Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC - Polidicks

I disagree with you that guns are as dangerous as a hammer or a rock. For one, I can't point a rock at someone a block away and with the push of a button have them instantly fall over dead. I haven't heard of anyone unloading a hammer into a crowd of people from a hotel window and killing over a hundred bystanders.

Please show me the firearm designed to wound people and not kill them. Probably less because fully-automatic fire is inefficient and drum magazines are notoriously unreliable, with the beta-C magazine that you would put in an AR-15 being particularly notorious. Regarding handguns, the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun.

To be pedantic, there's fundamental differences between a mind-altering substance and a literal weapon used to kill people.

this is still a poor argument because guns are not serving any similar function to that of cars

Yeah there went my support for them right there. I'm all for sensible legislation that seeks to keep them out of the hands of those who would abuse then, but flat bans are a hard no.

They are dangerous. Other things are dangerous too. Being alive means being exposed to danger. The proportions of the amount of guns in the US to people killed by guns is very extremely small compared to the proportion of people who drink in the US to people who die because of alcohol. There's a perceptional bias that makes giant media circus tragedies stand out in our minds much more than mundane deaths. On a statistical level, children are not being killed "in droves" Why is 385 lives so vitally important when 88,000 don't matter at all? Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why would it work for guns? I am not against trying to curtail school shootings, or even making guns harder to get, but I am extremely tired of people trying to convince me that guns are too dangerous to be allowed at all when all statistical facts show that they are not.

Why do all of these fucking gun debate threads always become pro-gun people repeating the same points to anti-gun people who arent interested in actually discussing anything? Is it that hard to just hold a conversation without being like this.

The most recent AWB proposal was virtually identical to the 1994 one but more harsh, increasing the amount of firearms banned by name and lowering the bar for what counts as an assault weapon by definition. I absolutely agree. Visit any gun-friendly message board or Youtube site and you will see many stories of people using firearms who absolutely do not respect how dangerous they can be when mishandled. Too many people are pushed by outside influences to own guns without really understanding what gun ownership means. My argument wasn't that a gun is as dangerous as a hammer or a rock when utilized by someone with the intent to harm, it's that they are all as dangerous as one another one their own. Your post seemed to imply that guns should be treated unlike how everything else we regulate is treated because they are intrinsically dangerous.

Funny how a lot of pro gun control people see it the other way around

Nuclear weapons explode but are still just tools. Guns are merely tools that shoot people. Since they are both tools they are both equivalent. Because they are merely tools, nuclear weapons should be treated the same as guns under the Second Amendment, and citizens should be allowed to conceal carry them into schools, courthouses, or government buildings. Literally their entire argument just boils down to this after a certain point.

Thats hilarious coming from you of all people.

This is such a ridiculous argument. He brings up a very valid in point in suddenly criminlizing millions over the actions of a very, very, very, very slim minority. Why should the vast amount of gun owners be punished for the actions of an extreme minority? That doesn't make school shootings less traumatizing, but there are other avenues that can be persued to curb overall violence, school shootings, and let people keep their guns.

"Shooting into a crowd of 1000+ people with a fully automatic rifle would result in less casualties" really? You're going to go into that line of argument? What about burst fire? Do you forget that the rounds literally explode when they hit someone? Shrapnel casualties are a thing you know. Nice display of whataboutism there. The Virginia tech shooting was much different than others. He had chained the doors shut and deliberately put them into a situation where he could inflict the most damage. The people with AR 15s didn't need to do that, because they could kill much more efficiently, without setup.

My argument wasn't that a gun is as dangerous as a hammer or a rock when utilized by someone with the intent to harm, it's that they are all as dangerous as one another one their own. Your post seemed to imply that guns should be treated unlike how everything else we regulate is treated because they are intrinsically dangerous. Yes... that's kind of the point of banning a weapon made to kill?

Sure but gun control advocates generally don't make the distinction between guns that are used to kill people and guns that are used to kill animals or paper, or guns meant for self-defense only. Guns can be used to kill people, but the vast majority of guns in the United States don't kill people.

And once again, this is why this non-debate is so dysfunctional. Both sides need to accept that the other has merits. I am willing to accept that the anti-gun points have merit. Are the anti-gun posters willing to accept that my points have merit? Even if you vehemently disagree with everything someone stands for, you cannot work towards compromise if you are not willing to accept that their differing positions are valid and worthy of respect. You cannot mend a divide by driving a stake through it.

if you want to generalize the arguments, partake in them. otherwise you're just provoking more of the posts you're complaining about.

I could be off base on this, but I feel a big part of the difference in perception is the intent. 88,000 dying as a direct/indirect result of alcohol is seen as a side-effect of its consumption. When it comes to gun violence, the intent is far more deliberate. Deaths due to alcohol are not always intentional; I'd be willing to bet the vast, vast majority are accidental or at the least unintended. But mass shootings? The intent is to kill. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I do feel there's a fundamental difference in this regard.

Which is why we need to stop mass shootings, not ban guns.

Ignoring gun control while trying to combat mass shootings is just shooting yourself in the foot

What exactly is the difference between a gun that's used to kill someone and a gun that's meant to kill an animal, or a gun that's only used in self defense? I'm pretty sure they're all still fucking guns.

There have been dozens of posts in so many of these threads time and time again that go over a lot of things you could do to effectively combat these things that arent just gun control. There was a really good one Grenadiac did a few threads back even.

Please, tell me what object exactly Mass Shooters use to commit mass shootings? I'm having a really hard time figuring it out.

You can use a gun without hurting anyone else. The vast majority of guns in the United States (hundreds of millions, as mentioned) are used without negatively impacting the health or safety of anyone else. It's really difficult to say the same thing about a nuclear weapon. So if the issue is intent, the solution is to tackle that intent, not to punish the actions of people who have absolutely no intention of using their firearms maliciously.

And I agree with that, but purposefully ignoring gun control as a measure ALONGSIDE is just silly

.223 doesn't explode when it hits someone. It can fragment along it's trajectory but all firearm rounds can do this. I've seen some nasty .22 in my time. That's not whataboutism. We are both spitballing hypothetical scenarios and you mentioned pistols, which prior precedent tells us can produce casualties higher than those of "assault weapons".

Sure, an unloaded gun sitting on someone's shelf probably isn't going to just spontaneously shoot the neighbor's dog, but it's like you said, it's about the intent, isn't it? If someone intends to kill someone else, if they use a hammer or rock they can kill one, maybe two or three people if they're lucky. But if that same person has access to an M16, they're gonna be able to kill many, many more people than they could with a rock.

But why keep trying the same tactic if its not working?

So... ineffectual blanket bans are bad... so all gun control is bad?

Mass shootings aren't caused by guns. I'm not ignoring gun control, I'm ignoring gun bans. I want something other than gun bans. Implement gun licensing. Require mandatory safety courses. Mend the gaps in the background check systems so that people can't fall through the cracks and get a pass they shouldn't have. Require gun safes and subsidize their purchase. Better fund the ATF to be able to crack down on straw purchases. Regulate media coverage of mass shootings to avoid glamorizing the event or the shooter. Better fund mental healthcare programs and public awareness campaigns. Create social structures to give troubled teens and men who commit these shootings a reason to think that they have an outlet for their feelings outside of violence.