An idea for "Gun Control".

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Nibedicus
In the wake of the the recent shooting, I've been wracking my mind for methods that can be discussed in order to prevent tradgedies such as this. Anyway, I thought of a possible (and simple) way and need intelligent discussion to see its advantages, flaws, feasibility and why such measures (w/c I feel is a no brainer) wasn't undertaken or at least discussed (if in case it wasn't) long ago in the first place.

I've heard that a technology exists that allows weapons to simply not fire (one example is the hypothetical-yet-very-much-possible biometric pistol grip shown in 007) when held/used by someone who isn't the owner. This tech should be hardwired into the firing mechanism itself and would be impossible to disable without disabling the entire gun itself. Don't know if such a thing is even possible with existent tech, but I'm sure it would be possible eventually if the need for it is high enough. But let's say for the sake of discussion that this tech, is indeed possible.

Let's also take out the fact that there is already about 300 million guns out there in the US without this tech for the sake of the discussion.

With tech like this existing, each civilian-owned gun (military guns and law enforcement should no doubt be excempt from this) should be fit with a reciever that automatically locks the gun (and quite possibly alerts the authority if such a weapon enters a defined area) if it enters a defined "no gun" area. This would be schools, malls, cinemas, parks, etc. Tho, ppl authorized to carry within that area could be given authorized guns designed to not shut down within those areas.

Basically a transmitter is placed in all "safe areas" and any civilian firearms with the reciever that fall within the transmitter's radius is automatically locked and unable to fire. Teachers, security guards, doctors/nurses or any ppl considered "at risk" due to their profession putting them in the proximity of potential victims of shootings would also be able to carry portable "shutdown" transmitters.

I am aware of the whole "then only criminals who buy illegal guns would be able to use guns everywhere" argment as well. But illegal guns are hard to come by for the average nut and this measure would at the very least limit the number of these rampage shootings.

Thoughts?

Robtard
1) Cost of guns would skyrocket with that tech added

2) It would be seen as an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, eg "The gov'ment trying to control us and telling us where we can't shoot and being able to disarm up electronically should they need to oppress us and what if der terrorist get a hold of it!?"

3) Why do you hate America?

Nibedicus
1) I seriously doubt that an automated lockdown transmitter/reciever mechanism would be pricey at all (with current tech) as my iphone can do much more than that. stick out tongue

2) I don't see how it infringes on the "right to bear arms" as it still allows you to bear and own guns. Just not fire them in "safe areas". The safe areas themselves as well as the portable shutdown devices could be made far more heavily regulated than the guns themselves and would require intense scruitiny prior to authorization to minimize the risk of the non authorized to get a hold of em.

3) I know you're just kidding but I decided to tackle the points because they are arguments and contain some logic in them.

Tzeentch._
The second parody is a legitimate point imo. Not sure I like the idea of people being able to "turn off" your gun. It also would useless in preventing random flashes of gun control.

The only "gun control" that has a hope of working is an overhaul of US society; that is, people are going to find ways to get guns and kill people if that's what they want, utterly regardless of how tightly regulated gund are, thus, getting people to simply NOT want to shoot people is the trick.

When the economic status of impoverished neighborhoods improves, and mentally ill people are able to get the help they need, gun violence will become less common.

Digi
There's two simple truths about gun control that would help quite a bit, but it's impossible to bring them up without exciting the extremes.

1 - It's possible to limit access to criminals or the unstable without endangering general gun rights. We don't approach this issue because the gun lobby is powerful and politics is tricky.

2 - Nearly every attack, both domestic and foreign, has happened where guns have been banned. This is true to an absurd, statistically significant extent. In many cases the killers have avoided more populated or closer identical targets to go to a place with such bans. A loosening of "concealed carry" laws would likely have beneficial effects, and they could be tracked, recorded, and compared quite easily (as the data already exists).

The gun lobbyists like to pretend the sky is falling when any form of control is mentioned. The hippies do the same when it seems like we're headed toward more violence. So it's a fruitless debate, despite having reasonable answers.

BlackZero30x
what about the intellectual types that just remove said restrictions so they can fire their guns in the purposed safe areas? I also think pro gun people would see it as a complete infringement....allowing the government to dictate the usage of said gun. Even if that's not an infringement on the second amendment it is still an infringement on the rights of the people. It would be like saying "you can own this but we get to control it". Plus I think giving the Government more power then it already has is a terrible idea.

Bat Dude
The way to stop violence is to stop raising our children in a violence-saturated world.

And I'm not talking about what's on the news.

We have boatloads of videos games coming out every year where the objective is to kill as many people as possible (COD, Halo, etc). We have movies that depict unbelievable slaughter and killing. We have music glorifying death and dismemberment (whether it be rock, rap, or otherwise)

And you don't think that has anything to do with the recent EXPLOSION in murder and violence? 100 or so years ago this type of debauchery was unheard of. Is that because people didn't have guns? No, the population had more guns than we do now! It's because they were raised to ABHOR VIOLENCE! Not GLORIFY it.

Once we stop that and try to reverse the effects it already has on our society, the less we'll see these violent acts, I think.

And we won't have to "ban guns", like the far-left would have you believe.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bat Dude
And you don't think that has anything to do with the recent EXPLOSION in murder and violence? 100 or so years ago this type of debauchery was unheard of. Is that because people didn't have guns? No, the population had more guns than we do now! It's because they were raised to ABHOR VIOLENCE! Not GLORIFY it.


See: Native Americans

See: The US government's approach to solving the "Indian problem"

As one example of why what you claimed is "Wtf!?"

Nibedicus
Originally posted by Bat Dude
The way to stop violence is to stop raising our children in a violence-saturated world.

And I'm not talking about what's on the news.

We have boatloads of videos games coming out every year where the objective is to kill as many people as possible (COD, Halo, etc). We have movies that depict unbelievable slaughter and killing. We have music glorifying death and dismemberment (whether it be rock, rap, or otherwise)

And you don't think that has anything to do with the recent EXPLOSION in murder and violence? 100 or so years ago this type of debauchery was unheard of. Is that because people didn't have guns? No, the population had more guns than we do now! It's because they were raised to ABHOR VIOLENCE! Not GLORIFY it.

Once we stop that and try to reverse the effects it already has on our society, the less we'll see these violent acts, I think.

And we won't have to "ban guns", like the far-left would have you believe.

You "cannot change society" overnight. And you cannot almost for sure change it in a way you'd want it to change. Society changes the way it wants to.

A technological solution could solve the problem, quickly, tho. Or at least make it so that a reasonable temp solution could be made until the real societal culprit for these mass shootings could be found and legislated against (doubtful to happen soon, tho).

Again, "gun-blocker" (let's call it that for this discussion's sake) transmitters could be heavily regulated by the gov so that only affected and at risk places and individuals could have them (they could make it far harder than owning a gun). Hell, make it so that "gun-blocker" tech could only be usable in static places and not by individuals.

The point is, guns should be impossible to fire in "safe areas" such as schools/malls/cinemas/etc where weapons like that shouldn't even be allowed. I don't see any feasible scenario why it would be unreasonable to create tech-controlled "gun-safe" areas.

Except maybe a zombie apocalypse.

Digi
Originally posted by Bat Dude
The way to stop violence is to stop raising our children in a violence-saturated world.

And I'm not talking about what's on the news.

We have boatloads of videos games coming out every year where the objective is to kill as many people as possible (COD, Halo, etc). We have movies that depict unbelievable slaughter and killing. We have music glorifying death and dismemberment (whether it be rock, rap, or otherwise)

And you don't think that has anything to do with the recent EXPLOSION in murder and violence? 100 or so years ago this type of debauchery was unheard of. Is that because people didn't have guns? No, the population had more guns than we do now! It's because they were raised to ABHOR VIOLENCE! Not GLORIFY it.

Once we stop that and try to reverse the effects it already has on our society, the less we'll see these violent acts, I think.

And we won't have to "ban guns", like the far-left would have you believe.

Crime rates have actually steadily dropped in the last 50 years, across pretty much every crime we have statistics for, with only 1-2 brief exceptions where there was a small spike before the decline continued. We live in a much safer country than 100 years ago.

Placing blame, even partially, on video games or music is also testable, and has also been largely debunked. It's possible to find anomalous data to the contrary, but popular consensus sides squarely on the side of it not having harmful affects.

The same can be said for levels of religious adherence and crime in a country, which are, if anything, inversely correlative.

Obviously I don't think glorification of violence is good, and my above comments tend to side with less gun restrictions in certain situations. But a hearkening to the "good ol' days" is terribly flawed, rooted more in intuitive emotion and nostalgia than anything resembling empirical data.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by Digi
There's two simple truths about gun control that would help quite a bit, but it's impossible to bring them up without exciting the extremes.

1 - It's possible to limit access to criminals or the unstable without endangering general gun rights. We don't approach this issue because the gun lobby is powerful and politics is tricky.

2 - Nearly every attack, both domestic and foreign, has happened where guns have been banned. This is true to an absurd, statistically significant extent. In many cases the killers have avoided more populated or closer identical targets to go to a place with such bans. A loosening of "concealed carry" laws would likely have beneficial effects, and they could be tracked, recorded, and compared quite easily (as the data already exists).

The gun lobbyists like to pretend the sky is falling when any form of control is mentioned. The hippies do the same when it seems like we're headed toward more violence. So it's a fruitless debate, despite having reasonable answers.

1. I understand that the politics of it makes things damn near impossible for things that touch in 2nd amendment rights to be done. However, this is exactly why I made this discussion. To think of ways to approach the problem in ways that would not be considered political suicide if suggested by a politician. I saw gun-safe zones as a possible and reasonable solution that could be suggested.

2. Gun-safe zones and gun-blocker tech would make it much harder for average looney to get their hands on weapons and use them on unprotected civilians. They'd have to source it thru a rather proficient gun runner and I doubt gun runners would try to import military-grade tech and sell it to looney civilians and stay in business for long.

Terrorists are another thing entirely, but, like I said, let's focus on the "average nut" for now.

Tzeentch._
The "gun-blocker" is going to become obsolete mighty fast when, several months after its released, there's three hundred videos on youtube showing you how to jail-break your gun in 5 minutes.

That's not even considering the fact that there's already billions of guns that exist that won't have these transmitters, meaning a massive gun trafficking black market would open up. If this gun-blocker was set-up tomorrow, it would be decades before we'd start to.see the benefits, since the people who want to commit crime will just... illegally buy guns that don't have transmitter s on them.

Nibedicus
Propagating jailbreaking tech should be just as illegal as selling military-grade weapons and would be considered illegal for youtube to keep on the air.

Also, the guns should be downright impossible to "jailbreak" for this tech to be at all feasible in implementation or at least made so that any instance of "jailbreaking" would alert the authorities right away (like taking "jailbroken" weapons to a firing range would result in the firing range calling the authorities due to the weapon's gun-blocker hardware not being picked up by their system). The same way as owning an RPG or Minigun would be currently downright impossible to do, non-blockabke weapons should be placed in the same category as military grade weapons.

Already touched up on the "then only criminals who buy illegal guns would be able to use guns everywhere" argument above.

Lord Lucien
I think this can all be summed up as:


"There oughta be a LAW!"

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Bat Dude


And you don't think that has anything to do with the recent EXPLOSION in murder and violence? 100 or so years ago this type of debauchery was unheard of.
Unheard of to you because you probably haven't studied much history.

Colossus-Big C
Like I said, my idea is the most Intelligent and realistic, Make it law and mandatory for every US citizen 18 and over to carry a firearm at all times and places, Shit like this will get shut down really quick.


/Thread

Robtard
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Like I said, my idea is the most Intelligent and realistic, Make it law and mandatory for every US citizen 18 and over to carry a firearm at all times and places, Shit like this will get shut down really quick.


/Thread

You would be replacing the odd loon killing some people with daily mass shootings across the entire US caused by ignorance, misunderstandings and would be saviors of humanity. You would turn people who normally wouldn't shoot others into gunfighters.

Or do you think people suddenly become calm, intelligent and rational because someone forced a gun into their hand?

Colossus-Big C
They still have to obey law

Robtard
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
They still have to obey law

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to walk into a school and murder 20+ people now. But you're right, having a gun means people will follow the law all the time.

BackFire
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Like I said, my idea is the most Intelligent and realistic, Make it law and mandatory for every US citizen 18 and over to carry a firearm at all times and places, Shit like this will get shut down really quick.


/Thread

Actually the most stupid idea I've ever heard about anything.

Guns shouldn't be a right, they should be a privilege. That's the first thing that absolutely must change in this country if we're at all serious about stopping these types of things. This thinking is foolish and based on the thoughts of a group of people who had no idea what this modern society would be like, and how ridiculously powerful these weapons would be. When the founders wrote the constitution guns could fire 1 bullet and then required 15 seconds to reload. Guns being a right is based on tradition and not reasonable thought. Tradition is never a good reason to accept something, it is folly.

People need to remember that guns are tools of killing and nothing else, that is literally their only purpose - to kill something or to attempt to kill something. You should be required to pass written tests and show that you physically know how to use this extremely dangerous apparatus, like you do when you get a driver's license. You are forced to get a driver's license because cars can be dangerous if you do not respect them, and so you are required to show that you are capable of driving safely. The same should happen with guns nationwide.

Also, no logically sound reason for assault weapons to be legal. They should be completely banned immediately.

I believe bullets should be taxed to hell. There is no reason why someone should have as much ammo as this person did.

Robtard
Socialist!

BackFire
I hate all freedoms.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by BackFire
Guns shouldn't be a right, they should be a privilege. That's the first thing that absolutely must change in this country if we're at all serious about stopping these types of things. This thinking is foolish and based on the thoughts of a group of people who had no idea what this modern society would be like, and how ridiculously powerful these weapons would be. When the founders wrote the constitution guns could fire 1 bullet and then required 15 seconds to reload. Guns being a right is based on tradition and not reasonable thought. Tradition is never a good reason to accept something, it is folly.

I disagree. If we wish to say that people have the right to self defense then the state has a responsibility to ensure that right, to say that a person has a right and then prevent them from exercising it is Libertarian. Guns are the best method available for people to defend themselves. While it's absurd to force people to own guns I do think that the government should manufacture a pistol for American citizens much in the same way that it should ensure the availability of healthcare.

Robtard
How about mandatory MMA training. It would include a shiny and sparkly "Sherdog" tee-shirt once you've reached the level of master.

BackFire
Forcing people to show that they are competent before letting them own an extremely dangerous piece of equipment is not preventing them from exercising any right other than owning said piece of equipment. It has nothing to do with the right to defend one's self. You still can, just not with a gun. It would simply mean you don't have the right to defend oneself with a gun until you prove you are capable of using one properly.

Also the comparison with health care is absurd and not worthy of a response.

Robtard
You don't understand, the 2nd Amendment clearly says "the right to bear arms", I don't see a "right to fly a helicopter". Besides, think of how many assassins you'd be creating by making sure every yahoo with a gun knows basic gun handling and care.

BackFire
Who doesn't like assassins, though?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by BackFire
Forcing people

Was never a suggestion I made.

BackFire
I know it's not an argument you made, it's an argument that I made.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by BackFire
Forcing people to show that they are competent before letting them own an extremely dangerous piece of equipment is not preventing them from exercising any right other than owning said piece of equipment. It has nothing to do with the right to defend one's self. You still can, just not with a gun. It would simply mean you don't have the right to defend oneself with a gun until you prove you are capable of using one properly.

This is why the use of 'one' as a pronoun is problematic.

Lord Lucien
I do like how you have to have training and pass an exam to prove you can drive a car, but not to own a gun. I wonder what the "oughta be a law" types would chant if there arrived a serial killer or mass murderer who used a car to run people over.

Casper Whitey
Originally posted by Robtard
1) Cost of guns would skyrocket with that tech added

2) It would be seen as an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, eg "The gov'ment trying to control us and telling us where we can't shoot and being able to disarm up electronically should they need to oppress us and what if der terrorist get a hold of it!?"

3) Why do you hate America? Lulzx2.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I've heard that a technology exists that allows weapons to simply not fire (one example is the hypothetical-yet-very-much-possible biometric pistol grip shown in 007) when held/used by someone who isn't the owner. This tech should be hardwired into the firing mechanism itself and would be impossible to disable without disabling the entire gun itself. Don't know if such a thing is even possible with existent tech, but I'm sure it would be possible eventually if the need for it is high enough. But let's say for the sake of discussion that this tech, is indeed possible.

It is possible....and without much difficulty. A passive RFID implanted into the hand of the "owner", which has been setup with a mutual authentication mechanism (and paired to the gun), can provide the authentication and activation mechanism necessary to release the gun for firing. In other words, the following criteria would have to be met before the gun would fire:

1. The owner, the one implanted with the passive RFID, is the only person that can fire the gun.
2. The gun's powersource must be adequate enough to not only power the passive RFID for authentication purposes, but also to "release" the gun for firing. Battery technology is sufficient enough to provide: a) a long-lasting power source that can sit in a "non-use" state for years b) low-mass as to not increase he mass of the gun c) small size to keep guns, if desired, to a low-profile.


Originally posted by Nibedicus
With tech like this existing, each civilian-owned gun (military guns and law enforcement should no doubt be excempt from this) should be fit with a reciever that automatically locks the gun (and quite possibly alerts the authority if such a weapon enters a defined area) if it enters a defined "no gun" area. This would be schools, malls, cinemas, parks, etc. Tho, ppl authorized to carry within that area could be given authorized guns designed to not shut down within those areas.

This is also possible with another, unrelated, passive RFID in the gun. It could activate when entering a "no gun area". However, this would be easily overcome by any criminal because they'd remove the passive RFID from the gun. You could make the passive RFID hardwired into the firing mechanism of the gun...making it impossible to fire if that passive RFID is removed from the gun. You could make it out of reach of everyone without very expensive equipment by micronizing the circuitry to prevent a "rewire" or fooling the circuit to make it believe it is still wired. And the "program" that verifies the completed circuit can be hardwired on masked-programmed ROM (cannot be changed after fabricated).

So here is how it works: when the gun holder walks into a "no-gun" zone, the RFID detectors will activate the passive RFID in the gun, disabling the gun from being able to fire.




However, none of the technologies I have outlined do anything at all for people that can make their own guns which nullifies all of my plans. Gun controls fail, massively, here. In the information age, finding plans to fabricate your own gun takes about 30 seconds. You can even make your own bullets.

Let me put it another way: humans have this amazing ability to consistently overcome restrictions. If you technologically restrict their access to something tens of millions of people want, they will innovate and/or emancipate. Let me introduce you to the following:

1. DRM.
2. Blu-Ray encryption.
3. iOS and Android security.
4. Restriction of weapons on plans and air traffic facilities.
5. The US Military force

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I am aware of the whole "then only criminals who buy illegal guns would be able to use guns everywhere" argment as well. But illegal guns are hard to come by for the average nut and this measure would at the very least limit the number of these rampage shootings.

Incorrect: illegal guns are extremely easy to come by especially in America. You just have to know where to look...and a criminal usually does. It takes about 10-20 minutes on the internet to start finding sources. For the technically savvy, it takes 5 minutes to find illegal arms in a completely anonymous, untraceable, encrypted manner (deep web).

A "nut" is even worse to deal with because the "nut" will usually be obsessed and/or out of reach of normal reason. Really, I think almost all of these types of attacks are perpetrated by "nuts."


Originally posted by Robtard
1) Cost of guns would skyrocket with that tech added

2) It would be seen as an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, eg "The gov'ment trying to control us and telling us where we can't shoot and being able to disarm up electronically should they need to oppress us and what if der terrorist get a hold of it!?"

3) Why do you hate America?


1. False. All technologies I mentioned are very cheap. Passive RFIDs are already in the products you purchase and are even manufactured with the intention of being "thrown away." The authentication mechanisms already exist: they are simply algorithms. The most expensive components I mentioned will be the batteries and those will be cheaper than a small box of bullets.

2. False. It is only an infringement if it bars people from the right to bear and keep arms. If what you said were true then the already existing state laws, which have various levels of licensing requirements, would have already been deemed unconstitutional (I bet some have...I am not familiar with all Federal Court cases concerning the Second Amendment).

dadudemon
Originally posted by Digi
Crime rates have actually steadily dropped in the last 50 years, across pretty much every crime we have statistics for, with only 1-2 brief exceptions where there was a small spike before the decline continued. We live in a much safer country than 100 years ago.

When it comes to violence per person or homicides per person? No, we do not live in a much safer country than 100 years ago. It is multiple times worse, now, than it was in 1900.

However, other regulations like food and work safety certainly make it more difficult to die...know what I mean? But, no, we are as a people are much much more violent than we were in 1900.

Lil B is the criminologist around these parts, she could tell you (us). much more about this stuff such as the reasons. I have guesses by they are uninformed lay guesses.

Originally posted by Digi
The same can be said for levels of religious adherence and crime in a country, which are, if anything, inversely correlative.

So you're saying that the higher the religious adherence, the less violence, the lesser the religious adherence, the greater the violence? Or did you mean "directly correlative"?

If you meant the latter,



http://www.pewforum.org/age/religion-among-the-millennials.aspx

The millennials commit a far larger percentage of crimes, both property and violent crimes, than their more religious Gen-Xer parents. The millennials are also significantly less religious. So by the same poor logic used to say more religion creates more violence, less religion creates more violence...by the numbers.

But if you meant more religion means more gun violence, that is not backed by some numbers. The real answer is "how" the religion is used and the culture of the people.

http://www.yale.edu/faith/downloads/x_volf_violence.pdf


What part of "turn the other cheek" is in the "turn the middle east into a glass bowl? Exactly.

Utrigita
Originally posted by BackFire
Actually the most stupid idea I've ever heard about anything.

Guns shouldn't be a right, they should be a privilege. That's the first thing that absolutely must change in this country if we're at all serious about stopping these types of things. This thinking is foolish and based on the thoughts of a group of people who had no idea what this modern society would be like, and how ridiculously powerful these weapons would be. When the founders wrote the constitution guns could fire 1 bullet and then required 15 seconds to reload. Guns being a right is based on tradition and not reasonable thought. Tradition is never a good reason to accept something, it is folly.

People need to remember that guns are tools of killing and nothing else, that is literally their only purpose - to kill something or to attempt to kill something. You should be required to pass written tests and show that you physically know how to use this extremely dangerous apparatus, like you do when you get a driver's license. You are forced to get a driver's license because cars can be dangerous if you do not respect them, and so you are required to show that you are capable of driving safely. The same should happen with guns nationwide.

Also, no logically sound reason for assault weapons to be legal. They should be completely banned immediately.

I believe bullets should be taxed to hell. There is no reason why someone should have as much ammo as this person did.

thumb up

dadudemon
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
The "gun-blocker" is going to become obsolete mighty fast when, several months after its released, there's three hundred videos on youtube showing you how to jail-break your gun in 5 minutes.

Not with my solutions. smile You'd have to have a powerful microscope to "jailbreak" your gun. People would be better off buying black-market guns than trying to solder microscopic circuits.

Originally posted by BackFire
People need to remember that guns are tools of killing and nothing else, that is literally their only purpose - to kill something or to attempt to kill something.

Ummmm...holy shit, you're horribly wrong.

Maybe for you that is the only purpose for a gun. In which case, yes, you need to be kept away from any and all guns.

Originally posted by BackFire
Also, no logically sound reason for assault weapons to be legal. They should be completely banned immediately.

"assault weapons" is such a vague and nebulous phrase that it makes it useless for discussion. Give me an example or at least a definition of what you mean by "assault weapons" so I can properly disagree with you. smile

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...to say that a person has a right and then prevent them from exercising it is Libertarian.

The opposite is true. I would word what you said as follows:

"...to say that a person has a right and then prevent them from exercising it is American."


Originally posted by BackFire
Forcing people to show that they are competent before letting them own an extremely dangerous piece of equipment is not preventing them from exercising any right other than owning said piece of equipment. It has nothing to do with the right to defend one's self. You still can, just not with a gun. It would simply mean you don't have the right to defend oneself with a gun until you prove you are capable of using one properly.

Bam! This is an excellent point and one of the arguments I use. Also, a double space after a period is not necessary.

BackFire
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ummmm...holy shit, you're horribly wrong.

Maybe for you that is the only purpose for a gun. In which case, yes, you need to be kept away from any and all guns.

Explain what their other purpose is, then. There is none. They were created with the sole intent to kill things efficiently.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"assault weapons" is such a vague and nebulous phrase that it makes it useless for discussion. Give me an example or at least a definition of what you mean by "assault weapons" so I can properly disagree with you. smile

How about the weapon used in this massacre. Why is it necessary for someone to own a military grade weapon like the AR-15?

dadudemon
Originally posted by BackFire
Explain what their other purpose is, then. There is none. They were created with the sole intent to kill things efficiently.

There are multiple purposes. No gun I have used has ever been used to kill a living thing nor was it maintained or adjusted for that purpose: just target shooting. Must people target shoot with their guns.

Originally posted by BackFire
How about the weapon used in this massacre. Why is it necessary for someone to own a military grade weapon like the AR-15?

Well, that's easy to answer: it is never necessary to own anything that does not contribute to your basic needs like food, clothing, shelter. However, my cousin, who lives here in OKC, owns an AR-15 and he loves to target shoot with it (when he can afford the ammo). His defense for home invasion? A 12-gauge. smile

I own no guns and do not want one in my home until I can either afford a really good gun-safe (not happening because I am still poor) or my children are at least 12.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by BackFire


Guns shouldn't be a right, they should be a privilege. .


I feel the same about free speech

dadudemon
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I feel the same about free speech

I feel the same way about voting.


Any person that did not know of some of Obama's major policies/actions while in office should automatically have been barred from voting. It goes without saying that millions would have been barred from voting for Romney.

Chillmeister
I think the paranoid way of thinking that people need guns in their houses needs to be addressed. If they're supposed to be there to protect from evil, then where was the knight in shining armour in any of these recent shootings? At the Fort Worth shooting there were plenty of people with guns, yet no one put a stop to that massacre, there were people in the Aurora cinema with guns, but none could stop that gunman either. Twenty really young children have just lost their lives and no one came running in time to put a stop to that.

Why should it be a constitutional right to own something that's only real purpose (if you're using it for "security"wink is to kill another human being?

The burglars have guns because they're so easily available and homeowners are likely to have them too. All of this, all of these problems come down to the fact that guns are so easy to get. It is absolutely terrifying and if twenty toddlers lives being lost isn't enough to cause a drastic rethink, I don't know what will be.

In my opinion the idea that your 'security' is worth more than tackling this and doing the utmost to stop it from happening again is an extremely selfish one.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Chillmeister
I think the paranoid way of thinking that people need guns in their houses needs to be addressed. If they're supposed to be there to protect from evil, then where was the knight in shining armour in any of these recent shootings? At the Fort Worth shooting there were plenty of people with guns, yet no one put a stop to that massacre, there were people in the Aurora cinema with guns, but none could stop that gunman either. Twenty really young children have just lost their lives and no one came running in time to put a stop to that.

Why should it be a constitutional right to own something that's only real purpose (if you're using it for "security"wink is to kill another human being?

The burglars have guns because they're so easily available and homeowners are likely to have them too. All of this, all of these problems come down to the fact that guns are so easy to get. It is absolutely terrifying and if twenty toddlers lives being lost isn't enough to cause a drastic rethink, I don't know what will be.

In my opinion the idea that your 'security' is worth more than tackling this and doing the utmost to stop it from happening again is an extremely selfish one.

It is not as though there are plenty of links of home invading, weapon wielding, weirdos:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082716/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-Justin-Shane-Martin-looking-prescription-drugs.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/home-girl-12-shoots-intruder-article-1.1188229

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Grand-Prairie-resident-shoots-home-invader-while-on-911-call-181079611.html



And, like I pointed out, you start a gun prohibition, they'll make guns anyway. The UK has a gun ban and gun-related homicides still occur. Gun deaths will never go away without a god-like AI and an army of robots to perfectly enforce the prohibition.

Chillmeister
Do you have any idea how rare guns are in the UK? Of course they still exist, but come on, that argument is ridiculous.

If I was to leave work now, decide that I want to kill someone and that I wanted to do it with a gun, I wouldn't know where to get one. I'm willing to bet if you were to do the same thing that you would know where to get one.

The argument of 'there will always be guns' does not sit with me. Assault rifles have no place in a suburban family home and if they weren't there, this recent tragedy would not have happened.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Chillmeister
Do you have any idea how rare guns are in the UK? Of course they still exist, but come on, that argument is ridiculous.

The argument is that people will still shoot each other and kill people, even during a prohibition of guns. The UK is proof of that.

Originally posted by Chillmeister
If I was to leave work now, decide that I want to kill someone and that I wanted to do it with a gun, I wouldn't know where to get one.

But you're not a criminal. In fact, you're a pretty decent dude. But it only takes about 10 minutes of internet browsing to find sources. And if you're familiar enough, 5 minutes.


Originally posted by Chillmeister
I'm willing to bet if you were to do the same thing that you would know where to get one.

Indeed...even if I were living in the UK. But I'm not a criminal or anything.


Originally posted by Chillmeister
The argument of 'there will always be guns' does not sit with me. Assault rifles have no place in a suburban family home and if they weren't there, this recent tragedy would not have happened.

My argument is "since there will always be guns short of a sci-fi AI Ruled world with perfect enforcement, the solution is obviously not going to be a gun prohibition." It is impossible to get rid of the guns.


Even before stricter gun laws in Japan, their homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000. But Japan also does not have something as protective as the Fourth Amendment. Japan also fosters a much different culture than the US.

Chillmeister
These people who massacre schools aren't criminals until they decide to shoot up an entire school. There needs to be measures in place that stops these mentally unbalanced people ever having access to weapons that can do so much harm.

Search the internet for guns in the UK and it won't be long before you have a knock on the door, or walk straight into a sting operation. There are ways of getting them, I'm sure, but I'm not really sure if the internet is it. Anyway, that's irrelevant. There aren't guns in my home, there aren't guns in anyone I know's homes.

Having guns around just makes it all too easy for these things to happen. There are always, always going to be people who want to do this sort of thing. It needs to be made difficult for them.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by dadudemon
ItAnd, like I pointed out, you start a gun prohibition, they'll make guns anyway. The UK has a gun ban and gun-related homicides still occur.

With an absolute minuscule fraction compared to the ratio of US gun deaths. Trying to bring up the 'people still shoot each other in the UK' point is just drawing attention to the absolutely shameful US gun death rate.

The whole 'people will get them anyway' argument is a complete dead end. The fact is, the ridiculously open US attitude to gun ownership[ is a significant part of the problem. If gun access was more restricted, the deaths would go down, and rather like the US' primitive approach to health care before Obama started to move in the right direction, the US' current laws on gun ownership are a source of international derision.

It is true that the whole gun thing is part of US culture, but then pretty much every country had open weapon ownership at one point. It is part of the challenge of a country's development that backwards-looking cultural ideals are challenged and overturned, and it's about time the US did just that.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Ushgarak
With an absolute minuscule fraction compared to the ratio of US gun deaths. Trying to bring up the 'people still shoot each other in the UK' point is just drawing attention to the absolutely shameful US gun death rate.

The whole 'people will get them anyway' argument is a complete dead end. The fact is, the ridiculously open US attitude to gun ownership
Well, that's not entirely true. Most European countries have had traditions of weapon confiscations stemming from Middle Age fears of peasant revolts.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Chillmeister
These people who massacre schools aren't criminals until they decide to shoot up an entire school. There needs to be measures in place that stops these mentally unbalanced people ever having access to weapons that can do so much harm.

A fascists system that forces people to submit to periodic screening is your only sure measure against that. Prohibition of guns won't stop it.

Did Timothy McVeigh shoot up all of those people?

Originally posted by Chillmeister
Search the internet for guns in the UK and it won't be long before you have a knock on the door, or walk straight into a sting operation.

That is incorrect: the UK does not have a "deep packet" inspection routine.

Additionally, a person may already commit the crime before they get into trouble.

Originally posted by Chillmeister
There are ways of getting them, I'm sure, but I'm not really sure if the internet is it.

The internet is definitely a place you can go but it is difficult to use and find stuff that way in countries like the UK. You have to use things other than the internet.


Originally posted by Chillmeister
Anyway, that's irrelevant. There aren't guns in my home, there aren't guns in anyone I know's homes.

But they are there and you do not know who has them and who doesn't until you read about it or watch it on the tele.

Originally posted by Chillmeister
Having guns around just makes it all too easy for these things to happen. There are always, always going to be people who want to do this sort of thing. It needs to be made difficult for them.

You can own guns in the UK and Japan. For the UK it is getting an FAC.


I think the US should setup a system that is even more strict than the UK's system but allow a greater range of firearms short of stupid stuff like automatics, RPGs, etc.

Chillmeister
Of course your 'fascists' system isn't the only measure against that. Better mental health care on a national level, subsidised by tax payers and attempting to shed the stigma that goes along with mental health issues is one of the ways to combat it.

The other is making sure that people's homes aren't filled with an arsenal of pistols and assault rifles is another way. Less guns and more compassionate treatment of the mentally ill is the way forward. Keep the same system and it will keep happening.

It will be a difficult thing to do, but America needs to decide whether it wants to address this issue properly. Talk about freedom all you want, but I wouldn't want my kids going to school in that country at the moment and I wouldn't want to live in a country where having weapons designed only to kill in family homes is shrugged off as necessary.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, that's not entirely true. Most European countries have had traditions of weapon confiscations stemming from Middle Age fears of peasant revolts.

Too far back- compare how easy it was to get guns in Europe in the early 20th century.

(And drugs, for that matter)

Archaeopteryx
I seriously doubt that without a constitutional amendment (and do you know how hard that is) there will be any major gun bans un the US any time soon.

Chillmeister
It's called an amendment for a reason. Amend it, it's out of date.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Too far back- compare how easy it was to get guns in Europe in the early 20th century.

(And drugs, for that matter)

How easy is it to get drugs in Europe now? America's drug problem is a disaster and is the single biggest contributor to gun violence. As tragic as what happened in Conneticut was this type of gun violence (assault rifles) contributes to less than 1% of gun deaths in America. The overwhelming # of gun deaths is via small caliber handguns yet it is the assault rifles everybody is talking about. end the war on drugs and gun violence decreases by more than half.

Ushgarak
Sure, but it's worth commenting on the days where you could walk into a chemist's store and order cocaine or send out a hamper of hard drugs to troops in the front line during World War I, both of which were possible in the UK.

Likewise, you could just walk into a wholesale armourers and buy handguns as you like (and such stores sold out when WWI began). So the lesson is- cultures change.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Chillmeister
Of course your 'fascists' system isn't the only measure against that. Better mental health care on a national level, subsidised by tax payers and attempting to shed the stigma that goes along with mental health issues is one of the ways to combat it.

But it is not perfect and the same type of massacre can still happen...in the UK...in Japan...in Switzerland.

Originally posted by Chillmeister
... more compassionate treatment of the mentally ill is the way forward. Keep the same system and it will keep happening.

I agree, here.

Originally posted by Chillmeister
It will be a difficult thing to do, but America needs to decide whether it wants to address this issue properly. Talk about freedom all you want, but I wouldn't want my kids going to school in that country at the moment and I wouldn't want to live in a country where having weapons designed only to kill in family homes is shrugged off as necessary.

You can own plenty of guns in the UK, now, as well: FAC. You can also own shotguns: SGC.

The difference, I feel, is the culture of the British people, mixed in with some of your policies. You have much more strict gun control laws, iirc.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sure, but it's worth commenting on the days where you could walk into a chemist's store and order cocaine or send out a hamper of hard drugs to troops in the front line during World War I, both of which were possible in the UK.

Likewise, you could just walk into a wholesale armourers and buy handguns as you like (and such stores sold out when WWI began). So the lesson is- cultures change.

Yes...this.

Colossus-Big C
What if they do gun control and some guy still does shit like this, but with a knife?

Chillmeister
Massacres like this could happen anywhere, yes. But I don't understand how you don't think how easy it is to get guns in America is a contributing factor to these horrible massacres. These things don't happen in the UK, Switzerland or Japan with the same ridiculous and unacceptable frequency as they do in the US because access to firearms that can kill dozens in minutes, even seconds is on no where near the same scale.

You can own guns in the UK, yes. You have to have a licence for them though. I personally don't think you should be allowed to own them at all, but that's just me.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
What if they do gun control and some guy still does shit like this, but with a knife?

There wouldn't be anywhere near as many deaths, obviously.

There was a knife attack in a school in China on the same day as Newtown. 22 children attacked, no fatalities.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13946-china-school-knife-massacre-why-no-media-coverage

Robtard
It's obscenely easy to get a gun in many parts of the US. I live in CA, so I'm lucky we have some of the more strict gun laws in the US, it's a 10-Day waiting period; you have to be 18 to buy shotguns/rifles and 21 to buy handguns, which also require you to have passed basic safety training, so you won't accidentally shoot yourself or someone else. Assault weapons are pretty much illegal to own, barring a few exceptions.

Other states though, you can walk in and walk out with a gun.

Colossus-Big C
Originally posted by Chillmeister
Massacres like this could happen anywhere, yes. But I don't understand how you don't think how easy it is to get guns in America is a contributing factor to these horrible massacres. These things don't happen in the UK, Switzerland or Japan with the same ridiculous and unacceptable frequency as they do in the US because access to firearms that can kill dozens in minutes, even seconds is on no where near the same scale.

You can own guns in the UK, yes. You have to have a licence for them though. I personally don't think you should be allowed to own them at all, but that's just me.



There wouldn't be anywhere near as many deaths, obviously.

There was a knife attack in a school in China on the same day as Newtown. 22 children attacked, no fatalities.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13946-china-school-knife-massacre-why-no-media-coverage A guy who knows how to use a knife will stab them in there hearts.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Chillmeister
You can own guns in the UK, yes. You have to have a licence for them though. I personally don't think you should be allowed to own them at all, but that's just me.

I'm a law abiding citizen that refuses to own a gun (for now) so I would be completely unaffected. The only time I shoot, these days, is with other people's guns at ranges. So, I'm okay with you're suggestion...but it doesn't stop "the bad guys."

Colossus-Big C
Why do yo refuse to own a gun? If someone breaks into your house and starts killing your family you are hopeless

dadudemon
*your



Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
A guy who knows how to use a knife will stab them in there hearts.

Yeah, I was thinking about that, too. Like...how did he not succeed in killing anyone? Did he have no understanding of anatomy, at all? Oh well...glad he was too stupid to accomplish anything.



Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Why do yo refuse to own a gun? If someone breaks into your house and starts killing your family you are hopeless

The dumbest thing anyone could do is break into my home and make threats to my family. uhuh

Chuck Norris checks under his bed for me. estahuh

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Too far back- compare how easy it was to get guns in Europe in the early 20th century.

(And drugs, for that matter)
But the gun culture was never as well-established in most European countries as in America, because in most of Europe hunting wasn't legal for the vast majority of the population, as game was the property of the nobility/royalty. That's still the case in Germany, where hunting is tightly controlled and is the purview of wealthy businessmen and well-to-do tourists who care enough about the sport to jump through the hoops.

If we want to see a reduction of gun violence in America, it won't be as simple as restricting firearms, we have to change the culture, we have to stop listening to groups like the NRA with their outdated philosophy and romantic idea of gun ownership as a sacred American right.

BackFire
Originally posted by dadudemon
There are multiple purposes. No gun I have used has ever been used to kill a living thing nor was it maintained or adjusted for that purpose: just target shooting. Must people target shoot with their guns.

Let me clarify. I meant the purpose behind their creation. Not why people purchase them. I know many people buy them and never even have intentions of firing them, but that doesn't change why they are made. When a gun is created or enhanced it is does so with the efficiency of killing something in mind.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, that's easy to answer: it is never necessary to own anything that does not contribute to your basic needs like food, clothing, shelter. However, my cousin, who lives here in OKC, owns an AR-15 and he loves to target shoot with it (when he can afford the ammo). His defense for home invasion? A 12-gauge. smile

I own no guns and do not want one in my home until I can either afford a really good gun-safe (not happening because I am still poor) or my children are at least 12.

Then there is no good reason to own this particular gun. A gun being fun to shoot bottles with isn't worth the ease in which this particular gun, and guns like it, can be used to slaughter people.

rudester
Until they ban guns in society then the idea for "Gun Control" is useless.

rudester

Darth Truculent
There is actually no such thing as an "assault" rifle in the civilian market. A civilian "assault" firearm is semi-auto. A true assault weapon fires 3 round bursts and is full auto. The only reason for example the AR-15 is classified as an assault weapon is due to its pistol grip. People associate the rifle because it looks like it is military issued. Without proper knowledge on the rifle, it jams very easily.

Robtard
Assault weapon; that's what an AR-15 is. It just happens to look like a rifle.

But if it makes people feel better, call weapons like that "happy pew-pews", doesn't change that they can kill a lot of people in a small amount of time.

Symmetric Chaos
There's no such thing as an "assault weapon" at all. It just means "scary gun."

An AR-15 is an assault weapon because it was legally declared one (by people who knew so little about guns that it had to be added as a line item because they couldn't come up with a definition for assault weapons that included it). What it is not is an assault rifle, although it was designed for the US military and is the basis of the M16 assault rifle and the M4 assault carbine.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no such thing as an "assault weapon" at all. It just means "scary gun."

An AR-15 is an assault weapon because it was legally declared one (by people who knew so little about guns that it had to be added as a line item because they couldn't come up with a definition for assault weapons that included it). What it is not is an assault rifle, although it was designed for the US military and is the basis of the M16 assault rifle and the M4 assault carbine.
You don't need a semiautomatic rifle if you're a civilian. Period.

You're just quibbling over semantics.

Tzeentch._
Why do you need a semiautomatic handgun as a civilian?

A semiautomatic rifle is a semiautomatic pistol with a bigger clip, is more expensive, and harder to sneak around. That's literally the extent of their conventional differences.

I've never understood the hard-on for assault weapons. The deadliest shooting in US history was the VA Tech shooting, and the shooter didn't use a single assault weapon; all he had were two tiny pistols.

I understand the desire for gun-regulation and bans in general, but the notion that assault weapons are more deadly is nonsensical. Handguns are more dangerous than civilian-issue assault weapons due to their portability, imo. They're easier to conceal, easier to traffic and cheaper to buy.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You don't need a semiautomatic rifle if you're a civilian. Period.

So? There are a lot of things we don't need that are completely unrestricted.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're just quibbling over semantics.

It's implications are very relevant, uninformed people are that much easier to sway with rhetoric. The anti-gun crowd (which I think is a fair name) doesn't seem to know anything about guns. The AWB, for example, was written so incompetently that its supporters allowed it to lapse in hopes who writing something less shitty next time (like for example it failed to actually make any of the "assault weapons" on it illegal). As in the anti-gun side of thing literally doesn't know enough about guns to make informed decisions.

Tzeentch._
As far as what weapons would be could be considered "reasonable" for average citizens, I think that, really, pump-action shotguns are the most logical weapons for defense. They're relatively easy to use, don't have high-penetration which make them good for shooting inside your home (the bukshot won't shoot through the wall and ht your kid, for example) and it's low firing rate and size make it less dangerous in a shooting.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
As far as what weapons would be could be considered "reasonable" for average citizens, I think that, really, pump-action shotguns are the most logical weapons for defense. They're relatively easy to use, don't have high-penetration which make them good for shooting inside your home (the bukshot won't shoot through the wall and ht your kid, for example) and it's low firing rate and size make it less dangerous in a shooting.
Plus, there's no sound that puts the fear in an intruder like a shotgun being racked.

Chillmeister
All I know and will ever need to know about guns is that they kill people. That is their main purpose.

I couldn't give a shit if you like to go and shoot targets with it. I'm sorry, but your recreational time with a weapon is not worth more to me than the lives of innocent people, nor should it be to anyone.

Treating a debate like this with the attitude of 'the anti gun crowd no nothing about guns' as if someone's just wrongly called dubstep trap music or something, seems hugely irrelevant and frankly disrespectful given the events that have caused this debate to take place. All anyone needs to know about this AR-15 rifle in particular is that in the hands of a twenty year old it took the lives of twenty children and six adults in a few minutes.

Ban all of them, all guns. Melt them all down. Give people two months to voluntarily hand them in, if they don't hand them in and they have a registered gun at their address then fine them and seize it. It would take a long time, a lot of money but it would be the start of a long process to ending the problem of a country supporting its terrifying paranoia on a crutch of firearms. The lengthy process of getting the illegal, unregistered firearms off the streets can then take place.

If you're worried about your house being burgled, get a burglar alarm, or a guard dog. Don't get a gun. This philosophy of keeping safe from harm by causing harm seems like a really damaging one to me.

dadudemon
Originally posted by BackFire
Let me clarify. I meant the purpose behind their creation. Not why people purchase them. I know many people buy them and never even have intentions of firing them, but that doesn't change why they are made. When a gun is created or enhanced it is does so with the efficiency of killing something in mind.

Since the vast majority will be used for things other than killing things...and some are made to be specifically used in professional target shooting events, then, no, you're still wrong. I would agree with you concerning most shotguns, however. Oh, and hunting rifles. I'd say those are made specifically to kill living things. Same with Assault Rifles (most of them). But, no, most guns these days are not made with the purpose of destroying life. You have to get into military grade weapons for that.

Originally posted by BackFire
Then there is no good reason to own this particular gun. A gun being fun to shoot bottles with isn't worth the ease in which this particular gun, and guns like it, can be used to slaughter people.

"good reasons" is subjective. By your logic, there is no good reason to watch movies or play video games. By your logic, there's no good reason to have the components to make fertilizer weapons (I'm at work and can't use certain words...but you obviously know which word I meant instead of weapons)...which certainly have killed quite a few people. Obviously, everything that can be used to significantly harm human life should not be banned.


Cars kill more people than assault rifles in the US. Alcohol kills more people than assault rifles in the US. Start banning those before we ban assault rifles. The deadliest should come first, right?


You can own guns in Japan and the UK but their gun violence rates are MUCH lower than the US. Why? We should be exploring those ideas and concepts rather than banning things.



However, after reading about the shooting in detail, I really cannot justify the use of high powered weapons like assault rifles. From Wikipedia: "Marie Murphy, a teacher's aide who worked with special needs students, shielded 6-year-old Dylan Hockley with her body, trying to protect him from the bullets that killed them both." That is why I am okay with removing those from the equation. What is the justification for armor-piercing rounds and high-powered guns like assault rifles? What about sniper rifles? No justification for those, imo.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
There is actually no such thing as an "assault" rifle in the civilian market. A civilian "assault" firearm is semi-auto. A true assault weapon fires 3 round bursts and is full auto. The only reason for example the AR-15 is classified as an assault weapon is due to its pistol grip. People associate the rifle because it looks like it is military issued. Without proper knowledge on the rifle, it jams very easily. ,

That is not true. It is legal in some states Nevada, Arizona, Texas and maybe a few others to own a fully automatic weapon by obtaining a class 3 federal firearms license. Anyone that can pass a normal background check can obtain it.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Robtard
Assault weapon; that's what an AR-15 is. It just happens to look like a rifle.

But if it makes people feel better, call weapons like that "happy pew-pews", doesn't change that they can kill a lot of people in a small amount of time.

So can cars, let's ban them

Archaeopteryx
Gun bans work real well, just ask the citizens of Mexico

Chillmeister
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
So can cars, let's ban them

The most idiotic, hair brained argument there is. Don't be an idiot and have a little bit of respect for the children that have just been mown down by a guy with an AR-15. Cars have a purpose, they transport us in our every day lives. There are a set of codes of practice you must follow and you must pass a test to get a driving licence. Industry relies on vehicles to transport goods, people rely on cars in order to get to work, losing them would have extremely negative effects on the US economy as a whole and would make a mess of public services, industries, everything.

Please, pray tell, how is that in any way comparable to the banning of a particular kind of firearm that has a high fire rate and, as evidenced by recent events, can take numerous innocent lives in a very short time?

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Chillmeister


Please, pray tell, how is that in any way comparable to the banning of a particular kind of firearm that has a high fire rate and, as evidenced by recent events, can take numerous innocent lives in a very short time?

Did you read one of my earlier posts? Do you know the percentage of gun violence in America due to assault rifles?

Guns are banned un your country, you should be happy.

You know, I see a lot of outrage over this. Where was the outrage when several nations, including yours, invaded Iraq at the behest of corporate profit and over a hundred thousand people lost their lives? Hypocrite.

Archaeopteryx
Here's another thing for all you gun ban advocates. There are an estimated 310 MILLION non military guns in America of which several million are assault rifles and unlike handguns the overwhelming majority of assault rifles are not registered.If they are suddenly banned do you think there will be a rush to turn them in? on the contrary there is currently a rush to buy them because of the media storm. Assault rifles account for less than 1% of gun violence, they just recieve the most media attention.

Chillmeister
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Did you read one of my earlier posts? Do you know the percentage of gun violence in America due to assault rifles?

Guns are banned un your country, you should be happy.

You know, I see a lot of outrage over this. Where was the outrage when several nations, including yours, invaded Iraq at the behest of corporate profit and over a hundred thousand people lost their lives? Hypocrite.

Any percentage is too high.

Of course the percentage is lower. The percentage is lower because less people own them than own pistols and they're not as easy to conceal. I'm sure there's less killings with anthrax than there is with guns in the US. Should it go on general sale?

What actual good do they do, these semi automatic weapons? What do they contribute to society? People don't need them and it's scary that anyone would want them.

There was plenty of outrage regarding the war with Iraq and Afghanistan. Absolutely loads of it. There were protests both in America and in the UK. I don't feel you have any right to call me a hypocrite over that considering you have no idea how outraged or not I was at the time.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Chillmeister

What actual good do they do, these semi automatic weapons? What do they contribute to society? People don't need them and it's scary that anyone would want them.

. ]

What good do a lot of things do? People do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves and othrs Hell, smoking kills 400,000 people in America each year and second hand smoke kills too. Alchohol related deaths (including those caused by drunk drivers) are around 100,000. Illegal drugs like heroin, meth, and cocaine (remember the illegal part here) kill around 30,000 compare with about 25,000 by guns and usually less than 100 by assault rifles. I own two what you call "assault rifles"as well as several handguns and shotguns.
I enjoy shooting them from time to time. I do not shoot anything alive including animals. When I'm not using them they are disassembled and scattered around the house so if I got burglarized, despite having a home security system, it would be nearly impossible for any thief to get a complete weapon.

Chillmeister
All irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If people want to drink, smoke, do drugs that's their choice. If guns were only used in suicides and they were killing the same number of people, I would not have a problem with them remaining legal.

Casper Whitey
What we have here is a country full of people who have a 200 year tradition of owning guns (as guaranteed by their bill of rights) and now that that right is being questioned, they're butthurt.

And I agree, semi-auto assault rifles are not needed by private citizens.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Chillmeister
All irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If people want to drink, smoke, do drugs that's their choice. If guns were only used in suicides and they were killing the same number of people, I would not have a problem with them remaining legal.


But you're wrong. Drunk drivers kill OTHER people, so does second hand smoke. And over half of the gun violence is due to the illegal drug trade.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Casper Whitey
What we have here is a country full of people who have a 200 year tradition of owning guns (as guaranteed by their bill of rights) and now that that right is being questioned, they're butthurt.

And I agree, semi-auto assault rifles are not needed by private citizens.


So only governments, who kill FAR more people than private citizens, should have them? Is that what you're saying?

Sadako of Girth
'An eye for an eye makes the world world blind' - Ghandi

Also comparing Japan and the UK, as DDM did, land masses/populations are probably a factor when compared to the US and Mexico.
IE: You guys have more people to worry about.
More people with differing ideologies, mental states, ability to deal with the increasing pressures of life etc etc

Thats why I think that being the numbers game that it is, why rapid body count achievers like these weapons are arguably a mistake.
I favour the idea a friend came up with in discussion the other day of tighter psychological screening being a pre-requisite for ownership of any gun period. 2nd amendment can cover other arms, you dont have to go the gun route.

You wanna keep your families safer? Buy a bunch of bullet proof vests. ('Cause if a guy shoots at you, you cant shoot their bullets out of the air before they get to you)

Just the way it seems to me...

Robtard
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
So can cars, let's ban them

That a very swaying argument, you've convinced me.

Cars can kill people; they're not banned, motorcycles can kill people; they're not banned, bowling pins can kill people; they're also not banned. Ergo, people should be allowed RPGs, anti-tank weapons, military-grade high yield explosives and for those lucky few that can afford it, allow them fully armed and loaded Hind gunships, as you never know when someone might need to repel a thief.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
'An eye for an eye makes the world world blind' - Ghandi

Also comparing Japan and the UK, as DDM did, land masses/populations are probably a factor when compared to the US and Mexico.

You are correct: the higher the population density, the more crime per 100,000 people.

Meaning, the UK and Japan should have more crime per 100,000 people because their population density is greater. However, they don't. So there are other factors, besides pure population density, contributing to the US problem.

I think those are culture and policies (law).



Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I favour the idea a friend came up with in discussion the other day of tighter psychological screening being a pre-requisite for ownership of any gun period. 2nd amendment can cover other arms, you dont have to go the gun route.

Yes, that was one of my ideas, as well. I think the frequency should be once a year. But, how effective would that screening really be?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
('Cause if a guy shoots at you, you cant shoot their bullets out of the air before they get to you)

I lol'd.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
That a very swaying argument, you've convinced me.

Cars can kill people; they're not banned, motorcycles can kill people; they're not banned, bowling pins can kill people; they're also not banned. Ergo, people should be allowed RPGs, anti-tank weapons, military-grade high yield explosives and for those lucky few that can afford it, allow them fully armed and loaded Hind gunships, as you never know when someone might need to repel a thief.

He fails because he used the word "can" instead eliminating the word.


Just remove that word "can" from his post and then respond to his point.


I made the same point he did. Cars DO kill more people than guns by far. Alcohol, IIRC, does as well. 75,000 deaths a year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.UNIJEHdazt0

"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000."

From wiki...not sure about source on Wiki. But that adds up to 75,684 deaths.


Gun related deaths dropped significantly since 2000 (go figure). I don't have time to research the numbers but, basically, cars are killing more people than guns. Alcohol is killing more people than guns. Yet everyone is harping on banning guns.

Let me put it into perspective: alcohol is going on a killing spree, each and every day, killing 205 people. Everyone should be outraged. It is time we took a stand and banned alcohol except for extremely difficult licensing and routine psychological evaluations. I am not kidding. I want the same done for guns.

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by dadudemon
You are correct: the higher the population density, the more crime per 100,000 people.

Meaning, the UK and Japan should have more crime per 100,000 people because their population density is greater. However, they don't. So there are other factors, besides pure population density, contributing to the US problem.

I think those are culture and policies (law).


But the amount is less, is my point.
And maybe we are different culturally. We are a bit more secular/reserved on the whole. But those things aside, we still have passion and the rates of gun murder would be higher if we had guns. The streets are full of people who would shoot someone if they had a gun even at the best of times...like if they came home and found the missus in bed with the milkman for example...over business or even if their football team lost in some cases..
Its a good thing we dont have guns, basically.




More effective than not doing it, I should imagine.
Fundimentalists of all types should be banned IMHO.
No one is more likely to shoot someone than an extremist who may be delluded enough to think that shooting someone might be a righteous act because of some text. saying that certain policies are enforceable against someone they think is an 'ordained' enemy... But Im not zeroing in on the religious all round though, as I said above: Humans are humans and mistakes get made in the heat of the moment. We dont need the enabling and equipping to make those mistakes. So we live without legal guns in close proximity and whilst we still have street crime, we arent scared enough to all get guns and start "Defending" ourselves all willy nilly.


Glad you lol'd at the vest thing: I hope that means you recognise my point.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
He fails because he used the word "can" instead eliminating the word.


Just remove that word "can" from his post and then respond to his point.


I made the same point he did. Cars DO kill more people than guns by far. Alcohol, IIRC, does as well. 75,000 deaths a year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.UNIJEHdazt0

"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000."

From wiki...not sure about source on Wiki. But that adds up to 75,684 deaths.


Gun related deaths dropped significantly since 2000 (go figure). I don't have time to research the numbers but, basically, cars are killing more people than guns. Alcohol is killing more people than guns. Yet everyone is harping on banning guns.

Let me put it into perspective: alcohol is going on a killing spree, each and every day, killing 205 people. Everyone should be outraged. It is time we took a stand and banned alcohol except for extremely difficult licensing and routine psychological evaluations. I am not kidding. I want the same done for guns.

Still doesn't change the fact that guns are specifically designed to kill, cars and alcohol are not. I can own a gun and never kill with it, just as I can own a car and never drive it or buy a bottle of wine and never drink it. But their designed purpose stays the same.

Accidents happen.

How many car deaths are deliberate? ie how many deaths are caused by car killing sprees? I can only recall one in the last two years. The guy in the Lincoln Navigator (or other large SUV) that went into a mall.

Alcohol is another matter, I'm all for stricter regulations considering people can't handle themselves around the stuff. Drunk driving, violence caused by drinking etc should all have stiffer penalties.

BackFire
Originally posted by dadudemon
Since the vast majority will be used for things other than killing things...and some are made to be specifically used in professional target shooting events, then, no, you're still wrong. I would agree with you concerning most shotguns, however. Oh, and hunting rifles. I'd say those are made specifically to kill living things. Same with Assault Rifles (most of them). But, no, most guns these days are not made with the purpose of destroying life. You have to get into military grade weapons for that.



"good reasons" is subjective. By your logic, there is no good reason to watch movies or play video games. By your logic, there's no good reason to have the components to make fertilizer weapons (I'm at work and can't use certain words...but you obviously know which word I meant instead of weapons)...which certainly have killed quite a few people. Obviously, everything that can be used to significantly harm human life should not be banned.


Cars kill more people than assault rifles in the US. Alcohol kills more people than assault rifles in the US. Start banning those before we ban assault rifles. The deadliest should come first, right?


You can own guns in Japan and the UK but their gun violence rates are MUCH lower than the US. Why? We should be exploring those ideas and concepts rather than banning things.



However, after reading about the shooting in detail, I really cannot justify the use of high powered weapons like assault rifles. From Wikipedia: "Marie Murphy, a teacher's aide who worked with special needs students, shielded 6-year-old Dylan Hockley with her body, trying to protect him from the bullets that killed them both." That is why I am okay with removing those from the equation. What is the justification for armor-piercing rounds and high-powered guns like assault rifles? What about sniper rifles? No justification for those, imo.

Can you list these weapons that are designed for target shooting? The only ones I was able to find was air guns and pellet guns, which obviously don't fit into this discussion.

Movies and games do have a valid purpose. Entertainment. They don't pose a great risk of danger like assault weapons do. The risk of danger posed by assault weapons outweigh whatever entertainment value they may hold for some people.

The comparison with cars is a bad one. Cars require training and testing to be able to drive, guns do not. A car's intended purpose is travel. When someone dies by a car it is an accident. Cars aren't designed and used as weapons to commit mass murder on a regular basis, which is why they aren't a part of the discussion.

Your point about Japan is a good one. We should definitely explore why gun violence doesn't happen there. The obvious reason is that most guns are completely illegal there. Only shotguns and air rifles are legal. Another reason is that they do things much in the way I said we should earlier in the thread. They require significant training before being allowed to own a gun, and they require that you take tests every 3 years as long as you own a gun, and they require a mental health test before you are allowed to own a gun.

Your last point just shows that we actually agree. I never said anything about banning all guns - just assault rifles.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by BackFire
Can you list these weapons that are designed for target shooting? The only ones I was able to find was air guns and pellet guns, which obviously don't fit into this discussion.

Target guns are usually customized. A Ruger Mini-14 could be a hunting rifle (and was used in the Oslo shootings). The same rifle with glass bedding, a custom wood stock, a double trigger, and extra thick barrel is only a target rifle. Its expensive, heavy, relatively fragile, and marketed to competition shooters rather than hunters or law enforcement.

Target pistols might be a better example. A single shot .22 caliber pistol with a bunch of funny bits sticking off it is a terrible device for hurting people.

dadudemon
Originally posted by BackFire
Can you list these weapons that are designed for target shooting? The only ones I was able to find was air guns and pellet guns, which obviously don't fit into this discussion.

I appreciate you taking the effort to become informed: most people are not that level headed about this discussion.

My answer is "Just about every gun marketed, today." The exceptions are those I listed. I'm sure there are some shotguns that are made with the idea of clay pigeon shooting in mind but that just doesn't cut it for me. Well, I digress: it is the rounds that are sold that sometimes indicate if they are for harm or for clay shooting.

Originally posted by BackFire
Movies and games do have a valid purpose. Entertainment.

Yeah, that was my point. Same with guns. Target shooting is fun. When I target shoot, I am not thinking, "man...this would be awesome to kill people with!" I think, "I am not shooting very accurately, today...I need a tighter pattern." Yes, I suck that bad. sad

Originally posted by BackFire
They don't pose a great risk of danger like assault weapons do. The risk of danger posed by assault weapons outweigh whatever entertainment value they may hold for some people.

If you used "assault rifles" here, we would be in agreement. Is that what you mean? Your last comment makes me think that.

Originally posted by BackFire
The comparison with cars is a bad one. Cars require training and testing to be able to drive, guns do not. A car's intended purpose is travel. When someone dies by a car it is an accident. Cars aren't designed and used as weapons to commit mass murder on a regular basis, which is why they aren't a part of the discussion.

Actually, it is a perfect example and makes my point, if we add in your points. Even with training and proficiency tests, cars kill waaaaay more people than guns do (but there are more cars!). The solution is obviously not just in proficiency tests (I want that) or tighter regulations (I want that, as well): but the solution is in changing the culture in America.

But cars are used to commit murder in the dozens everyday...even if second or third degree.

Originally posted by BackFire
Your point about Japan is a good one. We should definitely explore why gun violence doesn't happen there. The obvious reason is that most guns are completely illegal there. Only shotguns and air rifles are legal. Another reason is that they do things much in the way I said we should earlier in the thread. They require significant training before being allowed to own a gun, and they require that you take tests every 3 years as long as you own a gun, and they require a mental health test before you are allowed to own a gun.

Is that really what they do? They obviously have a working system. However, before they tightened up their system, they still had better ...stats? Not sure how to word that but they were at our 1900s levels of firearm homicides back in the late 1980s when our murder problem was peaking in America. Shows that their solution is more than just regs and tests...I think their culture has a lot to do with it.

Originally posted by BackFire
Your last point just shows that we actually agree. I never said anything about banning all guns - just assault rifles.

313

BackFire
Originally posted by dadudemon
I appreciate you taking the effort to become informed: most people are not that level headed about this discussion.

My answer is "Just about every gun marketed, today." The exceptions are those I listed. I'm sure there are some shotguns that are made with the idea of clay pigeon shooting in mind but that just doesn't cut it for me. Well, I digress: it is the rounds that are sold that sometimes indicate if they are for harm or for clay shooting.

You are now trying to alter what you previously implied. You implied there were specific guns that exist that were not created with the intent of being efficient at killing things or some rifles used for target practice and nothing else. Now you're saying you were talking about the likes of handguns? Would you consider a glock to be a gun that is not intended to kill people? Handguns were obviously created with efficient killing in mind. Though your point about ammo is fair enough.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that was my point. Same with guns. Target shooting is fun. When I target shoot, I am not thinking, "man...this would be awesome to kill people with!" I think, "I am not shooting very accurately, today...I need a tighter pattern." Yes, I suck that bad. sad

No, not the same with guns. You ignore too many important circumstances in order to pretend this is a valid comparison. Guns are used to kill people, games and movies aren't. Someone could buy a gun because they intend to try and eat it, it doesn't change the purpose of their design.


Originally posted by dadudemon
If you used "assault rifles" here, we would be in agreement. Is that what you mean? Your last comment makes me think that.

Yes, assault rifles. That is what I've been speaking of. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, it is a perfect example and makes my point, if we add in your points. Even with training and proficiency tests, cars kill waaaaay more people than guns do (but there are more cars!). The solution is obviously not just in proficiency tests (I want that) or tighter regulations (I want that, as well): but the solution is in changing the culture in America.

But cars are used to commit murder in the dozens everyday...even if second or third degree.

But those are accidents. Those are based on people making mistakes or misusing the car. If someone kills someone with a gun, they are using the weapon properly. That was the point of a guns creation. The murder in Newtown wasn't an accident. It was someone fulfilling the intent behind the weapon that he was using. The point of a gun like the AR-15 is to kill human beings. That is why it was initially created for the military.



Originally posted by dadudemon
Is that really what they do? They obviously have a working system. However, before they tightened up their system, they still had better ...stats? Not sure how to word that but they were at our 1900s levels of firearm homicides back in the late 1980s when our murder problem was peaking in America. Shows that their solution is more than just regs and tests...I think their culture has a lot to do with it.

Yes, that is really what they do. They do even more than that, too. They also force you to keep your gun in a safe and the ammo in another safe and they make you tell the government where those safes will be in your home. Even back in the 1980's I imagine they had stricter gun laws than we have here, which likely kept deaths lower.

BackFire
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Target guns are usually customized. A Ruger Mini-14 could be a hunting rifle (and was used in the Oslo shootings). The same rifle with glass bedding, a custom wood stock, a double trigger, and extra thick barrel is only a target rifle. Its expensive, heavy, relatively fragile, and marketed to competition shooters rather than hunters or law enforcement.

Target pistols might be a better example. A single shot .22 caliber pistol with a bunch of funny bits sticking off it is a terrible device for hurting people.

This doesn't help the argument. You are implying that guns have to be altered in order to make them less deadly. That still means when that gun was created by the manufacturer it was made with the purpose of killing something in mind.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by BackFire
This doesn't help the argument. You are implying that guns have to be altered order to make them less deadly.

The rifle is no less deadly than it was before. It fires the same round at the same speed. The alterations are simply to make it specialized for target shooting, it could be used to kill people but that's not the purpose it was constructed for. The pistol was built from the ground up to be used for target shooting, it was never altered from an original base.

BackFire
It's a shame then that those pistols and some hunting rifles aren't the only ones that are legal.

Archaeopteryx
Guns have been commonly available in America since colonial times. Mass shootings like these have only been "common" (and they really aren't if you think about it) in the last decade and a half or so. Something other than the availibity of firearms has to be the primary contributing factor. There are several million unregistered assault weapons in the US so banning them will not make this problem go away.

Tzeentch._
Still not sure what the bias against assault weapons are about. The types of assault weapons you can legally buy do not have a greater destructive potential then handguns.

dadudemon
Originally posted by BackFire
You are now trying to alter what you previously implied.

"all of them" except "The exceptions are those I listed." is pretty dang direct, I feel.

Originally posted by BackFire
Would you consider a glock to be a gun that is not intended to kill people?

Which one?

Originally posted by BackFire
Handguns were obviously created with efficient killing in mind. Though your point about ammo is fair enough.

Some handguns were, yes. But I think that list would be too tedious and gray to make.


Originally posted by BackFire
No, not the same with guns. You ignore too many important circumstances in order to pretend this is a valid comparison. Guns are used to kill people, games and movies aren't. Someone could buy a gun because they intend to try and eat it, it doesn't change the purpose of their design.

I feel you do the same: video games and guns are used for entertainment. You're ignoring that. That is a valid comparison. Guns are definitely used primarily for recreation in America. You want to take that away because some use it for bad. Well, cars are used primarily for transportation and entertainment but there are many many more deaths caused by cars than guns: some of those deaths are legally considered a form of murder. Why don't you want to take those away? Your point about guns being designed primarily for the purpose of killing things is not valid as that is not the primary purpose for which they are used.




Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, assault rifles. That is what I've been speaking of. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

It's okay: we agree about everything, most likely.




Originally posted by BackFire
But those are accidents. Those are based on people making mistakes or misusing the car.

Well, so are 25,000+ gun killings. Some car related deaths are considered murder.

Originally posted by BackFire
If someone kills someone with a gun, they are using the weapon properly.

If someone intends to shoot and kill someone with a gun, it is one of the uses that a gun can be properly used to accomplish. However, not all instances are proper uses.

Originally posted by BackFire
That was the point of a guns creation.

What guns were primarily created for and how they are primarily used now are not quite the same thing.

Originally posted by BackFire
The murder in Newtown wasn't an accident.

I agree.

Originally posted by BackFire
It was someone fulfilling the intent behind the weapon that he was using. The point of a gun like the AR-15 is to kill human beings. That is why it was initially created for the military.

I agree. However, he could have been much much more successful if he created a fert. bomb (I'm at home now, lol!). It does not take long to find out how to make one of those. Those ingredients are not nearly as limited as guns.





Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, that is really what they do. They do even more than that, too. They also force you to keep your gun in a safe and the ammo in another safe and they make you tell the government where those safes will be in your home. Even back in the 1980's I imagine they had stricter gun laws than we have here, which likely kept deaths lower.

Well, I knew they did some of that such as the unnounced searching the police are allowed (there is no 4th amendment in Japan...or something like it).


Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Still not sure what the bias against assault weapons are about. The types of assault weapons you can legally buy do not have a greater destructive potential then handguns.


Depends on the rounds and the gun. The AR-15 cut through them like cheese. Some handgun rounds would not have been able to cut through that teacher and the student.

Tzeentch._
Sure, but, like you said, thay would depend on the ammo. There is ammunition for handuns that are stronger than the stanard 5by5's and 7by7's you see in assault rifles.

BackFire
I think a big part of the concern about assault rifles is their clip size. The AR-15 has a 30 round clip, that's 30 bullets that can be fired non stop as fast as you can pull the trigger.

DDM, we seem to agree on most of the important things, so I'm not going to bother continuing to argue about the rather trivial things like disagreeing on whether a comparison is sound, as doing so would inevitably spiral off topic and take the focus off the more important aspects of the conversation.

dadudemon
Originally posted by BackFire
I think a big part of the concern about assault rifles is their clip size. The AR-15 has a 30 round clip, that's 30 bullets that can be fired non stop as fast as you can pull the trigger.


Well, I'm quite certain that the only time Assault Rifles should be used is in military campaigns and festive gun shooting shows....NOT personally owned.

Blaxican may have arguments against that and I am open because I do like to err on the side of freedom. But, right now, I cannot see a reason for it.

Originally posted by BackFire
DDM, we seem to agree on most of the important things, so I'm not going to bother continuing to argue about the rather trivial things like disagreeing on whether a comparison is sound, as doing so would inevitably spiral off topic and take the focus off the more important aspects of the conversation.

That's big of you. We do agree, just to be random, about 98% about the subject. Like I said, I think you're very level headed about it which is much more than can be said for others. I'll remember this the next argument we get into (which will def happen).

Tzeentch._
In the VA tech shooting, Seung killed thirty people, wounded 17, and fired a total of 174 rounds. He did all of this in the space of approximately nine minutes, and that includes stopping to reload several times, and backtracking to classrooms he'd already visited.

He didn't have any explosives or assault weapons; the only weapons he had were two standard-issue handguns that you can buy from anywhere.

Chillmeister
It's a matter of how far the US is willing to go, it's a statement of intent to ban guns like the AR-15. They have no real use outside of someone wanting to have it because to them it is big and impressive. That is the point. Why should you have the right to own something that is so dangerous if it is ever in the wrong hands? If you want a gun for protection, get one that doesn't fire so many bullets in such a short amount of time. No one, not one person can tell me what use these things have.

It's been interesting coming on here and discussing it with people who live in the U.S. Frankly, I think the vast majority of people in this country think that the mindset that guns are needed, particularly guns like AR-15's, is completely paranoid and insane. So it has been interesting to have a proper discussion.

I'm afraid my mind hasn't been changed though.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Chillmeister
Why should you have the right to own something that is so dangerous if it is ever in the wrong hands?

That is a slippery slope. Those types of arguments have to be avoided.



Originally posted by Chillmeister
I'm afraid my mind hasn't been changed though.

Honestly, I think only one person has advocated Assault Rifles and that person is an armed security guard. Everyone else from the US thinks Assault Rifles have no place in regular citizens hands.

Chillmeister
Originally posted by dadudemon
That is a slippery slope. Those types of arguments have to be avoided.

I don't think it is when the things that's being argued about is a a rapid firing, semi automatic weapon

juggerman
Originally posted by Chillmeister
I don't think it is when the things that's being argued about is a a rapid firing, semi automatic weapon

What if your kitchen knife fell into the wrong hands and was used to murder 67 people?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Chillmeister
I don't think it is when the things that's being argued about is a a rapid firing, semi automatic weapon

Your argument applies to cars, planes, heavy machinery, chemicals, and so forth.


Originally posted by juggerman
What if your kitchen knife fell into the wrong hands and was used to murder 67 people?

Then a knife ban would be demanded by the left in the US.

Omega Vision
DDD cuts his steak with a rifle barrel. That's why he can't see the difference between a gun and a kitchen knife.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
DDD cuts his steak with a rifle barrel. That's why he can't see the difference between a gun and a kitchen knife.

I cut the cheese with an Uzi...which is why I am constantly sharting.

juggerman
Originally posted by dadudemon
Then a knife ban would be demanded by the left in the US.

I would hope not. I just got those super infomercial knifes that cut thru cans!!!!!!!

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Still not sure what the bias against assault weapons are about. The types of assault weapons you can legally buy do not have a greater destructive potential then handguns.

Because of the media attention. The media goes into a feeding frenzy when a mass shooting occurs. They WANT things like this to happen. They WANT the news to always be bad. They see huge $$$$$ signs everytime it does. Good news doesn't sell.

Sadako of Girth
Non auto handguns have less rapid fire, smaller clips and cant kill/maim multiple targets as effectively though?

Robtard
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
In the VA tech shooting, Seung killed thirty people, wounded 17, and fired a total of 174 rounds. He did all of this in the space of approximately nine minutes, and that includes stopping to reload several times, and backtracking to classrooms he'd already visited.

He didn't have any explosives or assault weapons; the only weapons he had were two standard-issue handguns that you can buy from anywhere.

Still doesn't take away that if you have two gun-men of equal caliber (haha, get it?), one armed with an AR-15; the other with 2 handguns and both 170 rounds each, the guy with the AR-15 is going to be able to cause more damage at a faster rate, aka DPS.

Seung-Hui Cho probably had faster hand reflexes than the average person due to being Korean and thereby being a Star Craft fanatic. But 174 rounds and 32 kills? That's probably not overly impressive.

Sadako of Girth
http://i.eatliver.com/2011/7410.jpg

Robtard
Can you prove there isn't a WMD in any given Kinder Surprise?

Colossus-Big C
Interesting shithttp://i.imgur.com/m64cS.jpg

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Robtard
Can you prove there isn't a WMD in any given Kinder Surprise?

Well that wouldn't be much of a surprise, would it...? wink

Robtard
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Interesting shit You sir are a troglodyte, if you can't see the different between a weapon designed to kill and utensils that could be used to kill.

Colossus-Big C
Dont know what that means, It doesnt matter. Read the picture.

Robtard
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Dont know what that means, It doesnt matter. Read the picture.

Ah, my error, used "big" words; doesn't matter. Read the picture.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7346/shutuplittleman20110422.jpg

Colossus-Big C
http://imageshack.us/a/img585/2317/hulkdeliverance.jpg

Robtard
Are you telling me that for Christmas you're getting a pair of these to help you role-play better?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41fXAZENBZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Jim Colyer
America is not going to give up its guns.

Robtard
Well not with that lousy attitude it isn't.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Robtard
Well not with that lousy attitude it isn't.

I'll make you a deal....you give up your first amendment rights and I'll give up my second

Robtard
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I'll make you a deal....you give up your first amendment rights and I'll give up my second

I'm not a "ban all guns" type.

But my First Amendment rights don't walk into schools with assault weapons and murder close to 30 people.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I'll make you a deal....you give up your first amendment rights and I'll give up my second
Comments like these highlight how ridiculously out of touch with reality and propriety the pro-gun camp is.

Speech rights and the right to bear arms aren't at all comparable besides the fact that both have "rights" in them.

One is a fundamental human right almost without qualification (except for incredibly rare, specific instances--it makes sense to clamp down on people shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater) whereas owning a firearm should be earned by proving that you're worthy of the responsibility. Only someone with a Hobbesian sense of morality would see gun ownership as a fundamental right.

Robtard
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Comments like these highlight how ridiculously out of touch with reality and propriety the pro-gun camp is.

Speech rights and the right to bear arms aren't at all comparable besides the fact that both have "rights" in them.

One is a fundamental human right almost without qualification (except for incredibly rare, specific instances--it makes sense to clamp down on people shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater) whereas owning a firearm should be earned by proving that you're worthy of the responsibility. Only someone with a Hobbesian sense of morality would see gun ownership as a fundamental right.

Listen, Jesus didn't defeat George Washington in single combat and scattered the Jewish Horde to the winds at the battle of Thermopylae just so some I-surrender-flag-waving-Frecnhmen liberal type like you can tell him he 'can't own no guns.'

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not a "ban all guns" type.

But my First Amendment rights don't walk in schools with assault weapons and murder close to 30 people.

I'm not denying this was a horrible tragedy. But I'll repeat myself here. Less than 1% of gun deaths in America are due to assault rifles, over 95% of it is due to small caliber handguns and over half of it is because of the illegal drug trade. There are close to 300 million guns in America snd several million of those are assault rifles. Banning guns, even assault rifles, will not make this type of thing go away.

Want to reduce gun violence?

1) End the war on drugs
2) Limit media coverage of any mass shooting (though this would infringe on the 1st amendment)
I'm also not against any person purchasing an assault rifle having to first undergo a psychological evaluation, at their own expense of course.
And I'm not against anyone purchasing ANY gun having to show they compentently know how to use, and store it safely.

Robtard
Yet if I flip the **** out and want to go on a mall-shooting-rampage cos they were sold out of purple Furbys, the chances of me(one person in one shooting) doing more damage increase if I'm packing something like an AR-15 with 30 bullets in the clip compared to a Beretta M9 or grandpa's old double-barrel duck hunting shotgun.

Banning weapons makes it harder for those who seek them to get them, the affects dominoes all the way down into the illegal gun market.

Tzeentch._
On the other hand, it's a lot easier to buy two M9's than it is to buy one AR-15, and it's easier to bring two M9's into a mall than it is to bring an AR-15 into a mall, and the amount of damage you can do with two M9's is comparable to the damage you can do with one AR-15.

See: the VA Tech shooting for details.

Robtard
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
On the other hand, it's a lot easier to buy two M9's than it is to buy one AR-15, and it's easier to bring two M9's into a mall than it is to bring an AR-15 into a mall, and the amount of damage you can do with two M9's is comparable to the damage you can do with one AR-15.

See: the VA Tech shooting for details.

What makes you think stashing an AR-15 in a bag is hard? Dude had no trouble bringing his mom's AR-15 and other guns into a school.

See: We covered that.

Tzeentch._
Did we? I visit this thread sporadically.

Robtard
Yes. The DPS of an AR-15 is higher than twin 9's, even if you're holding them sideways all ghetto-gangsta style.

Tzeentch._
... they're both semi-automatic weapons. They fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, basically.

Robtard
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
... they're both semi-automatic weapons. They fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, basically.

Yet the AR-15 can potentially hold double the ammo of two M9s and it's easier to reload one rifle than trying to reload an M9 in each hand after you've spent the 15 rounds in each. This isn't Resident Evil or Equilibrium.

Edit: Even with your self-stated lousy aim, you'd probably have better accuracy with an AR-15 than the M9 you use.

Tzeentch._
Okay, so we're switching back to the magazine size.

Yeah, an AR-15 has a bigger clipsize. Considering it takes about 2 and a half seconds to reload a gun though, I see that difference as pretty marginal, tbh. I don't think having a bigger clipsize outweighs the benefit of it being easier and cheaper to stock-up on handguns and ammo, as well as the mobility and concealability.

edit- I saw someone mention earlier that I might be advocating keeping assault weapons legal. To clarify, I think both handguns and assault weapons should be illegal for average citizens to use. If you need a weapon for self-defense, get a shotgun. My issue with assault weapons is that I think their threat level is overblown. Considering what history has shown us in regard to shootings like this, the huge majority of them are orchestrated with handguns, not assault weapons, and thus far no massacre with assault weapons has matched the massacres performed with handguns in terms of body count. I think handguns are more dangerous for various reasons.

Robtard
No, you're a gun nut. No backtracking now.

Tzeentch._
I also hate abortion, minorities and women.

Omega Vision
The whole "limit media coverage" is bullshit. Millions of people see non-stop reporting on violence in general, and shootings in particular, and don't go out and shoot up a restaurant or a bus. I can't believe this argument is still floating around.

Mindset
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I also hate abortion, minorities and women. Closeted homosexual.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The whole "limit media coverage" is bullshit. Millions of people see non-stop reporting on violence in general, and shootings in particular, and don't go out and shoot up a restaurant or a bus. I can't believe this argument is still floating around.

Tell me/us more about this theory. Is there any science to back up what you're posting, here? Is there any science or research that supports the other side? I've only seen one person, a psychiatrist, point out that this gun massacre stuff is bad. That is not enough 'evidence' to convince me that we should stop doing a media frenzy over these events. However, I see no evidence or expert opinion backing up your perspective.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
Tell me/us more about this theory. Is there any science to back up what you're posting, here? Is there any science or research that supports the other side? I've only seen one person, a psychiatrist, point out that this gun massacre stuff is bad. That is not enough 'evidence' to convince me that we should stop doing a media frenzy over these events. However, I see no evidence or expert opinion backing up your perspective.
Science of common sense/observation.

It's very obvious that the vast majority of people who see coverage of shootings on the news don't engage in shootings.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Science of common sense/observation.

It's very obvious that the vast majority of people who see coverage of shootings on the news don't engage in shootings.

Obviously, that answer does not cut it.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>