Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alright, let's go ahead and talk about Obama's gun control proposals

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Nekojin View Post
    Again with the supposition. Without access to guns, he could have, say, run down the corridors pouring gasoline, and set the entire school on fire. I'm quite certain that would have resulted in a higher body count. Children are more susceptible to smoke inhalation, for one.
    They why didn't he? Are you saying that he chose to use guns because he didn't want to kill too many people in his attack?

    Originally posted by LewisLegion View Post
    I honestly think we should model after England, Australia, and Japan as far as gun control goes.
    Won't work. England ( well, Britian ), is an island : so it's hard to bring stuff across the border. And despite inital appearances , we've got quite different cultural backgrounds.

    Most British gun owners have guns for target shooting and hunting ( fun toys, basically ). A lot of American gun owners ( or at least the noisier ones ) have them because they worry that the Soviets are going to invade, because they think every other person in the country is out to get them, or because they think their goverment is going to decide to send them all to death camps.

    Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post

    First, that lack of access to assault weapons versus non-assult weapons will somehow make any difference at all; the only difference that is likely to make is that there will be a few fewer bullets flying around;
    Why is less bullets flying around not a good thing?

    Comment


    • #32
      Ok, I think that the gun control debate is a moot point. Even if they stopped selling guns RIGHT NOW, there are way too many out on the street at this point to make a difference for years and years to come (until the current number of guns become unusable)..and that it won't stop those determined enough at all.

      Now there has been a lot of talk about what might or might not have happened. A lot of speculations. Lets talk a few facts however. Note : baseball bat can be replaced by any handheld non-ranged weapon.

      Fact - Somebody with a baseball bat is much easier to stop then somebody with a firearm.

      Fact - If a group attacks somebody with a firearm .. there is a chance that the person could get them all. If a group attacks somebody with a baseball bat, the chance to do so would be much much smaller.

      Fact - Smashing glass with a baseball bat will take much longer then with a firearm..and make a lot more noise. More likely to draw attention.

      Fact - It takes a lot longer for somebody to beat down somebody with a bat then it does to shoot them down with a firearm.

      Fact - Even without firearms..a truly determined and intelligent person can be just as dangerous..or maybe even more so.

      I know that last one probably stopped somebody dead in their tracks, and caused them to scratch their heads, and think "Where did this come from?"

      Though I would never have any reason to do so, or any use if I did, with minimum difficulty I could make explosives out of every day material. I am sure more intelligent people could rig up things much more dangerous then I could. So locking up firearms .. while it MIGHT EVENTUALLY slow some people down..it would not everybody. They would find other ways of doing the evil they do. Maybe even on a larger scale.

      All that being said I like the idea of a maximum number of bullets in a clip. It MIGHT give somebody a chance to get away or stop the assailant. There really is no call for the larger clips..because if you need 100 bullets to take down, say a deer, you are doing it WRONG.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Mytical View Post
        Fact - Somebody with a baseball bat is much easier to stop then somebody with a firearm.
        Myth - It just requires different tactics like not running directly at the person like a crazy.

        Originally posted by Mytical View Post
        Fact - If a group attacks somebody with a firearm .. there is a chance that the person could get them all. If a group attacks somebody with a baseball bat, the chance to do so would be much much smaller.
        Myth - A gun on single fire mode in close quarter combat will not be able to take down an entire group of people.

        Originally posted by Mytical View Post
        Fact - Smashing glass with a baseball bat will take much longer then with a firearm..and make a lot more noise. More likely to draw attention.
        It'd be easier to take a window out with a bat than a bullet. A bullet is just going to create a hole. A bat is going to shatter it easily.

        Originally posted by Mytical View Post
        Fact - It takes a lot longer for somebody to beat down somebody with a bat then it does to shoot them down with a firearm.
        I know people who have died as of the result of one single punch to the head. It wouldn't be hard at all to do the same with a bat.

        Originally posted by Mytical View Post
        Fact - Even without firearms..a truly determined and intelligent person can be just as dangerous..or maybe even more so.
        The worst school killings of all time in America didn't involve anyone being shot. So thanks for proving a point for firearms?
        Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Zod View Post
          Why is less bullets flying around not a good thing?
          In context, there's probably as much to lose as to gain from such a restriction.

          Originally posted by Mytical View Post
          Fact - Smashing glass with a baseball bat will take much longer then with a firearm..and make a lot more noise. More likely to draw attention.
          Not at all. A bat will make a larger hole than a bullet and in the case of reinforced glass, will actually be far more useful in the hands of someone determined to gain entrance. Also, the notion that a bat hitting glass is louder than gunfire is pure fiction.

          Originally posted by Mytical View Post
          Fact - It takes a lot longer for somebody to beat down somebody with a bat then it does to shoot them down with a firearm.
          One good hit to the head takes not more time, only closer proximity.

          Originally posted by Mytical View Post
          All that being said I like the idea of a maximum number of bullets in a clip. It MIGHT give somebody a chance to get away or stop the assailant.
          Only in the hands of an inexperienced shooter. If a person has done any practicing at all, it takes about as long to change the magazine as it does to change targets.

          When you factor in that most of these shooters are changing magazines well ahead of any need to do so (leaving partially filled magazines as they go), it points to the fact that limiting magazine size is just a feel-good measure that will lead to a false sense of security and tear resources away form measures that actually stand more than a minimal chance of saving lives.

          ^-.-^
          Faith is about what you do. It's about aspiring to be better and nobler and kinder than you are. It's about making sacrifices for the good of others. - Dresden

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Zod View Post
            They why didn't he? Are you saying that he chose to use guns because he didn't want to kill too many people in his attack?
            Kindly don't strawman me. He chose to use guns because they were readily accessible, and using them didn't require any sort of plan. And, frankly, I don't think his ultimate goal was to kill people - his goal was to leave a mark on the world, to be remembered. And there's no surer way to be remembered in this world than to commit an atrocity. The deaths were just a means to an end.

            My point is that if his goal were deaths, there are lots of ways to kill far more people than a gun. Guns are, shall we say, "semi-personal" - you (mostly) need to be able to see people in order to shoot them. Less personal than melee weapons, more personal than the other methods I'm about to mention. It's not that difficult to rack up higher death tolls than he managed with fire, explosives, or chlorine gas, all of which can be made with perfectly legal, over-the-counter ingredients (seriously - look up the Anarchist's Cookbook some time). But those would have required more planning than he was willing to do, and perhaps wasn't as personal as he wanted it to be. It's hard to end your own life immediately with those other methods, too.

            Won't work. England ( well, Britian ), is an island : so it's hard to bring stuff across the border.
            And so are Australia and Japan, the other two examples routinely trotted out. Cultural differences, likewise.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post
              Only in the hands of an inexperienced shooter. If a person has done any practicing at all, it takes about as long to change the magazine as it does to change targets.
              Correct-I was trained to count shots, and eject the clip while firing the last shot, it takes me just as long to empty a single 40 round clip as it does to empty and change 4 individual 10 round clips. Though a 40 round clip(or any higher capacity clip) is more likely to jam.

              And I'll just leave this here-the truth about assault weapons-contains actual facts

              such as

              the term "assault weapon" didn't even exist prior to 1989
              according to the US justice department so called "assault weapons" were only used in 2% of gun crimes
              In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred, Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines were found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
              A 2004 Department of Justice study concluded:
              Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.
              assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year. But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.
              FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were commited with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives
              Last edited by BlaqueKatt; 01-18-2013, 11:40 PM.
              Registered rider scenic shore 150 charity ride

              Comment


              • #37
                One of the points I'm trying to make here is that too many people are going after the "quick fix" - which is anything but. They want swift, decisive action in the name of Doing Something About It, without really carrying the process out to its logical conclusion. They'd rather spend billions in do-nothing feel-good measures (see: TSA) than actually do the hard work of trying to address the underlying causes.

                It's worth noting that bombings in the UK over the past few decades have cause far more deaths and injuries than all of the school shootings around the world in the past century.

                What fight do you really want to fight?

                Do you want to reduce gun violence overall? Then yes, a gun ban will probably work, but you're likely to see commensurate raises in other forms of violence* - drive-by gang shootings will become drive-by gang firebombings, for example. You're essentially just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

                Do you want to reduce these sorts of atrocities? Removing guns aren't likely to do that - the unstable wackos who want to kill a lot of people and make a name for themselves will find some other way to do it. There are a lot of approaches to take here - from cracking down on school bullying**, to having better counseling in school, to an overall improvement in the way our society handles the mentally unstable - all of those will help reduce these sorts of problems.

                * For another similar example of crime shifting, take the example of Florida several years ago, when they loosened their Concealed Carry laws for residents. The burglars and muggers in the area shifted away from victimizing locals, and increased their victimization of tourists.

                ** Note that virtually all of the spree shooters over the past few decades had troubled school lives, and were bullied to one degree or other. While this isn't a causative link, it's not hard to see that bullying can reinforce a worldview of being outside of the social structure, allowing the would-be shooter to dehumanize those within the social structure, to treat them as a hated other to be eliminated.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Greenday View Post
                  Myth - It just requires different tactics like not running directly at the person like a crazy.
                  We are talking normal, every day people here..not navy seals or such.

                  Originally posted by Greenday View Post
                  Myth - A gun on single fire mode in close quarter combat will not be able to take down an entire group of people.
                  This of course can be true, in SOME situations. However, even with a revolver, a person can fire more times then they can land telling blows in the same amount of time. Even if the person is trained in using such handheld weapons which the normal person is not. It takes a LOT less training to fire a gun then to effectively wield a handheld weapon.

                  It'd be easier to take a window out with a bat than a bullet. A bullet is just going to create a hole. A bat is going to shatter it easily.
                  This is true, I withdraw this one.

                  Originally posted by Greenday View Post
                  I know people who have died as of the result of one single punch to the head. It wouldn't be hard at all to do the same with a bat.
                  I've know people to die of a bite from a squirrel, so .... squirrel nunchucks? Yes, a single blow CAN kill, just as a single bullet CAN kill. Which takes less training, and which is faster?

                  Originally posted by Greenday View Post
                  The worst school killings of all time in America didn't involve anyone being shot. So thanks for proving a point for firearms?
                  Your welcome. I am not anti firearm. I myself do not use them, but I do not think that should mean that nobody can. I am against hunting, but that doesn't mean I don't think everybody shouldn't hunt. It requires much less training, and much less time to use a firearm then ANY handheld non-range weapon. Which is why now in wars it is very rare to find somebody charging with a sword.

                  I am not even close to a firearm expert. I would challenge even the greatest swordman in history however. The challenge is simple...put us in a room with a circle of target dummies. Place them each 10' away. Give me even a gun that I have to cock and shoot (and not just pull the trigger), that has enough bullets to hit every target. I would be confident enough to bet money that I can hit every target before he/she can.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post
                    In context, there's probably as much to lose as to gain from such a restriction.


                    Not at all. A bat will make a larger hole than a bullet and in the case of reinforced glass, will actually be far more useful in the hands of someone determined to gain entrance. Also, the notion that a bat hitting glass is louder than gunfire is pure fiction.
                    As I said above, good point. I apologies for that one.

                    Originally posted by Andara Bledin View Post
                    One good hit to the head takes not more time, only closer proximity.
                    Again, this is true. Which is faster, and which takes less training to do effectively multiple times?

                    If handheld non-ranged weapons were as effective and easy as firearms, most wars would still be fought with them. Bows for a time were the greatest weapon, because they had the range on handheld weapons. When firearms came along, the use of bows lessened, because even as dangerous as they were to the person using them (at the time) they were still more effective and more deadly then bows..and required a lot less training. Now there are things more dangerous then firearms out there, but firearms have not fallen out of use. One must ask themselves why. Because they are cheaper, still very effective, and all you pretty much have to know is which is the dangerous end.
                    Last edited by Mytical; 01-19-2013, 12:39 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Mytical View Post
                      I've know people to die of a bite from a squirrel, so .... squirrel nunchucks? Yes, a single blow CAN kill, just as a single bullet CAN kill. Which takes less training, and which is faster?
                      Well, obviously the bat requires less training. I knew how to use a baseball bat when I was a small child and I feel fairly confident that 99.999999% of adults know how to use a bat to kill someone effectively.
                      Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Greenday View Post
                        Well, obviously the bat requires less training. I knew how to use a baseball bat when I was a small child and I feel fairly confident that 99.999999% of adults know how to use a bat to kill someone effectively.
                        It is much easier to run from somebody who has a non range weapon, or to avoid them, or any number of things..then it is somebody with a gun. *shrugs*
                        Last edited by Mytical; 01-19-2013, 06:35 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mytical View Post
                          It is much easier to run from somebody who has a non range weapon, or to avoid them, or any number of things..then it is somebody with a gun. *shrugs*
                          Of course it is. But my point still stands. If I can sneak up on someone and slam the bat into the back of their head, they aren't going to ever get up if I choose to not let them.
                          Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Greenday View Post
                            Of course it is. But my point still stands. If I can sneak up on someone and slam the bat into the back of their head, they aren't going to ever get up if I choose to not let them.
                            Right... but that requires a ton more effort and the whole "sneaking" bit.

                            With a gun all you have to do is get line of sight and then pull a trigger. No need to make any stealth checks against their perception score, no factoring in the ground cover or anything else. Just "Oh there he is" *BANG!*

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by AmbrosiaWriter View Post
                              With a gun all you have to do is get line of sight and then pull a trigger. No need to make any stealth checks against their perception score, no factoring in the ground cover or anything else. Just "Oh there he is" *BANG!*
                              Wow. So there's no practice required to actually hit someone? You just point and pull?

                              If you want to hit someone with a handgun from more than a handful of yards, you need to practice. Far more than you would with a bat or other blunt object such as, say, a tire iron. A rifle can be shot cold from a bit further away, but needs probably at least as much sneaking (unless your target is completely isolated) as a bat.

                              Even though a gun is a ranged weapon, if you don't have the hours of practice and training put in (which most people, even most gun owners, don't) it doesn't extend your range nearly as much as a lot of people want to suggest.

                              ^-.-^
                              Faith is about what you do. It's about aspiring to be better and nobler and kinder than you are. It's about making sacrifices for the good of others. - Dresden

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                When you're starting to make an argument that guns are not a more dangerous weapon than baseball bats, I think you're arguing down the wrong road, because it's basically taking the side that "If guns were as dangerous as you say, we SHOULD ban them, but they're not, so let's not do anything."

                                I don't feel that the idea that guns are dangerous weapons is wrong or that people are exaggerating.

                                I also think that a total gun ban in the US would be ineffective is wrong. At least when the argument "But the US is land-locked!" is used. We are a major exporter of guns. Canada has incredibly strict weapon regulations. Mexico has only one gun store, and you have to fill out a lot of paperwork to get it. It wouldn't be ineffective in getting rid of weapons because our neighbors are

                                What I think is that getting rid of guns is not ineffective, or pointless, but simply not worth it. There are a lot of people who are legal gun owners, fairly responsible gun owners, who would be punished by a gun ban. Hunting with guns is a major part of american culture. Hell, GUNS is a major part of american culture. First Person Shooter videogames are a major market, and for a lot of people, they're basically gun porn. The Modern Warfare games aren't called that because you have to worry about international support and home morale in an age of instant communication. They're called that because the weapons are all modern. I don't feel that there has been a compelling enough argument put forward that we need to forcibly change our culture.

                                Yes, I think it will make it easier to kill large numbers of people. And yes, the fact that more people will die is upsetting. I'm not heartless, I don't just not care about innocents.

                                But I don't think that the number of more people likely to die outweighs the people who would be effected by a blanket firearm ban.
                                "Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
                                ipsum, versiculos nihil necessest"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X