Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Moadar]

No, my only stance is that a 30 round clip allows for a greater rate of sustained fire than any person actually needs to maintain, and thus I can fully support a limit on clip size sold to the public.

And my stance is that some people are hyper sensitive to violent media especially when its all they do with anti-social life styles. So I support censoring it.

[Rukentuts]

And my stance is that some people are hyper sensitive to violent media especially when its all they do with anti-social life styles. So I support censoring it.

Oh yeah, censor free speech, but you better not dare touch my 2nd Amendment!

Such brilliant logic in this thread.

[Sealed Shut]

Drinking alcohol is a human right?

no one is shocked that is what you took from that. smoke and screens is all you bring to this thread. don't address things, just follow the 5 "D's" and don't contribute.

owning a weapon and owning alcohol both require a certain criteria to be fulfilled in order for that ownership to happen. surely this concept doesn't elude you.

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes
Source - Dept of Transportation (US), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Traffic Safety Facts 2010: Alcohol-Impaired Driving. Washington (DC): NHTSA; 2012 [cited 2012 Sep 28]. Available at URL: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811606.PDF External Web Site Icon
In 2011, 9,183 people were murdered by a firearm
Source - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20

So apparently it is more dangerous for alcohol to be legal then firearms. i don't hear any whining from you about there being no law against alcohol. why is that? you don't really care about the deaths. If your logic is "if they don't have access to a weapon, they wouldn't be deaths"... then surely your logic would be "if they didn't have access to the alcohol they wouldn't be deaths".

for another comparison

US - 89 firearms per 100 residents
Switzerland - 46 firearms per 100 residents
Mexico - 15 firearms per 100 residents

US - 9960 homicides from firearms
Switzerland - 51 homicides from firearms
Mexico - 26,757 homicides from firearms

Source - Estimating Civilian Owned Firearms" http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/filea...rch-Note-9.pdf
Source - "Homicide by Firearm" United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-...y_firearms.xls

now tell me how you look at that and draw the conclusion that the GUNS are to blame??

[Beavis]

Not exactly. One side is claiming to try be saving lives but they don't want to start at the top, they target one segment and use it as a scape goat.

If you're going to compare cars to guns, you need to compare like with like. Deaths from car accidents vs. death with gun accidents; homicide with car vs homicide with guns. Comparing the gross number does not work. A cursory look at the stats will tell you that car accidents are a much greater cause of deaths than gun accidents, but car homicide is tiny compared to gun homicide. From there you can extrapolate the frequency of lethality and junk. But just saying "well guns kill less people than cars so shut your face" is a poor argument that's easily countered.

Apples to apples man, apples to apples.

[Chrysia]

And my stance is that some people are hyper sensitive to violent media especially when its all they do with anti-social life styles. So I support censoring it.

My problem with this is it completely removes personal responsibility, and the responsibility of the parents. It's the same reason I hate most legislation now-a-days.

You don't like the fact that some kids spend way too much playing violent video games? Get out there, and get their parent's off their asses and involved in their lives.

[Deleted]

For some reason you think getting rid of guns makes things safer. it will only change the method of the crime.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1220230

I think most guns on the so called black market are not stolen... just sold by people who dont care.....

http://www.armslist.com/

No I don't think it'll make things safe no one does and this is not the purpose of any of the bans coming towards you.
The purpose is and is only to lower gun related deaths.
Like, the latest events, that guy shooting the other one cause music's too loud.. You know, THIS kind of things. Not crime. It's be silly to think crime would drop with a ban on guns.
One hung WILL drop though. Guns related deaths.

[Nakura Chambers]

Don't forget the national campaign to reduce texting and driving and MANY other issues in this country that gets much more attention and more funding but has many less deaths etc...

I'm calling bullshit. Every time anything bad happens, the liberals are there with their liberal tears to cry emotions away and get something banned. This is true with everything from football to soda to dogs, and ESPECIALLY true, with guns. All emotion, no logic. To imply that the ignorant liberals focus more on "texting and driving" than they do on gun control is ridiculous. You severely underestimate just how liberals hate guns.

[Trunksee]

Wait, so are you honestly trying to imply that everyone who has ever touched a violent video game is a sociopath waiting to happen? Because that's what it sounds like.

No video games dont make normal people violent. But it encourages mentally ill people to do these things. We need to protect ourselves from the untreated mentally ill so limit the extent they can get it.

[Beavis]

Every single liberal post in this thread is "Europe got no gun, Europe got no crime; 'MURICA got gun, 'MURICA got crime."

You're telling that to the wrong person, friend.

I'll tell it to everyone. I'll sing it from the mountain tops.

[Azaril]

The primary difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama was more reactionary, while Bush took the initiative.

I sure hope you're being sarcastic.

President Bush KNEW about a planned terrorist attack from bin ladin before it happened. they knew enough details about the plan to thwart it entirely.

His administration took 0 initiative to prevent such an act on the U.S.

Because of this, his reaction was to start not one but two wars. one in a country we had absolutely no reason to be there and the other for reasons entirely made up and were never proven to be true.

There could not have been anything more reactionary than that.

[Beavis]

There are people buying guns, the number is not finite, but is growing.

A growing number is still a finite number and guns are still registered and tracked by serial number. That's an enforcement and loophole problem, not a legislative problem.

[Chrysia]

No video games dont make normal people violent. But it encourages mentally ill people to do these things. We need to protect ourselves from the untreated mentally ill so limit the extent they can get it.

Oooor, you can target the actual problem and increase funding for diagnosing and treating the mentally ill.

[Deleted]

Sociopaths aren't incapable of buying illegal weapons

The latest event for example. NO WAY IN HELL that guy would have bought a gun or even approached anyone related to it.

[Raidenx]

So, we should make it easier by having them legal?

It's easier to buy a gun illegally here than legally, and it would be especially so for someone who wouldn't pass a thorough background check.

[Felya]

Its actually scary how the democrats ignore the real issues in favor of their political agenda. People are messed up yet we give.them disability checks, housing, and utilities for being messed up and leave them on the streets. They are the problem. The mentally ill are the problem not the tool they use

How are they on the street if you claim they have housing? Do you mean creating jails for the mentally ill who have not committed any crime?

The problem might be that too many people equate a gun with a tool. You can blame the media for the violence, yet you are a person who calls a weapon, simply a tool. Perhaps if you want guns to be taken more seriously, stop comparing them to cars and screw drivers.

[Nakura Chambers]

Yeah, fight the power! Shoot down those jets with your AR15.

I don't think you understand how guerrilla warfare works. The government would not use high-yield weapons on the civilian population. If the government did, then it would only outrage the public even more and make more people take up arms against the government.

Plus, it's liberals you're talking about. Liberals cannot even spank their children, yet you think they're going to be carpet bombing Boston?

[Deleted]

And what is gun control going to do about that? The government doesn't have the authority to round up guns already out there even if they went insane and banned everything. Ex post facto, man.

It'll work for the future. What's out there stays out there. In 20 years you'd notice the change.

[Raidenx]

Ah yes, when the ability to reason and present a coherent argument fails, fall into ad hominems. It's quite droll.

The primary difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama was more reactionary, while Bush took the initiative. It is what made Bush, despite his many failings, a very powerful president, while on the other hand Obama floundered under constant pressure for four years. The two really aren't equitable for this reason. What's more, in this discussion I have not said "Bush passed the Patriot Act, Bush's regime passed the Patriot Act," now have I? I said the Republicans passed the Patriot Act. Strawman arguments are fun, aren't they?

Oh, and as for this "nothing republicans could do to stop him" blithering, here ya go: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress...12/senate/1/84


The blame he should take? Alright, so what hundreds of innocent children are you referring to exactly?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-campaign.html

and that's only in Pakistan

Obama apologists make me sick

[bergmann620]

I'm for gun rights, but people keep bringing this up. It's stupid and needs to stop being said as a defense of gun rights. Car deaths happen because there are millions of people on the road every day and accidents are bound to happen. That's a completely different thing from homicide. The number of homicides by car is vanishingly small.

You do realize that most gun deaths are either suicides or accidents, right?

Further, vehicular manslaughter is a thing. Further still, somewhere around 9-12,000 deaths a year occur in which the causative driver was intoxicated- pretty close to the number of all gun-related homicides. Doesn't it stand to reason that more of those deaths could be prevented through mandatory breathalizers being installed in all future cars?

If less than 500 deaths at the hands of all rifles in the nation is a call to action, how can 10,000 DUI deaths not be?

You might demand equivalency of motive or purpose... I am looking at equivalency of effect. I'm looking for a reason why victims and families of victims are less deserving of a call to action.

[Moadar]

My problem with this is it completely removes personal responsibility, and the responsibility of the parents. It's the same reason I hate most legislation now-a-days.

You don't like the fact that some kids spend way too much playing violent video games? Get out there, and get their parent's off their asses and involved in their lives.

My problem with banning high capacity mags or whatever with guns is it also removes personal responsibility, and punishes everyone who has practiced responsible gun ownership.