• US Senate Democrats to start an Assault Weapons Ban bill; includes bump stocks & high capacity mags
    288 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873445]I was literally arguing that things like bump fire stocks and having more bullets in your magazine can equate to increased lethality. I don't see how this is arguing that I think they're scary or even that guns should be banned?[/QUOTE] My man, you were arguing over the lethality of ballistics and got your ass clenched when people pointed out that different weapons that fire different calibers have differing levels of lethality, which would make hunting rifles deadlier by your own argument. [QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873448]That's absolutely pathetic, but if that's the state of the American people then so be it. I never had much faith in them anyway.[/QUOTE] Good argument. Being snide and arrogant towards an entire country because you're unaware of the requirements to do a thing. Amazing. I clapped.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873448]That's absolutely pathetic, but if that's the state of the American people then so be it. I never had much faith in them anyway.[/QUOTE] Wow what an immensely arrogant and condescending post.
[QUOTE=Amber902;52873467]Wow what an immensely arrogant and condescending post.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Amber902;52873432]Your arguments are terrible but please keep arguing, people like you who argue badly for gun control are one of the main reasons gun control bills fail horribly.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=AaronM202;52873461]My man, you were arguing over the lethality of ballistics and got your ass clenched when people pointed out that different weapons that fire different calibers have differing levels of lethality, which would make hunting rifles deadlier by your own argument. Good argument. Being snide and arrogant towards an entire country because you're unaware of the requirements to do a thing. Amazing. I clapped.[/QUOTE] Meh, they just think that bigger bullets = ballistics, I'm talking about how the bullets can be thrown down range quickly and with good energy dumping.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873474]-[/QUOTE] What are you doing?
Pointing out hypocrisy?
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873478]Meh, they just think that bigger bullets = ballistics, I'm talking about how the bullets can be thrown down range quickly and with good energy dumping.[/QUOTE] Wha? The fuck is energy dumping? [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873478]Pointing out hypocrisy?[/QUOTE] In what way is someone pointing out you shitting on a country because you dont know what you're talking about hypocrisy?
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873474][/QUOTE] Calling your arguments bad because they are bad is not condescension, and in any case I'm right. Bad arguments in favor of gun control are one of the primary reasons major gun control legislation is DOA. Furthermore I fail to see how me calling you out for yoir terrible argumentation is even remotely comperable to your condescending and dismissive remarks about literally the entirety of the United States.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873420]Its the idea of "guns are evil, therefore ban them" that keeps us from getting anything done. If you argued, even for 2 seconds, on improving the social climate of america, you'd reduce murder and crime far more than any gun control bill EVER could. If you spent, even a tenth of the political capital spend on gun control, on attacking the real issues at hand, you'd have FAR more results. But we can't do that. Because guns are evil. You want mental healthcare checks? Fine. With what system? The US's system is in absolute shambles, so what system would you have us do these checks with? Furthermore how should we pay for these checks? Our health insurance systems are fucked beyond belief. So tell me, what should we do? Should we continue to waste capital on the symptom? Or should we finally attack the problem?[/QUOTE] I agree with you on your first point - moralism makes for a shitty argument and even shittier policy. Guns are not evil. They are not inherently bad. They [I]can[/I] be used for evil, absolutely, maybe more easily than most things, but they aren't evil in and of themselves. As we've seen, though, planes and cars can be used for evil too. That said, I disagree a bit on your second bit. Guns [I]are[/I] a part of the real issue at hand. Improving mental health helps attack [I]one[/I] source of gun violence, but we need to stop assuming that it's the only source. I've made my argument for gun licensing systems (akin to drivers' licenses) before, so I won't repeat it over and over again. But we can't assume that "better mental health care" will automatically make gun violence disappear. You know what will help? Federal standards for restricting firearm purchases based on a history of violent crime. Significant fines for ignoring those standards. Mandatory firearm safety training courses when getting licensed, just like we do with vehicles. We need to make [I]practical[/I] policy to help reduce the issue of gun violence. "Guns are bad ban them" doesn't help, but neither does "guns are not the issue don't ban them." We need to say, okay, gun violence is an issue, we need to control firearm access to some degree while balancing it with constitutional rights. Obviously guns are part of gun violence - it's in the name. Improving mental health services is a good start, but we should [I]also[/I] be discussing practical ways to make it more difficult for violent, unstable, and radicalized people to get access to firearms. They're both part of the solution.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873478]Pointing out hypocrisy?[/QUOTE] I fail to see how my post was condescending. It was harsh to be fair, but harshness is not condescension nor is it arrogance.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873462]Why would I turn it in, when if you ban them, I can sell my AR-15 for around 10 grand?[/QUOTE] Because I'm a law-abiding citizen. I'd really prefer to avoid being charged with a crime. If I can get my money back on it, I'll turn it in. A buyback at cost would be prohibitively expensive in this country, however, and would likely have very low compliance rates. Hell, simple registration under New York's SAFE act had a compliance rate somewhere in the single-digit percentile, as I recall.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873336]So you think no one could counteract the inaccuracy problem? The Las Vegas shooter seemed to do fine.[/QUOTE] That's because he was over 400 yards away, and was also firing into a crowd of over 10,000 people. I don't know if you've seen a crowd of 10,000 people in person before, but standing shoulder to shoulder it's a big fucking target. If you can keep the bullets hitting within a 500ft circle, you can bumpfire the traditional hipfire way and do just as much damage. It's really a testament to just how inaccurate bumpfiring and how weak 5.56 are at long distance based on the injuries to deaths ratio. 60~ dead per 600~ injured is a lot lower ratio than any other mass shooting. Even then, that's because he had easy access to head and chest shots by firing down on them from the nearby hotel.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873474]Meh, they just think that bigger bullets = ballistics, I'm talking about how the bullets can be thrown down range quickly and with good energy dumping.[/QUOTE] Holy shit stop. You have no clue what you're talking about and it's actually kinda painful to see someone being this willingly ignorant.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873474]Meh, they just think that bigger bullets = ballistics, I'm talking about how the bullets can be thrown down range quickly and with good energy dumping.[/QUOTE] none of these words mean anything
[QUOTE=Amber902;52873455]Unless you're insinuating the presence of guns somehow generates violence in individuals fail to see how banning guns curtails violent behaviors. Guns are a means to violent acts, not a causative factor in violence.[/QUOTE] We restrict access to explosives, and we even [I]monitor purchasing patterns[/I] for people buying ingredients for explosives, because we recognize that they are dangerous. Do the ingredients for bombs [I]make you violent[/I]? Obviously not, but they increase your ability to cause damage if you [I]become[/I] violent. Guns are exactly the same. So are cars. So are knives. So are bricks. That's why we have a legal distinction between regular old assault and "assault with a deadly weapon," regardless of whether anyone dies. Why should we restrict purchasing ingredients for explosives, but not firearms? Both significantly intensify the amount of damage a violent [I]person[/I] can cause. I can guarantee you that if gang members lacked access to firearms, there'd be fewer gang-violence-related deaths. Try doing a drive-by with kitchen knives. His argument makes sense - access to things that [I]intensify[/I] the damaging effects of violent [I]people[/I] necessarily increase the amount of violence and destruction. Not because they [I]cause[/I] violence and destruction, but because they [I]magnify[/I] the destructive abilities of violent people.
Why are we arguing over the semantics of ballistics? I dont need to have a degree in physics to know whether getting shot by someone will ruin my day, and im sure no one involved in a mass shooting scoffed at the caliber their attacker just unloaded on them. And hindsight is always 20/20 after a mass shooting. If only law enforcement knew about this complete stranger, then everything would be fine. And if only we knew about that kid who wasnt right in the head, we could have prevented him from taking his parents handgun. If only.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52873437]But you can change "the gun problem" at will? No, by the grabbers' own admission, it'd take many years to start having a meaningful impact, so it's not some quick band-aid fix we can apply while we start working on other issues. So what, then? Ban guns or attack social issues?[/QUOTE] Where did I say anything about changing the "gun problem"? I've already said in this thread that working on other issues should be the priority. I just don't think it will be easy or a short-term solution.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;52873535]Where did I say anything about changing the "gun problem"? I've already said in this thread that working on other issues should be the priority. I just don't think it will be easy or a short-term solution.[/QUOTE] My apologies, I misread your post. I took it as an argument and not an observation.
Pretty much the only conservative cause I support is protecting the second ammendment. I want resonable gun control, but I really dont want a blanket ban on guns of any kind. Why cant someone who knows a thing or two draft a bill thats reasonable? I even heard discussion on msnbc about banning suppressors lol Just make it much harder to buy a gun, and do mental health reform programs.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873522]But at the same time, getting rid of the motivations FOR gang violence, would also solve the gang violence problem, without putting restrictions on law abiding citizens. The argument is true, getting rid of guns would make things harder, but it doesn't actually SOLVE them, it merely moves the problem to another field, rather than removing it from the field entirely.[/QUOTE] I'm not optimistic enough to think that we can literally "solve" [I]violence itself[/I]. Yes, education and healthcare would be great steps to [I]reducing[/I] gun violence, I'm not denying that, but I think it's [I]fundamentally impossible[/I] to "get rid of" the motivations for violence. There is no way to "solve" the problem of violence - gang violence, individual violence, or otherwise. There are dozens of ways to neuter the damage that violence can cause. Limiting access to firearms is one way, and it's been proven to be pretty effective elsewhere in the world. Combine that with healthcare, education, and so on - now you have a policy cocktail that defuses the destructive ability of violence.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873533]If only the airforce had followed the laws, already on the books, and properly informed the FBI.. If only. Or, for your example "if only the parents followed proper storage and safety guidelines, the kid couldn't have touched the handgun in the first place.. if only" Making new laws means absolute shit when the laws already on the books aren't followed.[/QUOTE] If laws arent followed, you do this magical thing called "Revision" till its taken seriously. Or you take it away entirely. You dont just ignore the problem and flip off anyone whos trying to do something to mitigate the human loss. If no one is going to be receptive to change, then what do you expect? Youre entrusting the modern american to give a shit about gun safety. Fails to understand that when you live in the same house as someone -if you really want to get into someones gun case- you know exactly where they sleep, and you have all the time in the world to search for the key.
[QUOTE=bob4life;52873573]If laws arent followed, you do this magical thing called "Revision" till its taken seriously. Or you take it away entirely. You dont just ignore the problem and flip off anyone whos trying to do something to mitigate the human loss. If no one is going to be receptive to change, then what do you expect? Youre entrusting the modern american to give a shit about gun safety. Fails to understand that when you live in the same house as someone -if you really want to get into someones gun case- you know exactly where they sleep, and you have all the time in the world to search for the key.[/QUOTE] When the government is the group that isn't following the law what the fuck then? Because that's what's happening here. You punish the citizenry for that failure?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52873569]I'm not optimistic enough to think that we can literally "solve" [I]violence itself[/I]. Yes, education and healthcare would be great steps to [I]reducing[/I] gun violence, I'm not denying that, but I think it's [I]fundamentally impossible[/I] to "get rid of" the motivations for violence. There is no way to "solve" the problem of violence - gang violence, individual violence, or otherwise. There are dozens of ways to neuter the damage that violence can cause. Limiting access to firearms is one way, and it's been proven to be pretty effective elsewhere in the world. Combine that with healthcare, education, and so on - now you have a policy cocktail that defuses the destructive ability of violence.[/QUOTE] Obviously its impossible to completely eliminate violent behavior. Thats not entirely relevant though as reducing the causative factors of violent behaviors is by far the best way to reduce instances of violence and massed violence. Meanwhile removing access to guns does nothing to mitigate violent behaviors.
[QUOTE=bob4life;52873573]If laws arent followed, you do this magical thing called "Revision" till its taken seriously. Or you take it away entirely. You dont just ignore the problem and flip off anyone whos trying to do something to mitigate the human loss. If no one is going to be receptive to change, then what do you expect? Youre entrusting the modern american to give a shit about gun safety. Fails to understand that when you live in the same house as someone -if you really want to get into someones gun case- you know exactly where they sleep, and you have all the time in the world to search for the key.[/QUOTE] Its the people who are in charge of enforcing the laws who failed to do so, though.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52873480]Wha? The fuck is energy dumping?[/QUOTE] Recoil compensation, basically. He's saying that a rifle is better capable of retaining accuracy by minimizing recoil when firing more and/or larger rounds than a pistol is. Just saying it in a slightly unintuitive fashion.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52873585]When the government is the group that isn't following the law what the fuck then? Because that's what's happening here. You punish the citizenry for that failure?[/QUOTE] The government regulates the citizens. Its not an omnipresent entity that can keep track of how sad Jimmy is feeling about being bullied at school. And having the FBI inform on you because you come off as a potential mass shooter would be seen as a huge breach of privacy and would no doubt be used as an arguement against gun control.
Eh I’m fine with people not having access to semi automatic assault style weapons anymore. According to an October 2017 Gallup poll, 48% of Americans are in favor of banning these types of weapons which shows that a blanket ban isn’t an extreme left wing proposition anymore.
[QUOTE=bob4life;52873599]The government regulates the citizens. Its not an omnipresent entity that can keep track of how sad Jimmy is feeling about being bullied at school. And having the FBI inform on you because you come off as a potential mass shooter would be seen as a huge breach of privacy and would no doubt be used as an arguement against gun control.[/QUOTE] What are you on about? The texas shooter was legally ineligible for obtaining a firearm but managed to get one anyway and do what he did because that information didnt reach the people who sold it to him (iirc). [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873617]Eh I’m fine with people not having access to semi automatic assault style weapons anymore. According to an October 2017 Gallup poll, 48% of Americans are in favor of banning these types of weapons which shows that a blanket ban isn’t an extreme left wing proposition anymore.[/QUOTE] Whats "assault style"? Also what would that do in practical terms, iirc 90% or so of gun crimes are committed with handguns.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873617]Eh I’m fine with people not having access to semi automatic assault style weapons anymore. According to an October 2017 Gallup poll, 48% of Americans are in favor of banning these types of weapons which shows that a blanket ban isn’t an extreme left wing proposition anymore.[/QUOTE] Define "Assault Style". Also, please cite where these "Assault Style" weapons are used in the vast majority of gun crime in places like Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City.
Sometimes you cant rely the inefficiency of beaurocracy to keep you safe. If the weapon wasnt for sale in the first place, we wouldnt have to rely on unreliable communication to prevent a church getting shot up.
[QUOTE=bob4life;52873645]Sometimes you cant rely the inefficiency of beaurocracy to keep you safe. If the weapon wasnt for sale in the first place, we wouldnt have to rely on unreliable communication to prevent a church getting shot up.[/QUOTE] What?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.