Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Blackstar

Gun Control

33 posts in this topic

I think the current tragedy is a better example of how we suck when it comes to dealing with mental illness.

But, to stay on topic, I think gun control is a similar problem to the drug war. You can't legislate away demand and it's far too late to ever control the supply. I guess, for me, gun control comes down to how far people want to take it. Do people need assault rifles? Probably not. Should somebody be able to own a handgun? Probably. The whole issue is so grey for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both illegally and legally obtained firearms concern me, and a few thousand others. I think when talking about this issue it is good to get a broader perspective than personal safety.

http://www.allvoices...4MzE0Lmh0bWw=In 2008, a year when more than 7,000 Mexicans were killed in drug violence, a record number of weapons confiscated in Mexico were traced to U.S. retailers, the largest percentage of them in Texas, according to the latest available government data obtained by the Hearst News Service.

The number of traced firearms — 12,073 — is more than double the previous two years combined, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reported.

The 2008 figure brings the total number of guns confirmed as having been bought in the U.S. and smuggled into Mexico to 22,848 since 2005

as far as I can see, I have yet to hear a valid reason for anyone to own an automatic weapon, especially when it's not just a handgun, but a high powered assault rifle. I mean I respect the second amendment as much as I can but I can't help but notice all the gun related deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

soooo, any particular reason people should be able to legally purchase AR-15's?

Of all the people who have opinions on this issue that I could post, it's Costanza!

http://twitter.com/IJasonAlexander4

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:

"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."

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"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."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of MILITIA

1

a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2

: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...

a. be labeled a moron

b. shut the fuck up

c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own multiple handguns as well as a concealed carry permit.

I'm more concerned with illegally purchased guns rather than those bought legally when it comes to gun control.

Are you special in your being able to apply for this kind of special permit? Thought only law enforcements and security type occupation people were allowed. From reading past gun topic threads You always came off as a particularily sane and responsible 2nd amendment user.

Many states have concealed carry permits for civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny that assholes actually believe that civilians should be able to carry guns with them at all times.

One GOP Rep from Texas (who made an ass out of himself on the same day for challenging Janet Napolitano and being a dick in court about it) said that it was an attack on Judeo-Christian beliefs and that if people were allowed to shoot guns, it wouldn't have happened.

I've gotten into this argument in college with a friend who is pro guns.

I'm not against guns, but there's some stuff that is just common sense.

like, if people could bring guns to bars, there would be significantly more deaths.

it's one of the dumbest possible arguments that I've heard.

because you NEVER hear about some civilian who was armed being a hero and killed a dude who had a gun.

Dave Holmes had a dead-on post about it

http://daveholmes.tumblr.com/post/27705874429#notes

I basically retweeted most the shit on Twitter from people that was pretty appalling due to the tragedy.

I love what Michael Bloomberg is doing.

It's interesting that the ONE major politician that truly doesn't belong to any of the major parties, that has the most money and, therefore, truly doesn't give a fuck about the NRA and the power that they have. The Gun laws he has passed in NYC is clearly a major issue that he is proud of and you have to hand it to him to making a stand.

There should be a debate about it, but it's off to the table for both sides.

And if you bring the debate up, people will say it's inappropriate and capitalizing on the tragedy.

but this shit happens every fucking day, although not to this scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own multiple handguns as well as a concealed carry permit.

I'm more concerned with illegally purchased guns rather than those bought legally when it comes to gun control.

Are you special in your being able to apply for this kind of special permit? Thought only law enforcements and security type occupation people were allowed. From reading past gun topic threads You always came off as a particularily sane and responsible 2nd amendment user.

I think it varies greatly state-by-state.

When I lived in Georgia, all you had to do was go to the court house, fill out a couple pieces of paper, then they would run your information through all the criminal databases. If you're clean, you'll get your CCP (Concealed Carry Permit) in about 2 weeks.

In Tennessee, you are required to take a fire-arm safety/Concealed Carry course, which lasts about 7-8 hours. They go through proper gun handling, the laws on where you can carry, how to deal with police officers while conceal carrying, ect. Then you are have to do a firing test to make sure you are competent. Then you basically do the same steps as what I mentioned above after you complete the class and you'll get the CCP in a few weeks.

A lot of the states in the south are pretty lax when it comes to concealed carry laws, at least in acquisition of the permit.

I've gotten into this argument in college with a friend who is pro guns.

I'm not against guns, but there's some stuff that is just common sense.

like, if people could bring guns to bars, there would be significantly more deaths.

it's one of the dumbest possible arguments that I've heard.

because you NEVER hear about some civilian who was armed being a hero and killed a dude who had a gun.

You can bring guns into bars in Tennessee, but you can't if you're drinking. Haven't seen the stats on this yet, but I agree with you that it's not a good idea.

And I don't know if it's just where I live, but I hear about armed civilians stopping robbers/criminals all the time. Maybe it doesn't happen often up in MA. My brother is a police officer in Nashville and tells me all the time about home break-ins where the dude killed the robbers with a gun. Shit happens all the time. And you also hear about the same kind of thing with the break-ins when people without guns end up getting murdered and raped. I'm not saying it's an exact 1:1 correlation or anything, but even if I was against concealed carry, I think you'd owe it to yourself and your family to have something in your house for protection.

I don't know, I'm a big supporter of most Gun Rights, I think if you are a law abiding citizen with a sane mind, you should be able to own a gun. But I also believe that there should be stricter laws for concealed carry. I think there should be a much more in depth courses required to be taken in order to get one. The one you have take in TN is basically bullshit, they pretty much give you all the answers for the test and if you can shoot a gun, you'll get one.

I'm not sure how feasible it would be, but maybe the states should begin to take into consideration your medical background? Like scanning to see if there is serious depression or mental problems that you have been diagnosed with? Or being required to go under an examination to determine those? I don't know, I can see the counter-argument of it being a slippery slope. What kinds of depression or mental problems would stop a person from being able to purchase a gun/conceal carry? Where do you draw the line? What's there to stop the government from eventually overreaching in this if they wanted to?

My whole thing is that the vast majority of the crime is done with criminals who own illegal guns. Most gun control laws talked about will only affect people who buy them through legal means. All these screening processes don't mean shit if it means some thug can buy a gun from an illegal dealer.

So basically, even though I'm a supported of gun rights, I think we should have stricter laws on getting a concealed carry as well as some new way to make sure crazy people don't buy them. How to go about doing that, I don't know. But I don't think outright banning guns is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My whole thing is that the vast majority of the crime is done with criminals who own illegal guns.
So how do we crack down on the number of "illegal" guns?

I say we start at the companies making them.

However, as a report that was posted in this thread earlier shows, legally purcahsed guns are going to criminals (like the Aurora shooter or Mexican drug cartels) and being used to kill people. You can make any argument you want, but when 23 THOUSAND guns are confiscated in Mexico in 3 years that can be traced to being legally purchased in the US, there's a giant problem. When a crazed lunatic can buy upwards of 6,000 rounds of ammunition ONLINE, there's a giant problem. When people can own assault rifles for fun, there's a giant problem.

I'm actually for people owning guns (I was going to the range with my dad as early as 13), and the more people the merrier, but for all those stories you hear about someone stopping a home invasion with a gun, there's a bunch of stories of a home invasion being the reason a criminal now has a gun.

I don't know, it seems some of the best reasoning on "gun control" I've heard are from movies and comedy. Chris Rock makes a valid point with if you made bullets more expensive you probably wouldn't see such massacres. And remmeber that shitty movie "Shoot 'Em Up" where Paul Giamatti has a gun that requires his fingerprint on it to shoot? I know it's more expensive to make, but wouldn't that save so many fucking lives? Profit before people though, right?

also, every NRA member claiming Obama is trying to take away their guns deserves to be shot in the face, straight up.

Edited by haverchuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My whole thing is that the vast majority of the crime is done with criminals who own illegal guns.
So how do we crack down on the number of "illegal" guns?

I say we start at the companies making them.

However, as a report that was posted in this thread earlier shows, legally purcahsed guns are going to criminals (like the Aurora shooter or Mexican drug cartels) and being used to kill people. You can make any argument you want, but when 23 THOUSAND guns are confiscated in Mexico in 3 years that can be traced to being legally purchased in the US, there's a giant problem. When a crazed lunatic can buy upwards of 6,000 rounds of ammunition ONLINE, there's a giant problem. When people can own assault rifles for fun, there's a giant problem.

I'm actually for people owning guns (I was going to the range with my dad as early as 13), and the more people the merrier, but for all those stories you hear about someone stopping a home invasion with a gun, there's a bunch of stories of a home invasion being the reason a criminal now has a gun.

I don't know, it seems some of the best reasoning on "gun control" I've heard are from movies and comedy. Chris Rock makes a valid point with if you made bullets more expensive you probably wouldn't see such massacres. And remmeber that shitty movie "Shoot 'Em Up" where Paul Giamatti has a gun that requires his fingerprint on it to shoot? I know it's more expensive to make, but wouldn't that save so many fucking lives? Profit before people though, right?

also, every NRA member claiming Obama is trying to take away their guns deserves to be shot in the face, straight up.

Yeah, I have no idea how to stop criminals from getting illegal guns, if I did, I'd run for office or something.

The government would never do anything to stop the production of guns (which might be the easiest way to do it). There is just too much money to be made from all those involved, including the politicians and lobbyists.

And no, people can't own assault rifles for fun. This is another mistake that the journalists keep reporting after horrible incidents like Aurora happen. Assault Rifles have the ability to switch from full-auto to semi-auto. Rifles like that are illegal to own, outside of special gun dealers or government clearances. The AR-15 he used was semi-auto. AR-15's sold legally in the US are not assault rifles.

And I also disagree about the ammo. Do you know how easy it is to shoot 1000 rounds at a range? A friend and I could spend maybe an hour or two and go through 1000 rounds easy. So many people buy ammo in bulk, why would you want to buy ammo a box at a time with 100 rounds for a 1/3 more of the price? I don't see a problem with stocking up on ammo.

As far as the home invasion stuff, there are always stories from both sides like you said. Sometimes in ends well for the victim, other times not. But you do usually end up seeing on the news the people who were killed by the invaders, not the guy who stopped them (oftentimes without firing a shot). I was just bringing that up for Cassidy's point; you just hear about the bad shit on the news because of ratings.

I agree with you that Obama isn't going to do shit for gun laws anytime soon, especially not with the election around the corner.

It's never going to be a perfect system, too many guns out there already. The government is not going to take away people's gun and completely banning them won't stop them from existing. I think maybe the best thing we could do would be to have some stricter laws when buying them, like you said, it's easy for sociopaths to get them these days. I'm not sure how you could go about testing for that shit or if it'd be possible for the background check to look for psychological problems as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See you think a semi auto AR-15 isn't a "real" assault rifle, I do. I know you're going off the difference between semi and full, but the difference isn't big enough for me (not to mention if you know what you're doing that can be changed).

There's no need for it at all, its not a simple hunting rifle. Is it fun as fuck to shoot? Sure is, but its not practical in the least and has no use in citizens hands outside of gun ranges (that's the law currently in Canada).

I really think the production line is the place to start for gun control, I'm willing to bet the number of guns made compared to legally sold is a scary ratio (I'm at work on my phone or I would look into it). But like we both mentioned, profits before safety of people.

And so what if bullets cost you more to stock up on? That's the point, it should be more expensive to stock up. Gun ranges could easily be given discounts so when you wanna go fuck around with an MP-5 for an hour you can, but nobody really needs to be able to get 6,000 bullets for cheap online.

Sure it cuts down on hick fun of shooting your gun on your property all day, but if it saves one life I don't really give a fuck.

And seriously, the number of guns a person can buy needs to go down, again that's over 23,000 guns legally purchased in the U.S. that became part of the Mexican drug war. Thats just the ones they could trace too. Gun control needs to start somewhere, and America isn't making any positive strides on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's not an assault rifle by definition, it has nothing to do with what I think it is or isn't. The definition is what I was pointing out. It's just bad journalism that keeps misinforming people.

And you do realize that most hunting rifles you are talking about are not only more powerful, but can be fired just as quickly as an AR-15? AR-15's aren't some super-powered full-auto rifles that everyone thinks they are. They aren't more powerful than any other hunting rifle. People think they are, because they look similar in design to an M16 or something.

And yeah, it's possible to make them full-auto with the right parts. But that's also illegal in most states and not something you go to Walmart to pick up.

But I see what your saying. I just don't agree with it. Incidents like Aurora aren't very common, there isn't some widespread AR-15 full-auto killing sprees happening all the time. It's an instance of a crazy person doing something terrible.

If someone wants to go on a shooting spree, they will. Since stopping gun production would never happen in the United States, it's kinda a moot point to keep arguing. I think they might be better off trying to have better background checks that go deeper, not just banning all guns because sometimes crazy people do horrible things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha, how come you keep reverting back to "you can't be banning all guns" as if that was an idea that's been put out there in this discussion? Seriously, I'm not trying to pry anything from your cold dead hands, stop the shitty rhetoric, friend.

and with a lot of hunting rifles, you can not shoot off over 30 rounds in under 10 seconds (I mean, you can get close, but over a period of time the semi-auto is a helluva lot more efficient in regards to rounds per minute. I mean, sure it's not the 700+ in a minute you get from fully automatic, but it's still more than necessary for any practical reason). You can make that argument, and maybe they've made some serious strides in hunting rifles that I haven't checked (I stopped using guns about 10 years ago) but then I would just argue those ones need to be illegal except at firing ranges as well. I agree whole-heartedly that they are more powerful, but power isn't what you're looking for when trying to shoot a mass amount of people.

Telling people incidents like Aurora aren't very common means fuck all. I don't want them to be "not very common" I want them to not exist. His AR-15 jammed on him, or it would've been a nicer death & injury toll.

And no offense, but your argument of "if they want to go on a shooting spree, they will" is fucking awful. Ok, they will, you're right, but how easy do you want to make it for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was his AR-15 fully auto? Out here in California AR's have to be semi-auto and I think the clips can carry 10 bullets max.

As far as gun laws, I think citizens should be able to own guns but just like with most things there should be limitations. Being able to purchase a drum magazine so easily is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha, how come you keep reverting back to "you can't be banning all guns" as if that was an idea that's been put out there in this discussion? Seriously, I'm not trying to pry anything from your cold dead hands, stop the shitty rhetoric, friend.

and with a lot of hunting rifles, you can not shoot off over 30 rounds in under 10 seconds (I mean, you can get close, but over a period of time the semi-auto is a helluva lot more efficient in regards to rounds per minute. I mean, sure it's not the 700+ in a minute you get from fully automatic, but it's still more than necessary for any practical reason). You can make that argument, and maybe they've made some serious strides in hunting rifles that I haven't checked (I stopped using guns about 10 years ago) but then I would just argue those ones need to be illegal except at firing ranges as well. I agree whole-heartedly that they are more powerful, but power isn't what you're looking for when trying to shoot a mass amount of people.

Telling people incidents like Aurora aren't very common means fuck all. I don't want them to be "not very common" I want them to not exist. His AR-15 jammed on him, or it would've been a nicer death & injury toll.

And no offense, but your argument of "if they want to go on a shooting spree, they will" is fucking awful. Ok, they will, you're right, but how easy do you want to make it for them?

I never said YOU want them to ban all guns, I know you were talking in more generalities of slowing production or limiting bullets, so I'll drop my "shitty rhetoric" in that regard.

And you don't want shooting sprees to exist? Wow, what a fucking great idea, that's definitely not what I want.

How am I making it easier for them to go on a shooting spree? Where the fuck have I said I want to make it easier to get guns like that? I've said at least 4 times in this thread that there should be stronger measures to make people like that fucking clown unable to get guns. So stop your shitty rhetoric of saying that I want make it easy for everyone to get a fucking gun or something.

So what would happen tomorrow if the government waved it's magic wand and rainbows flew out destroying all guns? Then crazy assholes would start making bombs to kill people. Or crazy assholes would start making molotov cocktails. Or crazy assholes would drive a bus into a group of people. Or crazy assholes would take an axe and kill people. Let's stop the production of axes! Make them expensive! Crazy people who are insane won't be able to find another way to be fucking crazy!

Obviously I'm being hyperbolic, but shit man, I fucking agree with you that they need to do more to make sure shit like this doesn't happen. I'm not for making it easy to get guns, if anything, the acquisition needs to be stronger and more thorough.

Was his AR-15 fully auto? Out here in California AR's have to be semi-auto and I think the clips can carry 10 bullets max.

As far as gun laws, I think citizens should be able to own guns but just like with most things there should be limitations. Being able to purchase a drum magazine so easily is stupid.

Pretty sure it was semi-auto, not sure though.

But I agree with you on all your points, they need to make it harder for crazy people to get guns. I'm with you on the magazine stuff too, a lot of other gun owners would argue about that, but I don't see a reason why extended mags for rifles or handguns are able to be purchased in so many states. I could order a 30 round 9mm magazine right now and have it delivered by the mailman to my door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty much agree with everything you said.

I;m not for taking guns away from everybody.

But if you make people have to train to carry a weapon AND take a test it will weed people out.

And then you just enforce some stricter, common sense laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you don't want shooting sprees to exist? Wow, what a fucking great idea, that's definitely not what I want.
Yet you seem to be against some of the ideas I've put forth making them harder to happen.

How am I making it easier for them to go on a shooting spree?
Try not having kneejerk reactions to posts, maybe actually read what I was saying? I didn't say you wanted to make it easier than it is now, I said you want to make it easier than any idea I've put forward or any way to go on a killing spree that isn't with a semi-automatic rifle. We'll get back to this in a bit because you go off on a rather ridiculous tangent in a bit that ties in quite well with this.

Where the fuck have I said I want to make it easier to get guns like that?
Easy and easier are fairly different, sir.

I've said at least 4 times in this thread that there should be stronger measures to make people like that fucking clown unable to get guns. So stop your shitty rhetoric of saying that I want make it easy for everyone to get a fucking gun or something.
Ok, you want it easy for everyone that may not be mentally unstable (and probably with criminal backgrounds, but I'm too lazy to look if you've mentioned that) to get a gun. I don't think that's good enough. The part where you put "people like that fucking clown" is where I have a problem with what you're saying. I agree, those people ESPECIALLY need it to be hard to get guns, but I bet that guy would've passed a psych test to get the guns. It really isn't enough.

So what would happen tomorrow if the government waved it's magic wand and rainbows flew out destroying all guns?
Well I assume they would use that magic wand to do a lot more than fix the gun control problem, but hey, this is your crazy hypothetical, not mine.

Then crazy assholes would start making bombs to kill people. Or crazy assholes would start making molotov cocktails. Or crazy assholes would drive a bus into a group of people. Or crazy assholes would take an axe and kill people. Let's stop the production of axes! Make them expensive! Crazy people who are insane won't be able to find another way to be fucking crazy!
See, this is what I meant by "how easy do you want to make it for them?" I don't know if you've ever made a molotov cocktail, but it's rather ridiculous to think one (or even a few) could kill 12 while injuring 30+ others, even in a crowded movie theatre. Axe? Hahaha, good luck going on a killing spree of a dozen people with an axe. Bombs? They could do the kind of damage the Aurora shooter did, but there's a lot more effort involved. So, how easy do you want to make it for them?

Cause there's three scenarios I see here, the one that's happening right now in reality where it's insanely easy for someone to get the guns for a killing spree, or if you can't you go to the oversaturated black market, or start making bombs, molotov cocktails, and grab your axe.

There's the one that I'm proposing where you can't purchase a semi-automatic AR-15 and you have to resort to trying to get one on the black market (which, again, in my hypothetical situation is a lot harder to do because gun production is down significantly, making the 500,000+ guns that are stolen a year harder to access for the black market), or making bombs, molotov cocktails, and grab your axe.

Then there's yours, where it's slightly more difficult for someone that may be mentaly unstable to get the guns needed for a killing spree, or you go to the over saturated black market, or start making bombs, molotov cocktails, and grab your axe.

How easy do you want to make it? That's what I was referring to and I thought it was easy to understand but I guess I didn't make myself clear enough (I blame posting from a smart phone and being too lazy to type out full thoughts on the subject). Because (and no offense) your way is only slightly more difficult than it is now. In fact, in some states there already is notes of peoples mentally history and background checks on buying guns (except at gun shows, because that's sane). In my way, it's a lot harder and those 23,000 confiscated guns that were traced to being legally purchased in the US are finding it more difficult to make their way to Mexico. Your way? not so much. So, again, how easy do you want it to be?

Obviously I'm being hyperbolic, but shit man, I fucking agree with you that they need to do more to make sure shit like this doesn't happen. I'm not for making it easy to get guns, if anything, the acquisition needs to be stronger and more thorough.
Well at least we agree on that, but the ideas you've put forth haven't really shown that. I don't just want to stop psychopaths/sociopaths from getting them, I want to stop all the people who are killing each other from getting them. Because honestly, my "are you mentally stable enough to buy this gun" test would include the question "Do you know this gun is built to kill numerous living beings in a short period of time?" and no matter what answer they gave, I would then label them as mentally unfit to own it. Semi-automatic rifles with huge mags are not necessary for any civilian outside of a gun range. And I know no American politician will have the balls to come forward and say that, or that we should cut down on the production of guns or think about making them (and bullets) more expensive and harder to obtain, but that's part of the problem. And when there's kneejerk reactions like "you can't be banning all the guns!" to ideas that aren't that, you are essentially closing the discussion and making sure nothing happens about the subject ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cause there's three scenarios I see here, the one that's happening right now in reality where it's insanely easy for someone to get the guns for a killing spree, or if you can't you go to the oversaturated black market, or start making bombs, molotov cocktails, and grab your axe.

There's the one that I'm proposing where you can't purchase a semi-automatic AR-15 and you have to resort to trying to get one on the black market (which, again, in my hypothetical situation is a lot harder to do because gun production is down significantly, making the 500,000+ guns that are stolen a year harder to access for the black market), or making bombs, molotov cocktails, and grab your axe.

Then there's yours, where it's slightly more difficult for someone that may be mentaly unstable to get the guns needed for a killing spree, or you go to the over saturated black market, or start making bombs, molotov cocktails, and grab your axe.

How easy do you want to make it? That's what I was referring to and I thought it was easy to understand but I guess I didn't make myself clear enough (I blame posting from a smart phone and being too lazy to type out full thoughts on the subject). Because (and no offense) your way is only slightly more difficult than it is now. In fact, in some states there already is notes of peoples mentally history and background checks on buying guns (except at gun shows, because that's sane). In my way, it's a lot harder and those 23,000 confiscated guns that were traced to being legally purchased in the US are finding it more difficult to make their way to Mexico. Your way? not so much. So, again, how easy do you want it to be?

I see what you're saying, but at least my way would have a chance at actually being brought up by someone in the government. Your scenario could never happen in the United States.

Maybe what I'm proposing isn't enough to stop tragedies like Aurora at first, but at least my scenario would offer a jumping off point for people to start small and maybe make it into something bigger. You have to start somewhere and I feel like the only way to actually change something so embedded into the American psyche would be to start small, gradually increasing the discussion about the issue, maybe getting a few people to think differently and eventually make substantial changes. But there is zero chance for the US Government to force gun makers to "limit production." I'm not even sure there would be a legal way to do that.

Well at least we agree on that, but the ideas you've put forth haven't really shown that. I don't just want to stop psychopaths/sociopaths from getting them, I want to stop all the people who are killing each other from getting them. Because honestly, my "are you mentally stable enough to buy this gun" test would include the question "Do you know this gun is built to kill numerous living beings in a short period of time?" and no matter what answer they gave, I would then label them as mentally unfit to own it. Semi-automatic rifles with huge mags are not necessary for any civilian outside of a gun range. And I know no American politician will have the balls to come forward and say that, or that we should cut down on the production of guns or think about making them (and bullets) more expensive and harder to obtain, but that's part of the problem. And when there's kneejerk reactions like "you can't be banning all the guns!" to ideas that aren't that, you are essentially closing the discussion and making sure nothing happens about the subject ever.

So are not for people having guns at all then? Because I'm getting confused by what your getting at. Earlier you said:

I'm actually for people owning guns (I was going to the range with my dad as early as 13)

Are you just referring to pistols/hunting rifles and speaking on the limiting production of guns like the AR-15?

I feel like at least what I'm proposing wouldn't get a knee-jerk reaction like you said in comparison to your scenario. Because you would be working against two big things, the people saying you are banning guns and the people who would freak out over the government forcing a business to stop producing their products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun laws are actually pretty spot on with what I feel is a pretty sensible and constitutional approach. I think it is the Gun Show loopholes that allow criminals to possess high-powered weapons. I think those loopholes should be eliminated.

And yes, you can't prevent crazy fuckers from shooting up 10 people in a movie theater, but you can't prevent crazy fuckers from poisoning an entire batch of donuts at krispy kremes, or another crazy fucker coming up with some way to be a crazy fucker.

There is no way to know one crazy fucker from another normal dude until they do some crazy fucker shit. I still think people should be allow to possess guns, because that shit is gangsta.

Edited by Savitri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0