View Poll Results: Do you support banning AND round-up of said guns in the USA?

Voters
280. You may not vote on this poll
  • No - I'm an American

    154 55.00%
  • Yes - I'm an American

    27 9.64%
  • No - I'm Not an American

    33 11.79%
  • Yes - I'm Not an American

    66 23.57%
  1. #6541
    Quote Originally Posted by Moriturri View Post
    I hope for your sake you never have a family member involved in some form of mass shooting. I'm sure if that were to occur you wouldn't consider the reduction of even one murder 'fail logic'
    Fortunately for me, I can separate my emotions from my critical thinking, something most people are unable to do.

    If my kid was killed in any mass killing, you know who I would blame? The killer.

  2. #6542
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Fortunately for me, I can separate my emotions from my critical thinking, something most people are unable to do.

    If my kid was killed in any mass killing, you know who I would blame? The killer.
    Wow, what a unique idea, I'm sure that people that lose loved ones in these situations don't even think about the killer /sarcasm
    Just because you blame the killer doesn't mean you can't also try to prevent future occurrences. Event has happened, how do we prevent it again. If we only blame the killer 100%, don't look at any outside motivation or preventative measures, does that mean we just say oh well and move on? or do we kill everyone we see so they don't kill us first? How about instead of saying it's "fail logic" to want to save lives, you offer some constructive conversation in this thread?

  3. #6543
    Quote Originally Posted by Moriturri View Post
    Wow, what a unique idea, I'm sure that people that lose loved ones in these situations don't even think about the killer /sarcasm
    Just because you blame the killer doesn't mean you can't also try to prevent future occurrences. Event has happened, how do we prevent it again. If we only blame the killer 100%, don't look at any outside motivation or preventative measures, does that mean we just say oh well and move on? or do we kill everyone we see so they don't kill us first? How about instead of saying it's "fail logic" to want to save lives, you offer some constructive conversation in this thread?

    People are not talking about preventing future occurences, they are talking about lowering body counts. People who oppose the pointless "ban" understand that having smaller magazines and tougher background checks do absolutely nothing to prevent mass killings. Lower body counts, maybe, but prevention? Nope.

  4. #6544
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    People are not talking about preventing future occurences, they are talking about lowering body counts. People who oppose the pointless "ban" understand that having smaller magazines and tougher background checks do absolutely nothing to prevent mass killings. Lower body counts, maybe, but prevention? Nope.
    We talk about lowering body counts because gun proponents are so adamant against measures that would help reduce the number of actual crimes. So all that is really left is to reduce the damage that these crimes can do.

    But whether you save 10 lives from one shooting or 10 lives from 10 separate shootings, you're still saving lives, and that should be the goal.

  5. #6545
    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    We talk about lowering body counts because gun proponents are so adamant against measures that would help reduce the number of actual crimes. So all that is really left is to reduce the damage that these crimes can do.

    But whether you save 10 lives from one shooting or 10 lives from 10 separate shootings, you're still saving lives, and that should be the goal.
    There is absolutely no evidence to suggest any of this proposed legislation would reduce any deaths. In fact, there is evidence to suggest it won't, because mass killings have happened while similar bans were in effect.

  6. #6546
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    People are not talking about preventing future occurences, they are talking about lowering body counts. People who oppose the pointless "ban" understand that having smaller magazines and tougher background checks do absolutely nothing to prevent mass killings. Lower body counts, maybe, but prevention? Nope.
    The only ways to lower instances of mass killings would never make it through your political system to become the laws they need to be. Increased funding for mental health? Nope that's more spending (R) shut it down (plus there is such an inherent stigma attached to mental health in North America that even the increased funding would never be enough to reach everyone in need of it). That's basically the only thing that would possibly prevent it other than a complete reduction on firearms, knives, baseball bats, explosive items, vehicles, etc. So yes, you are right, people are talking about lowering body counts, even the NRA with their talk of armed guards are merely talking about lowering body counts. You think a guy that's planning to kill himself after really cares if he gets there kills 10 instead of 100 before being shot by an armed guard (or more likely shoots the armed guard, after all, he has the element of surprise on his side)? Nope, so again, yes we are talking about lowering body counts, which seems more productive than making snide internet comments about the people discussing it.

  7. #6547
    Quote Originally Posted by Moriturri View Post
    The only ways to lower instances of mass killings would never make it through your political system to become the laws they need to be. Increased funding for mental health? Nope that's more spending (R) shut it down (plus there is such an inherent stigma attached to mental health in North America that even the increased funding would never be enough to reach everyone in need of it). That's basically the only thing that would possibly prevent it other than a complete reduction on firearms, knives, baseball bats, explosive items, vehicles, etc. So yes, you are right, people are talking about lowering body counts, even the NRA with their talk of armed guards are merely talking about lowering body counts. You think a guy that's planning to kill himself after really cares if he gets there kills 10 instead of 100 before being shot by an armed guard (or more likely shoots the armed guard, after all, he has the element of surprise on his side)? Nope, so again, yes we are talking about lowering body counts, which seems more productive than making snide internet comments about the people discussing it.


    If it helps you to believe you're fighting the good fight by lowering body counts, by all means, don't let me ruin your party.

  8. #6548
    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    We talk about lowering body counts because gun proponents are so adamant against measures that would help reduce the number of actual crimes. So all that is really left is to reduce the damage that these crimes can do.

    But whether you save 10 lives from one shooting or 10 lives from 10 separate shootings, you're still saving lives, and that should be the goal.
    It doesn't really matter too much if my magazine can hold 10 bullets or 30. A magazine reload takes about two seconds for me and I can do it while moving. It's really fast when you don't have to care about recovering the empty magazine, which is probably the case if you're on a killing spree. Not a lot of training required.

    Altough the longer magazine is more pleasant to hold onto if you don't have a foregrip on an ak-47 style weapon (non issue for people with ar-15's).
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2013-01-16 at 10:04 PM.

  9. #6549
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    It's not that simple. Compared to most of Europe, the US is already awash with guns. It will take years, if not decades for the guns that the criminals currently posses to get washed out of the system. And while waiting for the these guns to gradually disappear from the criminals, the civilian population will be defenseless.

    The options available to you are completely different when your starting point is that of the US than when it's that of Sweden for example.
    It was never going to be a short-term fix. People now aren't willing to make sacrifices that will benefit the future generations.

  10. #6550
    No, guns should not be banned in the U.S. According to the 2nd amendment of the Constitution that this country is based off of, U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms.

    Nothing but a constitutional amendment is going to change that, and I don't see that happening anytime soon, even with all the recent shootings.

    I am all for promoting gun safety, making it harder to get them, better management of who actually is able to get the guns, but removing guns from the public is a very bad idea in my opinion, and also something that could probably never happen.
    "Then we have found, as it seems, that the many beliefs of the many about what's fair and about the other things roll around somewhere between not-being and being purely and simply." - Plato: Republic

  11. #6551
    The Lightbringer breadisfunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    3,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    Why do people think that no guns that were obtained illegally were not also legally obtained at some point?

    Banning guns would stop criminals. Not ALL criminals, of course. The question is whether that tradeoff is worth it and that question has never been answered one way or the other.
    no it would not.....criminals DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW.

  12. #6552
    Quote Originally Posted by breadisfunny View Post
    no it would not.....criminals DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW.
    That's a bit of a blanket statement, innit?
    I'd say it's quite likely that most jaywalkers care about laws when it comes to violent crimes.

    Unless we're talking career criminals (irrelevant to the issue) or repeat offenders (the one place where your statement actually fits in)
    Last edited by Zefie; 2013-01-17 at 05:30 PM.

  13. #6553
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    It doesn't really matter too much if my magazine can hold 10 bullets or 30. A magazine reload takes about two seconds for me and I can do it while moving. It's really fast when you don't have to care about recovering the empty magazine, which is probably the case if you're on a killing spree. Not a lot of training required.

    Altough the longer magazine is more pleasant to hold onto if you don't have a foregrip on an ak-47 style weapon (non issue for people with ar-15's).
    You just made the argument for not allowing weapons that use ammo clips/drums. Want a gun for home defense? Try a shotgun with a few shots or a revolver. Want a rifle for hunting? Single-load or one that can only hold a few shots. Want the pleasure of shooting at a range? Let the guns and clips be stored at the range under heavy guard.

  14. #6554
    Are we all forgetting that the Virginia Tech shooter used hand guns and still managed to kill more then at Sandy Hook?

  15. #6555
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    Are we all forgetting that the Virginia Tech shooter used hand guns and still managed to kill more then at Sandy Hook?
    Viginia Tech is scary as f*ck. I'm surprised no one has done a movie about that place yet.

    1. Virginia Tech Massacre--33 dead, 23 injured
    2. Virginia Tech couple murdered assassination-style off campus, shot point blank, no explanation as to their deaths
    3. Virginia Tech graduate student DECAPITATED in a SCHOOL CAFETERIA by a fellow graduate student, no one does anything to stop it from happening.

    If I believed in curses, I'd swear that place is cursed...

  16. #6556
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxinius View Post
    dont bother the Europeans have no clue about the right to defend themselves they are anti-gun because they didnt fight for their rights long ago

    Infracted: Please don't resort to generalizations (on the level of nations, or in this case, continents), it's against the rules of the site.
    Do you even know, anything of what have happened the last 100 years?
    Do we have less of a clue, about the right to defend our selves?
    My country, has been under 2 unions, + we were occupied by the nazis during the second world war...
    does this make us, not having a damn clue about how to defend our self?
    Honestly, weapons are not the best way to defend one self.
    And sure as hell, ain't the smartest way, to protect your house hold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cattaclysmic View Post
    But if the world is millions of years old then why is it only 2012 now!?
    Because of Christianity. thats why.
    Last edited by Insigna; 2013-01-23 at 01:35 AM.

  17. #6557
    Epic! Nyxxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,605
    If you want to see an example of a world where Militia's stood up against a government, watch revolution.. ignore the bit about no electricity just focus on what the world is like after the government fell. Looks like a really friendly place - The militia confiscates all guns, anyone who owns a gun and is not part of the militia is sentenced to death.. tbh i don't think that would be far from reality if there was a civil war and a winner emerged.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crym View Post
    Spoiler: The reason Garrosh is defeated is because, just when he's being attacked, Malchezaar pops out of a portal, yells "yoink!", and takes his weapon away.
    Armory

  18. #6558
    Quote Originally Posted by Insigna View Post
    Do you even know, anything of what have happened the last 100 years?
    Do we have less of a clue, about the right to defend our selves?
    My country, has been under 2 unions, + we were occupied by the nazis during the second world war...
    does this make us, not having a damn clue about how to defend our self?
    Honestly, weapons are not the best way to defend one self.
    And sure as hell, ain't the smartest way, to protect your house hold.


    Because of Christianity. thats why.
    Someone give this guy a medal.

    You say europe doesnt know jack for not having everyone armed to the teeth. Youd also say that North Korea is underdeveloped because it still has communism. Now consider what North Korea thinks of your way of life and realise gun banning is the next natural step. Everyday joes are too damn stupid to have weapons, nevermind those bestowed with below-average intelligence.


    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
    -Abraham Lincoln

  19. #6559
    Cookie Monster Radux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    12,265
    Closing and redirecting this discussion to THIS thread to keep all the conversation consolidated, since it's essentially identical.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •