Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

Are you going to link the website that tore the study apart? Or are we going to keep ignoring that request?

No, I'm not going to link to any external websites/threads I also post on when it comes to gun control, I don't trust anyone and being doxxed by anti-gunners is a realistic problem.

[Dethh]

No, I'm not going to link to any external websites/threads I also post on when it comes to gun control, I don't trust anyone and being doxxed by anti-gunners is a realistic problem.

Lol everyone just keeps linking to gun studies and saying "here". What does that prove? Government wants your guns. Do they want the guns that are used to kill the most people? Nope, they want hunting rifles with large magazines. Seems weird doesn't it? If they cared about lives being saved wouldn't handguns be on the chopping block? Instead its rifles. Seems like they just want to disarm the public to me.

[Rukentuts]

Nope, they want hunting rifles with large magazines.

I never got the point of hunting with large magazines.

1) It takes far less skill to spray and pray.
2) Filling the area with bullets due to the skill deficit is a safety risk.

Also, if you can't hit your target in one shot, you'll be very lucky to hit it after it's prancing away from you.

[Tinykong]

I never got the point of hunting with large magazines.

1) It takes far less skill to spray and pray.
2) Filling the area with bullets due to the skill deficit is a safety risk.

Convenience.

[Dethh]

I never got the point of hunting with large magazines.

1) It takes far less skill to spray and pray.
2) Filling the area with bullets due to the skill deficit is a safety risk.

Also, if you can't hit your target in one shot, you'll be very lucky to hit it after it's prancing away from you.

You make no sense and you claim to own firearms. Spray and pray? No one is using a machine gun. It's about convenience. Why should it matter if the magazine holds 10 rounds or 30? Now if were talking 100/500 round magazines I can see your argument plus they don't work as well anyway. I presume you think everyone shoots the perfect 1 round kill shot and never misses. Using your logic all firearms used for hunting should carry only 1 round right?

[Rukentuts]

Convenience.

Convenience at the cost of safety makes no sense, which is the point. There's a lot of stupid hunters these days just rattling off shot after shot: we get it dude, your aim sucks. Makes me glad they banned rifles for hunting south of Hwy 10. I'd be terrified to be strolling through a farm field when Cpt McSpray decides to unleash his fury at Bambi.

[Dethh]

Convenience at the cost of safety makes no sense, which is the point.

Where is the safety risk?

- - - Updated - - -

Convenience at the cost of safety makes no sense, which is the point. There's a lot of stupid hunters these days just rattling off shot after shot: we get it dude, your aim sucks. Makes me glad they banned rifles for hunting south of Hwy 10. I'd be terrified to be strolling through a farm field when Cpt McSpray decides to unleash his fury at Bambi.

I was unaware there was a huge rise in hunting deaths directly related to large capacity magazines. Please go on.

[Tinykong]

Convenience at the cost of safety makes no sense, which is the point. There's a lot of stupid hunters these days just rattling off shot after shot: we get it dude, your aim sucks. Makes me glad they banned rifles for hunting south of Hwy 10. I'd be terrified to be strolling through a farm field when Cpt McSpray decides to unleash his fury at Bambi.

There is absolutely no proof that increased magazine capacity lowers safety.

Not even Jerry Miculek can shoot a semi-auto hunting rifle as fast as people think they can be fired, and he's arguably the best in the world.

[Rukentuts]

There is absolutely no proof that increased magazine capacity lowers safety.

Not even Jerry Miculek can shoot a semi-auto hunting rifle as fast as people think they can be fired, and he's arguably the best in the world.

Yeah, people can be unrealistic in their expectations of firing rate in this thread, but my point is that even five-seven shots poses more of a safety risk than one, maybe two. Is "hunting accidents" what people attributed to the higher rates of "gun violence" in the South earlier in this thread anyway?

[Dethh]

Yeah, people can be unrealistic in their expectations of firing rate in this thread, but my point is that even five-seven shots poses more of a safety risk than one, maybe two. Is "hunting accidents" what people attributed to the higher rates of "gun violence" in the South earlier in this thread anyway?

So hunting rifles should be limited to one MAYBE 2 round magazines, got ya.

[TZucchini]

"This one website destroyed that study"

"Oh. Interesting. Link it and let me take a look"

"No I don't want to get doxed."


....You can't be serious.

[Tinykong]

....You can't be serious.

Yes, I am serious. I will not be linking any external websites or threads that I post in with this one.

As I said, I'm not going to debate the points I made, because they are my opinions, I'm not looking for factual recognition. The only point I made is that your comment was premature, which it was.

[TZucchini]

Yes, I am serious. I will not be linking any external websites or threads that I post in with this one.

As I said, I'm not going to debate the points I made, because they are my opinions, I'm not looking for factual recognition. The only point I made is that your comment was premature, which it was.

You made two different claims and failed to even attempt at backing them up:

1) John Hopkins is biased

2) I have information that refutes the study


How am I supposed to take you seriously when you refuse to back up your claims, and instead fall back on "it's my opinion."

I mean it's great that you have opinions, but intelligent discourse requires that those opinions be backed up by something.

[Tinykong]

How am I supposed to take you seriously when you refuse to back up your claims, and instead fall back on "it's my opinion."

I mean it's great that you have opinions, but intelligent discourse requires that those opinions be backed up by something.

What you're not getting is that I am not interested in discussing it. The only point being made was that the study hasn't been fully released, and any correlations or claims using it as proof are premature.

[TZucchini]

What you're not getting is that I am not interested in discussing it.

You're not interested in discussing it because you've been called out, and you can't back it up.

The only point being made was that the study hasn't been fully released, and any correlations or claims using it as proof are premature.

It's absolutely not premature. Did you even read the BBC article? It concludes exactly what I stated.

[Tinykong]

You're not interested in discussing it because you've been called out, and you can't back it up.

Opinions have to be backed up with a cited source?

It's absolutely not premature. Did you even read the BBC article? It concludes exactly what I stated.

And their conclusion is as premature as yours. The data sets for the study aren't publicly available, so making the statement that repealing the law caused higher homicide rates is fallacious.

[Masark]

So hunting rifles should be limited to one MAYBE 2 round magazines, got ya.

Up here, it's 5 rounds or 3 for shotguns.

[TZucchini]

Opinions have to be backed up with a cited source?

"John Hopkins is biased" isn't just an opinion. It's a measurable claim. It requires evidence, of which you've provided none. When asked for evidence, you defaulted to "it's my opinion."

And their conclusion is as premature as yours. The data sets for the study aren't publicly available, so making the statement that repealing the law caused higher homicide rates is fallacious.

Daniel Webster is the director of the study. He's quoted in the BBC article for fucks sake! He is the one that has come to conclusions. Not me. Not the BBC.

[Tinykong]

"John Hopkins is biased" isn't just an opinion. It's a measurable claim. It requires evidence, of which you've provided none. When asked for evidence, you defaulted to "it's my opinion."

Their website speaks for itself, framing violence as a "white male" problem. YMMV.

Daniel Webster is the director of the study. He's quoted in the BBC article for fucks sake! He is the one that has come to conclusions. Not me. Not the BBC.

You're welcome to subscribe to or believe whatever you like. Without being able to review the data used, the conclusions are premature and/or unsubstantiated.

[TZucchini]

Their website speaks for itself, framing violence as a "white male" problem. YMMV.

For someone claiming that said study is "unsubstantiated," you sure have a funny way of substantiating your opinions. As in, they're not based on facts.

You're welcome to subscribe to or believe whatever you like. Without being able to review the data used, the conclusions are premature and/or unsubstantiated.

Because you haven't reviewed the data does not mean the conclusion is premature or unsubstantiated. An entire team of researchers have reviewed the data, and their opinions hold much more water than yours.