|
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. |
On December 20 2012 04:11 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:09 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:On December 20 2012 03:27 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 01:59 micronesia wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. Fully automatic guns are almost completely illegal in the USA fyi, including the m16, for civilians. I like the idea of reducing bullet capacity in legal guns, but I'm not sure how to do it. If everything stays the same except a limit is placed on clip size, then well, it's really easy to make a bigger clip illegally. criminals do not need to manufacture bigger clips,they are already avaliable in the black market; the point is that if someone who buys legally a weapon goes nuts,he does not have in his hands a gun that can potentially kill 30 people before he even has to reload. someone who buys a gun for self defense won't need a bigger clip anyway. You should note that most of these mass shootings where the person 'goes nuts' involves days of planning if not more. This is plenty of time to get/make/whatever a clip that suits their purposes. I don't think making large clips illegal would have much of an effect on mass shooting rates/damages, by itself. i'm not saying that having only smaller clips would prevent this kind of events from happening, even if the shooter killed a single person it would have been a tragedy, but it would be one of the reasonable options to consider to make these events less severe (since just a few seconds of the shooter reloading would give the victims a little time to flee making the difference between life and death) without banning weapons altoghether thus infringing law-abiding citizens' rights; btw it's not easy at all to make a clip from scratch or to modify one,it takes equipment and expertise to the point that it's not worth the effort. Uhm, no, there'd be some trial and error involved, but mechanically, a magazine is a box, a spring, and a piece to sit under the bullets. The rest is just shinies to make it more efficient.
actually it's not that simple,the magazine must fit perfectly in the gun with connections that vary from brand to brand and have pretty strict tolerations,moreover there must be links for the mechanism that allows you to lock the clip in place and then release it when empty. also the spring must be chosen carefully because if it's too soft it may cause jammings....so it's not quite that easy 
|
On December 20 2012 04:19 DR.Ham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:59 JingleHell wrote:On December 20 2012 03:53 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:38 JingleHell wrote:On December 20 2012 03:35 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success? It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen. People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough. Not to split hairs, but these are straw-man arguments. Him not explicitly knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles does not invalidate the common sense of the rest of his arguments. Actually, it's a large part of the root of the problem. One half is the insane pro-gun lobby, who are mostly closet separatists and anarchists, or some other form of batshit. The other half is the fact that people arguing "common sense gun control" don't have the common sense to understand the subject matter before trying to say what effect laws would have. For the record, I ignored the rest because I've addressed such things before. Not out of a lack of answer. I guess I didn't explain very well, what I mean is that he is not claiming to be an expert on the definition of types of guns, if he was you would be making a good point. He is talking abut the concepts of gun control and possible effects that would have. An analogy would be that you don't need to know how to build a computer to talk about software piracy. I do completely agree with you about the issues involved in this discussion though. You can see from a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotional topic for people on both sides of the argument, and consequently there are some incredibly irrational things being said. Your analogy is rather bizarre, hardware and software are fundamentally different, whereas with firearms, if you don't understand the mechanics and definitions, you can't possibly know which features based on mechanics and definitions would be most relevant to restrict. If I say, for example, "Oh, he used a gas operated semi-automatic firearm", and you hear that and say "Oh, so we should ban gas operated semi-automatic firearms", well, congratulations, you've just left me with blowback operated semi-automatic firearms, which are still equally dangerous. If you restrict magazine capacity, what happens if someone starts selling belt fed semi-autos? If you scream "ban assault rifles", guess what, you just managed to not ban the majority of what you were actually trying to ban. Firstly, I'm not screaming anything, nothing in my posts was outrageous or using inflammatory language. For me, there are scenarios where weapons which seem to me completely unreasonable for average civilians to own while still allowing for personal protection, shooting for leisure etc. can be devised quite easily. For Example: * Existing Guns which would potentially be restricted can be removed from the community using buy back schemes and harsh penalties for those who are subsequently caught with them. This has been done in other countries (admittedly on a smaller scale), but the principal is the same. * Semi-Automatic rifles for sport etc could be kept in safe storage at shooting ranges / gun clubs etc rather than in the home. This would still leave pistols / shotguns for home defense purposes. Even this could be restricted to one per household for example, as it is difficult to argue that a person needs many guns for self defense. Obviously this would still leave room for these mass shootings to occur, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that it would be harder and thus less likely for them to occur given the lower availability of the weapons. What do you think?
I wasn't accusing you particularly of screaming, we were still discussing other people's "contributions" at that point.
I think your ideas have at least some merit, although I find them to be more pointlessly restrictive than my own thoughts, at least they're not absolutist, which means it's just a difference of opinion on how to handle it. For me, it's about better oversight, sane restrictions, and better training/awareness for gun owners. Plus, possibly legal culpability if your firearms are used by another for an illegal action.
My point was purely that people who don't understand specifics trying to state what specific things should be illegal don't contribute anything to discourse, and I listed several examples why.
|
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing."
|
On December 20 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing."
How many of these mass murder shooters are career criminals? They're pretty much all middle class young men with no previous criminal record.
|
On December 20 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing."
It's pretty easy to decide to shoot something up when guns are easily available. If they weren't, they'd probably default to the next easiest option, as per the stabbing in China.
|
On December 20 2012 04:29 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing." How many of these mass murder shooters are career criminals? They're pretty much all middle class young men with no previous criminal record.
Which means they can buy guns legally if they want. Unless we ban the sale of ALL guns...
I'm not sure what your point is though. You think people shoot up schools on a whim?
|
On December 20 2012 04:24 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:19 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:59 JingleHell wrote:On December 20 2012 03:53 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:38 JingleHell wrote:On December 20 2012 03:35 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success? It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen. People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough. Not to split hairs, but these are straw-man arguments. Him not explicitly knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles does not invalidate the common sense of the rest of his arguments. Actually, it's a large part of the root of the problem. One half is the insane pro-gun lobby, who are mostly closet separatists and anarchists, or some other form of batshit. The other half is the fact that people arguing "common sense gun control" don't have the common sense to understand the subject matter before trying to say what effect laws would have. For the record, I ignored the rest because I've addressed such things before. Not out of a lack of answer. I guess I didn't explain very well, what I mean is that he is not claiming to be an expert on the definition of types of guns, if he was you would be making a good point. He is talking abut the concepts of gun control and possible effects that would have. An analogy would be that you don't need to know how to build a computer to talk about software piracy. I do completely agree with you about the issues involved in this discussion though. You can see from a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotional topic for people on both sides of the argument, and consequently there are some incredibly irrational things being said. Your analogy is rather bizarre, hardware and software are fundamentally different, whereas with firearms, if you don't understand the mechanics and definitions, you can't possibly know which features based on mechanics and definitions would be most relevant to restrict. If I say, for example, "Oh, he used a gas operated semi-automatic firearm", and you hear that and say "Oh, so we should ban gas operated semi-automatic firearms", well, congratulations, you've just left me with blowback operated semi-automatic firearms, which are still equally dangerous. If you restrict magazine capacity, what happens if someone starts selling belt fed semi-autos? If you scream "ban assault rifles", guess what, you just managed to not ban the majority of what you were actually trying to ban. Firstly, I'm not screaming anything, nothing in my posts was outrageous or using inflammatory language. For me, there are scenarios where weapons which seem to me completely unreasonable for average civilians to own while still allowing for personal protection, shooting for leisure etc. can be devised quite easily. For Example: * Existing Guns which would potentially be restricted can be removed from the community using buy back schemes and harsh penalties for those who are subsequently caught with them. This has been done in other countries (admittedly on a smaller scale), but the principal is the same. * Semi-Automatic rifles for sport etc could be kept in safe storage at shooting ranges / gun clubs etc rather than in the home. This would still leave pistols / shotguns for home defense purposes. Even this could be restricted to one per household for example, as it is difficult to argue that a person needs many guns for self defense. Obviously this would still leave room for these mass shootings to occur, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that it would be harder and thus less likely for them to occur given the lower availability of the weapons. What do you think? I wasn't accusing you particularly of screaming, we were still discussing other people's "contributions" at that point. I think your ideas have at least some merit, although I find them to be more pointlessly restrictive than my own thoughts, at least they're not absolutist, which means it's just a difference of opinion on how to handle it. For me, it's about better oversight, sane restrictions, and better training/awareness for gun owners. Plus, possibly legal culpability if your firearms are used by another for an illegal action. My point was purely that people who don't understand specifics trying to state what specific things should be illegal don't contribute anything to discourse, and I listed several examples why.
Regarding your first point, sorry I misunderstood. :-)
I think your idea about legal responsibility is a really interesting one, I like it. It would ideally have the effect of people being much more concerned about the storage and accessibility of their weapons at least, which can only be a good thing.
|
On December 20 2012 04:19 DR.Ham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:59 JingleHell wrote:On December 20 2012 03:53 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:38 JingleHell wrote:On December 20 2012 03:35 DR.Ham wrote:On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success? It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen. People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough. Not to split hairs, but these are straw-man arguments. Him not explicitly knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles does not invalidate the common sense of the rest of his arguments. Actually, it's a large part of the root of the problem. One half is the insane pro-gun lobby, who are mostly closet separatists and anarchists, or some other form of batshit. The other half is the fact that people arguing "common sense gun control" don't have the common sense to understand the subject matter before trying to say what effect laws would have. For the record, I ignored the rest because I've addressed such things before. Not out of a lack of answer. I guess I didn't explain very well, what I mean is that he is not claiming to be an expert on the definition of types of guns, if he was you would be making a good point. He is talking abut the concepts of gun control and possible effects that would have. An analogy would be that you don't need to know how to build a computer to talk about software piracy. I do completely agree with you about the issues involved in this discussion though. You can see from a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotional topic for people on both sides of the argument, and consequently there are some incredibly irrational things being said. Your analogy is rather bizarre, hardware and software are fundamentally different, whereas with firearms, if you don't understand the mechanics and definitions, you can't possibly know which features based on mechanics and definitions would be most relevant to restrict. If I say, for example, "Oh, he used a gas operated semi-automatic firearm", and you hear that and say "Oh, so we should ban gas operated semi-automatic firearms", well, congratulations, you've just left me with blowback operated semi-automatic firearms, which are still equally dangerous. If you restrict magazine capacity, what happens if someone starts selling belt fed semi-autos? If you scream "ban assault rifles", guess what, you just managed to not ban the majority of what you were actually trying to ban. Firstly, I'm not screaming anything, nothing in my posts was outrageous or using inflammatory language. For me, there are scenarios where weapons which seem to me completely unreasonable for average civilians to own while still allowing for personal protection, shooting for leisure etc. can be devised quite easily. For Example: * Existing Guns which would potentially be restricted can be removed from the community using buy back schemes and harsh penalties for those who are subsequently caught with them. This has been done in other countries (admittedly on a smaller scale), but the principal is the same. * Semi-Automatic rifles for sport etc could be kept in safe storage at shooting ranges / gun clubs etc rather than in the home. This would still leave pistols / shotguns for home defense purposes. Even this could be restricted to one per household for example, as it is difficult to argue that a person needs many guns for self defense. Obviously this would still leave room for these mass shootings to occur, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that it would be harder and thus less likely for them to occur given the lower availability of the weapons. What do you think?
i agree wholeheartedly with you except for the safe storage at shooting ranges part: who is passionate about firearms and decides to own one (or some) likes to take a look at them and clean them off every once in a while,so it would be bothersome to have to go to the shooting range even to take a look at what's yours; it would be a reasonable option for those people who like to go fairly often at the shooting range though!
anyway who decides to keep his weapons at home should lock them up in an armored closet for safety unless he wants to keep one reasonably handy for house defense.
|
On December 20 2012 03:41 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:22 3Form wrote:
At the end of the day, what it boils down to is if I snap tomorrow, the worst I can do is push someone in front of a train. If I were an American with a gun at home, if I snap tomorrow I can go and shoot up a school.
I don't see how this sort of logic is refutable, really I don't. The only reason you would be able to shoot up a school is because all the responsible adults there have been disarmed. Do you understand that? Gun control is what makes them a target for shooting sprees. Furthermore you are lying when you claim "the worst I can do is push someone in front of a train". I think the fact you have to lie here to make your argument shows on the face of it how wrong you are. You could very easily claim more than one victim by pretty much any means, even your bare hands (assuming you aren't disabled). Even the most frail person could drive a car into a crowd of people.
Even if the school wasn't a gun free zone, noone would have had access to guns anyway. It's just not logical to bring a weapon to school for defense. Please stop putting the blame on the weapon free zone restrictions, it just makes you look silly. May I point out once again that the death shootings in Sweden targeting non-criminals is almost non-existent. Our heavy restrictions, and our police's relentless hunt for illegal weapons have made Sweden a almost completely safe country when it comes to gun-violence. Australia realized that restriction is the way to go, and it has helped them. USA should do the same. Anyone who doesn't understand this should really educate himself.
And lol at killing a crowd of ppl with a car. How do you figure he would kill masses of ppl at a school using a car? I would just run away if some maniac tried to run me over by a car. If you want to make a point, the only viable example, that could offer the same destruction would be a bomb, but you can't fight a bomb by having access to weapons.
The american mass murderer have a lot more toys to play with, and his toys are more efficient, faster, cheaper and easier to obtain. This is a fact, and if I lived in USA, I would be very troubled by this fact.
|
United States24568 Posts
On December 20 2012 04:35 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:41 Zaqwe wrote:On December 20 2012 03:22 3Form wrote:
At the end of the day, what it boils down to is if I snap tomorrow, the worst I can do is push someone in front of a train. If I were an American with a gun at home, if I snap tomorrow I can go and shoot up a school.
I don't see how this sort of logic is refutable, really I don't. The only reason you would be able to shoot up a school is because all the responsible adults there have been disarmed. Do you understand that? Gun control is what makes them a target for shooting sprees. Furthermore you are lying when you claim "the worst I can do is push someone in front of a train". I think the fact you have to lie here to make your argument shows on the face of it how wrong you are. You could very easily claim more than one victim by pretty much any means, even your bare hands (assuming you aren't disabled). Even the most frail person could drive a car into a crowd of people. Even if the school wasn't a gun free zone, noone would have had access to guns anyway. It's just not logical to bring a weapon to school for defense. Please stop putting the blame on the weapon free zone restrictions, it just makes you look silly. May I point out once again that the death shootings in Sweden targeting non-criminals is almost non-existent. Our heavy restrictions, and our police's relentless hunt for illegal weapons have made Sweden a almost completely safe country when it comes to gun-violence. Australia realized that restriction is the way to go, and it has helped them. USA should do the same. Anyone who doesn't understand this should really educate himself. And lol at killing a crowd of ppl with a car. How do you figure he would kill masses of ppl at a school using a car? I would just run away if some maniac tried to run me over by a car. If you want to make a point, the only viable example, that could offer the same destruction would be a bomb, but you can't fight a bomb by having access to weapons. The american mass murderer have a lot more toys to play with, and his toys are more efficient, faster, cheaper and easier to obtain. This is a fact, and if I lived in USA, I would be very troubled by this fact.
I just want to point out a counterexample regarding gun free zones... which doesn't really prove much but it is there:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/florida-school-board-shoo_n_796689.html
There was a thread about this as I recall. The security guard was violating the gun free zone, but nobody complained there. Technically he could have gotten into a lot of trouble despite saving the day.
|
On December 20 2012 03:51 BeHave wrote:
The important question is:
Why do civilians need firearms?
U.S. Constitution says: To protect yourself/ your property/ your family
And that is infact the core of the argument.
Most of europeans wont be able to understand this (including me). The reason I dont understand this is the fact, that the point goes back to a time where the government was incapable of providing the security that was necessary to build the society that should be.
Cant the U.S. Government provide security? Why can european governments provide this security?
Actually the US Constitution says nothing about defense of self or property. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and to that end people have the right to keep and bear arms. It also doesn't just go back to a time when government was incapable of providing security for the people, it goes back to a time when the British colonials were being compelled to obey an imperial power through force of arms. The fear was not that an individual would not be able to protect himself or his family from small threats, but that a similar imperial power would come to force its will on others at the business end of a gun. Americans viewed themselves at this time as citizens of States, not citizens of America, and as such some states feared that others would eventually take up the yoke of British imperialism. This fear eventually led to the American Civil War as the citizens of the southern states believed themselves to be under the rule of the foreign power of the northern states and took up arms to dissolve the political bands which have connected them. What is ironic is that the failure of the southern states to secede led to the unification of the states under the current federal power which in the course of about a hundred years became the imperial power it was feared to be.
If I remember correctly from the constitutional arguments in my college US history class, nothing about the second amendment was applied to self defense until the 20th century. In fact even during the time when the constitution was written, the same men which wrote and ratified the amendments also passed several laws in their states which made the use of firearms for self dense impractical or impossible. Some that I can think of off the top of my head were laws against the storage of gunpowder in the home (for fire safety), laws against carrying a loaded weapon (at the time it meant you would not be able to fire a round for nearly a full minute), and laws which restricted the areas which gunpowder and/or firearms could be stored in ones home (fire safety again).
I might have gone a little off topic from my original intention of replying to this, as I can't recall exactly what it was at the moment, but I suppose my point is that the constitutional amendment protecting the right of citizens to own and carry firearms was not intended for the personal protection of individuals from other individuals, but for the general protection of a free peoples from the government who claims power over them, and by extension that governments military arms. So questing the second amendment based on the governments ability to protect its people is not a valid argument in the stated context.
|
On December 20 2012 04:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:29 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing." How many of these mass murder shooters are career criminals? They're pretty much all middle class young men with no previous criminal record. Which means they can buy guns legally if they want. Unless we ban the sale of ALL guns... I'm not sure what your point is though. You think people shoot up schools on a whim?
My point is that if guns weren't so easily available then they would effectively be impossible to obtain for these people since they wouldn't have the criminal connections to get a gun on the black market.
edit: also need to point out that it's really unlikely that these mass shooting killers would use another weapon instead since guns not only allow you to kill people from a distance with little effort, but the CRUCIAL part is that they offer you a swift and painless exit (via suicide) which lets the killer avoid having to face up to their actions. Guns let them be 'distanced' from the whole process.
|
On December 20 2012 04:41 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 20 2012 04:29 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing." How many of these mass murder shooters are career criminals? They're pretty much all middle class young men with no previous criminal record. Which means they can buy guns legally if they want. Unless we ban the sale of ALL guns... I'm not sure what your point is though. You think people shoot up schools on a whim? My point is that if guns weren't so easily available then they would effectively be impossible to obtain for these people since they wouldn't have the criminal connections to get a gun on the black market.
So you want to ban the sale of all guns to all civilians. Is that correct? Because if not they can simply be bought and are therefore "easily available."
|
On December 20 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:41 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 20 2012 04:29 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing." How many of these mass murder shooters are career criminals? They're pretty much all middle class young men with no previous criminal record. Which means they can buy guns legally if they want. Unless we ban the sale of ALL guns... I'm not sure what your point is though. You think people shoot up schools on a whim? My point is that if guns weren't so easily available then they would effectively be impossible to obtain for these people since they wouldn't have the criminal connections to get a gun on the black market. So you want to ban the sale of all guns to all civilians. Is that correct? Because if not they can simply be bought and are therefore "easily available."
Correct. I think that guns should be banned* for all civilians.
*"banned" in this context either meaning an outright total ban OR extremely heavy regulation (e.g. UK civilian gun ownership laws)
|
On December 20 2012 04:52 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 20 2012 04:41 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 20 2012 04:29 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing." How many of these mass murder shooters are career criminals? They're pretty much all middle class young men with no previous criminal record. Which means they can buy guns legally if they want. Unless we ban the sale of ALL guns... I'm not sure what your point is though. You think people shoot up schools on a whim? My point is that if guns weren't so easily available then they would effectively be impossible to obtain for these people since they wouldn't have the criminal connections to get a gun on the black market. So you want to ban the sale of all guns to all civilians. Is that correct? Because if not they can simply be bought and are therefore "easily available." Correct. I think that guns should be banned* for all civilians. *"banned" in this context either meaning an outright total ban OR extremely heavy regulation (e.g. UK civilian gun ownership laws)
Lol. I'm not even sure why the term 'ownership' is even used in regards to UK gun ownership. The procedures you have to go through to acquire what isn't banned and be able to use it makes my head hurt. No stun guns? Seriously? What the hell UK.
|
On December 20 2012 05:03 stevarius wrote:
Lol. I'm not even sure why the term 'ownership' is even used in regards to UK gun ownership. The procedures you have to go through to acquire what isn't banned and be able to use it makes my head hurt. No stun guns? Seriously? What the hell UK.
If it makes your head hurt then that's a good thing ---> you're not suitable to own a gun ---> no guns for you
I don't see the problem.
|
On December 20 2012 05:03 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:52 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 20 2012 04:41 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 20 2012 04:29 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing." How many of these mass murder shooters are career criminals? They're pretty much all middle class young men with no previous criminal record. Which means they can buy guns legally if they want. Unless we ban the sale of ALL guns... I'm not sure what your point is though. You think people shoot up schools on a whim? My point is that if guns weren't so easily available then they would effectively be impossible to obtain for these people since they wouldn't have the criminal connections to get a gun on the black market. So you want to ban the sale of all guns to all civilians. Is that correct? Because if not they can simply be bought and are therefore "easily available." Correct. I think that guns should be banned* for all civilians. *"banned" in this context either meaning an outright total ban OR extremely heavy regulation (e.g. UK civilian gun ownership laws) Lol. I'm not even sure why the term 'ownership' is even used in regards to UK gun ownership. The procedures you have to go through to acquire what isn't banned and be able to use it makes my head hurt. No stun guns? Seriously? What the hell UK.
Seem's to be working fine here.
|
On December 20 2012 04:52 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 20 2012 04:41 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 20 2012 04:29 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing." How many of these mass murder shooters are career criminals? They're pretty much all middle class young men with no previous criminal record. Which means they can buy guns legally if they want. Unless we ban the sale of ALL guns... I'm not sure what your point is though. You think people shoot up schools on a whim? My point is that if guns weren't so easily available then they would effectively be impossible to obtain for these people since they wouldn't have the criminal connections to get a gun on the black market. So you want to ban the sale of all guns to all civilians. Is that correct? Because if not they can simply be bought and are therefore "easily available." Correct. I think that guns should be banned* for all civilians. *"banned" in this context either meaning an outright total ban OR extremely heavy regulation (e.g. UK civilian gun ownership laws)
You just said it yourself. You think people wanting to do mass shootings just wake up wanting to do it?
Yeah, they probably think about it for a while. And if you had time to think about how much damage you could do in a short amount of time, you don't think you're researching bombs, guns, other weapons, etc.
Even if it was 100% possible to stop the sale of guns to civilians (which it isn't possible), what makes you think they're not going to come up with other devious methods like molotovs or buying 10x sets of knives at Wal-Mart? Well, then let's just limit how many knife sets a person can have or alcohol/gasoline someone can buy... where does it end?
Access to weapons is not the issue; the issue is with people and that's not being addressed. I don't even understand how some people can't comprehend this. Despite the toughest bans of weapons in prison, crazy people will ALWAYS come up with ways to carry out devious motives. Inmates will tightly roll up pieces of paper and rub it on the floor until it's sharp. At least in the US. From what I hear, other countries' prison don't have anywhere near the problem US prisons do... because well, their correctional system is much more effective. Like wtf, you ever watch those Prisons Abroad shows on National Geographic. Guards and inmates are like chillen smoking a cigarette playing pokemon.
|
On December 20 2012 05:06 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:52 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 20 2012 04:41 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 20 2012 04:29 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 04:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I can just hear these psychotic, determined killers now...
"Well, it is a little bit harder to get a gun, I guess I won't shoot up a mall this weekend. Maybe I will go golfing." How many of these mass murder shooters are career criminals? They're pretty much all middle class young men with no previous criminal record. Which means they can buy guns legally if they want. Unless we ban the sale of ALL guns... I'm not sure what your point is though. You think people shoot up schools on a whim? My point is that if guns weren't so easily available then they would effectively be impossible to obtain for these people since they wouldn't have the criminal connections to get a gun on the black market. So you want to ban the sale of all guns to all civilians. Is that correct? Because if not they can simply be bought and are therefore "easily available." Correct. I think that guns should be banned* for all civilians. *"banned" in this context either meaning an outright total ban OR extremely heavy regulation (e.g. UK civilian gun ownership laws) You just said it yourself. You think people wanting to do mass shootings just wake up wanting to do it? Yeah, they probably think about it for a while. And if you had time to think about how much damage you could do in a short amount of time, you don't think you're researching bombs, guns, other weapons, etc. Even if it was 100% possible to stop the sale of guns to civilians (which it isn't possible), what makes you think they're not going to come up with other devious methods like molotovs or buying 10x sets of knives at Wal-Mart? Well, then let's just limit how many knife sets a person can have or alcohol/gasoline someone can buy... where does it end? Access to weapons is not the issue; the issue is with people and that's not being addressed. I don't even understand how some people can't comprehend this. Despite the toughest bans of weapons in prison, crazy people will ALWAYS come up with ways to carry out devious motives. At least in the US. From what I hear, other countries' prison don't have anywhere near the problem US prisons do... because well, their correctional system is much more effective.
Referring to the mass shootings, here's what I wrote in an earlier post about why guns are the weapon of choice:
"also need to point out that it's really unlikely that these mass shooting killers would use another weapon instead since guns not only allow you to kill people from a distance with little effort, but the CRUCIAL part is that they offer you a swift and painless exit (via suicide) which lets the killer avoid having to face up to their actions. Guns let them be 'distanced' from the whole process."
|
On December 20 2012 05:05 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:03 stevarius wrote:
Lol. I'm not even sure why the term 'ownership' is even used in regards to UK gun ownership. The procedures you have to go through to acquire what isn't banned and be able to use it makes my head hurt. No stun guns? Seriously? What the hell UK. If it makes your head hurt then that's a good thing ---> you're not suitable to own a gun ---> no guns for you I don't see the problem.
You must think you're hilarious.
Not sure if troll or just a moron.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
