After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742669]
Yes, magazine fed "automatic" pistols are responsible for most on-the-street violence. They should be banned.[/QUOTE]
how, exactly, do you expect to ban the single most common weapon type in the country? just go door-to-door and politely ask they hand over their pistols on the honor system? this would be completely impossible to enforce
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52743849]It can be used to make bombs. Bombs are arms. What business does the government have in telling me how I can and can't protect myself from tyranny?[/QUOTE]
Epic zinger, if you're going to be lazy don't bother. Already three posts into the thread and resorted to shitposting. No one in their right mind thinks bombs are arms from a civilian standpoint, what you gonna do use a bomb for home defense? Gonna protect your property with one? A firearm has more application and more relevance to an individual then a bomb does.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52743849]It can be used to make bombs. Bombs are arms. What business does the government have in telling me how I can and can't protect myself from tyranny?[/QUOTE]
I know you're just making strawmen, but bombs are not arms, they are munitions. In 1939 the Supreme Court said the average citizen is allowed to have firearms on par with that of the average infantryman.
[url=http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/daniel-zimmerman/speaker-paul-ryan-pulls-share-act-consideration/]SHARE Act is dead.[/url]
Saying that I am fucking livid right now, would be an understatement. Bunch of sunset patriots who should be kicked from office come 2018.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52743931][url=http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/daniel-zimmerman/speaker-paul-ryan-pulls-share-act-consideration/]SHARE Act is dead.[/url]
Saying that I am fucking livid right now, would be an understatement. Bunch of sunset patriots who should be kicked from office come 2018.[/QUOTE]
I get why they did it, it isn't the right time to bring it up at the moment. We don't need suppressors to defend ourselves or to hunt. I'm sure it will be brought back up at a later time. They're honestly damned if they do or don't and anyone who wants to give them shit for pulling it in the wake of this massacre needs to rethink priorities.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52743931][url=http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/daniel-zimmerman/speaker-paul-ryan-pulls-share-act-consideration/]SHARE Act is dead.[/url]
Saying that I am fucking livid right now, would be an understatement. Bunch of sunset patriots who should be kicked from office come 2018.[/QUOTE]
Sunshine patriots because nobody wants to be super pro gun after a mass shooting?
Is anyone who isn't in love with guns as you not patriotic now?
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52741991]Here's a magical idea: stop letting people buy lethal murder weapons designed to be the most efficient lethal murder weapons for like literally no reason other than just for fun.[/QUOTE]
Jimmy the law-abiding citizen owns a gun. He bought it through legal channels, and uses it for hunting, pest control, recreational shooting and self/home defence. He owns a few high-value electronics, a car and usually keeps money on his person as most people do.
Billy the gangster got his gun from some shady cunt in a back-alley. Its serial numbers have been filed off and it's passed through countless hands. He has it for the purpose of intimidation and "self-defence".
Suddenly, guns become illegal. Jimmy's deprived of a utility and a hobby if he wants to remain a law-abiding citizen. But beyond that, nothing's standing in the way of Jimmy being robbed, assaulted, burgled, car-jacked or murdered by Billy, whose gun was already illegal. Where ordinarily, Billy would have less confidence in doing so because you can't assume any one of the US' Jimmies aren't carrying.
Truly a magical idea.
Like idk if suppressors get deregulated or banned outright but this opinion of "ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE GUNS IS UNAMERICAN" is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=MR-X;52743944]I get why they did it, it isn't the right time to bring it up at the moment. We don't need suppressors to defend ourselves or to hunt. I'm sure it will be brought back up at a later time. They're honestly damned if they do or don't.[/QUOTE]
I'm just agitated beyond all hell man. Every goddamn time this thing comes up for vote, some degenerate goes about and kills people, and we end up being forced to postpone our chance of dismantling the National Firearms Act, one piece at a time.
I just want this shit to pass already. I have been waiting seven months already.
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52743945]Sunshine patriots because nobody wants to be super pro gun after a mass shooting?
Is anyone who isn't in love with guns as you not patriotic now?[/QUOTE]
When to going gets tough, you can either wait patiently or try to continue pushing forward. With Trump and Ryan talking about giving ground regarding gun control, yes. They are sunshine patriots, through and through.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52743931][url=http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/daniel-zimmerman/speaker-paul-ryan-pulls-share-act-consideration/]SHARE Act is dead.[/url]
Saying that I am fucking livid right now, would be an understatement. Bunch of sunset patriots who should be kicked from office come 2018.[/QUOTE]
cmon bud, I support the share act but now would be an incredibly tasteless time to have a vote on that
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52743952]I'm just agitated beyond all hell man. Every goddamn time this thing comes up for vote, some degenerate goes about and kills people, and we end up being forced to postpone our chance of dismantling the National Firearms Act, one piece at a time.
I just want this shit to pass already. I have been waiting seven months already.
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
When to going gets tough, you can either wait patiently or try to continue pushing forward. With Trump and Ryan talking about giving ground regarding gun control, yes. They are sunshine patriots, through and through.[/QUOTE]
Well be ready to wait longer, if you don't want to wait go and get into a trust, pay your 200 dollar tax stamp, and buy the damn thing.
I can't really be sympathetic towards this or your wait considering what has happened. I know it is irritating and a lot of people were waiting for this to pass. Shelving this isn't necessarily giving ground to gun control, these type of items are already controlled. You lose absolutely nothing and gain nothing.
[QUOTE=Judas;52743967]cmon bud, I support the share act but now would be an incredibly tasteless time to have a vote on that[/QUOTE]
I actually wonder how much of it is actually about tact and how much is just politics and the Republican leadership not wanting to spend the little capital they have pushing gun accessory deregulation and tax reform at the same time.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742669]
Yes, magazine fed "automatic" pistols are responsible for most on-the-street violence. They should be banned.[/QUOTE]
The people who commit that violence are the ones responsible for it. The specific class of weapon is just a better means to the same end. If it weren't self-loading pistols it'd be revolvers and sawed-offs, if it weren't those it'd be blades. Someone who wants the ability (or the appearance as such) to do harm will get it one way or another. And in the case of illicit arms, there would still be plenty demand to fuel supply of any such weapons..
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52742096]I mean they can try, but there's no way people are going to give up their guns, not possible.[/QUOTE]
I'd give up my guns in a perfect society.
[QUOTE=Megadave;52744060]I'd give up my guns in a perfect society.[/QUOTE]
In a perfect society i'd probably have more guns... shooting shit is fun, and being able to have guns in a perfect society where no crime ever is committed with guns would be a win-win.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;52744040]The people who commit that violence are the ones responsible for it. The specific class of weapon is just a better means to the same end. If it weren't self-loading pistols it'd be revolvers and sawed-offs, if it weren't those it'd be blades. Someone who wants the ability (or the appearance as such) to do harm will get it one way or another. And in the case of illicit arms, there would still be plenty demand to fuel supply of any such weapons..[/QUOTE]
But. It. Would. Be. Harder.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;52744040]The people who commit that violence are the ones responsible for it. The specific class of weapon is just a better means to the same end. If it weren't self-loading pistols it'd be revolvers and sawed-offs, if it weren't those it'd be blades. Someone who wants the ability (or the appearance as such) to do harm will get it one way or another. And in the case of illicit arms, there would still be plenty demand to fuel supply of any such weapons..[/QUOTE]
Come on the blades argument is bullshit. Stabbing weapons would never come close to reaching the epidemic levels of gun violence currently.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52741998]Yeah no, I'll go buy as many as I want and have as much fun as I want because I can.[/QUOTE]
But you can't even shoot with your feet!
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52744079]But. It. Would. Be. Harder.[/QUOTE]
For some reason this argument never seems to register.
It is a LOT harder to kill someone/something with a knife than it is to point and pull the trigger of a gun. A LOT.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744116]For some reason this argument never seems to register.
It is a LOT harder to kill someone/something with a knife than it is to point and pull the trigger of a gun. A LOT.[/QUOTE]
Nevermind 57 or whatever the number is now
[QUOTE=MR-X;52743903]Epic zinger, if you're going to be lazy don't bother. Already three posts into the thread and resorted to shitposting. No one in their right mind thinks bombs are arms from a civilian standpoint, what you gonna do use a bomb for home defense? Gonna protect your property with one? A firearm has more application and more relevance to an individual then a bomb does.[/QUOTE]
The big argument people have against the gub'ment taking their guns away is that they need it to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. You honestly thing semi-autos and pistols are going to stop the government alone?
As for "home defense", a shotgun or handgun would be perfectly suitable, yet you have people claiming they need an AR15 or AK-47 to do so.
What about bump-stocks? Need those for home defense? Or are they just for fucking around? Why can't I fuck around with explosives?
[QUOTE=Ridge;52743927]I know you're just making strawmen, but bombs are not arms, they are munitions. In 1939 the Supreme Court said the average citizen is allowed to have firearms on par with that of the average infantryman.[/QUOTE]
Don't infantrymen have grenades? Where can I pick up some of those?
Infantrymen have access to fully-automatic weapons, if not those then weapons with three-shot bursts, and last I checked you can't buy one of those without a shit-ton of red tape, if at all.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52744079]But. It. Would. Be. Harder.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744116]For some reason this argument never seems to register.
It is a LOT harder to kill someone/something with a knife than it is to point and pull the trigger of a gun. A LOT.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52744134]Nevermind 57 or whatever the number is now[/QUOTE]
Pretty convenient that everyone already forgot about the massive truck attacks in Europe.
87 deaths in Nice, France.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52744134]Nevermind 57 or whatever the number is now[/QUOTE]
Worst mass stabbing I can find had 35 fatalities, four of which were the perpetrators, and that was in 2014 in China, with a 143 non fatal injuries. Also it was a terror attack.
Bad, but not mass shooting bad.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52744140]Pretty convenient that everyone already forgot about the massive truck attacks in Europe.
87 deaths.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, trucks... Totally comparable to guns
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52744166]Ah yes, trucks... Totally comparable to guns[/QUOTE]
I, too, remember reading about the middle ages and how plate-mail armor was difficult to penetrate, so they invented trucks.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52744166]Ah yes, trucks... Totally comparable to guns[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52744178]I, too, remember reading about the middle ages and how plate-mail armor was difficult to penetrate, so they invented trucks.[/QUOTE]
You said with gun control it would be a lot harder for mass casualty attacks. I'm giving real world examples of why that is false. But hey, epic zingers.
People ignoring what guns are GREAT at and what they're DESIGNED FOR is hilarious
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52744186]You said with gun control it would be a lot harder for mass casualty attacks. I'm giving real world examples of why that is false. But hey, epic zingers.[/QUOTE]
Want to compare frequency/prevalence or even just total numbers of those attacks to mass-shootings in the US.
Go on, I dare you.
I think trying to say that we'd just have knife attacks is a stretch. It's true in that if we magically poofed guns away, people would still be intent to do crime and would pick the next best tool to do it with, which would probably be a blade. But Guns are good at killing lots of people. The difference is a rotary lawn mower vs. a driving lawn mower. They do the same job, but one is clearly better at it.
My biggest issue with the whole replacing guns with knifes thing is that you're still just treating a symptom. We wouldn't need to worry about it if you put all your time and energy into fighting the reasons why people kill each other, instead of figuring out what scary black gun parts to ban or whether or not this rifle is hunty or self defensy enough to bless your people with the right to use it.
Banning things, whether its guns, drugs, alcohol, whatever, is lazy legislation. It creates black markets and upsets law abiding citizens. Address the issues at hand, and we wouldn't need to ban things.
Gun bans are especially useless since they just find ways around them. The gun is still the same gun whether or not it looks black and had pistol grips. You can take the same gun that this murder used and make it look like a hunting rifle but it doesn't change the fact that it can still do what it did. So you end up with shit legislation that doesn't do shit to stop the fact that people still wanna kill eachother. Lazy lazy lazy.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52744166]Ah yes, trucks... Totally comparable to guns[/QUOTE]
Why are they not? You want to rid the world of mass casualty events by getting rid of guns, but refuse to acknowledge that these events still take place, with even higher death counts, using different means.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.