Black Republican
Member
Chicago is still the talking point GOP brings up for efforts against banning assault weapons i see.
-
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
the_batman
Banned
people cling to their guns over here.
also, even if you ban guns, how the hell are you going to retrieve all of them that are in the wild? cash 4 guns?
hunchback
Member
What a weak response. My neighborhood has a pack of coyotes that we hear and see pretty often. Yes cat's go missing. By your logic my entire neighborhood should have semi automatic rifles with a 30 round magazine. Let's do the math on that.
We have 25 houses. Each house has a semi-auto rifle and 2, 30 round magazine's.
That's 25 weapons and 1800 rounds of ammunition just to protect a cat. We would be shooting every single night. Get out of here with that BS.
People or my neighborhood understand when you live in a very rural area that you're going to lose animal's from time to time. It's called part of nature.
Rudelord
Member
I guess you missed the response where I said I have little kids in my neighborhood and I don't want the coyotes getting ballsy. Or are you implying a 5 year old potentially getting mauled by a coyote as a part of nature as well?
Also, the biggest magazine I own for my rifle is 10 rounds. I don't need a 30 round mag to kill vermin.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
It has to be nation wide to have any effect at all.
Because it doesn't matter when you can go to the city or state that's close by.
I don't see why they can't understand that.
Told you guys. If a white person shoots up a school, it's a lone nutter and it doesn't say anything about muh freedoms to carry guns as a responsible person. If a brown person shoots up a club then the freedoms are a danger to society and something needs to be done about it fucking pronto.
I would really be interested to see how many people in this country *oppose* an assault weapons ban. I would imagine there is enough political capital by this point to get something done, on a national level.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
I...I...I can't believe this
Finale Fireworker
Member
Coyotes are not going to maul your five year old. This is like saying your child might be carried off by a giant eagle, or consumed by a boa constrictor. People construct things to be afraid of, stuff that they rationalize could happen at any moment, and they use their manufactured fear to justify owning guns.
Meanwhile, other people are afraid of the real threat, which is the guns themselves.
I live in a rural area. We have coyotes and foxes and skunks with rabies and hunters who get separated from their ornery pitbulls. None of these things ever posed a serious threat to anybody in this area, but we all have to wear orange vests when we take out the trash to keep some drunk deer hunter from shooting us through the trees.
The threat isn't the things you're afraid might happen. The threat is the guns. You do not hear stories about 6,000 kids being attacked by "ballsy coyotes."
You are letting your imagination possess you. You are not alone on this. But the goal is to help people realize the fallacy of thinking guns somehow keep them safe, when they time and time again prove to do just the opposite. Responsible gun ownership starts with admitting what guns do and do not do and placing your fear on the right place. This is what we are striving for on a national level.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Two people have ever been killed by coyotes. How many have been killed by guns? Your priorities are off.
Abstrusity
Member
Yeah, coyote attacks are exceedingly rare, and really only happen if you corner them or if they're eating your family pet at the time. Deer need something a bit bigger than an AR-15 has to offer (so do gators, for that matter, which is still a problem in my area).
At the very least, they ought to be taken care of, because coyotes can get rabies, and pass it off onto your house pets, which can pass it off to you. That's why animal control and hunters commonly hunt them down before they become a big problem.
The gist of it is to not put hunters out too hard -- 10 round magazine vs. will only significantly impact active shooters. Someone at the range isn't gonna worry too much about having to reload, because they've got time. A hunter shouldn't need to worry about reloading, because an accurate shot is a kill on mid sized game, and just about anything would kill something a bit smaller (except for boar, they don't know how to just die).
But an active shooter would need to constantly reload if he wants to keep doing what he's doing, and that's more and more people who can escape from them in the meantime. Of course, a handgun would also be deadly in those situations, too.
Minimizing the risks associated with this sort of thing is really the only thing we can...do.I doubt banning AR-15s outright is going to do much, because it functions the same as most varmint hunting rifles anyway, and only looks scary when you compare the two.
Personally, I'm still kinda confused why people are using comparatively expensive AR-15s when you can get a cheaper rifle that functions just as well, also semi-automatic, for cheaper, AND carry it without arousing as much suspicion.
Yes, you institute buyback programs, you also confiscate any guns that the police find during searches or arrests, you make possession of a gun probable cause for a search, etc. Eventually they should start getting sucked up by law enforcement actions at a decent pace and attrition will set in over time. Like those numbers are high but that's inflated due to single individuals or households owning a large number of guns
There are large portions of America that would rather see America burn in flames than have their guns taken away.
Indeed, it's fair to say that many relish that opportunity. The desire to level the playing field of society through the possession of weapons.
No amount of logic, reason, numbers will dissuade those people from manufacturing emotionally disingenious reasons for wanting to keep guns.
Fear and distrust of others drives their basic world view - literally seeing anything and everything as a threat.
It'd be difficult for me to live without a gun in that sort of head space as well.
Indeed, it's fair to say that many relish that opportunity. The desire to level the playing field of society through the possession of weapons.
No amount of logic, reason, numbers will dissuade those people from manufacturing emotionally disingenious reasons for wanting to keep guns.
Fear and distrust of others drives their basic world view - literally seeing anything and everything as a threat.
It'd be difficult for me to live without a gun in that sort of head space as well.
Abstrusity
Member
It's a logical conclusion to "there are threats that I can't face as I am, so I'm going to level the playing field."
Common threads to that are your average woman and your average criminal. Where the average criminal isn't going to be a complete monster, if they ARE a complete monster, being able to protect yourself against them means having a gun. Case in point: someone broke into my house, he was just a burglar, but I got the drop on him, and kept him on the floor for the 10 minutes it took police to arrive. 10 minutes.
The police station is a mile and a half down the road, and these are not dirt roads. It's a suburban, paved area. A subdivision. He was just a burglar, so that's okay. But what if he had much worse intent than "steal things so I can pay for things later?" That 10 minutes can be a life-altering ...lifetime. It only takes one such event to scar someone for life -- even hearing about one like that.
People are impressionable, and I'm willing to bet that too much Law and Order, crime procedurals, etc., has added to that fear of drastic crimes.
In the end, that fear is constantly stoked by high profile crimes, thus giving the illusion that you NEED to defend yourself -- not just that you want to -- but NEED to.
Except overall gun violence has increased in the UK after the ban.
Criminals don't care about law.
BobTheFork
Member
I don't believe it. Give him a day and he'll clarify he meant banning assault rifles for 'unsavory characters'
Yeah I couldn't believe it either when I heard it - now all we need is to hear Hannity say something similar and hell truly will freeze over.
Goro Majima
Kitty Genovese Member
I don't think a comprehensive gun ban will happen in our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes.
The process to repeal the 2nd amendment would require 3/4ths of all the states to get on board. It doesn't matter where the people actually live because as long as all those states in the middle of the country are solidly conservative and see the gun debate in a completely different light, a full ban will never happen.
Like others have said a ban on assault weapons is also a non-starter to actually addressing the issue. I think the last time the ban was enacted it did jack squat because they only banned new sales of semi-automatic "assault rifles". You could still buy and sell I think pre-1994 weapons of which there were still millions in circulation.
Long term I think the solution is to treat guns like automobiles. Licensing (including comprehensive examinations), registration, and maybe even insurance in case someone uses their registered weapon in a shooting. Then you have stiff penalties for any weapon found that aren't in those categories.
A handgun ban could also work if it was enacted in a manner that would compensate current owners. Many gun collectors purchase weapons for their financial value so I think fair market value would have to be paid for any handgun that was turned into the government. Unfortunately if they do the handgun ban like the 1994 assault weapons ban, it'll be a waste of time just because of all the inventory out there.
I could see both of those restrictions enacted without necessarily violating the second amendment and thus avoiding the whole 3/4ths of states issue.
The process to repeal the 2nd amendment would require 3/4ths of all the states to get on board. It doesn't matter where the people actually live because as long as all those states in the middle of the country are solidly conservative and see the gun debate in a completely different light, a full ban will never happen.
Like others have said a ban on assault weapons is also a non-starter to actually addressing the issue. I think the last time the ban was enacted it did jack squat because they only banned new sales of semi-automatic "assault rifles". You could still buy and sell I think pre-1994 weapons of which there were still millions in circulation.
Long term I think the solution is to treat guns like automobiles. Licensing (including comprehensive examinations), registration, and maybe even insurance in case someone uses their registered weapon in a shooting. Then you have stiff penalties for any weapon found that aren't in those categories.
A handgun ban could also work if it was enacted in a manner that would compensate current owners. Many gun collectors purchase weapons for their financial value so I think fair market value would have to be paid for any handgun that was turned into the government. Unfortunately if they do the handgun ban like the 1994 assault weapons ban, it'll be a waste of time just because of all the inventory out there.
I could see both of those restrictions enacted without necessarily violating the second amendment and thus avoiding the whole 3/4ths of states issue.
The Jackdog
Member
youre rationalizing a ridiculous fear to justify the gun
NoblesseOblige
Banned
No, you see, the 0.000003333...% chance a child has of getting attacked by a Coyote in the US this year is very real.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Seriously, even if these guns got banned, progressives better not get complacent, there's far more to be done.
DragonSworne
Banned
Why do people want to make hunting easier? I thought it was a sport.
It's like lowering the basketball hoop by 3 feet, at a certain point it is no longer a sport. Likewise with hunting, using these overpowered guns and bows no longer makes hunting a sport.
It's like lowering the basketball hoop by 3 feet, at a certain point it is no longer a sport. Likewise with hunting, using these overpowered guns and bows no longer makes hunting a sport.
Yoda
Member
Banning assault weapons is purely to make people feel better. There are millions of these floating around the country and someone who is murderous isn't going to be stopped by a Wal-Mart clerk telling them the computer "told me not to sell it to you".
What we need is a ban WITH a buyback program similar to Australia. Unless supply is significantly lowered, the ban will just fuel a black-market which has enough supply to last a century.
What we need is a ban WITH a buyback program similar to Australia. Unless supply is significantly lowered, the ban will just fuel a black-market which has enough supply to last a century.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Sport hunting shouldn't be a thing anyway. I grew up in a family of hunters, and used to hunt when I was younger myself, and we never considered it for sport.
I disagree. Guns will not be banned in our lifetime. However, I do expect more strict gun laws such as;
1. Banning assault rifles
2. Universal background checks for firearms and ammo
3. Mandatory to own a gun safe if purchasing a firearm
4. Possibly making a requirement to take a gun safety class before purchasing a firearm
This may not seem like much to people who want to flat out ban firearms, but other countries have found success implementing these strategies. There are more firearms than people in the U.S. A ban would be nearly impossible imo.
Hunters like rifles because they have more range than a shotgun. Meaning, they can sit in a blind a lot further away and kill a deer. It also doesn't damage the meat as bad as a shotgun. Particularly if you're hunting small game.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
For coyotes, I have a 12 gauge shotgun and use low recoil target rounds. You want a shot with a low spread but longer range, like 40-60yrds. I've never had to kill one though, I just normally shoot into a nearby bank to scare them off.
Another option is to get a donkey.
Another option is to get a donkey.
An Assault Rifle ban is a start and it's not a bad start. We know 20x more people get killed by handguns, which are the true issue. But even if this ban saves 100 people... It's a start. And once we can start banning those weapons, hopefully down the line people will be more okay with putting on more strict regulations to handguns. You have to get your feet wet before you dip in.
Hope this also leads to universal background checks, ban on people on the no fly lists or with mental disabilities, and nation wide regulation.
Hope this also leads to universal background checks, ban on people on the no fly lists or with mental disabilities, and nation wide regulation.
Seriously. If I ever went hunting (which would probably never happen) I'd want to use a bow or something else that makes it a real challenge. Otherwise I'm just sitting still for several hours waiting for a deer to walk in front of my gun.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
It's actually the same thing for bow hunting.It's half the reason I stopped. It's incredibly boring.
I guarantee I grew up in a far more rural place than you, where I could hear coyotes howling every night, and not a single dingo ate anyone's baby.
This is a ridiculous derail in this thread, to the point where it just sounds like you wanted to brag about the delusion that you're actually saving lives by shooting at wildlife. Just stop.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Their responsibly begins and ends by following the law and handling and storing their firearms correctly. Demagoguing the issue by vilifying gun owners isn't going to work in the long term.
I understand the underlying logic of "If everyone thought like me on this issue we wouldn't have this problem...and therefore it's their fault". I just flat out reject it.
Mammoth Jones
Member
An assault weapons ban wouldn't do much of anything since an AWB simply bans cosmetic features on a rifle. Ok, no pistol grip and no collapsible stock and no picatinnay rails. Ok. And three months later people are buying sporting rifles that don't meet the criteria of an assault weapon that shoots the same bullets.
You'd have more success with background checks and adding due process to the terror watchlists so that they can be used to revoke someone's 2A rights if ordered by a judge.
If gaf had existed in the early 90s I bet this exact same post would have been made then.
Assault rifle ban is a terrible, pointless start, we already tried it once, remember? If we reinstate the assault weapon ban, nothing will change except that no one will be willing to discuss gun control for a few years. "We already gave you 'assault' weapons, what more do you want???"
It's as silly as thinking obamacare is a step toward single payer.
Unless the assault weapons ban requires pre-ban weapons to be surrendered and melted down, the only thing it will do is increase the value of the millions of these things that are already out there. If someone is insane enough to spend $1500 on a rifle with the intention of killing 50 people, what's to stop them from saving for a couple more months if that rifle suddenly costs $5000?
Additional time and roadblocks between ideation and carrying out a massacre is time family, friends, and the authorities have to intervene.
Obviously a "high powered weapon" ("they're not assault rifles they got dis grip right hurr!") ban would need other things attached to it to make it actually impactful, which is where our government will likely get tangled up in legislating, if the NRA isn't able to legally bribe their way out of it this time.
also, side note, Gretchen Carlson responded to many, many threats and insults hurled her way over Twitter and some of her responses are pretty funny. I feel like exposure to this segment of their audience might be an eye opening experience to what they've themselves cultivated with all of their fearmongering horseshit for the past ~16 years.
hunchback
Member
Oh no, I saw it. You're constantly moving the goalposts. First it was vegetables, then it was cat's and now it's children. I have no idea where you live but you must have the country's most aggressive coyotes.
I have lived in my neighborhood that has the 25 houses for 18 year's and 3/4 of them have children aged from infant to teen. During those 18 year's not one child was snatched by a coyote or even mauled. And they are being squeezed out of their hunting areas.
These types of weapons need a 5 round magazine at most if they are going to continue to exist in this country.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
I support really strict gun control, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
1) the military doesn't use AR-15s.
2) AR-15 rifles are indeed used in hunting everything from varmints to deer.
3) Per the police report an AR-15 WAS NOT used in this shooting. A Sig MCX was.
Further points
4) .223 firearms are the most common, and most popular, rifles in the US. The AR-15 is the most popular of the .223 rifles. If you ban the AR-15 are you going to ban the rest of the 223 rifles? If not then gun companies will just make a less scary looking 223 rifle (that is close to the AR15 in function) and nothing will have been accomplished.
5) Oh but what about banning the ammo? Well, If you think .223 ammo will ever be banned I have bridge to sell you. Its the most popular hunting ammunition in the United States.
6) For the uninformed the AR in AR15 doesn't mean Assault Rifle, it is an abreviation of the original companies name Armalite. It literally means Armalite 15. It was shortened to AR so companies could copy the design and not get sued by Armalite.
7) The military uses M4s and M16s which are visually similar to AR-15s but the guns are not the same functionally. AR-15s are civilian weapons that have NEVER been used by the military. They are not surplus, and they haven't been used by anyone in battle (the miltary destroys its surpluse M4s and M16s)
8) An AR-15 does not have automatic fire and is not an Assault Weapon. It is a semi automatic hunting rifle that is black and resembles the military M4 in visuals.
All of that said I think people, including myself, who own or intend to buy high capacity rifles, should be required to pay for yearly licenses just like we do for cars. The gun show loop hole should be closed, Pawn Shop weapon sales should be eliminated, and mandatory mental evaluations/waiting periods should accompany every gun purchase in the United States.
I'm cool with an Assault Weapons Sales ban. I already own one and just the possibility of ban will cause a sales increase large enough to put another 10 million in circulation. Which means availability will remain high through person to person sales and trades. If it happens quick enough that sales can't increase then the value of my AR-15 will skyrocket. Which means I can sell it for possibly 4x what it cost me.
Seth Enosh
Member
There's nothing magical about assault weapons that makes them especially good for mass shootings (and most gun violence isn't mass shootings anyway). Someone could always just bring multiple handguns in a coat and reload.
Also can anyone explain how a magazine size ban would work to prevent an active shooter? My understanding is it's already possible to 3D print these gun parts and it will get even easier. If you're planning a terrorist attack then you have plenty of time to buy a 3D printer and download a magazine blueprint. Many active shooters build bombs in their home which is way more dangerous to themselves than 3D printing an illegally sized magazine.
Also can anyone explain how a magazine size ban would work to prevent an active shooter? My understanding is it's already possible to 3D print these gun parts and it will get even easier. If you're planning a terrorist attack then you have plenty of time to buy a 3D printer and download a magazine blueprint. Many active shooters build bombs in their home which is way more dangerous to themselves than 3D printing an illegally sized magazine.
Magazine size cap is also pointless. Pre-ban magazines will exist, and as you mentioned it wouldn't be hard to make your own.
Calamari41
41 > 38
I mean, god damn.
Also, "assault weapon" is a meaningless term and is useless in a good faith discussion.
Melon Husk
Member
If you want to make difference in everyday shootings, ban firearms classified as handguns outside of shooting ranges. If you want to make a difference in the weekly mass-shootings, invest in mental healthcare.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
1. Assault Rifles are already banned in the united states...
2. This is too weak, we need mental evauluations, paid for by the purchaser, before every gun purchase and a mandatory 6 month waiting period.
3. uhh, every gun owner I know already has a gun safe so....
4. I can dig this.
Things you are missing:
5. Close the gun show loop hole
6. Keep pawn shops from selling guns
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
If I were ever unfortunate enough to be caught in a place with a crazy person with a gun, I'd much rather they have a coat full of handguns and clips than a "pray and spray" rifle with a coat full of large magazines. Either one sucks, but the potential for damage decreases when the rate of bullet fire decreases and the person needs to stop and fumble around with magazines.
That's not accurate. A 5.56 round shot from an AR will have on average 3 times the velocity of a 9mm round from a handgun.
Combine that with the design of the bullet and the AR round is far more dangerous in a mass shooting scenario. I would not be surprised at all if we we were to learn that one bullet hit as many as 3 or four people in that club. The bullets are much faster and more lethal.
Handguns have an advantage in portability and stealth, obviously, but for maximum damage in a mass shooting, it's easy to see why these nutjobs tend to choose assault rifles.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked