• Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC
    704 replies, posted
Here's something I've never really understood. There is a ban on owning or creating shotguns and rifles that have short barrels because it (presumably) makes it harder to conceal them, which makes sense to some degree. So people found out a way to make rifle caliber "pistols" which are just short rifles without stocks, which you can get around by getting an "arm brace", which at first was illegal to put up to your shoulder but now it's fine because reasons, and it's basically a short barreled rifle/shotgun at that point in anything but name. So, this is the thing I don't understand. Why is it that every time something like this happens, people go after "Assault Weapons" when they aren't even the problem? Yes, they may have been used in the shooting, but how many more people die every day to pistols, yet nobody seems to care? Why are people so focused on AR's when, as it's been pointed out, rifles are used in as much as 4% of deaths caused by firearms and pistols are used in 90% of them? You want something to ban? Ban handguns. Ban rifle caliber pistols that are actually just rifles in everything but classification. Ban bump stocks. Go after something that is actually the problem, not just because it looks scary and can shoot faster. Oh, and spoiler alert, handguns can shoot just as fast as AR's, don't tell anyone or they might get really confused and have to think before they get upset.
Depends on the gun control. Background checks? Sure. Assault weapons bans? Proven ineffective. Confiscation? Would produce many mass shootings. I was operating under the assumption that guns for hunters were okay, do you think all guns should be banned? What kind of post is this? you might as well ask what weapon mass stabbers use to commit mass stabbings.
What is it exactly that you're suggesting?
Congress should've done something back in 2012, and maybe things would be different. I went to the march in the suburbs of Miami. Lots of families and people of all ages, probably in the hundreds. And then there was a corner of like 20 counter protesters dressed in red, white, and blue with like literally 15 flags and blasting american patriotic hit singles from their boombox.
This is everything that I've been saying. Pistols cause 90% of gun deaths in the US. Rifles cause 4%. People see the giant media circuses around mass shootings and are convinced that they are 10 times as more prevalent and harmful than they really are, and while they are a problem, the reaction is always completely disproportionate to the actual amount of people dying.
So then why is the solution to ban the 100,000 people who own an AR-15 from owning an AR-15 to maybe stop the 1 person from using it to commit a mass shooting instead of just stopping that one person from getting one?
Before anybody mentions Switzerland: Switzerland does not prove the NRA’s case
I was referring to ANY gun control being ignored. You then said it hadn't worked in the past. Obviously the gun control that was used was not effective, so try a new more effective kind???
I was operating under the assumption that guns for hunters were okay, do you think all guns should be banned? If by 'gun for a hunter' you mean specifically a bolt-action hunting rifle, then those I could see being alright to have, provided there are strict regulations and laws in place similar to those we have with being able to drive and own a car. What kind of post is this? you might as well ask what weapon mass stabbers use to commit mass stabbings. I was being violently sarcastic.
The irony here, and the greater frustration with not being able to get through to the pro-gun side, is that the only person who has posted something resembling detailed solutions is himself on the pro-gun side.
Which would be? Just yelling "tighter gun control" doesnt fix the problem. What is it that you think would work.
The fact is those two situations are entirely different. Setup vs literally point and shoot the shooter didn't have to corralled everyone in at pulse, Las Vegas or otherwise. Now you're being pedantic. During my time as an EMT student, I saw a lot of wounds from fragmentations of 556 and 223. They can be just as deadly as the bullet.
that and; "We need an assault weapon ban" "It didn't work last time" "Well not that kind of assault weapon ban" without explaining what they meant in the first place. I'm flyin blind here guys.
My point wasn't to propse legislation, just say that having a block to any form of gun control just because it's not the ONLY factor of mass shootings, is silly
Then let's get up to speed. First, the previous assault weapon ban, as stated here: It's no wonder that didn't work. It's so nebulous and limp-handed that it'd be a wonder if it actually curbed any gun violence at all. First of all, what I mean by assault weapon, well: And as for what I meant by banning such weapons, and why: And as for my motive behind that, well, I'll just link to that one.
Then provide an example when saying that. If you think thats silly, explain how its silly by providing some kind of example of something that would be an effective form of control that could be factored in.
If all it takes is one person with a gun to top the last 'worst mass shooting in US history' record, then yeah, maybe the less people who have guns the better.
So... thae argument that gun control shouldn't be COMPLETELY avoided only has merit if I can come up with working gun legislation on the spot?
Did you know one of if not the deadliest school shooting in US history, Virginia Tech, was done with two handguns?
Notice I said 'the less people who have guns the better', not 'the less people who have specifically Bushmaster AR-15s the better''
This term right here is honestly half the reason these discussions, whether on FP or on the national level go no-where. It frames gun owners as a bunch of wackos, instead of actually listening to their arguments. It sets the tone for the discussion before it's even started.
Considering you've been making one sentence banworthy shitposts repeating the same non-points for a month on oldpunch and here it'd probably help your case, yeah.
If someone considers their hobby to be more important another human's life, then yeah, they're kind of a wacko.
It would help your point. See thats the thing, you're being vague. You're pointing to this vague nebulous thing called "gun control" and saying "well some of it could probably work, so you're wrong", when most of the time its a politician pointing at a scary black stick and going "we must ban this filth" and thats the extent of the gun control discussion. Its a constant circle of "ban pls" and "pls no". And all you really do in these threads is make vague statements and snipes.
Worse yet, he isn't even describing people who are particularly vocal advocates in favor of guns, but literally everyone who owns a gun. Single mother in a bad neighborhood? Sorry, you can't buy a gun because some asshole on the other side of the country shot up a school.
My argument that gun control shouldn't be avoided completely, does not hinge on whether I can personally make good gun legislation right here and right now
That's because this is a spooky scary child killer: https://www.military-history.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/AR-15.jpg And this is a tiny little peashooter: https://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/e/7/703597_ts.jpg Also, this is a hunting rifle that shoots the same round as an AR-15 but isn't as scary looking http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ruger-First-Gen-Mini-660x264.jpg It was also exempt from the assault weapons ban, not because it shares the same function, but because it doesn't look scary. But, give it a folding stock? Bam, it becomes a spooky scary child killer and it would be banned.
I actually laid out on the first page about how it goes beyond a "hobby". It also ventures into the area of compensation to gun owners for having to be forced to give up their property, which is usually not cheap. It's not as simple as just going "lol ban all guns, you don't need them, think of the children!!".
^is that bottom one semi automatic? I have no idea if it is
Will guns be used to confiscate guns :thinking: ?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.