Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gun Control

347 replies to this topic
The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forgetti.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#61

Posted 27 August 2015 - 06:30 PM Edited by The Yokel, 27 August 2015 - 06:35 PM.

As a gun owner and as somebody who comes from a cop family firing guns since I was 12, I support guns and gun rights. I also support background checks for violent felonies, references, police interview, waiting period, and psychological background. That said, I'm not entirely convinced taking everyone's gun is going to reduce gun crime. Criminals who act with firearms don't follow the law... In Detroit right now, wherein the city has reduced gun restrictions and made it permissible for law abiding citizens to carry, violent crime has gone down, and the police chief is attributing it in part to citizens protecting themselves.

There is no way that taking guns from people doesn't reduce gun crime. If you have two six shooters you can shoot 12 bullets and commit 12 firearm murders if you are really good. If you have only one you can commit a maximum of 6 murders. Guess how many people you can shoot if you have zero six shooters?

 

And just because Detroit has reduced gun restrictions doesn't mean jack sh*t until you prove that correlation implies causation. Oh, the police chief said it, so it must be true.

 

It doesn't even matter that criminals don't follow the law. Removing guns from the population isn't supposed to be a thing that happens overnight. There will still be guns in the streets. But guess what? The prices of those guns will skyrocket the harder they are to get. And as years go by and criminals who commit violent acts with guns get caught and locked away the amount of illegal guns gets reduced as well. In about a decade or so the problem will be solved.

  • AlienTwo likes this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#62

Posted 27 August 2015 - 06:34 PM

As a gun owner and as somebody who comes from a cop family firing guns since I was 12, I support guns and gun rights. I also support background checks for violent felonies, references, police interview, waiting period, and psychological background. That said, I'm not entirely convinced taking everyone's gun is going to reduce gun crime. Criminals who act with firearms don't follow the law... In Detroit right now, wherein the city has reduced gun restrictions and made it permissible for law abiding citizens to carry, violent crime has gone down, and the police chief is attributing it in part to citizens protecting themselves.

There is no way that taking guns from people doesn't reduce gun crime. If you have two six shooters you can shoot 12 bullets and commit 12 firearm murders if you are really good. If you have only one you can commit a maximum of 6 murders. Guess how many people you can shoot if you have zero six shooters?
 
And just because Detroit has reduced gun restrictions doesn't mean jack sh*t until you prove that correlation implies causation. Oh, the police chief said it, so it must be true.

That's purely illogical, though. How do you plan to get everyone's gun? Do you think criminals are going to just report to the station and turn them in? You'll take the guns from the people who follow the law, that's about it. It's already a major felony to illegally possess a firearm and it doesn't deter criminals. You're naive, plain and simple my friend.
  • Ruin, Gay Tony, Skeever and 1 other like this

Majestic81
  • Majestic81

    Big Homie

  • The Lost MC
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2012
  • Unknown

#63

Posted 27 August 2015 - 06:36 PM Edited by Majestic81, 27 August 2015 - 06:51 PM.

As a gun owner and as somebody who comes from a cop family firing guns since I was 12, I support guns and gun rights. I also support background checks for violent felonies, references, police interview, waiting period, and psychological background. That said, I'm not entirely convinced taking everyone's gun is going to reduce gun crime. Criminals who act with firearms don't follow the law... In Detroit right now, wherein the city has reduced gun restrictions and made it permissible for law abiding citizens to carry, violent crime has gone down, and the police chief is attributing it in part to citizens protecting themselves.

But this guy wasnt a hardened criminal, He was a normal guy who went crazy. How different do you think this scenario would have been if he had a knife instead of a gun (assuming he would have the courage to try and kill them with a knife in the first place) a trigger is so easy to pull and every f*ckhead can do it. You dont need to be a long-life criminal for that. guns just make it easier for assholes like that to live their fantasies.

 

And you cant commit mass murder with a knife.

 

Gun control would reduce senseless crimes like that. gang related crimes and crimes committed by criminals are a completely different thing. Next time a scumbag decides to murder someone because of an argument, they would have to think twice. Killing someone without a gun takes guts.

 

Guns makes it easier to kill someone else, simple as that. Its why they were created in the first place.


The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forgetti.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#64

Posted 27 August 2015 - 06:37 PM

 

 

As a gun owner and as somebody who comes from a cop family firing guns since I was 12, I support guns and gun rights. I also support background checks for violent felonies, references, police interview, waiting period, and psychological background. That said, I'm not entirely convinced taking everyone's gun is going to reduce gun crime. Criminals who act with firearms don't follow the law... In Detroit right now, wherein the city has reduced gun restrictions and made it permissible for law abiding citizens to carry, violent crime has gone down, and the police chief is attributing it in part to citizens protecting themselves.

There is no way that taking guns from people doesn't reduce gun crime. If you have two six shooters you can shoot 12 bullets and commit 12 firearm murders if you are really good. If you have only one you can commit a maximum of 6 murders. Guess how many people you can shoot if you have zero six shooters?
 
And just because Detroit has reduced gun restrictions doesn't mean jack sh*t until you prove that correlation implies causation. Oh, the police chief said it, so it must be true.

That's purely illogical, though. How do you plan to get everyone's gun? Do you think criminals are going to just report to the station and turn them in? You'll take the guns from the people who follow the law, that's about it. It's already a major felony to illegally possess a firearm and it doesn't deter criminals. You're naive, plain and simple my friend.

No it isn't. Read the whole post I just edited.

  • AlienTwo likes this

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, WILLY!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground] [Contribution]
    Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#65

Posted 27 August 2015 - 07:51 PM

The one thing I don't get about folks banning guns is that they think criminals are going to follow the law and not use guns. Same with those gun free zones that're popping up. It keeps law abiding citizens from carrying guns and protecting themselves against shooters (as was partially the case with Charles Whitman and could have been during the 1991 Luby's shooting), because you know, people intending to shoot and kill people very rarely follow the law.

Bit I'm all for better checks and registration for gun owners, though.

  • Skeever likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#66

Posted 27 August 2015 - 07:59 PM

The one thing I don't get about folks banning guns is that they think criminals are going to follow the law and not use guns.

The problem is this whole line of reasoning has no bearing on reality. Quite aside from the fact that the majority of firearm murders and serious injuries are as a result of emorional factors (anger, stress etc) and that the likelihood of these crimes being committed without an available firearm being significantly reduced, the fact that criminals will still attempt to acquire firearms is largely moot if hefty firearm restrictions and limitations and the effective annihilation of the US grey market make buying a firearm either an extremely complex or extremely costly process.

Take the UK. We have some of the most oppressive firearms legislation in the world. Weapons cannot be kept in a usable state, in fact ammunition and firearms legally must be kept separately. Handguns are effectively illegal. Centrefire semi-automatic weapons are illegal. The firearm trade is heavily overseen. And yet by your logic the UK should be swimming with illegal guns, especially given that it was only in the mid 80s we actually stopped clamping down on firearm possession at all.

Now I don't necessarily agree with UK firearm legislation, but it's difficult to dispute the facts. Gun crime rates are vanishingly small even compared to our European neighbours. Fatal shootings in the UK number little more than a couple of dozen a year in a population of 70 million. Part of the low firearm crime rate is because once you start ramping up restrictions gun can become really, really hard to obtain. Even more difficult in the UK is obtaining centrefire pistol ammunition- It's hideously expensive on the black market on the rare chances it's actually obtainable, well out of the price and availability range of your usual low level criminal or mentally unhinged individual.
  • Tchuck, mr quick, universetwisters and 1 other like this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#67

Posted 27 August 2015 - 08:08 PM

I'm anti-gun and like the fact the UK has very low gun ownership and very high gun restrictions. Having said that though, I don't see similar restrictions working in America, just because there's already so many guns there. Sometimes certain things are very hard to restrict, and enacting a sort of gun prohibition would probably have similar results to the alcohol prohibition era. There are just so many guns, as well as gun owners who wouldn't give their weapons up, that'd it be like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. Enforcing it would be impossible, and trying to keep them away from criminals and gang members would be even harder. 

 

The extraordinary homicide rate that America has compared to other developed countries isn't even that bad in all honesty. It isn't a poor reflection on the vast majority of the country, because it's a small number of areas and certain groups who have such high rates that they jack the entire country's rate up. There are parts of certain cities that have homicide rates of Latin American countries like Honduras. Those sorts of areas don't exist in Europe. There's more to the disparity in homicide rates than just guns. The gangs and criminals would still easily be able to get guns too, and they are the ones primarily responsible for the high homicide rate. I don't think it would go down as much as pro gun control people think.

 

I think the argument that you'd be empowering criminals is valid too, and you'd be leaving a lot of people feeling very vulnerable. You might stop more spree shooters, because they tend to be general members of the public, and the general public would have less access to guns. But I think if someone really wanted to get a gun, it would still be pretty easy to get one. There are other ways to reduce spree shooting numbers too, other than imposing very tight controls on all guns.

  

Like I said I'm anti-gun, but if I was living in America I'd probably want a gun. Just to protect my family. The situation is not realistically solvable by imposing a UK style system or even anything close to it. I think it's actually not a solvable problem at all, I don't think it can be fixed. There are certain things that could be improved upon a bit, but the U.S. will always be an outlier on gun crime and homicides. That's just the way it's going to be I think, at least for the foreseeable future.  

  • Skeever and GROVE_IS_FOR_GSF like this

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, WILLY!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground] [Contribution]
    Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#68

Posted 27 August 2015 - 08:10 PM Edited by universetwisters, 27 August 2015 - 09:26 PM.

 

<p><p>The one thing I don't get about folks banning guns is that they think criminals are going to follow the law and not use guns.

 

 
That <p><p> thing is pretty odd. I don't think I've seen that code before.

 

E. Sivis edited his post and went more in depth. Good points, but didn't the UK start clamping down on the guns after the shooting in Dunblane in 1996? But then again, I'm not too familiar with things from before then.


Skeever
  • Skeever

    Blue Lives Matter

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2014
  • United-States
  • Draw Contest Winner 2016

#69

Posted 27 August 2015 - 08:21 PM

Same with those gun free zones that're popping up.

Quite possibly one of the worst methods of gun control this country has come up with in the past few decades. It's sad to think that a lot of the more recent mass shooting sites (Aurora, Lafayette, Chattanooga, etc.) were most likely chosen by the shooters over other locations in the area because of the fact that they all prohibit firearms, especially when it comes Chattanooga and the military personnel stationed there being unarmed and defenseless. I find it hard to believe that anyone thought these zones were a good idea.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#70

Posted 27 August 2015 - 08:47 PM

It's funny you say that, because there's actually no correlation between mass shooting incidents in the US and areas which prohibit firearms. It's also worth noting that incidents in which armed citizens prevent attempted shootings via direct intervention are so infrequent as to comprise little more than a rounding error.
  • Irviding likes this

Skeever
  • Skeever

    Blue Lives Matter

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2014
  • United-States
  • Draw Contest Winner 2016

#71

Posted 27 August 2015 - 09:29 PM Edited by Skeever, 27 August 2015 - 09:42 PM.

There certainly is when it comes to the few shootings I mentioned above. While it may not have been the main reason he chose the Aurora theater, James Holmes had chosen the one and only gun-free movie theater (out of several other theaters in the area that had little to no firearms restrictions) within a 20 minute drive of his home, which seems a little more than coincidental. The same can be said with Abdulazeez choosing to attack two military bases that did not allow military personnel to carry firearms on their persons. I strongly doubt he would have been bold enough to attack a base full of armed personnel.

Granted, I didn't expect a guy with a CPL to pop out and save the day at either of the theater shootings, so I apologize if I implied that in my previous post. The military personnel in Chattanooga really should have been armed, however.


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, WILLY!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground] [Contribution]
    Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#72

Posted 27 August 2015 - 09:56 PM

The one thing I'd want though, if gun-free zones are going to be a regular thing, would be checks before you enter it. Like if you were to go to a theater that's a gun-free zone, you get searched at the entrance by a guard or whoever to make sure you don't have a gun before you can come in. I wouldn't mind having them, but at least enforce what you put in.

  • Skeever likes this

MyName'sJeff
  • MyName'sJeff

    Schmidt f*cked the Captain's daughter!

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2015
  • United-Kingdom

#73

Posted 27 August 2015 - 10:20 PM Edited by MyName'sJeff, 27 August 2015 - 10:21 PM.

There certainly is when it comes to the few shootings I mentioned above. While it may not have been the main reason he chose the Aurora theater, James Holmes had chosen the one and only gun-free movie theater (out of several other theaters in the area that had little to no firearms restrictions) within a 20 minute drive of his home, which seems a little more than coincidental. The same can be said with Abdulazeez choosing to attack two military bases that did not allow military personnel to carry firearms on their persons. I strongly doubt he would have been bold enough to attack a base full of armed personnel.

Granted, I didn't expect a guy with a CPL to pop out and save the day at either of the theater shootings, so I apologize if I implied that in my previous post. The military personnel in Chattanooga really should have been armed, however.

James Holmes targeted a theatre within a 20 minute drive from his home. The clue is right there, 20 minute drive from his home. The CLOSEST one to his house. So how can you prove that the gun-free restriction was the reason why he targeted it? Not only has he been tested as mentally insane, but people like him would likely go to a theater closest to them so that if they successfully escaped after completing their objective, they go back to their house like everything was normal. So if people are the issue and not the guns, the country is f*cked period. You can't argue with that.


Skeever
  • Skeever

    Blue Lives Matter

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2014
  • United-States
  • Draw Contest Winner 2016

#74

Posted 27 August 2015 - 10:29 PM

James Holmes targeted a theatre within a 20 minute drive from his home. The clue is right there, 20 minute drive from his home. The CLOSEST one to his house. So how can you prove that the gun-free restriction was the reason why he targeted it?

It isn't a sure thing that he attacked it because it was a gun-free zone, I'm just sharing my opinion based on the information provided. All I know for sure is that there were multiple theaters within a close proximity to his home and he chose that one, the only gun-free theater. He could've chosen it for hundreds of other reasons that we don't know about, nobody but Holmes knows for sure.

I wouldn't mind gun-free zones if they were properly secured, as UT suggested. An unlocked, unguarded emergency escape door with no metal detectors is not "secure".

  • universetwisters likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#75

Posted 28 August 2015 - 03:23 AM

As a gun owner and as somebody who comes from a cop family firing guns since I was 12, I support guns and gun rights. I also support background checks for violent felonies, references, police interview, waiting period, and psychological background. That said, I'm not entirely convinced taking everyone's gun is going to reduce gun crime. Criminals who act with firearms don't follow the law... In Detroit right now, wherein the city has reduced gun restrictions and made it permissible for law abiding citizens to carry, violent crime has gone down, and the police chief is attributing it in part to citizens protecting themselves.

Nice to see Detroit's absentee cops admitting the community doesn't need them!

  • make total destroy likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#76

Posted 28 August 2015 - 08:00 AM

didn't the UK start clamping down on the guns after the shooting in Dunblane in 1996?

We outlawed pistols after Dunblane, but we'd already banned semi-automatic centrefire rifles in 1988.

There certainly is when it comes to the few shootings I mentioned above.

If you have to pick and choose the various shootings that correlate with your statement, it's probably not awful useful as a general one. Have there been a number of mass shootings in gun-free places? Is there a correlation between mass shootings and gun-free places? Not really.

While it may not have been the main reason he chose the Aurora theater, James Holmes had chosen the one and only gun-free movie theater...which seems a little more than coincidental.

Pure speculation. Correlation does not equal causation, and coincidence certainly doesn't either.
  • El Diablo, Tchuck and universetwisters like this

HeavyDuke
  • HeavyDuke

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2015
  • European-Union

#77

Posted 28 August 2015 - 08:58 AM

 

Maybe Pokemon should be banned as well. It can turn people evil and make them want to kill other Pokemon players.

You are a f*cking idiot, simple as that.

 

You sound butthurt. Pokemon fan much?

  • The Deadite and Mister Leone like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#78

Posted 28 August 2015 - 09:04 AM Edited by El Diablo, 28 August 2015 - 09:07 AM.

I think this paragraph is relatively important and bears repeating:

 

It's funny you say that, because there's actually no correlation between mass shooting incidents in the US and areas which prohibit firearms. It's also worth noting that incidents in which armed citizens prevent attempted shootings via direct intervention are so infrequent as to comprise little more than a rounding error.

this isn't somebody's opinion. both of these points are true.

it's also true that the vast majority of firearm-murders are committed with revolvers and/or semiautomatic handguns without being reloaded.

 

in the end, the problem with "Gun Control" in the US is actually kind of simple.

there's just too many guns and the gun culture is still too cavalier.

 

the legislation that our Congress feeds to us in the aftermath of these tragedies is nonsense.

people clamor about banning assault rifles? limiting magazine capacities? getting background checks on all sales? scolding Wal-Mart for selling shotguns?

 

there's too many guns and the gun culture is too cavalier.

the US is still such a young country. we're a young nation born of war and conflict. we've been at war for too long. at the highest levels, everything is eventually judged by the end of a barrel. everything is resolved with a gun. diplomacy and peace are temporary, bombs and soldiers are our primary export. shoot first, talk later. we're still caught up in the romantic image of that rugged Cowboy outlaw who takes on the world. sex sells but violence rules.

 

it's not like other European countries don't have guns.

it's not like other European nations don't appreciate some great action, destruction, gory, graphic TV and film. we're all playing the same video games and reading the same books more or less.

 

we can throw all kinds of nominal legislation at this issue.

we can worry about the media that our kids are consuming.
but at some point we might simply have to take a long, tough, inward look at ourselves and our way of life and the way our people (as a nation) relates to the rest of the world.

  • mr quick and Irviding like this

WHAT!?
  • WHAT!?

    chkn butt

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2002
  • United-States
  • Best Member Named after a Stone Cold Steve Austin Catchphrase

#79

Posted 28 August 2015 - 01:22 PM

Ya know because there is no reason you should have a firearm in your home.


Clearly you've never had a crack head just wander in to your home off the street because he didn't know where he was. Politely asking him to leave doesn't always pan out... and that's a situation where there isn't necessarily intent do harm to the home owner. Before you say "well just call the cops".  Yeah, I wouldn't want to play host with the guy for thirty plus minutes or actually get into a physical fight with a dude that could well have knives/needles on him. There are home defense scenario's where guns are pretty handy. In fact there are some places here in MI (Flint/Detroit) where you would be out of your mind trying to live without some form of protection. The cops can't be bothered.

 

That said, I absolutely agree additional screening is needed, and that there needs to be more restrictions placed on who can legally obtain and own a gun, but then I just deconstructed that argument right there by using the word "legally". The black market is so ridiculously easy to find that extra laws... while I won't object to them, I don't honestly expect them to make a difference in the amount of armed criminals, either. The price will go up on black market guns, that'll be it. Everyone will still have them. They are so well proliferated you'd need to confiscate and destroy hundreds of thousands of them before you'd see a dent made in their use.

 

While this might help reduce the amount of crimes committed in the throws of passion, anyone who plans things out, like the movie theater shooter in Colorado for example, will still likely be able to find a firearm to employ for their wanton slaughter. Like I said already, real gun control would end up having to go beyond just more laws and regulation to straight up confiscation. Even then, initially it will only be the law abiding that will have lost the access to them.

 

This particular genie is harder to put back into the bottle than it seems.

  • Failure, Irviding and Raavi like this

UshaB
  • UshaB

    Nacho Libre - "I wanna weeeeeen!"

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2014
  • Australia

#80

Posted 28 August 2015 - 01:35 PM Edited by UshaB, 28 August 2015 - 01:39 PM.

STATISTICS SHOW:

 

USA is averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015. I feel so much more safer now :)

http://shootingtrack...ootings_in_2015

http://www.washingto...er-day-in-2015/

 

Untitled.jpg

As shown in this article: http://www.cdc.gov/n...ts/homicide.htm

 

All homicides

  • Number of deaths: 16,121
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.1

Firearm homicides

  • Number of deaths: 11,208
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5

Not baaaaaaaaaad

 

 

 

The effectiveness of gun confiscation in a DEVELOPED NATION, like USA:

 

http://www.vox.com/2...stralia-buyback

 

 

 

Now tell me why having guns is a good thing.


bloatedsack
  • bloatedsack

    My boner.

  • GTAF Crew
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2014
  • Vatican-City

#81

Posted 28 August 2015 - 03:15 PM

Now tell me why having guns is a good thing.

 

Keeps the King of England out of our face.

 

The problem, fwiw, really isn't firearms it's violence. Address the root cause and everything else will nicely take care of itself. There are countries with much more lax gun laws out there and they're not dealing with gun deaths at all, and there's plenty of countries with much more stringent firearms laws who are awash in far worse crime rates, the gun-free paradise that is the United Kingdom is a prime example of that.

 

The usual banter goes something along the lines of the gunners suggesting we look at cities like Chicago or Washington DC which have total firearms bans as having more violence than anywhere else as being examples it doesn't work. It turn, the antis point out they just come in from outside communities... So, then, why do places like Ireland or Jamaica have so much gun crime? Firearms are just as restricted there as the gunfree paradise cities like Chiraq, and yet... the gun crime rates have just gone up.

 

Then we've got the UK at large, which despite manipulating its statistics through the method in which violent crimes are documented, have escalating rates of violence and crime in  their post-ban states than ever before. Australia, the same.

 

Thus, as I said in the opening line, it's not the guns it's the violence; and on that, America is awash in a culture of violence. The rest of the world is just busy playing catchup on that.

  • Queen, Gay Tony and Skeever like this

RageFaceMax
  • RageFaceMax

    Professionally unprofessional

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2015
  • Netherlands

#82

Posted 28 August 2015 - 05:47 PM

Should be totally ban guns? There are a lot of politicians who truly believe it will solve all gun crime. Take Dianne Feinstein as an example. That woman wants to ban all guns in America, yet she used to have a carry permit untill 2012. That's when she got a lot of negative media coverage and decided to get rid of it. She's just a hypocrite, if you ask me. 

 

The problem I have with some anti-gun politicians, is that they don't know anything about firearms. It really sounds like they got all their ''gun knowledge'' from Call of Duty and Wikipedia. Why try to ban something you don't know anything about? At least go to a shooting range once and see how it's like, and do some proper research.

 

Here, this is what I'm talking about:

 

 

Miss McCarthy wanted to regulate:

 

- Semi-auto ''assault weapons''. 

- Weapons that have pistol grips or forward grips.

- Barrel shrouds. 

 

First of all, there are no semi-auto ''assault weapons''. A rifle can only be considered an ''assault rifle'' if it has select-fire capabilities (full-auto and burst fire). The media throws around that term way to often. In my opinion, the only true assault rifles are the Sturmgewehr family of rifles, but that's a different story. 

 

Second of all, who the hell cares if a gun has a pistol grip or forward grip? Does it make the gun more deadly? No. Does it make the gun more dangerous? No. It makes it more comfortable to use. That's all...

 

Last but not least, she didn't even know what a barrel shroud is. ''A shoulder thing that goes up''. Are we watching Predator, or are we talking about firearms? A barrel shroud is simply a kind of sleeve that covers the barrel. All it does is prevent you from burning your hands if the barrel is hot. That's all. Why should it be banned? I sure as hell don't know. 

 

I always like to hear what anti-gun people have to say. After all, I think it's good to hear and respect opinions of other people. But at least do some dang research first...

  • Skeever and Mister Leone like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#83

Posted 28 August 2015 - 07:15 PM Edited by Irviding, 28 August 2015 - 07:17 PM.

But this guy wasnt a hardened criminal, He was a normal guy who went crazy. How different do you think this scenario would have been if he had a knife instead of a gun (assuming he would have the courage to try and kill them with a knife in the first place) a trigger is so easy to pull and every f*ckhead can do it. You dont need to be a long-life criminal for that. guns just make it easier for assholes like that to live their fantasies.

 

 

And you cant commit mass murder with a knife.

 

Gun control would reduce senseless crimes like that. gang related crimes and crimes committed by criminals are a completely different thing. Next time a scumbag decides to murder someone because of an argument, they would have to think twice. Killing someone without a gun takes guts.

 

Guns makes it easier to kill someone else, simple as that. Its why they were created in the first place.

That's fine and dandy, but it has no bearing on reality. Diablo put is quite well. There are too many guns in the United States. There are 96 f*cking guns for every 100 people. To all the people on the left who criticize Republicans for saying you can't deport 12 million people, I'll counter that and say "you can't confiscate 300+ million guns". It's simply unreasonable. We are better off trying to come together on common sense regulations like the ones in my post. It is no mistake that a lot of the guns responsible for the crime on the streets of American cities come from Southern states with no gun regulations. For example, the guns used to kill both Officer Brian Moore and Officers Liu and Ramos of the NYPD earlier this year/late last year were all traced to Georgia, where it is probably harder to adopt a dog than it is to get a gun.

 

 

 


 

doesn't even matter that criminals don't follow the law. Removing guns from the population isn't supposed to be a thing that happens overnight. There will still be guns in the streets. But guess what? The prices of those guns will skyrocket the harder they are to get. And as years go by and criminals who commit violent acts with guns get caught and locked away the amount of illegal guns gets reduced as well. In about a decade or so the problem will be solved.

That's ridiculous and shows your lack of education on this issue. Price of guns will skyrocket? They already are pretty f*cking high because they come into the American city from the South or even further south of the border. Criminals getting caught also does not mean that their weapons get taken as well. Furthermore, possessing an illegal firearm is already a mid range-heavy felony in most states. In the Northeast, in most states it is a D or C felony or the equivalent which is 4-7 years in prison mandated. How much harsher can we make the penalties? How about we stop being draconian and stupid, and look at some common sense regulations. We already have fair gun laws up North. The south needs to get their sh*t in order and start using background checks, waiting periods, police interviews, etc. because that is where the illegal guns that ravage northern cities and carry out these mass shootings are coming from. 

 

As I said above, there are 96 guns in this country for every 100 people. Let's take them away from people who know how to use them and follow the law but leave them with all of the f*cking criminals. Don't worry, it'll correct itself in 10-20 years! Sounds like a great policy my friend. 

  • WHAT!? and Skeever like this

Gay Tony
  • Gay Tony

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 May 2014
  • United-States

#84

Posted 28 August 2015 - 07:38 PM Edited by mr toasterbutt, 28 August 2015 - 07:41 PM.

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates per person in the world along with the U.S. and has a far, far lower rate of gun related homocides than the U.S.

 

Correlation does not imply causation. It's not just the guns at play here.

  • El Diablo, Failure, Irviding and 2 others like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#85

Posted 28 August 2015 - 07:42 PM

^^^ exactly my point...

 

it's less about the guns.

less about the media.

much more about our culture.

  • Irviding and Gay Tony like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#86

Posted 29 August 2015 - 01:08 AM

there's plenty of countries with much more stringent firearms laws who are awash in far worse crime rates, the gun-free paradise that is the United Kingdom is a prime example of that.

The issue here is this doesn't really ring true, partially because our laws have a different scope and reach (stuff classed as violent offences in the UK often wouldn't have been in the US; in fact I think there are only five specific offences recorded in the FBI statistics as violent- murder, attempted murder, rape aggravated assault, and forcible robbery), partially because the US records crime in a specific way which automatically reduces the statistical appearances (most notably they only record the most serious crime committed in a single incident so a mass shooting with one fatality and twelve serious injuries would be recorded as a single murder whereas in the UK it would be recorded as a minimum of thirteen separate crimes), and partially because our large crime surveys don't just looking at reported crime, but unreported instances too. A simple comparison of the headline figures doesn't really tell you anything of value and direct comparisons of equivalent specific crimes in the US and UK typically show the UK being much lower.

To be slightly more specific, our murder and attempted murder rates are much lower, rates of recorded rape about the same but our law is much broader than the US one, our other violent crime rates (robbery, assault etc) significantly higher but we also include things like common assault, unlawful wounding, ABH/GBH, serious sexual assaults, use of weapons in commission of other crimes, threats to kill, manslaughter and a number of other crimes as "violent" whereas the main authority for US violent crime statistics ignores these or their equivalents.

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#87

Posted 29 August 2015 - 02:00 AM Edited by SagaciousKJB, 29 August 2015 - 02:16 AM.

"(most notably they only record the most serious crime committed in a single incident so a mass shooting with one fatality and twelve serious injuries would be recorded as a single murder whereas in the UK it would be recorded as a minimum of thirteen separate crimes)"

Where did you learn this? Doesn't seem right to me.

Doesn't Canada have a higher instance of firearm ownership? Also not sure I. Following the arbitrary reasoning behind comparison one country's crime rate and gun laws to ours but not another.

The talk of gun culture has been prominent, as well as how well restrictions work in and how well they would in our country versus another. Why don't we ask Mexico? They have strict gun control and the highest incident of gun violence and murder of all North America, and where do you think the guns come from and fuels the death? Well for Mexico it's more of a Narco culture but the guns are tied in. If the U.S banned gins we would just create a booming arms trade for Canada like Mexico has done for us.

A more differentiating feature of the U.S. is that our constitution puts the ownership of arms at such a high priority it is the very second criteria listed. Many people still believe this has good reasoning, keeping the government in check or whatever and its a byproduct of how our country was born. The only issue is that even the fonding fathers would have to admit two things, guns got way deadlier than they ever could have imagined, and the people's ability to fight an industrialized military with small arms never even occurred to them since this was all written well before the first machine let alone the first machine gun. It is an important factor because of the polical atmosphere and lobbyist groups like the NRA,opposing gun control is virtually synonymous with limiting government over-reach, frankly the ability for people to play minutemen is more important tpo the most vocal opponents of gun control.

One thing I like to point out is the Columbine shooting. It occurred during a time when gun control was actually a lot tighter in this country. Clinton had just signed the assault weapon ban, and there were plenty of restrictions that should have kept them from getting the guns legally and they did, bit they just got them illegally. The Brady Bill already legislates mental illness reporting and background checks, but it is imperfect and not every state plays ball.

As said before there are so many guns in the U.S. that a prohibition approach can't work. There are hoards and stockpiles from people already freaked about a gun grab. Meanwhile we are am industrious nation and can just produce more illegally. One thing that tickles me is the insistence on behalf of those in the UK that banning guns works, when in the meantime the IRA seemed to be able to get their hands on them. Oh and how are the stabbings?

The most absurd thing to me is that we can buy non-handgin at Walmart and leave with it the same day, and there is no reason for that. You can't even access all the money you put into your bank account on a new check before they clear it in case it bounces, but we just hand out guns. Most states have a last call time for alcohol, but the only reason a person couldn't buy a gun at midnight is because the ATF wouldn't be open to do the screening. Meanwhile we require safety courses before issuing a license to hunt with said gun, but require no such licensing to operate it in any other circumstance. I don't actually know if it is statistically true but I bet more people have accidentally shot themselves while carrying a concealed handgun for self defense than have hunting. Because that is the other differentiating factor, even other countries with relatively permissive gun laws require some kind of proof of competency or general safety, but not us. In fact we frequently have to urge people not to drink and shoot at the same time!
  • Irviding likes this

Professor SmackaDabbah
  • Professor SmackaDabbah

    Dananananananana she really loves to break

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2014
  • Australia

#88

Posted 29 August 2015 - 02:08 AM

Imma swing by and add my short two cents. I'm pro-gun, and think that law-abiding citizens should have the right to own guns, vut I don't agree with some of the US gun laws. In particular, the ease of which firearms can be obtained.

bloatedsack
  • bloatedsack

    My boner.

  • GTAF Crew
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2014
  • Vatican-City

#89

Posted 29 August 2015 - 06:16 AM

 

there's plenty of countries with much more stringent firearms laws who are awash in far worse crime rates, the gun-free paradise that is the United Kingdom is a prime example of that.


To be slightly more specific, our murder and attempted murder rates are much lower, rates of recorded rape about the same but our law is much broader than the US one, our other violent crime rates (robbery, assault etc) significantly higher but we also include things like common assault, unlawful wounding, ABH/GBH, serious sexual assaults, use of weapons in commission of other crimes, threats to kill, manslaughter and a number of other crimes as "violent" whereas the main authority for US violent crime statistics ignores these or their equivalents.

 

 

Yes, but no.

The UK is underreporting their crimes or downplaying the severity to make it look better for themselves.

http://www.telegraph...r-a-decade.html

http://www.theguardi...crimes-watchdog

https://www.victimsu...oing-unreported

http://www.independe...me-7561636.html

 

That's all from the first page of a simple google search, and I weeded out the most likely biased ones from GOA ("Gunowners of America," ) and the like. Now, granted, most of those have to do with under reported sex crimes but the point is, the UK is underreporting violent crime to try and cover up the fact that your country is slowly sliding into the same hole that you sanctimoniously point to the USA as being in.

 

To say nothing of the fact that your country has taken draconian levels of spying on its citizenry and has certanily taken a turn towards the Orwellian. I cannot understand how or why the British subjects put up with that.

 

Certainly, though, the UK is not the crime free paradise that the starry-eyed Americans who trumpet it as a success for gun control and crime control often tell us it is, nor is it nearly as sunny as you seem to believe it to be.

 

Doesn't Canada have a higher instance of firearm ownership? Also not sure I. Following the arbitrary reasoning behind comparison one country's crime rate and gun laws to ours but not another.

 

God no, America's got 'em beat. However, America's Hat has plenty of guns.. They simply don't have the same culture of violence that America has.

 

 

The only issue is that even the fonding fathers would have to admit two things, guns got way deadlier than they ever could have imagined, and the people's ability to fight an industrialized military with small arms never even occurred to them since this was all written well before the first machine let alone the first machine gun.

Freedom of Speech is the most important of the Amendments of the BoR, forming the cornerstone of beliefs upon which we were founded. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is #2 because it gauruntees the 1st Amendment and prevents the creation of a government no longer of the people and for the people by insuring that no standing army can garrison the people.

 

Furthermore, as written the 2nd Amendment protects civilian ownership of crew served ordinance, which would basically be cannons at that point. They didn't draw a distinction as to what weapon, nor did it matter. The intention was to allow civilian ownership of arms equal to what a professional soldier would have to enable a citizen-soldier militia (and that's not the National Guard).

 

The generally applied, and reasonable, argument to that is free speech doesn't apply to any electronic communications since even the concepts of something like the Internet, cell phones, email, etc would've been so far beyond the comprehension of the founders. Basically, by that standard, freedom of speech applies only to manually turned printing presses and words written with quill pens since that's all they had.

 

As to the effect of small arms against a standing army... I'd offer up Iraq as a wonderful example of what a motivated group of common civilians can do against the (arguably) most technically advanced and powerful military in the world with some rifles and improvised explosions. Most of our most recent Iraq experience wasn't fought against tanks, an air force, or a navy.. It was pissed off citizen-soliders with common issue small arms, and America's victory was phyrric at best.

 

The most absurd thing to me is that we can buy non-handgin at Walmart and leave with it the same day, and there is no reason for that. You can't even access all the money you put into your bank account on a new check before they clear it in case it bounces, but we just hand out guns.

 

The Brady Bill had a two day waiting period, however this was not ever intended as a "cool off" period, nor have "cool off" periods ever been shown to reduce any crime.

 

The two day period was mandated to allow the criminal background check to be processed in lieu of an instant background check system. Once the Feds got the NICS (National Instant Check System) up and running, which was part of the original Brady Bill, the waiting period sunsetted. It was no longer needed, what would be done in 2 days was now completed in 2 minutes (well, more like 10m).

 

Matter of fact, should the NICS system be offline for any reason, you cannot walk out with your weapon. That two day window goes back into effect for the duration of that sale,  giving the Feds time to run the check and respond to the FFL to either allow or deny the sale.

 

BTW, Federally speaking, all commerical gun sales (or transfers across state lines) are held to the same rules. It's no different if its a handgun, longgun, or shotgun. There may be exceptions for black powder, I honestly don't know much about that. However, fwiw, the modern black powder rifle ain't your Pennsylvania longrifle anymore, either. They're high tech, quick to reload, and more powerful than ever.


SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#90

Posted 29 August 2015 - 07:32 AM Edited by SagaciousKJB, 29 August 2015 - 06:24 PM.

 

 

there's plenty of countries with much more stringent firearms laws who are awash in far worse crime rates, the gun-free paradise that is the United Kingdom is a prime example of that.

To be slightly more specific, our murder and attempted murder rates are much lower, rates of recorded rape about the same but our law is much broader than the US one, our other violent crime rates (robbery, assault etc) significantly higher but we also include things like common assault, unlawful wounding, ABH/GBH, serious sexual assaults, use of weapons in commission of other crimes, threats to kill, manslaughter and a number of other crimes as "violent" whereas the main authority for US violent crime statistics ignores these or their equivalents.
 
Yes, but no.
The UK is underreporting their crimes or downplaying the severity to make it look better for themselves.
http://www.telegraph...r-a-decade.html
http://www.theguardi...crimes-watchdog
https://www.victimsu...oing-unreported
http://www.independe...me-7561636.html
 
That's all from the first page of a simple google search, and I weeded out the most likely biased ones from GOA ("Gunowners of America," ) and the like. Now, granted, most of those have to do with under reported sex crimes but the point is, the UK is underreporting violent crime to try and cover up the fact that your country is slowly sliding into the same hole that you sanctimoniously point to the USA as being in.
 
To say nothing of the fact that your country has taken draconian levels of spying on its citizenry and has certanily taken a turn towards the Orwellian. I cannot understand how or why the British subjects put up with that.
 
Certainly, though, the UK is not the crime free paradise that the starry-eyed Americans who trumpet it as a success for gun control and crime control often tell us it is, nor is it nearly as sunny as you seem to believe it to be.
 

Doesn't Canada have a higher instance of firearm ownership? Also not sure I. Following the arbitrary reasoning behind comparison one country's crime rate and gun laws to ours but not another.

 
God no, America's got 'em beat. However, America's Hat has plenty of guns.. They simply don't have the same culture of violence that America has.
 
 

The only issue is that even the fonding fathers would have to admit two things, guns got way deadlier than they ever could have imagined, and the people's ability to fight an industrialized military with small arms never even occurred to them since this was all written well before the first machine let alone the first machine gun.

Freedom of Speech is the most important of the Amendments of the BoR, forming the cornerstone of beliefs upon which we were founded. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is #2 because it gauruntees the 1st Amendment and prevents the creation of a government no longer of the people and for the people by insuring that no standing army can garrison the people.
 
Furthermore, as written the 2nd Amendment protects civilian ownership of crew served ordinance, which would basically be cannons at that point. They didn't draw a distinction as to what weapon, nor did it matter. The intention was to allow civilian ownership of arms equal to what a professional soldier would have to enable a citizen-soldier militia (and that's not the National Guard).
 
The generally applied, and reasonable, argument to that is free speech doesn't apply to any electronic communications since even the concepts of something like the Internet, cell phones, email, etc would've been so far beyond the comprehension of the founders. Basically, by that standard, freedom of speech applies only to manually turned printing presses and words written with quill pens since that's all they had.
 
As to the effect of small arms against a standing army... I'd offer up Iraq as a wonderful example of what a motivated group of common civilians can do against the (arguably) most technically advanced and powerful military in the world with some rifles and improvised explosions. Most of our most recent Iraq experience wasn't fought against tanks, an air force, or a navy.. It was pissed off citizen-soliders with common issue small arms, and America's victory was phyrric at best.
 

The most absurd thing to me is that we can buy non-handgin at Walmart and leave with it the same day, and there is no reason for that. You can't even access all the money you put into your bank account on a new check before they clear it in case it bounces, but we just hand out guns.

 
The Brady Bill had a two day waiting period, however this was not ever intended as a "cool off" period, nor have "cool off" periods ever been shown to reduce any crime.
 
The two day period was mandated to allow the criminal background check to be processed in lieu of an instant background check system. Once the Feds got the NICS (National Instant Check System) up and running, which was part of the original Brady Bill, the waiting period sunsetted. It was no longer needed, what would be done in 2 days was now completed in 2 minutes (well, more like 10m).
 
Matter of fact, should the NICS system be offline for any reason, you cannot walk out with your weapon. That two day window goes back into effect for the duration of that sale,  giving the Feds time to run the check and respond to the FFL to either allow or deny the sale.
 
BTW, Federally speaking, all commerical gun sales (or transfers across state lines) are held to the same rules. It's no different if its a handgun, longgun, or shotgun. There may be exceptions for black powder, I honestly don't know much about that. However, fwiw, the modern black powder rifle ain't your Pennsylvania longrifle anymore, either. They're high tech, quick to reload, and more powerful than ever.

Well what I meant was that I don't know that the founding fathers ever imagined small arms being capable of dealing out so much death,and wonder if they had known that we would have implements which could kill hundreds in minutes if they would still want said weapons to be so ubiquitous but I suppose it might not be a good comparison given that violent crime today is probably much more common place than then just by merit of the population densities.

What people overlook when talking about guerilla warfare fledged with small arms is there is usually a very substantial financial and resource backer. So we had the French in the revolution, the Afghans had us against the Soviets, the Vietcong was also insurgent backed but I don't know a lot of that conflict, and when we observe modern insurgencies in Iraq I have heard most of the fighting is sponsored by other nation states and various terrorist organizations. So the idea that a populace can resist and overthrow an oppressive regime without the aid of some mightier military power seems not well supported, except for a few random exceptions. So I just honestly doubt what kind of advantage we would really have as a populace to have a legal right to possess these small arms, especially since it doesn't seem like they would actually be able to disarm the public if they actually tried.

There are a lot of states that implement their own waiting periods, or none at all, or some whimsical mix of the two. My state has something like a 5-7 day waiting period on handguns only. The thing the Brady Bill also introduced was to prohibit anyone that has been court ordered to be detained in a mental hospital, but not only does that kind of haphazardly preclude people who have minor episodes with nonviolent illnesses like depression but several states don't even report it to the NICS at all, or if it is outpatient treatment and the person wasn't actually hospitalized it won't be reported, lots of little cracks to slip through.

Oh and then there are "private sales" where basically because the gun doesn't cross state lines, the 1968 Gun Control Act doesn't apply and there is not actually a need to fulfill the transfer through an FFL, so as long as it is between two private individuals it is legal. This is what facilitates what is known as the "gunshow loophole" which is kind of a misnombre because most sales at a gunshow must be done through an FFL. Unless of course, the sale is between two residents of the same state, with two firearms that did not cross state lines.

Interesting bit of trivia, the '68 legislation was basically ushered in because of the rash of ploitical figures being killed with mail-order rifles. I mean Lee Harvey Oswald ordered the gun that killed JFK in a catalog, and the only difference between now and then is a person has to go through a dilapidated background system and go pick it up from some guy for an extra 40 buck, and that is if it isn't a private sale state where people can buy and sell them off Facebook. Actually, Washington recently passed a law ending private sales in our state yet I see firearms for sale on Facebook regularly and there is probably little to no enforcement guaranteeing those transfers are being done legally.

I mean not to hammer the point home but I remember in 2005 I was at a house party, and we were talking about how Bush just lifted the assault weapons ban and I joked, "Oh cool now I can buy an Ak47" and one of the guys there was like, "Oh I already have one its in my car I'll sell it to you for 400" and he went and got it and everything. Guess what, nothing at all about that exchange was illegal. Not storing an assault rifle in your car, attempting to sell it to a totally unknown party, I mean had we wanted to we could have driven anywhere outside the city limits to test fire it. Well I suppose technically it wouldn't have been legal because we were all drinking, it was a party, but the point is I could have bought a damn assault rifle with less legal ramifications than if I had bought a stolen car stereo or something.

 

Edit

Wow gotta stop writing long posts on my tablet, that post made it seem like English wa smy second language lol





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users