At least 27 People Dead, 18 of them children.

[Moon Knight]

In my opinion if getting significantly stricter gun laws is unrealistic (and from the international view of America it is) then something like a gun license and getting rid of stupid laws like stand your ground and the ability to carry in public would be far more effective a law change to campaign for than a campaign to make even a small proportion of firearms outright illegal. Especially if the punishment were deliberately overly punitive.

Actually, dumping some of our stupid laws like stand your ground and gun licences for new and future gun purchases would be a good idea. But it is going to take more than that. Another good step is dealing with the weak border with Mexico, if you want to get the guns off the streets you need to deal with every way they get there, and illegal weapons trade from Mexico is one way. Makes it harder for gangs to get involved with buying and selling weapons illegally and the license and criminal background check would make it harder to get them legally. Do this while you invest in poor regions of the US to make dealing drugs less inviting, as to some poor youths it is the only way they have to make a living.

 

[Slyfox696]

The US has more registered gun owners than there are people in the UK and almost twice as many guns as there are people in Japan.

So you agree it's a serious problem. That's a good start.

The US is in a different situation now that the UK and Japan were when they did it, as they have stricter gun laws before guns go too deeply entrenched. The US has a different situation and is going to need different solutions. Why is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand, but neither is the concept that it will never change until a change is made.

If you don't work to change the problem, why would you ever expect it to be changed? Guns are clearly a problem. So let's work on fixing the problem. Why is this so hard to understand?

What I said above is exactly why I reject the point you are trying to make and see it as silly. Because the degree of the problem between us was so radically different the same policies won't work.

Completely ridiculous.

It may not work as quickly, but it will work. At this point, we have two options...either leave things the way they are or work to fix them. One way we can fix this problem is gun control. The idea we shouldn't try to fix the problem, because we have a lot of guns, is mind-numbingly stupid to me.

It is like using the same solution to fix a crack in your mirror as you would if the entire mirror was near blown out.

I would use glue in both cases.

Two different levels of severity for a similar problem on the surface, two different solutions are needed to fix the problem. Same here, two different levels of severity is going to require two different solutions.

And any solution which does not make it hard for people to get guns is a complete waste of time. I already acknowledged on multiple occasions that gun control isn't the only step we should take. But for you to tell me gun control isn't a necessary step makes it impossible for me to take you seriously.

 

[Moon Knight]

So you agree it's a serious problem. That's a good start.

I never once said gun violence wasn't.

It's not hard to understand, but neither is the concept that it will never change until a change is made.

Good thing nobody denied that.

If you don't work to change the problem, why would you ever expect it to be changed? Guns are clearly a problem. So let's work on fixing the problem. Why is this so hard to understand?

You seem to be having trouble understanding what I posted, read it again and see if it makes more sense now. I never once said we shouldn't start fixing the problem.

Completely ridiculous.

It may not work as quickly, but it will work. At this point, we have two options...either leave things the way they are or work to fix them. One way we can fix this problem is gun control. The idea we shouldn't try to fix the problem, because we have a lot of guns, is mind-numbingly stupid to me.

Good lord. Did you read what I posted? You keep trying to twist what I said, it's not working. Read my second reply to get the idea, I never said that.

I would use glue in both cases.

Your going to use glue to fix a near blown out mirror? Good luck, would make more sense to replace it.

And any solution which does not make it hard for people to get guns is a complete waste of time. I already acknowledged on multiple occasions that gun control isn't the only step we should take. But for you to tell me gun control isn't a necessary step makes it impossible for me to take you seriously.

The hilarious part of this comment is not only did I never say that, but I actually supported such methods in the reply right after this one. You are losing a step Sly. Here let me help you.

Actually, dumping some of our stupid laws like stand your ground and gun licences for new and future gun purchases would be a good idea. But it is going to take more than that. Another good step is dealing with the weak border with Mexico, if you want to get the guns off the streets you need to deal with every way they get there, and illegal weapons trade from Mexico is one way. Makes it harder for gangs to get involved with buying and selling weapons illegally and the license and criminal background check would make it harder to get them legally. Do this while you invest in poor regions of the US to make dealing drugs less inviting, as to some poor youths it is the only way they have to make a living.

Sounds like gun control to me, eh Sly?

 

[Slyfox696]

I never once said gun violence wasn't.

Then why are you arguing with me, because I never said there aren't other factors as well. You took issue with me mocking those who said gun control doesn't help. And now you're claiming you agree we need gun control.

I suggest you go back and read your own posts before you ask me to do the same.

Your going to use glue to fix a near blown out mirror? Good luck, would make more sense to replace it.

It was my understanding you were using the mirror as a metaphor for our citizenry, and I don't think you can exactly go out and buy new Americans and throw out the old.

Of course I'd throw out a blown out mirror. I'd also throw away a mirror with a crack in it too. Either way, I'd use the same solution, I just didn't think throwing out the American citizen was an option.

The hilarious part of this comment is not only did I never say that

I said we need gun control, and you said the following things in direct response:

The US has a different situation and is going to need different solutions...

Because the degree of the problem between us was so radically different the same policies won't work...

Same here, two different levels of severity is going to require two different solutions.

Three different times you said the policy of gun control wasn't the solution for the US.

Now you can try and spin it any way you want, but those are your own words.

 

[Moon Knight]

It was my understanding you were using the mirror as a metaphor for our citizenry, and I don't think you can exactly go out and buy new Americans and throw out the old.

Of course I'd throw out a blown out mirror. I'd also throw away a mirror with a crack in it too. Either way, I'd use the same solution, I just didn't think throwing out the American citizen was an option.

No, I was using as a way to say that when when you have a similar problem of a worse degree, you would need a different solution to solve it. Wasn't that obvious? Our problem with guns is way bigger than the UK, so we need a different solution to solve it.

I said we need gun control, and you said the following things in direct response:



Three different times you said the policy of gun control wasn't the solution for the US.

Now you can try and spin it any way you want, but those are your own words.

lol. You were off base with this. You seem to have a problem with understanding me recently. Not sure why. But I was taking shots at you using other nations as examples and backing their policies. I was stating that what they did to solve it won't work for us as our problem is worse than theirs, and in result we need something different. Why is this so hard to understand?

That doesn't in any shape fashion or form say gun control isn't part of it, as the post I quoted and you ignored showcased that. You focus on just gun control, and I focus on the wider problem. You can spin that anyway you want, but it doesn't change what I actually support.

 

[JGlass]

And here in America, the NRA is the most powerful lobbying organization in the country somehow. God bless America.

I don't think this is true. I reckon the bank lobbyists are more powerful.

 

[Slyfox696]

No, I was using as a way to say that when when you have a similar problem of a worse degree, you would need a different solution to solve it.

Right...just as you claim we have a more severe problem in America. As I said, you were using the mirror as a metaphor.

But there's no reason to bog down on this. Either way, I'd treat the cracked mirror and broken mirror the same, which is to say I'd throw them both out.

lol. You were off base with this. You seem to have a problem with understanding me recently. Not sure why. But I was taking shots at you using other nations as examples and backing their policies.

I wasn't backing the specific method they used for gun control, I was talking about gun control in general.

I was stating that what they did to solve it won't work for us as our problem is worse than theirs, and in result we need something different. Why is this so hard to understand?

Because I never claimed we should use the exact policies they used. Quite honestly, I don't even remember reading what Japan's gun control laws are. I simply showed that gun control itself is effective, or more accurately, I ridiculed those who said it's not. To use an example, if I said Americans were hungry, and the Chinese weren't because they eat food, I never said we had to eat the same food Chinese do. I did say we need to eat food, or in this case, gun control. Which you've agreed with.

Perhaps if you'd take more time to actually understand what I said, we'd have less confusion?

You focus on just gun control, and I focus on the wider problem.

Me, from three days ago:

No one disagrees we should address the other issues as well. And that's the point, we all agree on that, so why bother to continue discussing it?

Again, if you'd take more time to actually understand what I said, we'd have less confusion.

 

[Moon Knight]

Right...just as you claim we have a more severe problem in America. As I said, you were using the mirror as a metaphor.

But there's no reason to bog down on this. Either way, I'd treat the cracked mirror and broken mirror the same, which is to say I'd throw them both out.

Then you would be wrong, because throwing out a cracked mirror may not be needed.

I wasn't backing the specific method they used for gun control, I was talking about gun control in general.

You seem confused. You used Japan as evidence gun control would work, I mocked the idea and pointed out we have more severe problem and gun control alone would solve next to nothing and we need more to get the same result. Does that help?

Because I never claimed we should use the exact policies they used. Quite honestly, I don't even remember reading what Japan's gun control laws are. I simply showed that gun control itself is effective, or more accurately, I ridiculed those who said it's not.

Then you would still be wrong. I have said a thousand times that gun control alone won't get that result, Japan and the UK have done other things beyond that to get that result. I ridiculed those who act like gun control alone will get those results. That alone will not, but if you do some of what I suggested before it might. Are you getting closer to understanding me now?

To use an example, if I said Americans were hungry, and the Chinese weren't because they eat food, I never said we had to eat the same food Chinese do. I did say we need to eat food, or in this case, gun control. Which you've agreed with.

Not a good example. Ok, so how are you going to get the food? Grow it? Buy it? Get it to the people? See how nothing is that simple.

Perhaps if you'd take more time to actually understand what I said, we'd have less confusion?

Try to see where I am coming from first, you have been having problems understanding my views for some reason.

Me, from three days ago:


Again, if you'd take more time to actually understand what I said, we'd have less confusion.

Me in response to that.

Because Americans have the attention span of squirrel. Those issues are important to me and in effect i will continue to talk about them whenever I have the chance to. Also, Americans tend to avoid the most difficult things and easily forget. Few focused on those things in any other shooting..so why would they now?

Again, Try to see where I am coming from first. If you know the problem is deeper than just guns, why are you arguing with me? Just admit I am right about this call it a day. Accept that gun control alone won't be effective and we need a broader solution and for once express your opinions on those solutions as part of the discussion and not ignore it. As long as you refuse to discuss this and zero in on guns alone, I will continue to call you out on it. Just like if I was purposely ignoring a key element of the problem you call me out. You know you would, I wouldn't be pissed if you did...I would expect it.

So, admit gun control alone won't get the desired effects; include the broader solutions as part of discussion and don't accuse me of being against something I am not. Do this and call it a day, because somebody needs to bring this stuff up. Gun violence doesn't just happen in schools and theaters you know.

 

[Moon Knight]

Either way, this getting us nowhere. I am going to continue to hold that gun control alone is not going to solve the issue. I will continue to focus on poverty, health care, education and our broken immigration system as apart of a broader solution to the problem. I don't why this would even be an issue, and why everybody here shouldn't express their opinions on besides gun control control, what else do we need to do?

Why shouldn't this be apart of the national discussion? Why should we just say, whelp...Everybody agrees with this, so shut up and stop talking about it!! If everybody agrees, why has little been done to solve it? Yeah, it needs to be discussed.

 

[Slyfox696]

Then you would be wrong, because throwing out a cracked mirror may not be needed.

That's a completely ridiculous statement, telling me what to do with my own mirror, simply because I didn't respond the way you wanted me to respond.

You seem confused. You used Japan as evidence gun control would work, I mocked the idea and pointed out we have more severe problem and gun control alone would solve next to nothing and we need more to get the same result. Does that help?

No, because you clearly don't understand the fact I've never once said gun control alone is the only answer.

Are you on some kind of medication tonight? You seem highly out of it tonight.

Then you would still be wrong. I have said a thousand times that gun control alone won't get that result, Japan and the UK have done other things beyond that to get that result. I ridiculed those who act like gun control alone will get those results. That alone will not, but if you do some of what I suggested before it might. Are you getting closer to understanding me now?


Not a good example. Ok, so how are you going to get the food? Grow it? Buy it? Get it to the people? See how nothing is that simple.

You haven't understood me once. Try to see where I am coming from first.

*yawn*

Don't you ever get tired of saying silly things? I never once said gun control was the only answer, I said there are a variety of things we should do. But since most people agree there are other things to do, the only main point of contention is gun control. So that's why I'm discussing it.

Me in response to that.

Which shows you read what I said.

Which can then only mean you're an idiot, incapable of remembering something previously said, or you spouted off at the mouth, forgetting what I said.

Either way, it reflects poorly on you for arguing with me, because I never once said gun control was the only thing necessary. What I said is that gun control is effective, despite the naysayers, and I've used many different examples to prove it.

Again, Try to see where I am coming from first. If you know the problem is deeper than just guns, why are you arguing with me?

I'm not, I agreed the problem was deeper three days ago. You're the one who is either an idiot who can't remember, or the person who spouted off after forgetting what I said.

You were the one who argued with me, not the other way around. My comment did not address any post of yours, but your post addressed mine.

Again, are you on medication tonight?

Just admit I am right about this call it a day. Accept that gun control alone won't be effective and we need a broader solution and for once express your opinions on those solutions as part of the discussion and not ignore it. As long as you refuse to discuss this and zero in on guns alone, I will continue to call you out on it. Just like if I was purposely ignoring a key element of the problem you call me out.

So, admit gun control alone won't get the desired effects; include the broader solutions as part of discussion and don't accuse me of being against something I am not. Do this and call it a day, because somebody needs to bring this stuff up. Gun violence doesn't just happen in schools and theaters you know.

Here, let me try and simplify things for you, because, for some reason, you seem especially confused tonight.

There are many steps we need to take to prevent these tragedies from happening again. One such step is stricter gun control.


Do you disagree with either of the previous two sentences? If not, then there's nothing else which needs to be said in this argument.

 

[Moon Knight]

That's a completely ridiculous statement, telling me what to do with my own mirror, simply because I didn't respond the way you wanted me to respond.

Are you feeling ok? You seem to be a bit out of it.

No, because you clearly don't understand the fact I've never once said gun control alone is the only answer.

It is the only answer you discuss. If you only discuss one answer, some may assume you think it is the only answer. I am trying to get more out of you, some discussion on the other things..Which you seem to get mad at me for wanting. Why?

Are you on some kind of medication tonight? You seem highly out of it tonight.

Is there something off site bothering you? You seem out of it.

Don't you ever get tired of saying silly things? I never once said gun control was the only answer, I said there are a variety of things we should do. But since most people agree there are other things to do, the only main point of contention is gun control. So that's why I'm discussing it.

Discussing broader solutions is silly? This is a bit weird view to hold. Do you even have opinions on the other things?

Which shows you read what I said.

.....Ummm.....Ok?

Which can then only mean you're an idiot, incapable of remembering something previously said, or you spouted off at the mouth, forgetting what I said.

Do you really need to resort to name calling here? Seems not needed. You seem to be incapable of understanding what I am trying to get from you. What else do you want to be done? Will you answer that?

Either way, it reflects poorly on you for arguing with me, because I never once said gun control was the only thing necessary. What I said is that gun control is effective, despite the naysayers, and I've used many different examples to prove it.

You accused me of being a naysayer, which is false. It seems to reflect poorly on you for arguing me over the other solutions. Just tell me what those solutions you want are. (I say argue because all I want is to discuss this at length with you, which for some reason has yet to happen and every time I try you won't do it.)

I'm not, I agreed the problem was deeper three days ago. You're the one who is either an idiot who can't remember, or the person who spouted off after forgetting what I said.

Then talk about them. Why do you have an issue with me doing it? Just talk about them with me.

You were the one who argued with me, not the other way around. My comment did not address any post of yours, but your post addressed mine.

It's an open forum, I might respond to you. Which is all I did and tried to be polite about it. You seem annoyed, which is not the intention. Now, can we talk about the bigger issues or not?

Again, are you on medication tonight?

I'm calm, you seem a little mad. Not sure why. I just want to discuss the other issues while you want to zero in on gun control. Since gun control doesn't seem to be a sticking point between us, can we expand this into the other areas now?

Here, let me try and simplify things for you, because, for some reason, you seem especially confused tonight.

I am not confused...Not even close.

There are many steps we need to take to prevent these tragedies from happening again. One such step is stricter gun control.

Ok, now what are those other steps? Because if you have talked about them at length, I missed it.

Do you disagree with either of the previous two sentences? If not, then there's nothing else which needs to be said in this argument.

Well, there isn't anything else to be said here. I don't disagree with the second one and you won't talk about the first one with me. I'll start this up after the holidays maybe, will you discuss at length with me then?

 

[Slyfox696]

Are you feeling ok? You seem to be a bit out of it.

It is the only answer you discuss. If you only discuss one answer, some may assume you think it is the only answer. I am trying to get more out of you, some discussion on the other things..Which you seem to get mad at me for wanting. Why?

Is there something off site bothering you? You seem out of it.


Discussing broader solutions is silly? This is a bit weird view to hold. Do you even have opinions on the other things?

.....Ummm.....Ok?

Do you really need to resort to name calling here? Seems not needed. You seem to be incapable of understanding what I am trying to get from you. What else do you want to be done? Will you answer that?


You accused me of being a naysayer, which is false. It seems to reflect poorly on you for arguing me over the other solutions. Just tell me what those solutions you want are.

Then talk about them. Why do you have an issue with me doing it? Just talk about them with me.

It's an open forum, I might respond to you. Which is all I did and tried to be polite about it. You seem annoyed, which is not the intention. Now, can we talk about the bigger issues or not?

I'm calm, you seem a little mad. Not sure why. I just want to discuss the other issues while you want to zero in on gun control. Since gun control doesn't seem to be a sticking point between us, can we expand this into the other areas now?


I am not confused...Not even close.

Ok, now what are those other steps? Because if you have talked about them at length, I missed it.

Well, there isn't anything else to be said here.

And yet, you did anyways.

I don't disagree with the second one

Or the first one, I assume.

Which means we've been saying roughly the same thing, and yet you still felt the need to argue with me about it, starting said argument in a provocative and disrespectful manner.

and you won't talk about the first one with me.

I do not desire to, no.

List the steps you would take in addition to gun control, and if I disagree, then I may discuss it with you. Otherwise, I have no interest in jerking each other off with a list of ideas we both agree on.

 

[Moon Knight]

And yet, you did anyways.

Or the first one, I assume.

Which means we've been saying roughly the same thing, and yet you still felt the need to argue with me about it, starting said argument in a provocative and disrespectful manner.

I do not desire to, no.

List the steps you would take in addition to gun control, and if I disagree, then I may discuss it with you. Otherwise, I have no interest in jerking each other off with a list of ideas we both agree on.

Since I have gone out of my way to NOT be disrespectful (you were not) and you talk back and forth with ideas you agree with all the time.......


Since you admitted you have no desire to, I see no reason to. I only talk about things with people who have a desire to talk about the subject. If you don't, despite the reasons...I see no reason for this to continue. Which is what I wanted from the start.

 

[Slyfox696]

Since I have gone out of my way to NOT be disrespectful (you were not) and you talk back and forth with ideas you agree with all the time.......


Since you admitted you have no desire to, I see no reason to. I only talk about things with people who have a desire to talk about the subject. If you don't, despite the reasons...I see no reason for this to continue. Which is what I wanted from the start.

You crack me up. You were certainly disrespectful and provocative, and when I ask you to provide your list of additional solutions for the possible discussion you act so intent on having, you choose not to. I guess, according to the logic you subscribed to earlier, since you aren't going to talk about the other solutions that means you are only focused on gun control as a deterrent for future tragedies, right?

Either talk about it or don't. If you don't want to talk about it, then quit arguing with me when I make a statement which in no way disagrees with previous statements I've made.

 

[Moon Knight]

You crack me up. You were certainly disrespectful and provocative, and when I ask you to provide your list of additional solutions for the possible discussion you act so intent on having, you choose not to. I guess, according to the logic you subscribed to earlier, since you aren't going to talk about the other solutions that means you are only focused on gun control as a deterrent for future tragedies, right?

Either talk about it or don't. If you don't want to talk about, then quit arguing with me when I make a statement which in no way disagrees with previous statements I've made.

Why are you still on this? I thought since you have no desire to talk about the other parts, this was over? The only reason I refused to list any is because by your own admittance, you have no desire to talk about it. Why should I if you gave me the first indication you don't want to talk about it?

And no, I from where I am standing was not disrespectful. But insulting my intelligence when I haven't seems to be. But eh, I don't get bothered by that. Seriously, I am not even close to annoyed.

I am going to go get drunk now. People in the Bar Room seem bored by the current troll attempt, so I figured I'd get piss drunk and see what comes of it. Unless I forget...or fall asleep. I may watch the Undertaker/HBK match drunk instead. I haven't decided yet.

 

[Loveless]

Pic is a bit large to paste directly. Check the link for a global map of "recent" school shootings (it's at least 16 years old).

http://i50.tinypic.com/11slg7o.jpg

The rest of the map is pretty empty so got cut but you look at Mexico and then, as a better comparison to the US, Canada and you have to wonder what the hell is going on to cause such a severe difference. Obviously Canada doesn't have violent videogames, tv and film...

 

[Rayne]

Four firefighters shot today while responding to a fire in New York, two fatally.

Link via CNN

Clearly, the solution is to start arming firefighters.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Yeah, there's no reason to even consider gun control in the United States. Everything is just fine. After all, you cannot tinker with anyone's constitutional rights.