• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet in the case of Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza walked into his mother's home and walked out with the weapons he needed.

And yet you're ignoring the fact that his mother herself was deeply mentally disturbed. She amassed a huge number of weapons and ammunition preparing for "The end times" which she saw as coming soon. She was a survivalist who fed her paranoia into her children, which arguably lead to Adam Lanza becoming what he became.
 
And yet you're ignoring the fact that his mother herself was deeply mentally disturbed. She amassed a huge number of weapons and ammunition preparing for "The end times" which she saw as coming soon. She was a survivalist who fed her paranoia into her children, which arguably lead to Adam Lanza becoming what he became.

So what your saying is that the problem is mental health...
 
i-dXBjSvG-950x10000.jpg
 
Your Anders Breiviks will still exist, but your George Zimmermans, your Adam Lanzas, and your random neighborhood burglars won't be able to kill, if you don't make guns so easily accessible (legally or otherwise).

You are deeply delusional if you believe that by banning semi-automatic weapons it will prevent shootings like Lanza and Zimmerman's shootings from happening. You can make things harder to obtain, but as long as a person can buy a gun (any gun) legally there are going to be shootings. I honestly can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading in this thread. This regulation is an empty gesture. People are acting like Obama has shoved an olive branch up the NRA's ass.
 
And yet you're ignoring the fact that his mother herself was deeply mentally disturbed. She amassed a huge number of weapons and ammunition preparing for "The end times" which she saw as coming soon. She was a survivalist who fed her paranoia into her children, which arguably lead to Adam Lanza becoming what he became.

If that qualifies people as insane, that is going to make for a ridiculously broad set of restrictions. I am all for including mental health in the discussion, but the way mental illness is being stigmatised and broadened to include any divergent view people don't like is getting a bit worrying.

Mental health needs to be improved, and seeking assistance needs to be normalised, not stigmatised.
 
Most of these measures seems to be placebo effects aimed at his constituency rather than any kind of meaningful long term solution. Take for example background checks: they ought to be imposed in every single legal arm sale, otherwise it would be pointless, but hey, that's pre-emptive compromise Obama for you I guess.

Bonus: No mental healthcare initiative or whatsoever either.
 
Most of these measures seems to be placebo effects aimed at his constituency rather than any kind of meaningful long term solution. Take for example background checks: they ought to be imposed in every single legal arm sale, otherwise it would be pointless, but hey, that's pre-emptive compromise Obama for you I guess.

Bonus: No mental healthcare initiative or whatsoever either.

Yeah well the last time they tried to touch healthcare half the country shit its collective pants.
 
Most of these measures seems to be placebo effects aimed at his constituency rather than any kind of meaningful long term solution. Take for example background checks: they ought to be imposed in every single legal arm sale, otherwise it would be pointless, but hey, that's pre-emptive compromise Obama for you I guess.

Bonus: No mental healthcare initiative or whatsoever either.

They are going to be imposed on every legal sale?
 
You are deeply delusional if you believe that by banning semi-automatic weapons it will prevent shootings like Lanza and Zimmerman's shootings from happening. You can make things harder to obtain, but as long as a person can buy a gun (any gun) legally there are going to be shootings. I honestly can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading in this thread. This regulation is an empty gesture. People are acting like Obama has shoved an olive branch up the NRA's ass.
Lol. See this is why we barely have any regs now. You seem to be under the impression that laws are designed to prevent *all* crime. They aren't. Never have never will. You have no solutions except "derp shootings happen regardless so fuck trying to do something".
 
What we want to do, at least, is stop the people who don't *really* want a gun. We want to stop someone from buying guns for their (prohibited) friends because it is so easy and casual, with not even a background check. We want to stop the casual gun owners who don't protect their guns and have them easily stolen by criminals. Get rid of the loopholes and require effective background checks, stop making it so easy to get guns that you'd practically have to go out of your way to avoid them, and we'll cut down on the number that reach the wrong hands.

And keep in mind, guns in the hands of such casual owners, who would be stopped by background checks or possibly training checks (not sure on that), does no good. They are not prepared to use them properly. But it does harm. Because they give them to bad people and have them stolen by bad people.

+++1

One thing that never gets discussed is the HUGE illegal gun market out there.
 
Lol. See this is why we barely have any regs now. You seem to be under the impression that laws are designed to prevent *all* crime. They aren't. Never have never will. You have no solutions except "derp shootings happen regardless so fuck trying to do something".

I've never claimed to have any solutions. It's not my job. I think this is a widespread cultural and mental health issue. I never said that laws are designed to prevent all crime. I said that these measures will not prevent gun violence or shootings and they won't. As the other poster said (and I stated the same thing earlier in this thread), these are empty gestures. Nothing can be done so something has to be done no matter how inane that something ends up being.
 
I've never claimed to have any solutions. It's not my job. I think this is a widespread cultural and mental health issue. I never said that laws are designed to prevent all crime. I said that these measures will not prevent gun violence or shootings and they won't. As the other poster said (and I stated the same thing earlier in this thread), these are empty gestures. Nothing can be done so something has to be done no matter how inane that something ends up being.

"Nothing can be done", do you honestly believe that?
 
"Nothing can be done", do you honestly believe that?

No, nothing can be done. Outside of making guns and gun ownership completely illegal. It's kind of funny how his regulation targets semi-automatic weapons when most gun deaths are attributed to shotguns and handguns.
 
Well, I'll feel safer then if a law like this is passed when all the law abiding citizens and especially law abiding criminals do what these parties always do, and follow the law.
 
You are deeply delusional if you believe that by banning semi-automatic weapons it will prevent shootings like Lanza and Zimmerman's shootings from happening. You can make things harder to obtain, but as long as a person can buy a gun (any gun) legally there are going to be shootings. I honestly can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading in this thread. This regulation is an empty gesture. People are acting like Obama has shoved an olive branch up the NRA's ass.
Guns are not hard to obtain in Europe as well. But all the waiting time and paperwork make them undesirable for most people. Mental checks and psychological evaluation help prevent unstable persons to easily obtain a gun. That's all that's needed. And I am strongly for firearm registration.
 
If these measures prevent even one gun murder, aren't they worth it?

I'm going to say no.

Not because there's necessarily anything inherently wrong with these specific measures, but because that line of faulty logic can be used to justify literally anything.
 
I don't torture myself with hypotheticals. Do not be surprised if you see violent crime and gun murders rise after these measures are taken.

This makes no sense at all. And you just said no change can happen? Suddenly a change for the worse is imminent after these regulations?
 
If that shotgun has a barrel length of less than 18 inches or an overall length of less than 26 with the stock folded, you are a felon.

I wouldn't be putting that in print very often. Ms. Napolitano's "See Something, Say Something" program might catch up with you.

If the barrel's less than 18", you got trouble there.

*facepalms at daw840*
Lol. It's not. It's exactly 18 inches. I had it checked out at the gun shop. Also not less than 26 folded.
 
I've never claimed to have any solutions. It's not my job.
Well don't you think maybe you should start coming up with some solutions, guy?
I mean, someone who can state repeatedly and absolutely that these laws will not do anything and zero crimes or deaths will be prevented obviously has so much more insight than the rest of us.
 
Third, Australia had 1/100th the amount of firearms America has. In 1996, one of their worst years for homicides. They totaled a whopping 516. Thats right. 16 more than Chicago alone. Since the BUY-BACK PROGRAM, which America already has in various states. They average 300. Not since gun control, not since gun bans.

Australia has nearly ten times the population as Chicago. Using absolute numbers is irrelevant, you're looking for homicides by firearm per capita (you problem won't like it, though, because it won't fit your argument).
 
I'm actually quite pro gun. Just not 'any & all regulation = bad' like yourself and Bornstellar. That's the same group that believes Sandy Hook was an anti-gun conspiracy, btw. Good company to keep.

Fun how that works. I'm also anti-gun, apparently. Guess I'll have to take off my shooting badges next time I'm in full dress uniforms. :(
 
Wouldn't research on the impact of violent video games on children fall under the wheelhouse of the NIH instead of the CDC?
 
The amount of money that has come into the gun industry since these talks started is insane. They should start a rumor about banning something new every month, economy would be booming.

Im perfectly ok with them fixing the gun show loophole, and stricter background checks, but are they going to look into peoples private files skipping doctor patient confidentiality?
 
The amount of money that has come into the gun industry since these talks started is insane. They should start a rumor about banning something new every month, economy would be booming.

Im perfectly ok with them fixing the gun show loophole, and stricter background checks, but are they going to look into peoples private files skipping doctor patient confidentiality?

Yea I'm not okay with background checks creeping into my mental health care. I'm making an effort to get over PTSD, that does not make me a potential serial killer.
 
I'm actually quite pro gun. Just not 'any & all regulation = bad' like yourself and Bornstellar. That's the same group that believes Sandy Hook was an anti-gun conspiracy, btw. Good company to keep.

HA_HA_HA%2C_OH_WOW.jpg


I'm not saying all regulation is bad. I am, however, questioning the validity of some of these measures and others like them with respect to reducing gun violence. Ultimately though that begs the question: why is gun violence any worse than any other kind of violence?

Also, good job with the ad hominem attacks.
 
Lol. See this is why we barely have any regs now. You seem to be under the impression that laws are designed to prevent *all* crime. They aren't. Never have never will. You have no solutions except "derp shootings happen regardless so fuck trying to do something".

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books right now. Almost everything that the President mentioned yesterday is already on the books on the Federal and/or state level. We need to enforce the laws already on the books.
 
Is a .50 Desert Eagle handgun allowed for private ownership?


I've used it in a few games and Dayum!

Yes. It's much more stupid than advertised. In short, it's a great way for gun stores to make money by repeatedly selling the same firearm for an absurdly high price to whatever sucker comes along.

They're more scary looking because their ergonomics are designed to more efficiently kill other humans in combat -- vs wooden hunting rifles that are designed to kill animals.
Yeah, those wooden hunting rifles were originally designed to kill humans in combat, too. Don't kid yourself about that. They just lightened them up and de-ruggedized them so that they wouldn't be unnecessarily heavy for Grandpa Jack to lug them around from blind to blind.

And, some of those "wooden hunting rifles" now have plastic, black furniture with rails all over them as well as well. Additionally, I can put wooden furniture on an AR-15, AK-47, or FN-FAL pretty easily, or convert them to have a full stock. Some of those kits actually end up looking pretty nice.

Wouldn't a more comfortable, lighter gun be more efficient at killing than an uncofortable, heavier gun?
If this were true, the US Marine Corps would be issuing 10/22s.
 
Would you rather be the victim of fist violence or gun violence?

One type has a much larger chance to kill than the other

Should the measure not be by damage done, then? Knives, for example, have a very high potential for lethality compared to other weapons, yet I am aware of no extra laws on the books to deter "knife-violence". Furthermore, if someone intends to inflict violence, are they going to think about the potential repercussions of using various weapons? Again, this is just for the sake of discussion, my own opinions on the matter are undetermined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom