NRA calls for more regulation of bump stock devices used by shooter.
276 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52758042]
Here's some non emotional, non feel good, OBJECTIVE ways to reduce gun crime (crime in general really), that would work in the US, hands down.
[b]1. Rebuild healthcare system from the ground up[/b]
[b]2. Rework our Social services, including social safety nets (IE Wealthfare, WIC, etc etc etc)[/b]
3. Rework colleges and certifications, combat the rampant deprecation of a college degree, combat the rampant needless requirement for a college degree (a forklift driver shouldn't need a bachlors degree)
[b]4. Rebuild our education system from the ground up, eliminate all standards except federal standards, states get no say in content of education[/b]
5. Work with FBI and Police to further improve database functionality, improve communication protocols between departments
Those 5 things, just those 5 things, would do SO much more to combat gun crime than any licensing scheme, any ban plan, any "well just get rid of x" scheme.
Bonus points:
[b]6. Improve prison system, make education mandatory part of sentencing[/b]
7. Rebuild felony system, remove the idea of permanent punishment
[b]8. End the war on drugs, begin the war on addiction (Create a nationwide safety net for addicts looking to break the addiction)[/b]
9. Better family education and planning (IE Stop getting pregnant when you can't afford it, and stop knocking women up who you don't intend on staying with)[/QUOTE]
Do you honestly think there's a more reasonable chance for any of this to get done than for bump-stocks to be regulated? Especially now that we have a Republican majority in power, the bolded parts are just wishful thinking. (the education thing mostly because "but muh states rights" regarding teaching stuff like creationism in schools and deciding NOT to teach evolution, which is a REALLY fucking stupid debate and yet we have it anyway)
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52759301]I had to bold and bring up this point because it's gotten to the retarded point where I remember seeing an ad for a Domino's pizza delivery driver, one of the things required was 2 years experience in delivery... For a fucking pizza delivery job? That shit is supposed to be entry level. Trying to find work without some college education as a requirement is a nightmare, let alone other bullshit like what I mentioned, it makes trying to find a job overall just fucking depressing.[/QUOTE]
It's the same stupid story here. "Entry level" jobs asking for licenses, degrees, or years of experience for jobs that make you wonder why 2-5 years of experience is so important for the position in question.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52759593]Except this is the kind of shit we've been repeating for the last half century.
"I have altered the 2nd amendment. Pray that I do not alter it any further" is not a valid compromise. It's getting to the point where it's ridiculous as:
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE[/media][/QUOTE]
Well I mean, voting rights were given by separate amendments.
Who's to say there can't be another amendment establishing that the 2nd doesn't mean you get to own assault rifles as a right.
Oh right, the retardedly powerful gun lobby paying your politicians to even think of sensible gun control with a distasteful sneer on their face.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52759668]Do you honestly think there's a more reasonable chance for any of this to get done than for bump-stocks to be regulated? Especially now that we have a Republican majority in power, the bolded parts are just wishful thinking. (the education thing mostly because "but muh states rights" regarding teaching stuff like creationism in schools and deciding NOT to teach evolution, which is a REALLY fucking stupid debate and yet we have it anyway)
It's the same stupid story here. "Entry level" jobs asking for licenses, degrees, or years of experience for jobs that make you wonder why 2-5 years of experience is so important for the position in question.[/QUOTE]
Unlike banning bump stocks, the things he suggested will actually demonstrably reduce gun violence. Largely ineffectual but easy measures are not a valid substitute for addressing the roots of the problem.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52759685]Unlike banning bump stocks, the things he suggested will actually demonstrably reduce gun violence. Largely ineffectual but easy measures are not a valid substitute for addressing the roots of the problem.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't my point, my point was that neither is going to "get anything done" because one simply won't solve anything according to y'all, and the other just won't get fucking done because reasons.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759677]Well I mean, voting rights were given by separate amendments.
Who's to say there can't be another amendment establishing that the 2nd doesn't mean you get to own assault rifles as a right.
Oh right, the retardedly powerful gun lobby paying your politicians to even think of sensible gun control with a distasteful sneer on their face.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is saying you can't ammend the 2A. We're just saying thats absolutely retarded and won't solve dicks, as has been previously established with shitloads of evidence.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52759690]Nobody is saying you can't ammend the 2A. We're just saying thats absolutely retarded and won't solve dicks, as has been previously established with shitloads of evidence.[/QUOTE]
Can you quickly link me to the evidence again because here we are in the rest of the developed world without the amount of mass shootings per capita you do.
I'm presuming you don't mean the "there's so many guns anyway so it wouldn't work" since that would just be a matter of time if you got sensible gun control.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52759688]That wasn't my point, my point was that neither is going to "get anything done" because one simply won't solve anything according to y'all, and the other just won't get fucking done because reasons.[/QUOTE]
Thats the reality we live in. So, we can wither strive to actually solve the gun violence problem, or we can allow politicians to pass purely feel-good measures that serve to do nothing.
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759693]Can you quickly link me to the evidence again because here we are in the rest of the developed world without the amount of mass shootings per capita you do.
I'm presuming you don't mean the "there's so many guns anyway so it wouldn't work" since that would just be a matter of time if you got sensible gun control.[/QUOTE]
This post you conveniently ignored after you said we should only own handguns, despite them being doing the most damage overall. Theres also a shitload more posts like this one in the thread if youd like to actually do your own research;
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52756058]It's really not the same though. That argument against gay marriage was based on stupid conjecture with no basis on reality. What we are seeing is continued aggressive legislation and policies against our rights over the span of several decades. A clear trend is occurring that government is restricting rights whenever it finds an excuse to.
Civil forfeiture, massive surveillance states, suspension of habeas corpus (gitmo), travel bans on Muslims, the existence of corporate pseudo-monopolies, and all that isn't even in the realm of firearms.
If we're strictly speaking about the second amendment, a similar trend has been seen.
- The 1934 NFA put several limitations and restrictions (mainly the $200 tax and increased scrutiny) on machine guns after prohibition.
- Short barreled weapons are added to the NFA.
- People are no longer allowed to mail order firearms after JFK's assassination
- Firearms owner protection act passes along with the Hughes amendment which flat out bans machine guns made after 1986,[URL="http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html"] despite only 1 or 2 legally registered machine guns ever being used in a crime[/URL]. One being committed by a police officer. Also the manufacture or possession of "armor piercing" ammunition is banned.
- Clinton passes the Assault Weapons Ban and manages to piss off every gun owner ever, [URL="https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5763109de4b015db1bc8c123"]while having no discernible effect on gun crime.[/URL]
- The ATF reclassified popular surplus ammo for AK's (5.45x39) as armor piercing and ban importations of it. They attempt the same underhanded trick on some ubiquitous 5.56 surplus ammo known as M885, but that shit did not fly.
Clearly there is a consistent trend and precedent of things being restricted.
[editline]7th October 2017[/editline]
[URL="http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF"]Handguns by far make up the majority of gun crimes[/URL].[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759677]Well I mean, voting rights were given by separate amendments.
Who's to say there can't be another amendment establishing that the 2nd doesn't mean you get to own assault rifles as a right.
Oh right, the retardedly powerful gun lobby paying your politicians to even think of sensible gun control with a distasteful sneer on their face.[/QUOTE]
Ok lets look at facts then.
[url]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12[/url]
Now, add up deaths from handguns compared to rifles or shotguns.
Why create legislation regarding something when you actually look at it, comprises ~3-6% of the problem? Why is no one tackling pistols, or the background reasons why shootings happen to begin with, like our shit mental health care and education systems, or the failed war on drugs.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52759451]Then perhaps politicians should use a word other than "compromise" when they intend to take and not to give, because thats not a compromise.
Youre still inherently wrong about the definition. It might mean something else in backass political terms, but me taking half of something when I want all of it would not be considered a compromise in any other scenario.
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
Either way, it doesn't matter. Thats now how democracy or gun legislation should work.[/QUOTE]
But you taking half of something when you want all of it is a compromise?! It's a perfect example of a compromise.
You're the one arguing something using terms you don't understand. And you have a seriously warped view of democracy if you think making concessions to move gradually towards an eventual goal is not how democracy should work.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52759348]Except in this point, group A has a right that's constitutionally protected, and group B doesn't give a shit.[/QUOTE]
Don't get too caught up with my reductionist example. The number of Americans that Group B accurately describes is probably relatively small, though it does seem to be growing. And do bare in mind that it's not just Group A that has that right.
[QUOTE]We don't get anywhere by eroding a right with petty feel good laws, and group A perpetually gets more and more pissed off at group B who can't actually defend their point objectively, so they say "but you don't NEED this thing".[/QUOTE]
I've seen some pretty solid points against this specific proposal in this thread and I do agree there are better ways of tackling America's gun crime than gun control. I'm simply against this bizarre notion that somehow anti-gun folks haven't been compromising simply because gun owners haven't outright benefited in some way. That is more likely a reflection upon societal support for gun control than it is their willingness of gun control advocates to compromise and not recognising that is not going to help your cause.
[QUOTE]Eventually it's going to get to the point that group A says "no more negotiations, we're not giving you shit" and then group B will have lost the chance for peaceful resolution of these problems. We're dangerously close to the NRA/GOA/Actual gun owners just saying "you know what, fuck it, you're not getting shit". The NRA and GOA together have enough money to tie literally EVERY new gun law up in legal action.
So it might be prudent to negotiate, rather than say "We have a majority, piss off".[/QUOTE]
If this were an effective recourse, I'd wager we would have seen it already. Playing obstructionist is not going to do much for your support, which I would have thought you'd want more of if you wanted compromise to work more in your favour.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759693]Can you quickly link me to the evidence again because here we are in the rest of the developed world without the amount of mass shootings per capita you do. [/QUOTE]
I'm trying to remain neutral and just watch the discussion besides some inquiries here and there to clarify what some people think but i'm starting to get real fucking tired of this smug condescension that happens every time one of these threads come up because people arent willing to actually listen to anyone else, just talk down to them like they're mindless idiots.
There are posters who have been directly talking to you about this, acknowledge them and respond to their posts at the very least, holy shit.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52759702]Ok lets look at facts then.
[url]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12[/url]
Now, add up deaths from handguns compared to rifles or shotguns.
Why create legislation regarding something when you actually look at it, comprises ~3-6% of the problem? Why is no one tackling pistols, or the background reasons why shootings happen to begin with, like our shit mental health care and education systems, or the failed war on drugs.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, but handguns are useful in legitimate self- and home defense. Rifles and the such are entirely unnecessary for that, and should IMO be barred from public use/civilian ownership.
It's not like you can't attempt to tackle a retarded precedent while ALSO working to improve healthcare and all that jazz.
[QUOTE=Rufia;52759703]But you taking half of something when you want all of it is a compromise?! It's a perfect example of a compromise.[/quote]
Not if the other party isn't consenting at all. Again, a proper compromise would be "We'll take X away, but give you Y in return"
[QUOTE=Rufia;52759703]
You're the one arguing something using terms you don't understand. And you have a seriously warped view of democracy if you think making concessions to move gradually towards an eventual goal is not how democracy should work.[/QUOTE]
Me not wanting my rights eroded towards an eventual goal of me not having that right any longer seems perfectly reasonable to me. Again, a proper compromise most would be willing to make would be "you take y, but give us x". "We'll take y but you get nothing in return" is not a compromise anyone wants to make.
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759716]Well yeah, but handguns are useful in legitimate self- and home defense. Rifles and the such are entirely unnecessary for that, and should IMO be barred from public use/civilian ownership.
It's not like you can't attempt to tackle a retarded precedent while ALSO working to improve healthcare and all that jazz.[/QUOTE]
Ah, so you're just ignoring the fact that rifle ownership overall harms nobody. You're favoring to ban them because of emotional appeals that are not founded in reality.
Gotcha
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759716]Well yeah, but handguns are useful in legitimate self- and home defense. Rifles and the such are entirely unnecessary for that, and should IMO be barred from public use/civilian ownership.
It's not like you can't attempt to tackle a retarded precedent while ALSO working to improve healthcare and all that jazz.[/QUOTE]
You just justified the cause of 90+% of gun deaths while trying to fuck over sport shooters, hunters, and hobbyists without even looking at the facts because you have an irrational emotional stance.
Look at that link I provided, and crunch the numbers. How many people in the US were killed by a handgun last year? Then, how many were killed by rifle, or shotgun? In the overall total of firearms deaths, where do rifles lie?
What gun rights activist want at the moment:
* [url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3668]SHARE Act of 2017[/url]
* Outlawing of state firearm licenses for being unconstitutional and for being discriminatory based on racial and income lines.
*[I] National Concealed Carry[/I], in which I can bring my handgun with me into any state with no threat of being arrested in said state.
* Removal of suppressors, short-barreled weapons, and AOW from the National Firearms Act of 1934.
* Streamline background checks so that people may be able to purchase firearms online, from magazines, and private dealers, and have their firearms delivered directly to their household.
* Remove barriers that disallow the importation of firearm parts, accessories, and ammunition from around the world.
Choose which one you are willing to compromise on. We are willing to ban bumpstocks, but we demand one of the above conditions be met. We are no longer going to just give up our gun rights cake. We want fair trades and fair agreements.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52759709]I'm trying to remain neutral and just watch the discussion besides some inquiries here and there to clarify what some people think but i'm starting to get real fucking tired of this smug condescension that happens every time one of these threads come up because people arent willing to actually listen to anyone else, just talk down to them like they're mindless idiots.
There are posters who have been directly talking to you about this, acknowledge them and respond to their posts at the very least, holy shit.[/QUOTE]
If you want me to condescend I can do so much worse than I have.
So let's look at everyone that's replied to me in this thread, since you wanna try for a zinger "oh look you''re ignoring points"
[QUOTE][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=52756058#post52756058"]This post you conveniently ignored after you said we should only own handguns, despite them being doing the most damage overall. Theres also a shitload more posts like this one in the thread if youd like to actually do your own research;[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
I didn't ignore it, I left for work or sleep or something and forgot this thread, as you can see by me not posting again until now. So let's dissect this shit.
[QUOTE]It's really not the same though. That argument against gay marriage was based on stupid conjecture with no basis on reality. [/QUOTE]
And the argument for public ownership of rifles is any better? It's a right to own a luxury product that you don't need in any situation where a handgun wouldn't do the job just as well.
[QUOTE]What we are seeing is continued aggressive legislation and policies against our rights over the span of several decades. A clear trend is occurring that government is restricting rights whenever it finds an excuse to.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and that sucks, but is irrelevant to me since guns shouldn't be a right in the first place, they should be a strictly monitored privilege in an ideal world. I'm more surprised your gun rights haven't already been restricted, since you're 3 times more likely to die in a mass shooting than a terrorist attack ([URL="https://i.imgur.com/X1JRyRI.png"]1 in 15 000 vs 1 in 45 000[/URL])
[QUOTE]Civil forfeiture, massive surveillance states, suspension of habeas corpus (gitmo), travel bans on Muslims, the existence of corporate pseudo-monopolies, and all that isn't even in the realm of firearms.[/QUOTE]
No arguments there, despite the false equivalence of "right to own a shooty bang bang" being the same as HC or everything fucked up your government has done.
[QUOTE]If we're strictly speaking about the second amendment, a similar trend has been seen.[/quote]
What follows is restrictions on luxury goods somehow being equivocated to civil forfeiture (????? I mean you have to see how underhanded this is right?)
[quote]
- The 1934 NFA put several limitations and restrictions (mainly the $200 tax and increased scrutiny) on machine guns after prohibition. [B]good, increase the tax more and make anything other than small handguns inaccessible to as many people as possible.[/B]
- Short barreled weapons are added to the NFA. [B]good[/B]
- People are no longer allowed to mail order firearms after JFK's assassination [B]very good, gun trades should only ever be on record and take place in person, at an official site, after both the seller and buyer have passed extra background tests. I don't know what they'd test for, figure it out. [/B]
- Firearms owner protection act passes along with the Hughes amendment which flat out bans machine guns made after 1986, despite only 1 or 2 legally registered machine guns ever being used in a crime. One being committed by a police officer. Also the manufacture or possession of "armor piercing" ammunition is banned. [B]Didn't go far enough. This should have been paired with a crackdown on illegally owned machineguns in the first place. Though it's a given that would have been a difficult task considering how few machineguns are in circulation since they're so expensive. [/B]
- Clinton passes the Assault Weapons Ban and manages to piss off every gun owner ever, while having no discernible effect on gun crime. [B]The ban didn't go far enough in the first place. It was a 10 year ban on the MANUFACTURE of CERTAIN semi autos, which did fuck all because real changes would only come if you extend that to like, 50 or 100 years. Most assault rifles that functioned in 1993 probably still functioned after the ban expired, so NO FUCKING SHIT it did nothing. [/B]
- The ATF reclassified popular surplus ammo for AK's (5.45x39) as armor piercing and ban importations of it. They attempt the same underhanded trick on some ubiquitous 5.56 surplus ammo known as M885, but that shit did not fly. [B]Regrettable.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Clearly there is a consistent trend and precedent of things being restricted.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but gun ownership should be restricted. You can't equivocate the two and just call it a day.
[QUOTE]Handguns by far make up the majority of gun crimes.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=cyke]You realize the vast majority of gun crime is committed with pistols right? Almost no gun crime is done with rifle.[/QUOTE]
yeah, and assault rifles by far make up the high-casualty mass-shooter's weapon of choice.
[QUOTE]This is why emotional responses and regulating things for being "scary" is blatantly retarded[/QUOTE]
Guns aren't scary, I handled plenty in the army. Most of them just shouldn't be a right of every citizen. The only one with an emotional response here is on the "i want to fuck my 50 000 dollar carbon fiber socom m1a 50 cal rocket launcher" or whatever
Everything before that I responded to, so.
It's 11:30 pm here, so don't take me not posting for a while as "look we pushed that liberal anti gun freak out, another victory for the boys in red white and blue underpants"
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759809]If you want me to condescend I can do so much worse than I have.
So let's look at everyone that's replied to me in this thread, since you wanna try for a zinger "oh look you''re ignoring points"[/QUOTE]
No, i'm trying to tell you you should stop acting superior, nobodies ever going to listen to you with your little smarmy attitude.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759809]
Guns aren't scary, I handled plenty in the army. Most of them just shouldn't be a right of every citizen. [b]The only one with an emotional response here is on the "i want to fuck my 50 000 dollar carbon fiber socom m1a 50 cal rocket launcher" or whatever[/b]
Everything before that I responded to, so.
It's 11:30 pm here, so don't take me not posting for a while as[b] "look we pushed that liberal anti gun freak out, another victory for the boys in red white and blue underpants"[/b][/QUOTE]
This is exactly the shit i'm talking about.
Stop it with these snide little remarks. Me calling you out on your condescension shouldnt be a greenlight to double down on it. Fucking christ.
Do you ever wonder why nobody seems to listen to you or people who post like you in these threads? Its because they always act like this, they try and go about their arguments like they've already won and they're talking to a retarded child. No shit nobodies going to want to listen to that, its insulting.
Believe it or not you can talk about something without being a shit about it to the other person, maybe they might listen, maybe you'll have a conversation and reach a mutual understanding, maybe if you behave more like you're talking to another rational individual and not a dog who pissed on the carpet you might change someones mind, maybe they might change your mind, i dont know, couldnt say cause i havent really seen it happen all that much.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52759805]What gun rights activist want at the moment:
* [url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3668]SHARE Act of 2017[/url]
* Outlawing of state firearm licenses for being unconstitutional and for being discriminatory based on racial and income lines.
*[I] National Concealed Carry[/I], in which I can bring my handgun with me into any state with no threat of being arrested in said state.
* Removal of suppressors, short-barreled weapons, and AOW from the National Firearms Act of 1934.
* Streamline background checks so that people may be able to purchase firearms online, from magazines, and private dealers, and have their firearms delivered directly to their household.
* Remove barriers that disallow the importation of firearm parts, accessories, and ammunition from around the world.
Choose which one you are willing to compromise on. We are willing to ban bumpstocks, but we demand one of the above conditions be met. We are no longer going to just give up our gun rights cake. We want fair trades and fair agreements.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget repealing the Hughes Amendment, that's a big one
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759809]If you want me to condescend I can do so much worse than I have.
So let's look at everyone that's replied to me in this thread, since you wanna try for a zinger "oh look you''re ignoring points"
I didn't ignore it, I left for work or sleep or something and forgot this thread, as you can see by me not posting again until now. So let's dissect this shit.
And the argument for public ownership of rifles is any better? It's a right to own a luxury product that you don't need in any situation where a handgun wouldn't do the job just as well.
Yeah, and that sucks, but is irrelevant to me since guns shouldn't be a right in the first place, they should be a strictly monitored privilege in an ideal world. I'm more surprised your gun rights haven't already been restricted, since you're 3 times more likely to die in a mass shooting than a terrorist attack ([URL="https://i.imgur.com/X1JRyRI.png"]1 in 15 000 vs 1 in 45 000[/URL])
No arguments there, despite the false equivalence of "right to own a shooty bang bang" being the same as HC or everything fucked up your government has done.
What follows is restrictions on luxury goods somehow being equivocated to civil forfeiture (????? I mean you have to see how underhanded this is right?)
Yeah, but gun ownership should be restricted. You can't equivocate the two and just call it a day.
yeah, and assault rifles by far make up the high-casualty mass-shooter's weapon of choice.
Guns aren't scary, I handled plenty in the army. Most of them just shouldn't be a right of every citizen. The only one with an emotional response here is on the "i want to fuck my 50 000 dollar carbon fiber socom m1a 50 cal rocket launcher" or whatever
Everything before that I responded to, so.
It's 11:30 pm here, so don't take me not posting for a while as "look we pushed that liberal anti gun freak out, another victory for the boys in red white and blue underpants"[/QUOTE]
Ok, so now you're just blatantly ignoring facts, stating your doing so, and favoring emotional responses you know wont work just because thats what you think is right, evem though you know youre wrong.
Well thanks for disqualifying yourself.
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
Let me ask you this. Why should gun ownership be restircted? "Because civilians shouldn't own firearms" is not a valid response.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52759814]No, i'm trying to tell you you should stop acting superior, nobodies ever going to listen to you with your little smarmy attitude.
This is exactly the shit i'm talking about.
[/quote]
Good for you I guess? A a few childish jokes before and after the main body of a post is enough to derail you from the conversation despite the vast majority of the post not being childish jokes.
[quote]
Do you ever wonder why nobody seems to listen to you or people who post like you in these threads? Its because they always act like this, they try and go about their arguments like they've already won and they're talking to a retarded child. No shit nobodies going to want to listen to that, its insulting.
Believe it or not you can talk about something without being a shit about it to the other person, maybe they might listen, maybe you'll have a conversation and reach a mutual understanding, maybe if you behave more like you're talking to another rational individual and not a dog who pissed on the carpet you might change someones mind, maybe they might change your mind, i dont know, couldnt say cause i havent really seen it happen all that much.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not here to change your mind, nor are you, most likely, here to change mine. Insulting or not it's a huge problem in the US that isn't just explained away by a lack education or lackluster mental care. Serbia has approx 30% less guns than you and yet has 60% less gun suicide and 85% less gun homicides, and their educational system isn't comparable to yours. Of course this is a VERY rough comparison. (used Wiki and PISA tests as a rough guide)
I've changed my mind on many issues, like the death penalty is a big one. I remember a time when I was on FP posting about how murderers should be executed if there's a lot of evidence to convict them, but then evidence presented to me convinced me that it's immoral and inhumane for many reasons. Since then I have become relatively paranoid when it comes to numbers and facts, and any number or fact I've stated here I can back up.
It doesn't matter that the vast majority of gun crime is done with handguns, since they are somewhat useful in self defense considering the current amount of guns in the US. (1 justifiable case of self defense for every 34 criminal gun homicides. [URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expandhomicidemain"]FBI source[/URL])([URL="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html"]Though I'm slowly working[/URL] [URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls"]through the statistics on that too[/URL], so I might have a more informed worldview. Specifically the "Handguns comprised 71.9 percent of the firearms used in murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2012." It's a lot, but to state it as a point saying the other 28% are negligible is dishonest.)
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52759861]
Let me ask you this. Why should gun ownership be restircted? "Because civilians shouldn't own firearms" is not a valid response.[/QUOTE]
"Why shouldn't gays get married? Because they're people and deserve the same rights as us is not a valid response"
That is my opinion. People should not be able to just willy-nilly buy military grade hardware in the forms of most rifles and shotguns. I don't see why that should be a given in the first place. Yeah you got your 2nd amendment, but if you ask me "why should" then that's my answer.
I mean I do like how you dismissed my post saying "you're blatantly ignoring facts" without mentioning any of the "facts that I ignored" while in the same post just ask me and then say "Your reason is not a reason so I win"
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759940]"Why shouldn't gays get married? Because they're people and deserve the same rights as us is not a valid response"[/QUOTE]
This is a terrible analogy and you should feel bad because of it. Jesus Christ.
I'm gonna tackle the rest of this stupid post later but I actually have to walk away after reading that. Holy fucking what.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52759978]This is a terrible analogy and you should feel bad because of it. Jesus Christ.
I'm gonna tackle the rest of this stupid post later but I actually have to walk away after reading that. Holy fucking what.[/QUOTE]
That's literally what he said though?
"Why X, your main reason for X is not a valid response"
"Why Y, your main reason for Y is not a valid response"
I literally didn't change anything there.
I resist the urge to walk away with every pro gun post I see in this thread since they're all just emotional in the first place.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759940]Good for you I guess? A a few childish jokes before and after the main body of a post is enough to derail you from the conversation despite the vast majority of the post not being childish jokes.[/QUOTE]
I'm telling you that your snide little shitty remarks make people not want to bother listening to you because its aggravating. How hard is that to understand? Stop saying people want to fuck their guns, its demeaning and insulting to everyone who's trying to talk to you about this. Just because they disagree with you doesnt mean they're sexually attracted to firearms or "hate liberals".
And if you're being condescending and snide while talking down to everyone here without the intention of changing their mind, why are you arguing it to begin with? To stroke your ego?
You're an adult, right? Talking to other adults? You should talk like it.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759990]That's literally what he said though?
"Why X, your main reason for X is not a valid response"
"Why Y, your main reason for Y is not a valid response"
I literally didn't change anything there.[/QUOTE]
He's asking you to give an explanation for your statement, jesus christ.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759990]I resist the urge to walk away with every pro gun post I see in this thread since they're all just emotional in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Is it possible for you to go [i]one[/i] post without behaving like this?
Just one.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52759996]I'm telling you that your snide little shitty remarks make people not want to bother listening to you because its aggravating. How hard is that to understand? Stop saying people want to fuck their guns, its demeaning and insulting to everyone who's trying to talk to you about this. Just because they disagree with you doesnt mean they're sexually attracted to firearms or "hate liberals".
[/quote]
ok
[quote]
And if you're being condescending and snide while talking down to everyone here without the intention of changing their mind, why are you arguing it to begin with? To stroke your ego?
You're an adult, right? Talking to other adults? You should talk like it.[/quote]
No I do it because I like talking about controversial issues.
I like it even more when someone proves me wrong about something. That's the only reason I engage in this masochism in the first place.
[quote]
He's asking you to give an explanation for your statement, jesus christ.
[/quote]
And I have, every time.
I mean where else do you want me to go other than "I don't think civilians should have the [B]right[/B] to own assault rifles" If they want them, then it should be a very strict privilege they have to earn.
They're unnecessary, they're a luxury product, and just like high explosives should be handled only at designated ranges, under professional supervision. It shouldn't in my opinion be a given that almost anyone could just walk into a store and walk out 2000 dollars poorer and a semiauto rifle + ammo richer, that you can explain away with "2nd amendment".
I mean I can't say anything anymore without you interpreting it as a snide shitty remark anyway. What I said in your first quote was my honest to god opinion with no snideness intended.
You said "don't say snide shit" so in the very next post I didn't say snide shit. In fact I deliberately berated myself for saying them earlier with the "childish jokes" bit.
[quote]
Is it possible for you to go [i]one[/i] post without behaving like this?
Just one.[/QUOTE]
Again, my honest to god actual opinion, which was literally nothing more than a reflection of his post, [I]word. for. word.[/I]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759940]
"Why shouldn't gays get married? Because they're people and deserve the same rights as us is not a valid response"
That is my opinion. People should not be able to just willy-nilly buy military grade hardware in the forms of most rifles and shotguns. I don't see why that should be a given in the first place. Yeah you got your 2nd amendment, but if you ask me "why should" then that's my answer.
I mean I do like how you dismissed my post saying "you're blatantly ignoring facts" without mentioning any of the "facts that I ignored" while in the same post just ask me and then say "Your reason is not a reason so I win"[/QUOTE]
Hooray for false equivalencies and terrible analogies.
I dismissed your post because its not founded in reality or based on facts. Your post is basically "guns should be banned because I think they should". Theres no reasoning, no logic, no facts, just silly opinions and emotion. I could reply with the same sources and citations others have, but you would just dissmiss it with "yea but they should still be banned".
I'll give you credit though, you cited a source showing that mass shooters prefer rifles, but you're still ignoring the fact that mass shootings make up a hilariously small margin for gun deaths in the US. The majority is of gun crime is committed with pistols, and you're of the opinion that those should remain as they are, while the ones that do an absolute minority of the damage should be banned.
You're uninformed and refuse to see reason despite it being shown to you multiple times.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52760065]ok
No I do it because I like talking about controversial issues.
I like it even more when someone proves me wrong about something. That's the only reason I engage in this masochism in the first place.
And I have, every time.
I mean where else do you want me to go other than "I don't think civilians should have the [B]right[/B] to own assault rifles" If they want them, then it should be a very strict privilege they have to earn.
They're unnecessary, they're a luxury product, and just like high explosives should be handled only at designated ranges, under professional supervision. It shouldn't in my opinion be a given that almost anyone could just walk into a store and walk out 2000 dollars poorer and a semiauto rifle + ammo richer, that you can explain away with "2nd amendment".
I mean I can't say anything anymore without you interpreting it as a snide shitty remark anyway. What I said in your first quote was my honest to god opinion with no snideness intended.
You said "don't say snide shit" so in the very next post I didn't say snide shit. In fact I deliberately berated myself for saying them earlier with the "childish jokes" bit.
Again, my honest to god actual opinion, which was literally nothing more than a reflection of his post, [I]word. for. word.[/I][/QUOTE]
You're still failing to realize that "I dont think..." is not a reasonable explanation to anything. You're still basing your logic off of emotions and opinions despite being proven otherwise.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759716]Well yeah, but handguns are useful in legitimate self- and home defense. Rifles and the such are entirely unnecessary for that, and should IMO be barred from public use/civilian ownership.
It's not like you can't attempt to tackle a retarded precedent while ALSO working to improve healthcare and all that jazz.[/QUOTE]
You can't be serious. Claiming that rifles serve no legitimate purpose for home defense is just flat out false.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759809]If you want me to condescend I can do so much worse than I have.
So let's look at everyone that's replied to me in this thread, since you wanna try for a zinger "oh look you''re ignoring points"[/QUOTE]
Pointing out your continued willful ignorance of the subject is a zinger now. Ok.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759809]
I didn't ignore it, I left for work or sleep or something and forgot this thread, as you can see by me not posting again until now. So let's dissect this shit.
And the argument for public ownership of rifles is any better? It's a right to own a luxury product that you don't need in any situation where a handgun wouldn't do the job just as well. [/QUOTE]
You're continuing to ignore it right now. Also as pointed out before, firearms including rifles are a right, can be used to defend one's life, and can put food on the table. What kind of mental gymnastics did you have to pull off to consider them a "luxury product"?
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759809]
Yeah, and that sucks, but is irrelevant to me since guns shouldn't be a right in the first place, they should be a strictly monitored privilege in an ideal world. I'm more surprised your gun rights haven't already been restricted, since you're 3 times more likely to die in a mass shooting than a terrorist attack ([URL="https://i.imgur.com/X1JRyRI.png"]1 in 15 000 vs 1 in 45 000[/URL])[/QUOTE]
They've are being restricted more and more ever since 1934. Did even bother to read my post the entire history of firearms legislation?!
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759809]No arguments there, despite the false equivalence of "right to own a shooty bang bang" being the same as HC or everything fucked up your government has done.
What follows is restrictions on luxury goods somehow being equivocated to civil forfeiture (????? I mean you have to see how underhanded this is right?)
Yeah, but gun ownership should be restricted. You can't equivocate the two and just call it a day.[/QUOTE]
False equivalence my ass. The right of Habeas Corpus is something which is mandated by the constitution, and so is the right to bear arms. One big difference being that Habeas Corpus has a clause which allows it to be suspended in times of war or "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". The 2nd amendment has no such clauses despite the government's efforts to reinterpret it out of existence, similar to the methodology used by the DOJ deciding to reinterpret sex discrimination laws to not apply to transgendered persons. You may not agree with it, but the 2nd amendment was made a right for many good reasons which still apply today.
But all of that is besides the point. The point I was trying to make was that people yelling "slippery slope fallacy!" weren't taking into consideration the history and precedent of rights slowly being taken away over time, over and over again. Literally ignoring history to suit their arguments.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759809]yeah, and assault rifles by far make up the high-casualty mass-shooter's weapon of choice. [/QUOTE]
Please, find me a credible source which claims the majority of mass shootings in this country were committed with select fire rifles. I know that you won't.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759809]Guns aren't scary, I handled plenty in the army. Most of them just shouldn't be a right of every citizen. The only one with an emotional response here is on the "i want to fuck my 50 000 dollar carbon fiber socom m1a 50 cal rocket launcher" or whatever
Everything before that I responded to, so.
It's 11:30 pm here, so don't take me not posting for a while as "look we pushed that liberal anti gun freak out, another victory for the boys in red white and blue underpants"[/QUOTE]
What is this I don't even.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52759716]Well yeah, but handguns are useful in legitimate self- and home defense. Rifles and the such are entirely unnecessary for that, and should IMO be barred from public use/civilian ownership. [/QUOTE]
1. Handguns are 97% of the firearms used to commit homicides. If you're talking about leaving handguns alone, you're not impacting the weapons overwhelmingly used in crime.
2. Rifles and shotguns are frequently used for home defense. Rifles are less likely than pistols to miss the target, and each shot that misses is less likely to penetrate the walls of a typical house and harm a bystander. Rifles are easier to use for women, the elderly, and the physically handicapped than handguns.
So basically, your position is that we should ban the weapons overwhelmingly more likely to be used for self-defense than for crime, while leaving alone the weapons overwhelmingly more suited to crime because... why, exactly?
One thing I'd like to state... If you wish to get pissed about how this guy has faux-auto, please push your attention too the fact that we had a system for fifty years, which worked perfectly fine, and was overturned by the Hughes Amendment, which made it illegal to properly register automatics made after 1984, which had only been responsible for two crimes in the fifty years the machine gun registry was fully active.
I know this sounds cringy as fuck, but I do put blame on the Hughes Amendment for being responsible for the creation of loopholes within the law, like bumpfire systems, gat cranks, and otherwise.
As nice as it is to see a bit of regulation on things that make semi-auto firearms into what are basically full-auto firearms... Somehow, I don't really see this having a major impact.
I mean, I hate to be "one of those guys" here, but uh... Haven't the majority of firearms in the past few mass-shootings been perfectly legal semi-auto guns? Like, will stopping people from buying bump-stocks actually stop them from committing mass slaughter with guns? Not to mention that there are thousands and thousands of these stocks already in circulation, and that they're not even hard to manufacture for anybody with some springs, bits of wood and basic craft materials. And that most of the ones in circulation now will basically just go towards fuelling the firearm black market along with illegally modified full-auto guns?
I know how protective some Americans are over their second amendment, and I get it, I really do... But this seems like a ploy from the NRA to make it seem like they're taking action to prevent gun violence without actually doing anything that'd make a sizable impact.
Hell, there have been countless mass shootings that were done using .22 calibre firearms. And as somebody who actively enjoys watching and reading about guns, I know that many firearms enthusiasts consider the .22 to be a "tiny" and "insignificant" round that isn't even worthy of home defence or hunting usage. It seems to me that the core, underlying problem here isn't the kinds of guns being available or the way they can be used, but more the fact that they [I]are[/I] so readily available.
I firmly believe that being able to purchase and own a firearm is an important and wonderful freedom to have. But I also believe that something has gone awry when it takes more effort to buy and own a car legally than it does to buy and own a [I]gun.[/I] After all, cars are designed for transport, but guns only have one purpose: They are [I]weapons[/I], they are designed to hurt and to kill and to intimidate. And I say this as somebody who actively [I]collects[/I] weapons (granted all mine went more-or-less obsolete in the late 16th century but I digress, I at least have no illusions as to what they were designed for.)
But you can't mention the words "gun control" to many U.S citizens without them flying into a screaming rage about "Freedom!!!" and "The Constitution!!!"
[QUOTE=Ona;52761272]I know how protective some Americans are over their second amendment, and I get it, I really do... But this seems like a ploy from the NRA to make it seem like they're taking action to prevent gun violence without actually doing anything that'd make a sizable impact.[/QUOTE]
Probably because that's exactly what they're doing.
Personally, I'd be ecstatic to see them back legislation that would revitalize the mental healthcare system, but I know it's not going to happen, and I'm skeptical it would have stopped the Vegas shooter anyway. He flew too far below the radar before acting. You could argue that nothing short of a total ban on semi-auto firearms would have prevented it, but even still, with this guy's resources and contacts, he very probably could have acquired honest-to-god machineguns regardless of the legality. He was a worst-case scenario in more ways than one.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.