Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

It's up to the constituents to determine what will best help their personal situation, and then up to the politician to act on it, so long as it abides by the constitution. Whether or not the ban lowered crime rates is ultimately irrelevant.

You do know that the legislative process doesn't actually work like this. The specifics are never decided by the constituents.

[Zoneseek]

It amazes me that people in the US actually care to own an assault rifle. How does that bring value to your life? Wtf are you going to use it for in your personal life? If you believe you should have the right to own an assault rifle, does it bother you that you do not have the right to own a nuclear weapon? Where does it end?

The biggest question is why did I even spend the 30 seconds reading a few posts into this thread

[Daelak]

We are talking about millions of people with weapons, not one. Do you read any history on similar things in the past? Do you not think that millions if people with weapons would make the gov't think twice about certain decisions? I was in the military for 20 years and in suburban fighting, the civilians are very hard to kill especially any large number of them working in unison. I have been involved in wars where this amazing 21st century military you talk of was held to a stand still because the civilians were armed. It isn't as easy as you think and you can't take out a city block in america which is what the US is good at in wars in other countries.

Ever watch something like Red Dawn or Somolia? Rangers, special forces killed by people with little to no military training taking out black hawks with simple rpg's. And that is nothing compared to a lot of ex-soldier's and people who are highly trained across america, hundred of thousands of people.

My only point is that people armed especially with very good weapons are much harder to control than people without them. That is it. I don't care to try and change anyone's mind or view's.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 10:29 PM ----------



Soldier's aren't going to kill americans. This may suprise some but this conversation has come up numerous times while I was in the military and I never had anyone say yes i would go into a american home and kill them if I was told to. Soldier's are just people doing a job but they still have some common sense and ethics, we aren't perfect in anyway but I have yet to run into anyone including some seal's we trained with in San Diego that would assinate americans.

The American military can kill millions of people within minutes. They can fire missiles from hundreds, if not thousands of miles away. They have satellites, they have drones, they have trained killers. Again, if they wanted to quell a rebellion, they can.

And just because you wouldn't fire on an American, doesn't mean there aren't other Americans in the military would do what they were told because they thought they were on the right side.

War is Hell, especially a 21st century war against the US military against a civilian-militia. At least it would be short.

[isadorr]

I understand that emotional reactions are not ideal, but when are we allowed to put forward gun legislation without it being labeled political? Should we wait a few months? What happens if there's another mass shooting at that time? Do we have to restart the waiting period?



It's up to the constituents to determine what will best help their personal situation, and then up to the politician to act on it, so long as it abides by the constitution. Whether or not the ban lowered crime rates is ultimately irrelevant.

4% of gun death's in 2012 were from assault weapons. So why would you target them? If am trying to solve a problem I have to look at what is the problem. I would have to look at the other 96% before I looked at the 4% as the problem. This sounds more like a law targeting militia than it does the average american. Who owns the majority of assault rifles in america besides the military? In my experience, the militia own a massive amount of assault rifles that would be deemed illegal to own disarming them of a large majority of their weapons. So is this assault ban targeting the average crazy guy killing people(even though the assault rifle was found in the trunk of his car and never fired) or the militia? Just speculation and curious as to what people think.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 10:40 PM ----------

The American military can kill millions of people within minutes. They can fire missiles from hundreds, if not thousands of miles away. They have satellites, they have drones, they have trained killers. Again, if they wanted to quell a rebellion, they can.

And just because you wouldn't fire on an American, doesn't mean there aren't other Americans in the military would do what they were told because they thought they were on the right side.

War is Hell, especially a 21st century war against the US military against a civilian-militia. At least it would be short.

How would american's owning assault rifles be labled a rebellion? You could work in FOx News. So in your version of reality the US would fire tomahawks and drones on american neighborhoods because people owned assault rifles? THis coming from someone who was never in the military for a day let alone 20 years giving me a lecture on the workings of the military and the people. How enlightening.

[Kraenen]

should we all have nuclear bombs?

[Daelak]

No, not that i know of. Every politician has their own agenda that they push. I never mentioned any insidious plan and I never meant it that way, I was just being lazy in my reply. That is all I meant, he is a politican so just because he doesnt have to worry about a election doesn't mean that he doesnt have other agenda's to push.

Thank god, I thought you were another one of them. Well yea everyone has an agenda, but I don't think gun control is that important, to anyone in government. Its just window dressing, on both sides, no one really gives a shit, everyone keeps their guns, and watching the 30 second clips of middle easterners blowing themselves up in American occupied lands.

[Deleted]

War is Hell, especially a 21st century war against the US military against a civilian-militia. At least it would be short.

Short like the War in afghanistan which has continued for over a decade? Or Iraq which is still completely fucked up?

[Deadvolcanoes]

You do know that the legislative process doesn't actually work like this. The specifics are never decided by the constituents.

Who is talking about specifics. The constituents want tougher gun laws, and that's what they're getting.

[Daelak]

Short like the War in afghanistan which has continued for over a decade? Or Iraq which is still completely fucked up?

They would have a defined enemy, "militia-patriots" or something like that. I think they would be more inclined to use drones and naval strikes before we sent in infantry to kill the "patriot" ringleaders.

[Deleted]

Who is talking about specifics. The constituents want tougher gun laws, and that's what they're getting.

That's my whole point. The people cry "think of the children, make tougher gun laws". And what do the politicians do? Introduce gun laws that do not actually "help the children".

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 10:45 PM ----------

They would have a defined enemy, "militia-patriots" or something like that. I think they would be more inclined to use drones and naval strikes before we sent in infantry to kill the "patriot" ringleaders.

/facepalm.

This has to be a joke.

Why would the enemy be any more defined than in Afghanistan or Iraq?

[Deadvolcanoes]

That's my whole point. The people cry "think of the children, make tougher gun laws". And what do the politicians do? Introduce gun laws that do not actually "help the children"

Actually its the combination of more research into mental health, more registration and tracking, and tighter regulation, which is what they are proposing.

And how do we measure the amount of mass shootings that didn't happen as a result of an assault weapon ban? For all we know, 100 people intended to buy them, and cause harm, but couldn't. It's kind of a useless exercise.

[Deleted]

And how do we measure the amount of mass shootings that didn't happen as a result of an assault weapon ban? For all we know, 100 people intended to buy them, and cause harm, but couldn't. It's kind of a useless exercise.

More like 100 people intended to buy guns with pistol grip but had to get guns without and still carried out their act.

[Penguintamer]

Nobody needs an assault rifle in their home.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Nobody needs an assault rifle in their home.

Assault rifles are selective fire weapons, of which the manufacture for civilian use has been halted and is illegal. They are tightly regulated by the ATF.

I think you meant assault weapon.

[Seranthor]

Then it's probably a good thing I never said it was. Try to keep up.

I refuted the claim that "ALL GUNZZ" are going to be banned. It's not even close to accurate, and I provided evidence from Feinsteins own bill, which exempts over 900 models.

People also forget, the Supreme Court has ruled that "reasonable restrictions" on firearms are constitutional.



This is actually a big deal for gun collectors, so yeah. Yay!

If you have the full text of her proposed bill, (not the summary) the full text, then present it... otherwise, truthfully, you don't know what the hell is in the bill. So, how can you truthfully say what is NOT in the bill?

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 05:22 PM ----------

Why not? At least something positive will have come out of that horrible event.

if infringing the rights of 310 million people is 'positive' and not actually addressing the cause is 'positive'. Then sure, you would be accurate.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 05:23 PM ----------

Political points? The American people were polled, and they are just responding in way. Hell they spoke to the NRA.

that 'speaking' you refer to was Biden telling the NRA that its their way or the highway, they didn't listen and wont listen, just like the anti-gun nuts dont listen.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 05:25 PM ----------

How are they exploiting anything? The American people were polled, and a shitload of constituents called their representatives. Sorry you hate representational democracy.

Really? they were polled? lets see your poll results.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 05:29 PM ----------

Exploiting implies there's some type of alternative motive behind the action.

What do you suppose that would be?

Yes, exploiting, because a gun ban is the left's wet dream of control. They dont give two shits about the victims, they care about control. So you are damn right they are going to exploit every high profile incident, and they are going to not tell you about the impending spike in every other violent crime rate because you render the populace defenseless for the criminals.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 05:35 PM ----------

Nobody needs an assault rifle in their home.

When you start successfully legislating 'need' then you better be ready to give up ALL your rights and possessions to your government.

Because you dont NEED that car you are driving, or NEED that place where you sleep, or NEED that food you are eating, you can just as easily use public transportation, sleep in the government provided barracks style housing and eat at the government run cafeteria.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 05:37 PM ----------

I understand that emotional reactions are not ideal, but when are we allowed to put forward gun legislation without it being labeled political? Should we wait a few months? What happens if there's another mass shooting at that time? Do we have to restart the waiting period?

When you say? How about instead of focusing on the method of 4% of the killings you actually focus on the actual cause... you know, actually do something instead that will actually reduce the problem instead of deflecting and avoiding the problem.

[Deadvolcanoes]

If you have the full text of her proposed bill, (not the summary) the full text, then present it... otherwise, truthfully, you don't know what the hell is in the bill. So, how can you truthfully say what is NOT in the bill?

I actually do know what's in the bill. And so do you. You just refuse to accept it as a valid source because its in a summary form. This is how the process works, summaries are submitted before the actual bill.

And I don't even agree with a lot of it. I'm just debunking the absolutely ridiculous claim that all guns are going to be banned. There's no evidence, and in fact we have evidence to the contrary.

Really? they were polled? lets see your poll results.

Released yesterday:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...nd-checks?lite

a gun ban is the left's wet dream of control.

Opinion stated as fact. All evidence contradicts this statement. Not a single person on Congress wants to repeal the second amendment.

They dont give two shits about the victims, they care about control.

This is just a sad, disgusting conspiracy theory. I feel sorry for you for believing such a thing.

and they are going to not tell you about the impending spike in every other violent crime rate because you render the populace defenseless for the criminals.

Banning the manufacture, sale, and transfer of specific rifle modifications will cause crime rates to go up? Crime rates continued to go down after the 1994 AWB, in fact they have been for 40 years. So no, won't happen.

When you say? How about instead of focusing on the method of 4% of the killings you actually focus on the actual cause... you know, actually do something instead that will actually reduce the problem instead of deflecting and avoiding the problem.

They have also proposed more research into mental health, and reactions to violence. No ones avoiding the problem. From day one I have been calling for better mental health access on this nation.

Also, you didn't answer the question. When can we discuss tighter gun regulation without it being political?

[Spectral]

This is all so spectacularly stupid. Does anyone really, truly believe that an assault weapons ban does something useful? Such fucking tribalism and emotional panic on display.

[Deadvolcanoes]

This is all so spectacularly stupid. Does anyone really, truly believe that an assault weapons ban does something useful? Such fucking tribalism and emotional panic on display.

Useful? When looking at the big picture, no, not really. There are much more effective ways of saving lives, such as more vaccinations for children. Especially when looking at the amount of time, money, and resources it will take to produce an actual AWB. It's an incredible waste.

However, that doesn't mean I support the right of every Tom Dick and Harry who can pass a background check to hoard combat weapons, or carry concealed weapons without any actual training.

[Spectral]

Useful? When looking at the big picture, no, not really. There are much more effective ways of saving lives, such as more vaccinations for children. Especially when looking at the amount of time, money, and resources it will take to produce an actual AWB. It's an incredible waste.

However, that doesn't mean I support the right of every Tom Dick and Harry who can pass a background check to hoard combat weapons, or carry concealed weapons author any actual training.

Right, this is what I'm driving at. Why the passion and vigor? It's just a really, really minor issue if the goal is saving lives. Pass a ban, don't pass a ban, it affects me and most others not the tiniest bit. Yet I see deep emotional fervor, and I don't get it.

[Grizzly Willy]

This is all so spectacularly stupid. Does anyone really, truly believe that an assault weapons ban does something useful? Such fucking tribalism and emotional panic on display.

It does seem poorly conceived and likely to be insufficient. If the goal is to stifle these shootings, it's not going to go far enough, and going far enough would be a massive infringement on the second amendment. Other solutions need to be considered.