Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[alturic]

Because people being mentally ill isnt going anywhere in a hurry so we need to lessen the damage they can inflict.

And short of just killing people that show any signs of mental illness you actually have to wait for someone to commit a crime before you can punish them. I would rather not have the crime happen but thats not how it works.

Gotcha. So because 0.1% (0.01? 0.001? I don't know) of the population is deranged, disregards human life, and has the conscience to take human life, everyone should suffer?

[Draco-Onis]

It's sad that people are still discussing how to ban X, restrict Y instead of the point-blank, no way around it issue, people being mentally fucked up.

Someone who agrees banning X gun, Y accessory, can you give a good answer as to why normal, law-abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to own X or Y? We're not the ones having thoughts (let alone actually capable of) of using them to harm other humans.

Side-note: The "founding fathers" bullshit is hilarious. They were random people, who drafted up some paperwork. They had ZERO idea what the world would be like in 2018.

I don't want to take away guns but I will say this on the mental health issue in america we are fucked, healthcare in general in the US is fucked and probably will be for a long time. The right keeps cutting funding to healthcare and mental health when even veterans get screwed you know there is no hope. It is something we should fix but the people who would benefit the most from it are the first to cry socialism while happily getting their medicare and medicaid.

[alturic]

I don't want to take away guns but I will say this on the mental health issue in america we are fucked, healthcare in general in the US is fucked and probably will be for a long time. The right keeps cutting funding to healthcare and mental health when even veterans get screwed you know there is no hope. It is something we should fix but the people who would benefit the most from it are the first to cry socialism while happily getting their medicare and medicaid.

I think that's why people jump on the guns instantly. It's a quick-and-dirty "fix" to the problem. It's just a band-aid though.

I literally have no idea how to solve the problem of these people having the thoughts and conscience to disregard other humans like that. There's not a whole lot you CAN actually do, short of locking them up. Happy pills can simply stop being taken, and it's back to square one away. Fuck, I might even be able to get behind the restricting of guns IF the people wanting to restrict them could start the conversation with "we agree with you, mental health is the root issue BUT..." but nope. It's literally "errmahgawd, guns are designed to kill".

[Draco-Onis]

I think that's why people jump on the guns instantly. It's a quick-and-dirty "fix" to the problem. It's just a band-aid though.

I literally have no idea how to solve the problem of these people having the thoughts and conscience to disregard other humans like that. There's not a whole lot you CAN actually do, short of locking them up. Happy pills can simply stop being taken, and it's back to square one away. Fuck, I might even be able to get behind the restricting of guns IF the people wanting to restrict them could start the conversation with "we agree with you, mental health is the root issue BUT..." but nope. It's literally "errmahgawd, guns are designed to kill".

In a perfect we would be able to chew gun and walk at the same time tackle the problems with gun laws and mental health while not stopping good people from getting guns. But the truth is nothing will happen this is temporary, gun laws will only get worse and our healthcare system will keep going down the crapper.

[RobertoCarlos]

Gotcha. So because 0.1% (0.01? 0.001? I don't know) of the population is deranged, disregards human life, and has the conscience to take human life, everyone should suffer?

What? How did you get to that....

No everyone shouldnt suffer. But we should take things off the table that are dangerous and clearly causing a problem. Much like mercury is illegal

If you mean taking away assault rifles means people "suffer" then maybe they should suffer if it means less deaths.

I'm sure those people are great with guns and never make mistakes. Sorry but other people are proving they cant be trusted with guns.

Maybe all the gun lovers could make a pact? We pinky promise not to kill with our guns anymore. And if one gun owner kills someone then every gun owner is responsible. Share the load n all that. You wanna keep your guns then prove you can make others safer with theirs as well

[alturic]

What? How did you get to that....

No everyone shouldnt suffer. But we should take things off the table that are dangerous and clearly causing a problem. Much like mercury is illegal

Mercury isn't illegal. Well in the US anyway.

I got to that because of the billions (no source records this data) of bullets fired from guns, (according to first result, BBC article citing 2015 data) 13,286 killed someone. Of that, 1,870 were killed in a mass shooting. Now, I completely agree that's an odd example. HOWEVER, when taken in the context of what I originally said, Let's say that for each of the 13,286 that were killed, it was done by a different person.

Using NRA members, the Pew has estimated they have roughly 14 million members. 13,286 / 14,000,000 = 0.0009%.

Again, the numbers mean nothing in terms of correlation but again, it's simply to show that the amount of people taking these lives is so miniscule.

[Maneo]

What? How did you get to that....

No everyone shouldnt suffer. But we should take things off the table that are dangerous and clearly causing a problem. Much like mercury is illegal

If you mean taking away assault rifles means people "suffer" then maybe they should suffer if it means less deaths

I think what he is trying to get across is "you want to infringe my rights , because of 0.1% of the population"

If you apply that to any other right seems kinda crazy huh?

Since you are not from the U.S. I honestly don't expect you to understand. I lived in an area where I carried a firearm concealed for four years, because it wasn't safe. I have had my house broken into while me and my family were home and I live in a nice suburb.. The intruders were armed w/machetes imagine if I hadn't been armed. The police take anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes to respond even in decent areas ...

It is not the polices job to protect you, that is yours. Personally I am going to be armed to best protect myself and my family.

[RobertoCarlos]

Mercury isn't illegal. Well in the US anyway.

I got to that because of the billions (no source records this data) of bullets fired from guns, (according to first result, BBC article citing 2015 data) 13,286 killed someone. Of that, 1,870 were killed in a mass shooting. Now, I completely agree that's an odd example. HOWEVER, when taken in the context of what I originally said, Let's say that for each of the 13,286 that were killed, it was done by a different person.

Using NRA members, the Pew has estimated they have roughly 14 million members. 13,286 / 14,000,000 = 0.0009%.

Again, the numbers mean nothing in terms of correlation but again, it's simply to show that the amount of people taking these lives is so miniscule.

I agree its a tiny tiny fraction of people that are ruining it for others.

But I mean the problem is pretty simple staring you in the face.

There is a massive mental illness issue that is always ignored because its too expensive/impossible to fix.

Guns are a part of American culture.

Media hypes these shooters up like celebrities and brands their kill numbers around like goal posts to hit.

It cant be a coincidence the frequency these are happening are increasing and they keep using the same rifle. Its like copy cat killers on steroids.

Lets try take away the guns off the market (impossible but lets try) and go from there first. So when little billy has a bad day he cant just load up his dads AR-15 with hundreds of rounds of ammo.

- - - Updated - - -

I think what he is trying to get across is "you want to infringe my rights , because of 0.1% of the population"

If you apply that to any other right seems kinda crazy huh?

Since you are not from the U.S. I honestly don't expect you to understand. I lived in an area where I carried a firearm concealed for four years, because it wasn't safe. I have had my house broken into while me and my family were home and I live in a nice suburb.. The intruders were armed w/machetes imagine if I hadn't been armed. The police take anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes to respond even in decent areas ...

It is not the polices job to protect you, that is yours. Personally I am going to be armed to best protect myself and my family.

No I get it. I just live in the real world where Im aware that even having a gun to defend yourself can put you in tricky legal situations. Its better to chase someone off with a bat then kill them in cold blood. Ive seen cases where people end up going to jail simply because they shot a home invader in the back.

Is a bat gonna be more effective than a gun? No. But you're not gonna go to jail for it or risk shooting yourself/a family member either

[Maneo]

I agree its a tiny tiny fraction of people that are ruining it for others.

But I mean the problem is pretty simple staring you in the face.

There is a massive mental illness issue that is always ignored because its too expensive/impossible to fix.

Guns are a part of American culture.

Media hypes these shooters up like celebrities and brands their kill numbers around like goal posts to hit.

It cant be a coincidence the frequency these are happening are increasing and they keep using the same rifle. Its like copy cat killers on steroids.

Lets try take away the guns off the market (impossible but lets try) and go from there first. So when little billy has a bad day he cant just load up his dads AR-15 with hundreds of rounds of ammo.

- - - Updated - - -



No I get it. I just live in the real world where Im aware that even having a gun to defend yourself can put you in tricky legal situations. Its better to chase someone off with a bat then kill them in cold blood. Ive seen cases where people end up going to jail simply because they shot a home invader in the back.

Is a bat gonna be more effective than a gun? No. But you're not gonna go to jail for it or risk shooting yourself/a family member either

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

as far as that it is depends on the state you live in. I believe most states you shoot a intruder in your home you are fine, cept probably California. I only pay attention to the states I have lived in and in all 8 that was the case.

Personally in my case two invades armed w/machetes are not going to be scared off by a bat. Although I can handle myself pretty well no way in hell I am going to engage two on one armed w/a fucking bat... when they have machetes

[RobertoCarlos]

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

as far as that it is depends on the state you live in. I believe most states you shoot a intruder in your home you are fine, cept probably California. I only pay attention to the states I have lived in and in all 8 that was the case.

Personally in my case two invades armed w/machetes are not going to be scared off by a bat. Although I can handle myself pretty well no way in hell I am going to engage two on one armed w/a fucking bat... when they have machetes

Did you use a hand gun to defend yourself with? or an assault rifle. Because I want it to be clear I have no problem with handguns/hunting rifles. Im talking about weapons with massive potential to kill. And even though hand guns can kill too and have the higher kill count in some mass shooting cases. You might not get 4 cops sitting behind their cars waiting for back up with a hand gun threat vs a dude in full military get up

[Maneo]

Did you use a hand gun to defend yourself with? or an assault rifle. Because I want it to be clear I have no problem with handguns/hunting rifles. Im talking about weapons with massive potential to kill. And even though hand guns can kill too and have the higher kill count in some mass shooting cases. You might not get 4 cops sitting behind their cars waiting for back up with a hand gun threat vs a dude in full military get up

Smith and Wesson M&P 15 and AR-15 clone was used in my home.

My concealed carry is a Springfield XD 9mm

[RobertoCarlos]

Smith and Wesson M&P 15 and AR-15 clone was used in my home.

My concealed carry is a Springfield XD 9mm

Shouldnt the springfield be enough? Why do you need the M&P 15?

[alturic]

Shouldnt the springfield be enough? Why do you need the M&P 15?

That's the problem with (not saying you, but I assume since you're questioning it) people. They question why someone has X gun or X amount of guns. I say "why not?" Again, not saying you are, but it's like people should feel ashamed of, or weirded out about, the fact they own guns.

[Maneo]

Shouldnt the springfield be enough? Why do you need the M&P 15?

In a perfect world yes. However on that specific occasion my Springfield was at the shop. I take my firearms in every couple years to be inspected. Only one at a time though

Also something you have to realize is that much of the U.S. is very rural.

I was young I was in TX and I was wondering around the great out doors. I ended up getting chased up a tree by this Godzilla Boar half breed, and screamed my head off for what felt like forever.

Finally this elderly man (whos land I was trespassing on) came to my rescue. That fucking boar took three shots from his assault rifle before dropping.

Last time my M&P was fired not at the range was to take out a coyote .... Springfield doesn't have the accuracy or range to accomplish that ... at least not at my skill level.

[PhaelixWW]

Did you use a hand gun to defend yourself with? or an assault rifle. Because I want it to be clear I have no problem with handguns/hunting rifles. Im talking about weapons with massive potential to kill.

You're implying that an AR-15 (which is not actually an assault rifle), has more "potential to kill" than a handgun.

Why?

[RobertoCarlos]

In a perfect world yes. However on that specific occasion my Springfield was at the shop. I take my firearms in every couple years to be inspected. Only one at a time though

Also something you have to realize is that much of the U.S. is very rural.

I was young I was in TX and I was wondering around the great out doors. I ended up getting chased up a tree by this Godzilla Boar half breed, and screamed my head off for what felt like forever.

Finally this elderly man (whos land I was trespassing on) came to my rescue. That fucking boar took three shots from his assault rifle before dropping.

Last time my M&P was fired not at the range was to take out a coyote .... Springfield doesn't have the accuracy or range to accomplish that ... at least not at my skill level.

They're a little overkill for killing animals.

May I suggest a 308 bolt action rifle with scope?


Wild coyote would never know what hit him

- - - Updated - - -

You're implying that an AR-15 (which is not actually an assault rifle), has more "potential to kill" than a handgun.

Why?

Because of the ammo capacity of the magazine? The size and power of the bullets as well.

[PhaelixWW]

They're a little overkill for killing animals.

May I suggest a 308 bolt action rifle with scope?

A 5.56mm round is way less damaging than a .308.

[RobertoCarlos]

That's the problem with (not saying you, but I assume since you're questioning it) people. They question why someone has X gun or X amount of guns. I say "why not?" Again, not saying you are, but it's like people should feel ashamed of, or weirded out about, the fact they own guns.

I have no problem with people having a handgun on them/at home. I have a problem with buying military grade weapons

- - - Updated - - -

A 5.56mm round is way less damaging than a .308.

Well coyote is a bit different, you're probably not gonna eat it. I like my meat not riddled with holes like a swiss cheese personally

[PhaelixWW]

Because of the ammo capacity of the magazine?

Ammo capacity is irrelevant to the gun: You can get 30-100 round magazines for handguns, as well. At best, that's an argument for limiting magazine capacity, not the gun itself.

The size and power of the bullets as well.

5.56mm ammunition is far less powerful than almost any hunting caliber.

- - - Updated - - -

Well coyote is a bit different, you're probably not gonna eat it. I like my meat not riddled with holes like a swiss cheese personally

Why would it be riddled with holes? Are you under the mistaken impression that AR-15's are automatic?

[RobertoCarlos]

Ammo capacity is irrelevant to the gun: You can get 30-100 round magazines for handguns, as well. At best, that's an argument for limiting magazine capacity, not the gun itself.

5.56mm ammunition is far less powerful than almost any hunting caliber.

Why would it be riddled with holes? Are you under the mistaken impression that AR-15's are automatic?

How easy is it buying said extended mags for handguns? Isnt that gonna put you on a registry? Seems so specific you know the customer has some dark shit on their mind.

Hunting rifle would be much more difficult to operate in a school environment. I mean sure if you get some freak that makes a snipers nest and rains down on the school you might get some serious trouble, but at least their movement would be limited and they cant walk hall to hall firing in rooms being near unstoppable

I'm not gonna jump onto the whole "Its not a machine gun because its not automatic" trap. You use those rifles for their rate of fire. Otherwise whats the point, the animal is gone after the first shot so of course people are gonna fire multiple rounds