Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Sicarus]

I don't expect all the laws to be passed. Two very important bills of the law. Background checks at Gun Shows is almost a no brainier. If you are a responsible gun owner then you shouldn't have any objectiojn to keeping them out of hands of people who will commit violence acts against society. It's entire purpose of personal protection is to keep the weapon away from bad guy.

Responsibility has absolutely nothing to do with it. Please, provide proof that guns bought with the gun show loophole are used in crimes.

I'd rather there not be a public registry available to see everything I've ever bought, it's invasive, and against the law.

Magazine regulating the size to ten bullets would be a massive victory. No matter what weapon you used if 10 bullets was the max then the weapon is no longer an issue.

Please provide proof that magazines with a larger capacity are the reason gun violence is an issue.

There is absolutely no reason to ban larger capacity magazines.

At least with background check's stops people from getting their hhands on a weapon (i.e. domestic abuse violators, Felons etc) even NRA supported it. I assume Pro Gun users are as passionate about blocking this law as the people are in support of it. One of the factors make this so interesting it's almost virtually impossible to assume the outcome of situation.

Advertisements use celebrity endorsements to further show how they product is worthy of recognition or that it's better, it's the same principle that you keep stating prominent politician/group supports X so you should, too.

You're also assuming, your assumption is invalid, and also falsed based on the things you've said before, how can pro-gun advocates be against blocking background checks, if you said yourself, that 9/10 pro-gun advocates support it?

By the way, there are a lot more gun owners and/or pro-gun advocates than you lead, or are lead to believe.

What situation are you even talking about?

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 11:55 AM ----------

Why draw the line at 30 rounds?

Why? Provide proof that 30 round or higher magazines cause higher fatalities.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Magazine regulating the size to ten bullets would be a massive victory. No matter what weapon you used if 10 bullets was the max then the weapon is no longer an issue.

Are you really implying that if 10 round clips were the highest you could buy legally, that it would somehow stop murders?

I really don't think you care about actually stopping murders, I think you are outraged about the murder of children, and want something, anything to be done to "fix the problem," when people can easily still murder people when they only have ten rounds per clip.

[Tinykong]

Even if the government banned "high capacity" magazines, what is going to stop people who really want them from buying them on the black/used market, or making them with a 3d printer?

Sometimes I wonder if the logic behind these bans is that if they put up enough road blocks, a mass killer will just go *shrug* and decide to go play a video game instead of killing 30 people.

[PhaelixWW]

Why draw the line at 30 rounds?

Because, afaik, the largest standard sized magazine is 30 rounds. Setting the number any lower would result in artificially shortening the capacity. Besides, drum magazines suck.

[Kasierith]

And now you're going off on extremes as if the average citizen is going to buy nuclear or biological weaponry or even make them.

All of our rights are absolute

Oh boy, a no true scotsman argument! You're really racking up the logical fallacies, aren't you. "No TRUE US citizen would ever buy weaponry that is distinctly harmful to others!"

[Deleted]

Why? Provide proof that 30 round or higher magazines cause higher fatalities.

When did I say they did? I simply asked a question, why 30 rounds? Why not more, why not less?

[Rocko9]

Leave magazines as they are. If you want to buy a beta mag, go ahead. I find it a waste of money, but I also find most cars a waste of money

[ugotownd]

Because, afaik, the largest standard sized magazine is 30 rounds. Setting the number any lower would result in artificially shortening the capacity. Besides, drum magazines suck.

That's exactly what I was going to say. At least by quoting you some people that have you blocked will see it.

[Sicarus]

Oh boy, a no true scotsman argument! You're really racking up the logical fallacies, aren't you. "No TRUE US citizen would ever buy weaponry that is distinctly harmful to others!"

What?

What in the shit are you talking about, I never said anything like that.

Who the fuck would even buy a nuclear warhead? It has nothing to do with pride or national pride.

[Kasierith]

What?

What in the shit are you talking about, I never said anything like that.

Who the fuck would even buy a nuclear warhead? It has nothing to do with pride or national pride.

Come on... are you really saying that there is literally no one in the entire world who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction? Sorry to say this, but there are more motivators for human behavior than nationalism.... although nationalism for other countries, or for the US and wanting to use said weapons against other countries, could still play a role.

[Deleted]

Come on... are you really saying that there is literally no one in the entire world who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction? Sorry to say this, but there are more motivators for human behavior than nationalism.... although nationalism for other countries, or for the US and wanting to use said weapons against other countries, could still play a role.

I hear CIA is willing to buy some to place in the next country US plans ti invade. Or better yet maybe find them WMD in Irak and move them. Oh, wait, they didn't found any...

You can also ignore Sicarus he thinks every living person is entitled to own a gun, and preaches how gun control is bad and inefficient while not doing anything seems to work so good in the meanwhile. The more you debate, the more guns will get sold, the more people will get shoot. Only actions via legislation and public awareness and proper training can save you. End of story.

[mistuhbull]

Why draw the line at 30 rounds?

Isn't a standard (actual) assault rifle magazine 30 rounds? At least, I think that's what the IDF guys told us/our M16s were during Gadna. If it's good enough for the military, it's good enough for me.

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 12:14 PM ----------

Come on... are you really saying that there is literally no one in the entire world who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction? Sorry to say this, but there are more motivators for human behavior than nationalism.... although nationalism for other countries, or for the US and wanting to use said weapons against other countries, could still play a role.

actually he said the average citizen wouldn't be buying WMDs

[Kasierith]

actually he said the average citizen wouldn't be buying WMDs

I am fully aware that that is what he said. But since when were laws focused on the average? Saying something is not a concern because an average individual won't employ it is a strawman argument, as we are obviously concerned with statistical outliers.

[Sicarus]

Come on... are you really saying that there is literally no one in the entire world who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction? Sorry to say this, but there are more motivators for human behavior than nationalism.... although nationalism for other countries, or for the US and wanting to use said weapons against other countries, could still play a role.

I'm talking about the United States citizens having the right to own arms.

You're going off on this semi-side-rant that's supposed to prove some point?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I am fully aware that that is what he said. But since when were laws focused on the average? Saying something is not a concern because an average individual won't employ it is a strawman argument, as we are obviously concerned with statistical outliers.

Is this an argument about whether we should make nukes legal to buy?

[Sicarus]

You can also ignore Sicarus he thinks every living person is entitled to own a gun, and preaches how gun control is bad and inefficient while not doing anything seems to work so good in the meanwhile. The more you debate, the more guns will get sold, the more people will get shoot. Only actions via legislation and public awareness and proper training can save you. End of story.

The proof has been provided time and time again that gun control doesn't work. Every living person should be entitled to own a gun, it's been proven that it makes society safer.

Also, please don't call for the ignoring of anyone. But since you've decided to say that, I'd like to point out to everyone a private message that Naturestorm sent me.




I'm pointing this out for the sake of the argument, so that naturestorm's post can be taken with many, many grains of salt, and is very hateful towards the United States, and has large bias.

[Kasierith]

Is this an argument about whether we should make nukes legal to buy?

If someone asserts that you should have the absolute right to arms without any sort of restrictions on what you get, than this would include nuclear weaponry. The best way to address an extremist viewpoint is to point out the extreme nature of it.

I'm talking about the United States citizens having the right to own arms.

You're going off on this semi-side-rant that's supposed to prove some point?

I notice you didn't answer the question. Likely because you have nothing to answer with.

[Sicarus]

I am fully aware that that is what he said. But since when were laws focused on the average? Saying something is not a concern because an average individual won't employ it is a strawman argument, as we are obviously concerned with statistical outliers.

Again, I don't think you know what a strawman argument is.

Why would you be focused on the one abnormalty, instead of the vast average that are more affected by what you would do?

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 03:06 PM ----------

I notice you didn't answer the question. Likely because you have nothing to answer with.

Nobody else seems to have to answer direct questions, why should I have to?

[Kasierith]

Again, I don't think you know what a strawman argument is.

Why would you be focused on the one abnormalty, instead of the vast average that are more affected by what you would do?

Why are you saying that the average is the entirety of individuals within a population? Sorry, but crime is based strictly on the statistical outliers of society.

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 10:09 PM ----------

Nobody else seems to have to answer direct questions, why should I have to?

Because it addresses the basis for your entire argument.

[GreatOak]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ight-pass.html
Since President Obama unveiled his gun control proposals last month, much of the debate has focused on reinstating the assault weapons ban, and specifically, how it's pretty unlikely that the bill introduced by Dianne Feinstein and other Democrats in Congress will pass. Now an aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid tells the Wall Street Journal that Democratic leaders in the Senate are planning to introduce a more realistic bill. The new legislation would limit magazine sizes, expand background checks to include all sales at gun shows and private transactions, do more to keep guns from the mentally ill, and cut down on sales in states with weaker gun laws to buyers in states with stricter laws. Most of President Obama's proposals would be covered in the bill, with the exception of the controversial assault weapons ban.
The Reid aide said the lawmakers hope to get the bill to the Senate floor within the next month, and the legislation could be amended to add provisions such as a ban on certain assault weapons. However, if the goal is to pass those gun control measures that do have broad support, that would probably be counterproductive. Whatever the Senate passes would have to get past House Republicans, and even some Senate Democrats don't support an assault weapons ban — including Reid.
On Sunday's This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Reid said "Everyone acknowledges we should do something with background checks," but he was non-committal on other gun control measures. He added that he plans to "take a look" at the assault weapons ban introduced in Congress last month, but noted, "I didn't vote for the assault weapons last time because it ... didn't make sense."



Yup, pretty much guaranteed to be DOA now. The magazine ban will probably be dropped as well. Good