Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Bakis]

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/

So the 600 000 legal guns that gets reported as stolen every single year doesn't mean a thing, totally neglectable?
The method of crime resulted in 0 deaths vs 26, what would you prefer.

[Moadar]

So the 600 000 legal guns that gets stolen every single year doesn't mean a thing, totally neglectable?

So lets ban everything than can be stolen and used in a crime? Good bye cars!

[Nakura Chambers]

Same Calliber gun both semi automatic. One legal under the original ban one not.

Both should be legal. /thread

[Rukentuts]

So lets ban everything than can be stolen and used in a crime? Good bye cars!

Yeah, because that's totally valid comparison since cars were designed specifically to kill.

[Majora]

The whole thing is a joke and makes for too many questions. Who is going to take my guns from me? What happens if I say no? Do I get reimbursed if I give my gun to the government? Where do all of these guns go?

Probably the most obvious question is, why take guns from law-abiding citizens in order to try and prevent criminals from using them? Because criminals totally follow laws and bans, right? Yes, there is no need for an assault rifle, but that doesn't mean they should be banned. A shotgun could have done just as much, if not more, damage at that school as an assault rifle.

[Bakis]

So lets ban everything than can be stolen and used in a crime? Good bye cars!

You make the leaps of logic as a 10 year old.
Lets remove all laws then shall we, whats the point of the laws if they dont hinder 100%?

[Beavis]

So the 600 000 legal guns that gets stolen every single year doesn't mean a thing, totally neglectable?

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.

[Moadar]

Yeah, because that's totally valid comparison since cars were designed specifically to kill.

Doesn't change the fact that they can be used to do it quite easily. They also actually kill more people than guns.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 05:10 PM ----------

You make the leaps of logic as a 10 year old.
Lets remove all laws then shall we, whats the point of the laws if they dont hinder 100%?

I was basing it off the logic you implied.

[Felya]

Sociopaths aren't incapable of buying illegal weapons

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

[Rukentuts]

I was basing it off the logic you implied.

You aren't basing it off any logic whatsoever. You're making an invalid comparison and then attempting to pass if off as valid.

[Trunksee]

Yea im ffine with a gun safty course requirement, but some states do this already for hand guns, mine does. Its not a fix though. I get pissed because we.arent addressing the issue, we are hiding it. Its not a gun issue but whats causing kids and young adults to.snap. I mean in aurora the kid called himself the.joker and it got swept under the rug in favor of simple gun debates. We all should have.said.this.person needed to be out of normal society but we.cant force him to be institutionalized easily.

These kids with mental illness need to be taken out of the general populous. Yes it sounds harsh but it keeps happening so they obviously.have.a breaking point. If you threaten violence as it seems these mentally ill people do the should lock them up for 30 days for.eval.as most psych breaks disapate by the time they get.treatment. These people need to be taken out of society. Now i know a lot of people here have.mental conditions its why we choose to play games, but if you have a.mental ilness and express violence you need to be locked up in a psych ward and evaled for.a month. My brother in law is this kid and we cant lock him up.

[Moadar]

You aren't basing it off any logic whatsoever. You're making an invalid comparison and then attempting to pass if off as valid.

I'm trying to save lives. Cars are the bigger killer man.

[Felya]

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.

Yes, but they would have a finite number of those who own guns. Making it much easier to track if one goes missing.

[Rukentuts]

I'm trying to save lives. Cars are the bigger killer man.

Once again, the whole cognitive disconnect of design presents itself.

[Beavis]

Doesn't change the fact that they can be used to do it quite easily. They also actually kill more people than guns.

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.

[Bakis]

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.

I was thinking more in terms of regulation on storage and checkups, it is a reasonable start. People allowed their guns to be stored wherever they see fit is retarded.
Wasnt it yesterday some 11 kid in Utah just took one of his parents gun to school waving it cos he was afraid of a shooting there.
Regulations doesn't fix the entire problem but pro-gunners attitude to bury their heads in the sand pretending that anything that isnt 100% waterproof is bad, why the fuck would you want to make it easier for criminals got get hold of firearms
Also mental/health/training required on a yearly basis or something along those lines.
A ban is not even on the drawing table in regards of any rational weapon used to defend ones home, hunting, life.

[Moadar]

Yea im ffine with a gun safty course requirement, but some states do this already for hand guns, mine does. Its not a fix though. I get pissed because we.arent addressing the issue, we are hiding it. Its not a gun issue but whats causing kids and young adults to.snap. I mean in aurora the kid called himself the.joker and it got swept under the rug in favor of simple gun debates. We all should have.said.this.person needed to be out of normal society but we.cant force him to be institutionalized easily.

These kids with mental illness need to be taken out of the general populous. Yes it sounds harsh but it keeps happening so they obviously.have.a breaking point. If you threaten violence as it seems these mentally ill people do the should lock them up for 30 days for.eval.as most psych breaks disapate by the time they get.treatment. These people need to be taken out of society. Now i know a lot of people here have.mental conditions its why we choose to play games, but if you have a.mental ilness and express violence you need to be locked up in a psych ward and evaled for.a month. My brother in law is this kid and we cant lock him up.

See the problem is that people are fine with banning something they aren't part of or don't enjoy. People will ban the tool but ignore the cause, especially when the cause might be something they do enjoy. Violent media has a strong tie to these crimes but now you targeting something these people enjoy and they get up in arms.

[Kasierith]

well we're going sidetrack here, but since you want to talk about it. I'm not a republican, and i definitely don't agree with everything they do. i throw obama's name out there just as you would throw bush's name out there. it's an encompassing term. we could spell out every single person/thing needed to pass legislation, but it's ultimately signed into law by one person, hence why we use their name. did i really have to explain that to you? obama had full control his first two years, nothing republicans could do to stop him, just stall. that's when he expanded the patriot act. care to be an adult in this conversation?

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

What about the blame he should take for killing hundreds of innocent children. He tears up after our own children were shot but he doesn't give a damn if some poor kids in Yemen or Pakistan blow up with his permission. Disgusting

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

[bergmann620]

Drinking alcohol is a human right?

The basic concept of general freedom in this country (this is my opinion, and is largely born out by our government/courts) is that you are free to do what you will so long as it doesn't impact the rights of others. Moving on from that, the state can, in the presence of a compelling need, restrict our general freedom in specific manners.

We have regulations concerning the sale and consumption of alcohol on the books, as it was successfully argued that there is a compelling need to prevent our youth from drinking. Outside of those rules, yes, we have the right to drink alcohol.

[Felya]

I'm trying to save lives. Cars are the bigger killer man.

You can't make such a comparison without being a psychopath or clinically paranoid. Otherwise, you should see the distinction between a mode of transportation and a weapon. Why stop at cars and not look at fists that are just as valid of a comparison?