• 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.

El Paso TX Shooting. 10+ dead.

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,261
10,419
945
Not legally. You have to register that sale and transfer the title. And you have to be licensed to operate that vehicle.

Finally, please, please, please show me a car that costs $100 that you can drive away. I'll buy it.
And 89-97% of all homicides with guns are by people who didn’t legally purchase the gun.

So we’ve established that criminals won’t follow the law right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and Teletraan1

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,193
1,775
530
I know handguns are responsible for most homicides in America. Just saying if we want to see if any changes are made and we are going to meet in the middle we have to make concessions somewhere. Handguns are obviously never going to be banned, that's just not going to happen, so what I'm trying to argue as someone who hasn't really chosen a side in this debate, give something to the gun control advocates. Give them their assault rifle ban, bump stock, large capacity mags ban. And see if it decreases mass shootings.

Then we go from there.
Again if it doesn't, will we reverse those laws or just look for more to add? You and I both know the answer to that question. That is the reason 2a advocates hare no longer budging. They have given over and over and there is always more for them to give. There is never any compromise on the gun control side. What will the gun control side give up as a compromise?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Think about it. If the city of Chicago bans guns, but the counties and states outside of Chicago don't, guns can easily still be taken into Chicago. This is happening now
So you're simply admitting that gun control measures don't work, no matter how restrictive. Therefore, we shouldn't bother with them and should let citizens have access to guns so they can defend themselves against gang violence and gov't oppression. Even the Black Panthers understood this:



There's also the fact that most gun crimes are committed with illegal handguns, so I don't see how gun laws against "scary mass murder assault wepaons" would somehow change that.

No. Because if every corner of this country was on the same page (as well as manufacturers domestic or import), that would change the availability of weapons reaching criminal hands.
So we should just completely remove guns from the continent. Well, at least you're being open about your anti-constitutional stance. 🤷‍♀️

Semi-auto handguns were banned not that long ago. Why do people need them?
Where were semi-automatic handguns banned? They remain legal as far as I know.
 
Last edited:

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,261
10,419
945
So you're simply admitting that gun control measures don't work, no matter how restrictive. Therefore, we shouldn't bother with them and should let citizens have access to guns so they can defend themselves against gang violence and gov't oppression. Even the Black Panthers understood this:



There's also the fact that most gun crimes are committed with illegal handguns, so I don't see how gun laws against "scary mass murder assault wepaons" would somehow change that.


So we should just completely remove guns from the continent. Well, at least you're being open about your anti-constitutional stance. 🤷‍♀️
Also we did things just like this with Alcohol and Drugs. And it didn’t work at all. Idk why it will with guns
 
Jun 26, 2018
2,028
1,288
380
Milwaukee, WI
Also we did things just like this with Alcohol and Drugs.
Wrong. As I stated in another thread, one of Trump's stated goals was to reduce the number of opiates prescribed which in turn reduces the overall amount of opiates available on the street.

His logic is that the fewer opiates, the fewer overdoses. And he's right.

Why *not* do the same thing with guns?
 

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,261
10,419
945
Yes. Which is why I'm making the point that it's ludicrous to make guns EASIER to lawfully purchase than a fucking car.
But it’s not. You can easily purchase a car, with cash, and drive away. Plenty of people everyday are members of an accident involving a non registered and uninsured driver.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,261
10,419
945
Wrong. As I stated in another thread, one of Trump's stated goals was to reduce the number of opiates prescribed which in turn reduces the overall amount of opiates available on the street.

His logic is that the fewer opiates, the fewer overdoses. And he's right.

Why *not* do the same thing with guns?
Because “the right to bear opiates shall not be infringed upon” isn’t a right?
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Also we did things just like this with Alcohol and Drugs. And it didn’t work at all. Idk why it will with guns
Because banning guns is how the government gets complete control over citizens.

Gun control = citizen control.

Notice that politicians walk around everywhere with armed guards? Why aren't they calling them scary?



Unless they decide to ditch the guards, citizens should have the same rights that they do.
 
Last edited:

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
Semi-auto handguns were banned not that long ago. Why do people need them?
Who am I to tell a girl who has a crazy ex boyfriend or husband or a stalker that they can't carry around a pistol for protection and to make them feel safe? Or tell someone who lives in a crime ridden or gang riddled area who has to walk home from work at night through dangerous neighborhoods that they can't carry a pistol for protection?

I don't think that's right either. I can see it from both sides, but I do think people should have the right to protect themselves efficiently if they need it.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Damage Inc

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
So you're simply admitting that gun control measures don't work, no matter how restrictive. Therefore, we shouldn't bother with them and should let citizens have access to guns so they can defend themselves against gang violence and gov't oppression. Even the Black Panthers understood this:
Bad work on the spin there. It's easy to buy a fuckton of guns in Indiana and drive it to Chicago and sell them illegally. If Indiana and surrounding states had the same Chicago laws, there would be less guns in Chicago, because people would have to put more effort into getting them. But right now it's easy and cheap because there's a ton of supply flowing in.

There's also the fact that most gun crimes are committed with illegal handguns, so I don't see how gun laws against "scary mass murder assault wepaons" would somehow change that.

So we should just completely remove guns from the continent. Well, at least you're being open about your anti-constitutional stance. 🤷‍♀️
I don't want the government to engage in truly horrible policies to keep guns out of Chicago. I myself like guns and have friends who do too, but we need more basic restrictions from a national level.
 

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
210
54
495
Actually, you brought up a great point. We have people dying from opiates EVERY DAY. And one of the goals from President Trump's opiate task force was specifically to reduce demand and over prescription of the drugs. He doesn't blame other factors or claim personal responsibility. He readily acknowledges the objective is to reduce the number of the dangerous drugs by reducing access.

So why not use the same logic for guns?
Well one reason is that drugs can be addictive while guns are not. But beyond that? Prohibition never seems to work for those determined not to feel as evidenced by all the narcotics on the streets. People do all sorts of things to get high if they are having trouble coping with life, and increasingly are just ending it entirely.

In the same vein, my argument is that the sentiment behind these mass-shootings and other things will continue to cause destruction regardless of the presence of guns. The desperate, keenly misanthropic, self-destructive, desire is ultimately what is killing people. The feeling that taking another's life is worth more than building their own. In some sense drugs are just that violence turned inward.

The drug epidemic and the violence we've seen I would say comes from the same disillusioned place, and will continue until the underlying elements are addressed. Guns are also a right and we should protect those because we almost never get them back. I believe we can fix our problems and still maintain them.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
But it’s not. You can easily purchase a car, with cash, and drive away. Plenty of people everyday are members of an accident involving a non registered and uninsured driver.
Well it sucks because you have to avoid the police getting behind you as well.

With what happens with non-registered or insurance carrying drivers can be a ton of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConnorDuffy1977

Cucked SoyBoy

Member
Dec 18, 2018
445
606
280
Bad work on the spin there. It's easy to buy a fuckton of guns in Indiana and drive it to Chicago and sell them illegally. If Indiana and surrounding states had the same Chicago laws, there would be less guns in Chicago, because people would have to put more effort into getting them. But right now it's easy and cheap because there's a ton of supply flowing in.

If "guns from Indiana" were the problem, then Indiana towns would be slaughterhouses too. There's just something different about Chicago's population that causes them to be more likely to shoot each other. It's not the guns.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
But it’s not. You can easily purchase a car, with cash, and drive away. Plenty of people everyday are members of an accident involving a non registered and uninsured driver.
Can confirm this.

Hell, I will say I'm more scared of drivers in my city than any gun. How some of these people ever got a driver's license and are allowed on the road completely blows my mind.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Bad work on the spin there. It's easy to buy a fuckton of guns in Indiana and drive it to Chicago and sell them illegally.
Definte "a fuckton"; Define "easy".

But you've already said they're selling them illegally, so it sounds like Chicago should be cracking down on gang activity, not on guns in particular. Chicago has had numerous buybacks yet their rate of violence has not decreased.

If Indiana and surrounding states had the same Chicago laws, there would be less guns in Chicago, because people would have to put more effort into getting them. But right now it's easy and cheap because there's a ton of supply flowing in.
This is a baseless assumption on your part, because they could come in from Michigan, or Indiana, especially when you consider that Chicago is right on the water.

But gun violence is nothing new in Chicago, despite changing gun laws and changing parties. Perhaps it isn't the laws that need to be changed....

I don't want the government to engage in truly horrible policies to keep guns out of Chicago. I myself like guns and have friends who do too, but we need more basic restrictions from a national level.
Define "truly horrible policies". Chicago (and the whole state of Illinois) already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the USA. WHy do you expect that "more basic restrictions from a national level" would have any impact? This is wishful thinking, at best. Your ideas don't work and your only retort is to try your same ideas, but to make them more restrictive and to try them at a larger scale.

Recipe for disaster.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
Again if it doesn't, will we reverse those laws or just look for more to add? You and I both know the answer to that question. That is the reason 2a advocates hare no longer budging. They have given over and over and there is always more for them to give. There is never any compromise on the gun control side. What will the gun control side give up as a compromise?
What more laws can or would realistically be added though? There will never be enough support in this country in congress to ban all guns, that is never going to happen. So I do get the precedent argument that if a precedent is set, they can keep taking more and more away, but realistically what else do you think would be banned after that? Pistols will never realistically be banned. Hunting rifles won't be banned. Shotguns maybe at most?
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2014
2,675
1,374
670
P-Town
Bad work on the spin there. It's easy to buy a fuckton of guns in Indiana and drive it to Chicago and sell them illegally. If Indiana and surrounding states had the same Chicago laws, there would be less guns in Chicago, because people would have to put more effort into getting them. But right now it's easy and cheap because there's a ton of supply flowing in.



I don't want the government to engage in truly horrible policies to keep guns out of Chicago. I myself like guns and have friends who do too, but we need more basic restrictions from a national level.
We can continue your thought experiment and extrapolate further. Once we ban all the guns in the US only the criminals will have them. Along with that we will begin to see gun smuggling take off. The cartels will start importing weapons into the US along with drugs and the violence will continue.

Essentially what we see with drugs today would become the gun market tomorrow. I don't want the criminals in charge of either of those markets personally.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
If "guns from Indiana" were the problem, then Indiana towns would be slaughterhouses too. There's just something different about Chicago's population that causes them to be more likely to shoot each other. It's not the guns.
The most important thing is that they can buy illegal guns effortlessly in unlimited supply to keep their gang turf wars going. It's way easier to pull a trigger than to have knife or C4 wars.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Instead of banning guns, why don't we go after the gangs who use them? 🤔

What are these gangs doing in America that is so productive and worth the 50+ kill count each weekend? 🤔

If America went after gangs, expect the national homicide rate to drop exponentially.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
We can continue your thought experiment and extrapolate further. Once we ban all the guns in the US only the criminals will have them. Along with that we will begin to see gun smuggling take off. The cartels will start importing weapons into the US along with drugs and the violence will continue.

Essentially what we see with drugs today would become the gun market tomorrow. I don't want the criminals in charge of either of those markets personally.
I don't want guns totally banned. I want supply to criminals or the weirdos limited. We can find a way to better do that. It won't be perfect, but what we have isn't enough.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
Instead of banning guns, why don't we go after the gangs who use them? 🤔

What are these gangs doing in America that is so productive and worth the 50+ kill count each weekend? 🤔
But we already do go after them hard. Chicago spends a ton of public money on policing, and has strong grass roots. You're not in favor of helping people directly with tax dollars, so I'll rule that out.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
But we already do go after them hard. Chicago spends a ton of public money on policing, and has strong grass roots. You're not in favor of helping people directly with tax dollars, so I'll rule that out.
And you're telling me nothing is working after all these years?

How much does Switzerland, Iceland and Japan pay to keep gangs from showing up in their cities? America, a dramatically wealthier nation, should easily crush them.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
2,028
1,288
380
Milwaukee, WI
You can easily purchase a car, with cash, and drive away.
Show me where you can easily purchase a car with cash and drive it away. You're delusional. No car lot is going to sell the car without transferring the deed. And no, there are not tons of people with driveable cars on their lawn waiting to be sold.

WTF?
 
Apr 18, 2014
2,675
1,374
670
P-Town
I don't want guns totally banned. I want supply to criminals or the weirdos limited. We can find a way to better do that. It won't be perfect, but what we have isn't enough.
I caught that part of your post after I replied and I definitely agree with you there. I am not sure how to get there at this point given we have millions of firearms both legal and illegal in this country.

I personally think it will involve some combination of gun law reform and mental health reform but I think addressing the mental health issues has to come first. I don't see any issue with tighter restrictions on firearms access and I think requiring a renewable license like we have for driving would help too.

At the end of the day if someone wants to commit murder bad enough, they are going to find a way.
 
Apr 18, 2014
2,675
1,374
670
P-Town
Show me where you can easily purchase a car with cash and drive it away. You're delusional. No car lot is going to sell the car without transferring the deed. And no, there are not tons of people with driveable cars on their lawn waiting to be sold.

WTF?
I've legally sold 2 cars on craigslist and it really is this fucking easy. Thankfully neither of the people I sold them to turned out to be psychopaths that wanted to use them to murder people as far as I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Musky_Cheese

Cucked SoyBoy

Member
Dec 18, 2018
445
606
280
The most important thing is that they can buy illegal guns effortlessly in unlimited supply to keep their gang turf wars going. It's way easier to pull a trigger than to have knife or C4 wars.

You're not getting it. If just having guns available was causing the slaughter, then Indiana towns would be getting shot up too. Since Chicago is orders of magnitude worse than any Indiana town, then the guns aren't the problem. The people are.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
Definte "a fuckton"; Define "easy".

But you've already said
I already covered all of this.

Define "truly horrible policies". Chicago (and the whole state of Illinois) already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the USA. WHy do you expect that "more basic restrictions from a national level" would have any impact? This is wishful thinking, at best. Your ideas don't work and your only retort is to try your same ideas, but to make them more restrictive and to try them at a larger scale.

Recipe for disaster.
Um dude. I already explained all of this. I'm not here to play tag.

We need more gun laws at a national level.

You say that anything won't work or be practical, but I say that we have plenty of room to try had we the green light to do so.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
I already covered all of this.
Define "truly horrible policies". Chicago (and the whole state of Illinois) already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the USA. WHy do you expect that "more basic restrictions from a national level" would have any impact? This is wishful thinking, at best. Your ideas don't work and your only retort is to try your same ideas, but to make them more restrictive and to try them at a larger scale.

Recipe for disaster.
[/QUOTE]

Um dude. I already explained all of this. I'm not here to play tag.

We need more gun laws at a national level.

You say that anything won't work or be practical, but I say that we have plenty of room to try had we the green light to do so.
[/QUOTE]
You haven't explained it, especially when the plain facts of the situation contradict your assertions. Ratcheting up more of the failed gun laws is a recipe for disaster, and Democrat megacities are proof of it. If we cannot effectively police cities, how are we going to police an entire country? The idea is nonsensical.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,193
1,775
530
What more laws can or would realistically be added though? There will never be enough support in this country in congress to ban all guns, that is never going to happen. So I do get the precedent argument that if a precedent is set, they can keep taking more and more away, but realistically what else do you think would be banned after that? Pistols will never realistically be banned. Hunting rifles won't be banned. Shotguns maybe at most?
Its called slow erosion. A call to ban hunting rifles would get you laughed out of the building right now. Lets jump 10 years into the future, and we have banned semi auto rifles. Multiple mass shooters use bolt action hunting rifles from high positions to kill multiple people. This exact scenario happened and was the worst mass shooting for 18 years. I guarantee we would hear calls to ban them.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
They can carry a revolver. They'll be just as safe.
A revolver isn't technically semi-auto, though it does shoot a round every time the trigger is pulled, the firing mechanism is just different. It holds less rounds though. It wouldn't be as effective in a mass shooting as a pistol though I will agree with that, but those were only 2 examples I gave. I still believe people should have the right to protect themselves with a pistol if they feel the need. Everyone's circumstances are different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Damage Inc

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,373
3,626
1,210
A revolver isn't technically semi-auto, though it does shoot a round every time the trigger is pulled, the firing mechanism is just different. It holds less rounds though. It wouldn't be as effective in a mass shooting as a pistol though I will agree with that, but those were only 2 examples I gave. I still believe people should have the right to protect themselves with a pistol if they feel the need. Everyone's circumstances are different.
Not for single action revolvers. Have to pull the hammer back every time. Unless you're Revolver Ocelot then it would be much harder to kill a classroom of kids or drive-by Tyrone's.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
Its called slow erosion. A call to ban hunting rifles would get you laughed out of the building right now. Lets jump 10 years into the future, and we have banned semi auto rifles. Multiple mass shooters use bolt action hunting rifles from high positions to kill multiple people. This exact scenario happened and was the worst mass shooting for 18 years. I guarantee we would hear calls to ban them.
I guess technically anything is possible, the question isn't could it, it's would it? Do you honestly think a call to ban hunting rifles would happen realistically? I don't. Again, not saying it's impossible, I just consider it highly unlikely. Charles Whitman is the only one off the top of my head I can think of that used one in a mass shooting. I'm sure there was probably a few here and there since, maybe not. But that was a unique circumstance where he had a perfect vantage point and was able to get up there and was a marksman in the military, so not only did he have the vantage point, he was a great shot. Those set of circumstances coming together are very rare, and very few people have the marksman skills or means or have the topographic means to pull off another Charles Whitman event in the future.

Again, not impossible, but unlikely. Of all the things to worry about, I don't think mass shooting via hunting rifle is even close to the top of the list. I really don't see hunting rifles ever being banned. Do you, honestly?
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,110
9,372
715
Great. We've applied the blame. How do we stop these situations from actually happening?
Some ideas, spitballed. Not meant to be comprehensive nor final.

Short term:
-immediate reform of how we deal with those identified to be violent and mentally ill. For example, the Dayton shooter had been suspended for making a hitlist, and this isn't the first time an obvious prospective shooter slipped through the cracks [parkland, etc]. Reform could include anything from increased monitoring, forced counseling, through forced incarceration by bringing back some form of mental institution.... that is, we can debate what this entails, but something significant should be done. Suspension and a drug prescription is not enough.

-publicized research on what drugs mass killers have been on, etc. If common links are found [ie, certain drug cocktails seem to result in rare, violent outbursts or disassociative behavior, we need to know. We always hear how this drug causes stuff like 'suicidal thoughts' but never hear what drugs these killers are on. Likewise, extremely rare side effects may be missed by studies but become obvious across wide distribution... but all this is kept under wraps and never reported on.

-expanded surveillance for those connected to domestic terrorism. White supremacy, gangs, antifa.... identify hotbeds and infiltrate. This should be very targeted. The second a manifesto went up in 8chan people should have been in motion. Maybe they were, but couldn't help in time, but the point remains.

-the left needs to start policing its own. White supremacy, for example, has been shunned for decades. Meanwhile, violent activity from the left does not receive the same scrutiny. We can still see calls for violence from Shaun King on twitter, for example, or the flyer from antifa with dead ice agents all over it for their upcoming protest.

-harden soft targets. I support the father who lost a daughter in Parkland who did months of combat training and got certified to protect schools. Allow teachers this opportunity. Members of churches, synagogues, and mosques should do this as well. Background, mental checks, tactical training, a sort of voluntary force to harden targets [they should also be positioned tactically at services, etc, to improve reaction time and reduce chance of friendly fire. Most shooters are seeking soft targets, don't let them have them.

-we hear all about face recognition technology. How about a security company works towards developing cameras systems that might help in identifying those approaching in armor or with long guns for early warning [auto locking doors, etc]? Not sure if this would work, just spitballing, but it seems at least somewhat possible in certain circumstances. There will be false alarms but it's worth a thought.

Long term

-readjustment of society back to a strong moral fiber and responsibility. The list of ideas for this are endless. But for example, greatly expand our focus on trade schools and rebuilding infrastructure in a way that provides training, work, responsibility, and job connections for those in need of a way out. I've discussed this in long form before, but i believe a system could be developed that helps with a lot of issues, not just this.

We need to refocus on personal responsibility, which is one of the many reasons i reject ideas like UBI. We need young men to be working. Hell, even forced service for X years might be something worth considering in certain situations [ie, as an alternative to incarceration].

Etc. As i sort of just spitballled, im sure these ideas can be debated into the ground. I'm not in a position to implement them, anyway. But it's the sort of solutions i think would actually help in a way that gun control would not.
 

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,261
10,419
945
Dude. You brought up drugs and alcohol and asked why we don't try to reduce the numbers. I showed you that Trump did just that, you say drugs and alcohol aren't a right.

This is just sad.
No sir or ma’am

I am talking about the failed policies of Prohibition and war on drugs

Show me where you can easily purchase a car with cash and drive it away. You're delusional. No car lot is going to sell the car without transferring the deed. And no, there are not tons of people with driveable cars on their lawn waiting to be sold.

WTF?
So how do people get into accidents with people who have not registered their cars and/or uninsured?


You can buy this car listed on Craigslist. And it’s up to you to go to the dmv.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
I think the more interesting aspect of it is the psychological angle. Yes, gun laws are a major point of contention, but I see a lot of people on the left just waving off mental illness as a cause, and that's not right either. Both are true, and neither should just be waved off by anyone.

America has had more serial killers than any nation in history(and many serial killers don't use guns)... hell the state of California alone has more serial killers than most entire nations. And we are up there in mass shootings. This country breeds killers. That's a problem. The question is why?

A lot of people say "Oh, it's only a gun problem because all nations have depression and anxiety issues and they don't have as many mass shootings" and that's true. But they also don't have as many killers in general.

Now, America being the 3rd most populous nation on the planet is a part of that. More people = more killings, but the ratio is still askew.

I have my theories as to why our country breeds more mental illness that equates to violence, and I'm curious as to what others think on it.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,110
9,372
715
I know handguns are responsible for most homicides in America. Just saying if we want to see if any changes are made and we are going to meet in the middle we have to make concessions somewhere. Handguns are obviously never going to be banned, that's just not going to happen, so what I'm trying to argue as someone who hasn't really chosen a side in this debate, give something to the gun control advocates. Give them their assault rifle ban, bump stock, large capacity mags ban. And see if it decreases mass shootings.

Then we go from there.
Handguns are used in twice as many mass shootings as long guns. Exact statistics vary, because what we define as mass shooting is so varied [ie, do we include a domestic muder/suicide, or a gang related drive by]. But i believe this is true for what most people consider a mass shooting and seems to be the general consensus across sites.




 

Damage Inc

Member
Nov 10, 2013
4,512
2,347
760
Show me where you can easily purchase a car with cash and drive it away. You're delusional. No car lot is going to sell the car without transferring the deed. And no, there are not tons of people with driveable cars on their lawn waiting to be sold.

WTF?
You are pretty thick aren't you. First there is no use for Semi-Autos and now you can't easily buy a car from someone for cheap when they have title in hand and sign a private bill of sale. Guess what, I bought a car like that and sold one too. Hell you can buy a car on ebay.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
Handguns are used in twice as many mass shootings as long guns. Exact statistics vary, because what we define as mass shooting is so varied [ie, do we include a domestic muder/suicide, or a gang related drive by]. But i believe this is true for what most people consider a mass shooting and seems to be the general consensus across sites.




Handguns are responsible for more deaths period. Homicides, mass shootings, etc. That is all true, yes. I'm not arguing this fact. My argument was that if we are going to have gun reform then meet in the middle first and go from there. Start with the things I listed and see where it takes us, because I don't see an all out ban on pistols as realistic.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
I don't know if anyone here has any data on this, any polls or whatever, but I believe the far far majority of Americans don't support a complete and total gun ban, yes? I believe even most on the left don't support a universal total gun ban, it's just the far far left minority. Is this true and do I have this right? It has to be something like at least 80% of Americans don't support a universal gun ban and that may even be higher like as high as 90%.

Anyone have any data on this, I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Handguns are used in twice as many mass shootings as long guns. Exact statistics vary, because what we define as mass shooting is so varied [ie, do we include a domestic muder/suicide, or a gang related drive by]. But i believe this is true for what most people consider a mass shooting and seems to be the general consensus across sites.

"3% unknown"

Those plasma rifles are getting out of control!

 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Helios

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,110
9,372
715
Handguns are responsible for more deaths period. Homicides, mass shootings, etc. That is all true, yes. I'm not arguing this fact. My argument was that if we are going to have gun reform then meet in the middle first and go from there. Start with the things I listed and see where it takes us, because I don't see an all out ban on pistols as realistic.
The issue is that meeting in the middle just results in a new middle to be met at, endlessly. If we banned long guns today, tomorrow we'd hear how handguns are even more dangerous and, worse yet, easier to hide. It's nice you don't think an all out ban on pistols is realistic, but the reality is gun control advocates have never drawn a hard line, and never can.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
The issue is that meeting in the middle just results in a new middle to be met at, endlessly. If we banned long guns today, tomorrow we'd hear how handguns are even more dangerous and, worse yet, easier to hide. It's nice you don't think an all out ban on pistols is realistic, but the reality is gun control advocates have never drawn a hard line, and never can.
I don't think all concessions necessarily lead to giving more though. I'm not saying it's a complete and total impossibility, but sometimes making a concession is just that and it does stop there. Gun control advocates can push as much as they want, it doesn't mean they'll get their way. And caving in one area doesn't mean they'll continue to get their way. There's no way a universal gun ban would ever pass in congress. I really don't believe any kind of precedent would make that realistic. Do you really think it could happen?
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
4,420
9,685
940
This is in really poor taste my dude
Indeed, exploiting the genocide of 6 million people for a theatrical photo-op to score cheap political points is absolutely in poor taste.

Trying to whip out cheap "who looks the most sincere and affected" comparisons for point scoring purposes in a thread concerning a recent atrocity is absolutely in poor taste.

Every time "same energy" has been used to make cheap, low-hanging fruit associations is absolutely in poor taste.

I'm glad we agree.