Gun Control [Archive] - Virtual Teen Forums

View Full Version : Gun Control

Sir Suomi

December 17th, 2012, 09:19 PM

Iron Man

December 17th, 2012, 09:22 PM

History proves that anything can be obtained illegally. Prohibition, music and movie piracy, etc. Putting a law on it won't stop it.

Lost in the Echo

December 17th, 2012, 09:22 PM

I think gun control should be stricter.
We wouldn't have as much crime, homicide, mass murders etc.
Stricter gun laws seem like the best and most logical thing to do, in my opinion.

Manjusri

December 17th, 2012, 09:50 PM

No. If we control the gun laws more then criminals (primarily) will have access to stronger firearms, making the bad outweigh the good. Literally and metaphorically.

Also i personally do not see what stricter gun laws will accomplish in a positive way. People are still going to find other means to hurt each other. Are we going to have to put a license on anything that could be used as a weapon?

The object isn't the problem, it's the person. Controlling guns isn't going to change the way some people think and the actions that they pursue.

Aajj333

December 17th, 2012, 11:08 PM

Make gun laws stricter and make licenses harder to get. As for hunters, I use a bow and it works just as fine.

Bluerhino666

December 17th, 2012, 11:28 PM

I think it should be the person that should be controlled rather than the guns. If we stop the bad people from getting the guns we would not all have to suffer for one mans erratic behavoir.

Taryn98

December 17th, 2012, 11:41 PM

Stronk Serb

December 18th, 2012, 08:48 AM

It should be stricter, you should go through thorough psychiatric examinations, which get stricter and stricter when you want to buy bigger guns, and your record must be clean. A small price to pay for less guns on the street.

Stronk Serb

December 18th, 2012, 08:54 AM

TheBassoonist

December 20th, 2012, 01:08 AM

Here's my policy:

If you want to get a gun with the express purpose of harming another human, you shouldn't be able to get a gun. If you want a gun for self defense, that's fine. Same goes for hunting or to mount on your wall. But if you need an assault rifle to go hunting, you should pick up a different hobby.

silkysmoove

December 20th, 2012, 01:13 AM

If making guns illegal would take them off the street and out of the hands of eveildoers than why don't we make cocaine and heroin illegal? oh wait.

LouBerry

December 20th, 2012, 01:22 AM

Well-I have a gun. Do I know how to use it, Damn straight. Will I use it if I have to, ditto.

My sister and her baby, my niece, live with me right now. The father is angry that Jordan is staying with us, and threatened to kill me and my parents and Jordan. He was walking around in my yard the other night, and I was home alone. Luckily, my neighbor scared him off. This man has the potential to kill me. Am I going to protect my self? Yes. Yes I am. Banning guns isn't going to stop people from using them. Even if you could magically get rid of all guns on Earth, this isn't going to happen, "Well, I really felt like going on a murderous rampage, but since there are gun control laws, I think I'll just become a law abiding citizen. Nope. There will always be psychos, and I feel that I have the right to protect myself against them.

huginnmuninn

December 20th, 2012, 03:08 PM

we have plenty of gun laws we just don't enforce them. If we enforced the laws we already have in place we wouldn't have as many problems as we do now

Mothership

December 20th, 2012, 03:33 PM

I thought a little differently on this subject. It's not the gun control that needs to be changed; it's the publicity.

People don't go out and kill a bunch of people just because they feel like it as often as it's put out to be. My thought process is that people are committing these mass murders so they can be remembered, if that makes sense. Back before the media got as big as it is now, when people wanted to kill themselves, they just killed themselves and left it at that. Now when people want to kill themselves, they take as many as they can down with them, because a simple suicide won't make it on national news. But a mass murder sure will.
I think we should stop publicizing these issues so much and people will have less motivation to commit mass murders for that reasons. Putting restrictions on guns isn't going to do anything. Legal or not, if someone wants to kill a bunch of people, they're going to get a gun one way or another. But that will never happen, of course. So I guess we're stuck with mass murders being a regular thing.

Inventor2

December 20th, 2012, 03:36 PM

if me make laws let me say, tell me more about how criminals follow laws... they will not ever be "harder to get" because criminals obtain them illegally. putting bans and other regulations make it harder for the respectful citizens to get them. what we should be doing is investing research into mental health studies an clinic's to diagnos people. but when it comes to having to spend money, no one wants to talk about it. all these politicians care about is how deep their pockets are.

Jean Poutine

December 20th, 2012, 05:44 PM

In my opinion, I say we should take a different approach. Require people to go through Gun Safety classes, look better at back rounds, etc. I know, it's sad that people get a hold of guns and do things like this. But as an avid gun fan myself, I'd hate not to be able to get guns I love to shoot without having to require a Class II or even Class III license to purchase them.

What use is a .223 assault rifle modeled after a military M-16 to a civilian? None.

I have nothing against people that enjoy shooting. I do myself, although I'm in Quebec and our gun laws are ridiculous even when considering the province is in Canada, but there is no reason whatsoever to allow people to purchase that assault rifle. If you like shooting, get a rifle or a handgun. Self defense, handgun. Hunting, shotgun or rifle. Assault rifles should stay where they belong : in the hands of police or military personnel.

Gun safety won't fix the current situation in the US where almost any loony can roll up to a gun store and purchase whatever the Hell he wants. Keep the fucking military-grade weapons where they belong.

No. If we control the gun laws more then criminals (primarily) will have access to stronger firearms, making the bad outweigh the good. Literally and metaphorically.

Also i personally do not see what stricter gun laws will accomplish in a positive way. People are still going to find other means to hurt each other. Are we going to have to put a license on anything that could be used as a weapon?

The object isn't the problem, it's the person. Controlling guns isn't going to change the way some people think and the actions that they pursue.

So basically "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

The problem is that guns give people an indirect, distanced and impersonal way to kill another human being. It's much easier mentally to shoot somebody 20 meters away than to jump him with a knife. It does not require quite the same level of intent, and most importantly, perseverance.

In almost every Western country, gun laws are enacted and in almost every Western country, the murder rate by firearm is much lower than in the United States (as well as the overall murder rate - I live in a metro area of 1 million and there has been a 14 month stint recently where zero murders were reported). One cannot say gun control laws are useless.

You're right, criminals who can pull strings can always get guns, but the father in a not-so-stable mental state after his wife left him does not have these strings. If the only thing he has is a knife, he's likely to sober up at the idea of stabbing a human being - it's a very visceral image. Shooting somebody with a gun is more disconnected. As a matter of simple fact, if I had a gun, I would be dead long ago.

Look what happened in Connecticut. Around the same time, some guy in China parked in an elementary school with a knife and started trying to kill children. How many fatalities were there? Zero. Had we given the guy an assault rifle beforehand, the casualties would have been much higher.

For those who want stricter gun laws I still maintain the position, why don't you also advocate for banning or regulating cars?

More people are killed by cars than by guns every year.

Why don't you see people demanding...
1 you can't get a drivers license until you're 21
2 cars all having breathalizer ingnition, so if you've had a single drink the car won't start
3 ignitions that won't start without the seat belt fastened
4 electronic speed governors that limit all car speed at no more than 50mph
5 limit one car per house hold
6 electronic equipment that block cell phone reception so calls/texts can not be sent or received while driving
7 banning all buses or vehicles that carry more than 4 passengers

If people are so concerned about public safety, these laws would save more lives than all proposed gun laws combined, but nobody suggests such a thing, why is that???

Because killing things is not a car's only use. A car's main use is transport. You use a car to come to and fro different places. Guns can only be used for killing living things and shooting targets. If you want to shoot shit then go to a range. You don't need to own a gun, much less a freaking .223 assault rifle to plink Campbell's soup cans, although I see nothing wrong with the private ownership of shotguns, hunting rifles and to an extent, handguns.

More people die by car than by gun, but do you hear many cases where somebody is intentionally rolled over by a car? Most deaths are caused by misuse or misfortune. No such things with guns, deaths resulting by either are very much in the minority.

Your laws would drive the cost of cars up so much that people such as me would never be able to afford one. Seriously, a jamming system in a car? Banning buses? To quote my favorite Kuwaiti, "girl, you are outta your mind." How am I supposed to go to school if buses don't exist and shitty cars run for 40k upwards? How are working class people going to go to work?

Also, such laws would be ridiculous. People have to accept personal responsibility and accept that you simply can't stop crazy, illogical individuals.

You can't stop them, but you can make it harder for them to obtain very destructive weapons that incur more carnage than almost anything else. Contrary to popular American belief, guns are pretty hard to get on the black market in countries where they are restricted. You need connections. If an individual is crazy or illogical, he is not likely to get these connections. I am not crazy or illogical and I don't have those connections, even though I have connections for many other things.

Conservatives always have such a hard-on for the Constitution, so why don't you keep it as the Framers intended and if, indeed, the Second Amendment can be used as an argument for the private ownership of guns, restrict said ownership to Revolution-era muskets? The guy took the rifle from his mom's cache then shot her, so imagine if instead of the rifle, all he could get is a musket : good luck killing 20 people with a single-shot musket that takes a minute to reload and is incredibly inaccurate. Some child could probably stroll by and kick you in the balls to stop you before you even took the first shot. The Fathers, I bet, never imagined that someday, any douche could roll up with an assault rifle and empty a full clip of very accurate, deadly rounds in seconds into innocent people.

Gigablue

December 20th, 2012, 06:32 PM

Taryn98

December 20th, 2012, 06:45 PM

Because killing things is not a car's only use. A car's main use is transport. You use a car to come to and fro different places. Guns can only be used for killing living things and shooting targets. If you want to shoot shit then go to a range. You don't need to own a gun, much less a freaking .223 assault rifle to plink Campbell's soup cans, although I see nothing wrong with the private ownership of shotguns, hunting rifles and to an extent, handguns.

More people die by car than by gun, but do you hear many cases where somebody is intentionally rolled over by a car? Most deaths are caused by misuse or misfortune. No such things with guns, deaths resulting by either are very much in the minority.

Your laws would drive the cost of cars up so much that people such as me would never be able to afford one. Seriously, a jamming system in a car? Banning buses? To quote my favorite Kuwaiti, "girl, you are outta your mind." How am I supposed to go to school if buses don't exist and shitty cars run for 40k upwards? How are working class people going to go to work?

My point is that if people's objective is to increase public safety and prevent deaths in America, it should be irrelevant whether the death is caused by accident or on purpose. Of course the laws I mentioned would drive up costs, and are stupid, and I don't want them either, but they would save lives. Isn't that what should be most important?

If someone is dead and it could have been prevented, why don't people equally pursue those methods to prevent death, whether it's a gun or a car?

My opinion is simply that some people don't like guns, therefore they want them banned or heavily restricted/regulated.

Since everyone has a car, or rides in a car most days, they are so common that nobody would want to restrict them, BUT they are still more dangerous than guns!

My experience with people shows that people that have little or no experience with guns are afraid of them and don't want them around, but people who are around them frequently and have them as a part of normal daily life (like a car), treat them with the same amount of respect and don't think they need to be banned/regulated.

Until I see the same people that want guns banned calling out for restricting cars as well, I truely believe they are hypocrites. If saving life is your priority, restricting cars would save more lives than banning all guns.

And in response to Gigablue:
Guns can be used for hunting, or simply as a hobby for target shooting. You may choose to think that it's a stupid hobby, a dangerous hobby, or anything else, but 100 million guns owners aren't all killers, so they can be owned and used safely by a huge percentage of people.

If you want to say something like, an assualt rifle isn't used for hunting so people shouldn't own them, I would say a Ferrari is for all practical purposes as racing car. Nobody should own one because you can't legally or safely race on city streets.

People should have the freedom to own a Ferrari is they can drive the legal speed limit and not break the law with it, same as people should be able to own an assualt rifle if they shoot it at a range to don't break the law with it.

Sir Suomi

December 20th, 2012, 06:46 PM

Cars are useful for many things, and while these restrictions would save lives, they would drastically lower productivity. Guns aren't useful for anything other than killing people, so getting rid of them wouldn't do any harm.

What about hunting? I hunt, and a gun works out great. Animal goes through less pain from what I believe, will drop sooner than a deer shot with a bow, and you have little chance of missing or screwing up if you know what you're doing.

Also, on a little side note, zombies take over, and you've got no guns. What are you going to do then? Be eaten, more than likely :P

Jean Poutine

December 20th, 2012, 10:02 PM

My point is that if people's objective is to increase public safety and prevent deaths in America, it should be irrelevant whether the death is caused by accident or on purpose. Of course the laws I mentioned would drive up costs, and are stupid, and I don't want them either, but they would save lives. Isn't that what should be most important?

There is a balance to be had between saving lives and making those very same lives suck.

If someone is dead and it could have been prevented, why don't people equally pursue those methods to prevent death, whether it's a gun or a car?

Because private ownership of cars is important. Private ownership of guns is a trivial issue at best that only Americans care about. You can make it impractical to use or buy a gun, but not a car because they are actually needed for something else than murdering people, animals, targets or cans.

My opinion is simply that some people don't like guns, therefore they want them banned or heavily restricted/regulated.

Your opinion is wrong and flies in the face of rational thought. People want guns restricted or regulated because nobody wants lunatics to be able to get their hands on an assault rifle and shoot up a school like what happened in the US. They want guns restricted or regulated because they don't want some guy that got fired to shoot up his neighborhood in a moment of psychosis. They want guns restricted because they want to be safe.

And you know the best part? It's working.

Since everyone has a car, or rides in a car most days, they are so common that nobody would want to restrict them, BUT they are still more dangerous than guns!

It's not a question of whether cars are common or not. It's a question of whether cars are needed or not. In our society, they most definitely are and people think that the benefits of having cars around is a bigger advantage than the risk of death is an inconvenient.

Which is entirely the opposite of guns.

My experience with people shows that people that have little or no experience with guns are afraid of them and don't want them around, but people who are around them frequently and have them as a part of normal daily life (like a car), treat them with the same amount of respect and don't think they need to be banned/regulated.

Dumb argument. It's called desensitization. I could tell you that I was raised in an incestuous household where my brother raped me every day while my sister jerked me off and inseminated herself with my man juice. if I didn't know better, I could tell you that I see no problem with this. Does it make it right? No.

So because a few deluded NRA fanboys don't see a problem with private gun ownership, and think the solution to gun violence is to simply arm everyone, it doesn't mean that private gun ownership is right and should be encouraged.

Until I see the same people that want guns banned calling out for restricting cars as well, I truely believe they are hypocrites. If saving life is your priority, restricting cars would save more lives than banning all guns.

And also bring a slew of very nasty, undesirable effects that restricting guns wouldn't have. If you think me an hypocrite because I think a gun and a car are two vastly different things with vastly different uses with a vastly difference level in usefulness for the common citizen, and that restricting one is right while the other isn't based on the level of desirable effects versus undesirable effects, I don't know what to tell you other than open your eyes, face the music, read what I'm writing and then maybe you'll see why your argument doesn't make any sense.

Guns can be used for hunting, or simply as a hobby for target shooting. You may choose to think that it's a stupid hobby, a dangerous hobby, or anything else, but 100 million guns owners aren't all killers, so they can be owned and used safely by a huge percentage of people.

And yet it seems so given that the level of gun crime in America is far, far superior to the levels in Canada where 1.8 million responsible citizens out of 35 own a legally registered weapon. In Canada, anybody can own a weapon. It's seriously not that much of a hassle, especially for a rifle or a shotgun, nor is it that much more expensive than in the US. Yet, the murder rate is much much much lower. Why?

Because Canadian gun laws ensure weapons end up in the hands of the responsible citizens you speak of in the first place.

Seriously, it's not rocket science.

If you want to say something like, an assualt rifle isn't used for hunting so people shouldn't own them, I would say a Ferrari is for all practical purposes as racing car. Nobody should own one because you can't legally or safely race on city streets.

Except it has other uses than racing. An assault rifle has no other use than emptying magazines filled with deadly projectiles very fast. You are applying the argument totally out of context. We're talking about the base use of the weapon, not what you can do with it. Base use of a car : driving. Base use of a gun : killing. They are two different items and I don't see why you are so obstinate about comparing them.

People should have the freedom to own a Ferrari is they can drive the legal speed limit and not break the law with it, same as people should be able to own an assualt rifle if they shoot it at a range to don't break the law with it.

No. What use is a .223 assault rifle modeled after a military M-16 to a civilian? There is none whatsoever. You can't hunt with it (unless you want to spray fellow hunters along with your target), you can't shoot targets with it (well, you can, there's just no point), you can't use it to defend yourself since you're not carrying that shit openly around. These are the sole 3 legitimate uses of a gun. With a Ferrari, you can drive around. This is the legitimate use of a car.

Hey why not give private citizens the ability to own flamethrowers and rocket launchers? It's ok if they don't harm anyone right? If that gets their rocks off, let them!

Besides, allowing the sale of assault rifles as is done in the US allowed this tragedy to happen. To defend the current American gun laws is lunacy of the highest order. It's tantamount to complicity each time somebody gets a gun freely and shoots somebody. The status quo is unacceptable. Americans have a deeply paranoid culture and its time to see that there is no need for anybody to openly carry weapons around anymore. Law enforcement is efficient, there's no reason for citizens to defend the integrity of the State, and defending yourself? Maybe you wouldn't need to if guns weren't all over the fucking place.

UK gun laws are too strict (the Olympic shooting team can't even practice in the UK), Canadian ones are perfect.

Abyssal Echo

December 20th, 2012, 10:15 PM

History proves that anything can be obtained illegally. Prohibition, music and movie piracy, etc. Putting a law on it won't stop it.

I agree with Iron Man anything can be obtained Illegally

besides its our Constitutional right to be able to keep and bare arms.
don't get me wrong I feel terrible about what happened in Con. look at the law books we already have plenty of gun laws we don't need more enforce the ones we have. seriously why should I be punished. its not my fault some nut case swiped his moms guns.

Taryn98

December 20th, 2012, 11:07 PM

Because private ownership of cars is important. Private ownership of guns is a trivial issue at best that only Americans care about. You can make it impractical to use or buy a gun, but not a car because they are actually needed for something else than murdering people, animals, targets or cans.

You may be right that ownership of guns to Americans is important. Roughly 40% of American homes has a gun. I would say that doesn't make it a trivial issue.

And secondly, cars are not "needed". Cars are a luxury and wanted, but not needed. The same as cable tv, the internet, cell phones or other luxury items. You can live your life without a car. They definitely make life easier, but they are not needed by any means. You can use public transportation, walk, bike, taxi, or a scooter and get to the same place.

Except it has other uses than racing. An assault rifle has no other use than emptying magazines filled with deadly projectiles very fast. You are applying the argument totally out of context. We're talking about the base use of the weapon, not what you can do with it. Base use of a car : driving. Base use of a gun : killing. They are two different items and I don't see why you are so obstinate about comparing them.

Just because you don't like the other uses of an assualt rifle, does not mean it doesn't have other uses. There are ~11 million assualt rifles in America. They are not all being used for killing, they are being used at gun ranges as a hobby. You can choose to not like that fact, but it doesn't change it. People don't buy them just to kill people. If they did there would be a lot more killed each year. There are ~11000 firearm homicides last year and only 20% were from rifles, that's 2200 dead and that includes all rifles, not just assualt rifles. What were the other 11 million minus 2200 used for?
You also say you can't hunt with a .223, that's not true, a lot of people do use them for hunting. Certainly not the majority of hunters, but some do.

I offered a perfectly logical example of how your views don't follow deductive reasoning, and some of your responses I had already disproved in my initial explanation, but you don't want to view the other side of the story.

I understand your point of view, and in a perfect world, if you took away all the guns you'd eliminate gun crime, but we all know we don't live in a perfect world. Drugs are illegal, but they are easy to get even for me in a small town in Wisconsin. Prohibition failed terribly here early last century.

Close to 70% of gun homicides are from handguns not assualt rifles. That would be a better place to limit gun deaths if that's what people want. The Columbine shooting happened right in the middle of the last assualt weapons ban, apparently it didn't stop them.

It's a valid point that other countries do have guns but not as many gun deaths as the US, but nobody that I've heard of has conclusively been able to show why. It's not just the gun laws. The violence could stem from video games, movies, poverty, bullying, mental health, the break down of the traditional family and likely a combination of all of them plus others I didn't think of.

Conneticut has the 4th toughest gun laws in the US, it didn't stop them. California has tough gun laws, but LA still has hundreds of drive by shootings. Chicago is one of the 2 strickest gun law cities in the US (including an assualt weapons ban) and they have more gun homicides this year than in the last decade.

I'm not saying that talking about gun rights shouldn't be done, but the view that simply creating tougher gun laws will fix the problem is clearly not true.

There's no point in debating because obviously I won't convince you and you won't convince me. I live in a state with a huge population of gun owners including my family and many of my friend's families. I'm not worried about being killed despite being surrounded by guns almost everywhere I go.

I know that decent law abiding people with or without guns won't kill others, but people who want to kill others WILL kill others, with or without guns.

Thanks for the debate! :)

Sir Suomi

December 20th, 2012, 11:08 PM

There is a balance to be had between saving lives and making those very same lives suck.

Because private ownership of cars is important. Private ownership of guns is a trivial issue at best that only Americans care about. You can make it impractical to use or buy a gun, but not a car because they are actually needed for something else than murdering people, animals, targets or cans.

Your opinion is wrong and flies in the face of rational thought. People want guns restricted or regulated because nobody wants lunatics to be able to get their hands on an assault rifle and shoot up a school like what happened in the US. They want guns restricted or regulated because they don't want some guy that got fired to shoot up his neighborhood in a moment of psychosis. They want guns restricted because they want to be safe.

And you know the best part? It's working.

It's not a question of whether cars are common or not. It's a question of whether cars are needed or not. In our society, they most definitely are and people think that the benefits of having cars around is a bigger advantage than the risk of death is an inconvenient.

Which is entirely the opposite of guns.

Dumb argument. It's called desensitization. I could tell you that I was raised in an incestuous household where my brother raped me every day while my sister jerked me off and inseminated herself with my man juice. if I didn't know better, I could tell you that I see no problem with this. Does it make it right? No.

So because a few deluded NRA fanboys don't see a problem with private gun ownership, and think the solution to gun violence is to simply arm everyone, it doesn't mean that private gun ownership is right and should be encouraged.

And also bring a slew of very nasty, undesirable effects that restricting guns wouldn't have. If you think me an hypocrite because I think a gun and a car are two vastly different things with vastly different uses with a vastly difference level in usefulness for the common citizen, and that restricting one is right while the other isn't based on the level of desirable effects versus undesirable effects, I don't know what to tell you other than open your eyes, face the music, read what I'm writing and then maybe you'll see why your argument doesn't make any sense.

And yet it seems so given that the level of gun crime in America is far, far superior to the levels in Canada where 1.8 million responsible citizens out of 35 own a legally registered weapon. In Canada, anybody can own a weapon. It's seriously not that much of a hassle, especially for a rifle or a shotgun, nor is it that much more expensive than in the US. Yet, the murder rate is much much much lower. Why?

Because Canadian gun laws ensure weapons end up in the hands of the responsible citizens you speak of in the first place.

Seriously, it's not rocket science.

Except it has other uses than racing. An assault rifle has no other use than emptying magazines filled with deadly projectiles very fast. You are applying the argument totally out of context. We're talking about the base use of the weapon, not what you can do with it. Base use of a car : driving. Base use of a gun : killing. They are two different items and I don't see why you are so obstinate about comparing them.

No. What use is a .223 assault rifle modeled after a military M-16 to a civilian? There is none whatsoever. You can't hunt with it (unless you want to spray fellow hunters along with your target), you can't shoot targets with it (well, you can, there's just no point), you can't use it to defend yourself since you're not carrying that shit openly around. These are the sole 3 legitimate uses of a gun. With a Ferrari, you can drive around. This is the legitimate use of a car.

Hey why not give private citizens the ability to own flamethrowers and rocket launchers? It's ok if they don't harm anyone right? If that gets their rocks off, let them!

Besides, allowing the sale of assault rifles as is done in the US allowed this tragedy to happen. To defend the current American gun laws is lunacy of the highest order. It's tantamount to complicity each time somebody gets a gun freely and shoots somebody. The status quo is unacceptable. Americans have a deeply paranoid culture and its time to see that there is no need for anybody to openly carry weapons around anymore. Law enforcement is efficient, there's no reason for citizens to defend the integrity of the State, and defending yourself? Maybe you wouldn't need to if guns weren't all over the fucking place.

UK gun laws are too strict (the Olympic shooting team can't even practice in the UK), Canadian ones are perfect.

Okay, you're argument has gone completely irrelevant from here.

In the end, guns don't kill people. People kill people, and gun's are just one of the steps to killing. Yet it's not just guns that kill others. Do you wish a ban on all sharp objects, blunt objects, hell, even our damn hands, just so we don't have to worry about the death of people?

Yes, it is terrible that people do things like mass shootings. But just because 1 person uses a gun that uses a .223 does not mean that the rest of the United States people should miss out. Having a gun teaches huge responsibility. Personally, I think you'd rather just have guns like this just stay in the hands of criminals. Because just because you've made it impossible to legally obtain a weapon such as an AR-15, doesn't mean that some thug is not going to get it in his hand.

You say guns are not necessary. Neither is alcohol. There are around 75,000 alcohol related deaths each year in America. Maybe we should just ban alcohol.... Oh wait, we tried that already, and how'd that turn out?

You stated that people do not hunt with a .223 caliber gun. You are ignorant to the fact that a fair amount of hunters DO hunt with that. It's actually a perfect gun to go coyote hunting with, with the fact that it's semi-automatic, not too large of a caliber to destroy the fur, and that it's fairly accurate. Hell, I've heard of deer hunters even using AR-15 with scope attachments. So when it comes to hunting, please don't even dare mention it again unless you know what you are talking about.

Law enforcement is sufficient? You sir obviously have not spent enough time in America. Normally, in the case of a home invasion, at least from the ones that locally have happened, it takes the police depending on the distance from the station and incident location, an average of 4-8 minutes to get to a house, if the victim even has a chance of calling the police. In that time, an armed robber can kill you before you'd even have a chance unless properly armed. So once again, know what the hell you post before you say things.

Good night sir, I'm going to bed. I expect you shall reply to this, more than likely trying to argue on how irrelevant this post was. To be honest, I really don't give a damn. :yawn:

CharlieFinley

December 21st, 2012, 03:07 AM

History proves that anything can be obtained illegally. Prohibition, music and movie piracy, etc. Putting a law on it won't stop it.

+1. With the fabrication movement, one will soon be able to print a functioning firearm at home. I think I'll hold on to my handguns (the figurative ones, as I'm only 17), thank you very much.

Besides, look at Switzerland. They seem to be doing alright.

Horizon

December 21st, 2012, 04:22 AM

I feel the need to state that whole issue in Connecticut with the shooting, is not the fault of gun control laws, nor the second amendment. I believe it is purely the fault of the media. So changing gun control laws aren't going to prevent sick fucks from going around and killing innocent people. If the media didn't blast they guys name who killed all those people in Colorado, the guy who killed all the people in Connecticut probably wouldn't have killed those children. When it comes to that situation, the guy wanted to be known for something in his life, so he went for something the would definitely get him known. Killing innocent children. And in killing those children, his name would be all over the news, just like the Colorado guy. So I feel like more gun control laws would be absolutely pointless.

Jean Poutine

December 21st, 2012, 07:12 PM

You may be right that ownership of guns to Americans is important. Roughly 40% of American homes has a gun. I would say that doesn't make it a trivial issue.

It is trivial to everybody except Americans. Do you know why? Because American culture is immensely paranoid. You guys are the only ones who think you actually need guns for self-defense.

And secondly, cars are not "needed". Cars are a luxury and wanted, but not needed. The same as cable tv, the internet, cell phones or other luxury items. You can live your life without a car. They definitely make life easier, but they are not needed by any means. You can use public transportation, walk, bike, taxi, or a scooter and get to the same place.

No, cars are needed. You can't cover everything with public transportation, walking and biking takes forever, taxis are cars (are very expensive) and scooters cannot go on freeways.

To say that cars are a luxury item is ludacris. I don't have a car and my employment perspectives are severely limited because of this.

Just because you don't like the other uses of an assualt rifle, does not mean it doesn't have other uses. There are ~11 million assualt rifles in America. They are not all being used for killing, they are being used at gun ranges as a hobby. You can choose to not like that fact, but it doesn't change it. People don't buy them just to kill people. If they did there would be a lot more killed each year. There are ~11000 firearm homicides last year and only 20% were from rifles, that's 2200 dead and that includes all rifles, not just assualt rifles. What were the other 11 million minus 2200 used for?

And you seriously think that allowing rednecks to get their rocks off at the range is worth the risk of having tragedies such as this happen?

You also say you can't hunt with a .223, that's not true, a lot of people do use them for hunting. Certainly not the majority of hunters, but some do.

You can hunt with a pellet gun, a bow, a flamethrower or a tactical nuke. The former two are simply irresponsible. If you hunt with a fully automatic weapon, hunting accidents will be more frequent. Period.

I offered a perfectly logical example of how your views don't follow deductive reasoning, and some of your responses I had already disproved in my initial explanation, but you don't want to view the other side of the story.

Because you are playing dumb. Gun laws work.

All around the Western world, guns are restricted and all around the Western world, death rates by firearm and the overall murder rate is much, much lower than in the United States,

That is all there is to it! Any other argument is icing on the cake. If you want people to die less, you restrict guns. It doesn't keep hobbyist and responsible citizens away from them yet it does take the crazies away from the guns.

Americans are simply so paranoid that they are deluded in thinking a society full of guns is necessary for their protection.

I understand your point of view, and in a perfect world, if you took away all the guns you'd eliminate gun crime, but we all know we don't live in a perfect world. Drugs are illegal, but they are easy to get even for me in a small town in Wisconsin. Prohibition failed terribly here early last century.

Except we are not talking about prohibition! We are talking about restriction! It's apples and oranges and frankly I am becoming very irritated by your constant need to compare things that are simply not comparable.

Close to 70% of gun homicides are from handguns not assualt rifles. That would be a better place to limit gun deaths if that's what people want. The Columbine shooting happened right in the middle of the last assualt weapons ban, apparently it didn't stop them.

Then do as Canada does and restrict fucking handguns while banning assault rifles outright. Period.

It's a valid point that other countries do have guns but not as many gun deaths as the US, but nobody that I've heard of has conclusively been able to show why. It's not just the gun laws. The violence could stem from video games, movies, poverty, bullying, mental health, the break down of the traditional family and likely a combination of all of them plus others I didn't think of.

> country has gun laws
> country has less murder rate by firearm
> many countries also have a lesser overall murder rate

And gun laws are ineffective HOW?

Everything you have listed applies for Canada yet ours is far and large a much less violent society, because we don't give people the means to easily dispatch each other. Come spend a month in Canada and see if you miss your guns. You won't. People here leave their front doors unlocked for a good reason.

Conneticut has the 4th toughest gun laws in the US, it didn't stop them. California has tough gun laws, but LA still has hundreds of drive by shootings. Chicago is one of the 2 strickest gun law cities in the US (including an assualt weapons ban) and they have more gun homicides this year than in the last decade.

Because any gun laws an American state has enacted is a slap on the wrist at best. A much better example is Canada.

I'm not saying that talking about gun rights shouldn't be done, but the view that simply creating tougher gun laws will fix the problem is clearly not true.

...HOW SO? Countries with gun laws have less murders by firearms. PERIOD!

There's no point in debating because obviously I won't convince you and you won't convince me. I live in a state with a huge population of gun owners including my family and many of my friend's families. I'm not worried about being killed despite being surrounded by guns almost everywhere I go.

It's funny because I live in a country with a lot of American tourists and you wouldn't believe the number of derps trying to smuggle their firearms across the border to "feel safe". You guys are immensely paranoid and I've never seen somebody as scared as to his/her bodily integrity as an American.

I know that decent law abiding people with or without guns won't kill others, but people who want to kill others WILL kill others, with or without guns.

Except without guns, the fatality risk is lessened. Take the guy in China that strolled about trying to disembowel children with a knife. Zero deaths, and it would have been much different if he had a handgun.

Okay, you're argument has gone completely irrelevant from here.

I can't wait to read the genius that will spring out of your little digits as they furiously hit the letters on your keyboard.

In the end, guns don't kill people. People kill people, and gun's are just one of the steps to killing. Yet it's not just guns that kill others. Do you wish a ban on all sharp objects, blunt objects, hell, even our damn hands, just so we don't have to worry about the death of people?

I knew it.

Ever tried to stab somebody? Hit him with a baseball bat? Choke somebody to death?

Knives, bats and bare hands simply do not have the level of danger as guns do, nor is their only use to shoot at shit or kill people.

This is the dumbest argument ever. You are arguing for putting instruments of death in the hands of criminals on the basis that other possibly lethal items aren't banned. Well derp fucking herp, that's because you need knives to eat, baseball bats to play baseball, hammers to build things and your bare hands to write, create works of arts and masturbate.

What can you do with a gun? Wreck havoc on human beings, animals or targets.

Gee, what an useful tool that is in the hands of civilians!

Yes, it is terrible that people do things like mass shootings. But just because 1 person uses a gun that uses a .223 does not mean that the rest of the United States people should miss out. Having a gun teaches huge responsibility. Personally, I think you'd rather just have guns like this just stay in the hands of criminals. Because just because you've made it impossible to legally obtain a weapon such as an AR-15, doesn't mean that some thug is not going to get it in his hand.

You can't keep people from obtaining higher powered guns, but you can make it harder for them to obtain them! Which in turn, makes it harder from these thugs to obtain bigger tools to kill people more efficiently. Which in turns...contributes to a safer overall society than letting anyone pursuant to a pathetic, tiny background check get his hands on the biggest toy.

Are you deliberately obtuse or simply stupid?

You say guns are not necessary. Neither is alcohol. There are around 75,000 alcohol related deaths each year in America. Maybe we should just ban alcohol.... Oh wait, we tried that already, and how'd that turn out?

No, you are simply stupid.

Restriction isn't prohibition. So, because 13 year olds can always get alcohol, should we remove drinking age laws? Allow toddlers to get drunk? Hey, heroin's available in the street, should we legalize that too? (PS : even people who say all hard drugs should be legalized insist for a government monopoly)

You are "arguing", if I can even call so such a logical trainwreck, on the basis that criminals can always get guns. That's not the fucking point. The fucking point is that at least it makes it much harder from said criminals to obtain guns, big or small, while not making it particularly harder for the common citizen to get one. If it's harder, then criminals have less of them, because believe it or not, the street thug robbing 7-11s in the US with a perfectly legally obtained handgun in the US wouldn't be able to pull the same shit in Canada, because Canadian gun laws make it exponentially harder for criminals to obtain guns. This isn't Prohibition where the border was porous and there was an enormous civilian demand for the product. We're talking about restricting weapons, not banning them, and law enforcement in the 21st century is massively more effective than during the Prohibition era.

If you can't wrap your head around this very simple concept, I have no hope left for you.

You stated that people do not hunt with a .223 caliber gun. You are ignorant to the fact that a fair amount of hunters DO hunt with that. It's actually a perfect gun to go coyote hunting with, with the fact that it's semi-automatic, not too large of a caliber to destroy the fur, and that it's fairly accurate. Hell, I've heard of deer hunters even using AR-15 with scope attachments. So when it comes to hunting, please don't even dare mention it again unless you know what you are talking about.

I love your unwarranted condescension.

You think there is no danger at all to letting people hunt with assault rifles?

Hunters kill hunters all the time in Canada with bolt-action. Let's put a semi-automatic weapon in the hands of hunters and see how many accidents occur. That was what I said. I never said shit about the efficiency of hunting with a .223 caliber gun and frankly I do not give a fuck as to what madness trailer trash do to wild animals.

Congratulations, you dragged me into a territory I have never entered and beat the strawman you set up for me with redneck, irrelevant arguments. You're real smart.

Law enforcement is sufficient? You sir obviously have not spent enough time in America. Normally, in the case of a home invasion, at least from the ones that locally have happened, it takes the police depending on the distance from the station and incident location, an average of 4-8 minutes to get to a house, if the victim even has a chance of calling the police. In that time, an armed robber can kill you before you'd even have a chance unless properly armed. So once again, know what the hell you post before you say things.

LOL 4-8 MINUTES IS TERRIBLE TO YOU? BAHAHA YOU'VE NEVER LIVED IN CANADA. YOU'RE HILARIOUS.

It would be a cause of concern if it were half an hour. Police actually have to, you know, receive the dispatch call, then get there. They can't fucking teleport over to the scene and shoot the bad guys.

Besides, law enforcement isn't only about prevention, it's also about repression, and you don't need armed vigilantes going around because law enforcement is efficient. The difficulty of establishing rule of law post-Revolution is the reason why the Second Amendment was enacted. Police now catch criminals and can even sometimes intercede in the commission of a crime. This is sufficient law enforcement.

You're yet another example of the deluded, paranoid, NRA propaganda regurgitating American. Home invasion? I haven't heard of a home invasion in years because a successful home invasion requires control on the part of the perpetrator on the inhabitants of the house.

It's pretty hard to establish said control when you can't fucking easily get a gun. As I've been saying, Americans think guns are obtainable in Canada in any shady alley. They think restriction is useless. I can get heroin but I can't get guns. Wonder why?

Because the connections are, for obvious reason, fucking hard to get. I am a pretty smart 22 year old with plenty of friends and family in the criminal underworld. But I can't get guns.

Good night sir, I'm going to bed. I expect you shall reply to this, more than likely trying to argue on how irrelevant this post was. To be honest, I really don't give a damn. :yawn:

Good riddance, I was getting tired of your two-bit condescension and your ignorant, tribal "arguments" for the possession of tools of war in the hands of private citizens. The Framers intended for you to get a musket, not a handgun or an assault rifle.

Besides, look at Switzerland. They seem to be doing alright.

Switzerland is a terrible argument for the private ownership of guns.

Swiss citizens are subject to military conscription, and they keep their weapons at home. The way it works is that the bullets for the weapon are in the hands of the army. They have one or two magazines in case of invasion to defend themselves while they are on the move to report at the base at which they are assigned. These magazines are sealed and regularly inspected by Swiss military authorities. From these precautions, you can see why Switzerland has such a high gun ownership rate with none of the associated murder rate.

I can get you a source if you'd like.

I feel the need to state that whole issue in Connecticut with the shooting, is not the fault of gun control laws, nor the second amendment. I believe it is purely the fault of the media. So changing gun control laws aren't going to prevent sick fucks from going around and killing innocent people. If the media didn't blast they guys name who killed all those people in Colorado, the guy who killed all the people in Connecticut probably wouldn't have killed those children. When it comes to that situation, the guy wanted to be known for something in his life, so he went for something the would definitely get him known. Killing innocent children. And in killing those children, his name would be all over the news, just like the Colorado guy. So I feel like more gun control laws would be absolutely pointless.

The media do need to stop sensationalizing these madmen, but gun control laws would keep these shootings from happening, or at least lessen their gravity.

The last school shooting in Canada I have memory or knowledge of is Dawson College. There was one casualty. It was in 2006.

Even in the Polytechnique massacre, there were 11. That was in 1989. Canada has never seen 30 people killed like Virginia Tech, or 20 like Newtown, because the guns people can legally obtain are vastly less powerful than what you can get at any mom and pop gun shop in America. We also see vastly less school shootings because the instruments to do the shooting with are vastly harder to get.

xXJust Jump ItXx

December 21st, 2012, 10:17 PM

For those who want stricter gun laws I still maintain the position, why don't you also advocate for banning or regulating cars?

More people are killed by cars than by guns every year.

Why don't you see people demanding...
1 you can't get a drivers license until you're 21
2 cars all having breathalizer ingnition, so if you've had a single drink the car won't start
3 ignitions that won't start without the seat belt fastened
4 electronic speed governors that limit all car speed at no more than 50mph
5 limit one car per house hold
6 electronic equipment that block cell phone reception so calls/texts can not be sent or received while driving
7 banning all buses or vehicles that carry more than 4 passengers

If people are so concerned about public safety, these laws would save more lives than all proposed gun laws combined, but nobody suggests such a thing, why is that???
Because people by and large are ignorant about guns and are afraid of them, or just plain old don't like them.
Also, such laws would be ridiculous. People have to accept personal responsibility and accept that you simply can't stop crazy, illogical individuals.

Taryn, you really know your stuff... I give you props on that.

Well, after this terrible tragedy in Conneticut, I've been hearing discussion's over gun control, and I've heard people say thing's such as, "Guns are designed just to kill others", "Guns should be outlawed", they're not needed", etc. I'm wondering what you think? Should gun control be more strict? Should certain firearms, such as a .223 assault rifle, even if it is semi-automatic, require a class II firearm license, should we try other approaches to keeping guns out of the wrong people, or should we leave things as they are?

In my opinion, I say we should take a different approach. Require people to go through Gun Safety classes, look better at back rounds, etc. I know, it's sad that people get a hold of guns and do things like this. But as an avid gun fan myself, I'd hate not to be able to get guns I love to shoot without having to require a Class II or even Class III license to purchase them.

I didnt look through the whole thread but heres what I got. Guns are designed for different purposes, yes some are literally designed to kill people, others are designed for range use, and others for hunting. And like said before, you make something illegal or take it away, people are still gonna get it. Look at Prohibition back in the 1930s was it? They still got their booze. Till they lifted the law and then the illegal business stopped of shipping it from Canada to the US for sale, still being illegal. But you ban all guns, people are still gonna get them and use them. Like drugs too. But we got certain drugs made illegal for peoples own good, ever see what heroin does to someone? Its bad... It eats you away. But back to the topic... Now Im not sure what class II and class III firearm licenses are, being Ive never heard or seen of one here... So I cant say anything there. But I agree with you on background checks and training. For I wanna say for most states you need a background check when buying a new gun and for some states you must take a course if you want to carry a concealed firearm. Its wrong people do take firearms like you said and commit horrid crimes! If we make gun laws stricter whos it gonna affect? Me and you, Austin. Some crazy criminal going on a shooting spree does NOT care bout any gun laws, they are gonna break as many as they can Im sure. Even limited what guns you can get, they will still get those guns Im sure. And I dont want to have a license to shoot my firearms either. Conceal caring permits, I can understand and agree 100% there. In Vermont and Alaska you need to be of age to carry is all. But doing a course in that case is smart.

Cicero

December 22nd, 2012, 01:10 AM

If everyone were able to carry a gun, there would be a lot less people having to fear. When I say everyone, I don't mean everyone, I mean people who are mentally stable and have no criminal history.

Here's how I think of it. A killer wouldn't dare to go into a police station, filled with men and women carrying guns, and start shooting. He would go to a place with no guns. But if most people were carrying guns, it would be like a police station everywhere.

Even if we ban guns, people will always find a way to get them, look at current day, high level drugs. I bet you, if I really wanted to, I could get a gram of cocaine within a week. I would just have to do a little bit of searching. Cocaine is seen to be worse than most other drugs, it's more of a high level drug, yet I know I could get my hands on some. Not like I would, that was just an analogy. The same applies for guns.

Gun control may work great in the UK, but were not the UK. The US is so much bigger than the UK, it's even bigger than Europe (excluding Russia). It's harder to control that much land, especially when counties I letting go Police officers to reduce spending.

Plus, it's protected under the 2nd Amendment, which separates us from other countries. We have much more lenient rights than most other countries, which is what makes us truly, the land of freedom.

Sugaree

December 22nd, 2012, 01:38 AM

Well, after this terrible tragedy in Conneticut, I've been hearing discussion's over gun control, and I've heard people say thing's such as, "Guns are designed just to kill others", "Guns should be outlawed", they're not needed", etc. I'm wondering what you think? Should gun control be more strict? Should certain firearms, such as a .223 assault rifle, even if it is semi-automatic, require a class II firearm license, should we try other approaches to keeping guns out of the wrong people, or should we leave things as they are?

In my opinion, I say we should take a different approach. Require people to go through Gun Safety classes, look better at back rounds, etc. I know, it's sad that people get a hold of guns and do things like this. But as an avid gun fan myself, I'd hate not to be able to get guns I love to shoot without having to require a Class II or even Class III license to purchase them.

I see no problem if someone owns handguns or a shotgun. The regulations on those are absolutely fine in my opinion. However, I see no need for an average American citizen to own a .223 assault rifle made specifically for military purposes "for protection". I find it abhorrent that I live in a country where people are paranoid into thinking they need this type of gun for protection.

There's no need for anyone to own one of these things. These things are made specifically for killing, simply put. Assault rifles are made to rip and tear apart multiple bodies in the same area in a matter of a few seconds. And I don't know how some people rationalize owning one for protection purposes.

On the topic of actual gun control: I do think we need better laws. Assault rifles need to be banned like they were in 1994. That ban could have been used as the stepping stool to better gun regulation, but it never happened because it wasn't renewed. If someone is going to own a gun, they need to be required to take multiple safety courses, have to renew their license either every six months or yearly, and be required to undergo mental exams every two years (or every year or six months if they have a history of being institutionalized). We can not have lax regulations when it comes to getting a gun.

If everyone were able to carry a gun, there would be a lot less people having to fear. When I say everyone, I don't mean everyone, I mean people who are mentally stable and have no criminal history.

Jesus Christ, this argument again? Hurr if all the good people had guns all the bad people wouldn't shoot others durr. Yeah, how is that going to stop someone? It's not. Reacting to gun violence by implementing more guns into the system is scare mongering. The American public are paranoid enough as it is, we don't need to give the public at large more guns to help.

Also, how do you tell between good and bad? How do you tell between right and wrong? How do you know that someone without a criminal record or an issue with mental stability isn't just going to go off their rocker and kill people? This is the problem: just because they're good today, does not mean they'll be good tomorrow.

Here's how I think of it. A killer wouldn't dare to go into a police station, filled with men and women carrying guns, and start shooting. He would go to a place with no guns. But if most people were carrying guns, it would be like a police station everywhere.

Wow, that's a pretty bold statement. Of course someone wouldn't go into a police station and start shooting. That's instant death. The goal of people who do these mass shootings is to shoot as long as possible and kill as many people as possible before police show up.

Also, this is exactly what the NRA has suggested for the last few years. Give more people more guns so the bad guys can be kept at bay. It doesn't work like that. Again, it comes down to the good people and the bad people. You can't tell who's bad and who's good by looking at a record.

Plus, it's protected under the 2nd Amendment, which separates us from other countries. We have much more lenient rights than most other countries, which is what makes us truly, the land of freedom.

MUH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Get over it. That's the exact problem with all of this. The fact that the 2nd amendment was written for the militias of the United States before we had any organized federal forces. Yes, you have the right to own a gun. You shouldn't have the right to own a fucking assault rifle that should be used in military training or combat. Just because you have the right doesn't mean you take advantage of it. People take advantage of the 2nd amendment by stocking up on firearms, ammo, and a lot of deadly things. I have no problem with people who have a few handguns or a few shotguns. Taking those down to a range or even for protection when the need arises is fine. But people are using the constitution to their advantage in this situation, and they might as well be wiping their shit stained asses with it.

Now, if anyone in this thread can fully rationalize the need to own an assault rifle, other than giving me the argument that "The constitution says I can!", then I want to hear it. Because there's no doubt in my mind that these weapons' only purpose are to kill and only kill. So again, if you can justify blowing someone's head and body to bits with an assault rifle for protection, please enlighten me.

Sir Suomi

December 22nd, 2012, 04:26 PM

I can't wait to read the genius that will spring out of your little digits as they furiously hit the letters on your keyboard.

I knew it.

Ever tried to stab somebody? Hit him with a baseball bat? Choke somebody to death?

Knives, bats and bare hands simply do not have the level of danger as guns do, nor is their only use to shoot at shit or kill people.

This is the dumbest argument ever. You are arguing for putting instruments of death in the hands of criminals on the basis that other possibly lethal items aren't banned. Well derp fucking herp, that's because you need knives to eat, baseball bats to play baseball, hammers to build things and your bare hands to write, create works of arts and masturbate.

What can you do with a gun? Wreck havoc on human beings, animals or targets.

Gee, what an useful tool that is in the hands of civilians!

You can't keep people from obtaining higher powered guns, but you can make it harder for them to obtain them! Which in turn, makes it harder from these thugs to obtain bigger tools to kill people more efficiently. Which in turns...contributes to a safer overall society than letting anyone pursuant to a pathetic, tiny background check get his hands on the biggest toy.

Are you deliberately obtuse or simply stupid?

No, you are simply stupid.

Restriction isn't prohibition. So, because 13 year olds can always get alcohol, should we remove drinking age laws? Allow toddlers to get drunk? Hey, heroin's available in the street, should we legalize that too? (PS : even people who say all hard drugs should be legalized insist for a government monopoly)

You are "arguing", if I can even call so such a logical trainwreck, on the basis that criminals can always get guns. That's not the fucking point. The fucking point is that at least it makes it much harder from said criminals to obtain guns, big or small, while not making it particularly harder for the common citizen to get one. If it's harder, then criminals have less of them, because believe it or not, the street thug robbing 7-11s in the US with a perfectly legally obtained handgun in the US wouldn't be able to pull the same shit in Canada, because Canadian gun laws make it exponentially harder for criminals to obtain guns. This isn't Prohibition where the border was porous and there was an enormous civilian demand for the product. We're talking about restricting weapons, not banning them, and law enforcement in the 21st century is massively more effective than during the Prohibition era.

If you can't wrap your head around this very simple concept, I have no hope left for you.

I love your unwarranted condescension.

You think there is no danger at all to letting people hunt with assault rifles?

Hunters kill hunters all the time in Canada with bolt-action. Let's put a semi-automatic weapon in the hands of hunters and see how many accidents occur. That was what I said. I never said shit about the efficiency of hunting with a .223 caliber gun and frankly I do not give a fuck as to what madness trailer trash do to wild animals.

Congratulations, you dragged me into a territory I have never entered and beat the strawman you set up for me with redneck, irrelevant arguments. You're real smart.

LOL 4-8 MINUTES IS TERRIBLE TO YOU? BAHAHA YOU'VE NEVER LIVED IN CANADA. YOU'RE HILARIOUS.

It would be a cause of concern if it were half an hour. Police actually have to, you know, receive the dispatch call, then get there. They can't fucking teleport over to the scene and shoot the bad guys.

Besides, law enforcement isn't only about prevention, it's also about repression, and you don't need armed vigilantes going around because law enforcement is efficient. The difficulty of establishing rule of law post-Revolution is the reason why the Second Amendment was enacted. Police now catch criminals and can even sometimes intercede in the commission of a crime. This is sufficient law enforcement.

You're yet another example of the deluded, paranoid, NRA propaganda regurgitating American. Home invasion? I haven't heard of a home invasion in years because a successful home invasion requires control on the part of the perpetrator on the inhabitants of the house.

It's pretty hard to establish said control when you can't fucking easily get a gun. As I've been saying, Americans think guns are obtainable in Canada in any shady alley. They think restriction is useless. I can get heroin but I can't get guns. Wonder why?

Because the connections are, for obvious reason, fucking hard to get. I am a pretty smart 22 year old with plenty of friends and family in the criminal underworld. But I can't get guns.

Good riddance, I was getting tired of your two-bit condescension and your ignorant, tribal "arguments" for the possession of tools of war in the hands of private citizens. The Framers intended for you to get a musket, not a handgun or an assault rifle.

Well, to start this off, your an ignorant prick. Just thought we'd make this clear before this continues any farther.

When I made the reference to the other objects, I was using an example to state how you are making your opinion look like, which goes somewhat like this: "Just because guns are only designed kill people, animals, or targets make them stupid, and means that we don't need them and should ban them."
I think I dumbed that down to your level.

Did I say I wanted guns to get in the hands of criminals? No. What I'm trying to get my point across, which you refuse to even listen to, is that instead of making it impossible to get assault rifles, just make people have to go through more steps to attain one. Better background checks, issue that certain gun safety laws classes be required, and other things. As I said before, you can't let one terribly bad apple ruin the whole entire bunch of perfectly good law-abiding apples.(And yes, I'm using this as an example, knowing you, I thought I should clarify that)

If you're hunters are shooting each other that frequently, that's their own damn fault. I don't know what you have for firearm safety up there, but I had to go through a 3 day class that was around 12 hours in total just to qualify to legally hunt with a firearm. And the first few things they taught us was to never shoot at something you can't clearly define as a deer, never shoot over horizons, etc. If you're hunters are dropping left and right, maybe you should try a different approach to firearm safety.

Oh, and I'm "simply stupid", huh? Well then, that's one way to make an argument. Your insults are literally killing me from the inside. Please, make it stop. :yawn:

When I mentioned putting a prohibition on guns, I was just stating the fact that no matter how hard you try, criminals are going to get guns, more than likely a hell lot worse than an AR-15. In your mind, you think limiting the right to have an assault rifle will do shit. Well, in all honesty, it won't. Criminals, when they have their mind set, can do just about anything to get what they want.

So once again, you've just made your argument invalid. To be honest, this argument is starting to make me laugh. :lol:

Oh, and you say I'm a redneck? Tell me, what qualifies me as a redneck? Is it the fact I like guns, hunting, and a christian? Personally, I think your opinion has started becoming a little biased, which never makes a argument good. So on that topic, you can just keep your opinion to yourself :yeah:

Well sir, you have not lived in the United States, which I also find to be hilarious. I don't know how things are in Canada, but from how you're trying to sell it, it seems like the best safest damn place in the world, which I imagine is not true. Home invasions happen here. And it's a very traumatic experience, from what I've been told. And as I stated before, by the time police arrive, the suspect could have enough time to slit your throat with a butter-knife. Good luck defending yourself with a wooden spoon up there when you have no means to defend yourself.

And to end this, I'm pretty sure it's YOU here that most would like to see gone. Your an ignorant prick who whenever someone disagrees with you, you simply make up half-ass arguments that quite frankly annoy me, especially when you talk about subjects you have no damn idea about, such as gun ownership, hunting, etc. So good riddance to you too.

TigerBoy

December 22nd, 2012, 04:46 PM

Gun control may work great in the UK, but were not the UK. The US is so much bigger than the UK, it's even bigger than Europe (excluding Russia). It's harder to control that much land, especially when counties I letting go Police officers to reduce spending.

You seem to be implying there is a correlation between landmass and law enforcement and gun crime. I've just looked at the data. There isn't.

5031
Click thumbnail to view

This shows clearly that for some of the largest comparable democracies there is no link to suggest a link between size or per-capita policing and gun homicide.

5032
Click thumbnail to view

Source1 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list); Source2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area); Source3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers)

CharlieFinley

December 22nd, 2012, 09:19 PM

Bullets are obscenely easy to acquire, and while it's true that everyone in Switzerland who is given a gun by the government receives said gun as a part of military service, that just says to me that the ownership requirements and background checks for gun ownership should be much more stringent.

Lost in the Echo

December 22nd, 2012, 10:36 PM

+1. With the fabrication movement, one will soon be able to print a functioning firearm at home. I think I'll hold on to my handguns (the figurative ones, as I'm only 17), thank you very much.

Besides, look at Switzerland. They seem to be doing alright.

:yes: I agree with everything in that post.

TheMatrix

December 23rd, 2012, 05:35 AM

Twilly F. Sniper

December 23rd, 2012, 08:36 AM

No. It wouldn't stop. They would either go through the legal process or if banned entirely, get them from illegal gun merchants. Honestly we need less strict gun control, but require licenses to legally own certain firearms, and criminals require security surveillance. Meaning, all guns should be obtainable through legal transaction.

Professional Russian

December 23rd, 2012, 08:45 AM

CharlieFinley

December 23rd, 2012, 02:58 PM

RIfles are turning plastic too? christ glock's gonna come out with a rifle next

Not really, but as soon as fabbers move past sintered metal, they'll be able to handle rifle barrels easily.

Professional Russian

December 23rd, 2012, 03:14 PM

Not really, but as soon as fabbers move past sintered metal, they'll be able to handle rifle barrels easily.

you didnt get the joke......

CharlieFinley

December 23rd, 2012, 03:20 PM

you didnt get the joke......

Ah... -.-

Professional Russian

December 23rd, 2012, 03:24 PM

Ah... -.-

Did you get it yet? Glock is the most well known manufacturer of polymer pistols. if we print guns from polymer Glock be the first company to get because they already do that.

CharlieFinley

December 23rd, 2012, 03:26 PM

Did you get it yet? Glock is the most well known manufacturer of polymer pistols. if we print guns from polymer Glock be the first company to get because they already do that.

I know that, but their barrels are still metal, and I wasn't thinking along those lines. -.-

Clever, though.

Professional Russian

December 23rd, 2012, 03:30 PM

I know that, but their barrels are still metal, and I wasn't thinking along those lines. -.-

Clever, though.

you cant have a polymer barrel the pressures are too high. it wouldnt work right

ProudConservative

December 23rd, 2012, 03:32 PM

I would like to start by saying that if we insult each other again, I will have to hand out infractions. And I don't care who started it.

~~~

Guns are a tool to inflict damage, on humans, animals, things: the world. I don't support civilians having access to them on a regular basis, because there are always ac- or incidents, such as:
Daddy left his gun safe unlocked and little Timmy found the gun and accidentally shot himself.
Bobby found his dad's gun and shot his friend Jimmy to death, by accident.
Idiot holds up store with gun and threatens to shoot people if the register isn't opened.
Idiot goes to school(s) and shoots people there.

And every time it happens in the U.S. And every time poor gun control isn't to blame.
Every American is supposedly granted the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Well obviously it's a violation of your rights to be killed(although obviously there's nothing you can do about that after it's happened). So, the best solution is, therefore, don't have guns for whoever the fuck wants one. And what's worse is when they're legal. That's like government-endorsed murder.

Video games are not to blame as much, although the availability of real weapons sure does provide that feeling of "oh hey I can pull that CoD trick off now, too" to some.

Don't you ever have that feeling of paranoia, that goes "the object in that guy's hand can kill me in an instant"? Don't you? I sure as hell would!
Maybe it's just me, but I hate killing things. People, animals, sometimes even insects. They're living creatures, too, even if we and them are just carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, and some other stuff in very complex arrangements.
I could never bring myself to kill a deer. I just couldn't. I couldn't bring myself to club someone or anything to death, either. And I don't want to. Yes, someone has to do it, but your average Joe doesn't need an assault rifle for that, because this isn't Fallout 3.

I can assure you that you, the conservative redneck, will continue to support gun freedom until the day you are shot by one. Then we'll see what you have to say(although there won't be much left to say on your part).

That concludes my argument. Hopefully you will, in time, come to understand it. Meanwhile, please feel free to read up on common sense and view the United States in the eyes of a foreigner.

Isn't calling someone a conservative redneck an insult? Gun control won't work, it's been proven time and time again in the US. Let me list a few failures on certain restrictions: •prohibition •drugs. There will always be a market for this stuff, and that market will be caught by police eventually, and there will be a shoot-out. Killing innocent people in the process. I could never bring myself to mindlessly kill someone too, but I assure you I would shoot someone to protect my family. And if I die protecting my family, along with the gunman, it will be worth it. Would you rather four people die, not able to defend themselves, and let the perp to get away? No, that is the main reason people own guns. Protection. Yes, kids will always find a way to get a hold of your gun. The statistic for accidental fun deaths for children was 174 last year. This is just like my other argument. Why do several irresponsible people have to strip the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of the masses.

By no means am I not calling these deaths not sad, they're extremely sad. I'm sorry if you were the victim of a gun crime, but those criminals will ALWAYS have a way to obtain guns. Be it legally (which is only 4% of the time), or illegally (which is 96% of the time).

Yes, it's a right. The Founding Fathers wouldn't've made this a right if they did not deem it important. A militia, by definition, is the army made by the people. The Founding Fathers knew that at some point, the government would become so corrupt, that it would be needed to be brought out of power. By which time a new government will be made, the Constitution will be adopted again, this time closing very slim loopholes. THAT is why owning a gun is a right!

TigerBoy

December 23rd, 2012, 04:14 PM

Let me list a few failures on certain restrictions: •prohibition •drugs.
Forseti already rebutted those points. Prohibition is by definition more than restriction and thus not comparable. Hard drugs are prohibited.

Yes, it's a right. The Founding Fathers wouldn't've made this a right if they did not deem it important. A militia, by definition, is the army made by the people. The Founding Fathers knew that at some point, the government would become so corrupt, that it would be needed to be brought out of power. By which time a new government will be made, the Constitution will be adopted again, this time closing very slim loopholes. THAT is why owning a gun is a right!
Hmm now I don't know much about US history so feel free to educate me here, but I thought the reason for permitting a militia all had to do with protecting the state from uprisings such as the Whiskey rebellion, and various others that predate the signing of the Constitution.

After a quick dig through internet sources, I see that when Washington questioned what Shay's rebellion was all about in 1786, Lincoln replied

“Many of them appear to be absolutely so [mad] if an attempt to annihilate our present constitution and dissolve the present government can be considered as evidence of insanity.”

Seeing the threat to government from these sources Washington wrote in a letter to Gen Henry Knox Feb 3 1787

[if the government ] “shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws … anarchy & confusion must prevail.”

It was against this backdrop of rebellion and concerns for the security of government that the Framers' began drawing up the constitution later that summer, and after further rebellions when they added the Second Ammendment to state:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

At no point do I see anything that suggests they wanted to do anything other than ensure that without an expensive standing army that the fledgling nation was able to resist dissidents.

But feel free to correct me.

ProudConservative

December 23rd, 2012, 04:32 PM

Forseti already rebutted those points. Prohibition is by definition more than restriction and thus not comparable. Hard drugs are prohibited.

Hmm now I don't know much about US history so feel free to educate me here, but I thought the reason for permitting a militia all had to do with protecting the state from uprisings such as the Whiskey rebellion, and various others that predate the signing of the Constitution.

After a quick dig through internet sources, I see that when Washington questioned what Shay's rebellion was all about in 1786, Lincoln replied

Seeing the threat to government from these sources Washington wrote in a letter to Gen Henry Knox Feb 3 1787

It was against this backdrop of rebellion and concerns for the security of government that the Framers' began drawing up the constitution later that summer, and after further rebellions when they added the Second Ammendment to state:

At no point do I see anything that suggests they wanted to do anything other than ensure that without an expensive standing army that the fledgling nation was able to resist dissidents.

But feel free to correct me.
Apparently, he needed reminding of the failures of restrictions.

A military made by the people to overtake a corrupt government is safeguarded by the 2nd Amendment. You said you did research, right, because when I looked it up, there were other legitimate sources proving my statement accurate. Yes, Lincoln did say that, but he also said that the people who overtake the government and don't adopt the Constitution is stupid.

Please, don't post unless you're positive about something. One of my biggest pet peeves is people acting like they know everything about something, when in reality, they don't.

TigerBoy

December 23rd, 2012, 04:44 PM

Apparently, he needed reminding of the failures of restrictions.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between the words "prohibition" and "restriction".

A military made by the people to overtake a corrupt government is safeguarded by the 2nd Amendment. You said you did research, right, because when I looked it up, there were other legitimate sources proving my statement accurate.
I don't believe you. You are making claims, and not supporting them with facts. In debates the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. So prove it.

Yes, Lincoln did say that, but he also said that the people who overtake the government and don't adopt the Constitution is stupid.
Again, prove it.

Please, don't post unless you're positive about something. One of my biggest pet peeves is people acting like they know everything about something, when in reality, they don't.
How precious of you. In that tone, please don't keep posting unsubstantiated claims in debates. One of my biggest pet peeves is people who expect they can bluster their way through debates, when in reality their opinion is baseless and their own knowledge virtually non-existent.

If you can actually substantiate your claims, and that they contradict the evidence I've already provided by way of a rebuttal, I'd be delighted to be educated as I already stated.

ProudConservative

December 23rd, 2012, 05:12 PM

Apparently you don't understand the difference between the words "prohibition" and "restriction".
It seems as if I do. Prohibition is to not allow something. A restriction is to not allow something. It seems that to not allow something and to not allow something are the same.

I don't believe you. You are making claims, and not supporting them with facts. In debates the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. So prove it.
Yet you are too, and have I seen any substantial evidence to back up your claims. Nope.

Again, prove it.
The quote you provided was pretty much evidence enough. Yes, he did say it would be stupid to overthrow the government they had THEN. He wouldn't know what would come about today, and just how corrupt the government now is.

How precious of you. In that tone, please don't keep posting unsubstantiated claims in debates. One of my biggest pet peeves is people who expect they can bluster their way through debates, when in reality their opinion is baseless and their own knowledge virtually non-existent.
Blustering, you think that knowledge of the Constitution is blustering. You think that knowledge of the Founding Fathers is blustering. I have complete basis, it's called the Constitution. Especially the 2nd Amendment. There are also implied powers that come along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If you can actually substantiate your claims, and that they contradict the evidence I've already provided by way of a rebuttal, I'd be delighted to be educated as I already stated.

Again, how about you read at least a summary of the Constitution.

MisterSix

December 23rd, 2012, 05:22 PM

I love these lame debates.
Theres always someone that likes guns and someone that doesn't.
So it becomes a big keep gun vs. destroy guns debate and when people say limit guns and make a license compulsory, the gun lovers say "It's my god given right".
So nothing is ever done and school shootings keep happening.

TigerBoy

December 23rd, 2012, 05:43 PM

It seems as if I do. Prohibition is to not allow something. A restriction is to not allow something. It seems that to not allow something and to not allow something are the same.
I think you need to buy yourself a dictionary.

Yet you are too, and have I seen any substantial evidence to back up your claims. Nope.

I've provided quotes from people involved. That is substantial evidence. I've also provided a rational argument. Neither of which you have done. And still, you haven't discharged your burden of proof, so I don't believe you because you have given me no reason to.

Yes, he did say it would be stupid to overthrow the government they had THEN. He wouldn't know what would come about today, and just how corrupt the government now is.
The fact that Lincoln didn't want the US government overthrown then does not tell us anything about what he would have thought now. If you are implying otherwise, it is a complete non sequitur, but you have not actually stated any conclusion from your two premises.

Blustering, you think that knowledge of the Constitution is blustering. You think that knowledge of the Founding Fathers is blustering. I have complete basis, it's called the Constitution. Especially the 2nd Amendment. There are also implied powers that come along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Yep, that right there is blustering. "I have proof, you can't see it, but I'm right and I can prove it" isn't an argument.

Again, how about you read at least a summary of the Constitution.
I have, and chunks of the whole thing too. Its fascinating. I suggest you try it.

Drew5

December 24th, 2012, 01:54 PM

America is fine with how guns are controlled.
The liberals took a crime and made it political.
The real issue is controlling our crazies.
We can bluster about gun control, but mostly it's to make people feel like they did something, but the end result - many people dead - would, could, can and will happen in the future whether or not their are gun controls.

Majin Vegeta

January 4th, 2013, 01:01 AM

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Japan is doing fine with gun control and they're pretty much crime-free

PerpetualImperfexion

January 4th, 2013, 02:51 AM

Ban guns from law abiding citizens>criminals still get their hands on these "banned" guns>citizens are unable to defend themselves

When violent shootings like this occur and people claim that banning guns will make the public safer it makes me chuckle (for the people's reasoning, not because a violent crime was committed)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-children-in-china.html?_r=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Not gonna lie, I would much rather be shot than stabbed to death. Guns cause much less damage than bombs. I know that seems like a joke, but honestly even if guns are banned violent crimes would still occur. The only difference is that they could be more painful, bloody, and destructive.

I do think something needs to be changed though. Whether that's better enforcing the laws that are already in place or better educating people about guns, I could care less. Just don't take away my (the people's) guns.

Majin Vegeta

January 4th, 2013, 05:12 PM

Professional Russian

January 4th, 2013, 07:32 PM

but there are countries that outlaw guns that don't have murders.

Guns that outlawed dont have illegal gun trade like we do.

Majin Vegeta

January 4th, 2013, 08:41 PM

Guns that outlawed dont have illegal gun trade like we do.

I'll assume you meant "countries that outlawed"

I know but what makes them different? they do play the same games and share other forms of entertainment that we have

it kinda reminds me of how countries with lower drinking ages have less drunk driving and teen drinkers in general even when it's legal to be a teen drinker.

reverse psychology and wanting what they can't have

Professional Russian

January 4th, 2013, 08:59 PM

I'll assume you meant "countries that outlawed"

I know but what makes them different? they do play the same games and share other forms of entertainment that we have

it kinda reminds me of how countries with lower drinking ages have less drunk driving and teen drinkers in general even when it's legal to be a teen drinker.

reverse psychology and wanting what they can't have

OK before I persue any further. What guns would be outlawed?

Majin Vegeta

January 4th, 2013, 09:11 PM

OK before I persue any further. What guns would be outlawed?

outlawing everything except rifles and shotguns, with strict regulation and licensing, seems to be working in other countries

ProudConservative

January 4th, 2013, 11:42 PM

outlawing everything except rifles and shotguns, with strict regulation and licensing, seems to be working in other countries

Other countries aren't as big as the US, and the gun owners will not be willing to give it over. I can guarantee you that.

PerpetualImperfexion

January 5th, 2013, 02:13 AM

but there are countries that outlaw guns that don't have murders.

dafuq did I just read? They don't have murders, huh?

There are still murders via guns in countries where guns are banned. I also mentioned that knives can be just as effective.

Did you even bother to thoroughly read my post?

TigerBoy

January 5th, 2013, 04:38 AM

Other countries aren't as big as the US, and the gun owners will not be willing to give it over. I can guarantee you that.
I am sure you are right that a hard core won't want to give them up, and I would be unwilling to hand over my weapon if I relied on it for home defence.

Having said that, I read several stories (http://news.uk.msn.com/blog/trending-blogpost.aspx?post=ecfa9e99-a534-403c-b260-6bffe83a9bb0)about people handing guns in after Sandy Hook, so I don't think that is universally true.

I've already disproven the claimed link between country size and regulation earlier (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2064443&postcount=31)in this thread.

Twilly F. Sniper

January 5th, 2013, 07:38 AM

No. If we did, there would be killers using knives and themselves like they already do.
Also if we did, that "dad that saved his daughter from being raped by shooting the man about to rape her" story wouldn't have happened the same way.
Bottom line is, it's one of the dumbest ideas in history. It would completely overthrow our constitution, knowing that our 2nd amendment allows guns to be legal.

Professional Russian

January 5th, 2013, 07:45 AM

Have Fun With This (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340113) Now everyones going to scream shotgun control

TigerBoy

January 5th, 2013, 08:16 AM

Have Fun With This (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340113) Now everyones going to scream shotgun control

Given that the article reports a change in story from handguns to 'long weapon' and the Bushmaster in later reports, plus the comments about police incompetence, its makes it really difficult to draw any conclusions at the moment.

How the fuck you confuse handgun, shotgun and rifle injuries I don't understand. My not-at-all-expert understanding is that you'd get completely different injuries and impact patterns from these weapons.

Either the police, the media or both are really making a confusing mess of the whole thing.

Professional Russian

January 5th, 2013, 08:22 AM

Given that the article reports a change in story from handguns to 'long weapon' and the Bushmaster in later reports, plus the comments about police incompetence, its makes it really difficult to draw any conclusions at the moment.

How the fuck you confuse handgun, shotgun and rifle injuries I don't understand. My not-at-all-expert understanding is that you'd get completely different injuries and impact patterns from these weapons.

Either the police, the media or both are really making a confusing mess of the whole thing.

well aside from it saying it shotgun i could tell you its a shotgun. ARs dont get get cocked from the side of the bolt ARs the get cocked by a charging handle in the back. Now there is a shotgun that looks just like an AR, The MKA 1919, but still has the bolt charging handle on it

TigerBoy

January 5th, 2013, 08:33 AM

well aside from it saying it shotgun i could tell you its a shotgun. ARs dont get get cocked from the side of the bolt ARs the get cocked by a charging handle in the back. Now there is a shotgun that looks just like an AR, The MKA 1919, but still has the bolt charging handle on it

Ok so we still have initial police reports stating only hanguns were used. Then a coroner saying 'a long weapon' shot the victims, so right there it implies the police can't tell the difference between handguns and either rifles or shotguns, which they ought to, right?

Then you get the 'long weapon' turning out to be a shotgun, NOT a rifle, at which point again, shouldn't a coroner be able to spot the difference between a shotgun impact and a rifle impact?

So if it really is a shotgun now, the media has been reported unsubstantiated stories, and the police and / or the coroner can't tell the basic difference between the impact of three different classes of weapon.

Am I wrong, or is that all spectacularly incompetent?

Professional Russian

January 5th, 2013, 08:35 AM

Ok so we still have initial police reports stating only hanguns were used. Then a coroner saying 'a long weapon' shot the victims, so right there it implies the police can't tell the difference between handguns and either rifles or shotguns, which they ought to, right?

Then you get the 'long weapon' turning out to be a shotgun, NOT a rifle, at which point again, shouldn't a coroner be able to spot the difference between a shotgun impact and a rifle impact?

So if it really is a shotgun now, the media has been reported unsubstantiated stories, and the police and / or the coroner can't tell the basic difference between the impact of three different classes of weapon.

Am I wrong, or is that all spectacularly incompetent?

Now remember they said the shotgun was found in the trunk of the car. which implies it was never used. it also says there were only 2 handguns, A sig and a glock, found on the shooters body. so the leaves an AR missing from the scene

TigerBoy

January 5th, 2013, 08:48 AM

Now remember they said the shotgun was found in the trunk of the car. which implies it was never used. it also says there were only 2 handguns, A sig and a glock, found on the shooters body. so the leaves an AR missing from the scene

The Bushmaster AR was supposed to have been in the trunk of the car and was initially blamed by the media for the shootings. So now we know at least the first fact was wrong, and that implies they most likely got the second fact wrong: a "rifle in a car trunk" that didn't exist couldn't have shot anyone.

The only indication a 'long weapon' was used comes from the coroner, which implies either he already knew the shotgun was used (in which case why didn't he say "shotgun" since "long weapon" seems a very odd description), or that he was wrong.

If the coroner can't tell the difference between a shotgun and AR injury to describe the 'long weapon' as such, I question whether he could tell the difference between either of these and a handgun.

Logically, the only evidence for an AR based on this information comes from the Coroner, who seems very vague and unconvincing.

Professional Russian

January 5th, 2013, 08:50 AM

The Bushmaster AR was supposed to have been in the trunk of the car and was initially blamed by the media for the shootings. So now we know at least the first fact was wrong, and that implies they most likely got the second fact wrong: a "rifle in a car trunk" that didn't exist couldn't have shot anyone.

The only indication a 'long weapon' was used comes from the coroner, which implies either he already knew the shotgun was used (in which case why didn't he say "shotgun" since "long weapon" seems a very odd description), or that he was wrong.

If the coroner can't tell the difference between a shotgun and AR injury to describe the 'long weapon' as such, I question whether he could tell the difference between either of these and a handgun.

Logically, the only evidence for an AR based on this information comes from the Coroner, who seems very vague and unconvincing.

9mm which i think the glock and sig were... is powerful enough to penetrate deep enough and do enough damage to look like a rifle if the correct ammuntiion was used

TigerBoy

January 5th, 2013, 08:58 AM

9mm which i think the glock and sig were... is powerful enough to penetrate deep enough and do enough damage to look like a rifle if the correct ammuntiion was used

If this is correct and the coroner did get it wrong as now seems a possibility all the people calling for Assault Rifles to be banned off the back of this have no case here, and can't start blaming shotguns now.

For a coroner to get confused seems incompetent to me: am I not right that pistol velocities are much lower than rifle? So even if the injuries were consistent the penetration in the environment would reveal the difference. A coroner should have taken environmental penetration into account.

Professional Russian

January 5th, 2013, 09:03 AM

If this is correct and the coroner did get it wrong as now seems a possibility all the people calling for Assault Rifles to be banned off the back of this have no case here, and can't start blaming shotguns now.

For a coroner to get confused seems incompetent to me: am I not right that pistol velocities are much lower than rifle? So even if the injuries were consistent the penetration in the environment would reveal the difference. A coroner should have taken environmental penetration into account.

yes pistol velocitys are much lower. lets see here the average .223 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 3,240 ft/s as to where the average 9mm 124 grain has a velocity of 1,200 ft/s

there is a huge difference but the penetration can be the same. it is possible because 9mm is known to go all the way through the human body if its a FMJ a so is 5.56 with FMJ but the 5.56 would make a bigger temporary wound cavity which i think would be noticeable to the coroner

TigerBoy

January 5th, 2013, 09:09 AM

yes pistol velocitys are much lower. lets see here the average .223 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 3,240 ft/s as to where the average 9mm 124 grain has a velocity of 1,200 ft/s

there is a huge difference but the penetration can be the same. it is possible because 9mm is known to go all the way through the human body if its a FMJ a so is 5.56 with FMJ but the 5.56 would make a bigger temporary wound cavity which i think would be noticeable to the coroner

From my understanding of it penetration cannot be the same given equivalent calibre and variable muzzle velocity. Its about how much energy you put in to the projectile, the weight of that projectile, and the stability that rifling imparts to that projectile in the case of a rifle. A pistol 9mm round might go through an object (a body) but not have much energy left to penetrate the environment. I've heard where rifle rounds have enough energy to go through breeze block walls and then kill someone.

Beside all of that, if there were different calibre rounds they'd surely have the casings on scene to indicate which rounds were used where. Are there 9mm rifles?

Professional Russian

January 5th, 2013, 09:13 AM

From my understanding of it penetration cannot be the same given equivalent calibre and variable muzzle velocity. Its about how much energy you put in to the projectile, the weight of that projectile, and the stability that rifling imparts to that projectile in the case of a rifle. A pistol 9mm round might go through an object (a body) but not have much energy left to penetrate the environment. I've heard where rifle rounds have enough energy to go through breeze block walls and then kill someone.

Beside all of that, if there were different calibre rounds they'd surely have the casings on scene to indicate which rounds were used where. Are there 9mm rifles?

True 5.56(.223) will go through a block wall and still kill someone as to where a 9mm would probably just barely go through the skin of a person if it went through a block wall. yes there are 9mm Rifles. Colt makes one and so does H&K and many others. now the velocity's would be different out of a rifle because of the barrel length...... yes barrel length will give more velocity

thisisben

January 5th, 2013, 09:14 AM

removed comment because I don't understand why I was getting negative reviews was just making a point :(

TigerBoy

January 5th, 2013, 09:17 AM

True 5.56(.223) will go through a block wall and still kill someone as to where a 9mm would probably just barely go through the skin of a person if it went through a block wall. yes there are 9mm Rifles. Colt makes one and so does H&K and many others. now the velocity's would be different out of a rifle because of the barrel length...... yes barrel length will give more velocity

Ok so putting it all together:

If a shotgun was used, the injuries and casings and enviromental damage pattern would indicate that.
If a pistol was used, the casings, plus injuries PLUS environmental penetration would indicate that.
If a rifle was used, the casings, plus injuries PLUS environmental penetration would indicate that.

Conclusion: the media got their facts wrong and made a mess of things by misreporting the details and/or the police/coroner have got it wrong and shown professional incompetence.

On present evidence, there is no evidence that banning one particular type of weapon over another would have had any effect on the school shootings, so those calling for gun control and targeting assault rifles have no case based on these shootings.

Professional Russian

January 5th, 2013, 09:17 AM

there definately should be a law , I live in the UK , and we were all devastated with what happened , its like London had the bombings and not much changed also another example is the 9/11 incident and increased security in airports happened, so why not guns ?

because the governments probably too scared because if they tried to take our guns theyd start a civil war. and alot of americans have guns for legitimate reasons such as hunting and self protection

thisisben

January 5th, 2013, 11:34 AM

whoever disliked my comment saying that nobody likes the increased security in airports , yes it can get out of hand , it isnt my fault , so cheers for giving me lower rep points !

Irishperson15

January 5th, 2013, 12:39 PM

i guess the right to bear arms in America is fair, but i do not agree with how easy it is for Americans to get hold of guns and ammunition sometimes. I mean, they are so common over there, and i do not think they should be allowed as much. Now im not saying take them away, im just saying the laws on them should be a little more strict

crazydude12

January 5th, 2013, 07:52 PM

I'd rather have risky freedom than peaceful slavery.

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 12:31 AM

TigerBoy

January 6th, 2013, 04:54 AM

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I think an American citizens have the right to own a fire arm; however, that does not give them the right to kill innocent people. I also think there is no reason to have an high power assault riffle, you can easily go hunting without one.

What about handguns and shotguns? If you read the thread just a bit earlier you'll see we had a discussion about the fact that it is unclear that an assault rifle was even used now. If the killings in Newtown were indeed done with pistols, any legislation regarding assault rifles wouldn't have helped there.

This would then leave the question "what could we do to help prevent another Newtown?"

Professional Russian

January 6th, 2013, 05:51 AM

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 02:21 PM

What about handguns and shotguns?

I don't think I would support any legislation that altered the use of guns. handguns and shotguns are completely fine. I just don't believe that one needs a military assault weapon.

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 02:29 PM

I love how you say high powerd assault rifles and then say we can easily hunt without them.I hunt with a lot bigger than a 5.56

I don't hunt with high power weapons I hunt with a X-Bolt Hunter.

TigerBoy

January 6th, 2013, 03:15 PM

Professional Russian

January 6th, 2013, 04:39 PM

I don't hunt with high power weapons I hunt with a X-Bolt Hunter.

And what caliber do you hunt with

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 04:41 PM

And what caliber do you hunt with

22-250 Rem. with a magazine capacity of 4

Professional Russian

January 6th, 2013, 04:42 PM

22-250 Rem. with a magazine capacity of 4

Da fuck are you hunting? Ground hogs?

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 05:00 PM

Da fuck are you hunting? Ground hogs?

Small game animals like bobcats and Javelina and game birds like Canadian Geese and mallards. My dad and his buddies go for elk and deer and bear. He doesn't want me joining them till I'm 18.

Professional Russian

January 6th, 2013, 05:03 PM

Small game animals like bobcats and Javelina and game birds like Canadian Geese and mallards. My dad and his buddies go for elk and deer and bear. He doesn't want me joining them till I'm 18.

Well ftheres where misunder stood what I said. I have to hunt with a bigger caliber(I mostly stick too 308 30-30 and 300 win mag) because I hunt bigger animals. Deer and bear so its kind of essential to have a bigger more powerful caliber than 22-250

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 05:11 PM

Well ftheres where misunder stood what I said. I have to hunt with a bigger caliber(I mostly stick too 308 30-30 and 300 win mag) because I hunt bigger animals. Deer and bear so its kind of essential to have a bigger more powerful caliber than 22-250

What model of gun? That's pretty cool your dad lets you hunt bigger. Did he just let you or did you have to prove yourself? because with my dad he think I'm not ready yet. Anyway this went off topic from the debate.

I like the second amendment with all the others too. I just don't think one need a military grade weapon if one is not in the military.

Professional Russian

January 6th, 2013, 05:34 PM

What model of gun? That's pretty cool your dad lets you hunt bigger. Did he just let you or did you have to prove yourself? because with my dad he think I'm not ready yet. Anyway this went off topic from the debate.

I like the second amendment with all the others too. I just don't think one need a military grade weapon if one is not in the military.

Which gun you wasn't first. And yes my dad just me in to it

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 05:50 PM

Which gun you wasn't first. And yes my dad just me in to it

The first gun I fired was a 9mm glock at a shooting range. The first gun for hunting was the same I use now but it was a different make.

Professional Russian

January 6th, 2013, 05:52 PM

The first gun I fired was a 9mm glock at a shooting range. The first gun for hunting was the same I use know but it was a different make.

The first gun oi shot was my 308 I've so ,any fucking rounds through that so that I don't miss.....ever

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 05:53 PM

Just reading a site (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html) that indicates that since this thread was started, there have been approx. 342 deaths by shooting in the states.

But Olly, people die everyday. How many of those were self defense, how many were accidental, how many were race on race, and how many were pure criminal intent? The best way to combat is gun awareness to teach a future generation on the safety on firearms

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 05:57 PM

The first gun oi shot was my 308 I've so ,any fucking rounds through that so that I don't miss.....ever

what kind of scope do you use or do you just have like 20/20 vision. I miss more then I would like to admit. :whoops: But I'm not to bad either.

Professional Russian

January 6th, 2013, 06:00 PM

what kind of scope do you use or do you just have like 20/20 vision. I miss more then I would like to admit. :whoops: But I'm not to bad either.

Leupold Mark 4 LR/T

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 06:07 PM

Leupold Mark 4 LR/T

I use a Bushnell Elite 2-7x32mm

TigerBoy

January 6th, 2013, 06:07 PM

But Olly, people die everyday. How many of those were self defense, how many were accidental, how many were race on race, and how many were pure criminal intent? The best way to combat is gun awareness to teach a future generation on the safety on firearms
Interesting you should ask.

You didn't follow the link I guess - that site is voluntarily submitted by twitter users, because the figures aren't available short term from the US government, only annually, and explains what the data is.

But to get a more accurate figure, taking the annual figures per "source 1" I quoted in an earlier post, the annual US figure / 365 * 19 days would come out at 521 homicides since this thread started.

As for your solution, it isn't the 'best'. The 'best' would be to take all the guns away. Clearly that isn't going to happen.

Please explain how firearms safety training is going to make people worse at killing people?

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 06:11 PM

Interesting you should ask.

You didn't follow the link I guess - that site is voluntarily submitted by twitter users, because the figures aren't available short term from the US government, only annually, and explains what the data is.

But to get a more accurate figure, taking the annual figures per "source 1" I quoted in an earlier post, the annual US figure / 365 * 19 days would come out at 521 homicides since this thread started.

As for your solution, it isn't the 'best'. The 'best' would be to take all the guns away. Clearly that isn't going to happen.

Please explain how firearms safety training is going to make people worse at killing people?

I did go to the link. It didn't give me the stats I was looking for. How would removing guns all together help?

TigerBoy

January 6th, 2013, 06:15 PM

I did go to the link. It didn't give me the stats I was looking for. How would removing guns all together help?

Kinda hard to shoot someone if you don't have a gun :P

What I meant by that is I don't think there is just one thing on its own that is going to fix this. I think good safety training is a great idea, don't get me wrong. I think you're going to need a bunch of other things to reduce the chance of another Newtown shooting though.

Danny_boi 16

January 6th, 2013, 06:24 PM

Kinda hard to shoot someone if you don't have a gun :P

What I meant by that is I don't think there is just one thing on its own that is going to fix this. I think good safety training is a great idea, don't get me wrong. I think you're going to need a bunch of other things to reduce the chance of another Newtown shooting though.

I agree. here my governor is trying to push through legislation to keep a better eye on the mentally ill.

Majin Vegeta

January 6th, 2013, 09:57 PM

dafuq did I just read? They don't have murders, huh?

There are still murders via guns in countries where guns are banned. I also mentioned that knives can be just as effective.

Did you even bother to thoroughly read my post?

I meant to say they have way less murders by guns or any weapons

and yes I did