Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PenguinChan]

Outside of awful neighborhoods, is there really any viable reason to owning a gun? AFAIK in most mass shootings those with self defense guns didn’t or couldn’t do anything about what was happening.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Outside of awful neighborhoods, is there really any viable reason to owning a gun? AFAIK in most mass shootings those with self defense guns didn’t or couldn’t do anything about what was happening.

Hunting for food, Target Shooting for sport, Collecting and Shooting for entertainment.

As to self defense, it depends on what you mean, even a conceal/carry isn't a license to pull out a gun anywhere and everywhere and fire. Even in emergency situations in defense of others. Because some states that have conceal/carry like when I got mine in Minnesota, do NOT have stand your ground laws that protect you.

Even in states that have CC and SYG remember you would still have to justify the use of deadly force. If it's not in defense of YOUR life or that of loved ones specifically and totally you can be prosecuted.

And yes there have been cases where people have used fire arms in the situations you suggest, but I would say that until more recent it hasn't been given as much attention.

My guess is with the level of active mass shootings and with laws changing people very likely might feel comfortable legally to act with a gun in defense of others. Right now that is just the police.

[PenguinChan]

Hunting for food, Target Shooting for sport, Collecting and Shooting for entertainment.

As to self defense, it depends on what you mean, even a conceal/carry isn't a license to pull out a gun anywhere and everywhere and fire. Even in emergency situations in defense of others. Because some states that have conceal/carry like when I got mine in Minnesota, do NOT have stand your ground laws that protect you.

Even in states that have CC and SYG remember you would still have to justify the use of deadly force. If it's not in defense of YOUR life or that of loved ones specifically and totally you can be prosecuted.

And yes there have been cases where people have used fire arms in the situations you suggest, but I would say that until more recent it hasn't been given as much attention.

My guess is with the level of active mass shootings and with laws changing people very likely might feel comfortable legally to act with a gun in defense of others. Right now that is just the police.

Yeah you’re right, hunting rifles seem to be valid for sport and hunting. But I’m not really talking about weapons used in controlled spaces like gun ranges and sports. Excluding rifles meant for hunting, obviously.

And yeah I get what you mean, people sometimes do try to fight back. But I’ve not heard about one instance of that being successful. Or how those who had weapons on them were killed in mass shootings, not even pulled out. Sad, of course.

As to self defense: I was more referring to at home usage, things to protect yourself against robbers and such. Out and about is different, obviously. But true, depending on the state using your weapon for actual self defense can be shaky. Which I also find odd, when you’re able to get a self defense weapon but then get punished for using it. I’d think those states would be wholly for pro-gun laws (even if I’m not).

[Doctor Amadeus]

I would say the smart argument for gun control is probably in the last paragraph you mentioned. I would honestly say self defense in and of itself depending on most situations can be a bad idea, or taking on more trouble than anything else.

The truth is plenty of hand guns are owned and never used in the very life and death situations they were bought. A lot of reasons account for it, but mostly in my opinion based on my experience, it goes to people buying guns for the wrong reasons or with the wrong idea behind ownership. I think of it much like the Hollywood Movie influence much like when it comes to Super Sports Cars. Like 90% of the people who are going to buy them are probably not going to use them in the way they imagined, and the rest might just enough to again buy more trouble than they are worth.

I have owned firearms all my life, they aren’t a status symbol or statement, I am not romantically attracted to tools mainly designed to take human life. Nope, it's just that, a tool, but a tool that takes a lot of responsibility and respect.

I am not Clint Eastwood, it's not a license to be a bad ass either, I would never whip one out and wave it around for effect, I would never pull a fire arm unless I am going to use it for exactly why I bought it, which is to protect me and the lives of my family. In that vein I would never us it unless I intend to kill who I am shooting period. There is no warning shots or wounding people like in films.

90% of ALL the gun owners whether I liked them, agreed or disagreed with them on anything are pretty much the same. Including enthusiast.


Unfortunately too many younger and NEW fire arms owners are NOT like this at all.

Many of whom treat owning a gun like a status symbol or prop for their lack of intelligence or in many cases manhood.


And MOST that I know of who will end up with some kind of accident or trouble fall into that category.


Owning a gun in my view should require the right mentality first for owning them, even if it's for fun.

Fire Arms Training should be a Must, along with education, if a person actually doesn't perceive a situation they go into NOT needing a gun, it's much better to take seriously why one has to go into that situation or even if they should.

If it's for a profession or a business and protection, then again, it should be with the understanding and respect I mentioned.


I would hope nobody ever WANTS to have to kill someone, but at the same time if you own a gun you better be prepared to do so and consider everything that goes along with that seriously.

[cubby]

Maybe you could try to move the discussion on by, oh, I dunno, answering the actual question that was posed? I keep trying to urge you to honest discourse, and you keep resisting it.

Actually, you keep lying about his postings, over and over again. If you had ever bothered to actually read any of Endus' posts, you would know that he in fact does answer "the actual question that was posed", over and over again.

What you don't like, and in fact have a deep and borderline psychotic hatred of, is that he's not only right a lot of the time, but his insight can even make people like you question your foundations.

So stop with your personal attacks on Endus and other posters, and get on the topic of actually presenting a position and defending it.

- - - Updated - - -

So are we finally in the stage of this thread where we have to talk about pointless technical terms again that do nothing but change the topic to something gun folks know something about?

The comparison to other countries should be so eye-opening that it could cure blindness, but here we are talking about semi-automatic firearms.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/u...rnd/index.html

288 school shootings within 11 years

so as this is from 2018, wonder how many happened since

2019: 24
2020: 10
2021: 34

2022: 27 so far

yeah, so, do all the other countries have no what is it, what could be the glaring difference between all of these countries?

I hear you say but drug cartels, but organized crime, but drugs and I raise you second place in school shootings since 2009:

Mexico: 8

Alright, let's continue to talk about semi-automatic weapons and magazines and idk

This. Precisely. Should be the only conversation we have about gun control. But people like @PhaelixWW can't handle the real conversation, so they dive into irrelevant definition arguments that completely ignore the social policy issues.

For instance: why is the U.S. the only country that suffers from these mass shootings?

You notice how none of the 2A defenders can answer that question?

[MCMLXXXII]

Yeah but you guys no nuttin bout guns technicalities so unqualified to talk bout second 'mendment

[cubby]

Yeah but you guys no nuttin bout guns technicalities so unqualified to talk bout second 'mendment

Lol, exactly.

I still haven't heard even a reasonably decent argument why we shouldn't ban all firearms except single bolt-action rifles and revolvers. Most other countries do it and their gun crime is non-existent. Look at Australia....

[MCMLXXXII]

Lol, exactly.

I still haven't heard even a reasonably decent argument why we shouldn't ban all firearms except single bolt-action rifles and revolvers. Most other countries do it and their gun crime is non-existent. Look at Australia....

But I need my AR-15 to shoot groundhogs from my lawn.

[Mayhem]

But I need my AR-15 to shoot groundhogs from my lawn.

This one guy recommends AR-15 on this one website from years ago, also in mass shootings guns are way more often used so no need to ban AR-15 because they are needed yes but not needed yes.

Schroedinger's firearm, excellent and pointless at what it does, and please ignore the point I just made against guns.

[Draco-Onis]

Stronger firearm regulation won't prevent every firearm crime ever, so what's the point?

Or other countries are just statistical anomalies, or handguns are more likely to be used so they should be banned and not A-R's. . .

Strong murder laws won't prevent every murder ever, so what's the point?

I can go on but I hope you see the ludicrousness of that logic, the point of laws and regulation is not to stop every single instance.

[Draco-Onis]

I was being hyperbolic about the defences against stronger gun laws when the target is to try and curb mass-shooting issues, but rereading it does sound genuine, so I can understand the confusion.

My apologies I thought it was genuine because gun defender do use that line consistently.

[Mayhem]

Stronger firearm regulation won't prevent every firearm crime ever, so what's the point?

Or other countries are just statistical anomalies, or handguns are more likely to be used so they should be banned and not A-R's. . .

That's a great point, all the other countries are statistical outliers. That must be it.

[Attackrabbit]

I'm sure there's been more but in my lifetime I remember 4 mass shootings in the UK, Hungerford which led to the banning of assault rifles and large mag shotguns, Dunblane which added handguns to the banned list, Derek Bird and last years Plymouth shootings were (mostly) shotgun attacks so hopefully we'll see better controls on those in the near future. I don't remember any protests over the changes in gun laws, they were common sense responses to horrific incidents and I really don't know what is so hard to understand about that and why anyone would be against them :s

[Armael]

I'm sure there's been more but in my lifetime I remember 4 mass shootings in the UK, Hungerford which led to the banning of assault rifles and large mag shotguns, Dunblane which added handguns to the banned list, Derek Bird and last years Plymouth shootings were (mostly) shotgun attacks so hopefully we'll see better controls on those in the near future. I don't remember any protests over the changes in gun laws, they were common sense responses to horrific incidents and I really don't know what is so hard to understand about that and why anyone would be against them :s

Because they don't have a 2A stating it's their god given right to own a firearm(s).

[Mayhem]

Because they don't have a 2A stating it's their god given right to own a firearm(s).

Can't tell if serious.

[Armael]

People in the US protest even before any such measures are taken. They would for sure protest if any restrictive law did get passed. They'd say the 2A guarantees it to them. In Great Britain they have no such thing as a 2A, so no real merit to protest the measures. I didn't think I had to explain it.

[Linkedblade]

So are we finally in the stage of this thread where we have to talk about pointless technical terms again that do nothing but change the topic to something gun folks know something about?

The comparison to other countries should be so eye-opening that it could cure blindness, but here we are talking about semi-automatic firearms.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/u...rnd/index.html

288 school shootings within 11 years

so as this is from 2018, wonder how many happened since

2019: 24
2020: 10
2021: 34

2022: 27 so far

yeah, so, do all the other countries have no what is it, what could be the glaring difference between all of these countries?

I hear you say but drug cartels, but organized crime, but drugs and I raise you second place in school shootings since 2009:

Mexico: 8

Alright, let's continue to talk about semi-automatic weapons and magazines and idk

No, need to. Guns are harder now than ever to get. "High capacity" magazines have been commonplace since the 1930's. Full automatic rifles were available in the 1940's through to the 1960's. And those rifles, like the M1 Carbine were commonplace, caliber .30 carbine, and 30 rd magazines were available.

Points that are not arguable:

1) The US has always had a preponderance of firearms.
2) Semi-auto firearms with high capacity magazines have been available for the better part of a century. See the M1911 or M1 Carbine.
3) Firearms are harder to get now than any point in the past.
4) There is a growing number of mass shootings on soft targets.

So, what has changed more recently? And what is causing them?

Can we agree that the guns are not causing these incidents?

[Edge-]

2) Semi-auto firearms with high capacity magazines have been available for the better part of a century. See the M1911 or M1 Carbine.

Out of curiosity, do we have much in the way of information on how many folks owned these types of weapons before mass shootings were a regular thing, vs. now?

I've actually been interested to find out about this, since the, "These kinds of weapons aren't new!" line of discussion seems based on the notion that because similar weapons have been available for a long time that we've seen similar levels of ownership of those weapons. But I honestly don't quite know where to even start looking for that kind of data.

[Linkedblade]

Out of curiosity, do we have much in the way of information on how many folks owned these types of weapons before mass shootings were a regular thing, vs. now?

I've actually been interested to find out about this, since the, "These kinds of weapons aren't new!" line of discussion seems based on the notion that because similar weapons have been available for a long time that we've seen similar levels of ownership of those weapons. But I honestly don't quite know where to even start looking for that kind of data.

I'd be hard pressed to find sales data for them. The 1911 came out in 1912 and was made by many manufacturers and came in many calibers. They were mostly for the civilian market. The military kept them in usage until the 80s/90s and the military combined accounts for over 4 million of them, many of which are either destroyed or sold as surplus to the civilian market. Similar situation for the M1, except it was replaced in the 60s.

I also have to add, that all you had to do to acquire a firearm in the 60s, was to rip out the ad in a magazine, fill it in and mail away like $40. No background checks, no ID, just send money and wait for the delivery.

[Endus]

No, need to. Guns are harder now than ever to get. "High capacity" magazines have been commonplace since the 1930's. Full automatic rifles were available in the 1940's through to the 1960's. And those rifles, like the M1 Carbine were commonplace, caliber .30 carbine, and 30 rd magazines were available.

Points that are not arguable:

1) The US has always had a preponderance of firearms.
2) Semi-auto firearms with high capacity magazines have been available for the better part of a century. See the M1911 or M1 Carbine.
3) Firearms are harder to get now than any point in the past.
4) There is a growing number of mass shootings on soft targets.

So, what has changed more recently? And what is causing them?

Can we agree that the guns are not causing these incidents?

#3 is not a position you've made any real effort to justify. Given that I can point to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 as an example of a period when some weapons would have been harder to get, I can't see that it's a reasonable claim at all. Especially since there was a decline of firearms violence and mass shootings in that same decade.

So no. We can't agree on your conclusion, because the guns are the primary variable that correlates.

It's also framed dishonestly; no one is saying the guns themselves are directly causing these incidents, but that they're risk factors that increase prevalence by making it easier for potential offenders to act on their impulses.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...uns-and-death/

In short; more guns = more homicides. They're the variable.