Gun control

Fuse

Silver Knight of the Realm
500
29
AIDS, car accidents, medical malpractice, acts of God (tree falling on you, lightning strikes,locust swarm ?) and heart disease kill more people every year than criminals with guns would in 100.
And we as a society strive to do the best we can to prevent these things from happening while allowing this to remain the 'land of the free'. Gun control should be no different.
 

SAIDIN_sl

shitlord
44
1
First no one is taking away your guns. Second I think anyone with a firearm has a good chance of taking you out. Including a child.
Maybe if that child was Leonidas.

What it comes down to is simple though. Without the use of the military, the government would take decades fighting its own people over gun control. So far to avoid issues, the government has taken the "give me that" approach that a parent might take with a child. Alcohol, drugs and guns are the biggest ones that even a teenager has heard of. We aren't children and the government isn't our Mom.
 

Azrayne

Irenicus did nothing wrong
2,161
786
It's depressing, but not surpising, to see our politicians go right back for the 'ban scary looking guns' approach. Typical easy fix that dosen't adress the problem.

I am just as frustrated with the people shitting up my facebook with 'Guns dont kill people' as I am with the 'Ban Guns' people. As usual the national conversation is being driven by people on the lunatic fringe.

I would like to see something like the following.

1. Background checks for 100% of gun sales and a recorded transfer of ownership (like the title to a car)
2. If you want something more efficient at killing people than a bolt action rifle, shotgun or revolver you have to belong to a shooting range for some period of time (6 months, a year), complete a training program, demonstrate proficiency and pass a psych evaluation before you are allowed to take the weapon home. Same type of deal for CCW permits.
3. Gun owners have to provide proof of secure storage for thier firearms.
4. Periodic requalification for owned firearms.
5. Gun safety taught in schools starting in elementary school.

And really, most of that is not much different than obtaining a drivers license.

If people want military style weapons, they should go through vetting and training similar to military or law enforcement personnel. I dont even mind full auto ownership (zomg actual assault rifle!) if the vetting and training were stringent enough. I'd probably draw the line at belt fed weapons and explosives, maybe large caliber weapons (.50 and up?)

I imagine most responsible gun owners want only responsible people owning guns, just like everyone else.

So, that's the easy part, the harder, and at least equally important part is revamping mental health care. Don't even know where to get started there, but not having to wait until people commit a crime to get care might be a good start.
What I don't understand is why people need anything more dangerous than a revolver or a hunting rifle/shotgun at all? I can at least understand the argument for those, I don't agree with it, but I can see the logical thought process though which someone could think that owning a revolver for protection, or a shotgun to protect their home, or a hunting rifle to kill animals or w/e, would make sense, would be a good idea. But what the fuck kind of reason is there for a private citizen to own something which can fire off 20 or 30 or whatever rounds without reloading, let alone faster or at a longer range or causing more damage or wtf ever (I'm not a gun expert). What possible legitimate purpose do those weapons serve in civilian life? I just don't understand it, I don't, it baffles me.

I agree that the rest of those requirements would be a solid, logical start (if the school program had a strong focus on 'stay the fuck away from them, they're fucking dangerous'), although I'd argue for things like psych evaluations, proficiency tests, for all firearms.

What struck me when reading an article the other day is that at several occasions, the victims tried to mob the shooter, to tackle him down. Obviously he was able to kill them first, but would that have been the case if instead of a big rifle with a massive capacity, he'd had a revolver or two which he'd have to manually reload? Maybe the few seconds he'd have needed to manually reload the gun after every 6 or 8 shots would have been the difference between being able to stave off everyone who tried to stop him, and being mobbed under soon after the violence began.

Fuck, just thinking about the actual event depresses me. What a waste, a fucking pointless waste.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
76,088
150,964
What I don't understand is why people need anything more dangerous than a revolver or a hunting rifle/shotgun at all? I can at least understand the argument for those, I don't agree with it, but I can see the logical thought process though which someone could think that owning a revolver for protection, or a shotgun to protect their home, or a hunting rifle to kill animals or w/e, would make sense, would be a good idea. But what the fuck kind of reason is there for a private citizen to own something which can fire off 20 or 30 or whatever rounds without reloading, let alone faster or at a longer range or causing more damage or wtf ever (I'm not a gun expert). What possible legitimate purpose do those weapons serve in civilian life? I just don't understand it, I don't, it baffles me.
to fight the government should the need arise.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,523
73,613
Nice article refuting the idea that if only more people had guns these shooters would be shot down themselves.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...mass-shootings
A lot of that article is them dismissing civilians because they're former officers / soldiers.

Bottom line is that:
1. Shootings typically happen where there's a low chance of an armed population.
2. Yes, it's very plausible for an armed person to take out a mass murderer.
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,887
93,838
What I don't understand is why people need anything more dangerous than a revolver or a hunting rifle/shotgun at all? I can at least understand the argument for those, I don't agree with it, but I can see the logical thought process though which someone could think that owning a revolver for protection, or a shotgun to protect their home, or a hunting rifle to kill animals or w/e, would make sense, would be a good idea. But what the fuck kind of reason is there for a private citizen to own something which can fire off 20 or 30 or whatever rounds without reloading, let alone faster or at a longer range or causing more damage or wtf ever (I'm not a gun expert). What possible legitimate purpose do those weapons serve in civilian life? I just don't understand it, I don't, it baffles me.
What I dont understand is why people need 300 or 400 or even 500hp cars?! Who needs that!?
What I dont understand is why people need a 5000sq ft house?! Who needs that?!
 

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
A few handguns? No, it would still be very difficult.



A semi-auto handgun would make that feat much more difficult. In addition, there would be longer stretches of reloading and more time for his prey to flee. Im sure the deaths would still have been in the double digits but there would have been fewer. Any improvement that makes it harder to commit these crimes should be looked at.
I'm sorry, but you are terribly stupid. Your argument is about the weakest thing on planet earth.
 

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
What I dont understand is why people need 300 or 400 or even 500hp cars?! Who needs that!?
What I dont understand is why people need a 5000sq ft house?! Who needs that?!
I DONT NEED A BIG HOUSE. U SHOULDN'T EITHER. SO BAN ALL HOUSES OVER 3,000 SQFT! AND U KNOW WHAT ELSE? I HATE FISH, AND FISH HAVE MERCURY, SO BAN FISH! DOESN'T ANYONE CARE ABOUT MERCURY POISINING IN CHILDREN? IF YOU DONT BAN FISH U ARE A CHILD HATING ASSHOLE~~!
 

SAIDIN_sl

shitlord
44
1
I can understand that, and magazine limits have been decreasing in several states for a few years. People are tunnel visioned on guns though. Who doesn't (In America) understand how combustion works ? For the price of an AR-15 fully loaded (2k arguably), you could buy black powder and put it into a metal trash can that you reinforce yourself. Dress up as a custodian and put it in the mall. That would be a travesty that would set off another wave of people saying "ban black powder!". What next ? Chlorine/ammonia bombs ? Ban chlorine!

Truth be said, I hope the bastards who do the shootings rot in hell. I'm not at all overlooking how dangerous guns are. But when your kid starts driving, you can't bubble wrap the entire nation. Drivers ed, awareness and educating drivers has probably saved countless lives. Gun awareness should be the first step. Right after parents who give a fuck about their kids.
 

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
25,440
37,568
I'm sorry, but you are terribly stupid. Your argument is about the weakest thing on planet earth.
Im all pro guns, but what about his argument is stupid? If the kid had a revolver and a box of bullets, do you think he could of fired off as many rounds? Its a pretty sound argument IMO.

That fucker would of prolly got tackled by some chick teacher while reloading, and she probably would of kicked his ass.
 

Jaws_sl

shitlord
20
0
In the midst of all of this, you would think that somebody would have enough smarts to look to the south across the river and see how well the ban on weapons is working in Mexico.

Perspectives on Gun Violence and Gun Control

Under current law, Mexican citizens may only possess a few limited types of guns and they may only keep them in their homes. Each such weapon has to be registered with the Secretariat of National Defense. To carry a gun outside the home a citizen of Mexico must obtain an appropriate license. These are generally made available only to limited categories of citizens, generally those who work for private security firms, rural residents and people who may be targets of crime.

"According to the U.N. figures, the U.S. had 9,146 homicides by firearm in 2009. That year, Colombia and Venezuela both exceeded the U.S. total, with 12,808 and 11,115 firearm deaths, respectively. Three other nations topped the U.S. amount in the most recent year for which data is available: Brazil (34,678 in 2008), Mexico (11,309 in 2010) and Thailand (20,032 in 2000)."

Moreover, Mexico is not free from horrific mass shootings. Here are a few recent examples:

August 2012 - Eight people were killed in the Mexican city of Monterrey when heavily armed gunmen stormed a bar.
June 2012 - 11 people were killed and 15 injured when gunmen entered a drug rehabilitation center in Torreon and opened fire.
October 2010 - Gunmen open fire on employees of a carwash in the city of Tepic. According to a report by Ken Ellingwood of the Los Angeles Times, "A witness told W Radio that men arrived in two SUVs, carrying rifles. When the gunmen got out of the vehicles, the witness said, shots erupted.."
July 2010 - 17 people were killed when gunmen opened fire at a party in Torreon. According to reports, "The gunmen arrived at the party in Torreon in several cars and opened fire without saying a word. In addition to those killed, 18 others were wounded.
June 2010 - 30 armed men invaded the Faith and Life drug rehab facility in the city of Chihuahua. According to CNN, "Witnesses told authorities the armed men marched 23 people outside, lined them up and shot them.." Nineteen people died.
January 2010 - 15 people, many of them high school students, died when gunmen burst into party in the city of Ciudad Juarez, and opened fire.


Brace yourselves, as this is what they are trying to sell. And why the media doesn't wake up and make the connection with what is happening in Mexico is beyond me.
 

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
42,553
50,817
Im all pro guns, but what about his argument is stupid? If the kid had a revolver and a box of bullets, do you think he could of fired off as many rounds? Its a pretty sound argument IMO.
No, it's a stupid argument, just like yours. If the kid had an AR-15 and an ammo box of 5.56, do you think he could have fired off as many rounds? Oh wait, thats right, he had already loaded magazines. Just like someone could have speed loaders ready to go for his revolver.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,523
73,613
Im all pro guns, but what about his argument is stupid? If the kid had a revolver and a box of bullets, do you think he could of fired off as many rounds? Its a pretty sound argument IMO.

That fucker would of prolly got tackled by some chick teacher while reloading, and she probably would of kicked his ass.
This would make sense if he was arguing to ban everything that's more dangerous than a revolver. But he isn't. He's focusing on semi-automatic rifles.
 

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Brace yourselves, as this is what they are trying to sell. And why the media doesn't wake up and make the connection with what is happening in Mexico is beyond me.
MUAHAHAHAH! GOOD ONE! Do you really think the media is ever going to say anything remotely close in support of guns?


Im all pro guns, but what about his argument is stupid? If the kid had a revolver and a box of bullets, do you think he could of fired off as many rounds? Its a pretty sound argument IMO.

That fucker would of prolly got tackled by some chick teacher while reloading, and she probably would of kicked his ass.
Yawn. If he had a Glock with 14 round magazines he would have done just fine. You can change a mag in a pistol in about 1-2 seconds. I can empty my magazine in my glock in just a few seconds, granted, I probably wouldn't hit shit (I suck). All this funny talk about a chick teacher tackling him. What if the shooter had his AR-15, and some of the teachers had CCW and nice pistols? Or do we not want to consider a scenario that could actually take place?
 

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
25,440
37,568
No, it's a stupid argument, just like yours. If the kid had an AR-15 and an ammo box of 5.56, do you think he could have fired off as many rounds? Oh wait, thats right, he had already loaded magazines. Just like someone could have speed loaders ready to go for his revolver.
Could of, sure. But I doubt it. In order to have the 140 bullets worth of ammo he shot of supposedly, he would of had to have about 24 speed loaders in his pocket, lol.
 

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
42,553
50,817
Could of, sure. But I doubt it. In order to have the 140 bullets worth of ammo he shot of supposedly, he would of had to have about 24 speed loaders in his pocket, lol.
Speed loaders aren't very large, since, you know, they only have to hold 6 rounds. And I never said he would have killed as many people with a revolver, I simply said your argument was stupid.
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,887
93,838
Im all pro guns, but what about his argument is stupid? If the kid had a revolver and a box of bullets, do you think he could of fired off as many rounds? Its a pretty sound argument IMO.

That fucker would of prolly got tackled by some chick teacher while reloading, and she probably would of kicked his ass.
Really? He was shooting fish in a barrel. He could of had a box cutter and killed just as many people.