Another US Campus mass shooting.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Breadvan72 said:

You are trying to change to a different subject. I use none of that rhetoric. The issues are far more serious than that. You questioned what guns have to do with penises. That is a truly absurd question to ask. Guns are closely associated with ideas of maleness and the phallic. The fact that some women also use guns does not negate that point. See above for phallic imagery in connection with women and guns, as well as men and guns. To suggest that guns and cultural concepts associated with the penis have no relation to one another is to be culturally tone deaf.

OK if you have a desire to make more restrictive laws around gun use and ownership, then I think equating them to penises is not the argument to use. It's just weird. It probably will have more success in the US than calling gun owners crazed murderers but only because the penis argument is so bizarre that it will leave the pro-gun camp totally befuddled for quite some time. You hold guns at eye level to shoot them btw, not at crotch level.

Crikey, I wasn't sure that you really could be that dense, but it appears that you really are that dense. The willy waving argument is a silly argument, but not one I make, and I am addressing a different point. You are still asserting, it appears, that guns have no connection with the penis (and by that I mean ideas of masculinity as well as the organ itself), and now it seems just because of the correct position for shooting a gun. You are not (always) even right about that, BTW, because in some situations rifle armed infantry have been trained to fire from the hip while moving forward, albeit that ordinarily they fire their weapons from the shoulder (I am not sure if current infantry doctrine endorses firing from the hip, or calls for personal (non pistol) weapons always to be at the shoulder when fired, but doctrine sometimes endorsed hip firing in WW2). The door gunner in a helicopter does not fire the weapon from his shoulder, AFAIK. See also the gun position mounted on top of an armoured fighting vehicle/personnel carrier. None of that matters, however. You are being culturally tone deaf.

[anonymous-user]

Fartomatic5000 said:

They appear to not give a toss because they understand what the second ammendment is about better than any disarmed Brit could.

Hey, at least we can spell amendment!

In Britain, we do not carry or keep arms, for the most part. We have not fallen to tyranny. We have a democracy, the rule of law, a free media, and all that. We have a well regulated militia. It's called the Territorial Army, and resembles the US National Guard.

[anonymous-user]

s1962a said:

Why isn't this guy labelled as a terrorist, rather than some lone gunman?

Not this again.
I'm a Muslim and I am sick of hearing this.

[anonymous-user]

Funk said:

GravelMachineGun said:

s1962a said:

Why isn't this guy labelled as a terrorist, rather than some lone gunman?

Not this again.
I'm a Muslim and I am sick of hearing this.

Wasn't his aim to create terror through a twisted ideology based on mental issues. Remind me what that seems akin to..?

Why was the mass-shooting of innocent people in Paris a terror attack and the mass-shooting of innocent college students in Oregon not?

What was this guys twistd ideology?.......

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The Americans have already accepted a restriction on their right to bear arms. No individual in the USA is allowed to have their own nuclear warhead, or thermo nuclear device, even if they could afford it. No one complains about this. No one thinks not being able to have their own nuclear missile is an infringement of their constitutional rights.

That's the comical aspect of it. Part of their justification is to stop the state when it decides to attack its own citizens and take over the country it is already in charge of - a highly probable scenario vs all the death currently caused...

The same state that has tanks, planes, drones etc. The citizens of the US have no contingency these aspects. Why is that not a breach of the second amendment?

"Amendments can't be repealed", is another one (except when prohibition was!).

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

longblackcoat said:

creampuff said:

My 8 year old niece has a single shot .22LR rifle. It's pink.

Hey kids! Guns are toys!!!! Pink 'n' girly too!!!!

They aren't toys and aren't treated as such. Her father is a chief petty officer on a nuclear submarine - he takes firearms safety very seriously. If you are going to teach safe firearm usage, I don't see a problem with using a pink gun to do it. It's also single shot and bolt action, so there is very little that could go wrong when used under correct supervision.

I hope in her next ten years of full time education she never sees anything like what happened on Oregon yesterday. Unfortunately, given the increasing frequency of it happening, and the pro-gun lobby, statistically she stands more chance of it happening tomorrow than she did yesterday. Does that not even slightly worry you?

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

OpulentBob said:

I hope in her next ten years of full time education she never sees anything like what happened on Oregon yesterday. Unfortunately, given the increasing frequency of it happening, and the pro-gun lobby, statistically she stands more chance of it happening tomorrow than she did yesterday. Does that not even slightly worry you?

I think there has to be a solution - which does not involve banning guns. Regardless of if you like guns or not, the horse is out of the stable already. There are hundreds of millions of guns in public hands and most of them are unregistered. The US Constitution also confers the right to bear arms and one of the reason is so that citizens can protect themselves against a tyrannical government. A lot of gun owners would see a government who wants to disarm them as tyrannical, so they just are not going to hand them in.

Less guns in film and the media would be a good start. There are many films still made which trivialise the use of guns and trivialise killing. I really dislike that kind of movie and it isn't rocket science that it sends the wrong message to people with no clue or an axe to grind.

Fair comments and I agree completely. Banning them outright is unnecessary - I used to work on a shooting ground as a teenager (clay pigeons and seasonal game shooting) but for the life of me I can't understand the need for ten shot magazines and long rifles, hand guns, that sort of thing.

Maybe there should be a 21 year old limit with regular access checks and big punishments for failings for cartridge/non sporting weapons (ie anything but a Shotgun)

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

longblackcoat said:

creampuff said:

My 8 year old niece has a single shot .22LR rifle. It's pink.

Hey kids! Guns are toys!!!! Pink 'n' girly too!!!!

They aren't toys and aren't treated as such. Her father is a chief petty officer on a nuclear submarine - he takes firearms safety very seriously. If you are going to teach safe firearm usage, I don't see a problem with using a pink gun to do it. It's also single shot and bolt action, so there is very little that could go wrong when used under correct supervision.

So all those people killed by single shot firearms have nothing to worry about, eh? You are either an uber troll or really need to get a grip on reality! The fact that you think it OK for an eight year old to own a gun is too fruitloop for words.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Also contrary to the tabloid trash, there are newly enacted restrictions. Fully automatic weapons are banned and most places ban magazines over 10 rounds.

Oh, that makes it OK then! Mere semi automatics with small magazines, eh? Harmless!

You appear to be off the scale batst crazy, creamnpuff.

[anonymous-user]

Creampuff and other gun loons, please explain why it is an outrage to your liberty to restrict you from owning a semi automatic rifle, but not an outrage to your liberty to restrict you from owning an armed fighter jet, a guided missile destroyer, a main battle tank, or an artillery weapon? Hey, they are all arms, aren't they? If you want to keep tabs on the Government, shouldn't you have equality of arms with the Government? Or might it be that you want your weapons so you can have fun and maybe shoot people, and not for any BS reason to do with tyranny?

Are you saying that tanks etc don't count because the test is what you can carry? OK, why not a shoulder launched anti tank missile? A heavy machine gun? Grenades? A two handed sword? You could "bear" all of those arms, so, can you have one or all of those and go down to the Mall with them? If not, why not? You are treating your sacred text (the Second Amendment) like religious loons treat their Bibles - cherry picking the bits you like and interpreting the text to suit your position. You are also, by the way, utterly failing to see the historical context in which the Amendment was drafted, and failing to apply it to a modern context.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

creampuff said:

Also contrary to the tabloid trash, there are newly enacted restrictions. Fully automatic weapons are banned and most places ban magazines over 10 rounds.

Oh, that makes it OK then! Mere semi automatics with small magazines, eh? Harmless!

You appear to be off the scale batst crazy, creamnpuff.

It's a slight improvement I suppose, when people shoot up a school they can now kill fewer people before they have to reload each time...

[anonymous-user]

Ducked my question, I see, Creampuff. Simpler version: What are arms? Tank? Rocket launcher? Nuke? Medieval Siege Weaponry? Ninja throwing knife? Halberd? Gatling gun?

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Breadvan72 said:

So all those people killed by single shot firearms have nothing to worry about, eh? You are either an uber troll or really need to get a grip on reality! The fact that you think it OK for an eight year old to own a gun is too fruitloop for words.

Says the man who thinks a helicopter door gunner uses his gun as a penis substitute. OK.

Don't make stuff up. I never said any such thing. The fact that you are resorting to fabricating other people's positions shows the desperation of your case. Anyway: Dum dum bullets? Laser rifle (if ever invented)? Pike Crossbow? Bangalore Torpedo? Mine?

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

True, but as I wrote above I don't think is necessary to change or reinterpret the constitution in order to reduce the number of guns in circulation or to reduce the number of mass shootings. You could make guns a bit harder to get and have less trivialisation of guns and killing in movies; I think that would be a good start.

So, the First Amendment (free speech) can be trashed, but the Second Amendment is sacrosant, eh? If this were not such a serious subject, your ideas would be risible.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Breadvan72 said:

Ducked my question, I see, Creampuff. Simpler version: What are arms? Tank? Rocket launcher? Nuke? Medieval Siege Weaponry? Ninja throwing knife? Halberd? Gatling gun?

You can legally own some miniguns in the US. Mini, in that they are smaller than the 20mm Vulcan Phalanx (Phalanx, you should like that, it sounds like phallus) from which it is derived. It has 6 x electrically driven barrels like a gattling gun and fires 7.62 NATOs at about 6000 rounds per minute. It is the gun used to waste Hugo Weaving in the helicopter gunship scene in Matrix, though for that scene they derated the gun to about 3000 rounds per minute.

Of course, you have to buy used one of the very few which were in public ownership before the automatic weapons ban, so there are only 11 from memory legal to own and they go for about $400,000 a time, plus they will cost about $5000 per minute to fire.

You have been asked the question about the limits of what "arms" means three times and each time have failed to answer it and have instead attempted to lay smoke. Readers can draw the appropriate inference from your failure or inability to answer the question.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

You can legally own some miniguns in the US. Mini, in that they are smaller than the 20mm Vulcan Phalanx (Phalanx, you should like that, it sounds like phallus) from which it is derived. It has 6 x electrically driven barrels like a gattling gun and fires 7.62 NATOs at about 6000 rounds per minute. It is the gun used to waste Hugo Weaving in the helicopter gunship scene in Matrix, though for that scene they derated the gun to about 3000 rounds per minute.

Be honest - did you get a bit of a lob-on when you were typing that?

[anonymous-user]

By the way, I know the derivation of the word phalanx (unlike you, it appears). It originally referred to an infantry formation used by Greek and Macedonian troops in the Classical era. You should try education some time. It is most refreshing.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Err, you did use helicopter door gunner as an example of a gun-penis extension.

No, I did not. Read the thread again. Do not make stuff up.

[anonymous-user]

CP, again, do not make stuff up. Read the thread. Do not misquote other posters. It makes you look even more of a dick.

Why is it that a tank is not "arms" but a rifle is "arms? If you say "because the Court says so" you are accepting that your sacred text is not in fact sacred. It is some words written by some people in a particular context, interpreted by some other people in another context. Will you cry if (probably when) the balance of the Court shifts under the next President and it revisits its recent decisions and tightens gun control? Will you say that the Court is betraying the Constitution?

[anonymous-user]

Rocket launcher, then. I might want to use that for persomal defence and it only needs me to operate it. Why can't I carry a rocket launcher around and say I am bearing arms? Can you not see that your position has no principled basis?

What is a ban on full automatic OK but not a ban on semi automatic?