-
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.
The speech that sparked a revolution.
- Thread starter Nintendo Switch
- Start date
Rudelord
Member
Generally anything coming out of Fusion GPS is taken with a hefty bag of salt from me...and this is also accusations, again. Whether they actually did it shall remain to be seen.
And let's hear what 'ultra radical' stances the NRA has. This should be interesting.
Last edited:
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Read the link. The information about the NRA laundering money from Putin into the GOP is from the FBI and Trumps own Justice Department.
And like I already said, The majority of gun owners do not feel people on the terrorist watchlist, kids not even old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, and the mentally ill should be able to buy AR15s. The majority support universal background checks and disagree with these and the many other ultra radical stances of the NRA that are found in the speech in the OP.
And like I already said, The majority of gun owners do not feel people on the terrorist watchlist, kids not even old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, and the mentally ill should be able to buy AR15s. The majority support universal background checks and disagree with these and the many other ultra radical stances of the NRA that are found in the speech in the OP.
Last edited:
Rudelord
Member
So long as there is a way to appeal your case while on said terrorist watchlist, as well as a way to reclaim your rights once you have become mentally fit once more (if at all possible, depending on your condition), I see no issue with this. The issue I've had is when people start talking about wanting to ban certain weapon types because they're scary looking.
As for the kids statement, I started learning how to shoot when I was 6 years old. Buying a gun wasn't something I could do, but to the best of my knowledge there was nothing illegal about my shooting a rifle at my grandfather's house.
Last edited:
Nintendo Switch
Banned
That is such a straw man. No body is talking about banning guns because they are scary looking.
Brian Mast is a GOP Congressman, NRA member and Afghanistan war veteran that lost both his legs to an IED. He wrote an excellent op ed full of suggestions to reduce mass shootings. All of these are common sense reforms that most responsible gun owners support, but that the NRA vehemently opposes.
His op ed is all over the internet and I encourage you to read it below:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/...pons-ban.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
These assault rifles could be defined as anything that allows for accurate shooting of crowds from 100 yards away and can shoot over 12 bullets before having to reload (modded AR15s can shoot 40 bullets without having to reload giving less opportunity for good guys to come close enough to the shooter to stop them).
This kid was shooting up targets from all the way from one end of the hall way to the other end, to the point that four well trained police officers “good guys with a gun” and in fact most police officers would be afraid to even try to engage him until he uses up the ammo in his clip and has to reload.
The vegas shooter shot 300 people from over a 1000 yards away using rifles, extended ammo clips and bump stocks that he bought legally. These are the weapons of cowards.
With a 8 shooter pistol, both would have had to be much closer to their targets and would have had to reload much more frequently providing ample opportunity once he shoots the first 8 people in the classroom for a large crowd of people that are being shot at to gang up and overpower the shooter while he is reloading.
And it’s a medical fact that people shot with a pistol are much more likely to survive than people shot up with these rifles.
But perhaps the most scientific way to define assault rifles specifically as those that have a long range of accuracy, can discharge over 12 rounds without needing to reload, and still manage to be deadlier than handguns as well documented by radiology scans of bullet wounds in the below article...
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/
Brian Mast is a GOP Congressman, NRA member and Afghanistan war veteran that lost both his legs to an IED. He wrote an excellent op ed full of suggestions to reduce mass shootings. All of these are common sense reforms that most responsible gun owners support, but that the NRA vehemently opposes.
His op ed is all over the internet and I encourage you to read it below:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/...pons-ban.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
These assault rifles could be defined as anything that allows for accurate shooting of crowds from 100 yards away and can shoot over 12 bullets before having to reload (modded AR15s can shoot 40 bullets without having to reload giving less opportunity for good guys to come close enough to the shooter to stop them).
This kid was shooting up targets from all the way from one end of the hall way to the other end, to the point that four well trained police officers “good guys with a gun” and in fact most police officers would be afraid to even try to engage him until he uses up the ammo in his clip and has to reload.
The vegas shooter shot 300 people from over a 1000 yards away using rifles, extended ammo clips and bump stocks that he bought legally. These are the weapons of cowards.
With a 8 shooter pistol, both would have had to be much closer to their targets and would have had to reload much more frequently providing ample opportunity once he shoots the first 8 people in the classroom for a large crowd of people that are being shot at to gang up and overpower the shooter while he is reloading.
And it’s a medical fact that people shot with a pistol are much more likely to survive than people shot up with these rifles.
But perhaps the most scientific way to define assault rifles specifically as those that have a long range of accuracy, can discharge over 12 rounds without needing to reload, and still manage to be deadlier than handguns as well documented by radiology scans of bullet wounds in the below article...
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/
Last edited:
Rudelord
Member
I already read it when you posted it before and my one complaint was him trying to limit someone from buying an AR15 on the basis of it 'being more dangerous' than other weapons.
It's not. There's many weapons that fire the same cartridge (or even more powerful ones) and no one says a thing about them. 'Assault weapons' are already effectively banned simply due to how prohibitively expensive it is to get an assault rifle (a fully automatic rifle), you need to purchase a federal license, you need a background check, and thereafter you can be inspected every year by the ATF. All for an automatic rifle.
Bump stocks are a different thing, and honestly I wouldn't lose sleep over them being banned because of how uncontrollable they make the rifle when shooting it. Fun to shoot once, but otherwise a waste of ammo and time.
It's not. There's many weapons that fire the same cartridge (or even more powerful ones) and no one says a thing about them. 'Assault weapons' are already effectively banned simply due to how prohibitively expensive it is to get an assault rifle (a fully automatic rifle), you need to purchase a federal license, you need a background check, and thereafter you can be inspected every year by the ATF. All for an automatic rifle.
Bump stocks are a different thing, and honestly I wouldn't lose sleep over them being banned because of how uncontrollable they make the rifle when shooting it. Fun to shoot once, but otherwise a waste of ammo and time.
Last edited:
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Useful for defending your home from intruders my ass. There is absolutely no good reason to need to shoot 20+ bullets without having to reload at targets hundreds of yards away in order to protect your home. Any rifle capable of that shouldn’t be readily available for purchase for private use, no matter how it looks. If gun range owners want one for their range, they should have to fulfill the same requirements they need to in order to have a fully automatic weapon on their range.
Last edited:
Rudelord
Member
The 2nd isn't meant for simply defending your home from intruders (which I have a handgun for, the weapon type that kills MORE PEOPLE in the US than rifles, bolding for emphasis since you seemed to miss it before). I literally don't have to justify my having multiple 30 round magazines to you or anyone else, nor the reason for my having a rifle capable of using them.
Last edited:
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Semiautomatic rifles with a long range and 20+ high power round magazines are much easier to kill loads of people with than any handgun. You don’t have to reload which means even police officers wearing body armor can’t come within 300 yards of you until you have shot down atleast 20 people and need to take a moment to reload.
You don’t get to have a machine gun or a tank or an rpg or a grenade launcher just because you want one and you sure as shit shouldn’t get to have high powered rifles with a large range and a 20+ round magazine either unless you jump through the same hoops you have to in order to get an automatic rifle.
Last edited:
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I hate all these guns and shootings but I also hate fake solutions.
It seems people don't want slightly less shootings. It seems like they don't want any more. Okay, great. But none of the proposed restrictions I've heard will do the trick. There are at least 325 million guns in this country. Control isn't magic; every violation has to be caught and pursued. How do you expect to control that many guns? Ask some police in Chicago how easy it is when someone is determined.
Some say ban guns. Okay, so your first obstacle is the 2nd amendment. Interpretation of it has already fallen on the side of gun possession, so you'll have to get rid of it or change it. Say we somehow manage to do that properly (2/3 vote of the people) and can go for the guns. How do you get them all? How do you expect to get them faster than they can hit the black market? We don't have enough police or even military to do it on any timeline let alone fast enough. How could it be done without starting Civil War 2?
Some say adjust this or that thing to make them illegal, but those run into complications. A recent example is "rate increasing device" but what is that? Could be bump stock, could be lighter trigger, could be compensation, could be semi-auto anything, could be anything but bolt-action rifles. Using language like that in a regulation to circumvent the already-defined 2nd amendment is setting precedent to do it with anything. Trust me, even if it were possible (and it isn't, the supreme court would overrule it as unconstitutional), you don't want to do that. You want to do it the right way lest you inadvertently undermine all rights.
The same is true when talking about mental illness or persons being watched by authorities. Nullifying someone's second amendment rights by transgressing their first amendment rights is major trouble. We already have laws in place to stop someone who has done something wrong, is demonstrably planning something wrong, is associating with criminals or terrorists, even stockpiling weapons, etc. But we can't profile people to nullify their rights based on subjective interpretation of what we think they are likely to do based on what they say. It's illegal unless we change the constitution.
I also think if you want to get anywhere with the dialogue we're all going to have to become more honest with our stats and the implications. If-then arguments about the mere presence or accessibility of guns as the primary cause doesn't speak to the fact that these didn't happen for decades when guns were also prevalent. Throwing around statistics that include suicides to argue against mass shootings will not help you. Blowing off reasoning of gun advocates like comparing to knife violence in England will not help you when it would take a majority vote of citizens to elect officials who will change things or carry out an amendment of the constitution.
We are polarized, and the only way to make a change is to win people over. Anger is understandable but ineffective at accomplishing that. Acting like your sincerity and the depth of your passion outweighs constitutional guarantees and processes will not get you far. Acting like the president has unilateral control over all government will not get you far. Ignoring or handwaving your political opponents does not make them and their reasoning disappear as an influence on the governing of the country.
Now, at least when it comes to schools I would say the best and easiest thing we can do to greatly improve the situation is to increase security for entering school grounds. Each community will have to decide that they value their children enough to make the investment that is necessary to accomplish that. Still, in view of the 325 million guns in the country, I think it is much more within reach to implement and will be much more effective once implemented than any gun purchasing regulations.
It seems people don't want slightly less shootings. It seems like they don't want any more. Okay, great. But none of the proposed restrictions I've heard will do the trick. There are at least 325 million guns in this country. Control isn't magic; every violation has to be caught and pursued. How do you expect to control that many guns? Ask some police in Chicago how easy it is when someone is determined.
Some say ban guns. Okay, so your first obstacle is the 2nd amendment. Interpretation of it has already fallen on the side of gun possession, so you'll have to get rid of it or change it. Say we somehow manage to do that properly (2/3 vote of the people) and can go for the guns. How do you get them all? How do you expect to get them faster than they can hit the black market? We don't have enough police or even military to do it on any timeline let alone fast enough. How could it be done without starting Civil War 2?
Some say adjust this or that thing to make them illegal, but those run into complications. A recent example is "rate increasing device" but what is that? Could be bump stock, could be lighter trigger, could be compensation, could be semi-auto anything, could be anything but bolt-action rifles. Using language like that in a regulation to circumvent the already-defined 2nd amendment is setting precedent to do it with anything. Trust me, even if it were possible (and it isn't, the supreme court would overrule it as unconstitutional), you don't want to do that. You want to do it the right way lest you inadvertently undermine all rights.
The same is true when talking about mental illness or persons being watched by authorities. Nullifying someone's second amendment rights by transgressing their first amendment rights is major trouble. We already have laws in place to stop someone who has done something wrong, is demonstrably planning something wrong, is associating with criminals or terrorists, even stockpiling weapons, etc. But we can't profile people to nullify their rights based on subjective interpretation of what we think they are likely to do based on what they say. It's illegal unless we change the constitution.
I also think if you want to get anywhere with the dialogue we're all going to have to become more honest with our stats and the implications. If-then arguments about the mere presence or accessibility of guns as the primary cause doesn't speak to the fact that these didn't happen for decades when guns were also prevalent. Throwing around statistics that include suicides to argue against mass shootings will not help you. Blowing off reasoning of gun advocates like comparing to knife violence in England will not help you when it would take a majority vote of citizens to elect officials who will change things or carry out an amendment of the constitution.
We are polarized, and the only way to make a change is to win people over. Anger is understandable but ineffective at accomplishing that. Acting like your sincerity and the depth of your passion outweighs constitutional guarantees and processes will not get you far. Acting like the president has unilateral control over all government will not get you far. Ignoring or handwaving your political opponents does not make them and their reasoning disappear as an influence on the governing of the country.
Now, at least when it comes to schools I would say the best and easiest thing we can do to greatly improve the situation is to increase security for entering school grounds. Each community will have to decide that they value their children enough to make the investment that is necessary to accomplish that. Still, in view of the 325 million guns in the country, I think it is much more within reach to implement and will be much more effective once implemented than any gun purchasing regulations.
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Who the hell doesn’t want fewer shootings? Everything we are advocating for is precisely designed to reduce the number of mass shootings, the number of deaths that occur when these mass shootings do occur, and to make it easier to stop a mass shooter.
It’s far easier to stop a mass shooter that is using a handgun that he has to reload after every 8 people that he kills, than it is to stop a mass shooter with a long range rifle that can shoot 20 people accurately from 300 yards away before having to reload.
If you don’t believe that laws can help, then why the hell do we even pass laws?
If laws have no impact then Lets make machine guns and grenade launchers legal again. Lets make it legal for 3 year olds to buy guns. Lets make it even easier for people with mental illness or a history of violence to buy guns. If you really believe laws have no impact then why do we bother to pass any laws?
Don’t you find it odd that all these shooters use legal guns? None of them are shooting up schools with machine guns, rpgs or grenade launchers even though these would kill a lot more people. Either that’s one hell of a coincidence or regulations and laws do work.
It’s far easier to stop a mass shooter that is using a handgun that he has to reload after every 8 people that he kills, than it is to stop a mass shooter with a long range rifle that can shoot 20 people accurately from 300 yards away before having to reload.
If you don’t believe that laws can help, then why the hell do we even pass laws?
If laws have no impact then Lets make machine guns and grenade launchers legal again. Lets make it legal for 3 year olds to buy guns. Lets make it even easier for people with mental illness or a history of violence to buy guns. If you really believe laws have no impact then why do we bother to pass any laws?
Don’t you find it odd that all these shooters use legal guns? None of them are shooting up schools with machine guns, rpgs or grenade launchers even though these would kill a lot more people. Either that’s one hell of a coincidence or regulations and laws do work.
Last edited:
Rudelord
Member
Actually, I CAN buy a tank, a machine gun, or a grenade launcher if I wanted one bad enough. It's just prohibitively expensive and ultimately only worth it if you're an established military.
Handguns kill more people in the US. Fact.
MANY mass shootings were carried out with handguns, and not rifles. Also a fact.
Banning rifles does nothing because people will just use a fucking pistol instead. (The average pistol magazine is about 12-15 rounds, by the way, and are faster on average to reload than a rifle is. Soft flesh being hit by a 9mm round is still going to be devestating.)
I'm not going to support any legislation that doesn't actually fix the issue and just attempts to blanket ban rifles that kills FAR less people yearly than a pistol of any type.
Last edited:
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Okay, if you want to be obnoxiously and uncharitably exacting and pedantic, I will rephrase to absolutely, exactly and completely what I meant in so far as it still seems reasonable to elaborate:
It would seem that many people don't want only less shootings, but that they will continue to be shocked and outraged by every single one that happens and view the fact of their occurrence as a an unacceptable failure of our laws and enforcement until there are no more shootings. In contrast to the imperfect enforcement of any other crime, it seems many want a scaling-as-necessary approach of zero tolerance on gun-related violence and any potential contributing factors toward it until we finally have no more.
Do you understand now? Can we have an actual discussion on the present challenges in eliminating these problems instead of fussing over phrasing?
Nintendo Switch
Banned
You need a special permit and to pass an annual background check to buy and keep a tank, a machine gun or a grenade launcher. Lets have that same requirement for high capacity round rifles.
I am going to repeat myself because you never bothered to address any of my responses to the same claim that you made yet again.
Semiautomatic rifles with a long range and 20+ high power round magazines are much easier to kill loads of people with than any handgun. You don’t have to reload which means even police officers wearing body armor can’t come within 300 yards of you until you have shot down atleast 20 people and need to take a moment to reload.
It’s far easier to stop a mass shooter that is using a handgun that he has to reload after every 8 people that he kills, than it is to stop a mass shooter with a long range rifle that can shoot 20 people accurately from 300 yards away before having to reload.
Gun control advocates believe that saving those 12 extra lives from a mass shooter has value. Don’t you think saving an extra 12 lives is worth it? That’s 12 fewer families that have to experience the unimaginable horror of losing a child.
If you don’t believe that laws can help, then why the hell do we even pass laws?
If laws have no impact then Lets make machine guns and grenade launchers legal again. Lets make it legal for 3 year olds to buy guns. Lets make it even easier for people with mental illness or a history of violence to buy guns. If you really believe laws have no impact then why do we bother to pass any laws?
Don’t you find it odd that all these shooters use legal guns? None of them are shooting up schools with machine guns, rpgs or grenade launchers even though these would kill a lot more people. Either that’s one hell of a coincidence or regulations and laws do work.
I am going to repeat myself because you never bothered to address any of my responses to the same claim that you made yet again.
Semiautomatic rifles with a long range and 20+ high power round magazines are much easier to kill loads of people with than any handgun. You don’t have to reload which means even police officers wearing body armor can’t come within 300 yards of you until you have shot down atleast 20 people and need to take a moment to reload.
It’s far easier to stop a mass shooter that is using a handgun that he has to reload after every 8 people that he kills, than it is to stop a mass shooter with a long range rifle that can shoot 20 people accurately from 300 yards away before having to reload.
Gun control advocates believe that saving those 12 extra lives from a mass shooter has value. Don’t you think saving an extra 12 lives is worth it? That’s 12 fewer families that have to experience the unimaginable horror of losing a child.
If you don’t believe that laws can help, then why the hell do we even pass laws?
If laws have no impact then Lets make machine guns and grenade launchers legal again. Lets make it legal for 3 year olds to buy guns. Lets make it even easier for people with mental illness or a history of violence to buy guns. If you really believe laws have no impact then why do we bother to pass any laws?
Don’t you find it odd that all these shooters use legal guns? None of them are shooting up schools with machine guns, rpgs or grenade launchers even though these would kill a lot more people. Either that’s one hell of a coincidence or regulations and laws do work.
Last edited:
SoulUnison
Banned
I'd like to share this with all the people whose opinions are that these kids are being "too political" or are somehow in this for their own gain.
Trump campaign emails photo of Parkland survivor, asks for donations
Please explain to me how kids that were almost murdered saying "We'd like to never be almost murdered again" is too political, emotional and manipulative but there's nothing wrong with Trump's campaign using a photo of one of these kids in a hospital bed to solicit political donations?
For extra credit, please respond to the line ""Trump is taking steps toward banning gun bump stocks..."
Trump campaign emails photo of Parkland survivor, asks for donations
Please explain to me how kids that were almost murdered saying "We'd like to never be almost murdered again" is too political, emotional and manipulative but there's nothing wrong with Trump's campaign using a photo of one of these kids in a hospital bed to solicit political donations?
For extra credit, please respond to the line ""Trump is taking steps toward banning gun bump stocks..."
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
N
Nintendo Switch
You are not holding a discussion. You are spamming the exact same strawman questions. I never opposed law changes. I argued that I do not believe they will be effective to eliminate the problem. You point out the fact shooters used legal guns (a 2nd amendment right, the surrounding challenges of which I outlined) and yet also point out how lax the laws are. Why would a person commit a crime to obtain the gun if legal means were so much simpler? You can not rationally use their choice to do so as proof that, in absence of legal means, they would not be able to successfully use illegal means in a country with 325 million guns in circulation. I made a nod to Chicago to give example of how this sort of thing can occur.
I promise I'm not a gun advocate. I am simply trying to look at the reality of the situation we are in. Do you have any argument to make other than the fact more laws will probably help the situation somewhat? Do you have anything to say about the challenges we face beyond that in eliminating the issue more completely?
I promise I'm not a gun advocate. I am simply trying to look at the reality of the situation we are in. Do you have any argument to make other than the fact more laws will probably help the situation somewhat? Do you have anything to say about the challenges we face beyond that in eliminating the issue more completely?
Last edited:
camelCase
Member
People that are having emotional breakdowns over this stuff tend not to be aware of current gun laws. There's plenty of legislation that's happened in the past 20 years that they would take one look at and love without even reading what it does.
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Dice, Again, you haven’t responded to the points I raised.
It’s far easier to stop a mass shooter that is using a handgun that he has to reload after every 8 people that he kills, than it is to stop a mass shooter with a long range rifle that can shoot 20 people accurately from 300 yards away before having to reload.The
Gun control advocates believe that saving those 12 extra lives from a mass shooter has value. Don’t you think saving an extra 12 lives is worth it? That’s 12 fewer families that have to experience the unimaginable horror of losing a child.
It’s far easier to stop a mass shooter that is using a handgun that he has to reload after every 8 people that he kills, than it is to stop a mass shooter with a long range rifle that can shoot 20 people accurately from 300 yards away before having to reload.The
Gun control advocates believe that saving those 12 extra lives from a mass shooter has value. Don’t you think saving an extra 12 lives is worth it? That’s 12 fewer families that have to experience the unimaginable horror of losing a child.
Last edited:
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I didn't respond because I never challenged any of those points. Yet you are acting as though I am your opponent. This says to me that you are not even trying to listen and are uninterested in a discussion about reality.
Rudelord
Member
Handguns on average carry 12-15 rounds. 9mm to exposed, non-kevlar protected flesh is lethal. It is far faster to reload and conceal a pistol than a rifle. They make up more deaths in the US by a very substantial amount over rifles. Considering how very poorly the police responded to the most recent mass shooting, I doubt the body count would have been any less considering he had free reign to do whatever the fuck he wanted. (The Virgina Tech shooting was carried out with handguns. 33 people died. Columbine, handguns. 15 people.)
If you think pro-gun activists don't value life, there is no debate to be had here, by the way.
Last edited:
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Furthermore, it is very easy to make your own modifications. People do it all the time. I work in an industrial district and know many people who can make all kinds of stuff. You can make it illegal, but killing people is illegal, too. Clearly that won't stop the committed and deranged person. Are we to have background checks on people who buy shop equipment? That will only stop someone who has done something already. Many shooters haven't.
There may be some help from making it more legally difficult to casually pull off shootings, but many of these shooters seem to have been off their rocker for months if not years. I am advising us to look at the reality of the challenges truly present so as to not be overconfident in the effectiveness of certain measures. New laws might lessen things, yes (although even full agreement does not make the challenges for their establishment disappear), and each lessening is lives saved so that is good, but to solve the problem we need to make the right moves to get the right results, and the polarization and fighting over laws may be keeping us from making the progress of genuine engagement with each other and wrestling with reality that we must make together in order to accomplish it.
Last edited:
WaterAstro
Member
I don't think that speech was particularly motivating. It was just being angry. Anger doesn't result in well thought out plans.
It's great that they're showing support by marching out and marching on Washington, but that's not going to change the lobbying and the NRA.
I think there are better tools to deal with it, and voting is definitely one of them. They could rally financial support and put something on the media because educating people on the subject of gun control is what really changes people's minds.
It's great that they're showing support by marching out and marching on Washington, but that's not going to change the lobbying and the NRA.
I think there are better tools to deal with it, and voting is definitely one of them. They could rally financial support and put something on the media because educating people on the subject of gun control is what really changes people's minds.
SoulUnison
Banned
I mean, you'd have to show me the actual e-mail otherwise you're just saying that this new outlet is straight up lying, and I'd put way more stock into a campaign e-mail doing fundraising, (since that's like, their entire reason for existing,) than a major news outlet risking their reputation over such a minor lie. The second half of the response is nonsensical since it's bringing up something I already brought up. I'm...not really sure why you thought this was the airtight response you're presenting it as. The article plainly states that "Near the end of the message, there's a link to the campaign's donations page."
Also, you're trying to dredge up the idea that CNN is lying about this to cover up the "scripted questions" "scandal," but it's already been proven that their hand wasn't the editor there - it was the father of the teen in question trying to pull a fast one without having the slightest tech savvy to realize that the original, unaltered message was already out there with attached metadata, leaving a "paper" trail.
So, really, nothing about what you're saying addresses anything I presented, and you're actively trying to dismiss and deflect with already debunked information, which does nothing to help your credibility.
The headline is objectively true. Trump's campaign sent out an e-mail using a photo of one of the shooting survivors, and it's a campaign e-mail that asks for donations. These are just facts.
Last edited:
Jag
Member
That article made me sick to my stomach. Was the insane damage caused by special bullets he used or just the power of the rifle itself essentially liquidating organs? Because weapons that can do that kind of damage need to be restricted.
Last edited:
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Assault rifles are military-grade weapons for a reason. Their ammo, along with ammo enhancements, are designed for two things -- tactical range, and absolutely max damage to objects akin to human body within that range, penetrating potential light armor, if need be.
Back in the army as rookies we would often get lectured how there's virtually no 'safe' / warning shooting zone with assault-rifle fire -- you'd hit the target in the limb, they'd die just as well. There've been documented cases of targets hit in the arm and killed via the bullet moving along the soft tissues and exiting through more vital parts of the body.
My mind cannot begin to wrap around how intelligent people defend the free access of unchecked civilians to assault rifles. Particularly with the 'But they're not full auto!' excuse -- no troops in their right mind would shoot assault rifles on full auto unless for the noise effect. So in combat the semi-auto/burst is the kill mode of the weapon.
Last edited:
JrBaconCheeseburger
Member
The speech that sparked a revolution is a bit much don't you think OP.
I do not support NRA nor do i own a gun.
I do not support NRA nor do i own a gun.
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Thank you for your perspective from the army and for your service. The reasons you and the radiologist point out are precisely why comparing these guns to handguns seems so obtuse.
You can make a fair argument that handguns are useful for self defense and home defense. But these semiautomatic high range high capacity rifles were expliciting to designed to kill squads of people quickly. They are not comparable to handguns for precisely the reasons you and the radiologist outlined.
Last edited:
WinterIsComing
Member
As an european, this idea of everyone having guns is something that i find really absurd. It's like a parallel universe on the other side of the ocean.
Mohonky
Member
Honestly as someone thats seen and lived in a few countries in Asia and the visited parts of the Middle East; Americas fascination with guns is one of the most culturally jarring things I have come across.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Absolutely no problem. I could also share a story about how assault rifles could pose a major threat to the person behind the barrel as well, and how an armory sergeant saved my 20-something-yo's life and eyesight during a routine shooting drill, but that'd be taking the subject way too anecdotal.
prag16
Banned
Well, it's the history, the revolution, the constitution. It has remained ingrained. And a lot of it is symbolic.
Oh, your link was that church nonsense. Yeah that's stupid. That's more like a cult than a religion.. Though the school closing due to this seemed more like political grandstanding than safety.
Has anyone done a study looking at whether states with the most guns per capita have more mass shootings per capita? I'm curious how strong the correlation is between the two. You don't hear about mass shooting in Idaho, Arkansa, or Alaska often but it could just be the low population. But they all have 50%+ gun ownership rates.
TrainedRage
Banned
Check this out... It's pretty surprising. Although i'm sure you could draw correlations from any data about guns.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nce-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/
This is also pretty useful... (CDC map)
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
You mentioned Alaska, take a look, you will be surprised.
SPOILER:
ALASKA
- Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 23.0 per 100,000
- Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 4.4 per 100,000
* a bit different than what the media would lead you to believe
Last edited:
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Damn. Those stats blatantly fly in the face of the conservative talking point about how Illionois has so much gun violence despite having strict gun control laws. It’s actually in the bottom quartile. All the bluest states with the strictest gun laws have extremely low rates of gun violence.
Where as the top 25 states with the most gun violence are almost entirely red states and the occasional purple state with open carry and barely any restrictions on firearms.
Would be interested to hear how people can continue to repeat the NRA/GOP talking point that gun regulations don’t work.
Where as the top 25 states with the most gun violence are almost entirely red states and the occasional purple state with open carry and barely any restrictions on firearms.
Would be interested to hear how people can continue to repeat the NRA/GOP talking point that gun regulations don’t work.
Last edited:
prag16
Banned
Well, it's not ALL about gun crime. When he UK took away the guns, of course gun crime went down, but iirc overall violent crime did not; other shit replaced the gun crime.
I own some guns and I'm in a blue state. I dunno. I guess I'm starting to warm up to the idea of doing more to limit rifles. When I got my shotgun I remember I didn't have to do shit other than a waiting period and a minimal background check. Rifles work the same way. The pistol permit was what took more time/cost/effort. I probably wouldn't be opposed to at least bringing long guns up to the same standard as a concealed carry permit in terms of "difficulty to obtain".
The problem with that is that suicides are included in those stats. Now the chart near the bottom of the page here, shows gun murder rate and gun ownership rate. Gun ownership rate doesn't seem to have any correlation with gun murder rate.
Nintendo Switch
Banned
This story below adds some much needed context about the people pushing and “liking” these idiotic conspiracies about the students because they felt that the students’ message is resonating with people...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a856be-1b20-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a856be-1b20-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
Interesting that the article calls out 4chan for being owned by a Japanese businessman but neglects to mention that the Washington Post is owned by Clinton-donating Jeff Bezos. What kind of world are we living in when a “journalist” trawling through 4chan and reddit comments counts as “research”?
I want to be on your side, but you’re just pushing your point too hard. The sensational title of this thread and your other heavy handed posts are making me question whether you’re posting as a result of critical thinking or from a pre-existing agenda.
Last edited:
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Funny. That’s exactly what I’m questioning about the various posters making the exact same conspiratorial accusations regarding these kids all over social media without actually challenging anything the kids are actually saying. It’s also the same thing I wonder when people start attacking journalist institutions such as the Washington Post without actually challenging any of their actual reporting.
When there is an organized movement to undermine shooting victims that started less than an hour after a bunch of kids were killed with people sharing the same specific conspiracy theories about these kids every where on social media, yes that absolutely merits journalist investigation from legitimate sources such as the Post.
When there is an organized movement to undermine shooting victims that started less than an hour after a bunch of kids were killed with people sharing the same specific conspiracy theories about these kids every where on social media, yes that absolutely merits journalist investigation from legitimate sources such as the Post.
Last edited:
This is absolutely fallacious. The assault rifle doctrine is amount using reduced power cartridges that allows for a lighter more maneuverable gun and allows the infantryman to carry a larger number of rounds. It also allows the Army to issue one caliber and one weapon for most roles from support troops to front line combat troops. It is not at all about doing more damage to the target(in fact there is evidence that the reduced lethality of the intermediate round was eventually seen as a benefit because it takes more of the enemy out of the fight because of the need for stretcher bearers etc.), it was almost entirely a logistics decision.
The same is true for handgun rounds as well. There is no 'safe' place to be shot, even by a .22 LR.
Civilians do not have free unchecked access to assault rifles, which are NFA regulated items. AR pattern semi autos however have been the most popular rifle in the country for decades, so banning them clearly wouldn't meet Heller's 'in common use' standard anyway. Regulation and licensing could pass constitutional muster, but the main bill the democrats are pushing now is an overreach of hilarious proportions that is going to do little but help Republicans in 2018.
Last edited:
This is like clockwork.
Someone makes a mistake when talking about gun reform and it's held up as a reason to do NOTHING.
You obviously know what you are talking about. Why don't you be a hero and help? Help craft meaningful reform, help us get to where the rest of the first world is in 20 years, or 50 years, or 100.
You are massively powerful. You could actually make a difference and approach this as someone who knows the intricacies of the subject. We desperately need people like you to help us.
Broseybrose
Member
In America, the guns are here to stay. Nothing can be done or should be done about it.
Focus on the actual problem, which is mental health.
Focus on the actual problem, which is mental health.
I've suggested on this forum a long time ago that if people actually want gun control measures to pass, they are going to have to either wait for some massive demographic and cultural shift in this country or they are actually going to have to compromise. No one seemed interested in anything short of a ban back then, though maybe the ideological bubble here is thinner now.
My previous idea was nationwide CCW reciprocity and a repeal of the 1986 machine gun ban in exchange for placing all semi autos on the NFA registry. Such a program would accomplish 2 of the pro-gun sides biggest goals, but that is going to be the kinds of compromise it will take to get any kind of movement on the pro gun side. The details of course may vary, but there is going to have to be an actual compromise this time, not just more bans.
Gun rights advocates have been in 'no compromises, ever' mode for the last few decades because they had been giving up stuff bit by bit for decades. This is the mindset of many of the gun rights people I know:
Sure it's a one sided meme, but that is a real visceral feeling you are going to have to deal with if you want to get any legislation passed. You are going to have to give them some stuff that seems really scary, but isn't when you look at the data(suppressors, CCW, etc), in exchange for policies that actually have a chance of making things better(NFA registration and tax stamp). If the gun control side continues to try to just mindlessly ban things without offering anything in return they will get nothing. There are plenty of things most gun owners are willing to move on
(as shown in all those poll results pro gun control people always cite to make their case about how reasonable their ideas are), but they will need to see movement on the other side first. Even if they are in favor of a certain policy, they aren't going to give up that bargaining chip without a decent trade.
This is one area of the culture war that the left has decisively lost for at least a generation, so if you wait on that to change, it could be a while, and if you try to force change now you may just get Trump re-elected.
Last edited:
rokkerkory
Member
Good job Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked