Gun Control - Opinions?

[dead0man]

I don't understand wanting to ban automatic weapons.  The very tiny number of legal ones are NEVER* used in crimes.


(unless you don't understand what "automatic weapons" means, which wouldn't be surprising as gun control fanatics don't ever seem to know their trigger from their "shoulder thing that goes up", but your OP does seems to understand the difference)


*well, once, 60 years ago, by a cop that went nuts if my memory is correct.

[dead0man]

That being said, wasn't the "Bushmaster M4" used in the Sandy Hook shooting, and the "Smith & Westin MP15" used in the Aurora shooting.

Both are semi-auto.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

auto vs semi-auto has nothing to do with reload times.  Auto means, you pull the trigger, the gun fires until you stop pulling the trigger or your magazine is empty.  Semi means you have to actually repress the trigger each time you fire.  Automatic guns are legal, technically, but virtually non-existent, hard (if not impossible*) to get the required paperwork and stupid expensive.  That's probably for the best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

np



*depends on where you live

[dead0man]

I think it's balls gun control fundies are missing that is more important than making their weeners bigger.  It doesn't matter how big your gun is, if you don't have any bullets, it's just a sh**tty club.

[dead0man]

Do you think if we made scud missiles legal (assuming they are, as you suggest illegal in the first place....which I'm not so sure of.  You probably can't shoot one off with a warhead on it, and you'd have to get a lot of paperwork and coordination and such, but civilians can put sh**t in space) there would suddenly be a bunch of criminals using them for......I have no idea?


and I have no idea what the last part means at all.

[dead0man]

Do you think if we made scud missiles legal (assuming they are, as you suggest illegal in the first place....which I'm not so sure of.  You probably can't shoot one off with a warhead on it, and you'd have to get a lot of paperwork and coordination and such, but civilians can put sh**t in space) there would suddenly be a bunch of criminals using them for......I have no idea?


and I have no idea what the last part means at all.

So, like many of the insane people on Atlas, you oppose all regulation on anything that could be used as a weapon?

You would support open sales of pipe bombs, plastic explosives, dynamite, rocket propelled grenades, shoulder fired surface to air missiles, sarin gas, etc. to the public?  Should anyone be able to go to the store and buy those types of weapons?  I'm just trying to understand your position.

You're the Carl Lewis of jumping to conclusion.  What in my post made you think I would want sarin gas for sale at Wal Mart?  But some of those things are already perfectly legal, or at least their ingredients are, you just again, go through the proper channels to acquire them.  Just like automatic weapons (you know, the thing that started this insanity?), legal, but very difficult to  get a hold of.  I'm fine with that.  Perhaps you'd like to add handguns, and scary looking semi-automatic rifles to that category of items.  I disagree, but it's a conversation that can be had.  Jumping to the conclusion that I want to let toddlers buy RPGs in the toy aisle at Target is not going to help that conversation.  It's EXACTLY like saying people that are against immigration are racists.

[dead0man]

Yeah, that was a little confusing to me.

[dead0man]

I believe their defense is "we don't have to know anything about guns to know they are only used to bring death".  Even when admitting they don't know anything, they feel the need to add on something that isn't true.

[dead0man]

No automatic weapons, no gun possession without a license, no license with having received a gun class certificate of competence, and a background check that comes up with no mental issues, or criminal record involving crimes of violence at least, and perhaps a waiting period from the time one wants to purchase a gun, and being able to purchase it (so those who are temporarily angry have time to cool off). All of the above is allowed by the Second Amendment. There is no need to repeal the Second Amendment. The debate over the gun issue I find even more irrational and irritating than the debate on abortion, which is saying something.

Automatic weapons are (virtually) illegal now.  No legal automatic weapons are ever used in crime.  I don't understand the point in making them more illegal.  Unless you mean semi-automatic in which case no, you can't ban those.

I'm not keen on the required license or the class to get it, but would be willing to compromise to that position if it would shut the debate down for, say, 50 years.  But it won't.

[dead0man]

Can we stop this myth that people who support gun control are bleeding heart liberals who've never touched a gun before.

Right after gun control people stop being ignorant about guns.  No, not all of them are, but the majority.

[dead0man]

It's not just criminals that will always get guns, regular folk that like guns get guns, even in places where they are illegal.  There are 20 million illegal guns (almost 4 times more than the number of legal ones) in Germany, the vast majority in the hands of (otherwise) law abiding Germans.  Germans like guns.  They have the 4th highest per capita number of legal firearms in the world despite having despite having some of the most restrictive gun laws.

[dead0man]

It's too late for any of that.  You might have gotten away with it before the 90s, but the stupid way the gun control people have gone about the "control" part has just poured concrete on the opinions of people who aren't already on your side.  The AWB was pure stupid.  At best the gun control crowd thought, "gee, we know this doesn't actually DO anything, but baby steps in the right direction helps right?".  Well no.  Not when everybody else can point to the baby step and show how stupid it was.  Now, ANYTHING, even sensible sh**t, is going to have fierce push back.  It doesn't help that a fraction of the gun control crowd always chimes in with "All guns should be banned" nonsense.  No, all guns shouldn't be banned.  All guns aren't banned in the UK, all guns aren't banned in Australia, all guns aren't banned any place you people point to when you say look how much better these people are than us....why do some of you think we should do it here?  Are you dumb, or just want to show off to your like minded brethren just how pro gun control you are?  If you want sensible laws about guns, anybody on your side saying "all guns should be banned" hurts your side A LOT.  Shut those people down.

I agree with you though bedstuy, if you want sensible regulations, changing how you sell it is the ONLY way it's going to work.  Certainly pointing out, repeatedly and endlessly, every mass shooting isn't going to bring about gun control (really, the only thing it does is increase the odds of ANOTHER mass shooting and make gun control people feel good about themselves because they clearly care more than non-gun control people ).  Trying to ban all semi-autos isn't going to do it.  If you want gun control, and don't know anything about guns, don't participate in the discussions.  At least try to avoid details of any kind.  You're not helping either.


I'm pro gun, but I'm not a gun nut.  Don't own any guns, never have, perhaps never will, but I think I should have the ability to if I wanted.  I can be convinced to get behind sensible changes to the gun laws, but it can't be everything you might want, it can't be aimed at things that aren't used in crime (like the big sniper rifle bans or the wanting to make fully automatic weapons more illegal than they already are or the mentioned AWB) and it can't come at the same time a large fraction of you are saying "all guns should be banned".

[dead0man]

No.

[dead0man]

*I* support reasonable gun control, *it's* NOT going to happen while a large fraction of the gun control side is showing no sign of compromise.  You can express whatever opinion you want, I will still support reasonable gun control but I'm happy enough with the status quo.

[dead0man]

While there is no magic wand you can wave to make gun violence stop immediately, we can start by banning assault weapons

For (probably) the 30th time, less than 300 Americans were murdered with a rifle last year....ANY rifle.  More Americans were killed with hands.  Any rifle ban is stupid, even the scary looking ones.  The rest of your suggestions are fine and should be talked about, but any rifle ban is a non-starter in my book.




But at least you used the right words.

[dead0man]

While there is no magic wand you can wave to make gun violence stop immediately, we can start by banning assault weapons

For (probably) the 30th time, less than 300 Americans were murdered with a rifle last year....ANY rifle.  More Americans were killed with hands. 

So? That's 300 more than necessary.

You want to ban everything that kills 300 Americans a year, or just the scary looking things you don't like that kill 300 Americans a year?

....it doesn't matter, semi-automatic rifles aren't going to be banned, scary looking or not.  The good guys (with guns) won.  And the fact that you guys keep going after semi-automatic rifles shows you've learned nothing and so we will continue to win.

[dead0man]

Mandatory Carry of a Firearm for anybody but a criminal

that's just silly

I'm very pro gun, but I wouldn't carry even if it was the law.  The hassle far out weighs any potential use.  I'm 42 and I've never been in a position where having a gun would have made the situation better.  But I'm not everybody and I know some people do run into situations where a having a gun would be worth the hassle of having a gun which is why I think people should be allowed to, once properly vetted.