EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
Mallard86
186 Posts
On December 18 2012 12:11 prplhz wrote: can't we just compromise and say that people are allowed to own guns but not to carry them People who can legally carry firearms account for less 1% of gun violence. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 18 2012 12:11 prplhz wrote: can't we just compromise and say that people are allowed to own guns but not to carry them You don't see how that would change nothing? Murderers are going to carry their gun to the murder scene regardless of what a law says. Use some common sense for god sakes. Basically the same thing as gun free zones. All they do is ensure no one but the killer will have a weapon.It's backwards and serves no positive purpose. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 18 2012 12:12 Nagano wrote: Which is what, exactly? CT had an "assault weapon" ban since 1994. There was a federal AWB in 1994. Want to know the weapon used in the highest kill count shooting? VA Tech -- 2 pistols. I'm not sure what your point is here. The AWB quite clearly enumerates what it bans. And it was studied (though as a phased-in measure that was allowed to expire gauging its success was dubious at best-similar to if Obamacare were repealed in 2017 or 2018). Grandfathered weapons abounded. http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf Then there's the DoJ study that is frequently mischaracterized as showing that the ban was useless but, upon closer reading, tells a different story. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf VT is a completely distinct kettle of fish that is less about the inefficiency of bans and more about what happens you don't enforce the laws you have. Anyway, I have to work tomorrow. Hope you learned something-I did. I do encourage you to keep in mind the possibility that more guns does not necessarily mean less gun control. It fizzles a lot of these studies. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 18 2012 12:19 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm not sure what your point is here. You classified "assault weapons" as high kill count weapons. I'm here to tell you that the highest kill count on record (VATech) was commssioned with a handgun. So when you want to restrict (what do you mean by that?) high kill count weapons, are pistols included in that suggestion? Do you see where things start to become convoluted when you start picking and choosing and why? The AWB quite clearly enumerates what it bans. And it was studied (though as a phased-in measure that was allowed to expire gauging its success was dubious at best-similar to if Obamacare were repealed in 2017 or 2018). Grandfathered weapons abounded. http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf Then there's the DoJ study that is frequently mischaracterized as showing that the ban was useless. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf This is where I come to say that I now know with certainty that you have no knowledge of or experience with firearms. Like, at all. The assault weapon ban in 1994 did absolutely nothing to curb the proliferation of assault weapons. You want to know why? Because you cannot accurately describe what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon. They began by listing then-current weapon manufacturers and models they did not like, then they added pistol grips, telescoping stocks, forward grips, flash-hiders, bayonet lugs, to the list. Manufacturers just made new off-name brands. They went around all the loopholes created. Assault Weapon bans are moronic and done by people who have little clue about guns as a way to push through a "feel good" law that does nothing but makes themselves pat each other on the back and go to sleep thinking they accomplished something. Yes, it's true. Take these two guns: http://i.imgur.com/VK8zU.jpg Basically the same gun. Both are AK-47's, both have a 30 round magazine, and both shoot the 7.62 ammunition. The one on top is NOT an assault weapon. It was actually purchased during the Clinton Assault Weapon's Ban era... The one on the bottom IS an assault weapon, and was purchased after the ban expired. They are basically the same gun otherwise, and frankly the gun on top shoots better and is a bit more accurate. AWBs do not work. I want to tell you more, but I know you can google things for yourself. It's not my job to inform you. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally). Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds Detachable magazine. | ||
|
decado90
United States480 Posts
But, less than 100 people die in America every year from these. In a country of 320,000,000 that number is microscopic. The point is people need to stop looking at mass shootings and to shootings in general, of which there are thousands every year. A gun free nation is obviously optimal, but so is a raw vegan diet. Optimal doesn't work on the human race, they are too weak of creatures. If you look at Japan, guns are banned all together and gun violence is almost non existent, but their culture is almost the opposite of American. Bans don't work on Americans-- see abolition-- they are too proud and used to freedom to accept any threat to their constitutional rights. Limits on magazine size, amount of ammunition purchased, and type of weapon purchased will help somewhat, but VA Tech massacre was done with 2 pistols. America also has millions of African Americans that were abandoned when slavery was abolished and have lived in poor communities, ignored by the government, for generation after generation where crime is the norm. Over 50% of murder in America is commited by African Americans, while being outnumbered 6:1. Basically, America is all fucked up. No one knows the answer. And with seeing these shootings on the news more and more people want guns to protect themselves, and who can blame them? Our generation has hope though. Most tolerant, least religious, most educated generation we've ever had. Maybe in 20-30 years we can do something about guns and our society in general. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 18 2012 13:28 decado90 wrote: Stricter gun laws will reduce the rate of mass shootings. That's an established fact. No it's not, do not make up facts. This right here is the problem I have with people sometimes. You clearly know nothing about the subject so I suggest you do the diligent thing here and read up the last 10 or so pages. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 18 2012 13:28 decado90 wrote: Stricter gun laws will reduce the rate of mass shootings. That's an established fact. But, less than 100 people die in America every year from these. In a country of 320,000,000 that number is microscopic. The point is people need to stop looking at mass shootings and to shootings in general, of which there are thousands every year. A gun free nation is obviously optimal, but so is a raw vegan diet. Optimal doesn't work on the human race, they are too weak of creatures. If you look at Japan, guns are banned all together and gun violence is almost non existent, but their culture is almost the opposite of American. Bans don't work on Americans-- see abolition-- they are too proud and used to freedom to accept any threat to their constitutional rights. Limits on magazine size, amount of ammunition purchased, and type of weapon purchased will help somewhat, but VA Tech massacre was done with 2 pistols. America also has millions of African Americans that were abandoned when slavery was abolished and have lived in poor communities, ignored by the government, for generation after generation where crime is the norm. Over 50% of murder in America is commited by African Americans, while being outnumbered 6:1. Basically, America is all fucked up. No one knows the answer. And with seeing these shootings on the news more and more people want guns to protect themselves, and who can blame them? Our generation has hope though. Most tolerant, least religious, most educated generation we've ever had. Maybe in 20-30 years we can do something about guns and our society in general. I don't have issue with stricter gun laws, but claiming they will reduce the rate of mass shooting is an established fact is complete bull. | ||
|
decado90
United States480 Posts
On December 18 2012 13:30 Nagano wrote: No it's not, do not make up facts. This right here is the problem I have with people sometimes. You clearly know nothing about the subject so I suggest you do the diligent thing here and read up the last 10 or so pages. http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_51/fatalities3.png http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/civilians_225.gif | ||
|
Mallard86
186 Posts
On December 18 2012 13:41 decado90 wrote: http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_51/fatalities3.png http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/civilians_225.gif So basically its random. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 18 2012 13:41 decado90 wrote: http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_51/fatalities3.png http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/civilians_225.gif lol. you're kidding right? How do those two graphs show you that "Stricter gun laws will reduce the rate of mass shootings. That's an established fact."? | ||
|
peekn
United States1152 Posts
Thoughts? | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 18 2012 12:19 TheTenthDoc wrote: VT is a completely distinct kettle of fish that is less about the inefficiency of bans and more about what happens you don't enforce the laws you have. How do you even type this sentence? What laws were not enforced here? The CT "assault weapon" ban? The guns were legally owned by the mother. There's nothing to "enforce" here. And yes if anything it does show how "inefficient" bans are because what do you think the son shot up the school with? A rifle that has been banned in CT since 1994. | ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
On December 18 2012 15:19 Nagano wrote: How do you even type this sentence? What laws were not enforced here? The CT "assault weapon" ban? The guns were legally owned by the mother. There's nothing to "enforce" here. And yes if anything it does show how "inefficient" bans are because what do you think the son shot up the school with? A rifle that has been banned in CT since 1994. So, I'm curious as to what you personally believe. Do you think there should be no restrictions of any kind on gun sales? | ||
|
Zooper31
United States5710 Posts
On December 18 2012 12:13 Mallard86 wrote: People who can legally carry firearms account for less 1% of gun violence. And what % of mass murders, ala this recent one, are carried out by people who are legally able to carry guns or get them from a close family/friend. I'd wager that number is very very high. Our generation has hope though. Most tolerant, least religious, most educated generation we've ever had. Maybe in 20-30 years we can do something about guns and our society in general. Also couldn't agree with this statement any more. Nothing we can do now with the makeup of our present country. Maybe in a generation or two. | ||
|
Consummate
Australia191 Posts
On December 18 2012 13:30 Nagano wrote: No it's not, do not make up facts. This right here is the problem I have with people sometimes. You clearly know nothing about the subject so I suggest you do the diligent thing here and read up the last 10 or so pages. Australia introduced strict firearm laws ever since a massacre where quite a few people were shot dead back in 1996. We haven't had a single killing spree with guns ever since. Totally, gun control doesn't change mass shootings. What's even funnier is that Australia has a drug problem as much as America, we had a shit load of firearms until they were banned and subsequently a lot of people used the buyback program. Obviously, there are criminals in Australia, so I really wonder what happened to the mass shootings if "criminals can obtain weapons easily" because the "war on drugs is ineffective." You can keep hiding behind your "America's situation is different" as much as you want whenever you can't refute a point. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On December 18 2012 13:30 Nagano wrote: No it's not, do not make up facts. This right here is the problem I have with people sometimes. You clearly know nothing about the subject so I suggest you do the diligent thing here and read up the last 10 or so pages. Yeah, there's no way to prove that fact. Although I think it's safe to assume stricter regulation and more prerequisites for gun ownership would, at the very least, reduce the amount of fatalities related to accidental or misuse of firearms, and the purchase and abuse of firearms by mentally ill people. -- Sidenote, There was a time that making it a law that passengers and drivers wear seat belts was considered onerous and inhibitive of someone's personal freedom. You could make the argument (and I'm sure people did) that seat belts didn't prevent fatalities or reduce the likelihood of car crashes. But in the end, while wearing seat belts didn't save EVERYONE in a car crash, there was a dramatic drop in fatalities after the law was adopted and accepted by the public. Now we live in a culture where we berate people that are too cool to wear a seat belt. I'm sure stricter gun laws would have a lot of benefits, beyond just reducing the amount of crazy people with guns. Even if just make gun owners hold themselves and their peers to a higher standard of personal conduct. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 18 2012 17:18 Kaitlin wrote: Here's a suggestion. How about something along the lines of making the registered gun owner legally / criminally liable for any crimes committed with those weapons. If someone uses your gun to commit suicide, it's as if you murdered that person. If your gun is used in commission of a crime, such as bank robbery, you're on the hook. In the CT shooting case, clearly the mother is dead, and not going to be culpable, but perhaps she would have taken extra precaution to prevent her son's access in the first place and this never would have happened. Not to mention, I'm sure there would be at least some people who would decide not to own a gun because of the risk of being held responsible for its misuse. What if the gun was stolen though? If someone stole your car and then got in a wreck that killed people, you wouldn't be responsible for that. Obviously we can't just make it illegal to have a gun outside of a safe. I agree the mother is partly responsible for this, but trying to regulate something like this is impossible. It would take some extremely vague language regarding mental health and adults in your household, at the very least. | ||
| ||
