Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Zoranon]

I would imagine that's because they target areas where large groups of people congregate. Weirdly, they don't allow guns in those places.

I'm in favor of any and all gun regulation by the way. Don't need specifics. If you wanted to ban all gun ownership it's fine with me.

Not really, its almost like the shooters chose a place where they are guaranteed to encounter little resistance...

Bering in favour of something without knowing the specifics casts a serious doubt on your cognitive abilities.

[Zoranon]

Not really. I'm against guns. Completely. To me they are just instruments of violence that serve no other real purpose. The idea that we need them to potentially fight against government seems ridiculous to me - do we also need tanks and nukes? Fighter jets?

So when gun control legislation comes up, I don't need to know anything about the details. i'm in favor of it.

So you can imagine no other use of a gun that shooting a person? Really?

[PhaelixWW]

What firearms? I lost them in a boating accident.

Ah, you're a fan of dwarven fishing, eh?

[PhaelixWW]

You and I are clearly on opposite sides of the debate and we're not going to agree, so you're resorting to a strategy of twisting my words in order to make me seem stupid...

Nobody's twisting your words. You're stating quite clearly that you're not just unable to see the subject from any other perspective, but that you don't care to even try.

But go ahead and be proud of your closed-mindedness. I'm sure that attitude has never led to any poor decisions ever, right? Right?

[Zoranon]

Not what I said, I said they are instruments of violence. Sure, you can use them to shoot animals, but I don't see the point in that either.

You and I are clearly on opposite sides of the debate and we're not going to agree, so you're resorting to a strategy of twisting my words in order to make me seem stupid, maybe to make yourself feel better or to try to discourage others from agreeing with me idk. The truth is you need to accept that there are intelligent people who are totally opposed to guns. Hopefully we're becoming a larger and larger constituency and eventually we'll get to take guns away from those who have them. But that's a long way away.

Guess you never heard of target shooting.

And how are you going to do said removal? With those instruments of violence I suppose. That leads us to one more question: How many people are you willing to have killed in order for your dream to come true?

[Zoranon]

Oh you're right. We shouldn't try to control guns because there's an armed minority in our country who will murder us if we do. Land of the free.

So you have no answer for my question. Well I sort of expected that.

[PhaelixWW]

Oh you're right. We shouldn't try to control guns because there's an armed minority in our country who will murder us if we do. Land of the free.

Beautiful false equivalence there. Zoranon was talking about people dying to protect their Constitutional right, and you flip it around and try to present it as people murdering to prevent gun control.

But no, don't let us twist your words. Lol.

[Zoranon]

Ok to answer your question (I kind of thought that the point about potential mass murder was worth more attention lol): they did it in Australia a few years ago. Had gun drives and collected large numbers of guns. Sure you're not going to get every one but over time things will be better. I'm not optimistic because there are so many backwards parts of our country that will never accept moving into the modern era, but I can hope.

Making them illegal makes guns harder to acquire full stop. They can't be sold publicly and manufacturers will go out of business. Sure it's not going to be immediate but eventually the supply will be pretty low.

The number of guns in Australia and USA is vastly different. Not to mention that confiscations in Australia did not reduce the crime rates, in fact crime with weapons increased.

Not that it matters that much anyway. Advances in 3d printing are going to make any gun control proposals purely academic.

[PhaelixWW]

they did it in Australia a few years ago. Had gun drives and collected large numbers of guns. Sure you're not going to get every one but over time things will be better.

Oh, really?

Firearms are more often chosen by killers in Australia these days than they have been since the late 80s. And there are more firearms in circulation in Australia now than there were before the buyback in 1996, even with all the regulation over who can purchase firearms and what they can buy.

[Zoranon]

Beautiful false equivalence there. Zoranon was talking about people dying to protect their Constitutional right, and you flip it around and try to present it as people murdering to prevent gun control.

But no, don't let us twist your words. Lol.

Pretty much this.

[Zoranon]

But why would they die, other than if they're actively resisting by using their guns? No one will kill them unless they shoot first. So yes, they would have to be considering murder in order to risk being killed.

And yes, I'd say when you make them illegal you don't go around trying to take every gun away by force. You just add to the jail sentences of the people who use them to commit crimes and gradually whittle away at the supply through drives, obsolescence, confiscation where possible, etc.

Some people have this tendency to like having rights and these people tend to react poorly to someone taking their rights away.

[Zoranon]

So in other words, it's not a false equivalence. I was correct in assuming you were speaking about people taking up arms and shooting law enforcement in order to resist changes in gun control laws.

Yes it it. The people would be only defending themselves, their property and their rights. They would not be attacking anyone.

[Mayhem]

FFS. Let me repost, in full, the post I addressed to you personally about this exact same topic and graphic back 17 months ago:

Ok, so do you have a comparison of equal population sizes? A percentage of crime guns traced without adjusting the numbers for population between states makes little sense if one state has a greater population than the next 10 nearest states combined.

The next nearest states Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico combined import less than 800 crime guns from california but export more than 2400 to california.

[petej0]

But why would they die, other than if they're actively resisting by using their guns? No one will kill them unless they shoot first. So yes, they would have to be considering murder in order to risk being killed.

And yes, I'd say when you make them illegal you don't go around trying to take every gun away by force. You just add to the jail sentences of the people who use them to commit crimes and gradually whittle away at the supply through drives, obsolescence, confiscation where possible, etc.

Make all the laws you want, they are no good if they arent enforced, which is already happening with current gun laws.

[petej0]

That's why a blanket ban is needed. Making all guns illegal will greatly reduce gun manufacturers' ability to produce and sell guns in the US.

You wont get a ban. It will never happen, so if you want to have a meaningful discussion we can talk about regulations that have a shot at getting passed.

[petej0]

Ok - whatever regulations you want. I'm in favor. The more restrictive the better. I guess I'd focus on banning the most dangerous categories of weapon first.

Which are?

[Zoranon]

That's one way of looking at it. I choose to look at it as endangering everyone around them by promoting possession of extremely dangerous weapons. Agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree seems to be the only solution indeed. One last query though: Guns are extremely dangerous? Have you ever shot one? I have shot hundreds of rounds in my life with these extremely dangerous things and the only things hurt so far were paper and clay. Thats not what I would call extremely dangerous.

[Mayhem]

Agree to disagree seems to be the only solution indeed. One last query though: Guns are extremely dangerous? Have you ever shot one? I have shot hundreds of rounds in my life with these extremely dangerous things and the only things hurt so far were paper and clay. Thats not what I would call extremely dangerous.

By that definition of extremely dangerous, atomic bombs aren´t extremely dangerous.

Actually what would you consider extremely dangerous?

[zenkai]

By that definition of extremely dangerous, atomic bombs aren´t extremely dangerous.

Actually what would you consider extremely dangerous?

What's quite a leap in your argument.

[petej0]

My opening bid would be all of them. Which ones do you think are safe?

They are all safe. They are only dangerous in the hands of evil or untrained people.