Started By
Message
re: Sensible arguments for gun control
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:07 pm to Rebelgator
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:07 pm to Rebelgator
quote:
Everyone I know uses Mossberg or Benelli.
again, then you dont know a lot. And Mossberg makes their own version of a Remington 870
2
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:08 pm to WheelRoute
the stats say I'm right on Chicago, regulation isn't curbing their violence problem.
ah yes, Fort Hood and the Navy yard. If I'm not mistaken those are also tightly regulated as far as guns are concerned.
Im not saying this should be the wild west with no regulations at all, just that over regulating doesn't make you any safer. I would rather personal freedoms not be infringed on for a small feeling of fake safety.
quote:sure you get a few of them but unless you are active in searching out newly illegal guns then you wont catch many.
When you catch people w/ outlawed firearms you can put them in jail.
quote:well, it is a factor. I'm sure the top reason is plenty of targets all in one nice area but it is a very nice perk knowing you will be the only one with a weapon for however long it takes for the cops to get to you. So it isn't the main one but more damage can be done with very little chance of stopping the person until those with weapons arrive.
Do you truly believe that the reason for school shootings is b/c the student handbook says no firearms in school?
As a counterpoint, have you noticed any mass shootings on Army bases recently?
ah yes, Fort Hood and the Navy yard. If I'm not mistaken those are also tightly regulated as far as guns are concerned.
Im not saying this should be the wild west with no regulations at all, just that over regulating doesn't make you any safer. I would rather personal freedoms not be infringed on for a small feeling of fake safety.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:10 pm to Alahunter
quote:Much like I wouldn't expect you to make a personal attack
I wouldn't expect you to be honest in any way though.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:10 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
then you dont know a lot
Not saying I do.
Just don't know anyone shooting a Remington.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:11 pm to Alahunter
quote:
I cited folks armed with less than tanks and WMD's, as being able to defend themselves.
They weren't able to defend themselves. At any point during that conflict the gov't could've done exactly what they did a month and a half into that conflict.
quote:
I never once used the term or word thwart. I said deter. I wouldn't expect you to be honest in any way though.
Thwart and deter are synonyms, doofus.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:12 pm to WheelRoute
quote:
t's always the people who have never lived in urban environments who cite urban statistics to defend their right to gun ownership in rural areas.
Where do you think the majority of guns are located, urban or not?
Where do you think the majority of gun related homicides occur, urban or not?
Do people that live in non urban areas have the same rights as those who do?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:14 pm to NYCAuburn
I even know about Benellis being popular for duck hunting, but that's what my husband uses.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:15 pm to WheelRoute
quote:
They weren't able to defend themselves. At any point during that conflict the gov't could've done exactly what they did a month and a half into that conflict
I reckon that's why we stayed ten years, and it's no different than it was.
There's subtle differences in meaning. Deter - discourage (someone) from doing something, typically by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.
Thwarting, not so much.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:17 pm to UMTigerRebel
They're the BMW of shotguns.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:18 pm to UMTigerRebel
quote:
I even know about Benellis being popular for duck hunting, but that's what my husband uses.
no doubt benellis are popular, but to dismiss what is probably the most popular/produced shotgun in the world/US, is just being close-minded
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:19 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
the stats say I'm right on Chicago, regulation isn't curbing their violence problem.
Chicago's problem isn't tight regulation, it's that surrounding areas don't have tight regulation, too. I believe a sizable minority of guns (40%+) seized in Chicago were purchased outside the city. Which is why people support federal regulation of firearms.
quote:
sure you get a few of them but unless you are active in searching out newly illegal guns then you wont catch many.
This is not a reason to give up. Many laws on the books only get prosecuted a few times a year, that's not a reason to eliminate them. They still serve a purpose. And they can be modified to increase their usefulness, it should go w/o saying.
quote:
well, it is a factor. I'm sure the top reason is plenty of targets all in one nice area but it is a very nice perk knowing you will be the only one with a weapon for however long it takes for the cops to get to you. So it isn't the main one but more damage can be done with very little chance of stopping the person until those with weapons arrive.
Making weapons harder to get sure seems like a great starting point, then, for reducing crime. And don't give me that BS line a/b how criminals are already criminals and they'll get them anyways, that flies in the face of almost everything behavioral psych and econ has to say a/b human nature.
quote:
ah yes, Fort Hood and the Navy yard. If I'm not mistaken those are also tightly regulated as far as guns are concerned.
That's not the same sort of regulation and regulated or not it's still an area w/ an extremely high degree of firearms per capita (i.e., "deterrent potential").
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:21 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Where do you think the majority of guns are located, urban or not?
Where do you think the majority of gun related homicides occur, urban or not?
Do people that live in non urban areas have the same rights as those who do?
Couldn't say... what're the answers? And how does it relate to my point a/b rural gun owners citing urban crime stats as a pretext for arming themselves?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:22 pm to NYCAuburn
It's a cheap shitty gun.... Sorry I'm not sorry.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:24 pm to Rebelgator
quote:
I know 0 people that would duck hunt with that.
Really?
That's amazing because the 870 probably kills more duck a year than most other guns combined. Field and Stream even thinks quite highly of it.
quote:
Plus, the one you pictured has been clearly modded.
Yep. With a hand saw. Very clearly high end work outside the abilities of most people.
It is nothing more than the standard off the shelf hunting shotgun - something you clearly implied wasn't a tool of mass murder. Some other mass murders that used simple shotguns to kill some or all of their victims?
The Columbine kids killed right at half their victims with a Savage 12-gauge pump and Stevens 12-gauge double barrel.
Source
The Lockheed Martin (Mississippi) killer used a Winchester 12-gauge pump.
Source
In addition, the murderers involved in the Red Lake High School, Carthage nursing home, Aurora movie theater, Trolley Square Mall, Pennsylvania Amish school, and Capitol Hill Arts Center all used shotguns to kill some or all of their victims.
You've unfortunately drank a full dose of the lib kool-aid that says we've got a runaway problem with killers armed with big magazine assault rifles around every corner when the fact is that just isn't true. Your chances of being murdered in America with a rifle of any type (.22LR to .50 BMG) is roughly 1/1,000,000. The odds are the same as getting hit by lightning. It just isn't a real threat.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:27 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
You've unfortunately drank a full dose of the lib kool-aid that says we've got a runaway problem with killers armed with big magazine assault rifles around every corner when the fact is that just isn't true
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:28 pm to WheelRoute
quote:well, we will need a world regulation of firearms if we are to stop the problem because we can't protect our borders so guns will flood in from Canada and Mexico.
Chicago's problem isn't tight regulation, it's that surrounding areas don't have tight regulation, too. I believe a sizable minority of guns (40%+) seized in Chicago were purchased outside the city. Which is why people support federal regulation of firearms.
quote:I also believe we have entirely too many laws on the books. I think we are better off cutting down on the laws and working on enforcing those. I also already said I'm fine with gun control if it is narrowly defined. I haven't seen anything narrowly defined yet, I see bogey man words like Assault weapon but no definition.
This is not a reason to give up. Many laws on the books only get prosecuted a few times a year, that's not a reason to eliminate them. They still serve a purpose. And they can be modified to increase their usefulness, it should go w/o saying.
quote:Criminals that really want a weapon will get them, will it deter some? sure it will but these mass murders are already pretty rare. I don't think we should be making regulation based on tragic events that are extremely rare.
Making weapons harder to get sure seems like a great starting point, then, for reducing crime. And don't give me that BS line a/b how criminals are already criminals and they'll get them anyways, that flies in the face of almost everything behavioral psych and econ has to say a/b human nature.
quote:Not really since someone that works on the base would know exactly where fire arms are housed and allowed, also they would know who is allowed to carry them at all times.
That's not the same sort of regulation and regulated or not it's still an area w/ an extremely high degree of firearms per capita (i.e., "deterrent potential").
Like i said I'm not suggesting we have no regulations, Im just suggesting that over regulating a non existent or minor problem leads to bigger issues. Also I care more for personal freedoms than i do some safety.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:28 pm to WheelRoute
quote:
it's that surrounding areas don't have tight regulation, too
Of course. Because, those around them are making them criminals. But... if that's the case, why aren't surrounding areas having just as big an issue. And why is violent crime dropping overall across the U.S. as gun purchases increase. Since 1998, when NICS background checks began. Over half, have happened under Obama. That's a large influx of firearms, yet reduced crime....
quote:For some, the answer is always less freedom and more control.
Which is why a minority of people support federal regulation of firearms
quote:
Making weapons harder to get sure seems like a great starting point, then, for reducing crime. And don't give me that BS line a/b how criminals are already criminals and they'll get them anyways, that flies in the face of almost everything behavioral psych and econ has to say a/b human nature
Link?
The only thing that will reduce crime, is addressing socio/economic problems. Which as stated earlier, is taboo. Because it would mean discussing entitlement issues and race. And we just can't have that, can we?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:30 pm to WheelRoute
quote:
As a counterpoint, have you noticed any mass shootings on Army bases recently?
Guess how everyone knows you have no idea about what is allowed on Army bases.
Maybe you should google guns on military bases and get back with us.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:31 pm to Rebelgator
quote:
It's a cheap shitty gun.... Sorry I'm not sorry.
it has a cheap variation, just like benelli has as well. it also has a higher end variation
oh and since you think benellis sole purpose is for duck hunting, what about this big scary bad boy
Page 11 of 15
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News