Official Gun Control Debate Thread

datadyne007 said:
There is absolutely no need whatsoever for assault rifles and clips larger than 5 bullets to be available to the American public.
Click to expand...

Urghhhhhhhh, honestly the more I think about this the less I like the opinion I'm forming is. But unfortunately I think its right.


The founding fathers wrote the legislation that all citizens have the right to bear arms for one reason.

It's not to hunt.

It's not to protect yourself from criminals, but that's closer.

It's to be able to fight against an unjust and extremely powerful government, as they had to.

There is no current reason for people to go up and into revolution, but if it ever comes down to that we are royally screwing ourselves from stopping it if it does. Rules should be established to allow for safe ownership, and to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. Stronger rules than currently exist. But I don't 100% trust that there will never be a time in this country's future where we may have to again fight for our freedom.
 
datadyne007 said:
^ There are no ways to prevent every single case but there ARE ways to curb the carnage. Gun control is not about saving the world from gun violence instantly by stopping every crime from ever happening again. It's about reducing the impact that guns can have on society. Assault rifle bans are one way to curb the carnage because the killing capacity is reduced. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for assault rifles and clips larger than 5 bullets to be available to the American public. (This is the leftist in me, but I also believe that people who enjoy shooting guns should really be evaluated for mental stability. There are plenty of other things to enjoy in this world. Why must your "pleasure" be more important than stopping the ability of mass carnage?)
Click to expand...

I know that the goal is to reduce the impact, but I'm not convinced that stricter gun laws are going to significantly reduce that impact. There are many ways to kill people and someone hellbent on killing will find a way to do it.

I agree on the sizes of the clips. I don't think there's any need to have clips larger than 5-7 rounds. However, I'm still on the fence with an all out assault weapons ban. On one hand, the guns were designed for the sole purpose of killing people in large numbers. I have no use for one and don't understand the appeal of owning one. On the other hand, multiple non-assault weapons can have the same/similar effect (see: the Norway attacks in 2011 which took place using legally obtained weapons in a country that has strict gun control laws) as an assualt rifle. I'm not sure that I believe that banning assault weapons would have prevented the tragedies at Sandy Hook, Aurora, or in any other shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjsxQy0xYUs
Biden hits a homer on this one. People like this guy are sick and need to be evaluated and restricted from guns.
Click to expand...

I agree completely about evaluations. I do think better screening and evaluation processes could be FAR more helpful (especially in cases like Aurora- The Newtown gunman didn't own the guns he used as far as I know) in preventing incidents like this than outright banning the guns. This, along with reducing clip sizes would be the route I support most.

You also cite the China incident of the mass stabbing. Yes, it was horrible and yes, people were hurt, but NO ONE DIED. Meanwhile, 26 people, mostly kids were instantly slaughtered at the hands of a deranged person with an assault rifle in his hands.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but it's also why I think each situation is unique. There are plenty of scenarios where a gunman fires at a group of people and no one is killed. A man wielding a machete or an ax can do quite a bit of damage to a group of people as vulnerable as elementary students. An assault rifle is more deadly than any sort of blade, that's for sure. But even if you do outlaw assault rifles, the same guy can go in with a few hand guns or shot guns and do simlar/equal damage. If you outlaw all guns, someone can strap an IED with legally obtained materials to a school bus.

It's a tough call which is why I'm torn on assault rifles. I'm not convinced yet that banning them would make much/any difference in the frequency or severity of this attacks. If someone is sick enough to mow down kids with an assault rifle and then take their own life, they'll find another way to do it if assault rifles are banned. I can't one of these nut jobs going "well, I can't get an assault rifle anymore so I guess I'll just forget about it."
 
There is also a lot of misinformation about the term "semi-automatic." All it means is that you don't have to cock the gun before pulling the trigger. Most pistols operate in this way. It's not something unique to assault weapons.
 
Usually you do have to retract a slide or a bolt to chamber the first round and to cock the hammer. Thereafter, the slide or bolt is retracted by gas (and/or spring) from the exhaust discharge of the first round. This chambers the subsequent round and cocks the hammer again. A point lost on many commentators is the feature that distinguishes the semi-automatic from an automatic: one must pull the trigger each time to fire a round.

You are absolutely correct about misinformation. Phrases such as "automatic", "semi-automatic", "magnum", "flash suppressor", "full metal jacket", "hollow point", and on and on seem to be media substitutes for measuring lethality.

For example, the phrase "assault rifle" is meaningless in terms of actually measuring the potential lethality of a weapon. A shotgun is far more instantly lethal at close quarters than a so-called assault rifle. A scoped bolt action rifle is more lethal at long range than an assault rifle.

A sidearm, be it a revolver or a "semi-automatic" isn't all that accurate/lethal beyond 15 yards, unless one is a practiced shot. I'd rather have persons load hollow point bullets in sidearms in the city because they ricochet less, and are therefore less potentially lethal to bystanders.

Sometimes 6 feet is too much. I once saw a teenager exit the Silver Line bus on Temple Street and then unload several rounds at a fellow youthful former passenger in an unsuccessful effort to "kneecap" him. There wasn't much ricochet, so I guess the shooter was using hollow points. Holding the pistol sideways didn't do much for his aim, apparently, although I'm told it is a stylish gangsta shooting stance.
 
Re: Open Thread

datadyne007 said:
All, I'm gonna say: There were armed guards inside Columbine. Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...


The Govt could outlaw guns. The problem with that is Criminals and insane people will find a gun anyway.
(then your just a sheep without any protection) that is the whole point of the second amendment everybody has a right to protect themselves from death.

Our society should be taking a look at how these kids are growing up with all these prescription drugs & violent video games.

When I was a kid we played at the park all day with other kids. If a fight broke out there would be a couple punches thrown then we would make up.

The younger genreration is becoming isolated between social media, violent video games, constant negative news on the internet and then mix that in with prescription drugs. You have a ticking timebomb in your house.

Guns have been around for more than a century. Yes they help kill people. But the reality is PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

If its not a gun kids will start to do research and create home made Bombs or sometype of chemical poision that can all be purchased through walmart.

When a shooting takes place who are the people that come to the rescue? Other people with guns.
 
Re: Open Thread

TheRifleman said:
The Govt could outlaw guns. The problem with that is Criminals and insane people will find a gun anyway.
Click to expand...

AGAIN... the goal of gun control/assault weapons bans is NOT to end violence as we know it. Why shouldn't we at least take measures to make it HARDER for someone to get a killing machine? Yes, they may seek out guns on the black market, but others may be successfully deterred from acquiring a gun, high-capacity gun, or high-capacity clip.

Also the people kill people argument is a load of bullshit. High-capacity guns enable people to kill massive amounts of people within seconds.

When a shooting takes place who are the people that come to the rescue? Other people with guns.
Click to expand...
Correction: Other people with extensive, up-to-date reaction training with guns. Give civilians guns and you've got bullets flying everywhere, ricochet, etc.
 
^^^^

I recently read but I don't know this for 100% which European country it was but think it may have been Switzeland or Norway which has no laws on how to gain access to a concealed weapon and has the lowest ratio of gun deaths in the world

I really don't know the answer, Maybe before people buy guns need to get extensive training and safety classes on making sure nobdy can steal your weapons.

What bothers me about the CT scenario is the Govt is already talking about executive powers to do whatever it takes to have gun control without understanding why or what would make somebody commit this type of act. Was he on prescription drugs? Did he constantly play violent video games? Maybe they should start looking into these DRUGS on how the flip the brain from UP to SUICIDE.

Also the Media doesn't help the situation in my opinion. They are egging on somebody to commit a more heinous act each time to focus on the Gun-Men Motives and how much destruction he has down. If the media never covered this nobody would ever want to ONE-UP each nightmare.
 
Last edited:
Let's take both sides' best point. It isn't just guns, and it isn't just crazy people. The Sandy Hook problem is crazy people using guns. I see it as a two-part chemical weapon: separately innocuous, but having a very narrow but extremely dangerous mixing of the two.

I like the solution that a tax on weapons & ammo pays for better mental health programs. This moves the two parts farther apart from each other.

Not the folly of disarming lawful people, or the fantasy of disarming everyone, and not a fantasy of de-crazying the world, or putting a cop in every school. Just a small, real movement of the two apart from each other.

I'm for universal mental-criminal checks, but I know that only solves a teensy (but "easy") bit of the problem: at best it would have delayed the Virginia Tech shooter. That guy had a short, crazy, angry, lifetime--however long it lasted--to cook up a mass killing. But delaying mass killings is a good thing (it should net-reduce their numbers too).

The Sandy Hook shooter stole his mother's guns. Background checks offer *zero* there: His mom was a nice, law-abiding teacher-lady--the kind of person we should be happy to see have a gun for her own protection, and who is the last person any feasible law would ever see disarming.

Problem is, with widespread legal gun-ownership, nut-cases have plenty of perfectly-nice people whom they can steal guns from, and unlimited time to find the key to the gun-cabinet.

Gun-freedom people have a good point that personal ownership of guns can be correlated with reduced property/petty crimes, and that peaceful society can be compatible with gun-ownership (as in Switzerland).

Gun-control people have a good point when they note that nut-cases are *empowered* in a unique way by guns, and in a uniquely-powerful way by powerful guns--something we don't see with other powerful/dangerous things like cars, gasoline, or knives.

Ergo, let the gun owners keep all their keep-and-bear freedoms, but limit the dealing. Gun show background checks would have been a freakish imposition in 1994 (The Brady Bill was pre-internet and practically pre-cellphone), but in 2013, *not* asking gun-shows to supply wifi and all dealers to have an instant check-app seems a freakish oversight.

And tax. We all have a need/incentive to help the mentally ill, but given the explosive mix of guns and crazy, gun owners/users/dealers/makers need to take a little more of it.
 
Last edited:
TheRifleman said:
I really don't know the answer, Maybe before people buy guns need to get extensive training and safety classes on making sure nobdy can steal your weapons.
Click to expand...

As proved by the ABC study, the training must be regularly updated to the point where you might as well just be a police officer because police officers need to go through the same comprehensive repetitive training on a monthly basis in order to perform optimally. A police officer that has fallen behind on his or her training is as useless as a civilian in a crisis situation.
 
Every American citizen should have access to our Nuclear launch codes.
 
Should also heavily tax violent video games and violent movies and TV shows. Maybe "death metal" and music with violent lyrics. Also jack up the tax on products at the Goth store at the mall. These have a bad effect on mental well being.
 
tobyjug said:
Should also heavily tax violent video games and violent movies and TV shows. Maybe "death metal" and music with violent lyrics. Also jack up the tax on products at the Goth store at the mall. These have a bad effect on mental well being.
Click to expand...
I'd love to, but I think the 1st Amendment protects video game content--you'd have to tax them all (irrespective of content) because I don't think you'd be able to single any out. The tax ends up being unworkable.

Also, video games aren't quite the "force multiplier" that firearms are. And firearms are physical things, easy to count and tax.
 
Agreed. Tax prohibited by First Amendment. Tax prohibited by Second Amendment?
 
Video game industry representatives met with Vice President Biden to discuss gun violence

On Friday, members of the video game industry such as ESA president Michael Gallagher, ESRB head Patricia Vance, Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello, ZeniMax Media CEO Robert Altman, Activision Publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg, and former Epic Games president Mike Capps, were invited to speak with Mr. Biden.

ESA president Michael Gallagher said:
"We expressed in the meeting that the United States Supreme Court recently affirmed that the independent, scientific research conducted to date has found no causal connection between video games and real-life violence. We also recognized that gun violence is a serious problem in our country. We are saddened by the recent tragic events, and as an industry integral to the social and cultural fabric of America, we look forward to continuing our engagement with government officials and policymakers focused on meaningful solutions."
Click to expand...

Full story and link to AP article:
http://www.screwattack.com/news/vid...met-vice-president-biden-discuss-gun-violence
 
Last edited:
Mr. Gallagher is a comedian! "Call of Duty", etc. are all about "gun violence". Hollywood makes a lot of money off of "gun violence" too. Our state should divest itself of all of its investments in these media companies.
 
tobyjug said:
Mr. Gallagher is a comedian! "Call of Duty", etc. are all about "gun violence". Hollywood makes a lot of money off of "gun violence" too. Our state should divest itself of all of its investments in these media companies.
Click to expand...

...? The scientists must be comedians too. There has been no link found whatsoever between violent video games and gun violence.

I grew up obsessed with James Bond movies and video games. I still am to this day. In fact this username I created back in 2001 is derived from Perfect Dark and Goldeneye. I have never once been so much as a tiny bit inclined to exhibit aggressive behavior, let alone enact an incident of gun violence. The same goes for my friends. What science has also shown is that people who play FPS'es have improved reaction timing and superb hand-eye coordination.
 
Improved "hand to eye": all the better training to kill in real life!!!!

That Lanza guy was holed up in a veritable bunker under his house playing violent video games, disassociated from real life and the consequences of violence. Yeah, people said he was kind of nerdy and creepy before, but did he do anything violent before he expressed his violence in the real world? I confess I might have missed reading about it, but it looks like other than violent video games, no.
 
datadyne007 said:
...? The scientists must be comedians too. There has been no link found whatsoever between violent video games and gun violence.

I grew up obsessed with James Bond movies and video games. I still am to this day. In fact this username I created back in 2001 is derived from Perfect Dark and Goldeneye. I have never once been so much as a tiny bit inclined to exhibit aggressive behavior, let alone enact an incident of gun violence. The same goes for my friends. What science has also shown is that people who play FPS'es have improved reaction timing and superb hand-eye coordination.
Click to expand...

Playing Violent Video games mixed in with Prescription drugs, along with guns. Is the defintion of a depressed teenager who is becoming a ticking time-bomb who has isolated themselves into their own world.

It doesn't take 10 year studies or video game or Pharmaceutical drug experts to understand this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top