Well you have quite a few democrats out there calling republicans all kinds of names because they have the control but aren't going to do anything. I see that as hypocritical and political grand standing when the reverse was true not that long ago. Also Obama had it on his agenda and Eric Holder mentioned it as well. Nothing was even attempted until after Sandy Hook.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Let's have a discussion: Gun control
- Thread starter SatansReverence
- Start date
Well you have quite a few democrats out there calling republicans all kinds of names because they have the control but aren't going to do anything. I see that as hypocritical and political grand standing when the reverse was true not that long ago. Also Obama had it on his agenda and Eric Holder mentioned it as well. Nothing was even attempted until after Sandy Hook.
What can be done to fix it? With 300 million guns unless you take them away a person can find someone to buy one illegally and do the same thing that happend this week. Without finding out what caused this person to do it we won't solve the problem. This is not a gun issue because we can't take away the guns (unless you want to start a civil war) so either start a civil war or tackle it through mental health means would be my answer.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Ok, that's fine. So they're hypocrites. Again, how does that affect what we should do right now? Continuing to redirect to what the Dems should or shouldn't have done is a logical fallacy, an appeal to hypocrisy.
What's going to make the Republicans look better, and what's going to mean more to the victims of these tragedies: "proving" the Dems' "hypocrisy" for not making changes when they could, or actually passing some legislation to help improve the situation?
Wait, I thought the argument is that Dems didn't want to do anything? If it was on his agenda, it's not really his fault that they lost the majority before having a chance to get to it. The government can't just tackle every item on a president's agenda at the same time, that's not how it works.
Good news! That's literally what this entire thread is about.
So since we can't make it impossible for someone to obtain a weapon, we shouldn't do anything at all?
Part of gun control discussion almost always involves increasing funding for mental health treatment and adding restrictions to try to prevent mentally unstable people from purchasing firearms. "Gun control" doesn't mean "take them all away / ban them". There are innumerable suggestions and proposals of how we can reduce mass shootings and deaths by gun violence.
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand that it does not mean take them away but the issue is that with 300 million guns even if you restrict the current laws you will still have shooting with illegal guns. Once that happens what next? Restrict even further? Then the next shooting and so on until a full gun ban happens.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Jesus Christ. Stop for a second. Take a deep breath. Re-read your post. Do you realize that you are literally making up a fictional scenario where guns get banned to avoid discussing sensible regulation?
Don’t do that. Let’s talk about potential solutions instead that don’t involve banning guns. We won’t get anywhere if we keep making up paranoid hypotheticals
I agree but can you agree with me that even if we "fix" this issue all that needs to happen is 1 incident and it will continue. Do you think I'm right or wrong?
Here is my point. Illegal guns exist. Even if the problem is "fixed" there can still easily be a mass shooting. If that happens what will we be talking about?
PS I'm way better at talking than typing so sorry if I can't get my point across lol
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
We'll never fix this issue. Gun violence will always exist. All we can do is try to improve things.
I think you are wrong about your slippery slope concern, because that's the nature of slippery slope style arguments.
If we start with some sensible measures, and they don't work, then we'll try other approaches. If they do work, that doesn't mean the next step is to do the same thing, but more. More doesn't always make things better, especially if you've reached a point of diminishing returns.
See I agree with you. I ask one question though and it's the main crux of what I think is the problem. Illegal guns and the hysteria of the media. Illegal guns will always exist which means that a shooting like this can always exist which means the hysteria of the media will always exist. So even if we fix the legal problem we still have the illegal problem. Do you think the media will, if a shooting happens disclose that it was with an illegal gun and that our laws are good or will they do what they have always done and want more regulation.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Moving my discussion over to the other thread, just FYI.
Nobody knows. I don’t know. You don’t know. That’s the nature of hypotheticals. Now let’s talk about what we do know: the current system is not working very well.
TrainedRage
Banned
I would rather have a discussion about mental health in America. As I feel that's the root of the problem. Not so much guns.
TrainedRage
Banned
The Onion is a great way to garner support to back up your argument! Well done!
Musky_Cheese
Banned
Perhaps we should just wait until time travel and stop the invention of guns.
For people who think this is sarcasm... it’s not. The time travel idea would prevent these massacres. A ban would not. Otherwise bans for other items would work, and they don’t.
TrainedRage
Banned
This is not only funny but logical. If a bit cheeky ;P
Musky_Cheese
Banned
Oddly, it’s not meant to be funny.
People want solutions. I get that. However the proposed bans, lists, or checks won’t prevent these things.
A ban won’t stop criminals. It only stops non criminals from doing something. It also turns non criminals into criminals.
It may require a criminal to do more to acquire a weapon, but won’t stop them.
Last edited:
Spheyr
Banned
I believe we have more than enough laws on the books as it stands to alleviate a large amount of violence and repeat offender crimes, and further restricting firearms beyond the plethora of laws on the books from the national level down isn't the way to solve anything. People talk as though there are no laws about firearms sometimes, which proves they have very little grasp of how many there actually are, and a lot of that is a purposeful ignorance not just on their own part, but on the part of gun control enthusiasts to keep people unaware of what's already on the books so that they scream for more, more, more.
Super Mario
Banned
Are rifles the biggest problem? Or are they the source of the biggest political target?
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Are rifles the biggest problem? Or are they the source of the biggest political target?
No, not rifles specifically. A ban on rifles would be a lot like many modern TSA procedures (like removing shoes): security theater.
Handguns are far more dangerous than any of those you listed, accounting for 6,220 deaths.
Here's the full FBI data for 2007-2011:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Vicetrailia
Member
That was his point
"Assault weapons" account for barely a statistical blip on the radar versus the totemic dread they inspire.
Because of their raw capabilities. Mass fire weapons in crowds are brutal death machines. They're for wars. To get one so easily is a problem. What happened in Las Vegas, on in LA with that ex cop/vet is always a possibiliy.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
That was his point
"Assault weapons" account for barely a statistical blip on the radar versus the totemic dread they inspire.
Right. You make it sound like I intended to disagree with him on that point?
I still think there's room for discussion about restrictions on high-capacity magazines, which is more specific and doesn't fully overlap with the vague/broad definition of "assault weapon".
Last edited by a moderator:
It may not stop the most dedicated criminal, sure. But it would stop the "casual".
It's like saying a dedicated burglar would break into your house anyway, so why bother locking, or closing windows and doors?
LordRaptor
Member
That table is also excluding all "deaths by unknown guns" as assuming that they are definitely not by rifles "of any sort" when it woul be logical to assume at least some portion of that number are actually rifles.
FWIW "Unknwon firearm fatalities" are still larger than the largest listed fatality in that table.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah the argument that "welp, we can't end gun violence, so might as well not do anything at all, it's just a waste of time" is getting tired.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Somthing needs to be done, and for the americans who want a gun for self defense, hobby shooting and hunting will just have to deal with tighter restrictions.
Its not such a terrible burden for legal gun owners to not have semi automatic rifles or have to perform psychology tests.
Its not such a terrible burden for legal gun owners to not have semi automatic rifles or have to perform psychology tests.
Last edited:
Rudelord
Member
Semi-auto rifles aren't the biggest cause of firearm deaths in this country. You'd have a far easier time convincing people about handgun restrictions.
I'm not going to hand over my Mini 14 because of a lunatic who had major redflags on him and nothing was done about it.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Actually, polls show roughly half of gun owners support a ban on assault-style weapons, and 89% support preventing the mentally ill from purchasing guns
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
At least these mass semi auto rifle shootings would not happen as much and handgun shootings would go down due to stricter ownership tests, theres tests for driving a car there should be tests for owning a gun.
Vicetrailia
Member
Cars are more complicated than guns to use. But guns should get their specific useful regulations like storage, registration and other things.
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Read the op, I worded it out in a specific way for a reason.
And no, I'm not going to stand on fresh graves to push an agenda, thanks.
This is what I was getting at, anyone will tell you using a single datum will skew results usually in favour of an agenda. So, I was asking if there was any studies done that showed any correlation for or against armed guards in schools.
Now this is something I don't understand why people can't get behind.
Guns are extremely dangerous. Improper usage can and will result in death. Not only this but with proper training even proper usage could result in less deaths i.e shoot to incapacitate instead of kill or general restraint, in regards to self defence cases obviously.
Last edited:
WaterAstro
Member
Sure, handguns are a problem for the everyday crime, but getting rid of rifles will stop mass shootings. That's what we're focused on here.That was his point
"Assault weapons" account for barely a statistical blip on the radar versus the totemic dread they inspire.
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Handguns are used more often in mass shootings.
They just don't seem to gain anywhere near as much attention as ones using "assault rifles" this can squarely be blamed on sensationalist media wanting nothing more than clicks. In fact, it would be interesting to study the effects this type of media has on mass shootings, i.e is there an element of immortality gained from mass shooting and is it one of the driving factors?
Yes, it seems the very worst ones involve semi automatic rifles but on the whole they are less common than pistols.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
No one is asking you to push an agenda, or to drive an agenda using emotion. This is a topic for conversation. What a weird way to respond. I don't really know what to say to you if you think it's out of place to have an emotional response to this (or any) shooting.
As for the appropriateness of the "timing" of this discussion:
1) You created the thread.
2) I think the victims have a pretty strong say in it, and they sure aren't waiting.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.3a61d8dc4109
Yes, so while banning auto rifles would not completely solve the issue it would reduce the larger mass shootings.
Handguns mass shootings vary from 2-20 victims so handguns should have strict psychology and background tests.
ProfessorLobo
Banned
Holy shit he did start the thread haha
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Your post was nothing more than a "Oh so you don't care about the dead kids?!" shit post.
And literally in the first sentence of the OP
There is a thread for the recent shooting in Florida, take your outrage there.
When you are actually capable of having the discussion the thread calls for, then return.
Last edited:
Mohonky
Member
Are rifles the biggest problem? Or are they the source of the biggest political target?
Show me the list of mass murders in schools in the US with knives please.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Let's back up and look at what was said. You said:
And I followed up with an answer:
I didn't make any sort of suggestion or insinuiation that you didn't care about dead kids. You asked a question and I answered with an example. If anyone is bringing "outrage" to the table here, it's you by overreacting.
- The two topics are inextricably connected. There's going to be overlap in discussion. I'm already in there as well.
- I'm perfectly capable of simultaneously having emotions while also conducting a level-headed discussion.
- I've been having the discussion the thread calls for. If you think otherwise, feel free to report my posts to the mods as off-topic
ProfessorLobo
Banned
Now's not the time to have this discussion. Please let the bodies rest.
EDIT: I see now that you're trying to differentiate this from the Florida shooting for some reason, or something? Amazing.
Last edited:
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
10/10 on the lack of suggestion or insinuation.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Is this a language barrier thing? I'm genuinely confused.
What in those words makes any sort of reference implicitly or explicitly to your intentions? You unpacked: "Oh, SatansReverence doesn't care about kids" from "Oh, you mean like" ? How does that even make any sense in the context of the conversation?
"Does anyone have data about armed guards at schools?"
"You're a monster and don't even care about dead kids"
I'm just not seeing the connection.
If that's really the conclusion you came to from my post, then I apologize. I thought it was pretty clear that I was just answering your question. How could I have rephrased that so it doesn't come off that way next time?
Last edited by a moderator:
Why only US schools?
Mohonky
Member
Becauss the posters graphic is US centric.
It tries to make the point that people should be as equally concerned about knives, hands / feet etc when discussing gun control.
If that were true, why is it that when guns are available, that guns are the chosen method to inflict mass casualties? Why not just go with knives instead?
The graphic wasn't about schools or mass killings.
appaws
Banned
First of all, I didn't mean to offend you in any way. I'm not a resetera-type person who wants to kill all 'deplorables'. I disagree with people like you, but I think change can only come from understanding each other. So I live by my word, asking you how you got to where you are. No 'gotya!' intended.
That said, I still don't understand how you can claim it's 'perfectly rational' to think of the government as your enemy. Culd you elaborate on that? What did the government do to you? And please don't cite historical happenings - I'm from Germany, but citing the Nazis as a reason to distrust today's German government would be crazy.
Btw. I'm catholic, too, so we have that in common at least
You can't just eliminate history as a consideration. Within the last century, your own country went from being the most liberal and progressive state in the west to a brutally rapacious murdering dictatorship....all within a few years. History matters.
Anyway, the current German government is not any more untrustworthy than any other I guess, not that I am an expert in European politics or anything. But I guess that is up to you as a German national to decide.
American history gives us a different cultural "DNA" than European nations. We have the particular circumstances surrounding our colonial status and then break with the British...our unique creation as a group of smaller states that retain a lot of sovereign power over their own affairs, our history of spreading west against often hostile indigenous peoples, and our diversity though immigration, and the Bill of Rights....which is incredibly unique as a declaration of negative rights, or things that the government cannot do to us as citizens. We can't be punished for having an opinion, no matter how odious, and we can't be forced into a state church, or have our homes searched without a warrant, or be disarmed.
But anyway, the exact reason that document was created was because our founders knew that we could not trust the government. The constitution was headed towards being voted down if not for the promise of a Bill of Rights being added. Because governments are made up of PEOPLE, and not angels. And people can be wonderful, but also selfish, stupid, corrupt, careless, thoughtless, and even violent. That is why a free people will only remain free as long as they are armed and vigilant.
I'm sure 100% of people support preventing the mentally ill from purchasing guns. The devil is in the details. Who is mentally ill, and how do we make sure that due process is protected in making that judgment? Who makes the ruling? Can it be appealed, etc.?
Now, as far as public support for a ban on "assault-style" weapons, that is a joke. The anti-gun lobby did a really great job with using terminology to convince people that these were "machine guns" that we are talking about. (And the liberty hating Josh Sugarmann specifically admits this in his book.) Ask people if small-caliber semi-automatic rifles should be banned....say goodbye to that phony statistic about "half of gun owners."