GUN CONTROL!

[Vazdania]

It's a lot harder to kill yourself if you don't have to just pull the trigger.

There's a reason that more men commit suicide by gun than women.

All of this feeds into deeper discussion about mental health and the need for more work on that end.

However, removing the ease of access to guns? That'd be a good start to reduce the numbers of corpses.

Or you could just stop beating around the bush and fix mental healthcare?

Yea!

[The Emerald Dawn]

Not really a fan of increased control...like at all.

I am.....for large cities, but I don't believe they need to be controlled in rural areas.

They need to be controlled everywhere. Just not in the same way. You can't make a one-size-fits-most policy with firearms.

It's a lot harder to kill yourself if you don't have to just pull the trigger.

There's a reason that more men commit suicide by gun than women.

All of this feeds into deeper discussion about mental health and the need for more work on that end.

However, removing the ease of access to guns? That'd be a good start to reduce the numbers of corpses.

Or you could just stop beating around the bush and fix mental healthcare?

Sure. Once we can get the stigma removed from society, and some funding from the Republicans, we'll start on it.

[Hathradic States]

Which means that livestock needs guns more than Vaz does. Again, attacks by wildlife is a dubious reason for less gun control. And I don't believe anyone has proposed taking away guns from ranchers and farmers, or really from anyone.

Because livestock can totally protect them self.

Remember, we live in Liberal Land. The animals are all cuddles and kisses, and when they see those cute baby cows they wouldn't hurt their mommies. Just like how those mean criminals are going to turn in their guns once they get banned, because they just want everything to be fair. And, even if they do come at you with a gun, they are going to throw it away when they hear your strongly worded speech about why they shouldn't be criminals, and how it is all the governments fault that they are that way.

[Aeken]

So giving free guns to people in volatile regions is stupid even when you said people need guns in said places.

a permit isn't free.

And if that were free?

[Qeno]

I got one message for the government stay the fuck out of my life and away from my guns or you going to have to take them from my cold dead hands

Well said, Down with regulations and up with common sense!

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because livestock can totally protect them self.

Remember, we live in Liberal Land. The animals are all cuddles and kisses, and when they see those cute baby cows they wouldn't hurt their mommies. Just like how those mean criminals are going to turn in their guns once they get banned, because they just want everything to be fair. And, even if they do come at you with a gun, they are going to throw it away when they hear your strongly worded speech about why they shouldn't be criminals, and how it is all the governments fault that they are that way.

Creating a strawman does not assist your argument, and only serves to show that you're not capable of establishing your main point.

[Vazdania]

a permit isn't free.

And if that were free?

I just think we ought to have more control in big cities than in Rural areas.

[Domenic and friends]

Because livestock can totally protect them self.

Remember, we live in Liberal Land. The animals are all cuddles and kisses, and when they see those cute baby cows they wouldn't hurt their mommies. Just like how those mean criminals are going to turn in their guns once they get banned, because they just want everything to be fair. And, even if they do come at you with a gun, they are going to throw it away when they hear your strongly worded speech about why they shouldn't be criminals, and how it is all the governments fault that they are that way.

LOL damn straight man

[Pandeeria]

No, guns kill people. If guns didn't kill people, what would all the controversy about gun control be about?

Ignorance. Like it is now.

I just proved free states wrong.

[GrandKirche]

Political pandering to people unfamiliar with firearms in order to strengthen a political base and win an election by appearing to be addressing an 'issue' with governmental action.

I would have gone with political pandering to frighten people into thinking that some government goon squad is going to come take away their guns, without which they and they're loved ones will soon be overwhelmed by a horde of robbers and muggers and rapers,

I think any argument for regulation needs to begin stating that all people have the right to arms, but they must not be allowed to be sold to criminals. At present America's guns are being smuggled into Mexico to help the drug wars (source: the Economist, huge series of articles, can't remember how to link elegantly, so google if you don't believe me) which is a major problem. Start with that, you're likely to convince the majority that having to get a bit of paper for their guns that proves they're an American and law abiding would be compatible with "Freedom yeha"

[Hathradic States]

Remember, we live in Liberal Land. The animals are all cuddles and kisses, and when they see those cute baby cows they wouldn't hurt their mommies. Just like how those mean criminals are going to turn in their guns once they get banned, because they just want everything to be fair. And, even if they do come at you with a gun, they are going to throw it away when they hear your strongly worded speech about why they shouldn't be criminals, and how it is all the governments fault that they are that way.

Creating a strawman does not assist your argument, and only serves to show that you're not capable of establishing your main point.

I already established my argument with my first post, and I see that you didn't respond to it.

I just pointed out why Vaz is wasting his time.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well Obviously they could have used help. I'm not devaluing there life.
They could have committed Suicide other ways. They just chose to use a gun.

It's a lot harder to kill yourself if you don't have to just pull the trigger.

There's a reason that more men commit suicide by gun than women.

All of this feeds into deeper discussion about mental health and the need for more work on that end.

However, removing the ease of access to guns? That'd be a good start to reduce the numbers of corpses.

In the UK, just over three times as many men (~3.5) commit suicide as women.
It's not much of a larger gap in the US (~3.7).

[Chernoslavia]

Political pandering to people unfamiliar with firearms in order to strengthen a political base and win an election by appearing to be addressing an 'issue' with governmental action.

I would have gone with political pandering to frighten people into thinking that some government goon squad is going to come take away their guns, without which they and they're loved ones will soon be overwhelmed by a horde of robbers and muggers and rapers,

All of which has happened here in the US. But fuck history, right?

[Farnhamia]

It's a lot harder to kill yourself if you don't have to just pull the trigger.

There's a reason that more men commit suicide by gun than women.

All of this feeds into deeper discussion about mental health and the need for more work on that end.

However, removing the ease of access to guns? That'd be a good start to reduce the numbers of corpses.

In the UK, just over three times as many men (~3.5) commit suicide as women.
It's not much of a larger gap in the US (~3.7).

Which has what to do with gun control?

[Chernoslavia]

In the UK, just over three times as many men (~3.5) commit suicide as women.
It's not much of a larger gap in the US (~3.7).

Which has what to do with gun control?

Well, your side brought it up.

[Vazdania]

In the UK, just over three times as many men (~3.5) commit suicide as women.
It's not much of a larger gap in the US (~3.7).

Which has what to do with gun control?

The UK is a lot stricter about its gun control policies than the US.

[Pandeeria]

The only problem is that I don't support a full ban on guns. I support a ban on assault rifles, powerful pistols & shotguns, and military grade stuff.

You can still defend yourself with a sensible pistol or rifle.

The thing is that all of the things you listed (except for "military-grade" which is just a very inaccurate description of anything you can get as a civilian, honestly) excel at being used for self-defense.

If you want to know what you should use for self-defense, look at your local police department. They're fighting the same criminals that walk the same streets as you. What do they use? AR-15s, Remington 870s, Mossberg 500s, Glock 22s, Glock 17s, Beretta 92FSs, SIG P226s, the list goes on and on. When I'm potentially faced with defending myself from the same type of criminal as a police officer encounters (who has body armor: I don't), why should I have to settle for sub-par means of defense? Am I saying "lolmachineguns for ever'body!"? No, not at all. However, caliber restrictions, "feature" limitations/assault weapons bans, and other such number-and-looks-based laws are, frankly, stupid, as they have no bearing in reality. One of the most lethal intermediate cartridges ever fielded by a military? 5.45x39mm. For reference, that is a diameter smaller than the "measley" .22LR that everyone loves. Bans by caliber do relatively little, as do bans based on cosmetic features. The flash hider, 30-round magazine, adjustable/folding stock, barrel shroud, etc., are all in place for shooter comfort. They don't make "spraying from the hip!" more accurate. If anything, a pistol grip makes it less so due to the awkward angle. A magazine only means more rounds between a reload. A reload that lasts a total of two seconds at the absolute most: the average length of time between shots in mass shootings is longer than this. Flash hiders simply dissipate flash from the muzzle so your vision is not impaired when shooting, some muzzle devices reduce felt recoil, while others still make staying on target easier (and yet, those were not counted as "evil" parts in the AWB). Collapsible stocks just mean my 6'0" 280lbs. coworker can shoulder the rifle comfortably by extending the stock, and when he hands it to 5'11" 130lbs. me, I can collapse it and also use it comfortably. Doesn't make it any deadlier in any way whatsoever. The only thing that affects how "deadly" a weapon is is the intent of the person firing it. I can shoot a .50BMG M82A1 at paper targets all day long. Meanwhile, across the nation, someone could be using a lever-action .22LR Henry to shoot up a post office or daycare. Which gun is more dangerous? Is it the firearm, or is it the person?

People shouldn't have fully automatic assault rifles. Why can people not defend themselves with pistols and rifles instead of high powered shotguns and assault rifles?

[Vazdania]

The thing is that all of the things you listed (except for "military-grade" which is just a very inaccurate description of anything you can get as a civilian, honestly) excel at being used for self-defense.

If you want to know what you should use for self-defense, look at your local police department. They're fighting the same criminals that walk the same streets as you. What do they use? AR-15s, Remington 870s, Mossberg 500s, Glock 22s, Glock 17s, Beretta 92FSs, SIG P226s, the list goes on and on. When I'm potentially faced with defending myself from the same type of criminal as a police officer encounters (who has body armor: I don't), why should I have to settle for sub-par means of defense? Am I saying "lolmachineguns for ever'body!"? No, not at all. However, caliber restrictions, "feature" limitations/assault weapons bans, and other such number-and-looks-based laws are, frankly, stupid, as they have no bearing in reality. One of the most lethal intermediate cartridges ever fielded by a military? 5.45x39mm. For reference, that is a diameter smaller than the "measley" .22LR that everyone loves. Bans by caliber do relatively little, as do bans based on cosmetic features. The flash hider, 30-round magazine, adjustable/folding stock, barrel shroud, etc., are all in place for shooter comfort. They don't make "spraying from the hip!" more accurate. If anything, a pistol grip makes it less so due to the awkward angle. A magazine only means more rounds between a reload. A reload that lasts a total of two seconds at the absolute most: the average length of time between shots in mass shootings is longer than this. Flash hiders simply dissipate flash from the muzzle so your vision is not impaired when shooting, some muzzle devices reduce felt recoil, while others still make staying on target easier (and yet, those were not counted as "evil" parts in the AWB). Collapsible stocks just mean my 6'0" 280lbs. coworker can shoulder the rifle comfortably by extending the stock, and when he hands it to 5'11" 130lbs. me, I can collapse it and also use it comfortably. Doesn't make it any deadlier in any way whatsoever. The only thing that affects how "deadly" a weapon is is the intent of the person firing it. I can shoot a .50BMG M82A1 at paper targets all day long. Meanwhile, across the nation, someone could be using a lever-action .22LR Henry to shoot up a post office or daycare. Which gun is more dangerous? Is it the firearm, or is it the person?

People shouldn't have fully automatic assault rifles. Why can people not defend themselves with pistols and rifles instead of high powered shotguns and assault rifles?

If you can't defend yourself with a rifle and a handgun....then you shouldn't even get the opportunity to own a semi auto.

[Imperializt Russia]

In the UK, just over three times as many men (~3.5) commit suicide as women.
It's not much of a larger gap in the US (~3.7).

Which has what to do with gun control?

He commented on the suicide gender gap and stated that it was due to firearms.

Looking at the UK, it does not particularly appear to be.

[Farnhamia]

Which has what to do with gun control?

Well, your side brought it up.

Suicide but what does the gap between men and women committing suicide have to do with anything? Are these men killing themselves because they can't have guns?

[Occupied Deutschland]

In the UK, just over three times as many men (~3.5) commit suicide as women.
It's not much of a larger gap in the US (~3.7).

Which has what to do with gun control?

-A figure for gun deaths was used.
-Said figure included suicides by gun, which was contested and mentioned it shouldn't be included for a fair comparison.
-Claim that suicides by guns were appropriate to use and more measures neccessary as that would '...start to reduce the number of corpses.'
-Imperializt Russia mentioned how suicide statistics in the UK were similar in trend to those in the US despite gun control measures.

[Hathradic States]

The thing is that all of the things you listed (except for "military-grade" which is just a very inaccurate description of anything you can get as a civilian, honestly) excel at being used for self-defense.

If you want to know what you should use for self-defense, look at your local police department. They're fighting the same criminals that walk the same streets as you. What do they use? AR-15s, Remington 870s, Mossberg 500s, Glock 22s, Glock 17s, Beretta 92FSs, SIG P226s, the list goes on and on. When I'm potentially faced with defending myself from the same type of criminal as a police officer encounters (who has body armor: I don't), why should I have to settle for sub-par means of defense? Am I saying "lolmachineguns for ever'body!"? No, not at all. However, caliber restrictions, "feature" limitations/assault weapons bans, and other such number-and-looks-based laws are, frankly, stupid, as they have no bearing in reality. One of the most lethal intermediate cartridges ever fielded by a military? 5.45x39mm. For reference, that is a diameter smaller than the "measley" .22LR that everyone loves. Bans by caliber do relatively little, as do bans based on cosmetic features. The flash hider, 30-round magazine, adjustable/folding stock, barrel shroud, etc., are all in place for shooter comfort. They don't make "spraying from the hip!" more accurate. If anything, a pistol grip makes it less so due to the awkward angle. A magazine only means more rounds between a reload. A reload that lasts a total of two seconds at the absolute most: the average length of time between shots in mass shootings is longer than this. Flash hiders simply dissipate flash from the muzzle so your vision is not impaired when shooting, some muzzle devices reduce felt recoil, while others still make staying on target easier (and yet, those were not counted as "evil" parts in the AWB). Collapsible stocks just mean my 6'0" 280lbs. coworker can shoulder the rifle comfortably by extending the stock, and when he hands it to 5'11" 130lbs. me, I can collapse it and also use it comfortably. Doesn't make it any deadlier in any way whatsoever. The only thing that affects how "deadly" a weapon is is the intent of the person firing it. I can shoot a .50BMG M82A1 at paper targets all day long. Meanwhile, across the nation, someone could be using a lever-action .22LR Henry to shoot up a post office or daycare. Which gun is more dangerous? Is it the firearm, or is it the person?

People shouldn't have fully automatic assault rifles. Why can people not defend themselves with pistols and rifles instead of high powered shotguns and assault rifles?

Because the former are more likely to cause collateral damage. A hunting rifle will go straight through a wall if you miss, and will probably go through your attacker. An "assault rifle" (because what most people thing are assault rifles really aren't) won't, due to the lower power cartridge. A shotgun won't, either, unless you are using slugs.

[Farnhamia]

Which has what to do with gun control?

-A figure for gun deaths was used.
-Said figure included suicides by gun, which was contested and mentioned it shouldn't be included for a fair comparison.
-Claim that suicides by guns were appropriate to use and more measures neccessary as that would '...start to reduce the number of corpses.'
-Imperializt Russia mentioned how suicide statistics in the UK were similar in trend to those in the US despite gun control measures.

And yet the UK numbers say nothing about how many were by gun. Instead an irrelevant gender difference was cited.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The thing is that all of the things you listed (except for "military-grade" which is just a very inaccurate description of anything you can get as a civilian, honestly) excel at being used for self-defense.

If you want to know what you should use for self-defense, look at your local police department. They're fighting the same criminals that walk the same streets as you. What do they use? AR-15s, Remington 870s, Mossberg 500s, Glock 22s, Glock 17s, Beretta 92FSs, SIG P226s, the list goes on and on. When I'm potentially faced with defending myself from the same type of criminal as a police officer encounters (who has body armor: I don't), why should I have to settle for sub-par means of defense? Am I saying "lolmachineguns for ever'body!"? No, not at all. However, caliber restrictions, "feature" limitations/assault weapons bans, and other such number-and-looks-based laws are, frankly, stupid, as they have no bearing in reality. One of the most lethal intermediate cartridges ever fielded by a military? 5.45x39mm. For reference, that is a diameter smaller than the "measley" .22LR that everyone loves. Bans by caliber do relatively little, as do bans based on cosmetic features. The flash hider, 30-round magazine, adjustable/folding stock, barrel shroud, etc., are all in place for shooter comfort. They don't make "spraying from the hip!" more accurate. If anything, a pistol grip makes it less so due to the awkward angle. A magazine only means more rounds between a reload. A reload that lasts a total of two seconds at the absolute most: the average length of time between shots in mass shootings is longer than this. Flash hiders simply dissipate flash from the muzzle so your vision is not impaired when shooting, some muzzle devices reduce felt recoil, while others still make staying on target easier (and yet, those were not counted as "evil" parts in the AWB). Collapsible stocks just mean my 6'0" 280lbs. coworker can shoulder the rifle comfortably by extending the stock, and when he hands it to 5'11" 130lbs. me, I can collapse it and also use it comfortably. Doesn't make it any deadlier in any way whatsoever. The only thing that affects how "deadly" a weapon is is the intent of the person firing it. I can shoot a .50BMG M82A1 at paper targets all day long. Meanwhile, across the nation, someone could be using a lever-action .22LR Henry to shoot up a post office or daycare. Which gun is more dangerous? Is it the firearm, or is it the person?

People shouldn't have fully automatic assault rifles (1). Why can people not defend themselves with pistols and rifles instead of high powered shotguns and assault rifles? (2)

1) Virtually no one does.
2) People do. They're called automatic handguns in most cases, or pump or semi-auto action shotguns. (Note: 'Automatic handguns' does not share traits with automatic actions, but are instead handguns capable of self-reloading.)

[Chernoslavia]

Well, your side brought it up.

Suicide but what does the gap between men and women committing suicide have to do with anything? Are these men killing themselves because they can't have guns?

No, they're killing themselves at the same rate as any developed country despite The uk and japan having more gun bans.