To everyone who wants gun control, please leave.

[warriorfan]

People who advocate for gun control are ignorant and selfish.

It

[Prometheus]

I mostly agree. Two points though, one with and one against your argument.

1. 2nd amendment was drafted so militias could possibly be formed to protect against tyrrany. That... wouldn't work anymore. Military technology makes your AR-15 useless against drones and missiles.

2. people from countries like Aus have no basis arguing with this, since their countries do not have the massive illegal gun markets that exist here. Like you said, the single mom working late nights is in danger from armed criminals with unregistered guns they bought from gang dealers. Aussies don't have to deal with that, so they should bite their tongues on this issue.

[rufuspaul]

It cracks me up how people think that sensible, sane gun laws and closing loopholes is gonna somehow deny people of their constitutional rights. Ridiculous.

I have a daughter in high school. From the time she was in preschool she has been through active shooter drills. Because that's what we have become in this country. Our kids need a plan for when someone comes to their school to kill them because if we try to do anything about the insane amount of guns in this country and how easy it is to get them that would be and infringement of rights. FFS!

[Prometheus]

Well if you're talking about making them more difficult to access, then I agree with you. I originally misread this as if it was directed at those who want comprehensive bans.

We need legal access to guns for protection against criminals who can and will obtain them illegally, but it should not be easy to get one.

[Patrick Chewing]

Well if you're talking about making them more difficult to access, then I agree with you. I originally misread this as if it was directed at those who want comprehensive bans.

We need legal access to guns for protection against criminals who can and will obtain them illegally, but it should not be easy to get one.


People fail to realize that with these last two or three shooters, all weapons were purchased legally. They all went through background checks and none of them had a criminal history if I'm not mistaken.

So I overheard on one of the major networks that perhaps we should start looking at a child's school records when running a background check to purchase a gun. So if he was a troubled student, he would be denied the right to purchase one. But now we get into this slippery slope of government intrusion into our lives and even when we were children. What about my privacy? Especially when I was a kid?

[highwhey]

Well if you're talking about making them more difficult to access, then I agree with you. I originally misread this as if it was directed at those who want comprehensive bans.

We need legal access to guns for protection against criminals who can and will obtain them illegally, but it should not be easy to get one.
while there are leftists that want total bans (unrealistic), there

[Shogon]

People fail to realize that with these last two or three shooters, all weapons were purchased legally. They all went through background checks and none of them had a criminal history if I'm not mistaken.

So I overheard on one of the major networks that perhaps we should start looking at a child's school records when running a background check to purchase a gun. So if he was a troubled student, he would be denied the right to purchase one. But now we get into this slippery slope of government intrusion into our lives and even when we were children. What about my privacy? Especially when I was a kid?

Yep, that’s what anti gun/tighter gun restriction advocates don’t get.

[Long Duck Dong]

while there are leftists that want total bans (unrealistic), there’s plenty of people for tighter restrictions on gun ownership that people like OP spin as total bans.

You brag about shooting full auto and I've seen at least one of the rifles you are holding with a 14.5" barrel without a pinned flashed suppressor.

Do you have any idea how hypocritical you sound? :oldlol: I mean you don't even follow the gun laws in place now but you are wagging your fingers at us about making new laws(that YOU can break)? :facepalm

[Charlie Sheen]

What's the path to gun control? Politicians aren't going to commit career suicide as long as single issue voters keep powering the gun lobbyists.

[rufuspaul]

What's the path to gun control? Politicians aren't going to commit career suicide as long as single issue voters keep powering the gun lobbyists.

Probably not gonna happen in our lifetimes. There are 2 bipartisan bills passed by the house that the senate won't even put up for debate. That's how much they are controlled by the NRA. When nothing happened after Sandy Hook it was clear that politicians value money over human life.

[Prometheus]

People fail to realize that with these last two or three shooters, all weapons were purchased legally. They all went through background checks and none of them had a criminal history if I'm not mistaken.

So I overheard on one of the major networks that perhaps we should start looking at a child's school records when running a background check to purchase a gun. So if he was a troubled student, he would be denied the right to purchase one. But now we get into this slippery slope of government intrusion into our lives and even when we were children. What about my privacy? Especially when I was a kid?

I'm not worried about the mass shooters. They make up a tiny fraction of the gun violence in this country.

My argument is about law-abiding citizens having a means to protect themselves against criminals in the street with unregistered weapons. That's all.

[highwhey]

You brag about shooting full auto and I've seen at least one of the rifles you are holding with a 14.5" barrel without a pinned flashed suppressor.

Do you have any idea how hypocritical you sound? :oldlol: I mean you don't even follow the gun laws in place now but you are wagging your fingers at us about making new laws(that YOU can break)? :facepalm
everything looks small bc i

[superduper]

Maybe the fact that people feel the need to defend themselves with their own guns reveals the even bigger and true underlying issue? Like what country are you...Brazil? No you guys are the United States of America, you are not a 3rd world country. You should not have fear to step out of your house or for your commute back to your home. You guys are talking about freedom? The current state of living is not freedom if it is anything like what I am talking about above.

Maybe the government should work on more police stations and work to retrain the entire police force. Throw out the current training model and rebuild it from the ground up. Put into place better ways to measure the actions of the officers and put into place an actual method of accountability to ensure that your officers are actually doing what they are supposed to instead of abusing their powers. More police stations in neighborhoods that need them and resources with retrained cops would be the first step in your citizens feeling safe, not every single person having a ****ing gun.

There's a reason that countries with actual police protecting the people instead of having guns legal for sale do not face such problems.

This obsession Americans have with owning guns is quite weird.

[Long Duck Dong]

[QUOTE=highwhey]everything looks small bc i

[Long Duck Dong]

Maybe the government should work on more police stations and work to retrain the entire police force. Throw out the current training model and rebuild it from the ground up. Put into place better ways to measure the actions of the officers and put into place an actual method of accountability to ensure that your officers are actually doing what they are supposed to instead of abusing their powers. More police stations in neighborhoods that need them and resources with retrained cops would be the first step in your citizens feeling safe, not every single person having a ****ing gun.

The same people that are complaining about guns are the same ones who complain about police.

[Bosnian Sajo]

It cracks me up how people think that sensible, sane gun laws and closing loopholes is gonna somehow deny people of their constitutional rights. Ridiculous.

I have a daughter in high school. From the time she was in preschool she has been through active shooter drills. Because that's what we have become in this country. Our kids need a plan for when someone comes to their school to kill them because if we try to do anything about the insane amount of guns in this country and how easy it is to get them that would be and infringement of rights. FFS!



Just wanted to make the font bigger for those who skip this post.

[Patrick Chewing]

The same people that are complaining about guns are the same ones who complain about police.


Yup.


Call me crazy. But how about people start going to church again and believing in something again? A lack of God and lack of a central foundation of morality and goodness is always a recipe for hate and anger.

[Patrick Chewing]

Just wanted to make the font bigger for those who skip this post.


To which I replied that all of these shooters purchased their guns legally.


So now what? What more could have been done to prevent these guys from shooting and killing people?

[superduper]

The same people that are complaining about guns are the same ones who complain about police.

That's why you rework the entire police training from the ground up. That'll ensure an updated training to align with modern times and would shut those same people up due to the retraining.

[rufuspaul]

To which I replied that all of these shooters purchased their guns legally.


So now what? What more could have been done to prevent these guys from shooting and killing people?

A ban on assault rifles and large capacity magazines. 30 day waiting period. Registration with law enforcement. They still might have gotten off a few rounds but it would've been a lot harder.

[warriorfan]

That's why you rework the entire police training from the ground up. That'll ensure an updated training to align with modern times and would shut those same people up due to the retraining.

What will the police do when a woman gets ambushed by a carjacker or rapist in the parking garage while leaving work? Is she supposed to call them and tell her assaulter to hold on and wait 10 or 15 minutes until the police arrive?

[superduper]

What will the police do when a woman gets ambushed by a carjacker or rapist in the parking garage while leaving work? Is she supposed to call them and tell her assaulter to hold on and wait 10 or 15 minutes until the police arrive?

Or if there is a police station nearby that in itself will lower crime in that area. If your citizens are feeling the need to protect themselves with their own guns, you guys have a much bigger problem on your hands than what you actually think the problem is.

You guys preach freedom, fearing for your life because you left your house is not freedom. You guys are the only country with legal guns, it is obviously more of an issue than it ever protects anyone.

Protect people the RIGHT way with properly trained police and MORE stations in areas they are needed. If you need to defend your own life with your own gun then there are much larger issues at hand.. especially for a so called first world country

[~primetime~]

It cracks me up how people think that sensible, sane gun laws and closing loopholes is gonna somehow deny people of their constitutional rights. Ridiculous.

I have a daughter in high school. From the time she was in preschool she has been through active shooter drills. Because that's what we have become in this country. Our kids need a plan for when someone comes to their school to kill them because if we try to do anything about the insane amount of guns in this country and how easy it is to get them that would be and infringement of rights. FFS!
Only sensable post in here. Thank you rufus. I think when you have kids this issue becomes real to the point you can't BS around it.

I have two boys, and every time a mass shooting goes down I have to imagine what I would go through if some depressed 20-something fck head geared up in military garb and guns fresh from his local walmart and mowed down my kids.


To me this issue is TWO things

1. We are an over depressed and over medicated country (almost all these shooters are on SSRI drugs)

2. Its too damn easy for these wackos to get guns, and there are too many guns. We need more stringent background checks...PERIOD.


IMO...we need to start by flagging clinically depressed humans from buying guns. Because thats what all of these shooters are, clinically depressed males who legally purchase their guns. Start THERE, and lets see if there are less mass shootings. Lets test it out, much better than "thoughts and prayers".

And the rest of sane people can keep our guns, the 2nd Amendment is not getting ripped up, there is no reason to be against this idea (unless you're clinically mentally ill and want guns)

[Long Duck Dong]

That's why you rework the entire police training from the ground up. That'll ensure an updated training to align with modern times and would shut those same people up due to the retraining.

No it wouldn't, not here. Officers will basically have to be useless before the libtards will stop running their yaps about police conduct, at which point they will start crying about elevated crime levels.

For instance officers were told to take a hands off, low profile approach in Baltimore and Chicago. Crime goes wild in these areas, so then libs start saying it's because no one cares about these areas. :facepalm

[Patrick Chewing]

A ban on assault rifles and large capacity magazines. 30 day waiting period. Registration with law enforcement. They still might have gotten off a few rounds but it would've been a lot harder.


I think you're giving up a lot of freedoms with that way of thinking my friend. It's a scary thought knowing that local law enforcement would know what kind of guns you have at home.

And even then, I don't see how that stops someone from taking his weapon to a public place and shooting a bunch of people.

The goal here is to end mass shootings, not just limit the casualties.

[Charlie Sheen]

IMO...we need to start by flagging clinically depressed humans from buying guns. Because thats what all of these shooters are, clinically depressed males who legally purchase their guns. Start THERE, and lets see if there are less mass shootings. Lets test it out, much better than "thoughts and prayers".


Awful idea.

[~primetime~]

Awful idea.
Keeping mentally ill humans from purchasing guns SHOULD be common sense.

90% of all of these shooters are clinically depressed and on SSRI drugs, the fcking bottle says "may cause suicidal thoughts".

We are a country flooded with mind altering drugs AND guns....that is a horrible combination.

We need to make efforts to keep the two separated

[Patrick Chewing]

To me this issue is TWO things

1. We are an over depressed and over medicated country (almost all these shooters are on SSRI drugs)

2. Its too damn easy for these wackos to get guns, and there are too many guns. We need more stringent background checks...PERIOD.


IMO...we need to start by flagging clinically depressed humans from buying guns. Because thats what all of these shooters are, clinically depressed males who legally purchase their guns. Start THERE, and lets see if there are less mass shootings.


You're on the right track of at least saying what we could do rather than just saying the empty and generic "we need more gun control".

But then if this proves to be successful and these crazies cannot get their hands on weapons, then the issue all along was really mental health, even though a lot of you do not seem to believe that. As if mental health would normally not be a problem if we lived in a society devoid of guns.

[stalkerforlife]

Leave.

[Charlie Sheen]

Keeping mentally ill humans from purchasing guns SHOULD be common sense.

90% of all of these shooters are clinically depressed and on SSRI drugs, the fcking bottle says "may cause suicidal thoughts".

We are a country flooded with mind altering drugs AND guns....that is a horrible combination.

We need to make efforts to keep the two separated
It's an awful idea because you want to create a registry of people who got professional help. Think about that.

[DukeDelonte13]

We have a horrible gun epidemic in this country where so many people have this totally irrational belief that they need to be armed. It's a d*ck measuring contest if you ask me.


In this country i can be a suicidal alcoholic with an 8th grade education who has racked up a bunch of misdemeanors and have no problem purchasing a bunch of guns and ammo from a legit gun dealer. I can be a bipolar young adult recluse who spends every waking minute of the day on 4chan and pick up an AR-15.

There should be zero gun show loopholes, and mandatory annual psychological assessments of those people who feel the need to own assault rifles. There should be a requirement that a person has a bare minimum high school diploma to own a handgun. Any criminal record, even juvenile, whether violent or not should result in a default ban of ownership that could be individually appealable on a case by case basis.

[~primetime~]

You're on the right track of at least saying what we could do rather than just saying the empty and generic "we need more gun control".

But then if this proves to be successful and these crazies cannot get their hands on weapons, then the issue all along was really mental health, even though a lot of you do not seem to believe that. As if mental health would normally not be a problem if we lived in a society devoid of guns.
IMO its a combo of overly medicated, and too easy to get firearms. Its both.

The link between SSRI and mass shooters is STRONG....honestly it doesnt get talked about nearly enough. There are not many of these mass shooters who are not on them.

[DukeDelonte13]

It's an awful idea because you want to create a registry of people who got professional help. Think about that.


it already exists. Health insurance providers have access to it.

[~primetime~]

We have a horrible gun epidemic in this country where so many people have this totally irrational belief that they need to be armed. It's a d*ck measuring contest if you ask me.


In this country i can be a suicidal alcoholic with an 8th grade education who has racked up a bunch of misdemeanors and have no problem purchasing a bunch of guns and ammo from a legit gun dealer. I can be a bipolar young adult recluse who spends every waking minute of the day on 4chan and pick up an AR-15.

There should be zero gun show loopholes, and mandatory annual psychological assessments of those people who feel the need to own assault rifles. There should be a requirement that a person has a bare minimum high school diploma to own a handgun. Any criminal record, even juvenile, whether violent or not should result in a default ban of ownership that could be individually appealable on a case by case basis.
Word

[Charlie Sheen]

it already exists. Health insurance providers have access to it.
Obviously payers have access to medical records. I don't understand where you're going with this? What do you think you're helping by branding someone as at risk for shooting up a crowd because they were struggling with depression at some point in their life?

[tpols]

Keeping mentally ill humans from purchasing guns SHOULD be common sense.

90% of all of these shooters are clinically depressed and on SSRI drugs, the fcking bottle says "may cause suicidal thoughts".

We are a country flooded with mind altering drugs AND guns....that is a horrible combination.

We need to make efforts to keep the two separated


Between big pharma and NRA lobbying your wishes will never ever come true.

[RRR3]

It

[DukeDelonte13]

Obviously payers have access to medical records. I don't understand where you're going with this? What do you think you're helping by branding someone as at risk for shooting up a crowd because they were struggling with depression at some point in their life?


I'm saying there is already a system that registers that. There is no additional "branding" going on. Anytime you go to the doctor for f*cking anything you are getting "branded" whether you like it or not. Whether it's because you have high cholesterol or because you tried killing yourself it's being documented and recorded.

[CelticBaller]

[QUOTE=RRR3]It

[CelticBaller]

Putting all these restrictions on guns won

[qrich]

Three words

War on Drugs.

[Facepalm]

Well if you're talking about making them more difficult to access, then I agree with you. I originally misread this as if it was directed at those who want comprehensive bans.

We need legal access to guns for protection against criminals who can and will obtain them illegally, but it should not be easy to get one.
I don't think anyone here has ever advocated for the complete banishment of guns. All we want are sensible gun laws. Comprehensive background checks, waiting period, close loopholes (so easy to buy from gun shows), etc

Nobody is coming for your guns people. That's just NRA FUD

[CelticBaller]

Three words

War on Drugs.
Yup

They will also come from the same place these major drugs come in

The cartel is savoring the idea of the gun black market rising

[qrich]

Yup

They will also come from the same place these major drugs come in

The cartel is savoring the idea of the gun black market rising

And, ironically, we gave the Cartel a decent amount of black market weapons under Bush, then Obama fought hard to continue, with Fast & Furious :facepalm

[Mask the Embiid]

If you cant bargain with gun nuts after those little kids were murdered at Sandy Hook, nothing will get through to them.Let them keep their guns, hopefully, they will have it on them if they are ever in a mass shooting event

[rufuspaul]

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Putting all these restrictions on guns won

[Facepalm]

A ban on assault rifles and large capacity magazines. 30 day waiting period. Registration with law enforcement. They still might have gotten off a few rounds but it would've been a lot harder.
Agreed. That guy in Dayton had a 100 round clip. Imagine how many people he would have killed if he wasn't taken down within 30 seconds. Even then, he managed to murder 9 people and injure 27 others.


http://www.betaco.com/products/ar10.jpg

The Garlic festival shooter had a 75 round clip. Why are these high capacity magazines even available?

[Facepalm]

Yup.


Call me crazy. But how about people start going to church again and believing in something again? A lack of God and lack of a central foundation of morality and goodness is always a recipe for hate and anger.


Yea all those Shinto and Buddhist worshipers in Japan are mass shooting everyone because they don't believe in your God.

[Facepalm]

We have a horrible gun epidemic in this country where so many people have this totally irrational belief that they need to be armed. It's a d*ck measuring contest if you ask me.


In this country i can be a suicidal alcoholic with an 8th grade education who has racked up a bunch of misdemeanors and have no problem purchasing a bunch of guns and ammo from a legit gun dealer. I can be a bipolar young adult recluse who spends every waking minute of the day on 4chan and pick up an AR-15.

There should be zero gun show loopholes, and mandatory annual psychological assessments of those people who feel the need to own assault rifles. There should be a requirement that a person has a bare minimum high school diploma to own a handgun. Any criminal record, even juvenile, whether violent or not should result in a default ban of ownership that could be individually appealable on a case by case basis.
This is what Pattychewtoy is worried about and the reason why he's so opposed to sensible gun control. That degenerate criminal knows he wouldn't make the cut.

[CelticBaller]

Yeah, just look at all the mass shootings in Australia since they enacted tougher gun laws. Oh, wait
Yeah because Australia isn

[Loco 50]

IMO its a combo of overly medicated, and too easy to get firearms. Its both.

The link between SSRI and mass shooters is STRONG....honestly it doesnt get talked about nearly enough. There are not many of these mass shooters who are not on them.
This is one important avenue. The NRA lobbies our politicians to not allow the CDC to research questions such as these.

Ted Cruz alone has been paid 300k to fight for the NRA.

It is known the NRA receives money from foreign countries. Particularly of interest are donations from Russia. It is currently unknown how deep those ties are and how much money is actually involved because the NRA is not being forthright with that information.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/11/601534305/nra-in-new-document-acknowledges-more-than-20-russian-linked-contributors

Things need to change. People need to vote.

[rufuspaul]

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Yeah because Australia isn

[qrich]

Yeah, just look at all the mass shootings in Australia since they enacted tougher gun laws. Oh, wait

Agreed man, Australia does a wonderful job protecting themselves from bordering nations having firearms to easily sneak in.


Oh, wait.

[rufuspaul]

Agreed man, Australia does a wonderful job protecting themselves from bordering nations having firearms to easily sneak in.


Oh, wait.


See the post above you.

[qrich]

See the post above you.

I'm just curious. Unlawful discharge of a firearm is a crime. Murder is a crime. Weapons are also obtained illegally or modified illegally, along with the current checks not working due to the FBI not putting in proper information.

What new laws would criminals start to follow?

Edit: Also, since we also average a lot more deaths to car crashes (5x per 48 hour period as versus homicide by gun), when will we pass common sense car laws?!?

[Loco 50]

:lol It's not just Australia. Virtually every other developed nation on Earth has gun control laws that work to prevent gun deaths. The US doesn't because our elected officials are owned by the NRA and gun manufacturers. They care more about money and power than they do about human lives.
:applause: It's important that this stuff is known. It pisses people off which causes activity.

[Loco 50]

I'm just curious. Unlawful discharge of a firearm is a crime. Murder is a crime. Weapons are also obtained illegally or modified illegally, along with the current checks not working due to the FBI not putting in proper information.

What new laws would criminals start to follow?

You limit the sheer numbers of weapons out there and it follows suit that incidents are reduced in both number and severity.

Also, by actually enforcing laws concerning illegal weapons sales/purchases and punishing those that break them severely you increase the chance needed to break the chain of events necessary for a mass shooting.

In other words, you actively try to do something to solve the existing problem instead of f all.



Edit: Also, since we also average a lot more deaths to car crashes (5x per 48 hour period as versus homicide by gun), when will we pass common sense car laws?!?

This is the kind of elementary school logic that should be embarrassing for anyone to spout, but it's very common here.

A car's primary use is transport.

A gun's primary use is to kill.

Do better.

[rufuspaul]

I'm just curious. Unlawful discharge of a firearm is a crime. Murder is a crime. Weapons are also obtained illegally or modified illegally, along with the current checks not working due to the FBI not putting in proper information.

What new laws would criminals start to follow?

Edit: Also, since we also average a lot more deaths to car crashes (5x per 48 hour period as versus homicide by gun), when will we pass common sense car laws?!?


You reply with conjecture and false equivalences. You ignore the fact that the US is the only developed country where mass shootings occur regularly. Over 200 this year alone. What makes us different? We make it too easy to get weapons and ammo that can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Gun control works. It's a fact. It works everywhere but in the US where there really isn't any real regulation at all.

[qrich]

You limit the sheer numbers of weapons out there and it follows suit that incidents are reduced in both number and severity.

Also, by actually enforcing laws concerning illegal weapons sales/purchases and punishing those that break them severely you increase the chance needed to break the chain of events necessary for a mass shooting.

In other words, you actively try to do something to solve the existing problem instead of f all.

Great theory you have there. Unfortunately, the War on Drugs shows that isn't likely to work in practice!



This is the kind of elementary school logic that should be embarrassing for anyone to spout, but it's very common here.

A car's primary use is transport.

A gun's primary use is to kill.

Do better.

Driving is also a privilege. Bearing arms is a right :applause:



You reply with conjecture and false equivalences. You ignore the fact that the US is the only developed country where mass shootings occur regularly. Over 200 this year alone. What makes us different? We make it too easy to get weapons and ammo that can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Gun control works. It's a fact. It works everywhere but in the US where there really isn't any real regulation at all.

I'm curious...did you get the 200 number from a similar source that did the school shooting counts which included anything within 2 miles of a school (including suicide) along with an instance where someone accidentally shot himself in the middle of the night during summer (I believe) break?

Also, I'm not sure it works everywhere. Look at Honduras, as you stated.

[Patrick Chewing]

Yea all those Shinto and Buddhist worshipers in Japan are mass shooting everyone because they don't believe in your God.


What are you babbling about? What do the Japs have to do with Americans becoming less and less religious?

[CelticBaller]

:lol It's not just Australia. Virtually every other developed nation on Earth has gun control laws that work to prevent gun deaths. The US doesn't because our elected officials are owned by the NRA and gun manufacturers. They care more about money and power than they do about human lives.
Those other countries do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity we have.

[~primetime~]

I'm just curious. Unlawful discharge of a firearm is a crime. Murder is a crime. Weapons are also obtained illegally or modified illegally, along with the current checks not working due to the FBI not putting in proper information.

What new laws would criminals start to follow?

Edit: Also, since we also average a lot more deaths to car crashes (5x per 48 hour period as versus homicide by gun), when will we pass common sense car laws?!?
Full auto machine guns aren't used in crimes almost ever...it is EXTREMELY RARE

because they are illegal....thus they cost an absolute fortune on the black market.

Laws matter

[Hawker]

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OI2pGRIhoKQ/XUlEi4mg4YI/AAAAAAAAAWc/E_bFiOefKnge6YKQXX-i_pnuAhwRiOEogCPcBGAYYCw/s640/2ndhk.jpg

[qrich]

Full auto machine guns aren't used in crimes almost ever...it is EXTREMELY RARE

because they are illegal....thus they cost an absolute fortune on the black market.

Laws matter

They aren't fully illegal, you can go through proper steps to own a fully automatic. Like you can with a tank. It's a lengthy process, however, and you will need approval from your local sheriff (if I'm not mistaken).

However, I also asked how often are firearms that were either obtained illegally, modified illegally or LE dropped the ball on current background check requirements versus how often does none of that apply?

[Hawker]

:lol It's not just Australia. Virtually every other developed nation on Earth has gun control laws that work to prevent gun deaths. The US doesn't because our elected officials are owned by the NRA and gun manufacturers. They care more about money and power than they do about human lives.

Australia has a higher gun possession now than where it was when the port arthur shooting happened.

Also, Australia had very little gun violence and mass shootings even prior to Port Arthur so it's a silly conclusion to make there's a cause and effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

This was a shooting in 2003. He walked into a room and started firing a bunch of handguns. Just because he didn't kill as many people doesn't mean it doesn't count as a mass shooting.

[Charlie Sheen]

I'm saying there is already a system that registers that. There is no additional "branding" going on. Anytime you go to the doctor for f*cking anything you are getting "branded" whether you like it or not. Whether it's because you have high cholesterol or because you tried killing yourself it's being documented and recorded.
Are you intentionally missing the point? Do we really need to attach greater negative stigma to mental health? It's a good thing when depressed people are getting professional help. Why discourage that?

[Facepalm]

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OI2pGRIhoKQ/XUlEi4mg4YI/AAAAAAAAAWc/E_bFiOefKnge6YKQXX-i_pnuAhwRiOEogCPcBGAYYCw/s640/2ndhk.jpg
If the HK protesters started pulling out guns Xi would just roll through them with his military. You know that's what would happen.


https://www.history.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_fa ces:center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_768/MTU3OTIzNTc5MDc1OTYyNTE0/who-was-the-tank-man-of-tiananmen-squares-featured-photo.jpg

[rufuspaul]

Those other countries do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity we have.


Cultural diversity=mass gun violence? WTF are you talking about? You ignore the facts and start pulling shit out of your ass. I'll await your next NRA propaganda bullshit talking point.

[Loco 50]

Great theory you have there. Unfortunately, the War on Drugs shows that isn't likely to work in practice!


Little bit harder to smuggle around some rifles as opposed to powder or pills, but keep insisting.

Also, false equivalence.

People become addicted to drugs.
People don't become addicted to guns.

There is an inherent desperation involved with drug use that made the "war on drugs" a futile, foolish impossibility.


Driving is also a privilege. Bearing arms is a right :applause:

Currently.

[~primetime~]

It is very refreshing to see rufus, a conservative, using logic and being objective rather than just blindly following what his 'team' tells him he should follow.

More people (on both sides) should be like that.

Conservative or Liberal...if line up perfectly with every single one of that sides policies then you are not thinking for yourself...your 'side' is thinking for you.

[qrich]

Little bit harder to smuggle around some rifles as opposed to powder or pills, but keep insisting.

Also, false equivalence.

People become addicted to drugs.
People don't become addicted to guns.

There is an inherent desperation involved with drug use that made the "war on drugs" a futile, foolish impossibility.

Currently.

:yawn

It didn't work with that, but it will work with this!!!

And amazing, a privilege killing 4x more people, on average, is considered to be okay!



It is very refreshing to see rufus, a conservative, using logic and being objective rather than just blindly following what his 'team' tells him he should follow.

More people (on both sides) should be like that.

Conservative or Liberal...if line up perfectly with every single one of that sides policies then you are not thinking for yourself...your 'side' is thinking for you.


What's "my team" brodie

[Kblaze8855]

Do most of you against gun control honestly believe that the people who want gun laws addressed are saying they are for gun confiscation and the banning of all firearms in America? Do you actually believe that or do you jump to that extreme view because it

[rufuspaul]

It is very refreshing to see rufus, a conservative, using logic and being objective rather than just blindly following what his 'team' tells him he should follow.

More people (on both sides) should be like that.

Conservative or Liberal...if line up perfectly with every single one of that sides policies then you are not thinking for yourself...your 'side' is thinking for you.

Thanks man. It's like you said, having kids makes you change your perspective on a lot of things.

[Loco 50]

:yawn

It didn't work with that, but it will work with this!!!

This isn't remotely constructive. Life is trial and error. We fail before we succeed in most things worthwhile.


And amazing, a privilege killing 4x more people, on average, is considered to be okay!

How many people are there operating vehicles to regulate?

How many people are handling guns?

Little bit of a reduced population. Also, arguing a point for us. Should be even easier to regulate guns than cars.

You're not very good at this.

[CelticBaller]

Cultural diversity=mass gun violence? WTF are you talking about? You ignore the facts and start pulling shit out of your ass. I'll await your next NRA propaganda bullshit talking point.

Mass shootings are not the only form of gun violence lmao

Gang violence for once is a huge problem that has a lot to do with cultural and ethnic difference. Are you going to argue that doctor?

[Loco 50]

Thanks man. It's like you said, having kids makes you change your perspective on a lot of things.
I fully agree with his sentiments. I think I read you called yourself an independent the other day. More true independents are needed and needed to speak up on stuff like this.

[rufuspaul]

Mass shootings are not the only form of gun violence lmao

Gang violence for once is a huge problem that has a lot to do with cultural and ethnic difference. Are you going to argue that doctor?


So gun control will have no effect on gun deaths? Where are your sources?

[CelticBaller]

So gun control will have no effect on gun deaths? Where are your sources?
Maybe the countless of illegal gun violence that happens everyday in the US? You think Jerome from the corner gets his Uzi from some gun shop?

Do white people only care about gun violence when it affects them?

[qrich]

This isn't remotely constructive. Life is trial and error. We fail before we succeed in most things worthwhile.

How many people are there operating vehicles to regulate?

How many people are handling guns?

Little bit of a reduced population. Also, arguing a point for us. Should be even easier to regulate guns than cars.

You're not very good at this.

We already have a trial. Compare the numbers of Chicago to Houston and their gun control, Mount of gun stores, etc

And we should put a privilege above a right?!? Ha!

[Patrick Chewing]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Do most of you against gun control honestly believe that the people who want gun laws addressed are saying they are for gun confiscation and the banning of all firearms in America? Do you actually believe that or do you jump to that extreme view because it

[~primetime~]

No one needs to be able to see into the future to see the obvious. People on both sides of the aisle (who I have a sneaky suspicion don't own any guns) have repeatedly made claims to ban "assault weapons", whatever those may be. But I think it's fairly obvious they are referring to the AR-15.

Fine, you ban all AR-15's from ever being sold again, or you take it a step further and you confiscate the millions that are in circulation right now across the country. Fine, let's say this happens.

One day someone shoots up a school with handguns and does similar damage (since 9mm magazines can carry up to 17 rounds a piece). And since God graced us with two arms and two hands, you can hypothetically imagine that his person has 34 rounds that he can empty out in a matter of seconds. Then what happens? What's the discussion then? I'm curious.

Percentages need to be taken into account. Number of deaths etc.

If we adjust the laws we then need to see if LESS killing is happening. Not that we prevented it all together.

If there are 50% less deaths from mass shootings after an AR15 ban then it worked.

Myself...I dont want to "ban" anything....I just want stringent background checks on those buying ANY gun. A similar process it takes for citizens to get a drivers license and car.

[tpols]

Id venture to say these nerds wouldn't be coordinated enough to dual wield handguns like they were deadpool tio... this is real life not a vidya game.

Its absolutely no question that more damage can be done with a 100 round assault rifle than a handgun.

No regular citizen needs a gun that powerful and a clip that big. What are you turreting deer down by the dozen all at once lmao

[Patrick Chewing]

Percentages need to be taken into account. Number of deaths etc.

If we adjust the laws we then need to see if LESS killing is happening. Not that we prevented it all together.

If there are 50% less deaths from mass shootings after an AR15 ban then it worked.

Myself...I dont want to "ban" anything....I just want stringent background checks on those buying ANY gun. A similar process it takes for citizens to get a drivers license and car.


The problem you're going to run into also is what would Americans clearly define a "mass shooting" as at this point. There are charts out there showing that we have over 200 mass shootings in this country this year, and when you see and hear that number, you can't help but be shocked.

But the truth behind that number is that some of those are cases where no one died, or only two or three were killed. So the outrage and despair is inflated whenever you label mostly everything as a mass shooting. Sure, we'll have less deaths with handguns, but the Mainstream Media Machine will still be pumping out another Mass Shooting as their headline. And we'll all be back here having the same kind of discussions again and again.

[Patrick Chewing]

Id venture to say these nerds wouldn't be coordinated enough to dual wield handguns like they were deadpool tio... this is real life not a vidya game.

Its absolutely no question that more damage can be done with a 100 round assault rifle than a handgun.

No regular citizen needs a gun that powerful and a clip that big. What are you turreting deer down by the dozen all at once lmao


I don't see how that 100 magazine makes the AR comfortable to hold and shoot. I always grab my AR by the elbow between the magazine and the barrel guard.

http://cdn8.dissolve.com/p/D28_13_078/D28_13_078_0004_600.jpg

[Kblaze8855]

No one needs to be able to see into the future to see the obvious. People on both sides of the aisle (who I have a sneaky suspicion don't own any guns) have repeatedly made claims to ban "assault weapons", whatever those may be. But I think it's fairly obvious they are referring to the AR-15.

Fine, you ban all AR-15's from ever being sold again, or you take it a step further and you confiscate the millions that are in circulation right now across the country. Fine, let's say this happens.

One day someone shoots up a school with handguns and does similar damage (since 9mm magazines can carry up to 17 rounds a piece). And since God graced us with two arms and two hands, you can hypothetically imagine that his person has 34 rounds that he can empty out in a matter of seconds. Then what happens? What's the discussion then? I'm curious.


Ah the slippery slope means we should try absolutely nothing argument....

Everyone might as well go home at this point when we just throw any potential adjustments to laws out because of an imaginary future when they may be adjusted again and you won

[Patrick Chewing]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Ah the slippery slope means we should try absolutely nothing argument....

Everyone might as well go home at this point when we just throw any potential adjustments to laws out because of an imaginary future when they may be adjusted again and you won

[Kblaze8855]

Don

[Kblaze8855]

And if I incorrectly assumed your position is that we shouldn

[Patrick Chewing]

we should try absolutely nothing argument....



No, don't put words in my mouth nor assume that is what I meant.

Comprende?


Because you like to go on illogical rants, just indulge me and answer this hypothetical question.

If AR-15's are banned, and the next mass shooting happens with handguns, what then? What type of discussion should we be having then?

And I want you to answer this knowing that right now at this very moment, handguns are the number one tool used in shootings and shooting deaths in this country.

[Patrick Chewing]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]And if I incorrectly assumed your position is that we shouldn

[tpols]

tio youre directly advocating the slippery slope argument...

saying the gov should do nothing because youre afraid of what will ultimately come of it down the road.

everytime theres a massacre you make the same argument and still dont understand that terminology its ****ing incredible mate.

:facepalm

[~primetime~]

If mass shooters are all using handguns instead of AR15s we should analyze numbers and see if LESS people are being killed.

The Vegas shooter mowed down 59
Florida Night club shooter mowed down 49

Those are the top 2


IMO just a straight ban on the AR15 only is not the best solution, I think it should come down to strenuous background checks that look heavily at mental health and SSRI meds (the thing most of these killers have on common, aling with being male)

[bladefd]

-full background check
-2 week waiting period
-required gun license
-ban fully-automatic assault rifles such as M4, AK47, FAMAS, etc built for war being on the streets
-no guns can be purchased at gun shows

How is that not sensible? I don't want to take away your guns, but lets not make it very easy for anyone, including some crazy dude, to just walk out with a gun from a store.

[Kblaze8855]

So I assumed you wanted no gun laws addressed because of the slippery slope argument. You tell me not to put words in your mouth. I ask you what you do want done and you give me nothing about guns whatsoever?

[Patrick Chewing]

tio youre directly advocating the slippery slope argument...

saying the gov should do nothing because youre afraid of what will ultimately come of it down the road.

everytime theres a massacre you make the same argument and still dont understand that terminology its ****ing incredible mate.

:facepalm


I'm not advocating that the government do nothing. I'm advocating that the government not ban any guns. Find other methods. Otherwise yes, we will eventually be talking about handguns a few years down the road. Bookmark this thread if you have to, but I know it's coming.

[tpols]

If mass shooters are all using handguns instead of AR15s we should analyze numbers and see if LESS people are being killed.

The Vegas shooter mowed down 59
Florida Night club shooter mowed down 49

Those are the top 2


IMO just a straight ban on the AR15 only is not the best solution, I think it should come down to strenuous background checks that look heavily at mental health and SSRI meds (the thing most of these killers have on common, aling with being male)


that level of discrimination wont ever be tolerated.

do you know how many people in this country are on or have been on those meds?

[~primetime~]

that level of discrimination wont ever be tolerated.

do you know how many people in this country are on or have been on those meds?
Yeah that's an enormous part of the problem. We are over medicated.

We are a country flooded with mind altering drugs AND more guns than people....that is a recipe built for disaster.


But the vast majority of these shooters are on SSRI medication, something that NEEDS to be talked about more. The side effect on those drugs is "suicidal thoughts". The reroute brain chemicals. Its a given some will have bad reactions to them.

[bladefd]

I'm not advocating that the government do nothing. I'm advocating that the government not ban any guns. Find other methods. Otherwise yes, we will eventually be talking about handguns a few years down the road. Bookmark this thread if you have to, but I know it's coming.

Do you support any of the following measures?

-full background check
-2 week waiting period
-required gun license
-ban fully-automatic assault rifles such as M4, AK47, FAMAS, etc built for war being on the streets
-no guns can be purchased at gun shows

[Patrick Chewing]

Do you support any of the following measures?

-full background check
-2 week waiting period
-required gun license
-ban fully-automatic assault rifles such as M4, AK47, FAMAS, etc built for war being on the streets
-no guns can be purchased at gun shows


Explain full background check? Cause right now, the FBI runs background checks on you whenever you purchase a gun.

And every gun show I've gone to has run a background check through the FBI background process.


Needing a license to own a gun is the only one I disagree with. The government does not need to know that. No National Registry. Having a conceal and carry license is good enough.

[tpols]

Yeah that's an enormous part of the problem. We are over medicated.

We are a country flooded with mind altering drugs AND more guns than people....that is a recipe built for disaster.


But the vast majority of these shooters are on SSRI medication, something that NEEDS to be talked about more. The side effect on those drugs is "suicidal thoughts". The reroute brain chemicals. Its a given some will have bad reactions to them.


most shooters are on ssri's, but most people on ssri's arent shooters... like 99+% of them.

so its one of those issues.

Ultimately the main problem is the easy gun access. Too easy to get guns especially in the redneck states.

(which is where all this stuff happens)


im from nj. i dont think ive ever even seen a gun that wasnt on a cop's hip.

[tpols]

Explain full background check? Cause right now, the FBI runs background checks on you whenever you purchase a gun.

And every gun show I've gone to has run a background check through the FBI background process.


Needing a license to own a gun is the only one I disagree with. The government does not need to know that. No National Registry. Having a conceal and carry license is good enough.


See ...you aint for any solutions tio.

Cant ban anything, cant have licenses for it, cant track it. You want nothing done.

Its absolutely ridiculous that the process you need to go through to drive a car is 100x more intensive than that which you need to secure a weapon of mass destruction.

[Hawker]

If the HK protesters started pulling out guns Xi would just roll through them with his military. You know that's what would happen.


https://www.history.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_fa ces:center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_768/MTU3OTIzNTc5MDc1OTYyNTE0/who-was-the-tank-man-of-tiananmen-squares-featured-photo.jpg

So the solution is to give the government more power because **** it? The tianenmen square guy probably would've liked to check the government back then as well.

The principle still stands.

[Hawker]

The 2nd amendment is a universal right and as such it should be fully subsidized by the government so it can be achieved by not just everyone that can afford a gun. If you disagree, you're a racist.

The car vs. gun argument isn't a legitimate one since there is no amendment guaranteeing your right to drive a car.

[warriorfan]

The 2nd amendment is a universal right and as such it should be fully subsidized by the government so it can be achieved by not just everyone that can afford a gun. If you disagree, you're a racist.

Great post. Adding more and more registrations, licenses, and fees basically circumvents the 2nd amendment and takes it away from lower income individuals and families. Imagine if we revoked everyone

[tpols]

doesnt matter because when the 2nd amendment was written the only guns available were single shot reloadable muskets.

its like applying the hammurabi code to an advanced alien civilization... dumb dumb

time for a change.

[~primetime~]

most shooters are on ssri's, but most people on ssri's arent shooters... like 99+% of them.

so its one of those issues.

Ultimately the main problem is the easy gun access. Too easy to get guns especially in the redneck states.

(which is where all this stuff happens)


im from nj. i dont think ive ever even seen a gun that wasnt on a cop's hip.
Maybe an outright ban on those taking SSRIs is too much...but IMO those people (who have been deemed clinically depressed) should be looked at the most. Because it is SSRI users that are doing this, mostly anyway.

My gut feeling is that is the reason why these mass shootings are mostly a white thing too...because being over medicated is a white thing.

[Hawker]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Ah the slippery slope means we should try absolutely nothing argument....

Everyone might as well go home at this point when we just throw any potential adjustments to laws out because of an imaginary future when they may be adjusted again and you won

[Hawker]

doesnt matter because when the 2nd amendment was written the only guns available were single shot reloadable muskets.

its like applying the hammurabi code to an advanced alien civilization... dumb dumb

time for a change.

And the internet wasn't invented back then either. Should we change our free speech laws?

[warriorfan]

doesnt matter because when the 2nd amendment was written the only guns available were single shot reloadable muskets.

its like applying the hammurabi code to an advanced alien civilization... dumb dumb

time for a change.

When the first amendment was written you could only speak to people in real life or write them a letter. Maybe get a newspaper article if you were very lucky...and it still would only reach a small amount of people.

Now with the internet and twitter you can fire off anything and incite violence while millions of people read it instantly...

Newspapers:Internet::Muskets:AR-15’s

Let’s do something about the first amendment. Perhaps we should ban InsideHoops.

[coin24]

So having a gun means you're free? For the pro gun guys have you even used it?
It still amazes me how riled up people get over this issue. Does any other country crap on about freedom and amendment rights like Americans?

I'd argue that said people would change there mind after a school shooting in there area, but im assuming there response would be to arm all teachers and students :facepalm :facepalm


The only other countries where people carry guns are third world shitholes

[tpols]

When the first amendment was written you could only speak to people in real life or write them a letter. Maybe get a newspaper article if you were very lucky...and it still would only reach a small amount of people.

Now with the internet and twitter you can fire off anything and incite violence while millions of people read it instantly...

Newspapers:Internet::Muskets:AR-15’s

Let’s do something about the first amendment. Perhaps we should ban InsideHoops.


You're deflecting to totally different arguments because you cant sustain yourself in this one.

I honestly always thought you were smarter than this...

yes as hundreds of years pass, laws change. not a crazy concept. especially how much its changed since the days of george washington.

[Hawker]

So having a gun means you're free? For the pro gun guys have you even used it?
It still amazes me how riled up people get over this issue. Does any other country crap on about freedom and amendment rights like Americans?

I'd argue that said people would change there mind after a school shooting in there area, but im assuming there response would be to arm all teachers and students :facepalm :facepalm


The only other countries where people carry guns are third world shitholes

You guys don't even have free speech in Australia. You guys are happy for the government to tell you what to do and think for you. Not as much in America.

And gun ownership is HIGHER in Australia than it was at Port Arthur. Why isn't gun violence super high?

You can't even legally defend yourself against someone in Australia if there's a home invasion. What, are you just supposed to reason with them? It's retarded.

Also, someone in Adelaide had a massive gun buildup in his place. All illegal.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/adelaide-hills-man-charged-after-weapons-including-machine-gun-found-during-search/c1be95aa-cf5d-40a6-b99d-dc3ca4bc0bfb

[Kblaze8855]

Think about how hard it is to get anything passed in government and then think about how much harder it is to get it repealed if the law doesn't show any signs of working.

The idea we should just pass something to pass something is ridiculous - you need to be able to prove that it will work. Any legislation will stay in place due to its impossibility to get repealed.


Clear this up before I respond. I don

[Hawker]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Clear this up before I respond. I don

[Facepalm]

Think about how hard it is to get anything passed in government and then think about how much harder it is to get it repealed if the law doesn't show any signs of working.

The idea we should just pass something to pass something is ridiculous - you need to be able to prove that it will work. Any legislation will stay in place due to its impossibility to get repealed.
There used to be an assault weapons ban but they let it lapse.

[Facepalm]

And the internet wasn't invented back then either. Should we change our free speech laws?
Trump already wants to do that

[Hawker]

Trump already wants to do that

Cool. I disagree with it.

Just like I disagree with Kamala Harris who believes that 8chan should be shut down because it promotes hate.

Plenty of progressives and dems that wouldn't mind censoring speech due to it being "hate speech."

[Kblaze8855]

Yes - why is that an unreasonable position? I don't want feel good legislation passed or "pass something to pass something." Should there not be reason and logic behind decisions?


So you’re advocating the invention of a time machine before further laws are passed in America?

Without it you don’t actually know how effective anything is going to be long term. You give it a shot and adjust as necessary going forward. What public safety issue did the government pass a law on and declare the work done and stop adjusting them as needed?

If you had to know they will be effective and eliminate gun deaths before you passed it there would be absolutely no restrictions existing on guns in the first place. It’s about improving not eliminating the inevitable violence in society.

[warriorfan]

You're deflecting to totally different arguments because you cant sustain yourself in this one.

I honestly always thought you were smarter than this...

yes as hundreds of years pass, laws change. not a crazy concept. especially how much its changed since the days of george washington.

How is it deflecting? What I proposed is literally the exact same thing. Freedom of speech has way more power now then it did then....so shouldn

[Shogon]

How is it deflecting? What I proposed is literally the exact same thing. Freedom of speech has way more power now then it did then....so shouldn’t we revise it at the same time we are “updating” the second amendment?

Freedom of speech in today's age of disinformation and "interconnectedness" is a far more powerful thing than the barrel of a gun. It's not even remotely close.

And as a result, the media goes unchecked peddling bullshit 24/7/365. Literally.

Good, bad, indifferent, you're right.

[qrich]

doesnt matter because when the 2nd amendment was written the only guns available were single shot reloadable muskets.

its like applying the hammurabi code to an advanced alien civilization... dumb dumb

time for a change.

Lol that's all that was available? :oldlol:

[Hawker]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]So you

[NumberSix]

doesnt matter because when the 2nd amendment was written the only guns available were single shot reloadable muskets.
The 2nd amendment doesn

[tpols]

How is it deflecting? What I proposed is literally the exact same thing. Freedom of speech has way more power now then it did then....so shouldn’t we revise it at the same time we are “updating” the second amendment?


yes.

and it has been revised.

Do you not know how much information is collected over the internet and phone as evidence to charge people nowadays?

Society evolves. So does the rule sets it operates under.

It's mind boggling that you think everything will remain static from the times of ancient eras when it absolutely never has.

[NumberSix]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]So you

[Patrick Chewing]

See ...you aint for any solutions tio.

Cant ban anything, cant have licenses for it, cant track it. You want nothing done.

Its absolutely ridiculous that the process you need to go through to drive a car is 100x more intensive than that which you need to secure a weapon of mass destruction.


How is having a National Registry for who has guns, of what type, and how many going to prevent mass shootings?? How do you prevent someone from putting those guns in their car and driving to a crowded area and killing people??

Your idea of doing something just to do something is not the solution.

Why aren

[Kblaze8855]

[QUOTE=NumberSix]What exactly are you proposing that would prevent people with no criminal record from getting guns?

You can say

[Dinosaurus]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]I

[coin24]

You guys don't even have free speech in Australia. You guys are happy for the government to tell you what to do and think for you. Not as much in America.

And gun ownership is HIGHER in Australia than it was at Port Arthur. Why isn't gun violence super high?

You can't even legally defend yourself against someone in Australia if there's a home invasion. What, are you just supposed to reason with them? It's retarded.

Also, someone in Adelaide had a massive gun buildup in his place. All illegal.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/adelaide-hills-man-charged-after-weapons-including-machine-gun-found-during-search/c1be95aa-cf5d-40a6-b99d-dc3ca4bc0bfb


We have the same amount of free speech as america, not sure where you get that idea from. Probably the biased left media.

Like I've said earlier, farmers, hunters, shooting range etc, if you need a gun you can still easily get one. Just have a license and a permit. The criminals obviously still have access to them but overall we aren't a very violent society.
The average person shouldn't be able to walk into a Kmart and buy a gun, nor should they be publicly displayed or advertised.
They need to be away from kids.


The home invasion example you're taking about is a pretty rare case here. Most people would agree if someone breaks into your house you're going to beat the shit out of them. Plus they won't have a gun:lol


It's crazy how this argument always turns into freedom rights and pointing the finger in every other direction.
If these measures made it harder to access guns and it prevented even just one more shooting isn't it worth it??

[bladefd]

Lol that's all that was available? :oldlol:

There were 6 bullet revolvers.. No semiautomatic weapons existed until muuuuuuuch later :confusedshrug:

There were no automatic weapons until like the end of 19th century but even then were very much prototypes.. I would say they were not mass produced until ww1, but they were still semiautomatic in ww1. So maybe the 1920s/early-1930s were when we began seeing fully automatic rifles with the Tommy gun used by the Mafia. The founding fathers never even dreamed of such automatic weapons we saw in ww2.

[qrich]

There were 6 bullet revolvers.. No semiautomatic weapons existed until muuuuuuuch later :confusedshrug:

There were no automatic weapons until like the end of 19th century but even then were very much prototypes.. I would say they were not mass produced until ww1, but they were still semiautomatic in ww1. So maybe the 1920s/early-1930s were when we began seeing fully automatic rifles with the Tommy gun used by the Mafia. The founding fathers never even dreamed of such automatic weapons we saw in ww2.

Pickle guns existed. Citizens had cannons and swivel weapons. Pepper box designs. Ferguson rifle. Girandoni air rifle.

Considering citizens had equal weaponry to the government, I'd lean more towards the FFs believing that it should be equal.

[Vino24]

You have to look at the core foundation of the problem. Leftists are far more radicalized and a big factor is their lack of morals and the destruction of the modern family unit.

[Hawker]

We have the same amount of free speech as america, not sure where you get that idea from. Probably the biased left media.

Like I've said earlier, farmers, hunters, shooting range etc, if you need a gun you can still easily get one. Just have a license and a permit. The criminals obviously still have access to them but overall we aren't a very violent society.
The average person shouldn't be able to walk into a Kmart and buy a gun, nor should they be publicly displayed or advertised.
They need to be away from kids.


The home invasion example you're taking about is a pretty rare case here. Most people would agree if someone breaks into your house you're going to beat the shit out of them. Plus they won't have a gun:lol


It's crazy how this argument always turns into freedom rights and pointing the finger in every other direction.
If these measures made it harder to access guns and it prevented even just one more shooting isn't it worth it??

Section 18C ring a bell?

I've lived in Australia (permanent resident) so I know about the kid being sued by some aboriginal at QUT for posting something "offensive" on facebook. Others have successfully gone through. So no, you don't have the same free speech. The US doesn't have hate speech laws.

You don't even have a guarantee of free speech in your constitution.

As for your comment on "not being a very violent society" I agree and that's where the main difference is - not the access to guns. That was my major point about having a higher gun possession - you have a higher possession rate yet no shootings. That proves my point on it being a cultural issue.

You guys are absolutely fearmongered against guns by the government. I've seen the ridiculous ads and you guys buy into it. Nanny state indeed.

Whether or not "most people agree" is irrelevant as it's law. Even if that person doesn't have a gun (which is NEVER a guarantee and never would be in the US either if you made changes) you should still be able to own one and have the advantage over a home invader.

You have no concept of freedom and rights because Australia isn't founded on individual rights and ya'll dont value them. The two countries came out of different philosophies - you guys are still tied to the commonwealth. It's a different culture entirely - stop worrying so much about the US and stick to your own issues, like keeping a prime minister for more than one year.

[Cleverness]

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data

Decent article from the LA Times ^

They found 4 commonalities among the murderers


First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality.

Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.

Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as we have seen in the last week, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many are radicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.

Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.

For those proposing new gun laws, how would your gun law proposal prevent the above bold part, while also not infringing on one's second amendment rights?

Also, are the current mass shootings due to weakening gun laws throughout the decades? Or is it more because society has changed?

[Loco 50]

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data

Decent article from the LA Times ^

They found 4 commonalities among the murderers



For those proposing new gun laws, how would your gun law proposal prevent the above bold part, while also not infringing on one's second amendment rights?

Also, are the current mass shootings due to weakening gun laws throughout the decades? Or is it more because society has changed?

Your first question demands perfection in an imperfect world. The idea is to reduce the chances of an incident. New regulations would improve the current situation. Also, I value the publics right to not get shot in public and not have to live with the daily fear of being shot in public over your right to carry military weapons.

Hunting rifles, aok. Anything rapid firing. GFY.

Your second question expresses naivete. Society changes, laws must change with them. This is why we have the amendments.

[ILLsmak]

I mostly agree. Two points though, one with and one against your argument.

1. 2nd amendment was drafted so militias could possibly be formed to protect against tyrrany. That... wouldn't work anymore. Military technology makes your AR-15 useless against drones and missiles.



It doesn't because after a certain point you can't massacre your own people, and you're also assuming it would only split one way (people w/ tech v dudes fighting out of their homes), and that's probably not true, either.

I really believe there will come a time when we will be forming together w/ guns and fighting for something. Maybe not in our life time, but soon... fighting what, with what against what, who knows, but it will happen. If we don't have them we are at a disadvantage because we have to let them fight and make all of the decisions, when it could be a multi layered war and the side with the more driven militia might have the advantage.

If you think that if our government collapses and/or there is the level of unrest that would cause people to take up arms that A. no one in power will sympathize (there are military bases all over US, it will probably be an ideological split) and B. that they will just start carpet bombing people, that's insane. Even guys like Assad who they say "are bombing their own people" aren't doing it that much.

I'm all for people wanting to protect themselves, tho, if they want. You're right that it's not the reason, and it's not the reason that I support gun ownership. I think it's a bad look cuz you kill someone and then you gotta go on trial even if you were innocent, and who knows you might end up shafted, for what... I dunno.

-Smak

[Cleverness]

Your first question demands perfection in an imperfect world. The idea is to reduce the chances of an incident. New regulations would improve the current situation. Also, I value the publics right to not get shot in public and not have to live with the daily fear of being shot in public over your right to carry military weapons.

Hunting rifles, aok. Anything rapid firing. GFY.

Your second question expresses naivete. Society changes, laws must change with them. This is why we have the amendments.

I'm not implying that a proposal must have the prerequisite of stopping those previous shootings, but only to acknowledge if it wouldn't, mainly because the gun control advocates like to go hard after a mass shooting event as if their law proposal would have prevented it.

I actually agree with you that in general, if we make it more difficult for people to obtain guns, then we would have less mass shootings, but it would mean a decrease in liberty for millions of law-abiding citizens.

I'll restate the bold: In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative

Defensive uses of a firearm is estimated at 500,000 to 3 million per year in the US

Society changes, but that doesn't mean more government regulations is the answer.



I'm not worried about the mass shooters. They make up a tiny fraction of the gun violence in this country.

My argument is about law-abiding citizens having a means to protect themselves against criminals in the street with unregistered weapons. That's all.

Indeed. All those deaths every year in Chicago/DC/Baltimore/etc and nobody bats an eye.

[warriorfan]

Your first question demands perfection in an imperfect world. The idea is to reduce the chances of an incident. New regulations would improve the current situation. Also, I value the publics right to not get shot in public and not have to live with the daily fear of being shot in public over your right to carry military weapons.

Hunting rifles, aok. Anything rapid firing. GFY.

Your second question expresses naivete. Society changes, laws must change with them. This is why we have the amendments.

I value the public

[warriorfan]

It doesn't because after a certain point you can't massacre your own people, and you're also assuming it would only split one way (people w/ tech v dudes fighting out of their homes), and that's probably not true, either.

I really believe there will come a time when we will be forming together w/ guns and fighting for something. Maybe not in our life time, but soon... fighting what, with what against what, who knows, but it will happen. If we don't have them we are at a disadvantage because we have to let them fight and make all of the decisions, when it could be a multi layered war and the side with the more driven militia might have the advantage.

If you think that if our government collapses and/or there is the level of unrest that would cause people to take up arms that A. no one in power will sympathize (there are military bases all over US, it will probably be an ideological split) and B. that they will just start carpet bombing people, that's insane. Even guys like Assad who they say "are bombing their own people" aren't doing it that much.

I'm all for people wanting to protect themselves, tho, if they want. You're right that it's not the reason, and it's not the reason that I support gun ownership. I think it's a bad look cuz you kill someone and then you gotta go on trial even if you were innocent, and who knows you might end up shafted, for what... I dunno.

-Smak

I typed up a response to the post you quoted earlier but ended up deleting it for later because I did not want to sidetrack the thread. Reading the last few pages this thread looks like it’s made it’s way down that road on its own now.


I mostly agree. Two points though, one with and one against your argument.

1. 2nd amendment was drafted so militias could possibly be formed to protect against tyrrany. That... wouldn't work anymore. Military technology makes your AR-15 useless against drones and missiles.

2. people from countries like Aus have no basis arguing with this, since their countries do not have the massive illegal gun markets that exist here. Like you said, the single mom working late nights is in danger from armed criminals with unregistered guns they bought from gang dealers. Aussies don't have to deal with that, so they should bite their tongues on this issue.

For point one. I disagree. The holocaust never happens if the Jews had AR-15’s. The Soviet Union wouldn’t have been able to round up every single person who disagrees with them and kill them or force them into a labor camp. Of course our government could still drop a nuke on us but that would be counterproductive to their agenda. Indiscriminate killing of their population and destroying of their infrastructure isn’t what an oppressive state wants, they want control. The way you gain control is you disarm the public while you hold all the guns. It’s happened many times before in history. It’s not gonna stop now.

[Loco 50]

[QUOTE=warriorfan]I value the public

[warriorfan]

What's the downside of making it more difficult to get a gun?

What's the downside of screening for violent behavior or severe mental illness in a would be gunowner?

That way it ensures only responsible, mature individuals like yourself get one. It comes with the added bonus of you having to defend yourself against fewer threats out there as well, right?


You'd have no difficulties in obtaining one yourself, correct?

They already literally do all the things you say. If you have any domestic assault on your records, you can’t buy a gun, if you have ever committed a felony, violent or not, you cannot buy a gun, ever been committed to a mental institution? No gun for you.

I’m a legal gun owner and have bought many firearms...You should do more research on the topic imo.

[Loco 50]

They already literally do all the things you say. If you have any domestic assault on your records, you can’t buy a gun, if you have ever committed a felony, violent or not, you cannot buy a gun, ever been committed to a mental institution? No gun for you.

I’m a legal gun owner and have bought many firearms...You should do more research on the topic imo.
Yes, you should do more research. This is not a statewide requirement. All you have to do is show up to a gun show in Texas and you've got whatever your heart desires.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-texas/

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/gun-shows/

So perhaps more regulations are needed?

[warriorfan]

Yes, you should do more research. This is not a statewide requirement. All you have to do is show up to a gun show in Texas and you've got whatever your heart desires.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-texas/

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/gun-shows/


3200 gun homicides in California in 2016
3300 gun homicides in Texas in 2016

You’re barking up the wrong tree my friend

[Loco 50]

3200 gun homicides in California in 2016
3300 gun homicides in Texas in 2016

You’re barking up the wrong tree my friend
Are you suggesting that a gun purchased in that state will only be used in that state by providing this data?

You're locked in your stance, there is no point in further back and forth.

[warriorfan]

Are you suggesting that a gun purchased in that state will only be used in that state by providing this data?

You're locked in your stance, there is no point in further back and forth.

California residents starting in 2015 need to ship any firearm purchased out of state to a licensed dealer where they go through criminal and mental health background checks.

[bladefd]

Pickle guns existed. Citizens had cannons and swivel weapons. Pepper box designs. Ferguson rifle. Girandoni air rifle.

Considering citizens had equal weaponry to the government, I'd lean more towards the FFs believing that it should be equal.

You are reaching..

Pickle gun:

Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns.
You also needed a tripod because it had to be mounted.

Citizens had cannons? Do you have any idea how long it took to reload a cannon and fire and how many people you needed? Again, reaching.

Single fire rifles were all anyone had. There was no such thing as semiautomatic rifles in 18th century, let alone most of the 19th century. Fully automatic rifles were even later in being available for purchase. Period, end of story.

[bladefd]

You have to look at the core foundation of the problem. Leftists are far more radicalized and a big factor is their lack of morals and the destruction of the modern family unit.

Really? Liberals lack morals?

Destruction of modern family unit? Explain.

[qrich]

You are reaching..

Pickle gun:

You also needed a tripod because it had to be mounted.

Citizens had cannons? Do you have any idea how long it took to reload a cannon and fire and how many people you needed? Again, reaching.

Single fire rifles were all anyone had. There was no such thing as semiautomatic rifles in 18th century, let alone most of the 19th century. Fully automatic rifles were even later in being available for purchase. Period, end of story.

I'm reaching by mentioning firearms that existed back then along with the fact that citizen were able to purchase equivalent arms as government, like the FFs wanted? I mean, did you even know what a puckle was prior to utilizing google?

Okay, cool.

It's a good thing that the Constitution was made to withstand the times and not for the times :rolleyes:


Really? Liberals lack morals?

Destruction of modern family unit? Explain.

Well, modern day "Liberals" are a disgrace to what a Liberal should be.

Either way, he is right, just like their counterparts. They put emotion above fact, want to reward those who intentionally break the law and punish those who follow it, etc.

[qrich]

Oh and to dispute the Dem/Media rhetoric that we lead the world in mass shooting deaths:

https://cdn.mrctv.org/files/images/Screen%20Shot%202019-08-05%20at%204.44.51%20PM.png

When factoring in gun deaths per capita, homicide rates, and gun ownership rates compared to gun homicide rates - the U.S. is much safer than a plethora of other developed countries, according to a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center.

The Crime Prevention Research Center had compiled a study of mass shooting deaths from 2009-2015. The study showed that when it came to the annual death rate by mass shootings, the U.S. ranked 11th when it came to developed nations.

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/more-lies-mass-shootings-america-after-tragedies?fbclid=IwAR3SCYpvSlvH-Jgl0mXzoqr5Vkm1IjGj9omVCwUanVEbORRqc1eFKneM9o8

:rolleyes:

[Loco 50]

Oh and to dispute the Dem/Media rhetoric that we lead the world in mass shooting deaths:

https://cdn.mrctv.org/files/images/Screen%20Shot%202019-08-05%20at%204.44.51%20PM.png

When factoring in gun deaths per capita, homicide rates, and gun ownership rates compared to gun homicide rates - the U.S. is much safer than a plethora of other developed countries, according to a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center.

The Crime Prevention Research Center had compiled a study of mass shooting deaths from 2009-2015. The study showed that when it came to the annual death rate by mass shootings, the U.S. ranked 11th when it came to developed nations.

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/more-lies-mass-shootings-america-after-tragedies?fbclid=IwAR3SCYpvSlvH-Jgl0mXzoqr5Vkm1IjGj9omVCwUanVEbORRqc1eFKneM9o8

:rolleyes:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-research-center-mrc/

Overall, we rate Media Research Center strongly right biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience as well as a poor fact check record by their primary sources.

:rolleyes: Is it really that hard to verify your sources?

[qrich]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-research-center-mrc/

Overall, we rate Media Research Center strongly right biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience as well as a poor fact check record by their primary sources.

:rolleyes: Is it really that hard to verify your sources?

Let's use a website that has Snopes as "unbiased", Politico as "unbiased" and WaPo as "Left-Center" :rolleyes:

[NBAGOAT]

Let's use a website that has Snopes as "unbiased", Politico as "unbiased" and WaPo as "Left-Center" :rolleyes:

Like a lot of political arguments, this becomes a credibility of research argument and that never goes anywhere. Ofc some people wouldn

[Loco 50]

Let's use a website that has Snopes as "unbiased", Politico as "unbiased" and WaPo as "Left-Center" :rolleyes:
You claimed you were not a staunch conservative.

[Loco 50]

Like a lot of political arguments, this becomes a credibility of research argument and that never goes anywhere. Ofc some people wouldn’t even trust cdc to do research either. Is there a solid neutral organization out there both sides agree does solid unbiased research
This is key. There is no point in discussing matters with people that far gone.

One political team's side is actively building new (redoing old) wall (fence) that Mexico (U.S.) is paying for to stave off an invasion (refugees) and their constituents believe every word of it.

Truth has become fiction simply because lies are shouted loud enough and often enough to drown it out.

Education should trump all to make situations like these almost impossible.

One side is no longer interested in education if it goes against their beliefs.

I asked Prometheus before, how do you overcome this? I do not know the answer.

[qrich]

You claimed you were not a staunch conservative.

You are trying to say a source is biased by using a website that is horribly biased. They also have the NYT as Left-Center :roll:




One side is no longer interested in education if it goes against their beliefs.


That's the side that puts emotion above facts.

[Loco 50]

You are trying to say a source is biased by using a website that is horribly biased. They also have the NYT as Left-Center :roll:




That's the side that puts emotion above facts.
How on earth do you even find a source by the name of Media Research Center unless you actively search for something so far gone to the right? It's impossible man.

The caravan was not emotion.
Anti-Muslim rhetoric is not emotion.
Socialism is not emotion.
Abortion is not emotion.
They're coming for my guns is not emotion.

You and I have no common ground to hope to derive any decent conversation from and you are dishonest when you claim to not be deeply conservative when you provide sources like that and preach the talking points you do.

[NBAGOAT]

You are trying to say a source is biased by using a website that is horribly biased. They also have the NYT as Left-Center :roll:




That's the side that puts emotion above facts.

It is really hard to figure out wats a fact when any organization that does research, government or private, can be accused of bias. Loco says the stats you cited aren

[qrich]

It is really hard to figure out wats a fact when any organization that does research, government or private, can be accused of bias. Loco says the stats you cited aren’t credible, you say the site he used to measure your sites credibility isn’t credible. This convo will never go anywhere.

On another note related to your emotion point, at least for climate change, I seriously don’t get how it can be disputed as a fact and it’s the right that usually does so.

It really isn't though. And it isn't just that single site, those statistics can be found on numerous other ones. It's just the one I had saved. Snopes, WaPo, HuffPo & NYT are all known for their extreme-Left bias, and for that site to have them near center or unbiased is a joke.

The issue with climate change has to do more with how much is done by human nature, and how much is nature being nature. Getting out of idiotic stuff such as the Paris Agreement was the right way to go.


How on earth do you even find a source by the name of Media Research Center unless you actively search for something so far gone to the right? It's impossible man.

The caravan was not emotion. Bunch of illegals claiming to want asylum, though, a good amount rejected it. And even under what Barry had said, they shouldn't qualify for it.
Anti-Muslim rhetoric is not emotion. Yes, it quite is.
Socialism is not emotion. It's trash
Abortion is not emotion :roll: it clearly is when you are using the saddest and most extreme situations to justify the majority.
They're coming for my guns is not emotion. Well, duh

You and I have no common ground to hope to derive any decent conversation from and you are dishonest when you claim to not be deeply conservative when you provide sources like that and preach the talking points you do.

Ah yes, the old "I'm going to attack you because I can't attack what is being said."

What's next buddy? You are going to call me racist?

Of course though, you can't have a conversation with someone that believes Snopes is unbiased.

[Loco 50]

You missed my point on those issues and proved it at the same time. They are emotional issues from both side's perspective, yet you claimed before only the left is emotional despite evidence showing the contrary. That's untrue.




The issue with climate change has to do more with how much is done by human nature, and how much is nature being nature. Getting out of idiotic stuff such as the Paris Agreement was the right way to go.

Another right wing talking point. The science is not up for debate.



Ah yes, the old "I'm going to attack you because I can't attack what is being said."

What's next buddy? You are going to call me racist?

How did I attack you? You claimed to not be conservative. You were dishonest when you denied that before, but I don't see how it could be construed as an insult just because I recognized it.

:confusedshrug: I don't have the foggiest idea if you are racist. Your self-awareness is quite bad however.



Of course though, you can't have a conversation with someone that believes Snopes is unbiased.
It's a right wing view that Snopes is biased. I don't know what else to tell you. The entire premise of snopes and politifact are to be unbiased.

How or why would we attempt to have a conversation when we agree on absolutely nothing?

You believe what you want dude. There's several of you on here. I challenge you and y'all go nuts. You're so sensitive about a contrarian view.

Liberal/left, lies, they did this, they did that blah blah blah. I'm not here to change the mind of people that are firmly dug in. Now I know where you stand. No point in pushing it any further.

I'm only interested in the truth, as best as I can find it. A right wing site producing stats about mass shooting incidents that make no sense to the slightest critical eye, plus has a history of producing suspect stories has pretty low chances of giving me any truthful information.

[Kblaze8855]

Oh and to dispute the Dem/Media rhetoric that we lead the world in mass shooting deaths:

https://cdn.mrctv.org/files/images/Screen%20Shot%202019-08-05%20at%204.44.51%20PM.png

When factoring in gun deaths per capita, homicide rates, and gun ownership rates compared to gun homicide rates - the U.S. is much safer than a plethora of other developed countries, according to a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center.

The Crime Prevention Research Center had compiled a study of mass shooting deaths from 2009-2015. The study showed that when it came to the annual death rate by mass shootings, the U.S. ranked 11th when it came to developed nations.

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/more-lies-mass-shootings-america-after-tragedies?fbclid=IwAR3SCYpvSlvH-Jgl0mXzoqr5Vkm1IjGj9omVCwUanVEbORRqc1eFKneM9o8

:rolleyes:



You really not seeing the issue there?

[Kblaze8855]

I value the public’s right not to have the constitution usurped because of a few that are emotional, neurotic, and don’t understand math.


The constitution is not a matter of right and wrong nor is it something set in stone.....and even when not changed....its always been used within the boundaries of common sense. And we all accept it.

A plain text reading doesnt give you the ability to keep guns from felons. Or kids for that matter. You think they intended to keep guns from child citizens? The founding fathers were arming them. 12 year olds served in the revolutionary war militias(not so much in the official army). Teenagers were common. 16 was considered a perfectly reasonable age to go to war. The army would take a 17 yearold officially but records show all kinds of kids in the normal army and even more in little town militias. They couldnt afford to ask questions. If that kid can shoot...point him at a redcoat. We letting the 1700s acceptance of child soldiers keep us from refusing 15 year olds handguns?

The constitution doesnt say you can take the gun rights of the insane either....or limit which kinds of guns are ok. Its why some psychos in bunkers insist all gun laws are an infringement. But some common sense was applied and the supreme court said of the first outright gun ban(sawed off shotguns in some areas) that theres no evidence that a sawed off:



“has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” and thus “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”


Thats the ball game.

We get to use some common sense for the sake of public safety.

The constitution huggers half the time dont even know much of the bill of rights. Ask someone talking about guns being a right what the 9th amendment is and see if they actually love the constitution....or guns.

Steady talking about rights. Its just a law. Any law can be changed with a supermajority. You could make it legal to murder gingers with two thirds support and enough state houses.

Nothing is set in stone and thats how its supposed to be. Its just set up so you cant do it easily. They would have been 6 votes in the senate and im not sure how many in the house from being able to edit the bill of rights in Obamas first term and pass it on to the state ratification fight. The country leans enough one way or the other you can do anything.

Even as is its long been accepted that gun laws are not unconstitutional no matter how much your team yells about it. Thats done. Its settled. Its just a matter of politics and common sense now no matter what you think James Madison or Alexander Hamilton were thinking about muskets and the king of England in a world so different it might as well have been an alien civilization.

And even if you got 7 hardcore NRA members on the supreme court they would never declare gun laws unconstitutional because all that would happen is a massive spike in fully automatic weapon production which would drop prices and put AK-47s in the hands of these idiots who now only have what people who hate guns think are weapons of war. Almost all fully automatics for sale are from before the mid 80s. Just well maintained. Let them start mass producing them and selling it at Cabelas buy one get one like hunting rifles. When you start seeing gang member felons open carrying fully automatic extended clip handguns in ice cream shops and letting off like an action movie when someone in the wrong color walks in and you will want some gun laws back real quick. Sure shooters would get put down quicker.....after they kill twice the people in half the time with 20 times the incidents we have now.

No matter what the 1700s think its unrealistic to not limit gun access in 2019 and once you accept that(which 100% of people with a brain have done) its just a matter of degree.

[Derka]

I don

[NumberSix]

A plain text reading doesnt give you the ability to keep guns from felons.
The constitution actually does specifically say that people convicted of a crime can be stripped of their constitutional rights. Even the 13th amendment specifically says that the ban on slavery doesn’t apply to those convicted of a crime.


Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

So yes, the constitution does give the ability to take away gun rights, voting rights, 4th amendment rights, etc.

[Kblaze8855]

Not specifically it doesn’t. We simply take a commonsense approach and apply applications used elsewhere in the constitution to other areas. If you were going to take it to mean you can lose any right when convicted of a felony you could easily say convicted felons no longer have the right to free speech or....not to have troops quartered in their homes. But that isnt a reasonable way to bend it. But that’s exactly what taking the gun rights from a felon is. Bending an unrelated portion of the constitution by taking your interpretation of its meaning to allow you to do something not in the plain text.

You can find a way to make almost anything constitutional with a judge willing to take an open enough view of the ninth amendment.

[Prometheus]

Oh and to dispute the Dem/Media rhetoric that we lead the world in mass shooting deaths:

https://cdn.mrctv.org/files/images/Screen%20Shot%202019-08-05%20at%204.44.51%20PM.png

[I]When factoring in gun deaths per capita, homicide rates, and gun ownership rates compared to gun homicide rates

:facepalm

I'm not even sure what to say about how stupid this is.

[CelticBaller]

If mass shooters are all using handguns instead of AR15s we should analyze numbers and see if LESS people are being killed.

The Vegas shooter mowed down 59
Florida Night club shooter mowed down 49

Those are the top 2


IMO just a straight ban on the AR15 only is not the best solution, I think it should come down to strenuous background checks that look heavily at mental health and SSRI meds (the thing most of these killers have on common, aling with being male)
Vegas shooter had illegally acquired the weapons

[MaxFly]

People who advocate for gun control are ignorant and selfish.

It’s people who don’t get affected (or so they think) who want the bans.

Wow, you really believe the advocates for better gun control are simply those who have remained untouched by gun violence? I don't understand why anyone would make a claim that is so patently false on it's face and easily disproven.

https://i.ibb.co/4Kjy4g4/giffords.jpg

[warriorfan]

Gun control = Let

[rufuspaul]

If we adjust the laws we then need to see if LESS killing is happening. Not that we prevented it all together.



We've already seen that. When the assault rifle ban was in effect in the 90s the number of mass shootings was reduced by over 40% and total gun deaths went down by almost a 3rd.

[warriorfan]

We've already seen that. When the assault rifle ban was in effect in the 90s the number of mass shootings was reduced by over 40% and total gun deaths went down by almost a 3rd.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png

[rufuspaul]

The first thought that comes to mind is to not have to sacrifice our freedoms and privacy because a few lunatics have ruined that for us.



We have to take our shoes off to board and airplane because some nut tried unsuccessfully to ignite a shoe bomb. You don't see people protesting in the streets over that.

You know it's funny how the NRA has brainwashed people into thinking the 2nd amendment is handed down by God himself and cannot be interpreted in any way other than the way it promotes their agenda of more profits for gun manufacturers. People need to look up the definition of the word "amendment". Amendments can be changed and even repealed. Remember there was once a constitutional amendment banning alcohol.

[warriorfan]

We have to take our shoes off to board and airplane because some nut tried unsuccessfully to ignite a shoe bomb. You don't see people protesting in the streets over that.

You know it's funny how the NRA has brainwashed people into thinking the 2nd amendment is handed down by God himself and cannot be interpreted in any way other than the way it promotes their agenda of more profits for gun manufacturers. People need to look up the definition of the word "amendment". Amendments can be changed and even repealed. Remember there was once a constitutional amendment banning alcohol.

If you actually gave two shits about human life you would be for this as well. Banning alcohol would save more lives then gun control. 88,000 people die a year from excessive alcohol consumption.

[rufuspaul]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png



http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2017/11/07/did-banning-assault-weapons-affect-mass-shootings/



On average, mass shootings during the assault weapons ban victimized fewer people, and killed fewer people, then they did before or after it. Was this because high-capacity magazines and so-called assault weapons were harder to obtain? It does seem possible that when tools that facilitate shooting large quantities of bullets are more widely available, mass shooters would hit and kill more people.



If you actually gave two shits about human life you would be for this as well. Banning alcohol would save more lives then gun control. 88,000 people die a year from excessive alcohol consumption.

And how many died during prohibition? You really don't know much about US history do you.

Anyway comparing alcohol to guns is apples to oranges. My point was that the US constitution is a fluid document. Also you're dumb beyond comprehension.

[ItsMillerTime]

[QUOTE=warriorfan][b]Gun control = Let

[warriorfan]

http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2017/11/07/did-banning-assault-weapons-affect-mass-shootings/







And how many died during prohibition? You really don't know much about US history do you.

Anyway comparing alcohol to guns is apples to oranges. My point was that the US constitution is a fluid document. Also you're dumb beyond comprehension.

So supposedly banning alcohol didn

[Patrick Chewing]

We have to take our shoes off to board and airplane because some nut tried unsuccessfully to ignite a shoe bomb. You don't see people protesting in the streets over that.

You know it's funny how the NRA has brainwashed people into thinking the 2nd amendment is handed down by God himself and cannot be interpreted in any way other than the way it promotes their agenda of more profits for gun manufacturers. People need to look up the definition of the word "amendment". Amendments can be changed and even repealed. Remember there was once a constitutional amendment banning alcohol.


But I still get to keep my shoes.


Rufus, I hear ya man. You have kids and you worry about their safety. My girlfriend and I are thinking of having kids ourselves. But I'm not brainwashed by anyone. I'm a realist. The government can go ahead and ban the AR-15 all they want. People will still die and be shot with handguns. And then we'll be talking about removing guns all together.

[rufuspaul]

[QUOTE=warriorfan]So supposedly banning alcohol didn

[rufuspaul]

And then we'll be talking about removing guns all together.



You and I know that will never happen. The very best I can hope for is some better regulation but that probably won't happen either.

[superduper]

Why is it so damn important for people in a first world country to own guns? Seriously why?

[LostCause]

We have to take our shoes off to board and airplane because some nut tried unsuccessfully to ignite a shoe bomb. You don't see people protesting in the streets over that.

You know it's funny how the NRA has brainwashed people into thinking the 2nd amendment is handed down by God himself and cannot be interpreted in any way other than the way it promotes their agenda of more profits for gun manufacturers. People need to look up the definition of the word "amendment". Amendments can be changed and even repealed. Remember there was once a constitutional amendment banning alcohol.

:applause:

[superduper]

The very idea that you could be at a random place and a random person not the police is legally permitted to carry a gun at that place (even if they are a good guy) is shocking to most people outside America, whatever their political leaning may be. Most people don

[ItsMillerTime]

[QUOTE=superduper]The very idea that you could be at a random place and a random person not the police is legally permitted to carry a gun at that place (even if they are a good guy) is shocking to most people outside America, whatever their political leaning may be. Most people don

[Patrick Chewing]

[QUOTE=superduper]The very idea that you could be at a random place and a random person not the police is legally permitted to carry a gun at that place (even if they are a good guy) is shocking to most people outside America, whatever their political leaning may be. Most people don

[CelticBaller]

The very idea that you could be at a random place and a random person not the police is legally permitted to carry a gun at that place (even if they are a good guy) is shocking to most people outside America, whatever their political leaning may be. Most people don’t realize how ridiculous American gun laws are outside of America and the fact that 95% of the population feels the NEED to carry a gun in a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY is straight up appalling.

Most backwards first world country there is.
That’s because you guys are *******

[RRR3]

The very idea that you could be at a random place and a random person not the police is legally permitted to carry a gun at that place (even if they are a good guy) is shocking to most people outside America, whatever their political leaning may be. Most people don’t realize how ridiculous American gun laws are outside of America and the fact that 95% of the population feels the NEED to carry a gun in a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY is straight up appalling.

Most backwards first world country there is.
Superdupersmart :bowdown:

We may fight on the main forum but you’re spot on here my dude.

[qrich]

[QUOTE=superduper]The very idea that you could be at a random place and a random person not the police is legally permitted to carry a gun at that place (even if they are a good guy) is shocking to most people outside America, whatever their political leaning may be. Most people don

[Bosnian Sajo]

[QUOTE=superduper]The very idea that you could be at a random place and a random person not the police is legally permitted to carry a gun at that place (even if they are a good guy) is shocking to most people outside America, whatever their political leaning may be. Most people don

[Bosnian Sajo]

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]That

[qrich]

Vegas shooter had illegally acquired the weapons

But if we had moar laws, he would've followed them!

[CelticBaller]

I'd rather be a pu$$y than have to deal with idiots who carry guns.


Mind you, it's not illegal to HAVE guns in these other countries...my uncle got the nicest rifles money can buy in Europe which he uses to hunt. He doesn't carry that bitch with him everywhere he goes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Move to a concealed carry states if it bothers you so much

[Shogon]

But if we had moar laws, he would've followed them!

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Overdrive]

I'm glad you want the police and the government to have and carry weapons, but not the public.

There's almost no police violence here. Surprise, if they don't suspect everyone to bear a gun they don't empty their magazine on kids pulling their phone from their pocket.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png

You're proving his argument right with that pic. Can't even process the data presented. :lol

[rufuspaul]

Vegas shooter had illegally acquired the weapons


False

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/04/did-las-vegas-shooter-get-arsenal-guns-easily-legally/




Forty-seven firearms from three locations. Piles of ammunition, and devices that converted assault rifles to automatic weapons that fired like machine guns.

How did Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock, who shot and killed 58 people from his 32nd story hotel window, amass an arsenal of firearms? In the United States, and particularly in states like Nevada, it's easy. And totally legal.

Although the country is notorious for its lax gun laws, there are some restrictions on multiple sales of handguns. But if someone wants to build up a cache of rifles the way Paddock did, they could do so without anyone noticing.

[Hawker]

The very idea that you could be at a random place and a random person not the police is legally permitted to carry a gun at that place (even if they are a good guy) is shocking to most people outside America, whatever their political leaning may be. Most people don’t realize how ridiculous American gun laws are outside of America and the fact that 95% of the population feels the NEED to carry a gun in a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY is straight up appalling.

Most backwards first world country there is.

People that carry guns in America are not the source of the problem. Dumb argument - violent crime is a lot higher in the US than it is in other countries which has no relation to guys. And you can never say with 99% certainty you won’t get assaulted. It’s ridiculous that some countries don’t even allow women mace or pepper spray to protect themselves. Draconian nonsense.

They’re not ridiculous laws - younjust don’t understand them as America originated as a country out of a libertarian enlightenment while most others are commonwealth/monarchies.

[ILLsmak]

That's not at all what it means and it really sounds like you've been mainlining the NRA's propaganda. What's more important to you, as an individual? Your safety or making sure the NRA stays relevant and profitable?

Gun control has nothing to do with going door to door and taking weapons away from law-abiding citizens. It has everything to do with increased background checks, waiting periods, licensing, more regulation, etc.

Wake up.

It's probably a selfish reason. He's a gun owner and wants to keep his guns. Make an argument that he should give them up.

I don't think very many of the people on this sight have the insight or lack-of-bias necessary to have a discussion about far-reaching things, to meta-analyze something. So stop it.

There is propaganda on both sides. NRA wants money, various other people want to manipulate stats to make gun control seem like the only option. The NRA at least seems to have a less nefarious reasoning. What reason could people actually have for wanting fewer guns? "Oh to make us safer." haha yea ok.

I at least like to pretend I am an easy going dude, and a lot of the time I can laugh at people's illogical conclusions, but there are times when it's really bothersome.

Basically, to put it simply, right now it's his right. I agree with his right to own a gun. That's my opinion. The laws might change. Doesn't mean you can't be upset or whatever.

Every situation you guys come up with like oh no there were 12 year olds in the revolutionary war, should we arm 12 year olds? it's like yea if we ever get under siege, like if Russia and China start storming our coasts, yea we should arm everyone we can, cmon... it's all BS. Every hypothetical you guys are coming up with is bs. The statistics do not imply anything so stop posting statistics. Your opinion (which is also heavily fed to you, just like NRA propaganda) is that fewer guns will equal fewer deaths. You want to live by that, and maybe some day we'll get to see if it's true in the present. Then you can be happy, or more likely it will probably be another murky thing with people posting misleading statistics (or talking on TV) as to why people need their guns back or why 'the ban is working.'

Go on the record and say, "I think we should take someone who has never killed anyone before, who has never committed a crime, etc... take their gun away because it's necessary to stop mass shootings or lower the death rate by a certain percentage." You can't back up that point of view, it's illogical because we'll never know if it would. We DO know that guns will be taken away, that is the one 'for sure' of your solution. Everything else is speculation. Personally, you wanna do scientific experiments, go ahead, make a no-gun safe haven and see what happens, but to involve unwilling participants, the whole country basically... is bg. That's also why I think other 'big gov' solutions, even the removal of private health care, are bad, but that's another discussion. You can vote for that, if you want, but don't act high and mighty about it. You're doing what you think is right just like someone else is doing what they think is right by voting against it. Then, in the end we live with the result, cuz that's how our country works.

-Smak

[Patrick Chewing]

There's almost no police violence here. Surprise, if they don't suspect everyone to bear a gun they don't empty their magazine on kids pulling their phone from their pocket.





American culture is unlike any other culture in the world. This idea of self-governing and gun ownership has been embedded in its DNA since its inception. If you think of the Wild West and how very little laws were around back then, people were getting shot and killed left and right. You don't see that nowadays, but the point is, guns were around back then when we were much less civilized and governed by law, and guns are still around today when we are much more civilized and governed by too many laws one can argue.

So to compare America with other nations is unfair. There is no other country like the United States.

[superduper]

American culture is unlike any other culture in the world. This idea of self-governing and gun ownership has been embedded in its DNA since its inception. If you think of the Wild West and how very little laws were around back then, people were getting shot and killed left and right. You don't see that nowadays, but the point is, guns were around back then when we were much less civilized and governed by law, and guns are still around today when we are much more civilized and governed by too many laws one can argue.

So to compare America with other nations is unfair. There is no other country like the United States.

This is nothing but backwards thinking and detrimental to moving forward and aligning with modern society. Okay they had guns what 100s or so years ago. Okay so that means everyone should have guns now? :wtf:

[qrich]

This is nothing but backwards thinking and detrimental to moving forward and aligning with modern society. Okay they had guns what 100s or so years ago. Okay so that means everyone should have guns now? :wtf:

Agreed.

Only criminals and cops should :rolleyes:

[bladefd]

The issue with climate change has to do more with how much is done by human nature, and how much is nature being nature. Getting out of idiotic stuff such as the Paris Agreement was the right way to go.

What? Most of the damage is being done by humans.. through greenhouse gases & pollution.

It's all connected. The more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more energy gets trapped from escaping our atmosphere. The more energy gets trapped, the warmer the land/oceans/etc gets. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation you get (ice caps/glaciers melt more too so water level rises too*). The more evaporation you get, the more precipitation you get. More precipitation means more and stronger hurricanes/typhoons. More hurricanes means more destruction of people/infrastructure/forests/wildlife/etc.

^ All of those things are positive amplifications, making matters worse for us as time passes - you never want to see runaway greenhouse effect like Venus did long time ago. Some of them also help contribute to forest fires, deforestation and desertification, which further amplifies climate change/global warming.

We humans are mostly responsible for the excess greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere without a doubt. It's mainly two gases causing misery due to the extreme amounts.. CO2 from coal/oil/gas and methane from excess animal breeding (cattle) for our consumption. Other lesser amounts include NO2 from agriculture waste and other fluorides.

*Fewer ice caps/glacier coverage also means there is less sunlight being reflected back into space, which means more energy gets absorbed into the land/water rather than reflected back into space (look up 'albedo effect')... One interesting fact is more evaporation results in more cloud coverage, which reflects more sunlight into space, so that results in some negative amplification but it's obviously not enough to negate overall climate change.

[Hawker]

This is nothing but backwards thinking and detrimental to moving forward and aligning with modern society. Okay they had guns what 100s or so years ago. Okay so that means everyone should have guns now? :wtf:

You guys don't even have free speech. Stop caring about the US so much and telling us to "align with modern society" when you've probably never even stepped foot in the US.

[Patrick Chewing]

This is nothing but backwards thinking and detrimental to moving forward and aligning with modern society. Okay they had guns what 100s or so years ago. Okay so that means everyone should have guns now? :wtf:


We are a modern society. What do guns have to do with any of that? It is because of guns that America is in the position it is in today.

Disarming an entire population of guns, and leaving the government with them is the dumbest idea imaginable. We don't seem to pay attention to history apparently anymore.

[warriorfan]

There's almost no police violence here. Surprise, if they don't suspect everyone to bear a gun they don't empty their magazine on kids pulling their phone from their pocket.



You're proving his argument right with that pic. Can't even process the data presented. :lol

Look at the period before the ban, then look at the period when the ban was enabled? See a huge difference?

It goes up after the ban but that is when the economy took a hit and the rise of social media. You are mistaking correlation with causation. ****ing ******.

[Dinosaurus]

American culture is unlike any other culture in the world. This idea of self-governing and gun ownership has been embedded in its DNA since its inception. If you think of the Wild West and how very little laws were around back then, people were getting shot and killed left and right. You don't see that nowadays, but the point is, guns were around back then when we were much less civilized and governed by law, and guns are still around today when we are much more civilized and governed by too many laws one can argue.

So to compare America with other nations is unfair. There is no other country like the United States.
That's a common misconception

[Dinosaurus]

We are a modern society. What do guns have to do with any of that? It is because of guns that America is in the position it is in today.

Disarming an entire population of guns, and leaving the government with them is the dumbest idea imaginable. We don't seem to pay attention to history apparently anymore.
Gun Control does not mean disarming the entire population, if you don't even understand what gun control is please refrain from commenting.

[Hawker]

Check out this new invention: The tear gun

https://www.globalgradshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/TearGun_Yi-Fei-Chen_DesignAcademyEindhoven_2016-2-1.jpg

[tpols]

You guys don't even have free speech. Stop caring about the US so much and telling us to "align with modern society" when you've probably never even stepped foot in the US.


you dont know what not having free speech even means...

every first world country has free speech the likes of which 99% of human history never allowed.

you used to face execution for criticizing your nations leader or not believing in god just a couple hundred years ago..

take your sn0wflake punk ass outta here lol

[qrich]

you dont know what not having free speech even means...

every first world country has free speech the likes of which 99% of human history never allowed.

you used to face execution for criticizing your nations leader or not believing in god just a couple hundred years ago..

take your sn0wflake punk ass outta here lol

:roll:

[superduper]

We are a modern society. What do guns have to do with any of that? It is because of guns that America is in the position it is in today.

Disarming an entire population of guns, and leaving the government with them is the dumbest idea imaginable. We don't seem to pay attention to history apparently anymore.

I agree with your second paragraph completely since it is the US government we're talking about :oldlol:

[superduper]

You guys don't even have free speech. Stop caring about the US so much and telling us to "align with modern society" when you've probably never even stepped foot in the US.

We don't have free speech? What are you talking about I'm freely allowed to say out loud whatever the hell I so wish to say. Of course we have free speech wtf :oldlol:

[MaxFly]

You're proving his argument right with that pic. Can't even process the data presented. :lol

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that he posted a pic underscoring the point he was arguing against. Posters can be exceedingly entertaining sometimes.

[Patrick Chewing]

Gun Control does not mean disarming the entire population, if you don't even understand what gun control is please refrain from commenting.


You

[Hawker]

you dont know what not having free speech even means...

every first world country has free speech the likes of which 99% of human history never allowed.

you used to face execution for criticizing your nations leader or not believing in god just a couple hundred years ago..

take your sn0wflake punk ass outta here lol

Hate speech laws have been a new thing passed the last few years in certain countries.

[Rocket]

Yup.


Call me crazy. But how about people start going to church again and believing in something again? A lack of God and lack of a central foundation of morality and goodness is always a recipe for hate and anger.



:applause: GREAT POST!!! i agree 100%!!!!

[Rocket]

Check out this new invention: The tear gun

https://www.globalgradshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/TearGun_Yi-Fei-Chen_DesignAcademyEindhoven_2016-2-1.jpg



:roll:lol, the left will have TONS of ammunition for those things once Trump wns again next year. They will all be :cry:.

[pauk]

Gun control, accessability, that can reduce a random teens chance to obtain a gun in a store legally just like that like its freaking candy or something... is a good idea... wont you at least agree on that?

If the accessability of guns, requirements etc. is much more demanding, then that mother you speak of that works at that gas station midnight wont need a gun, there wont be any random lunatics waving guns... there sure will be less of such gun equipped people at least... the others wont bother going through all that trouble getting guns just to rob a penny from her or whatever (rape her?).... that mother can walk home in peace instead and if she still feels unsafe, go with pepper spray or something.... or perhaps get of the burgers and learn Praying Mantis Kung Fu or some shit... :P

[MaxFly]

People who advocate for gun control are ignorant and selfish.

It’s people who don’t get affected (or so they think) who want the bans.

Hmmmm....


https://i.ibb.co/SNQ9KW2/dayton.jpg

DAYTON, Ohio (FOX19) - A Republican congressman from Dayton whose daughter was nearby when a gunman opened fire with a .223 caliber rifle and high-capacity magazines, killing nine people and injuring 27 others, is calling for gun control measures.

U.S. Rep. Mike Turner announced in a statement Tuesday he backs a ban on “military-style” guns, magazine limits and so-called “red flag” legislation to identify potentially dangerous people and remove their firearms under a court order.

He said he plans to discuss the measures with President Donald Trump when the president visits Dayton Wednesday.

This is a dramatic about-face for the conservative veteran lawmaker, who currently holds an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association and was praised by them last year and earned their support for opposing an assault weapon ban (semi-automatic firearms).

Wonder what caused him to change his mind. :confusedshrug:

[Overdrive]

Look at the period before the ban, then look at the period when the ban was enabled? See a huge difference?

It goes up after the ban but that is when the economy took a hit and the rise of social media. You are mistaking correlation with causation. ****ing ******.

I took a look at the collums before and during the ban. It's about a third more deaths in the 10 years before. Still stands, you're too retarded to process data.

[warriorfan]

I took a look at the collums before and during the ban. It's about a third more deaths in the 10 years before. Still stands, you're too retarded to process data.

About a third? Count again chingy. Either way it isn’t a significant amount. Especially after expected variance and outside factors.

[MaxFly]

I took a look at the collums before and during the ban. It's about a third more deaths in the 10 years before. Still stands, you're too retarded to process data.

Another poster referenced this (http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2017/11/07/did-banning-assault-weapons-affect-mass-shootings/)...



On average, mass shootings during the assault weapons ban victimized fewer people, and killed fewer people, then they did before or after it. Was this because high-capacity magazines and so-called assault weapons were harder to obtain? It does seem possible that when tools that facilitate shooting large quantities of bullets are more widely available, mass shooters would hit and kill more people.

Easy to read charts and everything.

http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MassShootingThree-768x559.png

[Overdrive]

[QUOTE=warriorfan]About a third? Count again chingy. Either way it isn

[Cleverness]

Mass murder gets ratings and allows mainstream media to bring on people who like to argue for more gun laws.

As I stated earlier, every time this happens it gets politicized and people try to argue for more gun laws as if their proposal would have stopped it from happening without infringing on the rights of millions. :rolleyes:

Gun laws isn't the discussion. Every mass shooter experienced early childhood trauma. In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.

Dad deprivation is common in 26 of the 27 of the mass shooters who killed 8+ people. Listen: https://youtu.be/sqaGkJ3xklY?t=119

And I don't have stats, but common sense tells me that the shooters in Chicago, DC, Baltimore, LA, etc. most likely have some form of dad deprivation.


[QUOTE=superduper]Most people don

[warriorfan]

30% variance, math - your strong suit.

Explain where you get 30 percent from lil guy

[Hawker]

Another poster referenced this (http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2017/11/07/did-banning-assault-weapons-affect-mass-shootings/)...



Easy to read charts and everything.

http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MassShootingThree-768x559.png

That chart honestly doesn't prove anything - for or against.

[Hawker]

Mass murder gets ratings and allows mainstream media to bring on people who like to argue for more gun laws.

As I stated earlier, every time this happens it gets politicized and people try to argue for more gun laws as if their proposal would have stopped it from happening without infringing on the rights of millions. :rolleyes:

Gun laws isn't the discussion. Every mass shooter experienced early childhood trauma. In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.

Dad deprivation is common in 26 of the 27 of the mass shooters who killed 8+ people. Listen: https://youtu.be/sqaGkJ3xklY?t=119

And I don't have stats, but common sense tells me that the shooters in Chicago, DC, Baltimore, LA, etc. most likely have some form of dad deprivation.




95% of the population doesn't feel the NEED to carry a gun.

Dude - it's useless. Kblaze told me it's not necessary to prove whether or not a gun law would actually work - just need to pass one to see what happens. It's absolute madness.

They won't actually go into any effort to say it will do anything. Just "we have to do something!!!!"

[scuzzy]

The 2nd amendment wasn't established to protect citizens from other citizens

It was to protect themselves from government and sustain a diplomatic democracy, it's independence from outside nations

Afterall, it was the foundation of how America won it's freedom from Great Britain

Unfortunately the wealthy have found ways to corrupt government officials through loop holes like campaign foundations and lobbying.

Essentially making 2nd amendment's purpose irrelevant

Gun toting in todays nation is nothing more than a hobby, it has no purpose other than sport and crime


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.

[Cleverness]

Gun toting in todays nation is nothing more than a hobby, it has no purpose other than sport and crime

No purpose other than sport and crime?

Defensive uses of a firearm is estimated at 500,000 to 3 million per year in the US

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative


When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

[scuzzy]

No purpose other than sport and crime?

Defensive uses of a firearm is estimated at 500,000 to 3 million per year in the US

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative




ah yes, the study that gun-rights activists keep citing but completely misunderstand (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/?noredirect=on)



the study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

wonder why innocent civilians gun tote in the first place

oh right, to defend themselves from others strapped

[Cleverness]

ah yes, the study that gun-rights activists keep citing but completely misunderstand (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/?noredirect=on)




wonder why innocent civilians gun tote in the first place

oh right, to defend themselves from others strapped

the right to defend themselves from others looking to commit crimes*

the right to defend themselves from others who obtained weapons illegally*

and yes, i do understand that that number shouldn't be taken as gospel. of course the definition of "defensive use of guns" can be interpreted in many ways and data gathered in many ways, but even you mentioned the lower estimate is still 108,000. based on what you just wrote, plus the quote i left at the end, is more than "no purpose other than sport and crime" :confusedshrug:

[Hawker]

Remember how NZ passed new laws...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12217785


Gang members will not be handing in their guns following the law reform announced by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, a Mongrel Mob leader has said.

Sonny Fatu, president of the Waikato branch of the Mongrel Mob, said that, while some members of the gang may have illegal guns, they will not be handing them in as they are necessary to their protection.

So you mean...criminals won't all of a sudden be law abiding just for the good of the people? They'll be the only ones with guns left? GASP. Who could've ever seen this coming?

Not to mention the compliance to the gun buyback scheme has been extremely minimal.

[scuzzy]

the right to defend themselves from others looking to commit crimes*



Unable to defend yourself without a pistol?

Ugh sounds like a total nightmare bro, especially casually shopping Walmart or Garlic Festivals

Similar to the Cold War, gotta have lots of Nukes because well, them commies have lots of nukes.

The 2nd ammendment would never exist if our forefathers had even a remote idea how fast weapons technology expanded. But ofcourse how would they know better, they just got done with a bloody war strapping every woman and child to the front lines in able to win their independence.

That Jeffereson quote is ironic btw, considering civilian arms would be the last reason any country invades the US nowadays and the very last thing our gov't is scared of. Notice how the only countries to be invaded now are ones without a trigger on a nuke?

Poor Syria and Ukraine, pleaded to get in NATO, signs treaty to disarm and well....... RIP

Yeah, the 2nd amendments origin purpose is well extinct. Been for over a half century

[MaxFly]

That chart honestly doesn't prove anything - for or against.

Unless we're arguing that the specific span outlined is a big, huge coincidence, it's a pretty good indicator that the assault weapons ban was helpful. We can certainly use more study and research on the issue, but additional research or not, the measure is a non-starter for a lot of elected officials.

Unsurprisingly, opinions evolve when gun violence hits close to home.

[QUOTE]https://i.ibb.co/SNQ9KW2/dayton.jpg

DAYTON, Ohio (FOX19) - A Republican congressman from Dayton whose daughter was nearby when a gunman opened fire with a .223 caliber rifle and high-capacity magazines, killing nine people and injuring 27 others, is calling for gun control measures.

[B]U.S. Rep. Mike Turner announced in a statement Tuesday he backs a ban on

[Kblaze8855]

Dude - it's useless. Kblaze told me it's not necessary to prove whether or not a gun law would actually work - just need to pass one to see what happens. It's absolute madness.

So we back to time machines?

[kNIOKAS]

[QUOTE]For nearly 200 years of our nation

[ILLsmak]

the right to defend themselves from others looking to commit crimes*

the right to defend themselves from others who obtained weapons illegally*

and yes, i do understand that that number shouldn't be taken as gospel. of course the definition of "defensive use of guns" can be interpreted in many ways and data gathered in many ways, but even you mentioned the lower estimate is still 108,000. based on what you just wrote, plus the quote i left at the end, is more than "no purpose other than sport and crime" :confusedshrug:

Guns are an equalizer, for better or worse.

108,000 crimes vs 25-50 deaths. Hm.

Like I said, I don't even like guns. In here for team logic.

Carry on dudes.

-Smak

[Draz]

I live in NYC so I don't get why people need guns. Is there a reason why people who are pro guns need it so bad? Is it because they live far in the woods alone and want to defend themselves?

I think it's a huge insecurity to carry a weapon everywhere or under your pillow. I get wanting to protect yourself and family but if someone breaks in your house in a state like Florida I'm sure they know what they're in for.

Are crimes by robbery less likely to happen?

[warriorfan]

Guns are an equalizer, for better or worse.

108,000 crimes vs 25-50 deaths. Hm.

Like I said, I don't even like guns. In here for team logic.

Carry on dudes.

-Smak

Truth

[qrich]

The 2nd ammendment would never exist if our forefathers had even a remote idea how fast weapons technology expanded.



:roll:

[Cleverness]

Unable to defend yourself without a pistol?

Ugh sounds like a total nightmare bro, especially casually shopping Walmart or Garlic Festivals

Not unable to, but it's easier to hit a target with a shotgun.

The Garlic Festival was a gun free zone.

I get what you're saying about modern technology and how guns aren't as good a defense against tyranny as they were in the past. Those are good points, but it still comes down to freedom, liberty, the right to defend yourself, and the complexity of gun law proposals.

[PistolPete]

I live in NYC so I don't get why people need guns. Is there a reason why people who are pro guns need it so bad? Is it because they live far in the woods alone and want to defend themselves?

I think it's a huge insecurity to carry a weapon everywhere or under your pillow. I get wanting to protect yourself and family but if someone breaks in your house in a state like Florida I'm sure they know what they're in for.

Are crimes by robbery less likely to happen?


You

[Cleverness]

[QUOTE=PistolPete]You

[qrich]

[QUOTE=PistolPete]You

[Overdrive]

Explain where you get 30 percent from lil guy

I'm so sorry, I was dead wrong.




















It's 57%. :lol

http://oi65.tinypic.com/rlaq2r.jpg




American culture is unlike any other culture in the world. This idea of self-governing and gun ownership has been embedded in its DNA since its inception. If you think of the Wild West and how very little laws were around back then, people were getting shot and killed left and right. You don't see that nowadays, but the point is, guns were around back then when we were much less civilized and governed by law, and guns are still around today when we are much more civilized and governed by too many laws one can argue.

So to compare America with other nations is unfair. There is no other country like the United States.

Okay, so basically the US doesn't want to change the 2nd amendment, because it's always been this way and it's too late for a hard transition and they're afraid a soft one(not letting psychos obtain guns, testing before purchase etc) would violate some equal rights principle?

How so? Doesn't revoking driving licenses from drunk people violate equal rights principles? Why shouldn't drunk people be allowed to drive?

Another question, isn't one of the main arguments for it that the people should be able to defend themselves against the government in form of cops & military, but isn't your camp of the opinion that people should obey cops/the law?

[Hawker]

Unless we're arguing that the specific span outlined is a big, huge coincidence, it's a pretty good indicator that the assault weapons ban was helpful. We can certainly use more study and research on the issue, but additional research or not, the measure is a non-starter for a lot of elected officials.

Unsurprisingly, opinions evolve when gun violence hits close to home.

I think a lot to do with it would have to be where each mass shooting took place and the concentration of people. There's no control for that in the data.

I understand why he feels that way but this is a case of an incident causing emotions that crowd logic in making a decision.

Incidents like this are too often used as a tool to make hastily, sometimes draconians government measures. They take advantage of the emotions of Americans after a tragic incident.

[warriorfan]

I'm so sorry, I was dead wrong.


It's 57%. :lol

http://oi65.tinypic.com/rlaq2r.jpg





Okay, so basically the US doesn't want to change the 2nd amendment, because it's always been this way and it's too late for a hard transition and they're afraid a soft one(not letting psychos obtain guns, testing before purchase etc) would violate some equal rights principle?

How so? Doesn't revoking driving licenses from drunk people violate equal rights principles? Why shouldn't drunk people be allowed to drive?

Another question, isn't one of the main arguments for it that the people should be able to defend themselves against the government in form of cops & military, but isn't your camp of the opinion that people should obey cops/the law?

Why was the highest amount of killed smack dab in the middle of the ban? It’s almost like it’s such a rare and random occurrence that it varies greatly from year to year....

[Overdrive]

[QUOTE=warriorfan]Why was the highest amount of killed smack dab in the middle of the ban? It

[warriorfan]

Shifting goalposts now?

Get your autistic ass out of my thread and stay out of America please

[Overdrive]

Get your autistic ass out of my thread and stay out of America please

Autistic, because I proved my point? hahahahaha :lol

Why should I go there? There's nothing desirable exclusive to the US for a western euro.

[warriorfan]

Autistic, because I proved my point? hahahahaha :lol

Why should I go there? There's nothing desirable exclusive to the US for a western euro.

Your point is autistic. Enjoy your

[egokiller]

We should have done what Switzerland did and we wouldn

[Overdrive]

[QUOTE=warriorfan]Your point is autistic. Enjoy your