NRA in turmoil, gun manufacturers going bankrupt, Thanks Trump

[darkswordsman17]

nah, they have plenty of action. It's just limited to telling you that all of your ideas are wrong while in turn never offering a single thought of their own regarding what could be done. Seems to be the limits they'll go to when jumping into the "things need to be fixed" genre of conversation.

ITS A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *proceeds to try to do everything possible to prevent people from getting mental health treatment*

 

[SMOGZINN]

The thing is I think that plan might work, at least on the already law-abiding who will turn in their gun and be disarmed and lose their constitutional rights in the process. But those who are the actual problem won't comply.

You seem to think that there is some bright line distinction between 'law-abiding' and 'criminal' gun owners. There is not. There are just people with guns. Some will do good things with them, some will do bad, and it is primarily circumstance that separates the two. It is entirely possible that you will have a psychotic break tomorrow and decide to go kill a few dozen people with your 'law-abiding' gun ownership.

Why have all the past gun bans and restrictions never once reduce gun crime and violence?Why are the cities and states with the most restrictive laws still awash in crime? Why is murder still being committed even though it's been illegal, and punishable by death is many places, forever?

Gun bans have been very effective. Look at the UK. Look at Australia. To accept you argument we would have to assume that if we legalized murder there would not be any more of it than we have now. So, honestly by this argument why don't we allow individuals to own heavy weapons like Ground-to-air missile systems, Heavy machine guns, and grenades? Honestly answer why you think those are different if you think your argument makes any sense.

 

[feralkid]

Kay... don’t forget those pussies with knives. Hope this triggers you - Dick head.
View attachment 7804View attachment 7805View attachment 7806View attachment 7807View attachment 7808View attachment 7804View attachment 7805View attachment 7806View attachment 7807View attachment 7808

Looks like "Daddy wasn't there".

And the 3rd generation of sociopaths is now in training.

 

[Commodus]

Yes, your plan would obviously limit access to semi-auto and high capacity weapons, but for the law-abiding only. But the California court that killed their magazine limit ruled that you can't put undue burdens on the lawful right of self-defense. Nor can you make legal guns, commonly in legal use by law abiding citizens illegal unless you have some evidence or proof that it will actually stand a chance of stopping the gun crime/violence problem.

The anti-gunners have done none of that. If you've got something to offer, please do. But you'd rather take away our constitutional rights, and the right to self-defense in the hope that it might make a difference eventually. When all the current gun legislation and restrictions on the books, and various bans that we have tried and that have expired, have left us with the "epidemic of gun violence" you keep point out.

And it's not even a rational fear. Long guns of any kind are only used in a very small percentage of crimes. Handguns kill far more people. Not to mention what alcohol does to society.

And then there is the problem that no prohibition of anything in popular demand has ever worked in the history of this country. As if the stupid drug war isn't enough, now you want to start a gun-war by trying to ban/restrict hundreds of millions of legal guns already in civilian hands. The criminal element will just laugh at you and make or import all the guns they want. And we'll be stuck with another expensive unenforceable law turning, what, 80 million people into criminals overnight.

You think all of this is a good idea? And that I should trust you and play along? Especially since the 2A isn't going anywhere?

But disallowing access to, say, semi-auto rifles and high-capacity magazines isn't taking away your rights. By your logic, any ban on any class of firearm is denying you your rights. So are you going to rail agains the tyranny of bans against full-fledged machine guns, then?

Yes, most gun violence is committed with handguns. That's an issue that requires a multi-faceted solution, such as making access more difficult to those who shouldn't have guns, not to mention socioeconomic changes (better education and job opportunities, for example). But the problem is that mass shooters gravitate toward long guns precisely because they're ideal for killing many humans quickly, and thus lead to casualties that would've been entirely avoidable. Tell me, do you think the Las Vegas shooter would've killed 58 people and injured hundreds more if he'd been firing a pistol from that hotel room?

The hilarious thing is that you're still lying (and it is an intentional, malicious lie) that we want to ban all guns. We don't want to ban all guns; we will not turn 80 million people into criminals overnight. There certainly aren't 80 million people who own semi-auto rifles. In fact, an NSSF estimate has 15 million to 20 million guns in that class in circulation, and that includes law enforcement. Given that some people own more than one, the actual percentage of Americans who own those guns is relatively small.

Here's what I think: ruling out any consideration of gun control legislation is simplistic and cowardly. It shows a fundamental ignorance of how gun control is proven to work in other countries that still embrace democracy and freedom of expression. Yes, the US is a different beast, but you're never going to improve things if your attitude remains "no matter what, do nothing."

 

[Skel]

But disallowing access to, say, semi-auto rifles and high-capacity magazines isn't taking away your rights. By your logic, any ban on any class of firearm is denying you your rights. So are you going to rail agains the tyranny of bans against full-fledged machine guns, then?

Yes, most gun violence is committed with handguns. That's an issue that requires a multi-faceted solution, such as making access more difficult to those who shouldn't have guns, not to mention socioeconomic changes (better education and job opportunities, for example). But the problem is that mass shooters gravitate toward long guns precisely because they're ideal for killing many humans quickly, and thus lead to casualties that would've been entirely avoidable. Tell me, do you think the Las Vegas shooter would've killed 58 people and injured hundreds more if he'd been firing a pistol from that hotel room?

The hilarious thing is that you're still lying (and it is an intentional, malicious lie) that we want to ban all guns. We don't want to ban all guns; we will not turn 80 million people into criminals overnight. There certainly aren't 80 million people who own semi-auto rifles. In fact, an NSSF estimate has 15 million to 20 million guns in that class in circulation, and that includes law enforcement. Given that some people own more than one, the actual percentage of Americans who own those guns is relatively small.

Here's what I think: ruling out any consideration of gun control legislation is simplistic and cowardly. It shows a fundamental ignorance of how gun control is proven to work in other countries that still embrace democracy and freedom of expression. Yes, the US is a different beast, but you're never going to improve things if your attitude remains "no matter what, do nothing."

The courts disagree with you on your idea that "putting bans on magazines or types of firearms removes rights". I would also point out, again, that the LV shooter was using a modified weapon that came to be because people wanted to limit the parts of a firearm rather than just remove all firearms. I do believe that he could have killed that many with a handgun. The ARs were only magical because of his rate of fire, which was only accomplished because of the bump stock mod.

You're also twisting the NSSF estimate. The line you're using to get your number clearly states "Do the math and it works out to between 15 and 20 million modern sporting rifles now in circulation.". That's just modern sporting rifles, which is your AR types. The Washington Post reported (I can't link to it, because it keeps coming up wanting me to subscribe, please feel free to do a simple search. Here is a link from 2017. Washington Post claims it's grown a lot since this.) that there are more firearms in the US than there are people. The idea that the amount of people that own guns is small is wishful thinking. That's one of the reasons why doing any removal of guns is complicated. No other country has the amount, nor has it had guns as part of it's culture from the start like the US.

I don't disagree with you at all that we should consider some changes, and implement breaks on the system. I do believe it is out of control, and if we don't do anything it'll get worse. I just also understand that just declaring "guns are bad they should all go away" or worse declaring people who own them as "pussies" doesn't do anything to help the situation. It's something that requires an understanding of both the gun and why the laws we currently have in place are the way they are. I've rarely seen people on forums put that much into it though.

 

[Stryke1983]

The thing is I think that plan might work, at least on the already law-abiding who will turn in their gun and be disarmed and lose their constitutional rights in the process. But those who are the actual problem won't comply.

I completely understand you are more than willing to throw the 99.92% under the bus to make yourself fell like you are accomplishing something, or in the hope that you may eventually accomplish something way down the road. But we will be the ones paying the price for your experiment.

Why have all the past gun bans and restrictions never once reduce gun crime and violence? Why are the cities and states with the most restrictive laws still awash in crime? Why is murder still being committed even though it's been illegal, and punishable by death is many places, forever?

If the prevalence of guns isn't an issue, why does the US suffer from a disproportionately higher level of gun violence than any other first world country. And I'm not talking a few percentage points here, it's more like six to twenty times higher. Even though US crime levels are not anywhere near as much of an outlier.

If you think that the US can't be compared to other countries for whatever reason, then why do you think there is a strong correlation between gun deaths in each state and the level of restrictions in that state?

If gun control doesn't have an impact, why have countries that have enacted stricter laws seen reductions in deaths/injuries from guns?

If you think mass civilian ownership of guns means a strong defence against attacks, why do they only make up a tiny fraction of shhoting statistics? If they are a strong defence, why are homes with a firearm MORE likely to suffer from an casualty via firearms?

Why do you think gun control is a useless experiment when the US, and the rest of the first world, show strong correlations that more restrictions on gun ownership reduce casualties?

If gun control is not a solution to the extremely high levels of casualties from guns in the US then why do Republicans and the gun lobbyists keep opposing research into the causes of the US' unique issues? If other factors are to blame, why do Republican's also oppose progress in the areas that they keep blaming, like mental health? It's almost as if they think they wouldn't like the answers they would get from more research into the problems with gun violence in the US.

Just admit that the reason you don't want gun control is because you like guns. I completely understand. I enjoy shooting as well. Weapons training, of almost any type, was almost always my favorite category of training in the military. The difference between us is that I'm willing to accept that enjoying using firearms is not a valid reason to avoid taking steps that make the population safer. It won't be perfect, but we know that the evidence, from studies and from current and historical precedents both within and without the US, shows us that it will be an improvement that can be combined with other efforts in other areas to reduce casualties.

 

[JSt0rm]

ITS A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *proceeds to try to do everything possible to prevent people from getting mental health treatment*

The family should pay for it! Back to stroking my large black gun cock

 

[Paladin3]

Pretty sure some random kid shooting up his school isn’t 3d printing a gun. Your argument that we can’t get it to 0% so we shouldn’t get it 99% done is disengenious. You don’t actually care about people dying. Children dying means nothing to next to your dreamworld of self defense. This is what you care about.

We already have 99.92% of guns (as of 2016) that haven't hurt anyone. Non-murdering gun owners and our current gun regulations have done that already. It's a tiny percent of guns that are used illegally, by a tiny fraction of gun users. I won't even call them gun owners because many criminals are possessing their weapons in violation of the law.

But you want to treat every law-abiding gun owner the same as criminals and murders, and can see no difference between the two.

 

[Paladin3]

To add to the others, I've noticed that your arguments throughout the thread revolve around a fundamental logical flaw: because new legislation cannot perfectly solve gun crime, there must be no new legislation. You're arguing against a theoretical straw man and wondering why we don't just smile and nod.

No one here is under the illusion that a law will mysteriously make semi-auto rifles and high-capacity magazines disappear. But that's not the point. The goal is to reduce the proliferation of and easy access to these weapons, to prevent someone from walking into a gun store one day and murdering scores of people the next. All it has to do is prevent some mass murders, or to limit their damage, to accomplish its objective.

Wrong.

• I argue that the only folks you will disarm with your new gun legislation are those who are already law-abiding and don't commit murder.
• And that you have no way to actually accomplish any kind of substantive ban wide reaching enough to be even slightly effective at reducing gun crime.
• And that The United States Constitution prohibits the exact kind of firearms ban you would need to get rid of enough guns to even somewhat keep them out of the hands of potential killers.
• And that those bent on murder will always be able to get a gun to do it with.
• And that you can't violate the lawful rights of legal gun owners to self-defense.

 

[Paladin3]

ITS A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *proceeds to try to do everything possible to prevent people from getting mental health treatment*

To whom are you speaking?

 

[Paladin3]

You seem to think that there is some bright line distinction between 'law-abiding' and 'criminal' gun owners. There is not. There are just people with guns. Some will do good things with them, some will do bad, and it is primarily circumstance that separates the two. It is entirely possible that you will have a psychotic break tomorrow and decide to go kill a few dozen people with your 'law-abiding' gun ownership.

You seem to believe every gun owners is one tater tot away from committing murder. Yet you will drive down a highway mere feet from another car traveling in the opposite direction fast enough to instantly kill you both, but you trust them with your life. It's the same fucking people!

 

[Commodus]

Wrong.

• I argue that the only folks you will disarm with your new gun legislation are those who are already law-abiding and don't commit murder.
• And that you have no way to actually accomplish any kind of substantive ban wide reaching enough to be even slightly effective at reducing gun crime.
• And that The United States Constitution prohibits the exact kind of firearms ban you would need to get rid of enough guns to even somewhat keep them out of the hands of potential killers.
• And that those bent on murder will always be able to get a gun to do it with.
• And that you can't violate the lawful rights of legal gun owners to self-defense.

Er... virtually every mass shooter was not 'the type' to commit murder up to that point. The Las Vegas shooter came out of the blue; his worst run-in with the law was traffic citations. The Pittsburgh synagogue shooter? Oh, he got his AR-15 legally. Same with the Stoneman Douglas high school shooter and others. You see the problem? While they might have shown signs of being not-quite-right, these were "law-abiding" people who weren't obviously violent until they were shooting up concerts, synagogues and schools.

On your second, third and fourth points: just repeating your refrain of "above all else, we must do absolutely nothing. There is no point unless it is a miraculous solution."

Restricting semi-auto rifles is not violating your rights to self-defense. Lying about this with extra vigor is still lying.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You seem to believe every gun owners is one tater tot away from committing murder. Yet you will drive down a highway mere feet from another car traveling in the opposite direction fast enough to instantly kill you both, but you trust them with your life. It's the same fucking people!

I see you didn't answer any of my questions. I assume that means your argument is not genuine.

It is not that I believe gun owners are likely to commit murder, it is that any one of them could at any time and we have no way of telling the law abiding ones from the murders.
99.99% of nuclear weapons have never been used to kill anyone, are you for selling them at gun shops?

We have a lot more requirements to drive a car than own a gun, and yet I saw at least 4 accidents on my way to work today. It would be a massive improvement if we had similar requirements to own a gun as we have to drive a car. Testing, licensing, regular renewal of licensing, yearly inspection and a tax per weapon owned, increased taxation on ammo.

 

[darkswordsman17]

To whom are you speaking?

I don't know, why don't you look and see if I quoted anyone in my post? Maybe that might be a tipoff for ya? (What the fuck? Are you seriously going this fucking stupid?)

 

[zinfamous]

You seem to believe every gun owners is one tater tot away from committing murder. Yet you will drive down a highway mere feet from another car traveling in the opposite direction fast enough to instantly kill you both, but you trust them with your life. It's the same fucking people!

But how do we know they aren't? You seem to agree that all "irresponsible gun owners" were always irresponsible, and the proof exists when they do their irresponsible thing, right?

How does one identify these magically-always irresponsible gun owners before they go out and do the murder, after years and years of being obviously responsible?

That's kind of important.

 

[brycejones]

But how do we know they aren't? You seem to agree that all "irresponsible gun owners" were always irresponsible, and the proof exists when they do their irresponsible thing, right?

How does one identify these magically-always irresponsible gun owners before they go out and do the murder, after years and years of being obviously responsible?

That's kind of important.

its immaterial to Paladin until that magical day occurs he appears to firmly believe nothing should be done. Until we can fix the entire issue with one neat trick don't do anything.

 

[Stryke1983]

You seem to believe every gun owners is one tater tot away from committing murder. Yet you will drive down a highway mere feet from another car traveling in the opposite direction fast enough to instantly kill you both, but you trust them with your life. It's the same fucking people!

This argument has been dismissed repeatedly:

Removing individual transport with no practical (yet) alternative would be catastrophic. Banning mass civilian ownership of firearms (i.e. needing a real reason to own a firearm), would only mean a negative impact on businesses that makeup an extremely small proportion of the US economy as if you actually needed a gun you could still get one, just like in the UK, etc.

In addition, there are greater requirements to be allowed to drive and driving isn't a right, so it can be taken away from individuals.

In addition, over the years there has been a wide range of restrictions put on drivers and auto manufacturers that has led to huge drops in casualties from accidents. From seat belt laws to safety systems on vehicles.

Not only are the two situations not comparable, if we actually followed your logic and treated them the same way we'd be introducing tighter gun laws and accepting that it is not a human right. Thereby seeing a safer population.

 

[Paladin3]

I see you didn't answer any of my questions. I assume that means your argument is not genuine.

It is not that I believe gun owners are likely to commit murder, it is that any one of them could at any time and we have no way of telling the law abiding ones from the murders.
99.99% of nuclear weapons have never been used to kill anyone, are you for selling them at gun shops?

We have a lot more requirements to drive a car than own a gun, and yet I saw at least 4 accidents on my way to work today. It would be a massive improvement if we had similar requirements to own a gun as we have to drive a car. Testing, licensing, regular renewal of licensing, yearly inspection and a tax per weapon owned, increased taxation on ammo.

I don't know how you can prevent a crime before it's been committed if there are no signs it's about to happen. We can't arrest, jail or remove constitutional rights from someone who has done nothing wrong. That's just the way things work. We can do more to identify and help people in crisis, and get them the care they need. Plus we can do a whole lot more to make sure the background check system is up to date and law enforcement agencies communicate better.

But you'd rather take the easy way out and treat those who currently own perfectly legal guns, use them safely and legally, as though they have committed a crime. It destroys due process, innocent until proven guilty and violates our constitution.

All your plan would do is put extra burdens on law-abiding citizens to enjoy their 2A rights. I know you think it will stop murderers, but I see no evidence it will. Past assault rifle bans didn't do a thing to reduce gun violence. Unless you have some evidence new legislation will actually work?

And you and others keep talking about the dead. Do you have any idea how many people fought and died to provide you with the freedom you currently enjoy? And you would toss it all out in a vain attempt to get rid of guns. Guns which are so embedded in American culture that you will never stand a chance of getting more than a small fractions of them. And you'll get zero of the guns away from those who are the problem.

 

[Paladin3]

I don't know, why don't you look and see if I quoted anyone in my post? Maybe that might be a tipoff for ya? (What the fuck? Are you seriously going this fucking stupid?)

Sorry, didn't know Zinfamous was against folks getting good mental health care. And thanks for being a dick about it.

 

[Paladin3]

This argument has been dismissed repeatedly:

Removing individual transport with no practical (yet) alternative would be catastrophic. Banning mass civilian ownership of firearms (i.e. needing a real reason to own a firearm), would only mean a negative impact on businesses that makeup an extremely small proportion of the US economy as if you actually needed a gun you could still get one, just like in the UK, etc.

In addition, there are greater requirements to be allowed to drive and driving isn't a right, so it can be taken away from individuals.

In addition, over the years there has been a wide range of restrictions put on drivers and auto manufacturers that has led to huge drops in casualties from accidents. From seat belt laws to safety systems on vehicles.

Not only are the two situations not comparable, if we actually followed your logic and treated them the same way we'd be introducing tighter gun laws and accepting that it is not a human right. Thereby seeing a safer population.

I wasn't proposing a ban on driving at all. I was just pointing out that we trust our neighbor to do potentially dangerous activities all the time, because most folks are perfectly safe, sane and reasonable. But when someone owns a gun they are suddenly on the edge of turning psychopath and can't be trusted.

You guys keep ignoring the statistic that over 99.92% of gun in America never hurt anyone. Yet you want to treat all those gun owners like criminals just for the small chance that you might get guns away from those bent on murder.

 

[Veliko]

I wasn't proposing a ban on driving at all. I was just pointing out that we trust our neighbor to do potentially dangerous activities all the time, because most folks are perfectly safe, sane and reasonable. But when someone owns a gun they are suddenly on the edge of turning psychopath and can't be trusted.

You guys keep ignoring the statistic that over 99.92% of gun in America never hurt anyone. Yet you want to treat all those gun owners like criminals just for the small chance that you might get guns away from those bent on murder.

Let's try this again:

Guns fulfill no practical purpose outside of the realm of killing.

Cars do.

That's why they are treated differently.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You seem to believe every gun owners is one tater tot away from committing murder. Yet you will drive down a highway mere feet from another car traveling in the opposite direction fast enough to instantly kill you both, but you trust them with your life. It's the same fucking people!

False equivalence. I love when people bring up cars in a gun argument.

Cars exist to transport people and things, and when operated properly pose no threat to other drivers or bystanders. They also have a vast array of protective systems in place to protect the folks inside and modern cars also feature systems to help avoid coming into contact with things outside the car.

Guns exist to inflict violence and kill people, and have almost zero safety features designed to protect other people as that would defeat the purpose of a weapon.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't know how you can prevent a crime before it's been committed if there are no signs it's about to happen.

I imagine that is because you are not smart enough to. We do manage to stop crime all the time by using this thing called 'preventative measures'. For example we have invented high tech solutions to stopping robbery called 'doors'. We improved on that technology with a thing called 'locks'. Used together these things help prevent many crimes that would occur otherwise. I don't even need to know that a crime is about to happen to use them to prevent that crime! These are but a small number of ways we have come up with to prevent a crime. It is entirely possible that the crime of shooting someone could be prevented by not allowing people to have guns. I know, you have a hard time imagining a world in which people don't have guns, because apparently your imagination is severely stunted, but it is a possible world. We know this because EVERY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY IS ALREADY IN THAT WORLD!

We can't arrest, jail or remove constitutional rights from someone who has done nothing wrong.

Make certain classes of guns illegal, then anyone with one of those guns is doing something wrong. Then we can use due process to jail them and remove their constitutional rights. Of course you are going to attempt here to claim that making certain classes of guns illegal is unconstitutional, but it has been pointed out to you a dozen times already that there is a fully constitutional method to go about that, and the SCOTUS has already ruled it is legal, at least twice. All we need is to pass a law making most classes of firearms as illegal to own as the ones already outlawed. If it is constitutionally permissible to make rocket launchers and machine guns illegal, it is constitutionally permissible to make semi-automatic pistols and rifles illegal as well. That is just the way things work.

I know you think it will stop murderers, but I see no evidence it will. Past assault rifle bans didn't do a thing to reduce gun violence. Unless you have some evidence new legislation will actually work?

I would like to point at every other first world country in the entire world as evidence. Every one of them saw a large and noticeable drop in the sort of murders we are talking about when they banned guns. This has also been pointed out to you multiple times, and apparently you keep forgetting.

I won't be arguing with you any more. It is obvious that your arguments are purely emotional in nature and you simply ignore any evidence that does not fit your narrative. Your entire argument boils down to 'It is impossible to stop 100% of crime so why even have laws?'

 

[fskimospy]

Gun ownership is positively correlated with increased rates of homicide and suicide even after controlling for other factors such as crime rate, etc. Gun control laws are effective at reducing the number of guns in society, therefore they are likely to continue to be successful at reducing gun deaths.

This is common sense.

 

[Sunburn74]

I wasn't proposing a ban on driving at all. I was just pointing out that we trust our neighbor to do potentially dangerous activities all the time, because most folks are perfectly safe, sane and reasonable. But when someone owns a gun they are suddenly on the edge of turning psychopath and can't be trusted.

You guys keep ignoring the statistic that over 99.92% of gun in America never hurt anyone. Yet you want to treat all those gun owners like criminals just for the small chance that you might get guns away from those bent on murder.

This is how society works for everything. You seem to be lacking a basic understanding of how a society works and who gets penalized by almost all rules formed by a society.

Realistically at the end of the day we need to get rid of the concept of guns being owned for fun and also limit the number of guns and bullets an individual person is allowed to have. These are changes that would well be within the constitutional scope the courts have allowed states to have in terms of these issues. It's mostly a matter of political will.