If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
![]()
micronesia
United States24673 Posts
| ||
Broetchenholer
Germany1913 Posts
On November 07 2017 18:05 arb wrote: I mean, the day you can walk into ANY gun store and buy a "war weapon" which is basically any gun fyi. But i'm going to assume since the term in this thread seems to be "assault style" weapons that's what you're referring too, also a stupid term by the way. You have to go through a background check, which doesnt take hardly any time at all regardless. My background check for joining the US Army was back in 24 hours, most gun stores can do it in an hour or two at that. As for here in my state(NC) the biggest hoops period are buying pistols which you must go to the local sheriffs department and apply for a permit or three how ever many you want to buy which takes a week or more to process your paperwork before they'll even give you that. Would i say it should be that way for every gun? Sure. So should mental health screening before I can walk into a store buy an AK47 and shoot up a school or something. Not me obviously but anyone really could in theory do that. Felons are already prohibited from ever owning a firearm, and being caught with one as a felon is a very serious offense, does that stop them? Nope. The thing these days is everyone that shoots up any kind of building is using some sort of a semi automatic "assault weapon". Do i believe people would call for bans on any kind of weapon involved, probably not. People don't think of Shotguns/Long rifles in the same manner as an "assault rifle". Since I wasn't alive in the day any older members can probably describe in more detail were bans called when Whitman shot everyone from the tower at Texas? No Assault rifles being used then, or Oswald(allegedly but different subject) Shooting Kennedy? Nope. And he was using a WW2 Bolt action rifle, Whitman using the same with various side arms or whatever also. Either way the gun bans I feel are unwarranted,and the people wanting to issue them have no idea how half the shit they use work either way. I'll never forget the classic CNN demonstration of how bump fire works with no bump fire on the gun, not forgetting the acog,grenade launcher,silencer they had on there for show. TLDR; I think a closer system to the permits required to buy pistols these days would be better for legal gun owners or stricter mental evaluations, but outright banning guns isn't going to work. It doesn't stop criminals who arent legally allowed to own them today nor stop the illegal gun trade either. Bumpfires are a loop hole fix anyway, all things they do are well within the guidelines of anyone without a Class 3? I believe owning a semi automatic rifle. Bumpfires are by definition semi automatic. And without the recommended permit you won't find anyone who's semi intelligent to ever convert any semi auto into full auto. The risk far out weighs the gain even if you pay them a substantial amount of money to do it I think you misunderstand how banning guns would impact criminals. Criminal energy will ofcourse not just stop and criminals will be able to buy weapons on the black market, however, try buying an AR-15 on the european black market and tell me the price you paid. Banning weapons would work, just not right off the bat. And if someone has a mental breakdown and decides to go on a suicide rampage, not already owning a weapon or having to buy it from the black market gives plenty of time to think about doubts and guilt. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 07 2017 09:27 Sermokala wrote: I'm not underestimating gunsmithing. At university we happened to book some lab time and made a compressed air based cannon out of mild steel. It was easy. It's not hard to extrapolate what to do if gunpowder was available to make a medieval hand cannon, then to a series of more sophisticated guns. We are talking about a gun enough for mass shootings not one to meet the needs of a modern military are we not? You aren't planning on firing a few thousand cartridges or shooting continuously from the same gun for a10 mins. The Las vegas shooter had thirty guns in his room. You can just make it out of steel. Not sure what your analogy for crossbow and longbow is on about though. It is rather strange that you at the same time presume a gun would be difficult to make whilst somehow bullets are easy to make by assuming that gunpwder is just lying around for you to just make bullets out of. Surely in such a hypothetical scenario, you will have to make the gunpowder yourself. How exactly are you supposed to make gunpowder? You have it totally backwards. Gun regulation should be about controlling the bullets not the gun. With bullets available, a gun is easy to make. But with guns available, it is virtually impossible to make gunpowder without explosive accidents or time. That's what you need the 100 guys for.You underestimate gunsmithing a lot. The "guns" that were around 600 years ago have little to nothing to do with how to make a modern gun. The difference between a gun before the revolver and lever action rifle is the difference between crossbows and longbows. Tolerances are a very important thing when you're working with intricately moving parts at high speed. Chrome molybenium is for making a barrel that will survive the heat that automatic fire generates. Bullets are really a lot easier if you have the metal and materials. They make mass production machines for it that punch them to size and gunpowder is pretty simple gram by gram compression, The techniques to make them on a lathe are pretty simple if you want to use that route. Making a gun is a lot more like making a car. You almost always make the machines specifically for the gun that you're making | ||
NBird
United States24 Posts
| ||
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” It’s a phrase we’ve all heard before—on the news or scrolling through our Facebook feeds. It’s been circulating for at least four years, ever since NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre first said the phrase at an NPR news conference following Sandy Hook. It appeals to a simplistic (if zero-sum) binary: good versus evil. As in any action movie worth its salt, there will always be a hero waiting to swoop in and save the day, killing the bad guy and getting the acclaim. Life, however, isn’t that simple, as events earlier this summer in Dallas prove. A trained former military gunman ambushed a massive crowd, aiming for police among a group of protesters. The shooter crossed several blocks, eventually making a last stand in a building on the El Centro College campus. His movements made it impossible to determine the precise number of shooters. Meanwhile, at least 20 armed protesters on the ground added to the chaos and confusion. Five police officers were killed, and nine others were injured, as were two civilians on the scene. In the end, it wasn’t even a gun that brought an end to the violence, but a bomb, aimed by a police robot at the lone gunman. By the NRA’s standards, the last place a shooter should have succeeded in committing a massacre would be in a heavily armed crowd. However, the roughly 100 police officers present were unable to stop the extremely mobile, well-prepared gunman. Following the shooting, many prominent Republican leaders who usually respond to mass shootings by wishing there had been more guns on the scene were conspicuously silent. In practice, the promised success of armed opposition to an active shooter once again proved more difficult than some might suppose. Nevertheless, following shooting after shooting, the NRA has continued to peddle the same tired good-guy myth. Interestingly, NRA revenue rises following each successive mass shooting. In fact, following the Sandy Hook shooting, NRA profits increased by almost $100 million, and membership increased by hundreds of thousands, while firearms sales soared. The NRA has a sizeable online store, offering hardware and accessories from the “American Hobo Concealed Carry Handbag” (which comes in black, deep red, and cognac) to customizable NRA collegiate rings to a “flashbang holster” meant to be worn on a bra for constant readiness. They’re not just selling merchandise—they’re selling a lifestyle. This dangerous glamorization of deadly weapons contributes to the deaths of thousands each year, whether through accidents, suicide, or homicides by people who were good guys, until they weren’t. At the same time, the combination of glorifying gun usage and promoting action encourages civilians to attempt what even trained professionals like police often can’t do: confront active shooter situations when taken by surprise, with little to no intel on the shooter’s intentions. In major cities like New York City and Los Angeles, the measured hit rates of police, according to Firearm Discharge Reports, hover far below 50 percent, some years dipping into the teens. This statistic doesn’t imply police are poor marksmen; it merely reflects the stressful, difficult, and dangerous reality of confrontations, unmatched in a shooting range or training situation. By telling unprepared civilians it’s their responsibility to be heroes, the NRA contributes to the possibility that “good guys” add to the confusion at the crime scene. In the wake of the Dallas shootings, Police Chief David Brown said, “We don’t know who the good guy is versus the bad guy if everybody starts shooting.” Even in more private situations, like confronting a robber in your home, the popular conception of the outcome is far from the truth. According to Mother Jones, for every time a gun is used in self-defense, there are seven assaults, 11 suicide attempts, and four accidents in or around the home. In reality, you’re far more likely to die at the hands of your own gun than you are to protect your family by shooting somebody else. The other side of the equation—the “bad guy”—is no less specious. The NRA treats it as a foregone conclusion that bad guys will always have guns; even were the government to ban them, the black market would fill the void. Yet this assumption ignores the rising costs of illegal weapons—a gun that would cost no more than a few thousand dollars in America costs upwards of $15,000 on Australia’s black market, which would hinder even the most criminal element of American gun owners. This isn’t to say we should ban and recollect all guns like in Australia, just that the NRA propaganda surrounding illegal gun purchase is highly unrealistic, setting up a false dichotomy between good guys and bad guys where alternatives exist. One thing is clear: it’s time to lay aside the NRA’s favorite axiom and the shooting to the professionals while focusing on changing gun policy. Real life isn’t target practice. Shootings are messy, chaotic, confusing, and imperfect. Good guys with guns can’t always save the day without endangering themselves or others. Source | ||
Sermokala
United States13911 Posts
On November 08 2017 01:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I'm not underestimating gunsmithing. At university we happened to book some lab time and made a compressed air based cannon out of mild steel. It was easy. It's not hard to extrapolate what to do if gunpowder was available to make a medieval hand cannon, then to a series of more sophisticated guns. We are talking about a gun enough for mass shootings not one to meet the needs of a modern military are we not? You aren't planning on firing a few thousand cartridges or shooting continuously from the same gun for a10 mins. The Las vegas shooter had thirty guns in his room. You can just make it out of steel. Not sure what your analogy for crossbow and longbow is on about though. It is rather strange that you at the same time presume a gun would be difficult to make whilst somehow bullets are easy to make by assuming that gunpwder is just lying around for you to just make bullets out of. Surely in such a hypothetical scenario, you will have to make the gunpowder yourself. How exactly are you supposed to make gunpowder? You have it totally backwards. Gun regulation should be about controlling the bullets not the gun. With bullets available, a gun is easy to make. But with guns available, it is virtually impossible to make gunpowder without explosive accidents or time. That's what you need the 100 guys for. So you made a cannon that has no relevant moving parts that doesn't generate heat and I'm betting probably wasn't even rifled out of steel and you think thats enough to judge how an assault rifle works? It doesn't matter if its a modern military need or a mass shooting need the reloading mechanism and the heat buildup is the most important part of a fast firing gun. Tell me how 100 guys are able to make that happen without knowing exact specs in any reasonable time frame. A lot of nazies and communists worked to make that gun happen. this is an incredibly intricate machine. I mean if you can't even appreciate the mechanical differences between a longbow and a crossbow then why are you even trying to talk on any authority on this? One has a clear reloading mechanism with a trigger and the other was just pulling back on string and guessing on what direction it'll take. I mean the gunpowder would be the easy part the primer would be the difficult part of making an modern bullet but you don't even probably know the difference. Making gunpowder is relativly easy with a large farm supply store. Getting the right mix is another thing but its not the insanity that is trying to make a decent primer. https://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2011-08/gray-matter-blast-my-past | ||
evilfatsh1t
Australia8641 Posts
On November 08 2017 04:24 NBird wrote: I own firearms in my country and have no criminal record. I hunt and go shooting for recreation, i.e. shoot multiple semi auto guns for fun. No criminal record here or with any of my friends. I would rather see more people armed around the world because there are many more good people than bad. Just be responsible. Then, if there is a situation where evil people are exploiting innocent people we can keep each other safe. Police are responders not protectors, that is a fact. When criminals commit atrocities in America it is almost always in no weapon (or heavily regulated) zones because they are cowards and they know there will be very little if no immediate armed resistance. Even if guns are banned, then criminals will resort to other means such as trucks, knives, or even acid, as we've all seen recently as horrible as it is. My point is regulation will not stop tyranny, but good people can stand against it. Also, heartfelt sympathies to all who have suffered from these recent events. every day citizens are neither. let the police do their job without being nervous about the possibility of every black guy having a gun. you guys watch too much batman or something and have this false idea that citizens should have the right to serve vigilante justice. you dont. also, ive heard the "criminals will find a way" argument way too many times and its stupid. by your logic hand grenades should be legal too because the law abiding "responsible" citizens will know better than to use them in public anyway. the point about gun regulations or bans is the fact that they serve literally no other purpose than to kill (or inflict serious damage). yes, there are other things that are just as deadly if you put your mind to it, but they probably do not do as much damage in as little time as guns and they also serve other functions in our life. you are asking people to sacrifice their lives for your personal hobby | ||
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On November 08 2017 00:55 Broetchenholer wrote: I think you misunderstand how banning guns would impact criminals. Criminal energy will ofcourse not just stop and criminals will be able to buy weapons on the black market, however, try buying an AR-15 on the european black market and tell me the price you paid. Banning weapons would work, just not right off the bat. And if someone has a mental breakdown and decides to go on a suicide rampage, not already owning a weapon or having to buy it from the black market gives plenty of time to think about doubts and guilt. I mean knowing from personal experience I can get AR-15's AK's nearly anything you can think of from shady dealers for far less than i'd pay buying them from any gun store. Of course since im not a criminal I have no need for stolen/serial number removed guns in the first place. Either way, its way cheaper. | ||
VelJa
France1109 Posts
On November 08 2017 12:18 evilfatsh1t wrote: every day citizens are neither. let the police do their job without being nervous about the possibility of every black guy having a gun. you guys watch too much batman or something and have this false idea that citizens should have the right to serve vigilante justice. you dont. also, ive heard the "criminals will find a way" argument way too many times and its stupid. by your logic hand grenades should be legal too because the law abiding "responsible" citizens will know better than to use them in public anyway. the point about gun regulations or bans is the fact that they serve literally no other purpose than to kill (or inflict serious damage). yes, there are other things that are just as deadly if you put your mind to it, but they probably do not do as much damage in as little time as guns and they also serve other functions in our life. you are asking people to sacrifice their lives for your personal hobby 100% agreed with evil To NBird : I still do not understand how you think that you need to protect yourself b/c police can't where do you live ? Syria ? I mean US is really dangerous? Why do you fear everybody everytime ? It's impossible now that you have to defend yourself againt the government, this shit won't happen in our country - information is the weapon now | ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html This isn't a debate anymore. The stats clearly show that gun numbers are the problem, plain and simple. | ||
Sermokala
United States13911 Posts
On November 08 2017 22:53 Stratos_speAr wrote: Arguments about being able to make a gun yourself or the prevalence of buying it on the black market are ridiculous when that just doesn't happen in other countries enough to warrant serious consideration. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html This isn't a debate anymore. The stats clearly show that gun numbers are the problem, plain and simple. Do you have a proposal to deal with the gun numbers issue without resulting in mass civil unrest? | ||
Broetchenholer
Germany1913 Posts
On November 08 2017 14:16 arb wrote: I mean knowing from personal experience I can get AR-15's AK's nearly anything you can think of from shady dealers for far less than i'd pay buying them from any gun store. Of course since im not a criminal I have no need for stolen/serial number removed guns in the first place. Either way, its way cheaper. They are relatively cheap because you can also buy them in the super market. If people are selling their weapons for less then their market value it is not surprising that you can buy them cheap of private citizens. And if they can be stolen easily from everybody, the prize on the black market goes down as well. You would not have that problem in a few decades if you bought/confiscated all weapons now. | ||
mortyFromRickAndMort
85 Posts
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety. | ||
Simberto
Germany11501 Posts
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons? For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety. Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit. And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means: -A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that. So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded. | ||
mortyFromRickAndMort
85 Posts
So while I agree that banning these war weapons is a good first step, that takes care of maybe 5% of the murders. And yeah, the German system works as long as you have an intact police system and a mostly homogenous populace as well as a low GINI-coefficient. Introduce a horde of African welfare migrants into that system and it falls apart rather quickly. | ||
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On November 09 2017 18:06 Simberto wrote: Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit. And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means: -A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that. So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded. that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more. take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals. | ||
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On November 09 2017 18:22 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: But most murders are committed with small hand guns, not automatic or semi-automatic rifles. So while I agree that banning these war weapons is a good first step, that takes care of maybe 5% of the murders. And yeah, the German system works as long as you have an intact police system and a mostly homogenous populace as well as a low GINI-coefficient. Introduce a horde of African welfare migrants into that system and it falls apart rather quickly. Does the US have such hordes of African welfare migrants and can't have gun regulation because of that? Or do you consume too many TrueNews and are talking again about Germany? In this case I have no clue what you are talking about. I'm not aware of any sign of German gun regulation collapsing due to immigration. The closest to that I know would be the sudden surge of pepper dpray sales because of 'worried citizens'. Or are we talking about pure hypotheticals? Imagine a world where Germany would be overrun by 'hordes of african welfare migrants', then they would have a shooting every day too. | ||
VelJa
France1109 Posts
On November 09 2017 18:22 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: But most murders are committed with small hand guns, not automatic or semi-automatic rifles. So while I agree that banning these war weapons is a good first step, that takes care of maybe 5% of the murders. And yeah, the German system works as long as you have an intact police system and a mostly homogenous populace as well as a low GINI-coefficient. Introduce a horde of African welfare migrants into that system and it falls apart rather quickly. hahah are you serious ? do you really write this ? nah it was for joking for sure. Semi automatic kills regroup 90% of ppl killed for 10% event small hand guns regroup 90 90% of event but only 10% of the kills | ||
HsDLTitich
Italy830 Posts
On November 09 2017 18:22 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: But most murders are committed with small hand guns, not automatic or semi-automatic rifles. So while I agree that banning these war weapons is a good first step, that takes care of maybe 5% of the murders. And yeah, the German system works as long as you have an intact police system and a mostly homogenous populace as well as a low GINI-coefficient. Introduce a horde of African welfare migrants into that system and it falls apart rather quickly. Uh pretty sure we have a significant african population here (being that close to Libya and Tunisia) but I can't from the top of my head think about a single mass shooting carried by an african guy. There's also the "homogenous" shit that's incredibly stupid (and even if, Germany surely is not "homogeneous"). I think you're just racist. | ||
mortyFromRickAndMort
85 Posts
On November 09 2017 18:51 VelJa wrote: Semi automatic kills regroup 90% of ppl killed for 10% event small hand guns regroup 90 90% of event but only 10% of the kills You're just guessing here, right? There were 'only' 383 mass shootings in the US in 2016 but almost 60.000 incidents of gun violence. Around 15000 gun deaths, almost 95% of which by small hand guns. | ||
| ||