Obama has largely steered clear of gun debate; For Democrats, gun politics are bad politics
260 replies, posted
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36871122]Plenty of soft spots to shoot at. Been to the range enough im completely confident in my ability to put three shots grouped in the size of a half dollar. You might find the argument retarded- it doesnt make it less true. If i was in that theater- with my 9mm- theres a good chance he would have been stopped.
Many other americans are well trained in the use of firearms as well. If you feel safe enough w/o a gun- good for you. But though the intentions of gun control may be good (who is against less crime?) it would cause more harm then good (because criminals dont follow the laws)
Many ppl with a concealed carry permit have their guns with them all the time- its not that big of deal, its just a gun. Its not like your totting around a 1/2 ton surface to air missile...[/QUOTE]
You probably would have ended up killing even more people.
[QUOTE=Clavus;36871166]You are fucking kidding me. Are you really saying you "could've handled it"? You don't seem to realize that a theatre full of panicking people is not a shooting range. Armchair cowboys like yourself don't have any constructive arguments in this debate.
And I'm deliberately steering clear of the actual gun control question. I'm making a point that arming everyone isn't going to make these problems go away, it's making them worse.[/QUOTE]
O please tell me who then is allowed to constructively converse in this thread (protip- this is not a debate/ thats an entirely different section)
And though all you got from my post is some nonsense about "arming everyone" i would like to point out that at no time did i say, suggest, or even hint about the idea of arming everyone and if its a good idea or not.
Though I would like to know why you feel ppl having the ability to defend themselves against criminals would make crime "worse"
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36871122]Plenty of soft spots to shoot at. Been to the range enough im completely confident in my ability to put three shots grouped in the size of a half dollar. You might find the argument retarded- it doesnt make it less true. If i was in that theater- with my 9mm- theres a good chance he would have been stopped.
Many other americans are well trained in the use of firearms as well. If you feel safe enough w/o a gun- good for you. But though the intentions of gun control may be good (who is against less crime?) it would cause more harm then good (because criminals dont follow the laws)
Many ppl with a concealed carry permit have their guns with them all the time- its not that big of deal, its just a gun. Its not like your totting around a 1/2 ton surface to air missile...[/QUOTE]
You've been to the range.
Have you taken a class? All your shit goes out the window under stress. I'd say that you would've been shot and killed by this guy. Bravo for trying to be a hero, more than what most people can do. He had the drop on everyone in a dark and crowded environment.
Oh, and your 9mm? Killing him? Yeah, okay. after 30 rounds. You would be lucky to score a shot on a vital.
[QUOTE=Clavus;36870996]You do know this guy was fully armored in case of such an event right? I find the argument that "this wouldn't happen if the civilians were armed" completely retarded. They were going to the cinema for christ sake. Who the fuck is going to arm himself for a night out to the cinema with friends or family.[/QUOTE]
I arm myself wherever I go. I treat it like my wallet and keys. If you're going to carry, you do or you don't. There are no days off.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871251]If properly trained with firearms, if half those movie goers were armed, do you honestly expect that lone gunman had a chance to kill all those people?[/QUOTE]
Okay but for every "lone gunman" that is stopped how many others will die from accidents, gunfights or otherwise
I don't think I'd ever be able to support a candidate who is against gun rights. For me, it would be on par with restricting freedom of speech.
Like others have said, even if guns are made illegal criminals will still be able to obtain them. It's even very possible for people to make improvised guns in their home from supplies they can buy at a hardware store. I remember someone posted a couple PDFs here on improvised munitions and booby traps, and the improvised munitions handbook contained instructions and figures on how to build pistols, shotguns, and rifles for various ammunition (variety of handgun bullets, rifle, shotgun, .22, etc.).
Sure they won't be nearly as reliable as advanced guns and you have to place a new bullet in after every shot but if people have motives and don't care for the law, they'll do it.
[QUOTE=James*;36871301]Okay but for every "lone gunman" that is stopped how many others will die from accidents, gunfights or otherwise[/QUOTE]
I have consistently called for training any time I mentioned arming the populace in this thread.
And I have yet to come across a statistic that shows more gunfights in a community where more people had guns legally.
[editline]21st July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ShotgunDude;36871299]You've been to the range.
Have you taken a class? All your shit goes out the window under stress. I'd say that you would've been shot and killed by this guy. Bravo for trying to be a hero, more than what most people can do. He had the drop on everyone in a dark and crowded environment.
Oh, and your 9mm? Killing him? Yeah, okay. after 30 rounds. You would be lucky to score a shot on a vital.
[/QUOTE]
There's no real argument supporting or disapproving that. Some people may have all their training go out the window under stress. Some people may stay completely calm and coordinated under pressure.
Who are you to say 100% of the time, everyone will forget their training under stress? By that logic, there's no point in boot camp for the military because the soldiers will forget everything the moment a firefight breaks out.
And you don't have to even kill the man by "hitting a vital". Any gunshot wound in most cases is going to bring a man down or extremely slow him down by pain alone. One hole through the leg may not kill him but the agony will definitely, in the [I]very[/I] least, slow him down.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871251]If properly trained with firearms, if half those movie goers were armed, do you honestly expect that lone gunman had a chance to kill all those people?[/QUOTE]
So now you're telling me that civilians HAVE to have these skills? Firearm training should be mandatory all adults or something? A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE GUNS. They want to lead their lives without having to carry a tool for killing fellow humans (read: "defending yourself" if you like).
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871251]"Armchair cowboys"? Yes, that is a constructive argument in a debate. For all you know, he's an expert marksman and owner of several guns. [/QUOTE]
Does that make ANY difference for the argument he made? "Oh sure if I was in one of the 9/11 planes I would've stopped the terrorists". It's not helping anyone.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871251]Deliberately steering away because there's no real argument that could win against the freedom of guns. Most of your "points" are "Do you really think that!? It's impossible!" instead of any actual logical argument.[/QUOTE]
No, the point is that I get why gun control is a very touchy subject in the US. It's rooted in the culture. You can't take it away without heavy opposition. It's embedded in the mindset of a lot of vocal people and powerful lobbies like the NRA. This is why I aim my arguments at the surrounding issues. American society itself has to change before anyone could even consider bringing up gun control again.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871341]I have consistently called for training any time I mentioned arming the populace in this thread.[/quote]
Yeah I don't think it's enough, sorry
Mainly for this reason:
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871341]Some people may have all their training go out the window under stress. [/quote]
As for this
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871341]And you don't have to even kill the man by "hitting a vital". Any gunshot wound in most cases is going to bring a man down or extremely slow him down by pain alone. One hole through the leg may not kill him but the agony will definitely, in the [I]very[/I] least, slow him down.[/QUOTE]
Another example of people severely overestimating their own abilities
I think I'd rather take my chance with facing a lone gunman (seriously how often does this happen) than be surrounded by a bunch of armed trigger happy cowboys at all times
[QUOTE=Clavus;36871392]So now you're telling me that civilians HAVE to have these skills? Firearm training should be mandatory all adults or something? A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE GUNS. They want to lead their lives without having to carry a tool for killing fellow humans (read: "defending yourself" if you like).[/quote]
You're twisting my words. I never said anything about mandatory firearm training. I just think that it should be heavily emphasized for gun owners. And where is the statistic saying that the majority of people don't like guns?
People who don't like guns still benefit from a society that has them. A mugger doesn't know who does and who doesn't have a gun. All the gun owners can stay home all the time and the unarmed people go out all the time, but the mugger doesn't know the difference.
[QUOTE=Clavus;36871392]No, the point is that I get why gun control is a very touchy subject in the US. It's rooted in the culture. You can't take it away without heavy opposition. It's embedded in the mindset of a lot of vocal people and powerful lobbies like the NRA. This is why I aim my arguments at the surrounding issues. American society itself has to change before anyone could even consider bringing up gun control again.[/QUOTE]
"I'm not arguing because you're too stuck in your beliefs"
Well shit, welcome to the internet; may I take your coat?
[editline]21st July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=James*;36871444]Yeah I don't think it's enough, sorry
Mainly for this reason:
As for this
Another example of people severely overestimating their own abilities
I think I'd rather take my chance with facing a lone gunman (seriously how often does this happen) than be surrounded by a bunch of armed trigger happy cowboys at all times[/QUOTE]
Let me put it this way: Would arming the populace, and everyone knowing the populace is armed, stopped him?
The presence of guns alone deter crime. They don't even have to be used. Of course there is going to be one nut out there but the benefits outweigh that one nut.
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36870937]If i was in that theater, with my 9mm- do you really think the killed/injured list would be that long? Gun bans and regulations only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals really dont care if their gun is legal- thats what makes them criminals/ they dont follow the law.
After the fast/furious scandal obama is smart to stay away from mentioning gun regs.[/QUOTE]
Teargas dude. You wouldn't be able too see who's the perp so you'd probably just kill some random innocent that moved toward you when you were panicking and your heart was racing severely hampering your motor skills.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871341]I have consistently called for training any time I mentioned arming the populace in this thread.
And I have yet to come across a statistic that shows more gunfights in a community where more people had guns legally.
[editline]21st July 2012[/editline]
There's no real argument supporting or disapproving that. Some people may have all their training go out the window under stress. Some people may stay completely calm and coordinated under pressure.
Who are you to say 100% of the time, everyone will forget their training under stress? By that logic, there's no point in boot camp for the military because the soldiers will forget everything the moment a firefight breaks out.
And you don't have to even kill the man by "hitting a vital". Any gunshot wound in most cases is going to bring a man down or extremely slow him down by pain alone. One hole through the leg may not kill him but the agony will definitely, in the [I]very[/I] least, slow him down.[/QUOTE]
You're twisting my words too. I didn't mean that. I meant that if the only exposure you have to using your gun is spending several hours at the range shooting at a target, it might not help you in a life and death situation where you target is close enough to pass a ball to you.
If you don't train for it, you probably will lose your shit. I don't know what to tell you, and I can't really source it, but all I know is that most people just miss when they're fighting for their life under extreme stress. It's really easy to miss.
Boot camp for soldiers isn't a waste. Neither is training. That's all some units do, because they're professionals at their jobs, they will always be better prepared than for this kind of situation than the average citizen.
I know my own abilities, and I don't over estimate them. So personally, I wouldn't have tried to engage this guy unless I knew I had the advantage or had no other choice.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871451]Let me put it this way: Would arming the populace, and everyone knowing the populace is armed, stopped him?[/quote]
It may have, but at what cost? Every dispute having the potential to turn into a gunfight?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871451]The presence of guns alone deter crime. They don't even have to be used. Of course there is going to be one nut out there but the benefits outweigh that one nut.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, maybe not. Is it working in the US so far?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871451]"I'm not arguing because you're too stuck in your beliefs"
Well shit, welcome to the internet; may I take your coat?[/QUOTE]
I never said you were stuck in your beliefs. Gun owners look too much to themselves and too little to the rest of society. It's full of people that act differently with or around guns. The arguments resolve around "what if" scenarios where the right people are always at the right place.
In my belief, this shooting did not occur because of lack or too much gun control. It just happened because there was a sick individual and a theatre full of people thinking they'd have a great time. We can only guess if gun training, gun control, would've made any difference at all. Don't claim you have the answer.
[QUOTE=Clavus;36870841]Ironically, it's the same reason I steer clear of gun control debates on Facepunch. :v:
Gun debates are bad debates.[/QUOTE]
Why am I so terrible at following my own advice. Time for dinner! Have fun people.
[QUOTE=James*;36871538]It may have, but at what cost? Every dispute having the potential to turn into a gunfight?[/quote]
Many states in the midwest and south have very little gun control laws and many have guns. You don't hear about 3,000 gun fights in Alabama or Colorado every day that came out of a simple fenderbender dispute. In fact, I don't even here 1 a week.
[QUOTE=James*;36871538]Maybe, maybe not. Is it working in the US so far?[/QUOTE]
"In right-to-carry states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower."
[url]http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry[/url]
[QUOTE=James*;36871538]It may have, but at what cost? Every dispute having the potential to turn into a gunfight?[/QUOTE]
That is the Brady Campaign's argument every time a state legalizes carry. And it doesn't happen. Because the vast majority of normal people don't fly off the handle and go on a killing spree because someone stole their parking spot at the supermarket.
[editline]21st July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=James*;36871538]Maybe, maybe not. Is it working in the US so far?[/QUOTE]
Gun owners used their firearms 2 million times in self defense last year.
To me the subject of gun control isn't just the guns themselves but the Bill of Rights. That is the single most important document to the American people today, without it you have no right to free speech, no right to arm yourself, nothing to protect your property used to quarter military, nothing to protect your property from being seized, the list goes on, everything you may consider to be dear and necessary to your freedom in America is likely in that document.
If the government is willing to attack the right to bear arms, what about your right to free speech? Or a fair trial? What about the eighth amendment which says they can't subject you to cruel or unusual punishment such as torture?
The second amendment has already been stomped upon several times with the 1934 National Firearms Act which single handedly created the very disparity in civilian to military armament the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent, then you have the 1968 Gun Control Act which was intended to restrict the importation of certain types of guns and also created the FFL system, but the worst by far is the 1986 Firearms Owner's Protection Act, which contains both good and really bad things.
The bad parts of FOPA mind as well have been an update to the NFA, because by 1986 the $200 tax on federally restricted guns wasn't as big an obstacle anymore, $200 in 1934 mind as well have been the cost of a car or a house today. What FOPA did was completely forbid the importation and manufacture of federally restricted guns, and if you limit the supply the demand goes up and so does the cost, so now only people with enough money can afford something like a Thompson or even a military grade M16, and by enough money I mean $20,000-$100,000.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871587]Many states in the midwest and south have very little gun control laws and many have guns. You don't hear about 3,000 gun fights in Alabama or Colorado every day that came out of a simple fenderbender dispute. In fact, I don't even here 1 a week.
"In right-to-carry states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower."
[url]http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry[/url][/QUOTE]
"Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility"
[editline]21st July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;36871588]That is the Brady Campaign's argument every time a state legalizes carry. And it doesn't happen. Because the vast majority of normal people don't fly off the handle and go on a killing spree because someone stole their parking spot at the supermarket.[/quote]
You're right, the vast majority don't
The vast majority also don't go on killing sprees of unarmed civilians, yet everyone should carry guns at all times just in case?
[QUOTE=Ridge;36871588]Gun owners used their firearms 2 million times in self defense last year.[/QUOTE]
How often were they used in defense against people with guns
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36871122]If i was in that theater- with my 9mm- theres a good chance he would have been stopped.[/QUOTE]
bahahahahaha
[QUOTE=James*;36871623]You're right, the vast majority don't
The vast majority also don't go on killing sprees of unarmed civilians, yet everyone should carry guns at all times just in case?[/QUOTE]
So you agree that this is very unusual, and not related to gun ownership, then?
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;36871609]To me the subject of gun control isn't just the guns themselves but the Bill of Rights. That is the single most important document to the American people today, without it you have no right to free speech, no right to arm yourself, nothing to protect your property used to quarter military, nothing to protect your property from being seized, the list goes on, everything you may consider to be dear and necessary to your freedom in America is likely in that document.
If the government is willing to attack the right to bear arms, what about your right to free speech? Or a fair trial? What about the eighth amendment which says they can't subject you to cruel or unusual punishment such as torture?
The second amendment has already been stomped upon several times with the 1934 National Firearms Act which single handedly created the very disparity in civilian to military armament the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent, then you have the 1968 Gun Control Act which was intended to restrict the importation of certain types of guns and also created the FFL system, but the worst by far is the 1986 Firearms Owner's Protection Act, which contains both good and really bad things.
The bad parts of FOPA mind as well have been an update to the NFA, because by 1986 the $200 tax on federally restricted guns wasn't as big an obstacle anymore, $200 in 1934 mind as well have been the cost of a car or a house today. What FOPA did was completely forbid the importation and manufacture of federally restricted guns, and if you limit the supply the demand goes up and so does the cost, so now only people with enough money can afford something like a Thompson or even a military grade M16, and by enough money I mean $20,000-$100,000.[/QUOTE]
Isn't the whole point of legislation to be changed and updated in the name of progress
Like isn't that why there are amendments, it shouldn't just be treated as some untouchable doctrine to blindly follow
[editline]21st July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;36871700]So you agree that this is very unusual, and not related to gun ownership, then?[/QUOTE]
Well yes and no. It's not a good idea to give guns to nuts.
And it's not just about people going on killing sprees, it's also about people trying to be heroes - making bad decisions. No matter how much training people have they make mistakes
[QUOTE=James*;36871623]The vast majority also don't go on killing sprees of unarmed civilians, yet everyone should carry guns at all times just in case?[/QUOTE]
No, everyone shouldn't carry guns, but it should be a choice and not restricted by the government or otherwise. If you feel you can be responsible and want to carry a gun, then you should be able to with out facing scorn and legal consequences by those around you just for having it. If you decide to get drunk and shoot out the stoplight because it won't turn green when you want it to then that's when you step over the line and it becomes illegal.
But if you're like that fellow who stopped a burglary at an internet cafe recently then you did a good thing, and that's what carrying a gun should be about.
[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/[/url]
You could Google a man named Thomas Glenn Terry as well, who single handedly stopped the massacre of 20 people in a restaurant with his 1911 after two robbers entered and forced everyone inside the refrigerator at gun point. Terry hid under a table and waited until everyone was out of the way before shooting and killing both robbers alone and at great risk to his own life.
[QUOTE=James*;36871723]Isn't the whole point of legislation to be changed and updated in the name of progress
Like isn't that why there are amendments, it shouldn't just be treated as some untouchable doctrine to blindly follow
[editline]21st July 2012[/editline]
Well yes and no. It's not a good idea to give guns to nuts.
And it's not just about people going on killing sprees, it's also about people trying to be heroes - making bad decisions. No matter how much training people have they make mistakes[/QUOTE]
Ok then you have freedom of speech unless you say X. Too bad they didn't realize this in the 50s, could have passed an amendment that black people didn't have free speech! No Civil rights movement for ya since they had no free speech.
And yes, people will make mistakes, that's being human. We should have everyone use public transportation that runs on rails and operated by computers and make privately owned vehicles illegal on public roads.
[QUOTE=James*;36871104]By this logic why make anything illegal?[/QUOTE]
Making something illegal is necessary so that society has the ability to prosecute and sentence people for doing various things, such as murder/armed robbery/etc. The law is where society gets the authority to do this.
What laws DON'T do is stop people from doing those things. Laws against muirder and harsh sentences for murder are not going to stop the serial killer, and it won't stop the guy who snaps during an argument and kills his wife. The bank robber isn't stopped if you raise the sentences for bank robbery. Laws are not prevention.
This is one reason gun control arguments are flawed, they hinge on the idea that if guns are banned(ie illegal) then people will stop acquiring them. You can see for yourself in today's world that this is not true. Any number of items are banned and yet lots of people are buying them every day. I had an easier time in high school buying pot and coke than I did buying alcohol, even though beer is in just about every store and those other drugs are illegal. I could buy pot right there in the school, but if i wanted beer I had to find someone else to get it for me. Why does anyone think the gun situation would be any different?
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;36871965]Ok then you have freedom of speech unless you say X. Too bad they didn't realize this in the 50s, could have passed an amendment that black people didn't have free speech! No Civil rights movement for ya since they had no free speech.[/quote]
Erm, what? Then don't touch free speech? It's not as if there weren't plenty of laws targeted at black people anyway, where was the bill of rights then?
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;36871965]And yes, people will make mistakes, that's being human. We should have everyone use public transportation that runs on rails and operated by computers and make privately owned vehicles illegal on public roads.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that vehicles aren't designed primarily for killing
However I do think having only public transport would actually be preferable, though not particularly viable
[QUOTE=James*;36872134]Erm, what? Then don't touch free speech? It's not as if there weren't plenty of laws targeted at black people anyway, where was the bill of rights then?
The difference is that vehicles aren't designed primarily for killing
However I do think having only public transport would actually be preferable, though not particularly viable[/QUOTE]
So then one right is more valuable than another? That being the case, which is more valuable, the First Amendment or the Sixth?
That's not the case, they are all equally valuable, you can't pick and choose which one you don't want, they all come free and as a whole.
Vehicles certainly do a lot of killing that's for sure, people make bad decisions on how they use vehicles all the time and it results in the injury and death of others on a regular basis. People shouldn't be allowed to make such decisions, so ban the use of vehicles on the public motorway.
Does it bother you that someone might want to take your car away from you, say you can't have one anymore?
In America, even if guns were banned, don't we still have the right to bear arms against the nation should the government step out of line for whatever reason (This is just an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment)?
I'm just looking at things at a grander scale is all.
[QUOTE=James*;36871723]Isn't the whole point of legislation to be changed and updated in the name of progress
Like isn't that why there are amendments, it shouldn't just be treated as some untouchable doctrine to blindly follow[/QUOTE]
Stripping individuals of their rights is progress?
While I am not really for strict gun control, I still think shooting burglars and trespassers to kill, unless they are also armed, is rather excessive.
That being said, I have never fired a gun myself, and I live in Norway, where the best you can get is a hunting rifle, and getting a pistol legally requires a lot of time and patience.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;36872960]While I am not really for strict gun control, I still think shooting burglars and trespassers to kill, unless they are also armed, is rather excessive.
That being said, I have never fired a gun myself, and I live in Norway, where the best you can get is a hunting rifle, and getting a pistol legally requires a lot of time and patience.[/QUOTE]
Except in most cases, the robbers that get killed are armed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
