Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Koraak]

No. I don't own any guns or plan on buying any, so it won't affect me either way, but I think the proposed assault weapons ban is ridiculous. It's like giving someone medicine for a headache, when they just broke their leg, it doesn't address the real issue at hand. Key facts are blatantly ignored.

So whats the issue? U.S. gun violence is highest is the world among 1st world countries. This is a fact, I wont try and argue. But break down the numbers and you can find where the problem is easier. Looking at statistics pulled from 2000 - 2008, we see there are roughly 125k homicides total. 66% of those were gun related. Of all the gun related homicides in that time, 3,791 were caused by a rifle. This includes all the types of rifles covered by the ban and those that aren't, so the actual assault rifle number is lower. 65,581 were caused by handgun. This puts rifles at 3% of total homicides and hand guns at 51%. So you are 17 times more likely to be killed by a handgun if you are the victim of a gun related homicide. Now lets look at the rest of the homicides. 13% were committed with a knife and 4% by blunt object. So based on the numbers you can conclude that assault rifles are only a small part of a much larger problem.

Source for numbers: http://sbcoalition.org/2011/04/gun-v...ng-statistics/

Now, I'm only against the banning of assault rifles. I am fully behind gun control. If prohibition has taught us anything, it's that no good can come out of it.

[Sicarus]

Since this is the official gun thread rather then open a new thread about this. I'll just post this in this thread. Since it now relates to not only assault weapons ban but firearms in general and violate commit by these weapons.

Kaufman County Courthouse Shooting: Two Suspects Open Fire On Prosecutor In Texas

Police in Texas are hunting for two suspects who allegedly opened fire on a county employee outside a courthouse early Thursday morning, Fox News reports.

The unnamed victim, a prosecutor at Kaufman County Courthouse, was fatally shot, according to sources including the Dallas Morning news.

Authorities are searching for two male suspects, dressed in all black and driving a silver, "older model" Ford Taurus, according to KLTV. One suspect is believed to be wearing a tactical vest.

The shooting took place in a parking lot around 9 a.m., KDFW reports. The victim was on his way to misdemeanor court when the suspects ambushed and shot him multiple times.

The Dallas County District Attorney's Office sent an email to staff which confirmed that the victim was a prosecutor, according to KHOU.

The message reads:

"This message is not intended to scare anyone but please be advised. A Kaufman County prosecutor was fatally shot a few minutes ago outside the Kaufman County Courthouse in Kaufman. Two masked gunman are the suspects. They have not been apprehended yet.

Please be aware of your surroundings when leaving the building for your safety. This is probably a isolated incident but until further notice if you plan to work past dark today please be careful and ask security for assistance escorting you to your vehicles if needed. I will keep you informed as to the arrest of the suspects when I am notified. Don’t panic but please be aware of your environment when leaving the building."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...m_hp_ref=crime

WHOAH! OGM MASS MURDAR.

Stop treating isolated incidents as if they're the big deal breaker on why GUNZ BE BAD, YO.

"Assault weapons", also known as rifles that look like military rifles but have no actual relation aside from looks, are, and will never be the problem.

Neither are firearms, they cause the least amount of death, there are just more actual reports and news on them now, because it's fitting someone's agenda.

[FusedMass]

OOH THE GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE ZOMG!

The government has no place in private dealings, they're private, whether the buyer or seller is a criminal doesn't matter, the law will and should never be changed. As much as it sucks, it's too fucking bad.

The entire purpose behind guns IS to protect YOURSELF from the bad guys, gun owners aren't secret super hero vigilantes that you like to think they are. Stop pretending like the world and life is this giant community with a few bad eggs and everybody, namely the government, is supposed to protect you.

OOooh, Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, as if those aren't incredibly left-leaning or RINO states. But wait, they are! Argument suddenly invalid due to lack of opposition.

Stop quoting the NRA as if they're our god, too. You already tried that with Ronald Reagan. Just because they're the biggest, doesn't mean they're right.

Or would you like me to constantly point out PIERS MORGAN IS YOUR GOD, AND BECAUSE HE'S YOUR GOD, YOU'RE INVALID AND CRAZY AND AS MUCH OF A RABID DOG AS HE IS!!11111

It's really disturbing on a personal level when you deny that we should perform background checks. Spin it anyway you want it and label it your right to commit mass murders or perhaps a law should be pass that reads the right to equip weapons in the hands of those who commit murders. It's a legal loop hole and the polls I posted showed there is not only support for it but overwhelmingly support.

It doesn't matter if the states. Are Left or Right wings. They are human beings not solely devoted to the party of their choice. However if you really want to label people left and right wing. I can bring up some very interesting quotes from Ronald Reagan who repeated numerous several times his support and tons of Republicans worship him to this very day so don't act like this is a party issue.

I never said anything like that on Piers Morgan. Your attitude reflects why some people are not mentally mature enough to understand the weapon they are holding has the ability end a life. Your condensing tone does you no credit. In fact it just re-enforces the argument that some people are unfit to own weapons and based on your postings. Yes I am saying your denial of new information and entire attitude suggests you have no interest in having even the simplest of laws passed like a background checks something that nearly all gun owners agree with.

[Sicarus]

No. I don't own any guns or plan on buying any, so it won't affect me either way, but I think the proposed assault weapons ban is ridiculous. It's like giving someone medicine for a headache, when they just broke their leg, it doesn't address the real issue at hand. Key facts are blatantly ignored.

So whats the issue? U.S. gun violence is highest is the world among 1st world countries. This is a fact, I wont try and argue. But break down the numbers and you can find where the problem is easier. Looking at statistics pulled from 2000 - 2008, we see there are roughly 125k homicides total. 66% of those were gun related. Of all the gun related homicides in that time, 3,791 were caused by a rifle. This includes all the types of rifles covered by the ban and those that aren't, so the actual assault rifle number is lower. 65,581 were caused by handgun. This puts rifles at 3% of total homicides and hand guns at 51%. So you are 17 times more likely to be killed by a handgun if you are the victim of a gun related homicide. Now lets look at the rest of the homicides. 13% were committed with a knife and 4% by blunt object. So based on the numbers you can conclude that assault rifles are only a small part of a much larger problem.

Source for numbers: http://sbcoalition.org/2011/04/gun-v...ng-statistics/

Now, I'm only against the banning of assault rifles. I am fully behind gun control. If prohibition has taught us anything, it's that no good can come out of it.

Wait, wait, what?

Are you saying you're supportive of gun control because of prohibition?

That was seriously the problem, shit started going down after only the mobsters and criminals could get illegally obtained guns.

Regular people couldn't protect them worth a fuck because all they had were bats and shit.

I mean, really?

Do you think FDR's New Deal helped the economy? Jesus man.

[Kasierith]

Wait, wait, what?

Are you saying you're supportive of gun control because of prohibition?

That was seriously the problem, shit started going down after only the mobsters and criminals could get illegally obtained guns.

Regular people couldn't protect them worth a fuck because all they had were bats and shit.

I mean, really?

Do you think FDR's New Deal helped the economy? Jesus man.

Do you really not see that gun control and banning assault rifles are not synonymous?

[Koraak]

Wait, wait, what?

Are you saying you're supportive of gun control because of prohibition?

That was seriously the problem, shit started going down after only the mobsters and criminals could get illegally obtained guns.

Regular people couldn't protect them worth a fuck because all they had were bats and shit.

I mean, really?

Do you think FDR's New Deal helped the economy? Jesus man.

No I'm saying I'm against banning guns because prohibition showed us that as long as their is a demand, there will be a supply. I'm for gun control because I don't want a lunatic able to get their gun license.

[Sicarus]

It's really disturbing on a personal level when you deny that we should perform background checks. Spin it anyway you want it and label it your right to commit mass murders or perhaps a law should be pass that reads the right to equip weapons in the hands of those who commit murders. It's a legal loop hole and the polls I posted showed there is not only support for it but overwhelmingly support.

It doesn't matter if the states. Are Left or Right wings. They are human beings not solely devoted to the party of their choice. However if you really want to label people left and right wing. I can bring up some very interesting quotes from Ronald Reagan who repeated numerous several times his support and tons of Republicans worship him to this very day so don't act like this is a party issue.

I never said anything like that on Piers Morgan. Your attitude reflects why some people are not mentally mature enough to understand the weapon they are holding has the ability end a life. Your condensing tone does you no credit. In fact it just re-enforces the argument that some people are unfit to own weapons and based on your postings. Yes I am saying your denial of new information and entire attitude suggests you have no interest in having even the simplest of laws passed like a background checks something that nearly all gun owners agree with.

My right to commit mass murders? Are you like, smoking bath salts or something? I never even said that, I said private business is private business whether you like it or not, or should we be allowed public access to your porn collection?

Yeah overwhelmingly support from states that aren't even Purple. That's like going to New York and taking a poll on who favors the New York Giants. Don't be stupid.

PFF YES IT DOES! IT TOTALLY DOES. Otherwise it's biased, no wonder you love MSNBC and CNN, they're both biased as fuck! Human beings not solely devoted to a party, not only can you not prove that, but that's also assuming about people. HERE COMES THE RONALD REAGAN TRAIN AGAIN EVERYBODY OFF THE TRACKS.

So people worship Ronald Reagan, what does that have to do with you being wrong and thinking everybody worships RR 100%?

Let's say you like porn, by your logic of EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS RONALD REAGAN AGREES WITH ALL OF HIS POLICIES. That would mean you're not only into gay porn, but that you're an active watcher of gay porn.

You're right, you didn't, but you seem to think I said that about Ronald Reagan, so stop doing that shit.

No my attitude reflects your insanity and stupidity and it makes people like me who actually analyze problems infuriated with how big of a steel-reinforced brick wall you are. I understand the guns I own can end lives, that's why I don't fucking point them at people, and I'm alot more mentally mature than you are if you argue passively aggressively like a junior high school girl.

Your inability to recognize when your wrong does you no credit, in fact, it just re-enforces the argument that people like you should figure out what the fuck you're talking about before saying shit like 100 round magazines which are doing no harm to anyone, should be banzored.

Oh my god are you really saying background checks aren't done everywhere, aside from the "SUPER BAD GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" you'd be totally incorrect.

And no, it's not a simple law, it's a law that goes against the fundamental of BASIC UNALIENABLE RIGHT.

Stop acting like you've got the god mode for arguments activated, this isn't Pajama Sam, kiddie, you lose sometimes.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 12:35 PM ----------

Do you really not see that gun control and banning assault rifles are not synonymous?

Did you just, read my post wrong or what?

Even the slighest regulation of guns will lead to total gun control, it's an unalienable right god damnit, otherwise, you'd be limited in what you can say.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 12:35 PM ----------

No I'm saying I'm against banning guns because prohibition showed us that as long as their is a demand, there will be a supply. I'm for gun control because I don't want a lunatic able to get their gun license.

That's, already a thing, you know they have like, background checks, right?

[Deadvolcanoes]

And no, it's not a simple law, it's a law that goes against the fundamental of BASIC UNALIENABLE RIGHT.

Owning a gun is a basic, unalienable right? Are you smoking bath salts? You realize those are rights "given by God." Where in the Bible/Koran/etc does it say we have the right to own a firearm?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment is subject to reasonable regulations, and assault weapon bans have been ruled as reasonable by federal courts.

You lose.

[Rukentuts]

Did you just, read my post wrong or what?

Even the slighest regulation of guns will lead to total gun control, it's an unalienable right god damnit, otherwise, you'd be limited in what you can say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Not exactly what I'd call a valid argument.

[Sicarus]

Owning a gun is a basic, unalienable right? Are you smoking bath salts? You realize those are rights "given by God." Where in the Bible/Koran/etc does it say we have the right to own a firearm?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment is subject to reasonable regulations, and assault weapon bans have been ruled as reasonable by federal courts.

You lose.

Where does it say in the bible/muslim book that has so many different spellings it ridiculous/etc that you have the freedom to speak, or the right to a quick and speedy trial, or the right to vote, or the right to reasonable punishments, where does it say you have the right for protection from unreasonable search and siezure, where does it say you have the right for protection from quartering troops.

The Supreme Court was not only wrong, but against The Constitution.

You lose due to your lack of encompassing all rights under your logic that because it's not in the bible or Quran/Koran/Muslim book or Torah, that it's not a right.

Recognize your inability to apply logic, and realize you need to change strategy, kiddo.

EDIT: Also, read Luke 22:36, and until god comes down and takes them, then, you can't, lol.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 12:47 PM ----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Not exactly what I'd call a valid argument.

Wikipedia says so! I guess that's /thread everybody!

Except, you have to realize where and when to apply things.

What if I told you, that your appeal to emotions is a logical fallacy?

What if I told you, because famous person X or Y said so, is a logical fallacy?

What if I told you, that the thing that encompasses the least amount of deaths in The United States, is obviously not the problem?

[Deadvolcanoes]

The Supreme Court was not only wrong, but against The Constitution.

lolwhat?

Do you even understand how our government works? The Supreme Court determines if something is against The Constitution. This is civics 101.

Guess you're not ready to have an actual debate. Maybe some more studying is in order.

[Rukentuts]

Wikipedia says so! I guess that's /thread everybody!

Sure thing Mr. "I Know More About Constitutionality Than The US Supreme Court".

[Sicarus]

lolwhat?

Do you even understand how our government works? The Supreme Court determines if something is against The Constitution. This is civics 101.

Guess you're not ready to have an actual debate. Maybe some more studying is in order.

And what you don't see, is that the right to bear arms IS in The Constitution, it's a paradox if something written in The Constitution goes against the Constitution, so therefore, they can't determine that something naturally within itself, goes against it.

I think you need to use your brain place more often. :/

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 12:52 PM ----------

Sure thing Mr. "I Know More About Constitutionality Than The US Supreme Court".

I never said I knew more than them, I said what they did was wrong.

It's our right, yo, so if they said that regulation of speech was acceptable, would you disagree.

(If you say yes, then obviously you're not using free will.)

[Rukentuts]

I never said I knew more than them, I said what they did was wrong.

Holy contradictory sentence Batman!

It's our right, yo, so if they said that regulation of speech was acceptable, would you disagree.

They already have, and I agree. This is basic history here, pal.

(If you say yes, then obviously you're not using free will.)

Free will doesn't exist.

[FusedMass]

My right to commit mass murders? Are you like, smoking bath salts or something? I never even said that, I said private business is private business whether you like it or not, or should we be allowed public access to your porn collection?

Yeah overwhelmingly support from states that aren't even Purple. That's like going to New York and taking a poll on who favors the New York Giants. Don't be stupid.

PFF YES IT DOES! IT TOTALLY DOES. Otherwise it's biased, no wonder you love MSNBC and CNN, they're both biased as fuck! Human beings not solely devoted to a party, not only can you not prove that, but that's also assuming about people. HERE COMES THE RONALD REAGAN TRAIN AGAIN EVERYBODY OFF THE TRACKS.

So people worship Ronald Reagan, what does that have to do with you being wrong and thinking everybody worships RR 100%?

Let's say you like porn, by your logic of EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS RONALD REAGAN AGREES WITH ALL OF HIS POLICIES. That would mean you're not only into gay porn, but that you're an active watcher of gay porn.

You're right, you didn't, but you seem to think I said that about Ronald Reagan, so stop doing that shit.

No my attitude reflects your insanity and stupidity and it makes people like me who actually analyze problems infuriated with how big of a steel-reinforced brick wall you are. I understand the guns I own can end lives, that's why I don't fucking point them at people, and I'm alot more mentally mature than you are if you argue passively aggressively like a junior high school girl.

Your inability to recognize when your wrong does you no credit, in fact, it just re-enforces the argument that people like you should figure out what the fuck you're talking about before saying shit like 100 round magazines which are doing no harm to anyone, should be banzored.

Oh my god are you really saying background checks aren't done everywhere, aside from the "SUPER BAD GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" you'd be totally incorrect.

And no, it's not a simple law, it's a law that goes against the fundamental of BASIC UNALIENABLE RIGHT.

Stop acting like you've got the god mode for arguments activated, this isn't Pajama Sam, kiddie, you lose sometimes.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 12:35 PM ----------



Did you just, read my post wrong or what?

Even the slighest regulation of guns will lead to total gun control, it's an unalienable right god damnit, otherwise, you'd be limited in what you can say.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 12:35 PM ----------



That's, already a thing, you know they have like, background checks, right?

I like anyone else appreciate the integrity of a good debate. However I have limits to that even in certain situations when the best reply the poster can come up with "No wonder you watch MNSBC and CNN" part of me honestly believes that this is Lemon on several different accounts and I'd be only inclined to ask them to check the IP address since the posters that repeat that tired old saying have about a two hundred posts or less.

Regardless of course the Gov has access to even porn collection if there is an underage person. Showing even with our freedoms we have our limits. Your un-rational bizarre rhetoric of CNN and MSNBC ranting and raving like a mad man with bolded caps serves you no credit. I believe your attitude reflects yourself not myself. If there are gun laws enforced and you commit a murder because of that.

You are responsible for that. Not the gun law. Stop trying to pass the Buck down. Furthermore you saying when I'm invalid does not make me invalid. In fact most of the posters or the silent majority does agree with supporting the ban. Are you insulting each and every one of them directly as well when you post. Again I believe in a common sense debate where a poster does not randomly throw out insults or like the guest on Piers Morgan rant about weapons.

Back Ground checks is a basic law that should already be in place. There is no current ATF direction. No Background checks. Why not place guns on a table outside a street and allow people to buy them directly from you. Overwhelmingly support already supports background checks. If you cannot agree with that simplest of fundamental of law then you will deny any law for any reason just for being a law on guns that's does not reflect the position of responsible gun owners.

[Sicarus]

Holy contradictory sentence Batman!

How exactly is it contradictory?

If you saw me murder someone, but I was smarter than you, would you still know what I did was wrong?

Same principle.

[Rukentuts]

How exactly is it contradictory?

If you saw me murder someone, but I was smarter than you, would you still know what I did was wrong?

Same principle.

So now we'll just leap over to false equivalencies.

Fallacies: gotta catch 'em all!

[Bryntrollian]

If one more person says something about banning assault " rifles " im going to flips a shit. Assault weapon is a blanket political term that could cover most semi-automatic weapons that currently exist.

[Rukentuts]

If one more person says something about banning assault " rifles " im going to flips a shit. Assault weapon is a blanket political term that could cover most semi-automatic weapons that currently exist.

Maybe they feel there's no reason for civilians to be owning semi-auto rifles.

[Sicarus]

I like anyone else appreciate the integrity of a good debate. However I have limits to that even in certain situations when the best reply the poster can come up with "No wonder you watch MNSBC and CNN" part of me honestly believes that this is Lemon on several different accounts and I'd be only inclined to ask them to check the IP address since the posters that repeat that tired old saying have about a two hundred posts or less.

Regardless of course the Gov has access to even porn collection if there is an underage person. Showing even with our freedoms we have our limits. Your un-rational bizarre rhetoric of CNN and MSNBC ranting and raving like a mad man with bolded caps serves you no credit. I believe your attitude reflects yourself not myself. If there are gun laws enforced and you commit a murder because of that.

You are responsible for that. Not the gun law. Stop trying to pass the Buck down. Furthermore you saying when I'm invalid does not make me invalid. In fact most of the posters or the silent majority does agree with supporting the ban. Are you insulting each and every one of them directly as well when you post. Again I believe in a common sense debate where a poster does not randomly throw out insults or like the guest on Piers Morgan rant about weapons.

Back Ground checks is a basic law that should already be in place. There is no current ATF direction. No Background checks. Why not place guns on a table outside a street and allow people to buy them directly from you. Overwhelmingly support already supports background checks. If you cannot agree with that simplest of fundamental of law then you will deny any law for any reason just for being a law on guns that's does not reflect the position of responsible gun owners.

Lol? So now you're accusing me of being someone else. Okay.

I said you only watch those two networks, because it's quite obvious you do.

Yeah that bolded sentence makes no sense what so ever, you worded that so poorly.

"If there are gun laws enforced and you commit a murder because of that."

That has absolutely no correlation with the previous paragraph, so, what?

You are responsible for that. Not the gun law. Stop trying to pass the Buck down. Furthermore you saying when I'm invalid does not make me invalid. In fact most of the posters or the silent majority does agree with supporting the ban. Are you insulting each and every one of them directly as well when you post. Again I believe in a common sense debate where a poster does not randomly throw out insults or like the guest on Piers Morgan rant about weapons.

The guests on Piers Morgan don't "rant" about them, they raise their voice because Piers Morgan is, as I said before, shouting at them like a rabid shit-eating dog.

No, the fact that you've been proven wrong so many times makes you invalid. So, I'm just doing the thing you're doing, repeating it. But you're not going to get the message because you actually believe guns are the problem.

Back Ground checks is a basic law that should already be in place. There is no current ATF direction. No Background checks. Why not place guns on a table outside a street and allow people to buy them directly from you. Overwhelmingly support already supports background checks. If you cannot agree with that simplest of fundamental of law then you will deny any law for any reason just for being a law on guns that's does not reflect the position of responsible gun owners.

It IS a basic law that is in place, it's called the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, that encompasses more than just handguns. There IS a current ATF director, just not a confirmed one, there has always been one, just not confirmed ones. There are background checks, last time I went to the gun store, a background check was performed, while an ATF director wasn't confirmed.

I don't disagree with laws that are "just on gunz", I disagree with them because they're controlling and absolutely stupid. Feinstein's bill focused on the AESTHETICS of a gun, that's totally stupid!

Do you think a car goes faster because it has flames painted on it? Same principle.

No, it reflects the opinions of people who actually rub a couple of brain cells together to perform the regular human function of thinking.