The Gun Control Debate Thread

[twa]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

This seems to cut against the argument that automatic weapons are no more dangerous than knives, cars, and I believe someone on here (twa) has argued coffee tables .....

 

So automatics(by that I assume you mean semi autos)

 

mere details

 

10 minutes ago, visionary said:

There’s a difference between some posters on Extremeskins saying something and important politicians proposing something.  I’ve yet to see many important gun control advocates call for repealing the second amendment.  Of course there could be a day where the public feels differently enough that guns become a thing of the past, but I doubt it would be anytime soon.

 

important politicians follow the breeze, and as Predicto pointed out regularly they learned to quit talking about certain things. 

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

So automatics(by that I assume you mean semi autos)

 

mere details

 

 

 

Full auto, semi-auto, doesn't matter.  The guy is facetiously wondering how could he possibly kill 30-50 animals in a short period of time.  Ignoring the fact that he's almost certainly completely full of ****, people I've come into contact with (including you) have argued that guns generally are no more dangerous than other implements.  

 

So why can't this guy kill all these hogs with one of those other implements?  

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, visionary said:

There’s a difference between some posters on Extremeskins saying something and important politicians proposing something.  

 

Uh

 

sure. If you want to ignore how politics works. 

 

Doesnt really have anything to do with the point. If you show your true motives (which plenty of people, including posters here, have) then you can’t turn around and pretend you didn’t show them. 

 

Take the same issues over to the pro-choice people about abortion and get the same reaction. 

 

People only argue against slipper slopes on those when its to their benefit. 

 

So long as we got people running around pushing repeal the second you’ll have a hard time getting support from people that own guns on any gun control. 

[twa]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Full auto, semi-auto, doesn't matter.  The guy is facetiously wondering how could he possibly kill 30-50 animals in a short period of time.  Ignoring the fact that he's almost certainly completely full of ****, people I've come into contact with (including you) have argued that guns generally are no more dangerous than other implements.  

 

So why can't this guy kill all these hogs with one of those other implements?  

 

Guns are not more dangerous, but some people are.

 

I could give him some alt suggestions, but like spraying bullets it can be hard to control.

 

if it does not matter between the two then allowing full autos w/o extra restrictions should be fine?

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

So why can't this guy kill all these hogs with one of those other implements?  

Contrary to common belief hogs are actually pretty smart. 

 

I mean cows will stand in a river and piss and **** while they’re drinking. Which is like level 1 sort failure - don’t **** where you eat. Hogs will actually consolidate it to one area so they can enjoy the rest of it. 

 

Unsurprisingly they’re also capable of dodging coffee tables. 

[PleaseBlitz]

36 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

Unsurprisingly they’re also capable of dodging coffee tables. 

 

This depends entirely on the proficiency of the person throwing said coffee table.

 

But I digress.  This isn't really a jokey matter, and here we are yakking about some dumb**** liar on Twitter a few days after 32 people were gunned down dead (plus another 50 shot) by 2 people in the span of a few hours. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by PleaseBlitz

[JSSkinz]

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

53 minutes ago, tshile said:

So long as we got people running around pushing repeal the second you’ll have a hard time getting support from people that own guns on any gun control. 

It’s a valid point that an extreme stance is likely to elicit an extreme reaction. Probably why, after years and years of a refusal to do anything, you’re seeing a small number of people take up the extreme opposite position. Will probably increase as we continue to do nothing.

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

But I digress.  This isn't really a jokey matter, and here we are yakking about some dumb**** liar on Twitter a few days after 32 people were gunned down dead (plus another 50 shot) by 2 people in the span of a few hours. 

Well. Ok. 

 

I dont really comment on it anymore because everyone’s entrenched and it never goes anywhere. 

 

Humor can be a coping mechanism. 

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

It’s a valid point that an extreme stance is likely to elicit an extreme reaction. Probably why, after years and years of a refusal to do anything, you’re seeing a small number of people take up the extreme opposite position. Will probably increase as we continue to do nothing.

 

This is a farce. The extreme gun control people have not popped up because of this. They’ve always been around. 

 

I don’t care anymore. You guys are so inflexible on this conversation. Read the article and take it to heart or don’t. Up to you. 

[visionary]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Uh

 

sure. If you want to ignore how politics works. 

 

Doesnt really have anything to do with the point. If you show your true motives (which plenty of people, including posters here, have) then you can’t turn around and pretend you didn’t show them. 

 

Take the same issues over to the pro-choice people about abortion and get the same reaction. 

 

People only argue against slipper slopes on those when its to their benefit. 

 

So long as we got people running around pushing repeal the second you’ll have a hard time getting support from people that own guns on any gun control. 

This post is a mess.  

 

-I’m not sure you understand how politics works....

 

-Motives change and generally don’t matter in these situations unless the person has influence.

 

-I don’t really get the comparison to abortion, without some sort of specific comparison.  Are you comparing people on here to people in Congress?  Which politicians or influential gun control activists have called for banning all guns? 

 

-There’s always going to be people wanting to ban guns as there will always be people wanting to do all sorts of things, so that’s a really weak point.

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by visionary

[volsmet]

They don’t allow guns at c-pac.

 

Euthanize republicans.

 

🤙

 

 

[visionary]

1 minute ago, volsmet said:

They don’t allow guns at c-pac.

 

Euthanize republicans.

Maybe euthanize the party.

[volsmet]

7 minutes ago, visionary said:

Maybe euthanize the party.

 

This country has 99 problems & republicans are all of them.

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

15 minutes ago, volsmet said:

They don’t allow guns at c-pac.

 

Euthanize republicans.

 

🤙

You’re not very good at following directions, are you?

51 minutes ago, tshile said:

This is a farce. The extreme gun control people have not popped up because of this. They’ve always been around. 

Of course. I guess I should have said a slight uptick in the number holding that position.

[twa]

A example of why people don't trust gun control advocates in general

 

 

Quote

 

https://reason.com/2019/01/09/textual-analysis-of-hr8-bill-to-to-requi

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Bill about gun "sale" turns ordinary gun loans into felonies, bans handguns for young adults, and authorizes unlimited fees.

 

 

[tshile]

@twa

the summary section

Quote

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store. If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.

 

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

 

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

 

Fix it so the return of the loan is approved with the loan (not needing another check)

 

i can see an argument about unlimited fees but that’s also an easy fix

 

otherwise I think this is completely appropriate. I have no concerns about that particular bill. 

 

I dont know that raising the age to 21 for handguns will do anything. Maybe it will. My state already has that so it doesn’t affect my state, so I certainly am not going to argue either way. 

 

My concern is that once there’s agreement in increased gun control, the gun control people will begin fighting for even more strict rules. Because that’s how it works. Banning assault rifles, universal background checks, and ammo purchase/capacity limits will not be the end game. 

 

So while im for those things, I’m not naive enough to think getting those passed will be the end of it. It won’t. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by tshile

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

If I'm a gun owner, I'd be very supportive of gun control measures that wouldn't affect me, a law-abiding citizen. 

 

I believe most of us on here are.  

Edited August 6, 2019 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[Burgold]

Can I admit to you it drives me a little crazy the subtractive nature of gun deaths by the gun rights crowd. Once again, I've been reading how suicides don't count. How, accidents don't count (including kids accidentally shooting their siblings because the gun was left in unguarded). Now, I'm reading how gun deaths in "liberal cities" shouldn't count.

 

Yes, these deaths count. Without the gun in hand the person would likely be alive. Even in the case of suicide, a proportion of those people would not have taken their lives were a gun not handy and the person had the means for an immediate, easy, and relatively painless (they assume) death.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

So why can't this guy kill all these hogs with one of those other implements?  

 

[twa]

16 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 Now, I'm reading how gun deaths in "liberal cities" shouldn't count.

 

 

 

Where did you read this?

[Burgold]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Where did you read this?

Three separate people on twitter made this argument to me today. They were trying to argue against the need for gun control because such a high percentage of the violence occurred with handguns and in LIBERAL urban settings.  Seemed like it was the new talking point. A variation of "Gun control doesn't work because liberal cities have gun problems."

[twa]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

Three separate people on twitter made this argument to me today. They were trying to argue against the need for gun control because such a high percentage of the violence occurred with handguns and in LIBERAL urban settings.  Seemed like it was the new talking point. A variation of "Gun control doesn't work because liberal cities have gun problems."

 

Oh I thought you meant media or a official.

 

many gun laws are pretty ineffective for numerous reasons, kinda like immigration laws ect.

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

Oh I thought you meant media or a official.

 

many gun laws are pretty ineffective for numerous reasons, kinda like immigration laws ect.

As Peter has shown numerous times that really isn't true. Gun controls, by and large, work. What is missing in my opinion is uniformity or national gun control laws to make the laws harder to circumvent and make them easier to enforce.

[twa]

12 minutes ago, Burgold said:

As Peter has shown numerous times that really isn't true. Gun controls, by and large, work. What is missing in my opinion is uniformity or national gun control laws to make the laws harder to circumvent and make them easier to enforce.

 

Like the national pot laws? 

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Like the national pot laws? 

Funny you bring that up.

 

I cannot help but wonder if very strict control measures would take the gun issue and make it like the drug issue. Would we largely comply like other nations, or would we just have a crazy black market for it all like drugs?

 

That doesn't change whether I will or wont support something, but I can't help but wonder about it.

 

As for the items @Burgold mentioned

Suicide - i'm on the fence. I've read reports that lack of access to guns lowers the probability someone goes through with suicide.  But I have an issue with taking something that clearly has it's roots elsewhere, and attributing guns to be the cause. People don't want to kill themselves because we have guns. The prevalence of guns may make it easier and more likely (I don't know how thorough that research was...)

 

Inner cities - Same sort of thing. I'm willing to attribute inner gun deaths to other issues (mainly socioeconomic ones). 

 

There's reason for feeling that way and it goes beyond being against gun control (remember - I'm OK with banning everything other than revolvers, pump shotguns, and bolt action rifles. So i'm not' exactly against gun control...)  Mainly it's that I absolutely see people passing some gun control, and then patting themselves on the back, and ignoring the inner city crime issue. If we want to tackle why inner city people are killing each other, we should probably look at the socioeconomic factors first. Since they're the actual cause. And then see where we are. 

 

Accidental deaths are definitely a function of the prevalence of guns and, I would argue, the lax nature of the gun culture in our country. One thing I would like added to the list of to-do gun control is that you're required to notify people with children, when they enter your house, that you have guns and whether they are or are not secured and where the unsecure ones are (as in general area of the house like - Upstairs). So that guests can be allowed to make decisions with that information. I find it entirely irresponsible for someone to keep a gun not secured in their night stand and not tell someone with children when they obviously are OK with the children roaming their house. If you're not going to take care of your ****, at least have the decency to give the parents of the children an opportunity take care of the issue for you.
 

And not just one time. Every time they come over. 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by tshile