The house passes gun control bills

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
If there were no guns you'd just have more of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

You cannot find a mass shooting that compares to the scale of damage someone did with a truck, a friggen truck.

This is a cousin to the very dumb argument that if suicidal people didn't have access to guns they would find another way to kill themselves. This is simply untrue. The argument isn't that we would have no murders without guns, but all evidence indicates we would have fewer, which is the point.

Guns are some of the most effective ways of killing people available. It's why the US Army uses guns to attempt to kill their enemies instead of buying fleets of trucks to try and run them over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
I've killed a total of one deer with my guns. There are an estimated 80,000,000 - 100,000,000 gun owners in America. Are they using their guns wrongly in your estimation when 99.99999%+ of them go to bed every night without killing anyone?

Well that depends. What are the practical ways in which they are using their guns, that don't involve killing?

Tobacco isn't meant to kill people but it does a much better job than guns at doing so. At least guns can serve a good practical purpose, every year tens of thousands of crimes are stopped thanks to armed citizens. Amazing the laser focus the left has on guns while ignoring much bigger killers.

What is your actual point here? The only things I can see are:

Guns should be considered harmful for your health and people should be discouraged from using them.
The right to bear a lit cigarette to your lips should be entered into the constitution.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Well that depends. What are the practical ways in which they are using their guns, that don't involve killing?

What is your actual point here? The only things I can see are:

Guns should be considered harmful for your health and people should be discouraged from using them.
The right to bear a lit cigarette to your lips should be entered into the constitution.

Basically every time gun control comes up Spidey here tries to say that until we've banned secondhand smoke that we can't regulate guns. (he also sometimes substitutes fast food, cars, etc.)

You're probably thinking 'nobody would make an argument that stupid' but you would be wrong. He is that stupid.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Yes, I've seen Spidey's work before.

His stupidity is remarkably similar to the Brexit stupidity I encounter.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Basically every time gun control comes up Spidey here tries to say that until we've banned secondhand smoke that we can't regulate guns. (he also sometimes substitutes fast food, cars, etc.)

You're probably thinking 'nobody would make an argument that stupid' but you would be wrong. He is that stupid.


You purposely distort the point I make so you can avoid it. When looking at individual rights and their potential to cause harm to society, there is nothing wrong with comparing those rights. And no matter how you try and ignore reality, the reality is that we have other liberties that cause far greater harm to society than guns, and you and the leftist politicians simply don't care about those much higher body counts. You are solely focused on guns because your puppet masters pull your strings in that direction.

Why not a breathalyzer in every car? Why do tobacco products exist? Why do bars/pubs exist, places people drive to so they can drink, then drive home? Why do we allow for beverages that contain greater than x amount of alcohol? Why don't we do background checks on people before they buy knives, axes, bats, etc. (much bigger killer than all rifles - including the scary-to-liberals AR15 and shotguns combined)?

Those measures are akin to what you want to do to guns, and guns kill significantly less than several of those mentioned above. You hold guns, a guaranteed individual right we have, to a different standard than other things that have just as much potential to cause harm. You are not looking at firearms logically, you have been conditioned by propaganda. Because of this your anti-2A crusade is as see-through as crystal, you don't care about saving lives, you care about limiting the 2A.

And none of this even gets to the FACT that guns stop tens of thousands of crimes a year. How many lives have tobacco saved? Alcohol?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
You purposely distort the point I make so you can avoid it. When looking at individual rights and their potential to cause harm to society, there is nothing wrong with comparing those rights. And no matter how you try and ignore reality, the reality is that we have other liberties that cause far greater harm to society than guns, and you and the leftist politicians simply don't care about those much higher body counts. You are solely focused on guns because your puppet masters pull your strings in that direction.

Why not a breathalyzer in every car? Why do tobacco products exist? Why do bars/pubs exist, places people drive to so they can drink, then drive home? Why do we allow for beverages that contain greater than x amount of alcohol? Why don't we do background checks on people before they buy knives, axes, bats, etc. (much bigger killer than all rifles - including the scary-to-liberals AR15 and shotguns combined)?

Those measures are akin to what you want to do to guns, and guns kill significantly less than several of those mentioned above. You hold guns, a guaranteed individual right we have, to a different standard than other things that have just as much potential to cause harm. You are not looking at firearms logically, you have been conditioned by propaganda. Because of this your anti-2A crusade is as see-through as crystal, you don't care about saving lives, you care about limiting the 2A.

This is nonsense - we already spend tons of resources restricting alcohol and tobacco. We even tried banning alcohol entirely back in the day and only re-legalized it because the ban turned out to be a disaster. Durrrrrrrr.

You're not able to engage on this issue rationally because you only know how to argue emotionally. I already know this and so I'm making no attempt to convince you because we already know you're not open to being convinced. I'm only responding so that other people realize this is just stupid, emotional attachment to guns speaking.

And none of this even gets to the FACT that guns stop tens of thousands of crimes a year. How many lives have tobacco saved? Alcohol?

And none of this even gets close to the fact that guns facilitate far, far more crimes each year than they stop. Guns cost lives, they do not save them. The science is clear.
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
A lot of it is just bullshit bluster. I replied because I was dumbfounded that you think most people would think that way, including you.

Even Scalia admitted that it's not an absolute right, and I know many conservatives are okay with the effective full-auto ban, so the boundary of what's allowable is completely subjective. I imagine any attempt to confiscate them would include some buyback program where you get some portion of the value back just like Australia did.

I agree that it's overstated on how many would react that way and I almost commented on it. But I do think that the number of households that would not comply would still be in the millions due just to the total number of them that own guns. For me personally I'm not sure what I would do. If I had a family and kids I would have to consider them but since I don't I think it's pretty likely I wouldn't comply either.

Absolute right or not, because it is a law does not necessarily make it just. And this wouldn't be one that that the courts would go back and correct after the fact. The finality of it is what would make it different than most other laws. The only way I think it could possibly ever work would be some system of making all further transfers illegal, something that I wouldn't support either.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
I agree that it's overstated on how many would react that way and I almost commented on it. But I do think that the number of households that would not comply would still be in the millions due just to the total number of them that own guns. For me personally I'm not sure what I would do. If I had a family and kids I would have to consider them but since I don't I think it's pretty likely I wouldn't comply either.

Absolute right or not, because it is a law does not necessarily make it just. And this wouldn't be one that that the courts would go back and correct after the fact. The finality of it is what would make it different than most other laws. The only way I think it could possibly ever work would be some system of making all further transfers illegal, something that I wouldn't support either.

The better answer wouldn't be to pass a law that says 'all guns are banned starting today' or whatever. Better to just ban transfers, institute buybacks, etc, then let the particularly committed gun owners die of old age.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
You purposely distort the point I make so you can avoid it. When looking at individual rights and their potential to cause harm to society, there is nothing wrong with comparing those rights. And no matter how you try and ignore reality, the reality is that we have other liberties that cause far greater harm to society than guns, and you and the leftist politicians simply don't care about those much higher body counts. You are solely focused on guns because your puppet masters pull your strings in that direction.

Why not a breathalyzer in every car? Why do tobacco products exist? Why do bars/pubs exist, places people drive to so they can drink, then drive home? Why do we allow for beverages that contain greater than x amount of alcohol? Why don't we do background checks on people before they buy knives, axes, bats, etc. (much bigger killer than all rifles - including the scary-to-liberals AR15 and shotguns combined)?

Those measures are akin to what you want to do to guns, and guns kill significantly less than several of those mentioned above. You hold guns, a guaranteed individual right we have, to a different standard than other things that have just as much potential to cause harm. You are not looking at firearms logically, you have been conditioned by propaganda. Because of this your anti-2A crusade is as see-through as crystal, you don't care about saving lives, you care about limiting the 2A.

And none of this even gets to the FACT that guns stop tens of thousands of crimes a year. How many lives have tobacco saved? Alcohol?

This post simply demonstrates how weak your position is. You haven't provided a single coherent argument as to why guns should be so widely available.

All you have is variations on:

It's in the constitution (even though it actually isn't)
Some other unrelated thing exists/doesn't exist.
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
This is nonsense - we already spend tons of resources restricting alcohol and tobacco. We even tried banning alcohol entirely back in the day and only re-legalized it because the ban turned out to be a disaster. Durrrrrrrr.

You're not able to engage on this issue rationally because you only know how to argue emotionally. I already know this and so I'm making no attempt to convince you because we already know you're not open to being convinced. I'm only responding so that other people realize this is just stupid, emotional attachment to guns speaking.

I guess you're under the impression that a full ban on guns wouldn't turn out to be a disaster?

People get pretty emotional when you talk about taking away something they consider to be a tool to defend themselves from others. I don't really blame them. You can write it off as a stupid attachment at your own peril.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
This is nonsense - we already spend tons of resources restricting alcohol and tobacco. We even tried banning alcohol entirely back in the day and only re-legalized it because the ban turned out to be a disaster. Durrrrrrrr.

You're not able to engage on this issue rationally because you only know how to argue emotionally. I already know this and so I'm making no attempt to convince you because we already know you're not open to being convinced. I'm only responding so that other people realize this is just stupid, emotional attachment to guns speaking.

We've done a lot to (un)reasonably restrict guns as well. And they kill FAR less than those other individual liberties I've mentioned. I'm not talking on emotion here, I'm showing you solid and logical comparisons between different rights and their harm to society. You have absolutely nothing, you know it, I know it.



And none of this even gets close to the fact that guns facilitate far, far more crimes each year than they stop. Guns cost lives, they do not save them. The science is clear.

Same with tobacco and alcohol, perfectly legal rights that you nor any other leftist are lifting a finger over despite them killing far more people than guns year in and year out. But when it comes to guns, you guys go full retard.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
We've done a lot to (un)reasonably restrict guns as well. And they kill FAR less than those other individual liberties I've mentioned. I'm not talking on emotion here, I'm showing you solid and logical comparisons between different rights and their harm to society. You have absolutely nothing, you know it, I know it.

Spidey: 'You don't do enough to restrict alcohol!'

Me: 'we tried a nationwide total ban'

Spidey: well that ban was bad!

lol. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Same with tobacco and alcohol, perfectly legal rights that you nor any other leftist are lifting a finger over despite them killing far more people than guns year in and year out. But when it comes to guns, you guys go full retard.

lol, sure.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
I guess you're under the impression that a full ban on guns wouldn't turn out to be a disaster?

People get pretty emotional when you talk about taking away something they consider to be a tool to defend themselves from others. I don't really blame them. You can write it off as a stupid attachment at your own peril.

I'm of the opinion that a full ban on guns is a worthy eventual goal but I'm under no illusions that it would be easy or happen quickly. As you mention (and as Spidey shows here) people get very emotional about guns, even if owning them is irrational, so how we go about it is important.

That's why my plan would be to allow nature and inertia to run its natural course. Ban transfers so guns have to stay with who owns them. Ban new sales because duh. Offer buybacks to those who want to do them to give you some immediate impact and then just generally sit back and let father time solve the problem for you. Sure there would be some nutty holdouts - no policy is perfect - it would likely lead to a drastic decrease in the prevalence of gun ownership though and that would likely save a lot of lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
I'm of the opinion that a full ban on guns is a worthy eventual goal but I'm under no illusions that it would be easy or happen quickly. As you mention (and as Spidey shows here) people get very emotional about guns, even if owning them is irrational, so how we go about it is important.

That's why my plan would be to allow nature and inertia to run its natural course. Ban transfers so guns have to stay with who owns them. Ban new sales because duh. Offer buybacks to those who want to do them to give you some immediate impact and then just generally sit back and let father time solve the problem for you. Sure there would be some nutty holdouts - no policy is perfect - it would likely lead to a drastic decrease in the prevalence of gun ownership though and that would likely save a lot of lives.


I mentioned that just stopping all legal transfers as being the only way it *might* work in one of my previous posts.

That being said, your dismissal of gun owners as being irrational because they don't agree with you is condescending. It's arrogant people like you that know what's best for everyone else that reassures my view that we are no where close to the point that we should give up gun rights in the US.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Spidey: 'You don't do enough to restrict alcohol!'

Me: 'we tried a nationwide total ban'

Spidey: well that ban was bad!

lol. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr



lol, sure.


Like I said, you have nothing. I've shown that other liberties cause a far bigger body count than guns and that no Democrat cares about limiting those. At least nowhere near the scale they seem to care about taking away gun-related rights. You want to get rid of all guns because you have been conditioned to think in this way by your masters. Your reply here amounts to nothing, more closing your eyes and plugging your ears to facts.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
I mentioned that just stopping all legal transfers as being the only way it *might* work in one of my previous posts.

That being said, your dismissal of gun owners as being irrational because they don't agree with you is condescending. It's arrogant people like you that know what's best for everyone else that reassures my view that we are no where close to the point that we should give up gun rights in the US.

It's odd that someone being condescending would affect your opinion of gun policy in the US. Shouldn't that be based on the facts and not what you think of me?

Empirical research shows owning a gun makes you more likely to die as a victim of both homicide and suicide. As self defense is the #1 reason given for gun ownership, owning it for that purpose is irrational. It has nothing to do with whether or not they agree with me, it is based purely on the facts.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
It's odd that someone being condescending would affect your opinion of gun policy in the US. Shouldn't that be based on the facts and not what you think of me?

Empirical research shows owning a gun makes you more likely to die as a victim of both homicide and suicide. As self defense is the #1 reason given for gun ownership, owning it for that purpose is irrational. It has nothing to do with whether or not they agree with me, it is based purely on the facts.


Here you go with your meaningless far too broad stats.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
You know, 100% of people being born die. If we'd outlaw birth eventually there will be no deaths. True stat. Must have meaning.

Yes, excellent display of understanding applied statistics there.

88c0b96ca5b23b9fad7619fd590d7e9a.jpg
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,602
12
81
I'm of the opinion that a full ban on guns is a worthy eventual goal but I'm under no illusions that it would be easy or happen quickly. As you mention (and as Spidey shows here) people get very emotional about guns, even if owning them is irrational, so how we go about it is important.

That's why my plan would be to allow nature and inertia to run its natural course. Ban transfers so guns have to stay with who owns them. Ban new sales because duh. Offer buybacks to those who want to do them to give you some immediate impact and then just generally sit back and let father time solve the problem for you. Sure there would be some nutty holdouts - no policy is perfect - it would likely lead to a drastic decrease in the prevalence of gun ownership though and that would likely save a lot of lives.


This post right here is one of several reasons I make it a point to read your post.

You state your goals and ideas fully! That is refreshing.

You desire a full ban and clearly state that you consider this is a step in that direction.

Well Done

And Thank you for being open about it.

.
 

cmcartman

Member
Aug 19, 2007
184
34
101
It's odd that someone being condescending would affect your opinion of gun policy in the US. Shouldn't that be based on the facts and not what you think of me?

Empirical research shows owning a gun makes you more likely to die as a victim of both homicide and suicide. As self defense is the #1 reason given for gun ownership, owning it for that purpose is irrational. It has nothing to do with whether or not they agree with me, it is based purely on the facts.

I've never argued that it makes it more or less likely. I'd agree with you on the suicides. I'm less convinced on the homicides. If you have a report that takes out drug and gang violence as factors I'd be interested to see that. I currently live alone and at the moment getting into a lovers' quarrel is pretty unlikely. It also doesn't address any possible mitigation of other crimes. All things being even and assuming I don't commit suicide I'm probably at least as safe with one as without one. I believe it's a person's right to decide for themselves if they want one for self defense even if that makes them more likely to die by one.

To answer you question I would say my main reason for gun ownership is that I believe an armed population is the best defense against a tyrannical government. While I consider it a small possibility; I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that someone that feels they know best may decide it's in everyone's best interests to do things the way they believe is right, no matter what that way may be.

Since you can obviously assure me that something like that or say perhaps a massive natural disaster won't occur I'll be the first to get in line for your buyback.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clump

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,527
15,406
136
I've never argued that it makes it more or less likely. I'd agree with you on the suicides. I'm less convinced on the homicides. If you have a report that takes out drug and gang violence as factors I'd be interested to see that. I currently live alone and at the moment getting into a lovers' quarrel is pretty unlikely. It also doesn't address any possible mitigation of other crimes. All things being even and assuming I don't commit suicide I'm probably at least as safe with one as without one. I believe it's a person's right to decide for themselves if they want one for self defense even if that makes them more likely to die by one.

To answer you question I would say my main reason for gun ownership is that I believe an armed population is the best defense against a tyrannical government. While I consider it a small possibility; I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that someone that feels they know best may decide it's in everyone's best interests to do things the way they believe is right, no matter what that way may be.

Since you can obviously assure me that something like that or say perhaps a massive natural disaster won't occur I'll be the first to get in line for your buyback.

Another one of my favorite gun Nutter reasoning. "The 2nd was to keep a check on a tyrannical government!"

That's completely laughable as A) the constitution specifically states that one of the government's duties is to put down insurrections and rebellions B) democracy doesn't exist if there is a threat behind it C) the line between what someone thinks is a tyrannical government and a government that is doing the will of the people is arbitrary.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
To answer you question I would say my main reason for gun ownership is that I believe an armed population is the best defense against a tyrannical government.

That's the dumbest reason to own guns, ever. Completely ridiculous.