Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Wildtree]

Meanwhile.... Just another day in the USA....

Unfuckingreal.. all I can say..... Dunno if it's posted already.. And now someone tell me why there shouldn't be gun control...
http://fox13now.com/2013/05/04/warni...n-ohio-police/

[Deleted]

Meanwhile.... Just another day in the USA....

Unfuckingreal.. all I can say..... Dunno if it's posted already.. And now someone tell me why there shouldn't be gun control...
http://fox13now.com/2013/05/04/warni...n-ohio-police/

http://mises.org/daily/6172/ sums it up pretty nicely.

[Roxinius]

Meanwhile.... Just another day in the USA....

Unfuckingreal.. all I can say..... Dunno if it's posted already.. And now someone tell me why there shouldn't be gun control...
http://fox13now.com/2013/05/04/warni...n-ohio-police/

man firing at police doesn't sound like suicide by cop at all

[Wildtree]

man firing at police doesn't sound like suicide by cop at all

You missing the point.. or you deflecting from the issue.
Suicide through Police kill isn't new. But it doesn't change the fact that NO civilian should have such firepower at any given time.

You can get killed by police bullets for a lot less destructive force against them.

[Roxinius]

You missing the point.. or you deflecting from the issue.
Suicide through Police kill isn't new. But it doesn't change the fact that NO civilian should have such firepower at any given time.

You can get killed by police bullets for a lot less destructive force against them.

that's your opinion but its not fact my dad owns 2 Ak-47 and he hasn't gone out and shot at the cops

and btw there was clearly something wrong with the guy he ran a stop sign and got pulled over and opened fire aka he's fucked up in the head

[Skroe]

hate to tell you but it will never happen gun owners honestly dont care if you think what we do is shameful or we shouldn't take pride in it

Maybe you don't.

But your children, or their children?

That's a wholeeee different ball game.

Gun's dont need to go away tomorrow... and they won't. But one day? Frankly, I look at the state of smoking sixty years ago, and look at it today. Cultural traditions are pretty easy to kill off. They just need to be fenced in, waited out and given a better option.

You stigmatize guns from an early age, and fewer and fewer kids will be exposed to it. And as it stands right now, the Gun Control side of the argument doesn't need all that many more votes to get what it wants.

So to put it bluntly, I like my odds. Really the only way this ends well for gun supporters is if for the first time in modern history, as this country gets progressively more populous and urban people opt for more guns and less regulation because they are living in more populated, urban areas, rather than less. This has never actually happened.

[Wildtree]

http://mises.org/daily/6172/ sums it up pretty nicely.

Doesn't sum it up to me.. It doesn't impress me at all what that guy has to offer. Arm yourself physically and intellectually against the firepower of the authorities.
That's 11 words.
That's the whole message of that entire wall of text he wrote. Text filled with straw man examples and false assumptions. It's outright bullshit. With all due respect, he talks out of his ass.
Haven't we been there before, and not so long ago? Two sides in a battle of armament.. Sounds familiar? Doesn't? Cold War?
You erected 2 rockets aiming at me.. I erect 4 rockets now, aiming at you. Ever growing danger that one small incident triggers the chain reaction that would devastate the entire globe. Maybe even destroy most life on Earth...
And now again? On a smaller scale? Americans against Americans? Civilians vs Authorities?
You (as general term) must be out of your mind when you seriously believe that's the answer. For all you do is supporting another cold war. But with different mechanics. Smaller scale, but also smaller minds involved.... On the grand stage of THE cold war, there were masterminds involved. There were fuses installed if you wanna call it that. There was a maximum of security levels installed to minimize the worst case scenario by accident.
On this stage, national.. That doesn't exist. There's a key factor in place that is begging for failure.. Human weakness, human stupidity.
No government on Earth bows to terrorists. None... No government on Earth bows therefore either to rebellious civilians that aim to deprive the majority of it's country from their freedom and safety. Essentially those rebels are also.... Terrorists.. The moment they become violent they are not any different.

[steale]

Maybe you don't.

But your children, or their children?

That's a wholeeee different ball game.

Gun's dont need to go away tomorrow... and they won't. But one day? Frankly, I look at the state of smoking sixty years ago, and look at it today. Cultural traditions are pretty easy to kill off. They just need to be fenced in, waited out and given a better option.

You stigmatize guns from an early age, and fewer and fewer kids will be exposed to it. And as it stands right now, the Gun Control side of the argument doesn't need all that many more votes to get what it wants.

So to put it bluntly, I like my odds. Really the only way this ends well for gun supporters is if for the first time in modern history, as this country gets progressively more populous and urban people opt for more guns and less regulation because they are living in more populated, urban areas, rather than less. This has never actually happened.

And perhaps your children will be gun lovers. Speculation goes both ways.

[Wildtree]

that's your opinion but its not fact my dad owns 2 Ak-47 and he hasn't gone out and shot at the cops

and btw there was clearly something wrong with the guy he ran a stop sign and got pulled over and opened fire aka he's fucked up in the head

mhm.... and what did I say in the posting with the link?

And now someone tell me why there shouldn't be gun control...

Did I say no one should have guns?
That is the problem with the gun fanatics.....
People say gun control.....
Gun fanatics read "they take away all my guns"

Sure there was something wrong with that guy, everyone can see that.. But there's something also terribly wrong with the system in place that such psychopaths can carry guns. And still no civilian at all needs such firepower. 10 rounds per mag is way enough for hunting.

[bergmann620]

And perhaps your children will be gun lovers. Speculation goes both ways.

Kids never want to experiment with things their parents say to leave alone.

[Deadvolcanoes]

They just need to be fenced in, waited out and given a better option.

Personally, this is what I'm waiting for.

I use my firearm for home protection. However, I'd much rather have a non lethal option that's equally if not more effective than a gun.

In 50 years, perhaps we'll have some type of non-lethal laser, or a much more effective taser. I'd gladly switch weapons if such an option were available. I think a lot of people would.

[tombstoner139]

You missing the point.. or you deflecting from the issue.
Suicide through Police kill isn't new. But it doesn't change the fact that NO civilian should have such firepower at any given time.

You can get killed by police bullets for a lot less destructive force against them.

Please tell me why i cant have that kind of fire power?
For the record i have access to fire power far grater than what is used by the average criminal.
Why do you think that that level ( low ) of fire power is too much for the average law abiding civilian to handle.
because we could turn into crazies, thus the only safe solution is to restrict guns to the police and military.... BTW they also go crazy and go on killing rampages.
so who really gets to have weapons.... no one.... o wait our robotic security.. yes lets build a skynet... its the only safe course of action.

[bergmann620]

And I'm sure this has already been in the thread 100 times, but the control side has already lost. By the time there is anything more serious than universal background checks gets passed, it will be a null issue. Technology and knowledge will always win out in the end.

[Wildtree]

Please tell me why i cant have that kind of fire power?
For the record i have access to fire power far grater than what is used by the average criminal.
Why do you think that that level ( low ) of fire power is too much for the average law abiding civilian to handle.
because we could turn into crazies, thus the only safe solution is to restrict guns to the police and military.... BTW they also go crazy and go on killing rampages.
so who really gets to have weapons.... no one.... o wait our robotic security.. yes lets build a skynet... its the only safe course of action.

And you are the next guy that cries about that they wanna take away your guns...
I never said that. and I won't repeat myself like a parrot, because some people are too lazy to read, or lacking proper reading skills...
But then.... I am not so sure whether I'd give someone who fails on simple tasks as reading almost unlimited access to firearms. There's an intellectual discrepancy.. That triggers red flags.

[steale]

Kids never want to experiment with things their parents say to leave alone.

Pretty much. That's why nobody's ever heard of teen drinking, pregnancy, drugs, etc.

[Roxinius]

mhm.... and what did I say in the posting with the link?
Did I say no one should have guns?
That is the problem with the gun fanatics.....
People say gun control.....
Gun fanatics read "they take away all my guns"

Sure there was something wrong with that guy, everyone can see that.. But there's something also terribly wrong with the system in place that such psychopaths can carry guns. And still no civilian at all needs such firepower. 10 rounds per mag is way enough for hunting.

you said people should have guns like that guy had and i posed that my dad has 2 of the very same gun he used to shoot the cops and has never done anything illegal with them i didnt say anything about anyone taking our guns and i love how people still want to believe the 2nd amendment is about hunting i'll keep my 15 round mags for my carry weapon and my 25 30 round mags for my 2 Umarex rifles

[Nadev]

Kids never want to experiment with things their parents say to leave alone.

I laughed far harder at this than I should have.

[Skroe]

It actually makes me quite sad that people see firearms this way. Lawful gun owners are very prideful in their right to bear arms. It's a great symbol of the freedom we enjoy in America, and this symbol is one of the reasons gun owners fight so hard to retain their rights.
If you don't want to own a firearm, so be it, but don't infringe upon my rights to do so.

Oh I've made my position clear. I see gun control as antiquated. In Massachusetts, and everyone knows this story growing up, but we have a law... it's actually illegal to run through a flock of pigeons in Boston because pigeons are wild game and you're depriving people of food.

I view guns and gun ownership like that. Something archiac. Something premodern. Something hearkening back to the Middle Ages when every cottage in the English countryside had a sword or axe in it. It got 80% to where it is now because of simple inertia - people took it for granted. It got the remaining 20% by aggressive defense lobbying because its a tradition in decline as more and more children put 'iPad" on their christmas list and fewer put "my first rifle".

So I do want to take away your right. I want to repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely. I think a new National Defense Amendment, codifying the role of the National Guard, revising and clarifying the disputed reforms of the War Powers Act (which completely unrelated to this issue, is a very big deal that will come up every time this country goes to war until it is) would be a good thing. I view the right to bear arms like a view running through a flock a pigeons being a crime - something from the days of buckles on shoes, tri-corner hats, butter churning and fearing the local indian tribe.

If you take a step back, its pretty clear that gun ownership in this country, if it didn't kill so many Americans every year, is kind of a joke. It's supporters always fall back on the same tired defense tropes - the "slippery slope" fallacy (why not ban knives and screwdrivers?), the defense of liberty joke (lets see how long any militia lasts against a few drones), or the personal safety delusion (hire more cops, end of story). It comes down to it, they like their guns like they like Spider-Man or Wolverine... an almost childlike emotional attachment to the image of a gun like the image of a super hero, and they'll say anything, do anything to justify it.

And ultimately, its unsustainable. 550 million to 1.2 billion. That is going to be the population of the United States in 2100, the difference being how we handle immigration this century. We will either be the world's fourth or first most populous country (as india and china enter demographic decline mid-century). Most of those Americans will live in city. You see Chicago's violence? That is the future. Lots of humans living in densely populated areas can lead to violence, especially if so much as a mild recession comes along and some young people find themselves out of works.

This is the future. It's not dystopisan or utopian. It's just urban sprawl continuing outward and those wooded suburbs 40 minutes from the city being the middle of the damn thing in a century hence. This is how Americans shall live. And Americans of that era, just as Americans who live in cities today, will want a high degree of investment law enforcement and very strict gun control. There is a reason New York City got cleaned up, when it hired 15,000 more police officers (to 42,000). Law enforcement does keep the peace in cities.

So I see the elimination of gun rights as an inevitability brought on by demographics. You will have a lot of Americans who will view gun rights as an abstraction - they'll never have fired a shot in their lives. You'll have rural living be the absolute fringe. You'll have people too involved in other hobbies since birth to care much about guns, just like today.

Being inevitable, I see no reason to wait and let more Americans die to perpetuate the continuation of a mere hobby. In 21st century America, gun ownership is a hobby, end of story. Everything else is an excuse. But in any event, win five months from now or fifty years from now, we get to the same point. We're well past the point that more Americans are never exposed to gun culture than there are Americans who are. And it's only going to keep stacking up in that direction.

I'm sorry if this is stepping on your culture or your hobby, but frankly, I don't care. It saves lives.

[jugzilla]

It is because of people like Skroesek that I am unwilling to give any concession to the gun control crowd.

[Wildtree]

you said people should have guns like that guy had and i posed that my dad has 2 of the very same gun he used to shoot the cops and has never done anything illegal with them i didnt say anything about anyone taking our guns and i love how people still want to believe the 2nd amendment is about hunting i'll keep my 15 round mags for my carry weapon and my 25 30 round mags for my 2 Umarex rifles

The second amendment is about a militia. It has zero to do with how you interpret it.
I refer to the common usage of guns.. And the main purpose of guns in usage is hunting and sports.
Now if you can't shoot a deer with one shot, or a duck with 2 shots (I even give you a miss) you should resort to play with marbles instead. You are lousy at aiming. Hence why 10 rounds mags are more than sufficient, for either hunting and sports.
And none of what you claim I said, I actually said. maybe you read again. I never said a word about the gun he used. You've drawn that conclusion by yourself. I said firepower. The amount of bullets in the amount of 25 seconds fired by him.. That is firepower no civilian should have.
That is army and swat unit level.