Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago

12-15-2012 , 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Gun nuts: what is the plan? More guns? OK great, we have the Harvard study showing the clear link between more guns and more violent crime. We have a ridiculous per capita gun violence rate compared to basically every other developed country and compared to countries with strong gun control. Gun deaths in Japan are single digits, in America they are 10,000. Again, what is the plan?
Arrrggghhh. But why? Why would a country with more guns have more gun violence?! It just.. doesn't.. compute!!

It's like how countries with more swimming pools have more swimming pool-related drownings.

Why?! Why?!?!
12-15-2012 , 02:45 PM
riverman,

if an automatic weapon hasn't been used in a mass shooting, how would banning them completely have any effect on how deadly mass shootings are?

THINKING
12-15-2012 , 02:45 PM
Low Key,

What the **** are you talking about? I seriously have no idea what your point is unless you magically switched sides on this issue.

If you actually have an argument, just make it. You aren't that clever.
12-15-2012 , 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
riverman,

if an automatic weapon hasn't been used in a mass shooting, how would banning them completely have any effect on how deadly mass shootings are?

THINKING
What is the harm? If someone has to go on a rampage with a rifle instead of an AK-47 and just one less kid dies, the ban is worth it and it is not close.
12-15-2012 , 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
Well yes, actually. In fact, if banning guns or high-cap magazines had resulted in this guy killing only 17 children instead of 18 I would personally call that a raving success and absolutely worth crushing the lolrights of gun owners. Sorry to break it to you, but that single kid is worth more than all of you put together.
bbbbbbut FREEDOM ISN'T FREE
12-15-2012 , 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Low Key,

What the **** are you talking about? I seriously have no idea what your point is unless you magically switched sides on this issue.

If you actually have an argument, just make it. You aren't that clever.
it seems like your desire to focus solely on gun violence statistics instead of all violent crime is akin to looking only for data that supports what you already believe or what you want to believe is true
12-15-2012 , 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
What is the harm? If someone has to go on a rampage with a rifle instead of an AK-47 and just one less kid dies, the ban is worth it and it is not close.
ak-47s aren't automatic.

so ok, no benefit, we agree. got it. let's start to go through the others:


Quote:
1. Closing the gun show loophole. At present there is no federal law requiring a background check when guns are purchased at gun shows. No criminal check, no mental illness check, no anything check. This loophole applies to all person to person sales including over the internet and among friends, and only a handful of states have closed it, meaning basically anyone can merely drive a state or two away and get a gun.
This isn't true. If I want to buy a gun in another state I have to go to a federally licensed dealer and he does a background check at purchase.
12-15-2012 , 02:50 PM
OK. If the violent crime rate remains the same without guns it is still a massive win because guns kill people much more often than knives or fists.
12-15-2012 , 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Some thoughts on gun control options that are likely to be floating around in the coming weeks/months/years.

1. Closing the gun show loophole. At present there is no federal law requiring a background check when guns are purchased at gun shows. No criminal check, no mental illness check, no anything check. This loophole applies to all person to person sales including over the internet and among friends, and only a handful of states have closed it, meaning basically anyone can merely drive a state or two away and get a gun.

I think this one has a pretty good chance of happening. I honestly have no idea what the NRA's logic is regarding why we shouldn't do it, but I'm sure its terrible. Don't want to keep people from being able to sell their guns? Something about the government collecting too much info on gun owners or something? I honestly don't know. But if 20 kids getting shot and killed isn't enough to make such an obvious policy change the country is even more hopeless than I think it is.

2. Strengthen background checks. Specifically, screen buyers for more than just criminal history. Make an independent mental health professional certify that the person in question is not dangerous. Sure, it would be possible to get around this, but I think there is a reasonable chance that it would in fact stop or deter truly insane people. If they have to wait or go to a bunch of effort, they might change their mind, get detained/caught, or kill themselves without taking a room full of kids with them.

I doubt this happens. The NRA will trot out the boogeymen about how the government will just make sure everyone is deemed crazy so the government can keep everyone from having guns, at which point the jackbooted thugs will come steal all your stuff or something.

3. Ban certain kinds of guns. There is no reason to anyone to own an automatic weapon, period. I don't know that this would really do that much to deter mass shootings tbh, but it might help make them less deadly.

Slim chance IMO. Assault weapons ban did pass in the '90s, but the NRA is crazy and well funded and stronger than they were then, plus it would have to get through a Republican House. Doubtful IMO.

4. Make the waiting period to buy a gun much longer, like on the order of months. For reasons similar to #2, I think this would have a positive effect on lowering the number of mass shootings. A downside is that people with legitimate self-defense needs may not get a firearm in time, but I think there are very few people who meet this criteria.

Again, highly doubtful. Would be heavily lobbied against and is unlikely to pass a Republican House.

So basically I doubt anything significant will happen. I think the best outcome from a pro-gun control perspective would be for Democrats to grow a spine and stop dancing around trying not to piss off the NRA.
Acutally let's just look at it all in one piece and point out:

not a single thing you have suggested would have done anything to stop yesterday's shooting.
12-15-2012 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
This isn't true. If I want to buy a gun in another state I have to go to a federally licensed dealer and he does a background check at purchase.
Well this isn't entirely true, either, as is my understanding.

Aside from the handful states that require all purchases at gun shows to come with background checks, non-retailer purchases (people who sell less than x guns per year or something) aren't required to have background checks.
12-15-2012 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
ak-47s aren't automatic.

? I thought AK-47s did full-auto. Has Call of Duty been lying to me?
12-15-2012 , 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
Well this isn't entirely true, either, as is my understanding.

Aside from the handful states that require all purchases at gun shows to come with background checks, non-retailer purchases (people who sell less than x guns per year or something) aren't required to have background checks.
you cannot go to Joe Scmhoe in a different state and buy a gun LEGALLY. all interstate purchases must be done at an federally licensed dealer.
12-15-2012 , 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
Tell me, when you have a flat tire, do you go out and buy a new radiator?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
So clever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
Acutally let's just look at it all in one piece and point out:

not a single thing you have suggested would have done anything to stop yesterday's shooting.
this has already been addressed
12-15-2012 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
? I thought AK-47s did full-auto. Has Call of Duty been lying to me?
the ones in afghanistan do, the ones here don't. if they do they cost about $20k to buy and have to be approved by the federal government. just about no one has this.
12-15-2012 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
Well yes, actually. In fact, if banning guns or high-cap magazines had resulted in this guy killing only 17 children instead of 18 I would personally call that a raving success and absolutely worth crushing the lolrights of gun owners. Sorry to break it to you, but that single kid is worth more than all of you put together.
Time to ban buckets imo. Lolrights of bucket owners and if it saves one kid blah blah.

Dangers of buckets
12-15-2012 , 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
this has already been addressed
ohh well. you addressed it i guess.

riverman kinda just put his fingers in his ears and yelled. didn't like it being pointed out how ineffective all of his ideas were i guess :/
12-15-2012 , 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
you cannot go to Joe Scmhoe in a different state and buy a gun LEGALLY. all interstate purchases must be done at an federally licensed dealer.
ok, but i think that's part of the problem he's wanting to address, or at least people who want to close that loophole. You can illegally purchase a firearm with nearly no effort at a gun show because you aren't required to show an id or anything for those types of purchases
12-15-2012 , 02:58 PM
These shootings seem way more common now over the last 25 years than say in the 60's, 70's, and 80's

I know gun technology has changed but it can't have changed that much. Why weren't people shooting up schools on a regular basis then? I know it happened one notable time with the Texas bell tower guy, but really until the 90's that was about it. Seems like after Columbine this sort of thing happens every couple of years where it certainly didn't happen that frequently beforehand.
12-15-2012 , 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
Acutally let's just look at it all in one piece and point out:

not a single thing you have suggested would have done anything to stop yesterday's shooting.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not they are good policy and/or have a chance of being enacted, which was obviously the point of the post.
12-15-2012 , 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Which has nothing to do with whether or not they are good policy and/or have a chance of being enacted, which was obviously the point of the post.
umm if the conversation is about how this could have been prevented, and you have suggested 5 things which will have had no effect, then it's not good policy, it's a waste of time.

or do you just want stuff to pass that'll make you feel good and not have any real affect on shootings like this?
12-15-2012 , 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
? I thought AK-47s did full-auto. Has Call of Duty been lying to me?
I has one. Its semi-auto. Its a piece of garbage. I like it because it came with a bayonet. I think it would be more useful as a piece of wood with a sharp thing on the end.
12-15-2012 , 03:03 PM
Whether the proposals would have stopped THIS tragedy is not relevant to the question of whether they would prevent any FUTURE tragedies. This is not hard.

Sure, crazies gonna crazy and murder is going to happen. The point is to make it less frequent and less deadly.
12-15-2012 , 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
if the teacher was armed this would have stopped in a second.
LOL, not very likely. Do you imagine the crazies are going to burst in the classroom, and then challenge the teacher to a fair duel? Dude, teach is only gonna have enough time to look up surprised and die. Never mind have the time to get that holster lock opened, draw, and then shoot.

But sure, let's chat this out a little more...
  • First, do you believe this "pass out pistols on the playground" policy is always safer? Even in situations that don't involve school or children? In other words, do you believe it is logically impossible that safety will not improve in every situation with more people packing more guns?

  • Secondly, do you believe is it logically impossible that more people carrying around more guns will have any unintended consequences... like more lost or stolen guns, or violence attempting to rob guns, or more causalities by accidents, or more tragedies because some of the now armed teachers/staff/students themselves "snap"?

  • And third, you are going to wanna arm the staff too, not just the teachers, correct? And the students too, as long as they are over 18, or hold a valid hunting license, correct?
12-15-2012 , 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotton Hill
These shootings seem way more common now over the last 25 years than say in the 60's, 70's, and 80's

I know gun technology has changed but it can't have changed that much. Why weren't people shooting up schools on a regular basis then? I know it happened one notable time with the Texas bell tower guy, but really until the 90's that was about it. Seems like after Columbine this sort of thing happens every couple of years where it certainly didn't happen that frequently beforehand.
This
12-15-2012 , 03:05 PM
Gun nuts,

Why do you want to own, for example, an AK-47. Serious question, I have zero understanding of the psychology that goes into wanting to own something like that. Does it make you feel like more of a man? Do you fantasize about blowing an intruder away with 50 bullets instead of 3 or 4? Why?

      
m