Assault Weapons Ban Introduced in Delaware; NJ's tough gun laws toughened more
116 replies, posted
Waiting periods and any other applicable measures would also be nice to try to cut down on suicides as well.
Shit you not dude, the guy specifically said "I want a grenade launcher".
Not a flare gun.
Not a boom tube.
He specifically said "grenade launcher" but added he could fire flares with it too if he wanted.
I'm telling you, the guy ain't too bright.
Remember, this is the same guy who paid $400 for a grill when he couldn't even make a quesadilla by himself (couldn't grill either, turns out), and thought he could shoot (and kill) a skunk in the head at 100 yards with snake/rat shot from a .22LR.
when will people realize that gun violence isn't the guns' fault?
the key word here is "violence" and there's a million reasons why someone might want to hurt or kill someone, and access to guns won't change that.
banning guns is a bandaid 'fix', it treats the symptoms and not the cause. it also fucks over hobbyists, hunters, and self defense practicers that have no intent of going and shooting up a school/mosque.
for impoverished communities it's usually a lack of social services and education which leads to desperation which leads to gun violence.
for high income communities it's usually a lack of egalitarianism which leads to right wing extremism which leads to gun violence.
the cure is socialism.
Man, I voted for Murphy just to get the Christie cronies out after all they did. He's another fucking Wall Street banker who acts like 'one of us'(sound pretty fucking familiar?) but he's not the worst that could have happened.
N.J. gun association calls Berlin woman's death an 'absolute out..
Yes, she had a restraining order but that didn't stop him from killing her by stabbing right outside her home.
Literately get a new hobby, that doesn't include using death machines that where literally made for killing people
you're not very good at this are you
This is such a non-argumeny. The vast majority of gun owners do not use them for murder or suicide, so why should they be forced to give up their guns?
Why should trap and other sport shooters have to give up their guns?
why should hunters have to give up their guns, especially when in the US in some places, guns like the AR-15 are almost a necessity for safe hunting?
Why should historical reenactors have to find a new hobby, when they enjoy sharing information about the past and learning a bit what that past was like?
You're still able to use weapons in both of those scenarios, even in countries with strict gun control.
You can get a ton of guns after "jumping through some hoops". A lot of those hoops are ordinary weapon regulations, like licenses, a lot of fees, needing to store your gun in a locked cabinet, needing to store the ammo/magazines in a separate cabinet, and being an active member in a gun club for 2+ years. All of these systems to acquire a gun I'm totally fine with.
On a population of 9,000,000 there were only 111 shootings in 2014, most of which were directly related to criminal activity (gangs etc.). As for grenade attacks there have been signs point to that being gang activity as well.
Essentially, these attacks aren't generally aimed at the average Svensson walking the street. So, kind of a moot point.
I know people will hate me for this because this forum is primarily formed of Americans. I love America and its history, but it's a simple fact that gun bans in the UK and Australia have essentially stopped gun violence entirely. Look - I think guns are cool, but is that worth all the death that comes with it? I am quite glad that the UK doesn't have guns, because it's so sad when you hear about these mass shootings of kids almost every month.
People can complain about guns being controlled all they want - the fact is that the US is clearly both incapable and unwilling to address its mental health crisis, so this is what you get. It's almost like private healthcare disincentives people to seek help and so they have to solve shootings through other means of control. The US needs radical change to solve these problems, one way or the other. The pessimist in me doesn't think the US is capable of any remotely radical change and thus things will just continue the way they are.
That's great for the UK and Australia.
The problem is that it's impossible to get a populace of 325 million with nearly the same amount of guns floating around to voluntarily give up their guns. Anyone with ill intentions with their guns or anyone who is an armed criminal will undoubtedly not give up their guns. And that's assuming you could even pass the legislation in the first place, but even the Democrats don't want to ban guns, they just want tighter regulations, so you'd hardly even have singular partisan support for such a measure.
A gun ban is just not feasible for the US.
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't regular US criminals usually dispose of their firearms on top of filing off the serial after the deed to destroy evidence?
That implies all of the legal guns have been taken away which is just not possible.
I highly doubt criminals throw a way their weapons and buy new ones after each use.
That's absolutely not a thing. There's no evidence to destroy; the worst that will happen if they get caught with a gun previously used as a murder weapon is that the prosecution can match the caliber, but that's circumstantial evidence at best and the overwhelming majority of petty criminals don't plan on getting caught.
I think this is more of a TV show thing. The whole shoot someone and throw the gun in the river scene probably doesn't happen that often in real life. A criminal probably isn't going to dump a gat that's still shootable just in case they get caught. Felons aren't known for their skill at planning for the future.
Not to mention real life isn't like CSI. If they were to ditch a gun unless they were to leave something to prove it was in their possession, such as a finger print or a picture on Facebook, there's really not a whole lot to go on (assuming they even have a suspect). Even if there were a registry all that would do is lead you to the original owner who could have had it stolen, sold, or dead (something that our current state ahead does in a much more privacy minded way).
Yes. The option to violently overthrow our own government is worth the increase in violence.
And have you looked at our government? We are still within the legal boundaries, but things are not going to go well if this administration fails to abdicate power when/if legally requested.
That's got to be one of the most ridiculous things I see Americans say on the regular.
Do you legitimately believe that merely owning firearms enables you to overthrow the US government?
"Being a generally more violent country is worth it if it means we can fantasize about a nonexistent possibility of keeping the government in check."
The shootings in the UK were not caused by the weapons used, they were caused by police incompetency. There was no reason whatsoever to ban pistols and semi automatic rifles in the UK when we've already got perfectly good amount of security and the shootings that occured could have been stopped by police. Even 2012 was a fuck up.
Every government trends towards corruption. It is the nature of the beast.
Either revolution is possible, or we are headed down a dark path from which we will never recover.
Until we get over ourselves and produce a form of government immune to corruption, we need to have a reset button. An awful reset button that would ideally never be used, but a reset button all the same. You can't control an armed population. Widespread open revolt means you are no longer a government. You are a dying creature that can no longer consume food and will slowly starve. Nations are fragile things.
It's simple fact that statement is completely wrong.
Um, nope? Plenty of governments outside the US are far cleaner corruption-wise and don't seem to be heading any other way anytime soon.
You seem to have a pretty fucked-up view of politics.
Or you actually make an effort into reforming the glaring holes your shitty political system proudly displays? You know, take notes from countries that aren't on a downwards spiral like yours is?
Like, what would change after that little "revolution" exactly? Nothing? The government is overthrown and another, just as prone to corruption and just as able to abuse its powers, replaces it? Is permanent revolution a stable prospect to you? Other countries sure as shit don't seem to need them.
A reset button is supposed to work. How the fuck are you going to fight against the most powerful army in the world and win?
Oh, you really think so? Trump supporters tend to be gun nuts, and that lot is reaaally immune to control. Not able to be manipulated, no siree!
Oh, so just the fact that the people strongly disagrees with you disrupts the ability of the government to function, then? Regardless of strategic and tactical considerations?
Tell me again, why do you guys need guns to do that exactly?
People with firearms and no heavy weapons to speak of stopped the US Government in its tracks in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ah yes, I forgot those countries used to be part of the united states, under its administrative system, and directly attached to the mainland.
The US is larger, has more people and has more guns that all three of those nations combined. If you think the US military could put that down (and that's even assuming the entire military remains loyal) you're delusional.
Americans have a very optimistic view of themselves.
If you're going to consider that the army takes the population's side, what's the point of being armed in the first place?
What generates the most loyalty for the government? Armed domestic terrorists being put down, and killing American soldiers in the process, or non-armed demonstrators being slaughtered by the government?
It's even more disingenuous when the people who defend this won't even consider much more efficient means. You want to paralyze the government? What the fuck do you think a global strike will do?
Perhaps if Americans defended their workers' rights as vehemently as they do the second amendment, you wouldn't even have to justify the need for firearms in the first place.
This shit isn't very credible, all it achieves is either make those who use those arguments come off as loons or it comes off as an excuse to keep 2A rights rather than a genuine reason.
It's clear to me Axel you're not actually interested in discussing the topic if you're going to grossly strawman the position and drag in irreverent crap into the discussion as if it is some sort of rebuttal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.