What's new
By:

Gun Control

One Brow said:
There are laws about what people can do during an assembly, and yet we still enact reasonable prior restrictions about where the assembly can happen, when, etc.

Also, I don't recall asking for any specific thing in this thread, except to find ways to reduce the number of bullets a shooter can send out in a killing rampage. What laws do that?
Click to expand...

You can't reduce it. They have already shown they don't give a damn about your laws.

There are already laws about how and where you can carry. Using a firearm increases your crime, punishment and opens you to additional crimes. Not my fault you wanted to ignore the specifics that already address what you are Bradley asking about.
 
Scat said:
Why are AR15's 'personal defense' weapons for the Department of Homeland Security but 'assault rifles' for citizens?
Click to expand...

Same reason nuclear capabilities are considered weapons of mass destruction when in the hands of psychopaths.

One Brow said:
I'm not sure how much of my disdain is based on fear, and how much on perceived lack of necessity. A hunting trip would probably ease the former, but not the latter. The one time I went fishing I was bored out of my mind.

I haven't seen any statistics that indicate people who own guns are more likely to have harm averted by the guns they own than they are to have harm inflicted by the guns they own; the usual claim is that you are more likely to be harmed by gun in your house than to keep harm averted. I believe in the ability to protect yourself, but prefer to find ways that place yourself less at risk. Sometimes you need to ingest poison as a medical treatment, but those times are rare.
Click to expand...

Statistics do nothing for the individual about to get raped and family murdered. You're also falsely correlating [lack of] necessity with a risk:reward calculation (that may or may not be accounting for increased benefit/lack of downside risk in the absense of ownership).

As to the second, I'm surprised you're not an advocate of better education for gun owners as a solution to your problem. Shouldn't education be the first step taken?
 
franklin said:
As to the second, I'm surprised you're not an advocate of better education for gun owners as a solution to your problem. Shouldn't education be the first step taken?
Click to expand...

I wonder why gun safety class isn't called for here. I don't hear the advocates of gun regulation expressing an interest in requiring students to go through a gun familiarization and safety course, demonstrating safe handling, precautions, proper storage, and regulations. Education is they key, is it not?
 
Gameface said:
I wonder why gun safety class isn't called for here. I don't hear the advocates of gun regulation expressing an interest in requiring students to go through a gun familiarization and safety course, demonstrating safe handling, precautions, proper storage, and regulations. Education is they key, is it not?
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
i had a hunter education/gun safety course when i was like 12 for about an hour and that was the last time.
My knowledge all comes from my dad and brothers and hunting with them
 
Stoked said:
You can't reduce it. They have already shown they don't give a damn about your laws.

There are already laws about how and where you can carry. Using a firearm increases your crime, punishment and opens you to additional crimes. Not my fault you wanted to ignore the specifics that already address what you are Bradley asking about.
Click to expand...

Changing what is available will gradually change what is available to criminals, as well, whether they care about the laws or not. So, your blanket proclamation of an inability to reduce the number of bullets is false.

Changing the severity of a law means little to most mass shooters, from what I can tell. The death penalty carries no threat to the suicidal. So, I see no prospect for saying that "using a firearm increases severity of your crime" to have any deterrent effect, nor any ameliorative effect. Thus, I don't see where it addresses what I am asking about. I don't pretend to speak for Bradley on that.
 
franklin said:
Statistics do nothing for the individual about to get raped and family murdered.
Click to expand...

They don't do anything for the parent whose kid just shot themself. They don't do anything for the spouse being shot by an abuser. The don't do anything for the homeowner whose gun is found by a thief and turned on the homeowner. Yet, at the very least, the first two are much more common than the scenario you devise.

franklin said:
You're also falsely correlating [lack of] necessity with a risk:reward calculation (that may or may not be accounting for increased benefit/lack of downside risk in the absense of ownership).
Click to expand...

I agree I conflated the two concepts.

franklin said:
As to the second, I'm surprised you're not an advocate of better education for gun owners as a solution to your problem. Shouldn't education be the first step taken?
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem as an individual (on this topic); our country has a problem.

I am in favor of more education. I've said before that there should be gun-carry licenses that are much like driver's licenses (you need to show some basic knowledge, some handling ability, perhaps even carry insurance). However, with regard to these mass shootings in particular, I don't recall anyone claiming that they happened because the shooter just didn't know enough about guns.
 
Gameface said:
I wonder why gun safety class isn't called for here.
Click to expand...

How would such classes have limited the loss of life in Newtown or Aurora?

I think the discussion of having every high school offering gun safety classes similar to driver's licenses classes is worth having. However, I don't see how that helps here (that is, in the context of this particular discussion).
 
One Brow said:
Changing what is available will gradually change what is available to criminals, as well, whether they care about the laws or not. So, your blanket proclamation of an inability to reduce the number of bullets is false.

Changing the severity of a law means little to most mass shooters, from what I can tell. The death penalty carries no threat to the suicidal. So, I see no prospect for saying that "using a firearm increases severity of your crime" to have any deterrent effect, nor any ameliorative effect. Thus, I don't see where it addresses what I am asking about. I don't pretend to speak for Bradley on that.
Click to expand...

I never said reduce the number of bullets so nice try there.

As for the suicidal remark. Do you mean to imply that every criminal that commits a crime with a gun is suicidal? Of course jot but the laws that govern what you can and cannot do with a gun seem to have no effect.

It is already against the law to use a firearm for an illegal activity. Such as robbery or rape. Does not seem to stop them though.

Also I do not accept that my rights to gun ownership, within reason (I don't need a bazooka), should be limited because others are not capable of personal responsibility. Banning a rifle because it has a pistol grip makes it no more deadly than a hunting rifle.

An AR-15 uses the same caliber as a normal hunting rifle (.223). It does not fire faster or have more power. It is simply scarrier looking. That's it. Banning them in no way shape or form controls or limits gun violence.
 
Stoked said:
...As for the suicidal remark. Do you mean to imply that every criminal that commits a crime with a gun is suicidal? Of course jot but the laws that govern what you can and cannot do with a gun seem to have no effect....
Click to expand...

just jumping in to give a quick and simple answer: It means that for those who intend to take their own life after doing whatever it is that they are trying to do, making the penalty more severe isn't going to make a difference to that type of perpetrator.
 
One Brow said:
They don't do anything for the parent whose kid just shot themself. They don't do anything for the spouse being shot by an abuser. The don't do anything for the homeowner whose gun is found by a thief and turned on the homeowner. Yet, at the very least, the first two are much more common than the scenario you devise.
Click to expand...

Of course it's more prevalent than a very narrowly defined circumstance. How do the numbers come out when you add everything to the other side of the ledger equally as you have with your gun owner killings side? I'm guessing rape alone is at least more than 10 times and home invasions at least quadruple.



One Brow said:
I don't have a problem as an individual (on this topic); our country has a problem.
Click to expand...

Can you be more specific?
 
moevillini said:
we need to legalize drugs ASAP, that'd be the first step I'd suggest in reducing gun violence
Click to expand...

I think this is completely true. There is a huge industry in our nation that operates outside the law. They can't go to court to settle disputes so they resort to armed thugs or gangs to protect their business interests.

Drug gangs often acquire guns illegally as it is and I imagine they'll have the easiest time maintaining access to weapons no matter what our gun laws are.
 
Just listening to the Sheriff who went back the White House to meet with Biden on gun control. They were talking about how many people actually lied on their background checks(a felony) and were not prosecuted. Biden's response was that they didn't have the man power to prosecute.... Oh ok good let's set more laws that we aren't able to enforce.
 
HipHopAnonymous said:
Just listening to the Sheriff who went back the White House to meet with Biden on gun control. They were talking about how many people actually lied on their background checks(a felony) and were not prosecuted. Biden's response was that they didn't have the man power to prosecute.... Oh ok good let's set more laws that we aren't able to enforce.
Click to expand...

Or better yet a mass purging of idiotic laws that pull man power. Then refocus on the laws that really do matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top