Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

Well banning pistols isn't gonna stop a criminal from obtaining one. Basically the only people this would effect is law abiding citizens.

No fucking shit.

The entire POINT of Gun Control is to reduce the RATE of violence, not eliminate it entirely.

This whole "Criminals will still get guns regardless!" shtick needs to stop, because it's based on faulty logic at best and an outright fucking stupid one at worse.

 

[mj1108]

"This wouldn't have happened if they were all armed".

/GOP & NRA

 

[Choke on the Magic]

We will eventually. We'll just have to be beaten into submission until we see the error of our ways, and wait for the paranoid dinosaurs in office to die off and be replaced by more logical humans.

American gun laws will be unrecognisable in 50 years.

People like you are why I continue to support the NRA and SAF.

 

[Link]

People like you are why I continue to support the NRA and SAF.

You have no right to call anyone out when you constantly admit that you support the NRA out of spite.

 

[The Wanderer]

People like you are why I continue to support the NRA and SAF.

And precisely why your mentality will become increasingly irrelevant as you age.

 

[TacticalFox88]

People like you are why I continue to support the NRA and SAF.

The NRA doesn't give a fuck about you.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

You have no right to call anyone out when you constantly admit that you support the NRA out of spite.

It's not out of spite. It's out of wanting to continue to have my right to own firearms. While the NRA is no where near perfect they stand up to gun control fanatics who think I shouldn't be allowed to own a pistol for example. Try again.

 

[Johnny M]

You think someone in Montana needs to protect himself more than someone in a big city?

lol

yep, if i live in a place with nothing near (police station) for miles, vs a big city from a first world country with thousands of cops here and there.

So why not ban everything except shotguns and bolt action rifles?

 

[RDreamer]

Well banning pistols isn't gonna stop a criminal from obtaining one. Basically the only people this would effect is law abiding citizens.

It would stop some "law abiding citizens" from becoming "criminals" that use guns.

People need to stop with this ridiculous fucking jargon. The world isn't black and white. There aren't saintly do-gooders who follow every law to a T and then another group of ruthless, insane criminals who will stop at nothing to kill people. Seriously, it's a laughable, toddler-esque worldview. Drop it. People aren't black and white. People are law-abiding until they suddenly aren't.

 

[Vestal]

It's not out of spite. It's out of wanting to continue to have my right to own firearms. While the NRA is no where near perfect they stand up to gun control fanatics who think I shouldn't be allowed to own a pistol for example. Try again.

no one is talking about taking away your pistol. You support an organization that actively lies through their teeth in order to get they're way. Just look at last weeks background check amendment if you doubt that

 

[kingkitty]

Just another day.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

It's not out of spite. It's out of wanting to continue to have my right to own firearms. While the NRA is no where near perfect they stand up to gun control fanatics who think I shouldn't be allowed to own a pistol for example. Try again.

The NRA couldn't give two shits about you. FYI their lobbying at this point will be for the gun manufacturers and them only.

 

[Dhx]

You think someone in Montana needs to protect himself more than someone in a big city?

lol

There are sparsley populated areas in Montana with a handful of police/troopers covering thousands of square miles.

 

[Partial Gamification]

It's not out of spite. It's out of wanting to continue to have my right to own firearms. While the NRA is no where near perfect they stand up to gun control fanatics who think I shouldn't be allowed to own a pistol for example. Try again.

I don't mean to pile on but I believe responsible gun ownership involves not "waving your gun around," even if it is metaphorically - with words.

 

[Vyroxis]

There are sparsley populated areas in Montana with a handful of police/troopers covering thousands of square miles.

When seconds matter, a police officer is only minutes/hours away.

 

[Darkman M]

No fucking shit.

The entire POINT of Gun Control is to reduce the RATE of violence, not eliminate it entirely.

This whole "Criminals will still get guns regardless!" shtick needs to stop, because it's based on faulty logic at best and an outright fucking stupid one at worse.

It's not stupid to me, I carry a gun everyday and you would never know it and I will continue to do so.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

You have no right to call anyone out when you constantly admit that you support the NRA out of spite.

It's not out of spite. It's out of wanting to continue to have my right to own firearms. While the NRA is no where near perfect they stand up to gun control fanatics who think I shouldn't be allowed to own a pistol for example. Try again.

I could give a damn if the NRA or SAF "care" about me or not. Get salty people.

 

[Partial Gamification]

[...] Get salty people.

Com'on, don't antagonize; this goes for both "sides" of the debate.

 

[smr00]

"This wouldn't have happened if they were all armed".

/GOP & NRA

"This wouldn't have happened if they just banned all guns"

/GAF

 

[Vestal]

It's not out of spite. It's out of wanting to continue to have my right to own firearms. While the NRA is no where near perfect they stand up to gun control fanatics who think I shouldn't be allowed to own a pistol for example. Try again.

I could give a damn if the NRA or SAF "care" about me or not. Get salty people.

off course the whole gun debate is cause we want to take away your pistol. LOL

 

[smokeandmirrors]

"This wouldn't have happened if they just banned all guns"

/GAF

One theory has been tested and proven successful the other has not.

Take a guess at which one works....

 

[Ingueferroque]

Why isn't this on nytimes.com?

 

[RDreamer]

"This wouldn't have happened if they just banned all guns"

/GAF

"This would happen far less if there were less guns in circulation"

/LOGIC

 

[Darkman M]

Why isn't this on nytimes.com?

Because its not a school shooting in suburban America I imagine.

 

[RDreamer]

It's not out of spite. It's out of wanting to continue to have my right to own firearms. While the NRA is no where near perfect they stand up to gun control fanatics who think I shouldn't be allowed to own a pistol for example. Try again.

I could give a damn if the NRA or SAF "care" about me or not. Get salty people.

Because the best way to fight fire is with more fire! Dumb with dumber. Idiocy with crazed maniacs.

Keep on fighting the good fight, you proper American, you.

 

[Yoritomo]

The NRA couldn't give two shits about you. FYI their lobbying at this point will be for the gun manufacturers and them only.

Between December and January more than 10,000 people per day joined the NRA.

Money did not push these senators to vote the way they did.

"This would happen far less if there were less guns in circulation"

/LOGIC

How do you propose making any dent in the 270 million guns in the US?

 

[smr00]

"This would happen far less if there were less guns in circulation"

/LOGIC

If only more people on this forum would use this logic instead of making "MURICA" replies.

A lot of people here know that i am a gun owner and i am all for better gun control. I don't deny it. But i also can't stand the uninformed "JUST BAN ALL GUNS HERP DERP" or "THIS IS MURICA" replies.

Hence my original post. Mocking said individuals.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I've always wondered if Americans use the same arguments as they do against gun control in other situations. Like, if a bear wanders into town and mauls someone are people like "this wouldn't have happened if we could all own grizzlies".

 

[TacticalFox88]

Guns don't kill people...people kill people.

If that's the case...

Why the fuck do you need a gun?

 

[Yoritomo]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...te-and-2014-will-there-be-an-electoral-price/

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Both extremes in these gun law arguments are astounding. Many of you live in a world of pure intention without understanding the outcome. Well, you know what they say about the road to Hell. And many of you live in a world of pure probability, outcome and statistics. We must sacrifice 1 for 20.

We aren't Gods, we aren't robots, we're humans. Be a little more practical, have a little more heart.

 

[mxgt]

Maybe i'm misinformed but I just don't understand why a bill that is 220 years old should still hold this much power.

Especially when the situation with guns and their availability was much different back then.

 

[MThanded]

People like you are why I continue to support the NRA and SAF.

They don't support you though.

 

[Yoritomo]

Maybe i'm misinformed but I just don't understand why a bill that is 220 years old should still hold this much power.

Especially when the situation with guns and their availability was much different back then.

So was speech.

They don't support you though.

They absolutely support me.

They got the job done.

Their messaging is shit and out of touch but it worked.

 

[kingkitty]

How do you propose making any dent in the 270 million guns in the US?

One way is for the government to actually take your guns away. But that will never happen anytime soon.

Feds tried banning assault weapons again but it didn't pan out. But I doubt it would've put a big dent into the gun population anyways unless it was retroactive.

But with no type of ban, no universal background checks, not much is being done at all to stop the flow of guns.

 

[RDreamer]

How do you propose making any dent in the 270 million guns in the US that are owned by a median 38% of households?

Put checks and restrictions on things going forward. Just because you can't solve yesterday's problems doesn't mean you should give up on tomorrow's.

I'm not for banning all guns, but I am for background checks on every sale and pushing for more responsible ownership. I'm also for steeper penalties for selling your gun without a background check or not reporting it stolen, etc.

But anyway, what I was saying there is that a ban on all guns obviously would cut down on some of these instances because there would be less guns in circulation. Just because I don't think we should actually ban guns doesn't mean I'm not going to hit back at stupid fucking arguments. People saying abloo abloo banning guns won't get rid of all crime are idiots and need to be called out regardless of whether banning all guns is the best solution to the problem anyway. There's a fundamental problem with logic in both sides. One side wants to ban stupid shit like assault rifles instead of enacting actual legislation that will hit at the real problems, and the other wants a no-holds barred free for all with anyone able to buy whatever the fuck and arm themselves to the teeth with no checks or balances.

Maybe i'm misinformed but I just don't understand why a bill that is 220 years old should still hold this much power.

This interpretation of that particular amendment isn't 220 years old. It's only about 5

Not that we could particularly ban all guns before that ruling, but things weren't quite as far in the corner of doing absolutely fucking nothing before that point.

 

[Jobiensis]

They did use guns in the shootouts, and they shot an MIT officer to death before that.

They also used gun powder in the bombs, which is readily available and untraceable because of the gun culture in the US.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Between December and January more than 10,000 people per day joined the NRA.

Money did not push these senators to vote the way they did.

How do you propose making any dent in the 270 million guns in the US?

Most members of the NRA support background checks though, the leadership do not because they're swimming in gun money. And in Australia we instituted a buyback scheme for the weapons which had been outlawed, something nobody with any power is even discussing because nobody is talking about outlawing any weapons here in the US.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

I don't mean to pile on but I believe responsible gun ownership involves not "waving your gun around," even if it is metaphorically - with words.

So responsible gun ownership involves keeping my mouth shut when it comes to standing up for my rights? Okay.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

So responsible gun ownership involves keeping my mouth shut when it comes to standing up for my rights? Okay.

I suppose if you consider anything but the status quo "my rights" then this makes sense.

 

[luxarific]

Maybe i'm misinformed but I just don't understand why a bill that is 220 years old should still hold this much power.

Especially when the situation with guns and their availability was much different back then.

Yeah, this is the type of gun the founding fathers thought of when they thought of guns.

Doesn't matter though. There's too many people making too much money from some people's paranoia and fear.

 

[TacticalFox88]

So responsible gun ownership involves keeping my mouth shut when it comes to standing up for my rights? Okay.

Considering the group of individuals who gave you that right also allowed slavery, disallowed women to vote, and men who were not 21 and didn't own land to have a say in their new "free" government....

I'd say yes.

 

[Camp Lo]

I'm not even phased anymore.

 

[Yoritomo]

Put checks and restrictions on things going forward. Just because you can't solve yesterday's problems doesn't mean you should give up on tomorrow's.

I'm not for banning all guns, but I am for background checks on every sale and pushing for more responsible ownership. I'm also for steeper penalties for selling your gun without a background check or not reporting it stolen, etc.

But anyway, what I was saying there is that a ban on all guns obviously would cut down on some of these instances because there would be less guns in circulation. Just because I don't think we should actually ban guns doesn't mean I'm not going to hit back at stupid fucking arguments. People saying abloo abloo banning guns won't get rid of all crime are idiots and need to be called out regardless of whether banning all guns is the best solution to the problem anyway. There's a fundamental problem with logic in both sides. One side wants to ban stupid shit like assault rifles instead of enacting actual legislation that will hit at the real problems, and the other wants a no-holds barred free for all with anyone able to buy whatever the fuck and arm themselves to the teeth with no checks or balances.

Guns are part of the equation in the US.

It also needs to be stated that even if we eliminated ALL GUN homicide from our stats we would still have a higher homicide rate than many european nations.

If we eliminate all gun homicide and our numbers now perfectly adjusted to eliminate ALL gun homicides we would still have a homicide rate of 1.5 which is higher and the UK, France, Poland, Portugal, Japan, Australia, etc.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Between December and January more than 10,000 people per day joined the NRA.

Money did not push these senators to vote the way they did.

And people have knee jerk reactions all the time. And it doesn't matter when 3/4 of NRA members supported increased background checks and such and the NRA pushed and campaigned and bought out people to strictly oppose them means they really do not give a fuck about members.

Guns are part of the equation in the US.

It also needs to be stated that even if we eliminated ALL GUN homicide from our stats we would still have a higher homicide rate than many european nations.

If we eliminate all gun homicide and our numbers now perfectly adjusted to eliminate ALL gun homicides we would still have a homicide rate of 1.5 which is higher and the UK, France, Poland, Portugal, Japan, Australia, etc.

So we just shouldn't try to limit homicide rates because we can't fix it completely? That's just fucking dumb.

 

[Daingurse]

McNulty posted this thread. Otherwise no one cares about a Chicago projects shooting sadly

Exactly nothing new about that as sad as it is. I fucking saw a gang rumble between Gangster Disciples and Vice Lords outside my own window when I lived on the south side. I saw someone stabbed to death in the streets. Dropping to the ground became a common practice regardless of what you were doing when you would hear gunfire, from a fucking tech-nine. . .

Chicago's gun violence problem is ingrained into it's Gang problem. No state laws will matter either as long you can simply drive to Indiana and pick up more guns from a gunshow. State laws are useless for guns, we need some kinda federal legislation. And Arizona's gun laws scare the shit out of me, never fucking with anyone around here. You never know who is packing, much prefer open carriers. At least I visibly KNOW to not fuck with you.

 

[Yoritomo]

Most members of the NRA support background checks though, the leadership do not because they're swimming in gun money. And in Australia we instituted a buyback scheme for the weapons which had been outlawed, something nobody with any power is even discussing because nobody is talking about outlawing any weapons here in the US.

Of course most NRA members support background checks. We already have background checks.

Now here's the question where it gets dicey.

Should there be a background check if you let your brother borrow your gun to go to the range?
Should there be a background check if you let your neighbor borrow your gun to go to the range?
Should there be a background check if you let a co-worker borrow your gun to go hunting?

If I leave my children guns in my will do they need to undergo a background check to take ownership?

 

[remist]

Considering the group of individuals who gave you that right also allowed slavery, disallowed women to vote, and men who were not 21 and didn't own land to have a say in their new "free" government....

I'd say yes.

Are you responding to the wrong person or do you actually think that is a logical argument for why he should keep his mouth shut?

 

[RDreamer]

Guns are part of the equation in the US.

It also needs to be stated that even if we eliminated ALL GUN homicide from our stats we would still have a higher homicide rate than many european nations.

If we eliminate all gun homicide and our numbers now perfectly adjusted to eliminate ALL gun homicides we would still have a homicide rate of 1.5 which is higher and the UK, France, Poland, Portugal, Japan, Australia, etc.

Ok, and...?

Are you trying to say we're more violent than they are? If so, I don't think that's a point you should be making. Why exactly would we want the more violent culture to have access to the tools that makes violence the easiest and most devastating?

Of course most NRA members support background checks. We already have background checks.

Now here's the question where it gets dicey.

Should there be a background check if you let your brother borrow your gun to go to the range?
Should there be a background check if you let your neighbor borrow your gun to go to the range?
Should there be a background check if you let a co-worker borrow your gun to go hunting?

If I leave my children guns in my will do they need to undergo a background check to take ownership?

Yes
Yes
Yes

Fuck yes.

Why the fuck should these people be exempted and just get to run around with a deadly weapon just because who the fuck even knows why? Advocating for any of these things means you're not a responsible gun owner.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Of course most NRA members support background checks. We already have background checks.

Now here's the question where it gets dicey.

Should there be a background check if you let your brother borrow your gun to go to the range?
Should there be a background check if you let your neighbor borrow your gun to go to the range?
Should there be a background check if you let a co-worker borrow your gun to go hunting?

If I leave my children guns in my will do they need to undergo a background check to take ownership?

Yes

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

You're assuming anyone and everyone you "loan" your gun out to is mentally stable and able to handle it properly. You shouldn't be able to give out your gun to non registered people. Period.