Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Fuzzknuckles

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

lol232

Shall not be infringed!

 

If you ban guns, people are just gonna stab each other with knives, if you ban knives, people are gonna hit each other with rocks, if you ban rocks, people are gonna strangle each other and if you tie them up, they'll just stare each other to death.

To solve the gun problem, you don't solve the how, you solve the why.

 

We have pretty f*cking high gun ownership rate (Serbia is #2, with the US being #1), and I'm yet to hear about a mass shooting around here.

And yes, I own a shotgun myself for hunting.

Edited by lol232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

The reason you don't have such serious issues with gun violence are mostly because you actually have a coherent licencing framework. Rates of firearm ownership don't necessarily correlate with rates of firearm crime. It's less about the regulatory framework in isolation and more about the culture.

 

Anyway, are we not treating ethnic cleansing as firearm crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadHammerThorsteen

Thing is, the only arguments about "banning guns" anyone ever makes are the straw men created by pro-gun activists.

And KyleKeeling, the problem is that the majority of murders in the US aren't committed by people with mental illnesses.

Correct, you are! Mass murders notwithstanding, as each continues to stand as an isolated phenomenon spurred by a number of patternless factors, murders are committed by and large by people who are already engaged in criminal activity that sees them in possession of illegal firearms in cities like Baltimore, Chicago, and Detroit, Oakland, etc...

 

And in light of the events in Orlando, the only thing that makes the supposed AR-style semi Omar had more dangerous than the Glock 17 is range and punch, but the Glock is damn efficient up to 55m, so at the distances he was, the semi AR was more redundant than deadly. It has no ROF advantage.and it wasn't an assault weapon. It's interesting that liberals would jump to the stereotypically conservative assumption that bigger means 'better' (or more deadly). Or perhaps the imagine that semi-auto is synonymous with full auto. They constantly throw that word out: semi-auto. It just means you don't have to cock the gun yourself before every shot. It doesn't have jack f*ck to do with speed or power. Most pistols are just as fast if not faster.

Edited by Majesty Dreamworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

Rates of firearm ownership don't necessarily correlate with rates of firearm crime.

I can't seem to stress this enough with my leftist friends when the "gun debate" comes up. Wealthy southern suburbs are absolutely flooded with firearms of every legal variety (sometimes more than 1 gun per household) while experiencing little to no gun crime. The socioeconomic factors are what drive gun crime.

 

In the case of mass shootings, poor socialization and mental health are much bigger culprits than gun laws or the general access to guns. Even the most hardened criminals who carry fully automatic weapons don't have a mass shooter mentality.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UshaB

Why was my post deleted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

I'm going to guess because you posted some youtube videos of standup comedy instead of adding to the Debate and/or Discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UshaB

I'm going to guess because you posted some youtube videos of standup comedy instead of adding to the Debate and/or Discussion.

 

Eh he ha ha......you got me. But my thoughts are the same as his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

That's exactly why your post was hidden. You've been here long enough to know that a couple if YouTube videos with no effort given to expand on them or discuss their content isn't going to fly in D&D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andreaz1

Shall not be infringed!

 

If you ban guns, people are just gonna stab each other with knives, if you ban knives, people are gonna hit each other with rocks, if you ban rocks, people are gonna strangle each other and if you tie them up, they'll just stare each other to death.

No. Just no. Hardly anyone here owns any guns at all, yet we do not run around stabbing eachother, especially not at the rate Americans shoot each other. Your argument is BS.

 

After the Orlando shooting there were two or three more shootings on the 13th of June ALONE. 9 or 10 people were left injured, but thankfully no fatalities. One of these shootings was triggered by an argument over a pricey bookbag. A PRICEY. f*ckING. BOOKBAG. These were TEENAGERS. Do you think this sounds like something worthy of shooting someone over?

 

No it doesn't. What do you think would have happened if these people (again - TEENAGERS) hadn't been able to get hold of these guns so easily? Fist fight maybe, but certainly nothing that would have required police, ambulances and six people to go to the hospital.

 

Gun ownership is not a right that can be infringed. It's a privilege that can (and should) be revoked.

 

Until the politicians in the US get that through their thick heads I can only draw the conclusion that they don't care about thousands of citizens dying every year over something that is easy to do something about. Stop letting guns be so easy to get hold of and get them off the f*cking streets.

 

I am not saying that would end these things completely because it won't - if someone is desperate to kill someone else they will find a way. I'm saying you should stop making it so f*cking easy for these perpetrators. In less than six months, the US has had around 180 mass shootings, leaving over 280 dead and 660 wounded. That's more than one every day. We certainly don't have that many mass stabbings as you seem to think we should. What would these numbers look like if these people didn't have guns that they could pull out in the spur of the moment to resolve arguments like the one above?

 

The US's attitude to gun ownership is f*cking disgusting. Rant over.

 

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article83442172.html

 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

Edited by Andreaz1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

Until the politicians in the US get that through their thick heads I can only draw the conclusion that they don't care about thousands of citizens dying every year over something that is easy to do something about. Stop letting guns be so easy to get hold of and get them off the f*cking streets.

It's simply not the politicians, it's the people who vote for them, the NRA and the general unhealthy culture we have here around guns. If we had some strange and selfless group of politicians sacrifice their career in the name of gun control, they would be recalled out of office and all their works undone in a matter of months. It happened in Colorado and we simply put a limit on magazine size. Of 14 rounds. Recall and newguys, work undone. I refer to up to Triple Vacuum Seal thinking gun ownership is not just a right, but a god given one and one that we should protect with every bit of our ability and if we could only deal with that pesky "mental illness" things would be better. We aren't allowed to talk about repealing it, people even mention things like "assault weapons bans" and immediately "They want your guns!" is cried along side the lame arguments of "If I put a grip on a banana, is now an assault banna?"

 

It'll take a dictator. It really feels like that somedays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol232

The reason you don't have such serious issues with gun violence are mostly because you actually have a coherent licencing framework. Rates of firearm ownership don't necessarily correlate with rates of firearm crime. It's less about the regulatory framework in isolation and more about the culture.

 

Anyway, are we not treating ethnic cleansing as firearm crime?

Happened in Bosnia during a civil war, not Serbia. Most of the firearm crimes were done by the army.

 

Also the Republic of Serbia was established in 2006. The Republic of Serbia did nothing wrong.

 

:^)

Edited by lol232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

From the Orlando thread:

 

 

 

 

Really, the point here isn't that America is at war with anyone. The point is that their love of guns has contributed to very toxic society that uses violence to resolve everything. They refuse to acknowledge that the freedom to buy guns is a major contributing factor to thousands of innocent people dying every year in incidents that, had they had better control, and by that I mean any control at all, over firearms, could have been avoided or less damaging than they were.

 

 

Much better directed line of discussion.

 

 

The US is very diverse and I'd argue that a good portion of the population thinks as you do regarding guns. You mentioned the "right to bear arms" before. Some left-leaning Americans have suggested that this requires one to actually be a militia member during a time of political upheaval, but it's an oft argued point. American conservatives of all educational backgrounds seem to agree on the right to bear arms being absolute. There is a genuine worry amongst conservatives in the US that one day there will have to be a popular uprising against a tyrannical government.

 

 

 

 

Excuse the video title, I didn't upload it. Ben's got a doctorate in law from Harvard and makes these appeals so it's not as though this argument is relegated to less educated republicans. This is what I mean by political opposition to major gun restrictions--they just won't happen in America's political climate. The best options now are improved background checks and compulsory licensing. I'd even argue that a federal licensing system (though one not as draconian as Britain's system) would be good, but that would also be hugely opposed as most Americans like to work things out on the state level.

 

 

Good post from TVS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rates of firearm ownership don't necessarily correlate with rates of firearm crime.

I can't seem to stress this enough with my leftist friends when the "gun debate" comes up. Wealthy southern suburbs are absolutely flooded with firearms of every legal variety (sometimes more than 1 gun per household) while experiencing little to no gun crime. The socioeconomic factors are what drive gun crime.

 

In the case of mass shootings, poor socialization and mental health are much bigger culprits than gun laws or the general access to guns. Even the most hardened criminals who carry fully automatic weapons don't have a mass shooter mentality.

 

 

 

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Happened in Bosnia during a civil war, not Serbia.

I was nominally referring to Kosovo, hence using the term "ethnic cleansing" instead of "genocide".

Serbia is the successor state, so claiming it did "nothing wrong" is stretching the boundaries of credibility.

 

Anyway, an intentional facetious barb. You're right to highlight Serbia as a paragon of low firearm related violent crime, but you highlight it for the wrong reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol232

 

Happened in Bosnia during a civil war, not Serbia.

I was nominally referring to Kosovo, hence using the term "ethnic cleansing" instead of "genocide".

Serbia is the successor state, so claiming it did "nothing wrong" is stretching the boundaries of credibility.

 

Anyway, an intentional facetious barb. You're right to highlight Serbia as a paragon of low firearm related violent crime, but you highlight it for the wrong reasons.

 

But isn't Kosovo an independent country anyway?! Why should we get blamed for it then?!

 

Yeah, an intentional facetious barb like you would say.

 

I didn't particularly highlight any reasons at all. Our gun ownership rate is f*cking useless since you can't shoot (let alone kill) your attacker without going to prison unless you can prove they attacked you, which is damn near impossible.

Our PD is excellent and I love our cops, but in no way they can arrive quick enough to defend me when I'm attacked. Although, personally, I was never attacked, worst thing that happened was I was burgled, I just aimed my shotgun at him and he left.

 

You're very right in regards with the cultural reasons, however.

Edited by lol232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

But isn't Kosovo an independent country anyway?!

It wasn't at the time but has effectively become so now, yes. That said I still don't think Serbia recognises Kosovo.

 

Our gun ownership rate is f*cking useless since you can't shoot (let alone kill) your attacker without going to prison unless you can prove they attacked you, which is damn near impossible.

That's far from unusual in the civilised world. In the vast majority of developed countries any armed self-defence killing needs to pass a proportionality test. It's only right that it does; killing an intruder who hasn't posed any direct threat is still inexcusable though the situation offers some mitigation.

 

Doesn't seem to pose too much of a practical issue in Serbia as the murder rate is pretty damn low. Around equal to many more prosperous European countries...

 

Our PD is excellent and I love our cops, but in no way they can arrive quick enough to defend me when I'm attacked.

When? You mean if. Violent incidents resulting from home intrusions are so infrequent as to constitute a rounding error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

I refer to up to Triple Vacuum Seal thinking gun ownership is not just a right, but a god given one and one that we should protect with every bit of our ability and if we could only deal with that pesky "mental illness" things would be better.

 

This is slightly out of context. I never entertained the idea of "god given rights". The concept of state-given rights is already on shaky grounding as is. But that's another debate. I'm all for gun control. I just don't think that people who know next to nothing about guns and gun violence should dictate the terms of gun legislation just as the NRA shouldn't do the same. Otherwise, it's mere political masturbation. It's equivalent to getting someone who failed introductory finance courses to outline specific banking regulations on Wall Street. And at this point, how can we not question the mental illness aspect? Our cultural treatment of mental illness/disease is equally if not more archaic than our cultural treatment of guns. This is a country that just recently realized it cannot arrest its way out of addiction epidemics. The prevalence of mass-shootings is a multi-pronged issue that has a lot less to do with gun laws than you have been conditioned to believe.

 

The fact that this so called "gun debate" only seems to come up after mass shootings (which make up a negligible portion of gun violence in the US) just shows how insincere and removed people on both sides of the political spectrum really are from the actual issue at hand. It's essentially the political exploitation of a mass shooting when you consider the fact that the most popular policies proposed by the gun control activists (30 round > mag limits, ban on "scary-looking" guns, etc.) don't work. Sure background checks are a no brainer. But a lot of the other proposed restrictions, especially those coming from Hillary Clinton, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago politicians, are absolute garbage. The end result, is sane law-abiding citizens with less capable hardware and criminals wielding the same fully autos.

 

So it really just comes down to a willingness to question proposed policy even when it's put forth by the politicians you tend to favor.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol232

 

Our PD is excellent and I love our cops, but in no way they can arrive quick enough to defend me when I'm attacked.

When? You mean if. Violent incidents resulting from home intrusions are so infrequent as to constitute a rounding error.

 

Same applies to the fire extinguisher, but I have one anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UshaB

 

 

Our PD is excellent and I love our cops, but in no way they can arrive quick enough to defend me when I'm attacked.

When? You mean if. Violent incidents resulting from home intrusions are so infrequent as to constitute a rounding error.

 

Same applies to the fire extinguisher, but I have one anyway.

 

 

But you can't go around killing dozens of people running around with a fire extinguisher as effectively and efficiently as a gun.

 

 

Ban the guns or make bullets so expensive that your common unstable person can't create a massacre. There is no real argument to own a gun other than, "liking them".

 

The other argument is, "to protect my family". How many enemies does the average American have that someone will come and kill your family?

That infiltrator probably only wants to steal your tv, unless you live in a society so f*cked up that a common person wants to kill your family.

 

I can't believe that the lives of bystanders and children are meaningless and worthless in comparison to a dangerous toy.

 

Are Americans homicidal by nature? Or is it just the lack of gun laws allow people to go on killing sprees?

 

How many more American lives will be taken away by these toys until stricter gun laws are introduced?

 

The USA needs stricter gun laws. There is no real argument to own one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

 

Our PD is excellent and I love our cops, but in no way they can arrive quick enough to defend me when I'm attacked.

When? You mean if. Violent incidents resulting from home intrusions are so infrequent as to constitute a rounding error.
Same applies to the fire extinguisher, but I have one anyway.Not really. Firstly, fires are vastly more common occurrences than violent home invasions. Secondly, a fire extinguisher is much less likely to kill someone if accidentally discharged, or to be stolen for use in a robbery, or grabbed in the heat of the moment by a jealous, controlling husband and used to murder his family.

 

It's an obviously false analogy. Come back to this when the numbers of fire extinguishers used to murder people outnumber those used to fight fires 100 to 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol232

But you can't go around killing dozens of people running around with a fire extinguisher as effectively and efficiently as a gun.

 

 

Ban the guns or make bullets so expensive that your common unstable person can't create a massacre. There is no real argument to own a gun other than, "liking them".

Two can play the same game.

There's no real argument to ban guns other than "disliking them".

 

 

The other argument is, "to protect my family". How many enemies does the average American have that someone will come and kill your family?

That infiltrator probably only wants to steal your tv, unless you live in a society so f*cked up that a common person wants to kill your family.

How do you know? Should I just take the risk then?

Even then, so I should just let the intruder steal my TV then?

 

A car seatbelt may save me, but there's no real reason to put one on because the guy who crashes into me had no intentions to kill me. Besides, car crashes are very rare!

 

 

I can't believe that the lives of bystanders and children are meaningless and worthless in comparison to a dangerous toy.

 

Are Americans homicidal by nature? Or is it just the lack of gun laws allow people to go on killing sprees?

Not an argument.

 

 

How many more American lives will be taken away by these toys until stricter gun laws are introduced?

All of them.

 

 

The USA needs stricter gun laws. There is no real argument to own one.

Yeah, well, that's just like uhh... Your opinion man.

 

 

 

Not really. Firstly, fires are vastly more common occurrences than violent home invasions. Secondly, a fire extinguisher is much less likely to kill someone if accidentally discharged, or to be stolen for use in a robbery, or grabbed in the heat of the moment by a jealous, controlling husband and used to murder his family.

 

It's an obviously false analogy. Come back to this when the numbers of fire extinguishers used to murder people outnumber those used to fight fires 100 to 1.

And so can knives. And so can pretty much anything.

Matter of fact, knives are used much more as killing objects than guns.

 

My point was, why can't I defend myself? Exactly how do you know the intruder doesn't want to hurt me?

Are you, by any chance, a burglar who wants guns banned so you can be more secure when you burgle a house?

Edited by lol232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UshaB

Look at the bigger picture.

 

Massacres. Killing sprees. Little children being slaughtered.

 

How many people can you kill in a hall with a knife until you are overwhelmed and beaten up?

How many people can you kill in a hall with a gun with plenty of ammo until the cops show up and shoot you down?

 

This is what matters.

 

As for the case of an intruder, you have the right to defend yourself. You don't need a gun. You can just grab a knife and stab the person, or just beat them up. Not many burglars intend to kill you, they'll probably just knock you out or beat you up until you don't want to fight any more.

 

Or y'know, you could take up mma since the bigger picture about guns are concerning around people being slaughtered down like cattle.

 

 

 

I can't believe that the lives of bystanders and children are meaningless and worthless in comparison to a dangerous toy.

Not an argument.

 

 

How is this not an argument?

You'd rather have children being slaughtered, people being shot up and killed? Yet you argue about how you won't defend yourself without a gun if an intruder gets into your house?
If that's the case, then your argument about needing a gun to defend yourself if an intruder enters your home is invalid. Since a large mass of people being butchered means nothing to you.
Edited for: Inappropriate language.
Edited by UshaB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

There's no real argument to ban guns other than "disliking them".

This persistent straw man is incredibly misleading. No-one is looking to ban guns, just restrict access to them.

 

How do you know? Should I just take the risk then?

This line of reasoning is utterly nonsensical and your analogy completely incompatible. Anyone who attempts to compare owning a firearm for self-defence and putting on a seat belt really doesn't understand the nuance of the topic.

 

Matter of fact, knives are used much more as killing objects than guns.

Not in the US they aren't. 67% of all homicides in the US involve a firearm.

 

My point was, why can't I defend myself?

I'm not saying you can't. Only that your actions must be proportional to the threat.

 

Firearm legislation doesn't stop you from defending yourself if local laws permit it. What it aims to do is reduce the scope for criminal violent incidents so that legitimate self-defence becomes a statistically common act of firearm violence intead of so vanishingly rare as to be effectively nonexistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

The reason you don't have such serious issues with gun violence are mostly because you actually have a coherent licencing framework. Rates of firearm ownership don't necessarily correlate with rates of firearm crime. It's less about the regulatory framework in isolation and more about the culture.

 

Anyway, are we not treating ethnic cleansing as firearm crime?

I agree that we need more gun control policies, especially in the Southern United States, where you see legally purchased firearms coming up north and causing the crime we have in urban areas. That being said, from what I've read, I'm not certain what gun control would've stopped this guy. This guy was an aspiring cop, had a security guard license, was a corrections officer, etc. He pretty much had all the boxes checked for a legal gun owner. That being said, should the AR have been purchasable in its state there? Probably not. I have to wonder if Florida had law similar to NY and other gun control oriented states with pistol grip and mag capacity laws, if this shooting would've been the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol232

This persistent straw man is incredibly misleading. No-one is looking to ban guns, just restrict access to them.

It already pretty much is the case, even in the US in some states. It doesn't stop mass shootings from happening (look at Paris).

 

 

This line of reasoning is utterly nonsensical and your analogy completely incompatible. Anyone who attempts to compare owning a firearm for self-defence and putting on a seat belt really doesn't understand the nuance of the topic.

Not an argument.

 

 

Not in the US they aren't. 67% of all homicides in the US involve a firearm.

Touche.

 

However, my point was your "heat of the moment" argument doesn't exactly work, you can just as well stab someone or even strangle them.

 

 

I'm not saying you can't. Only that your actions must be proportional to the threat.

What's your point? So I should threaten to burgle the guy back, is that what you're saying?

Why should I risk it?

 

 

Firearm legislation doesn't stop you from defending yourself if local laws permit it. What it aims to do is reduce the scope for criminal violent incidents so that legitimate self-defence becomes a statistically common act of firearm violence intead of so vanishingly rare as to be effectively nonexistent.

It would cause inconvenience to legal gun owners and do nothing to illegal gun owners in the US. Statistically, most criminals (such as drug dealers and such) own unlicensed weapons. Mass shooting are one, but like I said, it doesn't do much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

Both of these were mass stabbings with knives.

 

You might as well impose knife or sharp object control too.

 

Cultures, mindsets are the problem, you said it yourself.

Edited by lol232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It already pretty much is the case, even in the US in some states.

This is simply false and you full well know it. Point to one example of a US state that even comes close to an outright ban.

 

Not an argument.

No, pointing out a logical fallacy isn't an argument, but commenting to that end doesn't somehow make your original statement valid.

 

However, my point was your "heat of the moment" argument doesn't exactly work, you can just as well stab someone or even strangle them.

Which happen, but in both cases are a) significantly less likely to result in an actual fatality and b) are significantly easier for a layman to defend against. It's the impersonal ease with which a firearm can despatch multiple people without its operator becoming fatigued or injured which makes them exceptional.

 

What's your point?

I don't know how to explain the concept of proportionality any simpler. Basically it's only reasonable to kill someone if there is a genuine belief they are threatening your life, and typically armed self-defence is only proportional if you are also attacked with a weapon.

 

It would cause inconvenience to legal gun owners

How does having to pass a background check and only being able to buy firearms from registered retailers possibly inconvenience lawfulgun owners in any meaningful way?

 

and do nothing to illegal gun owners in the US.

It actually makes purchasing of weapons significantly harder for those who are prohibited from owning firearms. Right now a convicted felon can go on the internet, find a private individual who is selling a firearm, and buy it in cash without the fact they're a felon ever being known to the seller. Placing restrictions on the private sale of guns hugely decreases the likelihood of them being sold on to people prohibited from owning them and reduces the pool of grey market guns that can find their way into the black market.

 

lot of criminals (such as drug dealers and such) own unlicensed weapons.

Thats because there are so many loopholes in registration laws as it currently stands that they might as well not exist at all. If you close those, the availability of firearms through private channels massively decreases.

 

Both of these were mass stabbings with knives.

Which are infinitesimally rarer than mass shootings, and therefore incomparable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol232

This is simply false and you full well know it. Point to one example of a US state that even comes close to an outright ban.

This is simply false and you full well know it. I didn't say ban, I said gun control already exists in some states (California, New York, Illinois and such).

 

 

No, pointing out a logical fallacy isn't an argument, but commenting to that end doesn't somehow make your original statement valid.

I admit, it's not really the best example, but my point was you shouldn't risk it. Just because it probably won't happen, doesn't mean you should risk dying.

Just because you take full control of yourself, you don't know that the other person does.

 

 

Which happen, but in both cases are a) significantly less likely to result in an actual fatality and b) are significantly easier for a layman to defend against. It's the impersonal ease with which a firearm can despatch multiple people without its operator becoming fatigued or injured which makes them exceptional.

Irrelevant, my point is that you can kill anyone with pretty much anything. It's easier with a gun? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that you can still slit someones throat when they turn around.

 

 

I don't know how to explain the concept of proportionality any simpler. Basically it's only reasonable to kill someone if there is a genuine belief they are threatening your life, and typically armed self-defence is only proportional if you are also attacked with a weapon.

No, no, give me an example, what should I do if I find a burglar in my house and they want to attack me?

How do I know if they DON'T want to attack me? Why should I risk it?

 

 

How does having to pass a background check and only being able to buy firearms from registered retailers possibly inconvenience lawfulgun owners in any meaningful way?

The process will become much longer and you will waste more time than needed. The "process" to get them illegally won't change.

 

 

It actually makes purchasing of weapons significantly harder for those who are prohibited from owning firearms. Right now a convicted felon can go on the internet, find a private individual who is selling a firearm, and buy it in cash without the fact they're a felon ever being known to the seller. Placing restrictions on the private sale of guns hugely decreases the likelihood of them being sold on to people prohibited from owning them and reduces the pool of grey market guns that can find their way into the black market.

They can just as well get it illegally. It's not even hard if you know who to ask, I'm serious.

 

 

Thats because there are so many loopholes in registration laws as it currently stands that they might as well not exist at all. If you close those, the availability of firearms through private channels massively decreases.

No, that's not the case. The flow of illegal guns will stay more or less the same and illegal imports will still exist.

You don't really need to rely on those loopholes to get those guns illegally either.

 

 

Which are infinitesimally rarer than mass shootings, and therefore incomparable.

Not an argument. Edited by lol232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Robotnik

 

What's your point?

I don't know how to explain the concept of proportionality any simpler. Basically it's only reasonable to kill someone if there is a genuine belief they are threatening your life, and typically armed self-defence is only proportional if you are also attacked with a weapon.

 

 

I can't agree with this at all. Burglarizing someone's house is bad enough, armed or not, attacking with a weapon or not. "Proportionality" shouldn't be that much of a consideration once it gets to the point of breaking and entering, or worse yet, a full-on physical attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I didn't say ban, I said gun control already exists in some states (California, New York, Illinois and such).

Let's look at the quote in context:

 

 

This persistent straw man is incredibly misleading. No-one is looking to ban guns, just restrict access to them.

It already pretty much is the case, even in the US in some states. So that's either very poor phrasing on your part or you intentionally suggested that states were actively banning firearms.

 

Just because you take full control of yourself, you don't know that the other person does.

By the same logic, should we all remain inside all the time just in case another driver runs us over on the street?

 

It's a complete non sequitur.

 

Irrelevant, my point is that you can kill anyone with pretty much anything.

I'm fully aware what your point is. The fact is, though it's entirely true, it misses the actual point because, in practical terms firearms in the US do comprise dramatically more homicide weapons that literally everything else put together. So comparing them to anything else completely misses that.

 

No, no, give me an example, what should I do if I find a burglar in my house and they want to attack me?

You should use as much force as is required to ensure they no longer remain a threat. How that looks depends entirely on your local laws, so I can't really tell you.

 

The process will become much longer and you will waste more time than needed.

There's no actual need to ever pop to a shop, buy a gun and take it home with you the next day, so no, that's not "inconvenient" in any practical way. Regardless, proportionate inconvenience for the sake of safety and security is basically the cornerstone of civilised society.

 

They can just as well get it illegally.

You can insist this all you want, it doesn't make it true. I really don't think you understand the demographic origins of murder weapons in the US. The majority of violent incidents involve firearms purchased through either legitimate dealers or through private sales. Those private sales are technically illegal if the purchaser cannot legally own weapons, but there's no enforcement to actually stop them.

 

No, that's not the case.

On what basis?

 

I can't agree with this at all. Burglarizing someone's house is bad enough, armed or not, attacking with a weapon or not. "Proportionality" shouldn't be that much of a consideration once it gets to the point of breaking and entering, or worse yet, a full-on physical attack

Whether you agree with it or not, that's how the law works in most of the civilised world. The US is the exception here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

 

I can't agree with this at all. Burglarizing someone's house is bad enough, armed or not, attacking with a weapon or not. "Proportionality" shouldn't be that much of a consideration once it gets to the point of breaking and entering, or worse yet, a full-on physical attack

Whether you agree with it or not, that's how the law works in most of the civilised world. The US is the exception here.

 

 

It's actually like that in the US too. Most states have laws in place that prevent defending property with deadly force if you are not in danger. Whether or not DA decides to prosecute if you do use excessive force is another debate.

 

Now if an unarmed attacker(s) reaches for your gun or any weapon for that matter, then you should have every right to shoot. Civilians should have the same self defense rights as cops in that regard. Otherwise the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth...militarizing the police forces while telling civilians that the streets are not dangerous enough to use deadly force themselves against violent perpetrators. With the exception of that jack ass that killed Trayvon Martin, most Americans w/ CCLs will do just about anything to avoid having to shoot someone because even if it's legally justified, you can expect to be arrested and maybe even assaulted by the police for doing so. Not to mention the personal guilt, threat of retribution, and overall distraction that comes with that sort of thing.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

 

 

I can't agree with this at all. Burglarizing someone's house is bad enough, armed or not, attacking with a weapon or not. "Proportionality" shouldn't be that much of a consideration once it gets to the point of breaking and entering, or worse yet, a full-on physical attack

Whether you agree with it or not, that's how the law works in most of the civilised world. The US is the exception here.

 

 

It's actually like that in the US too. Most states have laws in place that prevent defending property with deadly force if you are not in danger. Whether or not DA decides to prosecute if you do use excessive force is another debate.

 

Now if an unarmed attacker(s) reaches for your gun or any weapon for that matter, then you should have every right to shoot. Civilians should have the same self defense rights as cops in that regard. Otherwise the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth...militarizing the police forces while telling civilians that the streets are not dangerous enough to use deadly force themselves against violent perpetrators. With the exception of that jack ass that killed Trayvon Martin, most Americans w/ CCLs will do just about anything to avoid having to shoot someone because even if it's legally justified, you can expect to be arrested and maybe even assaulted by the police for doing so. Not to mention the personal guilt, threat of retribution, and overall distraction that comes with that sort of thing.

 

Actually, 24 of our 50 states have "Make My Day Laws," meaning if you are on someones property that can shoot to kill if they "feel threatened" which is a very loose term. In Colorado, for example, the law covers someone's vehicle. Not very sound protections against gun violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.