Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Washington Resistance Army]

At least for the Parkland case there was plenty of laws that could have been used to legally prevent him from owning weaponry. Of course the government is incompetent at every level and failed to do anything so that didn't happen.

There was no law preventing him from owning that AR-15. If a law was passed, then he wouldn't had it in the first place. Now you cannot get one until you are 21, but I feel that there is no way to prevent shooters getting them unless they ban these guns in their entirety.

Yeah there were plenty of times this kid could have been involuntarily committed or at the very least had NICS delays put on him. But of course the government can't do anything right.

[United Citizens of North America]

You can't stop many handgun murders, but you can stop mass shootings using high-level weaponry, and that is what I am focused on.

So you're busy patrolling for icebergs while pirates run amok attacking ships?

You can't prevent everything. So you have to prevent what you can and safeguard against the rest (laws banning assaulters, stalkers, rapers from getting guns).

[Washington Resistance Army]

So you're busy patrolling for icebergs while pirates run amok attacking ships?

You can't prevent everything. So you have to prevent what you can and safeguard against the rest (laws banning assaulters, stalkers, rapers from getting guns).

Which has been the case for a long time...

[Gig em Aggies]

The only way to stop handgun murders is to ban them, which i'm opposed to. Banning high-level weaponry has less negatives and will drastically reduce mass shootings.

What even is "High-Level Weaponry?" That is literally a term I have never heard in my life.

The correct term UCNA should have used Mujahidah is either high powered or military grade weaponry. But overall he wants to ban assault weapons for all because of the actions of one little asshat of a person. It seems UCNA doesn't know that is that banning assault weapons won't stop mass murders because there's already hundreds of thousands if not millions of assault weapons in private hands already and what would an AWB do to stop someone who already owns said weapon or how will it stop someone from stealing said weapon.

[United Citizens of North America]

There was no law preventing him from owning that AR-15. If a law was passed, then he wouldn't had it in the first place. Now you cannot get one until you are 21, but I feel that there is no way to prevent shooters getting them unless they ban these guns in their entirety.

Yeah there were plenty of times this kid could have been involuntarily committed or at the very least had NICS delays put on him. But of course the government can't do anything right.

The government has its problems, but we don't worry about roads, electricity, or water (except for NA's). However, the system did fail for that kid. But the solutions that you are proposing require the same government to do the job right.

[Prosorusiya]

Just wanted to say that the first two posts in this thread sum up my feelings on the issue far more eloquently than I ever could have done on my own, and shall henceforth be referred to by myself if someone asks my opinion about it.

Frankly the whole thing makes me want to bang my head against a wall... people whose side I am, or felt I was anyhow, on descending into hypocrisy by supporting states rights to ban guns, but opposing states rights on other issues. (To clarify, I’m against states regulation of both, I try to disagree with both sides equally apparently).

Personally I’m against states rights, the only substantive way I differ from the op: I’m against open carry as jurisprudence seems to show it runs contrary to the intent of the 2nd Amendment as it was enforced originally.

And I’m frankly dismayed to find that, while other states have in my view too strict laws on guns, my state dosen’t have gun laws I think are strict enough in regards to long arms... and meanwhile nobody seems to even attempt reasonable compromises to fix the problems we have, instead responding with ideological demogogary.

[Valgora]

Yeah there were plenty of times this kid could have been involuntarily committed or at the very least had NICS delays put on him. But of course the government can't do anything right.

The government has its problems, but we don't worry about roads, electricity, or water (except for NA's). However, the system did fail for that kid. But the solutions that you are proposing require the same government to do the job right.

And your solutions involve the same government to strip away millions of Americans’ rights.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah there were plenty of times this kid could have been involuntarily committed or at the very least had NICS delays put on him. But of course the government can't do anything right.

The government has its problems, but we don't worry about roads, electricity, or water (except for NA's). However, the system did fail for that kid. But the solutions that you are proposing require the same government to do the job right.

I worry about roads and water all the time tbh, this new city water we're on is pretty much poison and it takes my states years to fix even the smallest problems with our roads.

[Gig em Aggies]

Yeah there were plenty of times this kid could have been involuntarily committed or at the very least had NICS delays put on him. But of course the government can't do anything right.

The government has its problems, but we don't worry about roads, electricity, or water (except for NA's). However, the system did fail for that kid. But the solutions that you are proposing require the same government to do the job right.

And the solutions you propose violate the constitutional rights of just about everyone just because of one guy. Your ideas are just like a monkey you pick shit up and throw it at a wall and see if it sticks but it never does.

[Gig em Aggies]

The government has its problems, but we don't worry about roads, electricity, or water (except for NA's). However, the system did fail for that kid. But the solutions that you are proposing require the same government to do the job right.

I worry about roads and water all the time tbh, this new city water we're on is pretty much poison and it takes my states years to fix even the smallest problems with our roads.

You live in Flint, Mich don't you?

[United Citizens of North America]

What even is "High-Level Weaponry?" That is literally a term I have never heard in my life.

The correct term UCNA should have used Mujahidah is either high powered or military grade weaponry. But overall he wants to ban assault weapons for all because of the actions of one little asshat of a person. It seems UCNA doesn't know that is that banning assault weapons won't stop mass murders because there's already hundreds of thousands if not millions of assault weapons in private hands already and what would an AWB do to stop someone who already owns said weapon or how will it stop someone from stealing said weapon.

Most of the assault rifles already out there are in the hands of good people, so i have no problem with that. But a ban in the long run will reduce deaths, because you will not be able to buy the ammo, new parts, or new guns. Prospective shooters in houses without guns would never become shooters. It is like banning Isis online. Either people are radicalised because of the "freedom" to watch isis videos, or people are not, because they cannot learn about the radicalizing beliefs of ISIS.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I worry about roads and water all the time tbh, this new city water we're on is pretty much poison and it takes my states years to fix even the smallest problems with our roads.

You live in Flint, Mich don't you?

No but I moved recently and we were on a private well before but at the new place we have city water and it's horrible

[United Citizens of North America]

And the solutions you propose violate the constitutional rights of just about everyone just because of one guy. Your ideas are just like a monkey you pick shit up and throw it at a wall and see if it sticks but it never does.

Have we ever had comprehensive gun safety laws in America? Make your point when the shit's been thrown. See if it sticks.

[Telconi]

And the only surefire way to prevent forcible penetrative rape is to surgically remove the penis of everyone...

Why don't we do that?

that is not even close to relevant.

You don't think we should prevent rape?

[Washington Resistance Army]

And the solutions you propose violate the constitutional rights of just about everyone just because of one guy. Your ideas are just like a monkey you pick shit up and throw it at a wall and see if it sticks but it never does.

Have we ever had comprehensive gun safety laws in America? Make your point when the shit's been thrown. See if it sticks.

Yeah we had the National Firearms Act and then your side decided to ban some of the guns it covered eventually anyways despite the fact that they were never used in crime.

[United Citizens of North America]

that is not even close to relevant.

You don't think we should prevent rape?

Why do you even think i said that? It was a stupid comparison to gun control. It is always one extreme or another with the right. Either you support full gun rights, or you want the govt to take the guns. It isn't like that.

[Telconi]

You don't think we should prevent rape?

Why do you even think i said that? It was a stupid comparison to gun control. It is always one extreme or another with the right. Either you support full gun rights, or you want the govt to take the guns. It isn't like that.

You do want the government to take the guns... You have said so yourself.

[Gig em Aggies]

The correct term UCNA should have used Mujahidah is either high powered or military grade weaponry. But overall he wants to ban assault weapons for all because of the actions of one little asshat of a person. It seems UCNA doesn't know that is that banning assault weapons won't stop mass murders because there's already hundreds of thousands if not millions of assault weapons in private hands already and what would an AWB do to stop someone who already owns said weapon or how will it stop someone from stealing said weapon.

Most of the assault rifles already out there are in the hands of good people, so i have no problem with that. But a ban in the long run will reduce deaths, because you will not be able to buy the ammo, new parts, or new guns. Prospective shooters in houses without guns would never become shooters. It is like banning Isis online. Either people are radicalised because of the "freedom" to watch isis videos, or people are not, because they cannot learn about the radicalizing beliefs of ISIS.

if you read my comment fully you have seen that people who want to commit mass murder will find a way to get a gun even if they have to steal it. You do know that The deadliest school shooting in history was the massacre at Virginia Tech right? The shooter Sung We Cho used two handguns to kill all of those people. The school shooting that had about the most positive aspect was the shooting at the University of Texas clock tower where Charles Whitman used a scoped bolt action rifle to kill many people as well. Just because you ban assault weapons doesn't mean mass shootings magical disappear that's like banning money from Fatty on a Train but he still gets money or like wishing unicorns existed or that I would get a beautiful girl who likes me but none of those came true. Wishful thinking won't solve anything.

[United Citizens of North America]

Have we ever had comprehensive gun safety laws in America? Make your point when the shit's been thrown. See if it sticks.

Yeah we had the National Firearms Act and then your side decided to ban some of the guns it covered eventually anyways despite the fact that they were never used in crime.

The guns were taxed, not banned (excepting machine guns and silencers). That is not what i am talking about.

[The Two Jerseys]

The correct term UCNA should have used Mujahidah is either high powered or military grade weaponry. But overall he wants to ban assault weapons for all because of the actions of one little asshat of a person. It seems UCNA doesn't know that is that banning assault weapons won't stop mass murders because there's already hundreds of thousands if not millions of assault weapons in private hands already and what would an AWB do to stop someone who already owns said weapon or how will it stop someone from stealing said weapon.

Most of the assault rifles already out there are in the hands of good people, so i have no problem with that. But a ban in the long run will reduce deaths, because you will not be able to buy the ammo, new parts, or new guns.

Enlighten us, what sort of special "assault rifle" ammo do these "assault rifles" use?

Prospective shooters in houses without guns would never become shooters.

Unless they become shooters with handguns and hunting rifles...

It is like banning Isis online. Either people are radicalised because of the "freedom" to watch isis videos, or people are not, because they cannot learn about the radicalizing beliefs of ISIS.

And yet people still join ISIS...

[United Citizens of North America]

if you read my comment fully you have seen that people who want to commit mass murder will find a way to get a gun even if they have to steal it. You do know that The deadliest school shooting in history was the massacre at Virginia Tech right? The shooter Sung We Cho used two handguns to kill all of those people. The school shooting that had about the most positive aspect was the shooting at the University of Texas clock tower where Charles Whitman used a scoped bolt action rifle to kill many people as well. Just because you ban assault weapons doesn't mean mass shootings magical disappear that's like banning money from Fatty on a Train but he still gets money or like wishing unicorns existed or that I would get a beautiful girl who likes me but none of those came true. Wishful thinking won't solve anything.

You are not going to end mass shootings, but you can reduce the likelihood. It is not wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is supporting the status quo and thinking this will stop by doing nothing.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah we had the National Firearms Act and then your side decided to ban some of the guns it covered eventually anyways despite the fact that they were never used in crime.

The guns were taxed, not banned (excepting machine guns and silencers). That is not what i am talking about.

Yeah, they were regulated and then your side later banned them anyways. Shit like that is why we don't come to the table anymore.

[Valgora]

if you read my comment fully you have seen that people who want to commit mass murder will find a way to get a gun even if they have to steal it. You do know that The deadliest school shooting in history was the massacre at Virginia Tech right? The shooter Sung We Cho used two handguns to kill all of those people. The school shooting that had about the most positive aspect was the shooting at the University of Texas clock tower where Charles Whitman used a scoped bolt action rifle to kill many people as well. Just because you ban assault weapons doesn't mean mass shootings magical disappear that's like banning money from Fatty on a Train but he still gets money or like wishing unicorns existed or that I would get a beautiful girl who likes me but none of those came true. Wishful thinking won't solve anything.

You are not going to end mass shootings, but you can reduce the likelihood. It is not wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is supporting the status quo and thinking this will stop by doing nothing.

Wishful think is think that a band-aid solution will solve the problem.
A car can easily be used as a deadly weapon - remember Nice, France. And don’t forget about explosives.

[Telconi]

You are not going to end mass shootings, but you can reduce the likelihood. It is not wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is supporting the status quo and thinking this will stop by doing nothing.

Wishful think is think that a band-aid solution will solve the problem.
A car can easily be used as a deadly weapon - remember Nice, France. And don’t forget about explosives.

Doesn't matter as long as they aren't shot it's cool!

[United Citizens of North America]

The guns were taxed, not banned (excepting machine guns and silencers). That is not what i am talking about.

Yeah, they were regulated and then your side later banned them anyways. Shit like that is why we don't come to the table anymore.

Regulation of guns doesn't do much. People can slip under the lines. And we haven't banned them, because as you can see there was a shooting in Parkland about a month ago. Don't blame "our side", try to win me over. Why should i support gun rights?