Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

1.  Nothing, initially. Ammo can only be used once, unless your skilled.

 

 

 

2.  Its it’s a first step. It might take 10-15 years to have an affect.

 

 

3.  you close the gun shops, that’s all that’s required. 

 

 

4.  Guided hunting with temporary gun licenses. A rental, if you will.

 

 

 

5.  I did not propose that.

 

1.  It won't prevent people from stock-piling ammo prior to the ban.  As long as it's stored properly, it can be used later.

 

2.  10 -15 years to have an effect?  Still doesn't answer the question of what is the long term plan and how does it impact those who legally own firearms prior to an outright ban?  Will they be required to voluntarily hand them over to local law enforcement?  Will they just be grandfathered and can still own and posses them?  Or will they be required to register them with the local law enforcement into say a national database, so it can be tracked?  If they are required to turn them in and don't, will that be a crime (misdemeanor or felony?), will there be heavy fines, etc.?

 

3.  Just closing gun shops is not going to make the guns go away.  Not without a plan of action (see above).  Again, what are the laws/regulations, penalties going to be and who is going to enforce them?  Where is the money to set this new process up and monitor and enforce going to come from?  State or Federally funded?  

 

4.  @Gibbit broke this down for me, a lot better than I could.  So you think guided hunting is a solution.  So are you proposing that only guided hunting companies be allowed to purchase firearms and ammo?  As Gibbit mentioned, those are mainly for trophy hunting, big game.  Who is going to be in charge of controlling all of the wild animals that ruin crops, etc.?  Where are the resources coming from?

 

5.  So if you're not proposing the confiscation of all firearms purchased prior to the ban, the problem will still exist.  There are still more civilian owned firearms in the country than  there are people.  There are an estimated 120.5 guns per 100 residents in the U.S.  Would it cut down on those horrible, tragic mass shootings?  Yes, I would think it would.  But I also think we could cut down that number with stricter gun laws/regulations, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gun debate is in the speed of reload and capacity. Not guns themselves.

 

I don't see the need for semi autos in rifles or shotguns. Semi auto shotguns are just for lazy hunters....semi auto rifles for gun freaks. Handguns...I can understand. I can put myself in that position wanting to be able to defend myself. May still get one someday

Edited by Gibbit
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

1.  It won't prevent people from stock-piling ammo prior to the ban.  As long as it's stored properly, it can be used later.

 

2.  10 -15 years to have an effect?  Still doesn't answer the question of what is the long term plan and how does it impact those who legally own firearms prior to an outright ban?  Will they be required to voluntarily hand them over to local law enforcement?  Will they just be grandfathered and can still own and posses them?  Or will they be required to register them with the local law enforcement into say a national database, so it can be tracked?  If they are required to turn them in and don't, will that be a crime (misdemeanor or felony?), will there be heavy fines, etc.?

 

3.  Just closing gun shops is not going to make the guns go away.  Not without a plan of action (see above).  Again, what are the laws/regulations, penalties going to be and who is going to enforce them?  Where is the money to set this new process up and monitor and enforce going to come from?  State or Federally funded?  

 

4.  @Gibbit broke this down for me, a lot better than I could.  So you think guided hunting is a solution.  So are you proposing that only guided hunting companies be allowed to purchase firearms and ammo?  As Gibbit mentioned, those are mainly for trophy hunting, big game.  Who is going to be in charge of controlling all of the wild animals that ruin crops, etc.?  Where are the resources coming from?

 

5.  So if you're not proposing the confiscation of all firearms purchased prior to the ban, the problem will still exist.  There are still more civilian owned firearms in the country than  there are people.  There are an estimated 120.5 guns per 100 residents in the U.S.  Would it cut down on those horrible, tragic mass shootings? Yes, I would think it would .  But I also think we could cut down that number with stricter gun laws/regulations, etc.  

 

The goal isn’t to get rid of all guns or end all gun violence, that’s a fools errand. The goal is the get the most return for the least cost. Stoping the sales of ammo and new guns costs next to nothing and WILL have an impact.

 

Would it cut down on those horrible, tragic mass shootings? Yes, I would think it would.

 

qed

 

But I also think we could cut down that number with stricter gun laws/regulations, etc.

 

I don’t think so, It’s next to impossible to know when an upstanding citizen who was an ex-marine will just decide to go bat**** crazy....

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

The goal isn’t to get rid of all guns or end all gun violence, that’s a fools errand. The goal is the get the most return for the least cost. Stoping the sales of ammo and new guns costs next to nothing and WILL have an impact.

stopping the sales of ammo and new guns would be the next recession trigger...it wouldn't cost next to nothing

 

And it may keep these Ritalin-social media junkie ****s from doing anything short-term....but Ritalin/adderall finds a way. That's what its meant to do

Edited by Gibbit
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read through the last couple of pages on here - it's a really interesting debate and a tricky situation for the US.

 

I find it incredibly sad that one of this year's big selling school bags in your nation had ****ing kevlar in it, causing the popularity. What a sad situation that you have to send your kids to school with bullet proof vests/bags.

 

I speak as a total outsider who has never had the 2nd amendment right, but I also speak as a citizen of a country where I am 138 times less likely to get murdered with a firearm. A country without guns is not some passive utopia - we have our own issues in the UK with knife crime etc, but I am still 4 times less likely to be murdered than a US citizen. ( http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime )

 

There are so many issues with introducing gun control, but I find it hard to see any case for opposing it. It's not a situation you would be able to sort out quickly, but it is a situation that could be resolved (but it won't be; because even if the Dems got the spine to do something about it, the Reps would just reverse it all as soon as they got legislative control).

 

If I were looking to find a system you could adopt, I would suggest Australia has pretty good gun laws - maintaining access to guns but making it safer etc.... during the late 90s the Australians were in the same situation you guys are in now - appalled by a massacre they enacted sweeping changes to their gun laws - I was actually in Australia earlier this year and went to a firing range (it was the first time I'd ever fired a real gun - I'm 31 years old). Australia's gun revolution is well described in this article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-35048251 - I appreciate that your nation is 325 million people rather than 23.5 million people but I certainly think Australia has shown that it can be done, and done well, without an outright ban.

 

I don't think access to guns is unreasonable - I get that some people like to hunt etc - it's not my thing, but I get it. I don't however understand how you have got to a situation where you can buy ludicrously high powered assault rifles with little difficulty. Who the **** needs an AR15? and how the **** do you guys let somebody legally buy one of those before they can legally buy a beer? There is no argument for these being available in the public domain - if a hunter needs an AR15 to hunt, then they're probably not very good at hunting.

 

Hope you guys don't mind me putting in an outsiders perspective.

Edited by UKskins
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, UKskins said:

Hope you guys don't mind me putting in an outsiders perspective.

 

Another outsiders perspective (NSFW language):

 

 

 

Edited by China

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find it laughable that hunting aka the murder of defenseless beings by losers, is always mentioned when talking about gun control or the 2nd amendment. 

 

News for you, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or a right to kill non humans. Absolutely nothing. So why do people still talk about it? Worse why is the non “rights” of non “sportsmen” even a thing?

 

There is no right to kill non humans and certainly the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with it. 

 

What is dangerous is this desire to appease hunters in an effort to get them to support gun control by implying a constitutional right that does not exist. 

 

Memo to the appeasers, those that get off on killing animals for fun will never support gun restriction. Those that claim they do are just lying to you knowing that nothing will get done in current ‘murica. 

 

I will say this though, those that try to appease hunters/rural types are on the right track. You’re just misguided in thinking they will join you. The sick culture of killing non humans is so ingrained in them that any threat, real or perceived, to their “right” to kill will be voted against. Stop trying to appease rural types. Societal progress does not come from rural America. 

 

Here is my proposed proof that all the opposition to gun control boils down to a small minority that enjoys killing and they don’t want to give life to anything they think will take that away. I bet you can propose a law that loosens gun restrictions. Everyone can own any kind of gun you want. Any ammo. Any number. You can open carry and conceal carry. Open it all up. You are able to own whatever because your right to defend your property and your person is protected. BUT hunting is illegal. 

 

I guarentee you those forces against gun control now would still be against any such law. Oh they would love everything except that last part and I bet that last bit is a deal breaker. 

 

So stop with the appeasement. They are living in their own twisted world. 

 

Oh and to the person who talked about hunting to murder wild animals to protect crops, 70 percent of the wild animal population has been eradicated from this planet since 1970. Still not enough? How about we stop our overpopulation for a change? How about we look at our infringing on their home and not the other way around?

 

But what do I know? I’m just some wackado vegan guy who believes peace starts with you and how valuing all sentient life is the key to ending violence. I should join the hypocrites who talk about being against violence while supporting hunting and munching some dead flesh. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scruffylookin said:

[blah blah blah]

Oh and to the person who talked about hunting to murder wild animals to protect crops, 70 percent of the wild animal population has been eradicated from this planet since 1970. Still not enough? How about we stop our overpopulation for a change? How about we look at our infringing on their home and not the other way around?

But what do I know? I’m just some wackado vegan guy who believes peace starts with you and how valuing all sentient life is the key to ending violence. I should join the hypocrites who talk about being against violence while supporting hunting and munching some dead flesh. 

 

That would be me

 

Image result for put some respeck on my name gif

 

 

I don't hunt, but I do enjoy a good ****ing steak. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scruffylookin said:

I’m just some wackado vegan guy

Reading your post, I was thinking "what the heck is wrong with this guy?"

 

Now I got it.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

so the scum was a gun control advocate or a typical liberal?

 

or just nuts....but I repeat myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the conservatives on this board think arming every citizen is somehow a logical, fool-proof solution...

 

"If everyone had a gun this wouldn't happen."

"They were in a liberal gun-free zone."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rogue Jedi said:

And the conservatives on this board think arming every citizen is somehow a logical, fool-proof solution...

Please quote where any of us conservatives have called for arming every citizen.  Please and thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.