The Gun Control Debate Thread

[clskinsfan]

8 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Anyone could have sued.  If it’s unconstitutional, then it will be decided as such.  An act like that doesn’t take the NRA.

 

Yeah. If you have the money to take it all the way to the SC. I dont. Do you?

[Kosher Ham]

It's amazing that we can't even compromise among what I consider mostly civilized and rational folks. 

 

I think it would be a good start... to stop calling gun owners ... nuts. 

You won't ever get someone to agree with you by calling names. Especially when they can just as easily go down to the same level and retort. 

 

Sarcasm ends arguments. Respect is an easier way to find a compromise. 

[LD0506]

So I can't say gunnutty anymore? 

Guess I'm outta here then......

[TradeTheBeal!]

I can hardly think of anything more disingenuous and insulting than to roll up into a fairly reasonable discussion about gun control and try to bully everybody with hot takes about death by lightning and that the survivors of school shootings are victims of the “media”.

 

Its completely irrational behavior and probably diagnosable as some sort of emotional infirmity.

Edited March 24, 2018 by TryTheBeal!

[Springfield]

38 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

Yeah. If you have the money to take it all the way to the SC. I dont. Do you?

 

Maybe.

 

I mean, I don’t have the means to sue EVERYTHING, which seems to be the tactic of the NRA.  If there were something I was gratuitously unconstitutional then it probably wouldn’t take much.

 

But were just arguing semantics at this point. I feel the NRA opposes any change to gun law, even common sense changes like limiting magazine capacity, banning bump stocks and closing the gun show loop hole.  You value the NRA becaue your fear is that the government will take your guns away without them.  We have reached an impasse because the very organization that you want to protect your constitutional right is also the one opposing ANY changes to gun law, even the ones you seem to support.

 

Ill leave you with this question.  If guns like the Thompson Sub machine gun were essentially banned in the 1930’s because of their prevalence in the use of crimes and mass murders, why then can’t AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles be banned due to their prevalence in the use of mass murders?

[AsburySkinsFan]

@clskinsfanis over here “enforce the laws on the books!” I’m not sure if he knows that the NRA has worked to undermine, defund, and repeal many of the gun laws on our books and then he just wants to piss on our legs and tell us it’s raining, OR is he ignorant to the role the NRA has played in neutering the gun laws on the books.

 

I’m absolutely certain though that none of them want to actually put a law on the books that will slow the pace of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people; private sale and gunshow sales.

Edited March 24, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan

[clskinsfan]

3 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

I can hardly think of anything more disingenuous and insulting than to roll up into a fairly reasonable discussion about gun control and try to bully everybody with hot takes about death by lightning and that the survivors of school shootings are victims of the “media”.

 

Its completely irrational behavior and probably diagnosable of some sort of emotional infirmity.

 

Again WORTHLESS contribution to the conversation. You accuse me of hyperbole when you have posted not one single usable fact about anything. It is easy to mock factual statistics when they dont support your position. Just saying.

[TradeTheBeal!]

He mad.

[clskinsfan]

29 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Maybe.

 

I mean, I don’t have the means to sue EVERYTHING, which seems to be the tactic of the NRA.  If there were something I was gratuitously unconstitutional then it probably wouldn’t take much.

 

But were just arguing semantics at this point. I feel the NRA opposes any change to gun law, even common sense changes like limiting magazine capacity, banning bump stocks and closing the gun show loop hole.  You value the NRA becaue your fear is that the government will take your guns away without them.  We have reached an impasse because the very organization that you want to protect your constitutional right is also the one opposing ANY changes to gun law, even the ones you seem to support.

 

Ill leave you with this question.  If guns like the Thompson Sub machine gun were essentially banned in the 1930’s because of their prevalence in the use of crimes and mass murders, why then can’t AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles be banned due to their prevalence in the use of mass murders?

 

Solid post. And I cannot argue with most of it. I think you underestimate the costs of legal representation to take a case all of the way to the SC. But that is about it. 

 

As I said. If the AR gets banned I will turn mine in. There is a major difference between the fully auto Tommy gun and the AR but whatever. I dont need an AR to enjoy my hobby. It is extremely fun to shoot but I dont need it. 

 

Bump stocks? Ban them. I could care less. have never owned one and never will. Gun show loophole? Close it tomorrow. I am completely fine with EVERYONE needing a background check to buy a gun. Magazine size I dont agree with. If you were a shooter and know what a PIA it is to load magazines you would understand. I will also add that limiting magazine size would have no effect on mass shootings. Killers would just carry more magazines. The size of a 30 round magazine and 3 10 round magazine on a AR is basically the same. And anyone who has practiced with an AR can reload it in under a second.

29 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

@clskinsfanis over here “enforce the laws on the books!” I’m not sure if he knows that the NRA has worked to undermine, defund, and repeal many of the gun laws on our books and then he just wants to piss on our legs and tell us it’s raining, OR is he ignorant to the role the NRA has played in neutering the gun laws on the books.

 

I’m absolutely cerism though that none of them want to actually put a law on the books that will slow the pace of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people; private sale and gunshow sales.

 

See my above post.

Edited March 24, 2018 by clskinsfan

[Larry]

1 hour ago, clskinsfan said:

 

I just posted the statistics. They are accurate. And from the FBI. An average of 21 people per year have been killed in mass shootings in the past 52 years. You know how many people were struck and killed by lightning in the same time frame? 2652. Or on average 51 per year. In other words you are MORE than twice as likely to be killed by lightning than in a mass shooting. Open your eyes and understand what you are being fed.

 

Open your mind and understand what you're shoveling.  

 

Your point is literally that the number of people being killed in the US every year via guns is completely acceptable, and people should just stop complaining about it.  In fact, your point is that the evil gun grabbing conspiracy is intentionally manufacturing the notion that 33,000 gun deaths a year is a problem, as part of a deliberate plan to push their agenda, which only the NRA is valiantly holding back.

 

And you just attempted to support it by posting intentionally misleading statistics, 

 

Wonder why you chose to pick the number of people killed in mass shootings, and not all shootings?  

Wonder why you picked mass shootings in the past 52 years, and not the last 10?  

Wonder why you chose to express one number as "deaths per year", and the other as "total deaths for all 52 years"?  

 

I bet I know why.  (And I don't even know you.)  It's because when you decided to enter this discussion, you ran to information sources that intentionally express their information in a manner that feeds you an agenda.  (The agenda that you want to be fed.)  And that's the way your manipulators chose to present the data, to manipulate you.  

 

And then followed it by telling everybody else to "understand what they're being fed".  

[clskinsfan]

43 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Open your mind and understand what you're shoveling.  

 

Your point is literally that the number of people being killed in the US every year via guns is completely acceptable, and people should just stop complaining about it.  In fact, your point is that the evil gun grabbing conspiracy is intentionally manufacturing the notion that 33,000 gun deaths a year is a problem, as part of a deliberate plan to push their agenda, which only the NRA is valiantly holding back.

 

And you just attempted to support it by posting intentionally misleading statistics, 

 

Wonder why you chose to pick the number of people killed in mass shootings, and not all shootings?  

Wonder why you picked mass shootings in the past 52 years, and not the last 10?  

Wonder why you chose to express one number as "deaths per year", and the other as "total deaths for all 52 years"?  

 

I bet I know why.  (And I don't even know you.)  It's because when you decided to enter this discussion, you ran to information sources that intentionally express their information in a manner that feeds you an agenda.  (The agenda that you want to be fed.)  And that's the way your manipulators chose to present the data, to manipulate you.  

 

And then followed it by telling everybody else to "understand what they're being fed".  

 

Not accurate at all. ONE gun death is too many. But the only way to stop that is to get rid of ALL guns in the US. There are over 300 MILLION guns in this country. That option is gone. You can pass laws and take them from law abiding citizens. But do you honestly think criminals will be turning theirs in?

 

Edit: And as far as me having an agenda goes? Absolutely. I am an avid shooter, hunter and outdoors man. Guns have been a part of my life since I was a very young child. And I raise my children around them. The statistics are accurate. Did I use them to support my case? No question. But I am trying to argue from a position of weakness on this board as well. And, again, they are not inaccurate.

Edited March 24, 2018 by clskinsfan

[AsburySkinsFan]

24 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

See my above post.

You addressed a portion of my post...yet ignored the reason why his “just enforce the laws on the books” is a complete red herring.

[clskinsfan]

4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You addressed a portion of my post...yet ignored the reason why his “just enforce the laws on the books” is a complete red herring.

 

I covered that in an earlier post. No denying the NRA is EXTREME in what they do. But they are about it as far as gun ownership protection from an organization goes.

[AsburySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

I covered that in an earlier post. No denying the NRA is EXTREME in what they do. But they are about it as far as gun ownership protection from an organization goes.

Ok, so you acknowledge that “just emforce the laws on the books”’ is pretty much useless?

[Skins199021]

It seems simple to me. Get rid of the whole gun show loophole... that is obvious. Any Mental disabilities or history of violence, you can't legally own a gun.

 

No assault rifles.... seems pretty obvious as well. Limit rate of fire and magazine amounts.

 

Make illegally owning a gun have harsh penalties

 

Edit: Oh and not doing anything is clearly not the route, yet that is what we do

Edited March 24, 2018 by Skins199021

[TradeTheBeal!]

2 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

It seems simple to me. Get rid of the whole gun show loophole... that is obvious. Any Mental disabilities or history of violence, you can't legally own a gun.

 

No assault rifles.... seems pretty obvious as well. Limit rate of fire and magazine amounts.

 

Make illegally owning a gun have harsh penalties

 

 

 

Nailed it.

 

Easy-Peezy.

Edited March 24, 2018 by TryTheBeal!

[clskinsfan]

5 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Ok, so you acknowledge that “just emforce the laws on the books”’ is pretty much useless?

 

No I dont. Stop letting people out of prison early for gun violations. Stop pardoning them. Prosecute the felons that lie on their applications and make them serve their full sentences. Is there red tape and under staffing yes. But even when people are caught and prosecuted they dont serve any real time. 

5 minutes ago, Skins199021 said:

It seems simple to me. Get rid of the whole gun show loophole... that is obvious. Any Mental disabilities or history of violence, you can't legally own a gun.

 

No assault rifles.... seems pretty obvious as well. Limit rate of fire and magazine amounts.

 

Make illegally owning a gun have harsh penalties

 

Edit: Oh and not doing anything is clearly not the route, yet that is what we do

 

Now we have found SOMETHING we ALL can work with. I would debate with you the "assault rifle" term and exactly what that means in regards to firearms. But other than that WELL DONE!

[Fresh8686]

2 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

Not accurate at all. ONE gun death is too many. But the only way to stop that is to get rid of ALL guns in the US. There are over 300 MILLION guns in this country. That option is gone. You can pass laws and take them from law abiding citizens. But do you honestly think criminals will be turning theirs in?

 

Damn, please don’t de-rail this thread into extremes. 

 

The goal-posts you put here are not what reasonable people are focused on. 

 

There is a mobilizing group of people who will want to limit capacity, velocity, and rate of fire. This puts a cap on the intensity of a violent action. 

 

We want to limit access, especially when it comes to the violent, isolated, low impulse control, toxic masculinity, having individuals who evince the dark triad of previous school shooters. Namely self-delusion, arrogance, and resentment. This puts a limit on access for the highest danger population groups in this country. If a person has a problem being in that category, change your behavior and fix your ****. Prove you can be better. 

 

We want background checks enforced at all times a purchase is made, that reaches across a country wide database. That includes at gun shows and all individual transactions. 

 

Do you see the constant theme of limits? Maybe you dont want that and will come up with reasons why, but who cares. All that matters is getting enough people to stay committed long enough to vote people into office on these platforms and hold them accountable, till these become law. 

 

I say this as a person who already has his gun rights taken away. I’m doing alright, the world hasn’t ended for me. If I can deal with no access, you can deal with limited access. People need to be adults here and see the wisdom of the above self-restraints. 

 

 

 

[clskinsfan]

17 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

Damn, please don’t de-rail this thread into extremes. 

 

The goal-posts you put here are not what reasonable people are focused on. 

 

There is a mobilizing group of people who will want to limit capacity, velocity, and rate of fire. This puts a cap on the intensity of a violent action. 

 

We want to limit access, especially when it comes to the violent, isolated, low impulse control, toxic masculinity, having individuals who evince the dark triad of previous school shooters. Namely self-delusion, arrogance, and resentment. This puts a limit on access for the highest danger population groups in this country. If a person has a problem being in that category, change your behavior and fix your ****. Prove you can be better. 

 

We want background checks enforced at all times a purchase is made, that reaches across a country wide database. That includes at gun shows and all individual transactions. 

 

Do you see the constant theme of limits? Maybe you dont want that and will come up with reasons why, but who cares. All that matters is getting enough people to stay committed long enough to vote people into office on these platforms and hold them accountable, till these become law. 

 

I say this as a person who already has his gun rights taken away. I’m doing alright, the world hasn’t ended for me. If I can deal with no access, you can deal with limited access. People need to be adults here and see the wisdom of the above self-restraints. 

 

 

 

 

1) So what you are saying is you want EVERY semi auto weapon in the country banned? Good luck with that if true.

 

2) That whole second amendment thing might be an issue here? We will see I guess.

 

3) Kudo's to you for changing your life around!

 

And with that, thanks for the spirited debate fellow Skins fans. It is nice to know that we are still capable of having civilized debate regardless of how the media tries to portray otherwise. Need sleep for a long day at work tomorrow. I will continue sometime tomorrow. HTTR!

 

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by clskinsfan

[Fresh8686]

18 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

1) So what you are saying is you want EVERY semi auto weapon in the country banned? Good luck with that if true.

 

2) That whole second amendment thing might be an issue here? We will see I guess.

 

3) Kudo's to you for changing your life around!

 

And with that, thanks for the spirited debate fellow Skins fans. It is nice to know that we are still capable of having civilized debate regardless of how the media tries to portray otherwise. Need sleep for a long day at work tomorrow. I will continue sometime tomorrow. HTTR!

 

 

 

Thanks, but you’re misreading my words. It’s not about banning semi automatics. It’s about regulation which is in the 2nd amendment. Regulating magazine size, the velocity at which rounds fire so as to limit destruction to a human body, and removing access to automatic weapons via conversion and other means. 

 

As well as all the other stuff I mentioned and a culture change that will take at least a generation and is too much of a pipe dream to deeply discuss right now. 

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

 

You are a pro gun person who does not understand the value of the NRA? Can you tell me which organization you are a member of that protects your gun rights? I might decide to change my membership next year. 

 

And the enforcement issue goes WAY beyond under staffing and red tape. There is a part of the anti gun movement that NEEDS these mass shootings as an impetus for their ultimate goal. I know that sounds conspiracy theory crazy. But it is the truth. Violence sells.

 

Gun homicides are down 39% since 1993. Have you heard ANY news source report that fact? You are 6 times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by a rifle. Yet those scary black rifles seem to headline the news every night dont they? You dont see pictures of hammers up on the nightly news do you? Well guess what you are 1 1/2 times more likely to be beaten to death with a hammer than killed by a rifle.....I could go on and on. The point is there is an agenda and narrative being played out here. And it is being played out to perfection on the nightly news EVERY DAY.  Statistics are pulled from the FBI:

 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-20

 

I am not some cold hearted "come take em from my cold dead hands" guy. My post above stated as much. I am fine with stringent background checks, waiting periods And maybe even willing to give up my scary black rifles. But something needs to be done about ALL OF THE GUN homicides in this country. Not just mass shootings. Chicago had 3457 people shot in 2017 and 454 people shot so far this year (some of the strictest gun laws in the country by the way). There have been 1077 people that have died in the US in mass shootings SINCE 1966! The mass shooting problem is overblown. And it is being overblown for a reason. This is an article adapted from the Wash Post. A lot of people dont have a subscription so you can read it here:

https://www.thelily.com/1077-people-have-been-killed-in-mass-shootings-since-a-1966-incident-at-the-university-of-texas/

 

If you really want to do something about the homicide rate in this country do something about handguns. They are used 20 times more often to commit murder than rifles are. Do I own them? Yep. But IMO if a felon is caught with a handgun it should be an immediate life sentence. No slap on the wrist. No parole. If you are not allowed to own them and you have one you pay the price. Period. They are too easy to conceal and too easy for criminals to use them for what they were designed to do. People NEED to be trained and be made to understand the danger of a handgun. I would be fine with that training being mandatory.  

 

My defense of the NRA, no matter how radical they are, is because there simply is no other option when it comes to defending gun rights. Yes. Like most other organizations they are radical in their stance. There is no middle ground with the NRA. No doubt about it. But for a lot of us there shouldnt be when it comes to the protection of a Constitutional right for law abiding citizens.

 

In terms of other organizations, do a little research:

 

https://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

https://www.responsibleownership.org/

 

The idea that anti-gun movement needs these sounds like conspiracy.  Yes, violence sells, but I'm not sure at all how that is connected to the anti gun movement.  It isn't like the people making profits from news corps etc are driving the anti-gun movement.

 

Clearly, you know why the rifles make the news and why they get focused on.

 

And it isn't like the NRA (or the pro-gun lobby in general) isn't against changes in hand gun laws.

 

Lastly, I don't think there is a lot of evidence that stricter penalties actually act as deterrent and therefore reduce crime.  I think you'd just end up with us paying for a bunch of young people that made a stupid a mistake in jail for life.  I think you are proposing something that there is no evidence will work, while ignoring other things that will.

Edited March 24, 2018 by PeterMP

[tshile]

I wonder how many lives would be saved if we regulated lbs on trigger pulls. For both sa and da. Can you make it hard enough to make it less easy for a 5 year old to shoot someone? 

[tshile]

Blah

Edited March 24, 2018 by tshile

[TradeTheBeal!]

I overslept for the March...country living, yo.

 

So I kicked a Benji to Everytown and cleaned my kitchen instead.

 

#lazy

#limousinecentrist

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

16 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

My defense of the NRA, no matter how radical they are, is because there simply is no other option when it comes to defending gun rights.

That’s not a very good defense though man. The NRA is absolutely evil. Being the biggest gun lobby doesn’t excuse that.