Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[cubby]

We can't predict how our society acts versus other societies. We're vastly different than they are. Besides that, I'm less concerned about method of murder and more concerned with how many happen. I'm also less concerned about mass murder and more concerned about # of murders total.


Again, shooting vs bombing vs any other type of killing/death doesn't really matter to me. The fact that people get murdered is all I care about.


There are plenty of "only in america" things, in case you didn't notice. And it's not just because "our laws are different."

I hope your check from the NRA clears. You should deposit it asap - their trial starts soon.

We're the only country that has mass shootings and we're the only country that doesn't strictly regulate guns and firearms. You'll never have an answer to that because there is literally no answer to reality.

[Kellhound]

I hope your check from the NRA clears. You should deposit it asap - their trial starts soon.

We're the only country that has mass shootings and we're the only country that doesn't strictly regulate guns and firearms. You'll never have an answer to that because there is literally no answer to reality.

That is not true, other developed countries have them as well. It is true the US has more of them, but other countries with high ownership of firearms have disproportionally smaller amounts.

[cubby]

That is not true, other developed countries have them as well. It is true the US has more of them, but other countries with high ownership of firearms have disproportionally smaller amounts.

Name the last five mass shootings, along with their dates, that happened in other developed/western countries. The United States has had one almost every day of the year in 2021.

The last part of your statement is essentially my point. We have them far more often, compared to all other countries combined. And it's because of our gun laws. Period.

[Kellhound]

Name the last five mass shootings, along with their dates, that happened in other developed/western countries. The United States has had one almost every day of the year in 2021.

The last part of your statement is essentially my point. We have them far more often, compared to all other countries combined. And it's because of our gun laws. Period.

Hanau, 2020.
Rot am See, 2020.
Saint-Just, 2020.
Vienna, 2020.
Nova Scotia, 2020.

Other developed countries with similar gun ownership laws have significantly less issues. More to the point, semi-automatic rifles are not a major contributor to US homicides. In 2019 you were more likely to be killed with a knife than any kind of rifle in 49 states, and more likely to be killed by being hit/kicked in 41 states.

[Felya]

Is that your Waifu Edge? She looks kinda young.

What do you think of mine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bateman

The demand for guns is entirely driven by corporations wanting money. What NRA does, is equivalent to writing Christ is coming on an egg, then shoving it back up a chicken. Must send money or it’s doomsday... it’s prophetic...

- - - Updated - - -

Glad to see we're still using the ridiculous "but people will still kill other people" argument, though. As if that has ever held water in reality lol

Obviously, we need NKA... an NRA for knives... There should be a mass corporate push to stop this inflammatory attempt at banning knives. If knives don’t see support from us, these people trying to ban knives, will get their way. How do you cut bread with a gun? Better learn... NKA needs to get chefs and cooks... all dressed in the most ridiculous attire for the job, to start crying on social media...

What about toasters killing people, not just guns and knives? Fine... let’s get a NTA going... put up house wives crying they are not killers and only want to make toast.

Let’s roll... let’s ban everything, just so we can regulate guns. Any time some is saying other weapons or even house hold items are just as deadly, just agree that those should be banned. Let’s see how many things we can ban, in the name of freedom to own a gun.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, shooting vs bombing vs any other type of killing/death doesn't really matter to me. The fact that people get murdered is all I care about.

Why do you care to have more people murdered? Why is that a priority?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and in case people ask... how do I hunt without a gun? I use an iPad and have it delivered... but, if I did... I wouldn’t hunt with an AR 15... it would be an AK 47... I protect my home with knives and toasters... because I don’t care what weapon I use to kill the intruder.

- - - Updated - - -

In 2019 you were more likely to be killed with a knife than any kind of rifle in 49 states, and more likely to be killed by being hit/kicked in 41 states.

How many of those knife killings were random, while people were doing normal every day things, without knowing the assailant?

I do enjoy the argument that there is nothing a gun does, that any other object can’t do... yet it’s more important than any of said objects. But, fine... let’s regulate guns, then we will regulate knives... deal?

Why isn’t there a constitutional amendment that permits ownership of knives? They had them at the time... Was this lack of foresight? Did US founding fathers not realize that a gun and a knife are equally easy to kil with?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry to keep adding to it, but... I got a question...

How do ya’ll choose who you donate your money to? NRA, GOP or Trump? How do you choose which of the 3 will succeed more in saving western civilization, through a barrel of a gun?

If on top of my expenses, I had to contribute to an organization embezzling millions, a political party whose economic policy sounds like tepid golden showers for 98% of Americans, or a billionaire grifter... I don’t know... maybe I’d be blaming cartoons for being woke, since that’s why I’d be broke... maybe I’d complain about dogs shitting... I don’t know... so many things to blame.

[Noxx79]

We can't predict how our society acts versus other societies. We're vastly different than they are. Besides that, I'm less concerned about method of murder and more concerned with how many happen. I'm also less concerned about mass murder and more concerned about # of murders total.


Again, shooting vs bombing vs any other type of killing/death doesn't really matter to me. The fact that people get murdered is all I care about.


There are plenty of "only in america" things, in case you didn't notice. And it's not just because "our laws are different."

So you don’t care that one person dies vs 20? That only 100% of crime should be stopped or the law should not exist?

Why are you an anarchist? Why don’t you believe in laws? I mean, crime still exists, therefore laws are pointless, right?

[BeepBoo]

Glad to see we're still using the ridiculous "but people will still kill other people" argument, though. As if that has ever held water in reality lol

Show me before murder rates and after murder rates of societies that have high gun ownerships that then have them removed that closely resemble the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you care to have more people murdered? Why is that a priority?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and in case people ask... how do I hunt without a gun? I use an iPad and have it delivered... but, if I did... I wouldn’t hunt with an AR 15... it would be an AK 47... I protect my home with knives and toasters... because I don’t care what weapon I use to kill the intruder.

Nice intentional misrepresentation.

I don't care to have more people murdered, but I'm also not willing to go to the Nth degree to make sure we have 100% success by limiting the freedoms of absolutely everyone. I value freedom over small statistical outliars. Mass shootings are statistical outliars. Maybe if they were as big a problem as handguns I'd care more, but I would be a billionaire if I had 5 cents for each thing that killed < 1000 people a year.

- - - Updated - - -

So you don’t care that one person dies vs 20? That only 100% of crime should be stopped or the law should not exist?

Why are you an anarchist? Why don’t you believe in laws? I mean, crime still exists, therefore laws are pointless, right?

Nice hyperbole and nice slippery slope. Tell me exactly how many less DEATHS will be caused by introducing huge limits on ARs. 1) You can't. 2) Even if you eliminated 100% of AR deaths (instead of just like 10%, because angry penisy americans still find ways to commit the other 90% of murders that would have happened), I wouldn't think it's statistically significant enough to create a law that the millions of other people had to abide.

[Noxx79]

Show me before murder rates and after murder rates of societies that have high gun ownerships that then have them removed that closely resemble the US.

- - - Updated - - -


Nice intentional misrepresentation.

I don't care to have more people murdered, but I'm also not willing to go to the Nth degree to make sure we have 100% success by limiting the freedoms of absolutely everyone. I value freedom over small statistical outliars. Mass shootings are statistical outliars. Maybe if they were as big a problem as handguns I'd care more, but I would be a billionaire if I had 5 cents for each thing that killed < 1000 people a year.

- - - Updated - - -



Nice hyperbole and nice slippery slope. Tell me exactly how many less DEATHS will be caused by introducing huge limits on ARs. 1) You can't. 2) Even if you eliminated 100% of AR deaths (instead of just like 10%, because angry penisy americans still find ways to commit the other 90% of murders that would have happened), I wouldn't think it's statistically significant enough to create a law that the millions of other people had to abide.

You’re the one who said that number of deaths doesn’t matter.

Not hyperbole.

Now if we could do studies that would be great, but you’re opposed to those as well.

Anarchist.

[BeepBoo]

You’re the one who said that number of deaths doesn’t matter.
Not hyperbole.

I said cause of death doesn't matter (which you mistook for me saying "deaths don't matter"). However, I also later clarified to another poster that, yes, indeed 500 people dying doesn't matter to me insofar as legislation is concerned. Still waiting on proof of exactly how many of those 500 deaths wouldn't be caused by something else if guns just evaporated.

Now if we could do studies that would be great, but you’re opposed to those as well.

Anarchist.

What makes you think I'm opposed to any type of data collection or statistical gathering? Supposition, much? Please refrain from snap asshole judgments that you have absolutely no way of knowing anything about. You don't know me, and any correlations you're seeing between me and other people you seem to vehemently hate can kindly fuck off. Stop subtly slighting me.

[cubby]

Hanau, 2020.
Rot am See, 2020.
Saint-Just, 2020.
Vienna, 2020.
Nova Scotia, 2020.

Exactly. And the United States has had 126 this year.

Other developed countries with similar gun ownership laws have significantly less issues. More to the point, semi-automatic rifles are not a major contributor to US homicides. In 2019 you were more likely to be killed with a knife than any kind of rifle in 49 states, and more likely to be killed by being hit/kicked in 41 states.

Doesn't matter. People are being slaughtered by mass shootings using guns in the U.S. and no where else. The conversation on the need for dramatically increased strict gun laws is over.

[Kellhound]

What do you think of mine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bateman

The demand for guns is entirely driven by corporations wanting money. What NRA does, is equivalent to writing Christ is coming on an egg, then shoving it back up a chicken. Must send money or it’s doomsday... it’s prophetic...

- - - Updated - - -



Obviously, we need NKA... an NRA for knives... There should be a mass corporate push to stop this inflammatory attempt at banning knives. If knives don’t see support from us, these people trying to ban knives, will get their way. How do you cut bread with a gun? Better learn... NKA needs to get chefs and cooks... all dressed in the most ridiculous attire for the job, to start crying on social media...

What about toasters killing people, not just guns and knives? Fine... let’s get a NTA going... put up house wives crying they are not killers and only want to make toast.

Let’s roll... let’s ban everything, just so we can regulate guns. Any time some is saying other weapons or even house hold items are just as deadly, just agree that those should be banned. Let’s see how many things we can ban, in the name of freedom to own a gun.

- - - Updated - - -



Why do you care to have more people murdered? Why is that a priority?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and in case people ask... how do I hunt without a gun? I use an iPad and have it delivered... but, if I did... I wouldn’t hunt with an AR 15... it would be an AK 47... I protect my home with knives and toasters... because I don’t care what weapon I use to kill the intruder.

- - - Updated - - -



How many of those knife killings were random, while people were doing normal every day things, without knowing the assailant?

I do enjoy the argument that there is nothing a gun does, that any other object can’t do... yet it’s more important than any of said objects. But, fine... let’s regulate guns, then we will regulate knives... deal?

Why isn’t there a constitutional amendment that permits ownership of knives? They had them at the time... Was this lack of foresight? Did US founding fathers not realize that a gun and a knife are equally easy to kil with?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry to keep adding to it, but... I got a question...

How do ya’ll choose who you donate your money to? NRA, GOP or Trump? How do you choose which of the 3 will succeed more in saving western civilization, through a barrel of a gun?

If on top of my expenses, I had to contribute to an organization embezzling millions, a political party whose economic policy sounds like tepid golden showers for 98% of Americans, or a billionaire grifter... I don’t know... maybe I’d be blaming cartoons for being woke, since that’s why I’d be broke... maybe I’d complain about dogs shitting... I don’t know... so many things to blame.

That would depend on how you define random, and the question is valid for all murders.
I prefer the regulation of murder over the regulation of items, especially when more people are killed without a weapon than with the weapon people are trying to regulate (AR-15s and similar scary looking rifles).

Technically, the 2nd does cover bladed weapons as they are arms.

The cost to get The American Rifleman is about the same as most yearly subscriptions, so it is not really a donation. I don't give money to political parties, and I never have supported Trump. The only reason I'm "broke" is the large number of very expensive hobbies I have.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. And the United States has had 126 this year.


Doesn't matter. People are being slaughtered by mass shootings using guns in the U.S. and no where else. The conversation on the need for dramatically increased strict gun laws is over.

So, you admit you lied when you said mass shootings only happen in the US.

[cubby]

So, you admit you lied when you said mass shootings only happen in the US.

You NRA whores are just adorable. Focusing on all the wrong issue, letting more and more people die.

I misspoke, and all the thinking people know that, because they can draw conclusions from other statements. For instance, when I asked about the last five non-U.S. mass shootings. Or do you have trouble piecing things together and drawing conclusions from evidence?

(I will try some civility - I've heard good things about it - my apologies)

Let's try a different tact:

If you were forced to shore up the gun laws, if you had to, what would you do? I promise not to use this against you later. If you want, I can do the same, conversely.

Edit: the above question is legit though

[Felya]

Nice intentional misrepresentation.

It is?

Again, shooting vs bombing vs any other type of killing/death doesn't really matter to me. The fact that people get murdered is all I care about.

That means you don’t care... this means that you are not going to stand up to gun violence, because you don’t care about victims. You care about the gun... you only care about the weapon used. You’d be demanding a nanny state, where you can’t even buy a knife, if this was about lives.

I don't care to have more people murdered, but I'm also not willing to go to the Nth degree to make sure we have 100% success by limiting the freedoms of absolutely everyone. I value freedom over small statistical outliars. Mass shootings are statistical outliars. Maybe if they were as big a problem as handguns I'd care more, but I would be a billionaire if I had 5 cents for each thing that killed < 1000 people a year.

Like I said... you care about murdered people, but guns are more important... How did I misrepresent it, exactly?

I am sorry if you take issue with me saying carrying about owning a gun, means you don’t care about dead people. Rest assured, when people claim they care about murdered people, but you should be able to own a table. I am in complete justification in saying you don’t care about murdered people, because tables are a motherfucking inanimate object.

Sorry, freedom means shit when you are dead... the dead won’t rise up and be like... at least they were free to kill us...

- - - Updated - - -

That would depend on how you define random, and the question is valid for all murders.

By lack of familiarity with the victims... as in... going to a store and pooping off at random people. You are not ESL... this is a bullshit tact...

[Kellhound]

You NRA whores are just adorable. Focusing on all the wrong issue, letting more and more people die.

I misspoke, and all the thinking people know that, because they can draw conclusions from other statements. For instance, when I asked about the last five non-U.S. mass shootings. Or do you have trouble piecing things together and drawing conclusions from evidence?

(I will try some civility - I've heard good things about it - my apologies)

Let's try a different tact:

If you were forced to shore up the gun laws, if you had to, what would you do? I promise not to use this against you later. If you want, I can do the same, conversely.

Edit: the above question is legit though

Just a recommendation, don't deal in absolutes.

I have no problem with universal shall issue background checks with time limits to prevent them being used as de facto prohibitions.
Violent felon in possession should be made life in prison no parole as they are showing they are a continued threat.
Attempting to purchase, even if blocked, should count as "in possession".
I am ok with red flag laws so long as the state has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt for any amount of time exceeding 3 months in a year. Also, the intentional false reporting of the need of one should be a felony, with no qualified immunity.

- - - Updated - - -

By lack of familiarity with the victims... as in... going to a store and pooping off at random people. You are not ESL... this is a bullshit tact...

So, if I randomly rob someone and stab them in the process that would count as a random murder, yes?

[cubby]

It is?



That means you don’t care... this means that you are not going to stand up to gun violence, because you don’t care about victims. You care about the gun... you only care about the weapon used. You’d be demanding a nanny state, where you can’t even buy a knife, if this was about lives.



Like I said... you care about murdered people, but guns are more important... How did I misrepresent it, exactly?

I am sorry if you take issue with me saying carrying about owning a gun, means you don’t care about dead people. Rest assured, when people claim they care about murdered people, but you should be able to own a table. I am in complete justification in saying you don’t care about murdered people, because tables are a motherfucking inanimate object.

Sorry, freedom means shit when you are dead... the dead won’t rise up and be like... at least they were free to kill us...

- - - Updated - - -



By lack of familiarity with the victims... as in... going to a store and pooping off at random people. You are not ESL... this is a bullshit tact...

I generally see the NRA crowd, and those that inadvertently defend them, attempt to pick the argument to death, as we see above (not you, but who you responded to and others). They nitpick an issue, "it's magazine not clip", and obtusely ignore the bigger picture.

The United States has more mass SHOOTINGS than any other country. No nitpicking issue can deny this immense FACT.

And the worse part is that those that do have feelings both ways, could help shape proper stringent gun control legislation, so that buying a gun isn't easier than voting; but instead they nitpick and deny and rationalize horror. And at some point we're going to hit a tipping point, and they're going to lose, when all the while they could have helped us all win.

[Edge-]

So, if I randomly rob someone and stab them in the process that would count as a random murder, yes?

...by your own definition, yes.

[Mayhem]

Violent felon in possession should be made life in prison no parole as they are showing they are a continued threat.

Really? You'd trust the government with deciding who is a violent felon and then after doing their time denying them their right to defend themselves?

Interesting

[Spectral]

Let's try a different tact:

If you were forced to shore up the gun laws, if you had to, what would you do? I promise not to use this against you later. If you want, I can do the same, conversely.

Edit: the above question is legit though

I'm not who you asked, strict prohibition on felons owning firearms with possession thereafter typically resulting in a life sentence in prison would be at the top of my list for tighter restrictions that I would have no real objection to. Treating firearm possession while committing any other crime more severely than we presently do would be fine. Treating possession in spaces that prohibit firearms as a very serious matter (typically a felony) would be appropriate in my view.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? You'd trust the government with deciding who is a violent felon and then after doing their time denying them their right to defend themselves?

Interesting

Yes, for the most part, I think people with violent felonies on their record have demonstrated their unfitness to be armed going forward. The error rate isn't zero, but if we're already in the business of infringing on the rights to arms, we can accomplish much more by disarming people who have already shown themselves to be violent than by restricting arbitrary features on firearms owned by millions.

- - - Updated - - -

... so that buying a gun isn't easier than voting...

I don't see how anyone who has both purchased a firearm and voted could possibly find their firearm purchase to be easier. Do you want to defend that position or is it just a rhetorical flourish?

[Mayhem]

Yes, for the most part, I think people with violent felonies on their record have demonstrated their unfitness to be armed going forward. The error rate isn't zero, but if we're already in the business of infringing on the rights to arms, we can accomplish much more by disarming people who have already shown themselves to be violent than by restricting arbitrary features on firearms owned by millions.

Ok, quick question, who decides what a violent crime is? hint hint nudge nudge

I see you would be in favor of treating possession in spaces that prohibit firearms as a very serious matter. So what if the government decided all public spaces would fall under that category?

And, I don't know how often it has to be stated but the arbitrary features restriction is because every meaningful regulation is met with "but muh 2nd amendment right!"

I don't see how anyone who has both purchased a firearm and voted could possibly find their firearm purchase to be easier.

Do you always need to register for buying a firearm?

[Spectral]

Ok, quick question, who decides what a violent crime is? hint hint nudge nudge

I don't know what you're getting at here. Obviously the relevant district defines what constitutes a violent felony.

I see you would be in favor of treating possession in spaces that prohibit firearms as a very serious matter. So what if the government decided all public spaces would fall under that category?

Public meaning government property? Sure, I'm not opposed to that.

And, I don't know how often it has to be stated but the arbitrary features restriction is because every meaningful regulation is met with "but muh 2nd amendment right!"

Again, I'm not clear what you're getting at here. Are you saying that the reason for bizarre restrictions on things like how many rail accessories is too many are a product of the regulators wanting to just ban firearms in general, but not being able to?

Do you always need to register for buying a firearm?

You have a background check run each time you purchase one. In quite a few states, there's a lot more to the process, but even states with relatively liberal gun laws typically include both the FBI NICS check and DoJ approval for handguns (just the FBI check for long guns). Voter registration in all states I've lived in has been a single registration per place of residence. From personal experience, I would describe voting as easier than buying a gun, although both are simple and straightforward enough that any mentally competent adult will have no trouble doing either.