At 12/25/12 12:48 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:
As much as I would like to live in your cowboy fantasy land, here in the real world more bullets flying equals more collateral damage.
I can't find a link right now, but there was an incident involving the cartel that gunned a massive number of people, leaving not one survivor. Pitched firefights rarely ever happen when guns are pulled. Sure, if we're dealing with things such as organized gangs trying to kill every mother fucker in the building, they'll be dedicated to the cause. But the moment a gun is pulled, a majority criminals go straight into get the fuck out of here mode. It truly is a sight to see. Something as simple as flashing a gun makes people back the fuck up, let alone pulling one or actually engaging into a shootout.
I have a question, how many innocent bystanders have been hit by the CPL holder shooting? Not cops, not criminals, but the law abiding civilians with their concealed carry going on.
Gee I dunno, maybe because we're arguing about fucking gun control and how to go about preventing more mass shootings?
So getting shot is a more morally heinous crime then being beat to death? People talk about gun related homicides in a different category then all other homicides like it makes a difference in the end. This is going to sound absolutely cold hearted, but those lives lost in the massacres do not outweigh those saved by firearms in defense.
That's exactly the bullshit extreme rhetoric I'm talking about. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the government would ever remove the right to bear arms entirely, but the NRA positions everything that way to justify fighting against every single little regulation.
You don't see how the addition of purely cosmetic features, or personal preference features, to a ban list is a horrible precedent to set in regards to "assault" weapons? The guns are black most of the time, look scary, and have that whole tactical military look to it. But that's just it, it all comes down to look. This extended magazine bullshit is just that, bullshit. Not only are they more prone to jamming, but do you know how long it actually takes to reload? Reloading and firing 3 10 round mags at the same pace as you firing 1 30 round mag ends up with a the difference being a couple of seconds. Shit, we already have a large amount of people calling for the banning of every single semi-automatic weapon there is. That is what I'm worried about.
People have numerously called for the bannings of semi-automatics, anything remotely military related, or anything that can hold high cap mags (That goes for basically 100% of all magazine fed weapons.)Please explain to me why a private citizen needs any of those things.
Well shit, if I need to use a firearm in the middle of the night, I really hope I don't have to try to fumble around with breech loaded or bolt action, or have a bunch of people with one in the chamber ready to roll at all the times. Semi auto, flick a switch, pull the slide back and you're ready to go at a moments notice. All the other ones? The weapons are either already hot, or you need to have a lot more dexterity to pull off quickly, especially in the dark.
Besides, need is not relevant when discussing whether or not something should be banned. That's why we allow cars that can hit speed limits far beyond any speed limit in the US. It's why we allow people to eat whatever the fuck they feel like instead of a simple 2000 calories diet that gets everything the body needs. We ban 30 round magazines, they can easily justify the banning of 10, or even 5. If there is actually a concrete reason to ban something, barring emotional knee jerk reactions to tragedies, then sure, I will gladly feel free to discuss the finer points of all of these things further.
Maybe not, but they are specifically created to be used as tools of killing. And you can't seriously be equating regulating the sale of inanimate objects with adequately dealing with the incredibly complex psychological issues of actual human beings.
You're right, one is easy and wouldn't actually solve anything long term on a meaningful level besides the outlier incidents from occurring, while the other will be a difficult and expensive task that would actually see some improvement. Let's go with the easy one.
What you're saying here is patently false. And while we're at it, where there are more guns, there tends to be more homicide.
What did I say that was wrong? 88 guns per 100 people. That is easily verifiable. We are the most armed country in the world. Compare other countries firearms data. The homicide rate vs firearms rate has little correlation at all in the developed world.
It's not like we have to choose between mental health reform and gun control. We can do both at the same time, and work on other issues too. In fact that's exactly what we're trying to do. And just because increased gun control won't stop all murder, or even all gun-related murder, doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile pursuit. This whole all-or-nothing false dichotomy is utter nonsense that pro-gun types spout to avoid actually dealing with the issue at hand.
There is absolutely zero reason to pursue the levels of gun control being suggested though. Background checks on private sales? Sure. Firearm registration? Sure. But things like waiting periods and the banning of spooky features is just downright feel good laws being put on the books that do nothing but restrict rights.
Denying a relation between preventing school massacres and preventing gun violence requires a superhuman level of mental gymnastics that no sane person could possibly hope or want to achieve.
Look up the deadliest school massacre. Look up the deadliest mass killings. None of them involved firearms, at all. Would the frequency of these attacks go down? Probably. But do the lives of a bulk of people in one potential incident outweigh the lives of a bulk of people over time in a guaranteed incident if they were to be disarmed? Murders happen. It is a sad fact of life. Guns have no correlation for that, or else our rates would be a on a rise to go along with the whole record breaking amount of guns being sold and all of that jazz.
Oh hey wait a minute guys there was this one time that a different weapon was used so I guess we should just completely ignore all the other school shootings because talking about regulating guns makes some people a little upset.
1 person, or if you want to stretch it further, the 12,000 or so homicides (Assuming not by the same person, and using a different gun each time), out of the 270 million firearms in the US. That's what, 1 in every 20,000+? Better go ahead and punish those other 20,000 for the actions of 1.