ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Is there a video of this?
-
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
Is there a video of this?
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/...ons-high-powered-weaponry-too-easy-get/210952
Problem is towards the end he quickly ruins it by saying his comments do not apply to hand guns.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Of course. We should get rid of those too, get rid of open-carry, get rid of conceal carry. It's like the mythical Wild West out there, but for real, and it doesn't make any damn sense.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Again, I mentioned this a bit further up, but while I generally believe that a handgun restriction of some sort would help, there's no data that I've seen to prove that (or even argue it well at all). You mention 260K people getting killed while the assault weapon ban was in place; is there any indication that a significant number of those people would be alive today if there were handgun restrictions? In other words, were those deaths specifically due to handguns themselves, or just what those murderers happened to use? Because someone who wants to kill a single target is simply going to succeed. Blunt objects, poison, etc... all work on a single person.
The interesting data that would support handgun restrictions would be how many incidents of handgun murders involved more than one death? Because the subsequent deaths may be preventable. That's the idea when we talk about mass shootings; there's simply no way to stop a determined individual from killing another person, but there should never be a way to kill 50 people in so short a time frame with such ease.
(And again, I believe similarly on handguns, but that's just my gut feeling that it would help in a significant way).
for real?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I don't mind that such a ban has already lapsed once before, I'm still willing to roll the dice on implementing a different version of it:
1) Now isn't then
2) The ban might be a little less ineffectual/toothless in how it's drafted
3) Even if the amount of deaths only decreases a little bit, the current atmosphere might not allow for the quiet shoulder shrug of resignation that happened then, which might lead to
4) A push to enact even more severe restrictions in an effort to bring the number much lower, which might go through more easily because
5) Now isn't then, and the goal of getting those numbers down is going to seem more urgent than the percieved need to own weapons might.
Basically, enacting a ban now might get a majority of the populace used to that idea, and once they're used to it, they might push for that ban to encompass a wider range of weaponry, and to enact stronger restrictions on the weapons that fall outside that range.
That ball can start rolling downhill and picking up incredible speed. We just need to give it a solid kick. Like what happened with Gay Marriage less than a decade ago, and what's happening with decriminalized/legal cannabis currently.
I wonder how many people opposing such restrictions can also see the potential for that momentum to accumulate, and are hoping the ball doesn't go anywhere near that hill.
1) Now isn't then
2) The ban might be a little less ineffectual/toothless in how it's drafted
3) Even if the amount of deaths only decreases a little bit, the current atmosphere might not allow for the quiet shoulder shrug of resignation that happened then, which might lead to
4) A push to enact even more severe restrictions in an effort to bring the number much lower, which might go through more easily because
5) Now isn't then, and the goal of getting those numbers down is going to seem more urgent than the percieved need to own weapons might.
Basically, enacting a ban now might get a majority of the populace used to that idea, and once they're used to it, they might push for that ban to encompass a wider range of weaponry, and to enact stronger restrictions on the weapons that fall outside that range.
That ball can start rolling downhill and picking up incredible speed. We just need to give it a solid kick. Like what happened with Gay Marriage less than a decade ago, and what's happening with decriminalized/legal cannabis currently.
I wonder how many people opposing such restrictions can also see the potential for that momentum to accumulate, and are hoping the ball doesn't go anywhere near that hill.
Seems pretty obvious the right wants to take a compromise on allowing the completely toothless and frankly dumb assault weapons ban to come back as an easy way to get the conversation out of the national mindshare. The left will take too so they can have something to bring home during their next election to toot their own horn over that didn't take much effort.
And people will keep on dying in droves to gun deaths, and the ban will have limited to no impact on the actual numbers, just like what happene the last time the assault weapons ban went through.
Definition of insanity, etc....
And people will keep on dying in droves to gun deaths, and the ban will have limited to no impact on the actual numbers, just like what happene the last time the assault weapons ban went through.
Definition of insanity, etc....
phantomspiker
Member
Gotta start somewhere I guess.
I mean, that's one way to look at it, but I think to 3 that it would just be used by the GOP to say "see we told you that gun control doesn't work".
OfficerRaichu15
Member
It would be great if carried through
Yeah, handguns account for the vast majority of gun deaths in the country, and those deaths themselves are largely centered around demographic trends with young, black males dying and committing a disproportionately large amount of those firearm deaths.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
And they can say that, sure.
The question is whether a) they're in position to solidify that narrative to the point it overwhelms the desire on behalf of the populace to get that number down or b) they're in a position to obstruct attempts to broaden the scope of the ban and/or restrictions.
The fact that now isn't then is a pretty key point there. They can say "See, we told you it doesn't work," and the hope is that, due to the change in national tenor and the overwhelming numbers we're looking at between then and now, that the response isn't "Oh, well, I guess we give up," but "so we make them tougher then, don't we."
That's even crazier that he said the same thing.
Never expected Fox news to say this, especially Bill O'Riley.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Again, we're going to need a lot more data to do anything about handguns. Also, we're going to need better solutions too, to be honest. There are over 115 million handguns owned in the US (according to ATF in 2009, so it's going to be a bit higher now). You aren't going to get even half of those back, even with a buyback program (that would require a ton of money as well).
Assault weapons are responsible for mass shootings more often, and those are easier to target with legislation. We have the data for this now, and it's more widely accepted. Never let perfect be the enemy of good.
Surely. A mathematical reduction of easily obtained lethal weapons equate to the identical rates of death because of and not limited to; Throwing Stars, knifes, Poison, Acme Ordered traps, opossum, and boiling acid.
Correct, there is no 100% way of preventing anything. This applies to all things, not just crime. However, you can greatly reduce the % of deaths. This isn't hard. Other nations are models, there are no excuses to be confused or need more data on why having less instant death machines in everyone's trigger happy hands. There are normal death rates in any population, there are murders in any population, because again, yes, you can't stop free will. Yet, you can stop a large number of people that fall victim of gun deaths, Direct style John 'The Eraser' Kruger attacks, and accidental deaths.
This is mindset is why there will be no reduction of gun deaths in the united states. This is all an acceptable level of deaths, there's fuzzy math surrounding it, because people will die every time someone wants to kill them, so there is no point to make an effort.
Eh, I'd argue most responsible gun owners would rather have their hands on their ARs than keep their handguns.
You can't hide an AR in your pocket or while you are prowling on the street. A ban on handguns just makes so much more sense.
brochiller
Member
Cant believe Bill is supporting any form of gun control. Maybe something will change this time?
psynergylover
Member
Fuckin Bill O Riley called for action on gun control!?!?!?!?
I need to lie down....
I need to lie down....
Handguns have always been the weapon of choice for murder because they are easy to conceal and are just as effective as a rifle. We see in states with even moderate restrictions that gun violence is significantly lower when states around them share similar restrictions. Would it stop all of those 260K deaths from happening? Probably not but even if it only stopped half that's 130,000 lives saved.
I can say with certainty that it would have significant results as far as suicides. Most suicidal people react on a split second impulse which means many suicide attempts are survivable. 2 years ago my best friend in a moment of despair took her pistol and shot herself in the head. As she lay there dying all she could do was cry in pain and apologize about how sorry she was for what she did. The Pistol did not give her that opportunity to realize she was making a mistake and come back from the edge. She had stepped off it and there was no coming back.
That 264k deaths did not include the otherwise roughly 250k who killed themselves with pistols.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Who said anything about protecting someone? We have them because they're fun to shoot. 😜
Guns are a deep sickness here in America. It's like every fucking day we have a mass shooting. With all of the coverage of Sunday's tragedy, I didn't even realize that, not an hour away from me, three men were murdered by a nut with an AR-15 yesterday. Business as usual in the US of A.
Usually I can block it out but what happened in Orlando is weighing on me today. And we'll never do anything about it. The NRA has an iron grip on Congress. We can't get even the most reasonable gun control laws passed. It's hopeless.
Most firearm deaths still come from handguns regardless but if this even puts a tiny dent in mass shootings of Orlando caliber then it's a respectable position for her to take.
Recognizing the idiocy aloud on the largest right wing news network is a huge leap forward for them.
Recognizing the idiocy aloud on the largest right wing news network is a huge leap forward for them.
Bobby Roberts said:
You have EXACTLY hit on why gun rights supporters fight any restriction tooth and nail. Any compromise, no matter how small, is just another step towards a total ban.
Go back to 1982 when you could still buy full auto actual assault rifles for less than $20,000. Or 1965 when you could get anything IN THE MAIL. Guys back then would see the system now and think a total ban is right around the corner. Gun rights supporters HAVE compromised, time and again, and it is never enough.
RPGCrazied
Member
I need to see a video of this, or I'm not buying it. Gretchen is one thing, but him? lol
kittoo
Cretinously credulous
...somethings up.. dont think that link works?
RPGCrazied
Member
Still is okay with handguns, but its a start? Man, if Hannity jumps in on supporting the ban, then you know something is up.
Aztechnology
Member
Hell is freezing over.
BannedEpisode
Member
It's a start.
I understand all the arguments in this thread, but just be happy *some* shifts are happening.
I understand all the arguments in this thread, but just be happy *some* shifts are happening.
7DollarHagane
Banned
This is a good step in that direction. Handguns are seen as a home protection tool by people still, semi auto rifles like this one don't legitimately serve that purpose or any other purpose.
I've always been against a ban on all guns but I think that semi automatic rifles being banned would be a good start and compromise for both parties to agree on.
Next we limit magazine size in all semiautomatic weapons.
the_batman
Banned
i don't think you realize the kind of criminals we have over here. if you live in an area near bad people, and they know you don't have any protection, they will rob you with their guns and can even do worse.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The comparison seems quite straight forward to me? I'm comparing the way in which fear of flying is much more common than fear of driving, despite statistics telling people that they are far more likely to die as a result of the latter than the former. It's caused by air-fatalities being extremely high profile and large scale events, although crashes are rare, when they do happen they often involve 50-150 deaths.
Azure Dream
Member
They can read public opinion, and know if they give up something that was already banned once a little over a decade ago, they'll get pats on the back for it, and probably put off further gun reform we need.
Already Torn
Banned
Hey, I'll take what we can get.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Yep.
WTF is an assault rifle? All legal riffles are semi or bolt action. Why does the color matter? In CA they can only hold ten rounds. Not much of an assault.
Yet people will come in here and claim that since semi automatics don't statistically kill more people than other guns, that we should do nothing
And then nothing gets done
And there we are
For those of you who support the assault weapons ban, I'd really like to know why you think it's worth discussing as opposed to other forms of gun control given that the ban was deemed ineffective by the state department. There's no argument to be made that the ban will do anything other than cause a massive spike in assault rifle and high-cap magazine sales as hobbiests buy up all the stock.
Ban handguns. "Assault rifles" are nebulous to begin with by definition and are much more difficult to commit crimes with. IIRC "assault rifle" deaths were less than 300 for the last year, as compared to orders of magnitude resulting from hand guns.
In general yes.
But for mass shootings specifically, guns with large magazine capacities like the AR-15 is why we're seeing higher and higher death tolls. The ability for these killers to continue to shoot without cessation is a major problem.
Someone who practices changing magazines can do so in about 3-5 seconds. There are many videos that demonstrate magazine capacity limitations have very little effect on someone's ability to fire a lot of ammo. One of the Columbine shooters was limited to 10 rounds in a gun that was legal under the assault weapons ban, and there's no evidence to suggest that limitation had any impact on his ability to murder a bunch of people.
Rudelord
Member
I can buy a handgun and then purchase a hicap mag that gives me the same amount of ammunition as a AR.
'Large mag capacities' is not a semi-auto rifle exclusive feature.
Not if the AR has high cap mag also. And I never said they were, just that the bigger the clip size, the better for these psychos that want to do as much damage as possible.
So if that was supposed to be some half hearted defense of high capacity magazines, it's a bad one. They are enabling lethal mass shootings all over the place.
Rudelord
Member
I'm not defending shit aside from the asinine idea that super scary black furniture assault weapons which are the the minority of gun deaths by comparison to handguns need to be banned.
They don't.
Virginia Tech was 32 people killed with a Pistol. It was a wide open college campus though so people could flee.
Orlando on the other hand was a Club that was irresponsible. They had multiple exits chained shut so people could not sneak in etc. The Club Goers became fish in a barrel. If they could have used those multiple exits the death toll would be far less.
It clearly did have an impact, since there were 2 active shooters and they killed 15... compared to 50 in orlando.
I would rather have this trained mag swapping shooter, who has to spend 3-5 seconds reloading frequently... which could save untold lives... than the one who simply continues to shoot until all before him or dead.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked