The US army should totally get rid of their guns and get every soldier a car instead. They're just as lethal plus it would solve the transportation issues.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Obama Supports New Bid To Ban Assault Weapons, Close Gun Show 'Loophole'
- Thread starter commedieu
- Start date
- Status
The US army should totally get rid of their guns and get every soldier a car instead. They're just as lethal plus it would solve the transportation issues.
And now the ad hominem attacks. Brilliant.
BlazingDarkness
Member
This is so incredibly dumb I can't believe you even posted it.
Phoenix
Member
Not really. The NRA default tactic will be to stall this legislation for as long as possible so that when it does come to light, the political temperament will be different. They won't engage in anything while the tragedy is so near and in everyones minds, they'll wait until America moves on (which we do all to easily and quickly).
Retreating back a bit farther,
"Why should we ban automatic weapons? What, are we going to ban semi-automatic weapons next?"
"Why should we ban premade C4 bombs? What, are we going to ban automatic weapons next?"
"Why should we ban atomic weaponry? What, are we going to ban premade C4 bombs next?"
What idiotic logic. And by the way, welcome to society: you can't do whatever you want if that action puts other people at risk. Oh, throwing burning bottles at that building sounds fun! You don't know my life! I enjoy doing it!
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
I was just listening to a thing on NPR that completely negates this. The effort required to get the materials together and to enact your plan gives law enforcement and any around you a lot more warning signs than picking up a completely legal firearm. They had a whole bunch of examples of people attempting the same thing but being stopped because someone got wind of it.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
Yep. I love my AK and everything. But, something needs to change. If that means no more AK, whatever. As long as I can have a shotgun and some kind of rifle for hunting I'll be happy. I have other hobbies.
I thought this too. The initial report I saw after the shooting said that the rifle was left in the car and that he only used the two pistols in the actual shootings. Maybe that report was wrong?
Bumblebeetuna
Banned
Plenty of people have no reason to own plenty of things they buy. As long as strict laws are in place to ensure the right people get them then it's none of your business.
That argument is simply pathetic. :lol
Hi, again. I said argue with the fact that certain weapons are banned. Stop making an argument against a logic of needs. I can't get into your subjective needs, so I stick to the law and precedent. Laws have decided that civilians don't need access to certain things, based on their needs, and needs alone. Which is why there is a suggestion to continue adding more weapons to that list, to potentially reduce. That is all laws can do. We can't stop all crime, but laws are intended to stop as much as we can, and make penalties for those who break them.
You're right, there isn't really anything to argue about. As certain, more lethally efficient, weapons aren't available to the general public. I'm just pointing out how your argument stands in the face of currently banned weapons/electronics/car modifications laws.
Palette Swap
Member
You almost make it sound like shooting living beings isn't a gun's original purpose. That's where these comparisons are fallacious.
Slightly related: I asked TheBlaze readers earlier whether a gun should be harder to get than a car, the results coming in so far are scaring me. I understand that there is a giant debate around gun rights and gun control in this country, but I don't see how you could argue that it should be easier to purchase an AR-15 than it is to pass your driver's test (especially considering how easy it is to get a car in the US compared to Europe for example).
This.
This.
GoldenEye 007
Member
I'd address the people that are irresponsible. They should not have to be mutually exclusive.
I'm ok with reforms in background checks and sales at gun shows. I'm ok with taking legitimate aims to figure out why our society has so many people that want to hurt others and why it seems more pronounced lately. I want to address the mental health issues. I want a more "social" society that helps people out in areas like health, living and education so that so many people aren't or don't have to be on edge in their day to day lives.
I'm just not ok with painting everyone that wants or already has guns as crazed killers lurking in the shadows.
If I could purchase a rocket launcher legally, I would totally blow up the deer in my yard. The vultures perching on the roof each morning would have a buffet and my garden would be saved.
However, as I know from playing Borderlands, rockets are very expensive ammunition and should be used sparingly.
HammerOfThor
Member
I get gun control laws, but banning certain weapons won't stop idiots from getting them illegally and causing damage. But I guess it's in infinite loop of making something restricted/illegal won't stop people from getting their hands on it.
Mammoth Jones
Member
And when some crazy goes on a rampage with a shotgun and people cry to take those away?
spandexmonkey
Banned
Speaking of needing weapons. My coworkers were discussing the inevitable gun debate and they listed their gun needs. No mention of hunting or collecting, instead it was protection and to be ready for when the feds and secret government groups come for them.
PoweredBySoy
Banned
No brain, no headache.
The criminals will have them, and guns aren't just for sport.
I am not a gun owner, but I like the fact that I can buy a gun if I ever needed to. And the only reason I would ever buy a gun is to arm myself against some kind of threat. I don't need a bolt action hunting rifle. I would want a gun that is convenient and effective to use in a close combat situation, defending my home or defending myself in public. I would probably go with a shotgun, to be honest, rather than an assault rifle, along with some kind of semi-automatic pistol for carrying purposes. Maybe a pocket gun of some kind.
But nobody is talking about banning double-action revolvers, which are also essentially semi-automatic and have been used heavily by police because of their reliability, accuracy, and tremendous stopping power. A criminal or a psycho could do just about as much damage with a 38 special or a 44 magnum as they do with a glock. More if he shot accurately because the round has more stopping power.
^ I've shot a .357 Magnum and an AR-15. I know which one made bigger holes in the targets. However, the smaller bullet doesn't come by itself. Caliber isn't the only variable in deadliness, there's also ROF (and magazine/clip/cylinder size). That said, I don't think we should ban semiautomatic weapons just because they look scary. That's avoiding the problem while patting ourselves on the back. We need to fix our gun laws, but reinstating the 1994 ban won't do that.
This is probably what scares me the most in this country. The amount of people that are just waiting for another Civil War to break out.
This is probably what scares me the most in this country. The amount of people that are just waiting for another Civil War to break out.
As long as its something they don't personally use or enjoy.
GAF:
Violent movies and games to blame? FUCK OFF!
so what's alcohol's primary purpose?
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
He used a gun. That's all that matters.
High capactiy magazines and weapons should definitely be banned. Hard to go on a rampage when your weapon only holds 10 rounds a clip.
This is the weapon Lanza used:
Dreams-Visions
Member
Meh on the assault weapons, but I really hope they can get the "Gun Show" loophole closed.
Perhaps they feel limiting the amount of ammo a magazine can hold is a bridge too far.
Perhaps they feel limiting the amount of ammo a magazine can hold is a bridge too far.
BlazingDarkness
Member
No but in cases such as what happened last week, it's very unlikely the 20 year old would have had access to the rifle if it were not legal.
Serial killers will seek out illegal weapons
Mass murderers usually explode as a result of mental instability
Mass murderers =/= serial killers
Mass murderers are more likely to use whatever they can grab to act on their emotions, if there's no guns immediately available they're less likely to cause as much damage
Dreams-Visions
Member
Specious argument is specious.
nor should anyone with a functioning brain. I don't think NRA members would be opposed to it either. I think the NRA might be, but that's because they're in the pocket of firearms manufacturers and haven't been working to protect their members and the community as a whole since...ever.
It won't, but it'll make people feel better.
Devolution
Member
A nation that can't even give others health care because not on my dime is going to fight any gun legislation. So many grown ass children who think their wants and desires should become before any decent society.
Felix Lighter
Member
If guns were regulated as much as cars in my state, I would be much happier.
ElectricBlue187
Member
it gets ya drunk
(you're not going to convince people that guns are useful by convincing them that other legal things are not useful)
Seriously? Seriously?!? What the fuck, people?!
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Definitely, I hate the term "gun nut" being thrown around like it is. However I do think that if you're passionate about gun rights and responsible gun use, passionate enough to not want to see certain gun ownership rights restricted, you should be willing to contribute to your community to advocate safe useage. If we don't want to see bans in place, then the next best option would be to form community groups to properly educate one another on what it means to be a responsible gun owner.
I don't own a gun and never will, but I know that everyone has hobbies and habits that others won't understand or advocate, even if the individual they're up against is a safe user. Responsible gun owners have a right to own their guns, but they do need to be aware that there are people being hurt by irresponsible use and that if people aren't willing to be educated on how to prevent that, then new laws need to be put into place to curb the negative effect of widespread gun ownership.
I wasn't. The point was many people will be for banning things that they don't use.
I don't drink alcohol, it kills tens of thousands each year, yet i don't think it should be illegal.
nothing.
Dreams-Visions
Member
lawd ha mercy.
nothing to that end, but as we've alluded to before there are some cultural and...educational... issues 'round these parts.
BlazingDarkness
Member
ElectricBlue187
Member
Does the War in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq ring any bells?
Quenching your thirst.
Stop making an argument against a logic of needs. I can't get into your subjective needs, so I stick to the law and precedent. Laws have decided that civilians don't need access to certain things, based on their needs, and needs alone. Which is why there is a suggestion to continue adding more weapons to that list, to potentially reduce. That is all laws can do. We can't stop all crime, but laws are intended to stop as much as we can, and make penalties for those who break them.
Certain weapons aren't available to the general public. I'm just pointing out how your argument stands in the face of currently banned weapons/electronics/car modifications laws.
Its not the same as any of the straws grasped at in this thread. At all.
Nope. See other countries with strict gun laws.
Holy shit. This may be a historic moment. I've finally seen something that's too dumb to even be racist.
BlazingDarkness
Member
Guns are designed to kill things, alcohol is a beverage.
Your comparison is incredibly dumb.
Devolution
Member
Something that has been brewing for quite some time.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Or we reduce the military budget by 5% and fund mental health programs in this country.
But no...that's not the problem. The problem wasn't this guy got no help. It wasn't that everyone around him "saw it coming". It wasn't that his mom kept guns in the house with a known mentally unstable person. It isn't she didn't keep her guns in a safe.
No. It's that semi-automatic weapons exist. Despite the fact that they are in the distinct minority of weapons used for crime.
People keep saying "But banning them would help!". But once again...with semi-autos making up such a small portion of gun crime...it's not going to help.
Afghans and Iraqis also had explosives and RPGs. They're more heavily armed that your average American with a pistol or shotgun.
ElectricBlue187
Member
and the citizens of the richest country on earth could not possibly afford to smuggle those, if the need was there?
Do not underestimate how much damage a single gun can do in the hands of a trained shooter
Indeed.
- Status