Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[GreatOak]

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

You've lost this argument. The only reason they don't use them is because they don't have to. There are hundreds of millions of magazines in circulation that will be banned, do they will still be easy to get. Furthermore, they could make their own magazines by duct taping a sawed off one to another magazine. They could tape two side by side as shown in the video. A magazine ban would add 2 seconds to the time it takes for someone to kill a person AT BEST. What does it matter if the people they shoot are unarmed? How will you address this?

[Porcell]

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?

I'm not sure what's being said here, it's not clear, and I'm guessing there was a typo in your response. So I will be clear. The Virginia Tech shooting killed 32 people and injured 17 more and was performed with two handguns that used 10 and 15 round magazines. The shooter carried a backpack with 19 magazines in it.

A high capacity magazine ban is ill-conceived. It doesn't solve or address or impact the problem that it proposed to solve. 10 rounds is an arbitrary number. What's next, 5 round magazines? 2 rounds? You can only have 1, and it has to be loose in your pocket? That you must keep your ammo at a distance of 10 feet from your weapon at all times? None of it makes sense.

[The Riddler]

Just some more facts for the hopper.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-data-table-11

Of all firearm homocides in the USA in 2011, only 3.7% were from "rifles". Of that 3.7%, less than 10% were "assault rifles" as defined by Fienstien's bonehead law she's trying to pass. So any assault rifle law would impact less than 1% of the total firearm homicides in the nation as a matter of statistical fact.

So in truth, such a lay would be entirely symbolic, Pyrrhic, and justified purely by emotion. It would have no substantive, statistical, real-world impact on firearm homicides. So what is the point? The objective is clearly to set up gun laws on the books as a "stage one" precedent for the eventual objective of complete and total removal of all firearms from private ownership.

That's the only conclusion because that's the stats prove the real plum is plain-jane pistols. Over 72% of all firearm homicides come from simple handguns. Knives are the weapon of choice in over 5X as many homicides as compared to all rifles period - let alone 'assault' rifles. 2X as many people die from fists. More people die from clubs and hammers than from rifles. Banning assault weapons would have less impact on homicides than if you 'banned' FIRE (75 homicides by fire in 2011).

[Seranthor]

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).

Have no fear, Sen McCaskill, will do exactly what she wants or what Sen Reid tells her to, whichever is more politically expedient.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You've lost this argument.

Congratulations, you just declared yourself the winner of an argument on the MMO-Champion off-topic forums. This reminds me of those kids who think they're right because they shout the loudest then stomp their feet and plug their ears.

[Grizzly Willy]

Congratulations, you just declared yourself the winner of an argument on the MMO-Champion off-topic forums. This reminds me of those kids who think they're right because they shout the loudest then stomp their feet and plug their ears.

He provided a rebuttal, though.

Here, I have a question that hasn't been answered yet: would you favor a ban on pistols?

[GreatOak]

Congratulations, you just declared yourself the winner of an argument on the MMO-Champion off-topic forums. This reminds me of those kids who think they're right because they shout the loudest then stomp their feet and plug their ears.

Going to answer my points or just insult me to dodge the question? If so, thanks for proving me right.

[miffy23]

I've been following these kinds of discussions among you American posters for a while now. I'm an American myself by citizenship but I grew up and live in Europe. May I just say I find the notion of even debating whether or not you "need" automatic assault rifles for anything but efficient man-hunting absurd, if not downright distasteful? And frankly, the only arguments pro guns I ever see on these boards are "it's my personal choice, my freedom" and "they're for protection". I'm not going into how absurd these claims are, I'd just like to say most of the rest of the world just shake their heads in disbelief over these kinds of "issues".

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'd favor better enforcement of regulations already in place and legislation that greatly restricts but does not completely remove access to firearms, most notably those with the capability of performing acts of mass murder in a short time period and single incident. People will always find a way to kill other people, but making it harder for a single person to take out multiple targets in a short period is ideal. I could argue in circles all day with no clearly defined winner or loser. "There's too much in circulation already!" is a pretty piss poor excuse to not restrict magazine size. The whole theme behind a lot of American drive I thought was if you work hard enough at something, you can accomplish anything... except apparently gun regulation? Oh well better give up without trying. As for the whole unarmed people defending themselves... most of the guns used in shootings are legally acquired (again we go back to the "omg there's too many in circulation to even try, may as well not try") and there being armed guards at Virginia Tech did a whole lot of good, I hear.

Again, still no good reason to not limit magazine size.

But it's kind of hard to have an adult discussion with someone who declares himself a winner every couple of pages, and looks down his nose at anyone that even smells like they might not know the difference between a lever action and a bolt action. The latest video he posted basically shows that a trained gunman can use a dual mag effectively, and does a whole lot of showing absolutely nothing else.

[GreatOak]

I've been following these kinds of discussions among you American posters for a while now. I'm an American myself by citizenship but I grew up and live in Europe. May I just say I find the notion of even debating whether or not you "need" automatic assault rifles for anything but efficient man-hunting absurd, if not downright distasteful? And frankly, the only arguments pro guns I ever see on these boards are "it's my personal choice, my freedom" and "they're for protection". I'm not going into how absurd these claims are, I'd just like to say most of the rest of the world just shake their heads in disbelief over these kinds of "issues".

Quiet frankly, the rest of the world can fuck off. I don't spend my time complaining about the UK's strict speech laws. That's their choice and how they like things. I can respect that.

[Trunksee]

I've been following these kinds of discussions among you American posters for a while now. I'm an American myself by citizenship but I grew up and live in Europe. May I just say I find the notion of even debating whether or not you "need" automatic assault rifles for anything but efficient man-hunting absurd, if not downright distasteful? And frankly, the only arguments pro guns I ever see on these boards are "it's my personal choice, my freedom" and "they're for protection". I'm not going into how absurd these claims are, I'd just like to say most of the rest of the world just shake their heads in disbelief over these kinds of "issues".

You say you havent seen one but there is one. We protect ourselves from our government. If all we had was single shot hunting rifles, what stops the government from declaring a military ruled state? We ve seen it through out history that at some point governments over step their bounds and its up to the people to defend themselves. No its not coming tomorrow or the next day but to take away the rights gives the.government to much power for my liking. Yes if they bomb us we are all dead, but id at least like a fighting chance. We were founded on a minimalist government not a dictatorship and with no way to stand up we lose that. Now im thinking years out but to take it away we all lose.

[GreatOak]

I'd favor better enforcement of regulations already in place and legislation that greatly restricts but does not completely remove access to firearms, most notably those with the capability of performing acts of mass murder in a short time period and single incident. People will always find a way to kill other people, but making it harder for a single person to take out multiple targets in a short period is ideal. I could argue in circles all day with no clearly defined winner or loser. "There's too much in circulation already!" is a pretty piss poor excuse to not restrict magazine size. The whole theme behind a lot of American drive I thought was if you work hard enough at something, you can accomplish anything... except apparently gun regulation? Oh well better give up without trying. As for the whole unarmed people defending themselves... most of the guns used in shootings are legally acquired (again we go back to the "omg there's too many in circulation to even try, may as well not try") and there being armed guards at Virginia Tech did a whole lot of good, I hear.

Again, still no good reason to not limit magazine size.

But it's kind of hard to have an adult discussion with someone who declares himself a winner every couple of pages, and looks down his nose at anyone that even smells like they might not know the difference between a lever action and a bolt action. The latest video he posted basically shows that a trained gunman can use a dual mag effectively, and does a whole lot of showing absolutely nothing else.

Hmmm, more circular arguments and ad hominems...
Once you learn about what rights you want to take away from us or limit, you will be taken seriously.

Yeah, I'm done with you. Even gun control advocates ITT found your arguments tiresome. You're going to need a hell of a lot more evidence to enact your policies than "We've got to do something". The difference between you and I is that I wish to enact things that work like mandatory training and safety rather than knee jerk reactions that don't address the problems. Have fun trying to punish millions of people over guns that are responsible for 3% of gun crime. I'd wager forcing people to lock their guns up and enforcing background checks on all guns will get rid of over 3% of gun crime.

[bergmann620]

I've been following these kinds of discussions among you American posters for a while now. I'm an American myself by citizenship but I grew up and live in Europe. May I just say I find the notion of even debating whether or not you "need" automatic assault rifles for anything but efficient man-hunting absurd, if not downright distasteful? And frankly, the only arguments pro guns I ever see on these boards are "it's my personal choice, my freedom" and "they're for protection". I'm not going into how absurd these claims are, I'd just like to say most of the rest of the world just shake their heads in disbelief over these kinds of "issues".

No one here that I've seen is even debating the need for 'automatic assault rifles'. They are already strictly controlled, and for the most part illegal.

The only pro-gun argument that is needed isn't even a pro-gun argument:

If a freedom exists (any freedom), it is not the burden of the people to defend the need for the freedom, but rather it is the burden of the state to prove why that freedom needs to be limited or removed.

It is my further belief that the case for limiting or removing a freedom needs to be both compelling, and realistic.

Lastly, you free to think it's absurd to want to be able to defend yourself or your family, or on the most basic level, your freedom. However, to make any claim of superiority based on such a limited perspective reeks of arrogance. I'll put it more gently than others in this thread- let's us just both be happy that we live where we do and move on.

[FusedMass]

Hmmm, more circular arguments and ad hominems...
Once you learn about what rights you want to take away from us or limit, you will be taken seriously.

Yeah, I'm done with you. Even gun control advocates ITT found your arguments tiresome. You're going to need a hell of a lot more evidence to enact your policies than "We've got to do something". The difference between you and I is that I wish to enact things that work like mandatory training and safety rather than knee jerk reactions that don't address the problems. Have fun trying to punish millions of people over guns that are responsible for 3% of gun crime. I'd wager forcing people to lock their guns up and enforcing background checks on all guns will get rid of over 3% of gun crime.

Its odd. When someone finally corrects you. Putting up a much much better argument. Your response is to ignore them? but you had fun debating with me for four pages about the defined meaning of the word. While he has correctly over and over provided a reasonable list of reason and example. He is correct it was a huge distraction for the term AK-15.

Its to try to shame the uneducated people in your mind and writing them off. Despite almost more then double the people at least on here support the measure and not one of you Pro Gun People have even provided one valid reason on why you need this weapon. Not a single one. I just do not think its wise to ignore someone because of your biased point of view.

[Trunksee]

Its odd. When someone finally corrects you. Putting up a much much better argument. Your response is to ignore them? but you had fun debating with me for four pages about the defined meaning of the word. While he has correctly over and over provided a reasonable list of reason and example. He is correct it was a huge distraction for the term AK-15.

Its to try to shame the uneducated people in your mind and writing them off. Despite almost more then double the people at least on here support the measure and not one of you Pro Gun People have even provided one valid reason on why you need this weapon. Not a single one. I just do not think its wise to ignore someone because of your biased point of view.

Yet you brush mine off as an unrealistic reason because it seems you like big government. The problem is the ideas being put forth by polititians are to ambiguous. Look at what illinois is doing right now. Angering a large group of people like this is not a way to run a government but to trample on the minority for the masses and thats not how this country works.

[FusedMass]

Yet you brush mine off as an unrealistic reason because it seems you like big government. The problem is the ideas being put forth by polititians are to ambiguous. Look at what illinois is doing right now. Angering a large group of people like this is not a way to run a government but to trample on the minority for the masses and thats not how this country works.

The problem as other posters have indicated their is a certain level of smugness among the Pro Gun Owners. First teasing the others about the AK-15 having a trival debate about that distracting from the bigger issue. I was native enough to get sucked into it before I stopped. Then blowing them off as uneducated writing them off. Despite other posters calling their congressmen to oppose this Bill.

If people were actually humble in that fact this might become law then the back and forth would be much much more relaxed. However to address your claim. I believe in protecting people. Not a single person has provided a valid claim on why they need a magazine with so many rounds in it. For something that never will become law in their minds. People are sure going to great length do discredit and throw down people they do not agree with.

Syria has a supply of large weapons yet been locked in a two year long war that leaves hundreds dead pretty much every week. It does not help the situation.

[Trunksee]

Its odd. When someone finally corrects you. Putting up a much much better argument. Your response is to ignore them? but you had fun debating with me for four pages about the defined meaning of the word. While he has correctly over and over provided a reasonable list of reason and example. He is correct it was a huge distraction for the term AK-15.

Its to try to shame the uneducated people in your mind and writing them off. Despite almost more then double the people at least on here support the measure and not one of you Pro Gun People have even provided one valid reason on why you need this weapon. Not a single one. I just do not think its wise to ignore someone because of your biased point of view.

Yet you brush mine off as an unrealistic reason because it seems you like big government. The problem is the ideas being put forth by polititians are to ambiguous. Look at what illinois is doing right now. Angering a large group of people like this is not a way to run a government but to trample on the minority for the masses and thats not how this country works.

[bergmann620]

Syria has a supply of large weapons yet been locked in a two year long war that leaves hundreds dead pretty much every week. It does not help the situation.

Do you really think that people are better off living oppressed under tyranny? That a gun-free Syria would be a better place?

"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!" was what this country was founded on. We rebelled against a government that was merely being unfair. 'Unfair' wouldn't even be in the top 25 of the Syrian government's greatest hits.

[moojerk]

“Why would anybody need a gun like that?” The answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled. (Contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic)

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. If you doubt that, consider the history of arms control in England, where members of the Catholic minority (and non-Protestants generally) were prohibited from bearing arms as part of the campaign of general political oppression against them. The Act of Disenfranchisement was still in effect when our Constitution was being written, a fact that surely was on the mind of such Founding Fathers as Daniel Carroll, to say nothing of his brother, Archbishop John Carroll.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or burglars. It has to do with the right of the people to keep the same weapons the government has, so that the government cannot turn into the very thing our founding fathers were trying to escape from. In reality, things like not allowing citizens to have fully auto weapons and "gun free school zones" are unconstitutional.

There also seems to be a movement of some democrats to try and repeal the 2nd amendment. While it will never happen, it's scary there are people who actually even think that way.

Its to try to shame the uneducated people in your mind and writing them off. Despite almost more then double the people at least on here support the measure and not one of you Pro Gun People have even provided one valid reason on why you need this weapon. Not a single one. I just do not think its wise to ignore someone because of your biased point of view.

Why do we NEED cars that can go over 40mph? Why do we NEED fast food restaurants? Why do we NEED a tool like a hammer? (which kills more people per year than these "assault" rifles, by the way)

The answer is, we don't. But we are allowed to have them because we are a free people. We allow our government to exist. We allow it to govern. But we are still free and have these freedoms, protected by our constitution. As for your statement that more people support gun control than don't, I think you've been watching too much MSNBC. Most people have come to realize gun control kills. If you're trying to use your poll as evidence, the problem is your sample pool.

[miffy23]

No one here that I've seen is even debating the need for 'automatic assault rifles'. They are already strictly controlled, and for the most part illegal.

The only pro-gun argument that is needed isn't even a pro-gun argument:

If a freedom exists (any freedom), it is not the burden of the people to defend the need for the freedom, but rather it is the burden of the state to prove why that freedom needs to be limited or removed.

It is my further belief that the case for limiting or removing a freedom needs to be both compelling, and realistic.

Lastly, you free to think it's absurd to want to be able to defend yourself or your family, or on the most basic level, your freedom. However, to make any claim of superiority based on such a limited perspective reeks of arrogance. I'll put it more gently than others in this thread- let's us just both be happy that we live where we do and move on.

You are equating basic human rights and the very loaded term of "freedom" with a law that lets you carry personal firearms. I'm sorry, that's just rethoric and nothing more. In the end, you are justifying the need for any common man on the street to wield a deadly weapon for no other reason than basic paranoia and sadly, decades and decades of successful media spinning and lobbying by the companies that make billions off gun sales.

You are further equating me finding a defense of gun laws with holding the need for defense of "your loved ones" in contempt (more rethoric), and then reverting to the most common of conservative American arguments "F'ck off and let us live the way we want to". Nobody is trying to change your way of living. There are however, different opinions in the world than yours, and since you entered a discussion on the subject here, i may tender the notion that it is indeed open for an exchange of opinions and not defensive bashing of any other opinions.

The pro-gun lobby always falls back to the same arguments most conservatives fall back to when they simply run out of any solid ground "you hate America" "it's a free country and only I as a convervative know what the Founding Fathers REALLY wanted" or "you hate freedom". You're living in a mass media-spun world. Take a step back and think critically, if I may suggest so.

In my own personal opinion, bereft of any American lobbies here in Austria, I sincerely believe no man should be wielding a personal firearm privately. I do not see the reason for it in the slightest, any waving of crime statistics etc is a dog chasing it's own tail since it usually leads to the origin of the problem - an abundance of cheap, freely available firearms.