Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Laize]

That's sort of my point. I know it is not immutable; however, when people say things like "It's a wonder people don't want to give up their rights, amirite?", it makes me instantly assume that they believe otherwise.

Well gun control people ARE in fact asking pro-gun people to forego some of their rights for no valid reason.

Gun violence has been on the decline and violent crime is at its lowest rate in a century. There are no grounds whatsoever for additional gun control aside from baseless fear.

[THE Bigzoman]

Wow. I read this as satire first time around and had a chuckle. Then I realised there was no punchline or attempt to amuse people, it was that you actually believe "gun control guy" is a monster who wants to take all of your righ... sorry guns away forvever.

Whats satirical about it? It almost sums up what people tried to advocate for last year.

[TZucchini]

There are no grounds whatsoever for additional gun control aside from baseless fear.

How about the billions of dollars that gun violence costs the taxpayer each year? Is that just baseless fear?

[Naxere]

How about the billions of dollars that gun violence costs the taxpayer each year? Is that just baseless fear?

If you're referencing this article, it's still a lot less than the cost of traffic congestion.

[Delekii]

Well gun control people ARE in fact asking pro-gun people to forego some of their rights for no valid reason.

Gun violence has been on the decline and violent crime is at its lowest rate in a century. There are no grounds whatsoever for additional gun control aside from baseless fear.

Hyperbole and false information is awesome, right?

I'm not American, so I don't really care. I live in Australia. A right wing conservative government forced gun control laws through parliament on the back of a strong majority banning and buying back assault weapons, leading to a reduction of mass murder from almost one a year for the 12 years prior to none since. I hope someone has the testicles at some point in the future to take the next step.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're referencing this article, it's still a lot less than the cost of traffic congestion.

Traffic congestion serves a measurable and important purpose in society, or at least is the byproduct of one. Gun violence is not.

It's like that idiot on a previous page somewhere (or possibly in a different thread) who said that more children drown in pools than die to guns, so we should ban pools. It's an incapacity to think laterally that makes these sort of arguments come about, and they always sound ridiculous when they do.

[TZucchini]

If you're referencing this article, it's still a lot less than the cost of traffic congestion.

No. I wasn't referencing that article. That one only shows the medical costs. I was referencing this one. $174 billion each year. More than traffic congestion.

[Rukentuts]

There are no grounds whatsoever for additional gun control aside from baseless fear.

There's no reason to own a gun for "defense" other than baseless fear.

See I can do this too.

[Eroginous]

It _IS_ a wonder, because those rights impede on other people's rights to not be shot.

Your right 'not to be shot' has absolutely nothing to do with my right to own a gun.

As always, it blows my mind that people hold the constitution on a pedestal as an immutable document. Just how much change in society does there need to be before parts of it are considered irrelevant or inappropriate in current circumstances to the point of needing change? Let me expand the argument to the ridiculous; if slavery was still supported in the constitution, would you consider it as immutable as you seemingly consider the second amendment? Does there really need to be another war to abolish the second amendment? Lol.

I never said anything about the constitution being this holy document that should not be changed. Nor do I think it shouldn't be changed. However, you have to understand the weight of the constitution and why we have it. It's not some list of things other countries are willing to let us have. It's a list of things the founding fathers were willing to give their lives for. It's not fair or just to take the constitution lightly, nor is it a good idea to think there's no more reason to fight for the rights it guarantees us.

I don't presume to know whether or not a war will break out if the second amendment is threatened, but I do know that we didn't get the right to bear arms by accident and we shouldn't discard it on the whim of ignorant people.

Wow. I read this as satire first time around and had a chuckle. Then I realised there was no punchline or attempt to amuse people, it was that you actually believe "gun control guy" is a monster who wants to take all of your righ... sorry guns away forvever.

I don't believe gun control proponents are monsters by any standard. Nor do I think they want to take all my rights. I was just illustrating how the 'compromise' he's talking about isn't really compromise.

[Naxere]

No. I wasn't referencing that article. That one only shows the medical costs. I was referencing this one. $174 billion each year. More than traffic congestion.

Nowhere in that article is the cost to the taxpayer mentioned. Based on these charts, it looks like the total cost to the government (ie, taxpayer) is $12 billion in 2010.

[ugotownd]

No. I wasn't referencing that article. That one only shows the medical costs. I was referencing this one. $174 billion each year. More than traffic congestion.

Yes let's use an article from the company of the biggest anti-gun in the world. If your so upset at cost to taxpayers you should be mad that taxpayers pay for Bloombergs armed goon squad. Even out of office your paying for a dozen armed guards with AR's and hi cap magazines everything he is against to follow him around 24/7.

[TZucchini]

Nowhere in that article is the cost to the taxpayer mentioned. Based on these charts, it looks like the total cost to the government (ie, taxpayer) is $12 billion in 2010.

They calculate it as a "cost to society."

- - - Updated - - -

Yes let's use an article from the company of the biggest anti-gun in the world. If your so upset at cost to taxpayers you should be mad that taxpayers pay for Bloombergs armed goon squad. Even out of office your paying for a dozen armed guards with AR's and hi cap magazines everything he is against to follow him around 24/7.

Are you under the impression that Bloomberg conducted the study?

[Kalyyn]

Fun article from Cracked today on the subject:
6 Things gun lovers and haters can agree on

Fair warning though: it will piss off any of you in the "painting it black makes it a machine gun" crowd. Mostly because the writer is moderately knowledgeable on the subject.

[Eroginous]

Fun article from Cracked today on the subject:
6 Things gun lovers and haters can agree on

Fair warning though: it will piss off any of you in the "painting it black makes it a machine gun" crowd. Mostly because the writer is moderately knowledgeable on the subject.

Meh, that article is a decent read, but not really all that controversial.

[Slant]

Nice, your second amendment just killed a dude in a movie theatre for sending a text. You must love your country. How does it feel to be insane?

- - - Updated - - -

Meh, that article is a decent read, but not really all that controversial.

The article is rather silly. And the last point especially is doubly so. Hunters in Germany buy weapons, they have licenses, they don't just find them growing on trees. So there are hunting shops, big deal. But there is no group wanking over weapons, nor is there some religious belief that weapons are good or that everyone should own one. There's a level of insanity going on in the US that doesn't compare to anything else.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Wow. I read this as satire first time around and had a chuckle. Then I realised there was no punchline or attempt to amuse people, it was that you actually believe "gun control guy" is a monster who wants to take all of your righ... sorry guns away forvever.

...and yet this thread has been full of people wanting to do exactly that.

[Slant]

...and yet this thread has been full of people wanting to do exactly that.

Those evil people, how dare they. Shoot them. Shoot them all.

[Eroginous]

Those evil people, how dare they. Shoot them. Shoot them all.

No. Let's not shoot anyone.

Instead, let's just stop trying to pass goofy laws that won't achieve much more than taking people's rights away.

[Rukentuts]

Instead, let's just stop trying to pass goofy laws that won't achieve much more than taking people's rights away.

You keep saying that, but repeating it doesn't make it any less bullshit.

[Eroginous]

You keep saying that, but repeating it doesn't make it any less bullshit.

If I have the right to own a gun, but you want me to pass all sorts of background checks, how is that not infringing on my rights?

If I have the right to own a gun, but you won't let me own certain types, how is that not infringing on my rights?

If I have the right to own a gun, but you want to charge me with a crime if I don't have it registered in this 'Big Data' type database (your words), how is that not infringing on my rights?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

How does that lady get to be an exception when anyone deemed 'mentally ill' is barred from buying a gun?

Because that is a very specific situation that can't be considered the norm.

If I have the right to own a gun, but you want me to pass all sorts of background checks, how is that not infringing on my rights?

Certain regulations are not considered infringing. Inbefore Slippery Slope Fallacy

If I have the right to own a gun, but you won't let me own certain types, how is that not infringing on my rights?

Are you really trying to say you're allowed to use something say the military would use(Those full blown stuff...WTB Military person here to do the describing because I suck).