The Whole Gun Debate Deal

.Hugo.i dare you to try and buy an assault rifle in the us. Despite what the media wants you to believe they are very difficult for the average citizen to obtain

CirilloWell other than a few high profile shootings, the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns. So what you're proposing would solve nothing.

The worst school shooting in US history was actually carried out with two handguns, one being a Glock 19.

People who propose banning a scary looking rifle over an easily concealable handgun just prove they know nothing about guns.

onenerdykidActually, it totally does. This is the basis for many laws for which things are illegal or restricted. When laws deem something unsafe for the general good, this is exactly what happens.





Again, I will say that I am not opposed to gun ownership but their restriction and better control by the government. You can do all of the things you claim and argue for with more gun control laws and less gun options on the market. No one needs an AR-15 for what you described- they simply want it. Owning a 9mm Glock, for example, would for 99% of these cases be more than sufficient.

If it is going to be ok for private, non-trained citizens to gain access to machinery designed solely to destroy something, the government should be able to better control who gets them and make sure they know how to operate and care for said weapon. It is the government's job to allow your rights, but also to try to ensure other's safety and well being at the same time.

onenerdykidLike I said, I am not opposed to banning guns just their regulation. And I do see the need for a handgun for "protection purposes" as recent rulings in the Supreme Court have noted, rather than limiting people to only owning hunting rifles, or as in Japan 1 kind of special shotgun.

Australia (along with other countries) banned the sale of assault rifles, since there is ultimately no need for private citizens to own these. Here in Austria, owning guns is permitted, but every year gun owners must undergo a police-held examination proving you know how to operate, care for, and store the gun and undergo mental health examinations. It seems only fair that gun owners should be made to do this given the destructive capabilities of guns (and the ease at which they achieve this) far outweigh other weapons, which is after all the reason why they became the superior weapon that led to a huge paradigm shift in warfare.

When you have the right to own a highly and easily destructive weapon such as a gun (which I think people should have the right to own) there should be more checks in place to ensure the other citizens' rights and wellbeing are protected as well.

cobra_commanderYo do understand that an AR-15 is not an 'assault rifle,' right?

You understand that the vast majority of guns sold in this country require a federal background check?

cobra_commanderFWIW the worst school killing in U.S. history was not carried out with a gun.

DlCKI absolutelt do not want a ban on guns, thats terrifying. I don't own a gun but I like the idea that if someone is thinking about robbing my house they have to think twice because they arent sure if I do or not.

californiagrownGuns make it much, much easier for a nutter to go on a killing spree. You know this. The fact that you half heartedly bring up exceptions to this rule makes you lose credibility in rational peoples eyes.



But what if this country was like Britain or china and you didn't have to worry about guns? Would you still feel the need to protect yourself with a gun, materially or in idea?

Protecting yourself with a gun in rural areas certainly is safer, bit what about dense urban areas where missed shots kill innocent people?

Since you seem all about home protection, would you support a ban on all guns not specifically designed for home protection- limited magazine pistols, and shotguns only? All other rifles guns etc must be checked out from a police station.

The referenced post has been removed.

But what if this country was like Britain or china and you didn't have to worry about guns? Would you still feel the need to protect yourself with a gun, materially or in idea?

DlCKDont assume anything. My entire family has served in the military to protect out constitutional rights as definied by the founding fathers. If someone want to buy a .50 cal and shoot propane tanks im all for it. We arent fixing anything by banning guns, and im sorry but comparing a western culture to an eastern culture in relation to gun violence is absurd.

WE LIVE NEXT TO MEXICO. MEXICO HAS A LOT OF GUNS. A BAN ON GUNS WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT PREVENT GUNS FROM BEING IN THIS COUNTRY.

WOULD YOU WANT TO BAN HUNTING RIFLES? BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE THAT DO NOT PURCHASE ANY MEAT FROM A STORE AND SOLELY LIVE OFF OF WILD GAME. THOSE PEOPLE WILL NEVER FORFEIGT THEIR GUNS.

As far as military grade, no one needs that shit but this is MERICA and if I want a badass gun to show my friends and shoot at a range then I have the right to do so, because my family fought and died for the right to do so, as well as many many others ancestors did. If you want, you are free to go somewhere that you think is "safer"

Ill stay here, unarmed, knowing that im surrounded by guns because I believe culture is responsible for violience, not the individual, and it doesnt make sense to try and change an entire culture because of a few individuals. And

cobra_commanderGuns make it easy for people to commit violence on impulse, this is true. I won't deny it. We need to hold those people accountable for their actions. We also need to be responsible for our own safety.

I carry a gun with me everywhere I am not in uniform. Going to the coffee shop, church, or store, I am armed. Never know when some fucker is gonna do something stupid. I won't shoot someone over the contents of my wallet however, its only money.



I would want one. The rate of violent crime is much higher in England than here. Forcible entries, assault prior to robbery, and rape are all much higher. I am really not too worried about a home invasion here. Just bolt the door, and don't deal drugs...

californiagrownHaha "the right to recreation". That is the kind of thinking and rationale I have a problem with in this whole debate.



I understand all your points, and they are all logical. I simply disagree that " your way" provides the safest world.

I think guns are just too dangerous for the general populace because the majority are of people are small minded shitheads...IMO haha.

DlCK"the right to recreation". "Freedom"

whats the difference? Im not saying people have the freedom to do immoral things. Im talking about constitutional rights, not human rights.


I think the defend myself against the government arguement is silly, they have drones.

californiagrownI understand all your points, and they are all logical. I simply disagree that " your way" provides the safest world.

I think guns are just too dangerous for the general populace because the majority are of people are small minded shitheads...IMO haha.

cobra_commanderno argument that we could make a 'safer' world. My personal beliefs tend to be along the lines of individual liberty trumps collective security.

I have several friends who are LEOs. I get into much the same debate with them. one especially is in favor of liberal application of police power. Essentially along the lines of police officers should have the ability to detain and search almost anyone. I told him that I didn't think an Officer's fear of personal safety should justify the search/frisking of any individual, aka their fourth Ammendment rights. I told him we pay them (LEOs) to be in danger, it's why we issue them ballistic vests and guns. His argument is that more aggressive policing reduces crime and makes neighborhoods safer. This is undeniably true. 1937 Germany was a very safe place for most Germans. Crime was ridiculously low in Nazi Germany, so were personal liberties. He didn't like this argument.

californiagrownCrime was pretty low in the USA during the 40's too. Has a lot to do with all the young men fighting a war... Don't cherry pick.

But, under today's laws, cops absolutely have the right to frisk and search for no reason... It just won't net them any evidence. I think they should frisk people more... Take the drugs and guns and turn em loose. Maybe criminals wouldn't be so quick to shoot and run if they knew that the consequence was confiscation instead of jail?

cobra_commanderThey can actually use what they find for evidence. If a cop 'fears for his safety' and frisks an individual and finds a 'hard, potentially dangerous, object' that turns out to be a crack pipe with a rock in a bag, that dude is going to jail.

That is wrong.

DlCK

VinnieFnot sure if this graph is supposed to be for or against gun control, but definitely supports gun control more than it supports no gun control.

DlCKIt shows that the United States gun culture is much different then every other country in the world. I agree it can be taken both ways though.

cobra_commanderThe thing you should actually take away from that graphics that countries that suffered from relatively severe levels of explotive colonialism (most notably by Spain and Portugal) have a strong correlation with high homicide rates.
One could extrapolate it with inclusion of the USA and South Africa, and also draw the conclusion that countries that suffered (somewhat recently) from a strong racist caste system tend to have higher homicide rates.
The issue with this claim is India. Although India does have a lot of murders and attacks, it also has a fuck ton of people and perhaps not the most straightforward and legitimate police force or criminal records and reporting. Or just wasn't included or labeled in that graph.

nocturnalAnother shooting at a military base. We need more guns

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/us/tennessee-naval-reserve-shooting/

nocturnalAnother shooting at a military base. We need more guns

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/us/tennessee-naval-reserve-shooting/

VinnieFMaybe I'm out of touch with this, but why are they making such a big deal over whether what he did is considered a terrorist or criminal act? Just hang the mother fucker and be done with it.

S.J.WIt all comes down to motivation. Authoriities don't know if he was racially or religiously motivated. Or if he just wanted to shoot some people.

nocturnalWhat an extraordinarily vague unhelpful thing to say. What it comes down to is information to see if he's part of an organization that's going to attack again, or if he's just a crazy person that got a gun so there won't be future attacks from this group.

S.J.Wmy god I fucking hate you. You alway sjust have to one up everyone on this site to get your little internet dick hard. A single person can be a terrorist you thick skulled cunt. Look at Charlston shooter, that was a single gunman and it was terrorism. Never fucking quote me ever again okay? This is the last thing I will ever reply to you. Good day/night and try not to be such a dumb cunt in the future

nocturnal

Hey dumb fuck when a single person commits a terrorist act, they fall into the category of a crazy person.

When a terrorist part of a terrorist network or organization does an attack. There will be another attack in the future hence why it's a big deal they look into it right away. If you need me to type it out slower, because you're clearly not understanding it. Let me know.

S.J.WTerrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Doesn't matter if it's a group or a single person. Terrorism is terrorism. But for the love of god, go back to fucking school or getting your dyslexia sorted out again. I can hardly read what you type out. Until that happens, stop fucking quoting me. I don't want to lose any more brain cells reading your shit that reminds me of a sixth grader.

nocturnalReread what I wrote, you are still not getting it.

nocturnalReread what I wrote, you are still not getting it.

S.J.WI did re-read what you wrote. Multplie times. Took me a good while to even make out a proper sentance and read your illiterate bullshit you spat out. But this is what I got out of it. It's only terrorism if it's commited by a group of people. I guess lone terrorism doens't count eh? So Dylan Roof wasn't a terrorist??? It fathoms me how dumb you are.

S.J.WI did re-read what you wrote. Multplie times. Took me a good while to even make out a proper sentance and read your illiterate bullshit you spat out. But this is what I got out of it. It's only terrorism if it's commited by a group of people. I guess lone terrorism doens't count eh? So Dylan Roof wasn't a terrorist??? It fathoms me how dumb you are.

nocturnalIt becomes an issue when its an attack done by a terrorist network. A lone terrorist isn't going to plan a second attack because he's dead or caught herrrrp.

nocturnalIt becomes an issue when its an attack done by a terrorist network. A lone terrorist isn't going to plan a second attack because he's dead or caught herrrrp.

S.J.WBut that wasn't your original point. Nor was that even being discussed during this thread.

"What an extraordinarily vague unhelpful thing to say. What it comes down to is information to see if he's part of an organization that's going to attack again, or if he's just a crazy person that got a gun so there won't be future attacks from this group."

So basically you rebuttled me to my post that explained how authorities didn't know if this was religiously motivated so they don't know if it was terrorism or not.

Stop changing the subject and avoiding the topic at hand.

californiagrownIf i was ever in a room with you two, i would strap on a vest and push the button to do the world a favor.

cobra_commanderThey generally work by releasing the button FYI.

S.J.WBut that wasn't your original point. Nor was that even being discussed during this thread.

"to see if he's part of an organization that's going to attack again, or if he's just a crazy person that got a gun so there won't be future attacks from this group."

So basically you rebuttled me to my post that explained how authorities didn't know if this was religiously motivated so they don't know if it was terrorism or not.

Stop changing the subject and avoiding the topic at hand.

nocturnalYou are a very sad miserable lonely person to be arguing semantics. it says it in my first post it's to see if this attack is part of a terrorist organization planing another attack or someone who is a loner. nothing to do with religion everything to do with looking into more attacks from a specific group.

You can be an extremist group that hates America without a religious purpose.

S.J.WYou pretty much implied a lone wolf can't be a terrorist. Which is complete bullshit. So I'm done talking to you. Go back to school and learn how to read and write again.

The referenced post has been removed.

stubbotnness

nocturnalDon't assume, what I said 4 times was that a lone wolf is not the issue of why we look into if it's terrorism. We look into it is terrorism, because if he's backed by a group they will attack again. An individual can be terrorist, but once we find that out aftet an investigation the case is over.

S.J.WI am so glad you have given me this super insightful in look into why we investigate if a lone wolf is a terrorist or not. Thankyou for your expert opinion. You must know so much about the investigation process from your intense amount of time working with the FBI, CIA and the the police. Are you like some kind of scholar of the investigating terrorism to have this expertly crafted opinion?

nocturnalYes actually I do there's two separate kinds of recruitment, like last year the FBI had to look in some first generation Somalians in Chicago, for being recruited to Mogadishu to formulate an attack on American soil. That is the real terrorist fear threat when we look into these types of attacks.

When you have a guy who goes on to an Internet website gets a radical idea in his head then grabs a knife and wants to behead a police officer or just kill people with no strategic backup plan that's an entirely different ballgame.

S.J.WSo Dylan Roof wasn't a terrorist?

nocturnalI don't know who that is but if you commit a terrorist act by himself yes he was, and is now probably dead or in jail so he's not a threat anymore.

onenerdykiddude, he's he Charleston church shooter