Gun Control Measures

[Sheik Yerbouti]

These are the type of liberals that want to make laws around our gun rights? No, absolutely not.

#fuckkkofftuckkker

 

[SlowSpyder]

#fuckkkofftuckkker

It is like this is all you're good for. One sentence replies and childish remarks. I'm ready for your next sick burn.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It is like this is all you're good for. One sentence replies and childish remarks. I'm ready for your next sick burn.

#fuckkkofftuckkker

 

[soundforbjt]

That would infringe on my right to own a common type of firearm. Also, just a tidbit. Despite the fake news lies, an AR15 is not a military rifle. Semi-auto, auto, and burst fire are all separate.

If semi-autos were banned, they would no longer be a common type of firearm, they'd be illegal to own.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If semi-autos were banned, they would no longer be a common type of firearm, they'd be illegal to own.

But why should semi auto be banned? There were repeating firearms well before the 2A was authored. They did not say "musket" in the constitution. Wonder why that is...?

 

[soundforbjt]

But why should semi auto be banned? There were repeating firearms well before the 2A was authored. They did not say "musket" in the constitution. Wonder why that is...?

Was it commonly available? and you had to rotate the cylinder for each shot...not a repeater until manual forces to the cylinder were applied. Semi autos should be banned because they are the most common arms used in mass shootings, haven't you been paying attention? If you have to reload after six shots you can get taken out quicker.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Was it commonly available? and you had to rotate the cylinder for each shot...not a repeater until manual forces to the cylinder were applied. Semi autos should be banned because they are the most common arms used in mass shootings, haven't you been paying attention? If you have to reload after six shots you can get taken out quicker.

Sorry, but I can't agree. When guns are weighed against other common liberties they do comparatively quite little harm. And no one cares about limiting those other liberties. Semi auto is a very common type of gun been around for 100+ years as common. Repeating firearms have been quite common for well longer than that. To suddenly infringe like that outlaw semi auto guns would be akin to raping the 1st amendment and telling people they can only say nice things in an effort to stop suicides, stop fights, save lives. It would be totally gutting the Bill of Rights and would set a pretty terrible precedent.

 

[soundforbjt]

Sorry, but I can't agree. When guns are weighed against other common liberties they do comparatively quite little harm. And no one cares about limiting those other liberties. Semi auto is a very common type of gun been around for 100+ years as common. Repeating firearms have been quite common for well longer than that. To suddenly infringe like that outlaw semi auto guns would be akin to raping the 1st amendment and telling people they can only say nice things in an effort to stop suicides, stop fights, save lives. It would be totally gutting the Bill of Rights and would set a pretty terrible precedent.

Why? Could you not hunt without a semi auto? Could you still conceal carry? Could you still open carry? Could you still target shoot? Could you not still defend yourself and your home? The only thing you couldn't do is kill a lot of targets without reloading.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Why? Could you not hunt without a semi auto? Could you still conceal carry? Could you not still open carry? Could you not still target shoot? Could you not still defend yourself and your home? The only thing you couldn't do is kill a lot of targets without reloading.

You could still do all of those things, but make no mistake that our right to own firearms would be infringed. Many tens of millions of peaceful gun owners would lose rights. Meanwhile not one of your liberal politicians is doing anything more to limit second hand smoke, which kills some ~5x as many people as all firearms homicides and mass shootings combined per year. Gun rights are being held to a standard that nothing else is being held to, despite those other things doing MORE harm to society by a long shot. The restrictions you want on guns are not proportional to their cost.

 

[soundforbjt]

You could still do all of those things, but make no mistake that our right to own firearms would be infringed. Many tens of millions of peaceful gun owners would lose rights. Meanwhile not one of your liberal politicians is doing anything more to limit second hand smoke, which kills some ~5x as many people as all firearms homicides and mass shootings combined per year. Gun rights are being held to a standard that nothing else is being held to, despite those other things doing MORE harm to society by a long shot. The restrictions you want on guns are not proportional to their cost.

The ONLY right they'd lose is the ability to kill many without reloading. No actual lost rights. they could still own and bear arms.

 

[nOOky]

Like I said, your view is a very odd one.

You aren't able to make a coherent argument as to why gun ownership is so vital, so you have to resort to making yourself out to be the victim.

Because they are needed!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[fskimospy]

I've come to believe this less and less as I've gotten older. Americans already surrendered to government oppression long ago and arms have been of little pracitcal use to change policy. The government successfully, one way or another, put down every insurrection or rebellion in its history.

In case no one has noticed if America’s government becomes tyrannical in that way the people with most of the guns are going to be the ones supporting it.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I don’t mean to be rude but what you showed here is that you don’t understand how research works. I cannot think of a single competent researcher anywhere who would think comparing murder rates between Afghanistan and the US would tell you anything useful. The reason why developed countries are compared is because they offer the strongest way to have a natural experiment.

I think you’re allowing your personal bias get in the way of objective evaluation of the evidence. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it. There’s reams of published, peer reviewed research that shows increased prevalence of firearms is associated with increases in homicide rates.

You may wish that the world didn’t work this way and that firearm availability wasn’t such a driving factor but that doesn’t change reality.



Sure. Interestingly enough if you look at research into gun control you’ll also see that when effective gun control is implemented firearm homicides decrease while non-firearm homicides stay relatively flat. This is further evidence that it’s the guns.

You missed the point if you think the reason I showed the graph was because of war torn countries.

As for your last statement, that is what I'm not clear on and why I'm looking. I've read in multiple places over the last few months that non gun homicides are on the rise in those countries, not declining. (aside from a few much happier places than ours). That is the distinction to take into account...happy. Our country is not happy. Aside from the middle east and a few dictatorships, I'm not sure there is a country more angry and divided than ours at this time. There are lots of variables that don't apply to this country that go beyond guns.

I did come to a conclusion though. I don't really care. You or I or anyone on this board aren't going to change a thing so you all can go on name calling and being mad at people who don't agree with you, in the end, it does nothing. People are going to be people, the cycle will continue. As mentioned, we gave up long ago. We don't own this country anymore. Sure we'll vote Trump out (or not) but that won't actually solve anything for long. It may postpone a few things but that is all it will do. You aren't going to magically change half the country's minds, and sooner or later even if you think all the conservatives are the old folk, eventually it's just going to be progressives versus moderates and the cycle will repeat, because no one is ever happy and we insist on fighting each other.

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you expect that they will turn all of them over in a complete buyback?

Of course not. I figure the best we can do is to prevent more from getting into the hands of civilians & round up as many as we can get through voluntary surrender.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No it isn't, because you don't have a constitutional right to own semi-autos.

Actually, it would appear one does have a right to own this very common type of firearm. Liberals are getting more and more radical. This is the reason nothing ever gets done, you want to strip the 2A so heavily that a real conversation cannot even be had. The restrictions you want are not proportional to the actual harm that guns cause to society, meanwhile not one of you or any leftist politician is doing more to limit those other much bigger killers. When looked at as a right and weighed against other rights that can cause harm to society, you are holding guns to a standard that is not at all proportional to the harm they cause society. So far liberal ideas on the problem look to only make things worse or further the divide between us.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I don’t mean to be rude but what you showed here is that you don’t understand how research works. I cannot think of a single competent researcher anywhere who would think comparing murder rates between Afghanistan and the US would tell you anything useful. The reason why developed countries are compared is because they offer the strongest way to have a natural experiment.

I think you’re allowing your personal bias get in the way of objective evaluation of the evidence. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it. There’s reams of published, peer reviewed research that shows increased prevalence of firearms is associated with increases in homicide rates.

You may wish that the world didn’t work this way and that firearm availability wasn’t such a driving factor but that doesn’t change reality.



Sure. Interestingly enough if you look at research into gun control you’ll also see that when effective gun control is implemented firearm homicides decrease while non-firearm homicides stay relatively flat. This is further evidence that it’s the guns.

Your screen name should be a word in the dictionary with that as the definition. That is the ultimate statement in which the pot calls the kettle black. Just sayin

 

[SlowSpyder]

#fuckkkofftuckkker

I knew it'd be original and thought provoking.

 

[Veliko]

Actually, it would appear one does have a right to own this very common type of firearm. Liberals are getting more and more radical. This is the reason nothing ever gets done, you want to strip the 2A so heavily that a real conversation cannot even be had. The restrictions you want are not proportional to the actual harm that guns cause to society, meanwhile not one of you or any leftist politician is doing more to limit those other much bigger killers. When looked at as a right and weighed against other rights that can cause harm to society, you are holding guns to a standard that is not at all proportional to the harm they cause society. So far liberal ideas on the problem look to only make things worse or further the divide between us.

Ah yes, not wanting people to own killing utensils that can kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds... how 'radical'

 

[SlowSpyder]

Ah yes, not wanting people to own killing utensils that can kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds... how 'radical'

Considering it isn't a problem on a large scale, yes, radical. Someone posted another thread recently, over 10 years some ~110-115 kids were killed in school by shootings. 56.6 million kids enrolled in 2018. And that again was over the course of 10 years. I want that number to be zero as much as you do, but you guys are pretending like this is a large scale issue and willing to rape the Bill of Rights over what is actually an exceedingly minor problem statistically, but the media goes wild with it and you sheep lap it up. Did you see how Neil deGrasse Tyson was treated for daring to try and calm the mania scared anti-2A'ers by pointing out that getting killed in a mass shooting is exceedingly unlikely, much less common than other things that no one cares about, other things that kill us at a much fast rate around us every day.

 

[Veliko]

You don't understand the meaning of 'radical'.

Hence your continued misuse of the word.

The downside of allowing mass ownership of these killing utensils is all these mass shootings.
The downside of getting rid of the guns is... erm... there kind of isn't one.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You don't understand the meaning of 'radical'.

Hence your continued misuse of the word.

The downside of allowing mass ownership of these killing utensils is all these mass shootings.
The downside of getting rid of the guns is... erm... there kind of isn't one.

You're too focused on the method and not what drive people to commit mass killings. Tell me, if we do take the measures you want and killers simply change tactics, then what? The largest school massacre in US history was not done with guns. If guns aren't available killers can just switch to more deadly forms of attack. Simply put the limits you want on guns are NOT proportional to their cost to society when weighing them against other liberties that kill far more that you don't care about further limiting. Are you aware of the fact that second hand smoke kills ~5x as many as all firearms homicides and mass shootings combined? Can you show me your last post on further limiting tobacco use?

 

[Veliko]

You're too focused on the method and not what drive people to commit mass killings. Tell me, if we do take the measures you want and killers simply change tactics, then what? The largest school massacre in US history was not done with guns. If guns aren't available killers can just switch to more deadly forms of attack. Simply put the limits you want on guns are NOT proportional to their cost to society when weighing them against other liberties that kill far more that you don't care about further limiting. Are you aware of the fact that second hand smoke kills ~5x as many as all firearms homicides and mass shootings combined? Can you show me your last post on further limiting tobacco use?

The entire point of getting rid of guns is to force the killers to change tactics.

And what is the tangible cost to society that you're talking about?

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm curious as to what solutions gun owners have that can help prevent a shooter from killing and injuring masses of people in less than a minute that is more effective than banning semi autos. Let's hear it.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm curious as to what solutions gun owners have that can help prevent a shooter from killing and injuring masses of people in less than a minute that is more effective than banning semi autos. Let's hear it.

What’s also curious is they seem to be advocating gun ownership restrictions based on mental health, which would be WAY more intrusive than any gun background check.

Trust me, if anyone actually attempted to implement the sort of mental health things conservatives are talking about right now those very same conservatives would freak out.

 

[glenn1]

I'm curious as to what solutions gun owners have that can help prevent a shooter from killing and injuring masses of people in less than a minute that is more effective than banning semi autos. Let's hear it.

Limiting constitutional rights doesn't work that way. You'd rightfully reject my premise if I said "let's hear your solution for preventing transgenders from sexually assaulting people that's more effective than banning them from the restroom of their expressed gender." Both are relatively rare events that you're attempting to prevent and in both cases the "solution" could plausibly work.