Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Hammerfest]

I love the AR-15. Biden thinks you gals should be using shotguns, however.

[Zoranon]

I love the AR-15. Biden thinks you gals should be using shotguns, however.

Joe Biden being a moron is business as usual I am afraid.

[shimerra]

Suicides are completely irrelevant, it is the right of every person to end their life should they chose so.

No the only relevant stat is overall murder rate. You are not more or less dead if you get stabbed than when you get shot.

Quit posting bullshit. If you claim that the more gun control the less violence and the data clearly show something else, you are wrong, period.

They aren't irrelevant just because you declare them so. Especially because for the most part suicide is a temporary reaction to an immediate and temporary state of life. As I said before the overwhelming majority of people who attempt suicide never do so again which generally means that if it didn't straight up kill you you regretted trying it in the first place. Your personal right to commit suicide is irrelevant to the point being made that access to a firearm makes that decision easier and suicide statistics prove that most people given the time to think about it don't go through with it or regret going through with it so bad they never reattempt. Kill yourself if it's really what you want but if you had any ability to understand the numbers you'd be able to easily realize that most people when given time to reflect on that don't actually want to.


The only one posting bullshit is you because of your inability to comprehend your world around you. And math. Your high school algebra doesn't lend well to actual statistical analysis, since you don't seem to understand basic concepts like controlling for certain variables. You are not less dead if you get stabbed TO DEATH then if you are shot TO DEATH. But you are much much more likely to successfully kill someone if you shoot them then if you stab them. Lovely anecdotal bit that Chinese man who stabbed 22 people round the time we had our Sandy Hook incident. How many died at Sandy Hook? Zero died it the Chinese incident. There could be the same number of assaults pre/post gun control but if you think anything other than on average less access to guns has anything other then a negative impact on the number of homicides you are in fact wrong. Since you seem unclear on some things a negative impact on the homicide rate means it goes down.

[Hammerfest]

Joe Biden being a moron is business as usual I am afraid.

Well, sure, that's a given. But his opinions are not his alone.

There's a campaign of sorts going on right now to ban these fine weapons in the US. The American Left has to resort to lies and deliberate misinformation in their attempt to sway public opinion.

[Zoranon]

They aren't irrelevant just because you declare them so. Especially because for the most part suicide is a temporary reaction to an immediate and temporary state of life. As I said before the overwhelming majority of people who attempt suicide never do so again which generally means that if it didn't straight up kill you you regretted trying it in the first place. Your personal right to commit suicide is irrelevant to the point being made that access to a firearm makes that decision easier and suicide statistics prove that most people given the time to think about it don't go through with it or regret going through with it so bad they never reattempt. Kill yourself if it's really what you want but if you had any ability to understand the numbers you'd be able to easily realize that most people when given time to reflect on that don't actually want to.

Too much bullshit.

Suicides are not relevant to gun control because you declare them to be so. The stated goal of anti gun people is to reduce the crime rate. Suicide is not a crime anymore you know?

When in doubt insult the other posters? Add an irrelevant anecdote or two and you might have something vaguely point. So lets go the irrelevant anecdote route: The most deadly school massacre was not caused by guns, but by a bomb. I wont lower myself to you level by insulting you though.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, sure, that's a given. But his opinions are not his alone.

There's a campaign of sorts going on right now to ban these fine weapons in the US. The American Left has to resort to lies and deliberate misinformation in their attempt to sway public opinion.

That is nothing new, the anti-gun people never really had a coherent point. The anti gun posters in this thread are a fine example of the intellectual bankruptcy of said campaign.

[Kalador]

If gun laws cause violence, then why is there significantly higher murder rate in Great Britain (extremely strict gun laws) then in Switzerland (loose gun laws).

I hate when people bring Switzerland as an exemple.

Switzerland as strict gun law in comparaison to US... There is many gun in switzerland cause of mandatory military service for man, switzerland is also high on the death via gun per capita list.

Above all, there is no ''self defence gun'' culture in swizerland, To carry a loaded firearm in public you must have a permit that is REALLY hard to get. Most people don't view guns as toys like in the US, you never see shooting range advertise shot 10 weapon for 50$ or stuff like this. Most of my friend who did military service keep their gun in safe or disassemble it for safty reason and only bring it out when they need to go to the shoting range.

My father who did military service as a medic got an handgun, it was stored at my grandparent house so we could not get it when we were young.

Switzerland is far from US in terms of gun culture and gun regulation. It is not a good point of comparaison and not the gun paradise many american think it is.

[Hammerfest]

The anti gun posters in this thread are a fine example of the intellectual bankruptcy of said campaign.

I'm not that condemning of them, personally. They only know what they've been taught and they've been conditioned to be satisfied with that relatively low level of knowledge on the subject. I can understand someone not wanting to leave their comfort zone.

[Zoranon]

I hate when people bring Switzerland as an exemple.

Switzerland as strict gun law in comparaison to US... There is many gun in switzerland cause of mandatory military service for man, switzerland is also high on the death via gun per capita list.

Above all, there is no ''self defence gun'' culture in swizerland, To carry a loaded firearm in public you must have a permit that is REALLY hard to get. Most people don't view guns as toys like in the US, you never see shooting range advertise shot 10 weapon for 50$ or stuff like this. Most of my friend who did military service keep their gun in safe or disassemble it for safty reason and only bring it out when they need to go to the shoting range.

My father who did military service as a medic got an handgun, it was stored at my grandparent house so we could not get it when we were young.

Switzerland is far from US in terms of gun culture and gun regulation. It is not a good point of comparaison and not the gun paradise many american think it is.

Other posters differ from your assessment. As do I and my swiss friends. And I was not comparing Switzerland and US, but SW and UK.

[PhaelixWW]

Just because you can't one, does not in fact make it a de facto ban. Especially when tens of thousands of people have already obtained one.

Jesus, wtf, are you fucking serious right now?

Wait, is it the word "ban" that you have a problem with? How about de facto Constitutional right-violation? Does that work better for you? If it happens to a single person, it's not Constitutional.

I really don't see how we can claim some de facto ban when we don't know the number of denials.

There won't be that many denials anymore because people in those counties know they won't be able to get one.

For example, San Francisco county in 2013, with a population of 825k, issued a whopping two concealed carry permits to civilians.

Or Los Angeles County, which issued 449 permits to government employees (including 110 to judicial employees), and only 173 to civilians.

It's one of the most liberal state in the nation. Maybe the residents don't like firearms. Their gun laws would certainly suggest so.

Disin-fucking-genuous.

Actually, for the last three years, the only state that processes more NICS background checks on a month-to-month basis is Kentucky. Since 2013, California has run more than 5.5 million NICS checks.

[Zoranon]

I'm not that condemning of them, personally. They only know what they've been taught and they've been conditioned to be satisfied with that relatively low level of knowledge on the subject. I can understand someone not wanting to leave their comfort zone.

When you have my number of posts in this thread, I am afraid you will think the same. So far, every anti-gun poster in this thread turned to great intellectual dishonesty or outright lies so far. The only difference was the number of posts it took.

[Hammerfest]

When you have my number of posts in this thread, I am afraid you will think the same. So far, every anti-gun poster in this thread turned to great intellectual dishonesty or outright lies so far. The only difference was the number of posts it took.

I don't just deal with them here, Zoranon.

I don't hate them back. They want a peaceful world too, after all.

[PhaelixWW]

May-issue is not a de facto ban. If California is issuing nothing but denials, then that's a problem. But no one has provided evidence to that extent.

Sure they have. It was provided during the multiple recent lawsuits involving concealed carry that you started this conversation off by referencing.

Dig around the court files. I'm sure you can find it if you try.

[Ghostpanther]

They're misquoted all the time and I'd bet 20,000$ you're exactly the person I'm talking about. You see words like liberty had different meanings/usages back then and English usage changes and evolves over time. Try reading shakespear or any classic English literature. And we're honestly going to say the average person not familiar with the differences is going to accurately discern subtle differences in meaning?

It's woefully misquoted because it almost explicitly means the opposite of the point it always gets used to defend. It's generally used to imply that big government/over regulation are bad things and that government should be as minimal as possible or as a warning against some type of "nanny" state. In reality Ben Franklin used that quote in a speech where he was addressing his fellow members in the Pennslyvania legislature. It was the French/Indian war and the state desperately needed more money to pay for the defense of the state. And because of that need they had the bright idea to tax the Penn family because a lot of state resources were being spent to defend their vast land holding so it seemed fitting that they should have to help pay for that. The Penn family said no the legislature didn't have the right to tax them and it was a violation of the law for them to do so. The Penn Family's solution was to then offer a one time lump sum to help pay for the war in exchange for the legislature basically saying they couldn't tax the Penn Family. Franklin was outraged and his speech was made warning the legislature against taking the money. The "liberty" he was talking about wasn't the personal liberty a lot of conservatives mistake it for. The liberty he was talking about was the right for the representative government of the people of Pennsylvania to tax its citizens and the security he was referring to was the money that the Penn family was attempting to bribe them with for defense spending. He was arguing FOR the use of government authority, derived from all the people not just the rich ones, and its right to exert is power to do things including taxing the citizens. This quote is almost entirely used incorrectly and to be quite frank I don't think I've ever seen it used/understood properly in my anecdotal experience. Read the actual speech yourself if you care to, I did.


I'm aware they had their own comments. I'm also aware, unlike you it appears, that those comments were made over 200 years ago when as I said if you could shoot anything more then 3 shots a minute you were impressive. They understood the fact that they wouldn't be able to predict/for see everything and that American society would change hence the entire reason for the Amendment process. The founding father's are constantly misquoted. Equally as bad they're often treated as some massive group with a uniform opinion that just happens to agree with whoever is quoting them. Fuck Thomas Jefferson helped write the damn thing and even he wasn't sure if he had the power/authority to make the Louisiana purchase. He was a strict constructionist and he did it anyway.


edit-I'm aware I used state instead of the technically correct colony. force of habit.

The 20,000 dollar bet would be useless since it would be based on opinion who is right. What you wrote has no bearing on what he said as far as saying he did not mean it the way you think he really meant. We know for sure what he said. Even if it was during a event going on does not in itself indicate he meant something else entirely.

And I think the same principles of a citizen having the right for successful means for self defense will always apply even a thousand years from now if others can still try to take your life. The right to pursue happiness is dependent also in you being alive to do so. :P

[Wthrmn]

Gun Control Laws only apply to law abiding citizens. As I have stated before, Criminals don't follow the law. Not like the gangs of major Black and Latino population centers in america are going to come out and turn over all their guns(This is where a majority of gun crimes come from). Guns make breaking the law easier.

You guys want a ban on all guns. Then go after everything else that kills. Cars, Alcohol, Food, Doctors and Tobacco. They all make gun related death look small. Without suicide, every year there are about 11,000 gun related deaths(90% of this comes from Gangs and Gang violence). When you put suicide back in that number jumps to about 33,000 people a year. That still doesn't even come close to how many people cars kill a year.

If you don't like people dying, ban Cars, Doctors, Alcohol, Food and Tobacco. If you're not willing to go after those things. You are just cherry picking an issue.

[Eroginous]

since you don't seem to understand basic concepts like controlling for certain variables.

All I hear when people say things like this is 'we cherry picked this set of data, why aren't you happy with it?' No one is going to be happy until you account for the factors that actually impact a person's decision to commit a violent act. In the vast majority of cases I'm willing to bet the cause of violence is not the availability of guns.

In other words, the causation you claim is responsible for gun violence (availability of guns) is not actually the cause. There might be one or two people out there who have hurt people just because they can, but I honestly doubt that happens very often at all. And I'm 100% positive that as long as your studies keep saying that 'dem guns did it' you can be sure no one is going to take you seriously. Not here, and not in Washington.

[dekiion]

And if you still think your suggestion would work, then the war on drugs would like to say "hi".

so would the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution. You know, the last time someone tried an outright BAN of something, using the DEFINED mechanism within the Constitution itself to make it so? Yah... good luck with getting 2A banned or removed or whatever. History shows exactly what's likely to happen (as does every other attempt to "ban" something).

As a side note, living near Chicago, one learns all SORTS of interesting things about the correlation between the ban of alcohol under the 18th Amendment, and the rise of Al Capone and many other gangsters that thrived on the black market created by that ban.

But hey, that's life for ya. The "religious Right" wants to ban the crap out of a bunch of rights that they feel conflict with their religious beliefs (mostly having to do with sexuality in some way, shape or form and what they see as "moral" value items), and the "Progressive Left" wants to ban the crap out of an entirely different set of rights (Free speech, 2A) which they claim is "for the greater good"... shockingly, a very similar argument basis to that put forth by those they call Right Wing Nut Jobs. Both sides are authoritarian as heck and abandon all principles in their efforts to cater to perceived "values" of respective collective groups at different times. Neither side can claim to be "liberal" as their positions more often than not are illiberal as hell.

[Kalador]

Other posters differ from your assessment. As do I and my swiss friends. And I was not comparing Switzerland and US, but SW and UK.

Where do they disagree? i'm really interested, i know french french part of switzerland where i'm from as less of a gun culture than the german parts but i don't think any statement i made are false even from a Swiss German point of view.

[Zoranon]

I don't just deal with them here, Zoranon.

I don't hate them back. They want a peaceful world too, after all.

I dont hate them, I look down on them. But you are probably right I am too cynical. I just cannot bring myself to believe most of them write here in good faith.

[PhaelixWW]

The fear you have that anyone who isn't a total nutter wants the 2nd repealed is irrational.

Who said I'm afraid? I just challenged you to try; QED, I'm not afraid of it happening, ergo I'm not afraid about whether or not anybody wants it repealed. Assuming that everyone who talks about the subject must be irrationally afraid is just as irrational.

I was responding directly to you talking about what you view as out-of-date content in the Constitution. If you feel that modern wisdom has changed what should be Constitutional, then there's an approved method for changing the Constitution. If you don't think you have the support to change the Constitution, then you're quite obviously wrong about what modern wisdom has to say on the matter.

I prefer to not make such bold claims.

All evidence to the contrary...

[Zoranon]

Where do they disagree? i'm really interested, i know french french part of switzerland where i'm from as less of a gun culture than the german parts but i don't think any statement i made are false even from a Swiss German point of view.

For most of them, guns are natural part of their life. A hobby if you will, nothing to be afraid of. A huge difference from UK that I mentioned earlier where even their Olympic shooting team has to practice outside of mainland UK.