Is gun regulation is the only way to limit homicide rates? Is it the best way to limit the homicide rate.
Will gun regulation lower the homicide rate more than any other alternative in your mind?
5 Dead in Illinois shooting (inc. 2 children)
- Thread starter x-Lundz-x
- Start date
- Status
Is gun regulation is the only way to limit homicide rates? Is it the best way to limit the homicide rate.
Will gun regulation lower the homicide rate more than any other alternative in your mind?
Partial Gamification
Banned
Do you think debating this on the internet will provide you with the protections you desire? Do you think this thread will determine the outcome of the gun-debate? What do you think of the recent legislation that was widely supported by the people, the one that failed to pass?
This is from my experience, my perspective, but I feel like you speak from a place that holds higher value on your weapon(s) than that of your fellow citizens. If you feel that your guns keep you safe, fine. When you refuse to consider reasonable arguments and move into hyperbolic argumentation: "take my pistol away," you seem like a genuine gun-nut.
Handguns are for use against people, by design. Perhaps there is an inadiquacy that the gun compensates for, but what the fuck do I know. Be well, use a gun lock/gun safe and if you are truly concerned with your rights there are more effective arenas to engage than NeoGAF. I hope you don't ever have experience what I have with these weapons, and I'll leave this thread with that.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Right so because it'll only lower one rate means we shouldn't do it period.
Stop being dense. It's would be a fucking start to solve our murder rate in this country.
I borrow guns from friends almost every time I go to the range. I and my friends should be guilty of a felony?
Why is that even dicey. -You- are responsible for everything that is done with -your- gun, regardless of who is using it. How is that even a question, really? If we were living in a sane world, gun owners would need to get insured, so it's not just society that bears the true cost of gun ownership.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Are you and your friends registered and licensed to carry a fire arm?
If yes, then no you are and should not be guilty.
If you and or your friends aren't licensed then absofuckinglutely you should be guilty.
Missed at the range. It's a completely different story there.
TacticalFox88
Banned
TacticalFox88
Banned
THIS is the true base of power in the United States. It's not the White House but this place...
Wrong.
If you commit a crime with someone else's gun, then both you and him should be held accountable for it. That's my opinion, anyway. So, sure you could loan a gun, but you'd better fucking trust that person.
They're so awesome they even fight against gun control outside of the USA. Like Mexico and Brazil. Man they really do care, right?THIS is the true base of power in the United States.
The White House and Congress are merely their puppets.
Nah, sometimes I pick a few up before hand. I usually give him a box of ammo.
There's a huge disconnect in how people think guns are used to how they are actually used and that disconnect is why so many of you are so ticked off.
You're asking me and millions of others to accept that things we do today without harming anyone or even putting anyone in danger to support a change in law that would make that behavior a felony.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Saying "I support a better system of background checks to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill" isn't the same as "I support exactly what was being proposed in the recent gun control bill".
Yes, as a member of the NRA I support background checks and I do support some changes but I don't want new laws passed until we enforce the shit we already have on the books: When I see an overwhelming majority of the thousands upon thousands of convicted felons that lie on their background check paperwork per year fully prosecuted and tossed in jail then we can talk about adding more laws.
I'm for background checking between private person-to-person gun sales. Why don't we open up NICS checks to people so they can check themselves and don't have to go through a third party? This way the check can be made and no one has to be beholden to an FFL when they just wanna give their brother/sister/kid/buddy a gun. Hop online/call a number: Run the check and you're done. Just a check. No registry. Ever.
Why even have an NICS system when the OVERWHELMING majority of mental hospitals in all 50 states don't even report *into* the damned thing? Even people that have been declared mentally incompetent by a judge don't get entered into the NICS system.
That's why that "90%" talking point is bullshit in the context of support for the recent Gun Laws. Yes, many people support background checks but far fewer support how they are currently implemented or the recently failed proposals.
What if no license is required for the firearm? My buddy and I go to the range and use my semi-auto and shotgun. Neither are required to have a license, thankfully.
We're asking that you and millions of others accept the fucking responsibility of owning a deadly weapon.
IHaveCandy
Banned
April has always had higher murder rates, especially during this week of the year. Some people think it is because of 4/20 and it being Hitler's birthday.
I think those people are high.
We do and many feel personally insulted that you don't believe that to be the case, which is why the rhetorical divide is so vast.
Dude Abides
Banned
Calls for more enforcement of existing laws.
Gives money to an organization dedicating to stymieing enforcement of those laws.
Mammoth Jones
Member
The overwhelming majority of gun owners in America do accept the fucking responsibility of owning a deadly weapon. Fucking.
The overwhelming majority of legal gun owners in America treat their firearms as they should and don't allow it to harm anyone unless in a legitimate self defense option. But "Old man grabs pistol and calls cops" doesn't make thread-worthy headlines here on GAF....
blame space
Banned
what the fuck?
Then what's the problem with having to own a licence? It sounds very reasonable to me.
If you do everything responsibly then why would you be opposed to what I've said. If you loan a gun and your friend kills someone with it, then you bear responsibility for that crime also, since you provided the weapon. After all, if you're only giving it to responsible people's there should be no harm or fear. If there is fear, then you obviously think something could go wrong with it.
jim-jam bongs
Member
But not for private sales, which is being interpreted broadly enough that it's possible for people to buy guns without background checks. That's the problem.
Yes to the last one, but in the other cases you should be held partly responsible for whatever that person does with your gun.
So why isn't the NRA demanding better enforcement of those practices and a rational expansion of laws around background checking? I'm on the side that says that even though I don't like firearms I'm not myopic enough to argue that everyone who has a gun is a lunatic, but I also strongly believe that the NRA is failing to serve its members and the American people by refusing to do anything except wave a flag and yell 2ND AMENDMENT every time the issue of gun control is raised.
All guns should require a license. You can't drive a car without a license, and you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun without one.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
1) quit supporting a group that doesn't want any of what you listed and consistently stymies any attempt at enforcing what we have
2) everything should have a license. What's so evil about that?
Mammoth Jones
Member
The NRA has called on enforcing existing gun laws before drafting new legislation. Their position on that isn't exactly new: http://www.wtnwe.com/nra-chief-enforce-existing-gun-laws/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...would-reduce-crime-but-these-are-not-enforced
The NRA correctly opposed the recent proposals and I'm glad they did. Sorry.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
...while simultaneously neutering our current laws and enforcement capabilities.
youngwerther
Banned
It's funny how there is this dual-narrative in response to this talking point.
Conversation 1 - "U.S. sucks, they are supposed to be so great but they can't even defeat a bunch of goat herders in the fucking desert hyuck hyuck"
Conversation 2 - "U.S. is all-powerful, you can't stop them, so that argument for keeping guns is bad"
They obviously don't accept the responsibility if they fight common sense reforms just because they somehow believe nothing will or can ever happen with their gun. That's not how responsibility works. I drive responsibly, why should I need insurance? Oh, because other people aren't. It's responsible to accept the consequences and possible ramifications of the things you do, and then safeguard things so others don't get hurt in any way.
In the context of the current argument it means accepting that you're loaning a deadly weapon to someone and you have no idea what they might do. If you want to do that, fine, but accept responsibility for what then transpires from your decision.
It is smoke and mirrors, they say enforce existing laws while they lobby to keep ATF underfunded.
Dude Abides
Banned
They make empty calls for enforcement so rubes will adopt that talking point to oppose any further regulations, but their actual lobbying activity indicates they oppose enforcement. Sorry.
Yeah good luck fighting off that tyrannical government when 100 trained marines come rolling down your street, lighting up your house with thermobaric weapons http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon
smokeandmirrors
Banned
If you honestly cannot distinguish the difference between our situation in the Middle East and what we're fighting and your average gun owning American then I honestly don't know what to tell you.
youngwerther
Banned
Of course you don't.
Miles Quaritch
Member
As an outsider looking in, the slight changes to how the US media report on these incidents is pretty fascinating.
Here we have two children dead but Fox are instead focusing solely on what some guy said about the Boston attacks and constantly bringing up the 8yo who was killed in the attack. There hardly seems to be any mention of this on their news channel, not in the ticker or in their headlines.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Right since you're being dense ill fucking explain it out for you..
Those "goat herders" grew up and live in a hostile mostly war torn area and environment with zero prospects outside of taking up a gun and learning and training to survive. Grew up dealing with dictators, rogue militias and the like. They are in an environment tailored to needing to learn fight. Not only that but a very large amount of those leaders when militia leaders were fucking TRAINED by the American army. And had outside help
Your average fucking American with a gun who has experienced ZERO fucking hardships like having to worry in fear of bombs or someone killing your family or some new army marching through their town village or city.
See the difference yet?
IHaveCandy
Banned
You should always keep yourself prepared. I don't want a society that teaches it's kids to become more and more reliant on the government to completely protect them.
Mammoth Jones
Member
All 5+ Million members of the NRA are misguided "rubes"? That's pretty insulting. And while it may make you feel self-righteous deep down inside it does fuck-all to actually engage in any type of mutual discourse. Speaking of talking points "90% of Americans support the recent gun control proposals!" is a perfect example of one. Enforcing existing laws just makes sense to me. I personally think doing that and *then* adjusting policy by adding more laws is the way to go about it.
As far as lobbying activity I'd prefer to see an end to lobbying across the board. Corporate interest shouldn't have as much of an impact on Government policy as it does. Can we at least agree on that? Regardless of what corporate interest is or isn't being served.
If you directed half of the anger and vitriol towards the actual killer we'd be closer to actually coming closer to dealing with why violence like this happens. But the way you're carrying on it's like the NRA personally drove to the guy, handed him a gun and said "Go kill people today!" I'll never understand the anti-gun circle jerk obsession with the NRA. Sorry.
Forking over your own money to an organization whose only interest is increasing the sales of the arms industry would be a good reason to classify someone as a misguided rube.
I would draw an analogy to someone who gives money to Pat Robertson, but I bet his organization actually does (some) good things for humanity.
I would draw an analogy to someone who gives money to Pat Robertson, but I bet his organization actually does (some) good things for humanity.
Dude Abides
Banned
The ones that mindlessly parrot the "enforce the laws on the books" talking point certainly are.
That's nice. In the meantime you continue to give money to a lobbying group.
Blah blah blah. You repeated an ignorant talking point and got called on it. Sorry. Educate yourself and quite whining about your hurt fee-fees.
IHaveCandy
Banned
jim-jam bongs
Member
And I don't want a society which teaches its kids that weapons are the best way to protect themselves rather than words or common-sense decisions.
Cameron122
Member
The second amendment really didn't plan for drones, tanks, and M14 rifles.
I feel like the only Texan who feels this way.
I feel like the only Texan who feels this way.
The 2nd amendment didn't plan for the US to have a standing federal army at all, as that was kind of the entire fucking purpose of the amendment. Seriously, the amendment had fuck all to do with civilian use of a firearm and everything to do with some of the founders' fear of a national army. The amendment was put in place to stop the federal government from disarming the states, not civilians. It was to reinforce militias in place of an army.
What are you talking about? Are you saying making guns completely illegal causes less violent crime? And therefore guns being legal means violent crime?
Are you aware of how many people's lives are saved by citizens with guns? Police offer's lives by concealed carry citizens?
I would agree.
I for one live in an area that is very fond of their guns. I don't own one. I might like one to keep my life and property safe, but I'm all for stricter regulation, although it's unconstitutional to prevent people from having their weapons.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I'm not aware of the statistics, can you please provide some? Not snarky, just interested.
TacticalFox88
Banned
And even if it WAS about Civilian Use...remember the Whiskey Rebellion?
That shit was crushed ridiculously easy with the playing field even.
And these people think they can take on F-22s, Stealth Bombers, Tomahawks missiles, Special Forces, Rocket Launchers, etc?
LOL
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I would very much like actual statistical information on this. Its come up in the past (although not in...almost a year probably) and its something I'm really interested in.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Citations definitely needed....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked