-
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.
- Thread starter theecakee
- Start date
- Status
I think that bridge has been thoroughly crossed and set gloriously ablaze by modern news media.
It's not always a bad thing if it occurs in the right direction, though. We might have been in Vietnam for another 10 years if Cronkite dutifully refrained from airing an opinion.
Yes, this gets attention because more random mass-shooting are done with assualt style weapons rather than the many more smaller incidents with handguns. But what I don't understand is why instead of taking a possibly easy win in gun management we insist on whatabouting and distracting because of technical correctness. We can circle around and clean handguns up later, really, we can do that, not everything has to solve every problem, or all of one problem.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
It won't matter if there's a ban. There are so many assault rifles in circulation now that people can just buy from a private owner. Albeit much more expensive.
Bill O'Reilly (I shit you not) called for the same action to be taken on his show tonight.
It's more of a joke that people latch onto this as if it's going to make any difference. And unlike other pieces of proposed legislation, we KNOW it doesn't make a difference because we've done it before. There's no practical argument in support of this ban. It all comes down to "that's scary and I don't like it, so make me feel better by banning it." How is that constructive in any way? What will people be saying when a mass shooting occurs with a gun that is legal under the ban? Again, it happened already. At Columbine.
They've always taken an opinion at any outfit. If you just let people use you as a megaphone then you're a stenographer, not a journalist.
they already are
Those people are already banned from owning guns.
What is the second commandment for? If it's to overthrow a tyrannical government at the grassroots level then citizens shouldn't be denied any military hardware, including tanks, drones, etc. The issue is that with the lethality of modern weapons that the risk of some nut job bombing a place is higher then the risk you end up oppressed and without freedom.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Oh, to have a look at Fox News' email and snail mail after this aired.
Ah. Odd, the Orlando shooter has a history of beating his wife, too. Was he never convicted?
Sounded like she never pressed charges for that and stated it after the fact. :/
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
You're right! If you're convicted of spousal abuse you are banned from purchasing a gun. My guess is that his wife never reported it, OR something seriously got fucked up during the background check process.
Yeah, that was really dumb. Gun control advocates need to make an outward plea to women to report domestic violence whenever it happens if no gun control changes occur.
It's a surefire way to make sure people with violent tendencies never have a legal avenue to get a gun.
Melkezadek
Member
Watching this made me tear up, really.
RichiRamjag
Member
Yeah, but statistically, and for years they don't and haven't. You're talking 248 deaths in 2014 vs 5000 with handguns. I'm not seeing the point. You can pop a 30 round mag in a Glock, just the same. It wouldn't solve much of anything.
Liberty4all
Banned
When are so many news outlets saying it was an AR-15?
Orlando Police Statement
http://wrbl.com/2016/06/13/orlando-police-make-statement-on-mass-shooting/
Orlando Police Statement
http://wrbl.com/2016/06/13/orlando-police-make-statement-on-mass-shooting/
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
From the way his ex-wife described it, her parents found out what was going on and took her away from him rather than formally declaring charges.
Rudelord
Member
Because it has the scary black furniture and the shoulder thing that goes up. And because the term 'assault weapon' only applies to those, apparently.
Handguns overwhelmingly kill more people than any other kind of firearm in the US.
Oddly enough, while there's a lot of disagreements, the comments on that video aren't a shitty hell hole. People are actually simply having respectful disagreements. Maybe I haven't gone deep enough.
Well, that sucks.
Well, that sucks.
thesoapster
Member
Based on AR-15 platform.
Edit: Guess not. Same general setup. It's like all the times random guns were all called AK-47s.
There are plenty of modern rifles that are derived from the original AR-15, but many components get upgraded in the process.
Liberty4all
Banned
Ah I see. I know nothing about guns.
The point is to make it harder to do large amounts of damage at once with one weapon. Similar to why its not legal to carry around a bazooka. It doesn't matter if more people use handguns, what matters is the lethality of the weapon
There is pretty much no real reason anyone needs to own a weapon like that. Not to hunt. Not for protection. It literally only exists for efficient, mass murder
It's not really even close to being based of the AR-15 platform though, it's closer to an AK in terms of operation, it just uses the AR mags(like every other carbine length rifle made in the west) and ergonomics.
Sigs are a pretty rare choice for a terrorist nutjob though cause they are a good 2-3x the price of your average entry level AR or AK.
RichiRamjag
Member
I don't get that line of reasoning, I'm sorry. As someone familiar with weapons, you can get large magazines and stocks for pistols just the same. You can swap a large magazine within seconds on a handgun just the same. As lethal as a rifle can be, it hasn't come close to the amount of carnage committed by other weapons, especially handguns (by a very large margin).
You're essentially saying because it's scarier looking and has the "potential" to be more dangerous, it should be banned. As murders committed with those particular weapons is already extremely low, you've done almost nothing to solve the problem if they were. It's a feel-good proposal that doesn't do much.
It's hardly a bazooka, so let's not get outlandish.
I currently own one of these to deal with vermin that like to roam around on my property like raccoons, coyotes, the like.
Not very scary, right?
A modern handgun isn't exactly so much less lethal than an AR when it comes to killing unarmored targets, especially in the scenario that played out in Orlando where it's mostly inside. And it's far easier to conceal, use, etc.
As an aside, it's actually legal to own a rocket launcher, a flamethrower, or even a tank. It's just so exorbitantly expensive and has no practical use that no one really bothers.
Exactly. Most people don't get this.
Rudelord
Member
I currently own one of these to deal with vermin that like to roam around on my property like raccoons, coyotes, the like.
Not very scary, right?
A modern handgun isn't exactly so much less lethal than an AR when it comes to killing unarmored targets, especially in the scenario that played out in Orlando where it's mostly inside. And it's far easier to conceal, use, etc.
As an aside, it's actually legal to own a rocket launcher, a flamethrower, or even a tank. It's just so exorbitantly expensive and has no practical use that no one really bothers.
Planes vs cars? Wtf are you on about. Talk about apples amd oranges.
Incidents with handguns do occur more frequently bit are also , as a whole, less likely to wipe out 50 people on a short time frame.
I want to avoid all interactions with guns, starting somewhere is better than doing nothing.
Weapons like that might as well be a bazooka because there is literally no reason to own one. That's the point. It's not about it being scary looking, its about the obvious damage it can cause.
If you want to get into details, there probably does need to be even more limitations that affect large magazines and the lethality of other weapons as well. But unfortunately this country needs a headline where they are put in the spotlight before discussions could even be had about it. And in the thread discussing those guns, even more guns will be brought up as equivalent weapon examples as an attempt to shut down the conversation and essentially do nothing
It's irrelevant that there are other equally damaging weapons out there. You gotta start somewhere, and its easiest to start with the guns in the news. The ones that literally no one needs to own besides owning one for the lulz.
Yawn. Its all talk.
We've been talking about guns and rehashing the identical arguments for decades. The problem is that once you say the NRA can't lobby, it will be a trickle down effect of questioning the entire system of lobbying to begin with, which would only be a good thing.
However, our politicians are currently purchased by multiple lobbies. We all know this. Eventually the tax payers will get fed up and act, protest, whatever for real change to happen. But there is a lot of pushback that will be headed our way. Our government is pretty bought and corrupt by arms dealers. Hillary has the most supporting her. This needs to change, but are we ready for that fight yet? I don't think so, and I'm not sure if we ever will based on how many americans just can't conceive of a world without their privilege.
Gun ban's are silly and get people focused on one type of weapon. The easy access to weapons is the problem. We need common sense laws like -- pick any country that doesn't have this shit going on daily, yet has gun ownership -- and move a long. Its really not that hard.
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
For the better. They really need it.
But it's bad for thier economy and it'll piss off some very rich and powerful group.
hunchback
Member
They are the best way to hunt deer. Anybody that needs a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine to kill a deer should not be allowed to hunt.
My wife's dad has hunted since a boy. He uses a bolt action or black powder rifle. He's never needed anything more than that to keep food in his freezer.
RichiRamjag
Member
Oh, get outta here with the bazooka rubbish. It's your opinion that there is no reason to own one. I know people who own them and surprisingly enough hunt with them, it isn't farfetched (I personally wouldn't). An AR-15 isn't a fully automatic military grade rifle. It simply has an appearance that makes people wary. Also, you don't get to determine what people need/get to own just because you don't like it or have little experience/education on the subject. I don't think I've ever purchased any weapon "for the lulz".
Had magazine limits done anything to curb crime in CA, then I'd fully be on that train, and while I don't mind them, they're not really a solution and have had little impact in cities in that state.
To say that it's best to currently ignore the guns responsible for the crimes versus the ones with the lowest rate of murder is just ridiculous, imo. There is definitely discussion that needs to be had regarding a gun control, but it's never going to happen when you've got one side saying "can't take my guns!", and the other spouting off opinions such as yours, which is essentially ignore the real problem, because rifles are scary looking.
Everyone could stand to educate themselves on the topic if they want to implement changes that actually affect the issue at hand. Last I'll say on the matter.
malingenie
Member
What other piece of legislation do you feel could have any chance of passing? I'm m not married to banning assault weapons in terms of overall effectiveness, but what can we pass in this god-forsaken debate?
Yeah, the right is going to go BERSERK. Few issues enrage them like even the most common sense gun control measures.
"Mah guns!"
AntraxSuicide
Banned
One has to argue though that the "low death per incident" rate represents at least a sizable enough chunk to reduce murders. If someone plans on killing their business partner with a handgun, I have to assume that such a pre-planned crime would happen with a bat or hammer instead if there's no handgun.
I think such a thing would probably be true, but that's just my gut feeling. Mass shootings though, where people can load massive magazines easily and fire with much higher force and accuracy, are where people are terrified and easily on the same page (broadly speaking). No one really believes you need an AR-15 (or any other such weapon) for self-defense or sport. It's a murder weapon by design, where you can argue that handguns are really the only personal defense guns.
Basically, argue for what's easy to argue first is what I'm saying.
RoninChaos
Member
How much is an AR-15 these days?
Rudelord
Member
Depends on the manufacturer and where you buy it from.
Low as 800 USD to as high as 2500 USD.
Around $1,000. The one I'm looking at is around $1,700. Not sure if I'll pull the trigger yet, unless prices start rising again.
We must not fall for feel good measures that will accomplish nothing and I say this as a Gun owner who is dismayed by the violence and has repeatedly called for real measures that will save lives.
Handguns are a disease. 6000+ people will die to a handgun in someone else's hands. On top of that there will be another 19,000 or more who will die to a handgun in their own hand.
Yet at the end of the day all our anger and indignation never seems to muster more than trying to ban weapons that at their worst will kill a few hundred people. All these lives matter and it is time we stop trying to settle for half measures.
After the Federal Assault weapon banned passed and for its duration over 264,394 people were killed by handguns not including suicides.. Researchers will openly admit the Assault weapon ban did nothing because the weapons banned were not used in crimes generally anyways. It was a feel good measure that got people to say we did something. Meanwhile almost 265k people died while people patted themselves on the back
Handguns are a disease. 6000+ people will die to a handgun in someone else's hands. On top of that there will be another 19,000 or more who will die to a handgun in their own hand.
Yet at the end of the day all our anger and indignation never seems to muster more than trying to ban weapons that at their worst will kill a few hundred people. All these lives matter and it is time we stop trying to settle for half measures.
After the Federal Assault weapon banned passed and for its duration over 264,394 people were killed by handguns not including suicides.. Researchers will openly admit the Assault weapon ban did nothing because the weapons banned were not used in crimes generally anyways. It was a feel good measure that got people to say we did something. Meanwhile almost 265k people died while people patted themselves on the back
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
It wasn't an AR-15.
The SigSauer MCX goes for over $2100 at my friend's gun store. Higher tier price than an AR-15.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Most assault rifles are between $500 - $2500
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
I want to take this at face value but I can't stop thinking about fox "fair and balanced and probably needed one of their journalist to take this opposite view.
I do hope I'm wrong and if I am good on her for standing up for what she believes in when it's in such contrast to your employer.
I do hope I'm wrong and if I am good on her for standing up for what she believes in when it's in such contrast to your employer.
Man, if we could get a common sense republican party rather than a contrarian one, that'd be something else.
Weird time to do this considering they're the media arm of a party that has never been more influenced by their insane fringe.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked