You will also have trouble because nowhere in the constitution does it say firearms are a right explicitly because of hunting or self-defense. Some would argue that guns are to keep government in check.Originally Posted by leo3375
Active Member
You will also have trouble because nowhere in the constitution does it say firearms are a right explicitly because of hunting or self-defense. Some would argue that guns are to keep government in check.
Throbbing Member
That's exactly what I'm saying. Bunch of rednecks teaching their redneck children to shoot things. What a waste of time.
Stubby Member
On NPR tonight Robert Siegal talked to Mark Follman of Mother Jones Magazine. Follman had worked on piece that looked into “mass shootings,” they were defined by four people killed (and the gunman [but not always].)
I am paraphrasing, but I think I have their figures right, in the last 30 years according to the magazine article, there has been 61 mass shootings. This year had the most with 7. Again there may have been other parameters to their definition of mass shooting, (like maybe not during other planned criminal activity) I just heard it on the radio have not looked into the article yet.
Just a little more data/figures for the discussion. (Again, I have not looked into this more since hearing it on the radio, so this info may not be 100% accurate or accurate within a framwork)
Of course, also, on NPR they started talking about more thorough background checks (with some or pundits/journalists), but the concept of “privacy” came up and most agreed that would be the “hard issue.”
Throbbing Member
Almost cried when read about this. Events like this happening every other day makes me glad to live in a country with gun control legislation. The fact that tragedies like these are akin to natural disasters is completely unacceptable. As for the mental health question, maybe if attempts to discuss universal healthcare (another reason I feel safe here in Australia) weren't met with dismissal as advocating "socialist death panels" and other such impenetrable nonsense I'd have more faith in that kind of focus.
Stubby Member
The other major difference in the UK vs US debate (asides from guns being banned) is that the UK has free healthcare, good social security and good free education available to a tertiary level.
These are core values in the UK.
Throbbing Member
And what bugs me the most, I think, is that the gun nuts tend to oppose universal health care. They don't have a problem with someone being able to get an AK-47 but there will be hell to pay if a poor family uses taxpayer money to pay for treatment for a schizophrenic relative.
Here's where I stand:
1. Reinstate the assault-weapon and automatic-firearms ban. Restrict how many firearms someone may purchase to one or two per year.
2. Tax the snot out of ammunition. Chris Rock once said, "We don't need gun control, we need bullet control." Limit how much ammo someone can buy at any given time and keep track of their purchases.
3. Require licensing, certification, and background checks for all gun purchases, even at gun shows and game fairs. Regulate it like driver's licenses and selling a car, where a transfer of ownership is required and must be registered with the state.
4. Gun licenses would require not only a criminal background check but also a psychiatric evaluation and proper training on how to use a firearm and how to safely store it. These would have to be renewed and updated on a regular basis.
5. Expand Obamacare to include mental health treatment and mandate all private insurers to cover mental health.
This is not taking guns away but it would ensure responsibility, help make it harder for those with malicious intent to obtain firearms, and is well within the constraints of the Second Amendment.
EDIT: Here's Chris Rock talking about gun control. This was after Columbine in 1999 but it's still relevant:
Last edited by leo3375; 12-15-2012 at 01:43 AM.
Throbbing Member
And why does gun control have to be a left v right issue? The Prime Minister who enacted the gun control legislation here was a climate change denialist, union-hating, right wing shithead who was ultra chummy with Bush and responsible for terrible xenophobic and homophobic policies. So hardline Republican material in other words.
Quiet Member
For anyone who missed this interesting and important detail:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...#slide=1887056Following hours of uncertainty during which many media outlets reported the shooter's identity as Ryan Lanza, officials identified the gunman as Adam Lanza. According to WNBC, Adam Lanza was carrying his brothers' identification, which led to the initial misidentification. Adam Lanza's brother, 24-year-old Ryan Lanza, is being questioned by police in New Jersey.
Stubby Member
Active Member
Dumbest stats ever. Look at rates, not absolute numbers. That's a classic trick that people use when trying to make a point that they are otherwise unable to. Only the gullible believe it.
Secondly, if you are concerned with "murder" you should look at... murder. Not a collection of things like suicide. Go look at homicide rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
Thirdly, that seems to be a pretty small list of countries. Why not any of the others? Hrmm...
Finally, this image also comes in a different flavor with a glock. Somehow, all the numbers are different. Anyone know where can I get a glock with that finish? It is hilarious.
Stubby Member
Then give me stats that discredit that picture instead of childishly shrugging away facts as 'dumb'. Do you think gunshot deaths per capita look any better for the U.S?
That's because those countries are models for gun control that the U.S should copy. There's a reason why Columbia and Mexico aren't listed; we don't want to be like them, we want to be like Japan and Great Britain.Thirdly, that seems to be a pretty small list of countries. Why not any of the others? Hrmm...
Go back to comparing gun control to 20's-era prohibition and Chinese law, then backtrack on the statements for half a page. That worked really well for you before. But seriously, make a clear, concise argument instead of going all over the map with your rhetoric. Einstein once said that if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough. You should take heed of that quote in the future.
Last edited by Presideo; 12-15-2012 at 11:16 AM.
Active Member
"I can't prove my point without heavy flaws. Can you prove anything against my point so I don't have to make a solid case? I don't understand how burden of proof works."
Active Member
Because the information on non-first world democracies wouldn't be pertinent to the point being made
Thirdly, that seems to be a pretty small list of countries. Why not any of the others? Hrmm...
The point is to show America has a problem with guns
By showing the amount of deaths in similar countries, you illustrate how much of an anomaly America is when it comes to this issue
They are all western (or western-style) liberal democracies & make for sensible comparisons... What would be the point of throwing in the numbers for the Democratic republic of Congo? That would be pointless because it would say more about how many people die in a brutal war
Those deaths wouldn't be from private gun ownership, they would be from war, and as such the data is not relevant
The trick is to think about things, and not just clutch at the first chance to dismiss them. If you'd thought about it a bit longer, I'm sure you'd have realised everything I just wrote.
But it is out of date... there's a clue in the name of one of the states
Last edited by Sutekh; 12-15-2012 at 02:06 PM.
Active Member
I am reading all these posts about the laws people want to enact and am wondering if anyone realizes that the shooter took his mom's legally owned handguns to commit the crime. Gotta love irrational emotional responses!
Bite me
Yeah, but I guess at least one of those guns was a Glock. Nobody "needs" a Glock. Sure, they're "fun" to those of us who like to go shoot up old laptops at a range, but not "fun" enough to worry about keeping them legal. I wouldn't give a rat's ass if possession of anything bigger than a revolver got you 100 years in prison.
I own two revolvers. One is a .22, one is a .357. Each revolver holds exactly six bullets. Six. There is no magazine. If I run out of bullets, I have to stop and dump the spent shells and individually load six more bullets. Both revolvers are "double-action" which means all I have to do is pull a trigger to fire the revolver (I don't have to cock the gun). However, it takes several seconds to fire off each round. My point? It'd be pretty hard to knock off a shitload of people in a small amount of time with a six gun.
But GANG members are carrying Glocks and such, now. Why?
Scarface and his Little Friend. Looks "cool," and they don't have to actually "aim" (or be any good at shooting) - they just fire off a shitload of shots from a giant magazine.
Your best "protection" at home? Shotgun.
Last edited by allegro; 12-15-2012 at 11:09 AM.
Active Member
You just described why a glock is better for home defenseFaster to go from locked gun to loaded when you need it. Unless you are one of those people who keep a loaded gun around the house?
Glocks perform on par with guns 2-4x the price. That is why tons of people have them, not just criminals. Hell, that's exactly why I bought one
Bite me
disregard, sorry.
Throbbing Member
EDit: shit double post.
Last edited by PooPooMeowChow; 12-15-2012 at 10:57 AM.
Throbbing Member
Obamo gets inaugurated for 2nd term in Jan, gun control will be his first major legislation.
EDIT: Also, guess who doesn't care if guns are legal or not?
Criminals.....
Bite me
Well, yeah, exactly. The gang members with guns get them from the same place they get the illegal drugs. It's just as easy to deliver giant crates of shiny brand-new assault weapons made in other countries as it is to deliver giant crates of marijuana, heroin and cocaine from other countries.
What's missing from this current discussion is that we feel really helpless to protect ourselves and our families from violence in this country. In the Chicago area, a woman stabbed her own 7-yr-old son *100 times* and then stabbed the 5-yr-old girl she was babysitting 50 times. In NYC, a nanny stabbed two little kids to death. Even the babysitters and nannies with a ton of good references can stab your kids to death? A sleepy little town in Connecticut isn't safe for Kindergarteners? This seems to be about much more than weapons; it seems like everything is off-kilter, nothing is safe. But, was it ever safe? I'm not sure. I was pretty much raised by babysitters, so when we read about babysitters stabbing children to death, my mother (who was a single mother who had to work) cries at the thought of it.
Last edited by allegro; 12-15-2012 at 11:16 AM.
Active Member
exactly. the issue that has everyone up in arms* goes WAY beyond guns.
*lol
Administrator
A .223 caliber assault rifle is not a handgun.
Active Member
...
dude took his mom's 2 handguns (Glock and Sig) and a 22 rifle. I recall that he left the rifle in the car and did the damage with the handguns? Doesn't really matter though. The rifle was also legally owned by his mom.
Many people are looking to go after handguns with their emotional response (see "god bless america" graphic a few posts up)
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 12-15-2012 at 11:30 AM.
BACKROLLS?!
Why on earth would you need a handgun to protect your home? You have knives and frying pans to knock them out just hanging ALL OVER THE FREAKIN' PLACE.
Stubby Member
Facts = Heavy Flaws? This is news to me. Maybe it's my "LIBERAL MEDIA SPIN" that you don't like. Again, show evidence into why those facts are wrong. If I give you stats, you've gotta give me something solid to debase my stats if you want to discredit them. You can't just say, "Those stats are dumb because they don't adhere to my side of the story." This isn't elementary school.
Also, do you really think you need more than six bullets to defend yourself in a home invasion? Do you think it's a movie? One bullet is a warning shot, which usually gets an intruder to leave (they want your valuables, not a gunfight.) The other five shouldn't be fired unless you're sure you can fatally wound the intruder. If you don't hit him in five shots, you probably shouldn't own a gun in the first place; you clearly don't know how to use it.
Active Member
It's ok dude. I wasn't expecting you to back yourself up with solid data. My point was that your data is heavily flawed. I already explained why. Do tell me about elementary school while trying to make your point with pictures again!
Your views of "home defense" are insanely lacking. A "warning shot"?!?! You must know very little about gun laws. Ironic, considering you seem to want more of them. You do not brandish a gun (or fire it for that matter) unless you are going to kill someone. Intent to kill someone in self-defense has a very strict set of requirements. Otherwise, you land in jail. If you feel a "warning shot" is sufficient (compared to killing) means you do NOT meet the requirements. Your dumb ass would be in jail in most states. :lol: You must also have no idea that you are responsible for EVERY bullet you fire. Bullets go far. "Warning shot" is more like "I accidentally shot someone that I didn't intend."
wow... Please do tell me more about your expert view in home defense! You are basically a text generator for this thing http://www.quickmeme.com/Condescending-Wonka/
Stubby Member
You said that I should look at the rates, not absolute numbers. Ok, give me the rates (I'm sure you have them next to your Glock and bible - I'll wait for you to get them.)
If someone breaks into your home I don't think you're gonna be worrying about breaking gun laws. If you have to worry about every legality levied on firing a gun in a time of survival, why have one in the first place?
There's this cool website called Reddit that might be more your speed. Go back to the kid table and leave the adults to their discussion.
Bent Member
The reported facts keep changing -- they're saying now that the assault rifle was actually inside the school and used in the shooting. There was a fourth gun in the car.
He had a link to them in his original post. Scroll down to the chart "By country" and then sort "Rate" by "descending"
Stubby Member
Ok, I did the legwork. Here's the homicide rates for the countries mentioned in my image.
Japan 0.3
Britain 1.6
Switzerland 0.7
Canada 1.6
Isreal 2.1
Sweden 1.0
Germany 0.8
U.S. 4.2
This supports my original image, it doesn't discredit it. I assumed he had stats to discredit the image.
Active Member
"glock and bible" ahahah. Yea..... no. I enjoy your sophomoric attempts to stereotype. I bet that counts as quality debate for you. Such an "adult"!!! I already linked you to intentional homocide rates. That, alone, destroys your hyperbolic pictures.
Yea, who expects a responsible adult to know the laws. Laws are are too hard to read. Can't they make them in picture format? I don't know what the current laws are but... Eh fuck it, give me more laws!
please continue. I just got some more awesome quotes from you. "If someone breaks into your home I don't think you're gonna be worrying about breaking gun laws" may indeed be the best one yet from someone wanting more gun laws.
Reply With Quote
