• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Night Angel
Member
(11-06-2017, 04:47 AM)
Night Angel's Avatar

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

You do realize you said developed nation's right not first world so technically on paper, 3 are ahead? Either way you were wrong.

Remember you also said u.s. was number one. You were wrong.

You also not only said it was number one but it was much higher than everyone else, also incorrect.

Now I see you are going with 2nd grade style backpedaling, just admit the mistake and continue the thread.

What's it called when you go for a semantic victory rather than argue against the point being made? (Btw that's a rhetorical question, I don't expect an answer)

Mind explaining why there's no gun control issue when we have one of the worst homicide rates of developed nations? See what I did there? I fixed the semantic loophole you've based your posts in this thread on. I'm interested to hear your response, because surely you wouldn't have taken issue with my post and subsequent posts that had corrected for said semantics if you agreed with the general stance I was arguing.

You'll notice it's quite a step change between the US and the next country with similar wealth and development as us. Do you think guns might have something to do with it, especially considering gun homicides accounted for about 3/4 of all homicides in the country last year?
Croatoan
Member
(11-06-2017, 04:53 AM)
Croatoan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ombra

What the fuck are tou even talking about, Are you lost?


Ah yes along with these fantasy statistics we have the new asspull technique thats making the rounds. "I have proof but i'm not going to share it because reasons."
Bravo.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-4.xls

Hmmm, shotguns are almost as bad as rifles. The point of my argument is that people should stop focusing on rifles when handguns are so much worse.

People say we should not have rifles yet ignore that they are a minor problem when compared to handguns. That alone shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
Sadsic
good music, man
(11-06-2017, 04:59 AM)
Sadsic's Avatar
for people who are adamant about keeping the gun laws the same as they are in america, is there any other measure you would agree to for preventing random acts of violence in this country? perhaps health care reform towards more preventative care for people with mental illness? or more local programs created for community outreach? surely SOMETHING has to change to prevent these kinds of acts
ssolitare
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:09 AM)

Originally Posted by Croatoan

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-4.xls

Hmmm, shotguns are almost as bad as rifles. The point of my argument is that people should stop focusing on rifles when handguns are so much worse.

People say we should not have rifles yet ignore that they are a minor problem when compared to handguns. That alone shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

Pretty sure the focus on rifles is that it is an easier target/boogeyman to start with due to some raw capabilities. Hand guns are the most numerous by far, and obviously anyone anti gun would love to tackle that.
Night Angel
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:27 AM)
Night Angel's Avatar

Originally Posted by ssolitare

Pretty sure the focus on rifles is that it is an easier target/boogeyman to start with due to some raw capabilities. Hand guns are the most numerous by far, and obviously anyone anti gun would love to tackle that.

I honestly think people arguing specifically for control of "assault weapons" and rifles are doing their cause a disservice. Arguing from a place of ignorance only gives the opposition ammunition to disregard the goal behind your protest.
saltinekracka
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:46 AM)
saltinekracka's Avatar
Maybe I missed where this was discussed already, but the shooter was neutralized by a bystander who had his own rifle.

A killer will find a way to get a gun but the right to bear arms is the defense against people like this. Unless maybe you think throwing bibles at the shooter would have stopped him?
Night Angel
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:51 AM)
Night Angel's Avatar

Originally Posted by saltinekracka

Maybe I missed where this was discussed already, but the shooter was neutralized by a bystander who had his own rifle.

A killer will find a way to get a gun but the right to bear arms is the defense against people like this. Unless maybe you think throwing bibles at the shooter would have stopped him?

Or maybe if he didn't have a gun in the first place 27 people would not have had to die so the guy in the church could defend the (wounded) half of the congregation who survived. The shooter was reportedly dishonorably discharged and still managed to get a gun because it's too freaking easy to get a gun. How does better management on who gets access to deadly weapons make this situation worse? Odds are the defender would've been able to get one with a few more restrictions, right? No one reasonable is suggesting an outright ban.

The right to bear arms is in the bill of rights for defense against the government and the maintenance of a militia. Here it is in all of its oft misrepresented glory.

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.

Inb4 we pretend that most illegally obtained weapons were not legally bought in the first place, often by family members or friends so we can all say "but laws couldn't have helped in this case because he already couldn't legally get guns!"
One Eyed Willy
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:52 AM)
Crazy, dude was dishonorably discharged from the military meaning he couldn't legally buy firearms (at least since 2014). Then a legal gun owner ended the entire thing.
NoMoreTrolls
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:52 AM)
NoMoreTrolls's Avatar

Originally Posted by saltinekracka

Maybe I missed where this was discussed already, but the shooter was neutralized by a bystander who had his own rifle.

A killer will find a way to get a gun but the right to bear arms is the defense against people like this. Unless maybe you think throwing bibles at the shooter would have stopped him?

The amount of times that a bystander with a gun stops the violence is vanishingly small, while denying easy access to the cause of the violence... different things, man. If the shooter didn't have a gun, then he wouldn't have been able to cause this much damage.

The 2nd amendment was not for personal use of guns, only to arm a citizen militia to protect from governmental tyrrany.
MBison
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:57 AM)
MBison's Avatar

Originally Posted by One Eyed Willy

Crazy, dude was dishonorably discharged from the military meaning he couldn't legally buy firearms (at least since 2014). Then a legal gun owner ended the entire thing.

True.

His Facebook page, before Facebook censored it, was very telling on what this guy's mindset was.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
(11-06-2017, 06:08 AM)

Originally Posted by One Eyed Willy

Crazy, dude was dishonorably discharged from the military meaning he couldn't legally buy firearms (at least since 2014). Then a legal gun owner ended the entire thing.

The firearm was bought legally from Academy Sports & Outdoors store in San Antonio, Texas in 2016.
saltinekracka
Member
(11-06-2017, 06:11 AM)
saltinekracka's Avatar

Originally Posted by NoMoreTrolls

The amount of times that a bystander with a gun stops the violence is vanishingly small, while denying easy access to the cause of the violence... different things, man. If the shooter didn't have a gun, then he wouldn't have been able to cause this much damage.

The 2nd amendment was not for personal use of guns, only to arm a citizen militia to protect from governmental tyrrany.

Ok then, "owning a gun" is the defense against this. Don't lose me on semantics.

Like I said, this guy would get a gun either way if he really wanted to shoot up a church. That's a fact. Many things are illegal that people will get their hands on if they want it.

And I am mainly directing my comments to those who want the freedom to own a gun done away with. To me that is not the answer.
Bastables
Member
(11-06-2017, 06:13 AM)
Bastables's Avatar

Originally Posted by TTOOLL

People have used and would still use illegal firearms to kill, so..?

Anyway, in my country (Brazil) the common citizen can't buy guns. Criminals are full of illegal guns, tho.

We had more than 60 THOUSAND violent murders in 2016 (these numbers were released last week). We certainly kill much more than Texas.

It's a pretty violent country in which people can't buy guns. I'm just saying, it goes way beyond the object used.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rober...b_7831298.html

From Rio de Janeiro to Sao Paulo, revolvers and pistols are most commonly used in crime - over 90% of all reported gun-related incidents according to the civil police. What is more, about two thirds of all seized guns were previously legally registered to civilian owners, highlighting the murky continuum linking the legal and black markets.

Yup can't buy guns in Brazil....

Most firearms and ammunition in Rio de Janeiro were not trafficked from abroad, but rather produced and sourced closer to home. Of the 8,622 firearms seized by Rio de Janeiroīs military police in 2014, over 68% were manufactured by Brazilian (government-subsidized) firms including Taurus, Rossi, IMBEL and CBC. Most of these were purchased, gifted or stolen in Brazil.
Night Angel
Member
(11-06-2017, 06:18 AM)
Night Angel's Avatar

Originally Posted by saltinekracka

Ok then, "owning a gun" is the defense against this. Don't lose me on semantics.

Like I said, this guy would get a gun either way if he really wanted to shoot up a church. That's a fact. Many things are illegal that people will get their hands on if they want it.

And I am mainly directing my comments to those who want the freedom to own a gun done away with. To me that is not the answer.

If there wasn't such an easy pipeline of guns to transfer from legal owners to other people, this argument would make sense. Alas.

Also, the stance that guns need to be banned outright is not a dominant stance in this thread.
CampbellzSoup
Member
(11-06-2017, 06:25 AM)
CampbellzSoup's Avatar

Originally Posted by Night Angel

If there wasn't such an easy pipeline of guns to transfer from legal owners to other people, this argument would make sense. Alas.

Also, the stance that guns need to be banned outright is not a dominant stance in this thread.

Isnít that in itself illegal? What law would fix that then...?
j_k_redtail
Member
(11-06-2017, 06:26 AM)

Originally Posted by saltinekracka

Maybe I missed where this was discussed already, but the shooter was neutralized by a bystander who had his own rifle.

A killer will find a way to get a gun but the right to bear arms is the defense against people like this. Unless maybe you think throwing bibles at the shooter would have stopped him?

Twenty-six bodies too late. It's far more effective to prevent him from getting the gun in the first place.
Night Angel
Member
(11-06-2017, 06:28 AM)
Night Angel's Avatar

Originally Posted by CampbellzSoup

Isnít that in itself illegal? What law would fix that then...?

It's almost like they could do more to regulate the initial sale of guns.
saltinekracka
Member
(11-06-2017, 06:32 AM)
saltinekracka's Avatar

Originally Posted by j_k_redtail

Twenty-six bodies too late. It's far more effective to prevent him from getting the gun in the first place.

So I expect you are suggesting that individuals who have bad conduct discharges or mental instability not be allowed to purchase guns, and not suggesting that guns not be sold at all? Because I can get behind that.
DragonGirl
Member
(11-06-2017, 06:52 AM)
DragonGirl's Avatar

Originally Posted by NoMoreTrolls


The 2nd amendment was not for personal use of guns, only to arm a citizen militia to protect from governmental tyrrany.


I'm pretty sure the militias existed so the government would be able to call upon armed citizens in case they went to war with somebody instead of paying a standing army (meaning mercenaries), not to protect themselves from government tyranny.
WaterAstro
Member
(11-06-2017, 06:56 AM)
WaterAstro's Avatar

Originally Posted by saltinekracka

Maybe I missed where this was discussed already, but the shooter was neutralized by a bystander who had his own rifle.

A killer will find a way to get a gun but the right to bear arms is the defense against people like this. Unless maybe you think throwing bibles at the shooter would have stopped him?

If both of them weren't allowed to have guns, no one would die.

But it's not about being allowed to have guns, gun control is more complex than that. Places with gun control let's people have guns, but they are heavily screened and monitored for any violent behavior so they don't get to the point where they commit mass murder.
Albino_Samurai
Member
(11-06-2017, 08:22 AM)
Albino_Samurai's Avatar
Didn't bother to read thru the whole thread, but can someone answer me which party endorses these gun laws from a majority point of view?
Is it the Republicans? Democrats? Mix of both?
Mostly people with a religious background?

Serious question from somebody from Europe.
valkyre
Member
(11-06-2017, 09:15 AM)
valkyre's Avatar

Originally Posted by saltinekracka

Maybe I missed where this was discussed already, but the shooter was neutralized by a bystander who had his own rifle.

A killer will find a way to get a gun but the right to bear arms is the defense against people like this. Unless maybe you think throwing bibles at the shooter would have stopped him?

Sure, lets give everybody a gun. That will certainly solve things, cause, you know , history has proven that people owning guns never ever caused any problems whatsoever...

And dont forget!

Guns dont kill people, people kill people! But hey the fact that crazy and evil people can easily acquire guns is not the issue here!

Am I doing this right America?
TTOOLL
Member
(11-06-2017, 09:20 AM)
TTOOLL's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bastables

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rober...b_7831298.html

From Rio de Janeiro to Sao Paulo, revolvers and pistols are most commonly used in crime - over 90% of all reported gun-related incidents according to the civil police. What is more, about two thirds of all seized guns were previously legally registered to civilian owners, highlighting the murky continuum linking the legal and black markets.

Yup can't buy guns in Brazil....

Most firearms and ammunition in Rio de Janeiro were not trafficked from abroad, but rather produced and sourced closer to home. Of the 8,622 firearms seized by Rio de Janeiroīs military police in 2014, over 68% were manufactured by Brazilian (government-subsidized) firms including Taurus, Rossi, IMBEL and CBC. Most of these were purchased, gifted or stolen in Brazil.



So? They are still illegal guns according to the law since people had to turn in their guns because of "estatuto do desarmamento".
I even said in my post that criminals do have a lot of guns. I don't get your point.
You know the US has much more guns than Brazil and they kill much less, right?


@topic
So the guy was discharged from the military by misconduct and by the looks of it he seems to have some kind of metal illness. He was killed by an armed bystander.

RIP to the victims =[
Mohonky
Junior Member
(11-06-2017, 09:41 AM)
Mohonky's Avatar

Originally Posted by Albino_Samurai

Didn't bother to read thru the whole thread, but can someone answer me which party endorses these gun laws from a majority point of view?
Is it the Republicans? Democrats? Mix of both?
Mostly people with a religious background?

Serious question from somebody from Europe.

Primarily Republicans.

Sales of firearms qent through the roof during Obama's Presidency because gun nuts were terrified that firearms would be banned. So during that period, firearm manufacturing and sales went through a boom period which accelerated with every high profile mass shooting.

Since Trump has been in and as is generally the case, firearms go through more of a bust period with sales slowing because people arent afraid of losing access to firearms under Republicans.

Ironic no?
mil6es
Member
(11-06-2017, 10:53 AM)
mil6es's Avatar
Can we all agree the second amendment is old fashioned and redundant anyway? I don't see how assault rifles and pistols are going defend against a government with one of the most technologically advanced militaries out there. Their arsenal that includes but are not limited to, tanks, drones, apc's, fighter jets, attack helicopters, bombers...The list goes on.

Good luck sir


RIP victims of another shooting.
llien
Member
(11-06-2017, 11:01 AM)
llien's Avatar

Originally Posted by saltinekracka

Maybe I missed where this was discussed already, but the shooter was neutralized by a bystander who had his own rifle.

A killer will find a way to get a gun but the right to bear arms is the defense against people like this. Unless maybe you think throwing bibles at the shooter would have stopped him?

Why didn't that work in Las Vegas, in a state with gun laws soo loose?

Or, rather, in HUNDREDS of mass shootings that happened in US in 2017, how many were stopped because "others also had rifles"?
Breakage
Member
(11-06-2017, 11:50 AM)
Breakage's Avatar
So I heard that Trump said this event is "not a gun situation".

Just crazy.
valkyre
Member
(11-06-2017, 11:51 AM)
valkyre's Avatar
The NRA must be opening champagnes after that Trump speech....
kmag
Member
(11-06-2017, 12:17 PM)
kmag's Avatar
I'm getting to the point that with events like this in the USA, it's simply not worth paying attention to.

Yes it's sad and needless, but much like accepting that people will die in road accidents if you have cars, these events will occur if you have a constitutional right to have a mental illness and an assault rifle.

As far as I'm concerned, that's the balance of risks that American society seems keen to protect and it's their choice. If Sandy Hook couldn't be a catalyst for a rethink of their relationship with firearms, they're too far gone to help. The individual tragedies and loss of life are awful, but ultimately if someone is continually punching themselves in the face, it's pointless to cry over lost teeth.
matthewuk
Member
(11-06-2017, 12:38 PM)
I'm starting to think that the pro gun/anti gun arguments are not solving anything. It seams to me guns are there to stay in the US so a quantum leap is required to break out of this deadlock. So I'm starting to think that it's the cultural attitudes that is the bigger problem. One example I can think of is this.

In Switzerland you own a gun to protect your country and defend your neighbour. You are trained and trusted to do so.

In the US a gun is to defend your self against your country and your neighbour. Your are nether trained nor trusted.

Just a thought, I don't know if it has any legs. But at least changing the narrative may be a start.
DorkyMohr
Member
(11-06-2017, 01:20 PM)
DorkyMohr's Avatar

Originally Posted by DarkestHour

No. It won't solve a damn thing. Banning guns is such an idiotic argument to make just like banning Muslims is going to stop terrorism. See the stupidity in your thought process yet?

wow this guy is dumb
DorkyMohr
Member
(11-06-2017, 01:21 PM)
DorkyMohr's Avatar
like wow
Unknown One
F'n LOVES Jonas Brothers
(11-06-2017, 01:22 PM)
Unknown One's Avatar

Originally Posted by matthewuk

I'm starting to think that the pro gun/anti gun arguments are not solving anything. It seams to me guns are there to stay in the US so a quantum leap is required to break out of this deadlock. So I'm starting to think that it's the cultural attitudes that is the bigger problem. One example I can think of is this.

In Switzerland you own a gun to protect your country and defend your neighbour. You are trained and trusted to do so.

In the US a gun is to defend your self against your country and your neighbour. Your are nether trained nor trusted.

Just a thought, I don't know if it has any legs. But at least changing the narrative may be a start.

That's spot on actually.
EuropeOG
Member
(11-06-2017, 01:27 PM)
EuropeOG's Avatar
RIP

at this point what more can be said which hasn't been said already?
Fbh
Member
(11-06-2017, 01:52 PM)
Fbh's Avatar

Originally Posted by matthewuk

In Switzerland you own a gun to protect your country and defend your neighbour. You are trained and trusted to do so.

To be fair, what many people forget about Switzerland is that while it's true that most young men go through military service and are trusted to keep their combat rifle at home, you are not allowed to keep ammunition for it. As far I know the only places where you can buy ammo are authorized shooting ranges which are under strict supervision to ensure that all the purchased ammo is used at the shooting range on the same day it was purchased.


Not that I don't agree with you that gun culture and the way guns are approached in the US is as big an issue as gun regulation.
But I think it was needed to clarify since I've seen people use Switzerland as an example of how a place where lots of people have army grade rifles at home has low gun violence
Blam
Member
(11-06-2017, 01:57 PM)
Blam's Avatar
This is seriously fucked up.
Bigby_Wolf
Banned
(11-06-2017, 02:02 PM)
It doesn't really matter but the fact that the guy had no connection to this tiny little church, in this tiny little community in the middle of nowhere has been very disturbing to me.

I've seen the videos of the sermons from this church and while I find them strange, everyone there is so peaceful and happy looking to just randomly experience such horror... I just don't understand it.

Its near biblical in how sad it is itself.
Phoenix RISING
Member
(11-06-2017, 02:17 PM)
Phoenix RISING's Avatar

Originally Posted by TTOOLL

Nobody asked for "car control" after the attack in New York...

The issue is much more complex than the object used to kill people.

Originally Posted by matthewuk

I'm starting to think that the pro gun/anti gun arguments are not solving anything. It seams to me guns are there to stay in the US so a quantum leap is required to break out of this deadlock. So I'm starting to think that it's the cultural attitudes that is the bigger problem. One example I can think of is this.

In Switzerland you own a gun to protect your country and defend your neighbour. You are trained and trusted to do so.

In the US a gun is to defend your self against your country and your neighbour. Your are nether trained nor trusted.

Just a thought, I don't know if it has any legs. But at least changing the narrative may be a start.

This is a great start, and I'll push it further: in the US, a gun is for defending yourself against interpretations of what your country stands for that are different from your own and to keep minorities in their place.


Besides that, I came in here to say that this will continue to happen because we like it. We love our guns more than we love our neighbors, and the NRA sings us a love song with every propaganda video they drop.
mxabe
Junior Member
(11-06-2017, 02:49 PM)
Can someone post a sensible law that would prevent this?
the-pi-guy
Member
(11-06-2017, 03:23 PM)
the-pi-guy's Avatar

Originally Posted by GAR-OU

Anytime a matter of non-Jihad domestic gun violence happens you always immediately see cries for Gun Control. Yet, the very same people shouting for Gun Control, which directly impacts the rights of American Citizens, are outraged at the mere idea of even having a discussion about Islam and its many flaws. It's not racist or Islamophobic to state Islam is a flawed religion. Christianity is also a flawed religion, but Christians are usually open to debate the matter. Try debating Islam in a majority Islam nation and see what happens to you. At the very least if its a white Christian who commits a crime and you insult Christianity there's usually never an implication that you're being "racist" towards Christians or "Christphobic".

Criticizing a religion isn't at all the same as proposing legislative changes that directly impact a person's 2nd Amendment rights. I'd have more respect for the Gun Control argument if those same people were open to discussing Islam without losing their minds.

Many of the people here are from other countries where the idea of the rights outlined in the second amendment are a bizarre thing to hold onto. Some countries that have banned guns because of events like this, that haven't had any problem since.

This forum in particular, has never been afraid of talking about Christians or Muslims. The issue comes when people who are Muslim get lumped in with terrorists. The issue comes when hate crimes against Muslims are "justified" because someone else who happens to be a Muslim did some bad things.
There are plenty of peaceful Muslims. They shouldn't all get lumped in together. That isn't to excuse a lot of the backwards culture that is present in many Muslim majority countries.

The reason why Islamophobia is considered racist is because often it has nothing to do with religion.
People that look middle eastern get profiled regardless of whether they are Muslim, Christian or Atheist. Regardless of whether they are even middle eastern.

White people who are Islamic don't tend to see the same mistreatment.
Croatoan
Member
(11-06-2017, 03:46 PM)
Croatoan's Avatar

Originally Posted by mil6es

Can we all agree the second amendment is old fashioned and redundant anyway? I don't see how assault rifles and pistols are going defend against a government with one of the most technologically advanced militaries out there. Their arsenal that includes but are not limited to, tanks, drones, apc's, fighter jets, attack helicopters, bombers...The list goes on.

Good luck sir


RIP victims of another shooting.

Assualt Rifles are already illegal, pistols are a good means of defense against crazy people breaking into your house.

Anti-gun people really need to brush up on their terminology. The reason you lose this fight is you have no idea what you are talking about.

Mistake #1: An assault Rifle is a select fire gun, which means it is capable of being fired fully automatic, an AR15 is not an assault rifle it is a semi automatic hunting rifle.




Both of the guns above are hunting rifles that have the same killing power. One of them looks like an AR so it is popular among sport shooters because they want to feel cool. The black gun is NOT an AR and any time you call it an AR you automatically lose the argument.

Mistake #2: The AR in AR15 does not stand for Assault Rifle is stands for Armalite or Armalite Rifle which is the original creator of the AR10 which later become the AR15 and the M16.

Mistake #3: Going after the scary looking weapon makes you look like reactionaries. The statistics do not support the ban of semi automatic hunting rifles like the AR15. Any person in congress that looks at this will realize how futile and pointless banning these guns would be. The actual problem is handguns and there is no way in hell these are getting banned because they don't look as scary plastered across the news.

Mistake #4: Going after the AR15 just makes its sales stronger. It is the most popular rifle in the united states and every time there is a shooting thousands more are sold. Even if you managed to ban the sale of it in stores you wont be able to take them away or ban the sale among people. All you will do is increase the price and make them desirable, yet expensive collectors items.

So what can be done?

1: Please for the love of everything stop calling for bans. It makes actual discussion impossible.
2: We need to make it more expensive to purchase semi automatic weapons including handguns. Requiring waiting periods, extra taxes, or even forcing people to pay for their own mental evaluations would be great. Passing an evaluation by a psychologist should be required for purchase (shrinks would love this as it would increase their clientele).
3: We need to admit that there is a epidemic of mental illness in the United States. Mental hospitals need to be reopened and we need to get the dangerous people off the streets.
valkyre
Member
(11-06-2017, 04:38 PM)
valkyre's Avatar
so much wrong...
rokkerkory
Member
(11-06-2017, 04:52 PM)
rokkerkory's Avatar

Originally Posted by saltinekracka

Maybe I missed where this was discussed already, but the shooter was neutralized by a bystander who had his own rifle.

A killer will find a way to get a gun but the right to bear arms is the defense against people like this. Unless maybe you think throwing bibles at the shooter would have stopped him?

Why would this guy have a gun in first place? Since Trump quickly said he was mentally ill
Mister Apoc
Member
(11-06-2017, 04:55 PM)


these guys were on some jason bourne type stuff

heroes, no doubt about it
Bryan Newman
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:04 PM)
Bryan Newman's Avatar

Originally Posted by j_k_redtail

Twenty-six bodies too late. It's far more effective to prevent him from getting the gun in the first place.

Clearly itís not because there is already a law preventing him from purchasing a gun due to his dishonorable discharge.
mil6es
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:05 PM)
mil6es's Avatar

Originally Posted by Croatoan

Assualt Rifles are already illegal, pistols are a good means of defense against crazy people breaking into your house.

Anti-gun people really need to brush up on their terminology. The reason you lose this fight is you have no idea what you are talking about.

Mistake #1: An assault Rifle is a select fire gun, which means it is capable of being fired fully automatic, an AR15 is not an assault rifle it is a semi automatic hunting rifle.




Both of the guns above are hunting rifles that have the same killing power. One of them looks like an AR so it is popular among sport shooters because they want to feel cool. The black gun is NOT an AR and any time you call it an AR you automatically lose the argument.

Mistake #2: The AR in AR15 does not stand for Assault Rifle is stands for Armalite or Armalite Rifle which is the original creator of the AR10 which later become the AR15 and the M16.

Mistake #3: Going after the scary looking weapon makes you look like reactionaries. The statistics do not support the ban of semi automatic hunting rifles like the AR15. Any person in congress that looks at this will realize how futile and pointless banning these guns would be. The actual problem is handguns and there is no way in hell these are getting banned because they don't look as scary plastered across the news.

Mistake #4: Going after the AR15 just makes its sales stronger. It is the most popular rifle in the united states and every time there is a shooting thousands more are sold. Even if you managed to ban the sale of it in stores you wont be able to take them away or ban the sale among people. All you will do is increase the price and make them desirable, yet expensive collectors items.

So what can be done?

1: Please for the love of everything stop calling for bans. It makes actual discussion impossible.
2: We need to make it more expensive to purchase semi automatic weapons including handguns. Requiring waiting periods, extra taxes, or even forcing people to pay for their own mental evaluations would be great. Passing an evaluation by a psychologist should be required for purchase (shrinks would love this as it would increase their clientele).
3: We need to admit that there is a epidemic of mental illness in the United States. Mental hospitals need to be reopened and we need to get the dangerous people off the streets.


Soooo your whole argument is I got the Terminology wrong?

How does that take away from my initial point?? Please let me know.
Croatoan
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:10 PM)
Croatoan's Avatar

Originally Posted by mil6es

Soooo you whole argument is I got the Terminology wrong?

How does that take away from my initial point?? Please let me know.

If you don't know what you are talking about it makes it hard for anyone to take your point seriously. For example, if I went into an argument with string theorists spouting garbage they wouldn't take my point seriously either. If you want to debate anything you need to educate yourself so you can debate accurately, or you will always lose. THAT is why terminology is important, particularly when you want to attack a persons constitutional right.
mackattk
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:14 PM)
mackattk's Avatar

Originally Posted by Croatoan

So what can be done?

1: Please for the love of everything stop calling for bans. It makes actual discussion impossible.
2: We need to make it more expensive to purchase semi automatic weapons including handguns. Requiring waiting periods, extra taxes, or even forcing people to pay for their own mental evaluations would be great. Passing an evaluation by a psychologist should be required for purchase (shrinks would love this as it would increase their clientele).
3: We need to admit that there is a epidemic of mental illness in the United States. Mental hospitals need to be reopened and we need to get the dangerous people off the streets.

I will be honest, I don't own a gun and don't really see a need one for myself and my family. We can argue semantics over whether something is an assault rifle or not all day, but in the end people are getting needlessly killed, and one party is not wanting to budge at all or make any compromises to make that happen. Hell, there are some people wanting less regulation.

Anyways, I agree with a lot of your points. I don't think anyone is realistically calling for outright gun bans. Hell, even Obama, the person that everyone said that he wanted to take away people's guns, literally said "sensible gun laws" time and time again. Banning guns in the US is never going to happen.

The problem is, in your point #2, all of that is considered violations of the second amendment to the most right wing gun fans/NRA.

Mandatory gun training classes, week-long wait on gun sales, mental evaluation, etc. would work wonders for helping regulate gun sales for people who should be responsible enough to use them. None of this would 100% prevent gun violence, but it would help immensely.

Also, initiating a government gun buy-back program to help get unwanted guns off the street would help as well.

Originally Posted by Croatoan

If you don't know what you are talking about it makes it hard for anyone to take your point seriously. For example, if I went into an argument with string theorists spouting garbage they wouldn't take my point seriously either. If you want to debate anything you need to educate yourself so you can debate accurately, or you will always lose. THAT is why terminology is important, particularly when you want to attack a persons constitutional right.

People can have some terminology wrong, but that doesn't mean their point is moot. I don't need specific terminology on why drinking 3 gallons of milk in one sitting is a bad idea. I can get the terminology wrong, but in the end the point remains that drinking that much milk isn't good for you.

Saying that their entire post isn't even up for debate and worthless because someone mislabeled a gun as an assault rifle isn't a good debate tactic either.

Mil6es point was a semiautomatic rifle or handguns won't stand a chance to a squad of miltants in full gear with full auto weapons, or drones, or whatever else the military has at its disposal. This situation is just a fairy tale to me, along with what I have personally heard of gun owners dreams of taking down an attacker at a mall or bank with their own gun. "Yeah man, if i saw someone walk in with a gun and start shooting, I would take out my own gun, get into flanked position and take them out before they can do any damage".
mil6es
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:16 PM)
mil6es's Avatar

Originally Posted by Croatoan

If you don't know what you are talking about it makes it hard for anyone to take your point seriously. For example, if I went into an argument with string theorists spouting garbage they wouldn't take my point seriously either. If you want to debate anything you need to educate yourself so you can debate accurately, or you will always lose. THAT is why terminology is important, particularly when you want to attack a persons constitutional right.

So again how do I not know what I'm talking about in regards to my point of a draconian law regarding guns that is pretty redundant in modern times? Let's drill down on this, please be specific.
TTOOLL
Member
(11-06-2017, 05:25 PM)
TTOOLL's Avatar

Originally Posted by mxabe

Can someone post a sensible law that would prevent this?

Of course nobody can. It's more of a cultural thing now for these crazy motherfuckers, unfortunately.

Thread Tools