What kind of shitty argument is this? I can take my car to track day and 70mph will be a hindrance. How much of a hindrance is it to reload after 10 shots? Or even 20 shots?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Would increased gun regulation have prevented Connecticut?
- Thread starter Deified Data
- Start date
- Status
What kind of shitty argument is this? I can take my car to track day and 70mph will be a hindrance. How much of a hindrance is it to reload after 10 shots? Or even 20 shots?
And yet most Americans support stronger gun control laws when you offer them specifics.
The majority of these things would be a one time cost.
We currently have security guards that are making 30-50k a year who do little more than sit around , are not trained at anything and are all close to retirement age (they are normaly teachers who are no longer really fit to teach but because of tenure laws can't be fired and are moved to these postions so they don't cause trouble in classes)
We shold have proper security no matter what. What happens if someone wants to sneak into an end school to kid nap a 3rd grader ? IT doesn't seem hard to do here in my school district. It also doesn't see hard to do in the school system my gf works at or the one in my home town where I grew up .
Proper security does more than just protect against gun crimes also.
I assumed the meeting was on campus. If not, my bad.
And yes, that's what I'm implying. If at the very least schools had some sort of armed security, like what the school board had, the shooter in CT wouldn't have gotten as far as he did.
Can you please elaborate on what gun education has to do with restricting certain weapons from sale? To reduce the chance of this happening in the future. Your analogy is a total failure, but I'm sure it works well with the rest of your fellow nra pals...
People are always going to kill. They don't need the best tools available to do so in the most efficient way. America, as I know it now, is sadly fucktarded. Its pathetic that we, as humans, have to even have a debate over this. But it is what it is
It depends on if the perp has those tart skittles or not. It could be life or death you know?
edit:
Gunfolks need to see the world outside of america. Not having weapons is perfectly fine, the governments don't round up all the people and execute them. Just reducing weapons, gets this much push back? Come the fuck on guys.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
You'll have to ask the US Surpreme Court that. Here's one of there recent rulings on the matter.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
The outright hypocrisy from the left is hilarious and sad at the same time. You guys advocate sensible drug laws, which I agree with, yet banning assault weapons will suddenly stop all violence, or at least prevent it, which there has been no data to prove.
The right to bear arms is an inalienable right to responsible Americans like freedom of speech is. It's in the very fabric of this nation, and its why no one has, or will ever be able to change the second amendment.
Please give me some conclusive evidence that banning guns lowers violence. Because banning guns from law abiding citizens in Washington DC and Chicago has not stopped gun violence.
I like shooting Assault rifles with higher capacity magazines. Basing an argument solely on "you don't need it" is retarded. The same argument could be applied to many things that are deadly.
Because you don't know shit about what the differences between "certain weapons" are.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Yea, the heavy equipment would be a one-time cost but...
...see, that's not going to get it done. When I say, "costs" I mean the costs for well-trained, active individuals. Not ACME Security that is more likely to get shot napping at their podium than to actually stop a criminal. If bullshit security costs $30k-$50k PER PERSON, how much do *real* security guards cost? And keep in mind that one won't be enough. We'd need some number per students or based on the square footage of the specific school in question.
Each security guard you add will mostly likely mean one less teacher at said school.
Agreed. It's simply a question of affordability that must be answered, IMO.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
No ones gonna...? Really?
I mean, I know UK big brother has some cameras or something but jeeze I didn't realize they had it that bad. I didn't know the second amendment is all that is keeping society afloat.
Mr_Appleby
Member
Oh god you're right. Who do they think they're going to fight- Socialists? A land invasion from Mexico?
etc. etc. I can find a million quotes about the right to own guns as a means to combat government intrusion/power.
Whether you agree with mine or Alexander Hamiltons opinion, I'd like you to cite a source where banning guns actually stops gun violence.
Bad guys will always get guns, don't punish the law abiding citizens.
And yet most Americans support stronger gun control laws when you offer them specifics.
I would fully support Background checks , felon/mentally ill , Gun registration on that list.
I would have to know what the limit they'd propose for guns would be before I say either way. I don't know why you'd ban high capacity clips. You can just cycle in more clips its not like that's time consuming . I also don't think semi automatic guns need to be banned.
I would certainly also approve of hardware that would lock your gun to you if it would actually work as it does in the movies. I'd also be okay with some type of ammo being banned .
I'm fine with backround checks and time constraints when buying.
I'd also be fine if they implemented registration like they have on cars. Each year you need to register , pay a fee and what not maybe get a discount on those fees if you have a secure storage room or store your weapons at a range or something.
Not sure what the left hypocrisy has to do with any of this, but whatever man, it feels like you had it to get it off your chest.
Anyway, since you haven't seen evidence -
Source.
But for real, you honestly telling me that there is nothing that can be done to reduce the access murderous fucknuts have to such deadly weapons?
Dreams-Visions
Member
They don't fight anyone. They just play military and have fun camping out I think.
I appreciate them though. They help make the prospect of a land invasion of the US highly unlikely. lol.
Not sure what the left hypocrisy has to do with any of this, but whatever man, it feels like you had it to get it off your chest.
Anyway, since you haven't seen evidence -
Source.
But for real, you honestly telling me that there is nothing that can be done to reduce the access murderous fucknuts have to such deadly weapons?
why are you replying to the drive-by poster who can't be bothered to read the thread?
I though assault rifles were illegal in America.
And do you NEED your high capacity magazines? Will you be outraged if the Govt tries to ban high capacity magazines even if they could prove they are directly related to high death counts in gun massacres?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...e-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html
Haha.
Guns are banned in Mexico, yes? Why hasn't that stopped gun violence in Mexico and southwestern United States?
I certainly enjoy going over 70mph, but realistically people fucking die from others having that ability. I value lives over my enjoyment of doing something that's unreasonably unsafe anyway. And I'm sure in a world where they made sure consumer cars couldn't go over 70mph there'd still be a race track or business you could go to to get it out of your system. I'd support that. I just don't see the need for cars that have the ability to go over the speed limit on our roads.
I'm pretty supportive over gun rights in general, and I do believe that legal citizens should be able to have them for self defense. I don't see the need, though, in the realm of self defense to have the ability to fire off 30 rounds or what have you. I'd feel much safer if people only had the ability to buy guns that had much much smaller capacities and had to be reloaded. It's a minor convenience if you enjoy guns and still want to shoot them, it shouldn't effect your ability to defend yourself, and it could save many many lives. Someone just liking having high ammo capacity is fucking ridiculous to me. You know what, to share another weird example, I like my television changing channels quickly, too, but if it saved tons of people's lives I'd allow for even as high as 10 seconds between television channels. People's lives in your society should trump some shitty minor inconvenience that only tangentially effects your enjoyment of the thing you're talking about. As long as you can still have that thing, and use it for the purposes you need to, then it should be fine.
Because it's pretty easy to get guns from us?
They are not and no of course i don't.
I would be outraged if that was the only course of action that was taken.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Impact_of_firearm_legislation
11,227 recorded offences, the majority of it FROM TOY GUNS.
Educate yourself.
No one is saying that.
No one is saying THAT.
Since the assault weapons ban, fewer massacres were committed using assault weapons. Since it lapsed, more have. However, neither of those imply causation nor would it stop all violence even if assault weapons stopped existing. You are railing against people who do not exist in this thread.
This is a poor argument because amendments themselves are evidence that the constitution is mutable. Also, everyone already agrees that the right to bear arms does not facilitate or imply the right to bear any arms- or does it, to you? Do you believe civilians should be able to own RPGs and grenades?
That is incorrect. An assault rifle (Bushmaster AR-15) was used to kill most or all of the victims on Friday.
Dude Abides
Banned
Your post is as stupid as the thug in your avatar. Go fight that big gummint, brave keyboard warrior!
So just to be clear, you're saying that Assault Rifles are legal to own in America and that commedieu doesn't really know much about firearms. Am I right?
Stop being this way. Please read what I am saying.
No one in the world is saying X will stop all of Y, and there will be peace. So quit with that nonsense. You're making up a rebuttal to something that hasn't been claimed.
I said reduce mass shootings with certain legal weapons. You don't need assault weapons, and criminals aren't robbing you with expensive collector items that end up aimed at kids. Certain guns are already illegal to purchase, and the world gets by just fine without them. All of these tragedies this year have been with legal weapons, not the crims that you fear, oh so much(That aren't robbing liquor stores with Assault rifles..) Gun crime statistics do not equate to mass scale shootings.
Just going to repeat it...
No one is saying limiting severely effective weapons is going to create world peace.
And you're not going to be able to fight the government when they go door to door and remove your weapons with the ones you can legally obtain. So there goes that delusion of dying with your pea shooter in your urine soaked hands.
How does that answer my question?
I'll ask again -
Do you think our current gun laws are perfect and if not, how can they be improved to achieve better outcomes?
For real, we have a system where with tragic regularity, murderous assholes get legal access to extremely deadly weapons, and you're telling me that this is a fact of life that is impossible to address?
At least explain why.
That appears to be what he's saying, though I admit I don't really get the argument they're having.
Before you go any further, please acknowledge ARs are legal to own in the united states.
I was under the impression assault rifles were illegal in most states.
Correct.
This is where you try bait me and then come out with "Assault rifles are illegal, it's Assault weapons that are not!"
Which is of course not true either.
This isn't the best grammar, are you saying the government would go door to door and remove firearms?
You are simply mistaken.
edit: A much larger number of them were made illegal under the Assault Weapons Ban but it has lapsed.
Hawkian:
So if proposing legislation to "curb" gun violence won't stop or prevent gun violence isn't the point, then what is?
IIRC the most common weapon in the world. AK47's certaintly aren't legal in Mexico so why hasn't government laws prevented gun violence in Mexico?
And please stop quoting gun legislation in Europe/Australia as evidence, when you're dealing with different socio and economic reasons.
"Banning" guns from law abiding citizens will not stop violent crimes like this from happening.
Just like "banning" drugs will not stop drug use.
So if proposing legislation to "curb" gun violence won't stop or prevent gun violence isn't the point, then what is?
IIRC the most common weapon in the world. AK47's certaintly aren't legal in Mexico so why hasn't government laws prevented gun violence in Mexico?
And please stop quoting gun legislation in Europe/Australia as evidence, when you're dealing with different socio and economic reasons.
"Banning" guns from law abiding citizens will not stop violent crimes like this from happening.
Just like "banning" drugs will not stop drug use.
Assault rifles are illegally banned in the usa, save for "grandfathered" and ATF approved purchases. Semi auto guns despite appearances are not assault weapons.
The solution to all this nonsense is Americans accepting the fact the mental health is a real issue, and I do support more legislation to stop mentally ill people from acquiring guns.
At the end of the day, Adam Lanza was mentally ill, and was not able to acquire a gun, yet still was able to.
At the end of the day, Adam Lanza was mentally ill, and was not able to acquire a gun, yet still was able to.
What is that question even in response to?
Legislation that makes it more difficult for people to obtain certain weapons, and makes it more difficult for anyone to obtain any weapon easily, could have a substantial impact on specifically preventing mass shootings like the ones this year. These were all committed with legally-purchased weapons.
Also, stop talking about banning. Regulation involves many more factors than saying "guns bad no guns never" like you appear to be implying.
Why do you keep putting these words in quotes? It's driving me nuts.
Are you arguing that the Bushmaster AR-15 used in Friday's massacre was not an assault rifle, or that you can't legally buy it right now?
edit: I was wrong about this, because assault weapons that are rifles are not assault rifles.
Jesus man, then you support increased gun regulation. Your answer to the question posed by this thread is yes. I'm at a loss for words.
Indeed, at the end of the day it appears that this tragedy could most likely have been prevented by the mother securely locking up her weapons in a manner her mentally ill child could not circumvent.
FO-totality
Poet Centuriate
They were his mom's, who was avid shooter/gun-user. He did not purchase them.
What does illegally banned mean?
Are you sure? I distinctly remember reading in other gun threads that the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. You do know the AR doesn't stand for Assault Rifle don't you?
Devolution
Member
This is why it disturbs me that he was denied a gun but had access to them anyway via his mother.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
Hawkian:
So if proposing legislation to "curb" gun violence won't stop or prevent gun violence isn't the point, then what is?
IIRC the most common weapon in the world. AK47's certaintly aren't legal in Mexico so why hasn't government laws prevented gun violence in Mexico?
And please stop quoting gun legislation in Europe/Australia as evidence, when you're dealing with different socio and economic reasons.
"Banning" guns from law abiding citizens will not stop violent crimes like this from happening.
Just like "banning" drugs will not stop drug use.
If you're going to dismiss everything except statistics from an alternate universe where USA banned guns then let me know when you find that.
Whats a different socio and economic reason by the way?
I'd venture to say his mom wasn't a responsible gun owner if she let her children, especially one with some sort of mental issue, have access to her weapons.
It's classified as an "Assault Weapon" despite ARmalite's designation.
IIRC the most common weapon in the world. AK47's certaintly aren't legal in Mexico so why hasn't government laws prevented gun violence in Mexico?
And please stop quoting gun legislation in Europe/Australia as evidence, when you're dealing with different socio and economic reasons.
"Banning" guns from law abiding citizens will not stop violent crimes like this from happening.
Just like "banning" drugs will not stop drug use.
I'm not entirely sure who the hell you're talking to here. I'm certainly not someone saying to ban all guns. I do personally believe if that were possible we would see victims from violent crimes go down, but I don't think that's a practical solution or goal at this point (or probably any point) in this country at all. It's fantasy land stuff, and I'd much prefer more practical solutions that let people keep their ability to defend themselves with guns and have whatever hobbies they might have with them, while protecting others.
And you can't bring up Mexico when asking about this shit moreso than anyone can bring up Europe/Australia. You know how much easier it is to get guns from just outside your border than to try and smuggle it in from overseas or something when you're surrounded by either water or other countries that have them banned? Also Mexico really doesn't have much control over their country anyway. You can't exactly compare it to the US. Writing a law isn't just putting it on a paper and saying "there. Done." It's enforcing it, and I really don't think you can compare Mexico's ability to enforce with our ability to enforce.
Oh, nope. Totally assumed it did. It's based on the M4 Carbine anyway- what makes this weapon not an assault rifle? Genuinely asking and I certainly could be wrong.
What. What am I missing.
edit: Oh god. "Assault rifles" must be fully automatic. Semi-automatic assault weapons that are rifles and resemble assault rifles in appearance are not assault rifles.
Dreams-Visions
Member
This conversation was going so well too.
Finally time for me to go do something else. Good luck, gentlemen.
Finally time for me to go do something else. Good luck, gentlemen.
She took him to the gun range too, so he could practice.
FO-totality
Poet Centuriate
Agreed, but it wasn't gun regs being too loose in this case, was it?
Deplorable, if she knew the extent of his condition.
I'm with stupid... ---^^^^
;-)
I didn't even realize I was posting in the gun debate thread.....
So, the question should be how do we make sure responsible people are the ones owning guns, or make sure that gun owners are as a whole more responsible?
Yes, assault rifles are banned.
An assault rifle is an actual technical term for a select fire capable intermediate cartridge rifle with a detachable magazine.
the select fire portion means that all assault rifles are banned from civilian ownership in the US barring the pre 1984 group of automatic weapons and weapon components that when registered could be used to legally own an assault rifle.
You're probably thinking of an Assault Weapon. Assault Weapon is a made up term to describe "black" rifles that look scary and a set of specious regulations in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act otherwise known as the assault weapons ban describes these weapons.
Yes, it is confusing.
If you can acquire one with a license, it isn't banned.
So is there any difference between the legality of Assault Weapons and the Assault Rifles you enjoy firing?
Yes, fully automatic weapons are general illegal, so semantically there is a significant difference. I was wrong to say that "assault rifles," taken literally, are legal.
I need to drink heavily to undo the linguistic damage we have done with this patchwork legislation.
- Status