Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Painisia]

Its ok to have a small handgun at your home. What is not OK is to walk around the streets with a minigun fully-charged.

[Manokan Republic]

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.

And muskets weren't for killing people?

They can't kill people at the same rate s today. I am not talking about "weapons of war" Valgora, I am talking about the ability to quickly slaughter a crowd with a semi-automatic or automatic weapon.

First, cannons existed at the time, that could shoot explosive rounds or spray out grape shot (that is the equivalent of hundreds of shotgun rounds), and thus could mow down 50 people at a time. In fact, trebuchets and catapults existed over 1000 years before cannons, and they could rain down lots of little darts or rocks and kill dozens at a time as well. They idea that mass killing weapons didn't exist until recently is rather silly. It's still legal to own a cannon to this day, and George washington explicitly hoped that the average citizen would be able to have a cannon, so they could call upon them if needed, when the country might need to defend itself.

Secondly, lots of other weapons are more deadly than firearms, and have far less regulations or are easier to obtain. For example a felon can legally own a car or fly a plane, or buy gasoline and pesticides. The deadliest mass shooting in the world killed 67, however a truck attack killed 86 and injured 458, an Arson killed 400 and injured unknown hundreds, a bombing killed 796 and injured over 1500, a mass poisoning killed 900, and 9/11 killed over 3000 and injured over 6000. Plane hijacking regularly kill over 150 people, bombings regularly kill over 50, but the worst shooting in the entire world killed 67, and the average kills 1.6 and injures 5. The reality is that guns, even semiautomatic one's, even rifles, are nowhere near as deadly as a fire, truck, bomb, plane, or even things like poison. And ironically handguns on average kill more than rifles, with roughly 90% of murders using handguns instead. The idea that you can't kill lots of people with other guns or weapons that didn't exist back in the day, like say fire, is not only wrong, it's flat out absurd.

As for the 1.6 killed and 5 injured figure, this is according to mass shooting tracker, which is a source widely used by people who are pro gun control, and according to them there were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870. Approximately 78 shootings between 1982 and 2012 killed over 4 people, meaning about 1-2% result in more than 4 dead, and 0 mass shootings have killed over 100 people. When you tally up the arsons, bombings, poison attacks, vehicle attacks and so on that have killed this many people, it's difficult to keep count. Banning one type of gun doesn't keep you safe, as a criminal could switch to another more deadly weapon, but guns rarely kill over 4 people and to date have never killed more than 67 people in one go by one person. Only by going after criminals do we stop crime, not one highly specific type of weapon, that isn't even the deadliest.

[Albrenia]

So other illegal things kill more people, why is that a reason for guns to be legal?

Cars and trucks are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

[Washington Resistance Army]

We absolutely did ban them, the Hughes Amendment to FOPA in 1986 banned any and all new additions to the machinegun registry established by the National Firearms Act in 1934 despite the fact that literally 1 crime was committed with a legal MG in that time. When the anti-gun side pulls shit like that why should anyone come to the table and try to "compromise"?

Actually, that shooting happened AFTER Hughes, in 1988.

I know the case you're referring to, though I've also heard of one case in the 1960's of a doctor killing his wife or someone with a registered MG too. Needless to say it was an amazingly small number and the ban was not justified.

[Kernen]

So other illegal things kill more people, why is that a reason for guns to be legal?

Cars and trucks are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

It's a demonstration as to why restrictions on firearms will not reduce deaths in the aggregate.

[Manokan Republic]

So other illegal things kill more people, why is that a reason for guns to be legal?

Cars and trucks are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

Flammable materials, poison, cars and so on are not actually illegal, and neither are certain forms of explosives or precursors to explosives. The most common explosive in the world, used in both WWI and WWII is ammonium nitrate, and it's also used as fertilizer and in cold packs. You can literally buy it by the ton at farming stores, and that's before getting in to complete explosives like tannerite.

But that's basically my point; we can't ban any of these things, and these things will go on to kill more people than guns, and in some cases already do. Gun control will have no effect even assuming we could get rid of guns (and most gun control advocates don't even want to go after handguns, which are deadlier than rifles by far), or the fact that 93% of guns used by criminals are already illegally obtained. So, with that in mind, a gun ban will effectively be useless, while wasting police resources, arresting innocent people for having bayonets on the end of their rifles or adjustable stocks like in the assault weapons ban, and ignoring the real problem. The same resources and manpower is better spent actually going after criminals, rather than arresting civilians for violations that have no impact on the lethality of a shooting, let alone a mass murder in general.

We don't have to prove why we need something, as in rights are things entitled to us, and rather that you must explain why it should be taken away, and not something that has to be defended. Your right to food or water or skateboards or whatever doesn't need to be explained, what someone needs to explain why we shouldn't have those rights or how suddenly it's more dangerous. We don't just ban things because we can, but rather only because we need to. But guns are the best weapon for self defense. A bomb, arson, a truck, and so on is more deadly than a gun, but can't reasonably be used in self defense. Burning my own house down and killing my whole family or hopping in to my truck and running over a burglar isn't exactly practical, but a gun I can keep by my bedside and use just to shoot one bad at a time. Most bullets are rather small, with the military round for example being less than a knickel (at only 4 grams), and most are under an inch in diameter, with a mighty and beefy round, the .50 cal, literally being just half an inch. Hence, bullets are really tiny and useful for taking down one guy at a time, where as arson or the like is actually a legitimate weapon of mass destruction. Ironically such a thing can't even be banned, so we're stuck with the consequences. The solution is not weapon control or banning anything, but rather helping the mentally ill so they don't snap and go crazy, and improving law enforcement capabilities to catch criminals before crime happens, rather than hope he kills slightly less people by using a different weapon. What do you prefer, slightly less people dead, or no dead people at all? Even if a killer changed weapons and even if it killed less people, that's not really a solution, it's a band-aid that ignores the fundamental problems of crime. I've said it before and I'll say it again, as many times as need's to be said; focus on criminals, not one highly specific form of weapon.

[Washington Resistance Army]

One thing we should seriously look into that isn't related to guns but could probably help is prescription drugs. Something like 99% of mass shooters take shit like Prozac and other nonsense that has a nice long list of side effects like causing violent behavior and homicidal urges.

Of course Big Pharma would never stand for that.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So other illegal things kill more people, why is that a reason for guns to be legal?

None of those things are illegal.

Cars and trucks are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

Guns are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

[Torrocca]

True, but we still ought to not spit in their faces (like some people have been doing, even on this very site) for being kids outraged at a horrific event and wanting change. We'd be best off trying to work with them, get them to see that they need to attack the core issues and not guns, and work more rationally toward that goal so we can make society safer without creating even more potential slavery and tyranny.

We should try to be understanding but at the same time, they’re not in the right mindset for rationality to win them over. Maybe once they’ve finished grieving properly.

Oh yeah, absolutely. I've no doubts the shooting itself is still seriously affecting them, hence the irrationality in debating here. I wouldn't say they're 100% wrong, but they're definitely not bringing the right talking points to the table here. They're being far too reactionary and that's bad.

[Albrenia]

So other illegal things kill more people, why is that a reason for guns to be legal?

None of those things are illegal.

Cars and trucks are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

Guns are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

I'm fairly sure hijacking a plane or putting a bomb in a car are illegal, or they bloody well should be if not.

On the practical thing, in the US you are correct. I'm not actually arguing for gun control anymore, just asking why 'other stuff kills more people' is a reason to ignore it. Personally I'd like it if we put in place measures to make any sort of mass killing harder, such as installing secure bollards in vulnerable areas where a truck or car could travel down a passenger way, or things like security doors to cockpits on flights and the like (which I believe they do now).

Similarly, I think it's a little sad that the gun debate has reached the 'no compromise' state it currently is in.

[Torrocca]

Also, as a reminder, this was the sieg-heiling devilish cuntbag people were defending on here earlier because David Hogg didn't accept her apology after she acted like an asshole and then lost sponsors:

[Manokan Republic]

None of those things are illegal.

Guns are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

I'm fairly sure hijacking a plane or putting a bomb in a car are illegal, or they bloody well should be if not.

On the practical thing, in the US you are correct. I'm not actually arguing for gun control anymore, just asking why 'other stuff kills more people' is a reason to ignore it. Personally I'd like it if we put in place measures to make any sort of mass killing harder, such as installing secure bollards in vulnerable areas where a truck or car could travel down a passenger way, or things like security doors to cockpits on flights and the like (which I believe they do now).

Similarly, I think it's a little sad that the gun debate has reached the 'no compromise' state it currently is in.

I never said ignore it, I said gun control is not the solution and neither are gun bans. Being against gun control =/= doing nothing. The fact other things kill more people is just proof that gun control won't work and is ultimately futile.

Also murder is illegal too, what we're talking about is the materials themselves. Planes and bombs are not by themselves illegal, it's how you use them, and that's the way it should be with guns. The reason why we're no compromise on most gun control is because it won't work and it will needlessly throw innocent people in prison for no benefit. Why compromise on something that has no benefit to anyone? Donald Trump however supports bumpfire stock bans for example, so compromise is happening, it's just stupid and won't accomplish anything.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

None of those things are illegal.

Guns are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

I'm fairly sure hijacking a plane or putting a bomb in a car are illegal, or they bloody well should be if not.

Of course they're illegal. Just like shooting people is illegal. Planes, cars, and explosives, however, are not.

On the practical thing, in the US you are correct. I'm not actually arguing for gun control anymore, just asking why 'other stuff kills more people' is a reason to ignore it. Personally I'd like it if we put in place measures to make any sort of mass killing harder, such as installing secure bollards in vulnerable areas where a truck or car could travel down a passenger way, or things like security doors to cockpits on flights and the like (which I believe they do now).

Similarly, I think it's a little sad that the gun debate has reached the 'no compromise' state it currently is in.

Friendly reminder that cars kill more people in accidents than guns do in homicides.

Also, as a reminder, this was the sieg-heiling devilish cuntbag people were defending on here earlier because David Hogg didn't accept her apology after she acted like an asshole and then lost sponsors:

(Image)

I don't really remember us defending her.

[Albrenia]

Friendly reminder that cars kill more people in accidents than guns do in homicides.

I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't. It's the reason why we have things like road safety laws - to try to lessen the death toll.

[Torrocca]

I'm fairly sure hijacking a plane or putting a bomb in a car are illegal, or they bloody well should be if not.

Of course they're illegal. Just like shooting people is illegal. Planes, cars, and explosives, however, are not.

On the practical thing, in the US you are correct. I'm not actually arguing for gun control anymore, just asking why 'other stuff kills more people' is a reason to ignore it. Personally I'd like it if we put in place measures to make any sort of mass killing harder, such as installing secure bollards in vulnerable areas where a truck or car could travel down a passenger way, or things like security doors to cockpits on flights and the like (which I believe they do now).

Similarly, I think it's a little sad that the gun debate has reached the 'no compromise' state it currently is in.

Friendly reminder that cars kill more people in accidents than guns do in homicides.

Also, as a reminder, this was the sieg-heiling devilish cuntbag people were defending on here earlier because David Hogg didn't accept her apology after she acted like an asshole and then lost sponsors:

(Image)

I don't really remember us defending her.

Some people did.

[Albrenia]

I don't really remember us defending her.

I think it was mainly people wanting to paint her as the victim after her apology was ignored. Not because anyone likes her, but because it would make Hogg look bad (worse?) and people seem desperate to turn him into a villain at the moment.

[Kernen]

None of those things are illegal.

Guns are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

I'm fairly sure hijacking a plane or putting a bomb in a car are illegal, or they bloody well should be if not.

On the practical thing, in the US you are correct. I'm not actually arguing for gun control anymore, just asking why 'other stuff kills more people' is a reason to ignore it. Personally I'd like it if we put in place measures to make any sort of mass killing harder, such as installing secure bollards in vulnerable areas where a truck or car could travel down a passenger way, or things like security doors to cockpits on flights and the like (which I believe they do now).

Similarly, I think it's a little sad that the gun debate has reached the 'no compromise' state it currently is in.

Why should anybody compromise.on their rights?

[Albrenia]

I'm fairly sure hijacking a plane or putting a bomb in a car are illegal, or they bloody well should be if not.

On the practical thing, in the US you are correct. I'm not actually arguing for gun control anymore, just asking why 'other stuff kills more people' is a reason to ignore it. Personally I'd like it if we put in place measures to make any sort of mass killing harder, such as installing secure bollards in vulnerable areas where a truck or car could travel down a passenger way, or things like security doors to cockpits on flights and the like (which I believe they do now).

Similarly, I think it's a little sad that the gun debate has reached the 'no compromise' state it currently is in.

Why should anybody compromise.on their rights?

A fair question. Obviously one would need to be very careful, but surely there are some measures which don't infringe directly on rights but help to reduce the likelihood of some madman shooting up a school or concert. The whole background checks thing seems like one such measure.

Anyway, I've gotta go for a few hours so if I don't answer any other questions I'm not fleeing the discussion, just getting some sleep.

[The peopls republic of Antarctica]

WE should cut down the use of guns we cant solve every problem with a AR15

[Kernen]

Why should anybody compromise.on their rights?

A fair question. Obviously one would need to be very careful, but surely there are some measures which don't infringe directly on rights but help to reduce the likelihood of some madman shooting up a school or concert. The whole background checks thing seems like one such measure.

Gun rights advocates rarely oppose such measures. Gun grabbers should be the ones compromising, since their constitutional rights are not at risk of infringement.

[Torrocca]

I don't really remember us defending her.

I think it was mainly people wanting to paint her as the victim after her apology was ignored. Not because anyone likes her, but because it would make Hogg look bad (worse?) and people seem desperate to turn him into a villain at the moment.

I mean painting a kid as more villainous than someone who's probably a Nazi is pretty fucked up.

[Sovaal]

Its ok to have a small handgun at your home. What is not OK is to walk around the streets with a minigun fully-charged.

Handguns are used more often in crime.

[Sovaal]

WE should cut down the use of guns we cant solve every problem with a AR15

And nobody is suggesting that.

[Manokan Republic]

Why should anybody compromise.on their rights?

A fair question. Obviously one would need to be very careful, but surely there are some measures which don't infringe directly on rights but help to reduce the likelihood of some madman shooting up a school or concert. The whole background checks thing seems like one such measure.

Anyway, I've gotta go for a few hours so if I don't answer any other questions I'm not fleeing the discussion, just getting some sleep.

Luckily we already have mandatory background checks in the U.S. This excludes felons, the mentally ill, domestic abusers, anyone who has been in prison for longer than a year, non U.S. citizens, and many others from owning a gun.

The problem is when someone has no background. Requiring mental health screening for all people or improving existing databases is a good step for this solution.

[Sovaal]

So other illegal things kill more people, why is that a reason for guns to be legal?

Cars and trucks are subject to restrictions and regulations, and for simple practical purposes cannot be banned.

To drive on roads vehicles are regulated. Besides that, not so much.

And because banning all guns is going to unfairly affect millions of law abiding civilians.j