Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Gun Control Debate Thread


Dont Taze Me Bro

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, clskinsfan said:

 

While I agree with the majority of your post. The bolded part simply isnt true. I could pull THOUSANDS of articles from newspapers all over the country calling for EXACTLY this.

 

There are articles calling to take ALL guns or just specific ones? I don’t see anything in this current movement that says take ALL guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This right here is the problem, these morons believe that god gave them the right to own a gun. When you blend you political bias with your religious bias then you have granted yourself the freedom to not think. 

You are right, because god.

Ask me how I know this happens just this way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

There are articles calling to take ALL guns or just specific ones? I don’t see anything in this current movement that says take ALL guns.

 

One common theme to almost all of the below articles is gun banning because of mass shootings. The posts I made over the past couple of days showed you how likely you are to be killed in a mass shooting. Many blasted me for those statistics and accused me of spouting the NRA line. But the truth is you are twice as likely to be struck dead by lighting this year than to die in a mass shooting. This is ENTIRELY a media driven issue. Now if you want to talk about all gun homicide as your reasoning. I will agree we need to do SOMETHING. Personally, I dont think ANY law will make a difference.  But the mass shooting hysteria is garbage.

 

Recent YouGov poll of Democrats. 41% say ALL guns should be banned. 80% says semi auto's should be banned

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/h8n9gvrqyj/econTabReport.pdf

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/survey-majority-of-democrats-want-to-ban-semi-automatics-half-want-to-ban-all-guns

 

Debate.org.....39% say ban all guns:

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-guns-be-banned-in-america

 

New Republic article... It is time to ban all guns:

https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them

 

Prospect Magazine: It is time to ban all guns:

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/for-gods-sake-america-just-ban-guns

 

LA Times: Ban all guns:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-gun-control-ban-homicides-suicides-20140528-story.html

 

A Gun ban is inevitable:

https://www.designmom.com/a-gun-ban-is-inevitable/

 

Portland Press.....Yes we want to take away your guns

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/02/25/maine-voices-yes-we-want-to-take-away-your-guns-the-case-for-civilian-disarmament/

 

Detroit Metro Times....Ban ALL guns:

https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/ban-all-guns-now/Content?oid=2147131

 

The Fresno Bee....Ban all guns:

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article201098214.html

 

This is off of the first 2 pages of a google search. I could on and on for days.

 

 

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

This right here is the problem, these morons believe that god gave them the right to own a gun. When you blend you political bias with your religious bias then you have granted yourself the freedom to not think. 

You are right, because god.

Ask me how I know this happens just this way.

 

 

I am not a religious guy. AT ALL. Yet I believe we are all born with the right to defend ourselves from harm.

Edited by clskinsfan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

I am not a religious guy. AT ALL. Yet I believe we are all born with the right to defend ourselves from harm.

That’s fine, just don’t be a Christian and then claim your right comes divinely imparted. 

Because, that is NO WHERE in the Christian texts...no where.

 

And I too believe we have the right to defend ourselves from harm, but that does not equal the right to a firearm as there are lots of ways to defend yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

That’s fine, just don’t be a Christian and then claim your right comes divinely imparted. 

Because, that is NO WHERE in the Christian texts...no where.

 

And I too believe we have the right to defend ourselves from harm, but that does not equal the right to a firearm as there are lots of ways to defend yourself.

 

Not against another firearm there isnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

One common theme to almost all of the below articles is gun banning because of mass shootings. The posts I made over the past couple of days showed you how likely you are to be killed in a mass shooting. Many blasted me for those statistics and accused me of spouting the NRA line. But the truth is you are twice as likely to be struck dead by lighting this year than to die in a mass shooting. This is ENTIRELY a media driven issue. Now if you want to talk about all gun homicide as your reasoning. I will agree we need to do SOMETHING. Personally, I dont think ANY law will make a difference.  But the mass shooting hysteria is garbage.

 

 

 

Enough with the getting struck by lightning garbage.  Yes, the top 10 causes of death per year in America are non-gun related, heart disease, cancer, etc.  So while true, it's not an accurate comparison.  Getting struck by lightning is a random act of nature.  Being at school, or at a public concert, etc. where a person decides to murder mass people is an act driven by an individual.  Just because the odds are in your favor, doesn't mean that the government (both parties) should not work together to reduce these tragic events from happening.  Reality is they will never go away, but that doesn't mean something shouldn't be done.

 

And if you look at mass shootings prior to 1994, during the assault rifle ban from 1994 - 2004, and after the ban was allowed to expire by the Republican ran government from 2004 - current, that should tell you that the ban in place did reduce mass shootings.  Though the NRA and other groups will spout out BS about how there is no proof it worked.  

 

Here is one article showing the stats:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/did-the-assault-weapons-b_b_9740352.html

 

Facts:  From 1973 to present there were 108 total mass shootings (5 or more deaths) and 92 of them occurred before the ban and after, with only 16 occurring during the ban.  And the rate after the ban expired was almost double than it was from 1973 to 1994.  And the ban was no more manufacturing or sale of semi-automatic rifles, but those who owned them were grandfathered in and could still legally use them.  So nobody took away anybody's guns, they only took away the ability to purchase, sell or manufacture certain semi-automatic rifles over a 10 year period.  

 

I'm a gun owner, hell, I'm actually considering purchasing a semi-automatic rifle, but I'd be ok if they implemented another assault rifle ban.  At a minimum, the age limit to purchase any firearm should be 21.  Bump stocks should be banned outright and I have no problem with limiting magazine capacities.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Facts:  From 1973 to present there were 108 total mass shootings (5 or more deaths) and 92 of them occurred before the ban and after, with only 16 occurring during the ban.  And the rate after the ban expired was almost double than it was from 1973 to 1994.  And the ban was no more manufacturing or sale of semi-automatic rifles, but those who owned them were grandfathered in and could still legally use them.  So nobody took away anybody's guns, they only took away the ability to purchase, sell or manufacture certain semi-automatic rifles over a 10 year period.  

 

I'm a gun owner, hell, I'm actually considering purchasing a semi-automatic rifle, but I'd be ok if they implemented another assault rifle ban.  At a minimum, the age limit to purchase any firearm should be 21.  Bump stocks should be banned outright and I have no problem with limiting magazine capacities.  

 

Good post. We will have disagree on the mass shooting situation I guess. The fact is during the ban you could still buy semi auto rifles. I know. I bought my first one then. They were SLIGHTLY modified to fit in the current laws. No pistol grip, a heavy barrel or a shortened barrel to qualify as a pistol. But the fact is you could still buy them. And the pre ban weapons were still available at any gun show.  Did the ban have an effect on mass shootings? Your stats seem to say so. But I dont know how that is possible when the weapons were still available for purchase DURING THE BAN. It seems to me as the media coverage of these events has intensified you have more copy cats now. But I have no facts or statistics to back up my claim. 

 

I am good with banning bump stocks. Absolutely worthless for anything other than what the Las Vegas sicko did. Have never owned one and never would have without a ban. I am a against raising the age limit to 21 and here is why. You are willing to allow 18 year olds to protect the country while serving int he military with the deadliest weapons in the world. Yet you dont want to allow them to protect themselves when they are at home? Maybe you raise the age with an exception for those who serve? As far as mag size goes. I WOULD HATE it. But only for the selfish reason that I cant stand loading the damn things. And I also dont think it would make a difference. If you practice enough,reloading a magazine into a weapon takes less than a second. 

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

People asking for removal of all guns is absolutely a minority and is not being treated like because it fits the othersides narrative too well.

 

Minority? Yes. But in the recent polling not by much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

Minority? Yes. But in the recent polling not by much.

 

Prove it. I was just at that march in DC, that's not what those kids were asking for (and trust me, I was worried they would and then wouldn't be taken seriously).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Prove it. I was just at that march in DC, that's not what those kids were asking for (and trust me, I was worried they would and then wouldn't be taken seriously).  

 

I posted the polls in an above post. Are the numbers bull? Maybe. But even the Debate.org poll has 39% of those that responded wanting a total ban. And they wrote there responses as to why that is. It is worth a read. And supports my stance that the media has a lot to do with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clskinsfan said:

 

I posted the polls in an above post. Are the numbers bull? Maybe. But even the Debate.org poll has 39% of those that responded wanting a total ban. And they wrote there responses as to why that is. It is worth a read. And supports my stance that the media has a lot to do with it. 

 

I'm not buying that poll for a lot of reasons, one being how hard it is to find another asking that question, let alone confirming the results. None of your Opinion pieces (and that's what those links outside the first two talking about the poll in the post you referencing are) reference either that poll or another one that confirms it either. The closest thing I found was one by Gallup that didn't differentiate party, but showed overall support for an all-out ban going down on average since 2000, not up (that one is about 1000 people, while the one you posted is about 1500, for what its worth). 

 

Everyone that wants to be taken seriously on this issue understands an outright ban on all guns in this country is a non-starter, and that's pretty typically of people I talk to on the street and in here. And I'm weary of any poll that asks about banning semi-automatic weapons in general because I truly believe its intentionally questioned that way with the expectation that a lot of people don't really understand what that means (so their poll further fits their narrative). I can find a newspaper opinion piece on pretty much anything via google, and that debate.org page has "yes" stances that are so separated from reality you'd almost think they were fake.

 

This is the first "yes" post:

 

Quote

Ban all guns!

 

I think that banning guns would make my community safer because then the criminals would have to turn them in and the gangsters would have nothing to shoot each other with. I also think that there should be security cameras and full body scanners everywhere in public places to prevent mass shootings. I think that only the police should be allowed to have guns because they work for the government and the government would never abuse it's power.

 

Come the **** on, man!  That's not a democrat, that's a bot.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

If these right wing militias think that they can stop tyranny here in the United States is beyond stupid because we spend the most money on defense than any other country, and they can't go up against the might of our military and win.

 

That's the reality.

I really hate to say you're right about this, but you probably are. 

 

Outside the Military bucking on orders or an EMP/Cyber Attack against them, we wouldn't stand a chance if our government went full Assad on us.  A gurellia war likely would be a waste of time, too, considering the Military has spent most of 21st century practicing how to deal with that in the middle east. All these Rambo mf'rs are going to be shook once they realize we didn't finish getting rid of all our chemical weapons, either (we broke out goal to be done by 2012 and moved the date to 2023). Think about that, we told Syria to be done with that before we were : (

 

The only way stop that is to prevent it from happening the first place, we're screwed if it ever gets to that point.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clskinsfan said:

 

One common theme to almost all of the below articles is gun banning because of mass shootings. The posts I made over the past couple of days showed you how likely you are to be killed in a mass shooting. Many blasted me for those statistics and accused me of spouting the NRA line. But the truth is you are twice as likely to be struck dead by lighting this year than to die in a mass shooting. This is ENTIRELY a media driven issue. Now if you want to talk about all gun homicide as your reasoning. I will agree we need to do SOMETHING. Personally, I dont think ANY law will make a difference.  But the mass shooting hysteria is garbage.

 

 

I can see why people accused you of carrying the NRA message. It’s cause you spout some of the same exact misdirection arguments like comparing mass shootings done with assault weapons to literal acts of nature. People are actually talking about gun violence in general but it takes speaking about specific tradegies (horrific acts of murder) to focus the attention.

 

Now you you can think guns laws wouldn’t help but science and facts would not be on your side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

If these right wing militias think that they can stop tyranny here in the United States is beyond stupid because we spend the most money on defense than any other country, and they can't go up against the might of our military and win.

 

That's the reality.

 

Those right wing fanatics think that half of the military would be on their side. When in reality all that would happen is they would get wiped out and millions of Americans would die in the process. I will say their are armed fanatics on both sides of the isle though.

 

The bottom line is none of us want anything like that to happen. It would be the end of America as we know it.

Edited by clskinsfan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

I can see why people accused you of carrying the NRA message. It’s cause you spout some of the same exact misdirection arguments like comparing mass shootings done with assault weapons to literal acts of nature. People are actually talking about gun violence in general but it takes speaking about specific tradegies (horrific acts of murder) to focus the attention.

 

Now you you can think guns laws wouldn’t help but science and facts would not be on your side. 

 

I disagree. And I didnt post any articles earlier to counter that poster. Because he was civilized in the discussion. But here is the LA Times take on the assault weapons ban. And it COMPLETELY counters yours and his stance on the issue. The data used in the statistics was FLAWED to say the least:

 

"Klarevas admits in a footnote, if you use the most widely accepted threshold for categorizing a shooting as a "mass shooting" — four fatalities, as opposed to Klarevas' higher threshold of six — the 1994 to 2004 drop in fatalities disappears entirely. Had Klarevas chosen a "mass shooting" threshold of five fatalities instead of six, then the dramatic pause he notes in mass shootings between 1994 to 1999 would disappear too."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html

Edited by clskinsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...