Somethings been bothering about these gun "ban" talks...

[alturic]

I am NOT talking about the video with that fat guy (Alex Jones I believe his name is). Please don't simply assuming that's the video I'm linking to. The video/interview I'm talking about there is 0 yelling between the two parties.

Ok, so I just watched the Piers Morgan interview where the guy from Breitbart destroyed Piers about why "banning" assault weapons is the stupidest thing in the world.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/...ook-graves.cnn

Ok, so this guy actually "gets it", and that's the fact that sure most "mass shootings" are done by assault weapons, BUT the big "problem" with these people who think we need to ban these assault weapons to these few and far between (relative to all shootings) mass shootings, but they don't care about ALL the murders that happen DAILY with every other weapon?

So MAYBE if assault weapons were banned, criminals (you know, the people who did the last 4 mass shootings, the people who break the law to begin with) MIGHT not have broke the law and shot these people because they MAYBE weren't able to get their hands on LEGAL weapons.

So great, we stopped these very few mass shootings, but what about all the other murders that happen DAILY in MULTIPLE cities?

I'm really torn about the issue because while I can't fathom the need for assault rifles and the like (which people also need to realize weren't even a thought in someones head when the constitution was penned) it's also 100% fact that more killings happen with non-assault weapons. It's simple fact, point blank. So why is this big talk about banning assault rifles, but not any other kind of gun.

I truthfully don't think there is any kind of compromise on the issue of banning guns in terms of what it could (hopefully) accomplish. So we ban assault rifles/high magazine clips and then you stop mass shootings involving those but the fundamental problem is that mass shootings are few and (relative to all murders involving guns) far between.

[aztr0]

He didn't "destroy" anyone on the topic. He was just loud and shouting over Piers, who was trying to have a conversation not a "MY VOICE IS LOUDER SO MY VIEWS ON THE ISSUE ARE CORRECT" thing.

[Itisamuh]

Murders of all kinds have happened since long before guns were around. People do tend to take notice more when it's a mass killing, but it isn't really justified. Death is death, murder is murder, it shouldn't matter what the age or the number of victims are. And of course, there's the indisputable fact that making something illegal has no effect on criminals, so it'd only be harming law abiding citizens to ban all guns. They could still try to ban only assault weapons, but it's pointless and won't change a thing.

[N-7]

Yeah if the argument was between two toddlers than yeah he pretty much "destroyed" him but in the adult world louder doesn't mean better.

[alturic]

He didn't "destroy" anyone on the topic. He was just loud and shouting over Piers, who was trying to have a conversation not a "MY VOICE IS LOUDER SO MY VIEWS ON THE ISSUE ARE CORRECT" thing.

Sorry, "destroying" someone in a discussion is when you have to repeatedly ask them something and they CAN'T respond because quite frankly they don't have a valid response without making them look worse than they already do.

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 10:37 AM ----------

Yeah if the argument was between two toddlers than yeah he pretty much "destroyed" him but in the adult world louder doesn't mean better.

See above reply. I also don't really see how he was "louder", but Piers pretty much lost any hope of trying to have a real discussion when he had to resort to things like "you can sit there and smirk all you want" without STILL answering his original question.

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 10:37 AM ----------

Murders of all kinds have happened since long before guns were around. People do tend to take notice more when it's a mass killing, but it isn't really justified. Death is death, murder is murder, it shouldn't matter what the age or the number of victims are. And of course, there's the indisputable fact that making something illegal has no effect on criminals, so it'd only be harming law abiding citizens to ban all guns. They could still try to ban only assault weapons, but it's pointless and won't change a thing.

WoW, there is still some hope for humanity. At least there is others out there that "get it".

[Deatheryn]

Murders of all kinds have happened since long before guns were around. People do tend to take notice more when it's a mass killing, but it isn't really justified. Death is death, murder is murder, it shouldn't matter what the age or the number of victims are. And of course, there's the indisputable fact that making something illegal has no effect on criminals, so it'd only be harming law abiding citizens to ban all guns. They could still try to ban only assault weapons, but it's pointless and won't change a thing.

This about sums it up^ The people killing others aren't the one trying to get weapons legally, they get them off the street. Make assault weapons illegal and create a new/larger black market commodity.

[Harakhte]

It isn't about being the solution, it's about finding a stepping stone path to a solution.

For one, a ban on assault weapons is only logical. There is no reason for citizens to own an assault weapon. Yes, they will still be around due to a black market, but at least it removes some of the market (and the easily obtained market of rob person, now you have assault weapon).

But that is NO means a solution, at BEST it's a band-aid. Most people don't support a ban on guns in general because it is a fundamental right that many people hold dear, it would never last in this country. It is my personal choice that I will never own, hold or touch a gun. I don't wish to impose that on everyone, regardless of the fact that yes, internally, I judge everyone who owns a gun. That is my right to do as well.

We do need stricter gun control laws, however. Not making it harder, per se, for law-abiding, decent people, but certainly making it harder for the mental fringe/criminal fringe. Yes, this relies on our inept government and therefore will certainly be flawed. Nothing will or can ever be perfect. Even removing 1% of guns from 1% of the mental unstable/criminal history citizens is worth any amount of legislation.

But it isn't just a control issue. It's also an issue with education, parenting, society, social media, the media, our culture, our institutions. It is a deep rooted issue we're not likely to solve any time soon, if ever. The human species has always (and I truly believe will always) been violent and murderous. Removing guns from existence would not stop murder - but it would curtail to some extent the possibility of mass slaughter.

[alturic]

It isn't about being the solution, it's about finding a stepping stone path to a solution.

For one, a ban on assault weapons is only logical. There is no reason for citizens to own an assault weapon. Yes, they will still be around due to a black market, but at least it removes some of the market (and the easily obtained market of rob person, now you have assault weapon).

But that is NO means a solution, at BEST it's a band-aid. Most people don't support a ban on guns in general because it is a fundamental right that many people hold dear, it would never last in this country. It is my personal choice that I will never own, hold or touch a gun. I don't wish to impose that on everyone, regardless of the fact that yes, internally, I judge everyone who owns a gun. That is my right to do as well.

We do need stricter gun control laws, however. Not making it harder, per se, for law-abiding, decent people, but certainly making it harder for the mental fringe/criminal fringe. Yes, this relies on our inept government and therefore will certainly be flawed. Nothing will or can ever be perfect. Even removing 1% of guns from 1% of the mental unstable/criminal history citizens is worth any amount of legislation.

But it isn't just a control issue. It's also an issue with education, parenting, society, social media, the media, our culture, our institutions. It is a deep rooted issue we're not likely to solve any time soon, if ever. The human species has always (and I truly believe will always) been violent and murderous. Removing guns from existence would not stop murder - but it would curtail to some extent the possibility of mass slaughter.

Just ooc, the "discussion" they are having, are they making any mention about actually buying these weapons off people or are they literally expecting people to just give up their $500+ items?

If they aren't going to be buying these items back from people, yea I can see a whole lot of "law abiding citizens" starting to break the law soon.

[slime]

I think the debate is about banning 'assult rifles' only (for now) is because there are many people split on this issue - it only takes a rational mind to see why these might need to be banned. Someone that is pro-gun might even see it this way. But if this changed to ban all guns then you are drawing a clear line in the sand - and people in the grey area of ban assualt rifles will probably default back to keep your stinkin' hands off my guns. And I think the would-be banners are still trying to persuade some of them to the ban guns side.

[wvx]

.... So why is this big talk about banning assault rifles, but not any other kind of gun.....

Maybe because the assault weapons are a lot more deadly , higher rate of fire , higher caliber rounds , fast reload speed . Consider how many bullets would a assault riffle shoot in a minute and consider again how many a handgun would shoot , you would be surprised .

[Harakhte]

Alturic, I don't honestly think an assault weapon ban would pass, as much as I would like it to. Not enough people are engaged about it, and the entire gun community (regardless of being assault weapon owners) are adamant against it because one law restricting guns in their eyes is a pandora's box to complete shut down of gun ownership.

That being said, I suspect it would be a turn-in of sorts, or maybe just not illegal to own but illegal to buy nonsense. Not really sure, I don't think that aspect of it has been discussed publicly much - and if it has I've missed it.

[Peacemaker65]

Ok, so I just watched the Piers Morgan interview where the guy from Breitbart destroyed Piers about why "banning" assault weapons is the stupidest thing in the world.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/...ook-graves.cnn

Ok, so this guy actually "gets it", and that's the fact that sure most "mass shootings" are done by assault weapons, BUT the big "problem" with these people who think we need to ban these assault weapons to these few and far between (relative to all shootings) mass shootings, but they don't care about ALL the murders that happen DAILY with every other weapon?

So MAYBE if assault weapons were banned, criminals (you know, the people who did the last 4 mass shootings, the people who break the law to begin with) MIGHT not have broke the law and shot these people because they MAYBE weren't able to get their hands on LEGAL weapons.

So great, we stopped these very few mass shootings, but what about all the other murders that happen DAILY in MULTIPLE cities?

I'm really torn about the issue because while I can't fathom the need for assault rifles and the like (which people also need to realize weren't even a thought in someones head when the constitution was penned) it's also 100% fact that more killings happen with non-assault weapons. It's simple fact, point blank. So why is this big talk about banning assault rifles, but not any other kind of gun.

I truthfully don't think there is any kind of compromise on the issue of banning guns in terms of what it could (hopefully) accomplish. So we ban assault rifles/high magazine clips and then you stop mass shootings involving those but the fundamental problem is that mass shootings are few and (relative to all murders involving guns) far between.

The worst school massacre in American history was done without any guns. Imagine that.

[Deatheryn]

<snip>

You do realize that a Hand gun can be turned into a fully automatic weapon right. So what happens if they ban assault rifles and then ppl start murdering masses w/ full auto hand guns? Ban hand guns next?

Also the problem w/ adding regulation on mental illness is, wheres the line drawn on what is and isn't mental illness. Did you know that ADD and ADHD is classified as a mental illness?Addiction to nicotine is a mental illness? Stupid I know but that means the government gets to basically take a gun from anyone they want and claim they have a mental illness.

[slackjawsix]

damage done in mass shootings would be greatly reduced if they had hand guns thats the point

[Olocan]

Piers morgan i don't like him at all in that interview i admit that guy was loud but in all honestly i can see why he's so passionate about the subject piers simply kept on asking about statics and never actually said anything meaningful accept he continued to asked questions.

[Henako]

It's important to keep in mind that an American's right to own a semi-automatic rifle isn't a necessity, it's a freedom. The argument isn't about whether anybody needs one of these weapons, because they obviously don't. The argument is about their freedom to obtain these weapons, and if you're proven to be sound of mind, you should absolutely have that freedom.

[Cybran]

The next video of the 60 people beating the crap out of eachother was far more engaging and interesting to watch.

On topic: What ashes is that guy talking about? Europe is a desolate wasteland now?

[breadisfunny]

thread title was a bit misleading...made me think it was going to talk about the merits of gun debate threads,or how there are a disproportionate number of them here.

[Terridon]

Last massshooting wasn't really a criminal? Just a broken kid or whatever. I disagree a lot in your way to define criminals. Doing it the moment they use their gun. It's normal people doing stupid things. Most of the mass shootings have been.

Another case with these evil criminals, that clearly has no similarities with most Americans.

2 guys bumping their cars together. Get out of the car and get in an argument with each other. Probably about whos fault it was.
As sober people, that want to settle things, they draw their guns and fire at each other.
Now they're criminals! And any pro-gunner will say they have always been.
But up to that, they where just like every other citizien that think it's fine to carry a gun.
Anyway. They wasn't good at aiming, so they hit the 3 year old kid on the backseat instead, that died.

[Deleted]

Sure guns don't cause crime to happen, thats silly, tools(even tools made for killing) don't do anything wrong.
But guns sure as hell make crime a lot easier.
A holdup with a knife will not be as effective as a holdup with a gun, nor does it end in as much dead people