Oh okay then let's just give them an infinite gun and ammo cheat as well. Because why the fuck not.
This "we don't need laws/regulations, where's a will there's a way" is grade school level reasoning.
Two Virginia television journalists fatally shot in on-air attack[READ OP]
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
This "we don't need laws/regulations, where's a will there's a way" is grade school level reasoning.
You think jabbing a knife point blank into someone, repeatedly, to kill someone is nearly as easy and impersonal as walking into a room and spraying bullets at multiple individuals?
It's a lot easier to run away from a guy with a knife than to run away from someone who can stand there and hit you running away from a great distance.
This isn't about the intent to kill - this is about the magnitude of potential damage one weapon has over another.
Veritigo_X
Member
It's hard to make baby steps when one side isn't willing to give an inch.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
Even so, if someone wants to kill you with a gun do you want them to have that gun or not?
Would you like it if we worked together so the odds are better that such a person doesn't get a gun?
People die in accidents everyday but these aren't accidents.
This is cold calculated murder and the means are too fucking easy.
I don't know if this "I'm taking everyone out before I check out" part of our DNA, or just something that has happened in modern times. Granted we are not raping and pillaging like the old days. You'd think we'd be more civilized, but the evil heart still exists.
I don't know man.
I just don't know......
This is cold calculated murder and the means are too fucking easy.
I don't know if this "I'm taking everyone out before I check out" part of our DNA, or just something that has happened in modern times. Granted we are not raping and pillaging like the old days. You'd think we'd be more civilized, but the evil heart still exists.
I don't know man.
I just don't know......
In a lot of cases, especially after tragedies like this, most people are for stricter gun laws.
Sadly, and this is all too easy to forget, is that there's a lot of corporate money and powerful lobbies vested in keeping their guns legally sellable.
The post I quoted said nothing about quantity.
stufte
Member
Against focusing on mental illness? I don't think that's true. The NRA has been a big supporter of focusing on mental illness as a means of preventing gun violence.
10/10 for that Strawman.
Why are so many people here focused on knives? If you could magically rid the U.S. of all guns, the murders wouldn't be happening with knives.
cpp_is_king
Member
See my edit. The problem lies on both sides. The side you're referring to isn't willing to compromise because all they hear is one side screaming BAN BAN BAN, which a) excites them, puts them on the defensive, and brings out their extremism, and b) drowns out more reasonable calls for simple regulations.
I feel like we could be making a lot more progress if people could just completely kill the idea of a ban for now. Stop talking about it, stop bringing it up, and stop giving the other side ammo to fuel their stubbornness.
Right, it just said "how many". No reference to quantity in sight otherwise.
Mind pointing out what you think is a strawman, or naw?
With what, then? Swords? Crossbows? Spears? None of them are nearly as deadly as a gun.
True, the difference is knives serve a purpose other than killing. Guns do not. And guns are responsible for vastly more deadly massacres and vastly more deaths each year. You can never eliminate senseless killings, but you can at least limit the arsenal of weapons the psychos have at their disposal.
The Elite
BOSS
This is a joke post, right?
None of these cases are proving your point. Ten people with guns could kill a lot more than 33. One guy killing eight kids with a knife isn't surprising. One guy knifing three people is feasible.
I'm amazed that people are so clueless regarding the killing ability and power a gun gives you over a knife. You have to actually try not to see the obvious if you don't understand this. It's remarkable.
We upgraded from swords to guns for a reason.
Come on, if this thread is any indication, neither side is.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
I wasn't blaming the victim, i was explaining why there's a glaring difference in outrage. With cars, everyone knows the risks. It's a tragedy but we know the dangers of driving everyday and, unfortunately, drunk drivers are part of that. Everyone understands that driving brings a certain level of danger to it. It doesn't make drunk driving ok nor does it excuse the drunk driver and lay the fault on the victim. Every time you step into a huge metal machine going at a fast rate of speed you take the chance that you may die from doing so. That's the tradeoff many take every day with cars.
with guns, a killer can kill someone at any time or any place. It's much more senseless. When i walk in a mall or movie theater, the likelihood of a car bursting into there is extremely low. But there's nothing to stop a crazed person from using their gun and shooting it at everyone. So the outrage stems from killing someone in a circumstance where that person wasn't implicitly in danger, unlike when driving where everyone is fully aware of how dangerous that can be
i hope i did a better job explaining the difference
The sad thing is that Sandy Hook has happened again. As in Columbine and Virginia Tech. Sandy Hook was the continuation, not the genesis.
And more significantly, there are a dozen individual "sandy hooks" that happen on a daily basis across the country. We just don't hear about them because they're business as usual. We only heard about the 9 year old kid killed in Ferguson because of the other things that have put Ferguson into the spotlight.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Organised crime outfits don't go around killing people randomly. Would be bad for business. Yes, they'll still have guns but they're not the ones shooting up schools and theatres.
You know, it would probably be possible to kill someone with a spork if you were so inclined -- but you're saying that because we can't eradicate murder completely, we should ignore measures that might reduce it significantly?
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I see very few people calling for outright gun bans. It's the gun nuts who see any attempt at regulation as an attempt to ban all guns. Think any law that regulates guns is useless because they would not stop 100% of all gun violence.
The plug that can be removed with 5 minutes of menial tinkering? Guess they figured it all out.
Fenderputty
Banned
IMO, one of the larger reasons gun control doesn't tighten is because the people that are pushing for legislation know fuck all about guns. They make a suggestion and every sane gun owner goes, "you want to do what again"
So then it holds 5. Holy shit. They would also have to cut the barrel off and the shorten stock.
The majority in this thread are.
Why is a gun like an AK-47 legal to own in the US? Do people hunt with AK-47s? This is a real question before I get some smartass answer to it.
Bombs. We'll go from guns to bombs. All the mass murders would be committed with bombs instead. And people will make their own damn guns anyway.
Doesn't matter. Your point is basically people will find a way to kill no matter what so why bother?
Except the real question is: why make it easy for people like the shooter today, sandy hook, etc to commit these atrocities? Shouldn't we find a way to make it more difficult for them to do so?
NinjaMouse
Member
If I'm not mistaken, an AK-47 is illegal to sell anymore, but individual ownership of them is grandfathered in from the time when they were legal to sell. Something like that.
What about a national registry required for all guns sold? Name, Address, Model, Serial Number. Can we meet at this?
I am going to be honest and say I support a gun ban. There are people that are my fellow citizens that do not. I respect their right to have the opinion, but I don't respect the opinion. But we have to make it work together regardless, otherwise there will be more killings, and who does that benefit? Funeral homes?
This is an issue I have with the anti- as well.
keltickennedy
Member
Say all the guns were gone. The guy had it out for these people. The woman that was being interviewed is still alive right? I mean, if this guy didn't have a gun he would of found some other way to harm them.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
No they won't.
LiquidSword
Member
You're kidding right? Not even the usual "People will find guns on the black market" you went to people will make their own guns? This thread is getting to be too much.
It always reminds me of when people on the news talk about violent video games as if they know exactly what they're talking about and what's best for everyone.
We need change. That much is clear. But people should at least try to educate themselves about what they're trying to change. Not just the statistics about guns, but their significance over time historically and culturally. It's a lot easier to convince someone if you take the time to try to at least understand the opposing argument.
yes, I would agree to that.
Zabant
Member
All the power is in the pro-gun camp currently, there is no power stuggle or 'inch giving'
Ban all high powered guns other than handguns and shotguns you have to load one shell at a time, now that would be a start.
Is not like you can go to a store and buy a Bomb, gun control is not about completely eradicating Murders and Mass murders, is about making it hard to do so, anyone can shoot a gun, not anyone could build an effective bomb.
Harming them is much more likely than killing them with something other than a gun.
People already make their own guns.
What are these suggestions that are so onerous?
with what? a knife? then there is a bigger change that one or even both would have survived
The Elite
BOSS
Dude starts stabbing one of them and maybe the cameraman wrestles him off and pins the killer to the ground.
We can talk in all sorts of hypothetical situations.
The fact is that a gun is a more powerful killing instrument than a knife. If this wasn't the case humanity would have stuck with swords/spears.
Pretty sure 'strawman' doesn't mean 'a succinct paraphrasing of my exact argument'.
Fenderputty
Banned
Let's ban the .223 because it's scary looking while ignoring large caliber rifles.
Lets ban all semi auto
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It's a multi-year process.
Years 1 and 2 setup legal gun registration, background checks, additional training courses, databases and start the gun buyback programs.
Buy back programs continue in years 3 and 4 along with distribution of information regarding the new legal requirements and limitations and registration and permit processes and waived costs of said registration.
Year 5 confiscation and fines when caught with.
Year 6 jail time when caught with.
Would cost billions of dollars. But at the same time it would be economic stimulus in a way. It would also save money in the long run. It's not impossible, but more costly to do it in the United States due to the immense number of guns. Would be even more feasible if police resources moved from clamping down on lesser drugs to gun control.
For reference, here are the terms of owning a Gun is Australia
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/12/18/how-easy-it-get-gun-australia
Illegal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of narcotics are two very different situations despite them both involving illegal possession. The difference is that in the case of narcotics, most people prosecuted for possessing narcotics intended to use them for a high - illegal, but not going to intentionally cause harm to someone else. There is also the case of being able to plant trace amounts of drug residue on people to indict them as an excuse to arrest - it is more difficult to plant an illegal gun on someone and easier to trace where that gun came from if the indicted maintains their stance that the gun was planted. A person illegally possessing a gun has been barred from legally possessing a gun: if they weren't, why are they illegally possessing a dangerous firearm as opposed to a legal one? It makes no sense for a person to acquire a gun illegally when they have the legal option open, and if someone for whatever reason decides to acquire their gun illegally as opposed to the legal option they should be prosecuted. Most likely, a person who as acquired their gun illegally has been barred from having a gun for public safety, also likely is that if a person for whom it has been determined that gun ownership would be a threat to public safety has a gun, then they are going to be a threat to public safety using said gun. After all, if you are not going to commit a crime or endanger the public, why get your gun illegally when there is a legal avenue open to you? I see no reason why a person who has their gun illegally is not a credible threat to public safety. I see no reason why someone who can acquire a gun legally would need to acquire their gun illegally. Therefore we can extrapolate that in general, a person who is illegally possessing a gun either is banned from legally owning a gun or intends to do something criminal or nefarious with it.
Someone smoking weed is not a threat to public safety: driving under the influence and selling it to minors is and should be banned, but mere possession does not endanger the public. I think the difference here is that all illegal narcotics are illegal (they are demonstrably illegal because people caught possessing them go to jail) but not all guns are illegal, so a person illegally possessing a gun has clearly either been barred from possessing a gun legally or has suspicious motives for why they are acquiring their gun illegally.
They would have had a higher chance of survival had he used a knife or something like that.
I don't know how, but some people believe that mass shooters would have the same number of fatalities if they had been armed with just blades.
The barrier to entry to get a functional working gun would be higher both practically and financially.
I'm guessing that if the legal purchase and sale of guns were banned, the price to buy a gun on the black market would skyrocket. Supply and demand. A significant % of people wouldn't be able to afford those guns on the black market. And trying to find your way onto the black market to find a gun is probably harder than walking to the local walmart to buy a rifle.
And while some people will make their own guns, most people don't have the technical know-how.
It takes more effort to build your own bomb than it does to walk into a store and buy a gun over the counter. Make it harder for them to commit crimes and hopefully they blow themselves up by accident in the process.
Obviously eliminating violent crime is impossible, but reducing the likelihood and frequency at which it happens? Totally possible.
LiquidSword
Member
Ahh I see you missed the point. Of course someone can make their own gun. Enough people doing that to matter at all? No. Not even close
Edit: Also see post above
Exactly what I was thinking
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked