[OFFICIAL] Gun Control Thread

[smelltheglove]

Don't ban firearms, regulate them better. Stop letting every moron with ID buy them, mandatory training and proper storage should be a requirement. A good gun safe can be brought very cheaply, and make owners accountable too for letting them get stolen or "losing" them. How the fuck do you lose a gun anyway?

stop making sense. rationality has no place in a gun discussion

[semaphore]

Don't ban firearms

Banning assault weapons != banning firearms.

[Lilly32]

I am not from US, by why wouldn't anyone support it? Like he said you don't use assault weapons to hunt deer or any other animals for that matter.

Actually some people do. I shoot a .243 but its a bolt action and the smallest caliber you can go before you hit .223 which is AR-15 ammo. The deer where I live just arent that big and a larger round like a 7mag or a 30-06 is usually overkill. Also smaller bullet does less damage to the meat. So I know a few people that hunt with AR-15s. Also the preferred weapon for coyote hunting is an AR-15 with some form of thermal or nightvision scope on it.

[Quetzl]

Last time I checked criminals don't follow laws or bans.

But if they can get a gun by following the law, they will. This is a common and weak argument

[Rustweaver]

I'm not really for or against the notion of banning weapons but rather the fact that they feel as though this will stomp out the crazies from acquiring such items and be off the streets. If anything, it'll just push the market further underground and those crazies who want them for nefarious activities will still have access if they look in the right places.

It's just like prohibition when alcohol was banned and look how well that turned out or to ban something in general. If someone wants it, they'll get it.

Also, a clip of ten? Does it limit how many clips of ten they can own? What if they own a bigger clip and simply transfer the smaller ammunition clips in to one? Why ten, are ten potential deaths an acceptable amount before it becomes problomatic?

[Raidbozz]

Doesn't mean we should make it easier for them to obtain tools. In most cases of mass killings, the weapon was obtained legally.

Legally obtained and then stolen by the criminal from the person who went through the hoops to get them.

[Dekadenz91]

In america we are aloud to have guns, just because some crazies use them for these mass shootings. It won't pass and it's a god damned good thing. Assault weapons are fucking fun, I can't think of anything more fun to take to the range and shoot. It isn't the government's place to tell us what kind of guns we can't own. The automatic weapon ban is enough. Taking away assault weapons wont do anything anyway, you could do just as much damage against unarmed civvys with 4 or 5 pistols.

This is why I hate democrats. Oh there's a horribly tragedy? Better use it to our political advantage! Cocksuckers.

Infracted: Please refrain from insulting people who don't politically agree with you.

[semaphore]

I could say that about any country

No you can't. Not a lot of developed countries have that many mass shootings.

As i said i support the ban. However it should be considered for a a length of time and not just when people are in such as an emotional and raw state.

It's been considered since 1994. I don't have any qualms of using emotional times to push through the ban again, this time for good.

[smelltheglove]

Banning assault weapons != banning firearms.

the biggest problem with that is lawmakers have no damned clue about what makes 1 gun more dangerous than another, so we end up with laws based entirely on cosmetics. dont misunderstand me here, i'd very much like to see a far stronger stance on the more dangerous weapons, but i seriously doubt a knee-jerk bill will address it at all

[Butler Log]

Legally obtained and then stolen by the criminal from the person who went through the hoops to get them.

Going by what the "gun nuts" always say, that gun should never have been stolen because you can shoot the intruder with the gun.

[Schattenlied]

No, I don't support it, because the term "assault weapon" is bullshit. it bans weapons because they LOOK dangerous, but in fact are no more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle.

This, is a Ruger Mini-14 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...8/Mini14GB.jpg

This is an AR-15 http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ar15.jpeg

The Ruger mini-14 wont be covered by this "ban" but the ar-15 will. Guess what the difference between these rifles is: Cosmetic. They fire the same rounds, are about the same length. They ban the pistol grip and the adjustable stock on the AR-15 when those things do absolutely nothing to the functionality of the weapon. It's no more dangerous.


Besides that, I'm not going to bother explaining the purpose of the second amendment to you guys,because you wont listen anyways.


This is also a Ruger Mini-14: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/w...cts-446l-2.jpg they think this one is more dangerous and "evil". It's the same fucking rifle. The people writing these laws are delusional - with how many guns there are in circulation in the US we are far beyond bans doing anything and you all know it. We need real solutions, and until someone writing laws proposes one that isn't completely fucking stupid I'd rather have my guns.

[Raidbozz]

But if they can get a gun by following the law, they will. This is a common and weak argument

Say they do ban assault rifles and clips bigger than 10 rounds...big deal. 2 pistols = 20 rounds per reload...anyone who has handled a firearm can reload most pistols within seconds as it's just a push of a button to drop the empty and shove in the loaded clip.

[Butler Log]

the biggest problem with that is lawmakers have no damned clue about what makes 1 gun more dangerous than another, so we end up with laws based entirely on cosmetics. dont misunderstand me here, i'd very much like to see a far stronger stance on the more dangerous weapons, but i seriously doubt a knee-jerk bill will address it at all

Base it on muzzle velocity, rate of fire and projectile calibre then.

[Cybran]

So here we go, it begins.

Grab yer guns! Obama's coming!

What for? All the innocent people killed by them are not enough by now?

[Frozenbeef]

No you can't. Not a lot of developed countries have that many mass shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...illers:_Europe

[moogogaipan]

As a side note it is pretty LULZ that the same people who were totally against teachers are now like, "arm them"

[usiris]

In america we are aloud to have guns, just because some crazies use them for these mass shootings. It won't pass and it's a god damned good thing. Assault weapons are fucking fun, I can't think of anything more fun to take to the range and shoot. It isn't the government's place to tell us what kind of guns we can't own. The automatic weapon ban is enough. Taking away assault weapons wont do anything anyway, you could do just as much damage against unarmed civvys with 4 or 5 pistols.

This is why I hate democrats. Oh there's a horribly tragedy? Better use it to our political advantage! Cocksuckers.

This right here is what is wrong with the right...

lets prioritize profit and fun over human beings.

[semaphore]

Legally obtained and then stolen by the criminal from the person who went through the hoops to get them.

Legally obtained often without any hoops.

[Quetzl]

In america we are aloud to have guns, just because some crazies use them for these mass shootings. It won't pass and it's a god damned good thing. Assault weapons are fucking fun, I can't think of anything more fun to take to the range and shoot. It isn't the government's place to tell us what kind of guns we can't own. The automatic weapon ban is enough. Taking away assault weapons wont do anything anyway, you could do just as much damage against unarmed civvys with 4 or 5 pistols.

This is why I hate democrats. Oh there's a horribly tragedy? Better use it to our political advantage! Cocksuckers.

Ugh. Where to start? Calling democrats cocksuckers or civilians civvys?

You know, there are more fun things in the world than shooting assault weapons. I'm so sorry you haven't experienced them. Also, it is exactly the government's place to tell us what deadly weapons we can and cannot use and own. I for one don;t want to see everyone walking around with M-16s to feed their own insecurities.

[Adam Jensen]

What for? All the innocent people killed by them are not enough by now?

That post was facetious.