Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Anyone visiting Chicago is just better off not going any further south than Comiskey Park/US Cellular

I think I went there once recently and I think we saw someone with no legs begging. That..was probably enough for me(I'm very very paranoid in cities).

[likerofballs]

I dont get how people dont understand shall not be infringed means

- - - Updated - - -

Assault rifles should be allowed because the people deserve a way to properly defend them selves from a tyranical government, even if it is unlikely, those who say what about mass shootings? All you need is a hand gun or 2 and a few extra clips it takes like 2 seconds 2 reload a hand gun, or you could use a shotgun and do just as much damage.
Stricter laws dont effect criminals they dont care about laws or life in the first place you only hurt the ones who follow the laws in the first place why do you think they pick gun free zones? Cause they know they have free.reign for the 5 minutes or so till the police get there cause people were allowing the law. And you dont need a gun to mass kill in a place like a school, if you recall in china a dude killed 22 kids in school with a knife not a gun a knife it isnt the tool thats at fault its the user, a gun wont kill someone till a person makes the choice to kill

[Deleted]

I dont get how people dont understand shall not be infringed means

- - - Updated - - -

Assault rifles should be allowed because the people deserve a way to properly defend them selves from a tyranical government, even if it is unlikely, those who say what about mass shootings? All you need is a hand gun or 2 and a few extra clips it takes like 2 seconds 2 reload a hand gun, or you could use a shotgun and do just as much damage.
Stricter laws dont effect criminals they dont care about laws or life in the first place you only hurt the ones who follow the laws in the first place why do you think they pick gun free zones? Cause they know they have free.reign for the 5 minutes or so till the police get there cause people were allowing the law. And you dont need a gun to mass kill in a place like a school, if you recall in china a dude killed 22 kids in school with a knife not a gun a knife it isnt the tool thats at fault its the user, a gun wont kill someone till a person makes the choice to kill

Not sure if serious...

[Xuvial]

And you dont need a gun to mass kill in a place like a school, if you recall in china a dude killed 22 kids in school with a knife not a gun a knife it isnt the tool thats at fault its the user, a gun wont kill someone till a person makes the choice to kill

He killed 3 kids and wounded 13, cite your sources.

Nothing changes the fact that if a deranged teenager wants to inflict maximum body-count with relative ease, a gun is the way to go. A simple handgun is enough to kill 10-15 people easily, an assault rifle inflicts even more damage without needing to reload as often.
In the history of mankind there has never been an easier, simpler, cheaper or more efficient way for SINGLE person to commit entire massacres upon innocent people whenever/wherever they feel like it.

Are you seriously comparing it to knives? With a knife You have to literally run up to your target (or chase them down), use physical force to drive the blade into them, and hope they don't stop/dodge you - there's a high chance you won't do much more than wound them at best. You're also going to have a tough time wounding/killing more than 1 person, because everyone else will just run the hell away. Or you're going to get taken-down by someone bigger/stronger than you, shortly before the cops arrive.
I'd love to see a 14 yr old attempting to "knife" his way out of getting grabbed and beaten senseless by full-grown adults.

With a gun he wouldn't have that problem, things become far simpler and easier.

[PhaelixWW]

Nothing changes the fact that if a deranged teenager wants to inflict maximum body-count with relative ease, a gun is the way to go. A simple handgun is enough to kill 10-15 people easily, an assault rifle inflicts even more damage without needing to reload as often.

Magazine size has nothing to do with what type of firearm it is. There are 30-round and drum magazines available for handguns as well. "Assault weapons" are just harder to conceal, which should make them less potentially dangerous in these situations than handguns.

Couple that with the fact that handgun calibers are typically larger and heavier and will do more damage at the kinds of short ranges that most shootings will take place at, and you start to understand why 90% of all gun homicide is via handgun, and only about 4% is from rifles of any kind, let alone "assault weapons".

I should also point out, not that all of this hasn't been said ad nauseam, that reloading is usually not an issue, since most shooters aren't faced with crowds of 15+ people at a time. If your hypothetical "deranged teenager" came across groups of 5-10 people at a time, that'd offer plenty of opportunity to reload between instead of during.

[likerofballs]

And your wrong about guns being the only way to do mass damage look at the boston bombing, it can be easyer to make a bomb then trying to get a gun and ammo and do way way way more damage brah assault rifles are not cheep bty brah they are expensive and also in newtown or w/e he didnt empty his clips maybe half of each then reloaded thats about 15 shots a few more then a handgun

[Nakura Chambers]

Interestingly enough, a poll today indicates that support for more strict gun control actually went down after the Navy yard shooting in Washington this week.

Only 44% support stricter gun control laws versus 50% who oppose.

And look, the media completely ignores this. But no, the media isn't biased or anything. Clearly Kim Kardashian and Miley Cyrus are more important than our civil liberties.

[Wells]

And look, the media completely ignores this. But no, the media isn't biased or anything. Clearly Kim Kardashian and Miley Cyrus are more important than our civil liberties.

How is a failure to report on a given poll evidence of bias?

[lockedout]

How is a failure to report on a given poll evidence of bias?

When the poll contradicts your point of view.

[Eroginous]

Clearly Kim Kardashian and Miley Cyrus are more important than our civil liberties.

They clearly are! Did you not see Kim K's new baby or Miley Cyrus twerking at the VMAs?

[THE Bigzoman]

They clearly are! Did you not see Kim K's new baby or Miley Cyrus twerking at the VMAs?

Everyone was so focused on Miley Cyrus I was convinced Obama would attack Syria during it all.

[NYC17]

How is a failure to report on a given poll evidence of bias?

Rasmussen is everything!

[Themerlin]

If we banned guns...how would we support our war mongering culture?

I mean I want more incarcerations, I want more prisons built, and I want our taxes to support arm's manufacturers around the world.

Let it be done.

This way I would feel safer at home, knowing my children are in the best possible hands...




Keep the mass shootings coming, the madness that permeates the US around this subject is intoxicating to the rest of the world.

[PhaelixWW]

Rasmussen is everything!

Or you could just look at multiple polls, too.

Rasmussen poll (9/19): 44%, down from 52% in February.
YouGov poll (9/17): 48%, down from 60% in January.
Gallup poll (9/20): 49%, down from 58% in December.

[Wells]

That's interesting, though not surprising, that Rasmussen was lower on both sets, granted the second set could have just been the trend.

[NYC17]

Or you could just look at multiple polls, too.

Rasmussen poll (9/19): 44%, down from 52% in February.
YouGov poll (9/17): 48%, down from 60% in January.
Gallup poll (9/20): 49%, down from 58% in December.

I could, but I don't particularly care. The gun control debate has reached a point where common sense doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's not very interesting who supports gun control on which month or after which shooting. The issue isn't solvable as long as people value weapons more than they do life itself. There's going to be a point in the distant future for this country in which private ownership of firearms will be a memory. It's inevitable.

I'm fairly indifferent on the overall gun issue. I do laugh when people cry about their rights every time someone so much as mentions a regulation though. I'm entirely unsympathetic to the idea of absolutes.

[Dillon]

I could, but I don't particularly care. The gun control debate has reached a point where common sense doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's not very interesting who supports gun control on which month or after which shooting. The issue isn't solvable as long as people value weapons more than they do life itself. There's going to be a point in the distant future for this country in which private ownership of firearms will be a memory. It's inevitable.

I'm fairly indifferent on the overall gun issue. I do laugh when people cry about their rights every time someone so much as mentions a regulation though. I'm entirely unsympathetic to the idea of absolutes.

That's a fairly arrogant and dramatic reduction of reality, not to mention that the only real inevitability of government is that it grows too big for its britches.

[NYC17]

That's a fairly arrogant and dramatic reduction of reality, not to mention that the only real inevitability of government is that it grows too big for its britches.

It's an entirely accurate assessment of reality. When you boil it down to the cold hard truth, individuals care about their own rights, or perception of their rights, than they do someone else's. In their minds, their right to bear arms supersedes someone else's right not be killed by one, otherwise this wouldn't even be a debate.

What exactly does your diatribe about the "inevitably of government" have to do with the inevitability of the future of firearm ownership? It's simply not a sustainable policy.

[PhaelixWW]

The issue isn't solvable as long as people value weapons more than they do life itself. There's going to be a point in the distant future for this country in which private ownership of firearms will be a memory. It's inevitable.

I'm entirely unsympathetic to the idea of absolutes.

The second quote seems pretty disingenuous, considering that the first quote is pretty absolute: an absolute view of one side and an absolute belief in the inevitability of the future.

[Grizzly Willy]

It's an entirely accurate assessment of reality. When you boil it down to the cold hard truth, individuals care about their own rights, or perception of their rights, than they do someone else's. In their minds, their right to bear arms supersedes someone else's right not be killed by one, otherwise this wouldn't even be a debate.

Does one's right to ownership conflict with one's right not to be killed by one?