***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (8 Viewers)

[shader]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

Why 5 and not 1?

If youre looking for meaningful propositions with the most likelihood to pass, 5 is the number.

Right, but why is that? Is it "cooler" to have 5? Does it save you a lot of time at the shooting range? What makes it better?

I've never fired an assault rifle in my life. I've shot a shotgun a few times and a handgun once. It was fun, but just not something that stuck with me. I can assume that the rapid firing is the biggest appeal of AR's. It's a pretty easy assumption. If you drop them to single shot guns, they become obcelete. I know that's your goal, but that has no chance of ever happening. Reducing the clip size is the only thing in my mind that cold even make a meaningful dent in these tragedies. I'm only trying to make the suggestions that actually have a chance of happening.

Why on earth does anyone need a gun that fires rapidly? Am I wrong to think that one shot is all you get at a deer before it bolts and is gone? If people stink so bad at hunting that they need a rapid fire gun to kill a deer, perhaps they need to take their hunting rifle to the range and work on their skills.

 

[shader]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

He just refuses to give then up. "Tell you what guys, let's make people fill out some more forms and wait a few extra weeks to get their Uzis and call it a day."

So you don't think my response to his quote was correct?

They are not concealable, jam a lot easier and are not as efficent short range as a handgun. The mall shooter in Oregon may have got more shots off if his AR-15 did not jam. Anyone in a crowd could have picked him out as he was the guy with the big gun.

I don't think it matters much whether your response was correct. It's a deadly assault weapon designed to quickly and efficiently kill human beings. Nobody but the gun nerds cares about the jamming stuff or the tactical laserbeam sharkscope III.

The point being is the focus is on the wrong weapons. Do I think assault weapons should be banned? Yes, but that is not where tighter gun control is needed.

I'm not disagreeing, and like I said Great Britain's handgun ban makes a lot of sense.But I also think the complete absurdity of civilians walking around with something like this is a really good example of how out of control this all has gotten. I mean, come on.

Where are they walking around with these? Detroit?

Newtown

 

[RCon]

Let's get to the nuts and bolts of this thing. If an assault weapons ban is proposed in the House of Representatives, it will not pass given the current composition. It's going to have to wait 2 years for a Democratic majority- which at this point remains unlikely.

I don't know about that. I think a bill could get through. I would like to say "a well crafted, thoughtful bill could get through", but then I realized that, like most legislation, well-crafted and thoughtful have nothing to do with it. Instead, it will be about a bill that can be used to score political points. That said, I think some GOP members in certain districts could pass a bill containing the right talking points, and selling it as "better this than an outright ban" or something similar.

 

[Novice2]

Let's get to the nuts and bolts of this thing. If an assault weapons ban is proposed in the House of Representatives, it will not pass given the current composition. It's going to have to wait 2 years for a Democratic majority- which at this point remains unlikely.

It doesn't take weapons of war off the streets nor make their possession illegal. Buts lets push this bill cause it makes America safer and will prevent mass shootings!

 

[BigJohn]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

Why 5 and not 1?

If youre looking for meaningful propositions with the most likelihood to pass, 5 is the number.

Right, but why is that? Is it "cooler" to have 5? Does it save you a lot of time at the shooting range? What makes it better?

I've never fired an assault rifle in my life. I've shot a shotgun a few times and a handgun once. It was fun, but just not something that stuck with me. I can assume that the rapid firing is the biggest appeal of AR's. It's a pretty easy assumption. If you drop them to single shot guns, they become obcelete. I know that's your goal, but that has no chance of ever happening. Reducing the clip size is the only thing in my mind that cold even make a meaningful dent in these tragedies. I'm only trying to make the suggestions that actually have a chance of happening.

Why on earth does anyone need a gun that fires rapidly? Am I wrong to think that one shot is all you get at a deer before it bolts and is gone? If people stink so bad at hunting that they need a rapid fire gun to kill a deer, perhaps they need to take their hunting rifle to the range and work on their skills.

I'm refering to these guns being used recreationally on closed ranges. They have no use hunting. I don't know for a fact, but I'm pretty sure AR's are illegal to hunt with, in most states, if not all of them.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

My heart breaks for those children and their families. I understand the desire to want to do something and I agree but we can't just say ban guns, slap high fives and everybody go home happy. I don't know what the answer is but I do know we can't burry our heads in the sand when it comes to mental illness. I firmly believe this is where we should be focusing most of our energies, unfortunately both side will use this as a rally cry. The left will use it to try to enact stiffer gun control laws that they have wanted for years and the right will "say send us money boy's their coming for our guns again".

There is seemingly one constant in all of these mass killings, mental illness. Yes guns were used the majority of the time but look at the guy in China, he used a knife on those kids, we’ve had cars driven into crowds, and bombs used to blow up buildings. These aren’t acts of sane reasonable people. I know it’s cliché but the saying has merit “guns don’t kill, people do”. We have to do a better job helping and in some cases institutionalizing people that are a danger to themselves and society. Don’t ask me how, I don’t know but I don’t believe infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens is what we should be doing. Taking action just to take action will not make us safer we need to take the right actions.

Mental illness definitely needs to be addressed, but I really think guns does first. Mental illness is of greater concern, but the solution is going to take a lot more time than guns. Knock out the easy hurdle first then focus energy towards the 2nd issue. There's a reason this thread is 32 pages and the mental illness thread hasn't gone to page 2 yet - people don't have answers, just questions.

I agree, people see gun control as the low hanging fruit. It may be harder but we need to go after the root cause.

 

[shader]

If you want my honest opinion about what can make the greatest impact on these mass shootings. AR's are only effective, why? Because they have massive magazines that can allow you to shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. Make the maximum magazine size 5, and you can start to slow these things down. Even recreational shooters should have no problem with this.

Why 5 and not 1?

If youre looking for meaningful propositions with the most likelihood to pass, 5 is the number.

Right, but why is that? Is it "cooler" to have 5? Does it save you a lot of time at the shooting range? What makes it better?

I've never fired an assault rifle in my life. I've shot a shotgun a few times and a handgun once. It was fun, but just not something that stuck with me. I can assume that the rapid firing is the biggest appeal of AR's. It's a pretty easy assumption. If you drop them to single shot guns, they become obcelete. I know that's your goal, but that has no chance of ever happening. Reducing the clip size is the only thing in my mind that cold even make a meaningful dent in these tragedies. I'm only trying to make the suggestions that actually have a chance of happening.

Why on earth does anyone need a gun that fires rapidly? Am I wrong to think that one shot is all you get at a deer before it bolts and is gone? If people stink so bad at hunting that they need a rapid fire gun to kill a deer, perhaps they need to take their hunting rifle to the range and work on their skills.

I'm refering to these guns being used recreationally on closed ranges. They have no use hunting. I don't know for a fact, but I'm pretty sure AR's are illegal to hunt with, in most states, if not all of them.

I have no idea what the laws are. If it is illegal to hunt with a semi-automatic, such as the bushmaster, than that is even more of a reason to round them up and destroy them. Keeping them around so that dorky guys can go shoot them recreationally is the height of absurdity.

 

[BigJohn]

I have no idea what the laws are. If it is illegal to hunt with a semi-automatic, such as the bushmaster, than that is even more of a reason to round them up and destroy them. Keeping them around so that dorky guys can go shoot them recreationally is the height of absurdity.

They are a large and powerful group. Youre never going to get rid of them completely. Anyone assuming you can even come close to erradicating AR's from this country are delusional. The only thing you can do is find reasonable compromises that will lessen the frequency of these events in the future. That's what I'm trying to arrive at.

 

[Donsmith753]

Good piece from the UK's Charlie Brooker.

I was a country boy. When I was growing up, there was a shotgun in the house. Dad shot clay pigeons for sport. I fired it once myself, with his assistance. Had to wear ear protectors. When you pull the trigger, a shotgun punches you hard in the shoulder. It almost knocked me over.Decades later I fired a handgun at a shooting range in Las Vegas. At first I didn't even want to hold it. It represented a level of fearsome responsibility I didn't want to bear for even a few minutes. Once in your hand, a gun seems heavier and somehow more real than you anticipated. You face the target (in this case, a fullsize photocopy of Osama bin Laden). Pull the trigger and your hand kicks upwards, the blast 20 times louder than the imaginary one you had been mentally preparing yourself for. Adrenaline sears through you. You tingle. It's exciting. Once you've fired a gun, it's easier to understand people who don't want to give theirs up.And the US is not Britain. There are places where you can drive in one direction for several hours without seeing a soul. On honeymoon, I recall looking out of the car window, somewhere in the middle of nowhere, and seeing a tiny house all on its own. If I lived there alone, I figured, I'd want a gun.Anyway. None of those feelings, real as they are, are anywhere near as potent as the sensation I had this weekend.The last time I'd experienced something similar was in November, looking at pictures of a BBC video editor clutching the body of his son, killed during a rocket attack on Gaza. I mention this backdrop not to make any political point. It was a story that hit me, and hit me hard. The man's son was still a baby."What did my son do to die like this?" the man said. "What was his mistake? He is 11 months old. What did he do?"There was a photo of the boy when he was alive. Wide brown eyes. Smiling. He looked like my own son. So much like my own son. It built inside me, a wave of nausea and dread, and I couldn't stand it. I shut the webpage. There was nothing I could do. I was helpless. It hurt.Now it's December. Newtown. Twenty-six bodies, and what can you say? Again, some stories hit you so hard that after the initial mesmerising horror, your secondary instinct is to protect yourself, to shut the mind down, halt the imagination before it conjures the details that lurk between the brisk lines of the news reports. The sights, the sounds, the terror, the grief. I simply cannot bear to place myself in the shoes of those parents. To be racing for the school, feeling unreal, light, weightless, powered by gut fear alone. To stand and wait, and wait, and wait. To hear your child is dead.I don't have it in me.The news displays the faces of the children and I have to look away. That feeling, still relatively new to me, becomes overwhelming. The basic parental urge to protect. They are other people's children. Faces in photographs. Gone now. But still: the urge to protect. And I can't. I'm helpless. It hurts.Not so long ago when other people wrote words like that I would roll my eyes at their soppy bull####. Their gauche sentiment. I miss reacting like that. I knew nothing; I was an idiot with nothing at stake. But still. I miss the warmth of that bubble, the cosiness of that protective sneer. It's cold outside.Over the past few days a fair few people have retweeted an excerpt from a show I made in 2009 in which a psychologist urged news organisations not to sensationalise their coverage of massacres, on the basis that this had the potential to inspire further tragedies. That may well be true, and there's no harm pursuing it. But the best way to improve media coverage of massacres is to prevent massacres. And try as I might, I can't think of a better way to prevent massacres than reducing the number of guns in circulation.Twenty children shot at close range with an assault rifle. You could argue that the choice of weapon is irrelevant; that a truly unhinged individual would still find the means to kill. Maybe that's true; I don't know. All I know is that 20 children were shot at close range with an assault rifle, and that only a lunatic nation wouldn't try everything it could think of to make that less likely to happen again.America, don't be helpless. Look at the faces. Feel how much it hurts. Try to stop it happening again.

 

[Otis]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is. Semi-auto assult weapons are less dangerous then handguns. But there will be laws trying to pass through congress to ban them when handguns were the weapons used in this shooting. Stop trying to ban guns and try to regulate them better.

How are semi-auto assault weapons less dangerous? What measure are we using here?

He just refuses to give then up. "Tell you what guys, let's make people fill out some more forms and wait a few extra weeks to get their Uzis and call it a day."

So you don't think my response to his quote was correct?

They are not concealable, jam a lot easier and are not as efficent short range as a handgun. The mall shooter in Oregon may have got more shots off if his AR-15 did not jam. Anyone in a crowd could have picked him out as he was the guy with the big gun.

I don't think it matters much whether your response was correct. It's a deadly assault weapon designed to quickly and efficiently kill human beings. Nobody but the gun nerds cares about the jamming stuff or the tactical laserbeam sharkscope III.

The point being is the focus is on the wrong weapons. Do I think assault weapons should be banned? Yes, but that is not where tighter gun control is needed.

I'm not disagreeing, and like I said Great Britain's handgun ban makes a lot of sense.But I also think the complete absurdity of civilians walking around with something like this is a really good example of how out of control this all has gotten. I mean, come on.

Where are they walking around with these? Detroit?

Kindergarten classrooms in Newtown, Connecticut.

 

[timschochet]

Let's get to the nuts and bolts of this thing. If an assault weapons ban is proposed in the House of Representatives, it will not pass given the current composition. It's going to have to wait 2 years for a Democratic majority- which at this point remains unlikely.

I don't know about that. I think a bill could get through. I would like to say "a well crafted, thoughtful bill could get through", but then I realized that, like most legislation, well-crafted and thoughtful have nothing to do with it. Instead, it will be about a bill that can be used to score political points. That said, I think some GOP members in certain districts could pass a bill containing the right talking points, and selling it as "better this than an outright ban" or something similar.

Of course. A bill that would limit magazine capacity and remove the private sales loophole would have a decent chance to pass, and I honestly believe these measures would help to save lives. But I don't think that's what we're going to get. These ideas are not as sexy to politicians as an all out ban on "assault" weapons- and many of them will use the same sort of rhetoric Otis and others have used in this thread- blaming these murders on law-abiding gun owners- and that will only cause the other side to refuse to compromise, so nothing gets accomplished. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

You're missing the point. Whether I think your recreational activity is stupid or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that we're asking people to give up their recreational activity to hopefully save lives.

Please start a list

Sure. Let's start with a short one:1. Deadly weapons designed to murder humans and which have been used to massacre dozens of women and small children

I know, crazy right???

About 1.4 Million people are arrested for drunk driving ever yearThere are about 30K+ people killed every year due to vehicle related accidents

There are about 10K+ people killed every year due to drunk driving

We should ban alcohol. I know, crazy right??

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Thoughts on banning the US Government from having and using all of the weapons available to it as well? Reasons for and against?

Yes, because the US Govt's use of high powered weaponry is at all relevant to what happened Friday. Nice fishing trip though.

Right... because the US Government does not kill innocents. I forgot.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Longtime gun owner here. We need to ban assault weapons again and put the gunshow dealers and anyone who keeps selling them and/or any modifications to full auto from semi into jail for a long long time. The second amendment clearly says "well regulated" and everyone agrees that the government can limit the rights of gun owners. This is a nobrainer.

Your Red Rider does not count. You apparently have no clue how difficult it is to turn a semi-automatic to automatic. They are totally different weapon platforms. Like saying you are going to turn your Prius into a Porsche. Please show me any link where a crime was committed by someone who turned a semi-auto into an auto. You also have no clue what an "assault weapon" is.

Again the ignorance ABOUT WEAPONS in this thread is astounding.

1 semi auto AK-47 + 1 plastic zip tie = 1 fully automatic AK-47

 

[TobiasFunke]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

You're missing the point. Whether I think your recreational activity is stupid or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that we're asking people to give up their recreational activity to hopefully save lives.

Please start a list

Sure. Let's start with a short one:1. Deadly weapons designed to murder humans and which have been used to massacre dozens of women and small children

I know, crazy right???

About 1.4 Million people are arrested for drunk driving ever yearThere are about 30K+ people killed every year due to vehicle related accidents

There are about 10K+ people killed every year due to drunk driving

We should ban alcohol. I know, crazy right??

This analogy does nobody any favors. Alcohol and guns are totally different things when it comes to regulation/restriction. Most significantly, drinks don't make a really loud noise and leave damage when they're consumed, which makes it much harder to police its ownership/use if it is illegal a la prohibition. It's also very difficult to mass produce firearms in your backyard- another thing making it much easier to police guns than booze. Finally, alcohol can be consumed safely and enjoyably in one's own home, and for the most part guns cannot be. Anyone who enjoys firing guns can only do so in certain locations (where guns could still be kept and used under supervision even if you banned ownership).

I don't really have a strong feeling one way or the other on gun control, but these false analogies need to be put to rest.

 

[Redwes25]

I have no idea what the laws are. If it is illegal to hunt with a semi-automatic, such as the bushmaster, than that is even more of a reason to round them up and destroy them. Keeping them around so that dorky guys can go shoot them recreationally is the height of absurdity.

They are a large and powerful group. Youre never going to get rid of them completely. Anyone assuming you can even come close to erradicating AR's from this country are delusional. The only thing you can do is find reasonable compromises that will lessen the frequency of these events in the future. That's what I'm trying to arrive at.

There is no legitimate reason for anyone to own a semi-automatic AR-15. That weapon really has one purpose and keeping around for people to shot at a range is stupid.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

You're missing the point. Whether I think your recreational activity is stupid or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that we're asking people to give up their recreational activity to hopefully save lives.

Please start a list

Sure. Let's start with a short one:1. Deadly weapons designed to murder humans and which have been used to massacre dozens of women and small children

I know, crazy right???

About 1.4 Million people are arrested for drunk driving ever yearThere are about 30K+ people killed every year due to vehicle related accidents

There are about 10K+ people killed every year due to drunk driving

We should ban alcohol. I know, crazy right??

This analogy does nobody any favors. Alcohol and guns are totally different things when it comes to regulation/restriction. Most significantly, drinks don't make a really loud noise and leave damage when they're consumed, which makes it much harder to police its ownership/use if it is illegal a la prohibition. It's also very difficult to mass produce firearms in your backyard- another thing making it much easier to police guns than booze. Finally, alcohol can be consumed safely and enjoyably in one's own home, and for the most part guns cannot be. Anyone who enjoys firing guns can only do so in certain locations (where guns could still be kept and used under supervision even if you banned ownership).

I don't really have a strong feeling one way or the other on gun control, but these false analogies need to be put to rest.

Get out much?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

You're missing the point. Whether I think your recreational activity is stupid or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that we're asking people to give up their recreational activity to hopefully save lives.

Please start a list

Sure. Let's start with a short one:1. Deadly weapons designed to murder humans and which have been used to massacre dozens of women and small children

I know, crazy right???

About 1.4 Million people are arrested for drunk driving ever yearThere are about 30K+ people killed every year due to vehicle related accidents

There are about 10K+ people killed every year due to drunk driving

We should ban alcohol. I know, crazy right??

This analogy does nobody any favors. Alcohol and guns are totally different things when it comes to regulation/restriction. Most significantly, drinks don't make a really loud noise and leave damage when they're consumed, which makes it much harder to police its ownership/use if it is illegal a la prohibition. It's also very difficult to mass produce firearms in your backyard- another thing making it much easier to police guns than booze. Finally, alcohol can be consumed safely and enjoyably in one's own home, and for the most part guns cannot be. Anyone who enjoys firing guns can only do so in certain locations (where guns could still be kept and used under supervision even if you banned ownership).

I don't really have a strong feeling one way or the other on gun control, but these false analogies need to be put to rest.

Get out much?

Not really. Wife just had a baby.I don't see what that has to do with what you bolded, though. Alcohol can be consumed safely and enjoyably in one's own home. I did it just yesterday. The fact that it is also consumed in public doesn't change the fact that it's a stupid analogy.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf.

I'm just trying to help Otis and others understand why some people enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. Many of Otis' posts have an element of "People whose interests differ from mine must be stupid" element about them.

You're missing the point. Whether I think your recreational activity is stupid or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that we're asking people to give up their recreational activity to hopefully save lives.

Please start a list

Sure. Let's start with a short one:1. Deadly weapons designed to murder humans and which have been used to massacre dozens of women and small children

I know, crazy right???

About 1.4 Million people are arrested for drunk driving ever yearThere are about 30K+ people killed every year due to vehicle related accidents

There are about 10K+ people killed every year due to drunk driving

We should ban alcohol. I know, crazy right??

This analogy does nobody any favors. Alcohol and guns are totally different things when it comes to regulation/restriction. Most significantly, drinks don't make a really loud noise and leave damage when they're consumed, which makes it much harder to police its ownership/use if it is illegal a la prohibition. It's also very difficult to mass produce firearms in your backyard- another thing making it much easier to police guns than booze. Finally, alcohol can be consumed safely and enjoyably in one's own home, and for the most part guns cannot be. Anyone who enjoys firing guns can only do so in certain locations (where guns could still be kept and used under supervision even if you banned ownership).

I don't really have a strong feeling one way or the other on gun control, but these false analogies need to be put to rest.

Get out much?

Not really. Wife just had a baby.I don't see what that has to do with what you bolded, though. Alcohol can be consumed safely and enjoyably in one's own home. I did it just yesterday. The fact that it is also consumed in public doesn't change the fact that it's a stupid analogy.

Yes because you are a responsible adult. There are many who drink at their home and then get into cars, you do think this happens right?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This analogy does nobody any favors. Alcohol and guns are totally different things when it comes to regulation/restriction. Most significantly, drinks don't make a really loud noise and leave damage when they're consumed, which makes it much harder to police its ownership/use if it is illegal a la prohibition. It's also very difficult to mass produce firearms in your backyard- another thing making it much easier to police guns than booze. Finally, alcohol can be consumed safely and enjoyably in one's own home, and for the most part guns cannot be. Anyone who enjoys firing guns can only do so in certain locations (where guns could still be kept and used under supervision even if you banned ownership).I don't really have a strong feeling one way or the other on gun control, but these false analogies need to be put to rest.

I would say that you're kind of doing the analogy just as much of a disservice. Alcohol's sole virtue is the happiness it provides those who consume it responsibly (OK, there might be some health benefits to moderate consumption).You can't just ignore the potential benefit of a (properly tailored) right to self defense. That right was recognized before the 2nd Amendment. It's pretty durable. I'd argue that understanding the contours of that historic right (which I think is something different than what was codified in the 2nd Amendment) is a good way of approaching the question of the appropriate scope of reasonable firearm regulations.

 

[siffoin]

Haven't read all of these pages and just spitballing here...

No way you are going to ban guns. Just not going to happen in a place like Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana. Heck in Idaho we just passed a Constitutional Amendment giving us the freedom "now and forever" to hunt...and it passed by 75% of the vote. Not going to get rid of guns here.

And in the end guns really don't kill people. Ammunition is what kills people.

So instead of trying to change gun laws - which isn't going to happen. Why not work to make the possession of ammo illegal except in certain circumstances. For example: Limit sales and possession of ammo to regulated firearm ranges- that way everyone is still allowed to participate in their "hobby", site in their gun for hunting etc. You have to buy your ammo at the range and use it there. For hunting purposes sales of limited ammo is provided by State Fish & Game for every license purchased. For example: purchase a deer license and receive 5 rounds of .243 rifle ammo...can't take a deer with less than 5 rounds...buy another license.

Something along these lines seems more logical and practical than banning guns.

 

[jafo]

Longtime gun owner here. We need to ban assault weapons again and put the gunshow dealers and anyone who keeps selling them and/or any modifications to full auto from semi into jail for a long long time. The second amendment clearly says "well regulated" and everyone agrees that the government can limit the rights of gun owners. This is a nobrainer.

Your Red Rider does not count. You apparently have no clue how difficult it is to turn a semi-automatic to automatic. They are totally different weapon platforms. Like saying you are going to turn your Prius into a Porsche. Please show me any link where a crime was committed by someone who turned a semi-auto into an auto. You also have no clue what an "assault weapon" is.

Again the ignorance ABOUT WEAPONS in this thread is astounding.

1 semi auto AK-47 + 1 plastic zip tie = 1 fully automatic AK-47

The ATF looks at every semi-automatic design out there, and if they are found easy to convert the manufacturer must change the design. You can't find open bolt semi-automatic rifles or pistols today for this reason. As far as the plastic zip tie? It's extremely dangerous if you are actually able to get it to work. The civilian versions aren't made to shoot full auto. You run an extremely high chance of the bullet firing out of battery and destroying your gun, and hurting yourself in the process.

 

[BigJohn]

Finally, alcohol can be consumed safely and enjoyably in one's own home, and for the most part guns cannot be. ...these false analogies need to be put to rest...

 

[Disc Shark]

Let's get to the nuts and bolts of this thing. If an assault weapons ban is proposed in the House of Representatives, it will not pass given the current composition. It's going to have to wait 2 years for a Democratic majority- which at this point remains unlikely.

I don't know about that. I think a bill could get through. I would like to say "a well crafted, thoughtful bill could get through", but then I realized that, like most legislation, well-crafted and thoughtful have nothing to do with it. Instead, it will be about a bill that can be used to score political points. That said, I think some GOP members in certain districts could pass a bill containing the right talking points, and selling it as "better this than an outright ban" or something similar.

Of course. A bill that would limit magazine capacity and remove the private sales loophole would have a decent chance to pass, and I honestly believe these measures would help to save lives. But I don't think that's what we're going to get. These ideas are not as sexy to politicians as an all out ban on "assault" weapons- and many of them will use the same sort of rhetoric Otis and others have used in this thread- blaming these murders on law-abiding gun owners- and that will only cause the other side to refuse to compromise, so nothing gets accomplished. Hope I'm wrong.

Mrs Lanza and her son were law-abiding gun owners until Friday.

 

[MAC_32]

Thoughts on banning the US Government from having and using all of the weapons available to it as well? Reasons for and against?

Yes, because the US Govt's use of high powered weaponry is at all relevant to what happened Friday. Nice fishing trip though.

Right... because the US Government does not kill innocents. I forgot.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't belong...

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Haven't read all of these pages and just spitballing here...No way you are going to ban guns. Just not going to happen in a place like Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana. Heck in Idaho we just passed a Constitutional Amendment giving us the freedom "now and forever" to hunt...and it passed by 75% of the vote. Not going to get rid of guns here.And in the end guns really don't kill people. Ammunition is what kills people.So instead of trying to change gun laws - which isn't going to happen. Why not work to make the possession of ammo illegal except in certain circumstances. For example: Limit sales and possession of ammo to regulated firearm ranges- that way everyone is still allowed to participate in their "hobby", site in their gun for hunting etc. You have to buy your ammo at the range and use it there. For hunting purposes sales of limited ammo is provided by State Fish & Game for every license purchased. For example: purchase a deer license and receive 5 rounds of .243 rifle ammo...can't take a deer with less than 5 rounds...buy another license.Something along these lines seems more logical and practical than banning guns.

I agree that it they will not ban guns and limiting ammo is the goal. I do not think your suggestion is the way to go though. The government will do what the government does and thats put heavy taxes on the companies that manufacture/sell the ammo and these companies will pass it on to the consumer.

 

[Blick]

Let's get to the nuts and bolts of this thing. If an assault weapons ban is proposed in the House of Representatives, it will not pass given the current composition. It's going to have to wait 2 years for a Democratic majority- which at this point remains unlikely.

I don't know about that. I think a bill could get through. I would like to say "a well crafted, thoughtful bill could get through", but then I realized that, like most legislation, well-crafted and thoughtful have nothing to do with it. Instead, it will be about a bill that can be used to score political points. That said, I think some GOP members in certain districts could pass a bill containing the right talking points, and selling it as "better this than an outright ban" or something similar.

Of course. A bill that would limit magazine capacity and remove the private sales loophole would have a decent chance to pass, and I honestly believe these measures would help to save lives. But I don't think that's what we're going to get. These ideas are not as sexy to politicians as an all out ban on "assault" weapons- and many of them will use the same sort of rhetoric Otis and others have used in this thread- blaming these murders on law-abiding gun owners- and that will only cause the other side to refuse to compromise, so nothing gets accomplished. Hope I'm wrong.

This. Draw the line at 10 rounds to accomodate a standard 9 mm pistol clip. This will save lives. However, if you want to further treat a symptom of a godless, broken home, crazed society, a ban on pistols (I do not advocate what-so-ever) would dramatically cut down on mass shootings.

 

[Apple Jack]

Let's get to the nuts and bolts of this thing. If an assault weapons ban is proposed in the House of Representatives, it will not pass given the current composition. It's going to have to wait 2 years for a Democratic majority- which at this point remains unlikely.

I don't know about that. I think a bill could get through. I would like to say "a well crafted, thoughtful bill could get through", but then I realized that, like most legislation, well-crafted and thoughtful have nothing to do with it. Instead, it will be about a bill that can be used to score political points. That said, I think some GOP members in certain districts could pass a bill containing the right talking points, and selling it as "better this than an outright ban" or something similar.

Of course. A bill that would limit magazine capacity and remove the private sales loophole would have a decent chance to pass, and I honestly believe these measures would help to save lives. But I don't think that's what we're going to get. These ideas are not as sexy to politicians as an all out ban on "assault" weapons- and many of them will use the same sort of rhetoric Otis and others have used in this thread- blaming these murders on law-abiding gun owners- and that will only cause the other side to refuse to compromise, so nothing gets accomplished. Hope I'm wrong.

This. Draw the line at 10 rounds to accomodate a standard 9 mm pistol clip. This will save lives. However, if you want to further treat a symptom of a godless, broken home, crazed society, a ban on pistols (I do not advocate what-so-ever) would dramatically cut down on mass shootings.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yes because you are a responsible adult. There are many who drink at their home and then get into cars, you do think this happens right?

Sure. But that's not why I think the analogy is false. I'm not making a moral argument about whether alcohol ownership is better or worse than gun ownership. I don't really care about either. I assumed you were making the standard argument gun rights people make when they call on the alcohol analogy: "Prohibition doesn't work," "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," and so on. I'm saying that Prohibition didn't work for a number of reasons that don't apply to gun ownership, and that guns would be far easier to regulate. One is that you can have a drink in your home without everyone within a half-mile hearing you raise the drink to your lips. Another is that it's hard to mass-produce firearms at home- I'm sure it can be done, but my guess is that the production would be far easier to detect.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Yes because you are a responsible adult. There are many who drink at their home and then get into cars, you do think this happens right?

Sure. But that's not why I think the analogy is false. I'm not making a moral argument about whether alcohol ownership is better or worse than gun ownership. I don't really care about either. I assumed you were making the standard argument gun rights people make when they call on the alcohol analogy: "Prohibition doesn't work," "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," and so on. I'm saying that Prohibition didn't work for a number of reasons that don't apply to gun ownership, and that guns would be far easier to regulate. One is that you can have a drink in your home without everyone within a half-mile hearing you raise the drink to your lips. Another is that it's hard to mass-produce firearms at home- I'm sure it can be done, but my guess is that the production would be far easier to detect.

The point is that tens of thousands of people have been killed due to alcohol (this number does not include the numerous amount of injuries) and the thought of banning the substance is struck down because of the difficulty and or outrage from people in the past. I find that very odd.

 

[E-Z Glider]

hard to imagine people arguing for their rights to own assault rifles / handguns at a time like this, yet here they are. :(

 

[ATC1]

Haven't read all of these pages and just spitballing here...No way you are going to ban guns. Just not going to happen in a place like Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana. Heck in Idaho we just passed a Constitutional Amendment giving us the freedom "now and forever" to hunt...and it passed by 75% of the vote. Not going to get rid of guns here.And in the end guns really don't kill people. Ammunition is what kills people.So instead of trying to change gun laws - which isn't going to happen. Why not work to make the possession of ammo illegal except in certain circumstances. For example: Limit sales and possession of ammo to regulated firearm ranges- that way everyone is still allowed to participate in their "hobby", site in their gun for hunting etc. You have to buy your ammo at the range and use it there. For hunting purposes sales of limited ammo is provided by State Fish & Game for every license purchased. For example: purchase a deer license and receive 5 rounds of .243 rifle ammo...can't take a deer with less than 5 rounds...buy another license.Something along these lines seems more logical and practical than banning guns.

Interesting and certainly a better mor welcomed response then just ban them all. I see a few problems that would need to be addressed. Self defense ammo? If you take a self defense course you get X number of self defense rounds. You are able to shoot more than one deer in a season, so it will be hard to not give hunters the amount of ammo they need, but if you have a license to hunt you may purchase X ammo.I could see the price of ammo in these ranges being so highly marked up anyone wanting to practice for self defense may not be as willing to be proficient as they could be. This will be met with a lot of resistance from the Right, but not something that should be unreasonable at first thought.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yes because you are a responsible adult. There are many who drink at their home and then get into cars, you do think this happens right?

Sure. But that's not why I think the analogy is false. I'm not making a moral argument about whether alcohol ownership is better or worse than gun ownership. I don't really care about either. I assumed you were making the standard argument gun rights people make when they call on the alcohol analogy: "Prohibition doesn't work," "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," and so on. I'm saying that Prohibition didn't work for a number of reasons that don't apply to gun ownership, and that guns would be far easier to regulate. One is that you can have a drink in your home without everyone within a half-mile hearing you raise the drink to your lips. Another is that it's hard to mass-produce firearms at home- I'm sure it can be done, but my guess is that the production would be far easier to detect.

The point is that tens of thousands of people have been killed due to alcohol (this number does not include the numerous amount of injuries) and the thought of banning the substance is struck down because of the difficulty and or outrage from people in the past. I find that very odd.

It's the truth. It's incredibly difficult, our experiment with it was a huge failure, and to my knowledge no other countries have been able to do it effectively without the help of theology. Meanwhile, plenty of countries have been able to place significant restrictions on firearms. Just the way it is, practically speaking.I'm sure part of it is also a numbers thing too, of course. Will of the majority and so on.

 

[jafo]

hard to imagine people arguing for their rights to own assault rifles / handguns at a time like this, yet here they are. :(

If people are arguing against a right, is it really that absurd people are arguing to protect that right?

 

[E-Z Glider]

hard to imagine people arguing for their rights to own assault rifles / handguns at a time like this, yet here they are. :(

If people are arguing against a right, is it really that absurd people are arguing to protect that right?

in this scenario, yes.

 

[jafo]

hard to imagine people arguing for their rights to own assault rifles / handguns at a time like this, yet here they are. :(

If people are arguing against a right, is it really that absurd people are arguing to protect that right?

in this scenario, yes.

I disagree. What I see is insanity, in that many people are begging our government to trade freedom for false security.

 

[MAC_32]

hard to imagine people arguing for their rights to own assault rifles / handguns at a time like this, yet here they are. :(

If people are arguing against a right, is it really that absurd people are arguing to protect that right?

Absurd? No, I expect it. Doesn't make it right.

 

[butcher boy]

Ban Guns. Everyone who owns a gun can turn theirs in for a free FBG.com subscription. So, they'd be trading their gun hobby for a fantasy football hobby. Fantasy football hobbies dont have a side effect of killing children.

 

[BigJohn]

hard to imagine people arguing for their rights to own assault rifles / handguns at a time like this, yet here they are. :(

If people are arguing against a right, is it really that absurd people are arguing to protect that right?

in this scenario, yes.

I disagree. What I see is insanity, in that many people are begging our government to trade freedom for false security.

 

[jafo]

hard to imagine people arguing for their rights to own assault rifles / handguns at a time like this, yet here they are. :(

If people are arguing against a right, is it really that absurd people are arguing to protect that right?

Absurd? No, I expect it. Doesn't make it right.

So, because you believe in gun control, its OK to argue for it right now? But since I don't believe in more gun control, I am not supposed to defend my rights. Gotcha.

 

[MAC_32]

hard to imagine people arguing for their rights to own assault rifles / handguns at a time like this, yet here they are. :(

If people are arguing against a right, is it really that absurd people are arguing to protect that right?

in this scenario, yes.

I disagree. What I see is insanity, in that many people are begging our government to trade freedom for false security.

I want them to get rid of weaponry that has absolutely no good use for a civilian. Rapid fire weapons do not belong in the hands of anyone not defending this country or in law enforcement. I also want them to make laws more strict on acquiring any remaining weapons - i.e. if you have a sick person in your house you should not have a gun. And irresponsibility for use of any weapons to be punished harshly.

 

[butcher boy]

Need to lose the association between freedom and gun ownership.

 

[jafo]

hard to imagine people arguing for their rights to own assault rifles / handguns at a time like this, yet here they are. :(

If people are arguing against a right, is it really that absurd people are arguing to protect that right?

in this scenario, yes.

I disagree. What I see is insanity, in that many people are begging our government to trade freedom for false security.

I want them to get rid of weaponry that has absolutely no good use for a civilian. Rapid fire weapons do not belong in the hands of anyone not defending this country or in law enforcement. I also want them to make laws more strict on acquiring any remaining weapons - i.e. if you have a sick person in your house you should not have a gun. And irresponsibility for use of any weapons to be punished harshly.

We already have harsh penalties for irresponsible use of a gun. Anyone should have the right to defend their home however, if they have a sick individual living there or not. However, I believe anyone that has guns should store them safely and out of reach of children or mentally ill people.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yes because you are a responsible adult. There are many who drink at their home and then get into cars, you do think this happens right?

Sure. But that's not why I think the analogy is false. I'm not making a moral argument about whether alcohol ownership is better or worse than gun ownership. I don't really care about either. I assumed you were making the standard argument gun rights people make when they call on the alcohol analogy: "Prohibition doesn't work," "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," and so on. I'm saying that Prohibition didn't work for a number of reasons that don't apply to gun ownership, and that guns would be far easier to regulate. One is that you can have a drink in your home without everyone within a half-mile hearing you raise the drink to your lips. Another is that it's hard to mass-produce firearms at home- I'm sure it can be done, but my guess is that the production would be far easier to detect.

The point is that tens of thousands of people have been killed due to alcohol (this number does not include the numerous amount of injuries) and the thought of banning the substance is struck down because of the difficulty and or outrage from people in the past. I find that very odd.

But there are laws prohibiting the use of alcohol in certain ways, prohibiting its sale is certain ways and prohibiting its distribution in certain ways. Also, banning alcohol is not the same as banning assault weapons. Not all weapons are assault weapons, but by definition, all alcohol is all alcohol. If you want to make an alcohol comparison, what you need to do is argue that you want to ban whatever form of alcohol results in the most DUI accidents - I'm guessing cheap beer (just my idea no idea if true). So, the proper analogy to banning assault weapons would be banning the sale of Coors Light. For example.But you are right, thousands of people are killed due to alcohol every year. That is why driving while drinking is illegal and now so attacked by our society. That is why civil laws have gotten to the point where bars and places that serve alcohol can be held liable for allowing someone to drink who should have been stopped. Perhaps, then, we should be ok with gun salesmen and stores being held liable for these incidents?

 

[Clifford]

Need to lose the association between freedom and gun ownership.

 

[jafo]

Need to lose the association between freedom and gun ownership.

Not going to happen, they go hand and hand.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Look up the worst school massacres in history, and you’ll see the pattern. Madmen are everywhere. They strike without regard to gun laws, mental health care, or the national rate of churchgoing. They’ve slaughtered children in every country you’d think might have been spared: Scotland, Germany, Canada, Brazil, Finland, Japan. They’ve falsified every pet political theory about what kind of culture or medical system or firearms legislation prevents mass murder.But one pattern holds true: The faster the weapon, the higher the body count. It’s not politics. It’s logistics. If you stick a knife in your first victim, it takes time to move on to your second. You might need two stabs or more to finish off the first kid. By then, the other kids have begun to flee. Soon, the cops will be here. How much time do you have? At some point, it’s time to off yourself. And all you managed to kill were two lousy kids because the only weapon you had was a kitchen knife.

The only falseness here is the claim that there's no link between more guns or different types of guns and more violence.

Saletan wasn't claiming there was no link between gun availability and gun violence. He was claiming there wasn't necessarily a link between gun availability and this particular species of gun violence (violent, apparently motive-less massacres). I'm not sure how we'd be able to show a link. At the risk of repeating myself, I think it's really hard to prove what prevents tragedies like what happened on Friday or in Scotland, in Norway, or Japan. They don't seem tied in to availability of guns in the same way that urban gun violence does. I have no doubt that gun control would reduce gun related crime and homicide rates (maybe not as much as ending drug prohibition, but probably significantly). I don't know that it would prevent something like this. It's hard to base social policy on specific incidents.

 

[RCon]

Yes because you are a responsible adult. There are many who drink at their home and then get into cars, you do think this happens right?

Sure. But that's not why I think the analogy is false. I'm not making a moral argument about whether alcohol ownership is better or worse than gun ownership. I don't really care about either. I assumed you were making the standard argument gun rights people make when they call on the alcohol analogy: "Prohibition doesn't work," "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," and so on. I'm saying that Prohibition didn't work for a number of reasons that don't apply to gun ownership, and that guns would be far easier to regulate. One is that you can have a drink in your home without everyone within a half-mile hearing you raise the drink to your lips. Another is that it's hard to mass-produce firearms at home- I'm sure it can be done, but my guess is that the production would be far easier to detect.

The point is that tens of thousands of people have been killed due to alcohol (this number does not include the numerous amount of injuries) and the thought of banning the substance is struck down because of the difficulty and or outrage from people in the past. I find that very odd.

But there are laws prohibiting the use of alcohol in certain ways, prohibiting its sale is certain ways and prohibiting its distribution in certain ways. Also, banning alcohol is not the same as banning assault weapons. Not all weapons are assault weapons, but by definition, all alcohol is all alcohol. If you want to make an alcohol comparison, what you need to do is argue that you want to ban whatever form of alcohol results in the most DUI accidents - I'm guessing cheap beer (just my idea no idea if true). So, the proper analogy to banning assault weapons would be banning the sale of Coors Light. For example.But you are right, thousands of people are killed due to alcohol every year. That is why driving while drinking is illegal and now so attacked by our society. That is why civil laws have gotten to the point where bars and places that serve alcohol can be held liable for allowing someone to drink who should have been stopped. Perhaps, then, we should be ok with gun salesmen and stores being held liable for these incidents?

The analogy is not appropriate in all ways, but in some ways it's extremely appropriate. Specifically, we all more or less agree that allowing alcohol but with regulations that try to limit its use doesn't prevent drunk driving incidents. Similarly, I think we can all agree that allowing guns but with regulations that try to limit their use doesn't prevent murders and accidental deaths by guns.Therefore, when someone makes the argument "we tried regulating guns to responsible owners and uses, but it didn't work, and now we have to ban all guns", the alcohol analogy is 100% appropriate.You're right that it's not appropriate when we're discussing which regulations might make sense.

 

[MAC_32]

hard to imagine people arguing for their rights to own assault rifles / handguns at a time like this, yet here they are. :(

If people are arguing against a right, is it really that absurd people are arguing to protect that right?

Absurd? No, I expect it. Doesn't make it right.

So, because you believe in gun control, its OK to argue for it right now? But since I don't believe in more gun control, I am not supposed to defend my rights. Gotcha.

The 2nd amendment really is the only defense for having any high powered weapon. I'm optimistic that will be changed sometime in the near future. There is no logical reason to own any of those sorts of weapons. If you need a weapon that shoots off multiple rounds in a short period of time then you are a lousy shot, fix that.

 

[ATC1]

And although it led to a bit of a distraction, I was trying to make a point yesterday about the Second Amendment. I realize the chances of amending or booting it are small, but we should at least inform ourselves on what right we're talking about. The right is not, and never was, intended to be just the right to shoot a bullet. The right was intended for security: defense of self, property, and country. If we bear that purpose in mind, then we have a different take on what aspects of infringing that right would be proper versus believing the right is to have, keep, and fire whatever gun strikes our fancy and any infringment on that cannot be tolerated.

I'll agree here. Which is why I will always be against restricting the rights of a person with a permit to carry. However, people must be allowed to shoot these weapons to be responsible and it can be enjoyable at the same time.