Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Extrazero8]

lol nope
Gotta catch em all! (Then go shoot up a theater)

You really don't like things that don't agree with your prejudice do you little guy?

Shotgun > AR-15

How so?

I know plenty of people that carry an AR-15 around for self defense.

I would expect that since you know nothing of firearms and those that own them. Maybe your grandpappy can tell you more about it when your older.

Sarcasm aside, conceal carry sidearm > AR-15.

I don't have to conceal a sidearm in my own home nor when hunting.

You've demonstrated an argument to have GUNS. You haven't demonstrated any good reason to have an AR-15 or any other assault weapon.

I have no want for an assault weapon. They cost way too much for what you get. An AR15 on the other hand is great for hunting, sport, collecting, home defense and self defense.

Given the current swing of congress, the likelihood of THIS gun control bill passing is questionable. However a gun control bill passing is in the future.

That's why gun owners will keep voting against these people and giving money to their opponents.

[Kouki]

Ok look Everyone, ive analysed both sides.

Side 1 Wants to get rid of all the guns, but criminals will not obey the laws they are already breaking so only innocent civilians will hand in their guns and then paint big red targets on their backs.

This group also forgets the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to empower the ppl to fight its own government. Yet we dont see civilians with tanks nukes and the like.

Side 2 Wants to get more guns, they claim crime rate drops, but in England and EU like morgan tried to say the number of gun related deaths did not raise when guns were removed, the opponents on his show tried to claim it was culture and region that applied to that, so did they just say american's are more aggressive than the english?

My Own statement, The law of attraction, if you are worried someone is going to shoot you, then someone is going to eventually shoot you, we create our own reality our own life and we have the power to destroy and create, stop worrying about who is going to shoot you so the gun sellers can rake in the cash on your fear.

Do not forget that weapons only sell in times of shootings and riots, when there is peace gun sales bottom out. They make tons of money at wal mart and other gun retailers when a school shooting happens or when the government threatens to pass new gun laws.

Some ppl should never have had a gun in the first place, there should be a psychological test before getting one.

[PhaelixWW]

Just because I do not favor your side does not make you accurate.

You're not wrong because you disagree with me, you're wrong because you ignore the legal definition of the term in favor of the inaccuracy of common parlance.

In the movies the killer used an AK-15 along with two hand guns. However the AK-15 can carry more then ten bullets in it at once.

The standard magazine for a glock 22 is a 15-round magazine.

As for the President I do not think he mis spoke. I think he was VERY clear about his intentions. He called it a Military Assault Rifle.

He called them "military-style assault weapons" before misspeaking and calling them "military-style assault rifle[s]". Just like you're misspeaking by calling them "AK-15[s]". The fact that you used the term "AK-15" incorrectly all four times in your last post does not redefine the term. A single utterance of the President does not redefine the existing legal definition in place for over 40 years.

The truth of the matter AK-15 was used in two of the latest mass murders that killed dozens of people.

And once again, you failed to respond to the fact that handguns, which you tout as a better alternative to assault weapons, are responsible for 20x the amount of homicides and even 2.5x the amount of mass killings.

The truth is that the number of deaths from AR-15-style firearms is exceedingly small, comparatively. To focus in on them as some sort of bogey-man of the firearm industry is hopelessly myopic. As I also said in an earlier post, you're 2x as likely to be punched/kicked to death or even 1.5x as likely to be bludgeoned to death with a club or bat as you are to be killed with a rifle... any kind of rifle. Despite the overwhelming media coverage of the latest events, this is the sad truth.

[Seranthor]

What exactly are Dems exploiting this murder for?

They signaled to try to get a ban on assault rifles after the two mass murders. What should they do. Just sit back and see how things worked out?

Miss, if the solution is to end the violence then when your side calls for the murder of anyone over this tragedy, then I'm sorry, you and they can never claim 'compassion'.

---------- Post added 2012-12-25 at 05:26 PM ----------

Ok, it's your turn, I see. Here we go.

How dare you suggest that because I want to prevent my kids from getting shot at school, that I'm using this tragedy for political gain. How dare you.

What exactly is your point anyways? Are you saying we can’t at least talk about guns without you questioning the Democrats' integrity and saying that they're using the death of 20 children to try to make life for our children a little bit safer?

Clearly you aren't paying attention, till then speaking to you is a waste of time... Start paying attention, then we'll talk.

---------- Post added 2012-12-25 at 05:30 PM ----------

I explained this to several people many many times before. Just because I do not favor your side does not make you accurate. I honestly did not see your question. In the movies the killer used an AK-15 along with two hand guns. However the AK-15 can carry more then ten bullets in it at once. Thus killing the most people in the shorest amount of time.

If he used only a hand gun. There would people STILL alive because you have to reload and you cant shoot the same number of bullets from a hand gun as from an AK-15. As for the President I do not think he mis spoke. I think he was VERY clear about his intentions. He called it a Military Assault Rifle. When I look the meaning it says assault rifle even store owners are boasting about their Assault rifles.

I have at least backed up claims on people saying it like the President and the defined meaning. That's really not important however. The truth of the matter AK-15 was used in two of the latest mass murders that killed dozens of people. That is the weapon that you cannot take out into public. As far as I know hunters use long ranged rifles that fire one or two shots.

Not assult rifles that shoot several bullets in a small amount of time. Thats what it boils down too. The number of bullets it can shoot in least amount of time. There is no need to have this type of weapon even some republican come to the table in favor of banning them. They kill people. Banning them will stop the number of people killed when these things happen.

Make you a deal, you can ban all the AK-15s, as soon as you produce a picture of one.

[SirRobin]

Well I'm back. So let's get this started shall we?

Ok, it's your turn, I see. Here we go.

How dare you suggest that because I want to prevent my kids from getting shot at school, that I'm using this tragedy for political gain. How dare you.

What exactly is your point anyways? Are you saying we can’t at least talk about guns without you questioning the Democrats' integrity and saying that they're using the death of 20 children to try to make life for our children a little bit safer?

More like some liberals have always wanted to get rid of all the conservatives' guns and they are using Sandy Hook as an excuse to try and do that. There is definitely some truth to that belief too. Just as La Bang Bang Pierre of the NRA wants the responses to these tragedies to be more and more guns. There are those who want the responses to these tragedies to be less and less guns. Now, again, while there is some truth to that. There is also a lot of suspiciously convenient ignorance too.

The biggest and most obvious bit of convenient ignorance is that legal gun owners and their guns are actually the problem, not the solution. Look at who is committing the mass shootings and or where they get their weapons from. Even the terrible Luby's Massacre, a point missed by Penn & Teller, was committed by a legal gun owner and his legally acquired semiautomatics. Columbine? Virginia Tech? Aurora? Sandy Hook? Legal gun owners committed, or let their guns make possible, each one.

The next biggest and most obvious bit of convenient ignorance is that the reason some liberals keep using these tragedies to keep trying to take the conservatives' guns away? Is because these tragedies keep happening! Not nearly enough is being done to make it harder for them to happen. All of the weapons used at Columbine, thirteen years ago, came from the same gun show. Guess what, we still have the "gun show loophole."

The third bit of convenient ignorance, though its actually a minor one, is the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller. If you read the 2nd Amendment and the versions leading up to it. Its pretty clear that "militia" and "people" are referring to the same thing. The armed populace, so to speak, is the militia. So "well regulated" actually covers both. Just as "infringed" applies to the right, not the type.

Since the Supreme Court has previously laid out how it can overrule itself. And that even founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton apparently felt that "well regulated" covered arming as well? The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be overturned nor itself amended. Just better understood.

The last, and likely the most minor, bit of convenient ignorance? You don't actually "need" a semiautomatic to defend yourself or your property. If you actually need more than one or two shots? Well either you are "doing it wrong" or, because of what you are up against, your best chance of survival is to fortify and wait for the cavalry. So the types of weaponry and accessories that help these legal gun owners, or the ones they let take their guns, puff up their body counts? Well they are "luxury goods." As in, not essential.

Anyone got any questions?

---------- Post added 2012-12-25 at 05:53 PM ----------

Make you a deal, you can ban all the AK-15s, as soon as you produce a picture of one.

You make it way too easy sometimes Seran.

[Extrazero8]

... Anyone got any questions?

Sure, can you guarantee that by banning assault weapons events like Sandy Hook will never happen again? Can you guarantee that by banning assault weapons the next mass murder sprees will have lower body counts?

One more. Can you guarantee that if we ban assault weapons and magazines over 10 rounds that it will be the last time guns and magazines are further banned?

[SirRobin]

Sure, can you guarantee that by banning assault weapons events like Sandy Hook will never happen again? Can you guarantee that by banning assault weapons the next mass murder sprees will have a lower body counts?

Absolutely not. However, I can guarantee that with just single-action or double-action revolvers, bolt-action rifles, and pump-action shotguns? As an example mind you. It will be harder for legal gun owners, or those they let take their firearms, to "puff up" their body counts during the next Sandy Hook. And making it harder for these wackos to kill as many as they are, is something we can do.

[Extrazero8]

Absolutely not. However, I can guarantee that, as an example, with only single-action or double-action revolvers? It will be harder for legal gun owners, or those they let take their weapons, to "puff up" their body counts during the next Sandy Hook. And making it harder for these wackos to kill as many as they are, is something we can do.

I don't trust your "maybe"s.

If you can't guarantee anything then why should I give up even a part of my rights?

[FusedMass]

Its kinda unreal that some Republicans actually believe Dems were waiting in the shadows for a chance to grab their guns. To be sincere I never cared about guns one way or the other. I had no strong feelings about them at all. During the Election with Obama and Mitt both largely avoided the issue. Despite a Republican Romney signing a ban on assault weapons in his state as Gov.

He seemed to forget all about that while seeking NRA endorsement. Can we please stop thinking that we're going to go to each place and steal your guns. I frankly honestly dont care if a person has twenty guns. I care about saving lifes. When the shooting happended in the movies. The dems were silent to rush to push anything they just watched while Mayors like Michael Bloomberg called for an action.

It wasnt till 20 childern were murdered that they started this. 20 Childern thats worse then columbine when the misfits brought guns to school and started blowing people away. Because a majority of the mass murders have assult weapons in them they want to ban them. Right away people start thinking the government is plotting to take all their weapons.

This kind of massive fear and distrust isn't exactly in the realm of whats actually happening and what people assume is happening.

[SirRobin]

I don't trust your "maybe"s.

If you can't guarantee anything then why should I give up even a part of my rights?

What "maybe" and what "right?" Again it will be harder and, again, your "right" does not actually include "type."

[Seranthor]

Its kinda unreal that some Republicans actually believe Dems were waiting in the shadows for a chance to grab their guns. To be sincere I never cared about guns one way or the other. I had no strong feelings about them at all. During the Election with Obama and Mitt both largely avoided the issue. Despite a Republican Romney signing a ban on assault weapons in his state as Gov.

He seemed to forget all about that while seeking NRA endorsement. Can we please stop thinking that we're going to go to each place and steal your guns. I frankly honestly dont care if a person has twenty guns. I care about saving lifes. When the shooting happended in the movies. The dems were silent to rush to push anything they just watched while Mayors like Michael Bloomberg called for an action.

It wasnt till 20 childern were murdered that they started this. 20 Childern thats worse then columbine when the misfits brought guns to school and started blowing people away. Because a majority of the mass murders have assult weapons in them they want to ban them. Right away people start thinking the government is plotting to take all their weapons.

This kind of massive fear and distrust isn't exactly in the realm of whats actually happening and what people assume is happening.

the distrust comes from the blatant dishonesty in the push, much like the dishonesty you display in your postings, you frankly make stuff up. Why would we trust someone that willfully lies to us or misrepresents themselves? You want people to trust you, then be honest, tell the fucking truth about the facts, and your motives.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You really don't like things that don't agree with your prejudice do you little guy?

How so?

I would expect that since you know nothing of firearms and those that own them. Maybe your grandpappy can tell you more about it when your older.

I don't have to conceal a sidearm in my own home nor when hunting.

I have no want for an assault weapon. They cost way too much for what you get. An AR15 on the other hand is great for hunting, sport, collecting, home defense and self defense.

That's why gun owners will keep voting against these people and giving money to their opponents.

Sorry, I think any meaningful reply got lost in your condescension, but I'll try to answer your questions. I myself own a gun for self defense, but I will gladly give it up the day that I don't have to worry about a second amendment spewing gun nut (or a reclusive teenager with access to his mom's home arsenal) coming in and shooting up any public place I happen to be in.

You were asked to provide a good reason for owning an assault weapon, to which you posted a list of things, and none of them were a good reason for owning an assault weapon, under which the AR-15 is classified. Many of the educated gun proponents in this thread have already said that a shotgun is best for home defense, and a sidearm is optimal for carrying around. You don't need a 30 round AR-15 for hunting, and collecting isn't exactly a "good" reason.

So again, as has been stated at least once every few pages, present a good reason to own an assault weapon, a classification which includes the AR-15. There has yet to be a single good reason to own assault weapons. There have been plenty of good reasons to own a gun

[GreatOak]

How dare you suggest that the president does not care that 20 children were murdered. Just because he has a different political ideology than you does not mean he has no compassion for the innocent souls that were brutally removed from this world on that day. And to suggest that this is all for publicity... how dare you.

Fuck Obama. When he cries for the hundreds of dead children he's responsible for in Pakistan and Yemen I'll believe him. Until then I'll say he's full of shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZn-Pq38B_Y

[Extrazero8]

What "maybe" and what "right?" Again it will be harder and, again, your "right" does not actually include "type."

Your maybe is that maybe this ban will stop or lessen mass murders. My right is my right to own an AR15 or an AK47 clone because they are "in common use at the time" of the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision.

[Seranthor]

Sorry, I think any meaningful reply got lost in your condescension, but I'll try to answer your questions. I myself own a gun for self defense, but I will gladly give it up the day that I don't have to worry about a second amendment spewing gun nut (or a reclusive teenager with access to his mom's home arsenal) coming in and shooting up any public place I happen to be in.

You were asked to provide a good reason for owning an assault weapon, to which you posted a list of things, and none of them were a good reason for owning an assault weapon, under which the AR-15 is classified. Many of the educated gun proponents in this thread have already said that a shotgun is best for home defense, and a sidearm is optimal for carrying around. You don't need a 30 round AR-15 for hunting, and collecting isn't exactly a "good" reason.

So again, as has been stated at least once every few pages, present a good reason to own an assault weapon, a classification which includes the AR-15. There has yet to be a single good reason to own assault weapons. There have been plenty of good reasons to own a gun

It's on you and those that want to limit or ban the legal guns to prove to the legislators and then ultimately to the Supreme Court a compelling reason to take the legal rights of someone following the law. its NOT the responsibility for the law abiding citizens to demonstrate why the law shouldn't be changed.

[Drusin]

Doesn't make a difference to me one way or the other.

[Extrazero8]

You were asked to provide a good reason for owning an assault weapon, to which you posted a list of things, and none of them were a good reason for owning an assault weapon, under which the AR-15 is classified.

Just because you don't like or agree with the reasons I've given doesn't make them bad reasons.

Many of the educated gun proponents in this thread have already said that a shotgun is best for home defense

Why is the shotgun best for home defense? If it is the best then why does that mean I can't use an AR15?

, and a sidearm is optimal for carrying around. You don't need a 30 round AR-15 for hunting, and collecting isn't exactly a "good" reason.

Predator and feral hog hunting. Collecting is actually more of a reason than I need.

So again, as has been stated at least once every few pages, present a good reason to own an assault weapon, a classification which includes the AR-15. There has yet to be a single good reason to own assault weapons. There have been plenty of good reasons to own a gun

I'm not going to argue for owning an assault weapon since I don't have one and have no want to get one. I've given you several good reasons to own an AR15.

I would say a bad reason to own an AR15 is because you need to dig a hole but only want to dig with bullets. A Ruger 10/22 would be way more economical for that.

[FusedMass]

the distrust comes from the blatant dishonesty in the push, much like the dishonesty you display in your postings, you frankly make stuff up. Why would we trust someone that willfully lies to us or misrepresents themselves? You want people to trust you, then be honest, tell the fucking truth about the facts, and your motives.

I'm afraid that I'm not going to have to agree with you on me making stuff up. The stuff I have detailed can be backed up by actual links and sources of information. I didn't make up the dems doing this push on ban of assault weapons. Obama says so himself on the front page. I didn't make up the two massacre attacks.

What exactly am I lying about?

[Blur4stuff]

excuses i've always heard over and over:

criminals break the law and will still have guns so murders will still happen

then countries with strict gun laws would have the same murder rates as usa, but they don't. this counts both firearm murders and other murders as well.

people who want to murder will kill anyways without a gun

again, countries with stricter laws have lower rates of murder. this isn't true.

also, it's a statistical fact in the usa that when a gun isn't present murder is much less likely.

assault weapons or magazine laws are a slippery slope to all guns being banned

obviously this isn't true because there's already been weapons you can't own for decades and as we can see gun laws are still pretty loose in the usa



has anyone ever given a good reason why they need to stockpile high powered weapons that are designed for killing lots of people? it's not for self defense. it's not for hunting. people like that guy's mom are insane. there should be a question asked before being allowed to buy a gun, "Do you believe the democrats are out to get you and invade your house?".

[Extrazero8]

I'm afraid that I'm not going to have to agree with you on me making stuff up. The stuff I have detailed can be backed up by actual links and sources of information. I didn't make up the dems doing this push on ban of assault weapons. Obama says so himself on the front page. I didn't make up the two massacre attacks.

What exactly am I lying about?

I honestly can't tell if you know very little about guns and are being genuine or if you really do know a lot and are trolling.

Either way. If you have links that back you up I would ask that you post them so we can see what you're talking about.