The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, Mrshadow008 said:

To be fair an ar-15 is nothing like an m-4 or any weapon of war besides the way they look 

 

Of course a semiauto is nothing like a fully automatic weapon.  What’s your point?  The menacing look?  So tired of hearing that BS too.  

 

Along with hearing more Republican/NRA BS that liberals want them banned because they look menacing, blah blah blah.

 

The main point is the easy access to a semiautomatic rifles along with high capacity magazines.  It should be common sense that it makes it easier for someone (mentally ill/troubled) to purchase one along with multiple clips and kill and wound a lot of people.  

 

 

[visionary]

 

[clskinsfan]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You just haven’t trained yourself adequately, don’t blame me because you don’t take your self defense seriously.

 

Bwahahahahaha! Really? What are you gonna break out your ninja skills against someone trained with a firearm? Just laughable.

Edited March 25, 2018 by clskinsfan

[AJ*]

31 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

It's nice that people are getting proactive and reporting this stuff but at the end of the day he's still going to have that arsenal at his disposal when he has thoughts of "doing something". 

[bearrock]

@clskinsfan

 

People calling for outright ban on guns are in the distinct minority.  At the least, no where near enough to repeal the 2nd.  People have suggested various solutions from stronger background check, banning high capacity mags, certain types of guns, etc.

 

Do you agree that homicide by guns are a problem in the US?  If so, what are your proposed solutions?

[bcl05]

The problem is that he was probably a reasonable, law-abiding, harmless citizen when he bought that arsenal.  I think very very few people buy weapons with the intent of killing.  People change, though, and some develop mental illnesses.  Some break up with their significant others.  Some lose their jobs.  Enough go from stable to not every year that 30,000+ Americans die every year from gun deaths.   I worry that with the ubiquity of guns in this culture, we have normalized lethality.  Having killing tools is now normal in America.  This leads to problems like the MD high school recently, where a "good kid" breaks up with his girlfriend and starts shooting.  In a different world, where he didn't have access to a gun, maybe he writes some crappy poetry and gets over it and everyone goes on with their lives...

 

If we didn't have so many preventable gun deaths every year, I would really not care who had guns and how many.  Until guns stop killing people, though, guns will be an issue for me.  If anyone can reduce gun deaths without reducing guns, I'm all for it...

 

Also, comparing gun deaths to lightning strikes is one of the truly stupidest arguments I've heard in a long time (and I've heard a lot).  We can't legislate weather and lightning.  It would be cool if we could...  Gun deaths are a direct result of the behavior and actions of Americans.  We, as a culture, are responsible for those 30,000+ dead (mostly) young people every year.  We have a moral duty to try to prevent it.  That is absolutely the role of government and legislation.  

[clskinsfan]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

@clskinsfan

 

People calling for outright ban on guns are in the distinct minority.  At the least, no where near enough to repeal the 2nd.  People have suggested various solutions from stronger background check, banning high capacity mags, certain types of guns, etc.

 

Do you agree that homicide by guns are a problem in the US?  If so, what are your proposed solutions?

 

Absolutely I agree. See my earlier posts. And I am fine with stringent background checks, closing the gun show loophole and banning ANYTHING that turns a semi auto into a full auto. I also want our CURRENT gun laws prosecuted and ENFORCED to the full extent of the law. I am against raising the age to 21 (see earlier post for reason), banning any weapon currently on the market (Although I would turn mine in if they were banned) and banning larger magazines. Because none of those would make a difference.

[mistertim]

18 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

Bwahahahahaha! Really? What are you gonna break out your ninja skills against someone trained with a firearm? Just laughable.

 

This isn't a serious post, right?

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

Absolutely I agree. See my earlier posts. And I am fine with stringent background checks, closing the gun show loophole and banning ANYTHING that turns a semi auto into a full auto. I also want our CURRENT gun laws prosecuted and ENFORCED to the full extent of the law. I am against raising the age to 21 (see earlier post for reason), banning any weapon currently on the market (Although I would turn mine in if they were banned) and banning larger magazines. Because none of those would make a difference.

I think we can start with where most can agree and go from there.  Strict background checks and gun show loop hole seems like no brainers to me.  And I think public opinion reflects that.

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Mrshadow008 said:

To be fair an ar-15 is nothing like an m-4 or any weapon of war besides the way they look 

 

I think I object to the use of “nothing like”

 

the recirculated gas system to reduce recoil and increase accuracy along with rate of fire is certainiy like them. The position of the gas block is specifically referred to “m4 style” and “m16 style” for a reason.

 

i realize they are different weapons. But referring to the civilian gun modeled off the military gun as “nothing like” seems disingenous. 

35 minutes ago, bearrock said:

People calling for outright ban on guns are in the distinct minority. 

 

I want to point out there are two groups of people

 

those calling for an outright ban

 

those who will accept any and push for any new gun control meassure because in their minds the closer we got to “banned” the better off our society, but don’t vocalize any desire for banning anything (except assault riffles, some of them at least)

 

and the only difference between the two is the former hasn’t figured out no one will talk to them about new gun control ideas until they act like the latter. 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by tshile

[clskinsfan]

30 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

This isn't a serious post, right?

 

Yes. It was a serious post. Trying to tell someone they dont take their self defense seriously because they havent trained themselves adequately to face off against someone trained and armed with a firearm when you dont have one is laughable. There is a reason they are the preferred weapon for self defense. And nothing else has been invented to be superior since the invention of the flintlock pistol 400 years ago.

[Hersh]

2 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

 

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

 

This is the problem. Gun control laws are proven effective but you disagree because of an op-ed piece that focuses on only one aspect of gun control. You really are doing everything you can to justify doing nothing while claiming to be in favor of doing something. 

[Dan T.]

4 hours 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.

 

I must live a sheltered life.  I've lived decades on this earth and, in all the places I've been and all the things I've experienced, I have NEVER been in a situation where things would have been better if only I had a gun.  

[clskinsfan]

5 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

This is the problem. Gun control laws are proven effective but you disagree because of an op-ed piece that focuses on only one aspect of gun control. You really are doing everything you can to justify doing nothing while claiming to be in favor of doing something. 

 

No. I gave you proof that the data used in the studies is flawed if not outright false. You chose to ignore that possibility.

2 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

I must live a sheltered life.  I've lived decades on this earth and, in all the places I've been and all the things I've experienced, I have NEVER been in a situation where things would have been better if only I had a gun.  

 

Cool. I have. I enjoy hunting. And my life is definitely better with firearms in it.

[Renegade7]

33 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

those who will accept any and push for any new gun control meassure because in their minds the closer we got to “banned” the better off our society, but don’t vocalize any desire for banning anything (except assault riffles, some of them at least)

 

 

Man, I seriously forgot about the "slippery slope" argument to this debate.  I hate it, but you know what, we'd be wise to add legislation that protects certain classes of firearms while banning specific models that fall in them (handguns, shotguns, and single shot rifles for example).  

[bcl05]

There is extremely strong data that demonstrates that a gun in a house is vastly more likely to injure or kill a member of that house than be used in self-defense.  Your odds of dying go up with guns in the home, not down.  But gun control advocates are ignoring data?  

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

7 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

There is extremely strong data that demonstrates that a gun in a house is vastly more likely to injure or kill a member of that house than be used in self-defense.  Your odds of dying go up with guns in the home, not down.  But gun control advocates are ignoring data?  

 

No, we are not.  I can only speak for myself, but a responsible gun owner takes the necessary precautions and invests in gun safes, trigger locks, etc.  

 

Along with educating their children on gun safety. Those that dont, well that is ignorance plain and simple. 

 

What does this have to do with mass shootings?

[clskinsfan]

4 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

No, we are not.  I can only speak for myself, but a responsible gun owner takes the necessary precautions and invests in gun safes, trigger locks, etc.  

 

Along with educating their children on gun safety. Those that dont, well that is ignorance plain and simple. 

 

What does this have to do with mass shootings?

 

I will concede to the previous poster that having a gun in your house CAN inherently raise the risk of being accidentally shot. But as you say the risk can be almost entirely negated through proper handling and storage. 

[LadySkinsFan]

People with mental illnesses fall through the cracks because THIS ****ING COUNTRY DOESN'T TREAT MENTAL ILLNESS SERIOUSLY. 

 

Starting when Reagan shutdown mental hospitals and turned people out in the street. Insurance only covers so many limited visits. We don't treat veterans because it will look bad, so we have numerous vets walking around with PTSD. We also want servicepersons to get clearances and history of mental treatment may interfere with that process.

 

Until we as a country get a handle on treating people, then we will continue with these poor folks walking around untreated.

[tshile]

34 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Man, I seriously forgot about the "slippery slope" argument to this debate.  I hate it, but you know what, we'd be wise to add legislation that protects certain classes of firearms while banning specific models that fall in them (handguns, shotguns, and single shot rifles for example).  

 

Meh I don’t care to argue it’s a slippery slope - that would suggest we do nothing for fear of what else they will do. 

 

I think we can absolutely do plenty. I just think we should remember there are people who’s desired endstate is no guns. 

 

I also wouldn’t suggest we ignore the fact that there are plenty of people that don’t want a damn thing done , and work to keep it that way, despite claiming other wise. 

33 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

 Your odds of dying go up with guns in the home, not down.  But gun control advocates are ignoring data? 

 

Yes and that’s hardly a profound statement. 

 

Im more likely to get into a car crash if I drive.  Or a plane crash if I fly. Or eaten by a shark if I swim in oceans. 

 

It doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of the situation.  I wouldn’t call it ignoring data , just misusing it. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by tshile

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

People with mental illnesses fall through the cracks because THIS ****ING COUNTRY DOESN'T TREAT MENTAL ILLNESS SERIOUSLY. 

 

Starting when Reagan shutdown mental hospitals and turned people out in the street. Insurance only covers so many limited visits. We don't treat veterans because it will look bad, so we have numerous vets walking around with PTSD. We also want servicepersons to get clearances and history of mental treatment may interfere with that process.

 

Until we as a country get a handle on treating people, then we will continue with these poor folks walking around untreated.

 

Itd be nice if we decided to start caring about each other. 

 

Education, poverty , healthcare and mental illness..... they all show the same root issue. We are, as a society, too selfish closeminded and short term thinking.

[Hersh]

46 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

No. I gave you proof that the data used in the studies is flawed if not outright false. You chose to ignore that possibility.

 

Cool. I have. I enjoy hunting. And my life is definitely better with firearms in it.

 

You provided an opinion piece talking about one aspect of the 1990’s as if things are exactly the same as 20 years ago. 

 

Bet you you are a good enough hunter that you don’t need an AR-15 nor high capacity magazines nor bump stocks. I imagine it only takes you one shot. Same here. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Just now, tshile said:

 

Itd be nice if we decided to start caring about each other. 

 

Education, poverty , healthcare and mental illness..... they all show the same root issue. We are, as a society, too selfish closeminded and short term thinking.

 

I'd say it's Corporate America that's too selfish, closeminded, and that practice short term thinking especially if these things diminish profits.

[clskinsfan]

Just now, Hersh said:

 

You provided an opinion piece talking about one aspect of the 1990’s as if things are exactly the same as 20 years ago. 

 

Bet you you are a good enough hunter that you don’t need an AR-15 nor high capacity magazines nor bump stocks. I imagine it only takes you one shot. Same here. 

 

Just wondering if you are only reading the parts of my posts that you want to counter? I have stated all of these in previous ones.

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

 

Bwahahahahaha! Really? What are you gonna break out your ninja skills against someone trained with a firearm? Just laughable.

Again, you’re not taking your self defense as seriously as you would have us believe. You seem to want the lazy way of self defense, one that is far from certain.