Democrats to pursue assault weapons ban, as Sandy Hook Elementary 'unlikely to re-open'
232 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854135]What is the difference, then? If I'm a responsible gun owner who collects guns for target shooting and historical value, why should I have them taken away? Because some autistic kid shot up a school? Because his mother didn't have a safe to keep him away from them? Do you really think the means to an end are more pertinent than the mindset that caused an intent for that end in the first place?[/QUOTE]
So you're wondering what is the difference between
[QUOTE=Uberpro;38854056] (...)
If somebody's hobby is to use assault weapons or whatever to fire at some targets, I suggest them to get a new hobby.[/QUOTE]
and
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854094]That's like telling you to get a new hobby instead of games because some people bully people over the internet[/QUOTE]
Hmm, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but assault weapons (and guns in general)cause quite a lot more fatalities (infact over 11000 in the year 2009 alone) than people bullying each other over the internet.
Reply to rest of your post: Your precious little hobby comes with an insanely high price.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38853079]not that gun control is even about banning guns in the first place[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but if you genuinely believe this is the case across the board, you are truly delusional. Shit like this is intended to score political points, and I wish you the best of luck in getting a straight answer from a politician about what they want with legislation like this. You will be inundated with equivocation and double talk as they attempt to word their sentences in such a way that it could mean either.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38852931]Yeah paranoid schizophrenics usually have a hard time coping with logic and reason[/QUOTE]
Hah, oh my god, I saw this, then your name and thought, "Wow, figures that this dipstick would say some shit like that."
No really, you come off as a jackass almost all the time. You should stop.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38854316]I'm sorry, but if you genuinely believe this is the case across the board, you are truly delusional. Shit like this is intended to score political points, and I wish you the best of luck in getting a straight answer from a politician about what they want with legislation like this. You will be inundated with equivocation and double talk as they attempt to word their sentences in such a way that it could mean either.[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with his post though, which is absolutely correct. A lot of people seem to think that "gun control" means banning weapons, when it actually means restricting the flow of guns at any level. Issuing licenses and requiring mental health checkups that the vast majority of gun owners should pass anyway is technically gun control. Banning guns is an extreme form of gun control.
[QUOTE=Uberpro;38854278]but assault weapons (and guns in general)cause quite a lot more fatalities than people bullying each other over the internet.[/QUOTE]
But you can't deny that kids and teens kill themselves over cyberbullying all the time, though. Does that mean "ban computers"? No. 99 percent of computer users use computers responsibly. 99 percent of legal gun owners don't shoot up schools.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;38852596]Except for the fact that "assault weapons" have already been banned before.[/QUOTE]
That legislation was passed by a more moderate(read, [I]less insane[/I]) Congress.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854381]But you can't deny that kids and teens kill themselves over cyberbullying all the time, though. Does that mean "ban computers"? No. 99 percent of computer users use computers responsibly. 99 percent of legal gun owners don't shoot up schools.[/QUOTE]
Can you stop picking random, idiotic examples? As I said, with assault rifles or whatever you can kill 20 people in 10 seconds, thats hardly the case with cyberbullying.
Also repeating myself: most guns are made to kill. Computers aren't.
[QUOTE=Uberpro;38854410]Can you stop picking random, idiotic examples? As I said, with assault rifles or whatever you can kill 20 people in 10 seconds, thats hardly the case with cyberbullying.
Also repeating myself: most guns are made to kill. Computers aren't.[/QUOTE]
"kill 20 people in 10 seconds"
you don't know what "assault weapon" means in the US, do you?
Rifles used for hunting and rifles used for target shooting("assault weapons") are the same thing for all intents and purposes. The only difference is what they look like.
Automatic weapons are already illegal in the US, so if you ban legal "assault weapons", you're just banning something because it looks scary.
[QUOTE=Uberpro;38854278]Hmm, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but assault weapons (and guns in general)cause quite a lot more fatalities (infact over 11000 in the year 2009 alone) than people bullying each other over the internet.[/QUOTE]
First, "assault weapons" are used in a really small part of gun crime (something around 0.5%, IIRC). Banning them would be nearly useless, just a pain in the ass for the countless hunters, collectors, and target shooters who own them and never killed (and never will) anyone in their entire life.
Second, "fatalities" is a broad term. As far as stats are concerned, a lot of them are suicides and people using weapons in self defense, to protect their own life. Then it's unknown whether said weapons were acquired legally, and most weapons used in crimes aren't.
See, this is why laws should be based on facts, rather than emotions and personal dislikes. Personally, I'd support gun laws akin to Czech Republic and other EU countries, where you must prove your sanity and honesty but after that you can buy pretty much anything and even get a CC permit if you live in a shitty neighborhood where your safety is at risk, but everything proposed so far (especially another AWB) is just plain useless.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38854375]This has nothing to do with his post though, which is absolutely correct. A lot of people seem to think that "gun control" means banning weapons, when it actually means restricting the flow of guns at any level. Issuing licenses and requiring mental health checkups that the vast majority of gun owners should pass anyway is technically gun control. Banning guns is an extreme form of gun control.[/QUOTE]
The point is that you must be specific. Too many people want guns, video games, rock music, or whatever outright banned. It's ridiculously easy to be lumped in that category if you aren't specific about what your views are. This stuff always ends up with this binary FULL LEGALIZATION/UNIVERSALLY BANNED crap, and only clinically stupid people actually think that way.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38854375]Banning guns is an extreme form of gun control.[/QUOTE]
And again, it's pretty much the only thing the Dems have proposed so far, wheter it's banning all of them or just some.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38853778]So if we ever end up having a shitty government, what should we do? Picket government buildings? That worked really well for China.[/QUOTE]
Except you don't live in China.
You live in a relatively democratic society.
China's not going to create democracy from the barrel of a gun.
[editline]16th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38854316]I'm sorry, but if you genuinely believe this is the case across the board, you are truly delusional.[/QUOTE]
Gun control isn't about completely banning guns.
Some countries have rather effective gun control without banning guns.
Banning "assault weapons" to stop gun crime is like banning red cars with spoilers and paddle shifters to stop traffic accidents. It won't do shit. Explain to me how banning how a gun can look will do anything to stop gun crime?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38854571]Except you don't live in China.
You live in a relatively democratic society.
China's not going to create democracy from the barrel of a gun.[/QUOTE]
Do you intentionally misinterpret arguments or is it a brain thing
So what,just one shooting is the reason not to ever open a building again?
This is what i call a bunch of imbeciles wasting valuable construction space
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854491]"kill 20 people in 10 seconds"
you don't know what "assault weapon" means in the US, do you?
Rifles used for hunting and rifles used for target shooting("assault weapons") are the same thing for all intents and purposes. The only difference is what they look like.
Automatic weapons are already illegal in the US, so if you ban legal "assault weapons", you're just banning something because it looks scary.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;38854505]First, "assault weapons" are used in a really small part of gun crime (something around 0.5%, IIRC). Banning them would be nearly useless, just a pain in the ass for the countless hunters, collectors, and target shooters who own them and never killed (and never will) anyone in their entire life.
Second, "fatalities" is a broad term. As far as stats are concerned, a lot of them are suicides and people using weapons in self defense, to protect their own life. Then it's unknown whether said weapons were acquired legally, and most weapons used in crimes aren't.
See, this is why laws should be based on facts, rather than emotions and personal dislikes. Personally, I'd support gun laws akin to Czech Republic and other EU countries, where you must prove your sanity and honesty but after that you can buy pretty much anything and even get a CC permit if you live in a shitty neighborhood where your safety is at risk, but everything proposed so far (especially another AWB) is just plain useless.[/QUOTE]
I apologize for my lack of knowledge about the correct terminology, but how about we don't pick up on the terms and examples I used. You probably get my point, English is not my native language, how about you try debating over something like this in Finnish :v: . When I said "assault rifles" I basically ment everything bigger than a pistol except hunting rifles or stuff like that.
Also if your posts are in response to mine, my views weren't exactly that extreme.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854597]Do you intentionally misinterpret arguments or is it a brain thing[/QUOTE]
Well here's an idea:
Rather than waiting for the government to collapse into tyranny and then removing it with guns, we could actually vote them out before it's too late instead.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38854662]Well here's an idea:
Rather than waiting for the government to collapse into tyranny and then removing it with guns, we could actually vote them out before it's too late instead.[/QUOTE]
That worked well with both Germany and China,. The voting process doesn't always solve the problem.
You don't seem to understand the context of the American constitution/bill of rights.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854094]That's like telling you to get a new hobby instead of games because some people bully people over the internet[/QUOTE]
Brb, gonna kill people by playing GTAIV
[QUOTE=Van-man;38854742]Brb, gonna kill people by playing GTAIV[/QUOTE]
That's unrelated? I don't kill people every time I shoot at targets.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38852655]So I guess the Libyans and Syrians who didn't even own weapons to begin with shouldn't have won in their revolution?
Cause the government is oh so powerful its unstoppable.[/QUOTE]
dude
you're comparing a military that basically has a blank check from the U.S. gov and can kill you, your family, and your neighbors with a flying drone of death that will fuck your shit with a missile to a military that has only recently began modernization.
It starts with the banning of long barreled rifles, then the banning of pistols/shotguns/etc, and then it'll be the banning of knives over a certain inch.
The problem isn't the guns it's our entire mental healthcare system. Our culture is entirely fine with ostracizing others and we have some issues with underlying prejudice. For example, I was watching the news today and the Fox news anchor with the crazy mustache described the shooter as a nerd who was really into computers and a bit of a recluse. This just puts an ugly label on people like me and a lot of others. (Such as a majority of Facepunch) We need culture reform not gun law reform.
I don't feel as though I'm educated enough on this issue to take a proper stance, but can someone explain to me why anyone would ever need to privately own an assault rifle?
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854701]That worked well with both Germany and China,. The voting process doesn't always solve the problem.[/QUOTE]
Except in both cases, extraneous variables are to blame.
There is no correlation between freedom and rate of gun ownership.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854701]You don't seem to understand the context of the American constitution/bill of rights.[/QUOTE]
Well yes, I understand it was written in the context of that time, when things were different.
America was a tiny agricultural nation of loose towns and farms populated with former criminals, religious loonies, refugees, mercenaries, and rich people exploiting them all.
Today it's quite large with massive metropolis scattered here and there, and very powerful too.
Plus two centuries of economic, social, political and military change occurred. Some laws don't apply forever.
[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;38854921]I don't feel as though I'm educated enough on this issue to take a proper stance, but can someone explain to me why anyone would ever need to privately own an assault rifle?[/QUOTE]
Enthusiasts like the mechanics of firearms. There's also sport shooting, competitions, and general firearm circlejerking with other firearm enthusiasts. It's a hobby like anything else can be; from cars to stamp collecting.
[QUOTE=Indyclone77;38852495]Banning Assault Weapons is not the answer to the problem of large attacks involving guns.[/QUOTE]
it'll certainly help
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38854571]Except you don't live in China.
You live in a relatively democratic society.
China's not going to create democracy from the barrel of a gun.
[editline]16th December 2012[/editline]
Gun control isn't about completely banning guns.
Some countries have rather effective gun control without banning guns.[/QUOTE]
dude, you live in the UK.
come over the united states for a year or two.
then make an argument.
[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;38854921]I don't feel as though I'm educated enough on this issue to take a proper stance, but can someone explain to me why anyone would ever need to privately own an assault rifle?[/QUOTE]
Fun as hell if you're into target shooting. Incredibly practical if you're into hunting. And require very little maintenance.
Also, shitty for criminal purposes.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854491]"kill 20 people in 10 seconds"
you don't know what "assault weapon" means in the US, do you?
Rifles used for hunting and rifles used for target shooting("assault weapons") are the same thing for all intents and purposes. The only difference is what they look like.
Automatic weapons are already illegal in the US, so if you ban legal "assault weapons", you're just banning something because it looks scary.[/QUOTE]
Better ban halloween, it scares little kids.
It is only common sense to prevent average people from accessing military grade assault rifles.
Also people should be mandated to take gun courses,pass a written test and a practical test.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.