Gun Control

Crni Vuk said:
I am a leftist and I believe in your right to own firearms.
Click to expand...

Yes but do you believe in that one firearm is more dangerous then any other firearm. And if so, do you believe that one firearm with the same action (automatic, semi-automatic, pump action, etc....) can be more dangerous then one with the same action? Which actions are dangerous no matter who owns them, or is it just certain people that own them?

My point to these questions is you could hand me a full-auto M4 or a wonderful M2 browning, and I can still say that I would never use it on another person unless forced to, no different then my Lee Enfield, my Mossberg 500, my 1911, my SKS, or my AR-15. So in the end its not gun control you need, its people control, and controlling people is very hard. The vast majority of people who legally purchase firearms will never use them in an illegal manner, so you are just trying to control the small amount of people who will do something illegal, once again very hard to control. And no matter how hard people point to a reduction of gun deaths after gun control comes in, it does not seem to have an effect on the general murder rates, so the same amount of people die (roughly) and the law-abiding gun owner is stuck with an overly onerous legal framework that is more likely to make them a paper work criminal when they would normally would have no problems and have not committed a crime against another person.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Yes but do you believe in that one firearm is more dangerous then any other firearm. And if so, do you believe that one firearm with the same action (automatic, semi-automatic, pump action, etc....) can be more dangerous then one with the same action? Which actions are dangerous no matter who owns them, or is it just certain people that own them?
Click to expand...
This is a ridiculous statement.

Nuclear Bombs are more dangerous than Molotov Cocktails, despite them fundamentally both being explosives.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about how prevalent nukes are just because molotovs are more prevalent. Molotovs are less capable of causing harm than Nuclear bombs, despite them fundamentally having the same purpose.
 
Jogre said:
This is a ridiculous statement.

Nuclear Bombs are more dangerous than Molotov Cocktails, despite them fundamentally both being explosives.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about how prevalent nukes are just because molotovs are more prevalent. Molotovs are less capable of causing harm than Nuclear bombs, despite them fundamentally having the same purpose.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but a bullet hitting you is the same weather it comes from a semi-auto or a bolt action.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Ahhh, but a bullet hitting you is the same weather it comes from a semi-auto or a bolt action.
Click to expand...
But picking off small numbers of people with your bolt action is different to spraying in to a crowd with an M4. It's not about individual people getting hit by bullets, it's about how effectively you can kill large numbers of people.
 
Jogre said:
But picking off small numbers of people with your bolt action is different to spraying in to a crowd with an M4. It's not about individual people getting hit by bullets, it's about how effectively you can kill large numbers of people.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Lee Harvey Oswald, or how about the British with the mad minute and lee enfields, all with bolt actions (and ammo changes). Hell I'm pretty sure that any military bolt action has racked up more kills then the M4's. And if I was not aiming and just hip firing rounds my unpracticed hand could account for a pretty fast rate of fire. Also you are talking about the smallest minority of people killed with firearms in the states. Mass shootings account for a very small amount of gun deaths in the US.
 
Seriously, this is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that drives me crazy, yeah there is absolutely zero difference in the efficiency and damage between a bolt action rifle and a machine gun. Like none.

GonZo_626 said:
Ahhh, but a bullet hitting you is the same weather it comes from a semi-auto or a bolt action.
Click to expand...
I guess this explains why bolt action rifles are the first choice by people starting school shootings and the like. Because it doesn't matter I suppose.

Think about this. What if the Las Vegas shooter had only a bolt action rifle.
 
If there is no difference whatsoever between more advanced and effective weapons, why did we move from clubs, to slings, to bows, [...] from muskets, to .50 cal sniper rifles?

The effectiveness margin is way more notable in the offensive use rather than the detracting or defensive one. But you know that already.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Seriously, this is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that drives me crazy, yeah there is absolutely zero difference in the efficiency and damage between a bolt action rifle and a machine gun. Like none.


I guess this explains why bolt action rifles are the first choice by people starting school shootings and the like. Because it doesn't matter I suppose.

Think about this. What if the Las Vegas shooter had only a bolt action rifle.
Click to expand...

I would tend to say that it has to do with availability, with AR-15's or variants being used in 60% of mass shootings, and the AR-15 being one of the most sold firearms in the US would tend to show a higher number of those showing up. And yes I can say that a real full-auto or machine gun would depending on the situation would be more effective. But in the end only account for around 2% of the recorded firearm deaths in the US, rifles (including AR-15's and full-auto's) only account for 5% of firearms deaths. A vast minority of the shootings in the US. Also one on one the bolt-actions would do more damage as they generally fire a much larger round ( see the .50 cal sniper rifle comment below). Also why don't we see more AK's being used? These are readily available in the US for roughly the same price, why don't we see any other semi-auto when functionally they are all pretty much the same.

Arnust said:
If there is no difference whatsoever between more advanced and effective weapons, why did we move from clubs, to slings, to bows, [...] from muskets, to .50 cal sniper rifles?

The effectiveness margin is way more notable in the offensive use rather than the detracting or defensive one. But you know that already.
Click to expand...

Well your right a gun is generally more effective then a sword or club (depending on the situation), firearms technology has been rather stagnant for around the last 80 years. AR-15's have been sold to the public since the 60's. Can someone who supports gun control tell me why when these rifles were readily available for over 50 years now has it only been in the last 19 years become the problem, and I only say 19 because that was Columbine (no AR's) and really only in the last 10 has it become the problem it is now. Something else has to have been a driving factor because if the AR is what is causing these problems what is the explanation for the other 40+ years????

I wish I could find the one quote right now I read about using revolution era weaponry for house defense. .50cal musket balls ripping through houses, what no time to reload FIRE THE CANNON with some canister shot (essentially cannon shotgun). this would be mostly just for the humor of it though.
 
Maybe it's because we've pretty much hit the roof in personal weapons? What more can you do that isn't ridiculously overkill any more? That's actually why a reform is now more workable than ever. And "u say the probes are ar-15's" is either a strawman or completely misunderstanding what the rest are saying, intentionally it not.
 
Arnust said:
Maybe it's because we've pretty much hit the roof in personal weapons? What more can you do that isn't ridiculously overkill any more? That's actually why a reform is now more workable than ever. And "u say the probes are ar-15's" is either a strawman or completely misunderstanding what the rest are saying, intentionally it not.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure those things were said about the invention of the English longbow, or cross bows, or muskets, etc...... I am pretty sure crossbows were even illegal during a point of medieval times because of there ease of use. Us humans are pretty great at coming up with new and inventive ways, and we will again yet don't worry. Also I am not arguing about reform, look through my past posts and I agree with some points of gun control that are proposed, and I think some would have almost zero real effect on murder rates. I use the AR-15 as an example just the same as most gun control advocates do but for the opposite reasons, and have said banning one semi-auto would have zero effect, banning ergonomic features on a rifle will not work, and the last US "Assault weapon ban" had zero effect on murder rates as the trend for dropping murders was already well on its way and continues.

Well not part of most discussions on this forum I read articles of news in support of banning "fully-semi automatic" rifles. People thinking AR stands for assault rifle or thinking that the ergonomic features of the rifle actually effect the performance of the rifle. There are many countries that allow semi-automatics and have nowhere near the problem the US has with it, and yes these are fairly modern nations that are democratic (not Somalia). My country Canada is one, how about Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, New Zealand. The difference is people control like firearms licenses (which most Americans would hate), common laws across the whole country (Federal laws not state laws). The American system already has most of the stuff people want, its just so disorganized and kept by a bunch of different departments that leads to mis-reporting on background checks. Real assault rifles and machine guns (all full-auto's really) are heavily restricted in the US and outside of the price range of your average high schooler or degenerate who would seem todo these things.
 
"Almost none" is better than "none". "I think it would". Nice. Also, I'm getting really fucking tired of the "no, well see in the 15th century..." in disucssions about modern problems. We're talking TODAY, ant at most contemporary times. One day I get the bullshit that guerilla warfare to repel a tyrannical US government would totally work cuz' Vietnam, another the same argument but with the war of Secession instead.
 
I think I said it before and I'll say it again: just normalize and federalize the laws we have now, and actually enforce them. Actually do background checks so literal criminals can't buy a gun, like we saw with the Jackson family massacre in Texas.

We can't stop kids from taking the guns from their parents, as we saw in Texas and Conn, other than teaching their parents to be on guard more?

Anything beyond that edges more and more into gun-grabber territory, because apparently that's one of those political positions that is suicidal for a party to take (the Dems really lose a lot of votes because of their stance on guns, and maybe even on Immigration) but still exists because they're louder than everyone else who would argue otherwise.
 
MutantScalper said:
Off-duty FBI agent doing backflip in a bar shoots man in the leg
Denver agent was dancing when the weapon fell from his holster and was accidentally fired, wounding a man

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1003084052226822153



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...nt-accidentally-fires-gun-while-at-denver-bar

Could this become a new 'hit' dance? Move over Macarena, there's a new dance in town! :D

Click to expand...

Why the fuck was that gun's safety not on? Why does that holster not have proper straps?

Also, I'm going to lose my shit if some gungrabber uses this as "See? Guns bad after all!" ammunition after Pulse, Ohio.
 
The other dancers should have been armed as well, if their bodies would have been covered in guns the bullet couldn't have penetrated.
 
You never know when you need to shoot a bad guy mid-dance-off. It happens more often than you think.
 
Perfect example of our law enforcement having too much time on their hands and too many guns. Give them all lightsabers. Now that would solve it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top