• 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.

Two Virginia television journalists fatally shot in on-air attack[READ OP]

Status
Not open for further replies.

coleco

Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but actually very few countries have an absolute ban on fire weapons for civilians, it's just really really hard to get one and your selection is very limited, as it should be.

I live in Spain and that's how it works here. Weapons are not banned but limited in type and use. Iirc getting a sports or hunting license is relatively easy after a psych check and a course but you can only carry your weapon to and from your gun range/hunting place and it has to be unloaded and in a carry bag. Personal defense licenses are only granted in special cases, like those who have needed police escort. There are also professional licenses for cops, security, etc.

It doesn't change things a lot but it keeps weapons far from the common people's minds. You can still get a weapon if you really want to, and there's a black market too, but the access, control and punishment is much stronger.
 
No it's fun. Simple as that.



I also support sensible gun regulation. "Ban em all" is not sensible gun regulation. It's dumb fantasy tripe that will never happen.

It might not happen as a first step. But it can definitely happen over time, say in 100 years or 200 years, after a series of baby steps that slowly (over the course of multiple generations) begin to tighten everything. Regulation is the first step to getting there in the least impactful manner possible.
 

Zabant

Member
Yeah but this is America not some commie euro country. I want to own my gun. When I shoot that fucking can I want to know it was MY gun and MY bullet. I wouldn't give that up, even if it saved thousands of innocent lives.

Perfect Poe's Law in action right here.

100% guarantee there are people that actually think this.
 

jerry113

Banned
Where exactly do you draw the line? You can buy a lethal air rifle for about half the price of even the cheapest "real" guns. Again, you're asking me to just give away about $5000 worth of personal property due to a small group of others not being responsible. I

Yes, I am.

This is what living in a society requires.

Living according to rules that help create a safer society to live in. If taking away your gun saves 1 life, I'm all for it.
 

Amory

Member
It's the difference between dogmatic obedience to a religion and people changing things in a religion to suit the modern world.

If you made a venn diagram of gun nuts and bible thumpers, it'd be pretty close to a circle.

The far right looks at the constitution as reverently as they look at the bible. So, in short, I very much agree with your point, it is dogmatic obedience to the constitution. But dogmatic obedience is what a lot of these people know and love.

The founding fathers aren't really thought of as "people" as it were, they're infallible demigods. If they gave us the right to bear arms, consarnit who are we to say they're wrong??
 
Is using alcohol worth 60,000 deaths per year?

If ones usage of it was directly causing the death of others, then of course not.

Not really sure how someone abusing alcohol is related to someone owning an easily accessible device which is designed to kill things.
 
No it's fun. Simple as that.



I also support sensible gun regulation. "Ban em all" is not sensible gun regulation. It's dumb fantasy tripe that will never happen.

How about regulation by taxing the ever living shit out of ammunition? That seems like something that could be relatively easily implemented.
 

coleco

Member
You say this assuming that the police and the military aren't on the pro-gun side of this issue.

I say it assuming the army and police would be on the fascist side, otherwise it would be impossible to establish such a regime in this imaginary scenario.
 

Piggus

Member
Yes, I am.

This is what living in a society requires.

Living according to rules that help create a safer society to live in. If taking away your gun saves 1 life, I'm all for it.

Well you can ask all you want, but you don't make the rules. Society does as a whole.

If ones usage of it was directly causing the death of others, then of course not.

It does, in many many occasions.

How about regulation by taxing the ever living shit out of ammunition? That seems like something that could be relatively easily implemented.

How would it be easy?
 

Jackpot

Banned
Where exactly do you draw the line? You can buy a lethal air rifle for about half the price of even the cheapest "real" guns. Again, you're asking me to just give away about $5000 worth of personal property due to a small group of others not being responsible. If someone told you to clear out your liquor cabinet for the same reason you'd rightly tell them to fuck off. But I'll be more polite since I know you don't understand what shooting a gun is like.

Oh no, not your $5000!

And where do I draw the line? You say that as if it's some difficult question, which only highlights how incredibly dense you must be. You surely draw the line at artillery and missiles, meaning you already accept the concept. Any sane person should draw the line at semi-automatics that are meant to unload multiple lethal projectiles.

Why can't people use bolt-action air rifles for target practice? They still test the same skills.

But I'll be more polite since I know you don't understand what shooting a gun is like

I would really, really like for you to explain this statement. It sounds borderline perverted.
 
If you made a venn diagram of gun nuts and bible thumpers, it'd be pretty close to a circle.

The far right looks at the constitution as reverently as they look at the bible. So, in short, I very much agree with your point, it is dogmatic obedience to the constitution. But dogmatic obedience is what a lot of these people know and love.

No they don't, because they don't support the 14th amendment (hurr, hurr)

Anyway, don't bring the constitution into it, both sides are guilty of cherry picking the parts of the constitution they like and accusing others of being "against the constitution"
 

Kingbrave

Member
I'm all for stricter gun control laws. If it even saves just one life then it's worth it. I know that it seems like such a small number, but all life matters. But it's a start.
 

Sephzilla

Member
You do realize the poster was comparing all alcohol related deaths right?



Not vehicle only.

Corrected information below.



http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

All firearm is about 33,636 annually.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

The comment that started my stat digging tied alcohol + driving together. He was starting to goal post shift a little bit. Firearm deaths in general also rocket up massively if you include suicide and accidental deaths as well.
 

Mimosa97

Member
I also support sensible gun regulation. "Ban em all" is not sensible gun regulation. It's dumb fantasy tripe that will never happen.

I agree with you that banning guns would be unfair to people like you who use them only for target practice. You're right. But I just want you to know that even in the countries with super tight gun laws, you can still get a license and be allowed to hunt, target practice etc... Even keep them in your house. My uncle used to hunt a lot and still goes target practicing but he doesn't own any gun. He leaves his guns at the shooting range. When he used to go hunt, he would go to the cabin, get the gear, sign a few forms, then go shooting with his buddies. He never kept a gun in his house.

Tighter gun control wouldn't change a thing for you. The process to obtaining a license would be longer but if you have a blank criminal record and no history of mental illness, it's smooth sailing. So I don't see why you're freaking out about losing your guns and your hobby ?
 

Sianos

Member
I don't know why you gun dudes even bother to post in threads like these. The only thing that comes from it is getting ad hominem'd to death.

*posts sensible debunking of poor tu quoque fallacy*

*it is ignored*

*other people post sensible debunking of poor tu quoque fallacy*

*it is ignored*

*someone upset uses inflammatory language while debunking a poor tu quoque fallacy*

"hey look at all this ad hominem geez"

you do realize that the existence of a less than stellar argument in favor or against something does not somehow invalidate the other better written arguments, right?

like calling out someone on ad hominem does not mean that everyone else with whom that person is aligned has also had their argument discredited

you do not get to just engage the weakest argument against you and claim that you have defeated all arguments against you and that all arguments against you are identical to the weak one you defeated
 

Piggus

Member
'If I can't have my one thing you guys can't have this other thing >:/'

So are you going to answer the question?

I agree with you that banning guns would be unfair to people like you who use them only for target practice. You're right. But I just want you to know that even in the countries with super tight gun laws, you can still get a license and be allowed to hunt, target practice etc... Even keep them in your house. My uncle used to hunt a lot and still goes target practicing but he doesn't own any gun. He leaves his guns at the shooting range. When he used to go hunt, he would go to the cabin, get the gear, sign a few forms, then go shooting with his buddies. He never kept a gun in his house.

Tighter gun control wouldn't change a thing for you. The process to obtaining a license would be longer but if you have a blank criminal record and no history of mental illness, it's smooth sailing. So I don't see why you're freaking out about losing your guns and your hobby ?

Which is why I am all for tighter gun control, particularly psych evaluations or licensing, required training, and harsher penalties for not locking guns up when not in use. In other words I want middle ground solutions.

Oh no, not your $5000!

And where do I draw the line? You say that as if it's some difficult question, which only highlights how incredibly dense you must be. You surely draw the line at artillery and missiles, meaning you already accept the concept. Any sane person should draw the line at semi-automatics that are meant to unload multiple lethal projectiles.

Why can't people use bolt-action air rifles for target practice? They still test the same skills.



I would really, really like for you to explain this statement. It sounds borderline perverted.

And here we go with the personal attacks. I'm not going to debate someone who can't even be respectful of another person's opinion.
 
If ones usage of it was directly causing the death of others, then of course not.

Not really sure how someone abusing alcohol is related to someone owning an easily accessible device which is designed to kill things.

The absence of both would result in less deaths. This isn't difficult.
 

Salmonax

Member
There are a lot of things in society that are completely unnecessary and that would save a lot of lives if banned. But we as a society have determined that the risk involved with those hobbies isn't enough to get rid of them entirely.

Right, but in this case the balance seems to be just a bit off between the value of using guns as playthings (or even for defense) and the demonstrable carnage they enable.
 

commish

Jason Kidd murdered my dog in cold blood!
I agree with you that banning guns would be unfair to people like you who use them only for target practice. You're right. But I just want you to know that even in the countries with super tight gun laws, you can still get a license and be allowed to hunt, target practice etc... Even keep them in your house. My uncle used to hunt a lot and still goes target practicing but he doesn't own any gun. He leaves his guns at the shooting range. When he used to go hunt, he would go to the cabin, get the gear, sign a few forms, then go shooting with his buddies. He never kept a gun in his house.

Tighter gun control wouldn't change a thing for you. The process to obtaining a license would be longer but if you have a blank criminal record and no history of mental illness, it's smooth sailing. So I don't see why you're freaking out about losing your guns and your hobby ?

It's impossible. People who give "solutions" that are, literally, impossible to implement, are not helping or providing reasonable solutions. We will never ban guns outright in this country. If that's the focus of gun control advocates, then nothing will ever change.
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
Is using alcohol worth 60,000 deaths per year?

Alcohol isn't made to kill people. Guns are weapons, and even if many use them for sport, it doesn't change the fact that guns are weapons, made specifically to cause others harm. I'm not for banning all guns, but they should be heavily regulated.
 

Veldin

Member
Is using alcohol worth 60,000 deaths per year?

Dude, that's not even a hard question to answer. Most people would immediately say no. I can safely assume no one wants to stop you from skeet shooting or paper targets or whatever. The argument is simply that the US would probably be a lot safer if every Tom, Dick and Harry couldn't walk into a store and come out with a glock in their jacket.
 
Do anti gun and gun types know even get that guns aren't outright banned just restricted? Would that stop this man from going insane? I don't know.

It feels like a new thread...
 

Sianos

Member
Is using alcohol worth 60,000 deaths per year?

since no one responded to my last post debunking this exact argument, i am allowed to repost that post so i don't waste my time retyping the same thing:

"People die from irresponsible gun usage. People die from irresponsible alcohol usage. Since irresponsible gun usage and irresponsible alcohol usage both cause people to die, they should both be dealt with in the same manner."

This is a pretty clear example of a tu quoque fallacy. Attempting to prove that legislating further restrictions of guns is hypocritical because we aren't trying to legislate further restriction of alcohol does not mean that restricting guns is an illogical line of thought.

Whether or not alcohol should be restricted is an entirely different argument from whether guns should be restricted. Even if they can both cause death, they do so in different manners and require different solutions to minimize harm while preserving personal freedom. For instance, I would propose that to drive a civilian car, one must blow into a breathalizer before the car will switch out of park. This solution would obviously not help much to solve the issue of death via gun. Likewise, requiring the usage of a gun safe to store guns would not help much to solve the issue of death via drunk driving. Notice how these seem to be separate issues even though they both cause death?
 

lamaroo

Unconfirmed Member
Why do all of these gun "enthusiasts" always equate stronger gun laws to the government coming to their house and taking all of their guns away from them?

Serious question, why shouldn't it be harder for people to buy guns?
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
Do anti gun and gun types know even get that guns aren't outright banned just restricted? Would that stop this man from going insane? I don't know.

It feels like a new thread...

Just because gun laws would not stop 100% of gun violence does not mean gun laws aren't worth having. Because it's been proven they do stop a lot of g n violence.
 

esms

Member
Ad hom doesn't kill people. People kill people.

Ban ad hom.

*posts sensible debunking of poor tu quoque fallacy*

*it is ignored*

*other people post sensible debunking of poor tu quoque fallacy*

*it is ignored*

*someone upset uses inflammatory language while debunking a poor tu quoque fallacy*

"hey look at all this ad hominem geez"

you do realize that the existence of a less than stellar argument in favor or against something does not somehow invalidate the other better written arguments, right?

like calling out someone on ad hominem does not mean that everyone else with whom that person is aligned has also had their argument discredited

you do not get to just engage the weakest argument against you and claim that you have defeated all arguments against you and that all arguments against you are identical to the weak one you defeated

It was an observation, not an attempt to discredit. Shit, it wasn't even an argument.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
This shouldn't be a gun control issue, it should be a mental health issue.
Even recognizing that, I don't know what we could do about it. I mean, it's not like we live in a fictional Minority Report-like world where we can predict when and how a person snaps to properly protect others from it.
Why isn't it both????
 

entremet

Member
Gun ban ain't' happening.

It's not realistic. More than half of the country won't allow it and we live in a representative democratic republic.

The focus should be on mental health checks and tighter regulations overall.

Baby steps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom