Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 741

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Tyrphanax said:

It makes me super sad when people clamor to give up rights.

What rights? Voting is a right, free-speech is a right, carrying a knife isn’t a right.

Tyrphanax said:

what’s being done to address why people want to stab other people to death?

Were humans, I’m afraid that comes as part of the package. Although things are being done anyway.

Tyrphanax said:

I doubt that access to knives is the reason people stab one another.

It’s quite difficult to stab each other without knives.

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

“Except”? I never said it wasn’t 36, I never mentioned numbers.

EDIT: Oh I see what you meant. You thought I was saying one murder in the whole year, and not one murder a day, or whatever the exact average was. Seems like trying really hard to go through what I said and find something to misunderstand, so the rest can be ignored. Apologies if I wasn’t clear.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

But at least they didn’t use a spoon.

I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.

Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? - oojason
Episode 9 Rewrite THE SHATTERED SWORD (Complete!)
The Force Awakens Restructured (V3 Released!) and The Starlight Project (WORKPRINT RELEASED!)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

But at least they didn’t use a spoon.

I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.

Exactly. This whole 🔪 thing is a ridiculous point.

Jay’s argument makes it sound like gun control advocates are silly people who want everything to be happy and safe and who don’t understand that people can be bad/evil.

Way to paint the other side as silly.

Of course people can be bad. That is why limiting the tools that bad people can get their hands on makes sense. The other option seems to be limiting bad people, which sounds like more of a ‘rights’ issue to me.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

The knife thing definitely illustrates the problem. I don’t know what kind of person wants to be forced to defend himself and his family in a hand to hand fight that’s “equal.” I don’t want a fair fight against a home invader.

I think anybody who supports gun control would do themselves a tremendous favor to go shoot a gun a few times.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

I was going to reply but then I thought no, debating this issue is just too silly and I don’t know why I tried. I’ll just highlight this number-22-based observation and if anybody wants to debate it, then I don’t really care:

Number of school shootings in UK + Strict Gun Control = 0 in the last 22 years.

Number of school shootings in US + Almost no Gun Control = 22 since this year began.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

I think anybody who supports gun control would do themselves a tremendous favor to go shoot a gun a few times.

This argument is annoying as hell. The destructive power of guns is fucking disgusting. Decades from now we’ll look back in shame. There’s literally no reason why we need guns to have the power to rip people apart because sometimes it’s fun to shoot them at targets.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

Author
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Banning scary looking rifles can’t hurt.

If I can buy a hunting rifle that’s functionally the same as the scary rifle, it’s a useless gesture.

Do we need a useless gesture that panders to angry voters and doesn’t solve the problem?

Less guns = good

Author
Time

TM2YC said:

I was going to reply but then I thought no, debating this issue is just too silly and I don’t know why I tried.

Agreed. It always basically boils down to either “we need to protect ourselves from all the other people with guns” or “we’re special Americans who God blessed with the right to destroy each other.”

Most times I’m proud to be an American, but not when it comes to guns.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

Everyone knows my position, so I’m going to stay out of it this time before the anger overtakes my ability to post civilly, but I’m quoting this because this is how all of the “pro-gun” arguments sound to me.

And I’ll point out again that I own a Thompson 1911A1, have a concealed carry permit, and shoot various guns of different shapes and sizes multiple times a year.

All of the “pro-gun” arguments still sound delusional to me.

And I’m out.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

It makes me super sad when people clamor to give up rights.

What rights? Voting is a right, free-speech is a right, carrying a knife isn’t a right.

Rights don’t need to be defined to exist. The government doesn’t grant you rights; it restricts the rights you have by calling them “privileges”.

Tyrphanax said:

what’s being done to address why people want to stab other people to death?

Were humans, I’m afraid that comes as part of the package. Although things are being done anyway.

New and glorious ways will be found to kill each other regardless.

Tyrphanax said:

I doubt that access to knives is the reason people stab one another.

It’s quite difficult to stab each other without knives.

Improvising a knife from common items isn’t terribly difficult. At least the argument for banning guns kind of makes sense since I can’t easily make a gun out of a household item.

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

“Except”? I never said it wasn’t 36, I never mentioned numbers.

EDIT: Oh I see what you meant. You thought I was saying one murder in the whole year, and not one murder a day, or whatever the exact average was. Seems like trying really hard to go through what I said and find something to misunderstand, so the rest can be ignored. Apologies if I wasn’t clear.

So you make a vague argument, I misunderstand, and naturally I’m the one being obtuse. Got it.

TM2YC said:

I was going to reply but then I thought no, debating this issue is just too silly and I don’t know why I tried. I’ll just highlight this number-22-based observation and if anybody wants to debate it, then I don’t really care:

Number of school shootings in UK + Strict Gun Control = 0 in the last 22 years.

Number of school shootings in US + Almost no Gun Control = 22 since this year began.

And yet their murder rates aren’t anywhere close to zero. Weird.

But they do have cops who get overpowered by criminals, people getting prosecuted over jokes, and 8-month prison sentences for giving traffic cameras the finger. Sounds rational.

This is what happens when a country is ruled by feelings.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Banning scary looking rifles can’t hurt.

If I can buy a hunting rifle that’s functionally the same as the scary rifle, it’s a useless gesture.

Do we need a useless gesture that panders to angry voters and doesn’t solve the problem?

Less guns = good

Same question.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

I think anybody who supports gun control would do themselves a tremendous favor to go shoot a gun a few times.

Decades from now we’ll look back in shame.

Hopefully because we actually set ourselves on a path to figure out why some mentally unstable people aren’t just shooting lots of people, but driving trucks into cafés and knifing random strangers. Maybe figuring out why we’ve gotten so ill is a better alternative to curbing our liberties.

dahmage said:

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

But at least they didn’t use a spoon.

I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.

Exactly. This whole 🔪 thing is a ridiculous point.

Jay’s argument makes it sound like gun control advocates are silly people who want everything to be happy and safe and who don’t understand that people can be bad/evil.

Way to paint the other side as silly.

When the depth of the argument is often “fewer guns = good”, it is silly. I don’t think we’ll have fewer school shootings at all if we reimplement the assault weapons ban. We’d have to ban guns outright, and there’s a zero-percent chance of that happening.

I’m all for improved background checks and other methods of keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. I’m also for law enforcement doing its job, like following up on reports about troubled people and referring them to psychiatric care.

I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ChainsawAsh said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

Everyone knows my position, so I’m going to stay out of it this time before the anger overtakes my ability to post civilly, but I’m quoting this because this is how all of the “pro-gun” arguments sound to me.

I actually don’t know your position and would appreciate a discussion that presents your thoughts on things rationally, especially since you’re a gun owner.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Well even if you don’t know his position, it’s all been said before and none of it matters.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Well even if you don’t know his position, it’s all been said before and none of it matters.

I was asking ChainsawAsh, thanks. If he doesn’t want to rehash, no big deal.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I don’t why I’m doing this but since you referenced my posts…

Jay said:

TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop

I said the opposite. Humans will always want to kill each other and it will never stop, so I favour making that as difficult as possible. Statistically speaking, every person in the US has at least one gun, making murder a fantastically easy option to solve stressful situations.

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but it’s nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

EDIT 2: Nevermind. Gun murders aren’t going up, but they are accounting for a higher percentage of total murders. See quoted link.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Author
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Well even if you don’t know his position, it’s all been said before and none of it matters.

I was asking ChainsawAsh, thanks. If he doesn’t want to rehash, no big deal.

Didn’t realize only the person addressed is allowed to respond. Thanks for clarifying that.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Well even if you don’t know his position, it’s all been said before and none of it matters.

I was asking ChainsawAsh, thanks. If he doesn’t want to rehash, no big deal.

Didn’t realize only the person addressed is allowed to respond. Thanks for clarifying that.

Of course you’re allowed to respond. I just prefer meaningful responses, and ChainsawAsh is capable of answering for himself (if he wants to, or not…cool either way).

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Jay said:

ChainsawAsh said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

Everyone knows my position, so I’m going to stay out of it this time before the anger overtakes my ability to post civilly, but I’m quoting this because this is how all of the “pro-gun” arguments sound to me.

I actually don’t know your position and would appreciate a discussion that presents your thoughts on things rationally, especially since you’re a gun owner.

Alright, I’ll summarize.

It’s staggeringly easy for someone to get a gun in this country (or at least, it is in Indiana). It’s harder to get a driver’s license. For a lifetime license in Indiana, I was fingerprinted and supposedly given a background check, and lightly scolded that my driver’s license had an outdated address and was told to fix it, but that’s it. And in Indiana, a gun license and concealed carry permit are one and the same. I never had to take any kind of classes on gun safety, was never given any kind of test to prove I knew how to use a gun, didn’t have to provide any kind of evidence that I had somewhere to properly store my gun where it wasn’t accessible to kids or other unauthorized people - nothing like that. I didn’t even have to register my gun with anyone because it was a gift, so if I use it to kill someone tomorrow, there’s literally nothing to tie the murder weapon to me.

Here are the steps I think need to happen:

  • Everyone applying for a gun license should be required to take a class on the safe handling and use of firearms, with hands-on training.
  • Everyone applying for a gun license should be required to take a standardized test to prove that the information taught in the class was adequate, and retained by the applicant.
  • Everyone applying for a gun license should have some sort of mental health screening.
  • Everyone applying for a gun license should have to provide proof that they have a secure place to store it when not in use, such as a combination or key locked safe.
  • Everyone should be required to register every weapon they own with the state, tied to their license, including serial number and a ballistics sample, and any guns that are given or received as gifts should be required to have their registration transferred to the new owner, just like a car.

That’s just for licensing. As for sales:

  • Fully automatic guns should be outright banned (which they are).
  • Anything that allows for the conversion of a semi-automatic gun to a fully-automatic gun, or for otherwise increasing the rate of fire through external attachments, should be outright banned. (Last I knew, in Indiana you can buy a full-auto conversion kit, you just aren’t legally allowed to install it. That’s fucking dumb.) This includes “burst” fire.
  • Anything classified as an assault rifle should be banned outright.
  • Semi-automatic shotguns should be banned outright.
  • Semi-automatic rifles should have the same waiting period that handguns do.
  • In fact, the only guns that should have no waiting period are bolt-action rifles designed for hunting, and that’s really just me throwing the pro-gun lobby a bone.
  • High-capacity magazines should be banned outright.
  • There should be a limit on volume of ammunition able to be purchased by any one person.

That’s all I can think of at the moment.

TL;DR - Guns don’t need to be banned entirely, but pretty much every aspect of their sale and licensing needs to be overhauled and tightened considerably, at the federal level.

I have yet to hear a single argument against any of this that doesn’t sound like “But mah gunz!” to me.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

dahmage said:

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

But at least they didn’t use a spoon.

I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.

Exactly. This whole 🔪 thing is a ridiculous point.

Jay’s argument makes it sound like gun control advocates are silly people who want everything to be happy and safe and who don’t understand that people can be bad/evil.

Way to paint the other side as silly.

When the depth of the argument is often “fewer guns = good”, it is silly. I don’t think we’ll have fewer school shootings at all if we reimplement the assault weapons ban. We’d have to ban guns outright, and there’s a zero-percent chance of that happening.

I’m all for improved background checks and other methods of keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. I’m also for law enforcement doing its job, like following up on reports about troubled people and referring them to psychiatric care.

I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?

fewer guns is of course good. it isn’t a cure though. but when you have to summarize a point in a few words… it is pretty accurate. (fewer nukes is also good)

for your point about being all for improving background checks and following up on police reports. i don’t know your politics, but I really get annoyed when these lines come from people who also want to lower taxes / cut funding.

and finally, the why. It is true there might be a ‘scary’ (to borrow your way of speaking about guns) reason behind all of this. but again, are you really solving anything by blaming some shadowy underling cause? This again is the way that people who ‘care’ speak, but not the way that people who want to solve problems speak.

Author
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Jay said:

ChainsawAsh said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

Everyone knows my position, so I’m going to stay out of it this time before the anger overtakes my ability to post civilly, but I’m quoting this because this is how all of the “pro-gun” arguments sound to me.

I actually don’t know your position and would appreciate a discussion that presents your thoughts on things rationally, especially since you’re a gun owner.

Alright, I’ll summarize.

It’s staggeringly easy for someone to get a gun in this country (or at least, it is in Indiana). It’s harder to get a driver’s license. For a lifetime license in Indiana, I was fingerprinted and supposedly given a background check, and lightly scolded that my driver’s license had an outdated address and was told to fix it, but that’s it. And in Indiana, a gun license and concealed carry permit are one and the same. I never had to take any kind of classes on gun safety, was never given any kind of test to prove I knew how to use a gun, didn’t have to provide any kind of evidence that I had somewhere to properly store my gun where it wasn’t accessible to kids or other unauthorized people - nothing like that. I didn’t even have to register my gun with anyone because it was a gift, so if I use it to kill someone tomorrow, there’s literally nothing to tie the murder weapon to me.

Here are the steps I think need to happen:

  • Everyone applying for a gun license should be required to take a class on the safe handling and use of firearms, with hands-on training.
  • Everyone applying for a gun license should be required to take a standardized test to prove that the information taught in the class was adequate, and retained by the applicant.
  • Everyone applying for a gun license should have some sort of mental health screening.
  • Everyone applying for a gun license should have to provide proof that they have a secure place to store it when not in use, such as a combination or key locked safe.
  • Everyone should be required to register every weapon they own with the state, tied to their license, including serial number and a ballistics sample, and any guns that are given or received as gifts should be required to have their registration transferred to the new owner, just like a car.

That’s just for licensing. As for sales:

  • Fully automatic guns should be outright banned (which they are).
  • Anything that allows for the conversion of a semi-automatic gun to a fully-automatic gun, or for otherwise increasing the rate of fire through external attachments, should be outright banned. (Last I knew, in Indiana you can buy a full-auto conversion kit, you just aren’t legally allowed to install it. That’s fucking dumb.) This includes “burst” fire.
  • Anything classified as an assault rifle should be banned outright.
  • Semi-automatic shotguns should be banned outright.
  • Semi-automatic rifles should have the same waiting period that handguns do.
  • In fact, the only guns that should have no waiting period are bolt-action rifles designed for hunting, and that’s really just me throwing the pro-gun lobby a bone.
  • High-capacity magazines should be banned outright.
  • There should be a limit on volume of ammunition able to be purchased by any one person.

That’s all I can think of at the moment.

TL;DR - Guns don’t need to be banned entirely, but pretty much every aspect of their sale and licensing needs to be overhauled and tightened considerably, at the federal level.

I have yet to hear a single argument against any of this that doesn’t sound like “But mah gunz!” to me.

damn straight.

Author
Time

dahmage said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

But at least they didn’t use a spoon.

I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.

Exactly. This whole 🔪 thing is a ridiculous point.

Jay’s argument makes it sound like gun control advocates are silly people who want everything to be happy and safe and who don’t understand that people can be bad/evil.

Way to paint the other side as silly.

When the depth of the argument is often “fewer guns = good”, it is silly. I don’t think we’ll have fewer school shootings at all if we reimplement the assault weapons ban. We’d have to ban guns outright, and there’s a zero-percent chance of that happening.

I’m all for improved background checks and other methods of keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. I’m also for law enforcement doing its job, like following up on reports about troubled people and referring them to psychiatric care.

I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?

fewer guns is of course good.

I said this earlier and Jay clearly doesn’t believe it because he asked how it solved anything. Good luck.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.

Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.

But at least they didn’t use a spoon.

I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.

Exactly. This whole 🔪 thing is a ridiculous point.

Jay’s argument makes it sound like gun control advocates are silly people who want everything to be happy and safe and who don’t understand that people can be bad/evil.

Way to paint the other side as silly.

When the depth of the argument is often “fewer guns = good”, it is silly. I don’t think we’ll have fewer school shootings at all if we reimplement the assault weapons ban. We’d have to ban guns outright, and there’s a zero-percent chance of that happening.

I’m all for improved background checks and other methods of keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. I’m also for law enforcement doing its job, like following up on reports about troubled people and referring them to psychiatric care.

I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?

fewer guns is of course good.

I said this earlier and Jay clearly doesn’t believe it because he asked how it solved anything. Good luck.

its good in the same way that fewer people with root access is good.