that they've forgotten that Free Speech protects all video games, Supreme Court and all.

On guns, I think a great solution is more guns, less restrictions so people can protect themselves however they want, especially in states like California and New York.
 
  • 1Disagree
Reactions: CoprophagousCop

Jung

???
Premium
14,128
2,361
637
That was my point exactly. Just because you have the right to keep and bear arms, doesn't mean you should.
Tyson was right though. We react disproportionately because this specific issue is highly politicized. Every time there is a shooting pundits spend months handing out talking points, that you can easily see chanted all over social media.

Trevor's argument would be a lot stronger if there was clear delineation between firearms that are "safe enough" and "too dangerous." Unfortunately, almost all of the distinctions are arbitrary, and based more in semantics and gaining political ground than approaching the issue objectively. TSA-level hysteria and overreach is presciently what we should be trying to avoid here. Liberal politics in the uS have really changed dramatically in the past decade.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: ib4 and Out2Lunch

CoprophagousCop

Why am I seeing a panda in my avatar picture?
Premium
2,296
2,086
357
Trevor's argument would be a lot stronger if there was clear delineation between firearms that are "safe enough" and "too dangerous."
The problem with that is that guns can range from being single-shot pistols to rapid-fire, fully-automated machine guns capable of firing thousands of bullets a minute with many, many types of guns in between. There is the obvious question of where does one draw the line, but no one should be questioning that a line needs to be drawn. When the Second Amendment was written, rapid fire weaponry did not exist. Electric motors did not even exist. The Second Amendment needs updating or should people be allowed to own anti-aircraft missiles?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: pissed 'n horny

Out2Lunch

☠️
2,493
4,020
207
The problem with that is that guns can range from being single-shot pistols to rapid-fire, fully-automated machine guns capable of firing thousands of bullets a minute with many, many types of guns in between. There is the obvious question of where does one draw the line, but no one should be questioning that a line needs to be drawn. When the Second Amendment was written, rapid fire weaponry did not exist. Electric motors did not even exist. The Second Amendment needs updating or should people be allowed to own anti-aircraft missiles?
Gun laws in most of the United States already restrict fully automatic weapons or weapons that have a burst capability to those with a type 1 FFL (Federal firearms license) . Also that fully automatic weapon would have had to been manufactured before 1986; which means no fully automatic weapons made after that year are leagally allowed for private ownership.

This is why the majority of citizens own semi automatic weapons, which I don’t think is asking too much. No one is asking for anti-aircraft missals.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Crazizniac

Jung

???
Premium
14,128
2,361
637
The problem with that is that guns can range from being single-shot pistols to rapid-fire, fully-automated machine guns capable of firing thousands of bullets a minute with many, many types of guns in between. There is the obvious question of where does one draw the line, but no one should be questioning that a line needs to be drawn.
1000 rounds per minute is not possible outside of belt-fed rifles that are already banned under the NFA. No semi-auto can fire faster than a human can pull the trigger, which for an untrained shooter is no more than once every 1-2 seconds. Cyclical fire rate is an oft-cited scare tactic, but it doesn't mean much in the real world.

The point I was getting at is that there is an inordinate amount of time spent casting 2-3 specific firearms as "too dangerous", while ignoring 10s if not 100s of other rifles that are effectively the same, down to firing the same or similar ammo, from magazines, at roughly the same rate of fire. The distinctions we draw are arbitrary and politically motivated.

Like I said in the shoutbox, I doubt bans would actually be effective at this point given the ease and quality of home manufacturing. A 3d printed AR won't last indefinitely, but one printed with the right polymer will survive a few hundred rounds, and fail safely when it fails. That is more than enough to recreate any of these shootings. There are already at least 1-2 turnkey CNC mills on the market to turn 80% receivers into functioning firearms with the click of a button, no machine knowledge necessary.


I don't know what we could do, but this issue seems more behavioral than it does access-based.

When the Second Amendment was written, rapid fire weaponry did not exist. Electric motors did not even exist. The Second Amendment needs updating or should people be allowed to own anti-aircraft missiles?
Neither did digital communications, and yet those mediums are still covered by the 1st. Rights are protections of behaviors, not period-specific means of realizing them.
 

TheRover

Mostly_Liquid
2,726
2,966
182
Okay coming from the UK and I have not read your Amendments and I'm pleased as fuck I don't have to, I don't know what is more painful the shootings or the same conversation after the shootings. In my mind acquiring the means to do something like this is not as extreme as the action of doing it so anybody with that in mind will find a way... in the US I mean, because you have guns.
 

CoprophagousCop

Why am I seeing a panda in my avatar picture?
Premium
2,296
2,086
357
1000 rounds per minute is not possible outside of belt-fed rifles that are already banned under the NFA. No semi-auto can fire faster than a human can pull the trigger, which for an untrained shooter is no more than once every 1-2 seconds. Cyclical fire rate is an oft-cited scare tactic, but it doesn't mean much in the real world.
1000 rounds per minute was just an example of an extreme case. Two seconds to fire a bullet means a person can potentially kill 30 people a minute. This should definitely fall into the "too dangerous" category.

The point I was getting at is that there is an inordinate amount of time spent casting 2-3 specific firearms as "too dangerous", while ignoring 10s if not 100s of other rifles that are effectively the same, down to firing the same or similar ammo, from magazines, at roughly the same rate of fire. The distinctions we draw are arbitrary and politically motivated.
Probably all semi-automatic rifles should be "too dangerous". You do not need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt and you do not need a long range weapon to defend your life.

Like I said in the shoutbox, I doubt bans would actually be effective at this point given the ease and quality of home manufacturing. A 3d printed AR won't last indefinitely, but one printed with the right polymer will survive a few hundred rounds, and fail safely when it fails. That is more than enough to recreate any of these shootings. There are already at least 1-2 turnkey CNC mills on the market to turn 80% receivers into functioning firearms with the click of a button, no machine knowledge necessary.
Even with this technology, many of these low-lifes would not be able to afford this equipment or know how to use it. They would also have a greater chance of producing a defective gun that would thwart their attacks.

I don't know what we could do, but this issue seems more behavioral than it does access-based.
I will agree that the issue is more behavioral based, but limiting gun access would definitely help. We need to do something that helps.

I have been hearing a lot about doing background checks on those buying guns. While this would help in a lot of cases, many of these mass shootings are committed by young men who do not have a prior record. Background checks would not have helped in these cases.
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,128
2,361
637
1000 rounds per minute was just an example of an extreme case. Two seconds to fire a bullet means a person can potentially kill 30 people a minute. This should definitely fall into the "too dangerous" category.
Any semi-auto with 30 round mag, including pistols, is capable of this. You're going to have to provide a more objective criteria for "too dangerous". Your current metric encompasses 90%+ of all firearms on the market.

Probably all semi-automatic rifles should be "too dangerous". You do not need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt and you do not need a long range weapon to defend your life.
Necessity is neither the basis of our rights nor case law. This is a complete non-argument, that gets chanted far too often.

Even with this technology, many of these low-lifes would not be able to afford this equipment or know how to use it. They would also have a greater chance of producing a defective gun that would thwart their attacks.
And yet these people find the funding for retail firearms...? Weird huh?

3d printers can be had for as little as $200-300 these days, that's less than the cost of just the lower receiver for an AR, let alone the whole rifle. And a would-be shooter does not even need to purchase the printer or mill - they can simply buy the parts for literally dollars. How much do you think a few ounces of PETG costs? You can but a whole roll of filament for like $30.

I will agree that the issue is more behavioral based, but limiting gun access would definitely help. We need to do something that helps.
Based on what research? The previous ban did not actually reduce homicide rates, and seemingly had zero impact on homicide via "assault rifle" based on statistics from either pre and post ban periods. I actually built an AR15 in 02 under the previous ban. Since it was an 80% kit, I didn't even need to show ID.



I have been hearing a lot about doing background checks on those buying guns. While this would help in a lot of cases, many of these mass shootings are committed by young men who do not have a prior record. Background checks would not have helped in these cases.
Background checks are already federally mandated.
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,128
2,361
637
CoprophagousCop you need to realize that you're asking (not telling - you haven't the support nor power) literally 45-50% of the population to defer to your narrative. You need to offer something more objective than fear and whataboutism. Most Americans are not behind these bans.

 

BRiT

CRaZY
Founder
12,015
7,651
637
I'm warming up to the idea of having Gun Liability Insurance, similar to Automobile Liability Insurance because of the potential for causing damage.


San Jose mayor proposes gun owners’ liability insurance in the wake of Gilroy mass shooting

Just weeks after the shooting at a garlic festival in Gilroy, California that left three people dead including two children, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo is proposing requiring gun owners to either carry liability insurance or pay a fee to “compensate taxpayers for the public costs of firearm violence in America’s 10th largest city,” The Mercury News reports.

In a statement, Liccardo acknowledged that his proposal is far from a “complete solution,” but is something that can be done “without waiting for Congress to take action.”

“We require motorists to carry automobile insurance, and the insurance industry appropriately encourages and rewards safe driver behavior,” Liccardo said. “We tax tobacco consumption both to discourage risky behavior and to make sure non-smokers are not forced to subsidize the substantial public health costs generated by smoking-related illnesses and deaths.”
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,128
2,361
637
I don't think that would stand up in courts, since it would be gating a direct right behind socioeconomic status.

The car argument isn't directly comparable. It's argued that since we only have a generic right to "freedom of movement" that auto usage is a privilege. Technically, auto ownership itself isn't tied to insurance either - only plating for use on public highways. I don't know what parallels could logically be drawn between the two.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Crazizniac

BRiT

CRaZY
Founder
12,015
7,651
637
Maybe the parallel is Health Insurance since it too gates a direct right and yet it's required to be carried by everyone?
 

BRiT

CRaZY
Founder
12,015
7,651
637
The financial penalty was eliminated starting in 2019 by Congress in 2017, but the mandate was ruled constitutional by SCOTUS in 2012. Not sure exactly if that SCOTUS ruling could apply as precedence for Gun Liability, as they love writing decisions with constraints and stipulations that narrow the scope or limit applicability.