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. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    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

K^2

Great; buy the ammo at your preferred store when you're planning to go to the range.

 

Doesn't mean you need to stockpile on hundreds of rounds.

Never went through less than half a hundred rounds at a range in one trip. And that's one person firing one handgun. I can see a legitimate reason for people to want to bring a few hundred rounds to a range if they plan to spend some time there, there is more than one shooter, and more than one gun.

 

I don't terribly mind some accountability on ammo bought/spent, but this has to be carefully considered. Blank limit on how much you can buy is stupid. Not to mention, packing your own ammo is still always an option. Yeah, it'd take me quite a bit of time to pack a thousand rounds, but the gunner in Vegas didn't put together the whole thing in a day, either. So you're going to annoy millions of legitimate gun users while preventing absolutely nothing.

 

 

Overall, my take on this is that yeah, we should probably ban bump stocks and cranks. You can still make a bump stock or crank at home even if you can't buy one, and even without one, there are bump-firing techniques. But it's a simple enough ban, and even Republicans are on board with this one. Otherwise, we really can't base policy on an incident. Overwhelming majority of gun-related fatalities in United States are suicides and police shootings. We fix these two problems, we cut number of deaths to less than a quarter without a single change to the gun laws. In contrast, number of people who die in mass shootings is almost insignificant, and there is zero evidence that gun control impacts these either way. Yet that's the only context in which gun control seems to be brought up.

 

I'm not opposed to better gun regulation, better background checks, etc. Firearm regulations we have now are very far from great. Unfortunately, every time something like this happens, all we talk about are patch-fixes that do almost nothing, and debate about real issues, like toxic gun culture, abysmal state of the mental health care, etc. get pushed to the curb. That's the part that grinds my gears about gun control topic. If we had these problems tackled, then yeah, gun regulations would be the next natural thing to fix. And sure, we can talk about regulations in any case, but keeping in mind what we're trying to actually accomplish. Blind bans do bugger all.

 

There's also a problem with current manufacturing capabilities that Joe Average has access to. I don't know how things are in other countries, but in US, the only part of the gun that is a registered firearm by law is lower receiver. And if you've ever seen a lower from an AK (AK47 or newer models), these things can be made at home with the most basic of tools. Something like AR15 lower is a bit harder, but there are videos on YouTube of people literally casting these from empty beer cans. There are also specialized tools for making lowers, like GhostGunner, and 3D printing is catching up rapidly. In fact, 3D printed metal powder with thermoplastic binder can be sintered into a solid metal receiver using equipment that costs about the same as a couple of rifles.

 

So even if we looked at total ban as a realistic option, which in US it simply isn't, making an illegal firearm (or a legal one) is becoming so easy that it's likely to still have zero impact on mass shootings like the one we've seen in Vegas. If we don't fix systemic problems in culture, we'll keep seeing these regardless of how many bans we push through.

 

 

I'm from a country where weapons are mostly illegal and extremelly hard and expensive to get legally, so I just want to ask something: I've heard the 2nd Amendment was written in a time before automatic rifles and ARs or AKs and stuff, so do you think it should apply to them?

Automatic firearms, if they aren't grandfathered in and certified through a bunch of red tape, are already illegal in the US. Vegas shooter did all that damage without using automatic fire arms, as it turns out. He just modified semi-automatic rifles with bump-stocks.

 

But if we're talking about modern semi-automatic rifles, yes, Second Amendment still applies in spirit. The purpose was to ensure that common citizens have access to firearms that allow them to defend their land from enemy foreign or domestic. Fully automatic weapons, artillery, and other weapons only help you if you're a well-trained military force. But in urban conflict, we see that semi-automatic rifles are quite effective. In contrast, a muzzle loader simply isn't going to cut it when enemy can reload and fire in fraction of time.

 

We can argue about whether any of that is relevant in modern world, but the anachronism has nothing to do with gun technology. Framers knew technology would change, and that the laws would have to adapt, which is why the amendment is so vague.

 

The bigger problem, I think, is that Second Amendment assumes that people are generally competent with fire arms. To an 18th century citizen, gun is a tool. You hunt with it. You fight with it. Today, we have very few people who are familiar with them, much less know how to use them. Add on top of it a gun glorifying media culture, and it's no surprise that some asshole with an inferiority complex is going to want a gun as means of compensating for own inadequacies. That's the thing that would have never occurred to the Founding Fathers.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
feckyerlife

. But why would you need to "stockpile" on hundreds of rounds and whatnot? Hey and if you have a legitimate reason, surely it can be approved by the authorities and whatnot.

 

I stock pile ammo because it way cheaper to buy ammo in bulk then to buy ammo at the range. Some ranges your paying double for ammo that you would pay at the store or gun show, its ridiculous. If the gun ranges would come down on ammo prices, you wouldn't have as many of people buying so much of it. Plus its easy to lose track of all the ammo you have, a 1000 rounds of certain ammo could fit in a shoebox.

 

this is a good article from the post on the US Gun laws.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

 

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

 

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an "assault weapon." It's an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don't make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to

.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn't believe in many of the interventions I'd heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don't want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans' plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

There's so many unforced errors in that piece, such as referring to rifle grenade attachments as "rocket propelled", that I have a hard time taking it particularly seriously.

 

It's also a bit of a straw man, as I don't think many people who actually voice informed opinions on the subject of gun control really think that blanket bans are any kind of coherent response. It's just the American right has made it so hard to actually address the core issues (licencing, background checks, mandatory training) and has in some cases actually rolled back restrictions and protections (such as removing the mandatory training and licencing requirements for concealed carry in certain states) that having a coherent and intelligent discussion on the subject without being pigeonholed as a commie by pathological idiots or shouted down by second amendment militia nuts is downright impossible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

It's also a bit of a straw man, as I don't think many people who actually voice informed opinions on the subject of gun control really think that blanket bans are any kind of coherent response.

That's only a valid argument if we expect majority to have an informed opinion. That just isn't the case. On one hand, we have NRA that makes it very hard to talk about researching gun violence and potential impact of restrictions, let alone implement a policy. On the other, when enough momentum is gathered on the opposite side to actually push something through, we get something like assault weapons ban, AKA, "Lets just outlaw scary-looking guns." Because politicians aren't informed, lobbying groups aren't informed, and general public sure as hell isn't informed. Anti-gun groups don't understand anything about firearms, pro-gun groups don't understand anything about laws and regulation, and neither side makes even an attempt to learn something new.

 

The moment we actually got articles flying about explaining what bump stocks are, we got a ban sponsored by Republicans and approved by NRA. Because, for once, these people actually took a look at something outside of their very narrow view on the world and realized what kind of a dumpster fire the current state of things is. And this is the same both sides of the spectrum.

 

So when we are having discussion about gun control, no, it's not reasonable to assume that nobody's talking about banning firearms. A lot of people are. And they'll celebrate any sort of partial ban as a victory regardless of how useless and ridiculous it is. Just like the gun lobbying groups treat absolutely every attempt to regulate gun ownership as an attempt to take them away. Rational, informed discussion is a good idea, but that just isn't the status quo.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrSweatySphincter

I don't own a gun but do plan to own many types in the future so....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Demigod

I think gun control should be in place. To reasonable degree.

 

All the common defense don't really work...

 

It's in my right as an American citizen to defend myself!!!

 

Fine. Have pistols and basic stuff be buyable. That's all you need for defense. A concealed small firearm. But stuff like rifles and machine guns should be heavily regulated for military/police use only and not available as civilian weapons.

 

Are you also gonna say that cars kill people? And we should ban cars? Guns dont kill people, people kill people!

 

Stupid analogies. Apples and oranges. Cars are integral to everyday life, guns aren't. Also...mass shooting are impossible without guns. I doubt a mass-shooter could drive his car into a school and play Carmageddon. Simply put, if crazy people didn't have access to guns a shooting wouldn't happen. Knife, car, whatever...other violent tools may be used but we will have removed the most volatile option.

 

I doubt someone who is ready to do a mass-shooting will care about gun laws

 

It won't prevent it 100% but it sure as hell will deter it. The man from Vegas would have had to go through illegal black market channels instead of waltzing into a store or festival to buy his weapons. We make the process of acquisition harder...its SOMETHING that will surely help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

Banning guns will just change the delivery method of violence. This guy killed less people than the truck driver in Nice.

 

Wait until people start isolating salmonella from eggs or mixing sarin.

 

If someone really wants to hurt a huge number of people and evade detection for any period of time a gun is not their best bet.

 

That said, it's a shame gun control didn't happen sooner because all reasonable people know that it's way too late now. I don't own a gun and I'm not fond of them but if I did and didn't want to forfeit the weapon I could simply report the gun stolen.

Edited by Chiari
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

Looking at the bigger picture, we have legalized bribery (often euphemized as, 'money in politics', 'campaign contributions', 'our partners in the business community', 'lobbying', 'governmental affairs team', etc.). The same mechanisms that enable the NRA to block any legislation that doesn't get their nod of approval is the same mechanism that is rotting our democracy from within on a range of issues. So as absurd as many of our gun attitudes are, the solution lies somewhere in limiting the influence of special interest groups in general really.

I feel people who interpret the 2A as supposedly being there to ensure a check and balance against government tyranny don't realize how far out of touch with reality they are. The small arms we can possess are no match against a modern military force, and beyond that their logic is cyclically faulty. First they suggest having access to firearms is the only thing keeping the government in check, and then they claim regulations are useless because people will always have access. Well if people will always be able to get guns and restrictions are futile, then why worry about being able to get them in order to respond to government tyranny?

The end result is that any and all gun control legislation is seen as a part of some slow conniving plot to ultimately disarm us permanently.


A common misconception about the 2nd amendment's gov't tyranny reference is that it's solely directed at the US government. An armed public must be either killed or reasoned with while an unarmed public doesn’t have much of a choice. This is not to say that the American people hold any military superiority over an advanced fighting force complete with propaganda, logistical expertise, and many electronic measures for subduing the public. The notion that civilians can always repel a well-coordinated offensive w/o military support is a bit ridiculous, but they can definitely deter one and alter the calculus in a big way.

 

Even the US Armed Forces, arguably the most formidable and experienced counterinsurgency force in the world, has significant operational deficiencies in urban warfare. Now this is clearly not the typical rationale for owning a gun. Federal authority has grown considerably since the Constitution. I just see this ‘protection from tyranny’ rhetoric misused a lot on both sides of the gun debate.

 

On one absurd extreme, we see people claiming it could have prevented the Holocaust. On the other extreme, we see this naive complacency with a heavily-militarized state that enjoys a monopoly on arms while presiding over a disarmed public.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

Looking at the bigger picture, we have legalized bribery (often euphemized as, 'money in politics', 'campaign contributions', 'our partners in the business community', 'lobbying', 'governmental affairs team', etc.). The same mechanisms that enable the NRA to block any legislation that doesn't get their nod of approval is the same mechanism that is rotting our democracy from within on a range of issues. So as absurd as many of our gun attitudes are, the solution lies somewhere in limiting the influence of special interest groups in general really.

 

 

I feel people who interpret the 2A as supposedly being there to ensure a check and balance against government tyranny don't realize how far out of touch with reality they are. The small arms we can possess are no match against a modern military force, and beyond that their logic is cyclically faulty. First they suggest having access to firearms is the only thing keeping the government in check, and then they claim regulations are useless because people will always have access. Well if people will always be able to get guns and restrictions are futile, then why worry about being able to get them in order to respond to government tyranny?

 

The end result is that any and all gun control legislation is seen as a part of some slow conniving plot to ultimately disarm us permanently.

 

A common misconception about the 2nd amendment's gov't tyranny reference is that it's solely directed at the US government. An armed public must be either killed or reasoned with while an unarmed public doesn’t have much of a choice. This is not to say that the American people hold any military superiority over an advanced fighting force complete with propaganda, logistical expertise, and many electronic measures for subduing the public. The notion that civilians can always repel a well-coordinated offensive w/o military support is a bit ridiculous, but they can definitely deter one and alter the calculus in a big way.

 

Even the US Armed Forces, arguably the most formidable and experienced counterinsurgency force in the world, has significant operational deficiencies in urban warfare. Now this is clearly not the typical rationale for owning a gun. Federal authority has grown considerably since the Constitution. I just see this ‘protection from tyranny’ rhetoric misused a lot on both sides of the gun debate.

 

On one absurd extreme, we see people claiming it could have prevented the Holocaust. On the other extreme, we see this naive complacency with a heavily-militarized state that enjoys a monopoly on arms while presiding over a disarmed public.

 

I understand that it is more useful as a deterrent than to actually wage some kind of revolution, but I still think that at a certain point the value of the deterrence begins to wane in comparison to the cost of so many weapons. A lot of people from other countries are hearing the amount of guns Paddock had, and in their minds this guy was nothing short of some kind of armed force in and of himself. Even in a lot of metropolitan areas in America it's kind of a startling amount of guns for people to hear, but for most gun enthusiasts it's kind of just a "collection". I mean it would be a hard thing to estimate of course, but I wonder just how many gun owners across the nation have as many firearms as Paddock had. I wouldn't hesitate to estimate the number in the thousands, just by virtue of the popularity of firearms and the amount of people we have in this country with similar levels of wealth that he had. On the one hand, it would seem like most of these people are of no concern, and these large collections pose no threat, but if that were true then maybe there could be some kind of compromise in "tracking" and "registering" such large collections so that the Stephen Paddocks down the line might actually show up on the radar.

 

I feel like the initial knee-jerk opposition to that would be the privacy concern issue, people "Not wanting the government to know how many guns and what kind I have." But I mean, if we're only tracking collections larger than a certain number of firearms, it still leaves every other household in America possessing up to that limit or more without government knowledge. There's some old quote about a general saying, "In America behind every blade of grass is a rifle," and so I think even if people only had 1 rifle per household it would still be quite the deterrent.

 

The, "Let's just let everyone own as many guns as they want," strategy may not be to blame, but on the other hand our we unnecessarily respecting "privacy" rights that could have given us a chance to prevent an incident like this? Plus, it's not like there's not the elephant in the room, that these types of incidents are not the norm, and most gun deaths are from gang violence, domestic violence, and suicide ( whether intentional or accidental ).

 

In some ways, if people were deterred NOT to own a sh*tload of guns because the "government would track them", then maybe that might cut down on some of those numbers by virtue of their not being a million shoe-box guns laying in wait to be stolen and/or the center-piece of some tragic tale not yet told.

 

Again though I don't think any of it will ever happen without some kind of compromise. Just telling people their concerns for privacy are unfounded won't work. I feel like offering some kind of, "Everyone can have at least x amount of unregistered firearms," would satisfy both sides, but of course that "x" factor wouldn't be easy to hash out either, and I'm sure many would not accept it at all and see it as arbitrary. Then of course there's other states were registration of any firearm is mandatory, so it's really a moot idea anyway, but I'm just saying I think there needs to be more talk of legislation in that vein of things that to keep making knee-jerk band-aid fixes like bump-stock or high-capacity magazine bans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Fine. Have pistols and basic stuff be buyable. That's all you need for defense. A concealed small firearm. But stuff like rifles and machine guns should be heavily regulated for military/police use only and not available as civilian weapons.

See, this here is the main problem with gun control. Not the fact that people want them regulated. That's just something any sane person wants. But the fact that people who talk about how they should be regulated rarely know anything about guns.

 

Pistol is a rifle, first of all. It's a compact rifle, typically with semi-automatic short recoil action. The only commonly available firearm that's not a rifle is a shotgun. So how do you propose writing a law that prevents ownership of something like AR-15 vs a handgun? California is a wonderful example of how not to do it. They've introduced a bunch of laws going after cosmetic elements of AR-15, trying to make that specific rifle illegal. Result, abundant legal modifications that make it perfectly legal and not an ounce less deadly.

 

You could try to limit the length of a barrel. That's really where most of the added lethality comes from. Unfortunately, rifle barrels aren't regulated at a national level. Reasons are mostly historical, but there is zero record and about 200 million long rifle barrels in the US. Good luck banning them. That's aside from the matter that every single large game hunter would be up in arms over it, possibly literally, and that once you get the tools for rifling a barrel, they are super easy to make at home.

 

Same problem with machine guns. Lets start with the fact that they are already illegal. Well, mostly illegal. You can obtain a license for a grand-fathered automatic rifle. But it's so much of a pain, that Vegas shooter didn't bother. He just got bump stocks instead. And yes, we're outlawing these now, but it's something you can actually 3D print at home. Like, you don't even need to be good with tools. You literally buy a $500 printer and download a file. Just add a spring, and your legal semi-automatic rifle is now capable of automatic-like fire. Converting rifles to full auto isn't that hard, either. With AR-15, that's actually work. They did due diligence in making firing group work differently in full-auto and semi-auto versions. But then you have rifles like AKs, which can be converted using scrap metal and a file. This goes for pistols too, many of which are easily converted into fully automatic machine pistols.

 

And then we get into category of completely home-built guns. I was going to link a video of a guy casting and tooling an aluminum lower for AR-15, but that got taken down by YouTube. Not that finding instructions on how to do it are particularly hard. And remember, the only part of a gun that is registered is the lower receiver. Maybe that was a bad call when laws were originally written, but with nearly 300 million guns already out there, that's kind of too late to change.

 

 

While there is still some minimal barrier to obtaining illegal firearms right now, we are very rapidly moving into the world where there is none. Rapid manufacturing techniques are rapidly improving. You can 3D print many parts. You can cast nearly all of the rest. Parts you can't make yourself are freely available, because they are just springs and pins. We can take flashy actions against guns that are legal now. We can try to close many loopholes. Perhaps, we even should. But we can't call it done. Gun control is, at best, a short term solution. We will have a mass shooting involving home-made guns in the near future. And the person who perpetrates it won't be some genius. He'll be an ordinary sociopath who downloaded plans from the internet and spent a couple grand on hardware he needs to turn them into rifles. Where do we go from there? Ban 3D printers? Ban internet? This is not the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Demigod

-

Damn, dude. You really know your guns. As a Canadian who doesn't play a lot of FPS games I don't think I have the necessary gun knowledge to respond to your post appropriately. Sorry.

 

But, if I may weigh in, it seems like a lot of the legislation surrounding guns is overly pedantic and rooted on semantics and that's where a lot of legal loopholes come in.

 

I guess they can keep it simple.

 

Small weapon designed for short-range personal defence: allowed

 

Giant automatic rifle designed to mow down large amounts of people in a short amount of time, and over a long range: not allowed.

 

Something tells me the Vegas massacre couldn't have happened if the guy had a pistol.

 

I mean, I would hope that Americans would have enough common sense to get this. There is no defense reason to arm yourself with an M16 or an assault rifle. You can't even conceal it.

I wouldn't need a f*cking assault rifle to defend myself from a break-in or a back-alley mugging with some dude trying to steal my iPhone X.

 

Literally the only rationale I can see for civilians having access to "long guns" (we'll call them that for clarity) is for: hunting, sport, and collector's items. If they find a way to regulate this, and regulate other guns...we might see a decrease in these crimes.

Edited by Alpha Demigod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

He was a rich white man, though. Even if guns were banned, he would have just found a way to buy the gun he needed, illegally, and done the deed regardless. Banning guns won't make the hundreds of millions in existence suddenly disappear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Demigod

He was a rich white man, though. Even if guns were banned, he would have just found a way to buy the gun he needed, illegally, and done the deed regardless. Banning guns won't make the hundreds of millions in existence suddenly disappear.

 

Never said it was 100% prevention. It's a deterrent. Yes, he could have bought the guns illegally...but it would have been harder.

 

What's an easier method of acquisition?

 

Gun fair? Or black market, deep web, gang culture, etc.?

 

Look at any mass-shooting. Columbine, Vegas, and even our Lord and Savior Elliot Rodger. They all accessed their guns from legal channels and/or used parent's guns. The guns used were obtained through legal channels.

 

I doubt these shootings would occur so frequently if the perpetrators had to go to great lengths to acquire the weapons that facilitate such massacres.

 

Again, I'm only approaching the issue from a debate perspective. It's fun to analyze. As a misanthropic Canadian I don't give a flying f*ck about mass-shooting, the NRA, or gun politics in America. I'm not going to encourage them like some psychopath, I'm not a degenerate animal, but I don't care about 50+ normies in Vegas getting sprayed.

 

But the TL;DR is this:

 

1) Vegas would not* have occurred if a civilian could not buy long-range automatic weapons at any redneck gun fair

 

* OR it would have forced Stephen Paddock to go through illegal channels, thus making the event less likely to occur. So not 100% solved, but I'll take "less likely" as a reasonable substitute.

 

2) Other mass-shootings would not have occurred if weapons weren't so readily accessible in America. Do you really think the autistic dweeb from the Sandy Hook shooting would be able to secure firearms from a gangbangers like Lamar and Franklin? Nope. And I doubt he could drive his car into the school, or use a knife to mow people down.

 

Eliminate easy acquisition of guns. And you force mass-shooters to work harder to get the guns, and thus deter the shooting.

 

 

So yeah. I've laid out my points, happy to see anyone try and rebuttal them.

Edited by Alpha Demigod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

But it isn't much of a deterrent either; in the same way that the death penalty isn't a deterrent in stopping people from committing capital offenses. People who want to commit crimes will commit them regardless.

 

 

1) Vegas would not* have occurred if a civilian could not buy long-range automatic weapons at any redneck gun fair

* OR it would have forced Stephen Paddock to go through illegal channels, thus making the event less likely to occur. So not 100% solved, but I'll take "less likely" as a reasonable substitute.

 

I don't think there's evidence to support this assertion, though. Rich people can literally afford anything, depending on their wealth. He wouldn't even need to go through illegal channels himself; just pay someone to do it. With the right amount of money, you can buy humans. So I don't think it would be less likely.

 

 

2) Other mass-shootings would not have occurred if weapons weren't so readily accessible in America. Do you really think the autistic dweeb from the Sandy Hook shooting would be able to secure firearms from a gangbangers like Lamar and Franklin? Nope. And I doubt he could drive his car into the school, or use a knife to mow people down.

 

Right, and if my father was a woman I'd have two mothers. Weapons already are readily accessible in America, and have been for generations. It's ingrained in their culture. Of course if there were less guns, the chances of such things happening would be reduced. But there's more than a gun per inhabitant in America. You can't simply ban them.

 

And dweebs will be dweebs. If guns weren't accessible, and they were intent on committing their actions, they'd find another way around it. Guns were simply the method they chose.

 

 

Eliminate easy acquisition of guns. And you force mass-shooters to work harder to get the guns, and thus deter the shooting.

 

I don't think it's that simple. The problem with America isn't simply the vast number of firearms available, but it's a deeper cultural societal issue with violence in general. People who want to commit these actions will just find different ways of doing it, as we've seen with terrorists and cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Small weapon designed for short-range personal defence: allowed

 

Giant automatic rifle designed to mow down large amounts of people in a short amount of time, and over a long range: not allowed.

 

Something tells me the Vegas massacre couldn't have happened if the guy had a pistol.

Vegas shooter didn't have a "giant automatic rifle", either. He had a bunch of fairly small semi-automatics. AR-15 and AKs he used aren't big rifles. And they aren't automatic, either. They fall between these two categories. And that's the problem. There is no clear, legal distinction between what you are describing as a "short-range" pistol that should be allowed and a firearm capable of killing dozens of people in a very short time. This is also technically a pistol, and it's way more dangerous, and way more illegal than anything Vegas shooter had.

 

[

 

 

And there a whole bunch of pistols out there that can be equipped with a longer, target range barrels and converted to full-automatics, making them into proper machine-pistols capable of doing same kind of damage as we've seen in Vegas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHAT!?

So many of the US related gun issues can be solved by enforcing laws we already have and then adding standard policy enforced by the federal government for all 50 states. The latter will likely never come to pass though. Restrictions on buying, wait times, and even the types of guns you can have all fall to the state level, because no politician in Washington wants to introduce a bill that labels them as anti-gun. (plus the NRA pays them a lot of money not to) The result is a patch work of laws across the country with loop holes and exploits that you can drive a truck through. Add to this that violating the laws that do exist regarding proper sale of a firearm and complying with the wait times and background checks often carry lesser penalties than if Johnny Law caught you on the corner with a dime bag of weed.

 

As a result? If you don't like the law in your state, drive to the next one. Its not like there are border checks.

 

It really is a problem that (for example) our process for obtaining a drivers license is more involved and complete than that of owning a gun. Hell we put kids now through a program from 16 on through to the age of at least 18 and most of them still can't drive because despite everything they can't not use their f*cking cell phone and the driving instructor isn't being paid enough to honestly give a sh*t... but I digress, (how many times I sit at a green light everyday because some twat hasn't finished their tweet). That sh*tty program that produces sh*tty results is still more comprehensive then our firearm licensing and training.

 

Right then. Comprehensive licensing. Standardized background checks and wait times. Federal punishment for violation of the law standardized across all 50 states, Oh, and mental f*cking health care.

 

The only weapons that I think at least deserve a look for an outright ban are assault rifles. You just don't need one Dave. You don't. Worried about B&E? Shotgun, rifle, handgun. Good to go. You need to stop the bad man. Not turn them into a fine red paste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

The only weapons that I think at least deserve a look for an outright ban are assault rifles. You just don't need one Dave. You don't. Worried about B&E? Shotgun, rifle, handgun. Good to go. You need to stop the bad man. Not turn them into a fine red paste.

While I agree that they aren't necessary, that in itself isn't a good reason to ban something. A civilian-version semi-automatic assault rifle just isn't distinguished by any significant characteristics from any firearm you'd use to defend yourself. This, again, is why we have dumb laws like assault weapon bans. They don't do anything. The difference between assault rifle and any other semi-automatic rifle is cosmetic, so all bans are against cosmetic elements. They are pointless.

 

This is AR-15 assault rifle. Illegal in California as it constitutes an assault weapon.

 

AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine.JPG

 

 

This is AR-15 modified to meet requirements in California. No longer an assault weapon as per law.

 

frs_15-tfb.jpeg

 

 

Both guns will perform exactly the same in the field for any lawful or unlawful purpose. Because absolutely none of the things that make an assault rifle an assault rifle are relevant to how effective it is as a firearm.

 

On the other hand, I'm completely on the same page with you on licensing. Gun registries have very limited impact and can do a lot more harm than good if they ever get leaked. Black market for firearms is very lucrative, making list of gun owners basically a shopping list for burglaries. But licensing gun owners is just good sense. Most states require some sort of training for concealed carry. Simply expanding that to any gun ownership will do a lot to reduce, at least, the accidental deaths. It will also help us better enforce background checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHAT!?

Yeah, I realize "assault rifle" is pretty much a blanket term for any gun that *looks* like it could go to war in the modern day. I'm aware of the issue in regards to being able to modify the mechanical aspects of lesser weapons to turn them into something capable of chucking a lot of fire down range quickly.

 

To that regard I suppose you'd need to enforce statistical data on the weapon. Sort of how its done in drag racing. If the vehicle you bring to the strip does the run in "X" seconds you need to have a roll cage. If your gun puts "X" bullets down range in "Y" time with "Z" accuracy its illegal.

 

Then of course you'd have to move on to how you enforce that. Traditionally people that mod their guns are either enthusiasts that are going to shoot in the back yard and you'd never know about it anyway, or they are offenders out to do harm and don't care what the law is... Which brings us to the sticky situation of what has to be banned to ensure modification of existing weapons cannot be easily done to achieve a horrific end. Since that quandary isn't easily solvable I think you'll find that is why people just say *assault* rifle and hope that this blanket term is enough...

 

Really at this point and with the gun culture that exists in this country I don't think we'll do much better than more comprehensive regulation. Bans or buybacks just will not work. Even if they were moderately successful (which would surprise me). As you point out, we have a healthy black market.

Edited by WHAT!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I suppose you could mitigate the whole "what is or isn't an assault rifle style firearm" question by simply banning all detachable magazine, semi-automatic centrefire rifles, perhaps alongside a minimum barrel length restriction of something like 22".

 

Not suggesting it's necessarily a good idea or commenting on whether or not a lack of purpose/requirement is justification for a ban, just saying there are ways around the weasel wordy "assault rifle" thing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

I suppose you could mitigate the whole "what is or isn't an assault rifle style firearm" question by simply banning all detachable magazine, semi-automatic centrefire rifles, perhaps alongside a minimum barrel length restriction of something like 22".

You practically quoted California regulations, and CA has a few more on top of it. I've already shown a gun that bypasses all of them, and this is how people deal with ejectable magazine restriction.

 

 

 

 

As you can see, with a take-down pin in place, swapping out a magazine by legally meeting requirements to take the gun apart before magazine is removable is just as fast as swapping it out on any other rifle.

 

Sure, you can come up with another law that specifically targets this particular device, and there will be yet another way to bypass the legal requirement. Because the only parts that make an assault rifle deadly are the same parts that have to be present on any semi-automatic rifle. Everything else that distinguishes an assault rifle is simply there for convenience of the military. Ease of cleaning, ease of carrying, ease of adding various attachments, low noise, reduced muzzle flashes, etc. These are the things that get targeted by assault weapon laws, but none of them are necessary for a massacre.

 

Any law that focuses on trying to limit assault rifles is doomed to failure from the start. It's a bad idea. It doesn't work. We have an entire state that has been implementing these laws for two decades, and number of AR-15s in Cali has not gone down. The growth rate has gone down a bit over the past few years, but only because people are switching to other, no less deadly rifles, as they require fewer aftermarket modifications to make them legal here. The net result of the laws has been more NRA memberships and no fewer guns in public hands. These simply don't work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html

 

so fellas.

can we talk about gun control yet?

 

oh right, it's too soon.

hopefully we reach the magical window between gun massacres where it's appropriate to talk about them before the next one happens and we have to wait again...

 

thoughts and prayers

condolences

 

 

:sui:

Edited by El Diablo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html

 

so fellas.

can we talk about gun control yet?

 

oh right, it's too soon.

hopefully we reach the magical window between gun massacres where it's appropriate to talk about them before the next one happens and we have to wait again...

 

thoughts and prayers

condolences

 

 

:sui:

It's always "too soon". What baffles me is how even people on forums like these, out of a misplaced sense of decorum, actively discourage people from discussing the issue. Are people really meant to just line up and bleat a few insincere apologies? The dead are dead, and no longer care what you say about anything. So I don't see why it's somehow taboo to use events like these to hold some kind of dialogue on the gun issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Damn, it was about to stop being "too soon" after the Las Vegas shooting, and now we have this!

Oh well, guess we'll just have to wait again cause now our judgement is clouded by emotions, and it is too soon to talk about measures to prevent this sort of thing happening. If only it had happened later, after we had processed Las Vegas and could get our emotions out of the way, this happens. Well shucks.

 

Seriously, no surprise here. Another white male gone astray. And this time, someone even fired back at him. Too bad it didn't prevent the death of the 23 people inside the church. Maybe if he had more guns. Or maybe if the perp was a muslim, you can bet the response time would be much faster as people would already expect that from him. But a young white male? Poor fella. Now is not the time for sanctions against white folks (unlike after the dude rammed people in New York provided sparks for tougher immigration control/more airport security), no sir. It is a time to grieve, and pray for the lost.

 

Who could see it coming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

Damn, it was about to stop being "too soon" after the Las Vegas shooting, and now we have this!

Oh well, guess we'll just have to wait again cause now our judgement is clouded by emotions, and it is too soon to talk about measures to prevent this sort of thing happening. If only it had happened later, after we had processed Las Vegas and could get our emotions out of the way, this happens. Well shucks.

 

Seriously, no surprise here. Another white male gone astray. And this time, someone even fired back at him. Too bad it didn't prevent the death of the 23 people inside the church. Maybe if he had more guns. Or maybe if the perp was a muslim, you can bet the response time would be much faster as people would already expect that from him. But a young white male? Poor fella. Now is not the time for sanctions against white folks (unlike after the dude rammed people in New York provided sparks for tougher immigration control/more airport security), no sir. It is a time to grieve, and pray for the lost.

 

Who could see it coming?

 

Who fired back? One of the church goers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Seriously, no surprise here. Another white male gone astray. And this time, someone even fired back at him. Too bad it didn't prevent the death of the 23 people inside the church. Maybe if he had more guns. Or maybe if the perp was a muslim, you can bet the response time would be much faster as people would already expect that from him. But a young white male? Poor fella. Now is not the time for sanctions against white folks (unlike after the dude rammed people in New York provided sparks for tougher immigration control/more airport security), no sir. It is a time to grieve, and pray for the lost.

 

Who could see it coming?

How can you even pretend moral superiority to the right when you yourself insist on stooping equally as low? You're just as bad. The idea that the US has a gun problem is a legitimate response to these crimes, but this completely regressive idiocy is pathetic really.

Edited by Eutyphro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

Damn, it was about to stop being "too soon" after the Las Vegas shooting, and now we have this!

Oh well, guess we'll just have to wait again cause now our judgement is clouded by emotions, and it is too soon to talk about measures to prevent this sort of thing happening. If only it had happened later, after we had processed Las Vegas and could get our emotions out of the way, this happens. Well shucks.

 

Seriously, no surprise here. Another white male gone astray. And this time, someone even fired back at him. Too bad it didn't prevent the death of the 23 people inside the church. Maybe if he had more guns. Or maybe if the perp was a muslim, you can bet the response time would be much faster as people would already expect that from him. But a young white male? Poor fella. Now is not the time for sanctions against white folks (unlike after the dude rammed people in New York provided sparks for tougher immigration control/more airport security), no sir. It is a time to grieve, and pray for the lost.

 

Who could see it coming?

 

Who fired back? One of the church goers?

 

 

Apparently yes, one of the people in the location began firing back which allegedly drove the suspect away.

 

 

How can you even pretend moral superiority to the right when you yourself insist on stooping equally as low? You're just as bad. The idea that the US has a gun problem is a legitimate response to these crimes, but this completely regressive idiocy is pathetic really.

 

What are you on about? It's obvious that America has a gun problem, and a race problem, and a muslim problem. Had this guy been a muslim, it would have been easier to pinpoint his motives as obviously driven by terrorism, as brown people are wont to be. When it's a white murderer, they always take extreme caution not to immediately place his motives, and look at all other possibilities. And then nothing happens.

 

We've had white lone wolves that shot up a school filled with children, a church filled with black people, a movie theatre, a concert, you name it. Never any real policy has been enforced because of it, and it's always talk about "oh now it's not the time, we can't let emotions cloud our judgement". The moment a muslim does it, it's all the rage and talks of increasing immigration controls, banning countries, stopping America from becoming Sharia Land.

 

I'm being realistic here. If a f*cking school filled with f*cking schoolchildren being shot up by a f*cking loser piece of sh*t human being hasn't prompted the authorities to do something about the issue, then this won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

The moment a muslim does it, it's all the rage and talks of increasing immigration controls, banning countries, stopping America from becoming Sharia Land.

Only 0.9 percent of the US is muslim. So the mere fact that whites commit more mass shootings or terror attacks tells you nothing meaningful about the threat of Islamic terror.

 

Had this guy been a muslim, it would have been easier to pinpoint his motives as obviously driven by terrorism

Well, this guy had been a member of this church, and had now liked all kinds of atheism pages on his Facebook. Possibly we are talking about an attack in the name of atheism..

 

What is interesting is this media fetishized gun violence mass psychosis that is occurring, and how it motivates lunatics to do horrible things to get some recognition in their failed lives. And Islamic terror when acted out by young men that have grown up in the West is equally an effect of that.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

i don't understand how some americans can remain cold in front of such images. can't you see it's your neighbors, your sisters, your sons that had been hit. in the name of what. what justifies such injustice. can't you see such things happen only in America

Edited by jpm1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockstar Vienna

I think the main reason why Americans are so addicted to their guns is the constant fear mongering in the country. The fear of getting robbed or hurt. The fear of becoming a violent crime victim. Cause then you can only protect yourself with a gun. Doesn't matter how safe your surroundings and your neigbourhood are. This combined with the "it's my right to own guns" mentality. But also the fear of not being able to pay for hospital/med bills. The fear of foreign people. The fear of terror. The fear of other races. Combined with a lot of ignorance, an often really weird world view and a media that spreads fear 24/7. Not only an American problem of course but it's on a whole different level in the United States.

 

Rockstar is actually doing a good job of portraying America in GTA. While exaggerated of course, the portrayal of NPCs on the streets and the TV shows and especially the commercials are not far from reality. I was amazed when I visited New York for the first time a few years ago and watched TV in my hotel room. The commercials are full of fear mongering Insurance companies, debt settlement companies and pharma marketers. This, combined with a lot of often very stupid and dangerous patriotism. A fear cocktail par excellence. And with guns it's no different. The ratio between fear and patriotism is a bit different here tho.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cripto136

I think the main reason why Americans are so addicted to their guns is the constant fear mongering in the country. The fear of getting robbed or hurt. The fear of becoming a violent crime victim. Cause then you can only protect yourself with a gun. Doesn't matter how safe your surroundings and your neigbourhood are. This combined with the "it's my right to own guns" mentality. But also the fear of not being able to pay for hospital/med bills. The fear of foreign people. The fear of terror. The fear of other races. Combined with a lot of ignorance, an often really weird world view and a media that spreads fear 24/7. Not only an American problem of course but it's on a whole different level in the United States.

 

Rockstar is actually doing a good job of portraying America in GTA. While exaggerated of course, the portrayal of NPCs on the streets and the TV shows and especially the commercials are not far from reality. I was amazed when I visited New York for the first time a few years ago and watched TV in my hotel room. The commercials are full of fear mongering Insurance companies, debt settlement companies and pharma marketers. This, combined with a lot of often very stupid and dangerous patriotism. A fear cocktail par excellence. And with guns it's no different. The ratio between fear and patriotism is a bit different here tho.

I think your overstating fear being the main reason why the United States has the gun culture that it does. If most people really bought guns out of pure fear, they'd go for the cheapest and practical choices which is the case for some. For others it is also a hobby of collecting.

 

There's all sorts of gimmicky or antiquated guns that are realistically outclassed with just about everything else available. But at the end of the day, people will still buy them. Not because of fear or out of percieved necessity, but because they can.

 

Of course there are those overly patriotic types who view guns as the only way to protect themselves from the government or have doomsday fantasies but they do not represent the mentality of all gun owners.

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.

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.