• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Fox News Gretchen Carlson 'taking a stand' to support ban on assault weapons.

Status
Not open for further replies.

theecakee

Member
Video link to the segment on Fox News

There’s no doubt Omar Mateen was able to kill so many people because he was firing an AR-15. A military-style assault weapon, a weapon easier to buy in the state of Florida than buying a handgun. Florida sets a three day waiting period for purchasing handguns, but the state mandates no waiting period for any gun that requires two hands to hold. Do we need AR-15s to hunt and kill deer? Do we need them to protect our families? I’m in favor of people being able to carry. I think some of these mass shooting would have been less deadly if that were the case. But I’m also with the majority today, taking a stand. Can’t we hold true the sanctity of the Second Amendment while still having common sense?

I thought this was really interesting that a Fox news anchor supports an assault rifle ban.

Thoughts gaf?

EDIT:

Bill O'Riley called for the same thing tonight on his show.


Now, the right wing responsibility. There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high powered weaponry is too easy to get. That's the fact. So let's deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don't have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades. That's because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety.

Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale. And the states, the individual states should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their own people. New laws are definitely needed in the age of terrorism and mass murder. The FBI and other federal agencies need the power to stop suspected terrorists or other evil doers from buying weapons.

That law needs to be very precise. Also, gun dealers all across America should be required to report the sale of certain kinds of guns, heavy weapons, directly to the FBI. Not handguns, not talking about that, but other weapons that would be defined by Congress. That is a sane approach, and would make it a lot tougher for the Omar Mateens of the world to get the weaponry to kill, although as Talking Points has stated many, many times, no society will ever stop all gun crimes, especially in a country which has hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation.
 

RPGCrazied

Member
Wow, someone on Fox News no less.

She is right, nobody needs a fucking AR-15 save military. Not to hunt with, not to protect your home with. Sorry.
 
Fox News would like to wish Gretchen Carlson the best on her future endeavors.

Also look out for Carla Gretchelson making her debut on the Impact Zone next week.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
My thoughts are that her heart is kinda in the right place, but that handguns are in fact more dangerous in the US than assault rifles. They cause more accidents, are used in more crimes and suicides and kill more people than assault rifles.

But at this point I would take mandatory spellchecking from this shitbird congress, if that's all that's on the table.
 
Never really cared for her much, but can agree with her on this for sure. Good for her.

Seriously is no good reason someone needs an AR-15 or even a handgun for that matter. Shotguns and rifles are fine IMO though.
 

Pyrokai

Member
Jesus. Tell me that poll of 11%yes-89%no is Fox viewers only. That just furthers my depression over this shit of a week.
 

jonezer4

Member
That was really affirming until they cut to the part where 89% of Fox News' audience still inexplicably doesn't want to reinstate the ban on assault rifles.
 

Ashes

Banned
The fact that she's okay with handguns shows to me how many take the law as a morality guide.
Guns will be banned within this generation or the next. And you'll see Americans change tune too.
 

ItIsOkBro

Member
I remember the last time the topic of an assault weapon ban came up. People said don't ban them because they're not actually the problem because most people have handguns.
 
The fact that she's okay with handguns shows to me how many take the law as a morality guide.
Guns will be banned within this generation or the next. And you'll see Americans change tune too.

Unless minorities declare they have sold ownership of the 2nd amendment, there will be no general gun ban nationwide in the near future

Also, no assault weapons aren't the real issue, but that really doesn't mean that the ban shouldn't be in effect. The same way removing the confederate flag from the SC statehouse didn't solve racism, but why wouldn't you do it?
 

breakfuss

Member

bionic77

Member
You guys are so going to regret this assault weapon ban when the zombie apocalypse happens. If you are absolutely positively sure it isn't happening then I guess banning assault weapons makes sense, but from I have seen from movies that is an awfully ballsy bet to make.
 
I remember the last time the topic of an assault weapon ban came up. People said don't ban them because they're not actually the problem because most people have handguns.

They're not. You're more likely to get stabbed or get beat to death rather than die via rifle. The high numbers are from handguns.
 

mreddie

Member
CNN is wondering if she'll get axed soon.

Agreed though, you got shotguns and longbows for deer, why a damn rifle?
 

Casimir

Unconfirmed Member
Fox is going to have to hire extra security when the death, and bomb, threats from gun supporters start pouring in.

CNN is wondering if she'll get axed soon.

Agreed though, you got shotguns and longbows for deer, why a damn rifle?

Rifles are easier to shoot than shotguns and bows.
 

Piggus

Member
That was really affirming until they cut to the part where 89% of Fox News' audience still inexplicably doesn't want to reinstate the ban on assault rifles.

Probably because the ban would do absolutely nothing to stop violence, as shown by state department reports on the previous ban. But by all means, let's waste our time with feel-good legislation while ignoring proposals that would actually make a difference, such as mandatory gun licensing or safety course requirements.

Under the assault weapons ban you would be able to just as easily purchase a slightly less scary-looking version of the exact same gun, but without key "tactical" features like flash suppressors and adjustable stocks. It is completely and utterly useless.
 

VariantX

Member
You guys are so going to regret this assault weapon ban when the zombie apocalypse happens. If you are absolutely positively sure it isn't happening then I guess banning assault weapons makes sense, but from I have seen from movies that is an awfully ballsy bet to make.

The sound of gunfire would just attract more zombies anyway.
 

reckless

Member
Really wouldn't do much in the grand scheme of things...

In 2011 there were 8,583 homicides using guns.

Handguns were used in 6,220.
Rifles(from hunting rifles to "assault weapons")were used in 323.
Shotguns in 356.

All types of rifles were involved in less murders than
Knives : 1,694.
Blunt objects: 496.
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) : 728.

All it does it make people feel better about themselves for doing something while ignoring the big issue of handguns.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Don't worry, Hannity tonight will not support a ban.

Yeah, I saw a snippet of Hannity in the last week. He described himself as a gun collector and said he had an Uzi.

He is the worst personality on all of Fox. The only one I can't stomach for more than a couple of minutes, even if I'm feeling masochistic.
 
I support an assault rifle ban but I do so knowing that what is considered an assault rifle is very arbitrary. In so far as I support assault rifle bans, I support rewording the bans on weapons that can deal significant damage to large numbers of people.

They're not. You're more likely to get stabbed or get beat to death rather than die via rifle. The high numbers are from handguns.

While you as an individual person are more likely to be stabbed or beat to death, a person doing the stabbing or beating to death would have a much lesser chance to beat to death 50 people in a few minutes, or stab to death 50 people in a few minutes.

Likewise even with handguns, while the likelihood of being killed by a handgun as an individual is much higher than the likelihood of being killed with an automatic or semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic or automatic rifles increase the capability of a single person to do more damage to many individual people at once.
 
Really wouldn't do much in the grand scheme of things...

In 2011 there were 8,583 homicides using guns.

Handguns were used in 6,220.
Rifles(from hunting rifles to "assault weapons")were used in 323.
Shotguns in 356.

All types of rifles were involved in less murders than
Knives : 1,694.
Blunt objects: 496.
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) : 728.

All it does it make people feel better about themselves for doing something while ignoring the big issue of handguns.

One would ordinarily expect knives and handguns are more easily accessible so that's not surprising.

They question is more about how many people are killed per incident with each respective weapon.
 

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
lol at her audience.

11% - yes to ban
89% - no to ban
The right-wing news echo chamber is Pavlov's wet dream. I'm sure you could ask them if they wanted a nice delicious cake but slipped in the word 'liberal' somewhere innocuously in the question, they'd furiously slap the 'NO' button then run off to write a shitpost about government overreach.
 
I would get a hell of a lot further than that, but at least this person I've never liked in the slightest did make a tiny bit of sense.
 
Kind of weird a news anchor taking a stand on anything...... seems kinda counter to their job
Agreed, but sadly in this day and age hardly anyone just reports on the news anymore. People watch expecting the news anchors to do their jobs for 'em. Take the story, chew it for me, digest, and give it to me with your spin/take on it. A little sad. Or maybe I'm just being a grump.

All in all though, I can only be happy with Gretchen here.
 

reckless

Member
One would ordinarily expect knives and handguns are more easily accessible so that's not surprising.

They question is more about how many people are killed per incident with each respective weapon.

A handgun is pretty much just as deadly if not more since it can be more easily concealed giving less time for people to react.
 
While you as an individual person are more likely to be stabbed or beat to death, a person doing the stabbing or beating to death would have a much lesser chance to beat to death 50 people in a few minutes, or stab to death 50 people in a few minutes.

Likewise even with handguns, while the likelihood of being killed by a handgun as an individual is much higher than the likelihood of being killed with an automatic or semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic or automatic rifles increase the capability of a single person to do more damage to many individual people at once.

They question is more about how many people are killed per incident with each respective weapon.

This seems like a "planes vs cars safety" sort of argument. Dying in a mass shooting with 50 people is terrifying and gets global coverage, in the same way that a whole plane full of people dying is horrific and makes for major news. However it is also true that such things are comparatively rare, and that the ongoing, low level incidents of the handgun are more deadly as a whole. If you base your whole policy around only the high profile, conceptually scary things that people vividly imagine, you may be doing a disservice overall.
 
She still thinks citizen commandos adding more guns to the mix will make things better. This is pretty "give an inch," but sadly that's still risky for a Fox News host, I suppose.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
I support an assault rifle ban but I do so knowing that what is considered an assault rifle is very arbitrary. In so far as I support assault rifle bans, I support rewording the bans on weapons that can deal significant damage to large numbers of people.

Then the words you're looking for is a ban on the sale of all semi automatic rifles.

Likewise even with handguns, while the likelihood of being killed by a handgun as an individual is much higher than the likelihood of being killed with an automatic or semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic or automatic rifles increase the capability of a single person to do more damage to many individual people at once.

A handgun's concealment factor makes it more useful in criminal activity, as the stats show.
 

Chmpocalypse

Blizzard
You guys are so going to regret this assault weapon ban when the zombie apocalypse happens. If you are absolutely positively sure it isn't happening then I guess banning assault weapons makes sense, but from I have seen from movies that is an awfully ballsy bet to make.

I think the time for jokes like this is fucking passed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom