Senate Gun Control

well im just not sure whose fun you were referring to? you really think i believe the majority of gun owners kill people? that would be difficult to imagine, just, like in terms of the statistics involved

 

Given what you've stated both here and in the Connecticut thread, yes I honestly do get that feeling that's what you believe.

Sport shooters, hunters, collectors, gunsmiths, etc.

 

well i just stated it is difficult for me to even imagine from a statistical point of view so i guess you should apologize to me?

 

I don't know too many people that want to stop sports shooting and hunting (though I don't care for either activity). But I equally don't know too many people that need an M4 with M40 grenade attachment for either of those activities.

 

This 100%. Why on Earth do civilians need guns that shoot out multiple bullets at once? Is there a common everyday use for those? Hunting rifles, pistols etc are fine but guns that shoot 50 rounds in a second or whatever it is aren't.

 

It's M203. The grenade launcher. Not M40.

 

Why do militaries need them? How about we look at disarming humanity as a whole?
But leaving weapons in the hands of states over a disarmed populace...no thanks.

 

I'm not going to go there with the military, however I can say with confidence there's no way in hell that civillians need AK - 47s or armor piercing ammo.

 

No doubt. Kevin McAllister proved you don't need stuff like that for home defense.

 

To all the right-wing gun nuts out there: Don't worry, Obama doesn't have the guts to take on the gun lobby. Or any lobby, for that matter.

 

I think most criminals would prefer you just shoot them then make them run through the gauntlet he made though.

Civilians should not be able to field the same level of firepower the military or police can. Will gangs and criminals still get their AKs and armor piercing ammo? Yeah, but they tend to be less into the whole mass shooting thing. We can at least expect them to be sensible.

 

What? Since when? I assume you're contrasting "gangs and criminals" with the mentally ill . . . mentally ill people actually commit a below-average level of violence against others. Gangs and criminals are the people who commit most of the violent crimes out there.

 

I've yet to see an organized gang shoot up an elementary school or a career criminal shoot up a crowded theater. I'm talking about senseless mass violence for the sake of madness.

 

I don't want to look up case studies, so let's say that's accurate. Gang members and career criminals are still the people who commit the vast majority of murders. What makes them any better?

 

There only better in the sense we can expect them to do things that benefit them. When you go to a bank you know in the back of your head you might get killed in a robbery. When you walk down the street late at night you know in the back of your head you might get killed in a mugging. But you also know if you cooperate and give up your possessions and money you might be able to walk away with your life.

You go to school or the movies and a madman with an AK is there... there is no reasoning, no logic, nothing you can offer him. There is no rational reason for what he's doing, he's not after money, he's just after chaos and destruction.

So would I rather run into a gangster with an AK? Yeah, I might be able to pay him off and walk out alive. But if I run into a lunatic... my only real chance of survival is that he targets someone else instead of me or enough of us rush him and get to him before he kills us all first.

 

Yes, we need better gun control. Though not a total ban on all guns.

And sadly, I don't think gun control laws would have helped too much in this case, since the guns were legally purchased by the shooter's mother.

 

I guess unless we can get OO7 Skyfall style handprint user ID for every gun or Metal Gear Solid nanomachine guns this will be an issue. Unless we make laws state that family members also have to pass a psych exam and background check for another family member to own a gun, but I don't see that working well in practice. I honestly don't see that issue being solved without a serious tech innovation.

 

Though with the First Lady's war on junk food...you could say he's theoretically against the "Movie Theater Lobby"....


*crickets*



Umm.... try the veal...?

 

Semi-automatics are the only Assault rifles that civilians can buy. Full autos are not for sell and can only be used by police and military. Semi-automatics are nothing like full autos. And if people are using AK-47s with armor piercing ammo they got it illegal and no laws will stop them.

 

Oh, spare me. To suggest that this would be a problem is outrageous. To quote the Economist: "There is also the small matter that I don’t think America is remotely close to becoming a tyranny, and to suggest that it is is both irrational and a bit offensive to people who actually do live under tyrannical rule."

 

Would better regulations have prevented this? Most likely not, although an argument could be made over a mother not being able to posses 6 guns when her son is troubled...but that would need to be debated after more of the details come out.

One could argue, and I do, that there is absolutely no reason to have a .223 semi-automatic rifle, or any high powered weapon that lets you shoot multiple rounds in a short amount of time that and let him slaughter 20 first graders yesterday.

The fact that the supporters of the 2nd Amendment won't even let us discuss this topic by shielding themselves under the "it's too soon, we're still praying" blanket is offensive to the families that continue to join the ranks of those that lost someone to a mass shooting.

 

Never mind that the United States has the most powerful military on the planet. I'm pretty sure they can easily crush a bunch of rednecks.

 

And even if Obama took to the stage tomorrow and personally executed Boehner and every republican in Congress before ordering every conservative or republicans arrest and reeducation, and declared martial law, turned off the internet, ordered the forced redistribution of wealth... I would still be loyal. Treason is treason, even if it is to a tyrant.

It is not the place of the people to challenge their government unless their government allows it. That's why the idea that citizens having guns for the purpose of 'armed revolt' is ludicrous. No citizen should ever feel like he or she has the power or resources to take on the government.