• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Should weapons of mass murder be so easily available?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,185
107
106
Weapons of mass murder like those use in the Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Arizona shooting can be purchased with ease over the internet, at gun sales, and in person private sales. No background check is needed and the killing machines can be had the same day.

Do you support doing more to prevent criminals from getting these weapons of mass death and destruction?
Weapons of mass murder? You mean like driving a truck through a fair? Or like knives? Or like gasoline? I think its fucking absurd that people pick and choose what weapons they think should be outlawed.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
27,109
1,884
126
Those things all provide great media cover for your "elite" to steal, cheat and kill unhampered, while you idiots bicker about stuff like abortion and gay marriage.....what a bunch of numskulls....little hope isn't there, so this not to end in a mess- how many nukes does your country have???? scary lunatics with nukes............
i'm not sure what your point was. and on top of that, i'm certainly no uber right-wing conservative.

also, you'd be surprised how much you care about your rights once you decide to exercise them.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
What about guns that hold dozens if not hundreds of rounds, and shoot tens of bullets per second, should these be banned.
No. Why can't you ignorant anti-gun nutjobs get it through your head, people are the problem, not guns. There's no reason whatsoever that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own one because of some lunatics actions. How would you like to not be able to post your stupid questions on the internet because of other peoples inability to control themselves on here.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
When will you look at the data of crime and metal health and see it's related directly to socioeconomic conditions, that's why they go nuts, because they have no hope for a better future...but fuck you jack I am ok!!!!(thats how your society works!).

How do you expect people to lead a happy, healthy life and be law abiding on $8/hr?????
What does half your argument even have to do with guns?

Violence is linked to socioeconomic conditions, as well as other factors. However violence =/= gun. Violence can be punching, wrestling, baseball bat, knife, sword, Nun-chuks, grenades, home-made explosives, guns, cars running over people, etc.

Thus your argument is not in the same relm as what OP and everyone else was talking about and that is just guns. Not violence. Violence will forever be part of human civilization. Same as you cannot have everyone happy with their life conditions, some are their own stupid life choices, while others are factors they are born with.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
I dunno, ask these folks. You seem to take exception though when someone suggests waiting periods for this mass murder tool, although if abortion equipment was black and had a bayonet lug I'd bet you'd make an exception for it.

 

Jaepheth

Platinum Member
Apr 29, 2006
2,571
25
91
This is 2013, not 1955.
Plutonium should be available in every corner drug store. :colbert:
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
Remember, the OP slobbers all over North Korea's political wang, so don't get too fooled by yet another troll post by him.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
271
126
Such guns aren't readily available and are traced and tracked, to get a pre-ban fully-auto weapon you must pay through the nose and jump through a lot of hoops. If you'd bother looking, you'd see that automatic weapons weren't used in any of these killings.
This. You need a class 3 FFL (expensive!) and then get a full auto rifle - last I looked, $10k and up.

The ignorance on the 'lets regulate guns' crowd is profound.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
271
126
<snip>

When will you look at the data of crime and metal health and see it's related directly to socioeconomic conditions, that's why they go nuts, because they have no hope for a better future...but fuck you jack I am ok!!!!(thats how your society works!).

How do you expect people to lead a happy, healthy life and be law abiding on $8/hr?????
None of the high-profile mass murders were poor. Whack-jobs, yes; poor, no. We can thank liberals for messing up dealing with the dangerously mentally ill.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
What is a weapon of mass murder?
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
76,577
9,703
126
A knife can be a weapon of mass murder.
A car can be a weapon of mass murder.

Chlorine and ammonia.
Fertilizer.
Actually any substance in powder form can make a bomb.

When you finally realize its not the object thats evil, you will focus your attention on the real problem.

The reason people are so quick to vilify guns is they cant face the true fear: Its humans. Humans dangerous. And you cant control them. And thats too scary to cope with so its easier to focus on guns, make that the issue, and keep deluding yourself into doing something which is ultimately ineffective.
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
Cars, pools, fatty foods, cancer, and doctors/hospitals haven't been made illegal yet, so you tell me.

33,000 vehicle deaths per year. I would argue most are preventable on account of improved driver training.

3500 accidental drownings per year, IIRC. certainly more than the number of people killed in mass shootings (88 if I'm not mistaken).

heart disease - #1 killer of americans

Cancer...#2 killer of Americans?

10,000+ deaths due to doctor error, preventable infection, etc while at the hospital.


So, why are you so eager to start stripping rights away from law-abiding citizens??
Big difference: these are moderately within your control. If you choose to eat fatty foods every day and do little exercise, you will suffer for it. But if you make the right choices, you will enjoy the benefits.

With these guns, the killings are random and without reason. It's basically terrorism.

And no, I don't care about people who commit suicide using their own guns. But I do care about people shooting up complete strangers for no reason.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
27,109
1,884
126
Big difference: these are moderately within your control. If you choose to eat fatty foods every day and do little exercise, you will suffer for it. But if you make the right choices, you will enjoy the benefits.

With these guns, the killings are random and without reason. It's basically terrorism.

And no, I don't care about people who commit suicide using their own guns. But I do care about people shooting up complete strangers for no reason.
you don't choose to get in a car "accident", either.

you don't necessarily choose the doctor that will operate on you, and you certainly can't control him/her while he/she operates on you.

you could look also at these events as random and anomalous. meaning time, money, and resources are better spent elsewhere when trying to reduce both general violence and gun violence.
 

Phanuel

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2008
2,305
2
0
Big difference: these are moderately within your control. If you choose to eat fatty foods every day and do little exercise, you will suffer for it. But if you make the right choices, you will enjoy the benefits.

With these guns, the killings are random and without reason. It's basically terrorism.

And no, I don't care about people who commit suicide using their own guns. But I do care about people shooting up complete strangers for no reason.
What kind of inane reasoning is happening here?

A gun is a hunk of metal and plastic/wood. It doesn't have sentience, it doesn't move on its own, it can't shoot people without a human operating it.


I've ceased to be shocked by the sheer lunacy exhibited (and that's frustrating to me now) by the anti-gun crowd because this level of irrationality seems to be the norm these days.
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
What kind of inane reasoning is happening here?

A gun is a hunk of metal and plastic/wood. It doesn't have sentience, it doesn't move on its own, it can't shoot people without a human operating it.


I've ceased to be shocked by the sheer lunacy exhibited (and that's frustrating to me now) by the anti-gun crowd because this level of irrationality seems to be the norm these days.
It's not irrational at all.

countries without these guns suffer far fewer random mass shootings.

And when there are shootings, the death toll is lessened.

It varies case by case. But isolate the factors and restricting gun capacity will reduce random deaths.

Anyways, I sense lots of projection here from gun nuts, when all they talk about is "rationality". It's like Fredo declaring, "I'm smart".
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
What about guns that hold dozens if not hundreds of rounds, and shoot tens of bullets per second, should these be banned.
There is no weapon you can hold that shoots 10 rounds per second much less tens of rounds. And why are you leaving out Columbine? They did the majority of the shooting form 10 round magaizine pistols and shot guns?
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
There is no weapon you can hold that shoots 10 rounds per second much less tens of rounds. And why are you leaving out Columbine? They did the majority of the shooting form 10 round magaizine pistols and shot guns?
Mass shootings tend to fall into two categories: siege/hostage and spree.

So I'd categorize Cho, Columbine, and Anders Breivik as siege/hostage.

I'd categorize Loughner and Lanza and Holmes as spree.

Limiting magazine sizes makes spree shootings less deadly.
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,481
3
76
It's not irrational at all.

countries without these guns suffer far fewer random mass shootings.

And when there are shootings, the death toll is lessened.

It varies case by case. But isolate the factors and restricting gun capacity will reduce random deaths.

Anyways, I sense lots of projection here from gun nuts, when all they talk about is "rationality". It's like Fredo declaring, "I'm smart".
I can change a magazine in a second or two.

30 round magazines are great for defense - think your wife with 4-5 bad guys coming in and that under stress most of her bullets won't hit the target. 10 rounds wouldn't be enough, 20 probably not either, 30 rounds and now she's got a chance.

All this gun grabber talk really harms legitimate self defense uses which is their end goal. They don't want you to be able to defend yourself or family.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,481
3
76
Mass shootings tend to fall into two categories: siege/hostage and spree.

So I'd categorize Cho, Columbine, and Anders Breivik as siege/hostage.

I'd categorize Loughner and Lanza as spree.

Limiting magazine sizes makes spree shootings less deadly.
How so? You are aware that columbine was during the assault weapons ban, right?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,481
3
76
Did you read what I wrote? Columbine was a siege type situation, not spree.
Ok. So a siege is OK, but a spree is not. Gotcha.

Limiting magazine size will have absolutely ZERO effect on "mass shootings". None. We tried it before, it made ZERO difference. The only difference is it harms peoples ability to defend themselves.
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
I can change a magazine in a second or two.

30 round magazines are great for defense - think your wife with 4-5 bad guys coming in and that under stress most of her bullets won't hit the target. 10 rounds wouldn't be enough, 20 probably not either, 30 rounds and now she's got a chance.

All this gun grabber talk really harms legitimate self defense uses which is their end goal. They don't want you to be able to defend yourself or family.
Seconds add up.

Beyond that, having to store multiple magazines like that is more bulky. Three 10 rounders will be more bulky than one 30 rounder. They have to be managed more.

And beyond that, it takes training to reload quickly. Lots of practice. It isn't easy.

There was a shooting recently at a community college. Shooter was posting on 4chan about how nervous he was since he hadn't used a shotgun that much before.

So not all shooters are perfectly trained.

Also, this thing about women defending themselves with AR-15's is just ridiculous. It really is. It's just another crazy emotional argument used, bringing up ridiculous situations that have no bearing in fact.
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
Ok. So a siege is OK, but a spree is not. Gotcha.

Limiting magazine size will have absolutely ZERO effect on "mass shootings". None. We tried it before, it made ZERO difference. The only difference is it harms peoples ability to defend themselves.
You can't read, can you? Limiting magazine sizes will reduce the lethality of spree shootings, that start and end very quickly.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY