• DEVELOPING: Shooting reported at Connecticut elementary school; 27 killed
    1,626 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yumyumshisha;38829817]A Clinton-type gun ban would kill a lot of firms in the US (without government contracts) that are very American, and do all manufacturing and R&D domestically. The effects (culturally and economically) would be bad either way. Also, I do realize how much of a cop-out argument "they'll get guns even if you ban them" is, but let's think about Columbine. The Clinton gun ban should have stopped Intratec Tec-9's from being produced, but the shooters in Columbine still got ahold of them. There are too many guns in America, imo, to prevent someone from buying one.[/QUOTE] So your response to weekly mass shootings is to say "welp, too many guns, what you gonna do? Hope it's not me next time"?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38829804]I think the best way for gun control is to use laws to control guns as opposed to weird "not-actually-gun-control" workarounds.[/QUOTE] Except America has such a giant gun culture that would be useless, just like how there are laws opposing weed, it doesn't matter, there's just too big a culture. so, unfortunately, we have to use greed to discourage people using guns.
Have a friend in Connecticut. All I could say as he was tellin' me this shit was "FUCK OFF".
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38829823]Except you just fucking said that "they'll just use Knives instead like in Asia" which is [b]NOT STATISTICALLY SUPPORTED[/b] Culture has a whole lot to do with it but that doesn't change the fact that your statement was unsupported (read: wrong).[/QUOTE] You got me confused with another poster I didn't say the Asia thing.
[QUOTE=zombays;38829813]Extraordinarily simple. Offer rewards for turning in guns and bullets.[/QUOTE] cash for guns programs already exist but they definitely wouldn't work in places with strong gun culture.
[QUOTE=zombays;38829777]I think the best way for gun control is simple: offer a reward for turning in guns.[/QUOTE] That was done successfully in my city, we had a program called "Pixels for Pistols" where if you traded in a Firearm, you got a camera. It even applied for illegal guns. It's worked successfully in many cities, too. Winnipeg collected over 1700 guns from the program.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;38829829]They presently operate a system like this called 'gun programs' but it's very expensive and some historical firearms get destroyed or almost destroyed.[/QUOTE] And why should something that's used to kill someone in an instant be preserved? Unless it's extraordinarily rare like a blunderbuss or an STG-44, which show development of humanity in certain ways, it's useless.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38829814]Ok well your plan fell apart cause having to get a permit doesn't jive with the 2nd amendment and no states have that. Well [I]very [/I]few states I should say.[/QUOTE] Hey, I have an idea: Fuck the second amendment. Let's just collectively decide that an amendment in the bill of rights intended to allow the easy organization of Militias is less important than the lives of all of these dead children and theater goers and high school students and mall shoppers.
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38829828]Correlation =/= causation[/QUOTE] You people are experts at missing the point. I love how gun supports pull "Correlation =/= causation" all the time but then do the exact same thing themselves.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38829873]Hey, I have an idea: Fuck the second amendment. Let's just collectively decide that an amendment in the bill of rights intended to allow the easy organization of Militias is less important than the lives of all of these dead children and theater goers and high school students and mall shoppers.[/QUOTE] I have an idea, lets not? I'd rather not have some knee jerk emotional reaction and tear apart the constitution and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't even match up to the supreme courts.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38829890]I have an idea, lets not? I'd rather not have some knee jerk emotional reaction and tear apart the constitution and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't even match up to the supreme courts.[/QUOTE] "knee jerk emotional reaction" implies that mass shooting aren't a thing that regularly happens in your country
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;38829855]That was done successfully in my city, we had a program called "Pixels for Pistols" where if you traded in a Firearm, you got a camera. It even applied for illegal guns. It's worked successfully in many cities, too. Winnipeg collected over 1700 guns from the program.[/QUOTE] Read that as "sex for pistols". BRILLIANT! We will make a goverment regulated prostitusion market which is paid for in guns, all the while the Sex Pistols plays in the background. 10/10 perfect plan
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38829873]Hey, I have an idea: Fuck the second amendment. Let's just collectively decide that an amendment in the bill of rights intended to allow the easy organization of Militias is less important than the lives of all of these dead children and theater goers and high school students and mall shoppers.[/QUOTE] I'm a big fan of lax gun laws (still have laws but more restrictions on ammo and how much a gun can hold and shit). These guys were nuts anyways, they did horrible things and I think if they wanted to do horrible things the law wouldn't stop them.
just got my phone charged and saw a bunch of posts about this on facebook goddammit, world i hate when this shit happens
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38829890]I have an idea, lets not? I'd rather not have some knee jerk emotional reaction and tear apart the constitution and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't even match up to the supreme courts.[/QUOTE] Yes, banning the ability to tote around assault rifles will so tear the constitution. /sarcasm
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38829883]You people are experts at missing the point. I love how gun supports pull "Correlation =/= causation" all the time but then do the exact same thing themselves.[/QUOTE] Except I support gun control. I just disagree with banning guns entirely.
I'm hearing the shooter also killed one of his parents prior to this.
How about we just arm EVERYBODY so when something like this happens people will be able to defend themselves, others, and keep the situation from escalating.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38829849]cash for guns programs already exist but they definitely wouldn't work in places with strong gun culture.[/QUOTE] Maybe not in America. But firearm amnesties were hugely successful in reducing the amount of firearms in Britain. Anyway no one is pushing for an overnight solution. The problem is that many pro-gunners try to employ the logic fallacy that "it won't fix the problem tomorrow". Sure it won't, things take a long time. But it's better trying to make America a better country in a decade or two than dealing with this absolute apathy to the amount of spree-shootings you're willing to tolerate.
[QUOTE=zombays;38829910]Yes, banning the ability to tote around assault rifles will so tear the constitution. /sarcasm[/QUOTE] no one is toting assault rifles, and these "assault rifles" are so ridiculously wide spread throughout the country already it is impossible to try and ban them now. It will not happen, far too many legal and illegal owners
[QUOTE=zombays;38829910]Yes, banning the ability to tote around assault rifles will so tear the constitution. /sarcasm[/QUOTE] Weed is illegal. Drinking under the age is illegal. Banning assault rifles wouldn't make them disappear.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38829890]I have an idea, lets not? I'd rather not have some knee jerk emotional reaction and tear apart the constitution and your interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't even match up to the supreme courts.[/QUOTE] Your interpretation doesn't match up with the people who wrote the fucking thing.
[QUOTE=RidleySmash;38829918]How about we just arm EVERYBODY so when something like this happens people will be able to defend themselves, others, and keep the situation from escalating.[/QUOTE] Huge groups of people shooting guns at eachother. Brilliant.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;38829907]I'm a big fan of lax gun laws (still have laws but more restrictions on ammo and how much a gun can hold and shit). These guys were nuts anyways, they did horrible things and I think if they wanted to do horrible things the law wouldn't stop them.[/QUOTE] Think that all you want, it won't make it reality.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38829924]Maybe not in America. But firearm amnesties were hugely successful in reducing the amount of firearms in Britain. Anyway no one is pushing for an overnight solution. The problem is that many pro-gunners try to employ the logic fallacy that "it won't fix the problem tomorrow". Sure it won't, things take a long time. But it's better trying to make America a better country in a decade or two than dealing with this absolute apathy to the amount of spree-shootings you're willing to tolerate.[/QUOTE] Well as an example for your decade solution take a look at the Clinton "assault weapons" ban. 1994-2004 did absolutely fucking nothing other than piss off legal owners and hurt the economy
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38829913]Except I support gun control. I just disagree with banning guns entirely.[/QUOTE] I agree, banning guns shouldn't be allowed. More gun control, reduce the ability for someone to be able to tote around assault rifles and full auto pistols and discourage the use of firearms in general. It would be difficult, and maybe even impossible due to the massive hard-on 'murricuh has for firearms thanks to Rambo-esque media.
[del]Another police briefing in progress.[/del] whoops, looks like CBC is re-airing that first one
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38829937]Huge groups of people shooting guns at eachother. Brilliant.[/QUOTE] Well, if it works for Texas....
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38829937]Huge groups of people shooting guns at eachother. Brilliant.[/QUOTE] Why isn't your scenario happening in the states with millions of concealed carriers then?
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38829913]Except I support gun control. I just disagree with banning guns entirely.[/QUOTE] my point still stands. Regardless if it's applicable to you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.