Billie Joe posts photo in support of stronger gun laws #NotOneMore

[WhiteTim]

The U.S. has that law already

[Guest]

The U.S. has that law already

put anyone caught with an unlicensed firearm in jail for life. Sorted.

[peppermint butler]

It wasn't sarcasm. What's the drawback of gun control?

I've seen no drawbacks. Yet. Unless they remove all guns from this country(which won't happen,with the 2nd amendment)gun violence will continue. And when the government comes to take the guns, second amendment steve with the sniper,redNeck Robert with the revolver,and self defiance Darrell with the double barrel are going to rebel.

Now I support the 2nd amendment,as long as we have it under control (watch me get quoted just for the "supporting the 2nd amendment" line, out of context). I think gun laws should be more strict. I think cops also shouldn't be so trigger happy,and need to wear a go pro all the time or something like that.

Banning guns doesn't stop the terrorists. It doesn't stop the mob. It stops the normal people,and some of the wack jobs. I do think there could be another civil war over gun control, if it escalates to that point. Regardless,I see what you mean, but there's always a way for the bad guys to be bad.

[WhiteTim]

Doesn't solve anything

[peppermint butler]

The laws keep gun crime at an extremely low level in European countries while thousands are hurt or killed by them in the US. The vast majority of criminals don't have guns here because it's so hard to get them with the laws so strict, most police don't even have them because the chance of a criminal/anyone having one is so low that they don't need them. I haven't noticed any drawback yet.

I don't see a shitstorm

^^^^

[Guest]

I've seen no drawbacks. Yet. Unless they remove all guns from this country(which won't happen,with the 2nd amendment)gun violence will continue. And when the government comes to take the guns, second amendment steve with the sniper,redNeck Robert with the revolver,and self defiance Darrell with the double barrel are going to rebel.

And what exactly is Redneck Robert going to do with an assault rifle when a drone strike blows up his house?

Doesn't solve anything

You honestly think some low level gangster is gonna risk getting randomly searched and spending the rest of his life in jail? Up the penalties for illegal possession, actually enforce them, and then things will happen.

[peppermint butler]

And what exactly is Redneck Robert going to do with an assault rifle when a drone strike blows up his house?

You honestly think some low level gangster is gonna risk getting randomly searched and spending the rest of his life in jail? Up the penalties for illegal possession, actually enforce them, and then things will happen.

I don't know. Lol redneck Robert sounded funny. To be 100% honest,this conversation has no good end so we should all just shut the fuck up.

[WhiteTim]

And what exactly is Redneck Robert going to do with an assault rifle when a drone strike blows up his house?

You honestly think some low level gangster is gonna risk getting randomly searched and spending the rest of his life in jail? Up the penalties for illegal possession, actually enforce them, and then things will happen.

So giving up guns and now privacy fuck that

[Guest]

So giving up guns and now privacy fuck that

You're misunderstanding me. People get searched and get caught with illegal firearms in America every day. Some big rapper served a year in jail for having an unlicensed firearm a couple of years ago, didn't he? So up the penalty. Instead of a year, make it seven years. Make it stricter. Gun licenses have to be carried at all times that a gun is carried. No license carried? Jail.

These things have worked worldwide. The Yakuza, the Japanese crimelords, have effectively stopped using guns because no one wants to risk spending so much time behind bars. There is no threat to registered gun owners from this. Once this legislation is in place, and enforced, then you start enforcing tighter gun controls. It's not rocket science.

I don't know. Lol redneck Robert sounded funny. To be 100% honest,this conversation has no good end so we should all just shut the fuck up.

Where's the fun in that?

[Spike]

To be 100% honest,this conversation has no good end so we should all just shut the fuck up.

GDC in a nutshell.

[WhiteTim]

You're misunderstanding me. People get searched and get caught with illegal firearms in America every day. Some big rapper served a year in jail for having an unlicensed firearm a couple of years ago, didn't he? So up the penalty. Instead of a year, make it seven years. Make it stricter. Gun licenses have to be carried at all times that a gun is carried. No license carried? Jail.

These things have worked worldwide. The Yakuza, the Japanese crimelords, have effectively stopped using guns because no one wants to risk spending so much time behind bars. There is no threat to registered gun owners from this. Once this legislation is in place, and enforced, then you start enforcing tighter gun controls. It's not rocket science.

Where's the fun in that?

Actually police can not just search you you have to be doing something in order other wise they just committed an illegal search a cop sees someone and just suspects he has a gun he can't just search the guy...

[Guest]

Actually police can not just search you you have to be doing something in order other wise they just committed an illegal search a cop sees someone and just suspects he has a gun he can't just search the guy...

I literally never said they could. Now how about acknowledging the rest of my argument instead of grasping at air?

[WhiteTim]

I literally never said they could. Now how about acknowledging the rest of my argument instead of grasping at air?

I agree with the rest of your argument

Sorry was driving so didn't read the full post completely thought you were arguing getting rid of guns altogether

[Guest]

It's a GDC miracle!

[Chode]

I like to shoot.......Mai cum.

[rootbeersoup]

Sorry was driving

There's your problem. Your chauffeur is a board game.

[WhiteTim]

There's your problem. Your chauffeur is a board game.

I actually like to drive and a chauffeur is a waste of money lol

[HARVESTER]

Take a hint from Dune: "He who controls the spice controls the universe"... it's the same way with a violent situation... the person with more control is usually the one who wins. It is better to defend oneself than to be 6 feet under. In regard to guns... knowing how to deal with them and how to respond in an active shooter situation can greatly reduce the number of injuries and/or deaths. If everyone was to give up their gun control, they would only be giving it up to criminals. This is why we have the right to arms.

[AlissaGoesRAWR]

awh Billie so many reasons to love you long time. good to see an American with that opinion rather than 'yay guns for all!'

You really think we're all like that? C'mon now... it's actually quite a polarizing issue over here, and for reasons you've all discussed.

Don't feel like getting involved, but since Fuzz asked for it:

The most convincing pro-gun argument is that people will always kill and giving them access to means of doing so will not affect that. You can kill someone with any weapon. Chainsaw. Hatchet. Pencil. Knife. Should we ban all of these things? No. The problem isn't guns. The problem is negligence to mental health in our country. In most cases of mass shootings, there was a psychological problem in the mind of the murderer than was simply disregarded.

A good phrase to use is "Laws do not apply to criminals". Criminals break laws for the satisfaction of doing so. Layering on more laws will do nothing. Ban guns like you ban drugs and you are going to lead to more violence and just as easy access, except this time not documented or controlled.

Just look at the UK for an example. They passed the Second Firearms Act in 1997 as a reaction to a school shooting. Since that year, murder per 100,000 has risen and peaked at 2.1 in 2002. The rate started at 1.12/100k and hasn't even come close to that low since that year.

Overall, people will keep killing, and giving them more attention and negative reinforcement will only give them more of a kick. My town has a lot of gun owners. Most of them keep them locked up or only use them for hunting. Where are the gun crimes happening? In the poor part of my town, usually with stolen weapons. Go ahead and make guns illegal. Nothing will change.

I don't really consider myself pro-gun because I think we need to restrict some rifles and stuff like that. However, I am not aniti handgun. I don't see anything wrong with owning a handgun for protection. I do not think people should be allowed to own them without passing proficiency tests as well as mental health checks and stuff like that. The problem in the United States is that we are already in too deep. We cannot just say "no more guns." 1) People wouldn't give them up that easily 2) Even if all the legal gun owners turned in their guns, you would still have all the illegal gun owners (gang members and other criminals" carrying guns and commiting crimes. There are numerous stories of legal gun owners protecting family members and saving other innocent lives because they were carrying and were able to stop the criminal. If we could go back a few decades and ban firearms I would be all for it. So, we need to be smart about how we do move forward. We can't take guns away and ban them. It is too late. So now we need to work with the mess that we created.

Well, fuck. We may want to mark this down in history as a day that I actually agreed with some points NimJim and Ryan made in a single thread...

Disclaimer, to start off: I am not pro-guns. In no way do I think arming more people will solve anything. There are tons of conversations going on right now in the U.S. about arming teachers with guns, stationing police officers at all school buildings (about half of schools around here do this) and just generally crazy tactics to try and stop the "bad guys." But let's not forget, there were armed guards at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, two of the deadliest school shootings in the country, and they didn't stop it. Killers are going to do whatever they have to do to kill, armed guards or not.

That being said, I agree with these two posts, not in the sense of "let's arm everyone, yay guns," but in their statements that it isn't as simple as just banning guns and ending all the problems. This is a complex issue and we're so far into it now that it'd be like herding cats to get all the guns away from the potential killers. The problem stems from the inability of our nation to recognize mental health conditions as a serious problem, and our tendency to be reactionary, not proactive, to these types of issues.

Also, I think the anecdotal evidence of "that one time, that guy had a gun and stopped a robber" is completely pointless and exaggerated. I'd like to see some concrete data if we're going to use that as an argument.

[HARVESTER]

Mental Health conditions are a serious issue, but not all mental health conditions are the same.... stereotyping people with mental health issues is a big NO NO. It is like stereotyping handicapped people as all belonging to wheel chairs when there are so many different handicaps in existence. For example, someone who once worked security can not do it anymore because they got Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from having been raped... that same person is unable to find work elsewhere because of the PTSD label... because of the stigma that is attached to all people with that mental health condition. PTSD does not work like that... Yes some people can be set off because of this disorder, but they do not all become violent toward others in any given stressful situation. It is important to get to know the history of people before making "Proactive" reactive judgements upon them. You may look at something as very proactive but you may actually be behaving reactive to a label, not an actual true to life thing.

That being said, I agree with these two posts, not in the sense of "let's arm everyone, yay guns," but in their statements that it isn't as simple as just banning guns and ending all the problems. This is a complex issue and we're so far into it now that it'd be like herding cats to get all the guns away from the potential killers. The problem stems from the inability of our nation to recognize mental health conditions as a serious problem, and our tendency to be reactionary, not proactive, to these types of issues.

[AlissaGoesRAWR]

Mental Health conditions are a serious issue, but not all mental health conditions are the same.... stereotyping people with mental health issues is a big NO NO. It is like stereotyping handicapped people as all belonging to wheel chairs when there are so many different handicaps in existence. For example, someone who once worked security can not do it anymore because they got Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from having been raped... that same person is unable to find work elsewhere because of the PTSD label... because of the stigma that is attached to all people with that mental health condition. PTSD does not work like that... Yes some people can be set off because of this disorder, but they do not all become violent toward others in any given stressful situation. It is important to get to know the history of people before making "Proactive" reactive judgements upon them. You may look at something as very proactive but you may actually be behaving reactive to a label, not an actual true to life thing.

I'm not saying all people who abuse guns are mentally ill, or that all people who are mentally ill abuse guns. That's just absurd. However, you can't deny the general link between the two concepts, and that it needs to be studied and taken seriously.

I have no idea what you're talking about in your comments about proactiveness and reactiveness.

[Chin for a Day]

I've read through all the posts I missed and there was some very good discussion, that doesn't need to be rehashed.

However, I do have a big question, what was the point of posting that picture? The only thing I can think of was to stir debate on gun laws, which if that was the case, I guess it was somewhat successful. But we have run the gammit of US Gun laws, European gun laws, Austrailian gun laws and mental health issues. What good is a debate with no direction? What are our next steps? I agree with Billie, "Not one more" but how?

Plus, that picture has stirred debate here amongst a few of us. I look at that picture and I know its Billie, that he always looks like he just rolled out of bed, but how many other people will know its "that guy from Green Day" What good is posting an anti gun campaign for GD fans?

This is a subject that is very close to my heart and I just don't get the point. And my big question, Not one More, but how?

[Libertine Angel]

I've seen no drawbacks. Yet. Unless they remove all guns from this country(which won't happen,with the 2nd amendment)gun violence will continue. And when the government comes to take the guns, second amendment steve with the sniper,redNeck Robert with the revolver,and self defiance Darrell with the double barrel are going to rebel.

Now I support the 2nd amendment,as long as we have it under control (watch me get quoted just for the "supporting the 2nd amendment" line, out of context). I think gun laws should be more strict. I think cops also shouldn't be so trigger happy,and need to wear a go pro all the time or something like that.

Banning guns doesn't stop the terrorists. It doesn't stop the mob. It stops the normal people,and some of the wack jobs. I do think there could be another civil war over gun control, if it escalates to that point. Regardless,I see what you mean, but there's always a way for the bad guys to be bad.

The Second Amendment states that:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The general public is not a well regulated militia.

[Chin for a Day]

The Second Amendment states that:

The general public is not a well regulated militia.

True, the general public is not a well regulated militia. The constitution protects our rights to bear arms for military purposes, but it also limits the powers of the federal government. It does not limit the powers of local or state governments. That is why there are different gun laws in different states. That gap needs to be changed. In CT, there are mandatory background checks for anyone purchasing a gun, EXCEPT, if you purchase your gun at a gun show. You can literally walk out of the gun show with a gun in your hand.

I don't not think the biggest issue is gun control, however, what needs to change is the disparity in gun laws across the county.

[Libertine Angel]

True, the general public is not a well regulated militia. The constitution protects our rights to bear arms for military purposes, but it also limits the powers of the federal government. It does not limit the powers of local or state governments. That is why there are different gun laws in different states. That gap needs to be changed. In CT, there are mandatory background checks for anyone purchasing a gun, EXCEPT, if you purchase your gun at a gun show. You can literally walk out of the gun show with a gun in your hand.

I don't not think the biggest issue is gun control, however, what needs to change is the disparity in gun laws across the county.

That's definitely a problem that needs to be solved, and that should be tackled before the general issue of gun ownership as a whole can even be considered. There's no way you can enforce a wide general rule if you can't even get the specifics to be consistent across the country.