Somethings been bothering about these gun "ban" talks...

[Harakhte]

You do realize that a Hand gun can be turned into a fully automatic weapon right. So what happens if they ban assault rifles and then ppl start murdering masses w/ full auto hand guns? Ban hand guns next?

Also the problem w/ adding regulation on mental illness is, wheres the line drawn on what is and isn't mental illness. Did you know that ADD and ADHD is classified as a mental illness?Addiction to nicotine is a mental illness? Stupid I know but that means the government gets to basically take a gun from anyone they want and claim they have a mental illness.

I really, REALLY hate "slippery slope" arguments. That kind of mentality in government prevents anything from ever getting done. There are thousands of ways from keeping that from being done - specifically list the illnesses that ban you from owning a gun. Make it have to be verified by several certified psychiatrists in the field, yada yada yada.

[slime]

@ Itisamuh - I agree with you and will take it a step further - we wouldn't be who we are today (in every aspect) if not for those murders throughout history. But I disagree with you that it does not matter who gets murdered. I have to believe when the defenseless are murdered it is more heinious of an offense then if an adult is murdered and especially if the adult was a criminal. It's why society is in place, the strong don't need any help from society - sure they will take it and even thrive from it - but it's really there to protect the weak.. even give them a chance in this murder-filled dog-eat-dog world.

[wolphe]

What I don't get, is how so many Americans be so stupid, as to belive that GUNS are the solution. Without the amount of weapons in circulation, it would be harder for anyone, even criminals to get their hands on them, thus reducing the amount of kills going on. Yes, there will obviously be people that manages to get guns anyway, but isn't 50 kills better then 500 kills? I personally wouldn't choose anything that made 450 more people getting killed, if there was an option that would save 450 people.

I mean... really. just look at the rest of the world. Scandinavia for example, there are VERY little murders going on on a daily basis then in America, why? because guns aren't "allowed". Note that I don't mean murders in just pure numbers, as obviously there are more people in America, so they would naturally have a larger amount of kills. But murders per inhabitant is much higher in America then any of the scandinavian countries etc.

[N-7]

Sorry, "destroying" someone in a discussion is when you have to repeatedly ask them something and they CAN'T respond because quite frankly they don't have a valid response without making them look worse than they already do.

Yeah I usually "cannot" respond when someone is yelling on my ear during our "discussion."

[Felya]

Murders of all kinds have happened since long before guns were around. People do tend to take notice more when it's a mass killing, but it isn't really justified. Death is death, murder is murder, it shouldn't matter what the age or the number of victims are. And of course, there's the indisputable fact that making something illegal has no effect on criminals, so it'd only be harming law abiding citizens to ban all guns. They could still try to ban only assault weapons, but it's pointless and won't change a thing.

I think it is justified in the 'mass' part of mass killings. Death is just death, when you are disconnected from the people involved. When you kill a mass of people, you are involving an even larger mass of relatives and loved ones who are effected. Mass shootings spark more screwteny related to guns, because without a gun it is difficult to reach the mass portion of mass murder. It requires you to equate mass murder with just murder when talking about there being murder before guns. The thing is, mass murder was far more difficult to pull off without a tool that is as efficient of a weapon as a gun.

Also, the harming of law abiding citizens is a catch 22. These mass shootings were committed by law biding citizens. They were not criminals until they killed people. If these guns were illigal, they would be criminals prior to actually committing the mass murders. It would have made it possible to stop or arrest these folks while they were in the process of committing a crime of buying the weapon. It's also only movie logic, that leads people to believe buying guns illigally is easy. Unlike a plot device in movies, it's not easy to buy a gun from a criminal who can use the gun you are buying to just take your money.

[Shocktroop]

damage done in mass shootings would be greatly reduced if they had hand guns thats the point

Um no. Handguns have more power than the rifles used in the recent mass shootings. They reload quicker, cause far more bodily harm and it is easier to carry more ammunition since they are smaller clips. Educate yourself next time before posting nonsense.

[Wildtree]

What I really wonder is.... Why do we have another thread now about guns.. Don't we have already enough, especially even one with/about Piers Morgan and the topic?

[Kasierith]

What I really wonder is.... Why do we have another thread now about guns.. Don't we have already enough, especially even one with about Piers Morgan and the topic?

Given that it's the same demographic that thinks that screaming at the top of your lungs and faking a British accent in order to dodge questions is somehow "winning" an argument, are you really surprised?

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 05:12 PM ----------

Sorry, "destroying" someone in a discussion is when you have to repeatedly ask them something and they CAN'T respond because quite frankly they don't have a valid response without making them look worse than they already do.

So if I speak in all caps and put you on ignore, does that mean I win?

[Frozenbeef]

See above reply. I also don't really see how he was "louder", but Piers pretty much lost any hope of trying to have a real discussion when he had to resort to things like "you can sit there and smirk all you want" without STILL answering his original question.

Compared to the guy doing a fake British accent, calling him a redcoat, shouting over him and saying he should be deported in order to mock his opposition 0o

I hate Piers Morgan, but to say he was the worse of two evils is like saying Iran supports gay marriage :S

[alturic]

Yeah I usually "cannot" respond when someone is yelling on my ear during our "discussion."

We must not have watched the same video? The video I seen showed a guy explaining to Piers how demonizing people who don't "agree" with Piers is a silly idea. Piers than responds with "How dare you!!! RAWR!!" then the guy counters, then Piers repeats himself, then the guy continues his argument.

I really didn't see anyone (again, in the video I watched) trying to shout over each other?

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 02:05 PM ----------

Given that it's the same demographic that thinks that screaming at the top of your lungs and faking a British accent in order to dodge questions is somehow "winning" an argument, are you really surprised?

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 05:12 PM ----------



So if I speak in all caps and put you on ignore, does that mean I win?

You really can't be this dumb, can you? You guys really must have found another video. NEITHER of them were speaking any louder than the other? Piers was the one who ignored the question the guy asked, so no, that means Piers lost the argument. You can't even have a discussion if you ask the other person a question and all they do is say "How dare you disagree with me! RAWR!!" and asking a counter-question instead of answering the original question.

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 02:07 PM ----------

Compared to the guy doing a fake British accent, calling him a redcoat, shouting over him and saying he should be deported in order to mock his opposition 0o

I hate Piers Morgan, but to say he was the worse of two evils is like saying Iran supports gay marriage :S

Yup, it's official you guys all seriously watched a different video. I didn't see a guy doing a fake british accent (if you want to say Piers has a british accent to compare it to), let alone the guy didn't call Piers any names, and on top of that, again neither one of them were shouting. Piers would say something, the guy would respond. The same with the other guy, and then Piers would respond.

I'm thinking you guys might not have watched the video and think I'm referring to the video with the gun fanatic guy or something, because none of the things you are talking about happened by either person in the video I linked.

[ati87]

sure most "mass shootings" are done by assault weapons,

This argument by the OP alone should be enough to bad assault weapons....

In the context of reducing these random mass shootings banning the assault weapons would be a great start.

And if people really want to go on a killing spree with a gun or a knife then at least we know that throwing something at that persons head will be enough and doable.

[alturic]

This argument by the OP alone should be enough to bad assault weapons....

In the context of reducing these random mass shootings banning the assault weapons would be a great start.

And if people really want to go on a killing spree with a gun or a knife then at least we know that throwing something at that persons head will be enough and doable.

In a way, you are absolutely right, the majority of any mass killing is done by an assault weapon. The POINT of my OP is why exactly are we putting this massive emphasis on banning assault weapons instead of the weapon(s) that are used for the VAST majority of murders which is handguns.

It's equivalent (in terms of occurance) to airplanes being unsafe because they have accidents. Cars are still far more dangerous in terms of accidents happening more frequently with cars.

[Svifnymr]

I really, REALLY hate "slippery slope" arguments. That kind of mentality in government prevents anything from ever getting done. There are thousands of ways from keeping that from being done - specifically list the illnesses that ban you from owning a gun. Make it have to be verified by several certified psychiatrists in the field, yada yada yada.

On losing rights, maybe every time it happens, there SHOULD be a big fight. The Patriot Act certainly didn't seem to have much fighting, though maybe it's just my memory of the event.

On mental health, some of the "problem" is patients rights advocacy groups. I'm not saying they're wrong, but they want records sealed, they want things kept private, because the patient has rights. Your medical records are your business and no one elses. Most of those same people are anti-gun, but in a more general sense of wanting no one to have guns rather than restricting it from mental problems.

There was also some issues with ex-soldiers that had sought treatment for depression or whatnot and not being able to get guns, folks on either side didn't want to come out and say "take guns away from our ex-soldiers!" and it was a sticking point.

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 02:25 PM ----------

What I really wonder is.... Why do we have another thread now about guns.. Don't we have already enough, especially even one with/about Piers Morgan and the topic?

I'm pro-gun, but I've reported numerous threads like this in the past to get them merged into one or the other threads, but without success. I don't want all discussion shut down or anything, but half the time these videos are already posted in some other thread.

And these threads are opened by both sides of the debate, so I don't think it's a partisan thing.

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 02:26 PM ----------

He didn't "destroy" anyone on the topic. He was just loud and shouting over Piers, who was trying to have a conversation not a "MY VOICE IS LOUDER SO MY VIEWS ON THE ISSUE ARE CORRECT" thing.

Are you maybe thinking of the Piers interview with the guy that wanted to deport him? Because this one doesn't really have shouting. If anything, Piers interupts him repeatedly.

[Kivimetsan]

He didn't "destroy" anyone on the topic. He was just loud and shouting over Piers, who was trying to have a conversation not a "MY VOICE IS LOUDER SO MY VIEWS ON THE ISSUE ARE CORRECT" thing.

lmfao are you sure its wasn't Piers being loud and shouting over him? Piers is a complete and utter bully, that's it. The guy spoke the truth, but Piers doesn't believe in truth, just viewer count and to get a larger audience he has to preach anti gun crap, because the only people left watching main stream media include morons and liberals. Libertarians and pro gunners jumped that ship a long time ago, unless of course Ron Paul or someone else with half a brain is being interviewed.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Murders of all kinds have happened since long before guns were around. People do tend to take notice more when it's a mass killing, but it isn't really justified. Death is death, murder is murder, it shouldn't matter what the age or the number of victims are. And of course, there's the indisputable fact that making something illegal has no effect on criminals, so it'd only be harming law abiding citizens to ban all guns. They could still try to ban only assault weapons, but it's pointless and won't change a thing.

People kill people so we shouldn't attempt to address people killing lots of people because people will always kill people. In fact let's not try to stop people from killing people ever because people will always kill people, no point in even attempting to stop murder if it's gonna happen anyway.

Sound logic, that.

Don't worry, if you say it LOUD ENOUGH it'll be true and you can win any argument.

[Deafknight]

The only reason a person would need a gun for is to protect himself against another person having a gun.

[Seezer]

Sorry, "destroying" someone in a discussion is when you have to repeatedly ask them something and they CAN'T respond because quite frankly they don't have a valid response without making them look worse than they already do.

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 10:37 AM ----------



See above reply. I also don't really see how he was "louder", but Piers pretty much lost any hope of trying to have a real discussion when he had to resort to things like "you can sit there and smirk all you want" without STILL answering his original question.

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 10:37 AM ----------



WoW, there is still some hope for humanity. At least there is others out there that "get it".

Being a child isn't "destroying" someone. He's falling back on "Government tyranny rising in the country in the next 50-100 years.". XD And why "my grandparents in Europe are now ashes"? Where are his "grandparents" from? I want to hear this. He's one of those people that chooses his stance on topics based off which side politically he stands on. And all of that is just control freakishness, and intolerance and passive/aggressive bitchyness.

[Prokne]

So great, we stopped these very few mass shootings, but what about all the other murders that happen DAILY in MULTIPLE cities?

I'm really torn about the issue because while I can't fathom the need for assault rifles and the like (which people also need to realize weren't even a thought in someones head when the constitution was penned) it's also 100% fact that more killings happen with non-assault weapons. It's simple fact, point blank. So why is this big talk about banning assault rifles, but not any other kind of gun.

To reduce all gun violence you would have to ban all guns. The reason assault weapons get banned is because they are considered overkill for what any normal person would need a gun for, hunting and self defense(a bolt action rifle, shotgun or handgun are better alternatives). The only good reason to own one is for recreation and its fairly easy to tell someone they cant shoot a few rounds at a target every now and then to prevent people from dieing.

[Raiju]

Murders of all kinds have happened since long before guns were around. People do tend to take notice more when it's a mass killing, but it isn't really justified. Death is death, murder is murder, it shouldn't matter what the age or the number of victims are. And of course, there's the indisputable fact that making something illegal has no effect on criminals, so it'd only be harming law abiding citizens to ban all guns. They could still try to ban only assault weapons, but it's pointless and won't change a thing.

As much as I can agree that it's the "I NEED GUNS" parties own fault that the homicide rate is so high and hard to fix, over generations if you banned guns now most would disappear. I don't really see "effect won't be immediate" as a sound argument to allow pointless deaths, personally.

[Prokne]

The only reason a person would need a gun for is to protect himself against another person having a gun.

If some 200lb guy was trying to kill me with his hands I would need some kind of weapon to stop him. A gun would work better than a knife.