The Gun Control Debate Thread

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

Most semi-automatic weapons were banned for civilian use. Licensing and registration rules were tightened. A national firearms registry was established. Gun owners had to provide a justification for owning a weapon, and personal security was specifically excluded as a valid reason.

 

Not quite a ban, but damn close. And they keep tightening it further and further. 

 

 

There are now more guns in Australia than ever that they have records for.

 

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/

 

Now that you've got your language right what lessons should we learn?  Again, keeping in mind that we've already seen a lot of gun laws in this country relaxed over the last few decades so the idea that we can't tighten gun laws and then relax them in the voters want is a false argument.  The idea that gun laws never relax isn't accurate based on the our own recent history in the US.  So look at Australia and tell me what conclusions I should draw.

 

There are still quite a few guns there.

They haven't been invaded.

The government hasn't turned into a tyranny.

The murder rate didn't go crazy (general trend has been down.)

 

What is the lesson to be learned?

 

 

( @tshile yes the federal assault weapons ban had an expiration date and then wasn't renewed but lots of states have relaxed gun laws recently that weren't thing that expired.)

Edited June 7, 2022 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

26 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

I just did.  Maybe I am misunderstanding you but that is how I take what you said.  What am I missing?

Yea what @PeterMP said.  Assault riffle vs a pistol.

[Dan T.]

11 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

Most semi-automatic weapons were banned for civilian use. Licensing and registration rules were tightened. A national firearms registry was established. Gun owners had to provide a justification for owning a weapon, and personal security was specifically excluded as a valid reason.

 

Not quite a ban, but damn close. And they keep tightening it further and further. 

 

 

Yeah.  Let's do this.  

[mistertim]

25 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

Most semi-automatic weapons were banned for civilian use. Licensing and registration rules were tightened. A national firearms registry was established. Gun owners had to provide a justification for owning a weapon, and personal security was specifically excluded as a valid reason.

 

Not quite a ban, but damn close. And they keep tightening it further and further. 

 

 

And? What's your point?

 

The right screams about the government coming for peoples' guns and talk about some sort of vague conspiracy where the government then becomes a police state...or something (it's never very clear).

 

But in Australia that didn't happen. They enacted major restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and...everyone just went about their lives as usual. No police state, no Big Brother, no shadowy illuminati conspiracy. Just less gun violence and no mass shootings.

 

So in actuality, Australia negates your point and gives us a good reason for restricting semi-auto weapons.

[TheGreatBuzz]

57 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think she meant a traditional 9 mm pistol.  Not a 9 mm AR-15.  But I believe even they are generally considered less powerful (e.g. lower muzzle velocity) than a normal AK-47 so reasonably there would be a difference.

 

Please explain with some details what lesson we should learn from Australia.

 

To help get you started, guns aren't banned in Australia.

 

40 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Yea what @PeterMP said.  Assault riffle vs a pistol.

 

My apologies.  I thought you were saying a traditional AK and a 9mm are both less powerful than an AR.  Like two completely separate guns were both less powerful. 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Please explain with some details what lesson we should learn from Australia.

 

To help get you started, guns aren't banned in Australia.

 

Here, I'll help some, too:  

 

Gun deaths, per 100K population, per year:  

US:         12.21

Australia:  1.04

[Forever A Redskin]

Virginia Tech Mass Shooting. 33 dead. Gun used? Handgun.

 

In 76% of mass shootings, a Handgun was used.

 

Banning the big bad AR-15 will only make that number rise to 99%. Then what do you think they will be screaming to ban next? Spoiler: Handguns.

 

Just like free speech, I'm a 2A absolutist. Why? Because once power or rights are taken away from the people. It is NEVER. GIVEN. BACK.

[Captain Wiggles]

Just now, Forever A Redskin said:

Just like free speech, I'm a 2A absolutist. Why? Because once power or rights are taken away from the people. It is NEVER. GIVEN. BACK.

 

This is a fallacy. If you read the thread it's already been disproved. 

[tshile]

35 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

Virginia Tech Mass Shooting. 33 dead. Gun used? Handgun.

 

In 76% of mass shootings, a Handgun was used.

 

Banning the big bad AR-15 will only make that number rise to 99%. Then what do you think they will be screaming to ban next? Spoiler: Handguns.

Yup. I believe the last year of data is we have shows 3% of gun deaths were related to “weapons typically categorized as ‘assault weapons’”, which means *more* than just the ar-15 platform. 
 

🤷‍♂️ 
 

People want to ban the ar 15. But it’s not because it’s much of the actual problem. 
 

and I get it. Most of these masa shootings involve that weapon. I understand why they make the connection. 
 

And 3% is not nothing. 
 

it’s just not what it’s made out to be. 

[purbeast]

I guess this gun is needed for hunting deer and coyotes huh.

 

 

[Renegade7]

41 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

Just like free speech, I'm a 2A absolutist. 

 

Really? Because you sound more like a bot.

[Captain Wiggles]

Good to see Kyle Rittenhouse has learned his lesson. 🤪

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

51 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

Just like free speech, I'm a 2A absolutist.

So a person with known terrorist ties should be able to own, say, a rocket launcher?

[Forever A Redskin]

10 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

Good to see Kyle Rittenhouse has learned his lesson. 🤪

 

Last I checked he was found not guilty. Looking forward to the outcomes of his lawsuits against the major media outlets that slandered him and spread lies during the trial.

 

I bet he was glad he was armed that day and I support anyone legally firing weapons at a shooting range. What's the issue here?

2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

So a person with known terrorist ties should be able to own, say, a rocket launcher?

 

I'm pretty sure anyone with terrorist ties won't be purchasing their firearms, grenade launcher or otherwise through legal means.

 

[mistertim]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yup. I believe the last year of data is we have shows 3% of gun deaths were related to “weapons typically categorized as ‘assault weapons’”, which means *more* than just the ar-15 platform. 
 

🤷‍♂️ 
 

People want to ban the ar 15. But it’s not because it’s much of the actual problem. 
 

and I get it. Most of these masa shootings involve that weapon. I understand why they make the connection. 
 

And 3% is not nothing. 
 

it’s just not what it’s made out to be. 

 

Yeah focusing on AR-15s is really myopic. IMO it's more an issue of semi-auto guns with high capacity magazines. They allow the maximum amount of carnage in the smallest amount of time. None of these guys would be able to do anything close to what they did with a revolver or a bolt action rifle.

 

And I don't think semi-autos should be banned. But I think there should be more stringent requirements to buy them. You want a bolt action rifle, revolver, or shotgun? No problem. You want a semi-auto rifle with 30 round magazines? You need to tell us why.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

@Forever A Redskin Also, how do I square your free-speech absolutism with your love for Ron DeSantis? He is all too happy to abuse his government power to punish anybody who says anything he doesn’t like.

6 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

I'm pretty sure anyone with terrorist ties won't be purchasing their firearms, grenade launcher or otherwise through legal means.

 

I’m saying, they should be allowed to though, right?

[Captain Wiggles]

9 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

Last I checked he was found not guilty.

 

Last I checked he still murdered two people. 

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, Forever A Redskin said:

Just like free speech, I'm a 2A absolutist. Why? 

 

What does that even mean?  No restrictions on speech?  Even lies?  No restrictions on any arms?  Full auto?  Tanks?  Jet fighters?  Missiles?

[Larry]

Glad to see that we're already running from talk about trying to stop incidents like this, by associating it with the weapon most frequently used to commit them, to "well, but compared to all the gun deaths, total . . . ".  

 

 

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

What does that even mean?  No restrictions on speech?  Even lies?  No restrictions on any arms?  Full auto?  Tanks?  Jet fighters?  Missiles?

 

It means "I've been taught that reciting this phrase means I don't have to actually use facts or reason."  

[Forever A Redskin]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

@Forever A Redskin Also, how do I square your free-speech absolutism with your love for Ron DeSantis? He is all too happy to abuse his government power to punish anybody who says anything he doesn’t like.

I’m saying, they should be allowed to though, right?

 

I'm assuming you're speaking about the Education bill (you would probably call "don't say gay" bill). Freedom of speech doesn't apply to government employees, but you should probably know that by now.

 

And sure, if you can find someone to sell you a rocket launcher and you live on a ranch and want to blow stuff up... Knock yourself out. Good luck finding someone to sell you a rocket launcher though.

 

And yes I will continue to repeat that I'm a free speech absolutist. Because it's what I believe in. Yes people can tell lies and tall tales. It's called BS'ing. People have done it since the beginning of time. It's up to you to decide what is lies and truth. Think for yourself and don't be a sheep. Unless it's a case of defamation or something... Then take the person to court. That's what the justice system is for.

 

 

There is no such thing as hate speech. If you don't like what someone is saying then don't listen to them, don't look for big daddy government to censor them for you because your little feelings are hurt.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Forever A Redskin

[Dan T.]

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 minute ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

I'm assuming you're speaking about the Education bill (you would probably call "don't say gay" bill). Freedom of speech doesn't apply to government employees, but you should probably know that by now.

No, I was talking about him punishing Disney for speaking out against said bill.

 

Or about him punishing the Devil Rays for speaking out against gun violence.

[Forever A Redskin]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No, I was talking about him punishing Disney for speaking out against said bill.

 

Or about him punishing the Devil Rays for speaking out against gun violence.

 

Tell me where he stopped them from saying what they please? Did he have their statements removed or censored? Sounds like free speech to me.

 

 

[Berggy9598]

1 hour ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

Last I checked he was found not guilty. Looking forward to the outcomes of his lawsuits against the major media outlets that slandered him and spread lies during the trial.

 

I bet he was glad he was armed that day and I support anyone legally firing weapons at a shooting range. What's the issue here?

 

I'm pretty sure anyone with terrorist ties won't be purchasing their firearms, grenade launcher or otherwise through legal means.

 

Would that be the video of him trying to assault a girl? 

[Cooked Crack]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No, I was talking about him punishing Disney for speaking out against said bill.

 

Or about him punishing the Devil Rays for speaking out against gun violence.

Heck even the Florida social media law 

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100831545/appeals-court-florida-social-media-law-unconstitutional-desantis