Which do you support most and why? (Select 1 or more)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, let me ask some questions. And be honest.

Stephen, in regards to your statement, "but not unlimited gun ownership". What difference does it make that I have 1 gun vs. 10 guns? If I decide I'm going to go out and kill people, I only need 1 gun. Having 10 is not going to make it easier for me. The issue isn't the number of guns, the issue is the amount of ammo I can carry for that one gun. If I have a .45 semi-auto pistol, I can kill as many people with it (with enough loaded magazines) than I can with 10 pistols. Explain to me how restricting the number of guns I have makes people safer?

#2 - Please name the last person, LEGALLY authorized to carry a gun (or rifle) in public (either open carry or concealed carry), that has committed mass murder? Just one.

#3 - tell me the difference between an AR-15 and a .45 semi-automatic pistol (both are legally allowed to use 10 round magazines) in a close environment. Which is more effective at killing large numbers of people?
 

sloppyjoeslayer

Well-Known Member
It looks like the OP's intent was a rebuff against the absurd portrayal in the gun debate where the focus becomes solely "the gun" to the exclusion of all other variables, to which I agree, it is absurd and only for the simple minded to focus and characterize a complex issue in such a way. As to the larger debate both sides have their bad and good arguments, both sides have their propaganda and both sides push to change laws favorable to their side.

When it comes to any debate on virtually anything I tend to always start with the sovereignty of the individual in which of course you have the right to use any means necessary to protect yourself, where it starts to get complex though is when you begin to layer concepts of society and civilization over that.

To the main point though I think you should have the right to own and carry guns but I like the idea of this society/civilization game so of course there should be efforts made for reasonable control of who gets the guns. Since some nations can be extremely large though it should be mainly managed locally with of course limited federal control as well since travel is so easy.
 
joe, excellent points. The focus should be on the person, not on the gun.

Go back to the 2nd Amendment. Even our founding fathers would have agreed (in a heartbeat) that a person's right should be infringed if they are using that gun to kill innocent people and that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right. However, they would have never agreed to a blanket ban on guns on everyone because of the actions of a few. However, many want to take all guns away - in other words punish the vast majority for the actions of a few. Or they want to restrict what kind of guns they can have (just like comments made in this thread) - even from law-abiding responsible citizens.

That's the problem. I don't care what other countries do. I really don't. How they want to run their country (like Britain or Australia for example) is their business and not mine. I'm American. I only care about what rights I have in this country. So for people to use what other countries do means absolutely zero to me. They also prevent people from doing other things that we have the freedom here to do - even freedom of speech for example. How many countries have (in their constitution) the right to free speech? Go to another country and start publicly denouncing the government. See how long you stay out of jail.
 

sloppyjoeslayer

Well-Known Member
many want to take all guns away
Yeah well those types of people are either completely clueless or just plain insane so if they can't be educated by the realities of existence then they can easily be dismissed from any consideration in this debate. Or simply throw them out in the wild surrounded by bears, tigers and wolves and see how quick they feel it necessary to arm themselves wherever they go lol.

In one sense I agree looking at other countries is in a way nonsensical to do, for either side of the debate, since there's so much variability to societal structures involved but at the same time there is value in it not so different really than looking at states in how they handle various things and seeing the results.
 
Yeah well those types of people are either completely clueless or just plain insane so if they can't be educated by the realities of existence then they can easily be dismissed from any consideration in this debate. Or simply throw them out in the wild surrounded by bears, tigers and wolves and see how quick they feel it necessary to arm themselves wherever they go lol.

In one sense I agree looking at other countries is in a way nonsensical to do, for either side of the debate, since there's so much variability to societal structures involved but at the same time there is value in it not so different really than looking at states in how they handle various things and seeing the results.
Well, it is different looking at states. All states fall under the U.S. Constitution. They can create their own laws but they can't violate the Constitution (well, at least legally they can't.)
 
Would things like limiting magazine sizes, expanding background checks, mandating waiting periods, and having mental health checks be too much to ask for?

We don't need to ban guns or the 2nd Amendment, just some moderate reforms.
Hello Praetorius. You ask a very good question and I'll try to answer the best I can.

Limiting magazine sizes - I have no problem with that. Many states already do that. In California, where I live, magazines are limited to hold 10 ammo. However, the only thing this will do is slow someone down from switching mags. What's the difference if I have 3 magazines holding 30 rounds vs. 9 magazines holding 10 rounds (assume we are talking about rifles and not pistols)? Pistols are different because it isn't realistic to have a 30 round mag (even a .22 mag holding 30 rounds wouldn't be realistic).

Expanding background checks. Again I have no problem with this but... I don't believe someone should have to go through a background check every single time they buy a firearm. That's ridiculous and just a means to make more revenue because it costs you every time it's done. Expanding them to all sales is ok, but they should be only done on a time basis (in other words a maximum of once each year if you purchase a gun).

Waiting periods. This should only be as long as it takes to complete the background check, or 3 days, and not a mandatory 10 days like here in California. I've been told by gun dealers that it only takes a day or two to get the results back. The argument that the waiting period is to prevent someone from buying a gun (out of anger or some current emotional state) is a valid one but 10 days???? Seriously? Most people don't stay angry more than a day or two. What other reason would there be for a waiting period? I've heard the argument it's a "cool down" period before actually acquiring the gun.

Mental health checks. Hmmm. This one is the toughest and presents the biggest slippery slope. What mental state should a person have that would prevent them from buying a firearm? Who would determine that? How? In my opinion, a person should not be required to have a check done BUT if there is a recent history of a SERIOUS mental issue, then they should be flagged and that should be caught in the background check. What do you want to do, have people go see a shrink before they buy a gun? Get real.

One thing I want to point out is that most states already have mandatory background checks done and many limit the size of magazines. This is not a radical idea.

One thing I will never, ever agree on is a national registry. Too many ways for the government to abuse it.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
#2 - Please name the last person, LEGALLY authorized to carry a gun (or rifle) in public (either open carry or concealed carry), that has committed mass murder? Just one.
Pretty much every mass shooting in recent memory has been carried out by someone who obtained the gun(s) legally, and I'm sure you already know that, so I'm not sure if you're trying to shift the debate to concealed carry or what, but I ain't going for it.
You can try to shift the debate all you want, but the truth is that without the easy access to military type guns and large capacity magazines, we would not have the multitude of mass shootings that we have had.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Pretty much every mass shooting in recent memory has been carried out by someone who obtained the gun(s) legally, and I'm sure you already know that, so I'm not sure if you're trying to shift the debate to concealed carry or what, but I ain't going for it.
You can try to shift the debate all you want, but the truth is that without the easy access to military type guns and large capacity magazines, we would not have the multitude of mass shootings that we have had.
Yet London is currently the murder capital of the world. Even more murders than Chicago. Sure none of them are gun deaths, but dead is dead. Bet a few guns for self-defense would have prevented a number of those deaths.

Pretty much every mass shooting in recent memory has been carried out by someone who had been prescribed psychotropic drugs.

The truth is that without the easy access to gun free zones, we would not have the multitude of mass shootings that we have had.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
That is patently untrue. Both Chicago and New York (and probably a few other U.S. cities) have way more murders per year than London. Like at least 3-4 times more. Did you just make that up, or did some Faux Fox News show make that spurious claim?
Google is your friend. Try it.

Like at least 3-4 times more. Talk about made up.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
Google is your friend. Try it.

Like at least 3-4 times more. Talk about made up.
I did Google it. And everything I saw completely contradicted what you said. This is from an article in Time Magazine: "In 2017, London’s murder rate per 100,000 people was 1.2. New York City’s rate was nearly three times higher, at 3.4. Baltimore, the deadliest American city in 2017, had a murder rate more than 45 times higher than London’s, according to FBI data. San Diego, the big city with the lowest murder rate in the U.S., still had 2.2 murders per 100,000 people, according to an analysis from USA Today."
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Selective Googling at it's best. But ok, I'll do your homework for you. From the Sun, a UK news outlet, published 4 days ago.

MURDER CAPITAL
London murder rate 2018 – how many murders have there been so far and which city has the world’s highest murder rate?

London's murder rate overtook New York's for the first time, with the Met Police launching 89 investigations in 2018

LONDON is experiencing a horrifying rise in violent crime, with 89 murders in the capital since the start of the year. It meant, for the first time, that London's homicide rate momentarily overtook that of New York which has the virtually same population numbers.

Fresh figures show killings in Britain have risen to a ten-year high.

Excluding those killed in terror attacks including London Bridge, Westminster and Manchester, there was still a 12 per cent rise in murders - the highest numbers in a decade. The total number of offences involving a knife or bladed instrument that have been recorded by cops in the year to March 2018 rose to 40,147, a seven-year-high.

There was also a two per cent spike in the number of gun-related crimes too - that is now at 6,492. There have been 89 suspected murders in London since January 2018, compared with 50 in New York during that same period. There were 116 murders in the capital during the whole of 2017.

In that year New York had 286 - but that was its lowest since the 1950s. Yet while Big Apple rate decreased from the end of January to March London's rose.
 

cton2.forge

Active Member
Speaking of newspapers and faux news...

Not really on topic but isn't it ironic that printed news/word used to be the place for revolution and inspiration and the place for public debate. With the rise of incorporated news owned and operated and espousing a distinctive lean to the right or left it feels like those days are gone. They used to argue for greater freedom and now most (it feels like that to me, anyway) are consistently arguing for greater restrictions on our liberties and freedoms.

Pistols are different because it isn't realistic to have a 30 round mag (even a .22 mag holding 30 rounds wouldn't be realistic).
https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/beretta-92fs-9mm-magazine-30-round?a=1919639

Only in California man, that place is CRAZY-LOCO. 30 round mags aren't hard to find nor are they illegal in most States and they really aren't terribly unweildy. The typical 9mm mag holds 13 rounds. X normal length by 3. It looks a little weird but isn't horribly so. But the truth is (guys, totally my humble opinon here but I usually hit what I shot at) if you can't knock it down with just a few attempts (pretty much anything less than 30) you probably shouldn't have a gun. And I Hear the next argument before it ocmes - "but what if you have multiple hostiles?" 2 answers. The first. Against overwhelming odds your choices are fairly simple. The first and most logical is that you should probably not get inot a fight with more opponents than you can realistically handle (otherwise known as confrontation avoidance, or as the layman say run and hide). The alternative and much more awesome option is the blaze of glory. But going in with a funky 30 round mag is just so gauche. Just carry 3 mags and you'll be fine.

Anyways, long story short, I don't think regulating the size of magazines will have any impact on anything. Not for or against, just think it's a silly concept. Hell, in 40 odd states it's legal to own a machine gun if you are in accordance with NFA regs. BUT NOT IN CALIFORNIA. That place is practically a Totalitarian dictatorship.
 

cton2.forge

Active Member
When it comes to any debate on virtually anything I tend to always start with the sovereignty of the individual in which of course you have the right to use any means necessary to protect yourself, where it starts to get complex though is when you begin to layer concepts of society and civilization over that.
This is DANGEROUSLY (get it!) close to becoming a Social Contract discussion. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau here we come! That philosophy degree I have that is so useless for picking up chicks or having a real job will FINALLY come in handy.

My stance is below, the TJ quote. I have a baby on the way and for the first time in like 10 years I actually find myself caring a little bit more about life outside my 10 mile bubble. And with the state of tension that exists in this country I'll hold onto my guns. and knives. And other pointy stuff. But yeah. Folks on mind altering drugs, drunk or just straight up crazy should never ever ever have guns. Ever.
 
Pretty much every mass shooting in recent memory has been carried out by someone who obtained the gun(s) legally, and I'm sure you already know that, so I'm not sure if you're trying to shift the debate to concealed carry or what, but I ain't going for it.
You can try to shift the debate all you want, but the truth is that without the easy access to military type guns and large capacity magazines, we would not have the multitude of mass shootings that we have had.
And here's where you bring up a point that provides ammo to those wanting to ban guns. But let me ask you one question, is it better to target those .01% before they snap and disarm them before they go on a killing spree with their "legally" obtained weapon or just punish everyone by selectively banning a few weapons that only limits the attackers ability a little but does nothing to stop him/her?

You last argument about military guns and large capacity magazines is pure supposition. You assume that some of the shooters would have never carried out their attack unless they had AR-15s and 30 round mags. An assumption you can't back up with any proof.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
You last argument about military guns and large capacity magazines is pure supposition. You assume that some of the shooters would have never carried out their attack unless they had AR-15s and 30 round mags. An assumption you can't back up with any proof.
Would you also like proof that water is wet? smh
 

TheVillagerIdiot

Active Member
Non-sequitur.

Plus your statement is incorrect. Only 6 of the last 49 mass shootings (as defined by law) since Columbine in 1999 did the shooter have a military type weapon. We still had multitudes of mass killings (43) that did not involve a military type weapon.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm
Did you include AR-15s on military type weapons, because I'm pretty sure they aren't. They just look spooky.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.