If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On December 19 2012 10:32 Nagano wrote:
Looking back on it, I think I may have spent too much time and effort trying to address the actual questions that needed to be answered, which are:

Would a ban of firearms--handguns, shotguns, or rifles--have an effect on gun violence in the U.S.? No. Does the banning of high capacity magazines have an effect on efficiency of killing in real world examples? No (eg VATech).

I'm giving up on this thread because there's just no way to argue with reason, facts, evidence, and level-headedness that gun control is counter-productive, does not work, has never worked here.

What is needed is tighter screening for prospective gun owners.

I tried my best, sorry guys.

On December 19 2012 10:37 micronesia wrote:

I'm curious what Kwark (based on what he said earlier) thinks of the strategy of hiding in the bedroom with a gun waiting to ambush, if you believe there is an intruder in your home.

Then again that's just one course of action people might take. If there was a guy smashing shit up in my home, I know I'd feel an urge to confront him before he did more damage. Would that be the right thing to do? Maybe, maybe not.

On December 19 2012 10:40 Reaps wrote:


You example of why banning high capacity magazines would not work is Vagina tech? lol.

You're right you have spent way to much time in this thread. Spent way to much time linking biased website's and arguements and completely ingoring the other side.

You sure did try your best!

On December 19 2012 10:40 Reaps wrote:


You example of why banning high capacity magazines would not work is Vagina tech? lol.

You're right you have spent way to much time in this thread. Spent way to much time linking biased website's and arguements and completely ingoring the other side.

You sure did try your best!

On December 19 2012 10:48 heliusx wrote:


Any one of his posts offers more content and has added more to the discussion than all of your one line "lol you're wrong" posts combined. And there are dozens of those from you.

On December 19 2012 10:59 Reaps wrote:


Really? ok go find them, go find these "posts" i have made in this thread that are one liners please.

This is the problem, you are flat out lieing lol, you have been lieing most of this thread just to try and "win" the arguement. But let me tell you, this whole discussion is pointless, there is never gonna be a winner, people are not gonna change their mind.

Lets just hope your goverment is more sensible then you two and do something about it this time, will be looking forward to seeing your guns taken off you if it does happen Will be intresting to see your reaction.

But yea im out too, dont know why i started a discussion with a bunch of gung ho americans, should of known what it would result in.

On December 19 2012 11:03 GrimmJ wrote:
The U.S has suffered a lot from gun violence; Lincoln, Kennedy, Columbine, Virginia, Connecticut, and countless others, but I can't see Americans handing over their weapons. There are some cases where having a weapon is conceivable notion, for self-defense. Having such a powerful army -- with the purpose of defending freedom --, has produced a will to act that other countries have disposed of. Argue it as much as you like, but there polarized views on this, because this isn't a matter of religious tolerance, or political difference. In a case where a traumatized a soldier decides to go on a shooting spree, perhaps Americans will want guns to defend themselves. Of course, there are loads of statistics out there, but since when does the United States follow the lead of other countries? Lower pollution levels? -- nope. Provide a proper health care system? -- nope. Match international standards for education? -- nope.

The right to bear arms is what makes the U.S a tough, and patriotic callus.

On December 19 2012 11:08 Nagano wrote:


That is quite the judgment of firearms, as if firearm owners do not want lower pollution levels, a proper healthcare system, or better education.

I am a liberal at heart, but first and foremost I cling to the idea that you must change your beliefs when you are presented conflicting evidence. Gun control doesn't work, and you are free to browse my post history on this topic if you wish to find out more.

Also, my quote below.

On December 19 2012 11:20 GrimmJ wrote:


To maintain accuracy, I would refer you to read my post again. I wouldn't associate firearm owners with these issues. My point here is that there are many other huge issues, that are just as important has gun violence to Americans. The government is representative of the people, and as such, laws created are to appease. I too, am a liberal at heart. For a matter of fact, I live in a much more "liberal" country, and I too, am in the process of being able to own a gun. My father is an avid sportsman, and I truly see a certain merit to being allowed possession of a firearm. But the purpose here, is not to discredit firearms; I simply feel as though this issue has a certain sensitivity right now, because of a fresh wound that Americans -- nay, humanity has suffered. Please, there is little evidence -- unhappy and ill people, cannot be allowed the acquisition of firearms. Why not attempt Americans to be happier overall?

Of course, there are loads of statistics out there, but since when does the United States follow the lead of other countries? Lower pollution levels? -- nope. Provide a proper health care system? -- nope. Match international standards for education? -- nope.

On December 19 2012 11:26 Nagano wrote:


I don't get why you're telling me I should read your post again.



From what you typed, my assessment is that you're implying the U.S. should at the very least start considering following other nations' lead on policies. Are you insinuating the U.S. should follow gun control policies of other countries?

Having read what you said a few times over, actually, I don't get the point of it all, or even your stance on the issue, other than your belief that ownership is "conceivable" for self-defense only.

On December 19 2012 10:45 Nagano wrote:


This is the other side of the argument, people who demean and condescend with cynicism and sarcasm.

Politicians want to ban LCMs in order to prevent mass shootings. Columbine and the shooting with the most deaths--VA tech--was done with handguns.

I'm not conceding defeat, I'm conceding that parts of the crowd in here, you included, are far beyond reason, fact, evidence to argue with because you only resort to what I said above to try and get your point across.

I've linked to resources with hundreds and hundreds of reliable and unbiased sources. You, however, have linked nothing of substance, maybe wikipedia at best iirc.

You don't contribute to a healthy debate, you demean, call people names, and are a cynic. You represent the complete opposite of civility.

On December 19 2012 12:30 Swede wrote:


Using just two examples (Columbine and VA tech) doesn't really prove banning high capacity magazines won't do anything. It just proves that handguns are also capable of causing a lot of damage. Could those two massacres have been worse had the perpetrators used high capacity magazines? More than likely.

To be honest, you've made me reconsider a few things about gun control just from lurking, but I don't think you're right about everything, and whenever you state (or at least imply) that you are it puts people off switching sides. People are more likely to change their opinion if you make it easy for them... Which means not berating them when they provide zero evidence and not being arrogant.

On December 19 2012 12:46 HunterX11 wrote:


The point is that there is a negligible amount of crime committed where high capacity magazines are a factor, so even if a ban were 100% effective, it could only prevent a negligible amount of crime as a best case scenario. On top of that, realistically any ban will exempt pre-ban (and inter-ban) magazines, so they will still be available. On top of that, the only recent example of a high profile crime with high capacity magazines was the Colorado theater shooting--where the C-Mag JAMMED.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not fan of the 2nd amendment and I wouldn't mind European-style gun control in America if I thought it were feasible (though it isn't unfortunately). But nonsense like the Assault Weapons Ban makes no sense from a pro- or anti-gun standpoint. I do think that it is possible that a sudden sharp increase in gun control could reduce gun violence, but that isn't going to happen, and that's beside the point anyway because arguing over things like high-capacity magazines is a total non-sequitur (at best) in the first place.

On December 19 2012 16:17 Yenticha wrote:
I know similar numbers must have been posted already, but I find those pretty clearly presented.
http://qz.com/37303/fifteen-things-to-know-about-australias-incredibly-effective-gun-clampdown/

I have read a lot of pro/anti gun stuff, but there is something I still do not understand : why would anyone want to allow regular joes to own one of these rifles that shoot >30 bullets/minute??
(this number is a very very wild guess, but you get my point)

I have seen this question asked a few times, but never really answered. And please, no "its too difficult to define assault rifles" or that kind of thing. It's really not important, and this particular issue seems to have been overcome in Australia.

On December 19 2012 13:21 The Final Boss wrote:
I find gun control an interesting debate, and I personally I am against gun control laws, at least in the United States. Guns are already so prevalent that no amount of gun control laws will stop a person who wants a gun from getting a gun, and I doubt that will ever happen. Most guns that are used in criminal shootings are purchased illegally or stolen, so we will not solve the problem by stopping the legal purchase of firearms. I recently heard somebody say "Nobody blames the car when somebody dies because of drinking and driving," which, while I recognize that we are talking about two different events with different motivations, I still think sends an interesting message. We should do more to treat those who are violent and depressed just as we do more to treat those who suffer from alcoholism. While I see the legitimacy of both ways to decrease violent crime with firearms, I just believe that targeting the illnesses and problems that cause people to go on psychotic rampages is a better solution than limiting the freedom of everyone.