Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Wells]

So you agree, they are only negligent when they are actually negligent (illegal trade or defective product) rather than when they produce a legal product that functions correctly?

The point is there are forms of negligence that they are immune from that everyone else still has to answer for.

[Åmbulance]

I'm still waiting for one of these " Ban Assault Weapon" nuts give one good actual reason why they should be banned. Do some research less than 3% of ALL firearm deaths are from an assault rifle.

And of those 3%, almost 70% is accidental, meaning not used in the process of commiting a crime.

" but dey iz so bad, people can uz dem to kill people with"

[Svifnymr]

The point is there are forms of negligence that they are immune from that everyone else still has to answer for.

You're right, we should expand protections against frivolous lawsuits to everyone.

[Wells]

I'm still waiting for one of these " Ban Assault Weapon" nuts give one good actual reason why they should be banned. Do some research less than 3% of ALL firearm deaths are from an assault rifle.

And of those 3%, almost 70% is accidental, meaning not used in the process of commiting a crime.

" but dey iz so bad, people can uz dem to kill people with"

This is not debating in good faith.

You're right, we should expand protections against frivolous lawsuits to everyone.

a) its not the place of the legislature to decide which lawsuits are valid
b) you're making an assumption in claiming that its only frivolous lawsuits.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb...hield-20130205

The Pavelka family filed a lawsuit against the gun dealer who sold the guns used to shoot Matthew, arguing that the dealer did not take reasonable steps to prevent the sale of the firearms to the straw purchaser who likely intended to resell the weapon on the black market. In an ordinary case involving any product other than guns, the family could have gathered evidence and subpoenaed witnesses to build their case and learn more about the sale. Yet the family's suit was dismissed almost immediately thanks to a special legal immunity that Congress gave gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers, and their trade associations, in 2005. Unlike any other industry, the gun industry can commit negligence with impunity.

There are generally three kinds of negligence. The gun industry has immunity from 2 of them.

[Åmbulance]

This is not debating in good faith.

neither is the other side, they provide no actual insight on their reasoning besides, " they have the ability to cause more chaos"

i'm waiting for an actual reason.

[Wells]

neither is the other side, they provide no actual insight on their reasoning besides, " they have the ability to cause more chaos"

i'm waiting for an actual reason.

You don't want an actual reason. If you did you wouldn't have opened with insults.

[Cthulhu 2020]

neither is the other side, they provide no actual insight on their reasoning besides, " they have the ability to cause more chaos"

i'm waiting for an actual reason.

Not wanting to accept that there actually are good reasons out there will make it seem as if there are none. Your personal bias is showing.

[Åmbulance]

You don't want an actual reason. If you did you wouldn't have opened with insults.

I closed with it.

[Wells]

I closed with it.

Opened and closed with it actually.

[Åmbulance]

Not wanting to accept that there actually are good reasons out there will make it seem as if there are none. Your personal bias is showing.

Actually, i am biased, but i would welcome any ACTUAL argument to a reason why.

[Todgruppe]

Not wanting to accept that there actually are good reasons out there will make it seem as if there are none. Your personal bias is showing.

Good reasons? Understandable ones sure, but a ban penalize the majority for the actions of >.01% is terrible policy. You keep on about mocking "criminals don't follow rules, legalize murder" in an attempt to mock "criminals don't follow rules." A ban proactively effects everyone, murder laws, retroactively effect people after they have committed a crime. Others have pointed this out, yet you continue to understand the point, or choose to ignore.

Majorities aren't always correct, but penalizing, what would be the math 68 million people, because 323 do something terrible isn't the way to go about it.

[Wells]

Every ban "penalizes" the majority to deal with the minority. I don't see how that's a very persuasive point.

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 01:11 AM ----------

Majorities aren't always correct, but penalizing, what would be the math 68 million people, because 323 do something terrible isn't the way to go about it.

Do you hold this true in all cases?

[Kitterfly]

I don't understand how gun control would really improve anything.

Firstly, let's ignore the other arguments for the time being and go directly to the intended effect of such measures. That would be to mitigate damage to life should someone go on a killing spree. Now tell me, would it really be that hard for a man to simply swap clips for his handgun? A quick and proficient individual could reload in a couple of seconds and be back to it. If he's smart, he'll have more than enough clips on him to lay waste as he intends. You MIGHT save a couple people, might. It is highly doubtful that any real benefit can be gleamed from a madman utilizing a pistol with eight rounds over a fully automatic assault rifle with a greater deal more. Slight inconvenience really, isn't it?

Secondly, criminals don't follow law. You aren't going to mitigate gang-related violence concerning automatic weaponry and deep clips. That's the point of being a criminal, you don't have to follow the law and therefore there is great advantages to be had. All you've successfully done is condemned individuals who rightfully and often respectfully own such firearms.

Thirdly, statistically speaking, unless you're on a bloody island(and I doubt even then) you don't really see much of an improvement in gun-related violence. At times even opposite. Whether or not that is directly related to the topic in question is up for debate in another discussion, that being said, regardless, it gives little credence to the idea of gun control being that meaningful.

Fourthly, psychopaths kill people, period. This means they'll use whatever methods available. The most lethal and horrific being explosives and biological agents--far more destructive and insidious than any firearm and yet virtually incapable of being prevented nor mitigated. Household cleaners alone can create lethal concoctions of death by someone willing to look up simple recipes online. If you had none of the above, they'd be hacking one another with machetes like they do in good ole' Africa.

So before we even get into any further argument on the matter, I'd say the point of gun control is moot. There is still underlying principles and philosophy that, in my opinion, shouldn't be ignored either but really are unnecessary to get into as the initiative should have died as a thought in someone's head with the premise, like pointed out, it is simply fruitless.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Actually, i am biased, but i would welcome any ACTUAL argument to a reason why.

I don't necessarily support the AWB, but a rational argument is that:

Certain modifications, such as pistol grips or folding stocks, increase concealment or the operational efficiency of the firearm, making them particularly useful for combat type situations, as evidenced in their use by military and SWAT personnel.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Every ban "penalizes" the majority to deal with the minority. I don't see how that's a very persuasive point.

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 01:11 AM ----------



Do you hold this true in all cases?

Apparently it varies from issue to issue. See: Welfare discussion thread.

[Åmbulance]

I don't necessarily support the AWB, but a rational argument is that:

Certain modifications, such as pistol grips or folding stocks, increase concealment or the operational efficiency of the firearm, making them particularly useful for combat type situations, as evidenced in their use by military and SWAT personnel.

Ok, you gave reasons on why you shouldn't be allowed to modify an assault weapon, no actual reason on why you should ban assualt rifles.

You can cut the stocks on shotguns, you can cut the barrell. You can modify just about any semi auto to be full auto. You can add a silencer to just about any handgun.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Ok, you gave reasons on why you shouldn't be allowed to modify an assault weapon, no actual reason on why you should ban assualt rifles.

Yikes....

Do you know what makes a regular ranch rifle an "assault weapon?"

The modifications.

In other word, you don't "modify an assault weapon." It's the modifications that make it, by definition, an assault weapon.

I kinda feel like you need to study it out...

[Åmbulance]

Yikes....

Do you know what makes a regular ranch rifle an "assault weapon?"

The modifications.

In other word, you don't "modify an assault weapon." It's the modifications that make it, by definition, an assault weapon.

I kinda feel like you need to study it out...

You are seriously saying i need to study? Security forces for 12 years, m-16 marksman, ma-4 trained, m9 marksman, 60 gunner, and 50 gunner. Profficient with m249, m203. And MANY MANY more.

I know the difference between a rifle, and assault rifle, i'm still unsure what is even with your point?

Everythread i post in, you follow me with " do you even, give me examples".. All of which i do, and you still can't comprehend simple logic. So i'm going to assume you are an idiot.

infract me don't care


[Infracted]

[Deadvolcanoes]

You are seriously saying i need to study? Security forces for 12 years, m-16 marksman, ma-4 trained, m9 marksman, 60 gunner, and 50 gunner. Profficient with m249, m203. And MANY MANY more.

I know the difference between a rifle, and assault rifle, i'm still unsure what is even with your point?

Everythread i post in, you follow me with " do you even, give me examples".. All of which i do, and you still can't comprehend simple logic. So i'm going to assume you are an idiot.

infract me don't care

Don't infract him, he's just upset and his insults don't bother me.


However, your previous post you stated that I gave reasons why we should ban the modification of an assault weapon, but not why we should ban "assault rifles."

First, we already ban assault rifles, select fire weapons. That's your first mistake.

Second, you seemed to fail to understand what defines an assault weapon. It's the modifications.

As a result, I have no reason to believe you were "security forces for 12 years," and if you were, you still need to study it out.

[Åmbulance]

Don't infract him, he's just upset and his insults don't bother me.


However, your previous post you stated that I gave reasons why we should ban the modification of an assault weapon, but not why we should ban "assault rifles."

First, we already ban assault rifles, select fire weapons. That's your first mistake.

Second, you seemed to fail to understand what defines an assault weapon. It's the modifications.

As a result, I have no reason to believe you were "security forces for 12 years," and if you were, you still need to study it out.

Yes, we ban full automatic weapons, by which you can actually still get a permit, and allowed to own one. So you're FIRST mistake.

Assault rifle is anything that is semi and or full automatic. Not really the modifications. Your mistake again.

Actually i was, Stationed in Moody AFB 824 SFS divsion, which used to be an air combat command base, then went to a Rescue base, from there i was deployed to S Korea for a year, then came back to Scott AFB, for 5 more years, from which i declined to re-enlist.