And all places in America would be far far safer if guns were outright banned and carried heavy sentances for use. I know this is obviously a far fetched ideal at this point in time, but I'm just saying...
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gun enthusiasts pack shows to buy assault weapons they fear will soon be outlawed
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
And all places in America would be far far safer if guns were outright banned and carried heavy sentances for use. I know this is obviously a far fetched ideal at this point in time, but I'm just saying...
Yes, you insisting on needing a gun is the problem. There's plenty of other countries that have a higher burglary rate than the United States yet have only a small fraction of gun-related deaths. The home-defense argument doesn't wash, sorry.
You are the problem man. Perhaps you were raised in a place where owning guns is considered normal and I accept that and I'm not saying you're a bad person or anything. I've got good friends who own guns who say the same sorts of things. But in the end, yes, y'all are the problem. The whole 'gun culture' thing isn't necessary and just creates an increased and unnecessary demand for firearms. Its crazy.
Yeah, being killed is so rare
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=...d=212602971693602996606.0004b647898ade2a6aefe
A blanket ban on guns because "it'll rarely happen" is like saying people shouldn't cover their drinks because it's "rare" they'll get roofied.
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=...d=212602971693602996606.0004b647898ade2a6aefe
A blanket ban on guns because "it'll rarely happen" is like saying people shouldn't cover their drinks because it's "rare" they'll get roofied.
This was already answered for you in another thread when you casually brought up tasers. If this was easy or cheap the military would be on it like white on rice. It's not easy. It's not cheap. There's no such thing as nonlethal when you are talking about incapacitating people quickly - which is why the term usually used is 'less-than lethal.' I suspect that a good chunk of the people wouldn't be very happy with the lethality of these options either and would quickly be asking for bans and even more reduced power.
To recap from the other thread: firearms are easy to use, multipurpose, easy to maintain, and fairly cheap. There's also the minor issue that you will need to amend the Constitution to actually 'ban' them - which is why you're seeing ridiculous end-runs to try and avoid this, as that has basically 0 percent chance of happening.
From your comments in other threads you have a hilariously unrealistic view of how firearms work and why people make the design and purchasing choices they do. Yeah, it's all so simple as to just "become a better shot" but the Gun Lobby is making sure it won't happen or something.
Well yeah, I suppose it's tough when you have to deal with real world issues and not armchair dismiss it all. I would say your patent ignorance of the subject matter is more of an issue when intelligently addressing competing concerns. It's actually rather painful to read on a gaming forum where the basics are quite accurately reflected in many FPS games.
GoldenEye 007
Member
How did it happen? Do you think it was justified?
Colonial era England officials weren't perfect little angels, you know. Quite disgusting actually.
Anyway, I do think there should be some changes. As stated, I don't oppose increasing background check standards, addressing loopholes in private sales, requiring better safety education, etc.
But I also think the actual core issues need to be addressed. Prohibition is and will be useless just like it was for alcohol and is for issues like drugs. Instead, there needs to be more focus on core social issues such as health, primary/secondary/postsecondary education, housing/living and others. Give people less of a reason to lose their and more to be happy or at least content in the first place which would dramatically affect crime in general.
But maybe that is too idealistic with our shit-tier politicians on both sides of the isle.
I personally will err on the side that preserves as many individual rights as possible. Including individual gun rights.
There is no such thing as "gun culture" no matter how much people who are proponents or opponents try to create one. Be it to throw everyone into a box so they can be easily attacked or misrepresented, or to collect them all together so they can give donations for causes that "protect their rights" or some other bull shit. Or if there is a "gun culture" it's such a small subset of overall gun owners or ownership rights supporters that it's not even worth addressing directly.
ThatCrazyGuy
Member
Where all the blue is concentrated, are those bad neighborhoods or something?
I have family from council bluffs!
Mammoth Jones
Member
Agreed. There are 100 million estimated gun owners in the US and only 4.5 million NRA members.
Well, now we know exactly how "rare" it is, and we can't get on anyone's case for it, now can we?
Most Americans back gun lobby, right to use deadly force
Sure this is from April, but still interesting. I would like to see some kind of follow up poll now that the NRA has done goofed again.
I never brought up tasers, you must be mistaken. I definitely feel that if enough R&D went into it, we could come up with something decent, though. The only obstacles are that people here ENJOY the killing power of guns. Thats a plus for them. Its why increased killing efficiency is a positive for new guns and everything. Nobody wants something that is less effective at killing, let alone merely incapacitating. I'm sure we could come up with something, but there's hardly a market for it. Which tells me that most people who own guns dont really do it for protection reasons. I think a lot of gun owners use bullshit excuses for their ownership when they simply enjoy their ownership of a gun.
Unless I said something about banning all guns, then there would be no need for a constitutional amendment. There's no specifics in the 2nd amendment about needing semi-automatics.
My point is that people hunting might have to deal with more difficulty, but I dont see how thats such a big ask if it saves countless lives. I have friends who bow hunt, so its not like hunting is so impossible without semi-autos. You need a better argument than that, sorry.
I think the biggest ignorance comes from people like you who just ignore the destructive element the US faces due to its extremely high gun-ownership rate. You dont have to be a gun expert to realize that. But you enjoy shooting, so you'll find whatever desperate justification you can in order to keep your hobby.
If you can somehow show me that the high gun crime rate here is completely unrelated to the ridiculously high gun-ownership rate, I might reconsider my opinion. So get to those bars and start working on your mental gymnastic routine, because I'm certainly not buying your weak performance so far. 3/10
Devolution
Member
Well, now we know exactly how "rare" it is, and we can't get on anyone's case for it, now can we?
I lived in the Bay Area people getting harmed or killed in all kinds of ways, including home invasions, isn't exactly rare in Richmond or Oakland.
ThatCrazyGuy
Member
Everything seems to be moving toward the the north/east parts of Omaha in those maps through the years.
I would want to live in Hillsborough, heh.
I would want to live in Hillsborough, heh.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
My friend works the gun counter at Academy Sports and told me that all the AR-15s are sold out at both Academy Sports in my town haha
I'm not too worried since my dad already has one (although we need to fix the disconnector/trigger spring since it will actually double fire at times). Handgun is what I'm looking to buy by March anyways.
I'm not too worried since my dad already has one (although we need to fix the disconnector/trigger spring since it will actually double fire at times). Handgun is what I'm looking to buy by March anyways.
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
You could open up an IMAX theater with that much projection
I don't get it, if anything this just further advocates why guns should be banned. Also notice how the majority of these are not related to armed robberies of the home.
speculawyer
Member
CHEEZMO;45691193 said:
I would like to say this is very funny . . . but it really isn't. It is just sad and completely true. :-(
Messypandas
Member
Why don't you just exclusivly sell non-lethal ammo? Would that not be a fair compromise. Why do citizens need lethal ammo? Surely rubber bullets and the like still put holes through gun range targets
Its crazy how other countries seem to get by just fine without everybody feeling the need for a gun for protection. I dont think its just a coincidence.
And personally knowing quite a few people who own guns, not a single one of them keeps their JUST for protection purposes. Its pretty common for them to be proud of their gun just cuz they like owning one, hunt, or shoot at ranges/in fields.
I'd be interested in seeing the percentage of gun owners according to economic living situation. I bet a very large percentage of owners do not live in any poor or dangerous areas.
People just like guns here. Thats really all it is. We're not a far more dangerous country than other places or anything.
Because people like that their guns have that killing power. Its a positive for them.
Its gun culture man. No gun enthusiast will admit it in an anti-gun conversation like this, but talk to them in private about it and its a whole different story.
Shoot someone with a rubber bullet and they have live ammo probably would be a really bad idea.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Other than hunting, a gun is used primarily to kill other humans. That's...pretty much the reason they exist. Less-than-lethal ammo is missing the point. The range is a place to try out your gun and become proficient at it for when you may have to kill someone.
That's a pretty silly compromise in my opinion, if you're gonna go that far why not just ban guns? Enthusiasts aren't looking for paintball or airsoft.
speculawyer
Member
Because they want to be able to kill people. They all think they are the hero in a Hollywood movie or TV show and that someday they'll save the day . . . they'll shoot that intruder. Never mind the reality that the gun will far more likely be involved in an accident, used to shoot someone living in the house, or used in a suicide of someone in the house.
Surely they can't be that unrealistic? Oh really? FEMA concentration camps, denial of evolution, still believe Saddam was tied to 9/11, think Obama is a Muslim, denial of climate change, think ACORN stole the recent election, think Obama is from Kenya, etc.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
that's like a phone company offering less service, it's reductionist. The sole purpose of a gun is to cause damage to living things, the less damage, the less effective the gun, the less "advanced". People like to upgrade, not downgrade.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
you think 4.5 million high spenders is a number to ignore?
it's a culture. do not deny it.
guess those Deer aren't going to kill themselves also(along with wolves, bobcats, coyotes, cougars, elk, bears, etc etc etc)
It is sad. Living in a country with decent gun regulation I can't even imagine feeling like I need to own a gun, this all seems like complete lunacy to me. Being shot is certainly the last thing on my mind at any given moment. I feel sorry for everyone who would rather feel safe than own guns and does not have that option.
empty vessel
Member
I would consider 37 homicides in a year in a city of half a million pretty rare. And most of these homicides will have been caused by personal disputes and/or domestic violence, i.e., not incident to criminal acts perpetrated against strangers like burglary or robbery. Of course, that homicides are rare in the bigger picture does not mean that their occurrence is not excessive and/or further reducible through various policies (including gun control).
GoldenEye 007
Member
The generalizations are cute. When I was shooting my AK-74, I took it to the range as a hobby. There were no visions of downing some bad guy, killing anyone, etc.
It was simply taking a day out challenging myself to see if I could get better with accuracy, interacting with others, just having some fun.
Maybe that is just rare, but I see guns as a tool with their use and consequences subject solely to the person using them. I was educated, I took precautions to eliminate accidents and I respected the power of the gun. Certainly everyone should.
I am not bloodthirsty. Just because someone likes guns does not mean they want to mow down the local nursery.
Edit: And the US Congress does have a bit of history implementing shit tier reactionary legislation in the wake of tragedy or perceived moral wrongs. See: Patriot Act, prohibition and drugs, copyright, etc. This to the person addressing government conspirators I guess. The reason people have those types of thoughts are I'm sure in part caused by the fact of things like the Patriot Act or other examples of clear government opportunities to reduce rights to the general population throughout history. The other part being them slightly being fully crazy.
It was simply taking a day out challenging myself to see if I could get better with accuracy, interacting with others, just having some fun.
Maybe that is just rare, but I see guns as a tool with their use and consequences subject solely to the person using them. I was educated, I took precautions to eliminate accidents and I respected the power of the gun. Certainly everyone should.
I am not bloodthirsty. Just because someone likes guns does not mean they want to mow down the local nursery.
Edit: And the US Congress does have a bit of history implementing shit tier reactionary legislation in the wake of tragedy or perceived moral wrongs. See: Patriot Act, prohibition and drugs, copyright, etc. This to the person addressing government conspirators I guess. The reason people have those types of thoughts are I'm sure in part caused by the fact of things like the Patriot Act or other examples of clear government opportunities to reduce rights to the general population throughout history. The other part being them slightly being fully crazy.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
It's naive to not take the extra precaution, especially when it's only for a few hundred dollars and can be placed conveniently in a nightstand or under the bed. But I guess that means I'm "living in fear" or "want to be the hero" lol
If the government demanded that my family hand in their guns, we would oblige. We're not lunatics or nuts or on the verge of waging civil war. Having a gun just isn't a big deal in the first place. You go the range, maybe go hunt, customize it, clean it...and that's basically the extent of owning a firearm for the vast vast vast majority of owners.
It is here in Texas too?
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
You're just saying that because you're on gaf
Admit it, you love the power of holding a baby killing heat seeking military grade dum dum assault class high powered cop killer full auto hollowpoint full metal jacket armor piercing incendiary semi automatic unnecessary burst fire bolt action sniper grade battle rifle in your hands, I KNOW YOU DO
I CAN READ MINDS
Messypandas
Member
Honest question: Would shooting rubber bullets at the range not hold the same thrill for people?
makingmusic476
Member
Meanwhile, in New Orleans...
I don't think comparing areas within the US that have strict gun control laws with other areas in the US that have more lax restrictions can ever be an effective gauge of comprehensive gun regulation's potential effectiveness, given that you're ultimately just drawing a line around smaller areas and saying "no guns allowed!"
Louisiana has some of the most lax gun control laws in the country, so it's little surprise that New Orleans, with fairly strict laws relative to the rest of the state, still sees a significant amount of guns floating around. Especially when shops in Jefferson Parish (essentially the suburbs of New Orleans) that aren't bound by those gun regulations are getting shut down for selling hundreds of guns illegally, as they are intentionally circumventing what few laws the state has in place.
You have to have comprehensive regulation across the entire nation. None of this spotty, patchwork bullshit we have now. You have to approach this like Japan or Australia or the UK.
GoldenEye 007
Member
That's true I concede. Tens of millions of future murderers lurking ready to strike.
Angelus Errare
Banned
We could just racially profile every potential shooter...get some stop and frisk quotas the whole nine! Just imagine getting pulled over because you somehow "fit the description."
So basically all of the things Democrats have been trying to be progressive on but conservatives (which majority of gun owners are) have been fighting them tooth and nail on?
So basically all of the things Democrats have been trying to be progressive on but conservatives (which majority of gun owners are) have been fighting them tooth and nail on?
Honest question : Would playing iPad games instead of PC/console games not hold the same thrill for people?
GoldenEye 007
Member
I put it strictly as conservative and liberal. Democrats can be just as slimy on issues as Republicans can be. I'm not going to paint Democrats as perfect little angels.
Its complex. I'm not liberal on every possible issue and in not conservative on every possible issue.
I've said my stance. I can't speak for why others want to actively prevent or reduce rights and access for others in the areas mentioned.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
I guess I don't see owning a gun on the same level as being able to vote, not be segregated, or having free speech, etc., in terms of rights. Its a weapon...
Angelus Errare
Banned
I always found it sad that guns have had more rights than minorities for a long time and arguably still do.
If you're putting it strictly conservative and liberal then yes. Conservatives are the ones who don't want the universal healthcare/Welfare programs (despite the fact they're statistcally the ones who need it most if you look at state by state breakdown regardless of what Santorum likes to think...yes I still hate the douche for his comments on blacks.).
Now that guns are at risk, they avert the gaze by bringing up shit that they've actively been blocking for lord knows how long. Are liberals perfect? Not by a long shot, but when it comes to trying to help out others I'd say they're much better than the conservative's "fuck you I got mine" approach to life. Conservatives see everything as an individual issue (ironic since they blame societal factors for gun shootings). Liberals tend to see things as a societal issue.
If you're putting it strictly conservative and liberal then yes. Conservatives are the ones who don't want the universal healthcare/Welfare programs (despite the fact they're statistcally the ones who need it most if you look at state by state breakdown regardless of what Santorum likes to think...yes I still hate the douche for his comments on blacks.).
Now that guns are at risk, they avert the gaze by bringing up shit that they've actively been blocking for lord knows how long. Are liberals perfect? Not by a long shot, but when it comes to trying to help out others I'd say they're much better than the conservative's "fuck you I got mine" approach to life. Conservatives see everything as an individual issue (ironic since they blame societal factors for gun shootings). Liberals tend to see things as a societal issue.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Yet it was established as a basic right well before full voting rights were ever established.
Of course it was sad it took until the 20th century to get those full voting rights, but just saying.
Louisiana is very lax on gun ownership. I feel extremely safe though, even among so many guns. Its just the norm. The gun store my little brother works at sold through over $100,000 worth of guns in a day. Mostly AR15s. So there are a hundred or so more of them in the city. but it doesnt bother me.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
context...there was reason to have a gun back then, considering we kind of needed our population to be armed
Don't really have that problem now...
The other amendments promote a free society by promoting the idea of civil discourse and the free exchange of ideas and identity. The 2nd amendment is more about solving conflicts with violence, which is an idea our modern society seems to want to reject (ideally). Not everyone seems to agree, though.
My friend's primary argument seems to be "We need to be able to defend ourselves if we can no longer trust our government", which instinctively feels ridiculous to me. Can anyone give me an extremely solid reason why this is a horrible argument? I've tried avenues regarding the international community, technological weapons in the government's possession well in excess of simple firearms, and the practical feasibility of organizing some kind of coordinated attack on the government, but none of these have seemed to stick.
GoldenEye 007: Only very recently has that interpretation been established. The 2nd was originally put in place to ease the anti-federalists fears of the US government becoming the same thing as the british empire, just with a different coat of paint. IT was put in place as a limit against a nationalized military, by having a people's army of militias regulated by the states in its place. Of course, that was thrown out the window by the late 1780s/early 1790s, as increasing feuds with native american tribes made it apparent that the nation would need a standing army to assist in expansion and multi-state military conflicts with tribes.
The first few decades of American independence (including the 1770s) involved the nation coming to a gradual realization that the idea of having a single country where each state had its own armies, its own currencies, its own monetary policies and trade regulations, just wasn't practical. The Articles of Confederation were scrapped, but a lot of the same ideas were put into place in the current constitution. Of course, the constitution didn't become deified until decades after the last of its original signees was deceased, so a slow drift away from these concepts like the states providing the standing armies for the country naturally occurred without objection, because it was seen as a framework, not a strict code of laws. Modern day strict constitutionalists have lost sight of that.
The first few decades of American independence (including the 1770s) involved the nation coming to a gradual realization that the idea of having a single country where each state had its own armies, its own currencies, its own monetary policies and trade regulations, just wasn't practical. The Articles of Confederation were scrapped, but a lot of the same ideas were put into place in the current constitution. Of course, the constitution didn't become deified until decades after the last of its original signees was deceased, so a slow drift away from these concepts like the states providing the standing armies for the country naturally occurred without objection, because it was seen as a framework, not a strict code of laws. Modern day strict constitutionalists have lost sight of that.
In a situation where it's citizens versus the government, and we're assuming the military has sided with tyrant mcpresident
the US military has full armor, video cameras, drones, mines, grenades, SAWs, tanks, apcs, control over the supply of materiel, and can cripple any city by simply blowing up bridges and putting craters in airport runways. They wouldn't even need to shoot anybody, they could just take the infrastructure and bleed a resistance out in a matter of a week.
Guns are pretty worthless without ammo. Sure, you can forge your own, but the military would control the sources for it, and you wouldn't have enough to melt down nor the ability to melt it down.
You are honestly better off heading to Mexico or Canada or surrendering as a POW and waiting for NATO to liberate you.
GoldenEye 007
Member
It's not even that I was talking about as you seem to be opposed to that right at all. It's more that it was second overall. Established well before the original voting amendment was even mentioned. I don't think you can say voting wasn't important considering a chief consideration for declaring independence in the first place was "taxation without representation."
Yes. One that classified weapons based on aesthetic features and was utterly meaningless.
See above.
If people are seriously suggesting reinstating the 1994 legislation as something that will be useful you should really read about what it was, and the utter lack of usefulness of it.
Edit: Actually, Ishould probably take a leaf from my own book and provide some information
The 1994 AWB banned the following:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
Now, much of that has zero functional bearing on the ability of the weapon to kill people quickly, and also creates a false sense that something has been done to help prevent future attacks when that is not the case. It is not only useless, it is worse than useless.
Today. Time ago, it was not the case. After the Civil War, Black people joined federal militias because otherwise they were barred from owning firearms, and they were getting terrorized and murdered in the streets by vengeful Southern whites. So, there have been times, and it's our responsibility to handle our power responsibly. Not to cast it out of hand. Gun control is fine, but some people always want to push as far as they can. It's more than a weapon, the right to keep and bear arms.
- Status