Reality Check on Gun Control

[IamRAMBO24]

Reality Check (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83014609#05F1jwl28IIsAfZk.16)

Hard to argue against Reality Check.

[MMM]

What I find interesting is how any change in the existing laws can be claimed as the first step to take away guns by opponents of gun control. If the government wants to restrict certain weapons, which they are entitled to do, then the opponents will justify it as one step to eventually taking all guns. Genuinely speaking, what laws would be acceptable to law-abiding gun owners??? Because it seems even things such as registrations of weapons would be seen as an infringement on rights.

[IamRAMBO24]

What I find interesting is how any change in the existing laws can be claimed as the first step to take away guns by opponents of gun control. If the government wants to restrict certain weapons, which they are entitled to do, then the opponents will justify it as one step to eventually taking all guns. Genuinely speaking, what laws would be acceptable to law-abiding gun owners??? Because it seems even things such as registrations of weapons would be seen as an infringement on rights.

That is not the argument, the argument the anti-gun advocates are upholding is that "Possession of firearms will lead to mass murder."

Which is a false premise as Reality Check pointed out. Of course gun murders are higher in the US because of the possession of more guns, but more violent crimes are being committed per capita in the UK, which doesn't involve the use of guns but by other violent means, and based on the low percentage of gun ownership it could hypothetically increase such violent crimes as burglary.

[miller-time]

That is not the argument, the argument the anti-gun advocates are upholding is that "Possession of firearms will lead to mass murder."

Which is a false premise as Reality Check pointed out. Of course gun murders are higher in the US because of the possession of more guns, but more violent crimes are being committed per capita in the UK, which doesn't involve the use of guns but by other violent means, and based on the low percentage of gun ownership it could hypothetically increase such violent crimes as burglary.

Funnily enough I confronted a burglar today. I was at my Grandma's house and I was just leaving and we thought we saw someone on her neighbors property pushing on a window. We didn't think much of it because we assumed he was supposed to be there (the guy was dressed sort of like a tradesman). We kept walking up the drive and then he must of spotted us and tried to hide behind this low wall with some bushes next to it, which actually gave him away. I went up the neighbors driveway and asked him what he was doing and he said *he was getting a drink of water. I just said "uhuh" and stared at him. He just started walking away slowly, once he got to the sidewalk he sped up a bit and turned at the corner. Didn't see him after that.

The point is though that burglary isn't really a violent crime. As I've said before, they want your stuff, they don't want to be bothered with you. Whether you have guns or not they are more likely to enter your home when you aren't there. And if you aren't home, what difference does owning a gun make?

*Edit - actually he said he was getting some water, because when he left we looked for a tap around where he was and there wasn't one.

[MMM]

Also restricting guns is constitutional from my understanding but you would still be able to defend your self. I don't see anyone arguing for ban on all guns. The problem seems to be that there is very little trust in anything that the government offers up on this matter.

[DirtySanchez]

Ben Swann is comparing USA to super dangerous countries as 28th most homocides. The countries that are 27th to most homicides are 100% all lawless countries in Central America, South America, Northern EX-Soviet Union (belarus, Latvia) and middle east. PROPANGANDA, let the sheeps follow the shepard...

Nice try gun freaks

[IamRAMBO24]

Funnily enough I confronted a burglar today. I was at my Grandma's house and I was just leaving and we thought we saw someone on her neighbors property pushing on a window. We didn't think much of it because we assumed he was supposed to be there (the guy was dressed sort of like a tradesman). We kept walking up the drive and then he must of spotted us and tried to hide behind this low wall with some bushes next to it, which actually gave him away. I went up the neighbors driveway and asked him what he was doing and he said *he was getting a drink of water. I just said "uhuh" and stared at him. He just started walking away slowly, once he got to the sidewalk he sped up a bit and turned at the corner. Didn't see him after that.

The point is though that burglary isn't really a violent crime. As I've said before, they want your stuff, they don't want to be bothered with you. Whether you have guns or not they are more likely to enter your home when you aren't there. And if you aren't home, what difference does owning a gun make?

*Edit - actually he said he was getting some water, because when he left we looked for a tap around where he was and there wasn't one.

I don't see what is your point. I don't need to pull out stats to prove a burglar will more likely rob a house without a gun than one with one. A rapist will more likely rape a woman without a gun than one with one. This is why you don't ever hear about cops getting raped or robbed.

Again, the argument rests on a false premise: the assumption that possession in and of itself will lead to more violence, which is completely untrue.

Guns don't kill people, people do. Protection is not a sin. I'm sorry, this premise is full proof. Your premise is horse sh*t.

[miller-time]

I don't need to pull out stats to prove a burglar will more likely rob a house without a gun than one with one.

How would a burglar know if the house has a gun or not? The burglar can only best guess that no one is in the house.

[Nanners]

this thread makes my head hurt

[vinsane01]

Is the classification of violent crime similar in all countries? because it may or (may not) destroy the whole argument. Also, im interested to see the official number of violent crimes in the UK or australia before and after the gun ban. Quick googling says they are going up..

[miller-time]

Is the classification of violent crime similar in all countries? because it may or (may not) destroy the whole argument. Also, im interested to see the official number of violent crimes in the UK or australia before and after the gun ban. Quick googling says they are going up..

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1631449/Violent-crimes-decrease-across-Australia

[IamRAMBO24]

How would a burglar know if the house has a gun or not? The burglar can only best guess that no one is in the house.

Most burglars aren't stupid; they don't randomly walk down the street and say, "Hey let's rob that house with the lowest lit lighting." Most burglaries are from neighbors, friends, or family members that have inside knowledge of the house they are going to burglarize. Violent burglars who use force will more likely rob a house with the intel that the home owner does not have a gun for fear of retribution. If they know the house does not have a gun, they can just force their way into the house with their illegal arms and hold the owners captive while they rape their children and steal their property, which is actually a huge problem California (one of the strictest states with gun laws) is experiencing by asian gang members.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1631449/Violent-crimes-decrease-across-AustraliaMORE VIOLENT CRIMES DESPITE GUN BANS (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847)

*Posted to refute that the gun ban had any effect in the low violent crimes; for example, if the overall crime rate rose 42% after the gun ban and then increased to over 43% and then back to 43% in 2012, then how the f*ck does that mean the gun ban has any impact in deterring crimes overall in Australia when the rate increased by 42% after the ban took effect.

Nice way of picking and choosing your stats without looking at the overall picture dumbsh*t.

[daily]

Most burglars aren't stupid
Yes they are. That's why they're burglars and not law abiding citzens

[iamgine]

I thought the issue is banning rifles. Not all guns.

[miller-time]

MORE VIOLENT CRIMES DESPITE GUN BANS (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847)

*Posted to refute that the gun ban had any effect in the low violent crimes; for example, if the overall crime rate rose 42% after the gun ban and then increased to over 43% and then back to 43% in 2012, then how the f*ck does that mean the gun ban has any impact in deterring crimes overall in Australia when the rate increased by 42% after the ban took effect.

Nice way of picking and choosing your stats without looking at the overall picture dumbsh*t.

Before your edit I was going to agree with you. But **** that. You're just an asshole.

[IamRAMBO24]

I thought the issue is banning rifles. Not all guns.

Still all based on a false premise. I can't support something that has an appeal to emotions (Sandy Hook shooting) and a strawman (all gun owners are mentally ill and will kill others if they get a hold of a gun).

The fact is most law abiding gun owners (including public workers such as cops) are sane individuals in possession of a firearm to protect themselves.

This is a fact.

The premise that an insane child who illegally possesses a firearm is a bad thing is something we all can agree to, but this has been generalized to include the "possession of a firearm in and of itself equates to violence." I don't see how a child who steals a gun from his mother and shoots up a school can equate logically to a law abiding, trained, sane adult (including cops) in possession of a firearm. This is a generalized fallacy.

Usually this can easily deceive those not verse in logic.

[MMM]

I thought the issue is banning rifles. Not all guns.

banning certain semi automatic weapons but some argue that banning some guns could potentially lead to the banning of all guns. I think we should be looking at preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands and not necessarily talk about banning certain guns, perhaps through tougher background checks, registrations, or graduated licencing.

[IamRAMBO24]

Before your edit I was going to agree with you. But **** that. You're just an asshole.

I apologize, I got too emotional. You are a good poster and I didn't mean to call you a dumbsh*t. I take that back.

[miller-time]

I apologize, I got too emotional. You are a good poster and I didn't mean to call you a dumbsh*t. I take that back.

no worries man :)

[Velocirap31]

The tags for that video are pretty funny: 'brittian' Piers morgan, idiot liberals destroying america, etc.

[iamgine]

banning certain semi automatic weapons but some argue that banning some guns could potentially lead to the banning of all guns. I think we should be looking at preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands and not necessarily talk about banning certain guns, perhaps through tougher background checks, registrations, or graduated licencing.
I wonder about that because certainly there are some guns that is technically already banned as it is. For example, you can't just own a bazooka.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

That is not the argument, the argument the anti-gun advocates are upholding is that "Possession of firearms will lead to mass murder."

Which is a false premise as Reality Check pointed out. Of course gun murders are higher in the US because of the possession of more guns, but more violent crimes are being committed per capita in the UK, which doesn't involve the use of guns but by other violent means, and based on the low percentage of gun ownership it could hypothetically increase such violent crimes as burglary.

I live in the UK and don't know anyone who has been a victim of violent crime. And I'd rather be a victim of violent crime that a victim of homicide

[andgar923]

I don't say this lightly, but gun 'nuts' are idiots.

[dunksby]

Rambo why do you have to be a such a stereotypical sob? Conspiracy nut pro gun paranoid Mfer whom I don't understand why isn't living in some cottage in the middle of some dead zone already.

[Thorpesaurous]

banning certain semi automatic weapons but some argue that banning some guns could potentially lead to the banning of all guns. I think we should be looking at preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands and not necessarily talk about banning certain guns, perhaps through tougher background checks, registrations, or graduated licencing.


I'm a gun owner, and I would have little to no problem with any of increased measures you propose to getting a gun. However I do know that the NRA opposes many of these measures, as their position is consistently at the extreme, with the argument that they're constantly trying to prevent the slippery slope.
I also feel like we'd be better off if these decisions were put further into the state's hands. I live in Connecticut. Could I get by without a gun? Probably. But people who live in more hunting rich parts of the country, or people who make their living as farmers, why should they have their feet held to the fire because other states can't handle the responsibility. Why should a community in say Montana have to abide to restrictions to something that is inherently part of their existence, just because some sociopath kid shot up a school.
The biggest problem with the current jump to solution items we're hearing is that few of them would've affected the outcome of this tragedy. Banning thirty round clips wouldn't have helped. Banning assault rifles wouldn't have changed much. This energy would be better suited figuring out a methodology of protecting our schools.

[KevinNYC]

I'm a gun owner, and I would have little to no problem with any of increased measures you propose to getting a gun. However I do know that the NRA opposes many of these measures, as their position is consistently at the extreme, with the argument that they're constantly trying to prevent the slippery slope.
I also feel like we'd be better off if these decisions were put further into the state's hands. I live in Connecticut. Could I get by without a gun? Probably. But people who live in more hunting rich parts of the country, or people who make their living as farmers, why should they have their feet held to the fire because other states can't handle the responsibility. Why should a community in say Montana have to abide to restrictions to something that is inherently part of their existence, just because some sociopath kid shot up a school.
The biggest problem with the current jump to solution items we're hearing is that few of them would've affected the outcome of this tragedy. Banning thirty round clips wouldn't have helped. Banning assault rifles wouldn't have changed much. This energy would be better suited figuring out a methodology of protecting our schools.

I don't think that any of the current proposals would affect anything that "inherently part of a Montanan's existence."

Most NRA members are in favor of the proposals that are being offered. However, the NRA is not really an organization of sportsman any more. It's a lobby for gun manufacturers.

The Washington Post just had an article when the radicals took over the NRA and transformed it from a hunting organization into a gun lobby. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html)

[Thorpesaurous]

I don't think that any of the current proposals would affect anything that "inherently part of a Montanan's existence."

Most NRA members are in favor of the proposals that are being offered. However, the NRA is not really an organization of sportsman any more. It's a lobby for gun manufacturers.

The Washington Post just had an article when the radicals took over the NRA and transformed it from a hunting organization into a gun lobby. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html)


My main point is that this should be handled more on the state level.

[Balla_Status]

I live in the UK and don't know anyone who has been a victim of violent crime. And I'd rather be a victim of violent crime that a victim of homicide

Neither do I in the USA...what a stupid argument.

I've cousins in brighton, UK who talk about knife fights happening all the time.

[IamRAMBO24]

Rambo why do you have to be a such a stereotypical sob? Conspiracy nut pro gun paranoid Mfer whom I don't understand why isn't living in some cottage in the middle of some dead zone already.

What many people fail to realize is that the 2nd amendment means just that: the second most important freedom we have in a free nation. Freedom of speech is the most important because it allows us to convey our ideas and thoughts without retribution.

Why is the possession of guns so damn important you ask .. when we have the freedom to speak our mind against those in power (you know the people with the money, power, and bigger guns), we will need some sort of protection if those in power do not like what we have to say.

So the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms to protect our right to say whatever the f*ck we want even if it pisses off the people controlling this country.

Today we can call our President an idiot and not be fearful he's going to put a rope around our necks and hang us.

That is why it was put under numero 2. The SECOND most important freedom a free man can have; what the f*ck is the point of being free if you don't have the power to protect yourself.

If a guy tries to rob my house, I should have the right to shoot him; if some dude wants to rape me in the a*s, I should have the right to stop him; if the government wants to abolish the constitution and be a dictatorship, the people should have the right to try to fight against that.

So what if our arms won't be up to par against the military; it sure as hell is better than a f*ckin' knife.

You are taking guns from law abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves. The real problems are criminals who possess illegal arms and mental teenagers who are f*cked up in the head and shooting up schools. Go after those f*ckers. Why would you want to take guns away from the people who are only possessing firearms to protect themselves.

By equating them altogether is a generalized fallacy, which is a premise I cannot support.

You are not arguing to take guns away from the criminals who will commit these heinous crimes, you are arguing to take away the guns from the people who want to protect themselves from these criminals.

That's the fallacy because if the criminals and deranged kids are getting these guns through illegal means, that is a failure of law enforcement and government officials who should find some measure to prevent such access, not the people themselves. Huge difference.

[MMM]

You are not arguing to take guns away from the criminals who will commit these heinous crimes, you are arguing to take away the guns from the people who want to protect themselves from these criminals.


I have not seen anyone argue that and the propose legislation isn't going to take away guns. So, where does the bold'd come from??? For someone that pretends to be logical, I find it strange that your arguments are not based on reality.

[dunksby]

Unrelated ramblings of a mad man thinking aloud...
Criminals do not acquire guns legally since as a principle they don't wanna get caught, none of the mass shooters have been criminals since again as a principle criminals' aim is to make money not just suicidal rampage. Fact of the matter is you don't need customized assault rifles lying around in your house to protect you from whatever it is out there you are so scared of.
PS: My point was not to engage in gun control discussion with you, I was just asking why did you have to be such a typical conspiracy head who lives up to all the stereotypes despite you claiming to be a free thinker and all that.

[Hyperephania]

In my opinion the main problem with guns is that if a fight happens, guns kill, fist most likely wont. While the rate of violent crimes probably wont change much with a gun ban, the amount of homicides most likely will decrease.
A gun just makes the problems bigger it does not fix them. If everyone had just fists, one might say that he would need a knife to defend himself, but then everyone has knifes, and now a gun is needed - it just leads to a place where 1 shot kills, 1 wrong decision and you will take a life.

[hoopaddict08]

I would like to see President Obama go visit a school or anywhere for that matter without his secret servicemen armed. How safe would he feel?

[bmulls]

I would like to see President Obama go visit a school or anywhere for that matter without his secret servicemen armed. How safe would he feel?

Hilarious how the White House called the NRA "repugnant and cowardly" for using Obama's daughters in their anti gun control ad, then he went and paraded a bunch of kids on stage during the executive action announcements :roll:

[Jailblazers7]

I would like to see President Obama go visit a school or anywhere for that matter without his secret servicemen armed. How safe would he feel?

:facepalm

[IamRAMBO24]

Criminals do not acquire guns legally since as a principle they don't wanna get caught, none of the mass shooters have been criminals since again as a principle criminals' aim is to make money not just suicidal rampage. Fact of the matter is you don't need customized assault rifles lying around in your house to protect you from whatever it is out there you are so scared of.
PS: My point was not to engage in gun control discussion with you, I was just asking why did you have to be such a typical conspiracy head who lives up to all the stereotypes despite you claiming to be a free thinker and all that.

Ok so you admit criminals acquire their guns illegally and most of the crimes are committed through these measures, then why the f*ck are you going after the registered law abiding gun owners.

See the contradiction dumbsh*t.

I'm not a gun nut, I just think your premise is flawed and stupid.

[2LeTTeRS]

This slippery slope bullshit has to be the dumbest argument ever. The problem is that the logic being used here (i.e. that allowing any regulation will be the first step in taking ______ away) were applied universally nothing would ever get accomplished.

[iamgine]

Well the talk is about banning rifles and not all guns. Clearly you can still shoot a burglar with a handgun.

[IamRAMBO24]

This slippery slope bullshit has to be the dumbest argument ever. The problem is that the logic being used here (i.e. that allowing any regulation will be the first step in taking ______ away) were applied universally nothing would ever get accomplished.

Anti-gun advocates are riding on 2 fallacies:

1. Appeal to emotions (Sandy Hook)

2. Generalization (possession of a firearm by a psycho deranged kid by illegal means is the same thing as possession of a firearm by a well trained law abiding citizen).

Don't even go there homeboy.

[IamRAMBO24]

Well the talk is about banning rifles and not all guns. Clearly you can still shoot a burglar with a handgun.

The main reason the 2nd amendment was put in place was simply to allow the people a form of defense against a tyrannical government.

They (founding fathers) were smart enough to realize power corrupts and if the people can't defend themselves or at least put up a good fight, then there would simply be no 1st amendment. The ban of automatic firearms will lead to the ban of pistols down the line. This is not a slippery slope.

If law abiding citizens are using these firearms for protection from the government and other criminals, then why would it matter what form of protection they are using. Guns don't kill people, psycho deranged kids and criminals kill people.

Why are you after the good guys. The argument should center around deranged kids and illegal purchases of firearms, not the people who are law abiding citizens. That is the fallacy in your argument since the argument is fallacious to begin with.

[Thorpesaurous]

Well the talk is about banning rifles and not all guns. Clearly you can still shoot a burglar with a handgun.


This is the sort of impractical thinking that bothers me about this legislation. Sure rifles, and by that I mean assault rifles, are extremely dangerous. Their higher exit velocity, capacity, etc, make them more dangerous than handguns.
But if we're really trying to resolve the problem at hand, the vast, overwhelming majority of gun crime is committed by handguns. So what is the real purpose of extra legislation on assault rifles.

[KevinNYC]

What many people fail to realize is that the 2nd amendment means just that: the second most important freedom we have in a free nation. Freedom of speech is the most important because it allows us to convey our ideas and thoughts without retribution.

Why is the possession of guns so damn important you ask .. when we have the freedom to speak our mind against those in power (you know the people with the money, power, and bigger guns), we will need some sort of protection if those in power do not like what we have to say.

So the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms to protect our right to say whatever the f*ck we want even if it pisses off the people controlling this country.

Today we can call our President an idiot and not be fearful he's going to put a rope around our necks and hang us.

That is why it was put under numero 2. The SECOND most important freedom a free man can have; what the f*ck is the point of being free if you don't have the power to protect yourself.

If a guy tries to rob my house, I should have the right to shoot him; if some dude wants to rape me in the a*s, I should have the right to stop him; if the government wants to abolish the constitution and be a dictatorship, the people should have the right to try to fight against that.

So what if our arms won't be up to par against the military; it sure as hell is better than a f*ckin' knife.

You are taking guns from law abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves. The real problems are criminals who possess illegal arms and mental teenagers who are f*cked up in the head and shooting up schools. Go after those f*ckers. Why would you want to take guns away from the people who are only possessing firearms to protect themselves.

By equating them altogether is a generalized fallacy, which is a premise I cannot support.

You are not arguing to take guns away from the criminals who will commit these heinous crimes, you are arguing to take away the guns from the people who want to protect themselves from these criminals.

That's the fallacy because if the criminals and deranged kids are getting these guns through illegal means, that is a failure of law enforcement and government officials who should find some measure to prevent such access, not the people themselves. Huge difference.

And how does that relate to a well-regulated militia and the security of a free state?

[GatorKid117]

TIL the Bill of Rights is ordered according to importance.

[Jackass18]

What do you need an assault rifle for?

[andgar923]

What do you need an assault rifle for?
To protect you against a tyrannical govt of course.

Historically speaking, if the govt wanted to get rid of you they'd find other ways. Having a shoot out isnt no.1 on their list.

[IamRAMBO24]

What do you need an assault rifle for?

How is an assault rifle lethal in the hands of a law abiding citizen. That is not the real issue; the real issue has been tainted by logical fallacies (appeal to emotions and generalization) to equate crazed psycho kids who attain these arms illegally as a reason to ban them.

A thousand armed citizens defending the constitution against a tyrannical government is more lethal than a thousand pistol holders, or god forbid, knife fighters.

That is the original premise of the 2nd amendment. If such weapons end up in the hands of criminals and little psycho kids, then that is a failure in enforcement, mainly parents and law enforcement officers, not a failure in the amendment in and of itself because law abiding citizens are only using it for protection similar to a cop using it to protect himself.

Cops who are regularly armed don't go on mass shootings and in fact protect others within their vicinity simply because they are armed. The same can be said of law abiding, well trained regular citizens like you and I.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. This premise is full proof and irrefutable. If you can't find a counter argument, then your position is fallacious. Period.

[dunksby]

Ok so you admit criminals acquire their guns illegally and most of the crimes are committed through these measures, then why the f*ck are you going after the registered law abiding gun owners.

See the contradiction dumbsh*t.

I'm not a gun nut, I just think your premise is flawed and stupid.
Wtf are you talking about?

[andgar923]

How is an assault rifle lethal in the hands of a law abiding citizen. That is not the real issue; the real issue has been tainted by logical fallacies (appeal to emotions and generalization) to equate crazed psycho kids who attain these arms illegally as a reason to ban them.

A thousand armed citizens defending the constitution against a tyrannical government is more lethal than a thousand pistol holders, or god forbid, knife fighters.

That is the original premise of the 2nd amendment. If such weapons end up in the hands of criminals and little psycho kids, then that is a failure in enforcement, mainly parents and law enforcement officers, not a failure in the amendment in and of itself because law abiding citizens are only using it for protection similar to a cop using it to protect himself.

Cops who are regularly armed don't go on mass shootings and in fact protect others within their vicinity simply because they are armed. The same can be said of law abiding, well trained regular citizens like you and I.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. This premise is full proof and irrefutable. If you can't find a counter argument, then your position is fallacious. Period.
Idiots I swear.

[IamRAMBO24]

To protect you against a tyrannical govt of course.

Historically speaking, if the govt wanted to get rid of you they'd find other ways. Having a shoot out isnt no.1 on their list.

Semi-autos in the hands of a good number of people who want to protect their Democracy is good enough against an army of tyrannical supporters in an urban warfare setting.

What do you want them to do .. start throwing rocks or something.

[GatorKid117]

Idiots I swear.

He's my new favorite poster.

Its like a comedy show.

[andgar923]

Semi-autos in the hands of a good number of people who want to protect their Democracy is good enough against an army of tyrannical supporters in an urban warfare setting.

What do you want them to do .. start throwing rocks or something.
:facepalm

[IamRAMBO24]

I have not seen anyone argue that and the propose legislation isn't going to take away guns. So, where does the bold'd come from??? For someone that pretends to be logical, I find it strange that your arguments are not based on reality.

By those not versed in logic, the argument has successfully used a logical deception (generalization) to say law abiding citizens are the same as psycho deranged kids when they possess a firearm.

It's like drugs: if someone smokes pot, they are as bad as a heroin addict although the pot doesn't even come close to the harmful effects of heroin, but the generalization works since most people are too stupid to figure out it is a deceptive use of logic.

[andgar923]

The govt has a million ways to get rid of people. Do you delusional f*cks think it will be a shoot out like its a western movie?

Wanna know the difference between gorilla wars we fight in abroad vs an uprising here?

THEY'RE GORRILLA FIGHTS ABROAD!!!

The US has full control here, it's their home turf. If a silly militia wants to have a standoff they'll be taken care of before it actually starts. Do you not think any sort of organized movement isn't being tracked and bugged? Don't you think they can freeze their finances? Start a media campaign against them? Etc. etc. all this before a single shot is fired.

And if it comes down to it, a single drone strike will take care of them.

[bmulls]

The govt has a million ways to get rid of people. Do you delusional f*cks think it will be a shoot out like its a western movie?

Wanna know the difference between gorilla wars we fight in abroad vs an uprising here?

THEY'RE GORRILLA FIGHTS ABROAD!!!

The US has full control here, it's their home turf. If a silly militia wants to have a standoff they'll be taken care of before it actually starts. Do you not think any sort of organized movement isn't being tracked and bugged? Don't you think they can freeze their finances? Start a media campaign against them? Etc. etc. all this before a single shot is fired.

And if it comes down to it, a single drone strike will take care of them.

:roll: @ "gorilla warfare"

Shut up, ret@rd.

[2LeTTeRS]

Anti-gun advocates are riding on 2 fallacies:

1. Appeal to emotions (Sandy Hook)

2. Generalization (possession of a firearm by a psycho deranged kid by illegal means is the same thing as possession of a firearm by a well trained law abiding citizen).

Don't even go there homeboy.

Its funny that you can say all this and not realize how insane you sound. You can give me a lot of ramblings about how guns "don't kill people" but you still can't answer this question >>>>


What do you need an assault rifle for?

[bmulls]

Its funny that you can say all this and not realize how insane you sound. You can give me a lot of ramblings about how guns "don't kill people" but you still can't answer this question >>>>

That's not how things work in this country dumbfck.

You don't need alcohol. You don't need cars that go faster than the speed limit. You don't need private planes. You don't need private boats. You don't need swimming pools. You don't need a million different things that kill or harm people every year.

But you know what I really don't need? I don't need mommy government telling me how to live my life and shitting all over my constitutional rights.

[2LeTTeRS]

That's not how things work in this country dumbfck.

You don't need alcohol. You don't need cars that go faster than the speed limit. You don't need private planes. You don't need private boats. You don't need swimming pools. You don't need a million different things that kill or harm people every year.

But you know what I really don't need? I don't need mommy government telling me how to live my life and shitting all over my constitutional rights.

Actually that is how things work in our country "dumbfck." Whether you like it or not the government is involved on some level in basically every aspect of American life. One new law won't change that.

[bmulls]

Actually that is how things work in our country "dumbfck." Whether you like it or not the government is involved on some level in basically every aspect of American life. One new law won't change that.

What? You didn't address my point and you didn't make any point yourself.

We don't outlaw things in this country simply because you don't think other people "need" them.

For example:

I don't think you need alcohol. It serves no purpose other than intoxication. You personally may not drive drunk, but some people do and they end up killing thousands of innocent people every year. Therefore I think alcohol should be banned for everybody, including responsible users.

^^ that is your logic.

[Jailblazers7]

Actually that is how things work in our country "dumbfck." Whether you like it or not the government is involved on some level in basically every aspect of American life. One new law won't change that.

This type of language plays right into the slippery slope argument. But i do find it difficult to care about gun rights in a country where gay marraige is illegal.

[daily]

What do you need an assault rifle for?

Because he's a horrible shot. Can't hit the broadside of a barn so he needs 30 rounds to do what any competent gunman can do with 3 or 4

[2LeTTeRS]

What? You didn't address my point and you didn't make any point yourself.

We don't outlaw things in this country simply because you don't think other people "need" them.

For example:

I don't think you need alcohol. It serves no purpose other than intoxication. You personally may not drive drunk, but some people do and they end up killing thousands of innocent people every year. Therefore I think alcohol should be banned for everybody, including responsible users.

^^ that is your logic.

Maybe you don't know how the law works in this country, but we do in fact outlaw things in this country all the time because we think other people "don't need them" -- especially when a large enough portion of the population sees 1) no beneficial usage for the item in question and 2) the item can be used to cause a great deal of damage.

That's the reason why we have outlawed drugs, certain types of weapons (i.e. sawed off shotguns), explosive equipment, etc. Why should assault weapons be any different?

[Jailblazers7]

Assault weapon ban being included is a political move. Dems and Repubs will argue about it for a while, it eventually gets dropped, Repubs get to feel like they got a W by getting rid of the ban in the legislation, and eventually the bill is passed with the more important/effective policies in tact.

[Charlie Sheen]

For example:

I don't think you need alcohol. It serves no purpose other than intoxication. You personally may not drive drunk, but some people do and they end up killing thousands of innocent people every year. Therefore I think alcohol should be banned for everybody, including responsible users.


And, guess what. In areas of public safety like sports event the amount of alcohol i can buy and when i can buy it is controlled. cant buy 3 bottles of beer in one trip or after the 7th inning. who gives a shit that majority of the other 20 thousand people there arent enjoying my profanity. im over 21 and theres a goddamned constitutional amendment repealing prohibition.

[bmulls]

And, guess what. In areas of public safety like sports event the amount of alcohol i can buy and when i can buy it is controlled. cant buy 3 bottles of beer in one trip or after the 7th inning. who gives a shit that majority of the other 20 thousand people there arent enjoying my profanity. im over 21 and theres a goddamned constitutional amendment repealing prohibition.

I have never said I'm against regulations, I am arguing against an assault weapons ban and a ban on magazine size.

[Myth]

I have never said I'm against regulations, I am arguing against an assault weapons ban and a ban on magazine size.

Would you be cool with 100+ ammunition clips? I do have an opinion on this, but I'm not asking to argue, just curious.

[bmulls]

Maybe you don't know how the law works in this country, but we do in fact outlaw things in this country all the time because we think other people "don't need them" -- especially when a large enough portion of the population sees 1) no beneficial usage for the item in question and 2) the item can be used to cause a great deal of damage.

That's the reason why we have outlawed drugs, certain types of weapons (i.e. sawed off shotguns), explosive equipment, etc. Why should assault weapons be any different?

Because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It's a bullshit term that was made up in recent years to describe black plastic weapons.

Tell me what this ranch rifle does differently than the assault weapon in these pictures:

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/gforester/MyMini14RanchRifle.jpg

http://www.har-bar.com/images/640_Mini_027.jpg_Dennis_4_Tactical.jpg

I'll go ahead and tell you the answer: Nothing. They are literally the same gun, a Mini14, a gun introduced in the 60s which has been used as a ranch rifle for over 50 years. The 2nd pic is just a dressed up version. They shoot the same bullet, have the same action, everything is identical except for aesthetics. The difference is the first would be legal under the proposed AWB, the 2nd would be illegal.

[Droid101]

Because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It's a bullshit term that was made up in recent years to describe black plastic weapons.

http://www.onepennysheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/gop20cry20baby.jpg

Keep crying. Support for more gun control/licensing/background checks is at 60% of the population and growing.

[bmulls]

Would you be cool with 100+ ammunition clips? I do have an opinion on this, but I'm not asking to argue, just curious.

I would oppose a ban on them on principle. I don't believe in setting an arbitrary number. First you ban 100 round drums, next people want to ban 50, next they want to ban 30 etc.

You don't need to worry about those anyway, they are notoriously faulty, to the point where they are a novelty item. They are more likely to jam than to chamber the entire magazine successfully. They are all made by knock off companies because respectable manufacturers know they are a joke. The Aurora shooter had one and his jammed after firing less than 30 rounds.

[97 bulls]

Because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It's a bullshit term that was made up in recent years to describe black plastic weapons.

Tell me what this ranch rifle does differently than the assault weapon in these pictures:

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/gforester/MyMini14RanchRifle.jpg

http://www.har-bar.com/images/640_Mini_027.jpg_Dennis_4_Tactical.jpg

I'll go ahead and tell you the answer: Nothing. They are literally the same gun, a Mini14, a gun introduced in the 60s which has been used as a ranch rifle for over 50 years. The 2nd pic is just a dressed up version. They shoot the same bullet, have the same action, everything is identical except for aesthetics. The difference is the first would be legal under the proposed AWB, the 2nd would be illegal.
The second one is lighter for one. And the pistol grip and handle allow it to be more accurate. The second one is a more effective killing machine.

[Droid101]

The Aurora shooter had one and his jammed after firing less than 30 rounds.
How many people did he kill with those 30 rounds? If his magazine only held 10 rounds, how many lives would have been saved?

I'm just asking questions.

[bmulls]

How many people did he kill with those 30 rounds? If his magazine only held 10 rounds, how many lives would have been saved?

I'm just asking questions.

How many seconds does it take to change a magazine? 1? Maybe 3? The Virginia Tech shooter carried a backpack with filled with 10 and 15 round magazines.

19 to be exact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

You limit the magazine size, they will simply carry more.

[bmulls]

The second one is lighter for one. And the pistol grip and handle allow it to be more accurate. The second one is a more effective killing machine.

:lol

Seriously this statement is laughable.

:lol

If a pistol grip improves accuracy, why do snipers use bolt action rifles?

This is why we can't have a legitimate discussion about these things. You guys literally have no clue what you're talking about. Your knowledge of guns comes from movies and Call of Duty.

[Myth]

I would oppose a ban on them on principle. I don't believe in setting an arbitrary number. First you ban 100 round drums, next people want to ban 50, next they want to ban 30 etc.

You don't need to worry about those anyway, they are notoriously faulty, to the point where they are a novelty item. They are more likely to jam than to chamber the entire magazine successfully. They are all made by knock off companies because respectable manufacturers know they are a joke. The Aurora shooter had one and his jammed after firing less than 30 rounds.

Ok. So it sounds like you fear the "slippery slope." Correct?

[tpols]

:lol

Seriously this statement is laughable.

:lol

If a pistol grip improves accuracy, why do snipers use bolt action rifles?

This is why we can't have a legitimate discussion about these things. You guys literally have no clue what you're talking about. Your knowledge of guns comes from movies and Call of Duty.
Snipers are stationary often laying down or crouching in a undisclosed, unknown area.

The recent shooters are in crowded environments carrying the weapon while in motion.:confusedshrug:

[MMM]

That's not how things work in this country dumbfck.

You don't need alcohol. You don't need cars that go faster than the speed limit. You don't need private planes. You don't need private boats. You don't need swimming pools. You don't need a million different things that kill or harm people every year.

But you know what I really don't need? I don't need mommy government telling me how to live my life and shitting all over my constitutional rights.

How are they shitting on your rights when the law they are proposing is constitutional???

[Myth]

But you know what I really don't need? I don't need mommy government telling me how to live my life and shitting all over my constitutional rights.

I just hope you take that same mindset when the issue of gay marriage comes up.

[bmulls]

I just hope you take that same mindset when the issue of gay marriage comes up.

I support gay marriage and you will not find a post by me that says anything otherwise

[Myth]

I support gay marriage and you will not find a post by me that says anything otherwise

Glad to hear it :cheers:

That is one aspect of hypocrisy that I struggle with, when somebody wants government to stay out of their lives, but then are fine with it impeding on others' lives.

[boozehound]

I would oppose a ban on them on principle. I don't believe in setting an arbitrary number. First you ban 100 round drums, next people want to ban 50, next they want to ban 30 etc.

You don't need to worry about those anyway, they are notoriously faulty, to the point where they are a novelty item. They are more likely to jam than to chamber the entire magazine successfully. They are all made by knock off companies because respectable manufacturers know they are a joke. The Aurora shooter had one and his jammed after firing less than 30 rounds.
I have yet to see a cogent argument on how banning fully auto guns (or other arms like rpgs, landmines, etc) is constitutional (according to the SCOTUS), but further restrictions on the type of arms you can own are not. You seem fairly reasonable, though entrenched in your view. Can you argue this?

[bmulls]

How are they shitting on your rights when the law they are proposing is constitutional???

I've ignored this statement by you multiple times already on purpose. You're trying to get into an argument over semantics and I don't feel like wasting my time.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

[Droid101]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
You left off the first part:

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.


Call me when you're signed up for your local and well-regulated militia, and I'll let you bear some arms, bro.

[bmulls]

I have yet to see a cogent argument on how banning fully auto guns (or other arms like rpgs, landmines, etc) is constitutional (according to the SCOTUS), but further restrictions on the type of arms you can own are not. You seem fairly reasonable, though entrenched in your view. Can you argue this?

I would say because a rocket launcher, grenade, landmine, sawed off shotgun etc. can not be used for self defense without running the serious and unavoidable risk of injuring the wrong person. They are too imprecise.

[bmulls]

You left off the first part:

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.


Call me when you're signed up for your local and well-regulated militia, and I'll let you bear some arms, bro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[MMM]

I've ignored this statement by you multiple times already on purpose. You're trying to get into an argument over semantics and I don't feel like wasting my time.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Genuinely speaking how does this law specifically infringing on your right???

You can oppose the law because you believe it is not effective but I don't see how you can argue that it infringes on rights.

[IamRAMBO24]

Genuinely speaking how does this law specifically infringing on your right???

You can oppose the law because you believe it is not effective but I don't see how you can argue that it infringes on rights.

We do not know the extent of the new law but if they throw in some healthcare mandate, that will prob infringe on the rights of millions of people due to the fact that every single thing is consider a mental illness in some way or another.

[Myth]

We do not know the extent of the new law but if they throw in some healthcare mandate, that will prob infringe on the rights of millions of people due to the fact that every single thing is consider a mental illness in some way or another.

It certainly shouldn't be based on any diagnosis (not scared of people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder for example). But I'd be more than happy to know that people with paranoid schizophrenia or who score really high on the MMPI Psychopathic Deviate Scale are not allowed to have guns.

[Jackass18]

That's not how things work in this country dumbfck.

You don't need alcohol. You don't need cars that go faster than the speed limit. You don't need private planes. You don't need private boats. You don't need swimming pools. You don't need a million different things that kill or harm people every year.

But you know what I really don't need? I don't need mommy government telling me how to live my life and shitting all over my constitutional rights.

Those things have a purpose beyond inflicting harm/damage upon something. The Constitution partly tells you how to live your life.

I'm just curious what people need an assault rifle for.

[IamRAMBO24]

Those things have a purpose beyond inflicting harm/damage upon something. The Constitution partly tells you how to live your life.

I'm just curious what people need an assault rifle for.

Because the reason why they shouldn't is based on a fallacious argument of that they will go shoot up a school if they have an assault rifle.

Come up with a perfectly sound argument as to why they should not and I will support your premise, as is, it is full of deception and lies.

[Jackass18]

What is full of deception and lies?