Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Cthulhu 2020]

I didn't realize that not allowing people to have a gun was much more inconveniencing than taking away their cell phone.

274 pages later I still have yet to see a good reason why people require specifically defined assault weapons or magazines greater than 10 rounds for the activities they claim they do or the protection they claim they need.

[bergmann620]

It's put together how it needs to be. People are still obtaining AR-15s legally, modifying them illegally to be fully automatic, and posting videos on Youtube.

So, what you're saying is, we need laws banning more guns, because people aren't obeying the current laws? Should we make more laws against murder, because it is illegal and people still do it? Is that the solution? Every crime that is illegal and yet still committed, we just need to make more laws about it until people stop doing it?

Anyone wanting to modify an AR-15 will do it legally or illegally in spite of federal laws.

So, what you're saying is, we need laws banning more guns, because people aren't obeying the current laws? Should we make more laws against murder, because it is illegal and people still do it? Is that the solution? Every crime that is illegal and yet still committed, we just need to make more laws about it until people stop doing it?

A semi-auto can be modified illegally or legally to fully automatic and should be included in any ban that defines "assault weapons".

So, you've moved on to banning virtually all firearms, in an effort to prevent people that are doing things illegally from doing things illegally?

Really?

No, really?

Sorry... I just don't really know how to respond.

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 10:06 AM ----------

I didn't realize that not allowing people to have a gun was much more inconveniencing than taking away their cell phone.

274 pages later I still have yet to see a good reason why people require specifically defined assault weapons or magazines greater than 10 rounds for the activities they claim they do or the protection they claim they need.

And we still don't see any valid case for limiting our freedom in owning those things. It's been a productive discussion.

Actually, it's funny, because after all the stats and research I've gone over, I'm much, much more against a ban than I was before this thread existed.

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 10:08 AM ----------

I didn't realize that not allowing people to have a gun was much more inconveniencing than taking away their cell phone.

274 pages later I still have yet to see a good reason why people require specifically defined assault weapons or magazines greater than 10 rounds for the activities they claim they do or the protection they claim they need.

And we still don't see any valid case for limiting our freedom in owning those things. I don't need to defend my freedom- you have to make the case for taking it away. It's been a productive discussion.

Actually, it's funny, because after all the stats and research I've gone over, I'm much, much more against a ban than I was before this thread existed.

[docholiday]

I didn't realize that not allowing people to have a gun was much more inconveniencing than taking away their cell phone.

274 pages later I still have yet to see a good reason why people require specifically defined assault weapons or magazines greater than 10 rounds for the activities they claim they do or the protection they claim they need.

its quite simple......who wants to have to reload mags all the time when just shooting at targets and for fun.....guns/ammunition are already expensive enough as it is......having to buy a ton of these stupid 10 roung mags just makes it more expensive.....plus what makes a 10 round mag any different than a 30 round mag when you are going out to kill people with it......all of these shootings that have taken place nobody has had any type of weapon to defend themselves......so a shooter can easily pop 10 rounds off and change mags rather easily since nobody is trying to put him down and then pop off another 10 and just keep going until help does show up......not solving anything

[Cthulhu 2020]

DC vs Heller already said they'd uphold an assault weapons ban as long as the few guns that people were allowed to own weren't rendered inoperable. Limiting a right is different from taking it away.

There's a lot of smugness in this thread about how this bill will "never pass", but trending views show that Americans want more control in addition to better enforcement of the controls already in place. Additional gun control isn't a matter of "if" but rather "what" and "when".

[cz75fan]

I didn't realize that not allowing people to have a gun was much more inconveniencing than taking away their cell phone.

274 pages later I still have yet to see a good reason why people require specifically defined assault weapons or magazines greater than 10 rounds for the activities they claim they do or the protection they claim they need.

I'm going to say that it's because nothing would change your mind anyway.

[bergmann620]

There's a lot of smugness in this thread about how this bill will "never pass", but trending views show that Americans want more control in addition to better enforcement of the controls already in place. Additional gun control isn't a matter of "if" but rather "what" and "when".

Those views are 'trending' after several weeks of sensationalist coverage of a tremendous tragedy.

Unless those views are still 'trending' during the next election, it won't matter.

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 10:43 AM ----------

I didn't realize that not allowing people to have a gun was much more inconveniencing than taking away their cell phone.

Limiting a right is different from taking it away.

So...

I propose a hypothetical about limiting the use of a cell phone in a moving care, and you refer to it as "taking away their cell phone".

You propose banning/extending gun legislation, but that's just limiting rights, not taking them away.

Wait, what?

Isn't it troubling in your mind to hold those thoughts simultaneously?

That's even ignoring the issue that gun ownership is constitutionally protected, and cell phone ownership is, well, not.

[Nakura Chambers]

I just contacted my representative and both my senators about this bill, urging them to oppose it. This is my first year dealing with my House representative, since he just got elected, but he's a Republican, so I'm hoping for the best. I'm sure my Republican senator will oppose the bill, he has a pretty solid record when it comes to defending gun rights. I am concerned about my far-left Democrat senator though, she doesn't care about her constituents, the Constitution, or freedom; she'll probably vote for the bill. Then again, she is a politician who has learned how to stay in office this long, she might oppose it in order to stay in office (if she votes for it, she knows she's getting voted out).

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm going to say that it's because nothing would change your mind anyway.

The reasons for using 30 round clips over 10 round clips thus far have been: Bigger clips are more fun to empty into paper targets; it's my second amendment right!; we need it for hunting (because apparently 10 shots isn't enough to kill a deer); home defense (because if you don't hit/scare that burglar off in the first 10 shots, he's going to stick around for 20 more); you wouldn't be convinced even if we told you.

And I mean, why should we ban 30 round clips anyway? Any crazy who gets his hands on legally acquired firearms to go on a rampage is going to be able to reload in 1.72 seconds anyway! I see it happen in video games/the movies all the time so it must be real.

(Hint: when formulating a reason, hypotheticals don't really help)

You propose banning/extending gun legislation, but that's just limiting rights, not taking them away.

Wait, what?

Most other rights have limitations. Or do you want hate speech to be protected under freedom of speech? Would you say our freedom of speech was taken away because hate speech became excluded later on?

[Grizzly Willy]

I didn't realize that not allowing people to have a gun was much more inconveniencing than taking away their cell phone.

274 pages later I still have yet to see a good reason why people require specifically defined assault weapons or magazines greater than 10 rounds for the activities they claim they do or the protection they claim they need.

Why are we basing legislation on need?

[cz75fan]

The reasons for using 30 round clips over 10 round clips thus far have been: Bigger clips are more fun to empty into paper targets; it's my second amendment right!; we need it for hunting (because apparently 10 shots isn't enough to kill a deer); home defense (because if you don't hit/scare that burglar off in the first 10 shots, he's going to stick around for 20 more); you wouldn't be convinced even if we told you.

And I mean, why should we ban 30 round clips anyway? Any crazy who gets his hands on legally acquired firearms to go on a rampage is going to be able to reload in 1.72 seconds anyway! I see it happen in video games/the movies all the time so it must be real.

(Hint: when formulating a reason, hypotheticals don't really help)



Most other rights have limitations. Or do you want hate speech to be protected under freedom of speech?

The bold part is HILARIOUS.

Moving on, how long do you think it takes in the heat of the moment to fire 10 shots?

[Cthulhu 2020]

The bold part is HILARIOUS.

Moving on, how long do you think it takes in the heat of the moment to fire 10 shots?

Would you say our freedom of speech was taken away because hate speech became excluded under the first amendment protections later on? It's an honest question, you can either answer it or mock it as some weak attempt to get around answering it.

All of the consitutional amendments have limitations. The second amendment has been some kind of holy grail where the only limitation that hasn't been hotly contested is "don't put a bullet in your fellow American" and we see how well that's working.

[cz75fan]

Would you say our freedom of speech was taken away because hate speech became excluded under the first amendment protections later on? It's an honest question, you can either answer it or mock it as some vague attempt to get around answering it.

All of the consitutional amendments have limitations. The second amendment has been some kind of holy grail where the only limitation has been that hasn't been hotly contested is "don't put a bullet in your fellow American" and we see how well that's working.

Actually, yes yes I would. Hate speech is subjective and based on "feelings." Much like the California video game ban last year, the terminology needed to create a law would be far too vague and thus subjective.

I would argue that the 2nd Amendment is an inherent right to all human beings. I mean, it was good enough for the Apostles of Jesus.

[bergmann620]

Would you say our freedom of speech was taken away because hate speech became excluded under the first amendment protections later on? It's an honest question, you can either answer it or mock it as some vague attempt to get around answering it.

All of the consitutional amendments have limitations. The second amendment has been some kind of holy grail where the only limitation has been that hasn't been hotly contested is "don't put a bullet in your fellow American" and we see how well that's working.

What kind of hate speech, exactly, is excluded?

"Don't put a bullet in your fellow American" seems to be working pretty fucking well, honestly. The vast, vast majority of guns are never used to commit homicide, and 7 times as many people are killed manually (bare-handed) as with AR's annually.

Not to compare to cars, but rather crimes, "Don't put a bullet in your fellow American" works as well as "Don't drive drunk and put a car in your fellow American", and if we're only talking about 'assault weapons' it works MUCH BETTER.

[GreatOak]

The reasons for using 30 round clips over 10 round clips thus far have been: Bigger clips are more fun to empty into paper targets; it's my second amendment right!; we need it for hunting (because apparently 10 shots isn't enough to kill a deer); home defense (because if you don't hit/scare that burglar off in the first 10 shots, he's going to stick around for 20 more); you wouldn't be convinced even if we told you.

And I mean, why should we ban 30 round clips anyway? Any crazy who gets his hands on legally acquired firearms to go on a rampage is going to be able to reload in 1.72 seconds anyway! I see it happen in video games/the movies all the time so it must be real.

(Hint: when formulating a reason, hypotheticals don't really help)



Most other rights have limitations. Or do you want hate speech to be protected under freedom of speech? Would you say our freedom of speech was taken away because hate speech became excluded later on?

Hate speech is protected. It wouldn't be free otherwise. This isn't the UK.

If you really want to see why a magazine ban is stupid, watch this (especially the clip at the end). I love it when people who know fuck all about firearms are so wiling to walk I've the constitution as d it's a piece of Kleenex. The burden is on YOU to limit our rights. We don't need to need anything. Why can't you understand this?

[bergmann620]

If you really want to see why a magazine ban is stupid, watch this (especially the clip at the end).

You know what I love about that video? It shows that it doesn't even require speedy hands, special skills, or advanced training to swap mags like that. If you know how to load one to begin with, you know how to get around a ban if you really need to take people out.

Would taped mags be banned? What about pre-assembled double or triple mags? Meh. Doesn't even matter... The whole thing is silly.

[cz75fan]

You know what I love about that video? It shows that it doesn't even require speedy hands, special skills, or advanced training to swap mags like that. If you know how to load one to begin with, you know how to get around a ban if you really need to take people out.

Would taped mags be banned? What about pre-assembled double or triple mags? Meh. Doesn't even matter... The whole thing is silly.

Yeah, he wasn't even seemingly trying to do an uber speed run there. From the way the laws have been written I've seen nothing addressing taped mags. Furthermore... if they are about to go on a shooting/killing spree I doubt the breaking of the duct tape law is going to be their concern.

[GreatOak]

Yeah, he wasn't even seemingly trying to do an uber speed run there. From the way the laws have been written I've seen nothing addressing taped mags. Furthermore... if they are about to go on a shooting/killing spree I doubt the breaking of the duct tape law is going to be their concern.

What's to stop them from cutting the bottom off and welding/taping another mag to the bottom?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I must have missed the dual mags that all of the mass shooters used.

[PhaelixWW]

Most other rights have limitations. Or do you want hate speech to be protected under freedom of speech? Would you say our freedom of speech was taken away because hate speech became excluded later on?

Bad analogies are bad.

Hate crimes are a crime against people. Owning a firearm the government decides is an assault weapon is not.

A more appropriate analogy for the proposed assault weapon ban would be if, having decided that the anonymity of the internet causes a preponderance of hate crimes to other venues, the government were to suspend free speech on the internet to prevent a few cases of criminal hate crimes.

The only way to make an analogy between hate crimes and gun control is to target only those who are specifically guilty (or at least those who have a propensity to be guilty). So a more appropriate analogy for the hate crimes limitation would be if the government decided to prevent those who have demonstrated a tendency to violence (with felonies and violent misdemeanors) from owning a firearm. Oh, wait...

Now, if you want to strengthen background checks, make them 100% on all transactions, that'd be a more apt way to strengthen that analogy. And most people would be for that. But a ban on specific classes of semi-automatics for everyone... that's not it.

[bergmann620]

I must have missed the dual mags that all of the mass shooters used.

You're right. The Virginia Tech should just swapped through standard 10 & 15 round mags. That's a solid test case for banning high-capacity magazines, too, right?

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 12:55 PM ----------

Yeah, he wasn't even seemingly trying to do an uber speed run there. From the way the laws have been written I've seen nothing addressing taped mags. Furthermore... if they are about to go on a shooting/killing spree I doubt the breaking of the duct tape law is going to be their concern.

Fucking ban duct tape, right? And packing tape. I'm sure Boogieknight would advocate banning any semi-automatic taping device that could potentially be turned into a full-auto tape dispenser.

We're trying to save lives here.