Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by Firefly218
This "overall homicides" take is a common take for people defending civilian access to military weapons that I find absolutely ridiculous. Crime and massacre are different things caused by different factors. Crimes are generally financially motivated, or personal vendetta or something of that ilk. Massacres are terrorism.

When 9/11 happened we implemented regulations and procedures that prevent it from happening again, but doing so hasn't decreased the "overall homicides". That's because 9/11 was not a crime, it was a massacre.

These fuccking weapons are designed for mass death, and when it actually happens all ppl do is become petty and pedantic about the brand of rifle and exactly what the initials stand for. The only people that should have these weapons are soldiers of war, not your neighbor Jim

I just cited 9/11 because it's the most famous and successful attack using vehicles, if you don't feel the example applies feel free to look at any of the other mass killings done by vehicle.

That's not the way things work in this country. We don't regulate things just because we believe someone else doesn't need what they want. I realize that you're not American and therefor don't have any particular affinity for the constitution, but we do. You'll find than even proponents of gun control disagree with you though because you've made it known that you actually think that all guns should be banned. What's more, the way you made it known just the other day when you said that banning semi automatic rifles was just one step towards getting rid of guns altogether is the very reason that semi automatic weapons are still legal.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The military also used muskets at one point, using your logic every gun in the world is a military weapon. thus making the term completely worthless.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I can quote you saying fully automatic multiple times.

Again, does it matter? If you are going to hook yourself into word game debating again don't bother. because my argument can apply to any firearm without distinction. If all you can do is use a highly distinctive version to try and discredit the entire rest of the argument, then your argument style has not changed either. Not to mention you are, once again, intentionally using that sole distinction to avoid answering the two core questions I ask. That doesn't require the gun being fully auto, semi auto, or any other distinction.

Even 21st century 😛

Originally posted by Firefly218
You're being dishonest again. War in the 1700s is very different from war in the 20th century

Just like war during the early 1900's is much different than war in 2017, you're the one being dishonest.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Again, does it matter? If you are going to hook yourself into word game debating again don't bother. because my argument can apply to any firearm without distinction. If all you can do is use a highly distinctive version to try and discredit the entire rest of the argument, then your argument style has not changed either. Not to mention you are, once again, intentionally using that sole distinction to avoid answering the two core questions I ask. That doesn't require the gun being fully auto, semi auto, or any other distinction.

As it's a point you brought up, yes it matters.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Like I said, do you really think it's sensible to register and license your hands then? I mean lets be reasonable here. You have no reason not to have restrictions on purpose built weapons meant to kill. The same cannot be said for knives, hammers or other tools because those things are not primarily made to kill people, and actually serve a purpose. A gun is designed to project a bullet as a means of offense.

Guns were originally ONLY weapons designed to kill(so were swords, spears, and bows), but they've also become a means of sport and recreation in this country.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
No, that's not a purpose. that is a subjective reason of ownership, not a purpose for said ownership. And you never need that kind of firepower. PLUS, there is always the risk of your intruders also having that kind of firepower in their hands before they break and enter. And they are likely more ready willing and able to use said gun than you are at 3am. Congratulations, your nations current gun laws just murdered you.

So you think we should count on the criminals not being able to get that kind of firepower and leave ourselves defenseless to it? The possibility of self defense isn't a right we should have anymore?

Originally posted by Silent Master
As it's a point you brought up, yes it matters.

Then you've missed my point. Entirely.

Again, because you missed it - "Why do ordinary civilians require forearms? And if they need it, why would license and registration still be an unacceptable barrier?"

This is the point. Everything else is existential to this.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Then you've missed my point. Entirely.

Again, because you missed it - "Why do ordinary civilians require forearms? And if they need it, why would license and registration still be an unacceptable barrier?"

This is the point. Everything else is existential to this.

I'm dealing with one point at a time. but if it makes you feel better.

"Why do ordinary civilians require firearms"? defense. as for your other question. you do realize that I've stated multiple times that I have no problems with requiring a license or background checks, right?

Now how about answering my questions?

Originally posted by darthgoober
So you think we should count on the criminals not being able to get that kind of firepower and leave ourselves defenseless to it? The possibility of self defense isn't a right we should have anymore?

I'm saying handing guns over the counter like dollar store candy with no checks balances or regulations is a recipe for disaster. I DID NOT SAY to ban the weapons. but having a firearms license and registering the weapons for a legitimate purpose is not too much to ask I don't think. And making such a requirement makes it more difficult for criminals to purchase weapons over the counter. It actually makes it more difficult for people without licenses to get the weapons than those that do, and most people who need to own a firearm should not have any trouble getting a license.

Again, you all panic pre-emptively at any form of gun control. Even here in Australia, where gun laws are tight, I can STILL get a gun, rifles, shottys, handguns, even for recreational purposes. but a guy with a criminal record aint going to be able to get it from the same places.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I'm saying handing guns over the counter like dollar store candy with no checks balances or regulations is a recipe for disaster. I DID NOT SAY to ban the weapons. but having a firearms license and registering the weapons for a legitimate purpose is not too much to ask I don't think. And making such a requirement makes it more difficult for criminals to purchase weapons over the counter. It actually makes it more difficult for people without licenses to get the weapons than those that do, and most people who need to own a firearm should not have any trouble getting a license.

Again, you all panic pre-emptively at any form of gun control. Even here in Australia, where gun laws are tight, I can STILL get a gun, rifles, shottys, handguns, even for recreational purposes. but a guy with a criminal record aint going to be able to get it from the same places.

Where are guns handed over the counter like dollar store candy with no checks balances or regulations? BTW, you still haven't answered my question about fully automatic weapons.

Originally posted by darthgoober
A massacre is a crime, and it's only terrorism if it's politically or ideologically motivated.

I just cited 9/11 because it's the most famous and successful attack using vehicles, if you don't feel the example applies feel free to look at any of the other mass killings done by vehicle.

That's not the way things work in this country. We don't regulate things just because we believe someone else doesn't need what they want. I realize that you're not American and therefor don't have any particular affinity for the constitution, but we do. You'll find than even proponents of gun control disagree with you though because you've made it known that you actually think that all guns should be banned. What's more, the way you made it known just the other day when you said that banning semi automatic rifles was just one step towards getting rid of guns altogether is the very reason that semi automatic weapons are still legal.

First of all, I am an American. I was born in this country, I pay taxes and I vote. I am very familiar with the constitution, and that it says we have the right to bare arms with a "well-regulated militia".

Everything else you just said is complete horse shit. Never have I said banning all guns is a feasible option nor have I indicated an assault weapons ban is just a step.

And the regulations are to prevent dead children and dead concert goers and dead gay people. You can give up that cool gun and your Rambo fantasies for the sake of the dead. If I had a cool Ferrari that I really liked but it was being used by a bunch of crazies to massacre children, yes I'd give it up.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm dealing with one point at a time. but if it makes you feel better.

"Why do ordinary civilians require firearms"? defense. as for your other question. you do realize that I've stated multiple times that I have no problems with requiring a license or background checks, right?

Now how about answering my questions?

Defense? What? You don't need anything more than a revolver for that requirement. And even then, there's no reason not to have checks and balances as to who can buy a gun over the counter.

Then why are you arguing with me? There's literally nothing left to argue about.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Just like war during the early 1900's is much different than war in 2017, you're the one being dishonest.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Where are guns handed over the counter like dollar store candy with no checks balances or regulations? BTW, you still haven't answered my question about fully automatic weapons.

I havn't answered it because it's irrelevant. I didn't bring it up. Surter mentioned the AKs, not I.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Defense? What? You don't need anything more than a revolver for that requirement. And even then, there's no reason not to have checks and balances as to who can buy a gun over the counter.

Then why are you arguing with me? There's literally nothing left to argue about.

Yes defense, your opinion that all someone needs is a revolver is just that, your opinion.

I'm arguing about your comments regarding fully automatic weapons, which you still haven't addressed my question.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I havn't answered it because it's irrelevant. I didn't bring it up. Surter mentioned the AKs, not I.

I can easily quote you mentioning fully automatic weapons multiple times.

But if you want to claim that it was Surtur and not you that mentioned fully automatic weapons first, by all means post the quote.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I'm saying handing guns over the counter like dollar store candy with no checks balances or regulations is a recipe for disaster. I DID NOT SAY to ban the weapons. but having a firearms license and registering the weapons for a legitimate purpose is not too much to ask I don't think. And making such a requirement makes it more difficult for criminals to purchase weapons over the counter. It actually makes it more difficult for people without licenses to get the weapons than those that do, and most people who need to own a firearm should not have any trouble getting a license.

Again, you all panic pre-emptively at any form of gun control. Even here in Australia, where gun laws are tight, I can STILL get a gun, rifles, shottys, handguns, even for recreational purposes. but a guy with a criminal record aint going to be able to get it from the same places.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yes defense, your opinion that all someone needs is a revolver is just that, your opinion.

I'm arguing about your comments regarding fully automatic weapons, which you still haven't addressed my question.

No. if you can't kill someone with 5 to 6 bullets, then you have no business owning a gun.

Then you are arguing with Surter, not I. My comments regarding the AK can apply to any firearm. Because All I said was "WHY DO YOU NEED IT". Defense can be accomplished with a kitchen knife, a garden tool, Do you know how many woodcutting axes and machetes are out there? Heaps. I own one of each myself, in a country that has strict weapon laws. You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself and your property. you WANT it tho, and that is the difference.

Originally posted by darthgoober
As far as I know, no one here is arguing against things like background checks, so we're actually pro regulation. That kind of point has already been agreed upon a long time ago. The ones who are really driving this argument forward are those like Firefly who want to ban them outright and that's the type of stance that our arguments are geared towards.

dp