|
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. |
I believe people should be allowed to own a hand gun only but not able to carry it around in public areas. I think that a family has a right to protect their house with a gun on their property but walking around with guns everywhere is another thing altogether. On an another note, I don't think that normal people should have the right to own assault rifles. Assault rifles should ONLY be available to the military and the police. I I just don't see any real reason that outside being a collector that someone should own a gun of that caliber or even greater.
This discussion reminded me of something I saw on the news of how this random dude wanted to protest his right to own and carry around a gun. He showed up in a mall with a assault rifle slug around his shoulder. I don't know about you but that is really fucking scary. This was right after the shooting that the elementary school (i think the guy doing it around this time was little insulting but that's just me). If i saw something like that i would gtfo of that mall in a flash. I'm not trusting anyone that walks around with an assault rifle even if they are the nicest person in the world. There is just no need for it in the first place.
Hand guns at in your house should be fine. If you want to take the risk of your kid or family member getting hurt by one that's on you, on your property. I just don't want to see people walking around the streets all carrying an object with one simple action could blow someones head off. I feel like weapons like that should be in military/police hands who are trained and doing a service.
|
I wonder if during the Meiji restoration when they passed the sword ban they had a similar discussion:
"you'll never get rid of all the swords, there are so many of them"
"if you take away our swords then only criminals will have swords"
"it's just the government trying to change my way of life" (which btw was the express intent of it)
"I am a samurai, I have a right to my sword, I have a right to defend my house"
I don't know, as an American, and one who is deeply Southern, I don't really have a problem with guns. They just don't personally bother me that much. That being said, I lived in Boston for many years and actually preferred it there pretty significantly HOWEVER it wasn't because of the gun thing. But, gun control their is stricter and less people own them. So, really the second amendment is mostly a non-issue to me.
People get shot. Sometimes they are innocent. Sometimes they are children. That is the price of the second amendment. But every freedom has a price; it's just up to society as a whole to decide when it is and isn't worth it. As a Christian I find it deeply offensive when people in this country claim that guns are a right given to us from God. Because I'm pretty sure that Jesus was not all about Para Ordinance 1911s. So, frankly, society voted for a guy who said he wasn't going to do anything about gun control at the time so I think in all fairness to the people who voted it's best to put potential legislation together for the next round of elections and let people run on it and we'll see how it turns out.
|
|
|
On February 06 2013 04:06 LOveRH wrote:
I believe people should be allowed to own a hand gun only but not able to carry it around in public areas. I think that a family has a right to protect their house with a gun on their property but walking around with guns everywhere is another thing altogether. On an another note, I don't think that normal people should have the right to own assault rifles. Assault rifles should ONLY be available to the military and the police. I I just don't see any real reason that outside being a collector that someone should own a gun of that caliber or even greater.
This discussion reminded me of something I saw on the news of how this random dude wanted to protest his right to own and carry around a gun. He showed up in a mall with a assault rifle slug around his shoulder. I don't know about you but that is really fucking scary. This was right after the shooting that the elementary school (i think the guy doing it around this time was little insulting but that's just me). If i saw something like that i would gtfo of that mall in a flash. I'm not trusting anyone that walks around with an assault rifle even if they are the nicest person in the world. There is just no need for it in the first place.
Hand guns at in your house should be fine. If you want to take the risk of your kid or family member getting hurt by one that's on you, on your property. I just don't want to see people walking around the streets all carrying an object with one simple action could blow someones head off. I feel like weapons like that should be in military/police hands who are trained and doing a service.
So you think people should only be allowed to own the type of guns that are used in 95%+ of crimes? Not to mention handguns are typically larger caliber than rifles by far. So that rules out your reasoning of " I just don't see any real reason that outside being a collector that someone should own a gun of that caliber or even greater." I know it's just terminology that you're using wrong but it just shows how uninformed you are on a subject you have such a strong opinion on. What exactly do you plan to accomplish by only banning the weapons used in less than 5% of crimes? Simply illogical. Handguns are usually more deadly due to their small size and damage capability. And that's exactly why they are used in most crimes.
|
On February 06 2013 04:06 LOveRH wrote:
I believe people should be allowed to own a hand gun only but not able to carry it around in public areas. I think that a family has a right to protect their house with a gun on their property but walking around with guns everywhere is another thing altogether. On an another note, I don't think that normal people should have the right to own assault rifles. Assault rifles should ONLY be available to the military and the police. I I just don't see any real reason that outside being a collector that someone should own a gun of that caliber or even greater.
This discussion reminded me of something I saw on the news of how this random dude wanted to protest his right to own and carry around a gun. He showed up in a mall with a assault rifle slug around his shoulder. I don't know about you but that is really fucking scary. This was right after the shooting that the elementary school (i think the guy doing it around this time was little insulting but that's just me). If i saw something like that i would gtfo of that mall in a flash. I'm not trusting anyone that walks around with an assault rifle even if they are the nicest person in the world. There is just no need for it in the first place.
Hand guns at in your house should be fine. If you want to take the risk of your kid or family member getting hurt by one that's on you, on your property. I just don't want to see people walking around the streets all carrying an object with one simple action could blow someones head off. I feel like weapons like that should be in military/police hands who are trained and doing a service.
Almost no one owns Assault Rifles. The AR15's and civilian variant AK47's you're thinking of fire the same caliber bullets as many more traditional rifles, and are not fully automatic. Yes, they're semi-automatic, but so are those hand guns you're cool with people owning.
![[image loading]](http://cdn.stripersonline.com/1/16/16124160_AR15Mini14_zps44fe0e53.jpeg)
Which one are you against? Why?
|
isn't than an m1 carbine?
well honestly both are pretty effective if you want to kill a lot of people.
the difference between handguns and rifles is penetration though. not that many handgun rounds, especially jacketed rounds, can go through a police vest whereas rifle bullets not only can go through vests but also walls, vehicle doors, etc.
|
On February 06 2013 04:06 LOveRH wrote:
I believe people should be allowed to own a hand gun only but not able to carry it around in public areas. I think that a family has a right to protect their house with a gun on their property but walking around with guns everywhere is another thing altogether. On an another note, I don't think that normal people should have the right to own assault rifles. Assault rifles should ONLY be available to the military and the police. I I just don't see any real reason that outside being a collector that someone should own a gun of that caliber or even greater.
This discussion reminded me of something I saw on the news of how this random dude wanted to protest his right to own and carry around a gun. He showed up in a mall with a assault rifle slug around his shoulder. I don't know about you but that is really fucking scary. This was right after the shooting that the elementary school (i think the guy doing it around this time was little insulting but that's just me). If i saw something like that i would gtfo of that mall in a flash. I'm not trusting anyone that walks around with an assault rifle even if they are the nicest person in the world. There is just no need for it in the first place.
Hand guns at in your house should be fine. If you want to take the risk of your kid or family member getting hurt by one that's on you, on your property. I just don't want to see people walking around the streets all carrying an object with one simple action could blow someones head off. I feel like weapons like that should be in military/police hands who are trained and doing a service.
You basically summed up my opinion on this issue. Well done! I am pro choice about hand guns; I believe people have the right to own one on their own property even though i'd never have one.
|
Well, yeah that's a popular opinion on the issue, but I don't really understand why. I mean if you are so distraught that people can buy big scary guns that kill people why are you perfectly fine with people having the type of guns that do 95% of the actual killing (handguns)?
|
On February 06 2013 05:08 DannyJ wrote:
Well, yeah that's a popular opinion on the issue, but I don't really understand why. I mean if you are so distraught that people can buy big scary guns that kill people why are you perfectly fine with people having the type of guns that do 95% of the actual killing (handguns)?
You can't take away every gun, because the whole country would go apeshit about it.
So, going step by step, starting with the ones which have virtually no reason to be used by anyone but soldiers.
|
On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot?
You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential.
Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try.
Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument.
There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes.
|
On February 06 2013 05:14 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:08 DannyJ wrote:
Well, yeah that's a popular opinion on the issue, but I don't really understand why. I mean if you are so distraught that people can buy big scary guns that kill people why are you perfectly fine with people having the type of guns that do 95% of the actual killing (handguns)? You can't take away every gun, because the whole country would go apeshit about it. So, going step by step, starting with the ones which have virtually no reason to be used by anyone but soldiers.
exactly. Gotta start with small steps
|
On February 06 2013 05:14 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:08 DannyJ wrote:
Well, yeah that's a popular opinion on the issue, but I don't really understand why. I mean if you are so distraught that people can buy big scary guns that kill people why are you perfectly fine with people having the type of guns that do 95% of the actual killing (handguns)? You can't take away every gun, because the whole country would go apeshit about it. So, going step by step, starting with the ones which have virtually no reason to be used by anyone but soldiers.
I guess, but It's not step by step for the very reason you said, you can't take all the guns. It's a baby step to essentially no where. Taking away "military" guns will make a microscopic dent in the gun crime, which can then just be replaced by any other gun.
|
but you can hunt with a rifle, there's not a lot you can hunt with a glock 19.
ok so my grandfather lived in an area of Texas until about a year ago where deer were all over the place. I mean, they would chew your crap up and break fences and jump in front of cars. if you want to shoot a deer (which is frankly a necessity here since they killed off all of the wolves), you can't make much of a claim that handguns and .22 rifles are nearly as effective as an assault rifle.
here an assault rifle is a lot more useful than trying to walk up to a deer and shoot it with your handgun and that's a legitimate purpose, isnt it?
look I don't think "hunting" is very sporting and I think we have a gun problem but handguns are the biggest problem, not assault rifles.
|
On February 06 2013 05:02 red_b wrote:
isn't than an m1 carbine?
well honestly both are pretty effective if you want to kill a lot of people.
the difference between handguns and rifles is penetration though. not that many handgun rounds, especially jacketed rounds, can go through a police vest whereas rifle bullets not only can go through vests but also walls, vehicle doors, etc.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/officers-feloniously-killed/officers-feloniously-killed
Of the 63 police officers killed in the US with firearms, 50 were killed with handguns. 46 of the officers were wearing body armor. Clearly, armor can't even handle handguns.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
AR15 is the most common rifle in the US, yet only 3% of crimes are committed with rifles at all, with "Assault Weapons" being an even smaller percentage of those.
On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes.
NY just banned any magazine over 7 rounds. NY just redefined the term assault weapon to include a single prohibited feature instead of the previous two. The banned feature list is ridiculous too, like folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips. There are millions of people in NY who own these things. There is also no grandfathering, so you've got until the law comes into effect to get rid of your stuff, or you're a felon.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hit_us_with_your_best_shot_andy_5rxZg0gYBJJhkLBtiTPMfJ
I'm fine with background checks, but the other two ARE stupid.
|
On February 06 2013 05:21 Millitron wrote:
Of the 63 police officers killed in the US with firearms, 50 were killed with handguns. 46 of the officers were wearing body armor. Clearly, armor can't even handle handguns.
do you have the statistic for how many were shot overall? presumably it's more than 46. I think this is relevant here.
|
On February 06 2013 05:24 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:21 Millitron wrote:
Of the 63 police officers killed in the US with firearms, 50 were killed with handguns. 46 of the officers were wearing body armor. Clearly, armor can't even handle handguns. do you have the statistic for how many were shot overall? presumably it's more than 46. I think this is relevant here.
Same page says 72.
Derp:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/officers-assaulted-1/officers-assaulted
4% of officers assaulted were assaulted with firearms.
~54,000 were assaulted, so thats about 2000 being shot at. Doesn't specify if they were actually hit.
Like I said though, most of those are not with rifles. While this source doesn't specify, others: http://www.inquisitr.com/467102/hammers-deadlier-than-rifles-fbi-releases-crime-stats-for-2011/
show that rifles are not used often at all in any crimes, so presumably they're used in a similar percentage of assaults on police. So, practically not at all.
|
On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes.
This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem.
|
On February 06 2013 05:21 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:02 red_b wrote:
isn't than an m1 carbine?
well honestly both are pretty effective if you want to kill a lot of people.
the difference between handguns and rifles is penetration though. not that many handgun rounds, especially jacketed rounds, can go through a police vest whereas rifle bullets not only can go through vests but also walls, vehicle doors, etc. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/officers-feloniously-killed/officers-feloniously-killedOf the 63 police officers killed in the US with firearms, 50 were killed with handguns. 46 of the officers were wearing body armor. Clearly, armor can't even handle handguns. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gunAR15 is the most common rifle in the US, yet only 3% of crimes are committed with rifles at all, with "Assault Weapons" being an even smaller percentage of those. Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. NY just banned any magazine over 7 rounds. NY just redefined the term assault weapon to include a single prohibited feature instead of the previous two. The banned feature list is ridiculous too, like folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips. There are millions of people in NY who own these things. There is also no grandfathering, so you've got until the law comes into effect to get rid of your stuff, or you're a felon. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hit_us_with_your_best_shot_andy_5rxZg0gYBJJhkLBtiTPMfJI'm fine with background checks, but the other two ARE stupid.
http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/01152013-outline-of-nys-groundbreaking-gun-legislation
"Assault weapons possessed before the effective date must be registered within a year and recertified every five years. Owners of grandfathered assault weapons may only sell out of state or through an in state federal firearms licensee"
Guns can be grandfathered. Magazines can't.
|
On February 06 2013 05:34 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:21 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 05:02 red_b wrote:
isn't than an m1 carbine?
well honestly both are pretty effective if you want to kill a lot of people.
the difference between handguns and rifles is penetration though. not that many handgun rounds, especially jacketed rounds, can go through a police vest whereas rifle bullets not only can go through vests but also walls, vehicle doors, etc. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/officers-feloniously-killed/officers-feloniously-killedOf the 63 police officers killed in the US with firearms, 50 were killed with handguns. 46 of the officers were wearing body armor. Clearly, armor can't even handle handguns. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gunAR15 is the most common rifle in the US, yet only 3% of crimes are committed with rifles at all, with "Assault Weapons" being an even smaller percentage of those. On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. NY just banned any magazine over 7 rounds. NY just redefined the term assault weapon to include a single prohibited feature instead of the previous two. The banned feature list is ridiculous too, like folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips. There are millions of people in NY who own these things. There is also no grandfathering, so you've got until the law comes into effect to get rid of your stuff, or you're a felon. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hit_us_with_your_best_shot_andy_5rxZg0gYBJJhkLBtiTPMfJI'm fine with background checks, but the other two ARE stupid. http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/01152013-outline-of-nys-groundbreaking-gun-legislation"Assault weapons possessed before the effective date must be registered within a year and recertified every five years. Owners of grandfathered assault weapons may only sell out of state or through an in state federal firearms licensee" Guns can be grandfathered. Magazines can't.
Most people who own those guns also have magazines for them. Ergo millions of people are STILL on the shitlist.
|
On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:42 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 10:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 10:05 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 04 2013 09:47 micronesia wrote:On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different? There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do. Do you agree with those people? Are you against any further regulation of guns? The people I mainly disagree with are the ones who believe there should be no new regulation on guns in the USA, and those who think we should have major sweeping changes such as a unilateral gun ban. I understand that some people are pushing for total gun bans. Still, if you say you resist any changes because it will eventually lead us to the point of total gun bans, nothing will ever change. And this is a point that can be argued, but I can't ever see guns being completely banned in this country, period. I think resisting universal background checks on those grounds is ridiculous. Why should the gun owners have to compromise on all the wrong points? It's all well and good to discuss what would be ideal in this thread, but if you look at what gets proposed, why should we accept stupid shit like an "assault weapon" ban? Arbitrary restrictions that demonstrably have little to do with the actual crimes committed aren't a reasonable compromise, they are an attack on our rights. Legislation to protect people would, at first glance, not be arbitrary, and wouldn't turn 30+% of our adult population into felons overnight. It wouldn't put us at the mercy of the existing criminal population, and it wouldn't require us to forfeit our property. Anything that does a LOT of those things is not good lawmaking. It's not us compromising, it's rights being taken away. The second the laws are, visibly, a token, ineffectual gesture to placate with minimal or no capacity to help or protect the people, our government is doing it wrong. And that's exactly the sort of places you don't compromise. If we give up all the rights to weapons that don't get used in many crimes, what the hell are we going to be left with when the government comes around later to ban the weapons that are used in crimes? A slingshot? You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential. Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try. Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument. There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes. This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem.
You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?)
I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing.
Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
