Support NeoGAF

[ClovingWestbrook]

If it means taking people's rights away there's no other word for it.



This is a good point. Why should people even have the ability to vote to have our rights taken away in the first place?

...the right to own a gun comes from a document which has throughout the history of said documentef been edited. Rights added and rigts removed. It's not a God given or human right to own a gun. The right comes from a document which can be changed.

 

[The Technomancer]

Sad part is that people are begging the government to take their rights away.

Crazy idea here: freedom does not operate on a linear scale. Sometimes you trade some freedoms for others. People who are voting for gun restrictions do so because they believe it will increase their freedom to live without fear of being shot.

 

[WonkyPanda]

Crazy idea here: freedom does not operate on a linear scale. Sometimes you trade some freedoms for others. People who are voting for gun restrictions do so because they believe it will increase their freedom to live without fear of being shot.

You sound like a communist. Go move to Russia.

/s

 

[nib95]

People love to bring up rocket launchers. So now a semi-automatic is a rocket launcher? Really?

This is not a rocket launcher. It looking scary doesn't make it contain anything near the destructive capability of a rocket launcher.

Depends really. Id hazard an assault rifle could be just as effective or more so at taking lives compared to an rpg in certain environments.

 

[Technosteve]

gun rights is really an manfistation of american individualism and selfishness

 

[CrunchyFrog]

The point is, it's our right to own guns. If the government wants to take away that right I'm not going to feel any pity when people defend their rights.

First 2 points here: 1, that constitutional rights are backed up by only democratic vote and or popular opinion and can be taken away by the influence of either, 2, that, while not provable without some form of time machine, I do not think the writers of those original amendments could have foreseen and prepared for the kinds of weapons and problems we have facing our current society, and likely would have worded the amendment much differently otherwise. Lastly, your argument appears to be from a strict constructionist view of the constitution, so I will argue along those lines. The 2nd amendment states you have the right to bear arms. It does NOT, however, state you have the right to bear ANY arms you so choose nor does it specifically name which arms you have the right to bear. From there, the government then is well within its bounds to define such so long as you have the right to bear some form of arm/weapon (or if you wanna take to an even further extreme, at least 2 or more weapons). It doesn't even define "arms," so we could be talking about next to anything here.

But I personally believe such strict interpretations are foolhardy and worthless. The Constitution does not have an exhaustive list of circumstances in which it may be applied. Clearly, in order to gain any useful legislative principles out of the constitution one has to interpret said document. Interpretation is very much a product of opinion and popular discourse, and thus will always be subjective and may vary wildly from person to person or generation to generation. The constitution is not some stone-carved engraving from which there is no relief or discourse, it is a document which is constantly evolving to meet the problems and beliefs posed in an equally evolving society. In the case of gun reform, there is reasonable argument that change is necessary. It's why we have the whole amendment process in the first place.'

Thus, the only "rights" you could be referring to here are those granted by virtue of your humanity or by some deity, at which point we've arrived at the boundaries of philosophy and subjective opinion reigns.

Crazy idea here: freedom does not operate on a linear scale. Sometimes you trade some freedoms for others. People who are voting for gun restrictions do so because they believe it will increase their freedom to live without fear of being shot.

Also this. It's not like the people who vote for regulation get off on impinging other people's "rights." They're doing so because the believe it to be for the good of themselves and humanity in general (unless they have some kind of mental condition). I don't believe in the Snidely Whiplash supervillain, but I do believe in the POTENTIAL for evil and the misuse of resources. Humanity would do best not to turn on itself.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

United States. Stick a fork in us, we're done.

 

[nib95]

gun rights is really an manfistation of american individualism and selfishness

Pretty much this.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

gun rights is really an manfistation of american individualism and selfishness

No I'm pretty sure they're a manifestation of fighting an 18th century war of independence.

 

[Forever]

So now a semi-automatic is a rocket launcher? Really?

When did he say that? He was critiquing the arms race logic used by the video.

 

[dabig2]

Depends really. Id hazard an assault rifle could be just as effective or more so at taking lives compared to an rpg in certain environments.

It'd certainly be a lot easier in most cases to maximize your kill efficiency.

Similar logic applies to the hesitance in many states to allow concealed carry of small firearms no matter if it can blow a hole through solid concrete or not. It's not about the overall destruction of 1 round vs another.

 

[WonkyPanda]

No I'm pretty sure they're a manifestation of fighting an 18th century war of independence.

I don't see how those are mutually exclusive, honestly. I'd say, "all of the above."

 

[speedline]

No I'm pretty sure they're a manifestation of fighting an 18th century war of independence.

Bingo!

 

[Dead Man]

Well this thread is certainly uglier than the previous ones. For what it's worth, if you want to control something, you need to understand it. Many of the posters here who hold very strong anti gun rights opinions would do well to educate themselves so they can debate with the pro gun people calling them ignorant. Pro gunners would also do well to explain politely when people are wrong rather than being dismissive. And vice versa of course.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

gun rights is really an manfistation of american individualism and selfishness

I think there is a place for responsible use of handguns or other such weapons that are sufficiently low enough in power as to curb great harm but effective enough as to prevent harm in those cases where they are absolutely necessary. The right to bear arms is sound in principle, but the firepower at play here and in the most contentious cases is just beyond the limits of said right. It's arbitrary, but I think most reasonable people can agree that there is a line being crossed somewhere in all of this.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I think there is a place for responsible use of handguns or other such weapons that are sufficiently low enough in power as to curb great harm but effective enough as to prevent harm in those cases where they are absolutely necessary. The right to bear arms is sound in principle, but the firepower at play here and in the most contentious cases is just beyond the limits of said right. It's arbitrary, but I think most reasonable people can agree that there is a line being crossed somewhere in all of this.

Agreed. I am a strong supporter in people having thr right to own guns BUT I also am for stronger gun ownership laws and background checks and a full ban on assault weapons.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I think there is a place for responsible use of handguns or other such weapons that are sufficiently low enough in power as to curb great harm but effective enough as to prevent harm in those cases where they are absolutely necessary. The right to bear arms is sound in principle, but the firepower at play here and in the most contentious cases is just beyond the limits of said right. It's arbitrary, but I think most reasonable people can agree that there is a line being crossed somewhere in all of this.

If the weapon is capable of killing a maniac will be capable of devastation with it. People keep ignoring this but the VT shooter used two pistols with 10rd magazines.

That's not to say "we should do nothing" but it is to say going after "scary" semi-automatic rifles didn't work. It doesn't work. It won't work. It's feel good legislation that doesn't even come close to reducing violent crime while respecting the 2nd Amendment. With they proper legislation they could accomplish both: Reduce crime and still respect a citizens right to use their firearms that are on the market and generally aren't misused.

 

[Link]

Well this thread is certainly uglier than the previous ones. For what it's worth, if you want to control something, you need to understand it. Many of the posters here who hold very strong anti gun rights opinions would do well to educate themselves so they can debate with the pro gun people calling them ignorant. Pro gunners would also do well to explain politely when people are wrong rather than being dismissive. And vice versa of course.

I actually own a .38 for home defense. I go to the range a couple times a year to shoot and I have a concealed carry license (even though I don't take it outside my home unless I'm going to the range). My personal opinion is if I need more than that revolver for self-defense, I'm probably dead anyway.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Doesn't that go both ways?

An anti-gun person focuses on the "well regulated militia" part.

Pro-gun focuses on the "shall not be infringed" part.

All vying to support their view in a healthy debate?

No the anti-gun person clearly looks at both parts...

but seriously even if you took the most liberal reading of it, it was written during a time when charging with bayonets was a real battlefield option. Their soldiers had less deadly guns than anything you could buy in a gun shop today.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

If the weapon is capable of killing a maniac will be capable of devastation with it. People keep ignoring this but the VT shooter used two pistols with 10rd magazines.

People are capable of mass murders with kitchen knives, yet we don't have a ban on knives? Again, the potential for loss of life for handguns is far less than your typical assault weapon, yet still has the positives of defense in crimes in the reality of a modern firearms society. (I speak in generalities here because to go into specifics would take for more time than I have to spare). There is a fine line between utility and potential for misuse and legality. As I conceded earlier, however, that line is arbitrary.

 

[nib95]

Well this thread is certainly uglier than the previous ones. For what it's worth, if you want to control something, you need to understand it. Many of the posters here who hold very strong anti gun rights opinions would do well to educate themselves so they can debate with the pro gun people calling them ignorant. Pro gunners would also do well to explain politely when people are wrong rather than being dismissive. And vice versa of course.

Many of us anti gun people are from countries, cultures or societies where there are no guns and there are no such mass shootings, so its difficult for us to empathise. Most of the pro gun arguments to me can be diluted to plain selfishness or fear. Even the solutions I've heard, all of them catch the tail and miss the elephant. That or they're long, unnecessary or expensive measures where an ultimately more simple solution exists.

 

[CrankyKong]

United States. Stick a fork in us, we're done.

Can I have your stuff?

 

[RDreamer]

It just seems so sick to specifically go out and buy a gun after an incident like this. I mean I could see going out and buying a gun after news of something that you could defend yourself against. Like if there was a home break in in your neighborhood or even a bit news story about one where someone was possibly killed. That'd be alright to buy a gun. Buying a gun in this instance, where it isn't something Joe Schmoe is going to defend himself against, since it was at a school with children just seems kind of callous and selfish in a way. It just feels like their precious guns are the first and only thing these people think about.

Completely and utterly random thought, too: I do wonder what will happen to this whole debate once the entire concept of "arms" changes. Like, what happens when we get to laser weapons that could potentially be made to only "stun" someone for a while. I wonder if people would be OK with banning the killing kind in that case.

 

[Devolution]

Many of us anti gun people are from countries, cultures or societies where there are no guns and there are no such mass shootings, so its difficult for us to empathise. Most of the pro gun arguments to me can be diluted to plain selfishness or fear. Even the solutions I've heard, all of them catch the tail and miss the elephant. That or they're long, unnecessary or expensive measures where an ultimately more simple solution exists.

Honestly even the anti-gun arguments here (the ones that aren't stupid) focus on getting rid of assault weapons (because they're unnecessary) and handguns (because they can be concealed.) Even anti-gun movements back in the day focused on the "Saturday night special" but the NRA has wielded so much lobbying power it's gone nowhere.

 

[Pandaman]

It just seems so sick to specifically go out and buy a gun after an incident like this. I mean I could see going out and buying a gun after news of something that you could defend yourself against. Like if there was a home break in in your neighborhood or even a bit news story about one where someone was possibly killed. That'd be alright to buy a gun. Buying a gun in this instance, where it isn't something Joe Schmoe is going to defend himself against, since it was at a school with children just seems kind of callous and selfish in a way. It just feels like their precious guns are the first and only thing these people think about.

Exactly.

None of these weapons will prevent another incident, but they might just enable one.

the fuck, people.

 

[nib95]

Honestly even the anti-gun arguments here (the ones that aren't stupid) focus on getting rid of assault weapons (because they're unnecessary) and handguns (because they can be concealed.) Even anti-gun movements back in the day focused on the "Saturday night special" but the NRA has wielded so much lobbying power it's gone nowhere.

Unnecessary doesn't come in to it. Fact is they're deadly tools with the sole purpose and design of killing, and far too effective at it, therefore do not have a place in modern and socially developed society.

Also, lol at mass murders with a knife. Infinitely less likely.Many have tried and failed. Come at someone with a knife and theres a large chance the person/people they're attacking will fight back or grab the first thing near them and do damage back. We're talking close quarters combat where the odds are infiniely less stacked. With a gun theres little you can do, especially if the attacker is at a distance. Charging is suicide, lest you can just run.

 

[Seanspeed]

It just seems so sick to specifically go out and buy a gun after an incident like this. I mean I could see going out and buying a gun after news of something that you could defend yourself against. Like if there was a home break in in your neighborhood or even a bit news story about one where someone was possibly killed. That'd be alright to buy a gun. Buying a gun in this instance, where it isn't something Joe Schmoe is going to defend himself against, since it was at a school with children just seems kind of callous and selfish in a way. It just feels like their precious guns are the first and only thing these people think about.

Completely and utterly random thought, too: I do wonder what will happen to this whole debate once the entire concept of "arms" changes. Like, what happens when we get to laser weapons that could potentially be made to only "stun" someone for a while. I wonder if people would be OK with banning the killing kind in that case.

Gun culture man. Thats all it is. Bunch of idiot fucking gun-nuts here who abuse the 2nd amendment's all-powerfulness because they like shootin' thangs. Buying these assault-like weapons in lieu of what happened is gross, but thats the reality of the country I live in.

Also, the concept of 'arms' wont change unless the consumer base does. So long as these gun nuts remain and the NRA throws money at the gov't, it'll be nothing but the same old, same old. I have no doubt in my mind that R&D could go into creating non-lethal weapons able to be used for self-defense, and perhaps are even fun to use, but something that doesn't have killing power just isn't as appealing.

 

[Devolution]

Unnecessary doesn't come in to it. Fact is they're deadly tools with the sole purpose and design of killing, and far too effective at it, therefore do not have a place in modern and socially developed society.

Also, lol at mass murders with a knife. Infinitely less likely.Many have tried and failed. Come at someone with a knife and theres a large chance the person/people they're attacking will fight back or grab the first thing near them and do damage back. We're talking close quarters combat where the odds are infiniely less stacked. With a gun theres little you can do, especially if the attacker is at a distance. Charging is suicide, lest you can just run.

Unnecessary comes into it when you have people who want home defense or go hunting. Thus hunting rifles and shotties would be generally off the table while assault weapons and handguns would be heavily regulated or outright banned. But we can't even get that far thanks to the gun lobbies here. A blanket gun ban and discussion along these lines is idealistic and only feeds into the paranoia of the pro-gun nuts.

 

[ShdwDrake]

I understand GAFs concern... but the thing is that its easy to buy a gun illegally from and illegal seller anyway.

 

[Dead Man]

Many of us anti gun people are from countries, cultures or societies where there are no guns and there are no such mass shootings, so its difficult for us to empathise. Most of the pro gun arguments to me can be diluted to plain selfishness or fear. Even the solutions I've heard, all of them catch the tail and miss the elephant. That or they're long, unnecessary or expensive measures where an ultimately more simple solution exists.

This is a good point, but when making suggestions for a situation you are not familiar with it behoves you to at least gain a modicum of knowledge about it. Plenty of posters on GAF are quite able to provide factual knowledge about guns, from both side of the argument, and when all else fails, wiki has a (disputed, but still pretty decent) page on gun politics in the US, and pretty good individual fact pages for particular weapons and rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO

I actually own a .38 for home defense. I go to the range a couple times a year to shoot and I have a concealed carry license (even though I don't take it outside my home unless I'm going to the range). My personal opinion is if I need more than that revolver for self-defense, I'm probably dead anyway.

Fair enough, wasn't really speaking to people like you

 

[CrunchyFrog]

I understand GAFs concern... but the thing is that its easy to buy a gun illegally from and illegal seller anyway.

So shouldn't the response be to make that more difficult either through more stringent laws or better enforcement rather than just shrug our shoulders and fight fire with fire? Government facilities aren't TOTALLY inept

 

[nib95]

Unnecessary comes into it when you have people who want home defense or go hunting. Thus hunting rifles and shotties would be generally off the table while assault weapons and handguns would be heavily regulated or outright banned. But we can't even get that far thanks to the gun lobbies here. A blanket gun ban and discussion along these lines is idealistic and only feeds into the paranoia of the pro-gun nuts.

You really only need guns for home defence when theres open access to guns in the first place. You think I'm terrified of being robbed without my gun here in the UK? You think most Europeans are in their gun outlawed nations? No. Because guns are rare when they're made highly illegal and banned, that and criminals know sentances involving guns are far more severe. Here we defend ourselves the good old fashioned and imo much braver way, with our fists and/or domestic weapons. If I do happen to get burgaled by some armed robbers (a stupendously small chance at that), they can take my shit. Thats what insurance is for anyway.

 

[Seanspeed]

I understand GAFs concern... but the thing is that its easy to buy a gun illegally from and illegal seller anyway.

Its not that easy, actually. And stricter laws could make that even more difficult.

But hey, lets just not do anything because nothing will totally fix the problem. Best just keep things as they are, right?

 

[Devolution]

You really only need guns for home defence when theres open access to guns in the first place. You think I'm terrified of being robbed without my gun here in the UK? You think most Europeans are in their gun outlawed nations? No. Because guns are rare when they're made highly illegal and banned, that and criminals know sentances involving guns are far more severe. Here we defend ourselves the good old fashioned and imo much braver way, with our fists and/or domestic weapons. If I do happen to get burgaled by some armed robbers (a stupendously small chance at that), they can take my shit. Thats what insurance is for anyway.

Look dude you can argue all you want about Europe, this isn't Europe. As much as I'd love for it to be Europe in some respects this kind of arguing is idealistic and ignorant of what we're dealing with here. A blanket ban isn't fucking happening. We'll be lucky if certain types of guns are banned and tighter regulation is put on acquiring them. When you have a culture this devoted to guns you can't ban the shit cold turkey. Could you please at least put forth arguments that deal with the issues in the context of our culture instead of saying "europe/my country this, europe/my country that." If you haven't noticed, we're much different in many respects.

 

[FyreWulff]

Agreed. I am a strong supporter in people having thr right to own guns BUT I also am for stronger gun ownership laws and background checks and a full ban on assault weapons.

This is where I sit. We need a middle ground where gun ownership still exists, but we ban certain categories of guns and make it harder to own one.

The 2nd only specifies a right to bear arms, it doesn't specify the types of arms. Ban handguns (shit for defense and accuracy), ban assault rifles. AR-15s are a waste of money.

 

[nib95]

On a side note I have been victim to attempted burgalries before. But both times me and my cousin managed to scare off the burglars. One other time when no one but my mum was home, she got pepper sprayed in the face. She managed to run out of the house and the burglar ran away with nothing.

After a few weeks of digging I did find out who did it and planned to deal with it, but later learned he'd been arrested anyway for other robberies, caught after attempted suicide atop a school building. After that I just felt sorry for him. This was a guy I grew up with who was going through an incredibly difficult time and had lots of mental issues. Kinda thankful guns aren't legal and are instead extremely hard to come by here, because theres a high chance in the struggle my mum could have been shot instead of just maced were the laws different.

 

[akira28]

I have to get another job so I can buy the guns I need before they're outlawed. /slight paranoia

 

[Seanspeed]

Look dude you can argue all you want about Europe, this isn't Europe. As much as I'd love for it to be Europe in some respects this kind of arguing is idealistic and ignorant of what we're dealing with here. A blanket ban isn't fucking happening. We'll be lucky if certain types of guns are banned and tighter regulation is put on acquiring them. When you have a culture this devoted to guns you can't ban the shit cold turkey. Could you please at least put forth arguments that deal with the issues in the context of our culture instead of saying "europe/my country this, europe/my country that." If you haven't noticed, we're much different in many respects.

I agree in a sense, but I think its also worth paying attention to people from other places reminding us that our attitudes towards guns is NOT normal, nor acceptable in most civilized societies. I've always had the opinion that, to a degree, its good to care what others think of you. It can make you a better person and make you aware of flaws that you didn't realize were so apparent. If America can take a look outside its borders and see how damn insane we are compared to everybody else when it comes to guns, perhaps we can start to do something about it. Thats a very idealistic view, but when a proper solution to all this requires an actual attitude change more than just some reactionary law changes, I think its well worth noting.

 

[nib95]

Look dude you can argue all you want about Europe, this isn't Europe. As much as I'd love for it to be Europe in some respects this kind of arguing is idealistic and ignorant of what we're dealing with here. A blanket ban isn't fucking happening. We'll be lucky if certain types of guns are banned and tighter regulation is put on acquiring them. When you have a culture this devoted to guns you can't ban the shit cold turkey. Could you please at least put forth arguments that deal with the issues in the context of our culture instead of saying "europe/my country this, europe/my country that." If you haven't noticed, we're much different in many respects.

I agree, start with an assault weapons ban and work your way down. Slowly but surely.

 

[rac]

You really only need guns for home defence when theres open access to guns in the first place. You think I'm terrified of being robbed without my gun here in the UK? You think most Europeans are in their gun outlawed nations? No. Because guns are rare when they're made highly illegal and banned, that and criminals know sentances involving guns are far more severe. Here we defend ourselves the good old fashioned and imo much braver way, with our fists and/or domestic weapons. If I do happen to get burgaled by some armed robbers (a stupendously small chance at that), they can take my shit. Thats what insurance is for anyway.

Wouldn't you rather shoot at them with your own gun?

 

[Emitan]

Wouldn't you rather shoot at them with your own gun?

Why would he kill them? There's no need.

 

[Dead Man]

I agree, start with an assault weapons ban and work your way down. Slowly but surely.

See, that is a pretty meaningless statement. What do you mean by assault weapons? It is such a horribly loaded term these days, it means a hundred things to different people.

 

[coldvein]

i was thinking about the home invasion thing today.. if i was at home and i thought there was somebody with a gun prowling around, i dont think my instinct would be "i'm gonna kill this dude!" it would be to get the fuck out of there and call the cops.

just a random thought.

 

[metalslimer]

All I know is that I don't want to have guns be easy to get, and especially don't want the NRAs bullshit retarded solution of everyone should just be armed.

Another thing I've noticed is comparing the US to countries like Brazil where guns are banned but there is still a lot of gun violence. Do people really believe America is that far gone?

 

[Devolution]

I agree in a sense, but I think its also worth paying attention to people from other places reminding us that our attitudes towards guns is NOT normal, nor acceptable in most civilized societies. I've always had the opinion that, to a degree, its good to care what others think of you. It can make you a better person and make you aware of flaws that you didn't realize were so apparent. If America can take a look outside its borders and see how damn insane we are compared to everybody else when it comes to guns, perhaps we can start to do something about it. Thats a very idealistic view, but when a proper solution to all this requires an actual attitude change more than just some reactionary law changes, I think its well worth noting.

Of course the perspective of other countries is necessary but it's done in such a simplistic fashion. It's not just guns that have tighter control, there are better systems of primary education, social welfare, health care and ways in which they deal with economic disparity.

I agree, start with an assault weapons ban and work your way down. Slowly but surely.

Personally I'd like to see something done about handguns more than anything since they're the biggest issue.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

I understand GAFs concern... but the thing is that its easy to buy a gun illegally from and illegal seller anyway.

And those guns were legal once. More legal weapons -> more illegal weapons.

 

[Beerman462]

Automatic and Semi-automatic weapons are only good for murdering several people at one time. Single shot/bolt action are sufficient for hunting.

 

[metalslimer]

Personally I'd like to see something done about handguns more than anything since they're the biggest issue.

And that's where the dilemma comes in because those would be the hardest to actually get under control.

 

[Forever]

See, that is a pretty meaningless statement. What do you mean by assault weapons? It is such a horribly loaded term these days, it means a hundred things to different people.

We had an assault weapons ban, the legal definition is already established.

 

[Devolution]

And that's where the dilemma comes in because those would be the hardest to actually get under control.

Of course but considering how much gun violence they're involved in and the ability to conceal them, to me they should be relegated to Law Enforcement use only. Nothing is easy or simple when it comes to this and most of it is just futile thanks to the gun lobbies who ensure nothing of worth gets done. A lot of the weapons will still be out, used illegally, etc etc, there are no real solutions here without seriously complex answers.