Support NeoGAF

[BattleMonkey]

I hear this argument a lot. And my response is always the same. If a shooter can do just as much damage just as effectively without 'military-like' rifles, then why the fuck do the military waste their money on military rifles?

Military engagements are usually done past 100m ranges where pistols are impractical, and their weapons are also automatic unlike civilian models for various purposes. None of these rampages take place beyond 10m ranges, where pistols are just as deadly and in many case more dangerous as they are better for up close engagements over a cumbersome rifle.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

No, just guns.

Don't agree? Too bad. You're on the wrong side of history.

And I refuse to be polite to gun advocates in light of all these violence that occurs.

Well, you're not going to get a gun ban. Sorry.

 

[Devolution]

The point is that it. blocks. nothing.

Do you get my point? Tell me how the AWB will stop someone from doing exactly what just happened?

What? The magazine size? As if he couldn't swap a magazine? I'm saying the real problem was not keeping those guns in a safe. People need to lock up their firearms if they have them. And maybe, just maybe they shouldn't have them in the home of someone with serious emotional and mental issues...

With yea, a collapsible stock, lack of muzzle flash and a 10rd limit will prevent this sort of thing......

You gotta start somewhere bro. Do you think if they came out with some real heavy shit right away that it would do any of us some good? There's already going to be TONS of backlash on this one. Like I said before when it comes to America and guns it's going to be some slow weaning process off the tit since they are obsessed with guns.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I refuse to be polite to gun advocates in light of all these violence that occurs.

Ban the thing that make the bad stuff happen!

 

[BlazingDarkness]

You have no place to say such a thing.

You're living in the fucking number one super power on the Earth, you have no reason to have a gun in your closet.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Then they should ban those too.

Oh you can't buy those guns any more? Too bad. The world don't care.

You need a tool? Go buy a real tool.

SHRUG.

You would have done better simply saying "I don't approve of guns and wouldn't mind if they were all banned."

 

[Man God]

By far the most ironic thing about this picture and this thread?

One of, if not his main motivation for the bombing was the Assault Weapons ban and the fear that the government was going to take away all the weapons.

Guns were the problem in this case!

 

[Arcteryx]

Yeah, propel a small piece of metal into the flesh of a living creature. That's it's only purpose. It's an instrument of death, and that's all it is.

I think all my time spent at the range and not shooting living creatures would prove otherwise.

 

[commedieu]

well i guess that went right over your head.

Not that i expected any less.

lol at Devo complaining about people defending their rights; when thats basically her entire post history regarding abortion.

lol @ you thinking you have a point about alcohol and guns. As well as ignoring everyone saying its not about stopping all crime.

 

[threetri333]

The phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true to an extent. However, guns are very effective tools to killing people. Does anyone agree or am I out of touch?

 

[Talon]

The point is that it. blocks. nothing.

Do you get my point? Tell me how the AWB will stop someone from doing exactly what just happened?

What? The magazine size? As if he couldn't swap a magazine? I'm saying the real problem was not keeping those guns in a safe. People need to lock up their firearms if they have them. And maybe, just maybe they shouldn't have them in the home of someone with serious emotional and mental issues...

With yea, a collapsible stock, lack of muzzle flash and a 10rd limit will prevent this sort of thing......

So your alternative is...what exactly? People are going to do what they will with what tools are available, but it's a travesty to see legally accessed weapons result in so many deaths.

Regarding the magazine size, I think the argument would be that a civilian doesn't need a 20-30 round magazine if it's for recreational use.

Below this line are my opinions:
_____________________________
The Gun Show loophole is the most obvious thing to fix because it's absurdly easily to access a weapon through that path.

I'm personally for greater restrictions over handguns because they're involved in an overwhelming amount of gun violence in this country for obvious reasons - they're concealable and easily accessed. They also have no use for hunting. It's obviously easier for the public to see an impressive gun like a M4 and think "holy shit, why can people own that weapon?"

 

[dBOL]

I'm all for an outright ban on drunk driving, we should have strict laws against drunk driving, this will help prevent murders by drunk drivers.

 

[BlazingDarkness]

There's a massive discrepancy between the quality of rented firearms and those an individual owns (assuming proper care).

Well what about owning your own gun but keeping it secure at a firing range, and not allowing it to be removed from the premises, that way you're still free to give it proper care but it's not being taken into civilian areas.

 

[Bornstellar]

Mammoth, why are certain weapons and modifications banned from civilian use then? There are already laws like these.

And I feel like Ill have to tag every post with;

Banning certain guns won't stop all gun crime, but it will prevent some. That some, is worth giving up civilian access to the weapon.

Do you feel the same way about your right to privacy?

 

[Snkfanatic]

Very true.. Not sure if the japan thing is accurate.. Probably not, but there is no question that the armed populace in america would basically be impossible to control by any foreign power, even if they could somehow manage an invasion, which they couldn't.

It's not really relevant to the discussion, exactly, but it is true.

What? How do you come to this conclusion? If a military power was here enforcing the populace it wouldn't matter how many guns your neighbors have. It won't do a thing to a trained military force.

 

[Flo_Evans]

well i guess that went right over your head.

Not that i expected any less.

lol at Devo complaining about people defending their rights; when thats basically her entire post history regarding abortion.

Need to propose that my bullets should be federally subsidized. If the the conservatives get wind of paying for other peoples bullets BAM! gun control passed.

 

[shintoki]

He will back down in a few weeks.

He has no reason anymore. We are closer to countries like Mexico and Brazil in murder rates than UK and Japan. We've had two massacres this year alone. This will not address the problem, but it's a start to addressing it.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

By far the most ironic thing about this picture and this thread?

One of, if not his main motivation for the bombing was the Assault Weapons ban and the fear that the government was going to take away all the weapons.

Guns were the problem in this case!

by that twisted logic, wasn't gun control laws the problem?

(I realize that Timothy McVeigh being frickin crazy was the actual problem)

 

[Bornstellar]

What? How do you come to this conclusion? If a military power was here enforcing the populace it wouldn't matter how many guns your neighbors have. It won't do a thing to a trained military force.

See Afghanistan, Iraq.

 

[Hero]

I hear this argument a lot. And my response is always the same. If a shooter can do just as much damage just as effectively without 'military-like' rifles, then why the fuck do the military waste their money on military rifles?

There are different expectations regarding combat efficiency inside a war zone versus outside of one.

 

[linsivvi]

Ban the thing that make the bad stuff happen!

Gun lobbying groups?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You gotta start somewhere bro. Do you think if they came out with some real heavy shit right away that it would do any of us some good? There's already going to be TONS of backlash on this one. Like I said before when it comes to America and guns it's going to be some slow weaning process off the tit since they are obsessed with guns.

If "you gotta start somewhere" doesn't it make sense to start where the problem is? Instead of critically flawed legislation? If more reasonable people concede that prohibition doesn't work (despite the circle-jerk on GAF about banning all guns) then doesn't reasonable gun reform that actually tackles the CORE problem make sense?

Semi automatic gun crime is simply in the distinct minority of gun crime. Starting there won't help when poverty and pistols create far more gun crime.

 

[richiek]

You're living in the fucking number one super power on the Earth, you have no reason to have a gun in your closet.

"You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around."

What? How do you come to this conclusion? If a military power was here enforcing the populace it wouldn't matter how many guns your neighbors have. It won't do a thing to a trained military force.

Don't you know that pistols and shotguns can totally take down tanks and planes?

 

[Devolution]

well i guess that went right over your head.

Not that i expected any less.

lol at Devo complaining about people defending their rights; when thats basically her entire post history regarding abortion.

Oh great comparison from dIEHARD as usual. A woman's right not to be a breeder is the same as someone's right to own a lethal weapon which can kill people. Good job sir.

 

[Talon]

This is the most specious argument of all time.

"If they take our guns away, then a foreign country will have an easier time occupying the United States. Nevermind that this is the most outlandish, obsurd idea in the world."

 

[KHarvey16]

What? How do you come to this conclusion? If a military power was here enforcing the populace it wouldn't matter how many guns your neighbors have. It won't do a thing to a trained military force.

This ignores almost every armed conflict since the gun was invented.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

You're living in the fucking number one super power on the Earth, you have no reason to have a gun in your closet.

I don't make decisions based on the US's superpower status. I don't own a gun, btw. Tell me, what else do I need and not need, though?

 

[BlazingDarkness]

The phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true to an extent. However, guns are very effective tools to killing people. Does anyone agree or am I out of touch?

People with guns kill people.

Remove the gun, less dead people.

 

[Devolution]

If "you gotta start somewhere" doesn't it make sense to start where the problem is? Instead of critically flawed legislation? If more reasonable people concede that prohibition doesn't work (despite the circle-jerk on GAF about banning all guns) then doesn't reasonable gun reform that actually tackles the CORE problem make sense?

Semi automatic gun crime is simply in the distinct minority of gun crime. Starting there won't help when poverty and pistols create far more gun crime.

You're smarter than comparing drugs and alcohol to guns.

 

[Bornstellar]

Oh great comparison from dIEHARD as usual. A woman's right not to be a breeder is the same as someone's right to own a lethal weapon which can kill people. Good job sir.

Well this is about to get messy.

 

[PenguinPoacher]

What? How do you come to this conclusion? If a military power was here enforcing the populace it wouldn't matter how many guns your neighbors have. It won't do a thing to a trained military force.

Someone doesn't know a thing about history.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

What? How do you come to this conclusion? If a military power was here enforcing the populace it wouldn't matter how many guns your neighbors have. It won't do a thing to a trained military force.

a trained military force are still (at least for now) human beings that can be shot and killed. We lose American soldiers lives thinking we are some invincible force.

 

[diehard]

Oh great comparison from dIEHARD as usual. A woman's right not to be a breeder is the same as someone's right to own a lethal weapon which can kill people. Good job sir.

One of those rights is in the constitution, one isn't.

You'll fight for whatever right fits your needs or wants.

Fuck every other right though.

 

[The Technomancer]

And the president would like to see legislation that aims to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, Carney added.

So has anyone presented a good argument against this yet?

 

[Dude Abides]

If "you gotta start somewhere" doesn't it make sense to start where the problem is? Instead of critically flawed legislation? If more reasonable people concede that prohibition doesn't work (despite the circle-jerk on GAF about banning all guns) then doesn't reasonable gun reform that actually tackles the CORE problem make sense?

Semi automatic gun crime is simply in the distinct minority of gun crime. Starting there won't help when poverty and pistols create far more gun crime.

Solving poverty, BRB.

 

[KingGondo]

by that twisted logic, wasn't gun control laws the problem?

(I realize that Timothy McVeigh being frickin crazy was the actual problem)

I wish we'd stop tossing around "crazy" as a blanket descriptor for people like McVeigh or Adam Lanza.

These people are obviously not normal and were delusional to some extent, but McVeigh was an extremist who had very specific (and obviously misguided) political aims. He's the very definition of a domestic terrorist. He might have subscribed to terrible ideologies, but dismissing him as simply "crazy" is hopelessly simplistic.

As for Lanza, it's obvious that mental illness played a role, as did environmental factors--including easy access to semiautomatic weapons.

But I absolutely abhor the "crazy people will always do crazy things" argument. It's the argument of a simple-minded person.

 

[commedieu]

If "you gotta start somewhere" doesn't it make sense to start where the problem is? Instead of critically flawed legislation? If more reasonable people concede that prohibition doesn't work (despite the circle-jerk on GAF about banning all guns) then doesn't reasonable gun reform that actually tackles the CORE problem make sense?

Semi automatic gun crime is simply in the distinct minority of gun crime. Starting there won't help when poverty and pistols create far more gun crime.

Mammoth, you're arguing the status-quo of politics, and focusing on that. I think there is a multitude of reasons, certain weapon types is part of that reason. Which is why certain weapons are illegal.

No one is saying BAN ALL GUNS. come on... thats some gun-nut shit right there(I'm not calling you one, as its your preference..) But to read everything about specific weapons as ALL WEAPONS NEED TO BE BANNED AND GUN CRIME WILL STOP, and argue with that, is nonsensical. Its what dieHard is doing, and then mentioning alcohol...?

Gun owners don't want the solution to start with them, so you're passing the buck to the bureaucracy of politics, and the NRA's influence on the government.

You're offering nothing, not even a step forward, just fluffy arguments that while ideal, aren't realistic in the world we live in of compromise.

 

[Talon]

Military engagements are usually done past 100m ranges where pistols are impractical, and their weapons are also automatic unlike civilian models for various purposes. None of these rampages take place beyond 10m ranges, where pistols are just as deadly and in many case more dangerous as they are better for up close engagements over a cumbersome rifle.

Nevermind the ease of concealing a pistol on a person.

 

[Devolution]

One of those rights is in the constitution, one isn't.

You'll fight for whatever right fits your needs or wants.

Fuck every other right though.

Your argument is sound a document written by a bunch of white males surely had the vested interests of women in mind.

Also please tell me when "well regulated militia" turned into individual ownership?

 

[pigeon]

People need to lock up their firearms if they have them. And maybe, just maybe they shouldn't have them in the home of someone with serious emotional and mental issues...

How do you enforce this? Really. Are you saying that some government agency should've told Nancy Lanza to get rid of her guns (which she was stockpiling because she was expecting the collapse of American society) because her son might have emotional problems? If she had refused to allow him to be diagnosed, should they have seized him and ran him through a psych screen forcibly?

I mean, what you're saying is common sense, but that's the whole problem. Yeah, you shouldn't have guns if your kid is a psycho. Go ask a hundred thousand parents if their kid is a psycho who is dangerous to himself and others and see how many say yes. Don't forget to tell them that they might have to give up some Constitutional rights if they admit it. It's a non-solution.

 

[Orayn]

I wish we'd stop tossing around "crazy" as a blanket descriptor for people like McVeigh or Adam Lanza.

These people are obviously not normal and were delusional to some extent, but McVeigh was an extremist who had very specific (and obviously misguided) political aims. He's the very definition of a domestic terrorist. He might have subscribed to terrible ideologies, but dismissing him as simply "crazy" is hopelessly simplistic.

As for Lanza, it's obvious that mental illness played a role, as did environmental factors--including easy access to semiautomatic weapons.

But I absolutely abhor the "crazy people will always do crazy things" argument. It's the argument of a simple-minded person.

It's also a dismissive, stigmatizing attitude that only makes the problem worse. We've got a serious issue with mental health in this country, but people aren't taking it seriously.

 

[Arcteryx]

lol @ you thinking you have a point about alcohol and guns. As well as ignoring everyone saying its not about stopping all crime.

How is alcohol NOT a point? At least guns can be used for hunting.

What can you do with alcohol besides relax, get drunk, or kill(~10,000) people while driving?

 

[DietRob]

By far the most ironic thing about this picture and this thread?

One of, if not his main motivation for the bombing was the Assault Weapons ban and the fear that the government was going to take away all the weapons.

Guns were the problem in this case!

Thank you for pointing this out.

I still say we need an |OT| Dumbassery you saw on Facebook/Twitter

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I wish we'd stop tossing around "crazy" as a blanket descriptor for people like McVeigh or Adam Lanza.

These people are obviously not normal and were delusional to some extent, but McVeigh was an extremist who had very specific (and obviously misguided) political aims. He's the very definition of a domestic terrorist. He might have subscribed to terrible ideologies, but dismissing him as simply "crazy" is hopelessly simplistic.

As for Lanza, it's obvious that mental illness played a role, as did environmental factors--including easy access to semiautomatic weapons.

But I absolutely abhor the "crazy people will always do crazy things" argument. It's the argument of a simple-minded person.

Crazy in this case was just short hand for "someone deluded enough to think their views or whatever McVeigh's actual reasons were are more important than human lives"

 

[LordCanti]

If "you gotta start somewhere" doesn't it make sense to start where the problem is? Instead of critically flawed legislation? If more reasonable people concede that prohibition doesn't work (despite the circle-jerk on GAF about banning all guns) then doesn't reasonable gun reform that actually tackles the CORE problem make sense?

Semi automatic gun crime is simply in the distinct minority of gun crime. Starting there won't help when poverty and pistols create far more gun crime.

Let's ban them.

How is alcohol NOT a point? At least guns can be used for hunting.

What can you do with alcohol besides relax, get drunk, or kill(~10,000) people while driving?

Alcohol is addictive. People won't give it up because they physically can't. It's also naturally occurring. People could make it in their bathtubs without too much trouble, which is exactly what happened during prohibition. On the flip side, guns are not simple to make nor addictive. Every idiot wouldn't have a homemade gun in his belt if you banned them. That's the difference.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

So your alternative is...what exactly?

-National registration
-National law requiring reporting of lost/stolen firearms
-Nation law stating firearms must be locked in a safe if anyone other than the homeowner lives in the house.
-Revamped electronic background checking system.
-Tackling the stigma on mental health and providng every man, woman and child with affordable and vital mental health services.

And to be honest...the government can't do it all for us. We as a society need to be more responsible. I'm sorry this woman lost her life but the notion she didn't keep her guns in a bolted safe in her closet just boggles me.

I know many here just want to ban guns. I don't and considering 47% of American households have a legal firearm in them there are plenty that utilize their second amendment rights. I want sensible gun laws. An assault weapons ban won't help. And like I said, I'm already subject to it in NY so I have no dog in this fight. I'm not arguing to protect my stuff. It's already compliant. And even if they add more, it doesn't apply to stuff made prior to the ban.

All this nonsense does is boost gun sales. Grats.

Let's ban them.

That's not going to happen. That's not realistic and I see no point in the mental masturbation of "Ban all guns, yeah!"

 

[pigeon]

One of those rights is in the constitution, one isn't.

This is just as bad as the liberals who argue for a strict constructionist reading of the 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution does in fact guarantee the right to an abortion via the Fourteenth Amendment. That's what the Supreme Court said and so that's what the document says. You might disagree, but if we're reading the text charitably, that's what it says, and if we're not reading the text charitably, then we get to have lots of arguments over how well-regulated your militia is.

 

[diehard]

Your argument is sound a document written by a bunch of white males surely had the vested interests of women in mind.

Also please tell me when "well regulated militia" turned into individual ownership?

please tell me where "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" didn't turn into individual ownership?

This is stupid.. go on fighting for whatever rights effect you personally.

 

[Devolution]

This is just as bad as the liberals who argue for a strict constructionist reading of the 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution does in fact guarantee the right to an abortion via the Fourteenth Amendment. That's what the Supreme Court said and so that's what the document says. You might disagree, but if we're reading the text charitably, that's what it says, and if we're not reading the text charitably, then we get to have lots of arguments over how well-regulated your militia is.

He wants it both ways.

please tell me where "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" didn't turn into individual ownership?

This is stupid.. go on fighting for whatever rights effect you personally.

You want to argue that something isn't in the constitution while you basically take an amendment completely out of historical context for your own benefit. You want it both ways, keep going.

 

[commedieu]

It's also a dismissive, stigmatizing attitude that only makes the problem worse. We've got a serious issue with mental health in this country, but people still aren't taking them seriously.

Mental health is a large part of the problem.

The problem with that argument, today, is ignoring that we have people who think communism means universal healthcare. There are several places that need to be attacked to solve this issue...

Everyone in this thread agrees we need to address healthcare.

Everyone in this thread can't agree that certain weapons are also the problem.