Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

This what I call ignoring information. The same exact stuff you are accusing me of ignoring information. Is exactly and I mean exactly the same thing you are doing.

This is what I call a flat out lie.
I didn't ignore information, you did. Connecticut continued the AWB, the Bushmaster XM15e2s used was not a banned model by name, nor by features. No one was voting for the AWB from when it ended until today, because no one thinks it's worth a damn besides Feinstein.

I frankly almost find it amusing you use one sole example then in the next sentence use it as an emotional plea.

You said the AWB "failed to pass because the Dems did not have the majority in the House", yet ignore the Obama years when they controlled all of it and didn't care to try it?

By using that logic if the events that took place in NJ those people didn't need the 50 Billion funds from congress.

I"m from Florida, we got no money for Sandy Relief even though it did damage here. When we've been hit before, we didn't look at Congress and tell them "no, we don't want a loan, we want you to give us the money".

It's an emotional plea. My case and point of course the situation is emotional. It's not just on my side. It's on your Pro Gun extremely hostile side.

You imagine hostility to explain why people consistently prove you wrong. You also use personal attacks repeatedly. You also keep saying "case and point" instead of "case in point".

To respond to your question. I'm going to quote from a source.

How about you explain in your own words how I"m wrong?

[vaeevictiss]

Obama's bill would limit the number of bullets to ten and that to me at least is a reasonable common sense.

because 10 deaths are better than 11? Coming up with a random number is completely stupid and will change nothing with the availability of additional magazines. All this does is give leeway to future legislation for 6, 4, then 3 round magazines...

The point isnt defending a 30 round magazine as much as it is preventing them from getting their foot in the door and banning things based on an arbitrary number.



and another random though...how come whenever you see police or military shooting a criminal, its not the gun that gets credit but the officer/soldier...funny how that works.

[Svifnymr]

Doesn't that just highlight that the Bushmaster and probably a huge category of other firearms should be included in the list of banned weapons?

It highlights that the first ban was a list of Scary Features with no understanding of firearms. AWB13 is much more strict, but still just bans based on something looking like a military gun.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The other poster is just trying to justify the Scary Feature list in any way possible

Lol no. I'm debunking the belief that a pistol grip is purely aesthetic. We're not talking about spray painting a rifle (that would be aesthetic), we're talking about adding a stable grip to the stock.

There is absolutely no doubt that the pistol grip serves a very real purpose on a semi auto rifle, and not simply an aesthetic purpose.

They help bring the muzzle back down quickly for the next shot. They help decrease fatigue when firing rapidly. They help stabilize the rifle when firing rapidly. They improve trigger control.

There's a reason why athletes at the Olympic 50meter use pistol grips, and its not for aesthetics.

That being said, I don't think banning pistol grips would be incredibly effective. I just find it irritating when people claim pistol grips are purely aesthetic.

[FusedMass]

You like citing news articles; let me do the same.

In a 2004 study for the Department of Justice linked on Mrs. Feinstein’s own website, Christopher S. Koper, a professor of criminology, reported that “assailants fire less than four shots on average, a number well within the 10-round magazine limit” of the “assault weapons” ban.

“Studies prove that the arbitrary magazine capacity restriction that was in place for a decade did not reduce crime,” Lawrence Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s senior vice president and general counsel, told The Washington Times. “In searching for effective means to reduce violence, we should not repeat failed policies, especially when they infringe on the constitutional rights of the law-abiding.”

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...magazine-myth/

On top of that, if you limit the magazine size, criminals will simply bring more. As I speculated earlier, in a quick exchange of fire, such as the Tuscon shooting, a larger magazine might make a bigger impact. However, in a shooting that lasts longer, like Columbine, the size of the magazine is completely irrelevant.

You are completely missing the point. I do not link articles randomly to have a better argument. People ask question and I provide a link to an article explaining in detail about it. It's not a personal preference of liking to link article. What a very strange notion you just suggested. However your article links say's that is did do nothing. I have about a few President who say it does something.

Your answer much like some answer on climate change is to simply do nothing. The problems are too big and complex and we are too small to grippe the world. You cannot have a law that will strip anyone from committing a crime but you can reduce the amount weapons that are out there that these bad guys have their chances to get their hands on.

Where are all these bad guys that people keep talking about does that really excuse a person from stock piling tons of weapons with virtually no national register to even know where these weapons are. This entire thing is circled around fear. In the United States this is oddly bizarre we have intense fear of almost every other person out there to the point we are almost giving our Teachers armed guns in Schools because we have a fear of almost everything.

Our response to a burning fire is that we simply cannot put it out so by throwing more wood on the fire ( A mehtaphor for placing more armed guards in school ) that will somehow stop the sudden range in violence If remember correctly even the school shooting in columbine had an armed officer and they still blew people away left and right.

[Svifnymr]

TI believe the reports about the Bushmaster being left in the car were fake twitter trolling, but at this point, who really knows. There is so much bullshit being posted trying to prove that this was a hoax it's hard to tell whats real and whats not in the media.

Originally I heard "assault rifle used", then the newspaper said it was just handguns and the rifle was found in the car. The next day or two, it became 2 handguns, rifle on him, shotgun in the car.

If you watch the video of the medical examiner, the press actually ask him to clarify rifle since they were told it was in the car.

[vaeevictiss]

Politicians know the bans do not help...Clinton knew full well the ban wouldnt change anything but it was a "feel good" for the populace. While it was in effect, antis felt safer, even tho nothing really changed...its pretty much like a placebo

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Lol no. I'm debunking the belief that a pistol grip is purely aesthetic. We're not talking about spray painting a rifle (that would be aesthetic), we're talking about adding a stable grip to the stock.

There is absolutely no doubt that the pistol grip serves a very real purpose on a semi auto rifle, and not simply an aesthetic purpose.

They help bring the muzzle back down quickly for the next shot. They help decrease fatigue when firing rapidly. They help stabilize the rifle when firing rapidly. They improve trigger control.

There's a reason why athletes at the Olympic 50meter use pistol grips, and its not for aesthetics.

That being said, I don't think banning pistol grips would be incredibly effective. I just find it irritating when people claim pistol grips are purely aesthetic.

We are saying the intent is because of how it "looks."

---------- Post added 2013-01-29 at 06:07 PM ----------

You are completely missing the point. I do not link articles randomly to have a better argument. People ask question and I provide a link to an article explaining in detail about it. It's not a personal preference of liking to link article. What a very strange notion you just suggested. However your article links say's that is did do nothing. I have about a few President who say it does something.

Your answer much like some answer on climate change is to simply do nothing. The problems are too big and complex and we are too small to grippe the world. You cannot have a law that will strip anyone from committing a crime but you can reduce the amount weapons that are out there that these bad guys have their chances to get their hands on.

Where are all these bad guys that people keep talking about does that really excuse a person from stock piling tons of weapons with virtually no national register to even know where these weapons are. This entire thing is circled around fear. In the United States this is oddly bizarre we have intense fear of almost every other person out there to the point we are almost giving our Teachers armed guns in Schools because we have a fear of almost everything.

Our response to a burning fire is that we simply cannot put it out so by throwing more wood on the fire ( A mehtaphor for placing more armed guards in school ) that will somehow stop the sudden range in violence If remember correctly even the school shooting in columbine had an armed officer and they still blew people away left and right.

Stop using bad metaphors. Don't pretend like you know why people buy/want/get guns. Thats just ridiculous. Again, did you read any of the reports?

[Svifnymr]

Lol no. I'm debunking the belief that a pistol grip is purely aesthetic. We're not talking about spray painting a rifle (that would be aesthetic), we're talking about adding a stable grip to the stock.

There is absolutely no doubt that the pistol grip serves a very real purpose on a semi auto rifle, and not simply an aesthetic purpose.

There is plenty of doubt, since it doesn't. I'd say the pistol grip is needed for a folding stock/ collapsing stock, obviously, but the M1 Carbine, M14/M1A and plenty of other guns don't use them and there is no functional advantage, just preference. Preference and aesthetics.

They help bring the muzzle back down quickly for the next shot. They help decrease fatigue when firing rapidly. They help stabilize the rifle when firing rapidly. They improve trigger control.

Nope.

There's a reason why athletes at the Olympic 50meter use pistol grips, and its not for aesthetics.

And skeet shooters obviously don't need to shoot fast, gotcha.

That being said, I don't think banning pistol grips would be incredibly effective. I just find it irritating when people claim pistol grips are purely aesthetic.

Even if you believe that a pistol grip is not a preference choice, a barrel shroud on a handgun does nothing. Flash suppressors have functions, but were not chosen for that, they were chosen due to the appearance.

The features chosen were not chosen because of any perceived advantage, merely as trying to label the features of a type of gun they wanted to ban.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Originally I heard "assault rifle used", then the newspaper said it was just handguns and the rifle was found in the car. The next day or two, it became 2 handguns, rifle on him, shotgun in the car.

If you watch the video of the medical examiner, the press actually ask him to clarify rifle since they were told it was in the car.

The investigation is on going, but the latest reports cite the bushmaster as being used.

If anything, we should always expect a clusterfuck of bad and accidental reporting when a mass shooting occurs.

[Jaxi]

You are completely missing the point. I do not link articles randomly to have a better argument. People ask question and I provide a link to an article explaining in detail about it. It's not a personal preference of liking to link article. What a very strange notion you just suggested. However your article links say's that is did do nothing. I have about a few President who say it does something.

I've placed down this study about 10 times now in response to your arguments. Presidents, wonderful, politicians. I'll trust the University of Pennsylvania study that was commissioned by the Justice Department to study the first ban, which says there was no noticeable decrease in crime attributed to the ban.

Your answer much like some answer on climate change is to simply do nothing. The problems are too big and complex and we are too small to grippe the world. You cannot have a law that will strip anyone from committing a crime but you can reduce the amount weapons that are out there that these bad guys have their chances to get their hands on.

There is a difference between doing nothing, and disagreeing with ineffective legislation. You asked me before what I would do, and I told you I'd start with stronger civil commitment laws, because a University of California Berkeley study showed states with stronger civil commitment laws have 1/3 reduced crime rate.

Where are all these bad guys that people keep talking about does that really excuse a person from stock piling tons of weapons with virtually no national register to even know where these weapons are. This entire thing is circled around fear. In the United States this is oddly bizarre we have intense fear of almost every other person out there to the point we are almost giving our Teachers armed guns in Schools because we have a fear of almost everything.

We're not debating a national registry. We're debating banning weapons because they look menacing. It's ironic that you mention fear when you're supporting a knee-jerk reaction of legislature based around the fear that these assault weapons are being used predominantly in crime, when the truth is quite the opposite.

Our response to a burning fire is that we simply cannot put it out so by throwing more wood on the fire ( A mehtaphor for placing more armed guards in school ) that will somehow stop the sudden range in violence If remember correctly even the school shooting in columbine had an armed officer and they still blew people away left and right.

Again, that's not the response. Additionally, nothing you wrote refutes any of my claims.

Look, Fused, we recognize that you want legislation in place which targets guns and ultimately decreases gun violence. Trust me, if someone could find a model that works, I'd gladly support it, even if it means giving up a bit of my own freedoms with guns. The fact is, this bill is not it. There is just no data to suggest that it could work in the USA, but there is data to suggest that it will not work in the USA.

[vaeevictiss]

The investigation is on going, but the latest reports cite the bushmaster as being used.

If anything, we should always expect a clusterfuck of bad and accidental reporting when a mass shooting occurs.

i dont believe a fucking thing out of that investigation...and its good to see more and more people are seeing it too.

[Deadvolcanoes]

there is no functional advantage, just preference. Preference and aesthetics.

Yes, preferences, based on functionalty. There is no denying that a pistol grip shoots/feels/acts differently in your hands. They are used on tactical swat rifles for a reason.

Nope.

You got me. Any other convincing arguments?

And skeet shooters obviously don't need to shoot fast, gotcha.

Pretty sure they use shotguns, which I haven't been talking about.

The features chosen were not chosen because of any perceived advantage, merely as trying to label the features of a type of gun they wanted to ban.

If there is no advantage, why do we use them in the military? Why do we use them on police swat teams? Just for shits and giggles?

---------- Post added 2013-01-29 at 06:23 PM ----------

i dont believe a fucking thing out of that investigation...and its good to see more and more people are seeing it too.

Why? Do you have evidence that they are covering something up?

[vaeevictiss]

If there is no advantage, why do we use them in the military? Why do we use them on police swat teams? Just for shits and giggles?

because thats how the ar15 was designed? It becomes very difficult to shoot if you took the grip off ROFL. My friend has an M1A Socom, no pistol grip, larger caliber, and it is much nicer to shoot than an AR15

Why? Do you have evidence that they are covering something up?

well if i had that id probably be "disappeared" by now

[Deadvolcanoes]

because thats how the ar15 was designed? It becomes very difficult to shoot if you took the grip off ROFL. My friend has an M1A Socom, no pistol grip, larger caliber, and it is much nicer to shoot than an AR15

....and why do you think it was designed that way? Just for aesthetics?

well if i had that id probably be "disappeared" by now

If you have no evidence of a cover-up, then why the distrust?

[Mormolyce]

It highlights that the first ban was a list of Scary Features with no understanding of firearms. AWB13 is much more strict, but still just bans based on something looking like a military gun.

I do agree that the highly restricted bans on "assault weapons" and "large magazines" and so on are silly and ineffective. Clearly much more severe bans on pretty much all firearms are necessary to have any effect.

[vaeevictiss]

....and why do you think it was designed that way? Just for aesthetics?

Because thats the way eugene stoner wanted it. The military was looking for a weapon that used a smaller round, was lighter, and more compact. By adding a pistol grip, they were able to remove the weight that a full frame stock would give. The buffer system was designed to absorb nearly all the recoil, which meant lightweight materials were able to be used. When you look at the M1A socom, it is full framed, and very heavy.

It was found afterwards the additional benefit of that style rifle allowed the shooter to dynamically change the profile of his shooting stance to a more compact one, allowing him to become a smaller target.

So no, not purely asthetics, but didnt make it more deadly, just more efficient and comfortable to use.

If you have no evidence of a cover-up, then why the distrust?

because it has been nothing but lies, hype, emotion and change after change, after change.

[FusedMass]

Don'e even go there. The fucking govt hasnt done shit for NJ. I live in one of the hardest parts hit. We have yet to see a singel dollar from Obama and his bitches. You might want to look again at that 50 billion. Most of it is for garbage that has nothing to do with Sandy damage let alone even the area at all. Tell me how an Alaska fishery has to do with Sandy dmg. Earlier you blamed Bush for killing the country. You need to open your eyes and look at the idiot in office now. 58.7% of americans are employed, 16 Trillion in debt increase in 4 damn yrs. Should we keep going. Pull you head out of your ass and wake up.

You know almost virtually nothing about this situation.

When that situation took place it was the REPUBLICANS not Obama that stopped the vote. The Dems held the Majority in the senate and they were prepared to vote on the bill to send 50 Billion. It was the House Republicans that decided to not vote on the bill on the exact same way they decided to hike taxes on the top one percent.

Gov of NJ even voiced his frustrated directly at the House Republicans saying that he called House Speaker five times that night and he did not take his call. In fact Gov of NJ praised Obama for his quick thinking and help during the situation. I do not know where this insane illlogical fear of Dems they were the one's voicing support for that state while Republicans failed to vote on it.

It wasn't till later that week they decided to vote on 5 billion dollars and then 50 billion dollars. However do not take my word for it. It's all right here detailing everything. How that is Obama's fault on any level or how you are insulting him or his staff while Romney would have left you for fend for yourself meaning you have almost no idea what you're talking about and like many of other posters blindly insulted.

Yes I did Blame Bush earlier for other things you know why? He invaded another country on false intel that killed thousands of our soldiers costed billions of dollars in the end we have virtually nothing to show for it. In fact we made the situation worse. Yet no one blinks an eye. However four Americans die and all you can hear is people shouting Benghazi for months

t's why the American people hate Congress. Unlike the people in Congress, we have actual responsibilities."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie dropped a bomb on Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Congress for refusing to allow a vote on Hurricane Sandy relief in the final hours of the 112th Congress. It was an instant classic of principled political outrage. It provided a strong dose of what Washington has been missing: blunt, independent leadership.

http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/io...hread,12303551

[GreatOak]

Fused still hasn't given me a reason why a skilled and responsible person like me should not be able to possess such a weapon. You can't use someone else (lanza) as an example when the evidence is on my side. These arent bombs that can blow up whole blocks.

What is so much more dangerous about these weapons than pistols that makes it inappropriate for me to own one?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Oh look^ More articles and republican bashing by Fused XD