[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39506200]He's saying to basically do nothing, just try to get everyone to not let people who shouldn't be around firearms, be around firearms. And when somebody gets ahold of one and kills a lot of people, get over it.[/QUOTE]
he's not neccesarily saying to do nothing, he's just saying that the first thing we should do is stop giving the shooters themselves so much attention, and stop making laws that don't address the real problem.
I am completely against gun control. Do they really think that taking away guns will take the crime rate down to 0%? THAT IS BULLSHIT! PEOPLE WILL KILL OTHER PEOPLE WITH OR WITHOUT GUNS. IT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. If you take away guns, you will cause more problems. It will cause more and more people to illegally sell guns, which people already are anyway.
Does having a USB drive make you a hacker? NO
Does having a lighter make you an arsonist? NO
Does having a knife make you a slasher? NO
So does having guns make you a killer? HELL NO
People have the right to self defense, and guns are a huge part of that. It says in the U.S. CONSTITUTION that we have the right to bear arms. It's the second amendment. It can not and will not be changed.
GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Squerl101;39506687]It's the second amendment. It can not and will not be changed.[/QUOTE]
It literally can be but if you're sure it can't then I guess our dumb arguments don't make a difference, so you probably shouldn't really care
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39505819]This post makes little coherent sense, what is your argument?[/QUOTE]
We're focusing too much on negitaves, and we need to realise that sickos will get guns no matter what. Gun control isn't the way to go. We need to attack the problem, and not the obvious.
It'd be like getting an exterminator to deal with mold. They both use spray wands to deal with their respective problems, but an exterminator won't kill your mold, and a mold-man certanly wont kill your roaches.
[QUOTE=Forester155;39511172]We're focusing too much on negitaves, and we need to realise that sickos will get guns no matter what.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily true. If this was the case, you could argue that sickos can murder people no matter what.
There are ways of preventing both.
[QUOTE=Forester155;39511172]We're focusing too much on negitaves, and we need to realise that sickos will get guns no matter what. Gun control isn't the way to go. We need to attack the problem, and not the obvious.
It'd be like getting an exterminator to deal with mold. They both use spray wands to deal with their respective problems, but an exterminator won't kill your mold, and a mold-man certanly wont kill your roaches.[/QUOTE]
Ignoring the analogy that doesn't make any sense, the argument "criminals will get guns whether or not there are laws" isn't a good one. Everyone is completely aware that putting a law into place won't immediately eradicate an issue, but it can give law enforcement and the justice system the tools to help make it [I]less[/I] of an issue. Significantly less; at least, that's the goal of laws anyway. "Don't blame it on guns, the real problem is people!" is being regurgitated so much, but why can't we attempt to tackle both issues and see if it has a positive effect?
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39511681]Ignoring the analogy that doesn't make any sense, the argument "criminals will get guns whether or not there are laws" isn't a good one. Everyone is completely aware that putting a law into place won't immediately eradicate an issue, but it can give law enforcement and the justice system the tools to help make it [I]less[/I] of an issue. Significantly less; at least, that's the goal of laws anyway. "Don't blame it on guns, the real problem is people!" is being regurgitated so much, but why can't we attempt to tackle both issues and see if it has a positive effect?[/QUOTE]
Because the issue is neither.
In my eyes the issue is more related to people being unable to get proper healthcare(drugs = great painkillers), public education isn't being adapted for the current era, unemployment is high for certain areas, employed jobs pay money which isn't matching inflated prices for food and living standards, and of course societies woes with creating false problems.
Now granted I will not label the present issues with firearms as non-existent, but they are being painted as a larger issue then they really are. Loads of issues as of the moment can simply be answered by stating that when crime pays more then the nine to five, were bound to have issues.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39512299]Because the issue is neither.
In my eyes the issue is more related to people being unable to get proper healthcare(drugs = great painkillers), public education isn't being adapted for the current era, unemployment is high for certain areas, employed jobs pay money which isn't matching inflated prices for food and living standards, and of course societies woes with creating false problems.
Now granted I will not label the present issues with firearms as non-existent, but they are being painted as a larger issue then they really are. Loads of issues as of the moment can simply be answered by stating that when crime pays more then the nine to five, were bound to have issues.[/QUOTE]
Well personally, whenever I'm referring to people as the problem, I'm assuming everyone knows this is what I mean. Of course people themselves aren't the problem if they're feeling forced into resorting to criminal activity, and poverty and poor education (mostly stemming from poverty) are always going to be the biggest reasons for that. I am hugely in favor of that being the focus, but that doesn't mean we can't try a few different things.
It depends on what you wish to try regarding gun control, and otherwise.
I believe in the right to bear arms but I have to wait until 21 to keep a pistol? Shotguns/rifles are expensive and huge.
[QUOTE=mzathemind;39514205]I believe in the right to bear arms but I have to wait until 21 to keep a pistol? Shotguns/rifles are expensive and huge.[/QUOTE]
Most 12 gauges are cheap as hell. I do agree with you though, the 21 years old rule is stupid.
I agree that there should be more background checks and etc. But we should be more picky what guns to sell to the public.
[editline]10th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Squerl101;39506687]I am completely against gun control. Do they really think that taking away guns will take the crime rate down to 0%? THAT IS BULLSHIT! PEOPLE WILL KILL OTHER PEOPLE WITH OR WITHOUT GUNS. IT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. If you take away guns, you will cause more problems. It will cause more and more people to illegally sell guns, which people already are anyway.
Does having a USB drive make you a hacker? NO
Does having a lighter make you an arsonist? NO
Does having a knife make you a slasher? NO
So does having guns make you a killer? HELL NO
People have the right to self defense, and guns are a huge part of that. It says in the U.S. CONSTITUTION that we have the right to bear arms. It's the second amendment. It can not and will not be changed.
GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that's debating. Also, HELL YEAH
[QUOTE=I AM THE LAW;39546566]I agree that there should be more background checks and etc. [b]But we should be more picky what guns to sell to the public.[/b][/QUOTE]
What do you mean by that bolded statement?
Automatic weaponry is already heavily regulated in the U.S. and handguns are the by far most used firearm in violent crimes, not rifles or shotguns or high powered firearms.
[QUOTE=Valnar;39546770]What do you mean by that bolded statement?
Automatic weaponry is already heavily regulated in the U.S. and handguns are the by far most used firearm in violent crimes, not rifles or shotguns or high powered firearms.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking like, highly powered hand guns here, I mean if you got buy a rifle to go hunting, that's one thing, but you don't need something that could put holes threw helmets for self protection, or hunting.
You obviously know little about hunting guns. "High-powered" is thrown around far too often by the media, an AR-15 is weak in comparison to the majority of deer rifles. Just about any deer or moose rifle will punch right through most "bulletproof" jackets. Hunting guns are the truly high powered ones, an AR-15 is comparitively weak, and that's because a deer or moose is huge, you need a high-powered gun to kill 300-1000 pounds of animal.
Most "high powered" handguns have to much recoil to be used effectively by most people.
[QUOTE=download;39547237]Most "high powered" handguns have to much recoil to be used effectively by most people.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;yG-5i0Z60x4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG-5i0Z60x4[/video]
This is the only "Hi power" Handgun i can really think of unless you count magnum revolvers as power. I can shoot .45, .357, 9mm- they are all pretty standard when it comes to "power" but this one takes the cake. And as you can clearly see, most people (myself included) cannot handle this weapon, and on top of that it is a piece of shit. Just because it's "high powered" doesnt mean its as effective in the average person's hands.
Most people couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside with it, it's not concealable and high powered generally means low capacity
"High-powered" is just another useless adjective used arbitrarily for the wrong reasons for banning firearms. It doesn't make any sense. Any firearm besides a BB gun is extremely lethal, that's what they're designed for. If you're going to restrict access to firearms then restrict access to firearms, not just the ones that look or sound scary, because the little ones can get someone killed just as quickly.
The thing is that they aren't allowed to do that
And fuck me but I don't exactly want full auto guns back on the open market; I still think you should have to go through extensive hoops to get them
What I dont understand is why you think it has to be all or nothing- the current federal restrictions on guns are fine as is, no need to ban any more guns, no need to unban any either. Really all we actually need to worry about is who gets guns, not which guns they can have or if they can have guns at all
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39574886]"High-powered" is just another useless adjective used arbitrarily for the wrong reasons for banning firearms. It doesn't make any sense. Any firearm besides a BB gun is extremely lethal, that's what they're designed for.[/QUOTE]
Well depending on the gun (like calibre) and where it is aimed, it may or may not be lethal.
For instance, a firearm with a 5mm wide barrel would be painful and cause some damage, but wouldn't be very lethal. A gun which resembles a small cannon would be probably more lethal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39575502]Well depending on the gun (like calibre) and where it is aimed, it may or may not be lethal.
For instance, a firearm with a 5mm wide barrel would be painful and cause some damage, but wouldn't be very lethal. A gun which resembles a small cannon would be probably more lethal.[/QUOTE]
Explain to me how many people actually sell and or use 5mm guns
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39575502]Well depending on the gun (like calibre) and where it is aimed, it may or may not be lethal.
For instance, a firearm with a 5mm wide barrel would be painful and cause some damage, but wouldn't be very lethal. A gun which resembles a small cannon would be probably more lethal.[/QUOTE]
You realise pretty much ever gun used by a military these days is 5.56 or 5.45mm? A narrow bullet really doesn't mean much.
Lethality is based primary on the amount of energy the bullet has, and how well that bullet transfers that energy to the target.
Now, a wider bullet transfers more energy to a target, but a wider bullet is usually heavier, giving it more recoil. To reduce recoil you could reduce the muzzle velocity, but then you massively reduce energy. You could increase energy transfer though by using an expanding (i.e. a hollow point) bullet, but they are less likely to have deep penetration required to reach vital areas or go through hard cover. The military, being prohibited from using HP bullets, instead decided to make their bullets turn sideways in a target (also called yawing), this caused the bullets to split in half then fragment, increasing energy transfer and pretty much doing the same thing as a HP.
Basically, lethality is mostly determined by energy and the ability for a bullet to dump this energy. This is influenced by many factors, in a variety of ways. Changing one variable requires the changing of others and it gets pretty complicated.
Ultimately though, if a bullet goes through a vital area (brain, heart, major artery), you're dead, no matter how big or small the bullet is
[editline]14th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39575729]Explain to me how many people actually sell and or use 5mm guns[/QUOTE]
.204 Ruger is pretty close to 5mm, at 5.2mm. It's pretty popular varmint round
[editline]14th February 2013[/editline]
It also has a muzzle velocity of 1300ms^-1 or about 4200fts^-1
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39575729]Explain to me how many people actually sell and or use 5mm guns[/QUOTE]
Not many I assume, but there's plenty of guns nearby that.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39576081]Not many I assume, but there's plenty of guns nearby that.[/QUOTE]
Well, .22s. But those things are more deadly than you think
[QUOTE=download;39575878]Ultimately though, if a bullet goes through a vital area (brain, heart, major artery), you're dead, no matter how big or small the bullet is[/QUOTE]
This, right here, is my point. The bottom line is that when someone is trying to kill someone, firearms are an effective way to do it no matter the size of the bullet because that's what they're designed to do. It doesn't make sense to just ban the "most lethal" firearms to me because they're all almost equally lethal when they're aimed at you.
To say the laws are fine as they are while arguing against any stricter firearm laws doesn't seem to make much sense either because the prevailing argument against gun control is always "well criminals will just smuggle the illegal firearms in anyways," so then why bother making full-auto illegal? Either the laws help or they don't, but you can't have it both ways.
[editline]13th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39577016]Well, .22s. But those things are more deadly than you think[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Even the 'smaller' ones are still great tools when your goal is to kill people.
Higher energy bullets allow a larger margin for error. The more powerful a bullet, the more damage it causes indirectly due to hydrostatic shock.
I'm not a doctor, so I may not be entirely correct here, but:
If you shot someone in the head with a .22lr (pretty much the smallest bullet in common usage, generally only used for target practice and hunting small game like rabbits), and that bullet grazed your brain rather than went straight through it, you'd probably survive. Not if we switched that bullet for a .223/5.5x45mm round, a bullet with the same calibre and similar bullet weights, but travels 3 times as fast, giving it 9 times as much energy, and made that bullet follow the same path through someone head, the survivability would be considerably lower because the bullet creates a shockwave through all the tissue in you head. This ruptures all the small veins and arteries in the area surrounding the path of the bullet, killing a lot more cells and tissue. This effect only get larger with larger energies
In response to .22lr being very deadly. Many shooters probably know this, but many people say that .22s kill the most people in accident than any other calibre. The reason being is that peoples go "It's only a .22, I can be silly/stupid/negligent with it" and then someone gets accidentally shot. Where as with bigger guns, people are a lot more cautious and careful
I'm always more in favor of the idea that we keep people from going crazy before they start killing people.
Past that point, I'm fine with rifles and handguns. I typically shy away from the idea of allowing people to own heavy weapons and explosives, though, mostly because they can cause a great deal of collateral if used by someone who doesn't know what he's doing. I'm not one to defend this opinion of mine, though, because I don't know all that much about these things.
I'm not so much in support of gun bans as I am in support of gun restrictions; that is, legally requiring people to receive certain types of training and licensing to use certain kinds of firearms. I'd also prefer if the kinds of restricted/unrestricted firearms were decided by more objective terms - things like calibur, rate of fire, etc.
Background checks and restrictions that bar the mentally ill would also be nice.
[QUOTE=joes33431;39583550]I'm always more in favor of the idea that we keep people from going crazy before they start killing people.
Past that point, I'm fine with rifles and handguns. I typically shy away from the idea of allowing people to own heavy weapons and explosives, though, mostly because they can cause a great deal of collateral if used by someone who doesn't know what he's doing. I'm not one to defend this opinion of mine, though, because I don't know all that much about these things.
I'm not so much in support of gun bans as I am in support of gun restrictions; that is, legally requiring people to receive certain types of training and licensing to use certain kinds of firearms. I'd also prefer if the kinds of restricted/unrestricted firearms were decided by more objective terms - things like calibur, rate of fire, etc.
Background checks and restrictions that bar the mentally ill would also be nice.[/QUOTE]
No one can buy explosives or heavy weapons
Red Jacket Firearms =/= civilians
The thing is, while I support background checks and the like, I got to thinking about registering firearms
That wont work; if the government ever comes to take my guns away (which I hope will never come to that) they will know exactly how many guns I have, what they are, and will catch on if I stash some
So yea, background checks, good idea, gun bans and mandatory registration, bad
[QUOTE=joes33431;39583550]I'm always more in favor of the idea that we keep people from going crazy before they start killing people.
Past that point, I'm fine with rifles and handguns. I typically shy away from the idea of allowing people to own heavy weapons and explosives, though, mostly because they can cause a great deal of collateral if used by someone who doesn't know what he's doing. I'm not one to defend this opinion of mine, though, because I don't know all that much about these things.
I'm not so much in support of gun bans as I am in support of gun restrictions; that is, legally requiring people to receive certain types of training and licensing to use certain kinds of firearms. I'd also prefer if the kinds of restricted/unrestricted firearms were decided by more objective terms - things like calibur, rate of fire, etc.
Background checks and restrictions that bar the mentally ill would also be nice.[/QUOTE]
Having restrictions based on mental illness is a really vague statement.
I may be going a bit off track for this debate but gun control based mental illnesses isn't really a good idea.
First, the vast majority of people with mental illness are never violent.
Second, there is almost no actual "committing" of people to mental health centers, most people who are there do so voluntarily.
So if you start treating people with mental illness as if they are criminals or second class citizens you are discouraging them from seeking help. There is still a lot of stigma against people with mental illnesses, expanding that stigma won't help.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
